May 1, 2007
Obama's gaffe?
Susan Estrich faults Sen Obama for his inexperience.
Sure, he said that Israel is an important ally, but his clarification of his "poor Palestinians" comment only left him further in the hole. His point, he emphasized, was that no one had suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failures in Palestinian leadership.That’s not exactly how I see it, or how many Jewish Americans see it. I don’t think suffering is a contest in which special recognition goes to those who have paid the highest price. The right answer is that there has been plenty of suffering on both sides.
The Palestinians may be suffering more in the sense that their standard of living is lower, but whose fault is that? Talk to any Israeli family who has lost a friend or family member to Palestinian terror –- and that means any family in Israel –- and, believe me, they won't cede the prize for the most suffering to the Palestinians.
And they will point out, rightly, I think, that it is the Palestinians and not the Jews who have chosen these terrible leaders and remained loyal to them. Doesn't that count for something?
She argues that by mishandling the answer Sen Obama may hurt himself in the future.
Mere Rhetoric, though, sees his answer as indicative of a bigger problem.
The debate about whether the US should keep supporting Israel turns on whether it's worth the trouble of pissing off Islamists in a post-Cold War, post spheres-of-influence age. While Israel may have been worth the trouble in the past, the emerging realist-Democratic alignment is that times have changed. The Althouse transcript is certainly more consistent with the general tone that Obama's been striking. It'd be nice to get this nailed down so we can know which side Obama is on - or, at the very least, which side he's paying lip service to.Posted by SoccerDad at May 1, 2007 5:17 AM | TrackBack
Barack Obama
Out of sitemeter
Hamas's novelty wears off
Council speak 09/14/08
Still not barking
The Media and The Hubris of Hope?
Osama didn't bark. why not?
Palin's coming out party
I go flying so high
A piece of peace
Seven year ago plus
Maybe he was just repeating what he heard the great condi rice say:
"I can only tell you that I, too, have a personal commitment to that goal because I believe that there could be no greater legacy for America than to help to bring into being a Palestinian state for a people who have suffered too long, who have been humiliated too long" - Condi Rice
Posted by: Crier at May 1, 2007 8:46 AMCrier makes a good point. Conservatives would have use believe in the simplistic notion that the GOP is pro-Israel while the Dems are anti-Israel, or at least neutral. Things are not so black and white. There are people on either side of this issue in both parties.
Posted by: Laura at May 1, 2007 12:11 PMWhat's ironic, unless I am mistaken, is that Susan Estrich is the same hyper-liberal Susan Estrich who ran Dukakis' campaign. So for her to call Obama out (which is what I think this is) gives centrist Democrats a hammer to swing, and serves to blunt old static about Hillary's support for a Palestinian static (controversial then but quaint now).
I don't know if Estrich is working for Clinton or is backing her explicitly a la Carville. Do you happen to know, SD?
Posted by: Bruce at May 1, 2007 2:10 PMCrier and Laura,
No I'm not always a fan of everything that Dr. Rice says and that's an example of rhetoric that bothers me. But have I seen anything from her that approaches the behavior of Dr. Albright towards Israel? I haven't.
The problem with Barack Obama is what his omissions say of his commitment or lack thereof towards Israel. I quoted Susan Estrich - a Hillary Clinton partisan - but a Democrat who finds it troubling.
There are those on both sides who are not supportive of Israel, but it is among Democrats where there are more of them these days.
The very fact that the NJDC is dismissing criticism of Pelosi for her fawning meeting with Assad instead of questioning it speaks volumes. The chutzpa of Ackerman who condemn Olmert for supporting the war shows that politics is first.
Albright would never dream of putting her aroums around Arafat the way Rice embraces Abbas every other week.
Posted by: Crier at May 2, 2007 7:44 AMSo every jew in new york can criticize olmert except ackerman?
No one has been a a greater outspoken friend of israel in the US house than ackerman.
Posted by: Crier at May 2, 2007 7:46 AMAlbright (along with Clinton) did all she could to undermine Netanyahu. It wasn't much different from having Bush 41 and James Baker in office, except that their motivation wasn't hatred.
Now Ackerman (and other Congressional Democrats) is criticizing Olmert for saying that he approved of the war in Iraq, and accusing him of trying to help Bush politically. It looks to me that Olmert had no such intent in mind but was saying that from his standpoint, getting rid of Saddam was good for Israel. Ackerman's cynicism is astounding. (If it were Dov Hikind doing the criticism you'd be all over him; even if it were valid.)
Posted by: soccer dad at May 3, 2007 5:46 AMWhy?
Ackerman is head of the us congress committee on the middle east.
Dov hikind is a member of the new york state assembly.
I dont have to agree or disagree with his criticism of olmert, to know that he has a place to criticize olmert if he chooses to. ?
Posted by: Crier at May 3, 2007 11:07 AM