Posted by
Andrews on Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11:44:02 AM
I am a bit amused that
Michael Medved thinks an Obama flip flop is even worth mentioning. Of course he went back on his promise fo an undivided Jerusalem, that is what Obama does.
He promised unconditional talks with every dictator who wanted one, at least until he saw how badly the public reacted, and then his unconditional talks included conditions. He said the right to bear arms is absolute, except that it can be limited by the states. He could not denounce his minister, until he denounced him. Iran was a tiny non-threatening country, until it was the gravest threat facing the US. We were going to leave Iraq but would come back if al Qaida set up operations there, except that they are already there,
but that doesn't mean we won't be leaving.
To be honest, I am not sure if that last is a waffle or not, as I can't make heads or tails out of any of his positions on Iraq, so I can't say if he changed from one nonsensical position to another, or if it all is just one big, inconsistent bit of nonsense.
Of course, the Jerusalem comment does have some meaning to those who want to look.
First, it is yet another example of how much of a normal politician Obama is. He has promised every possible group every possible resolution to the Palestinian question. He has stopped short of promising to help push Israel into the sea, but excepting that eh has come out for just about every possible answer. Far from being a "new kind of politician" and an "agent of change" he is just another glad handing fellow, promising whatever it takes to win.
Second, it reinforces my belief that he will be
another Clinton, or
maybe a Carter. He is not even president, yet he is making promises for another nation. It is not really his position to decide what happens to Jerusalem, so where does he get the right to tell a sovereign nation what to do? Would we accept a German chancellor running on the promise that there would be no drilling for oil in the Chesapeake Bay? Or would we think it meddling? So what right does Obama have to decide the fate of Jerusalem? Unless he is proposing forcing Israel into another
disastrous Oslo accord? And, as he has been so very Clinton-like, I don't think that out of the question.
So, yes, I suppose it is important to look at this back peddling, but, I have to say, it does still seem strange that anyone, especially a commentator such as Mr. Medved, to express surprise. It is not as if Obama has been reluctant to waffle before.
POSTSCRIPT
One positive item in the Medved article is the poll result showing that Jews are supporting McCain in record numbers (about 35% for McCain). That is historic, and shows clearly that even historic Democrat constituencies are falling out of love with Obama. I think by September or October, even the media will have to admit that Obama's "sure thing" is nothing of the kind.
Then again, maybe if he ticks off enough Jews, eh can pick up the Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan votes, as well as those who worry about the Israel Lobby and Zionist conspiracies.