Barack Obama made a decision yesterday to make an issue of a brief passage in the Knesset speech by President Bush. Though the President never mentioned the Senator by name, and spoke only of those who “seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals,” Obama seized on the remark and launched a major controversy, claiming that the White House (despite consistent denials) clearly intended to make a “false political attack.”

 

  As I noted yesterday, this decision on the part of Obama involved obvious political calculation: Bush is less popular than McCain, so why not occupy a few days worth of sound bites in a Bush vs. Obama exchange?

 

  The problem for the Democratic candidate is that while trying to associate his rival, Senator McCain, with President Bush, he may have inadvertently linked himself with a figure even less popular than the President: the sanctimonious and appalling  Jimmy Carter.

 

  Today in Saudi Arabia, White House aide Ed Gillespie (traveling with the president) shouted to the press that in his remarks Mr. Bush had Mr. Carter in mind, not Senator Obama. Obviously, Carter fits the description in the Bush speech better than Obama – given his insistence on meeting directly with the terror masters at Hamas. The context of the Bush speech also makes the Carter reference more appropriate than any inference that he was targeting Obama: speaking to the Israeli parliament, there would certainly be far more concern with Carter’s embarrassing adventure in Hamas-astan than with Obama’s suggestion that he would negotiate with Ahmadinejad.

 

  Obama, in fact, has said he wouldn’t negotiate with Hamas – which raises a big question: why yes to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but no to the elected Palestinian leaders of Hamas? Hamas advocates violence, refuses to recognize Israel, is pledged to genocide against the Jewish state, and rejects all prior agreements made by the Palestinian authority --- and Ahmadinejad takes exactly the same position on all these issues. Obama said he wouldn’t negotiate with Hamas unless they recognized Israel, rejected violence, and pledged to honor prior agreements. Then why negotiate with the President of Iran—who hasn’t met even one of those pre-conditions?

 

  And when it comes to Ahmadinejad’s status as an elected leader, not just a terrorist chieftain, his election in Iran (where the mullahs threw out all candidates who weren’t sufficiently “Islamic”) was probably even more suspect that the most recent Palestinian elections that were won by Hamas.

 

  Obama, in other words, is totally and profoundly inconsistent here ---and the developing controversy now links him to Jimmy Carter.

 

   Since Obama now says he disapproves of Carter’s “fun” (the very word the ex-President used in a USA TODAY interview describing his trip), would he agree with Mr. Bush’s remarks as applied to President Carter? If not, why not?

 

  In other words, the current battle between Bush-and-Obama places the Illinois Senator on the side of the pathetic former president.

 

  Do many Americans believe Carter did the right thing in negotiating with the killers and thugs of Hamas (where they later attacked Carter and claimed they never reached the “understanding” the Georgia jerk described)?

 

  It’s arguable that Obama made a smart bet to assume that people hate Bush so deeply that they would instinctively prefer any other approach to foreign policy – no matter how ill-considered or poorly defined.

 

  But if he’s betting that the American public has more confidence in the thoroughly discredited, 84-year-old walking hemorrhoid from Pains (okay, Plains), then that’s a bet Barack could well lose.   

 

 

Senator Obama acuses President Bush of making a "false political attack" in his speech earlier today at the Israeli Knesset. What is false, exactly, about the President's statement. Bush said:"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."

Hasn't Barack Obama specifically suggested face-to-face negotiations with iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? And isn't Ahmadine-wack job a "terrorist and radical?" If Iran is the world's leading supporter of terrorism (and it proudly is) doesn't that make the president a terrorist?

And even if you resist the idea of classifying the President of Iran as a "terrorist," surely he counts as a radical, doesn't he?

In what sense, then is, the controverisal passage a "false attack."?

Obama, of course, welcomes a confrontation with the President of the United States -- it enhances his own stature, and President Bush is considerably less popular right now than Barry's real oponent, John McCain.

But concerned citizens ought to look behind the posing and think about the substance of these words -- and how well they really do apply to Senator Obama (even thought Mr. Bush was gracious enough never to mention him by name).

If you've been listening to the radio show, you know I've been traveling this week (California and Georgia), so it's been difficult for me to keep up with the blog.  Nevertheless, my wife, Dr. Diane Medved, wrote such a beautiful piece about Israel's birthday that it seemed to me appropriate to share it with you here.

Happy 60th Birthday, Israel

It's modern Israel's 60th birthday. As every day, today is a miracle; even more so for Israel.

I grew up wondering what it was about Israel that had all my Jewish friends so reverent, so stalwart. Israel was one topic about which you did not joke, about which there was no dissent, a rare subject for a group of argumentative people. Most of my childhood friends were "very Reform," meaning they didn't even know, much less keep mitzvot (commandments). They ate "kosher style" bagels and sandwiches at Junior's Deli (on Westwood Blvd. near Pico in West L.A.). They went to services, usually at some overflow location, for the High Holidays; they lit menorahs. That was about it.

My family did none of it; my Jewish father had married a non-Jew and our home was basically devoid of religion, save for the Guideposts pamphlet-size magazine my mom got by subscription every month, the "God loves you" publication of Norman Vincent Peale. Though she kept each issue by her bed, she never spoke of it.

Though all my school friends were Jewish, there had been the interlude when at age ten a new friend moved onto the block--the daughter of an Episcopal priest, who made it a condition of our friendship that I attend their church in Beverly Hills. Dutifully, I tagged along with the "PK" and sincerely wanted some of the spiritual goodies that family lived by--but try as I might (and I did try, learning their liturgy and even becoming "confirmed" at age 12 along with my friend), that lightening bolt from heaven never struck, and when my friend moved away, so did any attachment to her brand of religion.

That left me back with all the Jews, just when they were having bar and bat mitzvahs. I had a great time attending those, but watching my friends give speeches about the arrival of their adulthood was more ludicrous than meaningful. In high school, along with my friends, I joined the George Gershwin chapter of the B'nai B'rith Girls (the Reform youth group, the goal of which is to insure that Jews date only Jews). This was before the Reform branch declared that lineage moves through the father as well as the mother, so I was the group's blond "ringer." I dated the Jewish guys, cozied in with my new best friend, whose family ate chocolate babka, and attended high holiday services, leaving the tedium with my cohort for acceptable breaks and then tip-toeing back to the endless prayers.

What does all this have to do with Israel? Even in such a non-spiritual Jewish world, Israel was sacred. It was understood that Israel was God's apology for the Holocaust. You gave tzadaka (charity) to Israel. You prayed for Israel. You planted trees in Israel. You evaluated political candidates on their support for Israel. Then you voted for the Democrat.

My family was conservative. My Jewish daddy, who never made any reference to his birth-faith, read US News and World Report at the dinner table. He voted for Nixon and in 1964 Goldwater--I still have a metallic gold campaign button that reads, "I'm an extremist, I love liberty!" written around Barry Goldwater's smiling, bespectacled face. But when it came to Israel--well, Israel was special and worth defending at all cost.

My first trip to Israel was 22 years ago, after my Orthodox conversion and much intense study. In order to make a phone call then, you had to deposit hexagonal silver tokens with holes in their centers into the pay phone--if you could find one. Then, you hoped there was an operator to put the call through. Sometimes people lined up waiting to use the public phones, since many private citizens did not have their own. The traffic was sparse; the country had the feel of a third-world, developing nation where not everything worked as it should.

I have been to Israel many times since; this summer my husband and I will escort 200 tourists there again (taking our fourth tour), eager to amaze and awe them with the ruach (spirit) so palpable there. Our daughter lived in Jerusalem for a seminary year; close relatives have made Jerusalem their permanent homes. Israel has emerged as a high-tech center for the world (the assonance nearly compelled me to write "a high tech mecca," but I just couldn't do it), where cell phones are ubiquitous and sophisticated. The pace is fast; cars squeeze through non-lanes and park on the sidewalks. And religiously, as the level of Jewish connection around the globe has grown, its fervency and urgency in observance at its source and center has burgeoned exponentially.

So, Happy Birthday, Israel! Sixty years is not a long time in the sweep of history, and only a blink after an exile of 2,000 years. But the amount of change, advancement and strength that has gathered in that short span only confirms it as the Land wonder-fully blessed and unique.

Many observers expected the collapse of the two-party system in 2008. Lou Dobbs of CNN wrote a bestseller called “Independents Day,” predicting an “independent populist” would win the presidency.  

There’s scant prospect of any viable third party, however, when potential fringe contenders have an air of “round-up-the-usual suspects”—Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Mike Gravel, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin. Soaring turnout in primaries shows no mass desertion from the two-party system, and the Gallup Poll of under-30 voters notes a scant 8%—unchanged from four years ago—who consider themselves “independents.”  

The predicted “independents day” never materialized because likely nominees McCain and Obama, both of them once considered underdogs, give a fresh flavor to each party and show  the best way to work for change is within—not outside—the system that served us reasonably well for the last 150 years.

With Newsweek running a cover story on “The Post American World” and Democrats complaining that President Bush destroyed our influence abroad, it’s instructive to consider a recent string of election successes for foreign candidates who support our values and our policies.  

In Canada , Mexico , Germany , Denmark , Greece , Ukraine and France the parties identified as “pro-American” swept to important victories. Most recently, the conservative candidate in Italy , Silvio Burlesconi, won a smashing triumph to return to power and Rome elected its first right-wing mayor in 50 years. Then in local elections throughout Britain , the Conservatives thumped the ruling Labor Party, 44% to 24%, and turned out the anti-American mayor of London , “Red Ken” Livingstone. The global trend favors politicians who back free markets and welcome U.S. leadership—hardly a sign of a “Post American World.” 

Amidst all the raging controversy, a few brave voices have come forward to defend Pastor Jeremiah Wright. They deserve more attention than they’ve received because they illustrate the pompous fatuity so typical of the religious left. 

For instance, within his own denomination, the Rantin’ Rev most certainly enjoys his supporters. Reverend Richard Wagner of Union Congregational Church, a United Church of Christ congregation in St. Louis Park, Minnesota, says the Pyrotechnic Pastor displays Biblical stature, and speaks “with the same passion and hyperbole as the Hebrew prophets.” The New York Times adds that “clergy members have cited Amos, who cursed all the nations, saving his harshest words for his own.” 

There are no end of ridiculous elements to this comparison, but we might as well start with the fact that Jeremiah Wright doesn’t see the U.S. as “his own” nation; he considers himself a loyal son of the African Motherland, and speaks no harsh words about the continent that produced his ancestors. 

Moreover, the Hebrew prophets lived ascetically and humbly (remember Elijah being fed by ravens in a cave?) and it’s hard to imagine them relishing a multi-million dollar home built with congregational funds, or gleefully commanding the spotlight on PBS or the National Press Club. 

Finally, the prophets were profoundly serious people, virtually possessed by the voice of God, willing to disregard their personal welfare to convey a message.  

Despite the carefully cultivated image as a dashiki-wearing rebel, Jeremiah Wright is a self-serving careerist, a media-mad showoff who will even say things he knows to be untrue (lying about the nature of the Tuskegee Experiment to make people believe the government created AIDS) in order to advance his own standing and interests.  

His egotistical behavior in putting his own standing and publicity ahead of the fate of his supposed friend, Barack Obama, simply provides the latest indication that this unbridled showman is more about profit than he is about prophet.  

In every presidential campaign, a candidate’s character plays a crucial role. We can't predict the challenges and issues a new president may face (who would have suggested George W. Bush would become a war time president?) but considering questions of temperament and competence and decency allows voters to predict how well a potential president might respond. Unfortunately for Senator Obama, his performance in the Jeremiah Wright controversy shows weak leadership and deeply flawed integrity.

His startling inability to work with his own former pastor to prevent serious damage to his campaign hardly inspires confidence in his capacity to unite Democrats, deal with a fractious Congress, or cope with foreign powers. If he can't manage to coordinate a message with his friend and mentor of twenty years, or else separate himself from that association before launching his campaign, then he'll find it even more difficult to work together with hostile strangers. Meanwhile, he offers no credible explanation for his abrupt change in attitude toward Rev. Wright. Six weeks ago he said “I can no more disown him that I can disown the black community.” Obama now denounces Wright and cites “anger” at statements at the National Press Club. But none of Wright's positions there departs from radical attitudes he’s expressed consistently for twenty years.

If Obama now says he's shocked to discover that Wright is, indeed, a crackpot who poisons the discourse, and not just a lovable and eccentric "old uncle," then the Senator is either distorting the truth or admitting incompetence. A president will need to evaluate complicated intelligence reports to determine the situation with foreign powers and terrorist threats. If Obama remained blithely oblivious to his own pastor's anti-American radicalism for twenty years, if he new less about his friend than did most members of press and public, his judgment and ability look deeply questionable. This is not a matter of "guilt by association"  (as so many Obama defenders insist) but an issue of capability and reliability and honesty that goes to the very core of the candidate's suitability as President of the United States. The whole sad affair highlights the weakness, poor judgment and waffling of an increasingly desparate presidential contender.