Harry’s Place

According to Jake Tapper, it’s those damn overzealous staffers:

****Yesterday, in an interesting New York Times look at Obama’s rise in Chicago politics, we learned that in 2004 some Jewish supporters became alarmed to learn that in a questionnaire Obama refrained from denouncing Yasir Arafat, or from expressing strong support for Israel’s security fence.

Reports the Times: “In an e-mail message, Mr. Obama blamed a staff member for the oversight, and expressed the hope that ‘none of this has raised any questions on your part regarding my fundamental commitment to Israel’s security.’”****

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/obamas-inabilit.html

So this is the Republicans smear campaign. Shame

Gene: Was Obama right to get rid of Robert Malley?

Obama likes Philip Roth.

I don’t doubt that Obama cares for Israel, but I am sure that when the shit comes down with Iran, Hezbollah, Syria and Hamas, as it will, he will handle it badly - his instincts will make him a sucker for their salami tactics. He is surrounded by people and supported by people, more than either Clinton or McCain, whose instincts on the Middle East are a recipe for a disaster for Israel. And that ultimately will be more crucial for the future of the Jewish people than whether Obama likes Phillip Roth, wears a kipa, likes bagels with lox or feels their pain.

People are really getting the wrong end of the stick with this one. I think the problem is that liberal Jews really are touched by Obama but want to persuade themselves he will be just as good for Israel and just as wary of Islamists as the other two candidates would. They are deluding themselves for the sake of their own peace of mind.

“People are really getting the wrong end of the stick with this one. I think the problem is that liberal Jews really are touched by Obama but want to persuade themselves he will be just as good for Israel and just as wary of Islamists as the other two candidates would. They are deluding themselves for the sake of their own peace of mind.”

Both Marty Peretz and Michael Lerner think Obama is sympathetic to their views. They can’t both be right.

It’s useful to long beyond the campaign pablum to see what kind of crowd he runs with. Or you can just let him finish his goddam waffles.

oops: it’s useful to LOOK beyond……..

So let me ask the skeptics: is there anything Obama could say or do at this point that would persuade you of his sincerity? My impression is that the more Obama affirms his support for Israel, the more you doubt him.

Frankly, Gene, there is little anybody can say in the middle of a presidential campaign that could persuade me of his or her sincerity. All we have are the candidates record and his associates. I have no idea how Israel would fare with Obama as predient of the U.S. The American people are overwhelmingly pro-Israel, and that’s the main fact that drives policy.

But it’s quite easy to submit ito a Moyers-style interview in a friendly forum. It’s another thing altogether to stand up for Israeli security when a largish part of the world is at best indifferent, and a loud and an insistant part dream of her destruction.

Obama promises to to transcend “conventional Washington thinking” in foreign policy. Fine. Let’s hear some of this new transcendance. Where’s the beef?

His staff says he did not say that he would meet with the President of Iran without preconditions. But he said precisely that in the youtube debate. Which is it? Or maybe we should just let him finish his goddam waffles.

Obama would be a twat not to support Israel. He knows that and is not about to jeopardize his run for the WH. How anyone doubts him is beyond me. Maybe he just feels there’s more going on in the world that will need his attention as President than placating Israeli insecurity.

“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.”

A wound, a sore, an infection.

mesquito, you’re trying way too hard on this.

Obama told Goldberg that he digs Israel because it “speaks to my history of being uprooted…”

WTF is Obama uprooted from?

Do you think Obama knew that his church published the claim that Israel worked with South Africa on an “ethnic bomb” that would kill only blacks and Arabs? Why is Obama still a member?

Whatever his real beliefs, I doubt it will have much effect during his first term. What you have to worry about is him implementing a far more even handed approach in the second term.

Gene, it’s not what Obama would currently say to the electorate–particularly that section of it with an interest in Israel and/or in seeing real democracy in the Middle East. That would be like judging the suitability of Livingstone to run London on the basis of what he said in the course of the current campaign– a particularly rich example was when Livingstone said he hoped to visit Tel Aviv some day. With Livingstone, as with Obama, one cannot ignore the track record, and particularly those who have been the associates and advisors he’s picked for himself. Not to mention his actual proposals– in Obama’s case the commitment to change in the form of getting into dialogue with the Pres of Iran does not spell anything I’d want to vote for if I were qualified to vote in the US elections.

Sure, he may not have agreed with his Church’s magazine– but the point is that he seems to have (a) initially denied knowledge of and then (b) relativised and played down the significance of the politics it contains… and he and his wife and children still go there:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/082ktdyi.asp?pg=1

What I find surprising is that so many US commentators seem starry eyed about a man who’s done so little in national level politics, and is promising “change” and “yes we can” without any track record of changing anything or specifiying exactly what’s going to be the big big change he parades…..

Gene, thank you for uncovering this interview with Jeffrey Goldberg. I plan to forward it to my friends who doubt Obama’s commitment to Israel. I found it thoughtful and reassuring.

I’m curious. What do the most adamant Obamabashers think McCain can do about Iran that Obama cannot? Do McCain supporters believe that their man will deviate very much from the Bush doctrine? (A Bush doctrine that has obviously failed to contain Iran and halt their nuke program.)

I really hope Gene will eat his words.

I really hope Gene will eat his words.

Me? Don’t you mean Obama?

Here you go, Gene:

http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/05/way_to_not_look_like_crazy_cult_members

“Me? Don’t you mean Obama?”

Nope you, for you see I love seeing bubbles bursting, and I do hope to be there when it happens.

So it appears that if Obama is elected president and betrays Israel, both Flanker and mesquito will be saying “I told you so.”

Gosh, I can’t wait.

Gene–

Obama needs to start hanging out with the right crowd. Paul Berman is a good example of the kind of person who Obama needs to say is on his staff and is providing him with advice. Because right now, it’s not a question of will he betray Israel or not it’s a question of–does the guy running for the job of Most Powerful Man in the World get the danger posed by Islamism?

Right now, I get the (very unesy) feeling that Obama thinks he can basically charm the Ahmadinejads of this world into acting rationally. He actually said during one of his interviews in this too-long campaign that his father’s Muslim background, his name, and skin color will give him an advantage when talking to the Mullahs. (He said it better obviously but that was the drift.) And it’s plain daft.

Regards,

Inna

Can Obama lose California?

Mutant analysis: “If Obama loses just one key state — California, he loses 55 delegates in one fell sweep. In that case, McCain would win, 318 to 220.” Read more…

Shmuel
I’m curious. What do the most adamant Obamabashers think McCain can do about Iran that Obama cannot?

Anyway, I think that Obama’s position on Israel is close enough to neutral to be (especially when combined with checks and balances) functionally irrelevant and the view Jews have of him entirely irrelevant in votes (he’ll win or lose every state with a sizable Jewish population by more than their percentage of the population) and mostly irrelevant in money

So, yeah, we could use a preview function (only first paragraph should have been italicized)

Well, I don’t know Obama. I knew the anti-Israel adviser he sacked for talking to Hamas, Robert Malley, and I became aware of how evasive some people were regarding the fact that he indeed, was one of his Middle East advisers.
And I know that he belonged for 20 years to a racist church.

Other than that, I don’t know.

Do you think Obama knew that his church published the claim that Israel worked with South Africa on an “ethnic bomb” that would kill only blacks and Arabs? Why is Obama still a member?

Quite possible he knew. The claim was also reported in the Sunday Times of November 15 1998 in a piece by Uzi Mahnaimi and Marie Colvin. I haven’t heard of the Sunday Times losing readers for publishing that piece. That South Africa was developing ethnically-targeted chemical and biological weaponry is not in dispute: Daan Goosen testified to that effect before the TJRC, and repeated the claims on American telly

If you want an institution that has done some truly terrible things during its history, try the catholic Church. I’m still a member; Obama has far less to worry about.

So let me ask the skeptics: is there anything Obama could say or do at this point that would persuade you of his sincerity?

Yes, stop drinking the Koo-Aid and pull out of the Presidential Race.

I’m curious. What do the most adamant Obamabashers think McCain can do about Iran that Obama cannot?

Nothing, of course, because that’s an irrelevant question. it’s all about what they will/would do. Now, while I don’t really think they’d do things that differently, Obama wants everyone to think he’d A) do nothing but diplomacy/peaceful, harmless sanctions, and B) be successful with them.

I don’t understand this comment. Are you saying that who the US elects president will determine what Iran does, but not because of anything that President does. Or something else? Its very unclear.

Regardless, I don’t see how a question about differences in Iran foreign policy could be seen as irrelevant in a US presidential race.

So please, someone, anyone: How would McCain be different than Obama (who you doubt) and Bush (who has failed)?

Shmuel - I think that when the day comes where the President is informed that barring the immediate use of force, Iran will soon perfect a capability to project nuclear fission, McCain will be more likely to order the use of force or give a green light to Israel to do what they can than Obama. I also think Hillary will be more likely to do this than Obama. I might be wrong, but based upon the candidates statements, attitudes, and advisors, I think this is the logical conclusion.

And Bush still has another 8 months to go before he fails.

Of course, if you are convinced that it is impossible to stop Iran nuclearising, then the point becomes irrelevant.

Gene - Obama could impress me by saying that Iran will be stopped from going nuclear by any means necessary.

“Obama could impress me by saying that Iran will be stopped from going nuclear by any means necessary.”

I believe Obama has already said that “Nothing is off the table” regarding Iran.

“McCain will be more likely to order the use of force or give a green light to Israel to do what they can than Obama.”

Israel will attack when Iran passes a point of no return. They will attack with or without a “green light” as their very survival is at stake. One could make a common sense argument that if McCain wins, keeps more troops in Iraq. then we will be in a weaker position to attack Iran.

“I also think Hillary will be more likely to do this than Obama. I might be wrong, but based upon the candidates statements, attitudes, and advisors, I think this is the logical conclusion.”

Hillary is now irrelevant. Although I may have agreed with you 2 weeks ago.

“And Bush still has another 8 months to go before he fails.”

Bush will not attack Iran in the next 8 months (crazy) nor convince a broad coalition to enact truly painful sanctions against Iran (impossible with his admin’s international standing).

Pennsylvania debate:

OBAMA: Well, our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians. And that has to be one of our top priorities, and I will make it one of our top priorities when I’m president of the United States.
I have said I will do whatever is required to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons.

I believe that that includes direct talks with the Iranians, where we are laying out very clearly for them: Here are the issues that we find unacceptable, not only development of nuclear weapons, but also funding terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as their anti-Israel rhetoric and threats toward Israel.

I believe that we can offer them carrots and sticks, but we’ve got to directly engage and make absolutely clear to them what our posture is. Now, my belief is that they should also know that I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons or obtaining nuclear weapons.

And that would include any threats directed at Israel, or any of our allies.

Do you want a prez that talks smart, or just the pandering, point-scoring “obliteration” vocab?

Shmuel, I can’t share your confidence that Israel will have the will to strike at Iran if and when it approaches a point of no return, without at the very least a green light from the President, whoever it may be. I hope I am wrong.

I think there is good cause to feel that if all other means fail, any green light and military support is more likely to be forthcoming from President McCain than President Obama.

“there is good cause to feel that if all other means fail, any green light and military support is more likely to be forthcoming from President McCain than President Obama.”

I’m sorry, but I can’t find a single quote from Obama that would suggest that he would be less likely than McCain to support Israel *and* I’m am beginning to think that he actually has a plan for dealing with Iran that is more substantial than the kind of bluster coming from Bush, McCain and Clinton.

Here is a recent report from Dennis Ross, one of Obama’s advisor’s:

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/html/pdf/RossSenateTestimony20080424.pdf

I can’t share your confidence that Israel will have the will to strike at Iran if and when it approaches a point of no return, without at the very least a green light from the President, whoever it may be. I hope I am wrong.

You are definitely wrong. Israel has a consistent record of pissing off the US when she feels that her survival is at stake. And think about it, who is more likely to get pissed off at Israel for “disobedience,” McCain the hothead or Obama the Philip Roth reader?

Barack Obama, Christian Supremacist:

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll30/EconGradStud/Obama.jpg

Andrew Sullivan surely approves.

(Somehow, he’s even lighter-skinned than Jeremiah Wright.)

“Barack Obama, Christian Supremacist”

Are their other kinds?

Yes, stop drinking the Koo-Aid and pull out of the Presidential Race.

Agreed.

I’ve listerned to Obama’s speeches multiple times and have found ABSOLUTELY nothing of substance.

Were these three candidates totally unknown and anonymous, and were they to have presented their job resumés to a panel of impartial judges, those judges, based on Obama’s track record, would have immediately thrown the man’s CV into the wastebasket.

I’ve never seen a more mediocre candidate-although the other two aren’t much better- and I find it appalling how liberals drop all critical thought and sense of good judgement merely because the man is a member of a visible minority.

They vote like Pavlov’s dog.

If you want an institution that has done some truly terrible things during its history, try the catholic Church. I’m still a member; Obama has far less to worry about.

Oh! absolutely!

Roman Catholic terrorists with their supremacist sentiments, their demonisation of all things and people non-Catholic, their penchant for polygamy and their stated goal to poke their Magisterium into every last aspect of our personnal lives, represent, and this by far, the greatest danger facing us today.

Gee.

He actually said during one of his interviews in this too-long campaign that his father’s Muslim background, his name, and skin color will give him an advantage when talking to the Mullahs. (He said it better obviously but that was the drift.) And it’s plain daft.

Indeed. There’s few things the mullahs hate more than an apostate.

Let me put it briefly: Obama hasn’t done much in his life, other than writing two “autobiographies”. He has no significant accomplishments as a national political figure.

So Obama supporters like Gene want us to judge Obama by his words. But they are unwilling to look at the abundant evidence that Obama says (and writes) all sorts of things that aren’t true, that he is often deceptive about his own past.

So, we can’t judge him by his words, because we can’t trust what he says.

Gene’s faith in Obama’s words is touching, but it is beginning to remind me of a little child’s faith in Santa Claus. Charming, but not a basis for sound political decisions.

(Some Obama supporters — Austan Goolsbee comes to mind — think that Obama is lying to the voters — without realizing that Obama may be lying to them, too. I would hope that Gene is not in that group.)

Obama hasn’t done much in his life, other than writing two “autobiographies”

Jimmy, there’s not that much biograpohical info easily found on your site but did you graduate from Harvard Law, teach at U of Chicago and win a senate race too?

Congratulations!

Obama has been subtley changing his position on Israel/Palestine since 2002, in line with his political ambitions.

http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/barack_obamas_middle_east_surge_01436.html

Whislt this is to be expected, it does raise questions about the disproportionate influence of the Zionist lobby in the USA, including, but by no means limited to, campaign donations. Obama knows which side his bread is buttered on, just as he does on the Jeremiah Wright issue. Compromises, compromises.

For now, Obama is saying what he needs to say. If he is elected president, let’s see what he does. He can either tow the line on Palestine, or he could attempt to negotiate a peace settlement, which necessailly would involve modifying somewhat the USA’s hawkish support for Israel. There’s a chance he might take the latter course, hence the reason why he is distrusted by many Zionists, and why some pro-Palestinians are cautiously optimistic.

Zin wrote:

it does raise questions about the disproportionate influence of the Zionist lobby in the USA

does it?

precisely what might those questions be?

Zin, don’t hold back or become shy, please be expansive and tell us what are those questions?

Shmuel–

Dennis Ross has denied being an Obama advisor.

Regards,

Inna

So it appears that if Obama is elected president and betrays Israel, both Flanker and mesquito will be saying “I told you so.”

I suppose I should add Zin to that list.

I suppose you shouldn’t, as I didn’t suggest that Obama would “betray” Israel by negotiating a peace settlement.

modernity

One of the questions the disproportionate influence of the Zionist lobby in the USA raises is whether shutting down debate on Israel/Palestine is anti-democratic. Another is whether this helps or hinders efforts to negotiate a political solution to the conflict which is fair and sustainable.

Zin,

you are contending

1) that “Zionist” Lobby exists
2) that this “Zionist” Lobby exerts considerable influence
3) and by implication affects American policy in the Middle East
4) based on the above, that other Lobby groups don’t exert any counterbalancing affect?

and I merely asking you to back up your unseen assumptions concerning those notions

To clarify my comment to Gene. I suggested that there is a chance that Obama might negoitate a peace settlement. I didn’t suggest that he would. I’d be delighted if he did, but I wouldn’t say “I told you so” if this happened. Conversely, you can’t say it to me if he doesn’t.

moderrnity

I am beginning to wonder whether you exist, or are just a contrarian computer bot. If you do exist outside the virtual twilight, try reading the article I linked to.

Zin:

Obama would negotiate a peace settlement? I had no idea we had a Palestinian State on our border?

The lessons I get in geography sometimes!

Regards,

Inna

Zin–

Since the US is in the Middle East, do you think Obama should take a stand on what exactly he would do to help Lebanon?

Regards,

Inna

Zin,

Fair enough, but it seems you are happy to bandy around words such as “Zionist Lobby”, etc but unhappy when people pick you up on these points, why is that??

Zin, you are an intelligent individual and a long-term political activists, so do you often use terms that you really don’t understand or try to muddle up the issues?

So again please tell us your views on the “Zionist Lobby”?

Do you think it controls the America media? Or are, in your view, the American Presidents mere puppets to the machinations of the “Zionist Lobby”?

Which is it?

You seem to be Inna right muddle. Try Google Earth.

Regards,

Zin

Not to mention John Palubiski

Sorry, had not realized that so many comments, mostly concerning Zim’s Jimmy Carter-like mouthings about the power of those nasty dual loyality Zionists, had occurred.

What I should have said was that Gene needed to add John Palubiski to the list of those who warned him that Obama would “betray” Israel.

David All,

I doubt that we’ll hear back from Zin on the issue of the “questions about the disproportionate influence of the Zionist lobby in the USA”, he’s none too confident at backing up his wild statements.

Zin is more of a hit-and-run commentor, he’ll pop in make a provocative or silly comment and when challenged he vanishes.

Zin must be a bit embarrassed by his own prejudicial statements and the hero worship that “21st century socialism” indulges in when connected to President Ahmadinejad, look up his speeches http://21stcenturysocialism.com/search?s=Ahmadinejad courtesy of Zin’s own Web site

So it appears that if Obama is elected president and betrays Israel, both Flanker and mesquito will be saying “I told you so.”

I suppose I should add Zin to that list.

To be fair, I should rephrase that as “the list of people who don’t believe Obama means what he says about Israel.”

Zin–

I have and it seemed to indicate that the United States is NOT in the Middle east. Which leaves me with a bit of a quandrary–how can a non-participant in a conflict neotiate peace or war or anything?

Because you said (and I quote): “Obama would “betray” Israel by negotiating a peace settlement.”

Did you mean Obama would negotiate a peace settlement with Canada, perhaps?

Regards,

Inna

modernity

I am not in the least bit unhappy with you. The afternoon sun is shining, there is a cool breeze coming through the window, and your posts are fuelling my profound sense of happiness and joy. If there was “decent” within a mile of Hackney Central, I would rush up to him right now and give him a big hug, and in a Benjaminesque display of solidarity say, “Don’t worry old chap, another Blair will rise like a pheonix from the ashes and lead the world towards the enlightenment.”

Do I think the Zionist lobby “controls the America media”, you ask. No. I think they attempt to influence the media through lobbying, and with some success.

Are American Presidents, in my view, “mere puppets to the machinations of the Zionist Lobby”? Such crudity is anathema to me, but your question betrays that it is not to you. Rather, there is a long established relationship between the US political leadership and Israel, within which the domestic Zionist lobby plays its part. The interests of the two states - the sponsor and the sponsored - coincide to a large extent, although not completely, not all of the time, and not on every issue.

As the Northern Ireland Unionists discovered (and the Cuban-Americans may in due course), tails can only wag dogs with the dogs’ consent.

BTW, Zin, that alleged “interview” with Nasrallah that still appears on your website, and which made many a Western “anti-imperialist” leftist go weak at the knees, was revealed as a fraud a couple of years ago.

Zin–

Could you define who does (and does not) belong to the “domestic Zionist lobby” and what the domestic Zionist lobby’s goals are?

Also, how do they go about achieving these goals?

Thanks,

Inna

Inna

Yes, I meant that Obama might negotiate a peace settlement with Canada. Well spotted.

Regards

Zin

“Well spotted”

Just trying to make sense of your most interesting comments.

You’re most welcome.

Regards,

Inna

Gene

Thanks for pointing that out. We did issue an apology to our readers for our part in carrying a fraudulent story:

http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/nasrallah_interview_was_a_hoax_01196.html

But we must have forgotten to delete the story itself.

What I should have said was that Gene needed to add John Palubiski to the list of those who warned him that Obama would “betray” Israel. David All

Can you read? Zin and I have opposing opinions.

My comment about Obama’s mediocre record, and his lacklustre level of intelligence makes no mention of Israel….just Obama.

Need I mention that betrayal cannot take place unless certain promises have clearly been made and then broken?

Obama has made no promises; he simply chirps the words “change” and “renewal” and holds forth the promise of *redemption* for America’s sins of racism and slavery.

And this, even though Obama and his ancestors, have never experienced either.

A VERY attractive candidate, then, for those without religion, for those who are liberal and crippled with guilt and therefore too cowardly to cast a critical eye at the man’s august list of “achievements”.

A vapid, worthless airhead whose only saving grace (though liberals will NEVER admit it) is his café-au-lait skin.

The ultimate triumph of ‘68 values!

modernity

Publishing verbatim the UN speeches of three presidents (one of whom was the president of Iran), can hardly be described as “hero worship”. Like with your earlier ‘do you still beat your wife’ question, this comment of yours is asinine.

Zin wrote:

Are American Presidents, in my view, “mere puppets to the machinations of the Zionist Lobby”? Such crudity is anathema to me, but your question betrays that it is not to you.

crudity, political or otherwise, is an essential part of the makeup of those who go on about the “Zionist Lobby”, so I had to lower myself to your level to ask the question

but you haven’t given a complete answer, not that I expected it

still do you agree with your comrade, John Cross:

“Israel is a Western political, cultural and military outpost, which serves the US strategy of keeping the region locked in ethnic and territorial conflict. “

http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/barack_obamas_middle_east_surge_01436.html

is that how you see Israel? Alien to the Middle East??

because if you do, I am a bit surprised, you will of course remember the old anti-Jewish racist notion of how Jews were alien to all societies, forever the wandering “cosmopolitans”?

is that a view that you and your comrades subscribe to??

Zin–

Is there any chance you could define:

1) What is theis Zionist lobby in the US (who does and doesn’t belong to it?)

2) What are the Lobby’s goals and objectives?

3) How do they go about securing these goals and objectives?

4) Are they more or less successful than other lobbies, feel free to reference only lobbies that concentrate on foreign policy–although I realize the distinction can be hard to draw (I am thinking of AFL-CIO here)

I can see you are still present at HP and are basically ignoring these most uncomfortable (to you it seems) questions. But I ask because I want to know whether a reasonably well-educated person such as yourself simply has problems with Jews participating in politics as Jews. Because from what you have said thus far, I am afraid to my ears it sure sounds like it.

Regards,

Inna

John Palubiski

From my point of view, it’s precisely Obama’s empty suit that makes makes the prospect of an Obama presidency so enticing. A cafe-au-lait on a wet November evening in 2008 is guaranteed to stir the spirit, don’t you think?

modernity

Yes, I do broadly agree with James Cross’ analysis, although I urge to read the excerpt in the context of the whole article. No, I don’t agree with your follow up question.

Inna

You could try reading the article I posted, or reading the AIPAC website, or alternatively hire a researcher. As to your defective hearing, may I suggest Q-tips?

Regards & good night

Zin

Zin wrote:

No, I don’t agree with your follow up question.

you mean you don’t agree with me asking you that question? or you don’t accept the idea that “Jews are eternal aliens”?

which one?

So the ONLY people who belong to the Zionist lobby belong to AIPAC?

Regards,

Inna

Well 60% of the funding for Democrat Presidential election campaigns comes from Jewish sources, according to the Washington post, so that is bound to have an effect on Obama’s position on Israel.

Does anyone seriously think that it doesn’t?

Greg–

I have met exactly ONE Republican Jew (online). She lives in Florida. I have met another lady who (at one point) considered switching to “Decline to State” from “Democrat” but decided it would be a “betrayal”.

When you have a constituency that can always be counted on to:
1) donate to your party; and
2) vote for your party

I think you take that constituency for granted.

Regards,

Inna

Inna:

Re: Dennis Ross and Obama

http://www.thewashingtoninstitute.org/templateC11.php?CID=486

Zin appears to have made an error even in his posing of the question as, “Do you beat your wife?” The real question is, “have you stopped beating your wife?” Nightie night Zin.

Shmuel–

Right. From your link:

“In recent months, a number of candidates and their campaigns have sought Ambassador Ross’s advice, including the Obama, Clinton, and Romney campaigns. The Obama campaign has turned to him most frequently and with some degree of regularity on Middle Eastern issues, and he has responded with his consistently insightful analysis and useful policy recommendations. He will continue to offer advice on the substantive issues of our foreign and national security policy to the Obama campaign — and any other presidential campaign that requests it — on a nonexclusive basis. In accordance with our organization’s policy on nonpartisanship, Ambassador Ross has not endorsed any presidential candidate.”

Regards,

Inna

Shmuel:
I don’t understand this comment. Are you saying that who the US elects president will determine what Iran does, but not because of anything that President does. Or something else? Its very unclear.