In the ooops category … The Republican Jewish Coalition issued a statement Monday blasting Barack Obama for planning to take Chuck Hagel with him on his upcoming trip to Israel [UPDATE: RJC has taken down the statement from its Web site and issued a new statement]. To hammer home the point, the RJC cited a previous statement put out by the National Jewish Democratic Council in 2007, raising questions about the Nebraska Republican’s record on Israel.

Only one problem … While Hagel and Obama are taking part in the same congressional trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama is separately visiting Israel, and Hagel won’t be with him on that trip, according to the Obama campaign.

But before you spend too much time poking fun at the RJC … Hagel has been rumored to be on Obama’s short list for Veep and Pentagon chief.

Ron Kampeas has a story coming on Hillary Clinton’s insistence during the debate last week that an Iranian attack on Israel or any other of our Middle East allies would be met with “massive retaliation.” Since then, her aides have suggested she didn’t necessarily mean a nuclear response, but that seemed to be her clear meaning in these follow-up interviews.

Here’s the clip from the debate (jump ahead to 3:05): Read the rest

Last night Barack Obama reminded us why some hawkish pro-Israel folks prefer Hillary Clinton.

Asked whether he would extend American deterrence to Israel, Obama, carefully crafting his words, promised “appropriate action” in the event of an Iranian attack:

As I’ve said before, I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we — one whose security we consider paramount, and that — that would be an act of aggression that we — that I would — that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action.

Read the rest

Here’s a second batch of media reaction to the exchange about Louis Farrakhan during Tuesday night’s debate. Read the rest

With all the controversy over last night’s debate exchange about the connections between Louis Farrakhan and Barack Obama’s pastor, it’s worth reviewing what the candidate had to say about the topic during a meeting in Cleveland on Sunday with Jewish leaders. From the transcript provided by the Obama campaign: Read the rest

During Tuesday’s debate in Ohio Hillary Clinton argued that Barack Obama had not gone far enough in speaking out against Louis Farrakhan. After the debate her pollster, Mark Penn, was in the spin room arguing that Obama may have rejected and denounced Farrakhan, but he failed to criticize his pastor’s praise of the Nation of Islam leader.

Well, if this race makes it to Pennsylvania, it will be interesting to find out what Clinton has to say on the issue of Farrakhan to her most important backer in the state, Governor Ed Rendell.

Then the mayor of Philadelphia, Rendell not only made a controversial decision to share the stage with Farrakhan in an effort to diffuse racial tensions in the city, but then praised the NOI for its emphasis on family values and self-sufficiency (this, after ripping what he described as “so-called Jewish leaders” for criticizing the decision to give Farrakhan a platform).

Along similar lines, undoubtedly Jewish Republicans are taking notes on how to take aim at Obama over the Farrakhan question. They may want to check their back files — they’ll find this 2000 ad attacking Joe Lieberman (now McCain’s most prominent Jewish supporter) for saying he’d meet with Farrakhan.

Here’s a running list of media reactions to the exchange about Louis Farrakhan during Tuesday night’s debate. Read the rest

Noah Scheiber of The New Republic gives Barack Obama the win in the Farrakhan exchange:

About two-thirds of the way through the debate, Barack Obama took a question about Louis Farrakhan’s support for his campaign. He gave a sufficient, if not quite stellar answer–saying he’d repeatedly denounced Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic statements, that he’d long been a supporter of Israel, etc. At that point Hillary asked to weigh in. Her voice softened a bit, and she began: “I just want to add something here, because I faced a similar situation when I ran for the Senate in 2000.” I was sure she was going to invoke the firestorm she ignited after watching Suha Arafat deliver an anti-Israel tirade. Something like: “I stirred up a controversy by failing to condemn anti-Semitism, even though that’s how I felt, so I understand how sensitive the issue can be. But I also know Senator Obama is a good friend of the Jewish people.”

Instead, Hillary went with an anecdote whose point was to demonstrate her own vigilance on the issue. She lectured Obama about how it’s not sufficient to denounce anti-Semites; you have to actively reject their support. It was a sanctimonious turn, and Obama defused it with typical good humor. “I have to say I don’t see a difference between denouncing and rejecting,” he said. “But if the word ‘reject’ Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word ‘denounce,’ then I’m happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.”

Writing on the Huffington Post, Taylor Marsh argues that Barack Obama blew his “Sister Souljah” moment.

As a Scots-Irish broad, I saw Obama’s tepid response to Farrakhan, and was appalled. Emails from Jewish friends confirmed that I wasn’t alone. That Obama had to be led to this reality is proof of his ruffle no feathers at any cost mentality. It has nothing to do with him believing in our ’special relationship’ with Israel, or insinuating anything remotely anti-semitic. It’s about moral courage and the conciliatory reflex he has to extend grace to people who haven’t earned and don’t deserve it. People like Louis Farrakhan.

Over at talkingpointsmemo.com, Josh Marshall and Greg Sargent slammed NBC’s Tim Russert over his handling of the Farrakhan issue.

The most Jewish moment in any debate during this campaign came Tuesday night, in an exchange over Louis Farrakhan’s recent comments praising Barack Obama.

I think last night’s Democratic debate marked some sort of important milestone in American cultural history – and, no, it wasn’t the sight of a woman and an African American battling for the nomination. That’s old news.

The real story last night was the two CNN moderators — one is a convert to Judaism (Campbell Brown) and the other (John King) is in the process of becoming a Member of the Tribe. (Next, someone will write in to tell us that Univision’s Jorge Ramos is a marrano.)

For those keeping score, Brown replaced Paula Zahn, who never converted, but is married to a Jewish man and raising the children as Jews.

What on earth is Wolf Blitzer putting in the water cooler over there?

Questioned by Tim Russert in last night’s debate about his admission that he doesn’t know much about economics, McCain denied it. “Actually, I don’t know where you got that quote from,” McCain said. “I’m very well versed in economics. I was there at the Reagan revolution.”

In his recent interview with JTA, Joe Lieberman also denied McCain had said he didn’t know economics. “I’ve never heard him say what you said,” Lieberman said. “As a matter of fact I’ve been with him the last couple of days, Michigan and South Carolina, where he’s talked about the economic challenge and offered some ideas to deal with it.”

Fact check. At least three newspapers have quoted McCain acknowledging he needs to learn more about economics. Here’s one, from the Wall Street Journal: “I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.”

Here’s Rudy Giuliani’s response when asked about the harsh words that The New York Times had for him in its endorsement of John McCain.