A potential golden political moment is staring Obama in the eye

Momentarily, there exists a golden window of opportunity beckoning to the Obama campaign. It stares the campaign unblinkingly in its political eye. Will his advisers seize it?

The chronic discussion of the 2003 suspended attempts of Iran to acquire nuclear know-how hosted against the backdrop of the Bush* words of war against that Country is at this moment ongoing. Tomorrow that conversation will end to make room for the next political campaign scandal.

The recent words of Barack Obama that if President he would invite Iranian principals to sit down at the table with him should immediately if not sooner jump off the shelf. Remember that this declaration was termed "naive" by his number one adversary. In hindsight, it is apparent that had Barack been the sitting President and extended that invitation, the angst the world has felt about the Bush-pronounced possibility of the commencement of the next world war would have never happened. By comparison, Hillary would not have extended that invitation because she has far too much experience to make that mistake.

Barack Obama to date has run a campaign the thrust of which promotes the issue of judgment over experience. It is difficult to picture a more defining moment than the one we are experiencing now that would highlight greater the value of that judgment over the experience posture assumed by his rival, Hillary Clinton.

Additionally, Barack Obama does not revel in dishing the dirt. He need say nothing derogatory about his rival but simply roll the film. It would speak for itself. And echoes of her words emanating in response to that very statement stamping his approach "novice" would wash ashore anew with a putrid smell.

Some like to say it's not whether you win or lose but how you play the game. The political truth of the matter is whether you win or lose is determined by exactly how you play the game.

I am hoping the Obama campaign seizes this very moment to spotlight his platform of judgment over experience because there is no time like the now to rub the salt into this open wound. It is that ability to recognize the timing of the seizing the golden moment for the optimum political strategic advantage that does separate the professionals from the amateurs.

Will his campaign seize the potential political magic of this moment before it evaporates....

Ya gotta be careful...

I have even less respect for him for missing the K/L vote (and his sad excuses for doing so) than I do for HRC. Hard to beat my lack of respect for HRC, but at least she took a (wrong) stand.

for the vote, dismissing it simply as a refusal to lend credence to an orchestrated posture on a threatening issue that simply did not exist. It could make him appear to be not willing to participate in this game of running the Country through fear-mongering.

It is a perfect time for him to state that many on the inside of the Senate who felt Iran posed no threat did not choose to participate in a vote that was simply gamesmanship. "I don't play those games."

When you are elected, you are elected to CAST VOTES. Not "stay above the fray" like you're too good or high minded to do the business of the legislature. The job of a Senator is to represent his or her state in the Senate, not pooh-pooh the legislation and say it's not 'good enough' for him to vote on. That argument is worse than "I overslept" or "I missed my plane."

It looks a bit like playing both ends...avoiding the incredibly remote possibility, should Iran (in an unlikely scenario) light off a nuke in NYC, or something like that, of having to say he voted NO.

And even though we know the background of those old PRESENT votes, you add those to this failure to appear for the Iran vote, and a case, valid or not, can be made that the fellow is a waffler.

Perception is reality in these contests. Remember the stupid themes that came out of the last two contests, about how even STRONG and WRONG can be appealing to the average slightly thick voter. Waffly, though, is never good, and ya miss enough tough votes, a case can be made for waffling.

Sen. Obama Shifts On Using American Forces In Iraq To Blunt Iranian Threat
In today’s NPR debate, Sen. Obama criticized re-structuring our forces in Iraq to blunt Iran’s influence on the war:

There was another problem with it, the resolution that was we haven’t spoken about and that was that it suggested that we should structure in some way our forces in Iraq with the goal of blunting Iranian influence in Iraq- now this is a problem on a whole bunch of fronts but number one- the reason that Iran has been strengthened was because of this misguided war in Iraq. We installed- helped to elect- a government in Iraq that we knew had connections with Iran- and so the notion somehow that they’re not going to have influence and we may be using yet another justification for a continuing mission in Iraq- I think is an extreme problem and one of the reasons why this was a bad idea.
A year ago, Sen. Obama said we should keep forces in Iraq to 'send a clear message' to Iran:

A reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region…Make no mistake, if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening.
UPDATE: The Obama campaign links to a transcript from Tim Russert where he says he supported leaving troops in Iraq to blunt the power of Iran as a way to protect Israel. This transcript only further illustrates that he has shifted positions on this issue.

12/4/2007 3:19:13 PM #

Fact Check: Sen. Edwards and Sen. Obama on Iran’s nuclear threat
In January, Sen. Edwards emphasized the nuclear threat by Iran speaking to a conference in Israel:

Speaking by satellite to a conference in Israel, Edwards said stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons 'is the greatest challenge of our generation.' 'All options are on the table to ensure that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon,' Edwards told the seventh annual Herzliya Conference on Monday, according to The Jerusalem Post.
In September 2004, Sen. Obama suggested to the Chicago Tribune editorial board that he would use surgical missile strikes against Iran:

he United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said. 'The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Obama asked. Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said.
12/4/2007 2:54:01 PM #

Sen. Obama Shifts On Iran Negotiations
Today at the NPR debate, Sen. Obama said he would lead high-level Presidential diplomatic efforts with Iran:

should have stopped the saber rattling- should never have started it- and they need now to aggressively move on the diplomatic front- I’ve started that consistently since the beginning of this campaign and that is for the President to lead diplomatic efforts to try to the prospect of joining the World Trade Organization the prospect of overtime in exchange for behavior that is something that has to be perused.
But in an interview with Harretz Daily Newspaper in May 2007, Sen. Obama said he would only pursue ‘low-level talks’ with Iran and said high level talks would be inappropriate:

I asked whether the U.S. should talk with Tehran even as the centrifuges are still spinning and producing more enriched uranium. Obama's answer is both yes and no: "Its important to have low-level talks" with Iran even without them freezing the enrichment, he said. However, high-level talks "will not be appropriate without some sense of progress" on the enrichment issue.
12/4/2007 2:30:22 PM #

I have listened to all the candidates position statements. He has to appear strong on defense in light of his recent arrival on the national scene. He obviously cannot appear to be a wimp. However, the most important event that happened during this unraveling to me as a voter was that vote in the Senate, and he did not participate. I think a lot of voters will not over analyze the details or the history; they will look at the simple facts.

And regardless, the accusation that his opponents have made that judgment is no substitute for experience is clearly debunked through this revelation of the contents of the NIE. Too many commentators and previous participants of prior administrations have professed outrage at the blatant misrepresentations this administration has made to the American people, going so far as stating there are only two possibilities to explain it -- the administration lied or it was simply too dumb to perceive the literal truth. Simply comparing his rivals' maneuvers to Barack Obama's words makes him look stellar.

That's my opinion as an independent observer to this race to the White House (I have no horse in the race) and I am sticking to it....

The problem with your post is that it suggests that only Clinton made statements about Iran and the threat of weapons. Now we see that the other top candidates did as well. You may not care what they said, and only care that Clinton said the same things, but it is distorted to suggest--and your post does suggest--that Clinton was alone in her rhetoric.

The whole thrust of this thread is a PR opportunity in light of the upcoming vote in Iowa. It's simply about the campaign and seizing a moment. It is not about reviewing the history of what every candidate said on the issue from the inception of the race. What can you not understand that.

I have no double standards on the candidates. I simply have no candidates in this race. But as a political junkie for decades now, I recognize a golden opportunity to land a punch when I see one. That simple remark that Obama made that he would sit down at the table with Iran made him an object of ridicule. He was attacked for his inexperience as a result of that remark.

As I stated above, in hindsight, those words are golden and a commercial re-airing of those words and Hillary's response is simply too big a temptation for a campaign to resist.

So get with the discussion -- this is about taking a political advantage of a moment to score a political point and he can do it on his own terms -- without taking off the gloves.

You cannot see this idea as an invite to review the historical record of the entire issue or you will lose the flavor of the thread. This is about taking a moment to grab an advantage that only buttresses what you have said all along and discredits that which your opponents countered. That's it in a nutshell.

And here's a pithy link to support what I advocate Obama should be highlighting in his timely commercial:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/us/politics/02obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"In his Democratic presidential bid, Mr. Obama has vigorously sought to distinguish himself on foreign policy from his rivals, particularly Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, by asserting that he would sit down for diplomatic meetings with countries like Iran, North Korea and Syria with no preconditions.

"The suggestion, which emerged as a flash point in the campaign, has prompted Mrs. Clinton to question whether such an approach would amount to little more than a propaganda victory for the United States’ adversaries and to question the experience of Mr. Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois. Other Democrats, in turn, have criticized Mrs. Clinton for an approach to Iran they call too hawkish, including a vote for a nonbinding resolution describing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran as a terrorist organization."

even among Dems. There are those who contend that the "saber rattling" and invading Iraq are what convinced Iran to abandon it's nuclear weapons program. They also say talking does no good with Iran, that as long as the hardliners are in power, calling for the destruction of the U.S. and Israel, saber rattling is the only option. The number of rank and file Dems who buy into this line of reasoning is probably not very large.
Still, I don't think this line of reasoning/conjecture proves that diplomacy is the best course of action with Iran. The only way to prove that diplomacy can work with Iran is to TRY IT and for his willingness to give it a try, Obama deserves credit.

Iran was in negotiations with the Europeans who are the ones to get credit for this.

The "Democrats" who take on the Neocon lie are War Party members -- not Democrats.

They are quoting the Neocon line that "invading Iraq is what prevented Iran from going Nuclear."

Even NPR (Neocon Public Relations) has the lie spewing.

if he'd been there to vote. But he wasn't - so he really can't say too much about it now.

have been absent rather than on the record as casting the wrong vote. He did say shortly thereafter it was unfortunate he could not make that vote, but as "fortunes" have it, his absence makes his voting record clean on that night. Not everyone is now in that same scrubbed position.

You think a presidential candidate is better-situated by NOT taking a stand on the issue?

in an interview published November 2 by the New York Times. Because he was not there for the vote does not mean he ducked stating a position on the issue.

"Obama Envisions New Iran Approach" -- http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/us/politics/02obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Not the same thing as equivocating or speaking out of both sides of his mouth, as others sometimes do. He says exactly how he would handle the situation, so, no, he's not vetting a talking point.

plans.

Neither Clinton or Obama has a chance at my primary vote unless JC Himself tells me otherwise. Obama lost his chance with his failure to go on the Congressional Record with this (Clinton had the chance of a snowball in hell before the vote anyway).

You I think are looking at this from a substantive position. I am looking at it from a pr standpoint. Please check above for the link I posted to a recent article in The New York Times which discusses Barack Obama seeking to distinguish his position from that of Hillary on Iran. He specifically mentions sitting down with them with no pre-conditions. She responded with the novice label. My point is at this precise moment, Barack Obama can illustrate his very point in such a salient way he scores without making a hit below the belt. And what exactly would be her best retort: he did not show up for the vote? My point is wrong does not trump absent for the evening. Her voting on this issue will haunt her the rest of the campaign (in light of these revelations and the ensuing outrage coming from all quarters) and that is a non-existent problem for Barack Obama. Unfortunately, his child was ill that evening and he could not make the trip to DC. And one vote would have not changed the outcome.

What reasonable voter will hold that against him. However, most logical people will remember Hillary's wrong, wrong, wrong position.

On the other hand, if Barack Obama had been my candidate and had not shown up for the vote, I would have been irritated. Since I have no horse in the race, as I have repeatedly stated, I just call them as I see them....

I'll say it now--K/L was a deal breaker for me and barring a miracle of the Virgin of Guadalupe sort, I can't see myself casting a primary vote for either of them after that.

Politically, it was a shrewd move for the masses, I suppose, but I'm letting my Dem friends know he didn't even bother to vote on it and I don't like that one bit. Especially now.

If you are vetting TP (sorry, but it almost sounds as if you are) this is a bad, bad move for him. I can at least give props for HRC for going on the record. Not voting on this, especially, is cowardly.

Neither HRC or Obama is anywhere near my top three but at least she wasn't afraid of getting the mud on her clothes.

And I do mean his, not the one Hillary gave that he was out campaigning.

(even the RW blogs) type vote loong before it came up. Clinton was there, Biden was there (and cast the right vote).

He knew that vote was coming and should have made contingency plans to make the vote.