On May 10, New York Times reporter Larry Rohter offered this analysis of the back and forth over Obama pledge to meet with Ahmadinejad:
But important nuances appear to have been lost in the partisan salvos, particularly on Mr. McCain's side. An examination of Mr. Obama's numerous public statements on the subjects indicates that he has consistently condemned Hamas as a "terrorist organization," has not sought the group's support and does not advocate immediate, direct or unconditional negotiations with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president.
The "examination" apparently didn't extend to debate transcripts, and Rohter has since acknowledged his error in a correction posted just six days later:
An article on Saturday about Senator John McCain's criticism of Senator Barack Obama's Middle East policy incompletely described Mr. Obama's position on negotiating with the leaders of countries, including Iran, with which the United States currently has little contact. While Mr. Obama and his aides have indeed described various conditions and limitations on such negotiations, Mr. Obama himself, in a Democratic debate in July 2007, also said he would be willing "to meet separately, without precondition" with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.
"Incompletely described." What a lovely euphemism for shoddy, biased reporting. Of course, the correction is all the more interesting as Obama is currently making the case that there is no distance between himself and his aides on this issue. Meanwhile, ABC reports today on Obama's " evolving" position on talks with A'jad. And somewhere Joe Klein is still insisting that Obama never said he'd meet with Ahmadinejad--the Obama campaign says so itself! HT: Ben Smith