... about the stance on talking to Iran held definition of the word "precondition" as used vis-a-vis talks with Iran in public statements by his own foreign policy advisor and "friend of 35 years" Henry Kissinger. 

In the debate, McCain slammed Obama for wanting to talk to Iran "without preconditions" (and reiterated the same slam 2 or 3 times, but never mind).  Obama responded that at least one of McCain's own advisors, Henry Kissinger, along with several other former Secretaries of State, are in favor of exactly that.  Obama added that he would not necessarily be talking with President Ahmadinejad himself.  Cue about 2 minutes of "Nuh-uh" "Yeah-huh" and then they move on. 

After the debate, Katie Couric said that the same question came up in her interview with Sarah Palin, so she had called up Kissinger and he said yes he was in favor of talks without preconditions but not necessarily with President Ahmadinejad. 

OUCH!  When Katie Couric blows you out of the water, it's gotta hurt!

Thoughts?

(P.S.  I noticed McCain said variations on "Obama doesn't seem to understand [the severity/nuances/anything] of the situation" about a hundred times, exaggerating but it had to be over a dozen.  I wonder if he's trying to grind for experience points?) 

[edit2:  Sqrl has shown me that my evidence is insufficient to sustain my allegation.  But hopefully all the participants in this thread at least a little more informed than when they got here, so I don't regret making a thread about it.]

[edit:  Just thought I'd throw in a link to the analysis of misstatements on both sides by the famously neutral factcheck.org.]

I think you are seeing what you want to see. They both screwed up badly in spots. Overall it was a draw, but thats good for Obama since it negates some of the "less experienced than McCain" mantra.

Yeah, McCain was kinda all over the place, and he kept repeating himself.

It was a good debate though.

Fair enough, but I'd like you to point out any spot that Obama got as wrong as this. 

I didn't watch the whole debate but this was the only part I saw where they got into a fight over a point of fact and on that point Obama was right and McCain was wrong. 

I'm not immune to rose-colored glasses but I think it's not flattery to say I'm pretty resistant to them, and I try to take them off whenever they are pointed out.

It was a GREAT debate, and I'm not saying that because I think Obama won.  The part of it I saw (last half or third) was mostly on topic (quite an accomplishment) and the debaters weren't afraid to call each other out directly on points of contention. 

I hate it when I see "debates" of two guys dancing around questions and giving mini-speeches on whatever the hell is even vaguely relevant that they want to plug -- and IMO this wasn't one of those at all mostly.

I think the debate could have and should have been more vicious.

Well then be glad you missed the beginning.

Actually, watch it when it's on YouTube.  Lehrer gets hilarious and asks the same questions over and over and over trying to get an answer from them.

On topic: Yeah, I think it's hilarious that McCain doesn't know what his advisors are saying.

Well the question basically was "What part of your plan are you lieing about since you don't have the money to do everything you plan to."

Obama didn't want to answer it because he obviously has to cut more of his plan, and McCain isn't going to answer a question Obama wouldn't.

So it turned into what Obama plans to do, and how McCain plans to stop wastefull spending.  Which I guess was his way of saying nothing... except he didn't say nothing.

Also Kissinger said...

"Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain."

So... apparently Obama is the one that doesn't know jack... since that was the contention of the arguement. The President sitting down with anyone over the world.

You expect his own advisor not to stretch the truth in his favor?  Obama specifically said that the talks would start at lower levels and not necessarily be with President Ahmadinejad, therefore not being "at the Presidential level", and McCain still said there was no way Kissinger agreed.  

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/fact-check-kiss.html

According to this, I would say that perhaps McCain "did not understand" when Obama said that talks would start at lower levels and not necessarily be with President Ahmadinejad.  But his attack on "without preconditions" is totally contradictory to Kissinger's explicit statements. 

And no, that was not "the contention of the argument" solely.  McCain continued to hammer the "without preconditions" line, as I recall, but feel free to prove me wrong -- I haven't reviewed the transcript yet.