[Peace-discuss] Obama Walks Back Jerusalem Remarks

[Robert Naiman]

I wouldn't suggest that his remarks were unconsidered or inadvertent. On the
contrary, though I don't have a window into the guy's brain, my personal
guess is that they were quite deliberate. A "push-off," as they say in
Washington, a "Sister Souljah" attack on the Palestinians, calculated
precisely to provoke a firestorm which he hoped would inoculate him against
the accusation of having any sympathy for the Palestinians.

Nonetheless, I think it was a good thing that he felt compelled to "clarify"
his remarks. It doesn't make him a good person, but it does undo some of the
damage that his remarks caused.

On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 5:45 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:

> There's another reading of this:  Obama now has it both ways. He tells
> AIPAC what they want to hear and then takes back with the left hand what
> he'd given with the right.  But it's done cleverly enough that it doesn't
> appear as a contradiction.
>
> His comments to AIPAC were hardly unconsidered or inadvertent.  Here's how
> the BBC reported some of them:
>
>        "In one of his first acts after he secured the Democratic nomination
> for president of the US, Senator Barack Obama told Aipac, America's most
> powerful pro-Israel lobby, that he would do everything in his power to
> prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. *He repeated the word
> 'everything' several times*. Even allowing for the fact that he was also
> trying to dispel the impression that he was soft on Iran, it was strong
> language..."
>
> Noam Chomsky had what seems to me an accurate take on Obama a few months
> ago; his backtrack is consistent with this view:
>
>        "I think he's basically presenting himself as a blank slate, on
> which you can write your wishes.  Hard to find much to be hopeful about.  He
> is energizing a lot of young people, but I don't see much reason to expect
> that for that reason his presidency would be more responsive to public
> pressure.  Overwhelmingly, the public believes that the government should be
> responsive to public opinion.  But that's such an unpopular elite view that
> the press won't even report the polls showing this.  A more realistic
> possibility, perhaps, is that those who are energized by the candidacy will
> devote the energy to something constructive after the likely
> disillusionment."  --CGE
>
>
> Robert Naiman wrote:
>
>> He "quickly backtracked," reports the Washington Post.
>>
>>
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/obama-walks-back-jerusale_b_105854.html
>>
>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/7/165440/8748/58/531843
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080607/c7430bd3/attachment-0001.htm