You blew it. You tried to make yourself out to be an agent for positive change in politics, but your true colors came through when you attacked Obama for not following the failed Cheney/Bush approach with regards to talking to "rogue" world leaders. What are those colors? Those of a robo-politico, someone who unthinkingly adheres to principles as though they're sacrosanct, who fails to consider even the possibility of alternatives, even when novel circumstances clearly call for new ways of thinking about policy approaches. The You-Tube debate will be seen as the turning point, the point at which people came to their senses and opted for someone else for president.
More about the reasons for your impending political free-fall below the fold.
You've given no indication that you'd provide any more creative foreign policies than did your husband and his accomplice Albright. The Bill Clinton presidency can best be described as having been on auto-pilot when it comes to foreign policy. Killing millions of Iraqis, and all Madeleine Albright has to say about it is "we think the price is worth it"? It's like that movie Trainspotting where the characters become so numbed with their drugs they forget their baby needs to eat and drink and so its life just slowly ebbs from it til it dies.
And then you have the idiocy audacity to present Albright (Albright?!?) as a go-to person to back up your criticism of Obama. If you had learned from your mistakes (like you claim to have done about the Iraq war you authorized (by mistake)), that would be one thing. But clearly you haven't learned a damn thing!
Suppose Krauthammer is correct. Suppose meeting with a US president is a huge compliment/reward for a "rogue" leader. Wouldn't a meeting then help create an atmosphere of comity where before there was just mistrust, fear, and (likely) misunderstanding? And would not such a meeting provide the incentive for that "rogue" leader to continue the spirit of comity in order to ensure that these meetings occur on a regular and frequent basis? Couldn't a whole slew of problems begin to be solved by pursuing this approach? Why should I have to explain this to you?
Yours (and Bush/Cheney's) is the approach of alienation and demonization. I once wondered about why the "racism" paradigm doesn't quite fit the description of US policy, when clearly certain peoples were held to be more expendable than others. But now I realize that it's just a simple process of demonization/alienation. We start believing that certain leaders are somehow inherently evil (such as the "axis of evil" your FP mentor spoke about). And once that happens, rationality starts going out the window. We start demonizing them and dehumanizing them. And then policies that result in even the massive deaths of their people become "acceptable" (even if the collateral damage is "regretable"). That's how you and your ilk see the world, it's your process. And you've given every indication you will continue this fruitless, destructive path.
Obama presented a worthy, realistic, and workable alternative, and you pounced on him for it. Well thank you for showing us who you really are. You are the failed policies of the past, pledged to be carried out on auto-pilot, just like your husband's. And Obama offers us a glimmer of hope for a brighter future, for a new way of thinking, a new way of engaging the world. And in this era of escalating terrorism and increased access to WMD's, anything less than what Obama has to offer would be a tragic mistake.
You blew it. It's over. Goodbye.