Marc Ambinder (March 25, 2008) - Obama And The Jews

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