Obama In Israel: A Tough Sell As He Moves To Shore Up U.S. Jewish Support
Despite his official reception, it’s a tough sell. Watch the CBS Report below. The Israeli commentator who pointedly insisted on using Obama’s middle name sounds like he’s been listening to too many webcasts of conservative talkers Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity…
Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times reports that Obama is working to shore up his support among Jewish voters in the United States:
Though Sen. Barack Obama drew a warm reception from Israeli leaders Wednesday, the likely Democratic presidential nominee has yet to fire up many Jews back home.
Obama is comfortably ahead of Republican John McCain in polls among Jewish voters. But he is running more than 10 points behind where Democratic nominee John F. Kerry was in 2004, according to several recent polls. He is nearly 20 points behind where Bill Clinton finished in 1992.
Not good stats…
His supporters are hoping the photo ops in Jerusalem and elsewhere can help garner more support from a group that, although it represents just 4% of the electorate, could be critical this fall in close states such as Florida.
“Let’s face it, there’s been some skepticism to overcome,” said Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky, an Obama ally helping his outreach in the Jewish community. “But we’re certainly not going to leave any stone unturned.”
Obama’s critics have sought for months to raise doubts about his support for Israel.
And they will continue to do so. I’m in the middle a massive, 8 week car trip into America’s heartland, and I listen to lots of talk radio on long drives. It’s notable how many conservative talk show hosts and callers talk about Obama’s middle name and pointedly say his full name.
11 Responses to “Obama In Israel: A Tough Sell As He Moves To Shore Up U.S. Jewish Support”
[...] In Israel: A Tough Sell As He Moves To Shore Up US Jewish … the narrator wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThe Israeli commentator who pointedly [...]
Cosidering that any candidate that has a (D) after their name gets about 80% of the Jewish vote, I doubt that there is anything that the Obama campaign has to worry about. No matter what positions Senator Obama takes, Jews are almost as solidly Democrats as blacks.
Yes, the Jewish American vote is largely liberal and Democratic, but some may question two things. First is concern over a possibly wrong-headed, naive, sappy feel-good faith in diplomacy as the principal means of resolving disputes with parties the naive people believe we can trust, or are simply sympathetic to them because they have opposed the USA in the past and have been criticized by the Bush administration (about whom these people are delusional). Second is the concern that a too-liberal Democratic Washington can harm, not improve, the economy. Price controls on prescription drugs, for example, could be disastrous, as would price controls on, say, gasoline, or an attempt to control and command its distribution or allocation. High new taxes would affect not only Republicans but a number of liberal Democratic Jewish and other Democratic voters, too.
That the selection of the next president could depemd on the Jewish vote (or the Cuban exile vote or the Latino vote) is, in itself very problematic.
Everything is about the national interest, until it's conveniently not so.
It's not in our national interest to be beholden to any one voting bloc representing the interests of a foreign country. Foreign policy and our national interest needs to be broad and inclusive, not narrrowly focused and exclusive.
Obama has to accept the political reality as it is now. I hope he won't forget our national interest as it needs to be for the future.
“Everything is about the national interest,”
This nation and its people (and special interests) are far from homogeneous.
'This nation and its people (and special interests) are far from homogeneous.”
Precisely. That;s why we need to define natonal interest as that which serves what we have in common, our common interest, instead of playing one group against another. or making enemies by playing favorties.
The most basic national interest is survival, and to survive a nation need a sense of being united for that purpose. That's the kind of change we need.
“[W]e need to define natonal interest as that which serves what we have in common, our common interest”
That's often the excuse for collectivism and government entitlements. Even if it's called something sweeter like “human needs” [gag].
“instead of playing one group against another. or making enemies by playing favorties.”
As with liberals and their “multi-culturalism uber alles”? And their legendary special-interest-group pandering, I could add? With entitlements and public spending being the common means of securing approval and support?
“to survive a nation need a sense of being united for that purpose”
As we effectively were in the case of Iraq (about what the Democratic black vote share is, in the nineties per cent), and look where that has gotten us.
The last reply in particular is a cheap shot, (all could be said to be so), but also food for thought.
Our common interests or needs are, or at least should be, strictly limited, just as our federal government properly should be limited and minimalist, a government only, not a service agency or surrogate parent intervening in state and local affairs and even into individuals' lives. The trend has been for the latter since we got a modern welfare state in the 1930s and it is regrettable.
“one voting bloc representing the interests of a foreign country”
Note that Jewish Americans put the USA first, not Israel. They are not acting as, as say the true far Right and many on the Left, “agents of a foreign power.”
“Obama has to accept the political reality as it is now. I hope he won't forget our national interest as it needs to be for the future.”
He has many of us concerned that he would neglect or even harm our interests. In the Middle East, these include security of oil supplies and the survival of Israel, the one democratic, highly advanced, and pro-USA-and-Western nation, being so despite having to exist on a continuous war footing that sacrifices some democratic ideals. (I'm also awaiting the report about Israel's conduct in the Territories that the Bush Administration is suspected of planning to suppress because it is critical of Israel.) Iran is a threat to its neighbors and to Israel and to the West and it would be injurious to this nation and its interests to appease Iran outright (which I have come to believe Obama would not do) or to favor it at the expense of Israel (typical US behavior, including by the Bush administration, for oil interests are valued more highly than Israel).
Related to this:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1212…
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004116.html
and FYI,
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004279.html
(What would or should Obama decide about F-22 and F-35 sales in the Middle East and deploying the F-22 in Iraq or even in Afghanistan? What about a US naval presence or Western-forces naval presence in the Persian Gulf? etc.)
DLS-
You have a magical way of avoiding a core issue by redefining it.
Unless it's rabid , laissez faire capitalism, then it's collectivism, socialism, and I expect Hitler to pop up in the next extension of the argument. . I won't dignify that line of thought with a serious reply.
Neither is our national interest dependednt entirely on military strength. We make a ridiculously high investment in military capablities, a the cost of neglecting other forms of national strength. Border to border rockets won't do us any good, if China can crush us economically. A country like China can save money on miltary outlays and achieve the same thing by exploiting our economic weaknesses. I would say, they have the upper hand in planning for their own national interest of survival.
National interests lie in national (not only military) strength. and strength depends on the percentage of the public identifying with the naitonal status quo. Trickle down economics that never trickle down is the antithesis of creating national strength. You'd think the history of revolutions would teach people that, if nothing else can,
We can't sucessfully pursue our national interests abroad if our national strength at home is weak. The fall of past empires has a few lesson about that.
Of course, if you define the national interest, in terms of what's godd for me, me, ne, then all of this will be irrelevant.
So be it.
I'm done.
“You have a magical way of avoiding a core issue by redefining it. “
No, I don't. Nor am I evading it. I'm introducing related, often more interesting, subjects in addition.
“National interests lie in national (not only military) strength.”
It includes a sound economy, which currently depends on secure _and sufficient_ oil supplies, for example.
“We make a ridiculously high investment in military capablities, a the cost of neglecting other forms of national strength.”
That's a myth of the Left, though there is definitely waste and corruption in our acquisition and procurement and various “big” projects, while what is even more important, some of these may be of questionable value or actually detrimental.
“I expect Hitler to pop up in the next extension of the argument. “
Sorry to disappoint you this time — it's one less thing for you to mishandle.