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

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.

The argument over Obama's positions, and what they mean for those interested in Israel's welfare, is not over. Obama won a favorable review from the editor of the influential weekly The New Republic, Martin Peretz, who is not suspected in the U.S. of being a pure-white dove in his attitude to Israel. Peretz is not worried by Obama's candidacy, and also sought to refute the claim that Robert Malley - a member of Bill Clinton's peace team who blames Israel more than Yasser Arafat, for the failure of the Camp David summit - is Obama's adviser on Middle-Eastern affairs (Malley sometimes is asked for his opinion, but the official positions of the campaign are far from being his own).

On the other hand, the right-wing New York Sun on Friday attacked Obama for praising two Republican senators, Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel, who are not considered great supporters of Israel. This would be less interesting had not that same paper just days before - and to the surprise of many of its readers - written that Obama deserves credit for repeatedly expressing support for Israel.

The newspaper did not look kindly upon Obama's opting (in a Newsweek interview) to name Lugar and Hagel as models of Republicans who represent "the best tradition in foreign policy." These two are among the chief "realists," whose voting record leaves no hope for those interested in a bellicose American stance toward Iran, for example. They were the only two senators who voted in 2001 against renewing sanctions legislation against Iran and Libya (96 voted in favor). Hagel, who considered running for president himself, regularly received the lowest grade from the "Israeli Index" panel - the team of experts monitoring for Haaretz the candidates' positions on matters relating to Israel. In any case, the newspaper wrote, either Obama is simply ignorant and doesn't know what he's talking about - or else, in choosing to mention them specifically, "he spells trouble for the cause of those Americans who stand with the State of Israel."

Either way, here Obama's National Journal rankings on foreign policy votes: 92 on the liberal index - in other words, he was more liberal than 92 percent of senators - and 7 on the conservative index - that is, he was more conservative than just 7 percent of senators. His foreign policy voting record is almost perfectly liberal: only in one case did he vote for the ostensibly conservative position, when he voted against any cuts to budgets for troops deployed in a combat zone.

Clinton, despite a hawkish image, was also fairly liberal on votes concerning foreign policy: more than 83 percent of senators. She was more conservative than just 16 percent of senators. Her vote on Kyl-Lieberman is what made the difference.