If McCain answered the question then Obama would have looked like he was dodging the subject.

They both did the same thing, its silly to blame one over the other.

I believe his exact words were something like "On day one i would be willing to meet with anybody face to face without preconditions" when he originally said it.

Which would indicate... day one.  If it's day one he really can't have any talks beforehand.

Though I may be misremembering the case.

However I don't think I am... and that's why i always assumed he meant just outright go and meet with someone.

Which I don't actually even see as a big problem.

Regardless the agreements made through the initial meetings at lower levels ARE preconditions.  After all the whole point of the lower level meetings are to see if you can make a deal!

Things are negotiated there... and deals are made.  These are conditions.  It's not like they don't do anything in the lower level meetings.

If someone missuses a word you have to go with what they say, you can't just give them a benefit of the doubt because of their own ignorance.  We meet with plenty of people without preconditions though.  Our allies for example.

If he was wrong Obama shouldn't of tried to redefine the word but said instead "I was wrong."

"I meant I wouldn't tell someone we couldn't have any negotiations with them unless they agreed to do something we wanted them to."

No he wouldn't of... because Obama answered the question first.  It's a difference in how debating works.  Obama's answer is already out there and "judged" by the people listening.

At most he'd be hit on the rebound, and could avoid it rather eaisly by throwing in a few token answers.

It's the difference in the flow of debate.  If McCain had received the question first, he would of been the one at fault.

In regards to Obama on Iran: The problem is that his explaination of how serious a threat Iran is comes after the original statement.  I believe Iran is a serious threat in any respect, even compared to what the USSR posed, it may not be quite at the same level but even on that scale it is a serious threat.  His clarification of the comment came out after the fact and while it does illustrate that he is a good politician it doesn't erase the mistake, at least for me it doesn't.  So we may have to agree to disagree on this one as you've said. I've tended to trust a politician's first position and ignore their second, third, etc....it seems far more accurate to what they actually do in office.  The same is true of McCain's "the economy is strong" statement, so it's a principle I apply equally. Although in fairness I agreed with McCain's slipup, I just think it was a very stupid thing to say in the situation.

On the definition I think one of us has a logical wire crossed =P  My definition includes yours (ie preconditions as demands/concessions), showing that the word is used the way you say it is would be consistent with both definitions and thus isn't really helpful.  You seem to be thinking of this in terms of a multiple definition, but I've been thinking of it as more of debate over the scope of the single definition.

On the issue of how the preliminary talks are viewed I don't think a reasonable comparison would be parking the car when going to the mall, one is decidedly more trivial to my view....Although on second thought perhaps a few more specifics are needed here. While I would probably be willing to agree that a preliminary meeting to decide the location, number/type of attendees, etc...of a meeting is procedural I honestly cannot consider a meeting where any actual negotiations take place to be so trivial as to be understood implicitly.  The problem I have is this...what is the goal of those lower level meetings? And if they have a goal how can they be considered trivial? Are they to hammer out an agreement in principle?  These are things that to me fall well beyond simply a technical definition of a precondition and should logically be included in a reasoned definition.

The problem is that something has to be accomplished in these meetings(right?) in order for them to be escalated to the presidential level, and if that is the case I would say I fundamentally believe they are preconditions and thus would substantiate my point.  On the other hand if we assume they are as trivial as you say (ie parking the car) then we are in a situation where they carry no importance and I would have a very serious, and I believe legitimate, problem with the president negotiating with a country like Iran with only a trivial preliminary meeting.

No, Sqrl, if Kissinger says he wants to open very high level negotiations without conditions, and he intends for low-level talks to take place first, then that is my definition and not yours. [edit: Or at least it seems to clearly be that way to me and thus if I am wrong I am in dire need of correction.]

You also misunderstood my mall analogy. Triviality wasn't the point, it was that of course you would park in the mall parking lot.  Putting gas in the car isn't trivial, either.  Although I can imagine scenarios of going to the mall without parking there, most of the time (unless one uses public transportation most of the time) you would park at the mall and not even think about that as being a necessary condition of going to the mall. Thus I believe it is with Obama and the Iran talks. And if something happens and the mall parking lot is flooded or Iran is completely beyond reason, well then you have a problem, but it's expected that things will proceed.

Please explain how you got the $10 billion difference, because this is the very first time I have heard anyone say it will not be more like $1 trillion.  Your statement sounds like you are using the Tax Policy Center numbers (which don't account for spending differences AFAIK), but that analysis puts the difference at $1.2 trillion over ten years ($120 billion per year if it is the same every year and I have no idea whether it is or not in the TPC report). 

Are you saying that Obama will spend the difference to within ten billion of McCain's deficit?  I would like to know what you are basing that on, although it's certainly not inconceivable that he'd spend $110 billion more per year. 

Some interesting numbers I ran across while researching this: 

I thank you sincerely, Kasz216, for bringing this to my attention.  I had no idea that Obama's plan called for this level of deficit.  Clearly both candidates need to get much more serious about the situation they plan to inherit if they are going to deal with it responsibly and lead our country into a prosperous future.  Policing earmarks alone is not going to solve the problem, and new programs must be paid for.

Actually I was just quoting what i remembered. I remembered McCain being over what Obama did... but none of that accounting for anything they wanted to do and only having to do with what they would do if they applied their plans to how we do our spending now.

I renmembered it being fairly close... considering it's not taking into account changes in spending. Of which it seems McCain would cut costs, and Obama raise them.

Taking the tax plan and applying to to what Bush spends is pointless... as what Bush spends isn't important it's what the Obama and McCain campagins will spend that matter.

But how much would McCain actually cut costs? How much would Obama actually raise them? If you have no idea, please don't make numbers up. (And no, I don't really know either.)

How much would Obama raise them?  1 Trillion in healthcare costs over those 10 years alone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html

That gets you back to even if McCain doesn't cut spending at all... or close to it anyway.

Of course McCain has a healthcare plan too but Obama's plans generally outspend Mccain's in most areas.

Kissinger wants talks to begin at a high level without preconditions, but I can find no where that indicates he wants preliminary talks before those high level talks nor that he would consider those not to be preconditions.  But more importantly Kissinger does not think the president should be engaged in those talks at all, while Obama does.

Kissinger quotes from your article:

"When asked if high level talks with Iran should begin right out of the box, Kissinger replied "Initially, yes.""

"I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level."

"he said he "preferred doing it at the secretary of state level.""

So yes he wants talks to begin without preconditions but not at the presidential level, specifically he wants those talks to begin at the secretary of state level.  His "out of the box" comment indicates that when he says no preconditions he means no preliminary talks before the SoState talks.  I see no reason to think that these would be preliminary talks clearing the way for the presidential level negotiations, but even if he did mean that he clearly feels it necessary to point this intermediate step out and clearly thinks it should be a requirement before the presidential talks occur (thus a precondition).  Again I feel like I'm well supported, and yet I know you will disagree =P

On the second point you are using a suppositional argument to infer what he meant.  It is simply not a valid argument.  It is far to sweeping and gives far to much leeway to the words of a man who is in a profession that should be given little leeway or none at all. You may feel as if you know him or trust him enough to suppose this..I do not and even if I did trust him I would consider it a very weak argument to convince others with.

With the week about to begin I likely won't be responding as regularly and honestly I feel like this is at least the second complete circle we've done. Lets just call it and save the energy for the inevitable encounter on the next issue.