EclectEcon

In comparison with the pollyanna-isms of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton looks good. At least Hillary Clinton recognizes the foolishness of soft diplomacy with Iran. From the NYtimes:

Senator Barack Obama says he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if elected president and would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek “regime change” if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues....

Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees.

In comparison, Hillary Clinton seems to have the situation scoped out pretty well:

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.

Given that nothing anyone could ever negotiate with the current regime in Iran would mean a thing, it is folly to talk about negotiations unless doing so is the only way to get others to recognize the present Iranian leaders as the lying scumbags skillful negotiators they are.