Except that Obama has never suggested meeting with Ahmadinejad, only with Iran.  McCain is doing something that from less barbeque-intensive politicians would be described by the press as "lying."

Again with all the "emboldening" talk.  I'm not sure that adopting Bush's lingo (not to mention the flimsy reasoning behind it) is really a good thing for McCain politically.

If he's going to spout off about Obama being naïve and reckless, he should say what the risks of Obama's proposal are in more than just vague terms about boldness and prestige.  What do we really stand to lose?

Biden has helped, but Obama himself has done a good job of framing this issue in terms of confidence and competence. As in, what is John McCain afraid of? Why doesn't he think he can win a negotiation with Iran? Doesn't taking diplomacy, a critical tool of our national power, off the table make us weaker?

Can't allow the debate to be about whether Ahmadinnerjacket is a bad guy or not. But keep it a debate about us, not them, and it should be a tactical and strategic winner for Obama. Republicans like to talk about "optimism," but that's not what people want from a president. They want confidence, which isn't quite the same thing, and the more McCain paints himself as the can't-do candidate on any issue, the better for Obama.

I think anything that focuses on issues related to potential future armed engagements are good issues for democrats.  These issues first and foremost remind the electorate about the ignorant hubris and poor judgement that has lead to the most recent disaster in Iraq.  

Never underestimate the willingness and ability of the Republicans to outmanuever the Democrats on security issues, particularly by demagoguing and playing on the public's fears.

He made a foolish promise to meet Ahmadinejad during the first year in the office.

That promise helped him with many "progressives" .Now he'll have to pay a price for  such promise.

I don't see that   Obama makes a strong case for such meeting.

Instead,he is trying to change  the subject into "more engagement with Iran "

This is a difficult deal.  What McCain is trying to do is a classic maneuver:  to suggest that Obama is tactically naive for suggesting a diplomatic approach to Iran in public, hence putting the U.S. at a disadvantage.  What McCain really wants is NOT for people to think that he's going to launch an invasion of Iran -- that would be disastrous -- but that he's going to talk tough, scare Iran, and then go the diplomatic path from a stronger starting point.  Get ready for some f-p ballet moves in the fall.

Obama's job is to call McCain's bluff on this and point out that we have no "stronger starting point' because of the utter cluelessness and disastrous hubris of the Bush administration, from which McCain is unable to distance himself.  He also must get the impression across that in any diplomatic fencing between him and Achmadinnerjacket, our Iranian friend is going to come off worse.  This isn't impossible, but it's more complicated than McCain's pitch.  However, people may be in the mood for something more demanding this year, that treats them like adults.

I don't think that he is changing the subject at all.  Do we not want to talk to Iran?  At all?  He has to meet with somebody, and if Ahmadinejad is not worthwhile, move on down the line until we hit somebody who can actually speak with some authority, and some grasp of the real world implications of their decisions.  Iran, for all of its bluster, is no more free to go it alone than anybody else in this globalized economy.  

Walking away from discussions with them because they are unsavory is the height of foolishness.  I would be worried only if I thought that Obama did not have the ability to wring a good treaty or two out of them.  Skill at the bargaining table is just as important as on the battlefield.  Or have we forgotten that in the last seven years?

Clearly jacobt1 has.

Since this one is all about parsing semantics, let's think about the McCain answer to Iran:  "If Iran does anything to Israel, I will bomb them with everything we've got."  Is McCain going to actually be the one flying the planes?  Is McCain actually going to launch every nuclear and conventional weapon at Iran?  No to both.  We all know that by "I" he means the power of the president to direct operations.  And for those that don't, McCain sure hopes he votes for you.

Obama needs to push over and over that he is going to engage with the leaders of the world.  You don't get to choose the leaders you work with (except Bush getting Hamas elected), and unless they actually invade another country, there's not much you can do except deal with them.  I always think of the world as being involved in the reading of the will of a rich relative whose one statement was "divide it amongst yourselves."

kgrant1054,

We do talk to Iran and Israel does talk to Hamas.

However,  promising  to meet Ahmadinejad during the first year in the office is foolish.

Notice that very few if any  EU leaderes met with Ahmadinejad.

anonevent said

"Since this one is all about parsing semantics,"

Remind me again what was the disagreement between Obama and Clinton.

It's the Democrats' year and it's the economy stupid

Biden's rather more, um, articulate on f-p matters than Young Obama. Pity we didn't nominate the articulate old hand rather than the babe in the woods.

Re. Iran, sure, we should talk to them -- AFTER we've changed the strategic equation. Doing so right now, when Iran holds nearly all the cards, would be self-defeating, as the asinine E3 errands  unto Tehran have showed.

I suspect Biden would favor redeploying a large # of our troops to Kurdistan, where a forward air base would allow us to point at least half the aircraft just over the eastern border, toward Tehran. That's step #1 in any long-term Iranian containment strategy.

Step #2 is determining what Putin-Mobutu's price is and then paying it, in exchange for a hard-stop halt to all Russian help for the ayatollahs and a serious and tight anti-proliferation effort. $20B? Done. Just tell us which swiss numbered account to wire the funds to, Volodya.

McCain sounds old, stubborn, condescending...and mean. All of the Republican bullies have learned to shout with lowered voices. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, now McCain. They're shouters. Don't lsten to them, read the transcripts. You don't have to be a linguist to see why no one under fifty will vote for this thug. He has that calm, threatening voice parents use on you as they humiliate you. Too much power, for too long, gone unchallenged.

I love that the Democrats are finally pushing back and getting in the faces of these clowns. One group that shouldn't be "appeased" is the GOP.

Did you catch Rove on Fox mocking Michelle Obama? Defending the GOP attacks on her? What a class act.

This favoring of Biden over Obama is curious. No one mangles the language and speaks out of turn more often than Joe Biden. I like Biden, but to think that Biden is more articulate than Barack Obama? Absurd.

"I like Biden, but to think that Biden is more articulate than Barack Obama? Absurd."

Obama is only good at reading speeches.

BTW, What's wrong with criticizing  public speeches made by Obama's, Clinton's or McCain  surrogates during this campaign?

This is the McCain campaign in a nutshell: The world is a dangerous place and Obama is too inexperienced to meet the challenge. That's it. Period.

Well, good, McCain's "ready on day one" - just HRC. Except he has hitched his horse to a war that is unpopular and to a president that is polling at 29%. That look like a winning strategy? You think the average American cares more about gas prices, high medical costs, tuition inflation, and a sagging credit market or another pissing match with a third rate military power in the Middle East?

McCain is going to get hammered by Obama. He has no ideas but scare the American public with a vague notion that Iran will what? Be running the home owners association if Obama gets elected? The Republicans are hopelessly out of ideas. Everyone knows the old playbook.

Toast. Just like Hillary.

It's interesting to watch both Obama and McCain back themselves into corners over this. Obama makes a somewhat offhand debate remark and now it's his policy, so he has to very carefully walk himself back to a reasonable position (that it's ok to *talk* to our adversaries).

On the other hand, McCain is basically claiming that Iran is more of a threat to us than the Soviet Union was, which not only is, but more important *seems*, ridiculous on its face. At some point, either he's going to have to back away from that as well (in which case it'll be interesting to see how he does this), or defend a position that makes him look unreasonable and extreme and thus a dangerous man to have as President. What I wonder is whether he means this any more than what Obama first said, or whether he believes it.

Beyond the nuclear issue I can think of a compelling reason to talk with Iran, we have hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq and Iran is arming the insurgents who seek to kill them. If any sense of detente can be engendered between the US and Iran it will very likely save American lives. In any event you can be sure the weeks surrounding the event will see a significant lessening of Iranian inspired mayhem. But hey, a political point needs to be made right Republicans? So what if a few soldiers have to die needlessly just so you can act tough.

Talking about Iran, as we are, it occurs to me that If the Iranians indeed cause trouble coming up to the November election, and that disadvantages Obama, there are some of us who will remember that it won't be the first time the Mullahs and the Republican Party seemed to be on the same page when it came to a presidential election.  The Reagan campaign in 1980 was desperate to avoid an October suprise in the form of a resolution of the hostage crisis that would put Carter in a better position.

Of course, Republicans wouldn't do a deal with enemies of the United States just to win the White House, now, would they?

As Mike and Noam predicted on Monday, Obama's position on meeting with dictators has evolved . The