Link: Candidate Obama's Sense Of Urgency
Dem. Says He's Not In A Hurry To Run, But Wants To Tackle Problems

Link: Transcript Excerpt: Sen. Barack Obama
Read A Transcript Excerpt Of Steve Kroft’s Interview With Sen. Obama

Here's the full answer:

OBAMA: Yes. I think that the notion that this administration has -- that not talking to our enemies is effective punishment -- is wrong. It flies in the face of our experiences during the Cold War. Ronald Reagan understood that it may be an evil empire, but it's worthwhile for us to periodically meet to see are there areas of common interest. And most importantly, those conversations allow the possibility that our ideas and our values gain greater exposure in these countries. The fact of the matter is that Iran currently is governed by an oppressive regime, one that I think is a threat to the region and to our allies, but there are a lot of people in Iran who potentially would like to be part of this broader community of nations. For us not to be in a conversation with them doesn't make sense. Now I don't think that that conversation should be conditioned on our accepting their support of terrorism or their building nuclear capacity and potentially sparking an arms race in the Middle East, any more than our conversations with the Kremlin presumed that we approved of their aggression around the world. You know, we can have a robust strategy of blocking and containing aggressive actions by hostile or rogue states, but still open up the possibility that over time those relationships may evolve and they may change. And there may be opportunities for us to resolve some of our differences, not all of them, but some of them in a constructive way.

Well done, I'd say. About as good as can be expected by any viable candidate in the current circumstances. No preconditions laid down. In fact there is a subtle attempt to undermine calls for preconditions by noting that talking needn't be "conditioned" by anything - Iranian wishes or preferences included.

What I'm really happy about is that not only is this a good position for Obama to take, but there is a chance that his saying it can help move public opinion, and give a few more Washington Democrats the nerve to step out of the shadows of their fear of the Iran issue.

Man, that's good!

He has thus differentiated himself from Edwards and Clinton on the biggest threat America faces (the threat of war with Iran).

How?

Both Hillary and Edwards are on record saying we need to talk to Iran, Syria and all the countries in the region.

Great appearance by Obama on 60 minutes! One advantage of living on the left coast is that everything happens 3 hours later, so we get a second chance if we forget. And, I had forgotten until I started reading here tonight.

Obama said at the end of the interview that being president involves a lot more than the ability to move people by speaking, and I agree, but that ability is still a valuable component of being a leader. And, he has it.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Yeah, except when Hillary told AIPAC she was in favor of talking with Iran, she essentially said the reason was to probe Iran for weaknesses:

"I have advocated engagement with our enemies and Israel's enemies because I want to understand better what we can do to defeat those who are aiming their hatred, their extremism and their weapons at us," Clinton told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee dinner in New York.

Maybe next she'll say she only wants to send talkers to Iran so we can infiltrate the diplomatic team with CIA agents and they can send back targeting information on nuclear installations.

She also told her hawkish friends we need to make a show of going the extra mile before we blast the evildoers. In the process, she latched onto the neocon vision of "the long war":

"I also want to send a message -- if we ever do have to take more drastic action -- to the rest of the world that we exhausted all possibilities because we need friends and allies to stand with us as we stand with Israel in this long war against terrorism and extremism,"

Maybe she'll send Ahmadinejad a cake, like Reagan.

But this time she'll stick some bagged fresh spinach in it.

Let's hold our horses people. It's easy at this preliminary stage to talk the talk.

I distinctly remember some years back Jesse Ventura promising Minnesotans that he would greatly reduce taxes and legislative gridlock if elected governor.

I have no doubt that he meant what he said while on the campaign trail, but, needless to say, found it much more difficult once actually elected.

In the end he accomplished virtually nothing.

Here, from the 60 minutes transcript, is Obama's Hillary-like take on the I/P conflict:

KROFT: Do you have solutions for the Palestinian/Israeli conflict?

OBAMA: Well, probably not solutions that I can lay out in the next two minutes. Look, I think that both the Israeli people and the Palestinian people are weary of the ongoing conflict. I think they want to see solutions. What we don't have right now, particularly in the Palestinian community, are a set of leaders who have both the will and the capacity to renounce violence as a strategy to resolve the problems and to actually enforce any agreement that might be reached with the Israelis. And that is something that we can't do single-handedly, but if we're much more active than we've been, if we're paying attention, if we're deploying special envoys, if we are indicating to the Palestinians that we are ready and willing to work with them and the Israelis in finding an agreeable two-state solution, then it is possible that that leadership will emerge.

KROFT: You have a government that's run by Hamas.

OBAMA: Well, that's right. Whether it is a maturation of Hamas leadership where they realize that violence is leading their people nowhere, or it’s Fattah cleaning up its act and recognizing that they have to be a responsible government as opposed to a patronage system in the Palestinian Authority -- the possibilities of those two parties coming together and then being willing to say to Israel, "We renounce violence. We recognize your right to exist. We accept the various agreements that have been signed between the Israeli government and the Palestinian people, and we are ready to create a two state solution." Until that happens I think we're not going see much progress. But the United States being actively engaged in encouraging that process I think is critical.

It's all the Palestinians' fault? Nothing about the settlements, the illegal occupation of the West Bank, nothing about a return to ± 1967 borders, only stuff about how those pesky Palestinians need to get their act together, and about how derelict the US has been in not advancing the process in the 6 Bush years.

Is this what he really thinks? Or is this positioning?

Let's talk the talk for George W. Bush.

I distinctly remember he promised a balanced budget and a humble no-nation-building foreign policy. A return of honor and business like efficiency to government.

All I got was 9/11 and this lousy war. Anthrax being mailed to recalcitrant Democratic leaders. Sixty-two lines of stem cells. Michael Brown. The Terri Schiavo Act. Friendly fire. Torture, rape, murder and mayhem. Moqtada al Sadr and his militia. Kim il Jong blowing off nuclear weapons. Beheadings and hangings. Itchy trigger fingers at checkpoints snuffing out Iraqi families, Italian agents and Michigan truck drivers. Three thousand dead troops. War between Lebanon and Israel. Cluster bombs, suicide bombs, and burning helicopters. Surge. The shit is getting pretty high for those still holding their horses for this Republican administration. Could anyone who follows do worse?

After Bush, that's all it takes.

Tom

If that's all it takes, then Obama is in good company with any number of other Democrats and even some Republicans.

I'm not even sure how much of it is Bush, and how much of it is we, the people. People give Bush more credit than he deserves for having the ability to screw everything up. Yes, he did it, and yes, a better leader wouldn't have, but the nation was, and remains, inclined in that direction or it wouldn't have been possible. Bush is a product of us, and these mild words from Obama being trumpeted as somehow earthshaking underscores that.

Bush was the wrong man in charge at the wrong time (there really never is a time for such a man), but if it wasn't Bush, it would have been someone else -- eventually. And as long as saying "I will talk to them" is a huge, bold step, there will be another one -- eventually. Probably sooner rather than later. And I wouldn't at all be surprised if whoever that person is comes from our side of the aisle.

It isn't as if the Baker-Hamilton ISG hadn't given him cover by urging that we talk with Iran...

right! and, if I'm remembering the report, it read like Bush's "wish list" so it might be a "bait and switch..."

So, if Obama latches onto it, but Bush doesn't-- publically, then Bush gets what he wants through Obama.

If my memory serves me correctly, the Baker-Hamilton stuff made me think of "the mid-east roadmap for peace" because the palestians, effectively, were asked to cut off their b**ls before having s*x..

that, too.

I'll bet the genocidal mullahs in Iran along with the rest of America's enemies are praying to allah for a president barak obama.

I always thought that "all options are on the table" is close to a platitude. What is the alternative? If it is an "option" then it is on the table. If it is not an "option" it is not on the table. So, no kidding all options are on the table. Edwards is taken to mean we might nuke Iran, Obama gets interpreted that we might hold hands and sing kumbaya with them. Silly really. A phrase that can mean almost anything is a phrase that really means nothing at all. Obviously if something is not an option, it can't be on the table. But in political rhetoric people attach meaning to these things. In the case of Bush it is some kind of primitive signaling system such as "watch out we might nuke you"

The "all options on the table" pablum is stupid, moronic and insulting. Its only purpose is to say "you can't call me a wimp if I use these five magic words."

Obviously, there are many options NOT ON THE TABLE.

Such as the U.S. using chemical and biological weapons on the citizens of Iran.

Such as unleashing the entire U.S. arsenal of nuclear weapons on Iran.

Such as putting all Iranians into concentration camps and executing them.

So -- in fact there are many many options not on the table.

ROFL 

aMike

ROFL this too. 

(Well, truth be told, more an extended chuckle... it's only 7:22 a.m.) 

aMike

J. McCutchen

Stop Him Before He Gets More Experience By Frank Rich

So -- in fact there are many many options not on the table.

I disagree. All options are on the table means precisely that, including the 3 you listed. Unless and until each candidate is specifically asked if those options are NOT on the table then they are on it.  Or perhaps, I should ask you do you have a source or reference for those options specifically NOT being on the table?

Thanks for the link.

The Mens' Vogue article was excellent.

My bottom line is that I want to see someone running for President who doesn't have to say "We were all wrong about Iraq". We weren't all wrong. About half the Democrats in the house and senate got it right. The top three candidates are all progressive, but I'd like to see some spine and judgement. Politicians should get extra points for getting the war questions correct. Obama's my candidate unless Gore comes in.

I meant for the Bush administration. But frankly ANYONE who says attacking Iran is an "option" (especially with nuclear weapons - as Bush has - but not limited to nuclear weapons) should not be elected. Attacking other countries just because you can't get your way using other methods IS ILLEGAL. The use of military force is not Option B after Option A has been tried (or not). Under international law, except for the narrow circumstances of legitimate self-defense, you can't go around attacking other countries or even threatening or planning to do so - that's a Crime against Peace. And any candidate who does not explicitly remove that "option" from the "table" is a warmonger and criminal.

Edwards' base must be more letward than Obama's.

I'll bet the genocidal mullahs in Iran along with the rest of America's enemies are praying to allah for a president barak obama.

Seriously. Under what viewpoint does this even make sense?

"He simply endorsed a position that is right for America, right for Israel, and right for the entire world."

Will M.J. Rosenberg amend that statement to include Hillary and Edwards?

Garance Franke-Ruta at TAPPED tells us why the answer is probably not:
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2007/02/post_2758.html#015459

This "right to exist" business (RTE) is the cause of a lot of confusion and no little bad-faith posturing on both sides. I think that as a negotiating point it is bogus, and serves as a stumbling block. Israel does exist, and it is not about to allow its continued existence to depend on whether or not someone recognizes its right to do so.

But it would be helpful to hear, from Israel, exactly what a Palestinian statement of Israel's RTE would have to include to be acceptable at face, and whether Israel would require the Palestinians to make any related (read, territorial, resource, and sovereignty-related) concessions.

That way, the Palestinians can either hit the target or miss it, but there won't be a lot of crap like: "Well, they said they recognize our right to exist, but if they think they can take the water on the West Bank, they can't really be serious about our right to exist because we need that water to live."

And the Palestinians need to finally come together behind one voice. Previous RTE declarations have been made, but their legitimacy and usefulness have been undermined by factionalism within the Palestinian body politic, and so have been paid little mind by Israel and the West.

Maybe this time?

Sinai? I think the major problem area is now the Occupied West Bank.

And yes, of course I agree that the Palestinians need to get behind a single voice endorsing a two-state solution.

But I think that there needs to be a clearly stated and agreed-upon semantic target for such a statement, otherwise it will be the subject of obscurantist debate there and here.