Clinton/Obama Throwdown a Good Thing for Dems

After months of dancing, dodging, love taps and bear hugs, Democratic presidential frontrunners, Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., finally went after each other with gusto.

Sure, I know we're five months from the first primary and no candidate wants to peak too early — or get themselves into trouble with an early attack — but it's evident the two of them have created enough distance between themselves and the other six candidates that, barring a meltdown, they will duke it out for the nomination.

So it's time they stop fooling around, lob a few grenades and see what happens.

It all started, surprisingly, with a question from one of the more than three dozen people who had their questions aired on the CNN-YouTube debate Monday at The Citadel in Charleston, S.C.

Stephen Sorta of Diamond Bar, Calif., asked: "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?"

Obama said he would meet with the leaders.

"The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous," he said, going on to acknowledge that even when President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union the "evil empire," he continued to talk to the nation's leaders.

That led Clinton to follow, not wasting time in trying to expose what some consider to be Obama's biggest drawback: lack of experience in national politics.

"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," she said. "I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes."

Bringing up the rear — and that's becoming a consistent position for him — was former Sen.

John Edwards, who said he also would meet with the leaders in his first year.

But instead of allowing her well-timed power shot at Obama to marinate, Clinton decided to continue the verbal assault, telling an Iowa newspaper the next day that the junior senator from Illinois was naive on foreign policy.

That gave Obama his opening. He questioned her Iraq vote, and then compared her position to that of Bush/Cheney.

It then grew surreal when Republican candidates Mitt Romney and John McCain seemed to slam Obama, thus agreeing with Clinton.

Is all this fascinating to political hacks and irrelevant to the voting public? Yes and no.

Clinton has maintained a sizeable lead from the outset of this campaign, and she is trying to protect that. Obama, although he has raised more money, is stuck in the polls. Although in second place, he hasn't chipped away at her lead.

Her goal is simple: portray herself as far above him in terms of dealing with worldly issues. For Obama, the goal's to cast Clinton as a throwback to the days of barroom brawls with the GOP that defined the two-term presidency of her husband.

But the real issue for the voter is that we get to see these two locking horns in an effort to see how they stand up to scrutiny, as well as challenge each other directly.

It's easy to say they must attack the Bush administration, but that is a given. At some point, Clinton and Obama must go after each other in order to show who has the mettle for the job.

This will not be the last time the two of them throw a few roundhouses. They have spent the past six months like boxers in the early rounds — dancing, bobbing and weaving, trying to stalk one another. Now it's time to start throwing some punches. And in a slugfest, you can bet the final rounds will be full of flurries, punches and counterpunches.

Like it or not, there can be only one winner. And that's not the person with the biggest bank account or the most endorsements. It's the one who has the heart, passion, stamina and willingness to use everything in his or her arsenal to win the job.

When thinking of these two and the fight for the Democratic nomination, all I can think of is what longtime boxing referee Mills Lane used to say to the boxers when he finished reading them the fight rules: "Let's get it on!"

Roland S. Martin is a CNN contributor and a talk-show host for WVON-AM in Chicago. Please visit his website at www.rolandsmartin.com. To find out more about Roland Martin, and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.