Because of the Clinton campaign's spin, the biggest moment in the Democratic debate is shaping up to be the very minor difference between how Clinton and Obama would handle meeting dictators.

First of all, here's the question,

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

Now, here's the key part of Obama's response,

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

On the other hand, here's Hillary's response,

CLINTON: Well, I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.

I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.

And I will purse very vigorous diplomacy.

And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.

Hillary went on, after the debate, to call Obama's response "irresponsible" and "naive," but the truth is, she essentially has the same position that Obama does.

Yes, Obama said he would meet with them and Hillary didn't say the same thing, but she also didn't rule out meeting with any of them. That's because what she's saying is that she would meet with Castro, Kim Jong-Il, or Ahmadinejad in the White House, but she'll just need to get some empty assurances that they really want to cooperate with us first.

It's also worth noting, for example, that her husband met with Yassir Arafat, Hilldog actually kissed his evil wife after the crone engaged in blood libel against the Israelis, and it was used for propaganda purposes.

So, it would seem to me that they're both "irresponsible" and "naive," but Hillary's just a little better at hiding it with meaningless caveats.

Update #1: The woman who's telling Obama that he's "naive" and telling everyone she wouldn't be used for propaganda purposes,