I agree with Brian that it would be nice if political journalists would actually evaluate the substantive merits of the Clinton/Obama spat rather than engaging in endless meta-analysis of its positional impact on the horserace, but I fear that he's wrong to think this actually represents "a standoff between a status quo foreign policy and a much more constructive (though I hesitate to say new) direction."
So far as I can tell, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton don't disagree at all. Barack Obama would, if made president, deploy various ambassadors and envoys to lay the diplomatic groundwork that could result in Obama meeting with leaders of countries that America doesn't necessarily consider allies. Hillary Clinton, too, would deploy envoys and various high-level administration officials to lay the diplomatic groundwork that could result in Clinton meeting with the leaders of countries that America doesn't necessarily consider allies.
So why the argument? Well, you need, first, to remember the question that was asked:
