Hillary appeared this morning on ABC's This Week, and in a surprisingly sharp exchange, she charged that Barack Obama's claim that she opposes negotiating with hostile foreign leaders is misleading.

From ABC's official transcript...

CLINTON: Senator Obama consistently misstates what I had said and really tries to gloss over his answer to a question in an early debate.

The question was very specific -- would you, without precondition, meet with five of the worst dictators, including Ahmadinejad from Iran and others, without precondition, personally, as president? He said yes, I said no.

That has nothing to do with whether or not we would have diplomatic efforts with all of the countries. I've been a longtime advocate of having diplomatic processes with Iran and Syria.

QUESTION: So you're open to direct contact with all those countries.

CLINTON: I think it's imperative...with Iran and Syria, most certainly. I have said that. But it would be at low level diplomatic efforts between our ambassadors and between our diplomats, because I don't think a president should put the prestige of the United States on the line to meet with these people unless you have some idea of what is going to happen...

I really hope that Senator Obama will quit deliberately misstating what I said in order to avoid scrutiny for what he says.

Here are the facts of the matter. Obama recently said that Hillary embraces "the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don't like."

Both Hillary and Obama agree on the question of whether the United States as a nation should negotiate with hostile foreign governments. The point they disagree on is whether the President himself (or herself) should commit to a face to face meeting in the first year with hostile foreign leaders. Obama said he would; Hillary said she wouldn't. As she said above, in the case of Iran and Syria, the initial discussions should be "low level" contacts.

Hillary's position isn't the "Bush-Cheney policy," which until recently was opposition to any and all negotiation with those countries.

Whichever of those positions you support, and even if you think this is a meaningless distinction, the plain facts are that this is where each stands on these questions.

Late Update: Here's the Obama campaign's extensive fact check on this.

Late Late Update: A commenter notes that Obama agreed that he would be willing to meet with hostile foreign leaders, not that he would commit to it. Here's the question from the debate that Obama answered affirmatively:

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?

So Obama agreed that he would be "willing" to meet "without precondition during the first year" with the leaders of those countries. I suppose that's not identical to "committing" to such a meeting, but it seems pretty close.

Even so, it's important to be as precise as possible here. So the point of disagreement between Hillary and Obama on this is that Obama would be willing to meet "without precondition" in his first year as President with the leaders of thouse countries. Hillary wouldn't be willing to do this.