So in continuing this little imaginary interview, suppose the interviewer asks you the planning and problem solving type of question that you answer as stated above. Now let's suppose the follow up question asks you how you would deal with the stated problem only in this scenario the problem will not have to be tackled for six months, possibly even longer. As far as I can see, there are two answers to a question like this.

A - Declaring that you would file away your already established plan and implement it when the situation called for it.

B - Declaring that you would file your plan away but continue to analyze any new information that you came across as time passed that may affect your established method. And as a result you would update and modify your plan as needed after considering this new information so that when it came time to actually implement your plan, it would be as sound as possible.

Now it's pretty obvious which answer the interviewer is looking for. I think we can all agree that the candidate who responds with an answer resembling B and recognizes that things change over time and that life is anything and everything but stagnant is going to be graded pretty highly where as the candidate who answered with option A will not.

So, take off your imagination caps and answer me this. How is it even possible that there is a debate between Obama and McCain in regards to the handling Iran? Both candidates are on record stating the situation in Iran is an extremely dangerous one. Both candidates agree that the Iranian aggression towards Israel not only increases tensions in Israel but tensions of all other nations in the region as well possibly resulting in an arms race in the Middle East. Both candidates are on record stating that they would like to pursue a global union of democracies that would together restrict Iran's ability to sustain a functioning economy. If you watched the first debate both candidates said the exact same thing in regards to the handling of Iran, just with different words. They completely agree.

BUT, there is one key difference. And that difference rears its head when it comes to diplomacy. When it comes to the possibility of diplomacy with Iran, McCain's approach is the same as the individual who chooses answer A in the above imaginary interview. McCain has declared that unless the leaders of Iran agree to preconditions he will never sit and meet with them. Period. That's it. He has developed his plan on how to deal with Iran, a situation he may not actually have to deal with for months or even years, but insists that his approach to diplomacy will not change. No preconditions = no meeting.

Obama, on the other hand, has an approach very much like answer B. His stance is that he is leaving any and all options open at this time and sees no reason to restrict his future behavior with pulpit pounding ideas now. Obama reserves the right to meet with any leader of any country at a time and place of his choosing. If he does in fact so choose. He doesn't say he will in fact meet with Iranian leaders without preconditions. He simply says that as time passes and the situation with Iran changes, that he is open to the possibility that his plan and approach may need changing.

Iran has been acting the part of the school yard bully. But McCain's response has been that of the other school yard bully who doesn't like his turf getting challenged. In the end, when both bully's throw down, no one really cares who wins because they've both been acting like fools.

No one knows for certain what will come of the Iran situation while the next President is in office. There is a distinct possibility that military force on the part of the United States will be used regardless of who the sitting President is. But whatever happens it sure would be nice if we had a leader who recognized the fact that situations change over time and may require an updated approach. Who knows, maybe this time the international community will have our back, as long as we're not acting like a bully that is.