In an age of narrow casting it becomes even more important to parse statements from those aspiring to public office to ensure if not consistency than at least an absence of double-talk. Our two large parties comprise factions held together in an often uneasy balance, forcing candidates seeking party leadership to please those holding conflicting views. Our best political leaders manage this process with ease. President Clinton was the last to excel at this among the Democrats, although the coalition he cobbled together was able to take power in the first place in part because of a split among the Republicans and big defections to Ross Perot. President Reagan, on the GOP side, was able to forge a majority coalition among supply-siders and deficit hawks, pro-labor anti-communist foreign policy hardliners, libertarians, evangelicals, and recently converted Democrats.

So it would therefore be unfair to expect the presidential contenders to be entirely coherent, because such coherence would defy the political requirements of party leadership. There is a difference however between inconsistency and outright deception. We are thinking here of Senator Edwards, who has recently spoken out both for and against the possibility of war with Iran as a last option should diplomacy and sanctions fail to prevent Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Speaking to the annual conference on security at Herzliya, Israel, Mr. Edwards emphatically implied that he would not rule out the military option: “To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep all options on the table, let me reiterate — all options must remain on the table.”

In the context of Mr. Edwards’ remarks that “Iran is serious about its threats,” and represents “an unprecedented threat to the world and Israel,” Mr. Edwards’ point in repeating his mantra about “all options” being on the table was clear enough. But was this Mr. Edwards’ real view or merely a case of pandering? The Democratic base is not fired up about Iran, to put it mildly. If anything, the party is veering toward a new isolationism with regard to the Middle East. Mr. Edwards’ tough sounding talk at Herzliya provoked angry comment on the pro-Democratic Party Web logs. And now comes an interview with the American Prospect, in which the ex-senator from North Carolina clarifies his position, if that is the word. He is heavy on diplomacy and does not appear to leave the military option on the table.

Instead, Mr. Edwards turns out to favor direct diplomatic contact with Iran. He would pressure “our European friends … to put … a system of carrots and sticks on the table. The carrots are, we’ll make nuclear fuel available to you, we’ll control the cycle, but you can use it for any civilian purpose. Second, an economic package, which I don’t think has been seriously proposed up until now.” In other words, for a stick, the Tar Heel would beat the Iranians with a second carrot. The fact is that the European Union Three — Britain, “France,” and Germany have been conducting diplomatic conversations with Iran for years and have offered more carrots than Bugs Bunny could consume in a lifetime. It’s gotten the Europeans zilch.

It is true that Mr. Edwards speaks of a threat of “more serious economic sanctions than you’ve seen up until now.” Not a bad idea in and of itself. But it’s naïve to imagine that that Russia and China will go along, which sidelines the Security Council. Does Mr. Edwards support an American-led sanctions regime supported by a coalition of the willing operating outside of, and without any sanction by, the United Nations? As to the military option, Mr. Edwards now thinks it a terrible idea. A military strike on Iran by America would make President Ahmadinejad a hero and provoke massive Iranian retaliation, including in this country and especially in Iraq. Moreover, “an air strike or a missile strike is not enough to be successful. To be successful we’d actually have to have troops on the ground, and where in the world would they come from?”

So how does Mr. Edwards square this with his comments at Herzliya? “It would be foolish for any American president to ever take any option off the table,” quoth he. But he does not mean what he plainly meant for his listeners to think he meant. ” When George Bush uses this kind of language, it means something very different for most people. I mean when he uses this kind of language ‘options are on the table,’ he does it in a very threatening kind of way.” Mr. Edwards refuses to rule out an outcome of a nuclear armed Iran. Asked whether America can live with a nuclear Iran, he responded, “I’m not ready to cross that bridge yet.” In case we thought he had crossed it at Herzliya.