I tend to be pretty sympathetic to Obama's position on Iran. I am not really sure how meeting with a head of state would legitimize them. I don't think America's blessing is necessary for a tyrant to rule their country.
However, one of the stranger moments in the debate last night was Obama's insistence that Henry Kissinger publically agreed with him on the issue. It seems fairly obvious that Kissinger would not, if only because of his closeness with McCain. As it turns, out old Henry thinks McCain is right on the subject and Obama is wrong.
It's hardly earthshaking stuff. I suspect Kissinger is as pro-McCain as, say, Hollywood movie stars are pro-Obama. But, knowing this, why on earth would Obama bring it up? There must be other foriegn-policy stalwarts who agree with him. Why not drop their name? I think it must have been a calculation that Kissinger-- who is a household name-- would carry more weight with the average viewer and that this same viewer would not bother to check the facts. It would be interesting to see if this gets much attention.
I mentioned this to a conservative friend this morning who scoffed at the idea. "The media will never ask tough questions of Obama." I'm not sure about that. I think they have asked some pretty tough questions, although I will admit that theirs is a strong pro-Obama contingent. The NY Times in particular seems to have been much tougher on McCain's campain distortions than on Obama's. But I don't think anyone would argue that the Grey Lady doesn't have a horse in this race.