Obama at AIPAC

by Matt Stoller, Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 07:58:00 AM EST

Matthew Yglesias is pleased with Barack Obama's speech at AIPAC.  So is MJ Rosenberg:

This is a good speech. Not perfect. But this is not the kind of full-court pander I (and certainly AIPAC) have come to expect. No Palestinian-bashing. And remember this is what he says to AIPAC, not the Council of Foreign Relations. A good start.

The full speech is here. In foreign policy, tone matters.  Of all the Presidential candidates, Obama so far has come the clearest to discussing a different national security posture for the country.  He's not there yet.  But given the corroded state of American foreign policy rhetoric, I'm fairly encouraged.

Tags: 2008, AIPAC, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, president (all tags)

Comments

26 Comments

Shadow_head_small
Re: Obama at AIPAC

He is on CSpan right now!

by aiko 2007-03-04 08:10AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Yglesias

doesn't sound all that pleased. He merely calls it "somewhat better" than what Edwards and Hillary said to similar audiences and points out that:

"some of Edwards' (and, for that matter, Bill Richardson's) remarks in the post-Herziliya backlash have been better than this."

And he calls a chunk of the speech silly.

Stoller, you should read the posts you link to.

by david mizner 2007-03-05 03:03AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Yglesias

A Rather selective edit by Mr Stoller.

by MassEyesandEars 2007-03-05 08:06AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Obama at AIPAC

I'm not comfortable with his assertion that "when Israel is attacked, we must stand up for Israel's legitimate right to defend itself" especially when it is immediately followed by the statement that "Last summer, Hezbollah attacked Israel."

Under this definition, Israel will hardly ever not be under attack.  And while that is certainly an accurate description for the people who have to be afraid of those attacks, I'm not sure I support a blanket assertion that virtually any Israeli offensive is pre-justified and legitimate.

I'm also not too happy about his condemnation of the recent agreement with Hamas.  Yes, it's a very limited measure, but he makes it sound like it's a bad thing: "We should all be concerned about the agreement negotiated among Palestinians."  It's an important step that Hamas is even willing to participate politically with the more moderate Palestinians, and is renouncing an absolute commitment to destroy agreements with Israel.

We certainly should ask for more, but I'm worried that he's furthering the meme that all of Israel's enemies are implacable and hardly worth our time unless they fully meet our demands.  

I don't believe that's truly his opinion, and I understand that this is a speech to a particular audience who wants to hear the "talk tough" line, but it still lacks some of the nuance I've grown to expect from Obama.  To use the parlance of our times, this speech reminds me more of "appeasement" of the hardline Israeli elements than it does of "engagement" with them.

All of that said, there is a lot to like here, and I would take this Middle East policy every day of the week and twice on Sundays over what we've currently got.

by Baldrick 2007-03-04 08:36AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Obama at AIPAC


"...In states such as Florida and New York, Jewish voters are a large enough percentage of voters to play a crucial role in election outcomes. In presidential elections, Democratic candidates depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 percent of the money raised from private sources. Any significant reduction in the financial support will weaken Democratic candidates and the Democratic Party organizations..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn /A17878-2003Mar12?language=printer

If true, that's a huge chunk of change...!

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-03-04 12:00PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Obama at AIPAC

Not just do Jews throw in a bunch of money but Jews tend to overwhelmingly vote Democratic.  Somewhere in the range of 74% to 87% depending on whose exit polls from 2006 you prefer to rely upon (CNN says 87% but I've read articles criticizing their small sample size, and pointing to a lower number).

However I think Jews are a very small part of the electorate as a whole (approx 2%) vs. say African-Americans, another bloc that overwhelmingly votes Democratic (89% in the CNN exit polls from 2006) but makes up 10% of the electorate, or Latino/Hispanics (69% voted Democratic per CNN in 2006) but make up 8% of the electorate.

CNN Exit polls here: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/r esults/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html

by FredFred 2007-03-04 06:44PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Obama at AIPAC

I've wondered about the sample size too... I mean there are apparently 6 million american jews living in the US?  I guess via last census - distribution across the states?  ~2% of population, but the Polls MUST be right... eh.//

For example, I would like a jewish vote breakdown of this pew research poll that went out awhile back...

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/39/the-u.s.- publics-pro-israel-history

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-03-04 06:52PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Obama at AIPAC

I think you are missing something. Its not just the Jewish vote or even monetary support, a lot of it is also connections to others that can offer money and support.

by okamichan13 2007-03-04 07:16PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Obama at AIPAC

I agree... people, volunteer power etc == But up to 50-60% -- that's significant IMO...

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2007-03-04 07:28PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Obama at AIPAC

Obama just gave a great speech in Selma...where the hell is Edwards?!?

by Karatist Preacher 2007-03-04 08:54AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
At UC Berkeley today

and UCLA tomorrow

CNN was the only network to cover the speeches besides CSPAN

by TarHeel 2007-03-04 09:25AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: At UC Berkeley today

Got it - thanks.

by Karatist Preacher 2007-03-04 09:31AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Obama at AIPAC

I was eating lunch while watching CNN when Obama's speech came on. He hit it out of the park. I really, really recommend watching it to anyone who missed it. Apparently it will be broadcast on CSPAN at 6:30 tonight (Sun.), and hopefully it will be up on the Obama website at some point.

by hilzoy 2007-03-04 10:30AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Obama at AIPAC

He was invited as well according to CNN but not sure when. He's had his college tour planned for a while.

by okamichan13 2007-03-04 07:17PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Obama at AIPAC

Well, it certainly could have been worse.  Lot's of 'heavy stones' to be shifted, I notice.  And a significant emphasis on diplomacy in both our houses.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-03-04 10:05AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Obama at AIPAC

shows how out of whack things are in DC that anyone can say that's not pandering.

by brutus1 2007-03-04 10:50AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Obama at AIPAC

Agree with others in that I was "encouraged" by his "tone" too in comparison to the hawkishness of Hillary and Edwards (at AIPAC). I'm also "not comfortable" and think "Well, it certainly could have been worse". If we were limited to the big three Dem candidates (which we are not), it would be Obama by default at this point, for me.

by DeanOR 2007-03-04 11:09AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Obama at Selma- fabulous speech

Simply fabulous. What he needed to do in the speech, he did. I enjoyed it.

by rikyrah 2007-03-04 11:49AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Obama at AIPAC

here's an excellent review of the speech.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article 6619.shtml

first paragraph:

How Barack Obama learned to love Israel
Ali Abunimah

I first met Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Barack Obama almost ten years ago when, as my representative in the Illinois state senate, he came to speak at the University of Chicago. He impressed me as progressive, intelligent and charismatic. I distinctly remember thinking 'if only a man of this calibre could become president one day.'

by selise 2007-03-04 01:46PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Obama at AIPAC

Matt please tell me how these comments,


And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

are substantively any different than the ones John Edwards made in regards to Iran and for which you verbally burned him in effigy?

I think both candidates said the same (satisfactory thing) and yet Obama is "encouraging", while Edwards is threatening nuclear war? Please explain to me where I'm misreading your views.

by adamterando 2007-03-04 05:14PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Obama at AIPAC

I agree it's similar, and as I said above, I'm not enthusiastic about Obama here.  But there is a difference, at the very least in the forcefulness with which they spoke on the question.  For example:

"Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons," Edwards said. "For years, the US hasn't done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse."
...
To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate - ALL options must remain on the table."

Neither of them are wrong to say that all options should be on the table.  In the hands of a sane administration that we can trust, it would be a last option, but one weighed as the circumstances justify it.  

The real problem is how they lend rhetorical and discursive power to the Bush Administration by seeming to encourage a hardline approach.  I don't think Edwards means to do that (and his later comments seem to show that), but you can't deny that his phrasing was scary in a way that Obama's isn't quite.

To reiterate: I'm not too happy about either of them on Iran.  But Obama at least managed to phrase it less provocatively the first time, instead of the second.  I don't really know how much that's worth.

by Baldrick 2007-03-04 05:48PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Obama at AIPAC

I dont know, it seems the same thing. I'm pretty sure AIPAC felt it was the same thing - they want a reassurance that the US will, if push comes to shove, back them if things turn to shit and they got it.

Just because Obama managed to say the same thing in a more flowerly and possibly eloquent way, I'm not sure how that makes the message any different.

The message is the same folks.

by okamichan13 2007-03-04 07:22PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Obama at AIPAC

The message is exactly the same. Obama couches it differently but the message he is sending AIPAC is still exactly the same and they know that and we should know that.

I think they both said the right thing. But I do find Matt's post this time rather hypocritical.

by okamichan13 2007-03-04 07:26PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Obama at AIPAC

Besides Obama had a chance to review the reactions people had to Edwards words.  He learned well.

by pioneer111 2007-03-04 11:00PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Obama at AIPAC

I think that's exactly right. Also, Edwards's speech was right in the middle of all that talk abouto Cheney wanting to go to war in Iran. Now that that talk has died down some, I think Obama gets off the hook more. But I think you're right, he said it in a way that was more soothing. I don't fault either of them for what they said. I think both of their speeches were fine.

by adamterando 2007-03-05 03:38AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Stoller is losing me

He has been consistently bad in his analysis lately, especially when it comes to foreign policy.  

Full disclosure, I am an Edwards partisan.  I thought the message Edwards and Obama sent to AIPAC were similar and correct.  Kudos to both of them.  Yet, Stoller seems to have shifting standards.

by KickinIt 2007-03-05 05:52AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------