Dancing with despots

NY Post Editorial:

The Democratic presidential race has devolved into a no-holds-barred battle between the two front-runners on an utterly bizarre point: Should the next president personally sit down with the world's worst despots?

Of course not. That would be absurd.

But Sen. Barack Obama last week displayed an astonishing lack of depth - giving Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton a chance to show again that she's capable of taking five positions on just about every issue.

Too bad for Clinton that she missed a perfectly good opportunity to show her relative experience and intelligence - given that she was correct in her reaction to Obama's verbal miscue.

...

Indeed, Obama's apparent willingness to rush into sitdowns with America-bashing tyrants like Mahmoud Ahmadenijad and Chavez makes us wonder if he knows just what it is a president does for a living.

For his part, Obama quickly backtracked: "I didn't say these guys were going to come over for a cup of coffee some afternoon," he said.

And then he hurled what for Democrats is the ultimate insult: Clinton's position, he said, is just like President Bush's.

Which is nonsense, of course.

But here's where it gets complicated.

Even while ridiculing Obama's position, Clinton repeatedly has ripped the president for saying "he will not talk with bad people." Indeed, she complained, "you don't make peace with your friends - you have to do the hard work of dealing with people you don't agree with."

She's even admonished Bush for refusing to deal directly with the leaders of Iran.

Even though, as president, her own husband never spoke directly with the leaders of any of those five countries either - and for good reason.

...

The question itself was silly. How many people schedule a meeting with people who want to insult them? To even suggest such a meeting is an insult to the intelligence.