Obama - The Quick /Slick Change Artist?

Does Hillary's reference to Bobby Kennedy reveal her Freudian slip was showing? If not, then it simply verifies the fact that she remains the frightening "bitch" many believe she is. Some supporters have offered the excuse she was tired. Pretty lame one in my book.

Ironically, Lincoln composed his Cabinet of his competitors and the story was aptly told by Doris Kearns, in her Pulizter Winning book. I doubt Michelle will suggest Obama do so when it comes to Hillary.

After watching Hillary campaign and go through her many tempestuous mood swings, one almost- only almost - makes you feel sympathy for poor "ole Bill." No wonder "blue" attracted him. Living with Hillary has to have been so depressing.

Diehards to the end. (See 1 below.)

Before Nov 4, Obama will have changed his original "without pre-conditions" so often he will have forgotten what he said or why he said it - ever the slick Chicago politician that he is.

Perhaps that is what Obama means by "change" - he will change his mind when it does not play well and exposes him to criticisms which demonstrate his lack of experience and consequent gaffes. In other words, Obama is a quick (slick - you choose) "change" artist.(See 2 Below.)

Iran supports Syria's right to get back The Golan. For sure Syria is entitled to get back The Golan assuming it is willing to meet the conditions which Olmert has
laid down, live by them and the U.S. sanctions them as well. Olmert's feet, of course, must also be held to the fire so he does not give more to save his own neck and leave Israel with empty Assad and Syrian promises.

Since none of this is likely to happen, negotiations with Syria may well become Shakespearian - Much Ado About Nothing.(See 3 below.)

Abbas, who has threatened more than once to quit the negotiations, is now concerned Olmert's legal problems and the U.S. election will push the Palestinian problem aside. Abbas also must be concerned Olmert is putting too much on his plate and can arm wrestle two track negotiations.

Maybe Olmert is smarter than I give him credit for being and he is purposely taking on more than he can chew in order to assure failure but that just does not make sense since he pledged to GW his commitment to make peace with Palestinians. If he infuriates GW with this Syrian ploy, as some think is the case, that really would be the final nail in Olmert's coffin. On the other hand there are those who believe GW has given Olmert wiggle room to pull off a deal that might save Olmert's neck.

No one really knows at this point so time will, possibly shed some light. (See 4 and 4a below.)

The stunning overturn of GW's veto of the pork laden Ag Bill is quite revealing.

It verifies what we all know about Democrats - they love government, see it as the cow that provides endless milk even in the face of mounting deficits and unabashedly are willing to pay off their constituents with your tax dollars. That said, this is what the public expects so they are not threatened by their actions. They are simply being who they are and true to their colors.

As for those Republicans who voted to overturn that is another matter. These dolts have lost all sense of shame. Obviously, years of Gerrymandering has provided them with "theoretically" secure seats so they feel safe in demonstrating they are more interested in re-election than dedicating themselves to responsible governance and adhering to conservative fiscal values.

They seem not fearful of the results of the three most recent special elections in which Republicans, occupying historically safe seats, were turned out of office by Democrats wearing conservative sheep skins.

It all goes to prove we have the best government money can buy and nothing will change until Humpty has fallen and cracked and the cost of replacing him will be beyond our means. Seems Humpty is in mid-air and there is no safety net.

Dick

1) Clinton Backers Vow to `Go to the End' for Candidate
By Indira A.R. Lakshmanan


Hillary Clinton has practically no chance to win the Democratic presidential nomination, and she's under increasing pressure to drop out of the race so Barack Obama can start the general-election campaign. Don't tell that to diehard loyalists like Lindsay Tanner.

``If she's in it, I'm in it,'' said Tanner, 32, an accountant from Birmingham, Alabama, who has taken weeks of vacation and paid her own way to Texas, Pennsylvania, Indiana and Kentucky to wave signs, canvass neighborhoods and shout herself hoarse.

Many of Clinton's true believers haven't accepted her loss and, more troubling for Obama, a significant number say they would rather vote Republican or stay home than support him -- unless the 60-year-old New York senator is also on the ticket.

There was a flurry of rumors today that Obama and Clinton were discussing a deal to make her his running mate, and that former President Bill Clinton was pushing it. Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said the reports were ``completely untrue,'' and Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee called them ``absurd.''

Some Clinton supporters, like Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell and New York Senator Charles Schumer, have said an Obama- Clinton ticket is the Democrats' best hope in the fall.

Obama supporters such as Senator Edward Kennedy, 76, have dismissed that possibility and said he should focus on other candidates. Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd, 63, said today he doubts there will be an Obama-Clinton ticket. ``My guess is he's going to want to have people with him that will complement what he wants to do,'' said Dodd. A joint ticket ``may not be the right fit.''

Biased Coverage

That's not going to please Clinton supporters, many of whom say sexism and biased media coverage have made for an unfair fight. They're furious that her wins in Florida and Michigan were invalidated because the states broke Democratic Party rules.

``The media's been trying to manipulate us from the beginning,'' said Miriam Picconi, 64, a church worker in Frankfort, Kentucky, who cheered Clinton on in a college gym weeks after delegate-counters said the race was over. She even donated $150 from her fixed income.

Paula Steinher, a 58-year-old housewife from Anderson, Ohio, has worked phone banks in three states. ``I say, `Go to the end.' They're just trying to scare her off,'' Steinher said of pundits and politicians aligned with Obama, 46, an Illinois senator.

`A Ploy'

``Bill Clinton says it's a ploy to keep us at home,'' agreed Larry Jewell, 57, a store clerk from Bowling Green, Kentucky, who brought his two sons to see Hillary Clinton. Jewell, who's black, said he's disappointed at other African-Americans for backing Obama over a female candidate he considers more experienced.

Last week, a group of women who have contributed to Clinton the maximum amount of money allowed formed WomenCount, an independent political action committee. Within days, they raised $300,000 for full-page ads in USA Today, the New York Times and regional newspapers. Headlined ``Not So Fast,'' the ad urges the party ``to hear our voices and count all of our votes.''

In Miami, where Clinton pressed the case this week for counting her victories in Florida and Michigan, Margaret Black, 47, said she still prefers Clinton as ``the person who can hit the ground running.''

Won't Back Obama

Whether it's anger at Obama's comments about ``bitter'' small-town Americans, his relationship with a pastor who condemned the U.S., or racism, a number of Clinton loyalists say they won't vote for him in November.

``I'm in denial now, I don't want to think about her not winning,'' said Tanner, who said this is the first time she put her heart, soul and wallet into politics. ``I may write in her name'' in November, she said.

Tanner's friend, Julie Mann, 29, a marketing executive who knows Clinton's wardrobe so well that she could predict which color jacket she'd be wearing at a recent rally, shook her head vehemently when asked if she could support Obama.

``The more people learn about Obama, the less happy they are,'' said Mann, who volunteered for Clinton in six states.

Carol Palmore, 59, former Kentucky labor secretary, said she'll support Obama in the fall, overcoming aching disappointment she and many other women feel. ``Never in our lifetime will we have another chance to have a woman president,'' she said.

Hillary as VP?

Rodney Mattingly, 56, a public health official from Lebanon, Kentucky, echoed the sentiments of many Clintonites in offering a possible solution: ``If she were the VP, we'd vote for Obama.''

Some Democrats say that would be a bad trade-off for Obama.

Dan Gerstein, a Democratic strategist and Obama supporter, said Clinton ``turns off a decent chunk'' of the electorate, especially independent voters, so choosing her as vice president would be inconsistent with Obama's central theme: ``He has spent the last several months saying that she is what's wrong with Washington.''

Such a ticket would also offer too much diversity, he said. Having the first African-American run with a woman may be ``too much change,'' he said. ``That may be injecting too much risk in the calculus.''

2) Obama Qualifies Stance On Iran Diplomacy
By JAY SOLOMON

Barack Obama, under attack from President Bush and John McCain for pledges to meet with Iran's leadership, has started to qualify his prior bold stance, setting new preconditions and qualifications.

At the same time, Sen. McCain's stand against talks with Tehran turns out to be more nuanced as well. Indeed, the two candidates' positions seem to be converging on what has become one of the most contentious issues in the early debates of the likely general-election candidates.

A centerpiece of Sen. Obama's foreign policy has been what he says is placing a greater emphasis on diplomacy than President Bush, including engaging Washington's adversaries. Speaking Friday in Miami, Sen. Obama told a Cuban-American audience: "It's time to pursue direct diplomacy, with friend and foe alike," including Cuban leader Raúl Castro.

The Illinois senator drew heat in July after pledging in a debate his willingness to meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela and North Korea during his first year in office, without preconditions.

The Democratic presidential front-runner framed his position as a sharp break from the administration's focus on isolating adversaries, which he said has only diminished U.S. influence globally. He said such dialogue with Washington's adversaries was central to America's hopes of extricating itself from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sen. Obama, his aides say, never specifically declared a desire for a one-on-one meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But Sen. Obama didn't directly rule it out, either. In response to the query last summer about whether he would meet Iran's leader -- unnamed -- during his year in office, Sen. Obama replied: "I would."

His Democratic rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, and Sen. McCain have both portrayed Sen. Obama's pledge as evidence of a lack of foreign-policy experience -- even naivete. President Bush this month in Israel took what was widely seen as a thinly veiled swipe at Sen. Obama by equating dialogue with governments like Iran's as the type of "appeasement" that gave rise to Nazi Germany.

In near-daily references over the past two weeks, Sen. McCain has painted Sen. Obama as willing to engage directly with Mr. Ahmadinejad, a leader who has openly called for Israel's destruction and questions the Holocaust.

"The President of the United States sitting down across the table from Ahmadinejad would increase his influence and his prestige...and would probably scare the daylights out of other countries in the region," Sen. McCain said Tuesday.

Even some foreign-policy analysts who have voiced support for Sen. Obama's overall approach toward Iran say a presidential meeting with Mr. Ahmadinejad ahead of 2009 Iranian elections could undercut U.S. foreign-policy interests. They say such a summit could enhance Mr. Ahmadinejad's political standing and marginalize Iranian moderates competing in the Iranian vote.

Facing these criticisms, Sen. Obama and his advisers have moved to define more clearly the conditions under which he would meet Iranian leaders as president. They have regularly repeated in recent days that Sen. Obama wouldn't necessarily meet Mr. Ahmadinejad, noting he could be out of office next year. But they also have stressed that any meeting involving Sen. Obama and an Iranian leader would occur only after lower-level meetings at which the terms and issues of the engagement would be set.

"The point is that I wouldn't refuse to meet until they agree to every position that we want," Sen. Obama said on May 16. "But that doesn't mean we wouldn't have preparation...lower-level diplomatic contacts, having our diplomatic corps work through with Iranian counterparts, an agenda."

Some analysts question how different Sen. Obama's approach toward Iran would ultimately be from the Bush administration's. Despite President Bush's veiled swipe at Sen. Obama, Pentagon and State Department officials have held intermittent meetings in Baghdad with Iranian diplomats over the past year in a bid to find common ground on stabilizing Iraq.

Sen. McCain also has articulated in recent days a stance on Iran that sounds more similar to Sen. Obama's approach than the Arizona senator's most blistering sound bites would suggest. While ruling out his own direct meetings with Iranian leaders, barring a major shift in Iranian behavior, Sen. McCain said he would continue to support the types of lower-level contacts that the U.S. currently is pursuing with Iran.

3) Iran tells Syria must regain control of Golan
By Dudi Cohen

Damascus anxiously trying to calm ruffled feathers in Tehran after announcing resumption of negotiations with Israel, dispatches defense minister to meet with Iranian leadership



Syrian Defense Minister Hassan Turkmani arrived in Tehran on Saturday evening as part of Damascus' bid to reassure its Iranian ally after resuming peace negotiations with Israel.

Internal Turmoil

Editor-in-chief of al-Quds al-Arabi says Syrian leadership deeply divided over return to negotiations with Israel, sees resumption of talks as clear victory for those advocating jumping ship on Tehran.



General Turkmani is scheduled to meet with his Iranian counterpart, Mustafa Mohammad-Najjar, and additional key figures in Tehran. A possible meeting with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has not yet been confirmed.



In a meeting he held earlier on Saturday with Hamas politburo chief, Khaled Mashaal, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki publically addressed the renewed talks for the first time.



"The Golan belongs to Syria and must be returned to its control. The Zionist regime must withdraw from the Golan, and we support Syrian efforts to repossess the Heights."



The Syrian defense minister's visit to Tehran follow reports of Ahmadinejad's outrage over the contact between Israel and Syria. Sources close to the Iranian president told the London-based Asharq al-Awsat daily that Ahmadinejad has made his discontent over the clandestine negotiations well known. He described the talks as a "flagrant violation" of the mutual commitments between Syria and Iran.



Meanwhile, Damascus as reiterated its rejection of Israel's demand that it sever ties with Iran, Hizbullah and Hamas as a key condition of any peace agreement.


Mashaal: Olmert too weak to make peace

During a joint press conference Mashaal held with Mottaki after their meeting, the exiled Hamas leader was careful not to criticize the negotiations.



He did say however that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert lacks the political might to make the moves necessary for peace with Syria.



"There is great skepticism concerning (Israel's) seriousness to return the Golan," Mashaal said. "It's maneuvering and playing all the (negotiation) tracks – this is a well known game and besides, Olmert's weakness will not allow him to take this step." He was referring to the current ongoing investigation against Olmert, who has recently been suspected of receiving money unlawfully.



Mashaal said he was sure the renewed talks would not come at the expense of the Palestinian track.

4) Abbas fears Olmert probe may hold up peace talks.

Senior aid to Palestinian president says peace negotiations in danger of being pushed to sidelines as election race intensifies in US while Olmert preoccupied with bribery allegations



Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said on Saturday he feared a criminal investigation of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and looming US elections could hold up Middle East peace talks.


Senior Abbas aide Tayeb Abdel-Rahim reported the Palestinian president's briefing comments to his ruling Fatah faction in the West Bank city of Ramallah on the latest developments in US-brokered peace talks with Israel.


Abdel-Rahim said Abbas "hopes that recent events, such as the obstacles facing the Israeli prime minister, and American preoccupation with elections would not obstruct the peace process desired by Palestinians".


Israeli police questioned Olmert on Friday for a second time. Investigators suspect Olmert has taken cash-filled envelopes from New York fundraiser Morris Talansky.


Olmert, who was first questioned three weeks ago, has denied any wrongdoing but said he would resign if indicted.


On Thursday, Abbas said negotiations with Israel on sensitive final status issues were continuing, but that gaps were still wide between the sides


Western diplomats and Palestinian officials said Abbas had told them he believed Olmert was serious about reaching a final deal with the Palestinians despite his domestic worries.


Olmert and other Israeli officials have reported some progress in the US-sponsored talks but chief Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qureia said no agreement had been reached yet on any of the issues under negotiation.


The Palestinians are also worried that the Americans' preoccupation with presidential elections, scheduled for November, will push peace moves away from the spotlight.


"It will take the new administration time to settle in before it turns its attention to our problems," a Palestinian official said.


Israeli and US officials have said even if a deal is reached this year, it will not be implemented as long as Hamas continues to control the Gaza Strip.


Abdel-Rahim said Abbas told Fatah officials on Wednesday that "internal Palestinian divisions, and Hamas' coup ... have weakened the Palestinian negotiating) position".

4a) Will US back Syria talks?
By Yitzhak Benhorin
Syria represents everything Bush opposes; America sitting on fence for now

The American response to the news that simultaneously came out of Jerusalem, Damascus, and Ankara, regarding the renewal of peace talks on the Israeli-Syria track, was quite cold. As if the Americans were saying: It’s your business. You’re a sovereign state. Syria is a terror-sponsoring state that needs to prove to us that it is starting to move in the right direction. If it proves to us that it’s different, perhaps we’ll show more interest.


Syria represents everything the Bush Administration has come out again. A dictatorship that represses its citizens, encourages and supports terror against American troops in Iraq and against Israel, and sabotages any attempt to stabilize a Lebanese democracy.


The Bush Administration is wholly dedicated to the Palestinian track. The Americans hope to see a shelf agreement by the end of Bush’s term, January 20, 2009. They know that the Israeli government cannot offer concessions on both tracts at the same time. With our prime minister under investigation, officials in Washington understand that the current government may not even be able to offer concessions on one track.


American support for the Syrian track? Don’t make them laugh. After Bush’s Knesset speech regarding Chamberlain-style appeasement and surrender, you think Bush will be a party to appeasement vis-à-vis the Syrians? After the speech resonated in the American media?

Helping a friend

But we’ll do anything for a friend. George Bush apparently really loves his friend, Ehud Olmert, and during a briefing with Israeli reporters at the White House before his trip to Israel he looked truly concerned about the affair threatening Olmert’s political and personal future. Bush asked what he can do for his friend, and the reporters didn’t really know what to tell him. Perhaps he got the answer in Israel, during a friendly talk with his friend. Olmert asked for a little room for maneuver, and got it. Not much more than that. And so, Israel was able to go ahead and announce the renewal of talks on the Syrian track.


What do the Americans really think about this track? Syria can start playing a more constructive role in the region if it wants to make peace with Israel, said State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack, adding that it can start by recognizing Lebanon’s sovereignty and marking the border between the two countries, including the Shebaa Farms.


The Americans have many more such examples, but they do not wish to ruin Olmert’s party. For the time being, they are sitting on the fence. Yet everyone realizes that without US backing for the talks with Syria, they have no value. America must be there in order to finalize a deal and agree on security arrangements.


Damascus would be able to disengage from Iran’s strategic bear hug only if its relationship with the US warms up. Yet this apparently won’t happen during George W. Bush’s term in office.