Barack Obama is a Strong Friend of Israel

Following up on my email last night, in which I wrote:

I am so sick of hearing idiotic opinions that Obama is not a friend of the Jewish people and/or his Presidency would not be good for Israel and/or he doesn't understand the grave danger of Islamic extremism (to both Israel and the U.S.) and/or would be weak in the face of it!

For those of you who have no concerns about Sen. Obama in regard to these issues, you can ignore this email. For those of you who want more information, below are two emails and attached are 22 (yes, 22!) documents that will hopefully put this issue to rest for anyone who takes the time to read them. [Email me at WTilson@T2PartnersLLC.com if you'd like me to email them to you.]

-------------------

From: Alan D. Solomont
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:19 PM
Subject: The Facts About Obama

Friends-

Over the past several weeks, a great deal of misinformation about Barack Obama has been circulating in the Jewish community. Ever since Iowa proved that Senator Obama can compete with anyone to become the Democratic nominee for president and quite possibly the next President of the United States, emails and published articles, seemingly aimed at Jewish voters, have attempted to paint a false picture that ranges from questioning Senator Obama’s support for Israel to outright lies about his religion.

In an effort to provide as much factual information as possible, I have compiled a fairly comprehensive body of material that should set the record straight on everything from legitimate questions about the Senator’s strong support for Israel to the ugly smears that have sadly made their way into the public square.

This is probably more information than you wish to receive, so here is an annotated list that should help you pick and choose:

1. Barack Obama: A Strong Record of Supporting the Security, Peace and Prosperity of Israel. This is the Obama Campaign’s statement of the Senator’s positions supporting the State of Israel.

2. Transcript of Remarks by Senator Barack Obama to the AIPAC Policy Forum in Chicago, March 2, 2007

3. A Letter from Florida Congressman Robert Wexler, a leading Jewish member of Congress and staunch supporter of Israel, about why he supports Barack Obama

4. A letter from Jewish Philanthropist Lester Crown from Chicago regarding his support for Obama

5. Obama and Israel, A New York Sun Editorial: http://www.nysun.com/article/69154

6. Obama woos Jewish Voters, an article published by Ynet News.com: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3374507,00.html

7. An Open Letter to the Jewish Community from leaders of major Jewish organizations condemning the smear campaign against Senator Obama on the internet

8. An Open Letter to the Jewish Community from seven Jewish U.S. Senators, none of whom has endorsed a Democratic presidential candidate, expressing a similar sentiment to the letter from Jewish communal leaders

9. A Statement by the National Jewish Democratic Council, which does not endorse any presidential candidate, about Barack Obama’s friendship with the Jewish community and support for Israel

10. A Statement by Senator Obama condemning Louis Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism

11. The Hate Campaign Against Obama, an article by M.J. Rosenberg, of the Israel policy Forum: http://coffeehouse.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2008/jan/10/the_hate_campaign_against_obama_in_jewish_community

12. Sliming Obama, a Newsweek fact check on the hate campaign targeting Obama: http://www.newsweek.com/id/91424

13. Letter to UN Ambassador re: Gaza

14. Response to right wing blogger Ed Lasky’s misinformation about Obama.

15. Op Ed I have submitted to Jewish Advocate.

Alan D. Solomont, Chairman/CEO

SolomontBailis Ventures, LLC

One Gateway Center

Suite 902

Newton, Massachusetts 02458

Phone 617.630.8081 Fax 617.630.8463

ads@sb-ventures.com

=======================

Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 01:45:16 -0600
Subject: Barack Obama is a Strong Friend of Israel

Dear Friends,

Various attacks on Barack Obama, his personal background, and his positions on Israel have circulated recently in the Jewish Community. As Senator Obama has said, “Fortunately, the American people are, I think, smarter than people give them credit for.”

In addition to the facts below rebutting the ‘Obama and Israel’ false attack piece by right wing blogger Ed Lasky, we have attached Senator Obama’s positions on Israel, recent speeches on the subject, and other information to allow you to make the informed judgment for yourself. Barack Obama’s policies and his strong support of Israel speak for themselves and we ask that you forward this information on to all who have received the attack emails.

Additionally, Senator Obama has spoken out about his consistent and longstanding denouncements of anti-Semitism and Louis Farrakhan. See quote below.

Please let me know if you have any further questions and thank you for taking the time to review the facts.

------------------------
Barack Obama reiterates his consistent and long standing denouncements of anti-Semitism and Louis Farrakhan:

“I have always denounced the abhorrent anti-Semitic views of Louis Farrakhan. I have done so since I was a community organizer on the South side of Chicago 20 years ago. And so, I don’t think that’s in question. My church has never issued anti-Semitic statements, nor have I heard my pastor ever utter anything anti-Semitic. And if I had, then I would have quit the church.

“What is true, is that I think they made a mistake in judgment, the magazine that was affiliated with the church in praising Farrakhan’s…primarily for the work that he’s done on ex-offenders and they are a presence in Chicago, they have done work in the community, that often draws attention that is separate from some of these previous remarks.

“I think that it doesn’t excuse in any way the fact that Mr. Farrakhan said in the past is unacceptable. And I was very clear both with my pastor and with the public, that you cannot excuse such statements. So I think that I have been absolutely clear in terms of my position on this issue. As I said before, I think that this is a situation in which because Farrakhan is based in Chicago and has done work that is separate apart from his reprehensible statements, that there are times when people don’t understand the pain that those statements originally have caused, and I will continue to strongly speak out anti-Semitism in all its forms. That’s part of the reason why I’ve always had such strong support in the Jewish community that is familiar with my track record because they know that I don’t tolerate that stuff, and I’m willing to say it right away in front of other audiences. I was just at Ebenezer church for Dr. King’s anniversary and specifically stated to that audience, the unacceptability of anti-Semitism in the African-American community or any community.”

Senator Barack Obama on JTA – 1/28/08
---------------------------

FACTS ABOUT BARACK OBAMA AND ISRAEL

Right wing Bush-supporting Lasky written piece is so riddled with errors, it has no credibility.
Please share the facts with those who have received this email.


RHETORIC: “Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr. is the long-time Pastor of Obama's church, and Obama has credited him as being an inspiration and guiding light for him…He also has, in the words of the Chicago Tribune, a militant past…Pastor Wright is also a supporter of Louis Farrakhan, and in 1984 traveled with him to visit Col. Muammar al-Gadaffi, an archenemy of Israel's and America and a firm supporter of terror groups.” [American Thinker <http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/barack_obama_and_israel_1.html> , 3/22/07]

REALITY: ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE: NO EVIDENCE OF ANY ANTI-SEMITISM BY REVEREND WRIGHT; WRIGHT DID NOT ENDORSE FARRAKHAN’S VIEWS

Anti-Defamation League Had “No Evidence Of Any Anti-Semitism By Mr. Wright.” The New York Times reported, “For its part, the Anti-Defamation League says it has no evidence of any anti-Semitism by Mr. Wright.” [New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=3> , 4/30/07]

Wright Did Not Endorse Farrakhan’s Views. Wright’s involvement with Farrakhan “implied no endorsement of their views.” [New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=3> , 4/30/07]

**

RHETORIC: “Wright has also been a severe critic of Israel.” [American Thinker <http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/barack_obama_and_israel_1.html> , 3/22/07]

REALITY: OBAMA DOES NOT AGREE WITH WRIGHT ABOUT ALL ASPECTS OF POLITICS, AND SPECIFICALLY DISAGREES WITH WRIGHT ON ISRAEL

Obama Said He And Reverend Wright “Don’t Agree On Everything.” The New York Times reported, “But ‘we don’t agree on everything,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘I’ve never had a thorough conversation with him about all aspects of politics.’” [New York Times <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=3> , 4/30/07]

Old News: Critics Have Recycled The Same Charges Against Wright And The Church. The Christian Science Monitor reported, “And conservatives have pummeled Wright for his Afrocentric beliefs, his equation of Zionism with racism, and his remarks on the 9/11 attacks.” [Christian Science Monitor <http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0716/p01s01-uspo.html?page=1> , 7/16/07]

Obama “Strongly Disagrees” With Wright Position On Israel. “Wright remains Obama's pastor and friend, [Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki] said, but they do not see eye to eye on every issue. Obama, she said, ‘strongly disagrees with any portrayal of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that advocates divestment from Israel or expresses anything less than strong support for Israel's security.’” [Christian Science Monitor <http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0716/p01s01-uspo.html?page=1> , 7/16/07]

**

RHETORIC: Ali Abunimah wrote that Obama said, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!" [American Thinker <http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/barack_obama_and_israel_1.html> , 3/22/07]

REALITY: LASKY HIMSELF SAID THAT THE SOURCE WAS NOT RELIABLE



Lasky Said It Himself, Abunimah Was Not “The Most Reliable Source;” Rashid Khalidi: Obama Was Never Supportive Of The Palestinian Cause. Lasky wrote, “True, Abunimah may not be the most reliable source…” The New York Daily News reported, “Obama got help from an unlikely source yesterday when pro-Palestinian Prof. Rashid Khalidi denied a report that Obama used to be sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and had recently shifted his stance to pro-Israel. Khalidi spoke to the Daily News to rebut a report on a pro-Palestinian blog that was circulated by Clinton supporters. The blog, the Electronic Intifada, offered no evidence that Obama used to be supportive of the Palestinian cause, but cited private conversations, including one at a 2000 Obama fund-raiser hosted by Khalidi. Khalidi, now head of Columbia University's Middle East Institute, said he hosted the fund-raiser because he was friends with Obama while the two lived in Chicago.” [New York Daily News, 3/6/07]


**

RHETORIC: Lasky wrote, “Most Congressmen have a solid legislative record on bills considered important to the American-Israel relationship-after all, most Americans have a very favorable view towards Israel. Most legislative acts regarding the American-Israel relationship are uncontroversial-which is the reason one often sees such votes as being supportive of the alliance between the two nations. He has, to repeat, been a member of the Senate for all of two years and his record is thus very thin in this regard.” [American Thinker <http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/barack_obama_and_israel_1.html> , 3/22/07]

REALITY: OBAMA CO-SPONSORED THE PALESTINIAN ANTI-TERRORISM AND A RESOLUTION ENDORSING ISRAEL’S RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE AND CONDEMNING HAMAS AND HEZBOLLAH, BOTH OF WHICH PASSED

Obama Cosponsored The Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act Which Would Discourage International Aid To Hamas Unless It Recognizes Israel, Disarms And Renounces Violence. In 2006, Obama cosponsored the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, which: (1) States that it shall be U.S. policy to support a peaceful, two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in accordance with the Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Roadmap), and oppose those organizations, individuals, and countries that support terrorism and violently reject such two-state solution; (2) provides assistance to the Hamas-controlled PA only during a period for which a presidential certification has determined that no PA ministry, agency, or instrumentality is controlled by Hamas unless the Hamas-controlled PA has publicly acknowledged the Jewish state of Israel's right to exist and the Hamas-controlled PA has made demonstrable progress toward purging from its security services individuals with ties to terrorism. [S. 2370, Became Public Law No: 109-446, 12/21/06]


Obama Cosponsored A Resolution Endorsing Israel’s Right To Self-Defense And Condemning Hamas And Hezbollah. In 2006, Obama cosponsored a resolution condemning Hezbollah and Hamas and their state sponsors and supporting Israel's exercise of its right to self-defense. The resolution (1) reaffirmed steadfast support for Israel, (2) supports Israel's right of self-defense and its right to take appropriate action to deter aggression by terrorist groups and their state sponsors, (3) urges the President to continue to fully support Israel in exercising its right of self-defense in Lebanon and Gaza, (4) calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Israeli soldiers held captive by Hezbollah or Hamas, (5) condemns the governments of Iran and Syria for their continued support for Hezbollah and Hamas and holds these governments responsible for the acts of aggression carried out by Hezbollah and Hamas against Israel. [S. Res 534, Passed/agreed to in Senate, 7/18/06]


**

RHETORIC: “He recently gave a speech before a group of supporters of Israel, at an AIPAC meeting in Chicago, that left many nonplussed. This speech was, in part, prompted by his knowledge that a panel of experts in Israel considers him to be the candidate that would support the state of Israel the least. While his supporters naturally heaped praise, when a more careful analysis of the speech is made, there is very little of substance regarding his support for our ally, Israel.” [American Thinker <http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/barack_obama_and_israel_1.html> , 3/22/07]

REALITY: OBAMA’S SPEECH WAS WELL-RECEIVED AND CONFIRMED THAT HE WAS “PRO-ISRAEL. PERIOD.”

Rosner On Obama’s AIPAC Speech: “Obama Passed Any Test Anyone Might Have Wanted Him To Pass. So, He Is Pro-Israel. Period.” Schmuel Rosner wrote, “Barack Obama's big speech on Israel is now over, and as expected <http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=826921&amp;contrassID=25&amp;subContrassID=0&amp;sbSubContrassID=1&amp;listSrc=Y&amp;art=2#article826921> , the candidate made no secret of his support and dedication to the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel. "My view is that the United States' special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction," were Obama's words to Haaretz <http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/826665.html> last week. Today, he sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period.” [Haaretz <http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=832667&amp;contrassID=25&amp;subContrassID=0&amp;sbSubContrassID=1&amp;listSrc=Y&amp;art=1> , 3/07]

Ø Debby Oshri: “I was impressed…He has good thoughts and good intentions.” [Chicago Jewish Star, 3/9/07]

Ø Roslyn Grodzin: “He said everything we wanted to hear.” [Chicago Jewish Star, 3/9/07]

Ø Sam Grodzin: “said he was ‘very impressed.’” [Chicago Jewish Star, 3/9/07]

Ø Mike Lieberman: “He said what he had to say.” [Chicago Jewish Star, 3/9/07]

Ø Sara Rafel: “I was very glad to see that he was here and that he expressed support for Israel and the U.S.” [Chicago Jewish Star, 3/9/07]

**

RHETORIC: “He stated that efforts to achieve peace with its neighbors ‘begin with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel.’ Is this a breakthrough for Senator Obama as it has been so hailed? Israel is the only true ally of America in the region, a fellow democracy and a Western nation. Shouldn't Senator Obama believe that such a commitment to its security be important as opposed to security for Hezbollah, Hamas, or Iran, or any of the anti-American dictatorships that plague the region? This was not a gaffe on his part but seems to reflect a view that the Israelis should bear the burden and take the risky steps for peace.” [American Thinker <http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/barack_obama_and_israel_1.html> , 3/22/07]

REALITY: OBAMA SAID THAT ISRAEL’S SECURITY IS THE BASIS FOR PEACE NEGOTIATIONS

Obama Spoke With Prime Minister Olmert As Annapolis Talks Began, Reiterated His Commitment To Israel’s Security As The Basis For Peace Negotiations. Obama said in a release, “Annapolis is a hopeful development because Israelis and Palestinians are engaged in serious discussions again and the countries of the region are involved, and I commend Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas for making the effort. I spoke with Prime Minister Olmert today, and assured him of my strong support for this effort and my unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security as a core principle as negotiations move forward. The Administration deserves credit for finally trying to use presidential diplomacy to bring the parties together. It's a big change from the last six and a half years, when President Bush badly neglected this conflict. Recognizing the complexity of the issues under discussion and the importance of the conflict, it is my hope that this conference is just the start of a sustained push by the United States, the Israelis and the Palestinians to achieve the goal of two states living side-by-side in peace and security.” [Press Release <http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CNdh> , 11/27/07]

**

RHETORIC: Lasky said that Obama said that the, “Israel government must make difficult concessions for the peace process to restart.” [American Thinker <http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/barack_obama_and_israel_1.html> , 3/22/07]

REALITY: No He Didn’t. This quote is only referenced in Lasky’s article, does not appear in Nexis, google, or other search engines. [Search, 1/15/08]

**

RHETORIC: “Furthermore, Obama stated that he supports a resumption of aid to the Palestinian government (there has been a non-stop flow of humanitarian aid) provided the government "renounces terrorism." This also ignored the few simple conditions that the international community has laid down for such resumption of aid to continue: not only must the Palestinians renounce terrorism, but they also must stop it (Arafat repeatedly denounced terrorism in English, while praising and planning for it in Arabic); Palestinians also must respect and abide by previous agreements made with Israel and they must accept the right of Israel to exist. These conditions Senator Obama would seemingly waive as long as Palestinians made noises about "renouncing terrorism" - which they certainly have experience doing!” [American Thinker <http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/barack_obama_and_israel_1.html> , 3/22/07]

REALITY: Obama Cosponsored The Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act Which Would Discourage International Aid To Hamas Unless It Recognizes Israel, Disarms And Renounces Violence. In 2006, Obama cosponsored the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, which: (1) States that it shall be U.S. policy to support a peaceful, two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in accordance with the Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Roadmap), and oppose those organizations, individuals, and countries that support terrorism and violently reject such two-state solution; (2) provides assistance to the Hamas-controlled PA only during a period for which a presidential certification has determined that no PA ministry, agency, or instrumentality is controlled by Hamas unless the Hamas-controlled PA has publicly acknowledged the Jewish state of Israel's right to exist and the Hamas-controlled PA has made demonstrable progress toward purging from its security services individuals with ties to terrorism. [S. 2370, Became Public Law No: 109-446, 12/21/06]


**

RHETORIC: Senator Obama also stated during his Iowa trip, "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people" which not only ignores the Israelis who have been terrorized and killed for years but also ignores refugees from the genocide in Darfur or the daily terror the Iraqis are experience from Muslim on Muslim violence. Instead, by identifying the Palestinians as suffering, he implicitly seems to be blaming the Israelis for their plight (though he did mention their own government failures). [American Thinker <http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/barack_obama_and_israel_1.html> , 3/22/07]

REALITY: OBAMA ACTUALLY BLAMED PALESTINIAN LEADERSHIP FOR STALLED PEACE PROCESS

Obama Said He That Cause Of Palestinian Suffering Was Their Own Leadership, “But The Damage Had Been Done.” The Baltimore Jewish Times reported that Obama “went on to say that the cause of that suffering was the Palestinians' own terror-sponsoring leadership. But the damage had been done…Mr. Obama, like so many others, is deemed a threat to Israel despite consistent support for the positions of pro-Israel groups. His sin: advocating other positions that may not be on the current talking points of pro-Israel groups, but which are consistent with official Israeli and U.S. policy.” [Baltimore Jewish Times, 3/23/07]



New York Times Issued A Correction On Obama’s Position On Middle East Peace, Saying That Obama Blamed Hamas, Not Israel. The correction read, “An article yesterday about competition for Jewish support between Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama incorrectly described Mr. Obama's views about the culpability for stalled peace talks between the Palestinians and Israelis. Mr. Obama blames Hamas, which controls much of the Palestinian government, for the stalled peace talks; he does not blame Israel.” [New York Times, 3/15/07]


**

RHETORIC: “Furthermore, why does almost every off the cuff remark he makes-remarks that spring from his heart as much as from his brain-have an anti-Israel slant? Anyone see a pattern here? Anyone? Are these actually closer to the nature of the policies he would follow as President?” [American Thinker <http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/barack_obama_and_israel_1.html> , 3/22/07]

REALITY: NEW YORK SUN PRAISED OBAMA’S COMMITMENT TO ISRAEL

New York Sun: Obama’s “Commitment To Israel…Is Quite Moving” Which “Israel’s Friends In America…Can Warmly Welcome.” The New York Sun wrote in an editorial, “At least by our lights, Mr. Obama's commitment to Israel, as he has articulated it so far in his campaign, is quite moving and a tribute to the broad, bipartisan support that the Jewish state has in America…But as a candidate, he has chosen to put himself on the record in terms that Israel's friends in America, at least those not motivated by pure political partisanship, can warmly welcome.” [New York Sun <http://www.nysun.com/article/69154> , 1/9/08]

In Cleveland, Obama Speaks on Jewish Issues

I am so sick of hearing idiotic opinions that Obama is not a friend of the Jewish people and/or his Presidency would not be good for Israel and/or he doesn't understand the grave danger of Islamic extremism (to both Israel and the U.S.) and/or would be weak in the face of it!

 

Here's what he had to say yesterday when he met with about 100 members of Cleveland's Jewish Community at the Landerhaven function hall in Cleveland.  The NY Sun published a partial transcript of the session (as provided by Obama's presidential campaign).  Here's an excerpt:

I will also carry with me an unshakable commitment to the security of Israel and the friendship between the United States and Israel. The US Israel relationship is rooted in shared interests, shared values, shared history and in deep friendship among our people. It is supported by a strong bipartisan consensus that I am proud to be a part of and I will work tirelessly as president to uphold and enhance the friendship between the two countries. Two years ago I had a chance to travel to Israel and it left a lasting impression on me. I have long understood Israel's great dilemma, it's need for security in a difficult neighborhood and it's quest for peace with its neighbors, but there is no substitute for meeting the people of Israel. Seeing the terrain, experiencing the powerful contrast between the beautiful holy land that faces the constant threat of deadly violence. The people of Israel showed their courage and commitment to democracy everyday that they board a bus or kiss their children goodbye or argue about politics in a local café. And I know how much Israelis crave peace. I know that Prime Minister Olmert was elected with a mandate to pursue it. I pledge to make every effort to help Israel achieve that peace. I will strengthen Israel's security and strengthen Palestinian partners who support that vision and personally work for two states that can live side by side in peace and security with Israel's status as a Jewish state ensured so that Israelis and Palestinians can pursue their dreams.

I also expect to work on behalf of peace with the full knowledge that Israel still has bitter enemies who are intent on its destruction. We see their intentions every time a suicide bomber strikes, we saw their intentions with the katusha rockets that Hezbollah rained down on Israel from Lebanon in 2006 and we see it today in the Kasams that Hamas fires into Israel every single day from as close as Gaza or as far as Tehran. The Defense cooperation between the United States to Israel has been a model of success and I believe it can be deepened and strengthened. Now the gravest threat as Robert mentioned to Israel today I believe is from Iran. There a radical regime continues to pursue its capacity to build a nuclear weapon and continues to support terrorism across the region. President Ahmadinejad continues his offensive denials of the Holocaust and disturbing denunciations of Israel. recently referred to Israel as a deadly microbe and a savage animal. Threats of Israel's destruction can not be dismissed as rhetoric. The threat from Iran is real and my goal as president would be to eliminate that threat.

Ending the war in Iraq I believe will be an important first step in achieving that goal because it will increase our flexibility and credibility when we deal with Iran. Make no mistake I believe that Iran has been the biggest strategic beneficiary of this war and I intend to change that. My approach to Iran will be aggressive diplomacy I will not take any military options off the table. But I also believe that under this administration we have seen the threat grow worse and I intend to change that course.

--------------------

In Cleveland, Obama Speaks on Jewish Issues

BY Staff Reporter of the Sun
February 25, 2008
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/71813

Yesterday morning, Senator Obama of Illinois met with about 100 members of Cleveland's Jewish Community at the Landerhaven function hall in Cleveland. The following is a partial transcript of the session, as provided by Mr. Obama's presidential campaign:

In case anyone had any doubt about: A) What Obama (or Clinton) will be up against later this year and B) The pure evil of Karl Rove, watch this 13-minute segment from yesterday's 60 Minutes on the railroading of the former Democratic governor of Alabama, Don Siegelman: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/21/60minutes/main3859830.shtml (see transcript below).

 

And I don't want to hear any nonsense about the liberal media painting a false story here, when the primary people protesting this gross miscarriage of justice are Republicans.  Read this part:

“I haven't seen a case with this many red flags on it that pointed towards a real injustice being done,” says Grant Woods, the former Republican attorney general of Arizona.

Woods is one of the 52 former state attorneys-general, of both parties, who’ve asked Congress to investigate the Siegelman case.

“I personally believe that what happened here is that they targeted Don Siegelman because they could not beat him fair and square. This was a Republican state and he was the one Democrat they could never get rid of,” Woods says.

 

Now a Republican lawyer from Alabama, Jill Simpson, has come forward to claim that the Siegelman prosecution was part of a five-year secret campaign to ruin the governor. Simpson told 60 Minutes she did what’s called “opposition research” for the Republican party. She says during a meeting in 2001, Karl Rove, President Bush’s senior political advisor, asked her to try to catch Siegelman cheating on his wife.

"Karl Rove asked you to take pictures of Siegelman?" Pelley asks.

"Yes," Simpson replies.

"In a compromising, sexual position with one of his aides," Pelley clarifies.

"Yes, if I could," Simpson says.

She says she spied on Siegelman for months but saw nothing. Even though she was working as a Republican campaign operative, Simpson says she wanted to talk to 60 Minutes because Siegelman’s prison sentence bothers her conscience.

Simpson says she wasn’t surprised that Rove made this request. Asked why not, she tells Pelley, “I had had other requests for intelligence before.”

“From Karl Rove?” Pelley asks.

“Yes,” Simpson says.

Rove was a strategist in Alabama. Simpson says she worked with him on several campaigns.

60 Minutes contacted Rove. Through his lawyer, he denied Simpson’s allegations. One of Rove’s close Alabama associates was Republican consultant Bill Canary. Simpson says she was on a conference call in 2002 when Canary told her she didn’t have to do more intelligence work because, as Canary allegedly said, “My girls” can take care of Siegelman. Simpson says she asked “Who are your girls?”

“And he says, ‘Oh, my wife, Leura. You know, she's the Middle District United States Attorney.’ And he said, ‘And then Alice Martin. She is the Northern District Attorney, and I've helped with her campaign,’” Simpson says.

---------------------

Did Ex-Alabama Governor Get A Raw Deal?

60 Minutes Reports On Bribery Conviction Of Don Siegelman In A Case Criticized by Democrats And Republicans

Comments 1589  | Page 1 of 4

NEW YORK, Feb. 24, 2008

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/21/60minutes/main3859830.shtml

Media Blackout Update: Pakistan and Alabama?

I don't want to be a conspiracy theorist, but what are the odds that this station happened to have a blackout during the exact time the Seligman part of last night's 60 Minutes was airing???  (How about zero!)  This too warrants Congressional investigation...

But many Alabamans did not see initial broadcast of the report, which included new allegations that Karl Rove, President Bush’s former top adviser, waged a campaign against Mr. Siegelman.

Instead, just before the segment was to start, people in the northern part of the state who were tuned in to WHNT-TV, Channel 19 in Huntsville, found this on their screen instead:

We apologize that you missed the first segment of 60 Minutes tonight featuring ‘The Prosecution of Don Siegelman.’ It was a technical problem with CBS out of New York.

Upon hearing reports of the missed segment from readers, Scott Horton, a writer blogging at Harper’s, phoned CBS headquarters in New York, which offered him a startling contradiction:

“There is no delicate way to put this: the WHNT claim is not true. There were no transmission difficulties. The problems were peculiar to Channel 19, which had the signal and had functioning transmitters.” I was told that the decision to blacken screens across Northern Alabama “could only have been an editorial call.”

The station later denied that it was an editorial decision, but it also changed its explanation. It was the receiver of the signal in Alabama, not the feed from CBS, that caused the blackout, the station said in a statement.

“We can assure you there was no intent whatsoever to keep anyone from seeing the broadcast,” Stan Pylant, WHNT’s president, told The Huntsville Times.

But the assurance alone seemed unlikely to appease all of his viewers. According to Mr. Pylant, the problem was fixed quickly, resulting in only 12 minutes of down time. But that mostly covered the controversial segment, which lasted about 13 minutes. (”Strange coincidence,” one viewer called it.)

---------------------

Media Blackout Update: Pakistan and Alabama?

By Mike Nizza, NYT blog

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/media-blackout-update-pakistan-and-alabama/index.html

Governments that try to keep a firm grip on information flow in their countries, like the Kremlin, have used “technical problems” as an excuse to shut out unwelcome content on the Web and television. But could it have happened in the United States?

 

Response to Misleading Reports Concerning Senator Obama's Position on Vouchers

Sen. Obama's campaign issued the statement below on Wednesday, clarifying his views on vouchers and what the key pillars of his education reform program are.  In it, he distances himself much further from vouchers than he did in the interview with the editorial board of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, which is not surprising (he still hasn't won the nomination, after all!). 

 

Obama has never supported vouchers -- and didn't in the interview.  All he said is that he would keep an open mind about them and do what the evidence showed was best for children.  For a Democrat, that's pretty bold -- contrast it with what Sen. Clinton said (from a NY Sun article): "Senator Clinton had a strong response, saying she opposes vouchers because they hurt public schools and could also open up the possibility of using taxpayer dollars to finance dangerous schools including training grounds for 'jihad.'"

 

I remain convinced that Sen. Obama understands the crisis in American education, its causes and key leverage points for addressing it and -- most importantly -- offers the best chance of doing for education reform what Bill Clinton did for welfare reform.  I hope he gets the chance to prove me right -- and then does so!

---------------------

Response to Misleading Reports Concerning Senator Obama's Position on Vouchers

 

Statement from Sen. Obama's campaign, 2/20/08

 

There have been misleading reports that Senator Obama voiced support for voucher programs in an interview with the editorial board of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.  Senator Obama has always been a critic of vouchers, and expressed his longstanding skepticism in that interview.  Throughout his career, he has voted against voucher proposals and voiced concern for siphoning off resources from our public schools.  The misleading reports that have been circulated about Senator Obama's position took excerpts of an interview out of context.

 

A rough transcript of the interview and a link to the video are included below.  The video and transcript make clear that Senator Obama:  (1) repeated his longstanding opposition to vouchers; (2) expressed incredulity that the Milwaukee voucher program has never been studied to see if it works (in light of the argument of voucher proponents that we should experiment with vouchers to study their effects); and (3) re-stated his view that, to date, there is no evidence that these programs are in the best interest of our kids.  He then laid out his own ideas on reforming our schools. 

 

These misleading reports are particularly disturbing given that Senator Obama has laid out the most comprehensive education agenda of any candidate in this race – an agenda that does not include vouchers, in any shape or form.  Obama's Pre-K to 12 agenda offers preparation that begins at birth and continues with world-class schools, outstanding teachers, and transformative principals: 

 

-         The first part of his plan focuses on providing quality, affordable early childhood education to every American child.  As President, Obama will launch a Children's First Agenda that provides care, learning and support to families with children ages zero to five.  He'll create Early Learning Grants to help states create a system of high-quality early care and education for all young children and their families.  He'll increase Head Start funding and quadruple Early Start to include a quarter of a million at-risk children.  And Obama will create a Presidential Early Learning Council to coordinate this effort across all levels of government and ensure that we're providing these children and families with the highest quality programs. 

 

-         The second part of his education plan is to recruit, support, and reward teachers and principals to ensure that every school in America is filled with outstanding educators. That starts with recruiting a new generation of teachers and principals to replace the generation that's retiring and to keep up with the record number of students entering our schools. He'll create a new Service Scholarship program to recruit top talent into the profession.  And he will make this pledge as President – if you commit your life to teaching, America will commit to paying for your college education.  

 

-         To prepare our new teachers, Barack Obama will require that all schools of education are accredited, and he will evaluate their outcomes so that we know which ones are doing the best job at preparing the best teachers.  He'll also create a voluntary national performance assessment so we can be sure that every new educator is trained and ready to walk into the classroom and start teaching effectively.  To support our teachers, Obama's plan will expand mentoring programs that pair experienced, successful teachers with new recruits. And to reward our teachers, Barack Obama will follow the lead of cities like Denver that have found new and innovative ways to increase teacher pay that are developed with teachers, not imposed on them.  

 

-         The Obama plan would provide resources to try these innovative programs in school districts all across America.  Districts will be able to design programs that reward accomplished educators who serve as a mentor to new teachers with the salary increase they deserve.  They can reward those who teach in underserved places rural and urban communities across the country.  And if teachers consistently excel in the classroom, that work can be valued and rewarded as well.  

 

-         The third part of his plan is to work with our nation's governors and educators to create and use assessments that can improve achievement in school districts all across America by including the kinds of research, scientific investigation, and problem-solving that our children will need to compete in a 21st century knowledge economy. Finally, Obama understands that government alone cannot solve the problems in our education system and that parents have to meet their own responsibilities and get involved in their children's education. 

 

-         Obama believes our commitment to education has to be real and not just rhetorical. He often says the problem with No Child Left Behind is that George Bush left the money behind.  As President, Obama will reform No Child Left Behind so that it is funded, offers a broader range of assessments, and has an accountability system that is focused on improving schools.

 

Video link: http://video.ap.org/v/Default.aspx?g=31914bb2-065d-4969-830d-00d6053e7ddc&mk=en-ap&f=wimil&fg=email

 

[Here’s my transcript of the entire interview: http://edreform.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-on-vouchers-transcript-of-sen.html]

There's some explosive stuff about McCain in this front page NYT article today.  It covers various activities of questionable ethics by McCain over the years, starting with the Keating Five scandal, but the heart of the article is this story about an attractive young lobbyist McCain apparently was particularly fond of:

Mr. McCain’s confidence in his ability to distinguish personal friendships from compromising connections was at the center of questions advisers raised about Ms. Iseman.

The lobbyist, a partner at the firm Alcalde & Fay, represented telecommunications companies for whom Mr. McCain’s commerce committee was pivotal. Her clients contributed tens of thousands of dollars to his campaigns.

Mr. Black said Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman were friends and nothing more. But in 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, “Why is she always around?”

That February, Mr. McCain and Ms. Iseman attended a small fund-raising dinner with several clients at the Miami-area home of a cruise-line executive and then flew back to Washington along with a campaign aide on the corporate jet of one of her clients, Paxson Communications. By then, according to two former McCain associates, some of the senator’s advisers had grown so concerned that the relationship had become romantic that they took steps to intervene.

A former campaign adviser described being instructed to keep Ms. Iseman away from the senator at public events, while a Senate aide recalled plans to limit Ms. Iseman’s access to his offices.

In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others.

Separately, a top McCain aide met with Ms. Iseman at Union Station in Washington to ask her to stay away from the senator. John Weaver, a former top strategist and now an informal campaign adviser, said in an e-mail message that he arranged the meeting after “a discussion among the campaign leadership” about her.

“Our political messaging during that time period centered around taking on the special interests and placing the nation’s interests before either personal or special interest,” Mr. Weaver continued. “Ms. Iseman’s involvement in the campaign, it was felt by us, could undermine that effort.”

Mr. Weaver added that the brief conversation was only about “her conduct and what she allegedly had told people, which made its way back to us.” He declined to elaborate.

It is not clear what effect the warnings had; the associates said their concerns receded in the heat of the campaign.

Initially, McCain's campaign issued this lame rebuttal, attacking the NYT but notably silent in not denying any facts in the story:

“It is a shame that The New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit-and-run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.

“Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career.”

-----------------------

The Long Run

For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk

By JIM RUTENBERG, MARILYN W. THOMPSON, DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and STEPHEN LABATON

Published: February 21, 2008

www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html

WASHINGTON — Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.

Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.

Given the lameness of the rebuttal, this morning McCain took the extremely risky step -- and, I think made a huge mistake -- of denying the facts of the story:

Senator John McCain said on Thursday that an article in The New York Times about his close ties to a woman lobbyist was untrue, and that he had no romantic relationship with the lobbyist and no confrontations with worried staff members who told him to stay away from her.

It would be one thing to deny a romantic relationship -- the story doesn't say there was one; rather, that: "some of the senator’s advisers had grown so concerned that the relationship had become romantic that they took steps to intervene" -- but to deny that staffers had been concerned and expressed those concerns to him?!  Reading these two paragraphs, it's hard to come to any other conclusion than he's lying!

In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others.

Separately, a top McCain aide met with Ms. Iseman at Union Station in Washington to ask her to stay away from the senator. John Weaver, a former top strategist and now an informal campaign adviser, said in an e-mail message that he arranged the meeting after “a discussion among the campaign leadership” about her.

Instead of lying, he could have said something like: "Ms. Iseman is a friend and, with the benefit of hindsight, I should not have allowed this friendship to develop, given that she was a lobbyist representing companies with interests before Congress.  Some of my staffers recognized before I did that this could present the appearance of impropriety and even that some people could misconstrue our relationship as a romantic one -- which it was not -- so they brought these concerns to my attention.  I thanked them for doing so and took steps to address the problem, which has long since been resolved.  Now let's move on and start discussing the important issues that our country faces today..."

 

McCain is making the same mistake Bill Clinton made with the Monica Lewinsky story -- by implausably denying something embarassing (but not illegal or politically fatal) and instead attacking the messenger(s), he risks being caught in the lie, which would be politically fatal.  I think the odds of being caught in this lie are high, as there's no way the NY Times would risk running this story unless it had airtight proof that the two former associates are telling the truth.  By attacking the NY Times and calling it a smear, McCain is helping ensure his doom because he's forcing the NY Times and/or the former associates to come forward with their proof.

 

-----------------------

February 21, 2008

McCain Denies Aides’ Statements About Lobbyist

By ELISABETH BUMILLER

www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21cnd-mccain.html

TOLEDO, Ohio — Senator John McCain said on Thursday that an article in The New York Times about his close ties to a woman lobbyist was untrue, and that he had no romantic relationship with the lobbyist and no confrontations with worried staff members who told him to stay away from her.

Clinton Aides Split on How to Take On Obama

An article on the front page of today's NYT on the struggles of the Clinton campaign on how to attack Obama:

When Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton meets Senator Barack Obama at a one-on-one debate in Austin on Thursday night, one of her final opportunities to change the course of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, she will again face the challenge that has repeatedly stymied her: how to discredit her popular opponent without hurting herself.

 

Even now, after a string of defeats, her advisers are divided over how to proceed as they head toward what could be her last stands, in Ohio and Texas on March 4.

Some — led by Mark Penn, her chief strategist — have been pushing Mrs. Clinton to draw sharper and deeper contrasts with Mr. Obama, arguing that she has no other option, campaign officials said.

Others, particularly Mandy Grunwald, her media adviser, have pushed for a less aggressive approach, arguing that attacks would not help Mrs. Clinton’s campaign in an environment in which she is increasingly appearing to struggle, aides said.

This latest division within the campaign reflects intense frustration among Mrs. Clinton’s advisers as they look for ways to turn around their campaign against Mr. Obama, an opponent whose appeal and skills as a candidate caught them by surprise. So far, her own positive message has been outshone by his, and every line of attack on him has fallen short, fizzled or backfired.

-----------------------

Clinton Aides Split on How to Take On Obama

By ADAM NAGOURNEY

Published: February 21, 2008

www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21memo.html