They are the words of confidence, that Obama does not regard commitments trivially, merely politically.

It was a statement of backbone, that he doesn't pander, as much as you "hopefully" infer that of him.

By "hopefully" I mean that you seem to be engaging in a hope for "I told you so", the vindication of all intellectuals, all dissenters.

Israel is wrong when it ignores on intentionally harms Palestine and Palestinians. (I don't believe "intentionally harms" accurately characterizes Israeli policy or actions in the vast majority of cases and proportion.)

But, Israel is NOT wrong when it defends its civilians. It is not wrong to seek to protect its civilians in Sderot and now Ashkelon.

That that rocket fire on civilians is excused and encouraged by a "sovereign" government in Gaza, IS an act of war.

Its really up to Israel to determine how to respond to that. Hopefully effectively, and precisely. Shelling civilians in two cities is not nothing. Its not light.

For the US to assert that "we will assist our ally in self-defense" is a good. For a prospective president to assert that, is a good.

That a "lobby" is insisting on that clarity is a positive feature of democracy, not a liability.

Your reference to "dual loyalty" is still imprecise and dangerous, careless in times when idiots derive permission to undertake cruelty.

Multiple concerns is a good. That people are only interested in dual loyalty, rather than many loyalties, is more a problem to me than the implication that leaders should only pursue the "national" interest.

Do you read yourself Phil?

I don't have a high opinion of Hillary currently, on really any question. She is sounding petty and vindictive.

I think she will concede shortly though, and change her tune.

Maybe not. Maybe the Clintons will comprise a permanently resentful "wing" of the party.

Obama was bullied by Russert and Hillary into spouting the official line vis-a-vis Israel.

Moreover, why Israel comes up in a debate held supposedly to aid Americans in choosing their next president when so many other, more pressing questions were NOT asked, is amazing.

Ralph Nader '08!

Michael Blaine
www.rudelystamped.blogspot.com

But Zionism was/is not an act of war?

Terror, depopulation, transfer?

Colonization is not an act of war?

Acquiring land through violent conflict is not an act of war?

As soon as you realize Zionism is WRONG, Richard, and Sderot was built on ruins of Arab villages, the rockets and bombs might cease.

But as you continue to insist that Zionism is RIGHT, you will continue to be trapped in your cave, like a poor bat with no sonar, instead only Marty Peretz' endless wisdom on the state of Israel, to guide it to freedom.

Poor you.

I just want my government out of the business of supporting Israel.

MB

"I would tell the Jewish community that I am running for the president of the United States, not for the President of Israel."

And they are going to win…

Yes.

However, no candidate can speak of the Jewish lobby except with the phrase "I support Israel unconditionally".

Similar to how during an election, no politician can say that he is against the US economic blockade of Cuba.

Like I keep harping, ethnic lobbies acting on behalf of foreign interests (which may or may not be beneficial to American wellfare and goals, but that's beside the point).

But do not expect a vigorous debate about AIPAC during a presidential election. Lets get real.

Flee!flee! to Israel while you can Witty.
Run quick. LOL