Although living in an information vacuum would be a novelty, for a member of the House of Representatives it's hardly a badge of honor.  Yet, when it comes to U.S. foreign policy, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), writing in the Huffington Post, is a textbook example of someone who appears hopelessly naive, ignorant, or both.  Like so many of his colleagues on the left, and their minions in the media, they seem to have forgotten that for the past two plus decades, the U.S. and its allies have made numerous attempts to leverage Iranian cooperation, using every tool at their disposal.

Indeed, Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary of State, is a seasoned diplomat and a tough negotiator, yet for years his efforts have yielded no measurable progress.  Now Wexler is apoplectic about House Concurrent Resolution 362, which he fears might put the U.S. on a track to war with Iran because it "expresses the sense of Congress regarding the threat Iran's nuclear pursuit poses to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States."  Talk about going out on a limb.

He prefers his plan, which is to "...urge the Bush administration to pursue a policy to place additional economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran as part of an international endeavor to prevent Tehran from moving forward on its nuclear program."  He quotes New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, the adroit and inveterate dove, who argues, "When you have leverage, talk.  When you don't have leverage, get some -- by creating economic, diplomatic or military incentives and pressures that the other side finds too tempting or frightening to ignore.  That is where the Bush team has been so incompetent vis-à-vis Iran."

Policy differences aside, how can otherwise intelligent people argue that the U.S. hasn't aggressively worked to create incentives for Iran, dating, in fact, to the Clinton years.  The problem, as anyone with a modicum of knowledge about this conundrum understands, is that Iran has never demonstrated a susceptibility to incentives, regardless of whether they're "too tempting or frightening to ignore."  Indeed, the opacity of their thinking, immunity to commonly understood incentives and disincentives, and indifference to traditional forms of dialog, renders the normal mechanisms of diplomacy and sanctions effectively useless.

It's Wexler's kind of anemic strategic thinking that, if followed, will lead to a protracted and unproductive process which will allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon.  We've seen what dilatory measures produced in the twelve years of Hussein's flouting of the 17 U.N. Resolutions and Wexler and his liberal brethren appear poised to reprise that dark chapter in our history. 

It may astonish you, but many liberals are convinced that the world is less safe without Saddam Hussein lording over Iraq.  You see, the appeasement gene is hard-wired in liberals and so the thought that a free Iraq might be a stabilizing influence in the region, that it might actually make Iran easier to deal with, is undermined by their demonstrable love of laissez-faire policies.  In their view, it's best to just let dictators be dictators, which is why so many in the State Department are enamored of Castro.

We can only hope that the hard left continues its march into political oblivion, because it's clear that most Americans understand Iran is a pernicious threat, and that given Europe's uniquely unhelpful behavior vis a vis sanctions, the only language Ahmadinejad understands is the kind backed my the threat of military action.

One of the prequalifying conditions for the presidency is the desire to distinguish one's ideas from the field, to outline a uniquely visionary platform to capture the electorate's imagination.  There are defined thresholds in this process, beginning with securing the nomination and the transition to the general election, which betrays either a deft or a daft touch.  Inevitably, however, the candidate is obliged to tame his ambition, and most, if not all, end up with a boldly uninspired platform.

Senator Obama is hewing closely to this well-traveled road, and early evidence is materializing that he's irritating his base as he finds his footing in the general election cycle.  To wit, the reliably liberal Bob Herbert of the New York Times fires the first mainstream salvo over Obama's political bow, complaining that the candidate is stumbling over himself as he races to the center.

Herbert's accusations are not without merit, beginning with Obama's "pandering to evangelicals" by promising to expand funding for religious-based initiatives, his support for the death penalty in child rape cases, and, of course, the left's most stridently misunderstood issue, guns.  Add to that litany of horrors his ominous pledge to "continue to refine" his policy on the war in Iraq and you have the picture of a liberal apostate.

However, Herbert's conclusions are rather prosaic, noting that Obama is taking his base for granted, is searching for centrist votes, and the like.  Although correct, they're the conventional explanations that have the banal ring of truth but shed little light on this particular candidate.  A hint of that is contained in this quote from his editorial:

But Barack Obama went out of his way to create the impression that he was a new kind of political leader — more honest, less cynical and less relentlessly calculating than most.

You would be able to listen to him without worrying about what the meaning of “is” is. 

The less than oblique reference to Bill Clinton provides the key to the significance of Obama's radical shift to the center.  Obama correctly understands that he must re-create Mr. Clinton's appeal as a "new kind of Democrat," because the party has become a stronghold for neolithic liberals.  He also understands that language matters and so will emulate Clinton, the master of doublespeak and political artifice.

The problem with his game plan, which is already expressing itself in his occasional drift from the centrist script, is that it's a political bridge too far.  Indeed, Obama's post-political, transitional politics is manifestly at odds with his record, and, crucially, as he begins his shift to the center, he periodically stumbles because his obvious intelligence aside, his unguarded comments about the war in Iraq or the 2nd Amendment aren't sufficiently well coded in liberal-speak to pass muster with his base, which is to say they don't know when he's being truthful or merely padding his arguments for votes--the wink and nod routine.

But perhaps more profoundly, it belies the notion that his policies are based on inviolable principles, that he won't merely be another politician who will jettison historically hallowed positions when their utility ceases to produce the desired results.  That's a wholly legitimate concern for the Herberts of the world because what each voter yearns for, quite regardless of party, is someone in whom they can rely to carry the banner of their values, if not all of them, at least the core values.

At this moment, there appears to be evidence that Obama's core values are more malleable than most liberals, perhaps even Democrats would like.  He's clearly testing the edge of envelope, and if Herbert is correct, he's already found it.  The question is whether he's moved enough to the center to capture the votes necessary to win, and in doing so, whether his final platform looks anything like the one he ran on at the outset.