Hillary Clinton had a lot of ways of saying she didn’t agree with Barack Obama saying he would meet with the leaders of Iran and North Korea. But by calling him “naïve” she got unnecessarily personal and strayed into racist territory. There is historically an ugly stereotype of African-Americans as naïve or foolish or gullible. Hillary went there—most assuredly unintentionally, but undeniably. I bet she wouldn’t like it at all if some male politician called her "naive" in the middle of a debate. I bet the first thing she would think was that the guy was sexist. And she’d probably be right. She should apologize to Obama publicly.

As for Obama saying he would meet these leaders, it was refreshing, and sensible, and right. (The Iraq Study Group also counseled meeting with the president of Iran—and would you call the wizened old policy goats on that panel "naive"?) What kind of elitist nonsense is it to say that we, the high and mighty United States, refuse to have dialogue with any country? What would be better than talking with their leaders—invading them perhaps? Or how about dropping some nuclear bombs?

It's interesting that Hillary's stated reason for calling Obama "naive" was her belief that the leaders of so-called rogue nations would use a meeting with an American president for the purposes of propaganda. (And what do you call how American presidents publicize their activities?) It shows her focus on spin, rather than substance. Is it possible that two world leaders could actually sit down and talk about how to make the world a better, safer place? Not with cynical leaders who don't think so.