Obama - America's Trojan Horse/Press Myopia!

Olmert apparently caves and leaves Shalit twisting in the wind assuming he is still alive. If Olmert played chess he would lose every pawn.

Why is the Western world moving in the appeasing direction the Olmert's, Carter's and Obamas's seem to favor? Has surrender become the policy of choice in fighting terrorism? (See 1 and 1a 1b below.)

Frustrated Israelis just keep sucking it up while ministers keep visiting, offering no solutions. If Rumsfeld was a failure what do you call Barak? (See 2 below.)

You are known by the company you keep but in Obama's case the media and press tend to look the other way. Is The Trojan Horse story alive and well and now has come to our shores? (See 3 below.)

Newt advises Obama to get specific. Sound advice but getting specific implies admitting and knowing truths and that can be too revealing.

I am currently reading Doris Kearns' book about Lincoln and his Cabinet. It is amazing how far the presidency and The White house have come from what they once were. In Lincoln's day The White House was open to the public and he met and greeted all who came weekly, even during The Civil War, to shake hands etc. As for Lincoln, he earned the monicker "Honest Abe" because he spoke the truth and seldom wavered once he committed. He was a shrewd and patient politician but above all a simple straight talking eloquent speaker. (Just re-read his Gettysburgh Address.) Lincoln was mostly loved and won re-election even though many were against his "Emancipation Declaration" and the North suffered terrible military reverses as Lincoln struggled to find the right generals to pursue the war. (Iraq and GW come to mind.)

Racism has always lain beneath the surface of our nation's body politic and this year's presidential campaign has simply served to resurrect it. It is not Obama's color that concerns most of those in opposition to his candidacy, though there are those who are, for that sole reason. What is troubling is Obama's values, his policies, his lack of experience, his bobbing and weaving about his associations and their influence over him and his clever deception. He is a gifted orator but there is little substance behind the mellifluousness. His campaign slogan about change is slick but also surface. His vision is lofty but blurred by lack of substance.

As Newt claims, Obama has run a winning campaign but it has been against a disliked candidate whose own negatives, and those of her husband, made her beatable. The press and media were eager to embrace Obama because it was both politically correct but also provided them a way out of their self-imposed dilemma. They were delighted to disengage from the Clintons' whom they embraced against all detractors who always saw them for what they were - political low lifes.

The same will be true one day should Obama become president. Having foregone both the opportunity and obligation to vet and unearth the true Obama, the press will be only too happy to throw him overboard when his failures mount - but only after they find another Messiah to anoint and embrace. However, to do so prematurely would be a reflection on their own myopic tendencies.(See 4 below.)

Dick

1) Israel encourages Egyptian Hamas ceasefire effort - against military advice



Egyptian intelligence minister Gen. Omar Suleiman Monday, May 12, presented the truce plan he negotiated with Hamas leaders in Cairo to Israel’s prime minister Ehud Olmert, defense minister Ehud Barak and foreign minister Tzipi Livni.

Sources report Israeli ministers essentially accepted the offer with some caveats and sent the Egyptian general back for a second round of bargaining. They accepted his advice to treat kidnapped Israeli soldier Cpl Gilead Shalit as a separate issue from the emerging truce deal and leave it to a later stage.

Israeli military sources reacted angrily to the truce plan’s outline. They accused the prime minister of yielding to Hamas aggression in the same way as Lebanon’s Fouad Siniora capitulated to Hizballah after the Iran-backed terrorists seize large swathes of Lebanon. Those sources found Olmert’s surrender all the more unacceptable because, while the Lebanese prime minister lacks an army capable of taking on Hizballah, Israel has one of the finest armies in the world which the government is holding back from defending half a million civilians under daily attack.

These are the main points of Suleiman’s truce plan, according to our sources:

1. Israel must lift its blockade on the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip and open all the crossings.

2. Israel should heed Hamas political chief Khaled Meshaal’s words to the Egyptian general in private rather than his public rhetoric. He quoted Meshaal as saying on the quiet that Hamas is not a political, military or religious organization; its decisions are not political and not governed by clerics. Hamas therefore deserves to be encouraged in its pursuit of this path.

3. The way to “stifle” Hamas is not by confrontation but rapprochement through a long-tem informal truce (hudna).

4. Once afoot, the truce will develop its own dynamic and start a process of change in Hamas.

5. A ceasefire is the only way to restore Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas to any sort of foothold in the Gaza Strip. Abbas’ Fatah and Hamas must be encouraged to bury the hatchet after a Hamas coup expelled PA forces last year and start talking about a Palestinian unity government.

6. Egyptian guarantees are an offer to halt the smuggling of arms and fighting men into the Gaza Strip through Sinai.

7. Israeli’s insistence on including the Gilead Shalit issue in the truce package will put an put paid to the entire deal. It should therefore be held separate and approached after the truce is up and running smoothly.

The prime minister told the Egyptian visitor that he accepts the Egyptian truce plan in principle but it needs further sweetening before he can bring it before the security cabinet for approval.

Heads of the IDF’s southern command found it hard to see the Israeli prime minister dickering over Hamas concessions when a 70-year old Israel woman was being murdered by a Palestinian missile from Gaza at Mosha Yesha. But, above all, they wished to remind the government that while Suleiman’s offer was smoothly presented and may have sounded reasonable to some, Meshaal’s promises and Egyptian guarantees have never stood up in the past.

The only effect of any cessation of hostilities has invariably been to grant Hamas a breather for upgrading its weaponry and bringing more Israeli targets within range of attack. In any case, rather than meeting Israeli halfway in indirect negotiations, Hamas is expected to run to form and intensify its attacks on Israel’s southwestern towns and villages. They will be trying to force Israel to waive further provisos as well as making a statement to mark US president George W. Bush’s Middle East trip this week, along with Hizballah and Tehran.

1a) Obama's Attitude on Lebanon, and the Palestinians
By Ed Lasky

The dire events on Lebanon have given us an opportunity to discover Senator Barack Obama's worldview and how it might influence his policies towards the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

Over the last few days, the Shiite and Iranian-sponsored group Hezb'allah launched a reign of terror against the Lebanese government and the nation's Sunni, Druze, and Christian populations. Scores are now dead and the hope of a free and stable Lebanon has literally gone up in smoke. Of course, the Lebanese will be the first victims. But more will follow.

The consequences are dire: Iran has expanded the Shiite Crescent to the shores of the Mediterranean; another pocket of Christians in the Middle East will be pressured; the hope of reformers dashed; Syria will be emboldened; the United Nations and the Western nations have been shown feckless and unworthy of alliance and trust; and our ally Israel will have a more formidable enemy on her borders. The risk of a new outbreak of war between Hezb'allah and Israel has just risen measurably.

A window into the candidate's worldview was opened when he issued this statement about Lebanon.

Hezb'allah's power grab in Beirut has once more plunged that city into violence and chaos. This effort to undermine Lebanon's elected government needs to stop, and all those who have influence with Hezb'allah must press them to stand down immediately. It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment. We must support the implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions that reinforce Lebanon's sovereignty, especially resolution 1701 banning the provision of arms to Hezb'allah, which is violated by Iran and Syria. As we push for this national consensus, we should continue to support the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Siniora, strengthen the Lebanese army, and insist on the disarming of Hezb'allah before it drags Lebanon into another unnecessary war. As we do this, it is vital that the United States continues to work with the international community and the private sector to rebuild Lebanon and get its economy back on its feet.


This statement has been widely criticized.

Noah Pollak has noted its otherworldly focus:

This effort to undermine Lebanon's elected government needs to stop, and all those who have influence with Hezb'allah must press them to stand down immediately.

Does Obama understand that the people who "have influence with Hezb'allah" happen to be the same people on whose behalf Hezb'allah is rampaging through Lebanon?

Then there is the absurd prescription:

It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment.

So that's the problem in Lebanon? Economics and the electoral system?


While Lebanon burns, Barack Obama talks about fiddling with electoral rules and patronage practices (f it is anyone who knows about patronage it should be Barack Obama, who learned politics the Chicago way). This sort of statement might be appropriate for a college campus but in the real world -- while people are being murdered -- it has a certain surreal and blame-the-victim tone.

He also seems to be channeling Hezb'allah, as his calls for change almost word for word echo their position ; indeed it bears an eerie similarity to the demands listed in Hezb'allah's own Memorandum of Understanding (hat tip: Gateway Pundit):

"Reforming and organizing Lebanese political life require the adoption of a modern electoral law (of which proportional representation may be an effective form) that guarantees the accuracy and fairness of popular representation."


Hezbollah has projected the image that its raison d'être is to provide social welfare services for its fellow Shiites who otherwise have not received their equitable share of government services. Hezb'allah has also called for electoral reform (something that now seems to have been accomplished at the point of a gun) so it can exploit its hold over Lebanon and give itself a veneer of legitimacy. That may very well be their next step. They already have a large number of seats in the Lebanese Parliament. Now they will demand -- at the point of the gun -- that a President be chosen that suits their goals and that electoral reform be done in such a way that enhances their stranglehold over Lebanon.

Jimmy Carter, have your passport ready.

Barack Obama apparently views Hezb'allah terrorism as a response to unfair electoral rules and a failure to get enough government benefits. While Lebanon burns, he counsels fiddling with the rules and regulations. He sees terror as an expression of pent-up anger that can be assuaged through some tinkering with the Lebanese electoral system.

Not only is this naïve, he also seems to give only a passing concern to the rise of Shiite -- and specifically Iranian -- hegemony throughout the region and the role of terrorism in furthering Iranian geopolitical goals. He sees the cedar trees, but not the forest.

Hezb'allah is widely considered to be a key part of Iran's imperial designs for the region; it is sponsored, trained and supported by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. They are basically a tool of terror -- one of many in Iran's arsenal. He makes only a passing reference to the influence of Iran (and Syria) but refuses to recognize them as the sources of the problem and the mastermind behind the violence raging in Lebanon. Naturally enough given this perspective, Barack Obama does not view the Guards as a terror group either. He also clearly ignores the religious component of Hezb'allah's terrorism that is at the heart of its drive for power.

How might this view be manifested in another arena-the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians?

The Palestinians have long complained that they have been mistreated by the Israelis -- this despite the fact that, until they adopted terrorism as a tactic, they enjoyed a tremendous rise in their living standards after the 1967 war. Palestinians have repeatedly claimed that they have become impoverished, their lands have been stolen, their water aquifers drained, that their towns have been on the short end of the stick when it comes to government benefits, that they are discriminated against when it comes to employment opportunities. Needless to say, they have also complained about a lack of autonomy -- that they are ruled over by the Israelis and have no or little say in running the West Bank (in Gaza they have used their autonomy to become a launching pad for missiles).

There is clearly symmetry between the views of Hezb'allah towards the Lebanese government and those of the Palestinians towards the Israeli government.

Barack Obama seems to have sympathy for the complaints and demands of Hezb'allah; indeed, he has all but endorsed their goals. As to their methods, relying on the United Nations, Syria and Iran to restrain Hezb'allah would be humorous if it was not so clueless -- and so likely to lead to continuing tragedy.

Will Barack Obama frame the Palestinian-Israeli dispute as he has the Shiite dispute with the Lebanese government? Will he back the Palestinian demands as he has backed the Shiite demands? Will he place the onus of the blame on Israel for the terrorism of the Palestinians? Will he rely upon the United Nations and the "goodwill" of Arab supporters of the Palestinians to restrain them from committing further acts of violence?

Hope might be winning campaign slogan, but as a foreign policy principle it leaves much to be desired.

1b) Scary Signals: Obama's Ideology Hints At Dangerous Policy
By Barry Rubin

One of many scary things about Senator Barrack Obama is how mistaken his ideology makes him, even when he thinks he's getting it right. If Obama shows disastrous positions even when still trying to make voters think him supportive of Israel or tough on Hezb'allah what would he do if he actually were to become president?

Let's examine two official Obama statements to see why they appear good superficially and incredibly worrisome when analyzed.

Senator Barrack Obama's official statement on Israel's sixtieth birthday is, on the face of it, good. But it is in fact almost contemptuous. It is boring boiler plate, which could have been written by anyone at any time in the last forty years, with no personal touch.

One thing he doesn't do is to associate himself personally and his program with Israel. It would have been easy if he cared -- or if his campaign saw this as anything but throwing a bone to the Jews -- for him to put in something distinctive like: "Israel is living proof that change can happen. It is a country that has always said `Yes, we can!' despite great obstacles."

But no, he just puts in a few clichés as if to highlight his belief that he can get away with anything and still keep gullible Jewish voters.

When, however, there is something distinctive it is negative intentions disguised as idealism. The statement says:

"Still, there is no greater gift America can give to Israel -- no better way we can salute our Israeli friends on this important anniversary -- than to redouble our commitment to help Israel achieve its goal of true security through lasting peace with its neighbors. The United States does Israel no favors when it neglects opportunities for progress in Arab-Israeli peacemaking.

"Israelis can always count on the United States to stand with them against any threat, from as close as Gaza or as far as Tehran, and to ensure that Israel has the means to defend itself. Israel has real enemies, and we will face them together. But standing with Israel also requires America to do everything it can to reduce and ease the conflict with the Arab neighbors. To do any less would be to prevent Israel from achieving its full, extraordinary potential."


Obviously, peace is good. But it is no longer the Oslo era. Things should have been learned. A combination of factors, notably Hamas, makes the chances for peace quite low, a point unrecognized in the statement. And despite the fine, carefully worded sentence the subliminal message screams out: Pressure Israel for its own good AND peace at any price.

What if the neighbors don't want to make real peace? What if they don't keep commitments already made? Is there some point where the United States reaches this conclusion and gives Israel strong support? What happens after Obama talks to Bashar al-Asad of Syria and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and Hamas and Hezb'allah? Is it possible that he could conclude that dialogue is no good and full backing for Israel is required? No.

And how about supporting a strong Israel as a means of getting the radicals to back down and the semi-radicals to act a bit moderate? No sense of this concept.

Compare to what he could have said. My rewrite:

Still, there is no greater gift America can give to Israel -- no better way we can salute our Israeli friends on this important anniversary -- than to redouble our commitment to help Israel achieve its goal of true security through providing it with military equipment, isolating and pressuring its hostile neighbors, demanding an end to terrorism and incitement, and remembering who is America's true friend in the region.


Also, while of course the United States must set its own policy, there is no hint of consultation, or that Israel should itself be able to determine its security needs and goals. If America must "do everything it can to reduce and ease the conflict," it will be Obama who will decide what that is. Bargain with Iran and Syria? Engage with Hamas and Hezb'allah? Demand Israel close down roadblocks which -- I will trust Israeli services on this matter -- stop terrorists?

Senator Obama has zero experience on this issue. And the idea that he -- and some of the people he will appoint (judging by the terrible, overwhelmingly anti-Israel choices he has made as advisors) -- is not likely to make choices in determining what makes Israel better and more secure.

If this is the best Obama can do as a candidate courting Jewish votes I shudder to think what he would do if elected.

Yet it is very important to understand that this is not at all about Israel. It is about the Middle East as a whole. The question is how Obama would manage the issues of Iranian nuclear, Iraq, Lebanon, radical Islamism, and terrorism. In each case, there is much to worry about. And a lot of the worrying is being done by Arabs.

The relative moderates have good reason to fear an Obama victory. Consider, for example, Obama's May 10 statement on Lebanon. He starts out sounding tough, talking about "Hezbollah's power grab in Beirut...This effort to undermine Lebanon's elected government needs to stop, and all those who have influence with Hezbollah must press them to stand down immediately," support for the Lebanese government, "strengthen the Lebanese army," and "insist on disarming Hezbollah."

But how to do this? By "working with the international community and the private sector to rebuild Lebanon and get its economy back on its feet."

In other words, according to the Obama world view, it's a problem of economic development. If people have more money they won't be terrorists. (Presumably, like people in Pennsylvania, only the lack of jobs makes people in Lebanon cling to guns and religion.)

Of course, however, an energetic (albeit flawed) economic development policy was what Hariri tried and it worked to some extent. Nevertheless, the Syrians blew him up. In politics, bombs trump business. And anyway you can't have a strong economy with political chaos and armed militias. If you ask Hezb'allah supporters whether they prefer guns, Islamism, and power or Western economic aid, they will not say, "It's the economy, stupid."

Obama then goes to his second way to avoid the need for a tough stance and the use of American power -- the UN. His statement continues: "We must support the implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions that reinforce Lebanon's sovereignty, especially resolution 1701 banning the provision of arms to Hezbollah, which is violated by Iran and Syria."

Great. But that only begs the question. Are you willing to fight on this issue; commit troops; defy, if necessary, an "international community" which opposes action? And, again, there is the paucity of serious analysis of an issue, instead merely sweeping a magic wand. There are reasons why those resolutions have not been implemented: doing so requires some shooting and dying.

Of course, a lot of Obama's appeal is his offer of painless solutions, vague and soothing. At every turn, however, we see that he has no concept of the use of political power, deterrence, sanctions, leverage, military assets, facing down an enemy rather than having face time with him.

His third way to avoid all this is the idea that the Lebanese army will solve the problem. Perhaps he isn't aware that its commander is Syria's presidential candidate, its soldiers are mostly pro-Hezb'allah, and it is famously ineffective. Unfortunately, giving money to the Lebanese military may be only one step better than giving it to Hezb'allah or Syria.

But here's the worst part that few in America but everyone in Lebanon will understand all too well:

"It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment."


This is the Hezb'allah program. It wants a new Lebanese consensus based on it having, along with its pro-Syrian allies, 51 percent of the power. It advocates an electoral reform that will give Hezb'allah more votes. President George W. Bush helped elect Hamas in the Palestinian territories by a similar strategy; Obama would put Hezb'allah into power in Beirut.

What's needed in Lebanon is not consensus -- the equivalent, which Obama would probably favor, is getting Fatah and Hamas to bury their differences, and another he openly supports is bringing in Iran and Syria to determine Iraq's future -- but the willingness to fight a battle. In effect, Obama is arguing for a Syrian-, Iranian-, and Hezb'allah-dominated Lebanon. Such talk makes moderate Arabs despair.

The Lebanese-American blogger at "From Beirut to the Beltway" shows how Lebanese government supporters regard Obama's dangerous naiveté:

"Oh the time we wasted by fighting Hezb'allah all those years....If only we had engaged them and their masters [i.e., Syria and Iran] in diplomacy, instead of just sitting with them around discussion tables, welcoming them into our parliament, and letting them veto cabinet decisions. If only Obama had shared his wisdom with us before, back when he was rallying with some of our former friends at pro-Palestinian rallies in Chicago. How stupid we were when, instead of developing `national consensus' with them, we organized media campaigns against Israel on behalf of the impoverished people who voted for them.

"During that time when we bought into the cause against Israel, treating resistance fighters like our brothers, we really should have been `building consensus' with them. Because what we did back in 1982, 1993, 1996, 2000 and 2006 -- all that was plain betrayal and unnecessary antagonism, a product of `a corrupt patronage system and unfair distribution of wealth.'

"We stand today regretting the wasted time that could have been wisely spent talking to them, to the Syrian occupiers who brought them into our system, and the Iranian revolutionary guards who trained them."


One can debate about the efficacy of Obama's world view and (lack of) experience applied to domestic American issues. In the Middle East, however, it would be quite disastrous.


2) The govt's powerlessness these days is intolerable'

Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Tuesday visited Moshav Yesha, where 70-year-old Shula Katz was killed a day earlier by a Kassam rocket fired from the Gaza Strip. Residents of the area asked Barak to provide an answer for the security threat posed by the constant barrage of rockets and mortar shells. Barak asked the residents to be strong and show resolve.

He said that the government was aspiring to achieve quiet in the area. However, he added, "It won't take another eights years, and not even another year. But tomorrow the situation will not change." He pledged to promote the fortification of the area and the building of shelters. He also said that all of the schools and bus stops would be fortified.

Haim Yellin, the head of the Eshkol Regional Council, replied that "Instead of demanding that the residents stand resolutely the government should act swiftly in order to end Kassam fire."

"The government's powerlessness and its disappearance during these difficult days in the Gaza periphery are intolerable," Yellin and the head of the Shaar Hanegev Regional Council, Alon Shuster, told the defense minister. "We want to meet [US President George W.] Bush because he's the one who's really calling the shots."

Shlomit Katz, 70, of Kibbutz Gvar'am, was killed while visiting Moshav Yesha in the Eshkol Regional Council. The deadly attack came four days after a mortar shell killed Jimmy Kedoshim, 48, a father of four, as he stood in the yard of his house in Kibbutz Kfar Aza in the Negev.

Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for Monday's attack, after which certain defense officials warned against accepting the Egyptian-proposed cease-fire with Hamas and called for a military response to the continued rocket fire. A half-dozen rockets fell in the western Negev area Monday, including one that landed in Ashkelon.

Despite the escalation in violence, officials close to Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that Israel was leaning toward accepting Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman's truce offer, which was presented to the defense minister during a breakfast meeting at Barak's Tel Aviv home earlier in the day. Israel plans to first gradually accept the offer and later turn it into a full-fledged cease-fire following Gilad Schalit's release.

3)For pro-Israel voters, Obama's middle name should be the least of their concerns
By Jonathan Mark




Pro-Hamas advisor may be gone, but senator has more radical backers press is ignoring.


Recent weeks have seen a considerable amount of coverage focusing on whether Sen. Barack Obama has too many friends with an anti-American bias, notably his longtime pastor, Jeremiah Wright, whom Obama has finally renounced, and William Ayers, a Chicago professor who was a 1960s radical with the Weathermen terrorist group, a friendship Obama dismissed as casual.


But if Wright and Ayers have been thoroughly explored in primary debates and interviews, Obama's other relationships with radicals have been relatively unexplored.


For example, the Los Angeles Times devoted a lengthy front-page story (April 10) by Peter Wallsten headlined, "Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama. They consider him receptive despite his clear support of Israel." The story was not picked up by any other American paper. It is rather unusual for a major daily to think a story worthy of front-page coverage and no other paper to share that assessment.


The story focused on Obama's time as an Illinois state legislator, just five years ago, when he was friends, if not allied, with Rashid Khalidi, the vocal anti-Zionist professor at Columbia University who at the time was living in Obama's Chicago district; Edward Said, the late anti-Zionist professor and member of the Palestinian Authority legislature; and Ali Abunimah, a resident of Obama's district and editor of the Electronic Intifada online journal.


At a farewell party for Khalidi, Obama is quoted as saying that his conversations with Khalidi had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases."


Wallsten writes, the Obama-Khalidi relationship "have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say."


They base that belief on his presence at "events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed," not unlike those who wonder about Obama's truest self after his relationship with Wright and his anger.


"I am confident that Barack Obama is more sympathetic to the position of ending the occupation than either of the other candidates," said Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow for the American Task Force on Palestine, to Wallsten.


The foreign minister of Hamas has recently endorsed Obama for president, another story that has sunk like a stone, barely reported other than by Fox and a popular right-wing website, even though Sen. John McCain brought it up on the campaign trail.


In 1998, reports Wallsten, Obama attended a speech by Edward Said in which Said called for a nonviolent campaign "against settlements, against Israeli apartheid." Later, Obama and his wife were photographed at dinner with Said. "If only Obama could burn this picture," writes Al Ahram, but the Cairo paper printed the picture anyway.


Abraham Foxman, national director for the Anti-Defamation League, told the Los Angeles Times, "In the context of [Obama] spending 20 years in a church" where anti-Israel rhetoric was repeated, "that's what makes his presence at an Arab-American event with a Said a greater concern."


Wallsten reports that Abunimah of Electronic Intifada said he heard Obama call for an "even-handed approach" toward Israel. In 2004, when Obama was running for the Senate, Abunimah quoted Obama as saying that he was sorry he wasn't talking more about the Palestinian cause, but that his primary campaign had constrained what he could say. (Obama told Jewish leaders in Cleveland recently that a pro-Israel position is not necessarily a pro-Likud one.)


And yet Wallsten's story of Obama's Palestinian-American support, while burning up the blogosphere from the Huffington Post to The Nation to Zionist sites, received almost no coverage beyond that. It was reprinted on a Fox TV Web site in Seattle and was mentioned in the Jordan Times.


Obama has not been asked about it in the debates, and in meetings with Jewish communities in Cleveland and Philadelphia, where he has been asked repeatedly about Wright's relationship with Louis Farrakhan but not about his own relationship with Electronic Intifada.

4)Dear Senator Obama … A Republican reformer has advice for the new guy promising to clean up Washington: get specific.
By Newt Gingrich



Your campaign has been brilliant. It has given you more support and more momentum than most analysts expected a year ago. Keeping things simple and vague has worked so far, and it might work all the way to the White House. "Change you can believe in" is a great all-purpose slogan. It allows every person to fill in his or her own interpretation of what it means. In some ways, it's reminiscent of Jimmy Carter's 1976 promise to run "a government as good as the American people."

The challenge you will face in the next few months is stark. Do you want to remain vague? You might win—but you might find that, in winning, you have a "victory of personality" with no real policy consequences. Or do you want to provide specifics? If so, your victory could be a clarion call from the American people to Congress to join you in achieving your goals.

I participated in two successful "change" campaigns: the Reagan revolution of 1980 and the "Contract With America" in 1994. Both were built around a limited number of powerful, specific proposals. As a freshman congressman in 1980, working in coordination with the Reagan presidential campaign, we selected five popular themes we knew would help our candidates get elected and create momentum for President Reagan's bold agenda. The clarity of these five positions (the two most important were a three-year, 30 percent tax cut and strengthening the military) helped our candidates in the closing weeks of the campaign. We won the presidency, six seats in the Senate, 33 in the House—and joined with a minority of Democrats to pass the key measures into law.

In 1994, House Republicans had been in the minority for 40 years. We needed to do something dramatic. So instead of a traditional platform of vague commitments ("We believe in …"), we offered a clear program of specifics ("In the first 100 days, we will …"). We also enjoyed the advantage of positive historical trends. Already, there was an emerging consensus in favor of welfare reform, tax cuts, a stronger military and a balanced federal budget. Every item in the "Contract With America" had support from the vast majority of Americans.

Can you find five big changes that are substantive, popular—and can rally Democrats from the House and Senate to join you on the Capitol steps in September or October? If you cannot, you should question if you'll be able to deliver on your "change" slogan. Your campaign advisers may not care about that. Their instinct will be to win the election and leave the difficulties of governing up to you. But if you want to be a genuine historic agent of change "we can believe in," then you have to look beyond Election Day.

President Carter never understood this. When his vague campaign of "trust me" and "a government as good as the American people" came to Washington, it ran into a Democratic Congress that didn't trust him and that wanted a government that was good for the Congress. Carter, like many outsiders who become president (including the current White House resident), greatly underestimated the institutional strengths of the Congress. Many state legislatures meet very rarely. Georgia was like that when Carter was governor, and the Texas legislature only meets every other year. This gave Governor Bush a considerable misunderstanding of the depth of institutional trouble he would face in Washington.