Justin Elliott has a nice piece on Obama’s navigations re the Jewish state following his terrible faux pas last year in Iowa when he said that Palestinians are suffering worse than Israelis. Rest assured, Obama’s in the tank. Marty Peretz has pronounced him kosher. In a conference call with Jewish reporters, seeking to counteract malicious rumors about pro-Arab sympathies, Obama said, "I want to make sure that we continue to strengthen the enduring ties between our people and pledge to give real meaning to the words ‘never again.’"
That was not the end of the Holocaust talk. JTA is said to have posted the call, I have not been able to listen to it (the link in Elliott’s story doesn’t work for me) but I am told that in the first five minutes of the call, in which Obama offered prepared remarks, he explicitly couched his support of Israel in Holocaust terms–swinging from his emotional visit to Yad Vashem, to Hezbollah’s rocket attacks, then swinging back to the Holocaust. Says my informant, "the remarks were virtually drenched in Holocaust rhetoric." This is not helpful.
I have fallen in love with Obama along with everyone else, but the calculating call to Jewish reporters–even as he claims to want to end all lobbies’ influence in Washington– seems to offer a window on Obama’s dark side. The rhetoric is exquisite, the symbolism is beautiful, but he doesn’t really have passion about any issue. He’s cold, Observer editor Peter Kaplan observed to me approvingly; and this coldness allows him to play on others’ sentiments.
At Harvard Law School, the Times reported last year, he was great at hearing people out and never committing. The Times described
his seemingly limitless appetite for hearing the opinions of others, no matter how redundant or extreme. That could lead to endless debates… as well as some uncertainty about what Mr. Obama himself thought about the issue at hand. In dozens of interviews, his friends said they could not remember his specific views from that era, beyond a general emphasis on diversity and social and economic justice.
And that was when he was young! Well, everyone has a dark side. I sure hope we get to see his in action. Go Obama.
Related posts:
- Before His Silencing, Wright Likened Obama to Moses and Called ‘Times’ a Jewish Newspaper (I Love This Campaign!)
- How Obama Learned to Love the Israel Lobby
- Russert, Obama and Hillary All Flub the Israel Question
- Obama has fallen into Israel’s trap
- How Will Obama Reprise JFK’s October Surprise (Peace Corps)?
{ 22 comments }
I just love that you're obsessed with me. Thanks!
I've been thinking about this for a while. Because of the electoral politics of this issue, no candidate — and Obama in particular — can afford during a campaign to express anything other than blindly and blanketly "pro-Israel" sentiments.
Any attempt by a candidate to start some kind of real and meaningful dialogue will be drowned out by the lobby's hysterical cries, and most voters — who barely think about these issues but reflexively "support" Israel — will conclude that there is something
dangerously wrong with that candidate.
But with Obama, I sense (maybe incorrectly) that he understands — and even on some level feels — the complexities of the Israel-Palestine situation and that he will behave differently as president. The example in my mind is LBJ, who identified with all minorities thanks to his experience teaching impoverished Hispanic children as a young man in Texas. As he climbed the poltical ladder, he was publicly an arch-segregationist — it was, like the title of his book said, "the means of ascent." But when he had climbed high enough — Majority Leader — he showed his true colors. And the world was a better place for it.
"If Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance — nobody knows how big — that we’ll get universal health care in the next administration. If Mr. Obama gets the nomination, it just won’t happen." Paul Krugman, NYT
I admit that I am becoming more than a little impatient with Barack Obama. The idea that the divisions and contradictions in America, which are real, serious and reality based, can be "healed" by the honeyed words of a few good speeches is an insult — perhaps well deserved — to American intelligence.
America owes much more to African-Americans than gratitude and shame for centuries of unpaid labor. Theirs is 90% of the magic of American identity, substance and style. Without Black America the United States would be some sort of Australia run amok. Among the infinity of cultural gifts that America has received from African-America is a richness of language that other English speakers do not possess and one of the most valuable words of this legacy is the word, "Jive", which Webster defines as, "glib, deceptive, or foolish talk".
I realize that for a white person to apply this marvelous word to any person of color breaks all the rules of political correctness, but as I believe that nurture is more important than nature and as Barack Obama was raised in a white home by white people in places, (Hawaii and Indonesia) where few African-American models existed, I consider that he is culturally as white as or whiter than I am and I have no compunction in admitting that I have never seen such a positively "jive-assed" politician in all my life.
I'm voting for David Seaton!!
Maybe "cold" is what he needs to be in order to cut the funding to Israel — which is the only way anyone's gonna get Israel to move. Every other route is just a waste of time.
The lobby can whine all it wants about this, but in the present economic climate the new president would certainly have cover. What other country 10 trillion dollars in debt would continue to support another country to the tune of 3b a year? Is Saudi Arabia ready to make the US another loan so it can continue to foot Israel's bills?
Don't get spun. Don't get anti-spun, a form of being spun.
A politician has to repeat and to listen to repitition.
If you've ever done any fundraising, or organizing in reality, you KNOW that it is necessary to say and hear things that you've said and heard a thousand times, reiterating them, noting that the idiots will desparately look for inconsistencies in the vain hope of finding that you were a "hypocrite", or "not trustable".
If Obama sincerely believes his comments, and limits his comments to what he believes, and does not falsely adopt positions that conflict with his convictions, he is the right man in my book.
For him to state, "the holocaust was an abysmmal experience that is the fundamental straw that shifted Jewish identity to assertion from passivity", I say "YES, that is definitely true, and supportable".
You, Phil and others, want Jews to regard themselves as assimilated guests (sometimes welcomed sometimes thrown out). I guess that is your right, but its not my view.
"Obama offered prepared remarks, [in which] he explicitly couched his support of Israel in Holocaust terms–swinging from his emotional visit to Yad Vashem, to Hezbollah's rocket attacks, then swinging back to the Holocaust."
What a masterfully sinister use of propaganda techniques.
Good propaganda punches an emotional button to bypass the rational process. Here, Obama evokes the tragedy of the Holocaust (stop thinking and emote!), slips in a contemporary reference to "Hezbollah's rocket attacks," and then segues back to the Holocaust (continue emoting!). Thus programmed, the unconscious mind concludes, "Hezbollah's rockets = genocide."
It's like a planting a cookie in someone's hard drive. I hope Obama was reading from an AIPAC script in that phone call. Because if he's capable of spinning such polished hypnotic induction scripts in off-the-cuff conversations, he's in a different league than most of us.
Obama told Iowa voters: "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people."
Those jews who maintain their eternal loyalty to Israel, and speak of Israel as their homeland, are never going to be seen by most Americans as something other than guests. Why would we ever see those who impose the massive transfer of our(American) resources to Israel as anything else?
Get real, this unAmericanism isn't what we want, it's what many Jews choose to impose upon us all. America used to be referred to as a mixing pot back when it was succeeding. Now the wheels fall off as we have become a hyphenated nation, divided by ethnic differences that refuse to disappear by demanding a variety of special priveleges.
Chuck,
The USA never really was a melting pot, it was just that certain groups were invisible. When they insisted on being visible they became "hyphenated". Nobody calls Mr. Smith an "English-American" and nobody calls Donald Rumsfeld a "German-American"… but after that the Hyphens start.
I see the Military-Industrial Complex kids, the MSM and Cable TV (except C-SPAN, not much glimpsed by everyday working Americans) have already been planting their cookies so we all vote for Tweedledee or Tweedledum. Its a matter of what cookies are not planted as much as what are. Otherwise, Ron Paul would be higher in the election results.
Interesting that Phil's love fades the moment the conspiracy crowd starts to target Obama.
http://sovereignjohn.wordpress.com/2008/02/02/clinton-obama-jfk-and-the-next-terrorist-attack/
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3890
http://www.rense.com/general80/obb.htm
Interesting that Phil's love fades the moment the conspiracy crowd starts to target Obama.
http://sovereignjohn.wordpress.com/2008/02/02/clinton-obama-jfk-and-the-next-terrorist-attack/
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3890
http://www.rense.com/general80/obb.htm
Aha, I finally found out what makes people post their mails twice or threefold.
No need to type the the letters and numbers pass combination again, simply move backwards.
Concerning the next president.
What is really alarming is how the mainstream media, including cable TV (except C-SPAN, which most people never heard of, nor have the time to look at) have ignored Ron Paul. Is this the USSR or the USA? The power groups just get more sophisticaed. The result is the same re status quo. American bankruptcy will eventually come. People will look for scapecoats. So, what's new?
I didn't use to think of myself as an English-American, but, because of all the diversity talk, and because my ethnicity is losing power, I do now. We no longer are a market dominant majority.
As Robert Putnam noted, when diversity increases people withdraw and hunker down.
I think the US may well end up like Ireland, Yugoslavia, Darfur, Kenya.
"The rhetoric is exquisite, the symbolism is beautiful, but he doesn't really have passion about any issue"
Well perhaps one personal issue… something to do with becoming the president of some country or some such…
How far have we fallen in the Yoo Ess of Ey that a smooth talking politician is the toast of the town because… he is a good orator, a great demagogue, and can give great public speeches.
After bush jr. a dog would be a better candidate…
On the other hand the Obaminator was quite vocal about his anti Iraq war stance, and also seems to be disliked by the establishment AIPAC Israel first brigade, which gives me hope that perhaps, just perhaps, with him in charge we will not bomb Iran.
Barring a convenient 9/11 part 2 of course.
Time to rewatch the 24 show, with the black president in charge…
It's almost as if the script was pre written…
At this point, I want Obama to win the presidency for, if nothing else, a change in the country's political tone.
McCain or Clinton would be repellent.
As for Obama not revealing his personal opinions in policy discussions, I don't blame him at all.
That's a good way to avoid making enemies.
Michael Blaine
http://www.rudelystamped.blogspot.com
See
"The Real Meaning of 'Anchor Baby'"
at
Rudely Stamped
Michael Blaine
http://www.rudelystamped.blogspot.com
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/20080205obamamuslim.html
GOP Jews slam Obama on Muslim summit
By Published: 02/05/2008
Republican Jews assailed U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for saying he wanted a summit of the United States and Muslim nations.
Obama, a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, said in a recent interview with Paris Match magazine that he wanted such a summit to start "honest
Font size: Change Font Size to Small Change Font Size to Medium Change Font Size to
discussion about ways to bridge the gap that grows between Muslims and the West."
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4940
"On balance, it appears likely that a Hillary Clinton administration, like Bush’s, would be more likely to embrace exaggerated and alarmist reports regarding potential national security threats, to ignore international law and the advice of allies, and to launch offensive wars. By contrast, a Barack Obama administration would be more prone to examine the actual evidence of potential threats before reacting, to work more closely with America’s allies to maintain peace and security, to respect the country’s international legal obligations, and to use military force only as a last resort.
Progressive Democrats do have reason to be disappointed with Obama’s foreign policy agenda. At the same time, as The Nation magazine noted, members of Obama’s foreign policy team are “more likely to stress ’soft power’ issues like human rights, global development and the dangers of failed states.” As a result, “Obama may be more open to challenging old Washington assumptions and crafting new approaches."
Gone for a while. Maybe I can't judge:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/blogs/wolcott/2008/02/so-spurn-me-i-v.html
Comments on this entry are closed.