Obama, Clinton and Iran: The vote that made the difference

[bemildred]

National Journal included 29 foreign-policy votes in calculating its annual rankings of votes by members of the U.S. Senate. Barack Obama was declared the most liberal senator in 2007. Hillary Clinton was ranked the 16th-most liberal senator. Both altered their voting patterns in the past year - cynics will say because of the elections; the candidates will claim they acted on the merit of each vote. Either way, in 2006 Obama was ranked 10th, and Clinton 32nd. This represents a clear move leftward for both of them.

The Washington weekly's annual rankings - the most reliable and authoritative around - examined these two candidates' foreign policy records primarily through votes concerning Iraq. But the list includes Clinton's vote for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, which designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a foreign terrorist organization. Clinton supported it, Obama was absent, later said he would have voted against it, and also attacked Clinton's vote in support of what might be interpreted as an excuse for President George W. Bush to go to war with Iran.

Last Thursday Obama and Clinton met for a television debate in California, their last before Super Tuesday. Anticipation ran high, on the assumption that sparks would fly between these two, but in the end both candidates kept a restrained tone. Recent days have seen an increase in the ranks of commentators who think Obama has a greater chance of winning the nomination - but Clinton evidently decided there is no point in trying to hammer Obama, since the blows delivered by her and her husband, the ex-president, boomeranged. The debate turned into a detailed and frequently tiresome discussion of their proposals for reform in various fields. When Obama was asked to cite the differences in their policy approaches, he returned to Iran. This is a weak point he has identified since Kyl-Lieberman: voters' suspicion that Clinton will be too aggressive toward Tehran. Clinton and I do not agree, Obama said, on "meeting with Iran. He long ago promised a senior-level meeting with the Iranian leaders, whereas Clinton said in the past that she would meet only after lengthy preparations, and when it is clear there is a point to it.

Obama also said that the National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iran shows that "offering them both carrots and sticks" increased the chance they will "change their behavior." This, essentially, was the proof he supplied for his argument about the need to negotiate with the Iranians.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/950643.html