McCain Steps Up Outreach to Jewish Democrats

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:14:02 PM EST
Tags: John McCain, Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

John McCain is going after the Jewish vote. He's attracting some major Democratic donors, including one who gave $80,000. to the DNC in 2000. Why? Israel.

Jewish Democrats are concerned about Obama for several reasons. While stumping in Iowa last year, Obama told Democratic activists, “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.”

Some Jewish voters interpreted the statement as a sign that Obama would be overly sympathetic to the Palestinian side in future peace negotiations with Israel. And some are concerned about a senior Obama adviser’s comments regarding the influence of American Jews on foreign policy. Merrill “Tony” McPeak, the former Air Force chief of staff, told the Portland Oregonian newspaper in 2003 that the political influence of the Jewish community had hampered efforts to negotiate peace in the Middle East.

More...

Obama has also caused some alarm among Jewish Democrats by pledging to negotiate with leaders of nations that have taken hostile stances against Israel, such as Syria and Iran.

One state that will be tough for Obama if he loses its Jewish vote: Florida. McCain is hitting it big. According to one McCain fundraiser:

“In Florida there are a lot of people not happy with Obama’s stance with regards to Israel and regards to Cuba. We’re starting to see some significant people come over. “Democrats who are traditional large Democratic givers are coming over to our side."

....Jewish support is especially important in Florida, a crucial swing state where Obama trails McCain in recent polls. Jewish voters make up about 5 percent of the electorate in that state. Florida’s Jewish community is also a lucrative source of political fundraising.

McCain's fundraiser is trying to spin that Hillary supporters are going to McCain. Prominent Democrats deny it:

“I’ve talked to a lot of people in the past couple of days and I have not spoken to anybody who was supporting Hillary Clinton and who has indicated any likelihood of supporting McCain,” said Steve Grossman, a former co-chairman of the Democratic National Committee and a former chairman of AIPAC, who raised tens of thousands of dollars for Clinton this election cycle.

< Obama Says Faith Community to be a Priority of His Administration | Foul Called in Officiating of 2002 NBA Playoff Game >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

McCain Steps Up Outreach to Jewish Democrats | 105 comments (105 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

It's also important in PA.. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by masslib on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:16:56 PM EST

Quick, name me the Democrat who won the WH without recieving the Jewish vote in the high 80's since Woodrow Wilson? I do believe there was one.

Many of them (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by A little night musing on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:47:17 PM EST

See here:

Jewish vote in Presidential Elections

Only FDR and Johnson got upper 80s or more (up to 90%)


: Hmm. Well, I stand corrected. (none / 0) (#49)
by masslib on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:53:43 PM EST

Someone told me that. I guess they were wrong.

Carter? (none / 0) (#10)
by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:27:05 PM EST

I think so. I believe he won enough (4.00 / 1) (#17)
by masslib on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:32:54 PM EST

of the evangelical vote to make up for it. I could be wrong about that, but I don't think I am.


I had read that no Democrat won (4.00 / 1) (#19)
by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:34:47 PM EST

without the level of support you mention, but I figured that Carter would have been the least popular with Jews of the Democrats who got elected.


Apparently, whomever told me that (none / 0) (#50)
by masslib on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:55:29 PM EST

got it wrong. See below. I stand corrected.


: But I was right. Carter did get the lowest (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:56:21 PM EST

%age, among the winners.

Wonder How Jewish Voters Will React (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by MO Blue on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:20:41 PM EST

to Obama's outreach to the religious right. The combination of worry about his commitment to Israel and courting the far right evangelicals might lose him even more support.

Well, this Jew is equally turned off (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by shoephone on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:26:54 PM EST

by both McCain and Obama, for many reasons, some having nothing to do with religion.

I have decided that neither will get my vote in November.


That's because of the "change"that's (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by zfran on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:28:44 PM EST

a commin'


: I'm an old fuddy-duddy (5.00 / 8) (#16)
by shoephone on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:30:51 PM EST

I like experience and ability.

Amen to that. (5.00 / 2) (#66)
by Iphie on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:09:57 PM EST

She said ironically. Something that has bothered me for a long time is the number of people who Obama has surrounded himself with who are anti-Semitic. (Many of them are the same people who are also homophobic, which I find equally distressing.) At a certain point the company he keeps does become a problem. Most of the people I spend considerable time with share my values -- I think that's probably true with most people, including Obama.


Heh (5.00 / 1) (#71)
by Steve M on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:28:05 PM EST

As a good liberal Jew, I find it difficult sometimes to tell the difference between people who are actually anti-semitic, and those who have been tarred as anti-semitic just for making some blunt statement about Israel.

I mean, when Wes Clark said that "New York money people" were among those pushing the White House towards war with Iran, was he really being anti-semitic, or was it just a reference to the fact that there are a few Israel hawks who have a huge amount of fundraising power?


Leaving aside the (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by Iphie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:06:30 AM EST

conversation about anti-Semitic tropes about Jews and money, I'm talking specifically about people like Jeremiah Wright, Rev. Meeks, McPeak, Brzezinski,* etc., who have made clearly anti-Semitic remarks. *And about Brzezinski -- it takes an enormous amount of, how shall I say, chutzpah for a Pole to claim that Jews are paranoid about anti-Semitism. Especially one who was born between the two World Wars and saw first hand the build-up to, and the destruction of almost all Polish Jews.


I'd like to think (none / 0) (#89)
by janarchy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:58:44 AM EST

that Wes Clark wasn't being anti-semitic there, especially since his father's Jewish. But it is very hard to tell.


AFAIK, NY money people are not (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by nycstray on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 01:14:07 AM EST

exclusively Jewish, nor is everyone who wants to bomb Iran ;)


: Same here (none / 0) (#93)
by janarchy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:31:14 AM EST

It's just a question of being able to read between the lines. (Then again, I dislike people who get hysterical and play the anti-semite card as much as any other form of 'card')

"NY money people" can also (none / 0) (#109)
by FlaDemFem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:40:18 AM EST

include the people invested in defense companies who would make lots of money out of a new war. Wall Street makes tons of money out of other peoples' misery. No reason to think Clark's statement refers to Jews unless you are one of those people who thinks Jews control all the banks and investment institutions. Then that person would be the anti-Semite, not Clark.


How Jews will react (5.00 / 1) (#94)
by lynnebrad on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 02:40:07 AM EST

I am a Jew. I support Obama. He will be a strong supporter of Israel, but also support negotiating which is something most American Jews support to end this never-ending cycle of violence.

I don't think you can question his "Jewish" cred:

One of his strongest supporters is Robert Wexler of Florida. He is as pro-Israel as anyone in the country and comes from a very Jewish district.
I am from Chicago. Some of Obama's biggest supporters in Chicago are Jewish.

Bottom line: when Jews learn about him and learn more about what other Jews support him, we will vote for him.


Actually (5.00 / 5) (#3)
by Steve M on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:21:26 PM EST

I'm not sure if there's a smear here or if it's simply another case of W.O.R.M., but my understanding is that Obama didn't actually say "nobody is suffering more than the Palestinians," but that "nobody suffers more than the Palestinians from the actions of the Palestinian leaders." Obviously a completely different point, if that's what he said rather than simply what he meant.

To tie this into tonight's other threads, separation of church and state is a huge issue for Jewish voters, because there's so much historical precedent for governments suppressing the practice of the Jewish religion. One reason Jews tend to recoil from the GOP is that talk about school prayer and other issues of that type really freaks us out.

McCain certainly associates with all the wrong people on the Religious Right, but he probably comes across as non-threatening on a personal level because he has none of the religious zeal about him. And with Obama making a conscious choice to go down that road and boast about his status as a "Committed Christian," I could see some Jewish votes bleeding away. And it bugs me to think that there are Obama supporters who believe that any Jewish defections from Obama must be because they secretly believe he's a Muslim or whatever.

There Is Always A Derogatory Reason Why A (5.00 / 10) (#7)
by MO Blue on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:24:52 PM EST

person choses not to support Obama. It is never that a person could legitimately disagree with his words, his actions or his policies.


I heard tonight on Fox that Obama and (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by zfran on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:25:38 PM EST

Lieberman are at odds because Obama campaigned some for Lieberman in 2006, and now Lieberman when asked if Obama was a christen, Lieberman didn't answer yes quick enough.


: That didn't happen (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by daryl herbert on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:46:07 PM EST

The Obama campaign is floating nasty rumors to discredit Lieberman, so he can't do as much damage before November.
Sen. Obama plays rough. When he wants to take someone down, he takes them down. Just look at how hard he came at Sen. Clinton.
Do you remember how his team smeared her as a racist for having the temerity to say that Pres. Johnson used his political power to push through civil rights laws? Standard Obama Operating Procedure. He has a mean streak. It's very Nixonian.

: let's not (none / 0) (#18)
by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:34:10 PM EST

get off-topic to Lieberman and Obama. The topic is Jewish voters and Obama vs. McCain.

Obama is "non-threatening" too (none / 0) (#78)
by Politalkix on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:04:19 AM EST

Please go to the following link
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/204016.aspx
It will be clear that Obama's "religiosity" is "non-threatening" too. I would request all to be a little more informed about Obama before going with "the sky will fall if Obama gets elected" meme on any subject involving him.

Quote from the article
"Obama believes that religious conservatives need to accept the fact that America has evolved and government policies need to encompass all faiths because the country is no longer just a Christian nation"

In Obama's own words
"I think that the right might worry a bit more about the dangers of sectarianism. Whatever we once were, we're no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers. We should acknowledge this and realize that when we're formulating policies from the state house to the Senate floor to the White House, we've got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community."


: I've never attended a Christian church (5.00 / 1) (#102)
by Josey on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:02:07 AM EST

that demonized Jews, Catholics, a particular race, etc. not only from the pulpit, but in newsletters and CDs sold to raise money for the church based on Hate.
WWOD? attend that church for 20 years, then claim ignorance about its teachings.
WWJD? leave that church.
(OK, I admit WWJD is just an assumption) ;>

: In this country we have (5.00 / 2) (#111)
by FlaDemFem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:45:26 AM EST

separation of church and state. Therefore, government policies should encompass all the citizens, not all faiths. Faith should not be a component of any government policy. To make faith a component of a government policy is un-constitutional. A constitutional lawyer should know that. Why doesn't Obama know that?

I think there's no way around the fact... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by Jerrymcl89 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:22:03 PM EST

... that Obama will underperform most recent Democrats among Jewish voters, but how well he limits the damage will be important in the states where they make a difference. I expect he'll do quite well among younger, secular Jews, but the older voters in Florida and the Orthodox sects that often vote in blocs in the New York area are likely to be a problem for him. Democrats may no longer like him very much, but Lieberman is a real asset for McCain in that regard.

Florida (none / 0) (#98)
by Coral on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:19:29 AM EST

Having long family ties in Florida, I believe that Obama simply has to write off the state and look elsewhere for the votes to take the electoral college.

It is a fairly conservative state, with pockets of liberal voters. This year, lots of Florida Democrats are completely disgusted with the national Democratic party. Jewish voters in Florida that I know, lean toward McCain. Israel is the main reason, but distrust of Obama's religious rhetoric is another.

If he wins Florida in this election--even by a small margin, he will sustain a landslide victory nationwide.


: disenfranchisement (none / 0) (#105)
by p lukasiak on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:24:26 AM EST

One also has to wonder about the impact of Obama's efforts to disenfranchise Florida's voters -- Jewish voters favored Clinton over Obama by more than two to one, and Obama's efforts to keep them out of the convention -- and then his efforts to ensure that they are treated as only "half-voters" because of their support for Clinton -- may well have soured many Jewish voters on Obama (and Democrats in general)

This is so upside down (5.00 / 7) (#6)
by bjorn on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:24:09 PM EST

McCain with the Jewish voters, Obama with the Christian right...I am confused.

: Arn't we all. (5.00 / 3) (#12)
by Rhouse on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:28:00 PM EST

: Well After All This Is The NEW Democratic Party. (5.00 / 6) (#15)
by MO Blue on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:29:57 PM EST

In many ways, Obama has been an agent of change at least with regards to the make up of the Democratic Party.
Not a change I believe in but unfortunately approximately half of the party and Dem leadership seems willing to go along with any thing that Obama wants.

Controlling the Message (5.00 / 4) (#22)
by fctchekr on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:35:59 PM EST

It's not at all inconceivable, at this point in the race to the White House, loyal long time Democrats may find it hard to believe anything Democratic party officials have to say.

What's interesting is Obama actually needs a couple VPs, one to help with the Jewish and Latino problem in Fl, one to help with the working class whites in Appalachia and maybe another for the mid-eastern swing states. I don't think there's anyone person on his list that could possibly fill the bill, except maybe one...

: That is the unfortunate consequence of (5.00 / 3) (#57)
by Valhalla on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:59:34 PM EST

multipandering. You need so many more bodies than usual to keep it all in the air.

Have mercy. (5.00 / 10) (#36)
by eleanora on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:45:27 PM EST

Hillary's only been out since Saturday, and already I'm getting totally creeped out by the way this is going. Religion everywhere--didn't we used to have a war going on or something? And I seem to dimly remember something about the economy.

: Amen. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by A little night musing on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:50:45 PM EST

[heh]

: This is totally freakin' me out! (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by Grace on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:01:28 PM EST

I can't stand to see religion get mixed in with politics!
Just say "No!"

: The religion issue (5.00 / 3) (#99)
by Coral on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:25:08 AM EST

has been one of the major reasons I've never been drawn to Obama.
Everytime I manage to talk myself into voting for him in November as the lesser evil, he does something that makes me weigh the option of voting third party as a protest.
This election is one of the saddest I've experienced (other than 2000 with Gore's loss, which was the worst).

The Jewish population may not (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by zfran on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:59:26 PM EST

agree with Bush's policies, and McCain, while courting them, needs to assure them his policies are different. Obama has yet to really court this bloc and he'll paint McCain as being Bush.Don't underestimate the Jewish bloc...they have their own pipeline.

Ugh. (5.00 / 2) (#63)
by A little night musing on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:06:03 PM EST

To repeat what I said in a thread above:

The position Obama articulated in the interview Jeralyn quoted is one that many, if not most (I think it's most but I don't have a poll at hand) American Jews would agree with pretty much. I do, for example.

The political wisdom (if there is any) to McCain's painting himself as a hard-line Likud-like "friend of Israel" for "our" benefit is that, as someone mentioned above, there are geographically concentrated blocks of Jews who do vote that way. Electorially, it may be smart.

[Please don't mistake the views of the often-quoted Jewish "leaders" for the views of American Jews in general.]


: Amen to that (5.00 / 1) (#112)
by fuzzyone on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:59:56 AM EST

As a Jew, and a child of a holocaust survivor, I am thrilled to see a candidate for President who is interested in moving the United States back to a position where it can act as an honest broker in the middle east. Bush has destroyed all U.S. credibility in the region and McCain would be worse if anything. AIPAC does not represent American Jews. And there are those trying to create an alternative, so let me put in a plug for J Street.
Even as we speak it appears that Israel is engaged in negotiations with Hamas on some level. (John Stewart had a great line the other night about how its okay to criticize Israel in Israel, but not here in the U.S.)

Look (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by Steve M on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:00:42 PM EST

I'm not defending the GOP's cynical attempt to wrap themselves in the Israeli flag to woo Jewish votes, but using Israel policy to appeal to Jews is no different than using Cuba policy to appeal to Cubans.

Democrats since Harry Truman have acknowledged our moral responsibility to support the state of Israel. Now, you may see it as a fine line, but I actually see it as an extremely clear distinction between saying something like that, and saying something like "we must support Israel because it is the Holy Land," which would obviously be a church-state violation.

I'm guessing you're responding to my comment... (1.00 / 1) (#69)
by Addison on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:22:36 PM EST

...which was (I'm guessing) deleted because of what appeared to be over-generalizations about the Jewish population. And I have no problem with that (the deletion).

You're holding your position in good faith. I just want to clarify that I don't see it as a fine line, but as a very, very smudgy one. So that was my point and the thought behind my comment.

In (on-topic) regards to McCain's support of Israel, I imagine it's half-martial and half-Hagee pandering. I don't know how that will play out.


the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#60)
by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:02:42 PM EST

was deleted. I found it offensive.


It was also wrong in a key point. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:06:03 PM EST

I have had many secular Jewish friends, and they also cared passionately about Israel.
In fact, IIRC there was an important strain of Zionism which was secular.


: I believe that's correct. (none / 0) (#97)
by Llelldorin on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 04:52:27 AM EST

Jews are an ethnic group, as well as members of a religion. (That's why it makes sense to talk about "secular Jews" in the first place!)
Among the many problems with "self-determination" as proposed after WWI is that it makes no provision at all for ethnic groups that aren't a majority anywhere. A major impetus for Zionism was simply to create an ethnically Jewish nation-state, because in a world of ethnically homogeneous nation-states Jews found themselves out of place nearly everywhere. (A major exception was the ethnically-diverse US, which is why so many Jews immigrated here!) The British made matters much worse in the 1910s and 1920s by supporting both Zionism and Palestinian self-determination, despite the fact that the two goals were entirely incompatible.

Was that mine? (2.00 / 1) (#65)
by Addison on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:08:33 PM EST

If so, sorry. Though, why did you find it offensive? Obviously you have absolutely no need for a reason.


Jewish women gave Kerry (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by Iphie on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:14:41 PM EST

much stronger support than Jewish men (90% of elderly Jewish women and 88% of Jewish women under 30 voted for Kerry). I think his problems with women are going to compound his problems with Jews.

Point of Clarification (5.00 / 4) (#80)
by cdalygo on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:14:25 AM EST

It's not going to be only the Jewish or (even) Cuban vote that takes him down in Florida. It's going to be the entire state after the RBC fiasco.

There's a price to be paid for running roughshod over folks.

Targeting opposing demographic groups is a very (5.00 / 1) (#88)
by Newt on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:46:05 AM EST

tricky thing but I think Obama/Axelrod are taking the wise path of going for young evangelicals first. The more they're exposed to McCain's and the radical right's message in this election cycle, the less likely we'll be able to change their minds later on. The key item with a lot of the religious demographics is the communications channels. The same is not so for the gay vote, mostly because we don't have leadership that communicates to us how we should vote.

Not to be too stereotyping, but evangelicals are known to be, let's say, stubborn in their beliefs. If Obama can capture that "market" he's on the road to undermining the (potential) megachurch and underground religious network's messages against him. Plus it opens up new fundraising opportunities, which he has to tap before the convention to show the DNC they chose the right candidate. And hey, wouldn't it be sweet to use evangelical money to try to capture the Jewish and working class vote later on?

For better or for worse, the Democratic party has previously ignored communities of faith at our own peril. If Obama is able to reach them and get their votes, fine. I'm trusting that the momentum behind him (yup, the old Yes We Can movement) will be the impetus for progressive change even if the evangelicals are expecting something else. What will evangelicals want? The same thing they want from Republicans. Money for votes. I doubt there's any way to stop the so called faith initiatives at this point, so I'd rather the Dem party held the strings.

As far as gay rights go, it was the gay vote that took Clinton into his second term, and where did that get us? Oh yeah, Defense of Marriage Act & Don't Ask Don't Tell (DOMA & DADT). I'm taking my chances on this guy. If I'm wrong, at least we have better communications nowadays to push for the changes ourselves.

: Interesting comment (5.00 / 2) (#100)
by Coral on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 05:33:55 AM EST

Not sure I agree, but I appreciate your point of view.
What bothers me is the faith progressive Obama supporters have in his eventually coming through with progressive policies despite many of his "Republican light" stands on issues...and his vagueness on many others.

: On gay rights... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
by northeast73 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:03:35 AM EST

Dont Ask....that was not what BC wanted. It was a compromise, and at least he got the issue discussed. Blame the Reps and the military for it DADT being the best they got.

: It's a Queer as Folks world now (none / 0) (#113)
by angie on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 12:16:29 PM EST

which is hella different then what the world was like back in the 90s -- there was no "Will & Grace" on the tv then. DADT & DOMA were not what B. Clinton wanted, but they were political compromises that HELPED get this country to the place where it is now with civil unions & states legalizing same sex marriage, etc. Like it or not, some changes cannot just happen over night, some times they have to evolve -- DOMA & DADT, as flawed as they are, were the first steps, and helped prevent constitutional amendments outlawing same sex marriage. I don't see how people cannot understand this.

It's been said with some degree of truth (4.00 / 1) (#11)
by Baal on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:27:54 PM EST

that very few of the elected governments of Israel would pass muster among certain Jewish American voters because they are not sufficiently pro-Israel.

Ba'al you are chattering (none / 0) (#23)
by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:36:54 PM EST

and posting your unsupported opinions as truth. Stop now.


Jeralyn the larger point is clear (none / 0) (#29)
by Baal on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:41:45 PM EST

There is no doubt that McCain will attempt to peel off certain Jewish voters. To a very limited extent he will undoubtedly succeed.

The larger point is whether it is reasonable to attempt to mollify these voters by adopting positions that are not in the best interests of either Israel or the USA.

I argue as a matter of principle that it is not.


: I think Bush Sr. is the last President who (none / 0) (#34)
by MarkL on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:45:22 PM EST

attempted to intervene against the unhealthy expansionist policies of Israel. Unfortunately he backed off, in the end.

I guess you are buying into that anecdotal story (none / 0) (#5)
by Baal on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:22:59 PM EST

in the New York Times about the "Jewish vote" in Florida that is contradicted by available polling.

As for Obama's statement that it is necessary to talk to all parties in the Middle East, that is sanity. We have seen where the Bush/McCain approach is morally bankrupt and ineffective.

If some elements of the Joe Lieberman corps can't see this, too bad.

Uh (5.00 / 5) (#14)
by Steve M on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:29:15 PM EST

Do you even realize Obama has vowed not to talk to Hamas?


yep (none / 0) (#24)
by Baal on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:37:21 PM EST

I disagree with that position.

But I also suspect he won't bomb them.

No such assurances with the other guy.


: Okay (5.00 / 3) (#45)
by Steve M on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:51:11 PM EST

So you acknowledge that when you referred to "Obama's statement that it is necessary to talk to all parties in the Middle East," you were fibbing about his position a little bit, right?

: Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by JavaCityPal on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 11:06:32 PM EST

But I also suspect he won't bomb them.
No such assurances with the other guy.
I'm not so sure Obama can't do more damage in the Middle East with his absence of understanding the region, and his numerous loose statements for what they need.

so... (5.00 / 5) (#27)
by dws3665 on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:39:51 PM EST

reaching out to THOSE religious voters isn't part of his brilliant strategy?

i get so confused. when is it brilliant to reach out to religious voters who do not share the party's values, and when is it not?


: At a guess (5.00 / 6) (#33)
by Nadai on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:45:15 PM EST

when Obama says it's brilliant. Otherwise, it's not. Unless tomorrow he says it is. In that case, it was always brilliant, you just didn't know. </snark>
This is exactly why I want Presidential candidates to have a long, verifiable record. I have no interest in buying a pig in a poke.

From Obama's own mouth (none / 0) (#21)
by befuddledvoter on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:35:42 PM EST

Words, just words:

Jeffrey Goldberg asked him: "Do you think that Israel is a drag on America's reputation overseas?" His answer:

"No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy.

So, Israel is a "constant wound," "constant sore."

Uh (5.00 / 3) (#42)
by Steve M on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 10:50:05 PM EST

This, I am confident, is nothing but a smear. While Obama's wording was slightly clumsy, it's clear that he was saying the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a "constant sore" that makes it harder to fix things in the Middle East, not that Israel itself is a constant sore:

JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America's reputation overseas?
BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable.

The antecedent of "this constant sore" is unclear if that sentence is taken out of context. But look at the rest of the quote. He goes on to argue that "Israel has a security interest in solving this." If "this" supposedly refers to Israel itself, what sense would the final sentence make? It's clear that he's talking about the Palestinian situation.

Google "obama constant sore." The first hit is the interview where he actually uttered the quote in question. Virtually all the other hits are right-wing websites trying to smear Obama by taking the quote out of context.


: Agreed (5.00 / 3) (#51)
by Jeralyn on Tue Jun