He is NOT a radical, except in the sense of willingness to think fresh.

If Hillary buries the hatchet, she will play some powerful role relative to the Obama administration, either as a prominent cabinet position, or as a prominent democratic leader in the Senate.

She only has bridges to burn at this point, whether she is a player during the Obama administration or a grumbling outsider.

Only if she has addictive vain lusts for power would she choose to not support his stated objectives and means to them.

Mark Shields takes issue with a Clinton adviser’s suggestion that “the role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel”:

If Israel decides to bomb and invade Lebanon again, or any place else, is it the duty — by this “Clinton Doctrine” — for every American president to uncritically rubber-stamp such a unilateral action? The same United States that fought for its independence some 233 years ago will now surrender that independence without even a whimper of dissent to a foreign country in the combustible Middle East?

We wait in vain for McCain or Obama — two men whose campaigns remind us regularly that they reject “politics as usual” — to publicly repudiate “the Clinton Doctrine” that the United States president’s role is to give every Israeli government a green light, carte blanche and this nation’s proxy. Where is the leadership?

The difficult questions will be what does that look like, and how will it get implemented in fact.

I am however convinced that in the long run the Democrats will go back to their populist and nationalist (Jacksonian) base and the Republicans to their Whiggish and internationalist roots. Jews will be happier in the second group not just because the renewed Democrats will harbor anti-Semitic tendencies but also because the Republicans will promise the vision of an elitist, merit-based society, which the Jews will find most attractive. Having tasted power recently Jews are not likely to have much appetite for a fairer, egalitarian society.

I am just waiting for the same laws to be enforced for Jews as are for non-Jews.

How would Obama be treated if he were to meet with al-Walid bin Talal?

Would the FEC spring into action if the Saudi Prince had injected his money into the campaign?

Guess what! I can trace the pattern of external Zionist manipulation of US elections back to the 40s while Jewish subversion (mostly for Soviet Communism) goes back to the 20s.

The IDF is by any criterion much more of a terrorist organization than the IRG.

All American Jews (like Haim Saban) that have served in the IDF should be arrested under the anti-terrorism laws. All their assets should be seized just as we treat American Muslims that give material aid to Kashmiri freedom fighers.

Guess what.

We Americans don't really have a dog in the Kashmir race, but the State of Israel has been attacking US assets since the 1950s and undermines our foreign policy position.

Isn't it time for equality between Jews and non-Jews in the USA?

And Richard, I can't wait until you start doing your time in Guantanamo or some similar facility.

Whem the reckoning comes, I wonder what will will be the proper sentence an ex-President that served as Quisling to Sharon's Judeo-Hitler?

Here is Wikipedia on Quisling:

In the course of the treason trials following the war, Quisling, along with two other Nasjonal Samling leaders, Albert Viljam Hagelin and Ragnar Skancke, was convicted of high treason and executed by firing squad at Akershus Fortress on October 24, 1945.

Here is Wikipedia on Petain:

In 1945, Pétain was tried for collaboration (or treason), convicted and sentenced to death by firing squad. Charles de Gaulle, who was briefly Prime Minister at the end of the war, commuted the sentence to life imprisonment on the grounds of his age and his Great War (World War I) contributions.

—–

Please note that Zionist punditry has no problem with flinging baseless accusations of treason and demanding imprisonment or deportation.

As far as I am concerned, turnabout is fair play.

"In a recently posted piece that has drawn significant attention as one of the best defenses yet penned of Israel's actions in Lebanon, world-renown Princeton University Philosopher Michael Walzer argued that Israel's overall strategy fit the criterion for a Just War, despite the disproportionate civilian toll its attacks have taken and the wholesale destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure that came with it. (See link to tnr.com
for the posting.)

Walzer's article, and the logic and argumentation it contains, reflect the thinking of the liberal, or Democratic establishment about the current war in Lebanon. His ideas are crucial because his reputation attaches to them a legitimacy that allows the liberal/Democratic establishment to continue with its policy of supporting Israel regardless of its actions" – mark levine, re leb assault, 2006

"how much of the billions made by milchan, saban, arison, and other israeli-"americans" (or maybe to jews in america to support israel) come via israel? an economic policy of sorts. money from american taxpayers to israel returned to start businesses to influence policy to take power