This Jennifer Rubin article in the J-Post explains why Jewish Americans still don’t trust Sen. Obama. The great thing about this article is that it provides a historical perspective on American presidents; devotion to Israel, then uses that historical perspective to explain why Jewish voters will be hesitant to vote for Sen. Obama:

Prime minister Golda Meir had miscalculated Anwar Sadat’s willingness to go to war and decided against a first strike against Egypt. The Arab nations attacked in October 1973, and within days Israel was facing defeat.

The Israelis went to president Richard Nixon with a request for a massive infusion of arms. The Defense and State Departments squabbled. Our European allies, who feared an oil embargo (and would refuse us bases to refuel our planes), inveighed against it, and the Soviets blustered. Many on Nixon’s staff wanted to deny the request, or offer only token assistance. Don’t antagonize the Arab states, they counseled.

Nixon persisted and, according to some accounts, doubled the amount of aid Israel had requested. Riding herd on the bureaucrats, Nixon repeatedly intervened to push the transports along. Informed about a dispute regarding the type of air transportation, Nixon at one point exclaimed in frustration: “Tell them to send everything that can fly.” Over the course of a month US airplanes conducted 815 sorties with over 27,900 tons of materiel.

Nixon left no doubt about whether he’d stand with Israel when things were at their most dangerous point. “Tell them to send everything that can fly” is a great way to let the bureaucrats know who set American foreign policy. It was something that Meir appreciated greatly. (continue reading post »)

According to Peter Brown, the director of Quinippiac’s polling, history shows that Democrats have long had trouble with white voters. He makes his case in this WSJ op-ed.

For those voters, especially ones without college degrees, the fact that Sen. Obama is black may not be as much a disqualifier as his background as a Democrat from the Frost Belt with no national security or executive experience and a voting record judged by the nonpartisan National Journal as the Senate’s most liberal during 2007.

Yet, the focus on Sen. Obama’s relative weakness among the white working class has become the hot topic among many who say racial bias explains it. Of course it would be naive to believe that race is not a factor in America today. But that doesn’t necessarily mean Mr. Obama’s relative weakness among white voters is solely, or even mainly, due to the fact that he is black and that three quarters of voters this year will be white.

Why would anyone think that policies matter? Obama’s troubles with white working class voters has far more to do with the fact that he’s the most underqualified major party candidate in my voting lifetime. OLet’s not forget that white working class voters haven’t forgotten (or forgiven) Obama for his SF fundraising speech, either. (continue reading post »)

This Boston Globe article says everything that needs to be known about how serious Democrats are about winning in Iraq. That is, they aren’t the least bit serious. Here’s what I’m basing that opinion on:

Three Massachusetts congressmen called for a United Nations security force to replace American troops in Iraq as part of a phased plan for withdrawing US soldiers after a new president takes office in January.

Yesterday’s proposal, sponsored by Representatives James P. McGovern, John F. Tierney, and William D. Delahunt, calls for an end to ongoing talks between the United States and Iraq on a long-term security agreement. Instead, according to the proposal, US authorities should immediately start negotiations with the UN on a mandate to govern the “internationalization of responsibility for aid and support to Iraq.”

Reps. Tierney, McGovern and Delahunt are idiots for proposing such a plan. The U.N. can’t focus on killing al-Qa’ida like our troops are currently doing. The U.N. won’t take sides like U.S. troops are taking sides against anyone plotting against the sovereign Iraqi government. They can’t involve themselves in demolishing malicious militias like those funded by Iran.

While it’s true that Iraqi security forces now control every major citiy in Iraq, it’s equally true that the U.S. military is still needed to wipe out the last of al-Qa’ida’s terrorists and the last of Sadr’s militias.

Here’s what Rep. McGovern sees happening:

The current UN mandate, under which American forces legally operate in the country, expires on Dec. 31. The US and Iraqi governments have no plans to seek its renewal and are drawing up a bilateral agreement that could keep US forces in the country indefinitely. (continue reading post »)

Peter Brown poses a great set of questions in this WSJ editorial. Specifically, he asks whether the Democrats would rethink their governing philosophy if they lose this election. Here’s how Mr. Brown first frames his question:

After the 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004 elections, Democratic leaders argued that the American people had not rejected their ideas or governing philosophy. Instead, they said, their nominee had not effectively communicated the party’s core message. It wasn’t the American people rejecting those views and values, they contended.

Two paragraphs later, here’s how he continues his argument:

These Democrats argued their politics were not out of step and there was no reason to overhaul the party message; they just needed to tinker with it around the edges and find a better communicator to make their case. That argument was perhaps more credible when Democrats were losing to Mr. Reagan, whose communications skills were without peer. But neither President Bush, George H.W. Bush nor his son George W. Bush, could win a high school debate tournament.

Politics or Presentation?

Nevertheless, it’s clear that if Sen. Barack Obama loses this November, Democrats will have to conclude that yes, in fact, their defeats are linked to their brand of politics, not their salesman’s communication skills. (continue reading post »)

Barack Obama once claimed to be beyond partisanship. His latest demagogic attack prove that he’s a bitter partisan who is exploiting the fear/race card. Here’s how clumsily he played the race card:

“It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy,” Obama told a fundraiser in Jacksonville, Florida. “We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid.

“They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”

Frankly, Barack Obama presents a great target for Republicans. He’s clueless on foreign policy (He’s said he’d meet with Ahmadinejad and Chavez before he said he’d meet with Gen. Petraeus); he’s in the hip pocket of the environmental extremists on drilling on the OCS (Mark Warner, Jim Webb and Tim Kaine are at odds with him on that). Moreover, Obama thinks it’s smart to give terrorists more rights than the Haditha Marines have received.

Worst of all, he’s said that gas isn’t too expensive, just that it got to $4/gallon too fast. (continue reading post »)

Following the Supreme Court’s idiotic ruling giving terrorists the same rights as a street criminal, Sen. Dianne Feinstein is now saying that Gitmo was a blight on the integrity of the United States. Here’s what she said specifically:

“Guantanamo has been a terrible blight on the integrity of this nation,” says Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat who has proposed closing the prison complex.

This is typical Democrat thinking on foreign policy. They say these things because they’re more worried about being popular than respected. In fact, they worry more about being popular than being safe. Their go-along-to-get-along attitude isn’t keeping American safe.

What’s keeping America safe is George Bush’s policy of attacking terrorists where they live. President Bush hasn’t given the terrorists any breathing room. As a result, we’ve gone almost 7 years without a terrorist attack. That didn’t happen by accident. Because President Bush had the wisdom to implement this aggressive policy, we’ve been protected. (continue reading post »)

According to this ABC post, Barack Obama’s temper got the better of him. Here’s what happened in the Well of the Senate:

Returning to the Senate after his securing the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama and Lieberman greeted each on the Senate floor in the Well as they were voting on the budget resolution.

They shook hands. But Obama didn’t let go, leading Lieberman, cordially, by the hand across the room into a corner on the Democratic side, where Democratic sources tell ABC News he delivered some tough words for the junior senator from Connecticut, who had just minutes before hammered Obama’s speech before the pro-Israel group AIPAC in a conference call arranged by the McCain campaign.

Watch video of the encounter on the Senate floor HERE.

The two spoke intensely for approximately five minutes, with no one able to hear their conversation. Reporters watched as Obama leaned closely in to Lieberman, whose back was literally up against the wall.

This is one of the most boneheaded things Sen. Obama could’ve done. Sen. Obama owes Sen. Lieberman, one of the classiest acts in American political history, a formal apology. (continue reading post »)

First, let me congratulate Sen. Obama on becoming the first African-American to capture a major party’s nomination for president. It’s important that we recognize that this is an historic night. Everyone knows that I’ve got major problems with Sen. Obama on the issues but it’s a great accomplishment anytime anyone captures his party’s presidential nomination. That it was an historic accomplishment is a genuine source of pride for Sen. Obama.

Earlier tonight, Sen. McCain defined the differences between himself and Sen. Obama when he spoke in New Orleans. Now it’s time to see how Sen. Obama attempted to define himself on his own terms. Here’s what Sen. Obama said on Iraq:

Change is a foreign policy that doesn’t begin and end with a war that should’ve never been authorized and never been waged. I won’t stand here and pretend that there are many good options left in Iraq, but what’s not an option is leaving our troops in that country for the next hundred years, especially at a time when our military is overstretched, our nation is isolated, and nearly every other threat to America is being ignored.

We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in, but start leaving we must. It’s time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future. It’s time to rebuild our military and give our veterans the care they need and the benefits they deserve when they come home. It’s time to refocus our efforts on al Qaeda’s leadership and Afghanistan, and rally the world against the common threats of the 21st century, terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. That’s what change is.

It’s obvious that Sen. Obama will continue characterizing the current Iraq strategy as the failed strategy of three years ago. Rest assured that Sen. McCain will ofer proof that security has improved dramatically improved since the surge began. Sen. McCain will also point to the significant steps that’ve been taken on the road to political reconcilliation in Iraq.

In a very real way, Sen. Obama wants America to believe that the Iraq of today is the Iraq of 2004-2005. I don’t think that’ll work. (continue reading post »)

Now that Sen. Obama has gathered enough delegates to clinch the Democratic nomination, Sen. McCain has trained his sights on Sen. Obama. In a speech just delivered, Sen. McCain repeatedly challenged Sen. Obama. I suspect that it’ll get underneath Obama’s skin just a little because McCain ridiculed Obama’s slogan of “Change You Can Believe In” against him.

Here’s how Sen. McCain challenged Sen. Obama on Iraq:

I disagreed strongly with the Bush administration’s mismanagement of the war in Iraq. I called for the change in strategy that is now, at last, succeeding where the previous strategy had failed miserably. I was criticized for doing so by Republicans. I was criticized by Democrats. I was criticized by the press. But I don’t answer to them. I answer to you. And I would be ashamed to admit I knew what had to be done in Iraq to spare us from a defeat that would endanger us for years, but I kept quiet because it was too politically hard for me to do. No ambition is more important to me than the security of the country I have defended all my adult life.

Senator Obama opposed the new strategy, and, after promising not to, voted to deny funds to the soldiers who have done a brilliant and brave job of carrying it out. Yet in the last year we have seen the success of that plan as violence has fallen to a four year low; Sunni insurgents have joined us in the fight against al Qaeda; the Iraqi Army has taken the lead in places once lost to Sunni and Shia extremists; and the Iraqi Government has begun to make progress toward political reconciliation. (continue reading post »)

The AP is reporting that Hillary Clinton will today announce that Barack Obama has the delegates to win the Democratic presidential nomination. The bad news for the AP is that Hillary just issued a statement saying it has no such intention. Here’s what the AP is reporting:

Hillary Rodham Clinton will admit Tuesday night that Barack Obama has the delegates to secure the Democratic nomination, campaign officials said, effectively ending her bid to be the nation’s first female president. A senior Clinton campaign official confirms to CBS News that Hillary Clinton will “acknowledge but not concede” the race tonight. The official says “she has no plans to concede the race tonight.”

Here’s Hillary’s statement:

“The AP story is incorrect. Senator Clinton will not concede the nomination this evening.”

The AP is an embarrassment. Not surprisingly, MSNBC is reporting that Hillary will concede tonight: (continue reading post »)