Not Worth Spittle! Law Abiding Damn Fools!

Sam Nunn always revered Sen. Byrd of West Virginia and considered him a parliamentarian par excellence and a Senator of complete and utter decorum and civility.

I recently saw the Senator shuffling down the Senate Hall on two canes on the way to the committee room he chairs. He has become West Virginia's living answer to S.Carolina's now deceased Sen. Thurmond and Alabama's now deceased and narcoleptic Sen. Sparkman. Sen. Sparkman, if you recall, remained a senator long after his spark had lost its glimmer. So it is with West Virginia's, Sen. Byrd. This former Klansman has outlived his body and would do the nation a favor if he resigned. His presence does more to remind me of the decline of this once great deliberative body's own sclerotic status.

Sen. Byrd has served his state well though. More federal money per capita has been lavished on its citizenry than any other Senator has been able to get appropriated for their states. Bridges to no where do not equal the road to the FBI's W Virginia colossus - like the joke about the man who came home, found his neighbor in his bedroom closet naked and asked why he was there and his neighbor replied everyone has to be somewhere.

There is less than a handful of truly outstanding Senators occupying those leather seats today. I don't even want to get started when it comes to our nation's House of self-serving, self-dealing Representatives, many of whom seem more interested in building edifices with their names on them - best epitomized by the likes of Charlie Rangel and a host of his cronies. Remember the refrigerator stuffed with cash? I guess that's the best way to cool off hot money.

One way to judge a nation is by its leadership. Maybe McCain, stealing a line from Reagan, is correct when he says ours nation's best days remain ahead. I certainly would like to think so. However, today's crop of Senators and Representatives, tend to convincingly dissuade me from that belief. Almost to a person, they have collectively failed in the exercise their fiduciary responsibility, they have egregiously stuffed their wallets with benefits that are truly unconscionable, placing themselves beyond their constituent's own regard. They have gerrymandered themselves into permanent office fiefdoms and have lost touch in the process.

We have the best Congress lobbyists and money can buy and as John Nance Garner once said about being Vice President, 'it ain't worth spittle.'

Congress has ducked its fiscal responsibility in virtually every area - energy, social security, health care, education and the list is endless. Yet, we keep feeding their uncontrollable and un-satiable appetite and if Obama is elected we will be shipping more of the fruits of our nation's labor and productivity to Disney East. Like Lucille Ball's donut line their demand for revenue just keeps a coming and we just keep supplying the boxes. We remain law abiding damn fools!

USA Today asked why can't Obama admit the surge worked? Perhaps he can't for one of two reasons:

a) He has to play to his party's Far Left zanies and/or

b) In the back of his mind there lurks the thought something could happen to reverse the success and he would benefit because of his "excellent judgment." (See 1 below.)

Karl Rove writes about our two flip-floppers. McCain passes Rove's voter test for why he has changed his mind whereas Obama does not. Rove writes it is ok for politicians to change their minds because voters do as well. The smell test is whether they admit it and explain why.

Perhaps this is why Obama still remains a question mark in the minds of so many voters as discussed in the "poll" article today by two Wall Street Journal reporters. They write Obama is the point man in the campaign and could win if he convinces voters he is trustworthy and has character because voters seek change. As for McCain voters know who he is and McCain would win by default if Obama fails to past the "smell test."

No doubt Obama, the ever changing political Chameleon, will now set about more diligently and zealously to overcome voter concerns about his emptiness. In doing so Obama could draw closer to McCain's views as he already has but without admitting it. I recently posted Shelby Steele's excellent article about how Obama had won the culture war and had stealthily aligned himself closely to McCain on a vast number of issues. Obama has positioned himself, according to Steele, to fly under McCain's wing and avoid voter radar. Perhaps it will be Obama who will be shot down this time.

It will be difficult for McCain to smoke Obama out because the press and media will protect their new found messiah and Obama and his legion of handlers are good - can't take that away from them or deny them their due. They could give Procter and Gamble a run for their money if they were selling Obama soap which they are. (See 2 and 2a below.)

Had Olmert fought as hard against Hezballah things might have gone better for his nation. (See 3 below.)

A review of Obama's Israel whirlwind tour. He said and did all the right things as he did when he appeared before AIPAC. However, the next day he reversed on his Jerusalem comments and he has reversed on a slew of others. Obama was the one who said words count and they count even more when they are followed by action that does not reverse the words.

There is something about Obama's eagerness, there is something about his glibness, there is something about how he has threaded the needle so artfully, there is something about his past, there is something about his lack of experience and, most of all, I believe there is a character flaw that continues to make me distrust him. He simply remains out of focus when it comes to my image of the kind of person and leader I would like to occupy the Oval Office. FDR had it, Truman had it, Reagan had it.

McCain does not fit the image either but he is, at least, less a blur for me. Tried and true [red,white and blue] beats new and questionably improved every time.

Call me old fashion. I will wear the monicker with pride. It has served me well.

Dick

1)Our view [USA Today editorial] on Iraq: Why can't Obama admit the obvious? The surge worked. Obama was right about war, wrong about surge; McCain vice versa.

In January 2007, America's adventure in Iraq seemed like a chaotic failure. The country was riven with sectarian violence, and al-Qaeda in Iraq had gained a foothold in western Anbar province. Attacks on U.S. troops were running well over 1,000 a week, and Iraqi civilians were dying at a rate of more than 3,000 a month.

In that context, President Bush's announcement that month that he planned to "surge" more than 20,000 extra U.S. troops into Iraq felt to many critics, including Sen. Barack Obama, like doubling down on failure.

A year and a half later, though, violence is down dramatically and there's a cautious hope that both the U.S. and Iraq could achieve an outcome once seemed out of reach.

The surge didn't do all of that; a cease-fire by Shiite militias and the switch by Sunni insurgents from attacking Americans to fighting al-Qaeda helped enormously. But the extra U.S. troops, brilliantly deployed by Gen. David Petraeus, have made a huge difference in calming the chaos. In doing so, it also contributed to the other developments.

Why then can't Obama bring himself to acknowledge the surge worked better than he and other skeptics, including this page, thought it would? What does that stubbornness say about the kind of president he'd be?

In recent comments, the Democratic presidential candidate has grudgingly conceded that the troops helped lessen the violence, but he has insisted that the surge was a dubious policy because it allowed the situation in Afghanistan to deteriorate and failed to produce political breakthroughs in Iraq. Even knowing the outcome, he told CBS News Tuesday, he still wouldn't have supported the idea.

That's hard to fathom. Even if you believe that the invasion of Iraq was a grievous error — and it was — the U.S. should still make every effort to leave behind a stable situation. Obama seems stuck in the first part of that thought process, repeatedly proclaiming that he was right to oppose the war and disparaging worthwhile efforts to fix the mess it created. Hence, his dismissal of the surge as "a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder."

The great irony, of course, is that the success of the surge has made Obama's plan to withdraw combat troops in 16 months far more plausible than when he proposed it. Another irony is that while Obama downplays the effectiveness of the surge in Iraq, he is urging a similar tactic now in Afghanistan.

As for the surge not producing sufficient political reconciliation in Iraq, it's true that efforts to integrate Sunnis into a Shiite-dominated political culture are only inching forward. But reconciliation takes many forms, and Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's military attacks against rogue Shiite militias in Basra and Baghdad's Sadr City were a hugely important signal to Sunnis.

Perhaps it's too much to ask that Obama risk being taunted by headlines such as "Obama says Bush was right." But for the nation to move forward on its single most vexing debate, it would help if the next president could admit the obvious — whether that's Republican John McCain conceding that it was a terrible blunder to invade Iraq in the first place, or Obama acknowledging that the surge has worked better than he expected.

Americans don't expect their president to be right all the time. They do expect him to change course when he's proved wrong.

2) A Tale of Two Flip-Floppers
By KARL ROVE

John McCain and Barack Obama have both changed positions in this campaign. That's OK. Voters understand politicians can and, sometimes, should change their views. After all, voters do. Witness the wide swings in their answers to opinion polls.

But before accepting the changes, voters typically ask themselves three questions: Does the candidate admit he's shifting? What's the new information that altered his thinking? Does the change seem reasonable and not calculating?

Sen. McCain has changed his position on drilling for oil on the outer continental shelf. But because he explained this change by saying that $4-a-gallon gasoline caused him to re-evaluate his position, voters are likely to accept it. Of course, Mr. McCain doesn't explain why prices at the pump haven't also forced him to re-evaluate his opposition to drilling on 2000 acres in the 19.2-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But, then, what politician is always consistent?

Mr. McCain flip-flopped on the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. He'd voted against them at the time, saying in 2001 that he'd "like to see more of this tax cut shared by working Americans." Now he supports their continuation because, he says, letting them expire would increase taxes and he opposes tax hikes. Besides, he recognizes that the tax cuts have helped the economy.

At least Mr. McCain fesses up to and explains his changes. Sen. Obama has shifted recently on public financing, free trade, Nafta, welfare reform, the D.C. gun ban, whether the Iranian Quds Force is a terrorist group, immunity for telecom companies participating in the Terrorist Surveillance Program, the status of Jerusalem, flag lapel pins, and disavowing Rev. Jeremiah Wright. And not only does he refuse to explain these flip-flops, he acts as if they never occurred.

Then there is Iraq. Throughout 2006 and early 2007, Mr. Obama pledged to remove all U.S. troops, even voting to immediately cut off funds for the troops while they were in combat. Then, in July 2007, he started talking about leaving a residual U.S. force, in Kuwait and elsewhere in the region, able to go back into Iraq if needed.

By October, he shifted again, pledging to station the residual U.S. troops inside Iraq with two "limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

Last week, writing in the New York Times, Mr. Obama changed again. He increased the missions his residual force would perform to three: "going after any remnants of al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces." That's not all that different from what U.S. troops are doing now.

And just how many U.S. troops would Mr. Obama leave in Iraq? Colin Kahl, an Obama adviser on Iraq, has said the senator wants to have "perhaps 60,000-80,000 forces" in Iraq by December 2010. So much for withdrawing all combat troops.

It's dizzying. Yet, Mr. Obama acts as if he is a paradigm of consistency. He told a Georgia rally this month that "the people who say [I've been changing] apparently haven't been listening to me." In a PBS interview last week he said, "this notion that somehow we've had wild shifts in my positions is simply inaccurate."

Compounding all this is Mr. Obama's stubborn refusal to admit the surge was right and that he was wrong to oppose it. On MSNBC in January 2007, he said more U.S. troops would not "solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse." Later that month he said at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that the new strategy would "not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly." In fact, the surge has done far more than its advocates hoped in a much shorter period.

Yet Mr. Obama told ABC's Terry Moran this week that even in retrospect, he would oppose the surge. He also told CBS's Katie Couric that he had "no idea what would have happened" without the new strategy. And he still declares, in the New York Times last week, "The same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true." Given all that has happened, it's hard to understand how Mr. Obama can say, as he did Tuesday in a story on NBC Nightly News, that "I don't have doubts about my ability to apply sound judgment to the major national security problems that we face."

Americans have seen both candidates flip-flop. Mr. McCain at least has a record of being a gutsy leader willing to take unpopular stands who admits his shifts and explains the new information that caused them.

Mr. Obama has detached himself from past positions at record speed. And in doing so he runs the risk of being seen as a cynical politician, not an inspiring leader. If this happens, voters in large numbers may ask -- despite his rhetorical acrobatics -- if he is the change they've been waiting for.

2a) Voter Unease With Obama Lingers Despite His Lead: Poll Finds Background, Experience Are Advantages for McCain
By GERALD F. SEIB and LAURA MECKLER


WASHINGTON -- Midway through the election year, the presidential campaign looks less like a race between two candidates than a referendum on one of them -- Sen. Barack Obama.

With the nominations of both parties effectively settled for more than a month, the key question in the contest isn't over any single issue being debated between the Democrats' Sen. Obama or the Republicans' Sen. John McCain. The focus has turned to the Democratic candidate himself: Can Americans get comfortable with the background and experience level of Sen. Obama?

This dynamic is underscored in a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. The survey's most striking finding: Fully half of all voters say they are focused on what kind of president Sen. Obama would be as they decide how they will vote, while only a quarter say they are focused on what kind of president Sen. McCain would be.

The challenge that presents for Sen. Obama is illustrated by a second question. When voters were asked whether they could identify with the background and values of the two candidates, 58% said they could identify with Sen. McCain on that account, while 47% said the same of Sen. Obama. More than four in 10 said the Democratic contender doesn't have values and a background they can identify with.

Poll findings suggest voters' views of Sen. Obama are more fluid than his relatively steady lead indicates. In the latest poll, 47% say they prefer Sen. Obama to win, while 41% say Sen. McCain, the same lead Sen. Obama enjoyed a month ago. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

The campaign's unusual dynamic appears to be the result of an anxious nation now sizing up an unconventional candidate who presents himself as the agent for change, which voters say they want. The contest thus parallels in some ways the 1980 race, when voters seemed ready for a change away from Jimmy Carter and the Democrats, but weren't persuaded until late in the race that they could be comfortable with a former actor and unabashed conservative, Ronald Reagan, as commander in chief.

"Obama is going to be the point person in this election," says pollster Peter Hart, a Democrat who conducts the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll along with Republican Neil Newhouse. "Voters want to answer a simple question: Is Barack Obama safe?"

If the answer is yes, then Sen. Obama stands to benefit further from a favorable environment for Democrats. If no, Sen. McCain is seen by a wide swath of Americans as a safe, well-qualified potential commander in chief. The poll was taken Friday through Monday, before much of the extensive press coverage of Sen. Obama's trip this week to the Middle East and Europe, meant to build his credibility.
The poll shows this campaign is about Barack Obama, not John McCain, Gerald F. Seib reports.

Sen. Obama is in the odd position of having unusually passionate backing from his supporters -- his voters are three times as likely to say they are excited about their choice as are Sen. McCain's -- while he has failed so far to win over some other Democratic-leaning voters who could be expected to be on his side. A higher share of voters say they want a Democrat in general to sit in the White House than say that they want Sen. Obama specifically.

That reading suggests there is potential for the Obama lead to grow -- but his lead could prove to be tenuous.

"This is not Obama's race to lose. It's his to win," says Mr. Newhouse, the Republican pollster. "Voters have a sense they know what they're going to get if they elect John McCain, but an uncertainty about Barack Obama that they are trying to sort through."

Issues are playing a big role, of course. Sen. Obama benefits from a climate of economic anxiety that works against Republicans, who tend to take the blame for today's economic woes because they have controlled the White House for seven years. In the survey, a substantial 74% of voters said the country is on the wrong track, the largest share to voice that view in the two-decade history of the poll. That number usually is a reflection of economic jitters.

Nearly a quarter of those surveyed said they are "barely getting by economically." Energy, including gasoline and utility costs, ranks as the economic issue that voters said most affects them personally.


The problem for Republicans -- and an advantage for Sen. Obama -- is that voters also said, by substantial margins, that Democrats would do a better job handling both the economy overall and energy in particular.

The excitement and the uncertainties about the Obama campaign flow from his unusual personal profile. Not only is he the first African-American to win a major party's nomination: He also was raised by a single white mother, spent his formative years in Hawaii and Indonesia, got an Ivy League law degree, has been in the Senate less than four years, attended a controversial African-American church, and is married to a strong professional woman who has stirred up some controversy herself.

Interviews with voters suggest that while many who seek change in the White House are excited by that profile, others will need time to digest it -- and some may never do so.

Patti Carr, 59 years old, of Collierville, Tenn., outside Memphis, says she voted for Democrats Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry. But she isn't yet sold on Barack Obama. His experience is giving her pause.

"I see Obama as a very nice person but I don't believe he has the experience at this time to be president," she says. "He's new, he's young and he still has a lot to learn, I believe." She leans for now toward Sen. McCain, but is open to persuasion.

Riki Frank, 44, a graphic artist and stay-at-home dad from Auburn, Wash., leans toward Sen. Obama, but hesitates because of his personal background.

"I'm a white-bread American. I was raised in Iowa. I got the Midwestern work ethic," says Mr. Frank. "He's a black man. His name -- is unique. It's definitely not a Catholic name. He's kind of way off the pattern of the norm of what I grew up with. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Just because I can't relate to the person doesn't mean it's a bad thing."

The two presidential campaigns know this is the dynamic, and are responding in their strategies.

Blank Spaces

The Obama campaign says voters' yearning to come to terms with their candidate represents an opportunity to paint a full portrait. "We still have at this late date in the campaign a lot of voters who don't know a lot about Obama in terms of his values and background," says David Plouffe, the Obama campaign manager. "There are a lot of people who are going to play a pivotal role in the election who don't know he was raised by a single mom, and whose grandparents were from Kansas, not of great means, who struggled financially...I think sometimes people think he's led some kind of charmed existence, and nothing could be further from the truth." Mr. Plouffe contends the opening to explain the Obama background is "all upside."

The danger for Mr. Obama is that blank spaces in Americans' understanding could be filled in by rumor or misinformation -- the kind that holds, incorrectly, that he's a Muslim rather than a Christian, or that he refuses to salute the American flag.

That challenge is reflected in the views of Beth Brotherton, 43, of Taylorville, Ill., an attorney now staying home to care for her four children. She leans Democratic, but is uncomfortable with Sen. Obama. "I don't want to find out after he's elected that he's got some kind of Islamic connection. I don't think that's true, but you never know," she said.

The Obama campaign is airing a heavy dose of TV ads that stress the Obama biography. It is also holding what Mr. Plouffe calls "a lot of very elemental events" in key states designed to introduce voters there to the basic Obama campaign themes and issue stances.

The effort is encapsulated in one of the first TV ads the campaign produced after he sewed up the nomination last month. It is a simple concept: Sen. Obama, minus a necktie, talking straight into the camera about values. "America is a country of strong families and strong values," he says. "My life's been blessed by both. I was raised by a single mom and my grandparents. We didn't have much money, but they taught me values straight from the Kansas heartland where they grew up."

The McCain campaign is working each day to nurture doubts about Sen. Obama. One of its overriding themes is that Sen. Obama's election would represent too big a risk for voters to take.

The new Journal/NBC poll provides support for that strategy: It finds that by a 55% to 35% margin, voters are more likely to say Sen. Obama would be the riskier choice. By 2-to-1, voters chose Sen. McCain when asked which candidate would be a better commander in chief and who has better knowledge and experience to handle being president. "It is proof that the electorate is familiar with" Sen. McCain's record and experience, said spokesman Tucker Bounds, noting that's a reason Sen. McCain is doing better than Republicans generally.

On Iraq, Sen. McCain regularly accuses his rival of being irresponsible and naive. On domestic issues he paints Sen. Obama as a liberal who will raise taxes -- too risky, he says, to trust with your wallet.

On both fronts, the campaign argues that Sen. Obama's views are opaque and voters don't know what they would get with an Obama White House. A TV ad released last week paints Sen. Obama as a flip-flopper on Iraq, now waffling on his promise to bring home the troops in 16 months. "Positions that helped him win his nomination, now Obama is changing to help himself become president," the narrator says. Last week, the campaign released a "documentary" that purported to show Sen. Obama's changing views on the war.

"People don't know what he really believes, which makes him a big question mark," said McCain communications adviser Matt McDonald. "He's an unknown, and that's a liability."

Mr. Plouffe said the recent broadsides indicate that the McCain campaign is "getting angrier and more strident in tone" and added, "Obviously we're going to have to deal with their increasingly negative attacks."

Striking Similarities

Campaign 2008 bears some striking similarities to the 1980 campaign, when -- as now -- the resident of the White House was unpopular and his party was suffering. The question was whether the opposition party had nominated a candidate who would be seen as safe or too far out of the mainstream.

In 1980, President Carter was standing for re-election himself, while in 2008 President George W. Bush, is attempting to pass the baton to Sen. McCain. But the questions about the opposing party's candidate, Mr. Reagan, were similar to those now posed about Sen. Obama. Mr. Reagan, a former California governor who had spent no time serving in Washington, was seen as light on experience and lacking in foreign-policy gravitas. Some in the political establishment considered his strong conservative philosophy and anti-Soviet rhetoric to be too extreme for mainstream America.

The doubts about Mr. Reagan lingered until he acquitted himself well in a single nationally televised debate against Mr. Carter, just one week before the election. Ultimately, Mr. Reagan won going away.

One great question that hangs over this year's election wasn't an issue in 1980: How much voter uncertainty about Sen. Obama's background involves his race? It's an explicit factor for some voters.

"I just don't think we're ready for a black president," says Donna Bender, 62, of Oshkosh, Wis., a retired credit clerk and registered Democrat. "I'm prejudiced."

In the new Journal/NBC survey, only a small fraction of voters say race is a dominant factor in their choice, though the findings suggest that fraction may be inching higher. Among voters overall, 10% said race is the most important factor, up from 6% a month ago.

Among white voters surveyed, 8% said race is the most important factor, up from 5% a month ago. Among African-Americans, who overwhelmingly support Sen. Obama, 20% said race is the top factor.

Overall, though, the survey suggests that questions about Sen. Obama's relatively short résumé may be paramount. When voters were asked for their views about various criticisms against Sen. Obama, the largest share -- a third of voters overall -- said they were most concerned that he might be "too inexperienced and not ready to be president."

The Obama campaign's hope is that voters will continue to stress the need for change.

That hope is embodied in Robert Benedict, 71, a Democrat in Erin, N.Y. He says Sen. Obama is "inexperienced," but adds: "On the other hand, maybe that's what we need. Maybe we need somebody who's not the status quo politician of Washington."

3) AG: Olmert obstructing graft probes against him
By Tomer Zarchin

Attorney General Menachem Mazuz criticized the prime minister on Thursday saying that Ehud Olmert was deliberately obstructing the corruption investigation currently underway against him.

In response to a petition submitted by journalist Yoav Yitzhak asking the High Court of Justice to declare Olmert incapacitated and remove him from office, Mazuz said "the police have faced serious difficulties in setting dates for questioning of the prime minister, as well as in determining the length of the questioning."

"These are difficulties that the police have not faced while investigating any other public figure, including previous prime ministers," Mazuz went on to say.

Yitzhak petitioned the High Court of Justice asking the court to declare the prime minister incapacitated for a pre-determined period of time, during which he would be questioned every day in regard to all six open investigations against him. Yitzhak also asked that Olmert be compelled to comply with short notice summons for questioning should the investigation require it.

In a response to the High Court, Mazuz said that "the investigations against Omlert in various affairs are well underway, in advanced stages, but not yet complete. In any case, decisions have yet to be made, and it is not yet clear whether the evidence gathered will be sufficient to support an indictment in any of the cases, and which charges they will include."

"In light of the public sensitivity of the matter, we will do the utmost in our power to expedite the investigation process," Mazuz added.

In regard to the petition calling for Olmert to be declared incapacitated, the attorney general reiterated his previous assertion that Olmert's continued service as prime minister is not a legal issue, but rather a political one.

However, the attorney general went on to say that "the situation in which the prime minister is holding on to his seat while numerous criminal investigations are being conducted against him could raise doubts regarding his ability to fulfill his duties ? both in the sense of being able to devote the time required and the sense of public trust in him."

Meanwhile Thursday, Olmert's associates said that the prime minister was scheduled to undergo a fourth round of questioning in the latest corruption investigations against him.

4) Obama vows cooperation with Israel on Iran
By Roni Sofer

Discussion centers on Iranian threat as Democratic candidate dines with PM Olmert in Jerusalem following dizzyingly hectic tour across length, breadth of Israel for Obama on Wednesday. Earlier he visited Sderot, offered hawkish rhetoric in face of Gaza rocket attacks



While the discussion between the two covered a range of topics, the Iranian nuclear threat topped the agenda. Obama pledged that he intends to focus on the matter in coordination with Israel, which he said would be included in the process.


"Israel estimates the Iranians will obtain the necessary components to build a nuclear bomb by mid-2009, at the latest in 2010," Olmert told Obama. "We must move quickly to prevent Iran from arming itself with the bomb."


Olmert reiterated Israel's position regarding what must be done to deal with Tehran's nuclear program, and said the current steps being taken to that end are insufficient. "Between these measures and all-out military action there is room for a number of additional effective steps. We must move urgently to tighten the sanctions against Iran, without taking any option off the table," Olmert said.

Barack Obama in Sderot on Wednesday

Obama laid out the policy he would implement in regards to Iran, if elected to office in November. The prime minister's aides said Olmert felt the Illinois senator had a clear understanding of the Iranian issue and is "immersed" in the subject matter.


The aides said that the policies Obama presented to the PM indicate he appreciates the severity of the threat at hand and also believes it must be dealt with.

The two also discussed the ongoing peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. Olmert told his guest that the points of contention between the two sides are smaller than ever. The prime minister briefed Obama on the status of the core issues, with the exception of Jerusalem as it is not currently on the agenda in Israel's talks with the PA, Olmert's office said.


Obama said that it was important to advance the process opposite moderate Palestinian leaders and work towards the establishment of a Palestinian state.


Olmert also briefed Obama on the recently renewed peace talks with Syria and voiced Israel's concern over the continued smuggling of arms to Hizbullah in Lebanon through Syria.


They also touched on the efforts to release Gilad Shalit and on Obama's visit to Sderot earlier in the day. The senator repeated the statement he made there, saying that if it were his home and his daughters under attack, he would do everything to stop the rockets.

Earlier in the day the visiting senator said a nuclear Iran would pose a "grave threat" and Tehran's nuclear program poses a problem for all of humanity.


"A nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon," Obama told reporters.

Talking tough in Sderot
Israel should not negotiate with Hamas so long as the Islamist group poses a threat to Israeli citizens, Obama said on Wednesday during his visit to the town of Sderot.


Obama said that if someone were firing on his home, where his two daughters were sleeping, he would do everything to stop the attacks – and that this is how he expects Israel to act as well.


During his brief visit to the small town Obama also noted the terror attack in Jerusalem on Tuesday, Hizbullah attacks and the Iranian nuclear program, saying that all of these were genuine threats Israel faces alongside the Qassam rockets from Gaza.


''America must always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself against those who threaten its people,'' Obama said.

At a press conference held towards the end of his visit, the town's mayor, Eli Moyal, presented Obama with a white T-shirt carrying the slogan, ''I (heart) Sderot,'' with a rocket piercing the heart.



Later on Wednesday Obama met with Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupolianski. The mayor was accompanied by two of the victims from Tuesday's bulldozer attack.



Lupolianski told Obama that while he does not worry that anyone will divide Jerusalem, "talk of doing so may encourage terrorism." Obama said that he stands behind Israel and was moved by the stories of the two attack victims. He told the mayor there was no room for more fences in Jerusalem.


A full dance card

In the morning Obama visited the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum.

A visibly emotional Obama toured the center, saying he always finds himself wondering how humanity could have produced such evil.


"At a time of great peril and torment, war and strife, we are blessed to have such a powerful reminder of man's potential for great evil, but also our capacity to rise up from tragedy and remake our world," he wrote in the visitors' book.

Later on he met with Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Opposition Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu.

He was joined by Barak, and Foreign Affairs Minister Tzipi Livni, on a helicopter trip over central Israel.

He took a brief sojourn from his meetings with Israeli officials to travel to Ramallah for a meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.


Obama, who faces Republican John McCain in the November election, is struggling to overcome wariness among some Israelis and some Jewish voters in the United States about the strength of his commitment to Israel.

McCain, it should be noted, did not meet with Abbas during his most recent trip to Israel in March.

Obama also met with President Shimon Peres in Jerusalem and said "I'm here on this trip to reaffirm the special relationship between Israel and the United States and my abiding commitment to Israel's security and my hope that I can serve as an effective partner, whether as a US senator or as president."