TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM
July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
04.06.2008
Hillary and Obama at AIPAC today

WASHINGTON--Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton just finished their speeches here at AIPAC's annual conference. Most of the instant coverage has focused on Hillary's praise for Obama's pro-Israel credentials--"I know that Senator Obama will be a good friend to Israel"--which, short of dropping out this morning and throwing her support to him, was probably the nicest thing she could do at an event like this. But I didn't find her speech all that magnanimous; maybe I'm wearing the media's Clinton-hating goggles, but her references to Israel's female prime minister Golda Meir ("my personal heroine") and quoting Meir's urgent phone call "a few minutes after midnight" (3 a.m. is after midnight, right?) seemed like subtle reminders that Hillary still very much sees herself as in the race. Her quoting of Isaiah ("All day and all night, they shall never be silent") and her application of it to AIPAC supporters ("You never give up...there are some who say you shouldn't be here...not only do you have a right to stand up for what you believe in, but you have a responsibility to do so") echoed the rhetoric she has been using lately to describe her own self-righteous struggle for the nomination. Also, her compliments to Obama were couched relative to her own positions ("I know Senator Obama shares my view..."). Maybe I'm just being nit-picky, but after last night's ridiculous non-concession, my bar is pretty low for the Clinton camp.

That said, Obama was the clear winner today. His speech was substantive and rousing--getting among the loudest rounds of applause of the three-day conference--whereas Clinton seemed a bit tired and stale (though she had the bad luck of going second, so sounded redundant when repeating the necessary pro-Israel memes). I spoke to more than a few staunch AIPACers that were on the fence about Obama, but responded to his speech with some form of "Now I understand what the hype is all about." Unlike most politicians, who often seem to just be going through the motions at this kind of event, Obama came off as heartfelt and truly passionate about the issue. His humor was also quite welcome--in responding to the smear emails circulating in the Jewish community, Obama said, "Let me know if you've seen this guy named Barack Obama, because he seems pretty scary." He also made some interesting parallels between the history of Jewish statelessness and his own rootless childhood ("There is always a homeland at the center of our story") and made a pretty stirring plea for cooperation between the Jewish and African American communities.

But his strongest material was in making the case that Bush's--and thus McCains's--foreign policy has actually made Israel less safe (a counter-intuitive point to most of the people in the audience). He emphasized that our invasion of Iraq has strengthened Iran, and that Bush's hasty push for Palestinian elections (which Obama voted against) is what set the stage for Hamas's rise in Gaza. He also poked fun at Bush's opposition to Israel's peace talks with Syria. He took some good jabs at McCain (in talking about Obama's Iran divestment bill, "for reasons I'll let him explain, John McCain has never signed on") and Bush ("I won't wait until the waning days of my presidency" to push for peace). The biggest applause came from his unambiguous declaration that "there is no room at the negotiating table for terrorists"--a necessary clarification in light of Bush's veiled Obama attack at the Knesset. Taking this position from a place of strength ("Sitting down with our adversaries...at a time and place of my choosing, if and only if it will advance the interests of the United States") and repeating his line about not being afraid to sit down with our enemies (a good way to reframe the appeasement debate) also seemed to curry favor with the AIPAC crowd.

Obama gets point for some deft Hebrew usage, such as shoah (the Hebrew word for Holocaust) and tikkun olam (healing the world). Hillary gets points for making reference to two obscure yet hot-button issues for American Jews--the anti-Israel hatefest at the UN Durban Conference and the acceptance of Israel's Magen David Adom into the International Red Cross--that surely resonated among the AIPAC set.

PS. Please forgive any typos in my hasty transcription of today's speeches. I'll try to update when official transcripts become available.

--Zvika Krieger

Posted: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 1:05 PM with 35 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

liberal reformer said:

Let's see: Teddy Kennedy is revered as a Democratic Party hero. He took on Jimmy Carter in the primary season of 1980. He came far short of Hillary's run at Obama and yet staggered into the convention. His eventual endorsement of Jimbo was tepid and this helped pave the way for Ronald Reagan. The venemous reaction against Hillary for not truckling has got to be that she is a woman, right?

June 4, 2008 1:17 PM

boneill said:

No.

June 4, 2008 1:33 PM

AlanSP said:

I haven't heard the speech myself, but it sounds as if you are indeed being nitpicky with regard to Hillary.  None of the quotes you point to seem particularly controversial to me, and you really have to stretch to find subtext in things like "a few minutes after midnight."

Thanks for the report.  It sounds like it went fairly well for everyone involved.

June 4, 2008 1:40 PM

AlanSP said:

lib ref,

How is that even remotely related to the topic that Zvika was posting about?  There are about a dozen other threads up discussing Hillary's campaign, its potential to affect the Party's nominee in November, and her status within the party.  For what it's worth, if Clinton goes on to have the type of career that Ted Kennedy has had over the next 28 years, then I will indeed regard her as a Democratic Party hero.  Let's hope she does.

June 4, 2008 1:45 PM

morecraft1 said:

When did this country become israel?  Someone explain to me why Zionism isn't synonymous with racism!  I am not an Israeli.  The foriegn policy of the USA should be for the benefit of the people of the USA, not held captive by a lobby of a foriegn country.  We need a foriegn policy that isn't based on murdering  Muslims for the benefit religious zealots.  Listening to American politicians war-mongering in front of a bigoted AIPAC is disheartening.  

June 4, 2008 1:48 PM

ratnerstar said:

AlanSP +1.  Hillary done okay here, let's give her some credit.

June 4, 2008 1:53 PM

timteeter said:

libref, it took me a long time to forgive Teddy.

June 4, 2008 1:59 PM

jacobt1 said:

Does anybody have any clue what will be the Obama foreign policy?

The answer is nobody have a clue. I don't think Obama has a clue.

June 4, 2008 1:59 PM

boneill said:

If only he had a website where he explained it, or had given a lot of speechs and interviews about it.  Or if there was some kind of journal, maybe one about affairs, foreign affairs- I don't know what they would call such a journal, though- where he had a ten-page article about what his foreign policy would be.   Then maybe someone who wanted would take the time to look for it would have an idea.

But, as it stands, nobody have a clue.

June 4, 2008 2:19 PM

butchie b said:

Jacob, welcome to the bandwagon.  I've been on about that for more time than I care to remember.  His policy toward the parts of the world not named Iraq is a complete mystery to me, a tabula rasa.  Over the course of the next 5 months, maybe we'll learn.

What have these 2 been talking about since January?  Domestic policy?  Great, but here's a news flash - you clowns are in charge of the Congress.  Maybe instead of yapping, you could maybe introduce some bills indicating what legislation you would find attractive as President.

Just a thought.

June 4, 2008 2:29 PM

thetraytiger said:

boneill 1, jacob/butchie 0

June 4, 2008 3:01 PM

jacobt1 said:

butchie,

Did you figure out what his policy toward Iraq, From  what i know he will be careful to get out, whatever it means.

The mystery is if he is clueless or he is trying to hide his true intentions?  

You are correct, he is not going to be the decider in Domestic policy.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be.

The president only leverage is to veto the legistration. Can you imagine Obama veto a bill sponsored by Washington insiders who selected him as the Democratic nominee?  

Even if you are Democrat, can you trust Speaker Nancy Pelosi to run Domestic policy without adult supervision?

The only choice left is

www.johnmccain.com/

June 4, 2008 3:16 PM

achester99 said:

I watched both speeches:

Alan, Hillary referenced 3 AM herself. After saying "a few minutes past minute the phone rang" she interrupted herself to chuckle and say "the phone rang late at night, sound familiar?"

Hillary's worst statement I thought was one Zvika didn't mention: "I am a candidate who will never negotiate with a terrorist organization" with the emphasis on the "I," as if to distinguish herself from Obama (who of course wouldn't either).

But overall I thought it wasn't as bad as Zvika said, and it was MUCH better than last night's debacle.

June 4, 2008 3:26 PM

jacobt1 said:

boneill ,

Can you summarize for lazy people what he is going to do about Iran, Iraq, Nafta, Israel/Palestinian conflict,  Hamas? If Israel decide to crash Hamas would he allow this? When the last American soldier will leave Iraq. How many troops will be left to protect the embassy? 100, 1000, 10000, 100000 ?

Can you tell me if he is starting to prepare for a unconditional  meeting with Ahmadinejad in Jan 2009.

How long this preparation will take? When he is going to meet Ahmadinejad?

The answer is you have no clue.

June 4, 2008 3:27 PM

Nippers said:

jacobt1,

I'm glad that you are the one leading this defection to McCain. You are the perfect person for the job.

Along with boneill's tips, I'd recommend the NYT Magazine profile from November 4, which focuses on Obama's foreign policy, and "The Obama Doctrine," which ran as the cover story of the April issue of American Prospect.

June 4, 2008 3:43 PM

boneill said:

Actually, Jake- I can.  And before it is nap-time, you adorable little imp!

Iran-

The Problem: Iran has sought nuclear weapons, supports militias inside Iraq and terror across the region, and its leaders threaten Israel and deny the Holocaust. But Obama believes that we have not exhausted our non-military options in confronting this threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them.

Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

Iraq-

Bring Our Troops Home: Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Press Iraq's leaders to reconcile: The best way to press Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq's Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.

Regional Diplomacy: Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq's neighbors – including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq's borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq's sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq's reconstruction.

Humanitarian Initiative: Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq's humanitarian crisis – two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.

NAFTA (free trade)

Obama believes that trade with foreign nations should strengthen the American economy and create more American jobs. He will stand firm against agreements that undermine our economic security.

Fight for Fair Trade: Obama will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs. He will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement that fail to live up to those important benchmarks. Obama will also pressure the World Trade Organization to enforce trade agreements and stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to foreign exporters and nontariff barriers on U.S. exports.

Amend the North American Free Trade Agreement: Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers.

Improve Transition Assistance: To help all workers adapt to a rapidly changing economy, Obama would update the existing system of Trade Adjustment Assistance by extending it to service industries, creating flexible education accounts to help workers retrain, and providing retraining assistance for workers in sectors of the economy vulnerable to dislocation before they lose their jobs.

Israel- As he supported the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, I am guessing he would support crashing Hamas, as long as it remained justifed and prodcutive.

"Can you tell me if he is starting to prepare for a unconditional  meeting with Ahmadinejad in Jan 2009."

No.  He is not.  

Boy, are my fingers tired from all that typing!

Here, jakey-

www.foreignaffairs.org/.../renewing-american-leadership.html

You can even read the Foriegn Affairs article all on your own!  

June 4, 2008 3:56 PM

thetraytiger said:

Jacob,

Let's try this another way:

Can you summarize for lazy people what McCain is going to do about Iran, Iraq, Nafta, Israel/Palestinian conflict,  Hamas? If Israel decide to crash Hamas would he allow this? When will the last American soldier leave Iraq? How many troops will be left to protect the embassy? 100, 1000, 10000, 100000 ?

Can you tell me if he is starting to prepare for a unilateral airstrikes on Ahmadinejad in Jan 2009?

Your words could be turned around quite easily. Indeed, what do you *really* know about John McCain and his foreign policy on anything other than Iraq? He will be "tough on our enemies," sure, but that's almost tautological, and besides, it hardly describes a coherent, specific policy. Even on Iraq, Bush's and McCain's policy, with its ever-changing goalposts, is anything but precise or coherent

Fact is, no candidate speaks in specifics with regard to foreign policy. International developments 8 months from now will render any pronouncements made today totally irrelevant. It's better not to tie your own hands in advance with vows to obliterate this or that sovereign nation.

What's most important is a candidate's foreign policy philosophy and the decision framework within which he'll work, in addition to the kind of advisors with whom he surrounds himself.

Despite his vaunted foreign policy prowess, given his bumbling, jingoistic approach (never retreat, never surrender!), I fear that McCain is in way over his head.

June 4, 2008 4:14 PM

thetraytiger said:

Jacob,

And by "foreign policy specifics," I'm assuming that you had, of course, already perused the candidates' proposed policies, deciding they were insufficiently *specific* for your exacting standards.

June 4, 2008 4:18 PM

boneill said:

Also, jake- it tickles me pink that you ask questions about Obama's FP vis a vis Israel, and the broader Middle East, on a day where he gave a specific speech about these issues, which was on the television and whose transcripts are on the internets.   The speech was even talked about in this very post!  Right above where you commented.  

June 4, 2008 4:26 PM

scrubbyoak said:

boneill, you are wasting your time on jacob. If he has a reason to hate Obama perhaps he could be worked on and logically persuaded otherwise. He doesn't. His hatred for Obama has no rhyme or reason, just visceral.

June 4, 2008 4:37 PM

boneill said:

I know, scrubbyoak.   But it is fun to argue with him, because he is always wrong, often comically so.  

June 4, 2008 4:50 PM

jacobt1 said:

thetraytiger  ,

"I fear that McCain is in way over his head"

The fact is that  McCain and Leiberman saved the country from the biggest strategic defeat in the US history. Obama  and the rest of Democratic party were wrong. I know most of Democrats are so emotionally invested in their hate of Bush that I share,  McCain and Leiberman  that they don't want the war started by Bush ended up successfully.  So I don't expect any of your to appreciate the depth of gratitude America owns to two remarkable people, McCain and Leiberman

June 4, 2008 5:03 PM

jacobt1 said:

scrubbyoak ,"

boneill, you are wasting your time on jacob. If he has a reason to hate Obama perhaps he could be worked on and logically persuaded otherwise. He doesn't. His hatred for Obama has no rhyme or reason, just visceral."

It funny to hear from the people whose hate of   Clintons just  visceral.

June 4, 2008 5:08 PM

boneill said:

"Obama  and the rest of Democratic party were wrong. I know most of Democrats are so emotionally invested in their hate of Bush that I share,  McCain and Leiberman  that they don't want the war started by Bush ended up successfully. "

What?

I suppose you mean that the surge is producing victory and success in Iraq, but that is not the case.  There has been no political momentum.  I supported the surge, because there was really no other choice and I thought it could provide some breathing room.  But it wasn't enough and it was too late.  I hope this war ends up successfully, but I don't think it will by any reasonable metric.  

Proclaiming victory and proclaiming progress are not the same as achieving it.

June 4, 2008 5:20 PM

jacobt1 said:

"I supported the surge,"

I think you are the only Obama supporter who supported the surge.

I didn't. I've read  too much of liberal pundits and trust their opinions. Never again.

June 4, 2008 5:43 PM

thetraytiger said:

Jacob,

McCain has consistently advocated increased troop levels without regard to any specific strategic goals. Our entire post-invasion strategy was fatally flawed, and 30,000 extra troops wasn't going to fix that. McCain demonstrated nothing to indicate that he understood anything other than "if only we had more troops, Vietnam would have been won."

Indeed, the recent reduction of casualties has come partly from the new Petraeus-led counter-insurgency strategy, our bribing of local officials, and overreach from Al Qaeda in Iraq. McCain provided some of the political firepower for selling the surge, to be sure, and but to suggest he was its intellectual godfather is laughable on its face.

June 4, 2008 6:05 PM

jacobt1 said:

thetraytiger ,

McCain provided a lot  of the political firepower for selling the surge, while Obama, Clinton and the rest of Democratic party  was against it.

June 4, 2008 6:44 PM

Nippers said:

What is one to make, in light of these most recent comments, of your prior support for Hillary Clinton?

June 4, 2008 11:32 PM

scrubbyoak said:

Nippers, what drives jacob is an inexplicable hate for Obama rather than love for Hillary.

June 5, 2008 12:00 AM

jacksondyer said:

"That said, Obama was the clear winner today."

Zvika, at TNR had you said anything else you would be toast.

You guys are about as predictable as a rhododendron bush in June.

June 5, 2008 12:24 AM

lesserliz said:

I just hope Obama doesn't withdraw troops from Iraq in the same manner as Nixon did from Viet Nam-while simultaneously widening the war. I also hope there won't be a Cambodian-like killing fields aftermath. His homage-paying to AIPAC doesn't bode well on this account.

June 5, 2008 8:22 AM

bigfish said:

"I think you are the only Obama supporter who supported the surge."

Actuallty, Jacob, count me as an ardent Obama supporter who still (believe it or not) supports the surge and is closer to McCain than Obama on Iraq policy.

"McCain provided a lot of the political firepower for selling the surge, while Obama, Clinton and the rest of Democratic party was against it."

This is true, but a lot of Republicans also were against it.  McCain deserves credit, in my book, for advocating the surge, but the credit does not extend to much of his party.

June 5, 2008 2:07 PM

zaiquiri said:

jacobtl wrote:

"I think you [boneill] are the only Obama supporter who supported the surge."

Indeed, but you are as consistent here as elsewhere in thinking wrongly.

June 5, 2008 4:26 PM

jacobt1 said:

bigfish  said:

"This is true, but a lot of Republicans also were against it.  McCain deserves credit, in my book, for advocating the surge, but the credit does not extend to much of his party."

Well, they didn't  openly and loudly opposed the surge like Democrats.

June 5, 2008 4:44 PM

jacobt1 said:

zaiquiri,

I haven't talked to a every single Obama supporter. I base my observations on public comments of Obama supporters.

June 5, 2008 4:46 PM