Where does the CTBT fit into Obama's disarmament agenda?

Since Obama’s Prague speech, the outline of his disarmament agenda has been clear:  a new START treaty, ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, then begin negotiations on a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. Today, where the CTBT fits is less clear.

According to Bill Gertz in the Washington Times, the Obama administration is beginning its push to get the treaty ratified:

The Obama administration has launched a new effort to win ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, known as CTBT, which was voted down by the Senate in 1999.
The effort is being led by Jon Wolfsthal, an arms-control specialist at two think tanks until he became a national-security aide to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and a staffer on the White House National Security Council in January.
Mr. Wolfsthal was making the rounds in the Senate on Wednesday, checking to see if the administration can drum up the 67 votes needed - a two-thirds majority - to ratify the treaty, which prevents underground nuclear tests.

The GSN, citing the above article, ran a similar story.

However according to an article in Forbes, attributed to Oxford Analytica, the Administration is backing off of the CTBT to concentrate on and secure ratification of a new START:

Laying down markers. Some senators have sought to raise issues in the context of START with the aim of constraining the Obama administration's other arms control options. For example, conservative Republicans have offered amendments to prohibit spending to implement a post-START agreement if the new treaty limited U.S. missile defense programs, outer space capabilities, conventional weapons, or the modernization of U.S. nuclear weapons.
Another target of the opponents of the Obama administration's arms control policies is the CTBT. Some Republicans argue that, if the U.S. nuclear arsenal is reduced, the United States should ensure that its remaining weapons are reliable and effective.
Outlook. The Obama administration is likely to play down its support for the CTBT to avoid disrupting ratification of the less controversial post-START accord. If the new START treaty is defeated or wins ratification by only a small margin, then the administration may hold off submitting the CTBT to avoid its second rejection by the Senate. It would then probably continue the existing unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing, providing other countries reciprocate.

There are probably elements of truth in both stories.  The Administration clearly hopes to get the CTBT ratified at some point, but in the short-term Obama is more focused on START.  It's likely that the Administration, led by Wolfsthal, is starting the process on the CTBT (gauging support, hearing concerns, etc.) but is not yet 'pushing' the treaty (leaning on those on the fence, offering bargains, etc.).

In fact, well-informed nuclear weapons experts are starting to say that there is little chance of CTBT ratification in 2010, and certainly not before the May 2010 NPT Review Conference.  As a result, the Administration is downplaying the CTBT, and instead focusing on a new START and the Nuclear Posture Review, in discussions leading up to the Conference.

While holding off on the CTBT to concentrate on START is probably good news for START, it might not be for the CTBT.

First, in order to get the 7 or so Republican votes needed for START ratification, the Administration may have to make a number of concessions, including commitments to modernize the U.S. nuclear complex and ensure the effectiveness of the stockpile.  Making these concessions on START will dramatically decrease the leverage the Administration has in persuading Republicans to ratify the CTBT.

Second, ratification will be politically difficult the closer it gets to the November '10 midterm elections as incumbent Senators seek to avoid controversy.  And, if the Administration waits till 2011 to push the CTBT (which seems likely at this point) it could be more difficult if Democrats lose even a couple Senate seats (which also seems likely given historical trends and Obama's declining popularity).