OK, Kogs, I need your instruction.

I am a longtime member of a politics site on MSM, and there are only a few of us left.  The manager left without leaving anyone in charge, so no new members can join.   We're just duking it out.

There's a very disgruntled Clinton supporter (you know, the kind who view Obama supporters as sexist or naive) - a longtime liberal, she's actually saying she'll vote McCain in the fall, if (since) HRC isn't the nominee.

OK.  From time to time, she'll put up threads that cast aspersions on Obama's ability. [note: never any "hillary is great" threads though - guess she can't find material for that?] Usually, I can counter these fine.

Today, however, she put up two on subjects I'm not well-versed in.  I could go do hours of research, and get some sort of understanding... OR, I could beg for the brilliant minds here at dKos to weigh in with some perspective for me.

The first one:

 Where does Obama stand on Iran?

Billings, Mont, in the morning.:

"Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel's existence. It denies the Holocaust"

In Portland Or,  the afternoon of the same day:

Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that "changes in behavior" by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization, other economic benefits and security guarantees.

Two days ago:

"I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us....You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance.

yesterday:

"Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel's existence. It denies the Holocaust..."

I realize the issue is one of context, clearly.  But how best to counter this?

Here is thread #2:

Obama stumped by question about WA nuclear cleanup
By MATTHEW DALY
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- Democrat Barack Obama was stumped this weekend when a woman asked him about cleanup at the nation's most contaminated nuclear area: the Hanford site in Washington state where scientists helped create the atomic bomb.

Obama admitted he didn't know much about the problem, but promised he would learn about it.

"Here's something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I'm not familiar with the Hanford site, so I don't know exactly what's going on there," Obama said Sunday at a campaign stop in Pendleton, Ore.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/...
 Source

Obama supported and voted for the Bush/Cheney energy bill.

He also wrote favorable legislation for Exelon, one of his largest campaign contributors. Also one of the largest nuclear power providers in the country.

Nuclear waste from all over the country is shipped to Hanford.
 
In 2005 Obama voted for H.R. 1815, which says in part,

"Directs the Secretary to submit to the defense and appropriations committees any reports received from the Army Corps of Engineers evaluating costs, schedules, and technical issues associated with the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Project at the DOE Hanford Site."

So did he vote on something he knows absolutely nothing about or did he lie when he said, "I’m not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don’t know exactly what’s going on there."

OK - help me out here, folks!   I don't want to have to just ignore it and hope it falls off the page...

UPDATE:  Thank you to everyone who responded!  I'm consistently awed(and humbled) by the IQ level of participants on this blog.  I borrowed a bit here and there for each response (and in some cases, plagiarized entire paragraphs).   I am pleased, and now I can retire for the evening, knowing that a good can of whup-ass was delivered.  YOU ALL ROCK!