What the article in the LA Times shows is that Obama was, even back then, a man who thinks..who tries to see all sides of an issue, and who tries to understand the concerns and problems of everyone.

   Any president who pretends he can guide this nation through the enormous complexities of the world's tensions, especially in the Middle East, without hearing and learning what all sides have to say, will fail miserably. Obama does NOT start with the presumption that he must 'choose' one side over another and enter every discussion with the assumption that there is only one side to the debate. He has made clear that he considers Israel to be a friend and that he wishes to protect their interests....but NOT by totally ignoring the concerns of the Palestinians and the fact that they are humans with families and history, too.

Obama is what I want in a president....one who thinks and listens, even when it involves delicate issues. He has said he will, at times, sit down and talk to even those leaders of nations who we consider dangerous and who are engaged in dangerous behavior.
Nixon did it with China; Reagan did it with the USSR.... and Republicans like to think they did some good!(and even Bush has talked to a couple of folks recently that, if a Democrat did it, would be called 'appeasement'..)
It's only when Democrat does it that 'getting information' and 'creating a dialogue' becomes 'consorting with evil terrorists'.

It is truly sad that some folks cannot see the issues in other than black & white "evil or good" answers.

   The closer this election gets, the shriller and more desperate the wild accusations become.