JTA: The Global News Service of the Jewish People

Political tidbits: Obama campaign won’t debate RJC, low turnout for the Schlep

By Eric Fingerhut · October 16, 2008

• The Obama campaign has decided its representatives won’t debate Republican Jewish Coalition officials, because they’re tired of the RJC’s negative ads, according to the L.A. Jewish Journal.
• CNN has the story of a “great schlepper” who ended up not only convincing his South Florida grandparents to support Barack Obama, but also spoke to more than 100 of their neighbors.
• Meanwhile, the London Daily Telegraph says only 200 people actually schelpped, and many found their grandparents were already supporting Obama.
  
• And some of Obama’s senior staffers are schlepping to Florida for the next few weeks – a signal the campaign thinks it can win the state, according to a Miami television station.
  
• The Jerusalem Post reports that Jesse Jackson says his comments on “Zionists” controlling American foreign policy were distorted – and that the Obama campaign has distanced itself from those remarks.
• Jewish historian Jonathan Sarna talks about the election and the Jewish vote with JUF News.
• The L.A. Jewish Journal interviews Obama’s California strategist, Mitchell Schwartz.
  
• The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg blogs that the angry crowds at McCain-Palin rallies remind him of those demonstrating against Yitzhak Rabin in the months before he was assassinated.
• Michael Oren, in Forbes, said it was “astonishing” to discover that the presidential candidates “differ significantly on virtually every issue” related to Israel, except for their “common commitment to Israel and the search for peace.”
• Newsweek’s Howard Fineman has decided the many polls of Jewish voters are wrong. How? He surveyed his high-school friends from Pittsburgh, gets a 9-1 margin for Obama and declares that non-Orthodox Jews are going to vote in much bigger numbers for the Democrat than everyone thinks.
• Campaigning for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton tells a Philadelphia JCC crowd that the economic crisis is heartbreaking, reports the AP.
• Bloomberg on the campaigns seeking American voters in Israel.
  
• Max Blumenthal and David Niewert at Salon claim Sarah Palin has ties to some radical right-wingers.
• M.J. Rosenberg wonders what Sarah Palin meant when she campaigned to be “Wasilla’s first Christian mayor” – since the incumbent was a Lutheran but his last name was Stein.
• Charley Levine, in the Jerusalem Post, would like to see a McCain-Biden ticket.
• Campaiging for John McCain, Joe Lieberman tells Ohio voters that he might even vote for Obama one day – but not this year, according to the AP. And he tells the Forward that he’s “at peace” with his decision to become an independent and back the GOP presidential candidate.
  
• More on the battle for Florida Jewish voters, from the Chicago Tribune.
• Ben Shapiro, on Townhall.com, challenges Alan Dershowitz to a debate over Dershowitz’s claim that both candidates are equal supporters of Israel.

0 Comments | Share This | ads, California, debates, Florida, Israel, Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, John McCain, Ohio, Presidential Race, RJC, Sarah Palin, Tidbits

Get me rewrite: New Israel question needed

By Ami Eden · October 8, 2008

Israel popped up at the end of Tuesday night’s town hall-style debate, when one audience member asked:

“If, despite your best diplomatic efforts, Iran attacks Israel, would you be willing to commit U.S. troops in support and defense of Israel? Or would you wait on approval from the U.N. Security Council?”

With all due respect to the questioner, there are much better/more relevant ways to measure each candidate’s support for Israel and the willingness to put U.S. troops at risk in defense of the Jewish state (not to mention their general views on securing U.N. authorization before American military action). Now, before I go on, it’s only fair to point out that during a previous Democratic primary debate, one of the highly paid professionals – ABC’s George Stephanopoulos – asked a similar and equally off-the-mark question to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The pressing question is not what a candidate would do after an Iranian attack on Israel, but what a candidate would do – or permit/help Israel do – to prevent an Iranian attack. For example, both Joe Biden and Sarah Palin have been asked in recent weeks the very relevant question of what an Obama or McCain administration would do if Israel decided to launch a preemptive strike against Iran. Of course, as I noted earlier, they both offered the same implausible answer: The United States needs to defer to Israel on such matters about its own security.

Why implausible? Because the United States controls Iraq’s air space and, depending on whom you believe, the fallout will include Iranian strikes against Western and oil-producing targets – so I think it’s safe to say that the next president will have some input on the decision-making process, probably long before any attack were ordered.

As for last night’s answers, read the transcript (second-to-last question) or watch the video:

If you happen to bump into either of the candidates, or will be posing the questions at the final debate, here’s what you can ask with regards to Iran:

* Senator McCain, why, if you favor stiffer international sanctions on Iran, have you not urged your fellow GOP senators to stop blocking such measures from being approved in the U.S. Senate?

* Senator Obama, your surrogates have been suggesting that when you talk about direct high-level talks with Iran, you don’t necessarily mean with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s Holocaust-denying president who continues to predict Israel’s downfall. Would you meet with him or not?

0 Comments | Share This | Barack Obama, debates, hillary clinton, Iran, Israel, Joe Biden, John McCain, Sarah Palin

We won’t let the UN stop us

By Eric Fingerhut · October 8, 2008

Both John McCain and Barack Obama said last night that they wouldn’t wait for the United Nations Security Council to give its approval before sending troops to Israel in the event of an attack by Iran. Here’s the transcript:

Shirey: Senator, as a retired Navy chief, my thoughts are often with those who serve our country. I know both candidates, both of you, expressed support for Israel.

If, despite your best diplomatic efforts, Iran attacks Israel, would you be willing to commit U.S. troops in support and defense of Israel? Or would you wait on approval from the U.N. Security Council?

McCain: Well, thank you, Terry (ph). And thank you for your service to the country.

I want to say, everything I ever learned about leadership I learned from a chief petty officer. And I thank you, and I thank you, my friend. Thanks for serving.

Let – let – let me say that we obviously would not wait for the United Nations Security Council. I think the realities are that both Russia and China would probably pose significant obstacles.

And our challenge right now is the Iranians continue on the path to acquiring nuclear weapons, and it’s a great threat. It’s not just a threat – threat to the state of Israel. It’s a threat to the stability of the entire Middle East.

If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, all the other countries will acquire them, too. The tensions will be ratcheted up.

What would you do if you were the Israelis and the president of a country says that they are – they are determined to wipe you off the map, calls your country a stinking corpse?

Now, Sen. Obama without precondition wants to sit down and negotiate with them, without preconditions. That’s what he stated, again, a matter of record.

I want to make sure that the Iranians are put enough – that we put enough pressure on the Iranians by joining with our allies, imposing significant, tough sanctions to modify their behavior. And I think we can do that.

I think, joining with our allies and friends in a league of democracies, that we can effectively abridge their behavior, and hopefully they would abandon this quest that they are on for nuclear weapons.

But, at the end of the day, my friend, I have to tell you again, and you know what it’s like to serve, and you know what it’s like to sacrifice, but we can never allow a second Holocaust to take place.

Brokaw: Sen. Obama?

Obama: Well, Terry, first of all, we honor your service, and we’re grateful for it.

We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists.

And so it’s unacceptable. And I will do everything that’s required to prevent it.

And we will never take military options off the table. And it is important that we don’t provide veto power to the United Nations or anyone else in acting in our interests.

It is important, though, for us to use all the tools at our disposal to prevent the scenario where we’ve got to make those kinds of choices.

And that’s why I have consistently said that, if we can work more effectively with other countries diplomatically to tighten sanctions on Iran, if we can reduce our energy consumption through alternative energy, so that Iran has less money, if we can impose the kinds of sanctions that, say, for example, Iran right now imports gasoline, even though it’s an oil-producer, because its oil infrastructure has broken down, if we can prevent them from importing the gasoline that they need and the refined petroleum products, that starts changing their cost-benefit analysis. That starts putting the squeeze on them.

Now, it is true, though, that I believe that we should have direct talks – not just with our friends, but also with our enemies – to deliver a tough, direct message to Iran that, if you don’t change your behavior, then there will be dire consequences.

If you do change your behavior, then it is possible for you to re-join the community of nations.

Now, it may not work. But one of the things we’ve learned is, is that when we take that approach, whether it’s in North Korea or in Iran, then we have a better chance at better outcomes.

When President Bush decided we’re not going to talk to Iran, we’re not going to talk to North Korea, you know what happened? Iran went from zero centrifuges to develop nuclear weapons to 4,000. North Korea quadrupled its nuclear capability.

We’ve got to try to have talks, understanding that we’re not taking military options off the table.

0 Comments | Share This | Barack Obama, debates, Iran, Israel, John McCain, Presidential Race

Political tidbits: Palin knocked for Israel answer, Biden criticized for Lebanon claim

By Eric Fingerhut · October 3, 2008

• Sarah Palin’s answer on Israel last night sounded like she was “randomly spewing every talking point she’d ever uploaded on Israel,” writes Noam Scheiber in The New Republic.
  
• Michael Totten, in Commentary, wonders what Joe Biden was talking about when he claimed that the U.S. “kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon.”
• Rick Siegel, in the Huffington Post, said he only heard one “snort” all night from Biden – when Palin said she was “so encouraged to know we both love Israel.”
• Holocaust survivor Rachel Patron, writing in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, says Jewish voters need more from the candidates than just promises of preventing a “second Holocaust.”
• Shmuel Rosner, in Commentary, also doesn’t like the analogy, calling it “more frightening than reassuring.”
• Joe Lieberman predicts McCain will hit 40 percent of the Jewish vote, according to the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent.
• The National Journal puts the National Jewish Democratic Council and Republican Jewish Coalition in its ”Ad Spotlight.”
• NJDC executive director Ira Forman, in the Huffington Post, criticizes the RJC’s “guilt by association” ads and quotes Joseph Welch’s famous line to Joe McCarthy, “Have you no sense of decency, sir?”

9 Comments | Share This | ads, Barack Obama, debates, Israel, Jerusalem, Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, John McCain, Presidential Race, Sarah Palin, Tidbits

The Iran debate exchange

By Eric Fingerhut · September 27, 2008

Friday night’s debate discussion about the Iran threat featured a lot of talk about Israel. John McCain cited some of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s ugliest rhetoric against the Jewish state as a reason not to talk to him, while Barack Obama defended diplomacy while also noting Israel was “our stalwart ally.”

Here’s some of the transcript:

LEHRER: New lead question. And it goes two minutes to you, Senator McCain, what is your reading on the threat to Iran right now to the security of the United States?

MCCAIN: My reading of the threat from Iran is that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it is an existential threat to the State of Israel and to other countries in the region because the other countries in the region will feel compelling requirement to acquire nuclear weapons as well.

Now we cannot a second Holocaust. Let’s just make that very clear. What I have proposed for a long time, and I’ve had conversation with foreign leaders about forming a league of democracies, let’s be clear and let’s have some straight talk. The Russians are preventing significant action in the United Nations Security Council.

I have proposed a league of democracies, a group of people - a group of countries that share common interests, common values, common ideals, they also control a lot of the world’s economic power. We could impose significant meaningful, painful sanctions on the Iranians that I think could have a beneficial effect.

The Iranians have a lousy government, so therefore their economy is lousy, even though they have significant oil revenues. So I am convinced that together, we can, with the French, with the British, with the Germans and other countries, democracies around the world, we can affect Iranian behavior.

But have no doubt, but have no doubt that the Iranians continue on the path to the acquisition of a nuclear weapon as we speak tonight. And it is a threat not only in this region but around the world.

What I’d also like to point out the Iranians are putting the most lethal IEDs into Iraq which are killing young Americans, there are special groups in Iran coming into Iraq and are being trained in Iran. There is the Republican Guard in Iran, which Senator Kyl had an amendment in order to declare them a sponsor of terror. Senator Obama said that would be provocative.

So this is a serious threat. This is a serious threat to security in the world, and I believe we can act and we can act with our friends and allies and reduce that threat as quickly as possible, but have no doubt about the ultimate result of them acquiring nuclear weapons.

LEHRER: Two minutes on Iran, Senator Obama.

OBAMA: Well, let me just correct something very quickly. I believe the Republican Guard of Iran is a terrorist organization. I’ve consistently said so. What Senator McCain refers to is a measure in the Senate that would try to broaden the mandate inside of Iraq. To deal with Iran.

And ironically, the single thing that has strengthened Iran over the last several years has been the war in Iraq. Iraq was Iran’s mortal enemy. That was cleared away. And what we’ve seen over the last several years is Iran’s influence grow. They have funded Hezbollah, they have funded Hamas, they have gone from zero centrifuges to 4,000 centrifuges to develop a nuclear weapon.

So obviously, our policy over the last eight years has not worked. Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. It would be a game changer. Not only would it threaten Israel, a country that is our stalwart ally, but it would also create an environment in which you could set off an arms race in this Middle East.

Now here’s what we need to do. We do need tougher sanctions. I do not agree with Senator McCain that we’re going to be able to execute the kind of sanctions we need without some cooperation with some countries like Russia and China that are, I think Senator McCain would agree, not democracies, but have extensive trade with Iran but potentially have an interest in making sure Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapon.

But we are also going to have to, I believe, engage in tough direct diplomacy with Iran and this is a major difference I have with Senator McCain, this notion by not talking to people we are punishing them has not worked. It has not worked in Iran, it has not worked in North Korea. In each instance, our efforts of isolation have actually accelerated their efforts to get nuclear weapons. That will change when I’m president of the United States.

LEHRER: Senator, what about talking?

MCCAIN: Senator Obama twice said in debates he would sit down with Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Raul Castro without precondition. Without precondition. Here is Ahmadinenene [mispronunciation], Ahmadinejad, who is, Ahmadinejad, who is now in New York, talking about the extermination of the State of Israel, of wiping Israel off the map, and we’re going to sit down, without precondition, across the table, to legitimize and give a propaganda platform to a person that is espousing the extermination of the state of Israel, and therefore then giving them more credence in the world arena and therefore saying, they’ve probably been doing the right thing, because you will sit down across the table from them and that will legitimize their illegal behavior.

The point is that throughout history, whether it be Ronald Reagan, who wouldn’t sit down with Brezhnev, Andropov or Chernenko until Gorbachev was ready with glasnost and perestroika.

Or whether it be Nixon’s trip to China, which was preceded by Henry Kissinger, many times before he went. Look, I’ll sit down with anybody, but there’s got to be pre-conditions. Those pre-conditions would apply that we wouldn’t legitimize with a face to face meeting, a person like Ahmadinejad. Now, Senator Obama said, without preconditions.

OBAMA: So let’s talk about this. First of all, Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. So he may not be the right person to talk to. But I reserve the right, as president of the United States to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing if I think it’s going to keep America safe.

And I’m glad that Senator McCain brought up the history, the bipartisan history of us engaging in direct diplomacy.

Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who’s one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran – guess what – without precondition. This is one of your own advisers.

Now, understand what this means “without preconditions.” It doesn’t mean that you invite them over for tea one day. What it means is that we don’t do what we’ve been doing, which is to say, “Until you agree to do exactly what we say, we won’t have direct contacts with you.”

There’s a difference between preconditions and preparation. Of course we’ve got to do preparations, starting with low-level diplomatic talks, and it may not work, because Iran is a rogue regime.

But I will point out that I was called naive when I suggested that we need to look at exploring contacts with Iran. And you know what? President Bush recently sent a senior ambassador, Bill Burns, to participate in talks with the Europeans around the issue of nuclear weapons.

Again, it may not work, but if it doesn’t work, then we have strengthened our ability to form alliances to impose the tough sanctions that Senator McCain just mentioned.

And when we haven’t done it, as in North Korea – let me just take one more example – in North Korea, we cut off talks. They’re a member of the axis of evil. We can’t deal with them.

And you know what happened? They went – they quadrupled their nuclear capacity. They tested a nuke. They tested missiles. They pulled out of the nonproliferation agreement. And they sent nuclear secrets, potentially, to countries like Syria.

When we re-engaged – because, again, the Bush administration reversed course on this – then we have at least made some progress, although right now, because of the problems in North Korea, we are seeing it on shaky ground.

And – and I just – so I just have to make this general point that the Bush administration, some of Senator McCain’s own advisers all think this is important, and Senator McCain appears resistant.

He even said the other day that he would not meet potentially with the prime minister of Spain, because he – you know, he wasn’t sure whether they were aligned with us. I mean, Spain? Spain is a NATO ally.

MCCAIN: Of course.

OBAMA: If we can’t meet with our friends, I don’t know how we’re going to lead the world in terms of dealing with critical issues like terrorism.

MCCAIN: I’m not going to set the White House visitors schedule before I’m president of the United States. I don’t even have a seal yet.

Look, Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve of face-to- face meetings between the president of the United States and the president – and Ahmadinejad. He did not say that.

OBAMA: Of course not.

MCCAIN: He said that there could be secretary-level and lower level meetings. I’ve always encouraged them. The Iranians have met with Ambassador Crocker in Baghdad.

What Senator Obama doesn’t seem to understand that if without precondition you sit down across the table from someone who has called Israel a “stinking corpse,” and wants to destroy that country and wipe it off the map, you legitimize those comments.

This is dangerous. It isn’t just naive; it’s dangerous. And so we just have a fundamental difference of opinion.

As far as North Korea is concerned, our secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, went to North Korea. By the way, North Korea, most repressive and brutal regime probably on Earth. The average South Korean is three inches taller than the average North Korean, a huge gulag.

We don’t know what the status of the dear leader’s health is today, but we know this, that the North Koreans have broken every agreement that they’ve entered into.

And we ought to go back to a little bit of Ronald Reagan’s “trust, but verify,” and certainly not sit down across the table from – without precondition, as Senator Obama said he did twice, I mean, it’s just dangerous.

OBAMA: Look, I mean, Senator McCain keeps on using this example that suddenly the president would just meet with somebody without doing any preparation, without having low-level talks. Nobody’s been talking about that, and Senator McCain knows it. This is a mischaracterization of my position.

When we talk about preconditions – and Henry Kissinger did say we should have contacts without preconditions – the idea is that we do not expect to solve every problem before we initiate talks.

And, you know, the Bush administration has come to recognize that it hasn’t worked, this notion that we are simply silent when it comes to our enemies. And the notion that we would sit with Ahmadinejad and not say anything while he’s spewing his nonsense and his vile comments is ridiculous. Nobody is even talking about that.

MCCAIN: So let me get this right. We sit down with Ahmadinejad, and he says, “We’re going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth,” and we say, “No, you’re not”? Oh, please.

OBAMA: No, let me tell…

MCCAIN: By the way, my friend, Dr. Kissinger, who’s been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama’s depiction of his – of his positions on the issue. I’ve known him for 35 years.

OBAMA: We will take a look.

MCCAIN: And I guarantee you he would not – he would not say that presidential top level.

OBAMA: Nobody’s talking about that.

MCCAIN: Of course he encourages and other people encourage contacts, and negotiations, and all other things. We do that all the time.

LEHRER: We’re going to go to a new…

MCCAIN: And Senator Obama is parsing words when he says precondition means preparation.

OBAMA: I am not parsing words.

MCCAIN: He’s parsing words, my friends.

OBAMA: I’m using the same words that your advisers use.

0 Comments | Share This | Barack Obama, debates, Iran, Iraq, Israel, John McCain, Presidential Race

Obama: Let’s have post-Shabbat debate telecast

By Eric Fingerhut · September 25, 2008

Friday’s first presidential debate (assuming John McCain does attend) will take place after sundown, which means Shabbat-observant Jews won’t be able to watch it live. Barack Obama is hoping the television networks will rerun it after Shabbat on Saturday night. Here’s his letter to the leaders of the Commission on Presidential Debates asking for their help:

September 24, 2008

The Honorable Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.

The Honorable Paul G. Kirk, Jr.

Commission on Presidential Debates

1200 New Hampshire Ave NW
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Fahrenkopf and Mr. Kirk:

Joe Biden and I are looking forward to participating in the upcoming
debates, and I appreciate the hard work you and your team have put forth
to bring them about.  They promise to be some of the best opportunities
for the voters to assess the candidates and their views prior to
Election Day.

I want to raise one issue, and ask for your assistance.  Due to the
schedule set by the Commission and presented to the campaigns, the first
debate falls on Friday night after the Jewish Sabbath has begun.
Unfortunately, that means many Jewish Americans will not have the
opportunity to watch the debate live.  Because I know there is strong
interest in this debate in the Jewish community, and to be as inclusive
as possible, I ask for the Commission’s help in encouraging the
television networks covering the debate to rebroadcast it on Saturday
night after the Sabbath has concluded.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

3 Comments | Share This | Barack Obama, debates, Presidential Race

Obama and Hagel? Maybe, but not in Israel

By Ami Eden · July 14, 2008

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.

1 Comment | Share This | Barack Obama, debates, Featured, Uncategorized, Veepstakes

Hillary’s new Iran doctrine

By Ami Eden · April 24, 2008

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):

She was asked about the comments Monday on Good Morning America, the day before the Pennsylvania primary:

Later that day, she discussed the issue with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC:

0 Comments | Share This | Barack Obama, debates, Featured, hillary clinton, John McCain, Presidential Race

Debate Moment: Who’s tougher on Iran?

By Ben Harris · April 17, 2008

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.

When it was Clinton’s turn, she one-upped Obama, promising – twice – “massive retaliation” against Iran. She also laid out a three-point plan that would extend American deterrence to other allies in the region.

You can’t go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say: Well, don’t acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you’re also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup and we will let the Iranians know that, yes, an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation, but so would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under this security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions.

11 Comments | Share This | Barack Obama, debates, Featured, hillary clinton, Presidential Race

The Farrakhan moment: Reactions II

By Ami Eden · February 28, 2008

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

Michael Tomasky (GUARDIAN):

It’s also worth noting that Clinton, somewhat clumsily, helped Obama in this exchange by making what probably seemed to many viewers as a pedantic distinction between “denouncing” Farrakhan’s support and “rejecting” it. I understand what she meant. In the cauldron of New York politics, it is often not enough to denounce; “reject” is considered one tick stronger. But she was playing by those local rules that were probably for the most part lost on an Ohio crowd.

In telling her own story from the 2000 campaign, interestingly, she was accurate, but not wholly. “In New York,” she said, “there are more than the two parties, Democratic and Republican. And one of the parties at that time, the Independence party, was under the control of people who were antisemitic, anti-Israel. And I made it very clear that I did not want their support. I rejected it.”

This is a long story, and I’m not going to go into the whole thing. But in essence: I was there at the Independence Party nominating convention in Buffalo in April 2000 when she did exactly what she describes above.

The part she left out is that she had already decided going in that she didn’t want the group’s support. Why? Because the Independence Party had already awarded its presidential ballot line to Pat Buchanan. This meant that the US Senate candidate - Clinton or, at the time, Rudy Giuliani - who accepted having her or his name on the Independence Party’s ballot line would in essence be a kind of running mate of Buchanan, who was an anathema to many Jews.

Still, the ballot line was calculated to be worth about 170,000 votes, and that’s a lot of votes, so the campaigns had to weigh the question: Is it worth the risk of being seen as a Buchanan ally in exchange for 170,000 votes in November?

Giuliani’s advisers felt that, given his strong pro-Jewish track record, he could take the risk - that Jews would not hold Buchanan against him. Thus he actively sought the Independence party endorsement that day in Buffalo (and by the way pandered more shamelessly than I’ve ever seen him pander). Clinton and her advisers decided that they could not. At that point, she was having loads of trouble in New York’s Jewish community (remember this fateful photograph). So Clinton, even before arriving in Buffalo, had decided she couldn’t get within 10 miles of Buchanan (and of the people who controlled the party apparatus, whom she described accurately last night).

She did indeed tell the Buffalo assemblage that she didn’t want their support, and it took some courage to do so. But it was a courage born of convenience, really.

Even so, as Obama goes forward, assuming he does, he can take a page from Clinton’s 2000 campaign if the Wright and Farrakhan story lines become important ones. For a long time in 1999 and 2000, it looked like Hillary Clinton wouldn’t get even half the Jewish vote (a Democrat in New York state usually gets two thirds or so). But she spent much of 2000 having private, unadvertised meetings with a range of Jewish leaders building up trust. When questions about Israel came up at crunch time, she had by that time assembled an array of Jewish “validators” or surrogates who were willing to go out publicly and defend her. It really blunted the effect of the late attacks. She ended up with about 57% of the Jewish vote - less than normal but far better than it would have seemed in early 2000.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson (HUFFINGTON POST)

Obama’s denunciation of Farrakhan was blunt and pointed. But he did not reject Farrakhan’s implied endorsement.

Even after Hillary Clinton publicly demanded that he forcefully reject Farrakhan’s endorsement, Obama waffled. He weakly said after more Clinton cajoling that he rejected the endorsement. He still did not mention Farrakhan by name. A candidate shouldn’t need to be prodded by his opponent to emphatically reject the endorsement of a controversial, and in the case of Farrakhan, much vilified figure. Obama, of course, does not endorse Farrakhan’s views, politics, or his organization, and he has made that clear on more than one occasion.

Yet his failure to flatly say he does not want his endorsement is no surprise. Farrakhan may be a controversial and much vilified figure but he is not a fringe figure within black communities. He is still cheered and admired by thousands of blacks. They are also voters too and most have embraced Obama with almost messianic zeal. This zeal has been a driving force in powering Obama’s surge past Clinton. Many blacks are exhilarated by the prospect that a black man will sit in the Oval office. In other words, Obama is a racial fantasy come true for many blacks....

But, if Obama doesn’t blast Farrakhan as an anti-white hate monger that could raise questioning eyebrows with many white voters. He can’t afford that. He’s far exceeded the predictions of many who questioned whether whites would vote for an African-American for president. They have and he has even done what was thought to be even more implausible and that’s net considerable backing from white males. They have been rock solid backers of GOP presidents going back to Ronald Reagan. Obama got their support with his open-ended message of change and unity. Farrakhan, then, is the absolute last thing that Obama needs now that he’s on a roll with so many diverse voters.

Daniel Treiman (FORWARD):

I confess, as a Jew, I was left squirming in my seat as I watched Tim Russert grill Barack Obama last night about what one TV commentator later casually referred to as “the Jewish issue.” How did Jews wind up being a campaign “issue”?

In part, it’s Russert’s fault. The “Meet the Press” host and debate moderator tossed out the issue of antisemitism before a national audience — and he did so clumsily. His line of questioning conflated a number of issues, mixing together Louis Farrakhan’s antisemitism, Obama’s pastor’s own kooky views and Jewish anxieties about Israel....

Why, of all the pastors in the world, did Obama pick one who admires Farrakhan, pays visits to Libya’s anti-American dictator and saw in the September 11 attacks proof that “people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West went on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns”?

That, too, would have been a touchy question. But at least it would have had the virtue of being a fair one. And, who knows, Obama might even have had a half-decent response. (Indeed, he recently offered some context on this matter in a meeting with Jewish leaders in Ohio.)

Click here to read yesterday’s roundup.

3 Comments | Share This | Barack Obama, debates, hillary clinton, Presidential Race