HuffPo is promoting what it calls McCain's "New Iran Gaffe." It's a video of John McCain doing battle with Joe Klein at a press conference over whether or not Barack Obama has ever indicated he would personally sit down for talks with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Here's Joe Klein on the issue:

On Friday, I promised to check into whether Obama had ever said that he would negotiate--specifically, by name -- with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Indeed, according to the crack Time Magazine research department and the Obama campaign, he never has. He did say that he would negotiate with the Iranian leadership -- but, on matters of foreign policy and Iran's nuclear program, the guy in charge is the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. As of today, John McCain was still accusing Obama of wanting to negotiate with Ahmadinejad.

I am sympathetic towards what Klein is trying to do here. The problem is that if we want to make this a debate about whether Barack Obama referenced Khamenei or Ahmadinejad, it's clear that he referenced the latter.

The real issue is that the reference consisted entirely of two words, and expressed a willingness, not a pledge. More importantly, the two words were just one part of Obama's response to a question submitted by a voter on YouTube. In fact, in the only specific reference to Iran in his answer, Obama was clearly talking about staff-level contacts, not presidential level.

Here's the background. Last July, Obama answered a question submitted by a voter in the CNN/YouTube debate. The transcript:

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

COOPER: I should also point out that Stephen is in the crowd tonight.

Senator Obama?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.

They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.

The Bush-McCain argument rests on the phrase "I would," which seems to affirm that Obama would "be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea."

Note that Obama did not say he would meet with them -- he said that he would be willing to.

Klein argues that Obama was referencing Khameini, but in fact it was Ahmadinejad, though his name was never used. The reason we know this is that as each country was read, the image of the leader of that country was flashed, and Ahmadinejad's picture was flashed for Iran. Now, we could argue that the video flashed the wrong image, but that gets us further afield. The question was about Ahmadinejad.

But a bigger issue is whether we are going to take two words out of an answer to a YouTube question and say that it is acceptable for Bush-McCain to build an entire campaign around them?

Even if we are, Obama merely expressed willingness -- he made no promise to actually meet with anyone.

What he did specifically promise to do was "send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses." That was a clear reference to lower level negotiations, and he's been consistent on that point.

The Bush-McCain crew is taking advantage of some ambiguity to serve their own needs. Yes, they are interpreting things in a self-serving fashion, but that's just politics.

At this point, I think Obama is winning this argument on every front except for the specific question of Ahmadinejad. Although Obama has never used Ahmadinejad's name and other than those two words has never indicated that he might meet with Ahmadinejad (and he has never said that he would definitely do so), I do think he would be well served by making a statement in which he clearly says he would not elevate Ahmadinejad's stature on the world stage, particularly since Ali Khameini is the supreme leader of Iran -- not Ahmadinejad.