Back in July Sen. Clinton took Sen. Obama to task for saying he would negotiate with Iran.

The question that sparked the controversy at Monday’s debate seemed simple enough: Would the candidates for president be willing to meet, within their first year in office, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?

Obama said yes, while Clinton said no, arguing that the president should only meet with world leaders who are hostile to the United States after lower-level diplomatic contacts are conducted. In an interview today with the Quad City Times, Clinton more directly criticized Obama’s answer.

“I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive,” Clinton said, according to a story posted on the newspaper’s Web site.

Now she’s hit the ball somewhere but I’m not sure where it landed. She’s changed her mind about negotiations with Iran.

“True statesmanship requires that we engage with our adversaries, not for the sake of talking but because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims.”

She says she would even consider offering incentives to Iran in return for a pledge to disarm. However, she sets out a series of stringent conditions that are virtually identical to current White House policy.

“If Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons programme, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilising Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives,” Ms Clinton wrote.

Er, no, not really.

“If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table,” Ms Clinton said.

Well, that last quote certainly sounds decisive, doesn’t it? If Iran doesn’t comply we’ll make sure the international community concurs before we do anything to them.

How about if we pass 17 Security Council resolutions against Iran saying serious consequences will result if they don’t behave themselves? That should work.

I’m not advocating war with Iran by any means, but just what do you use for negotiations when you keep saying “pretty please”?

I guess we’ll be saying “pretty please” as the rockets are heading our way.

I’m getting whiplash trying to keep track of her daily positions on the same topic.