Obama And The Jews

The Clinton campaign is distributing an article in the American Spectator (!) about Obama foreign policy adviser Merrill McPeak and his penchant for.. well, the article accuses him of being an anti-Semite and a drunk. Principally, the author takes McPeak to task for supporting a Middle East map that would require Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 border. It also makes the case that McPeak supports the Walt-Mearsheimer view of the influence of the Israeli lobby on foreign policy.

The author's sudden conclusion: "Obama has a Jewish problem and McPeak's bigoted views are emblematic of what they are. Obama can issue all the boilerplate statements supporting Israel's right to defend itself he wants. But until he accepts responsibility for allowing people like McPeak so close to his quest for the presidency, Obama's sincerity and judgment will remain open questions."

As one keen observer pointed out to me, if advocating the pre '67 border map makes one an anti-Semite, just about every iteration of the U.S. government since 1967 would qualify. Tony McPeak's verbal gymnastics do not make a "Jewish problem" for Obama.

Comments

I know OBammBamm is not kosher.

That is enough for me.

Posted by D | March 25, 2008 6:10 PM

Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer not Mearshermer

Posted by Carter | March 25, 2008 6:13 PM

This will backfire. People are sick and tired of my coreligionists calling everyone who believes in a fair resolution to the middle east conflict an anti-Semite. I'm Jewish, and I agree with McPeak, as do most Israelis and most American Jews, if you bother to check a survey. Give me a break.

The American Spectator? Fox? Newsmax? The Drudge Report? Where is the Clinton campaign going to turn next for an anti-Obama argument? This stuff defies parody.

Party elders, please, please, please, euthanize now!

Posted by alex | March 25, 2008 6:14 PM

Isn't it generally considered useful to have a wide range of views when making decisions about things? I mean, if you surround yourself with sycophants who's views are already known, why even bother with the decision making process? Such an administration could simply set policy on "day one" and go on vacation.

Oh, and the Clinton campaign pushing something from American Spectator is just too rich for words.

Posted by justinb | March 25, 2008 6:19 PM

Rabbi For Barack !

http://thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c55_a5420/Editorial__Opinion/Opinion.html

This is the sort of thing that needs more airplay....

Posted by global yokel | March 25, 2008 6:19 PM

One more iteration of the Tanya Harding Option.

Posted by keith | March 25, 2008 6:22 PM

alex,

The party elders are people kind of like Paul von Hindenberg?

Maybe you should appeal to McCain instead... they might respond faster and more decisively.

Posted by D | March 25, 2008 6:23 PM

Quoting the American Spectator. Wow.

Hey, has anybody seen Karl Rove lately? Maybe he's involved with a campaign after all.

Posted by LFC | March 25, 2008 6:33 PM

Another circle closes. First Bill Clinton appears on Rush Limbaugh's radio show (never mentioned in the MSM) and now Hillary's campaign uses a publication that tried to take Bill down in the 90s (cf David Brock) to prop up her specious arguments against Obama. What's next, dinner with Monica Lewinsky?

Posted by nepat | March 25, 2008 6:35 PM

What's next, dinner with Monica Lewinsky?

No, Monica really didn't do anything beyond being ditzy. I think Hillary plans on putting Linda Tripp on her campaign.

Posted by LFC | March 25, 2008 6:41 PM

Hold it. Endorsing McCain? Race baiting? Going on Rush? Quoting the American Spectator? It now makes sense. They know the super delegates must be fuming, so they dispatched Carville to attack Richardson to try to keep them in line.

Shorter Carville to Super Delegates: "It puts the lotion on or else it gets the hose again."

Posted by LFC | March 25, 2008 6:47 PM

The party made a huge mistake in not simply endorsing obama after his 11 straight wins and allowing the fiction of Hillary pulling a rabbit out of the hat to continue.

This stuff just hits the ether, is validated by the Clintons, and then sticks for a long time in the minds of many people.

Every single day, Hillary Clinton does more damage to this party than I could have ever imagined.

Posted by Rhoda | March 25, 2008 6:52 PM

There is something very subtle that may escape the Democrats.

The contest is exhausting Hillbilly and OBammBamm's staff.

I am talking about physical, emotional, intellectual exhaustion.

The winning nominee need a respite (at least a few months) to recover before the party convention and campaign season.

Without this respite, there are going to be consequences.

You can't fight a election with your key people wiped out working 20hr days 7 days a week for the past year.

Posted by D | March 25, 2008 7:13 PM

"As one keen observer pointed out to me, if advocating the pre '67 border map makes one an anti-Semite, just about every iteration of the U.S. government since 1967 would qualify."

Isn't that a rather simplistic way to summarize the article?

Posted by sbj | March 25, 2008 7:25 PM

What's next, dinner with Monica Lewinsky?

ZING!

Posted by socctty | March 25, 2008 7:32 PM

Marc, your lack of knowledge about the 67 border map either "borders" on willful ignorance or suppressed anti-semitism on your part. The 1967 borders would doom Israel. They would have no defense against their enemies.

Posted by Kate | March 25, 2008 7:32 PM

Kerry and the DNC were pimping out McPeak left and right in 2004, and nobody in Dem circles had a problem with him then (certainly not then-DNC head Terry McAuliffe).

Posted by truthfactor | March 25, 2008 7:33 PM

going Nuclear will make her Radioactive, to many

Posted by akhinaten | March 25, 2008 7:34 PM

I'm torn as to whether or not the super-delegates should step in now in an overwhelming wave as a signal to condemn Hillary (hard to herd that many cats), as it still wouldn't be enough to do the job and would make Obama "the establishment candidate". It would also allow Hillary to start squawking about how the nomination was "stolen" from her.

Somehow, she's not getting the fucking message. It seems as if the supers either aren't whispering loudly enough, or aren't whispering in enough numbers to tell her she's ruining her relationships in the Democratic party.

Maybe the supers will swoop in after NC/IN. It still gives her enough time to disqualify her from public office of any sort, though. At least as a Democrat.

Posted by socctty | March 25, 2008 7:40 PM

Kate - "suppressed anti-Semitism"? Wow, that's quite a stretch.

Those were the borders that Israel was set up with by the League of Nations/United Nations, remember? They gained that territory after a war... which, you know, creates a sense of occupation and threatens their own national security.

Posted by socctty | March 25, 2008 7:44 PM

socctty..... now Israel's security is so threatened that they need a much larger territory to act as a buffer zone... to give them advance warning of an invasion, to be beyond missile range, to build fortifications, and also to expand.

Just giving Israel a few thousand square miles, say the Sinai, plus an unpopulated (by non-Israelis) security zone 500 miles from the 1967 borders would give us peace in our time.

Posted by Noyce | March 25, 2008 7:54 PM

If there is dinner with Monica Lewinsky, what will be served?

Posted by D | March 25, 2008 8:00 PM

cigars

Posted by bjd | March 25, 2008 8:04 PM

Soccty-Yes those were the borders set up the UN and why was there a war in 1967? Because they were attacked. Since their victory (to the victor goes the spoils) and the holding onto those lands no nation has gone to war against them.
I suggest you read this article in the Hill
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/republican-jewish-group-wants-obama-adviser-removed-2008-03-25.html

Posted by Kate | March 25, 2008 8:14 PM

Hey, Kate...Israel would have a lot more allies (by that I mean some country in addition to the United States) if it did go back to the 1967 borders. Anyone living outside those borders is occupying land that does not belong to Israel, that is the stance of the U.S. government...

Advocating the 1967 borders isn't antisemitism. Insisting on moving beyond them is Zionism of the worst kind (and there's an alright kind, but intractability ain't it).

Posted by Kim | March 25, 2008 8:15 PM

"The Clinton campaign is distributing an article in the American Spectator "

ambinder is copying and pasting obama talking points again/still. The "liberal media" not satisfied with giving us 8 years of bush and oceans of blood can't help themselves. They will push as hard as they can to try and make obama the dem nom. The only nom mccain beat. Many more years of war and oceans of blood thanks to the “liberal meida.”. Unfortunately for them obama is so moronic, so corrupt, so simple he is really stretching the “liberal media” to the limits. Obama’s new pastor:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4tl9y_trinity_news

Posted by hadenough | March 25, 2008 8:21 PM

The McCain boiler room troll checked in at 8:21 pm Eastern Time, I see.

Good Lord, Mister Stray Talk Excess must really want to face Hillary in the general.

Posted by Phoenix Woman | March 25, 2008 8:27 PM

Obama less that forthcomming and extracted rejection of Farrahman in the last debate left me doubtfull. Here more doubts: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3523709,00.html

Posted by Betzabeth | March 25, 2008 8:38 PM

Hey Kim-You're blowing smoke. You mean more allies like Iran maybe, or how about Muslim Europe? Countries who want Israel to go back to 1967 borders aren't my definition of "allies". Evidently they do come under your distorted view of "allies".

Kind of like Chamberlain's view of Hitler as an ally as he waved that meaningless piece of paper and chanted "peace in our time".

Posted by Kate | March 25, 2008 8:42 PM

All my Jewsih friends are voting McCain. The reason? Many, but most importantly Pastor Wright. Somewhere along the line, maybe it was during the Farrakhan years, Jewish people become highly suspicious of pastors like Wright. I dont know a single Jewish person who is willing to overlook Wright.

One more point, Jewish people suspect Obama is naturally inclined towards sympathy for Palestinians, so McPeaks ideas of returning to 1967 borders plays into that fear. There is one thing I can guarantee: as far as American Jews are concerned, Israel is never going back to pre 1967 borders.

So, bottom line: Obama does have a Jewish problem. I do not know whether it is surmountable.

Posted by Jammer | March 25, 2008 8:54 PM

I am really tired of the Clinton camp conflating "criticized Israel's foreign policy" with "is a seething anti-Semite."

Posted by Deborah | March 25, 2008 9:09 PM

Marc, the problem was not just that McPeak was calling on America to exert pressure on Israel to withdraw within the pre '67 border, but that in 2003 McPeak thought that the obstacle to peace in the middle east was American Jews. In 2000 at Taba, Israel had offered the Palestinians something very close to the pre '67 borders and in response the Palestinians launched a bloody intifada aimed at murdering innocent Israeli civilians. If near the height of that intifada, McPeak considered Miami and New York the problem, that is a clear reflection of an anti-israel perspective.

Posted by aj | March 25, 2008 9:35 PM

I think its anti semitic that hillary thinks jews are this dumb!

Posted by Paul | March 25, 2008 9:38 PM

Thew Am Spectator? What's next, Wolfson quoting a Limbaugh rant as proof that Obama is Muslim? Wait - would that be the "Tonya Harding option" that is so feared? Bringing up the Muslim thing? Dear God...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | March 25, 2008 9:42 PM

Mark,

Can you be more specific about who in the Clinton campaign is distributing this stuff? There have been many accusations from both campaigns doing these things that turned out later to be unaffiliated supporters, not official acts. (Case in point, the Joe Scarborough assertion the other day that the Obama campaign was blaming Clinton for the passport breach.)

It's very hard to believe that the Clinton campaign would sanction sending out anything that had to do with Emmett Tyrell and the Spectator simply because of the obvious response it would bring that we see in the comments above about Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp etc.

A little more information would be helpful here.

Posted by Maxine | March 25, 2008 9:50 PM

I dont know a single Jewish person who is willing to overlook Wright.

Maybe you need to get out more? Like maybe even checking out Matt's blog (just a couple of inches to the left) ....

Posted by justinb | March 25, 2008 9:52 PM

Because they were attacked. Since their victory (to the victor goes the spoils) and the holding onto those lands no nation has gone to war against them.
I suggest you read this article in the Hill

I suggest you research international law on the subject of conquered territory.

Posted by justinb | March 25, 2008 9:55 PM

Kate,

The Israel issue is far more complicated than you make it out to be. A return to the 1967 borders will not "doom" Israel, because Israel is the only nuclear power in the region. End of story.

No, Israel won't have more allies. On the other hand, it's pretty hard to imagine a settlement that doesn't involve what amounts to a withdrawal to the 1967 borders. Not precisely the same borders, mind you, but a pretty close match.

Posted by Statler | March 25, 2008 9:55 PM

All the droll exclamation points in the world won't disguise the fact that it's not the American Spectator (which usefully found it), but the interview in the Oregonian that contains McPeak's views on the pernicious nature of American Jews.

Posted by grasmere10 | March 25, 2008 10:17 PM

The Spectator's pro-Republican motives are obvious, but what are Clinton's? Is she "merely" trying to attract Israel's American supporters to her canidacy? Or is she trying to influence the Super Delegates by implicitly threatening them with the very unwanted attention of the likes of AIPAC? A vote for Obama is a vote against Israel and Jews, so vote at your peril?

How many ways are there to say 'scorched earth"?

Posted by Barbara | March 25, 2008 10:34 PM

If we're talking actual combat, Israel struck first in 1967. They wiped out most of the Arab air forces on the ground.

Posted by gcochran | March 25, 2008 10:39 PM

Who couldn't see this coming?

http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair03242008.html

Posted by brigadiergerard | March 25, 2008 10:40 PM

"A vote for Obama is a vote against Israel and Jews, so vote at your peril?

How many ways are there to say 'scorched earth"?

Posted by Barbara"

ambinder is playing to the rubes. Hillary is now responsible for whatever a ratwing prints? Stop it. And anybody that knows knows nobody is deeper in the AIPAC pocket than obama. So who would the ratwing be trying to fool?

Posted by hadenough | March 25, 2008 10:48 PM

"Principally, the author takes McPeak to task for supporting a Middle East map that would require Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 border. It also makes the case that McPeak supports the Walt-Mearsheimer view of the influence of the Israeli lobby on foreign policy."

Some of us would say that's all the reason needed to support Obama. On the other hand, the win-at-all costs, Rovian mentality of the Clinton campaign is also pretty damned impressive -- if only we could be sure she would turn a little of that savage ratfucking John McCain's way if she wins the nomination.

Posted by Peter Principle | March 25, 2008 10:56 PM

"What's next, dinner with Monica Lewinsky?"
Maybe lunch with Richard Mellon Scaife:
http://tinyurl.com/yst66p

Posted by Ian S | March 25, 2008 10:57 PM

Marc,

To be fair, the complaint many Israel hawks are making is not just that McPeak advocates a return to the '67 borders, but that he attributes resistance to this idea to vocal opponents among American Jews. The Israel hawks call this anti-Semitic. So I don't think you're being completely fair to the critics. That said, I think McPeak is exactly right (and does anyone really doubt it?), and anyone who wants to call me anti-Semitic is going to have to deal with mother, who will set the record straight in no uncertain terms.

Posted by alex | March 25, 2008 11:16 PM

Marc,

To be fair, the complaint many Israel hawks are making is not just that McPeak advocates a return to the '67 borders, but that he attributes resistance to this idea to vocal opponents among American Jews. The Israel hawks call this anti-Semitic. So I don't think you're being completely fair to the critics. That said, I think McPeak is exactly right (and does anyone really doubt it?), and anyone who wants to call me anti-Semitic is going to have to deal with my mother, who will set the record straight in no uncertain terms.

Posted by alex | March 25, 2008 11:17 PM

The 1967 borders would doom Israel. They would have no defense against their enemies.

What are you, kidding? Israel is the dominant military power in the eastern Mediterranean. Who could possibly pose the threat of an invasion of an America-backed Israel? Syria? Ooh, I know, Lebanon.

This isn't 1949, whatever your admiration of the national myth. Poor, plucky widdle Israel isn't going to be overrun. Face it, Kate, you're acting all horrified because you want a land grab.

That said, the 1967 borders just aren't plausible anymore. They're a good starting point for working out an equitable deal, though. I don't think the ultimate problem is the complexity of the map, though. If both sides really wanted an agreement, the geographic issues could be worked out. But Arafat didn't. I think Ehud Barack did. I don't know if Abbas and Olmert do.

Posted by joe | March 25, 2008 11:19 PM

A little background info on McPeak aka Skeletor:

Just a little FYI from a long-time USAF pilot, General Merrill ‘Skeletor’ McPeak is probably the most-hated general officer in Air Force history. Seriously, ask any Air Force people who were around in the early to mid 90s and they will give you an earful about this guy. My old Huey squadron used to fly him between Langley Air Force Base and the Pentagon and he was a total dick, completely pissed off that he, a fighter god, had to ride in the back of a smelly helicopter. Plus, he insisted on wearing a helmet hooked up to the comm system so he could hear if anyone on board was talking about him behind his back (thats where the Skeletor name came from, seeing his pinched, skull-like face framed by a big-ass helicopter helmet). Highlights of the McPeak years:

- Personally pushed new, redesigned, extra-shitty flightsuits, with zippers on the side, frickin’ epaulets on the shoulders and pleats. Nicknamed ‘The Fag Bag’, worst uniform ever, quickly canceled by the next Chief of Staff.

- Crammed the T-3 ‘Firefly’ down the Air Force Academy’s throat to do pilot screening training with (instead of the reliable and time-tested Cessna 172). After two instructors and two cadets died in back-to-back crashes, McPeak’s retort: “We’re not training dentists to fly their families to Acapulco here”. What an asshole.

- Finally, McPeak is the one who mentored a certain Lt Colonel named Darleen Druyun through her entire career, finally resulting in an Air Force scandal that is still being felt today (Wikipedia her name and prepare to be disgusted).

So, yeah, if Obama wants to use Skeletor for an advisor, go ahead. The USAF sure as hell doesn’t want him back.

BTW- Darlene Blewhim is the nitwit who also 'blew' Boeing out of the tanker contract.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darleen_Druyun

Posted by MyNameIsEarl | March 25, 2008 11:19 PM

I dont know a single Jewish person who is willing to overlook Wright.

87% of Jews voted Democratic in the 2006 elections. I bet you don't know a single one of them either.

Hail Victory. Hail Israel.

Posted by Not | March 25, 2008 11:20 PM

A little background info on McPeak aka Skeletor:

Just a little FYI from a long-time USAF pilot, General Merrill ‘Skeletor’ McPeak is probably the most-hated general officer in Air Force history. Seriously, ask any Air Force people who were around in the early to mid 90s and they will give you an earful about this guy. My old Huey squadron used to fly him between Langley Air Force Base and the Pentagon and he was a total dick, completely pissed off that he, a fighter god, had to ride in the back of a smelly helicopter. Plus, he insisted on wearing a helmet hooked up to the comm system so he could hear if anyone on board was talking about him behind his back (thats where the Skeletor name came from, seeing his pinched, skull-like face framed by a big-ass helicopter helmet). Highlights of the McPeak years:

- Personally pushed new, redesigned, extra-shitty flightsuits, with zippers on the side, frickin’ epaulets on the shoulders and pleats. Nicknamed ‘The Fag Bag’, worst uniform ever, quickly canceled by the next Chief of Staff.

- Crammed the T-3 ‘Firefly’ down the Air Force Academy’s throat to do pilot screening training with (instead of the reliable and time-tested Cessna 172). After two instructors and two cadets died in back-to-back crashes, McPeak’s retort: “We’re not training dentists to fly their families to Acapulco here”. What an asshole.

- Finally, McPeak is the one who mentored a certain Lt Colonel named Darleen Druyun through her entire career, finally resulting in an Air Force scandal that is still being felt today (Wikipedia her name and prepare to be disgusted).

So, yeah, if Obama wants to use Skeletor for an advisor, go ahead. The USAF sure as hell doesn’t want him back.

BTW- Darlene Blewhim is the nitwit who also 'blew' Boeing out of the tanker contract.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darleen_Druyun

Posted by MyNameIsEarl | March 25, 2008 11:20 PM

McPeak's comments were about End Times Evangelicals in the United States as much as about Jewish Americans.

Posted by joe | March 25, 2008 11:22 PM

Warning to Hillary supporters: This is painful to watch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ie5X4fWtHiQ

Posted by frederico | March 25, 2008 11:26 PM

I have a Jewish problem.

It's called: My Wife!

Bad-dum-bump!

Posted by Hank Eisenstein | March 25, 2008 11:26 PM

Is there a reasonable solution aside from two states, with Israel occupying the pre-1967 borders or something closer to them than not?

The only other outcomes I see are apartheid, ethnic cleansing, or the slow dissolution of the Jewish state itself through demographic attrition. Which of these does Clinton support?

Posted by TH | March 25, 2008 11:27 PM

When Ambinder says "The Clinton Campaign" is distributing this article, what exactly does that mean?

Care to elaborate Marc on your accusation so people can judge for themselves what the Clinton campaign is doing?

Posted by Bobby Kumar | March 25, 2008 11:30 PM

oy.

Posted by kadycee | March 25, 2008 11:36 PM

Isn't one of Clinton's boggest supporters and arguably her top military backer Wesley Clark?

The same guy who said last year that "New York money people" are pushing war with Iran and you just have to read the Israeli press to know what's going on?

Clinton's advisors are just as bad as Obama's.

In the 2004 election, the Jewish vote was about 74-25 Democratic, down from around 79-19 in 2000.

If Obama is the dem nominee, I think it's reasonable to think McCain could pull 30% and Obama could fall to around 70% or slightly below.

Given that the Jewish vote is all of 3% of the total, even if McCain pulled 40%(an outside shot), it still wouldn't matter all that much. Just make the margins closer in NY and NJ perhaps.

Posted by super delegate | March 25, 2008 11:38 PM

Recently Marc Ambinder and Mickey Kaus have been swapping the goats that they blow.

How do I know this? I am using the same proof that Marc has demonstrated to claim that Clinton is pushing this story.

Does anyone remember before they started hating on Hillary that Marc Ambinder was NOT seen as a liberal? Remember when Matt first got to the Atlantic? There was Matt, James Fallows, and these three conservative turds, Andrew, Marc, and Megan.

But so many of you are now sucking Marc's and Mickey's goats that you have forgotten this. In the meantime, Matthew is sucking on Jim Vanderhei's goat and the others at Drudgico.

Politics sure make strange bedfellows and you guys should drink some Listerine and get the goat off your breath.

Marc, you got some cashmere stuck in your teeth.

Posted by jerry | March 25, 2008 11:38 PM

The American Spectator? Fox? Newsmax? The Drudge Report? Where is the Clinton campaign going to turn next for an anti-Obama argument?

The answer is Richard Mellon Scaife's Pittsburgh Tribune Review, the newspaper that led the charge that Vince Foster was murdered by the Clintons. She just turned up there to denounce Rev. Wright.

Unfrickingbelievable.

Posted by TR | March 25, 2008 11:43 PM

Hey, that same Pitsburgh Tribune Review she's been speaking to today has some questions for HRH Hillary Redaction Clinton...about the Riadys.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/archive/s_558825.html
"• There continues to be much conflicting information about Mrs. Clinton's relationship with the Riady family. Specifically, Clinton dined with Indonesian businessman Mochtar Riady at a 1993 gala honoring her as "Arkansan of the Year." Five days later, The Washington Times reports, Riady's Lippo Group was lobbying the administration to end a 30-year trade embargo with Vietnam. The embargo was lifted 11 months later. A Lippo affiliate, Mr. Riady's son, James, and Lippo executive John Huang later were convicted of serious campaign finance violations. Did you and Mochtar Riady ever discuss the embargo, Sen. Clinton?"

Posted by kravitz | March 25, 2008 11:46 PM

I support a two state solution for Israel, and I do not support settlements on the West Bank. But as to any of you that think that Israel is the preeminent power why not just look at the last war -- the one most people agree they lost.

Count too what YOUR reaction would be to living not in a settlement but in your nice comfy home within the borders and having advanced missiles and rockets raining down on you, just as what happened when they fought Hezbollah.

People that claim that Israel is secure and Israel is the barrier to peace -- I don't know if it's ignorance, wishful thinking, stupidity, or anti-semitism. But it's one of those four.

Posted by jerry | March 25, 2008 11:50 PM

Statler,

Israel is safe because is has nukes? You're kidding right. Israel is only going to use nukes as a last resort.

If Israel goes back to 1967 borders (or something similar as you state-huh?) they would have to give up control of the holy sites and one of its borders would be indefensible. I guess, according to you if an enemy threatens one of their borders they can just use a nuke against them. Get real.

Israel is one of our best allies. If the Arabs are so worried about the Palestinians why don't they help them? The truth is they don't like the Palestians either.

Posted by Kate | March 26, 2008 12:08 AM

Where does it say that the Clinton campaign is distributing this?

Posted by um | March 26, 2008 12:17 AM

Is it true that the Clinton campaign has hired Ken Starr?

Posted by Whispers | March 26, 2008 12:30 AM

As an AMERICAN JEW, may I point out Israel agreed to Oslo and the 1967 borders. Sandbagging on Oslo puts us to this present point.

OT: FORCE CONGRESS TO IMPEACH GEORGE BUSH AND DICK CHENEY, call Nancy Pelosi @1-202-225-0100 and DEMAND IMPEACHMENT. DC business hours only, call often, and spread it around.

Posted by Mike Meyer | March 26, 2008 12:34 AM

Dear Sen. Clinton:

If you wanted to run in the Republican primary, you should have filed the relevant petitions.

Thanks.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 26, 2008 12:58 AM

Hardly matters any more.

Both are toast.

Posted by gregor | March 26, 2008 1:23 AM

O.K., so I see a link to the article in question, but I can't find, either in this post or through a google search, anything that tells me why you say that the Clinton campaign is distributing it. I don't see it on the campaign website, you don't say if it's going out in a campaign email or in flyers that you assume are from the Clinton campaign. How is the campaign distributing the article?

Posted by bayoustjohndavid | March 26, 2008 1:23 AM

O.K., so I see a link to the article in question, but I can't find, either in this post or through a google search, anything that tells me why you say that the Clinton campaign is distributing it. I don't see it on the campaign website, you don't say if it's going out in a campaign email or in flyers that you assume are from the Clinton campaign. How is the campaign distributing the article?

Posted by bayoustjohndavid | March 26, 2008 1:25 AM

"one of our best allies"? *Snort*

Israel is "one of our best allies" against countries that only hate us because we've got our noses so far up Israel's ass in the first place. In a world where Israel had never come into existence, and the Arab-Israeli conflict wasn't the central polarizing issue, most of the conservative regimes in the Muslim world would be natural U.S. allies.

And it's one hell of an "ally" that does things like the Liberty incident and Pollard.

Posted by Kevin Carson | March 26, 2008 2:47 AM

The elongated brown turd stands up for "MINORITY RIGHTS" as long as they benefit the "RIGHT MINORITY".

Hard to say what is more revolting "B O", or the flies that flock to it.

Posted by robert ethan | March 26, 2008 2:55 AM

Kate, your 'poor defenseless Israel' act is old, old, old and highly insulting to the intelligence of anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size. I also find your 'to the victor belongs the spoils' argument primitive, highly self-serving, and equivalent to the amorality of every bloodthirsty imperialistic tyrant in history from Xerxes to Hitler. Arabs are people too, you barbaric twat.

Posted by r€nato | March 26, 2008 3:25 AM

A "keen observer" might also want to point out that if Israel withdrawing to or close to the 1967 borders is anti-Semitic then not only is every American government since 1967 anti-Semitic, so is Labour, Yisrael Beiteinu, Meretz, and Kadima.

As a matter of fact, the most anti-Arab Israeli politician of them all, Avigdor Lieberman, actually wants a smaller, more Jewish Israel, not a Greater Israel.

This Jew is voting Obama, and already did in the primary, and so did his Jewish family and friends. Sen. Obama clearly has the best plan for Middle East peace, and he has made clear he will continue to financially and militarily support Israel while pushing for peace deals. The deal with Egypt made Israel safer and stronger, the deal with Jordan made Israel safer and stronger, and so will a deal with Syria and eventually even Iran. As a matter of fact, the only bad deal that Israel ever got forced into was at the hands of Hillary Clinton's husband.

PS: I'll match some McPeak bashing with some Joe Ballard bashing. "The worst general officer I have ever worked with." Directly from an O6 that served on his staff. This colonel also seemed to believe the feeling was universal amongst O5s and O6s at this particular posting.

Posted by Seth | March 26, 2008 4:16 AM

One more thing, on the Wright flap.

If you're Jewish, every Christian sermon is uncomfortable. No offense to Christians, of course. I'm far more uncomfortable, too, with James Carville's "thirty pieces of silver" than anything Wright ever said.

Not to mention McCain's coterie of crazy Bible thumpers and Hillary's "Family."

Jews voting based on what church a candidate attends -- barring off-the-reservation anti-Semitic and racist churches like the Christian Identity Movement -- would be like blacks voting for white candidates based on who has the better tan. The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the White Protestant Churches (founded by Martin Luther, who said things that would make Eichmann blush) all have killed, persecuted, forcibly converted, displaced and harassed far more Jews than the African American Church could even fathom. (And no, I am not a fan of Reverend Sharpton. Hate the man. But frankly, I wouldn't even vote against a politician just because he attended Sharpton's church. I would vote against Al himself, though.)

And Pat Robertson's apocalyptic support of Israel is far, far, far more scary to me than Reverend Wright's criticism of Israeli treatment of Palestinians, though I do find those criticisms to be largely unfair.

Posted by Seth | March 26, 2008 4:33 AM

The problem with McPeak is not border but his plain Anti-Semitism.

Top Obama adviser: NYC, Miami Jews 'the problem'
Also compares Muslim terrorists to religious 'radicals' in Oregon

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 25, 2008
9:36 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

JERUSALEM – Sen. Barack Obama's military adviser and national campaign co-chairman has implied U.S. politicians are afraid of Jewish voters in Miami and New York City and that American Jews are the "problem" impeding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Merrill A. McPeak, a former Air Force chief of staff, also compared the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations to what he described as religious radicals in Oregon and claimed "born-again [Christians]" supported the war in Iraq to help Israel.

Discussing Middle East politics during a 2003 interview with the Oregonian newspaper McPeak stated, "We don't have a playbook for the Middle East. You know, for instance, obviously, a part of that long-term strategy would be getting the Israelis and the Palestinians together at . . .something other than a peace process. Process is not a substitute for achievement or settlement. And even so the process has gone off the tracks, but the process isn't enough."

(Story continues below)

The Oregonian interviewer asked McPeak whether the problem in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict originated with the White House or the State Department.

"So where's the problem?" the interviewer asked.

McPeak replied, "New York City. Miami. We have a large vote – vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it."

McPeak went on to insist that to solve the conflict, Israelis must "stop settling the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and maybe even withdraw some of the settlements that've already been put there. And nobody wants to take on that problem. It's just too tough politically."

McPeak did not point to Palestinian terrorism or the recent election of Hamas to power as problems impeding an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.

As a follow-up question, the Oregonian interviewer asked McPeak whether "there's an element within Hamas, Hezbollah, that doesn't want Israel to exist at all and always will be there?"

McPeak responded by comparing the two terror groups to "radical" Oregonians.

"There's an element in Oregon, you know, that's always going to be radical in some pernicious way, and likely to clothe it in religious garments, so it makes it harder to attack. So there's craziness all over the place."

McPeak said there was "some" good will toward peace on the Israeli side, but qualified, "that's maybe the more cosmopolitan, liberal version of the Israeli population – I think there's enough good will there.

"I don't know if there is still on the Palestinian side, because they've been radicalized pretty well," McPeak said.

The McPeak interview circulated on several large blogs yesterday, including the popular Powerline blog, after it was first pointed out in the American Spectator online magazine by Robert Goldberg, a writer and vice president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest.

Interpreting the identity of voters in Miami and NYC McPeak had referred to, Goldberg stated: "Translation (as if it's needed): Jews – who put Israel over every American interest – control America's policy on the Middle East."

Goldberg also pointed out McPeak once claimed Christian Zionists were driving America's policy in Iraq to benefit Israel.

Stated McPeak while discussing the Iraq war: "Let's say that one of your abiding concerns is the security of Israel as opposed to a purely American self-interest, then it would make sense to build a dozen or so bases in Iraq. Let's say you are a born-again Christian and you think that Armageddon and the rapture are about to happen any minute and what you want to do is retrace steps you think are laid out in Revelations, then it makes sense . So there are a number of scenarios here that could lead you in this direction. This is radical...."

McPeak is the latest Obama adviser to be highlighted for controversial views regarding Israel.

WND recently quoted Israeli security officials who expressed "concern" about Robert Malley, an adviser to Obama who has advocated negotiations with Hamas and providing international assistance to the terrorist group

Also Samantha Power, who was described as Obama's closest adviser until she resigned earlier this month after making strong remarks against Sen. Hillary Clinton, advocated in an interview investing "billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel's military, but actually investing in the state of Palestine."

Stated Goldberg: "Obama has a Jewish problem and McPeak's bigoted views are emblematic of what they are. Obama can issue all the boilerplate statements supporting Israel's right to defend itself he wants. But until he accepts responsibility for allowing people like McPeak so close to his quest for the presidency, Obama's sincerity and judgment will remain open questions."

Posted by John | March 26, 2008 5:12 AM

The problem with McPeak is not border but his plain Anti-Semitism.

Top Obama adviser: NYC, Miami Jews 'the problem'
Also compares Muslim terrorists to religious 'radicals' in Oregon

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 25, 2008
9:36 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

JERUSALEM – Sen. Barack Obama's military adviser and national campaign co-chairman has implied U.S. politicians are afraid of Jewish voters in Miami and New York City and that American Jews are the "problem" impeding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Merrill A. McPeak, a former Air Force chief of staff, also compared the Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations to what he described as religious radicals in Oregon and claimed "born-again [Christians]" supported the war in Iraq to help Israel.

Discussing Middle East politics during a 2003 interview with the Oregonian newspaper McPeak stated, "We don't have a playbook for the Middle East. You know, for instance, obviously, a part of that long-term strategy would be getting the Israelis and the Palestinians together at . . .something other than a peace process. Process is not a substitute for achievement or settlement. And even so the process has gone off the tracks, but the process isn't enough."

(Story continues below)

The Oregonian interviewer asked McPeak whether the problem in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict originated with the White House or the State Department.

"So where's the problem?" the interviewer asked.

McPeak replied, "New York City. Miami. We have a large vote – vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it."

McPeak went on to insist that to solve the conflict, Israelis must "stop settling the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and maybe even withdraw some of the settlements that've already been put there. And nobody wants to take on that problem. It's just too tough politically."

McPeak did not point to Palestinian terrorism or the recent election of Hamas to power as problems impeding an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.

As a follow-up question, the Oregonian interviewer asked McPeak whether "there's an element within Hamas, Hezbollah, that doesn't want Israel to exist at all and always will be there?"

McPeak responded by comparing the two terror groups to "radical" Oregonians.

"There's an element in Oregon, you know, that's always going to be radical in some pernicious way, and likely to clothe it in religious garments, so it makes it harder to attack. So there's craziness all over the place."

McPeak said there was "some" good will toward peace on the Israeli side, but qualified, "that's maybe the more cosmopolitan, liberal version of the Israeli population – I think there's enough good will there.

"I don't know if there is still on the Palestinian side, because they've been radicalized pretty well," McPeak said.

The McPeak interview circulated on several large blogs yesterday, including the popular Powerline blog, after it was first pointed out in the American Spectator online magazine by Robert Goldberg, a writer and vice president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest.

Interpreting the identity of voters in Miami and NYC McPeak had referred to, Goldberg stated: "Translation (as if it's needed): Jews – who put Israel over every American interest – control America's policy on the Middle East."

Goldberg also pointed out McPeak once claimed Christian Zionists were driving America's policy in Iraq to benefit Israel.

Stated McPeak while discussing the Iraq war: "Let's say that one of your abiding concerns is the security of Israel as opposed to a purely American self-interest, then it would make sense to build a dozen or so bases in Iraq. Let's say you are a born-again Christian and you think that Armageddon and the rapture are about to happen any minute and what you want to do is retrace steps you think are laid out in Revelations, then it makes sense . So there are a number of scenarios here that could lead you in this direction. This is radical...."

McPeak is the latest Obama adviser to be highlighted for controversial views regarding Israel.

WND recently quoted Israeli security officials who expressed "concern" about Robert Malley, an adviser to Obama who has advocated negotiations with Hamas and providing international assistance to the terrorist group

Also Samantha Power, who was described as Obama's closest adviser until she resigned earlier this month after making strong remarks against Sen. Hillary Clinton, advocated in an interview investing "billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel's military, but actually investing in the state of Palestine."

Stated Goldberg: "Obama has a Jewish problem and McPeak's bigoted views are emblematic of what they are. Obama can issue all the boilerplate statements supporting Israel's right to defend itself he wants. But until he accepts responsibility for allowing people like McPeak so close to his quest for the presidency, Obama's sincerity and judgment will remain open questions."

Posted by John | March 26, 2008 5:14 AM

Sure, it's plain anti-Semitism once it gets "interpreted." But, uh, he sure seems to be criticizing radical Christians, Christian Zionists and Islamic radicals more than he is (indirectly) criticizing the Jewish vote.

'McPeak said there was "some" good will toward peace on the Israeli side, but qualified, "that's maybe the more cosmopolitan, liberal version of the Israeli population – I think there's enough good will there.

'"I don't know if there is still on the Palestinian side, because they've been radicalized pretty well," McPeak said.'

Or, he seems to think think Jewish extremists in Miami, NYC and Israel, Palestinian extremists in the territories and Christian Zionists in America all combine to make peace between Israel and the Palestinians difficult. As a matter of fact, the only party he seems to be confident in their desire for peace is "liberal" Israeli Jews.

Sounds more anti-Palestinian and anti-Christian than anti-Semitic to me, on balance. But thanks for "interpreting."

(Not that I necessarily agree with his comments. Obviously the pro-Likud Jewish voting bloc in Miami and NYC isn't enough to hold elected officials hostage alone. And though he may believe the "Israel Lobby" tale, the reality is that America Jews spend more money trying to bring about a peaceful solution than they do encouraging settlers.)

(And I used to live in Jim Moran's district -- I don't think he's anti-Semitic either, just dumb, and a bit dumber than McPeak.)

Posted by Seth | March 26, 2008 6:12 AM

What a stunningly dishonest commentary. The problem is not the '67 borders. The problem is McPeak blaming American Jews for American foreign policy:

The interviewer asked McPeak: "So where's the problem? State? White House?"

McPeak replied: "New York City. Miami. We have a large vote -- vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it."

The problem is that McPeak's whole point of view, and Ambinder's here, fronts a lie - that the problem in the Middle East is Israel's refusal to return to the '67 lines. Unfortunately, many commenters here just eat up that canard. The problem is Arab nations that declared war in 1948 and STILL consider themselves in a state of war. The problem is Arab nations that attempted, repeatedly, to eradicate Israel from the map. And the problem is Arab states and Palestinian organizations that continue to demand, not '67 Israel, but no Israel at all.

Marc, simply stated, you are a liar.

Posted by dhonig | March 26, 2008 7:34 AM

The Clinton's charges of a "Jewish problem" is to be expected.

The Clintons took Tsongas’ Gulf War position and a few out-of-context quotes and old Senate votes, turned them into scary leaflets and blanketed heavily Jewish areas with them. Then, days before the primary, they sent in a New York congressman named Stephen Solarz to ratchet up the scare tactics to absurd—but, again, devastating—heights.

Tsongas was thrown on the defensive, forced to rebut each supposed example of his “softness” on Israel manufactured by the Clintons, drowning out his own message. All the while, Bill Clinton fulminated against the press, fuming about its supposed favoritism toward Tsongas—a tactic that spurred much of the press to prove its fairness by treating Clinton’s sham attacks as a straightforward policy dispute.

http://www.observer.com/2008/once-again-clinton-muddies-war-issue

Sound familiar?

Posted by Kane | March 26, 2008 7:45 AM

"Since their victory (to the victor goes the spoils)"

Kate,

That used to be the rule, but now it is against the law. And before you laugh about the UN and the UN Charter, note that

1.Israel is a member of the UN and a signatory of the UN Charter

2. Israel gained its controversial international legitimacy from the UN

3. the UN's ban on territorial expansion through war has been surprisingly effective by historical standards and provided the legitimacy for the war to expel Iraq from Kuwait.

4. Currently, the West Bank and Tibet and the West Bank are the only territories conquered since WWII that are still occupied by their conquerors (and China was not a member of the UN when it invaded Tibet).

Posted by Howard | March 26, 2008 7:46 AM

It's all pretty simple to me. Judging by her actions, her praise for the presumptive GOP candidate and disparagement of her own party's front runner, and her new friends (Scaife???!!!), I think the conclusion is obvious. She wants to be McCain's Veep.

Posted by DrBB | March 26, 2008 8:26 AM

criticising the actions of bushco or the republicans does not make one an anti-american
criticising the actions of falwell or weyrich does not make one an anti-christian
criticising the actions of likud or kadima does not make one an anti-semite
following anyone or anything without question or analysis is the problem

Posted by tofubo | March 26, 2008 8:29 AM

Odd, because Obama's been very upfront about his views regarding required compromise from both sides current positions for any two-state resolution. I'm sure he'd also be the first to agree that Israel did compromise in the 90s and the Palestinians fucked that up, but it doesn't negate the value of trying again. He's not pandering for the American Jewish vote on Israel policy and he's getting half the Jewish vote in primaries. Doesn't seem like much of a Jewish problem to me, and if you've got to point to an advisers other, unrelated issues (McCarthy-speak, DUI) then you've probably got no case to make.

Can we just strike advisers' DUIs from the record as relevant right now? Can a Blumenthal just cancel out a McPeak? Ditto for Clinton's extramarital indiscretions canceling out Dodd/Kennedy's on Obama's side. And while we're at it, let's ignore both campaign's missteps in the Irish & Scottish press. Groovy.

Posted by Zach | March 26, 2008 8:30 AM

"Where does it say that the Clinton campaign is distributing this?

Posted by um"

That's just ambinder copying and pasting obama talking points. The latest would be, I guess, Hillary is now responsible for whatever ratwing mags type in. It's outrageous, egregious and moronic which puts it right up ambinder’s and obamatons alley.

Posted by hadenough | March 26, 2008 8:33 AM

Kudos to any candidate who thinks the American people are smart enough to understand that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is unsustainable. Keeping her own citizens in de facto prison camps within their own nation is not the road to peace. Feel free to call me an anti-Semite for stating the obvious.

Posted by Dr. Wu | March 26, 2008 8:43 AM

Here is McPeak's 1976 article in Foreign Affairs on Israel.

Today, Israel continues to hold something like 90 percent of the territory taken in 1967; that it has evacuated as much as 10 percent is one of the concrete achievements of the current "step-by-step" diplomacy. But this diplomacy seems to have lost momentum, and, in any case, has produced harmful side effects, including a new, and perhaps shortsighted, kind of demilitarization. Israel's borders are now anything but "secure and recognized"; defense of the present lines seems to require the attainment of new levels of sophistication in an arms race, the cost of which Israel can no longer shoulder alone.

Seems eminently reasonable to me, as an American Jew.

Posted by Hesiod | March 26, 2008 8:50 AM

1. No source, no story. At this point, I'd want independent confirmation for almost anything, and Ambinder proffers nothing to verify what he asserts.

2. I always wondered why there was Israel boilerplate in Obama's Famous Speech about racism that we were supposed to be having a national conversation about. Now I know.

Posted by lamber strether | March 26, 2008 8:51 AM

Don't be dense. Ambinder is the Atlantic's campaign beat reporter, if the Clinton campaign is distributing this article, he would receive it, and I don't think he'd report that as the case if he hadn't received it.

Posted by Zach | March 26, 2008 9:00 AM

Incidentally, it would be irresponsible for any Democrat not to point out what the Republicans will attack Hillary on in the general election if she were the nominee.

For example, the Republican attack machine will no doubt claim that Hillary is having a lesbian Love affair with her personal aide, Huma Abedin.

Abedin is a Muslim, and the Republicans will attack Hillary for that, and her family's ties to Al Qaeda.

It is, of course, important to vet our nominee before the general election. So we should have lots of blog posts, newspaper stories and endless chatter on talk radio and on cable news about whether the coming GOP attacks claiming that Hillary is having a lesbian love affair with an Al Qaeda mole are going to hurt her with White Male ethnic union members.

Posted by Hesiod | March 26, 2008 9:00 AM

I'm a Jew and a Zionist and I've supported Obama for over a year. Each day the Clinton campiagn continues to disgust. If Billary thinks she's gaining votes by going Rove, it just proves she's not qualified to be President. After 7 years of this kind of stuff, please no more.

Go Obama!

Posted by Al23 | March 26, 2008 9:33 AM

This is the problem with McPeak:

Gen. Tony McPeak, Obama’s top military adviser, was interviewed by a newspaper about the Israeli/Palestinian peace process:

The interviewer asked McPeak: “So where’s the problem? State? White House?”

McPeak replied: “New York City. Miami. We have a large vote — vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it.”

Translation (as if it’s needed): Jews — who put Israel over every American interest — control America’s policy on the Middle East. And McPeak has the audacity to accuse Bill Clinton of McCarthyism.

Posted by Shainzona | March 26, 2008 9:33 AM

Zach,
At the risk of being "dense", could Ambinder tell us who in the Clinton campaign is pushing it?

I know, I know, if somebody in the media reports something, it must be true. Sorry to question it.

Posted by DR | March 26, 2008 9:40 AM

Howard-

If you think the UN can issue rules or laws that other countries must obey, trying to reason with you is hopeless.

By the way, are you aware of the Supreme Court's decision giving the State of Texas supremacy over ANY international law, treaty or rule.

Kind of destroys your whole argument.

Posted by Kate | March 26, 2008 9:53 AM

Kate -

If you really believe in the dictum "to the victor go the spoils," I have to pose a hypothetical. Assume an Arab country invaded Israel and occupied Jerusalem - would you willingly give up the city? After all, by your logic the Arabs would have the right to claim Jerusalem by virtue of their victory. Might makes right! Not sure I recall when Israel adopted that as its national motto...

Posted by jjcomet | March 26, 2008 9:56 AM

This race will be over when the voters say so. Saint Obama could have stopped it many times just by winning. Unfortunately for him and his worshipers, the people of Texas, Ohio, California, etc, were not ready for it to be over. All St. O has to do is win in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia, etc. and it will be over. Until then, all the squawking press can do is squawk. It has become apparent that the press is not going to shine the light on Obama while Hillary is around to kick. The day he gets the nomination, the shoe will be on the other foot. It will be Sanit McCain against an empty suit.

Posted by Ron Cantrell | March 26, 2008 10:03 AM

Marc --

You say that Tony McPeak's verbal gymnastics do not make a "Jewish problem" for Obama. I'm here to tell you that you are wrong. Ask my readers.

Halli Casser-Jayne
http://www.thecjpoliticalreport.com

Posted by Halli Casser-Jayne | March 26, 2008 10:15 AM

Kim said... Israel would have a lot more allies (by that I mean some country in addition to the United States) if it did go back to the 1967 borders.

statler said... A return to the 1967 borders will not "doom" Israel, because Israel is the only nuclear power in the region. End of story.

Yeah, what they said. After all, look how well things worked out for Israel when they pulled out of Gaza. The residents destroyed the greenhouses left behind that could have provided jobs and income, and ever since they've fired a near continuous series of rockets into nearby Israeli towns. With those results, why in heaven wouldn't Israel want to contract the borders they're defending?

jjcomet said... Assume an Arab country invaded Israel and occupied Jerusalem - would you willingly give up the city? After all, by your logic the Arabs would have the right to claim Jerusalem by virtue of their victory. Might makes right!

I think you've got a bit of a problem understanding offense vs. defense. If Israel attacked Jordan tomorrow, lost the war, and in the process lost Jerusalem, then tough s***. They lost. Similarly, the territory lost by the Palestinians was a direct result of their aggression and that of their allies.

Howard said... Currently, the West Bank and Tibet and the West Bank are the only territories conquered since WWII that are still occupied by their conquerors

Great example. BTW, which of these countries were attacked first, won, and then voluntarily pulled back to original borders while still under active attack? I mean, let's talks apples to apple here. Who pulled back without a peace agreement (you know, like the one that Arafat intentionally torpedoed) or at least an enduring cease fire?

Posted by LFC | March 26, 2008 10:19 AM

Ok everybody,

CRITICISM OF ISRAELI POLICY DOES NOT EQUAL ANTI-SEMITISM

It is simply amazing that the range of acceptable discourse on Israel and Palestine is narrower in the US then it is in Israel.

To say, that Israel should return to the pre-67 borders is not controversial, it just happens to be what International Law says, which also has no enforcement mechanism.

To say, that the United States has been an overly favorable to Israel (and by overly, I define that, as, favorable beyond the point where our national security interests would warrant), in part, because of jewish populations in certain states, SHOULD NOT be controversial. I don't agree with McPeak, because New York is not a swing state (then again, when Mrs Clinton kissed Mrs. Arafat on the cheek, which is customary, which would've been controversial had she not adhered to protocol, the NY press went bat-shit & Congress does have an important role in our relations with Israel so, perhaps McPeak isn't that far off).

But in defense of McPeak, has anyone heard of AIPAC? Nobody can run for Congress without getting a shakedown from AIPAC. Now, that's not the same as blaming American Jews for our overly favorable Israeli policy. But, when I was in college, 2000-2004, AIPAC, through Hillel on campus, sure as shit tried to make it seem like some sort of american, jewish duty to support AIPAC.

This way a typical meeting at the beginning of the intifada:
Me: I'm trying to understand this uprising, uh, why did Ariel Sharon go to the temple mount with all those bodyguards. (I've come to believe that he did that because of the political cleavage created by the rumors that Ehud Barak was willing to concede East Jerusalem - or parts of E.J - in exchange for perm. peace with the Palestinians. Since Sharon was running for PM, he knew, that he could use that as a wedge to get elected, IMHO)

Other college AIPACer: hmmm, I don't know exactly, that's a good question, but you should read A Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz, he makes really good points.

So let's stop with the knee jerk reactions, aight. There is nothing controversial or remotely anti-semitic about what General McPeak said.

So let's repeat. General McPeak - Criticizing Israeli policy or saying that our overly friendly stance towards Israel is that way because of the significance of american jews in our democracy = NOT ANTI-SEMITISM

Saying that the Jews control all the money because of an international financial conspiracy, like that great guy Henry Ford = ANTI-SEMITISM.

Let's keep things in perspective people, this is Hillary throwing the kitchen sink. I'd rather fill my brain with Paris Hilton bullshit, then hear anymore of Hillary's pathetic attempts to smear Obama, because he has an adviser who dares to break from the narrow normative barriers of acceptable elite/punditry discourse on Israel and Palestine. Hmmmm, it's called having a wide view of opinions. Having McPeak around is good, because you don't want ALL your advisers (he has ppl who are more overtly pro-Israel on his campaign as well) to think alike, which means, some, invariably are going to be wrong on certain issues. Does Hillary just want Yes-people? that's just my inference. This post has gone on for too long and now must fade . . . . .

Posted by nattyb | March 26, 2008 10:26 AM

The item linked in Ambinder's blog entry is not an "article" as Ambinder puts it. It is an opinion column. Building a premise upon the supposition that a piece was written as news instead of opinion dooms this thread to troll status.

Enjoy the flamewars.

Ott

Posted by Chris Ott | March 26, 2008 10:41 AM

nattyb asked... Me: I'm trying to understand this uprising, uh, why did Ariel Sharon go to the temple mount with all those bodyguards.

I don't know the "why", but it was reported that he cleared the trip in advance with the PLO's security forces first. The fact that Arafat used the visit as the trigger for the intifada, and they have the recorded radio addresses that prove he did just that, prove that the intifada can be firmly laid at Arafat's feet.

Posted by LFC | March 26, 2008 10:41 AM

No one made Obama surround himself with these people but it is natural he would.
He is not black. Running as a black.
He is Arab-American so he would lean pro-Arab so naturally his political leanings would to. Don't blame the Clintons for that. Wright/McPeak and other advisors only reflect their bosses wishes.
Obama is an Arab....if the shoe hurts, take it off, don't blame the salesman.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3523709,00.html
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=968407&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1

As the vetting precess goes on we learn more.

Posted by Kefa | March 26, 2008 10:48 AM

And how many U.S. registered Jewish voters, support that Walt-Mearsheimer view? The article doesn't mention that.

Posted by KDH55 | March 26, 2008 10:49 AM

Kate wrote: "Soccty-Yes those were the borders set up the UN and why was there a war in 1967? Because they were attacked."

Israel was not attacked in 1967. Israel initiated the Six-Day War.

"Since their victory (to the victor goes the spoils) and the holding onto those lands no nation has gone to war against them."

What about the Yom Kippur War? And what about the War of Attrition between Egypt and Israel from 1967-70, which, realistically speaking, Israel lost?

What about UN Security Council Resolution 242, which Israel voted in favor of? It calls on her to withdraw from "occupied territories" in exchange for "secure borders". Like it or not, the pre-Six-Day War borders will be the basis for negotiations on a final demarcation.

Posted by TomC | March 26, 2008 10:51 AM

The Israel loonies are out in full force on this thread ... all because someone dared to say something they don't agree with ... which to these whack-jobs means that person is obviously a Jew-hating, Nazi-lover. Pathetic.

Posted by Martis | March 26, 2008 11:03 AM

Was it just me or did that article seem to be putting an awful lot of words in McPeak's mouth?

Posted by Mike | March 26, 2008 11:07 AM

DR,

I assume the source goes unmentioned because it's Ambinder himself. He's much better than most of the campaign beat reporters because he'll actually say, with decent regularity, what comes his way via the campaign press offices. A lot of people (Greg Sargent at TalkingPoints for one) will just say, "This is interesting..." selectively as articles come in and not say one way or another where it came from.

And then you have utter partisans like Taylor Marsh who will post detailed analysis ripped from campaign talking points as if it were the result of their own judgement (http://alchemytoday.com/2008/03/25/is-there-any-sort-of-blogging-code-of-conduct/) but that's a somewhat separate issue.

Posted by Zach | March 26, 2008 11:14 AM

"Obama is an Arab....if the shoe hurts, take it off, don't blame the salesman."

Just all kinds of crazy.

Posted by Ian | March 26, 2008 11:24 AM

I dont know a single Jewish person who is willing to overlook Wright.

this jew is going to PA to volunteer for obama. i certainly wouldn't vote for someone who sought out the support of a reverend who claims "the jews sowed the seed of anti-semitism"

Obama is an Arab.

does this comment win some kind of prize for succinct racism?

Posted by benjoya | March 26, 2008 11:24 AM

The Israel loonies are out in full force on this thread ... all because someone dared to say something they don't agree with ... which to these whack-jobs means that person is obviously a Jew-hating, Nazi-lover. Pathetic.

great post. i'm an admitted anti-semite. why is this? because i believe that the jews do not deserve to be in israel, where they displaced an entire society of palestinians for what is now going on three generations.

here's an idea: move all of israel to oklahoma. they can build their own utopian society.

oh, what's that? they'd never agree to that because they have a "talmudic right" to steal all the land they want to as long as it is the holy land and oklahoma is clearly not part of the holy land?

and you wonder why most people think religion is stupid.

Posted by sueslasagna | March 26, 2008 12:17 PM

Looks like my Hebrew Barack Obama bumper sticker arrived not a moment too soon! Rest assured that my fellow PA Jews are hardly the kind of voters to fall for Billary's BS.

Posted by Amnon | March 26, 2008 12:36 PM

I hate getting dragged into threads . . .

LFC @10.41: Thanks for articulating the Daniel Pipes viewpoint. I'm a tad more interested in the "why" he went there with all those bodyguards.

Even if I accept your premise, which I do not contend at this point, that PLO security approved (more likely PLO was TOLD), and that Arafat "used" it as a trigger, DOES NOT MEAN, that Sharon did not also intend to use that moment as a "trigger."
I am not arguing that Sharon intended to use it as a trigger.

I try not to blame a side with such certainty when these situations are very shades of grey instead of black and white.

But the fact that you are not even concerned with the "why" reflects your bias.

And you can tell when people don't know their shit and are just regurgitating their latent anti-arab bias, when, IMHO, someone goes all boogey man. You know what I mean. When people refer to Iraq as Sadaam. Sadaam this, Sadaam that. As if, he's this gigantic omnipotent human form of the devil. As if you never have to refer to anything or anyone else besides Sadaam when discussing pre-2003 Iraq.

"they have the recorded radio addresses that prove he did just that, prove that the intifada can be firmly laid at Arafat's feet."

As if one person could be responsible for everything. We can't even get one person responsible for the Iraq war in the US (Bush's war? alright, but no accountability), but people in the US can say with certainty that Arafat is to blame (or say with certainty that Sharon is to blame)? If you can say with certainty, that the temple mount visit was used as a "trigger" by Arafat, but yet, you can't be bothered to explore WHY Sharon gave Arafat that trigger, then you're dumb and you need to reevaluate the premises upon which you form your opinions. Seriously.
(sure you can say, if it weren't for the trip to the temple mount, then it would have been something else Arafat would have used as a trigger, HOWEVER, that still ignores the WHY in what actually happened in real life and not in hypothetical world where all arab intentions are insincere and all Israeli intentions are manifestly good-faith - except those settlements that keep expanding in the W. Bank).

Posted by nattyb | March 26, 2008 12:37 PM

So anyone who challenges Israeli policy is "anti-semitic"?

Posted by Fred | March 26, 2008 1:06 PM

Further evidence that HRC is the Peace Candidate! I just read an article about how she promoted peace as a Congressional committee aide in the '70s when she was fired for trying to keep the peace by derailing Nixon's impeachment. Voting to enable Bush in Iraq was a vote to threaten Iraq into being peacable. See how it all fits?

Posted by W Action | March 26, 2008 1:13 PM

A late response to aj

"Marc, the problem was not just that McPeak was calling on America to exert pressure on Israel to withdraw within the pre '67 border, but that in 2003 McPeak thought that the obstacle to peace in the middle east was American Jews."

There is a certain amount of truth to this, as solutions that are widely seen as toxic and denounced as anti-semitic by the Israeli lobby in the US, such as a two state solution, are overwhelmingly supported by polls taken in Israel. I assume that this is because by and large Jews in America can hold highly ideological views without any real fear that they will have any real consequences for themselves personally. People living in Israel don't have this luxury as they have to live with the consequences of any decisions and hence are more pragmatic about solutions.

I recall another incident I read about which took place about a year ago. Apparently Cheney met with leaders of the Jewish lobby in the States to reassure them that the Jewish/Israeli peace process that they were pushing at the time was just window dressing for political reasons and that they needn't worry about the administration actually following through.

Posted by linus bern | March 26, 2008 1:13 PM

If you can say with certainty, that the temple mount visit was used as a "trigger" by Arafat, but yet, you can't be bothered to explore WHY Sharon gave Arafat that trigger, then you're dumb and you need to reevaluate the premises upon which you form your opinions.

Nattyb, in your mind you have created a moral equivalent between a visit (perhaps meant as an insult) with calling for an armed uprising and attacks on civilians. All I can say is "WOW!" Creating a moral equivalence between the two takes one hell of a huge step out of reality.

To paraphrase you, But fact that you are not even concerned with the "difference" reflects your bias.

Posted by LFC | March 26, 2008 1:18 PM

The Hildabeast is truly grasping at straws. She is done; she is unelectable. She is hoping now that pandering to the tribe will turn the tide.

Posted by LanceThruster | March 26, 2008 1:18 PM

No one here has yet to find a link to the Clinton campaign. But who cares? It fits the narrative so no proof is needed.

If any story is perceived to damage the Obama campaign, it is assumed that the omnipotent HRC is behind it all.

Posted by ClareA | March 26, 2008 2:57 PM

Is the following quote in the AS fabricated? I don't see it in the interview they cite as their source for most of the other quotes...

"Let's say that one of your abiding concerns is the security of Israel as opposed to a purely American self-interest, then it would make sense to build a dozen or so bases in Iraq. Let's say you are a born-again Christian and you think that Armageddon and the rapture are about to happen any minute and what you want to do is retrace steps you think are laid out in Revelations, then it makes sense".

Posted by Paul B | March 26, 2008 3:16 PM

Like many on this thread, I am suspicious of the unsourced nature of the accusation. Unlike so many of the Obama supporters, my memory is longer than 1 week. I remember when news reports claimed that the Hillary campaign was sending out photos of Obama dressed in African gear as a racist ploy, based solely on carefully worded Drudge innuendo.

I also remember Obama himself reinforcing that false claim, which is when I began to suspect that he was a snake oil salesman. Then I found out his campaign was the one pushing the "Hillary is racist" story to the press. So ya, I think 1) the media loves hating Hillary; 2) Obama is not only an empty suit, he's a lying, manipulative, disingenuous candidate; and 3) his supporters are being hoodwinked by a man who's already in the pockets of Wall Street.

And we'll still lose this election, because when the dismal economy is the major issue in this race, Obama has no credible comeback to the "experience" argument, despite the fact that McCain's economic philosophy is quite literally stupider than retarded.

Posted by Wowsas | March 26, 2008 3:33 PM

This American Spectator article is simple more disinfo in which to get the Obama campaign tangled up. It's another faked documents setup like the Niger docs thing, the Dan Rather setup and the Bush wearing a wire during the debates thing. A UFO chase from the racists that got us stuck in Iraq, designed simply to inject race into the Hillary/Obama show down.

Posted by Jim | March 26, 2008 4:14 PM

Let me just state at the outset that I am Jewish. Let me state, also, that my homeland is the United States -- NOT Israel. Therefore, my first priority -- as an American -- is whather American foreign policy is in line with American national interests.

To a great degree, Israel and America's interests are in sync. But, not comoletely. Israel has different interests than we do. And that is perfectly fine. It is also perfectly fine that Israel should seek to influemce US foreign pllicy to be in line with their national security interests. And, it is also fine for some Americans -- Jews and non Jews -- to advocate on behalf of policies tehir believe are in both the US and Israel's national interests.

But, when an American crosses the line from advocating on behalf of Israel's interests, at the expense or in opposition to US national interests -- I have a problem with that.

And I find that thsoe people who are doing so are treh firsat to cry "Antisemitism!" when you call them on it. That's not an argument in favor of your position. That's an attempt to intimidate people from questioning your position.

Finally, two can play at this game of "whose advisor is more anti-Irsael than who's."

Hillary ain't exactly pristine on this. No less a staunch supporter of Israel than Martin Peretz actually found Bill Clinton's advisors more troublesome than Obama's.

There are all kinds of spooky rumors that a man named Robert Malley is one of Obama's advisers, specifically his Middle East adviser. His name comes up mysteriously and intrusively on the web, like the ads for Viagra. Malley, who has written several deceitful articles in The New York Review of Books, is a rabid hater of Israel. No question about it. But Malley is not and has never been a Middle East adviser to Barack Obama. Obama's Middle East adviser is Dan Shapiro. Malley did, though, work for Bill Clinton. He was deeply involved in the disastrous diplomacy of 2000. Obama at the time was in the Illinois State Senate. So, yes, this is a piece of experience that Obama lacks.

And lest we all forget the famous incident where Hillary kissed Yassar Arafat's wife.

Oooooohhhhh! Scary!!!

And how about these scary quotes:

Some Palestinian terrorist leaders stated their support of [Hillary] Clinton, in part, stems from hopes she will apply some of her husband's foreign policies, particularly toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"I hope also she will maintain her husband's policies regarding Palestine and even develop that policy," stated Brigades chiefton Senakreh.

"President Clinton wanted to give the Palestinians 98 percent of the West Bank territories. I hope Hillary will move a step forward and will give the Palestinians all their rights. She has the chance to save the American nation and the Americans life.”

Ramadan Adassi, leader of the Al Aqsa Brigades in the Anskar refugee camp in the northern West Bank, said he, too, backs Hillary and hopes she will continue the "legacy of her husband" regarding support for a Palestinian state.

Staunch supporters of Irsael, should be very concerned that Palestinain terrorist leaders support Hillary's candidacy.

That would bother me a lot more than Merrill McPeak's statements. But, hey, I'm not a Hillary apologist or nutcase.

Posted by Hesiod | March 26, 2008 4:23 PM

The sooner it is realized that ISRAEL IS THE PROBLEM POINT BLANK in American MidEast policy where any criticism is ruthlessness denied and its critics as peaceloving without a bone of violence in them as they maybe (Pope JP II, Desmond Tutu, Arun Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Jimmy Carter) are all savagely attacked by its rabid Christian and Jewish Zionists cohorts (such as Dershowitz, Marc Levine, Hannity, Medved, Santorum, Ros-Lehtinen, the list is endless).

The one thing the lobby knows how to do is attack with such militancy and character assissinations that free speech" is suppressed. Those who don't toe (i.e. have sympathy of Palestinians) the line are dubbed anti-Semitic, and all of their subsequent work dismissed as being one arising not by reasoned thought but one from pure hate. Don't believe this? Just ask the once well respected Professors Walt and Mearsheimer. Or the courageous Jewish, Holocaust surviving, DePaul University Professor and critic of Israel: Norman Finkelstein.

When liberals and progressive stand up and say enough is enough, and prevent the Israeli supporters from framing the debate, then and only then will America come even close to fulfilling an iota of even-handedness, fair-play, and justice for which Muslims and other Middle Easterners desperately seek.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/fisk/robert-fisk-the-only-lesson-we-ever-learn-is-that-we-never-learn-797816.html

Posted by Asish | March 26, 2008 5:17 PM

I'm Jewish and couldn't care less about Israel, but this is pretty tacky:

The Oregonian interviewer asked McPeak whether the problem in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict originated with the White House or the State Department.

"So where's the problem?" the interviewer asked.

McPeak replied, "New York City. Miami. We have a large vote – vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it."

_____________________

I mean, that's like if Bill came out and blamed his wife's political troubles on "the ghetto vote."

Posted by Asher | March 26, 2008 8:47 PM

I don't know who speaks on these blogs, but just about every jewish democrat I have talked to is scared about Obama. They don't belive he hates jews. They just believe he won't stand up to Anti-Semitism.

There is no sin in wanting a Middle East Peace to Jews. But Wright and Farrakhan go well beyond that. They preach hatred and Obama never stood up to it.

Remember we are electing a president, not a "good guy." We already have one of them in the white house.

Posted by Craig | March 27, 2008 1:00 AM

You are libeling Mr. Ambinder:

"The Clinton campaign is distributing an article in the American Spectator (!)"

What is your basis?

Where is your evidence?

Posted by Jeff Godl | March 27, 2008 1:10 AM

It just keeps comin'. Jewish Telegraphic Agency was fed a story (by Clinton? someone in the right-wing Israel lobby?) that Wright's Church's newletter reprinted an LA Times op ed by a Hamas rep asking why Hamas should have to recognize Israel BEFORE negotiating with it. For this, Obama has to apologize!? But he did, unfortunately backing himself into a corner which may prove embarrassing should he ever become president & decide we have to talk to Hamas (which even a former Mossad director publicly advocated in an Israeli paper!). I've linked here to the story in my blog.

Posted by Richard Silverstein | March 27, 2008 1:58 AM

"I think Hillary plans on putting Linda Tripp on her campaign."

Well done on the Hillary Hate!

Driving the Clintons from public life can only help Democrats in the fall! That, and Lord Kos's masterful 48-state strategy of disenfranchising FL and MI.

Posted by Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA | March 27, 2008 2:17 AM

Nice Red Herring Mr. Ambinder, but the problem is not advocacy for one border or another.
The problem is that Obama has appointed advisers, a disproportionate % of whom either frankly have supported the THESIS of Walt and Smearsheimer which is the Protocols of Zion Lite, or have a parallel philosophy - their main claim (jews have dual or horrifically distorted loyalty). This is PRECISELY where McPeak fits.

Malley, Powers, Rice, Zbig, McPeak. These appointments of advisers, voluntarily made, have meaning.

You know McPeak's statement and you actually HARM the cause you are defending by trying to draw attention away from the underlying code such as those of McPeak and others of his ilk, Obama has chosen, which unfortunately echoes LOUDLY those of his pastoral mentor of 20 years, trying to place that attention of the BORDERS ?? Are you kidding me? That is tactically trying to obviate the truth.

Which is to say .... JEWS ARE THE PROBLEM (in the middle east too).

If we observe what Obama DOES (appointments and remaining in that pew) rather than what he says NOW no one can deny serious questions arise over his real feeling about the jews.

And we haven't even mentioned his comments when running for senator to the author of Electronic Intifada Ali Abunimah..."Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front."

These are the facts.
They are unfortunate.
They must be faced.
Obama HAS a jewish problem because his history and his appointments cannot be wished away.

Posted by epaminondas | March 27, 2008 6:16 AM

Gee the day after meeting with Scaife an arm of his media empire starts posting Anti-Obama peices.

Posted by Jimmy Crackcorn | March 27, 2008 12:04 PM

As I see it, there are two very important issues here.
(1) An attempt to color a candidate with the opinions of his friends and advisors. I’m sure that if we looked at the ideas and opinions of everyone who surrounds any person we would find a tremendous divergence of opinions. So what?
(2) We are now facing a very dangerous threat to both our freedom and democracy. Democracy does not function if the people are kept in the dark as to what is really going on. This is evidenced by the fact that we ended up in a terrible war because President Bush gave us false information about the threat that Iraq posed. Even the best-intentioned people in the world will make bad decisions if they are fed false information.
For the last 40 years the Arab/Palestinian world has been spending millions of dollars to create a revisionist history of the Middle East. Their falsified view has become so pervasive that most people think it is the truth. It is not. Every time the media or a politician shows sympathy and support for the plight of the “Poor Palestinians” who are, in fact just Jordanian and Egyptian Arabs, they are encouraged to embark on more terrorist attacks. That is a fact. This in turn causes Israel to step up her defensive actions and as a result more innocent Arabs and Israelis are killed.
I do not condemn Americans for feeling sympathy for a people who are hurting. That is both noble and desirable. Our problem is: the cause of their hurt is the Arab governments who urge them to act like biker-gangs with no regard for the rule of law and see violence as the preferred way of disagreeing. Yes they are hurting but imagine what action you would recommend if one out of every 20 Hispanics in America was blowing up shopping malls and randomly shooting women and children. Do you think somebody might get hurt when you try to find and stop them?
If we allow ourselves to be comfortable being misinformed, we will continually do what the richest interests and lobbyists want us to. As a result it is my opinion that a democratic government should only be granted to a population who, as a whole, take the time to get their facts right before they run off at the mouth or vote. It is a grave responsibility. Are we up to it?
David Bender

Posted by David Bender | March 27, 2008 12:42 PM

The true Obama has finally emerged, and thank God, before he has become the Democratic nominee.

He is a racist and anti-semite and has no problem associating with those that are. Obama is a great orator, gives a fantastic speech, but fools only the fools. He talks the talk, but was and never will be able to walk the walk. After almost 8 years oa BUSH/CHENEY, the last thing we need in the White House is McCain (who is nothing more than a continuation of Bush) or a racist, anti-semite and God knows what else.

GIVE IT UP BARACK!

Posted by Tony C. | March 28, 2008 9:38 AM

I'm a registered Democrat who voted for Bill Clinton. but I am really starting to believe that all in all, the Clinton legacy was a net negative:

Clinton greenlighted the loophole that allows SUVs to pollute more than cars. We're polluting more than ever in the US - primarily due to transportation.

Clinton repealed the National Bank Act of 1933, paving the way toward the global financial crisis of today.

Clinton greenlighted laws allowing companies to create and distribute bio-engineered Frankenfoods. Bees and now bats are suddenly dying en masse. Call me crazy, but I think it's related.

Clinton appeared on the Rush Limbaugh show on primary day in Texas. Previously, Limbaugh had encouraged Republicans to temporarily switch parties and vote for Hillary. This could be considered vote fraud.

Clinton and his wife are now doing a good job tearing down the Democratic Party, despite the fact that there is virtually no chance that Hillary could win this thing now.

On the plus side - Clinton road a speculative stock market bubble that made people feel and act rich for a few years.

Clinton's legacy is tarnished forever, in my eyes and in the eyes of many others I suspect.

Posted by Jake | March 28, 2008 12:25 PM

To David Bender, I respectfully disagree. It's all about body counts. The number of dead Palestinian children, killed by Israeli soldiers, dwarfs the number of dead Israeli children and adults combined. The Palestinians aren't angels but neither - clearly - are the Israelis.

You say that the Arab world has spent "millions" on revisionist history over the past 40 years. I would submit that the US-funded Israeli government has spent hundreds of millions on revisionist history during the same time period.

There are two sides to this story. Those who would deny this are truly misinformed.

Posted by jake | March 28, 2008 12:34 PM

"An attempt to color a candidate with the opinions of his friends and advisors"

You mean like Rumsfeld?
You mean like Feith?
You mean like Cheney?
You mean like (FILL IN THE OBJECTIONABLE NAME)

What do you think happens to the main advisers at the end of a successful campaign?

Nothing about the people around Obama colors him, it is his personal opinions which select those advisers. He has MADE his bed, just as he did voluntarily across a generation's time with Wright.

Posted by epaminondas | March 29, 2008 8:31 AM

I am a Jew, I DO care what's going to happen to Israel, and I am ashamed of American Jews who do not.
Israel SHOULD NOT give up ANYTHING. The twisting arms should stop, and should stop now. No concessions any more.
Can anyone give a good example of anything good coming out concessions made by a winner?
Can anyone give an example of anybody who won a war, giving back their winnings? It did not happen with England or China, or Japan, or Russia, or ……..
Why should it happen to Israel? Is it because the whole world hates Jews? It will continue this way until we let them. There are too many indifferent Jews are among us, and will lead to wiping us from the face of the earth.
As far as Obama concerns: God save America! I think that says it all.
Thank you for your attention and time.

Posted by Beth Shebaram | April 13, 2008 1:28 PM

I am a Jew, I DO care what's going to happen to Israel, and I am ashamed of American Jews who do not.
Israel SHOULD NOT give up ANYTHING. The twisting arms should stop, and should stop now. No concessions any more.
Can anyone give a good example of anything good coming out concessions made by a winner?
Can anyone give an example of anybody who won a war, giving back their winnings? It did not happen with England or China, or Japan, or Russia, or ……..
Why should it happen to Israel? Is it because the whole world hates Jews? It will continue this way until we let them. There are too many indifferent Jews are among us, and will lead to wiping us from the face of the earth.
As far as Obama concerns: God save America! I think that says it all.
Thank you for your attention and time.

Posted by Beth Mishebarem | April 13, 2008 1:30 PM

It will be hard for Obama to sway the Jewish vote because he isn't Kosher and his association with his pastor who preached that the land of Israel is land stolen from the Palestinian with the help of the British Israel and Balfour doctrine. Wright also believe that modern day Israel has no kinship with Abraham nor are they Shemitic.
http://joeland7.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/is-modern-israel-in-bible-prophecy/

Posted by CB | May 22, 2008 11:27 AM

No matter how much the pattern of unsavory Obama associations keeps growing and growing, Obama and his supporters continue to ignore it, or to make excuses for it, or blame the rest of us for not interpreting it properly. However, it's becoming increasingly clear that the real Obama, not the one he keeps projecting to us, is a radical left wing extremist, who disrespects all the American traditions and values that the rest of us hold dear. Obama is not even close to being the right stuff to become President of the United States ... and Commander and Chief. I don't blame the Jewish community for not trusting Obama.

Posted by Howard | May 22, 2008 9:57 PM