by Tom Regan

Listen to this 'Talk of the Nation' topic

As this year's presidential campaign gets closer to November, the differences between the candidates begin to emerge more sharply. One main area of difference between presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and the man who appears most likely to win the Democratic nomination, Sen.Barack Obama (D-IL) is whether or not we should talk to bad guys - leaders of countries hostile to the United States.

Obama really started the debate when he said, in July of 2007, that he would talk to leaders of countries like Iran and North Korea under the right circumstances, because the Bush policies of little contact over the past eight years had proven ineffective.

McCain has responded by calling Obama naive and said it would go against tradition for a U.S. president to speak with the "bad guys."

Both main have tweaked their positions on the past few weeks, but it's generated lots of controversy.

But the realpolitik of the situation is that, as several analyzes of the issue have pointed out, American presidents have talked with the bad guys in the past. The FactChecker at The Washington Post gave both McCain and Obama each two Pinocchios for their positions on the issue: McCain for "for suggesting that Obama has departed from the political mainstream by being willing to talk to America's enemies," and Obama for trying to twist the historical record to back his position.

Today in The Washington Post, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations Leslie Gelb writes that, in the end, all presidents "talk to the bad guys." There are some people with whom you can't talk because they are more madman than bad guys - Gelb mentions Ahmedinejad and Hamas exiled leader Khaled Meshal — but that doesn't mean you can't deal with their followers.

"Simply put, if you won't deal with bad guys, don't go into the foreign policy business," Gelb says.

Do you agree? Is talking to "the bad guys" (that very loaded word) appeasement? Or is it dealing with the reality of the situation? Do the conditions of the conversation make a difference to you opinion?