While the President-elect eventually won over most of the American Jewish community by throwing a few folks under the speeding bus and speaking in centrist tones, there have always been concerns by some Israel supporters about his close associations to fervent Palestinians like Rashid Khalidi and anti-Israel advisors like Zbigniew Brzezinski and Andrew Malley.

Caroline Glick does an excellent job of listing those concerns in the Jerusalem Post. You can read that here

If Glick is right and the United States is ready to change its stance towards Israel, this policy will need to be sold to an Israeli government that always puts the safety of its nation first (in other words, we’ll blow up Iranian nukes whether the U.S. likes it or not) and the American People. If he tries to sell that, the only person who could sell it is Hillary Clinton.

While we have had numerous posts on the political implications of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, we haven’t had much discussion about what her presence would mean to Obama administration policy around the world.

While the world is excited about Barack Obama’s election, he has no credibility on the world stage and has not yet earned the trust of our allies. Through her own work and the goodwill former President Clinton has abroad, Senator Clinton has that trust and credibility. Whatever President Obama wants to sell, he may just need Hillary to sell it.

The concern is, would he use her to try and sell this:

As for direct talks with Iran itself, the question immediately arises, what could Obama offer Teheran in exchange for an end to its nuclear program that Bush hasn’t already offered?

What it can offer is Israel.

Over the past few years, Obama’s top nuclear nonproliferation adviser, Joe Cirincione, has repeatedly advocated placing Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the negotiating table and offering it up in exchange for an Iranian pledge to end its nuclear program. Defense Secretary Robert Gates - whom Obama is considering retaining - insinuated in his 2006 confirmation hearings that Iran is only building nuclear weapons to defend itself against Israel. Gates, it should be recalled, has been instrumental in convincing Bush not only not to attack Iran’s nuclear installations, but not to support an Israeli attack against Iran’s nuclear installations.

What is profoundly distressing about statements by men like Cirincione and Gates is what they tell us about the strategic reasoning informing the incoming Obama administration.

Again, I have no idea if this is what an Obama administration will do. Would Senator Clinton as Secretary of State even go along with this kind of policy? What I do know is this, if the new President really wants to change our foreign policy approach radically, John Kerry or Bill Richardson won’t be able to do the job. They can’t walk into a room with other world leaders and say trust me. Hillary Clinton can. That may be why she really is being considered for the job.

Riffing off of the Newsweek editors’ quesiness over the cult of personality surrounding Barack, let me just add that I too think the worshipful descriptions of Barack as a new kind of Messiah is creepy. Guys feeling a tingle up their leg when he talks, swooning women, and fawning reporters is not a healthy situation in a democracy. I was watching the BBC earlier today with the sound off. They played a clip of the former Korean dictator, Kim Il Sung, walking among his people, who cheered and wept at his very appearance. Now, I’m not saying Barack is a Korean dictator, but the mindless praise is eerily similar.

I am amused by the innocent, naive belief by many “Progressives” that their messiah has come and the new era of progressive politics is upon us. One of my Progressive friends sent me the following analysis from Think Progress claiming it is a myth that America is Center-Right:

My friend, who lives in California, was earnest and sincere in sending this along. I sent back a respons–”You have got to be shitting me?” Why? The first piece of evidence is Proposition 8. California, the so-called land of moderate progressives, passed Proposition 8 last Tuesday banning homosexual marriage. Now if that happens in California, what do you think would happen in Kentucky, Kansas or Iowa? At least on the matter of personal sexual conduct when it comes to homosexuality America is very, very conservative.

Personally, I don’t understand why conservatives want to have government regulating conduct between consenting adults. I guess I am a libertarian conservative. I believe that sexual relations between consenting adults is not the business of any government. Worrying about erecting barriers to prevent homosexual men and women from getting married is a silly distraction in a world where we have real problems before us. I am betting that Barack Obama and his team are not going to get out in front of this issue. They will follow the popular will. Rather than try to use the bully pulpit of the White House to make the case that homosexual adults are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual adults, I am betting team Obama will be silent. I think there is some more disillusion coming for the Gay/Lesbian community on this issue.

Looking for a quick withdrawal from Iraq? I don’t think that is going to happen either. In fact, look for team Obama to start making the case that the situation has changed on the ground and that the Iraqi government wants us as a partner to help rebuild their society and infrastructure. Truth is the actual substance of U.S. policy in Iraq is not likely to change. At the same time look for the boost in U.S. combat forces going to Afghanistan and continued covert cross-border raids into Pakistan.

As I noted in an earlier piece, Rahm Emanuel is no pacifist. To the contrary. He was an uber-hawk on Iraq. We are witnesses to a fascinating split in the American Jewish community. The Jewish community is no different than the Christian community. It really is not a community and represents diametrically opposed points of view. Barack Obama and Emanuel have both been backed financially by very wealthy Chicago jewish families–the Crowns and the Pritzkers. They are not in sync with the more conservative neo-cons embodied by the likes of William Kristol. They are pro-Israel but anti-likud. Prospects of war with Iran are probably reduced with this crowd.

Last year I participated in a war game looking at the future of the Middle East. The assembled experts agreed at the end of the game that the one policy move that could put Iran on the defensive would be an agreement between Syria and Israel over the Golan Heights. Up to now the Bush Administration has opposed such a move. If the Obama team goes in that direction they might get a breakthrough in the Middle East that has seemed so elusive. That would be good news and might help Obama calm the fears of his Palestinian supporters who see him stacking his Administration with prominent Jewish Americans who carry pro-Israel credentials.

What about ignoring FISA (i.e., the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act)? Now that this power is in the hands of Democrats will they relinquish it? I don’t think so. I would like to see a full restoration of FISA and a requirement that no serveillance is undertaken without having judicial review. Someone other than the Executive Branch needs to have a say in this matter.

Finally, there will be the economic policy front. Will Barack and company embark on a massive public employment program or seek to invest in the private sector and promote jobs thru some form of capitalism? If it is the former the Progressive will rejoice. But, if it is the later, Progressives will chalk up another example of a politician promising them one thing but delivering the opposite. It does look that Barack and his team recognize America is Center Right and are going to play to the element. For a guy who hung with Tony Rezko and dissed Hillary (bonehead moves in my book) Barack could establish himself as a very smart pol. We’ll see.

One wonders how Barack Obama will solidify relations of trust with our allies abroad when Nicolas Sarzoky, the French President who presided over a joint press conference with Barack Obama on the subject of Iran in July, characterized Obama’s foreign policy stances and formulations to Isreali foreign officials as “utterly immature,” “empty of content,” “very problematic,” “arrogantly” ignorant and “not crystallized.” Certainly he will not have the power to mobilize the support required to stabilize the Middle East if European leaders dismiss him as a hopeless and hapless naïf of foreign policy, and certainly he will exacerbate our already strained relations with France and other countries if the leaders of those states regard Obama, the American naïf, as not only vague but also recklessly supercilious.

Prompting Sarkozy’s scathing assessment of Obama’s foreign policy is Obama’s desire to engage with Iran without preconditions. This stance is of concern to Sarkozy and other European powers, for Germany and the countries representing the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, or the United Kingdom, the United States, the Russian Federation, China and France, presently comprise a united front whose goal is to prevent the development of nuclear arms in Iran. Unilateral action by Obama can and probably will compromise the power these countries wield over Iran, and it will certainly give Iran the impression that the sanctions already imposed by the Security Council can be flouted. This explains why Sarkozy uses the adjectives “problematic” and “immature” when he discusses Obama’s foreign policy.

Also not to be ignored is Sarkozy’s use of the adverb “arrogantly.” The United States, we recall, already ignored the United Nations once this decade with its illegal and unwarranted invasion of Iraq. Will not another unilateral act outside the agreement forged by the permanent members of United Nations Security Council and Germany rekindle all the resentment that has weakened our power and influence abroad? Obama should understand this. After all, he is the Chair of the Subcommittee of European Affairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But because he chose not to convene any policy hearings as Chair of the Subcommittee of European Affairs, he fails to comprehend the importance of maintaining amicable relations with our European allies now that the United States is economically and politically vulnerable on the international stage.

According to French intelligence, Iran is already in possession of 40 percent of the enriched uranium required to create a nuclear bomb. Any breakdown of negotiations between the Big 5, Germany and Iran will have dire consequences for the Middle East, especially for the country of Isreal, a country Ahmadinejad hopes to “wipe off the map.” What if unilateral negotiations with Iran without preconditions fail? How will Obama respond? How will he seize control over a country that is well on its way to building the next nuclear bomb? Because Obama has not even entertained this possibility, Sarkozy dismisses the American naïf’s various pronouncements as “not crystallized.” And the only explanation Sarkozy can probably muster for the American naïf who believes one can contemptuously disregard the Big 5 and Germany and negotiate willy nilly with Iran is that his mind is “empty of content.” For once I agree with Nicolas Sarkozy.

Sarkozy is not the only person abroad who has concerns about Obama’s proposed foreign policy stance with Iran. According to Ynetnews, 52.5% of Isrealis believe McCain possesses the requisite skills to deal with the security threat Iran poses to Israel. Compare this number to the paltry 27.6% of Israelis who are confident that Obama is prepared.

I guess Joe Biden is correct when he warns:

Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking.

Yes, the world is looking: France and Israel are gazing at us with worried eyes, while Iran is monitoring us with the hope that we will fumble and elect the utterly immature and naïve Barack Obama.

That was a vile intro, wasn’t it. But such fun to write. (My mother would have been aghast.) BUT, HARK! MORE IS TO COME! Truthteller is posting a critically important story about Israel, our vital ally in the Middle East. Stay tuned!

Oops! How did that second YouTube get in here? Okay, who did that?!?!?!?! I wonder if it’s someone who’s worried that Obama is going to cut our defense spending by one-fourth aka 25%? I wonder if it’s someone knows that, last count, over 300 flag officers have endorsed John McCain?

I imagine those 300+ flag officers who, even though they’re retired from the military, probably can’t sleep these last weeks of the presidential race.

Those retired military people, still experts in their fields, must be so worried that a complete amateur could become president.

Actually, it is wholly unfair to genuine amateurs to call Obama that. He is both unskilled and unschooled in this global game of life and death.

Here are Barack Obama’s words on May 18, 2008, in the rodeo town of Pendleton, Oregon which is, by the way, the land of sagebrush, tumbleweeds, rolling hills and wide vistas as well as a hell of a lot of cattle and horses, not to mention some authentic cowboys who bleed red, white and blue:

Strong countries and strong Presidents talk to their adversaries. That’s what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That’s what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That’s what Nixon did with Mao. I mean think about it.

Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we’re going to wipe you off the planet. And ultimately that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war, and over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall. Now, that has to be the kind of approach that we take. You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military.

If Iran ever tried to pose a serio us threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen. That doesn’t mean we agree with them on everything. We might not compromise on any issues, but at least we should find out other areas of potential common interest, and we can reduce some of the tensions that has caused us so many problems around the world.

According to Taheri, Jackson said Obama:

. . . promised “fundamental changes” in US foreign policy - saying America must “heal wounds” it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the “arrogance of the Bush administration.”

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where “decades of putting Israel’s interests first” would end.

Jackson believes that, although “Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades” remain strong, they’ll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.

Read the rest ->

Wow. I guess, for Jackson, “hymietown” is back. Didn’t Obama already get into trouble earlier this election season over remarks about Jerusalem? How about anti-Jewish material on his website? Regardless, such sweeping statements about Isreal, even using “Zionist” is telling about Jackson’s view of Jews. I bet he thinks all Jews are bankers who caused the mortgage meltdown (woooooo - I am being snarky, but would it really surprise anyone if this were the case?) And, just for the record, who is going to do all this “apologizing” Jackson talks about?

Buuuuuutt, you say, how can Jesse speak for Obama? Well, that’s also very interesting, and Jackson, of course, has a non-answer.

Jackson warns that he isn’t an Obama confidant or adviser, “just a supporter.” But he adds that Obama has been “a neighbor or, better still, a member of the family.” Jackson’s son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson’s daughter went to school with Obama’s wife Michelle.

“We helped him start his career,” says Jackson. “And then we were always there to help him move ahead. He is the continuation of our struggle for justice not only for the black people but also for all those who have been wronged.”

Look at that second paragraph again. Jackson sounds as if he not only feels Obama owes him but he also appropriates Obama himself into Jackson’s civil rights work. Looks like Jackson thinks he’s Obama’s daddy. Seriously, Jackson is trying to take credit for Obama’s political existence. Fair? I have no idea, but that statement reveals a real lack of finesse. Or maybe finesse isn’t the point.

Don’t forget, Jackson, the de facto “Black American leader,” also has Chicago roots; and his son JJ Jr, is an Obama campaign manager. While Jackson may be a loose cannon, I just can’t see him deliberately placing his son in a precarious position.

And for those of you who might think electing Obama will go a long way to healing the racial wounds of America, think again.

Will Obama’s election close the chapter of black grievances linked to memories of slavery? The reverend takes a deep breath and waits a long time before responding.

“No, that chapter won’t be closed,” he says. “However, Obama’s victory will be a huge step in the direction we have wanted America to take for decades.”

An Obama election will be a “huge step” but not enough. Never enough. Shelby Steele, a notable AA writer and thinker on “Black America” would say that Jackson is signaling that “white America” will never be off the hook. I read it the same way. That’s, well, astounding because Obama’s campaign has touted his ability to be “trans-racial” and “bring people together,” not letting the past rule the present kind of thing. And here is Jackson, promising otherwise. Hmmmmmm.

Jackson was asked about Obama’s potential policies on a variety of issues, and he carefully started with the “I’m only a supporter, not a policy maker” hedge. But his remarks sound more precise than vague wishes on Jackson’s part.

What does Jackson want an Obama economic program to include?

On the economic front, he hopes for “major changes in our trading policy.”

“We cannot continue with the open-door policy,” he says. “We need to protect our manufacturing industry against unfair competition that destroys American jobs and creates ill-paid jobs abroad.”

“Open door?” Is that relating to trade or immigration as it affects trade, or both?
And how is Jackson channeling Obama with regard to the Iraq war?

Taheri says:

His most surprising position concerns Iraq. He passionately denounces the toppling of Saddam Hussein as “an illegal and unjust act.” But he’s now sure that the United States “will have to remain in Iraq for a very long time.”

What of Obama’s promise to withdraw by 2010? Jackson believes that position will have to evolve, reflecting “realities on the ground.”

“We should work with our allies in Iraq to consolidate democratic institutions there,” he says. “We must help the people of Iraq decide and shape their future in accordance with their own culture and faith.”

And on Iran - what does his non-connection with Obama tell him about that?

On Iran, he strongly supports Obama’s idea of opening a direct dialogue with the leadership in Tehran. “We’ve got to talk to tell them what we want and hear what they want,” Jackson says. “Nothing is gained by not talking to others.”

Would that mean ignoring the four UN Security Council resolutions that demand an end to Iran’s uranium-enrichment program? Jackson says direct talks wouldn’t start without preparations.

“Barack wants an aggressive and dynamic diplomacy,” he says. “He also wants adequate preparatory work. We must enter the talks after the ground has been prepared,” he says.

Interestingly enough, Jackson doesn’t say WHO prepares the ground. Iran, for its part, thinks the US should abide by some preconditions. Newsbusters notes:

Vice President for Media Affairs Mehdi Kalhor said on Saturday that Iran has set two preconditions for holding talks with the United States of America.

In an exclusive interview with the Islamic Republic News Agency, he said as long as U.S. forces have not left the Middle East region and continues its support for the Zionist regime, talks between Iran and U.S. is off the agenda.
——————————-
On Saturday, Kalhor said Tehran would accept ‘repentance’ on behalf of the US government toward the Iranian people.

“Negotiations would be rational if the US moves out of the Middle East and the US government gives up its widespread support for the Zionist regime,” he said.

Apologies? Zionists? Well, remember what Jackson said:

. . . promised “fundamental changes” in US foreign policy - saying America must “heal wounds” it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the “arrogance of the Bush administration.”

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where “decades of putting Israel’s interests first” would end.

Jackson believes that, although “Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades” remain strong, they’ll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House

Is this a response to Obama’s statement about meeting Iran without preconditions? And Obama’s vision for Israel, via Jackson?

“Bush was so afraid of a snafu and of upsetting Israel that he gave the whole thing a miss,” Jackson says. “Barack will change that,” because, as long as the Palestinians haven’t seen justice, the Middle East will “remain a source of danger to us all.”

“Barack is determined to repair our relations with the world of Islam and Muslims,” Jackson says. “Thanks to his background and ecumenical approach, he knows how Muslims feel while remaining committed to his own faith.”

Thanks to his BACKGROUND? Obama swears he’s not a muslim, so this must mean his years in Indonesia, right? Ecumenical approach? BLT is ecumenical? Since when? BLT at least excoriates whites, Jews and many other AAs. How ecumenical is that? Or is ecumenical a euphemism for humping the pulpit? (Want to see Rev Wright “riding dirty” again?)

Now, all this is verrrrrrry interesting. Is Jackson acting as a surrogate? His son, an Obama campaign manager, famously said the campaign had to figure out how to attack a white woman (Hillary) in a “post OJ world.” Jackson supposedly went off the reservation sometime later with his “cutting” remarks, accidentally or not, caught on camera and has remained relatively quiet since then. So why is he talking now?

If Jackson IS a surrogate of the easily denied variety, his remarks are worthy of comment although the campaign will surely disavow. The tone of his remarks as well as the substance are likely to offend many Americans. But since campaigns constantly toss out “trial balloons” via the easily denied surrogate, Jackson’s remarks will definitely present just such an opportunity, regardless.

But what if Jackson is lobbing spitballs? If his earlier remark about Obama’s dangles more accurately reflects the reality of the relationship, is this interview his “scissors?” Is Jackson trying to assert authority? Or is he trying to steer Obama’s choices by making public what he feels Obama cannot get away with and enable him to thus get “half a loaf?” And why THIS reporter and THIS paper?

The author, Amir Taheri, is the columnist who broke the story about Obama telling Iraqi leaders to “wait for the next administration.” Presumably, Taheri is no particular friend of the Obama campaign. Odd that Jackson would have consented to an interview with this particular journalist - even more so when you remember Jackson never met a microphone or podium he didn’t want to preen for. He could have talked to anyone. He talked to Taheri.

“Obama is about change,” Jackson told me in a wide-ranging conversation. “And the change that Obama promises is not limited to what we do in America itself. It is a change of the way America looks at the world and its place in it.”

Is the NYPost the only paper covering the World Policy Forum? You know how Marshall McLuhan famously said “the medium IS the message?” In this case, I think it is as important to ask why Jackson chose this venue as it is to parse his words.

Of course, maybe the Post is the only paper covering this hugely important gathering on the French seaside.

Still, Jackson’s remarks are incendiary in terms of foreign policy and current US relationships. I doubt they’ll play well here at home - so why make them? Is it all a smoke screen? Or is it dead on? Either way, I don’t like the feelings these remarks give me.

There’s much not to like. Jackson’s vague status with Obama makes it difficult to infer from these remarks Obama’s positions. That’s on purpose. The remarks themselves signal some potentially huge shifts in US policy. I’m also not at all comfortable with the idea that such a shift could actually be signaled by Jackson before the US electorate votes.

And I don’t like the tone. The notable thing about his tone is Jackson is both accusatory and promising apologies. Jackson accuses his own country of gross misconduct and promises some form of repentance. Think Jackson will be the one Obama sends over to apologize? It would serve him right, but Jackson has always felt more sinned against than sinning and his remarks reflect that. Jackson may feel his country needs to apologize, but he probably feels he should be on the receiving end of that apology. Forever.

People go bankrupt all the time. Companies do, too. But countries?
Iceland was on the verge of doing exactly that on Thursday as the government shut down the stock market and seized control of its last major independent bank. That brought trading in the country’s currency to a halt, with foreign banks no longer willing to take Icelandic krona, even at fire-sale rates.

As the meltdown in the Icelandic financial system quickened, with the government seemingly powerless to do anything about it, analysts said there was probably only one realistic option left: for Iceland to be bailed out by the International Monetary Fund.

“Iceland is bankrupt,” said Arsaell Valfells, a professor at the University of Iceland. “The Icelandic krona is history. The IMF has to come and rescue us.”

Read the rest ->
The Guardian (UK) had this to add:

Gordon Brown has told the Icelandic prime minister that he is considering legal action against the country over the collapse of its national banks.

The prime minister said tonight that Iceland’s decision not to recompense those with savings in the bank was “completely unacceptable” and the British government would do “whatever is necessary to recover the money”.

“I’ve spoken to the Icelandic prime minister, I have told him this is effectively an illegal action that they have taken. We are freezing the assets of Icelandic companies in the UK where we can. We will take further action against the Icelandic authorities where necessary to recover the money.

While Britain, like the US, insures individual depositors up to a point, large depositors don’t necessarily have the same protections.

But up to 20 UK councils who banked with Icesave could lose millions of pounds because wholesale deposits are not protected. The Tories have estimated that up to £1bn may be at stake.

I expect the recriminations are just starting to fly and as governments try to protect themselves and their citizens, it’s going to get a lot uglier. I hope we elect someone strong enough and pragmatic enough to do what needs be done.

2) The NYT has an article on the financial crisis, saying Bush and other European leaders will meet this weekend to look at a more coordinated response to the global crisis.

The British and American plans, though far from identical, have two common elements according to officials: injection of government money into banks in return for ownership stakes and guarantees of repayment for various types of loans.

Both remedies will be center stage on Saturday, when President Bush meets with finance ministers from the world’s richest countries at an unusual White House meeting to swap ideas.

Mr. Bush’s invitation to finance ministers from Britain, Italy, Germany, France, Canada and Japan came on a day of phone calls and letters between European leaders and with Washington.

Adding to the urgency, the Japanese stock market plunged more than 10 percent Friday morning, after having dropped 9 percent on Wednesday.

Unfortunately, the NYT must feel that flogging the “troopergate” story is critical for national attention. It still devoted 3 (online) pages to that. With the global financial crisis and people starting to use the “d” word, this manufactured “scandal” is an indefensible waste of time.

3) Also in the NYT today is an article about Russia and Iran. There is some thought that a Russian scientist has been helping Iran develop nuclear weapons.

International nuclear inspectors are investigating whether a Russian scientist helped Iran conduct complex experiments on how to detonate a nuclear weapon, according to European and American officials. As part of the investigation, inspectors at the International Atomic Energy Agency are seeking information from the scientist, who they believe acted on his own as an adviser on experiments described in a lengthy document obtained by the agency, the officials said.
————————-
Asked about the potential contribution of the Russian scientist in detonator experimentation, a senior Russian official who has long followed Iran’s nuclear program said, “It is difficult for me to add anything.”

Ah, global financial crisis and Iranian nukes. And you thought today was going to be dull?

4) Charles Krauthammer writes today about the character question and Obama.

Convicted felon Tony Rezko. Unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. And the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. It is hard to think of any presidential candidate before Barack Obama sporting associations with three more execrable characters. Yet let the McCain campaign raise the issue, and the mainstream media begin fulminating about dirty campaigning tinged with racism and McCarthyite guilt by association.

But associations are important. They provide a significant insight into character. They are particularly relevant in relation to a potential president as new, unknown, opaque and self-contained as Obama. With the economy overshadowing everything, it may be too late politically to be raising this issue. But that does not make it, as conventional wisdom holds, in any way illegitimate.
Krauthammer faults McCain for not going after the character issue much earlier. However, given all the vitriol at even the hint that Obama’s character and pals are less than absolute sterling, I’m not sure McCain could have reasonably done otherwise.

Why are these associations important? Do I think Obama is as corrupt as Rezko? Or shares Wright’s angry racism or Ayers’ unreconstructed 1960s radicalism?
No. But that does not make these associations irrelevant. They tell us two important things about Obama.

First, his cynicism and ruthlessness. He found these men useful, and use them he did. Would you attend a church whose pastor was spreading racial animosity from the pulpit? Would you even shake hands with — let alone serve on two boards with — an unrepentant terrorist, whether he bombed U.S. military installations or abortion clinics?

Most Americans would not, on the grounds of sheer indecency. Yet Obama did, if not out of conviction then out of expediency. He was a young man on the make, an unknown outsider working his way into Chicago politics. He played the game with everyone, without qualms and with obvious success.
————-
Second, and even more disturbing than the cynicism, is the window these associations give on Obama’s core beliefs. He doesn’t share Rev. Wright’s poisonous views of race nor Ayers’ views, past and present, about the evil that is American society. But Obama clearly did not consider these views beyond the pale. For many years he swam easily and without protest in that fetid pond.

Well, that IS the point some of us have been making for several months now. Before today’s news cycle is over, you’ll hear more screams of “racism.”

5) Today’s WSJ has a sarcasm-laced op-ed about the wonderful magic of Obama. Here’s a snippet:

We’re back now. And just watch the Great Obama perform a feat never yet managed in all history. He will create that enormous new government health program, spend billions to transform our energy economy, provide financial assistance to former Soviet satellites, invest in infrastructure, increase education spending, provide job training assistance, and give 95% of Americans a tax (ahem) cut — all without raising the deficit a single penny! And he’ll do it in the middle of a financial crisis. And with falling tax revenues! Voila!

Now will I be called a racist if I say that’s an Obama fairy tale??

6) Even the NYT now has a “fake donors for Obama” story. Who’d a thunk it?

It appears that campaign finance records for Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee, contain far fewer obviously false names, although he has taken in about $200 million in contributions, less than half Mr. Obama’s total. Mr. McCain did collect about $173,000 from donors who appear in campaign finance records with only a name and have no other identifying information. Mr. Obama collected about $314,000 from such donors.

Although campaigns have long wrestled with questionable donations, Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, said the record-setting number of new donors Mr. Obama has drawn, many of them online, presents new challenges to a compliance system that remains stuck in the past.

Ms. Krumholz pointed out, however, that it would take an extraordinary amount of coordination to pull off widespread fraud.

Yeah, but isn’t ACORN in trouble in several states now? Couldn’t one reasonably call that “widespread?”

But even a contributor who used the name “Jgtj Jfggjjfgj,” and listed an address of “thjtrj” in “gjtjtjtjtjtjr, AP,” was able to contribute $370 in a series of $10 donations in August.

A pair of donors named “Derty West” and “Derty Poiiuy,” who listed “rewq, ME” as their addresses and “Qwertyyy” or “Qwerttyyu” as either their employer or occupation, contributed a combined $1,110 in July.

Hey!!! It’s Derty Poiiuy! I wrote about him in yesterday’s roundup. Didn’t know he had a brother, though. Derty West DEFINITELY sounds like a porn star. Maybe BO has the porn industry demographic locked up. Yeah, it’s part of Hollywood, so that makes sense.

The questionable donations to the Obama campaign, most of which appear to have been given in small increments online, are bolstering the contentions of some campaign finance groups that additional disclosure requirements are needed for contributions of $200 or less.

Federal candidates are not required to itemize such contributions to the F.E.C. unless the donor’s cumulative total adds up to more than $200. Roughly 70 percent of these contributions to Mr. Obama are not reported, compared with more than 75 percent of Mr. McCain’s.

“Mr. Obama” has an aversion to reporting and paperwork, as we know. And this is the third story I’ve done recently on fake donors.

Uh, remember what I snarked earlier about Obama potentially having the porn industry on his side? Well, ask and ye shall receive. . . .

From the NYPost:

ONE of the “bundlers” who has raised $50,000 to $100,000 for the Barack Obama presidential campaign is Terrence Bean, who once controlled the biggest producer of gay porn in America.

Bean, the first gay on Sen. Obama’s National Finance Committee, is the sole trustee of the Charles M. Holmes Foundation, which owned Falcon Studios, Jock Studios and Mustang Studios, the producers of about $10 million worth of all-male pornography a year

7) In “Your Daily Racism” Time has yet another version of the “it must be racism” theme.

Does that mean race doesn’t matter this year? Hardly. It just matters in a different way. In the past, Republicans often used race to make their opponents seem anti-white. In 2008, with their incessant talk about who loves their country and who doesn’t, McCain and Palin are doing something different: they’re using race to make Obama seem anti-American.

To grasp the difference, imagine if the Democrats had nominated Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Republicans would have slammed them as profligate, divisive and militant but not as foreign. Even racists couldn’t deny that Jackson and Sharpton are fully American. In fact, because slavery ruptured ancestral ties of language and culture, African Americans often have fewer transnational connections than Americans whose forebears traveled voluntarily to these shores. Our national vernacular is filled with antiblack euphemisms, but cosmopolitan isn’t one of them.

Yet when critics attack Obama, that’s the word that keeps popping up. Rudy Giuliani mentioned it in his convention speech. So has Rush Limbaugh, along with several national conservative columnists. Ever since the primaries, Obama’s detractors have tried to depict him less as threatening to white America than as distant from America itself.

You see, it’s a subtle thing. Making Obama seem “anti-American” is strictly about race and not a fairly typical political gambit. Nah. Politics has NEVER BEFORE had candidates accused of being anti-American. Well, except for Ronald Reagan’s race against Jimmy Carter. And except for some of the ‘92 Clinton references to GWHB. Oh yeah, and the JFK race where people wondered if the Pope would be giving the US President orders. Nah, I guess BO is the first politician to EVER be attacked as “distant from America.” MUST BE RACISM.

8 ) The Washington Times encapsulates some of the recent BO stories.

Something odd is going on. The Obama campaign boasts of a landslide in the making even as his polling lead slips a point or two, and there’s anger bordering on rage when John McCain and Sarah Palin raise questions about Barack Obama’s judgment in his unexplored past in Chicago.

An investigation of ACORN, a cabal of “political activists” hired to register voters in the neighborhoods where few friends of John McCain abide has now spread to 10 states. Investigators discovered that the entire offensive line of the Dallas Cowboys had signed up to vote in Las Vegas, unless it turns out that someone forged their signatures to make a quota. The rules for this game were written in Chicago.

The senator’s campaign only wants to talk about the economy, and who can blame him? Wall Street is tanking to uncharted depths, banking is at a standstill and fear stalks Main Street and all the avenues and boulevards running across it. But Sen. Obama wants certain questions about the economy, and how it got this way, declared off-limits. Harry Reid, the leader of the Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate, declares questions about Franklin Raines, his stewardship of Fannie Mae and his relationship with the senator to be racist because both men “are African-American.”
————–
The unanswered questions are not about crimes, but about his judgment. Just as Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn have never repented for terrorism against their country, the senator has never expressed repentance for his association with them.

After all this time we still don’t know a lot about Sen. Obama’s murky Chicago past, and maybe we won’t until he’s in the White House for a while and the mainstream media looks to actual reporting for its orgasmic thrills.

Yep, yep, yep, and yep.

9) Also in the Times is another piece questioning what Obama said to Iraqi officials during his visit some months ago.

At the same time the Bush administration was negotiating a still elusive agreement to keep the U.S. military in Iraq, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama tried to convince Iraqi leaders in private conversations that the president shouldn’t be allowed to enact the deal without congressional approval.
Mr. Obama’s conversations with the Iraqi leaders, confirmed to The Washington Times by his campaign aides, began just two weeks after he clinched the Democratic presidential nomination in June and stirred controversy over the appropriateness of a White House candidate’s contacts with foreign governments while the sitting president is conducting a war.

Of course, the BO campaign says he was speaking strictly as a US Senator, while the Iraqi official (Mr. Zebari) with whom he spoke got a different impression. But it’s all “he said, he said.”

10) Now for your second helping of “Your Daily Racism.” The NY Post does a long piece on the race card. It claims Democrats have embraced using the race card as part of overall strategy.

It was bound to happen, and so it has: Democrats and their allies are playing the race card.

Big time.
—————-

As for the party itself, no less a luminary than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid yesterday lit into a radio host who had the temerity to note that former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines has been an adviser to Barack Obama’s campaign.

“The only connection that people could bring up about Raines and Barack Obama,” said Reid, “is that they both are African-American. Other than that there is nothing.”

Actually, The Washington Post has reported that the Obama campaign sought advice from Raines “on mortgage and housing policy matters.”

That may not be the end of the world, but it’s sure not “nothing.”

Then there’s Democratic luminary Barney Frank - a fellow most accomplished at diverting attention from his own sins by indulging in some old-fashioned demagogy.

Which is precisely what he did this week when he charged that GOP criticism of subprime mortgage loans being made to those who couldn’t afford them - a practice he most emphatically encouraged - is racially motivated.

Michelle Malkin(I know, I know) covers some of the same ground, listing some of the new definitions of racism. Here’s the first:

How many racial bogeymen have Obama operatives and sympathetic journalists discovered lurking in “coded language” and attire? Let us count the ways:

* During Tuesday’s presidential debate, John McCain referred to Obama as “that one.” Official Obama press agitator Bill Burton sent off an e-mail blast to reporters: “Did John McCain just refer to Obama as ‘that one’?” Horrors.

Taking their cue from Burton, spooked Obama supporters hyperventilated like teens on the film set of “The Blair Witch Project.” “The racial undertones were subtle but unmistakable,” declared Maya Wiley of the leftist Center for Social Inclusion. “McCain was tapping into a current of superiority among white voters. It was an attempt to ‘otherize’ Obama.”

“Otherize”? Sounds like something you do to your car tires to prepare for winter. UC Berkeley linguistics professor George Lakoff was also haunted by “That One”:

“The phrase was meant to say, ‘You and I are in the same area, but he’s the outsider.’ ”

Memo to McCain: Next time, call him “The One.”

Hey, watch your finances today and get an extra cup of coffee. You’re gonna need it.

Several news commentators pointed out they knew she had the debate in hand when she asked Gwen Ifill if “we could just return to Afghanistan” for a moment. If she was willing to tackle Biden on foreign policy, his supposed strong suit, I’d say the lady’s got a set of brass ones. Good for her. It was widely observed that she kept the veteran Senator on the defensive much of the night and even got under his skin a few times.

Yes, her answers could have been more specific on a couple of topics and she could have attacked Biden more, but then again what points Biden gained for specificity he more than lost because a number of his ‘specifics’ were lies.

Primarily, Biden mischaracterized McCain’s position on the war and surge. McCain has been proven right on the surge, which even Obama has had to admit. Biden denied that Obama said he would meet with Ahmedinajad without preconditions. Obama did famously and naively say this and was attacked for doing so by Biden. He also made false statements about McCain’s health care tax credit, which would more than offset any tax hike. He lied that McCain wanted less regulation when in fact it was John McCain years ago calling for more regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. News commentators cited many more.

I tried to get past the lies Biden told and simply review what appeals to me about McCain/Palin that Obama/Biden just haven’t got. The answer is simple:

Humility.
Gratitude.
Character.

Humility and dignity are not mutually exclusive. It is commendable to both understand the gravitas of the job and express gratitude to the American people for having the deep faith to bestow their ultimate trust upon two people. That is something clearly not lost on John McCain and Sarah Palin. I feel a confidence from them, without arrogance or hubris.

Why is this so important? We already had eight years of an arrogant blockhead in the White House, who thought he was God’s chosen one. Regardless of party, we don’t need another in there with the same ‘I am the Chosen’ attitude.

Most telling, Biden kept harping on the fact that McCain intended to continue Bush’s policies. This is the most egregious falsehood. Obama, in saying he wants to continue Blackwater and have a private security force, touting Bush’s faith based initiatives, reneging on FISA, backpedaling on ‘don’t ask don’t tell, and most recently, illegally trying to squelch dissent in Missouri, to name a few, makes him more like Bush3 than anyone.

I had occasion to be confronted by four sexists yesterday, three males and one female. The words they had for Palin were disgusting. The more the snobs out there choose to insult and rip into her, the more we are reminded of the horrid treatment Senator Clinton received. If you think that is driving anyone into Obama’s arms, you are sadly mistaken.

Whether the lefty elites like it or not, Governor Palin is a feminist, balancing career, marriage and family. Her choices may not be yours, but a woman’s right to choose means exactly that. Period. As Lou Dobbs has pointed out many times of late, Governor Palin lives her principles.

So does McCain. It becomes a little harder to argue with his Iraq policy going forward when both he and Palin have sons actively serving in the military. These are not neo cons or chicken-hawks. John McCain the POW, more than anyone, knows the cost of war. It is also hard to argue with the character of a man who has taken huge risks politically in the name of his principles — something Senator Obama has never done.

Interesting for a conservative, McCain has also stood by openly gay politicians who are friends over the years. Can you imagine Obama doing this?

Both McCain and Palin have repeatedly demonstrated not only willingness, but a track record of working across the aisle, a much needed quality since they will most likely be working with a Democratic congress. From a place of dignity and humility, a President can engage and be engaged by others. This bespeaks a willingness to listen and respect the views of colleagues without belittling the ways of those who are ‘other’ than you.

Palin made very clear last night, and has the record as Governor to back this up, that while she may not agree with certain views, she will respect the law of the land and not legislate or veto away the rights of others.

As Stephen Covey famously wrote, “seek first to understand, then to be understood.” Unfortunately, Senator Obama showed he is sorely lacking in such skills when he made his infamous “bitter voter” comments to his rich San Francisco campaign contributors.

I always wondered why Gore or Kerry didn’t connect with people at their debates and I realized it is in a nutshell why so many Democrats lose – the condescension factor: talking with their noses in the air.

Obama shares this with his unsuccessful predecessor-candidates. No matter what nonsense Donna Brazile wants to spew about the new Democratic Party being more ‘urbane’ and not needing rural voters to win, that is a crock. And everyone knows it. If you can’t speak to the heartland, you ain’t gettin’ to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

At the debate last night, Sarah Palin’s warmth and down to earth connection to the American people was undeniable.

I’d like someone who has lived a little in the trenches, who understands sacrifice and may have a clue as to what the average woman or man on the street is going through at this point in time. Despite their Ivy League educations, this is something I always appreciated about the Clintons – and surely why the Democratic elite always held them in contempt. They have the ability to reach out to the working class voter.

It has long been my experience that those who look at me like a bug under a glass have little understanding of my needs or the urgency of answering them.

It may also explain why Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are the only two Democrats to have won the White House in the last 40 years – although, unlike Carter, Clinton was a hugely successful President.

In addition to Joe Biden’s truth-lapses – a habit he shares in common with his #1, Barack Obama – what annoyed me about Biden was his flashing that enormous mouth of blistering white teeth to Gwen Ifill when Sarah started to speak. It struck me as a bit condescending – “oh look what the little girl is saying now”.

In recalling Scranton, Wilmington and Home Depot, Biden was working a little too hard to sound like a man of the people, which his slightly plastic appearance due to a seeming eyelift and a trip to “BriteSmile” seemed to belie. That coupled with his ultimate beltway insider status may make people a little less trusting of his let’s bang on the facts message (especially when those “facts” will easily be debunked all over the net and on the campaign trail).

Then again, Obama has held so many flip flopping positions on the issues that anything Biden said last night could have been considered true at some point. The question is – what is true now? We don’t know. He could fire any dart at the dartboard and hit a bull’s eye because the waffling has been endless.

I have no real idea of what Obama would ACTUALLY do in the White House. Do you?

The UK Telegraph today revealed a letter from British Ambassador to the U.S., Sir Nigel Sheinwald to Prime Minister Gordon Brown assessing Senator Obama:

Barack Obama is a “decidedly liberal” senator “who was finding his feet, and then got diverted by his presidential ambitions”…

No kidding. I’d have preferred he “find his feet” first but ambition is all, apparently – ready or not.

Mr. Obama “can seem to sit on the fence, assiduously balancing pros and cons”, Sir Nigel wrote, and “does betray a highly educated and upper middle class mindset”. Charges of elitism “are not entirely unfair” and he is “maybe aloof, insensitive” at times.

Insensitive? Yes, the bug under the glass thing again. Sitting on the fence? That reminds me of Obama’s 130 ‘present’ votes in the State Legislature. Well, there is no voting ‘present’ in the White House.

“He can talk too dispassionately for a national campaign about issues which touch people personally, e.g. his notorious San Francisco comments [in April] about small-town Pennsylvanians ‘clinging’ to guns and religion.”

The stings Senator Obama delivered to many groups who chose not to vote for him in the primaries are not likely to be forgotten at the polls either.

In contrast, John McCain is respectful in his interviews and at every speaking engagement. I still remember a town hall he held months ago when a hostile man questioned him about his positions on Iraq. Senator McCain openly answered the question and then asked if the man wanted to follow up. He did, and John did. Then John asked again – would you like to follow up? They must have gone back and forth five times until the man’s questions were answered to his satisfaction and he sat down. Courage, respect, humility, decency.

Contrast this with a man who questioned Obama at a campaign rally. Obama’s response was, ‘if you don’t like my answer, get another candidate or run for office yourself.’

When gut check time arrives at the polls on November 4th, it will be interesting to see whether the American people feel safer with two candidates who talk to them, rather than at them or over them with noses in the air.

Whether I agree with John McCain and Sarah Palin on all the issues has become less important to me than the fact that I know where they stand and have a pretty good idea of how they would govern in the White House: with determination, humility and openness.

The bobbing and weaving of the Obama/Biden camp leaves me uncertain. What good is someone who agrees me, only to meet with my polar opposite the next day and pretend agreement with them, too?

We all know that McCain/Palin are not my ideal choices. But Hillary is no longer in the race so my hope for a Clinton/Clark ticket is gone for the moment. I do not trust anything that comes out of the Obama campaign, as their positions have changed with the prevailing wind.

Since the Democratic Party is neck deep in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac scandal. And since Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, as our Party leaders, have shown they are unscrupulous enough to use the current economic suffering of American citizens for political gain, I can no longer vote party. I have to vote character.

And on that score, there is little room for doubt.

In the midst of all of this came an article by wcbstv.com, “Sources: Intense Pressure Led TO Palin UN Snub.” I am SO surprised to hear that, especially given the above-board manner (hahahaha) by which the Democrats have been acting this year - surely they would not force the Jewish groups holding this rally to rescind their invitation! Oh, but yes they would.

Below is the text of the article, but if you want to see a very good video on it, click the link above and there is one in the story:

Hillary Clinton won’t be speaking at Monday’s anti-Iran rally at the United Nations — and neither will Republican Sarah Palin or any other politicians for that matter.

The reason? A heated behind the scenes tug-of-war.

Sources tell CBS 2 HD that a decision to disinvite Palin from the high profile rally after Clinton pulled out in a huff came as the result of intense pressure from Democrats.

“This is insulting. This is embarrassing, especially to Gov. Palin, to me and I think it should be to every single New Yorker,” Assemblyman Dov Hikind, D-Brooklyn, told CBS 2 HD.

Sources say the axes were out for Palin as soon as Sen. Clinton pulled out because she did not want to attend the same event as the Republican vice presidential candidate.

“I have never seen such raw emotion — on both sides,” said someone close to the situation.

The groups sponsoring the rally against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking at the UN were reportedly told, “it could jeopardize their tax exempt status” if they had Palin and not Clinton or Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden on hand.

So all politicians were disinvited, most prominently, Palin.

“It’s an absolute shame that this has happened,” Hikind said. “To threaten organizations … to threaten the Conference of Presidents that if you don’t withdraw the invitation to Gov. Palin we’re going to look into your tax exempt status … that’s McCarthyism.”

Another Jewish group tried to step into the breach by inviting Palin to a different protest a day earlier.

“I’m absolutely appalled at the behavior of the Democrats,” said Bob Kunst of Defenders.net. “I’m a Democrat and for the first time in my life I’m going to vote Republican. I can’t take it anymore.”

As for Sen. Clinton, she brushed right past CBS 2 HD’s Lou Young when he tried to ask her about the issue on Thursday night.

Lou Young: “Were the organizers of Monday’s rally right to depoliticize it?”

Clinton walked past Young, said “Thank you all very much” and started hugging people.

Clinton’s people tell CBS 2 HD she intends to make some statement of support for the protestors. She is also expected to attack Ahmadinejad’s pro-nuke, anti-Israel stance.

Since Gov. Palin was uninvited, she made her remarks available to the New York Sun, if you care to read her remarks.

Here is the LINK to Senator Clinton’s letter to the organizers of the Anti-Iran Rally (damn, I miss hearing this woman, and how I wish she had spoken at this event regardless of Gov. Palin being there. That is just SO Un-Hillary-like. Gee, what are the chances that SHE got the hard-sell, too? I’m gonna bet 100%. Any takers?)

I don’t know when this became the DNC. I really don’t. This, along with all of the other immoral, unethical actions by the DNC this campaign season(previously listed about a gazillion times), along with the news about the source of the Palin rumors, now documented to be an orchestrated event (and covered by Easten McNeal at No Quarter), and one well connected to Obama and the DNC, just boggles the mind. Now, I realize I may have been very naive about the DNC and how it REALLY operates - I know I was shocked to learn that two people in Chuck Schumer’s office created a false credit report as a way to discredit Michael Steele (former Lt. Gov. of MD) just two years ago. But how could it get to this place?

Well, here we are, and where we are is a political party that strong-arms private groups to do its bidding. Great. Never mind that it was a GOOD CAUSE, one about which both Senator Clinton and Governor Palin feel strongly. Never mind that it would have given more POSITIVE coverage to those groups and their issue - the potential problems with Iran in terms of Israel. Now, the “disinvite” is being seen for what it is - and what it is ain’t pretty. Way to go, DNC - winning the hearts and minds of anyone who thinks bullying is the answer. And who is threatened by having two powerful women anywhere in the same vicinity of each other (oh my gosh - a CATfight could break out!! Or, NOT - and that would be WORSE, right?!?). Or is it that the DNC knows people will look at these two women, and know that HILLARY should be on the top of the ticket and not Obama? That SHE is the one who would have made the selection of Gov. Palin a non-starter? Yeah, that sounds about right to me. How about you?

On August 19, Julie Foudy, only one of the most awesome women of all time - and a HIGHLY successful soccer player who also fought HARD against the Republicans attempts to dismiss Title IX, had an intense “human interest” story. It was about a young Afghan woman named Mehmoba Ahdyar. She is a runner, and the only woman on the Afghanistan Olympics team (she is a runner). What was particularly intense were the reports of what she has to go through to train, particularly the threats and the taunts.

Take a look at the video (I have to say, it was informative to me to hear what they think of Karzai).

But then there was a twist a month before the Olympics. She disappeared. No one had a clue where she was. They had to pull in another athlete, Robina Muqimyar, also a track runner, to replace her. Muqimyar had retired from running, so this came as quite a surprise to her. She came in last.

But what became of Andyar? Well, the video below reveals it all. There is a bit of duplication between the two, but not much, so bear with it:

So now we know. She defected. Why? Because to be a young woman in Afghanistan now, one with dreams and hopes that other young women around the world are encouraged to pursue, means threats against her, and her family. It means the police showing up at the door. It means her family being taken to jail because she is accused of being a “prostitute.”

What a mess. What a mess to which we have contributed, and which we have neglected. If only our Congress had some kind of oversight committee for Afghanistan and NATO to help it push forward, and to help push back the Taliban, to…What? What did you say? That Congress DOES have that kind of committee? Well, what the hell has it done lately? Nothing? NOTHING?? Why not? Why would a committee that had oversight over a country in which we are at WAR not done anything? Because the chairman has been busy running for president?? You have got to be kidding me!! Not ONE meeting? Huh.

Now, I gotta tell you, that if HILLARY had been chair of that committee, they would have met a gazillion times by now. She would know who BOTH of these women athletes were, and would have helped them get the training they needed, the PROTECTION they needed. She would have gotten more of our soldiers there to do the job they were sent to do. And she would have gotten some schools built. Oh, you know she would have.

And so, here is one last video for you. It is Hillary Clinton talking about her trip to Iraq and Afghanistan (side note - pay attention to where she said she went when she was over there. Oh, you’ll know - trust me!). And just imagine that THIS person is the one who becomes president, not the one who cannot be bothered to chair one single damn committee meeting on European and NATO Affairs, to provide absolutely NO oversight to a country in which we have our TROOPS.

Here’s Hillary Clinton, the one who will actually HELP women like Andyar and Muqimyar, and who was prescient about Afghanistan:

And once again, SuperDs, I remind you - there is still time. Just because Obama was selected the Presumptuous Nominee does not mean you have to go along with it. Stand up for democracy, stand up for what is right, stand UP for the person who can actually WIN the White House, and who is dedicated to the country’s citizens. You know that is Hillary Clinton, not Mr. “That’s above my pay grade and I will ask my wife and grandmother what I should do when I am faced with a difficult decision” Obama. This is no time to worry about pride. This is the time to worry about the COUNTRY. We have serious problems - Iraq; Pakistan, even more now since Musharraf stepped down; Georgia and Russia…This is the time for serious leadership, and that is NOT Obama. It IS Hillary Clinton. She is the one the people want to take care of these situations, and bring our country forward. SHE is the One for whom we have been waiting. Do your jobs - vote your CONSCIENCE, not your bank balance. Stand up. Stand UP.

Quite a cast of characters, all with very slanted opinions or activity that appear to be anti-Israel. Apparently we need to worry about Obama’s stance on Israel despite his rhetoric. He had this to say:

“We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran,” Obama said. “I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a clear-eyed understanding of our interests. We have no time to waste. We cannot unconditionally rule out an approach that could prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We have tried limited, piecemeal talks while we outsource the sustained work to our European allies. It is time for the United States to lead. ”

His actions by pulling these particular Republicans as leaders calls in to question whether his words mean anything or was he pandering to the pro-Israel group. The very words he used in his American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) speech may just be rhetoric after all.

Of course we remember he said that he will talk to Ahmadinejad without preconditions. Here are those words in a Marc Ambinder piece. See the section titled SQUARE ONE. Here is Obama’s answer to the question from 2007,

“Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?…..”

“I would,” he answered.

See the video:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Oj7Jn9rv4[/youtube]

And this was written in the editorial piece, apt and fitting:

Mr. Obama has made pro-Israel statements in his campaign. He spoke at the policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington and at a synagogue at Boca Raton, Fla., and at Jerusalem itself. What is one to make of it if he is then going to cart out Ms. Hauser and Messrs. Chafee and Leach? At the least, it exhibits a tone-deafness that weakens the argument that Mr. Obama deserves the benefit of the doubt on these matters. If these are the Republicans who are gravitating to Mr. Obama’s campaign, it is an ill omen for the Democrats.

Well Obama, do your words mean anything? Can pro-Israel groups really trust your words? Or is it more pandering and political expediency?