At and After AIPAC: Barack’s Balancing Act

Barak Obama is clarifying for his left wing supporters who are of course his base. Moveon.org was burning up his telephone about 1 minute after the speech until he issued a clarification pacifying his base.

As I have said from the beginning. If you want to really know what kind of president you are electing look at their base. The far left, Michael Moore, Moveon.org types are his base. Thats what you are electing America.

Obama made a mistake by bringing up Jerusalem at all.

It's simply not up to the US to decide what the final resolution of such matters should be in another part of the world. The US should not speak for Israel. Israel should speak for Israel.
The US can not be an effective ally to Israel if it's perceived to be Israel's mouthpiece or Israel's appendage.

It's different when issues actually come up. Then we speak to the particulars;. what we think is acceptable or just, and what is not. That's totally diffferent.

The question of Jerusalem is such an emotional issue, for so many people and religious groups, not just Israelis and Palestinians, that I doubt very much it will come up for actual negotiations any time soon. It's just too complicated and way beyond customary territory disputes. There is no reason for us to state, at this time, what the final fate of Jerusalem should be, When the time comes, and all the considerations are on the table, then it would be different.

I think Obama has a good grasp of international conflicts and US foreign policies, but he may not be fully adept yet at speaking about these matters publically. That's an art GWB never mastered, so I'm happy to give Obama time to adapt and get his sea legs. It's not easy to always hit the right note in choosing when to keep mum, when to speak and how to speak. I hope Obama gets advice from seasoned diplomats. .

Obama said nothing stupid or wrong before AIPAC. But did the stupid blabbers on line and on the airwaves react differently, and stupidly! All kinds of clowns are aghast at Obama's statement about the indivisibility of Jerusalem, as if that is some kind of shocking statement, some outrage, stunning. What planet are they on (the other planet in the degenerates' alternative universe where Israel is evil and its evil enemies are innocent, wonderful people?).

I'm going to keep an eye out here in Detroit for the next edition of one of the Arab-American papers (published in both English and Arabic, with many things common and other things different between the two sections in each edition) for what this specific paper has to say. You see, this paper self-discredits itself and helps boost the post-9/11 overreaction of many toward Arab-Americans (who have a long history in this country and particularly in Detroit metro, which is why at the start of the later Iraq War it was there that Wolfowitz traveled to meet many in this country who were from Iraq,) as untrustworthy. The paper carries extremist, far-out-of-the-mainstream drivel that is similar to the idiocy that we've seen as a reaction to what Obama said about Jerusalem. One opinion, for example, was a sordid Israel-bashing screed by someone published in the past in Pluto Press (an extremist leftist publisher near the Left Pole along with Verso, often outdoing Common Courage and South End Press in extremism and nonsense), and on the very next page was someone referring to "the madman in the White House" and Israel as a "manifestly criminal state."

All the stupid clucking chickens who are Concerned about Obama's Jerusalem statement place themselves with others who already are contemptible and self-discrediting and self-disqualifying.

And what has Obama done, given that these chattering chumps have a lot of camp followers more broadly on the Left (Israel is a PC pariah; the Palestinians can do no wrong, ever)? Why, he and his organization have issued what they call a "clarification." [gag; rolling eyes] Well, he can compete with Clinton and McCain and anyone else in Washington with it comes to BS capability, we now have seen.

(He's all about appearance and style. How slick is not only the rest of his campaign going to be but the first several weeks of his new administration, aided by the media?)

Let him deal with the consequences of his remark among the Arabs in his own way.

Here is Obama's backpedaling and revision (what lightweights call "flip-flop," which is not an intelligent substitute for "reversal," or "sandal" or "thong") of his plain, clear, obvious statement before AIPAC.

His backpedaling is a black mark on him. He has an order of magnitude more Teflon than Reagan ever had (it helps to have the media worshiping you rather than reviling you, for one thing; Obama can do no wrong insofar as his starry-eyed most excited crowd believes, either; they've already forgotten his original statement). He probably still appeals to more people than McCain. But he's not perfect, obviously, no matter how his fellow Dems can [mis]characterize this.

In the larger scheme: he's BSing like any other big-league politico and this is not a show-stopper. It simply should burst the bubble of the out-of-touch Obama Maximum Cheerleaders.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1212...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...


_Definitely_ mastering the art of political BSing. What a lying bunch! [chuckle...snicker] Why employ the Clintons when Obama's gang can hold their own?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06...

If you want to really know what kind of president you are electing look at their base. The far left, Michael Moore, Moveon.org types are his base.

You done pissing yourself yet?

"Obama said nothing stupid or wrong before AIPAC"
_____________________________________________
It was a mistake to bring Jerusalem up, because Obama should have expected that anything said to AIPAC would be subject to emottonal interpretation and misinterpretaion.
Since he did bring it up, it would have been far better if he had taken the time to explain fully and exactly what he meant
The reality is that neither Obama nor any other US presdient can hand Jerusalem over to anyone like a birthday gift. Maybe he thought such an obvious fact didn't need explaining?

So what is all the uproar about, that there wasn't a promise made that no one could keep?
Neither can the US force Israel to make concession it doesn't want to make. That is an inane talking point, turning reality on its head and playing the victim card on an ally (not a nice or wise move, IMO, to anatagonize a principal ally).

Neocon,
MoveOn. org. the far left, Michael Moore, Jane Fonda, Bill Maher, Keith oberman. Maybe we should add socialism, Marxism, and, of course, Stalin and Mao. Hitler should probably and inevitably be added to the list.
Did I leave anything out?
Oh, my son is a little overweight; that probably counts.

There now, feel better?.

Sorry to step on your far left wing toes Chris.

I bet you even voted for Bowling for Columbine and Sicko as movie of the year didnt you??

Oh I see I stepped on Runasim's toes too.

Your characterization of yourself is yours and yours alone. The very fact that you resorted to this mischaracterization of yourself and then ascribed it to me is the exact same thing the far left anti war, BDS crowd have done to anyone right of them since the war started in 2003.

This is further proof that you are as far left as they come. You have adopted as gospel their self abasement in order to illicit responses so that they can then destroy their opponent. GWB. The GOP. Hillary Clinton have all suffered from this. I on the other hand will not subject myself to agreeing or denying what you just ascribed to yourself.

I did not, nor have I ever ascribed to the far left those characteristics you just spouted. If that is how you choose to describe yourself then by all means go for it.

Neocon.
I'm beginning to appreciate your sense of humor, seemingly typed with a straight face.

I just thought I'd save you the trouble of making up a new list every time you allude to anything Obama says or does.

I would prefer to stick to topics, not imaginary evil forces motivating people neither of us knows. But if you must, I've contributed a time saver for you.

I would prefer to stick to topics, not imaginary evil forces motivating people neither of us knows.

I do think this is on topic. The question is why did he backtrack. Issue clarification. I put forth my version of why I think he did it. You choose to then twist it into some demonization that I never said nor even implied. My responses have been on topic. Yours on the other hand have been bizarre self flagulations which quite frankly you should keep behind closed doors.

You continue to use the facade that the far left bds crowd has mastered even when you try a more concillatory approach.

Alluding that anything I say must be imaginary and evil. I did not call the Left wing Imaginary nor did I call them evil. Once again you are ascribing to me that which I did not say nor that which I do not believe.

Are the left wingers even capable of having a discussion without resorting to self abasement and then attempting to claim the opponent is labelling them as evil or imaginary or whatever other strange machinations you have up your sleeve?

This form of argument has served the far left very well these past few years. However it will not work with me because I do not choose to partake in name calling. However if you continue to want to call yourself names or insist that you are seeing imaginary opponents or evil forces at work in my writings then by all means feel comfortable to continue.

Pete, thanks for being clear about your realistic view:
1) Obama states, to standing ovation applause, that Jerusalem will remain united,
2) Later his campaign claims that it is obvious he didn't mean it, that the final status would depend on final negotiations
3) That those who favor a particular politician will, upon hearing of a flip flop/ reversal, claim their candidate is merely being realistic (and nuanced, and sophisticated, and superior).

An honest candidate would take a realistic, nuanced position and try to explain it -- without getting the standing ovation.
Obama prefers the applause to honesty.
Sometimes McCain seems to, as well -- this TMV blog notices it then.
To be honestly "moderate", it should make a better effort to clearly notice when Obama makes a mistake (any statement requiring backtracking "clarification").

The ridicule, here at TMV, shows I need to read more, more often.

But is was more pure opposition to the pro-Israeli unified Jerusalem position than ridicule, I'd say.