The following is a cross post from The Plank, but seems more pertinent here:

Is anyone besides me getting tired of the feverish attempts by all and sundry to handicap this thing [the election]?

It all boils down to this:

1. Barring disaster, Obama will be Dem nominee.

2. Clinton will not step aside until June at the earliest, probably later.

3. Nobody has a clue who'll win in November.  

Anybody who takes any divergent position has his head up his ass, and anybody who seeks to mine the intricacies of points 1,2, or 3 [or bang out  500 words about every little tactical eddy current in the campaign flow] is a bore.

wow.  Some of McPeak's remarks make me pretty queasy, (well, really only the New York/Miami ones, I don't have a problem with him braying about nasty neocons), but I'm getting tired of the attrition of surrogates.  This is the guy who was Air Force Chief of Staff during the Gulf War, maybe he's worth listening to about a few things military.  If someone wants to grill him on what he meant by those remarks, they should go right ahead.  And if he clarifies with something even more outrageous, then be done with him.  But not til then.

Maybe it's time for Americans to grow up and recognize that everyone holds some opinions that others will find offensive, including ourselves, and that the line between acceptable and unacceptable is a lot closer to "Kill all the [minority group]" than it is to "[minority group] gets special treatment." Further, some of the opinions that any of us find offensive will, in time, be proven to be correct, and some of the opinions that we hold dear will, in time, be proven to be offensively wrong. A little more humility, and a little more maturity in engaging with contrary opinions rather than demanding that they not be expressed, would be a good thing. As would a recognition that if a man happens to have, say, commanded the most successful air warfare campaign in history, he ought not be excluded from public life just because he happens to think "wrong" thoughts about the Miami Jewish community.

If you want to see what happens when political and civic movements insist on total fealty to correct opinions, read Doyo's sad piece on the Zimbabwean opposition. Or look at any tyranny that thrives on the fractured schismatism of political opponents who agree with each other about everything but this or that question of identity politics.

And on a strictly tactical level, I don't see how a contest to see which candidate can throw more people overboard, who can erect the smallest tent with the fewest people in it and the least room for disagreement, is a winning approach. This is the mindset that would have had us turn away Jim Webb or Jim Talent in 2006, and with them any chance of controlling the Senate today.

Well, aero, I'll try my damnedest not to bore you (and certainly don't think my views are worthy of a cross-post), but by way of response here goes:

1. Disagree; it's a jump ball right now and remaining primaries will decide by early June, assuming the party leadership grows some....courage;

2. Agree, but neither will Obamal;

3. Agree.

Let's assume Yglesias is right and Marty Peretz is wrong and that Obama really does plan to take a Brzezinski-like position on Israel (which would definitely help him with Arab states in 2009 as he attempts to extricate us out of Iraq).  Could any of his supporters honestly claim surprise?  

But Noam, I'd disagree that even this is worth talking about -- what should have us in a panic is the safe-as-milk policy debates going on when there are real crisises.  Will the next president cut social security benefits or raise taxes -- he/she will have to do one or the other so tell us now.  Why so timid on energy policy, an issue that should dwarf all others.  All three said Darfur is a genocide -- is *this* how you respond to genocide, punting to the pathetic African Union/UN?  They make Roosevelt look like Raoul Wallenberger.   Why *not* mandatory civil service to repair our infrastructure and help build new high-tech infrastructures?  Etc., etc.

This is pathetic. McPeak is an extremely accomplished public servant and you just write him off like that. Over

1. A mention of McCarthyism, which was in fact right on target. There is a lot of McCarthyism still going on it is just more subtle- anyone who doesn't wear an American flag pin or (more importantly) who was against the Iraq War from the start is labeled Unpatriotic. And Bill Clinton was playing off that idea of "war-mongering PLUS flag-waving" equals patriotism, a dangerous idea that Obama is trying to change.

2. A claim about Jews in New York and Miami having outsize influence on our Middle East policy. Newsflash- this is true!  I say this as a Jew from New York. You could include LA in there too. What other group besides American Jews (who happen to cluster around a few large cities) cares so deeply not only about Israel but about the most right-wing Israeli policies. Americans are generally pro-Israel of course, but are they vehemently pro-Likud, pro-settlements? I would doubt that, and yet that is where our foreign policy is right now...

As a final point, as a previous commenter said, it is extremely dangerous and undemocratic to shun people from public life because you disagree with one thing they said. Who will be left? The Op-Ed page of USA TODAY, perhaps?

Noam, I think your assessment that Obama won't  have problems attracting American Jewish support is misguided. His rhetoric can't disguise his actions: He has embraced a spiritual mentor who is rabidly anti-Israel at best and anti-Semitic at worst; He refused to speak out against anti-Israel screeds and Palestinian propaganda that were published in the Church newsletter; he hired Robert Malley, an Arafat apologist who has attempted to shift blame onto the Israelis for the failures of the Camp David 2 summit; he hired Samantha Powers, who has advocated the Meirsheimer-Walt view that US foreign policy is harmed by support for Israel; and now, we discover that he seeks advice from another Israel blamer, McPeak.

How many examples do you need?

Noam, it's time for you to be a little more explicit about what you think McCarthyism is.  Is it any attack on someone's patriotism, regardless of whether the attack is based on something the person said or did?  

Under that definition, which I think is bogus (but Bill Clinton once clearly embraced), McPeak is right on the money.

assorted comments:

Rhubarbs: Talent was the Republican that McCaskill defeated in '06.  Good point in general though.

schrek2000:  If this is a jump ball, it's a jump ball between Earl Boykins and Yao Ming (pre-injury).  In principle, either outcome is possible, but one is far more likely than the other.  Even Hillary's own campaign admits that their chances of winning the nomination are small at this point.

rebm1: How about an example from Obama himself? The only "actions" you've described are his associations with people whose views you don't like.  Does anything that he has said or done himself indicate that he is anti-Israel? He's been pretty explicit about supporting Israel, so if you're going to say that he is just an outright liar, you should offer more than guilt by association.

He was appointed Air Force Chief of Staff by President George H.W. Bush in October of 1990, remaining there until 1994. McPeak took over as Chief of Staff during the run-up for Operation Desert Shield, and assisted in overall strategic planning for Operation Desert Storm.

Obama is not going to throw a prize like this overboard anytime soon. Appointed by a Republican, left there by Bill Clinton. He is there as a Military adviser, not a Foreign policy adviser. Obama just has to tell him to shut up about FP and instead bash Bush.

Now that the Clinton campaign's has validated the American Spectator as a reputable news source and Hillary has sat down for a chat with Richard Mellon Scaife, does this mean their stories from the 1990's are fair game?

Who is going to support Hillary after learning she killed poor Vince Foster? A national debate on this is long over due. Remember, his murder is “the Rosetta Stone to the whole Clinton administration.” And doesn’t this legitimize Bill Clinton’s impeachment? After all, the American Spectator’s tireless work on Whitewater and Troopergate lead to the creation of the independent counsel.

Becoming BFF with Rupert Murdoch was one thing. But sitting down with Richard Mellon Scaife and pushing a piece from The American Spectator is a brazen act of political opportunism. These people were disgusting when they dragged Anita Hill through the mud, blamed the Clinton’s for Vince Foster’s suicide, and spent millions trying to destroy Bill Clinton’s presidency. They were the main players in Hillary’s vast right-wing conspiracy.

But apparently all sins are forgiven if you repent by attacking Obama.

You want to know how screwed Democrats are if the nomination campaign keeps going? Imagine every looney conspiracy-theory pushing right-wing nut-job publication being legitimized by the Clinton campaign as they release anything and everything negative mentioned about Obama to the national press. Come fall, Obama can’t dismiss Scaife, the Spectator, as other nonsense as paranoid right-wing blather because Clinton used them. And, if Clinton is the nominee (or v.p. candidate), she can’t dismiss them because she freaking quoted them.

I can’t take this win-at-all-costs strategy she is employing anymore. If this keeps up, her attacks on Obama are going to inflict severe collateral damage on all Democrats.

AlanSP -- well, Obama himself brought up "the old okey-dokey" -- because he's a junior senator and the Dems were the minority party his first two years he didn't have much of a chance to create a record.  Matt Yglesias and Marty Peretz listened to Obama's appearance with Congressman Wexler and drew 180 degree different conclusions.  George W. Bush himself will mutter things against the settlements in the occupied territories  but nobody believes for a second he cares about this.  With Israel, it's really a matter of what you do in office -- if Obama were to speak of a "bhundistan" (sp?) West Bank and put removal of the settlements as the first step on *his* road map for peace, this would be a sea change in US policy even though technically it's consistent with everything we've said for decades.  (And come 2009 when Obama is trying to get us extricated from Iraq, such a move could buy some good will  (cover?) from Arab allies).   I hear you on "guilt by association" but the concept isn't 100% wrong -- there's another cliche about being known by the company you keep.  I have a couple of very conservative friends, but if all my friends were red staters and I proclaimed to be left of Ralph Nader, wouldn't you have some doubts?  

AlanSP -- I didn't call Obama an outright liar. I believe that Obama's association with and praise for Rev. Wright, his decision to remain an active member of a church that has called for Israel divestment, and his staffing decisions have given the Jewish community legitimate reasons to question his support for Israel.  

Isn't it obvious that if you fire every military advisor who's ever made a politically insensitive remark, you'll end up with only politicians as military advisors?  

If Obama's dentist calls Hillary a conniving, scheming, selfish, shrill little woman, will he have to find someplace else to get his teeth cleaned?

I'm a Jew from Chicago. McPeak's observations are correct. In current Jewish-American poltics towrard Israel, if one is not firmly within the Likud camp, one is branded a "traitor", "self-hating Jew", etc. Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. There has to be a new conversation with the Arabs and who better to deliver it than a man with "Hussein" as a middle name? He will tell them to get their act together and join the rest of the 21st century world and they will, hopefully, believe it.

I'm not sure where the general is wrong.  

When Bill Clinton said,

"..I]t would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country..."

it wasn't just un-artful.  He was clearly implying that Obama did not sufficiently love the country and wasn't devoted to the interest of the country.   You didn't get that?  He put it in a way that the LCD would not miss his meaning.

I don't know if this is McCarthyism in the purest sense.  Not loving your country and not being devoted to it, is not quite as bad as working for the Soviets.  But, it's pretty strong stuff from a former president about a current presidential candidate.  

In fact, I can't think of another ex-prez who has uttered anything nearly as inflammatory.  Not, Nixon, certainly.

Moving to McPeak's statement, that his candidate,

"...doesn't go on television and have crying fits; he isn't discovering his voice at the age of 60."

McPeak was absolutely right.  Hillary was publicly crying about how "hard" running for office was.  

That is weak, and it's hardly the kind of stuff you want in a president.  If she were a man she'd have been lambasted from here to Vladivostok.  Why should she be given a pass for crying about how tough things are?

As to her "finding her voice" at age 61 and many months into the campaign, that was a risible statement.  If someone makes themselves a butt of a joke, it's their fault, not the joker's.

If girls want to play with the boys, they have to play like boys.  Or take up another sport.

Irsslex - The opposite of what you hope is more likely. Radical Muslims might consider Obama a "murtadd," an apostate who turned his back on Islam. Though Barack claims he was never a Muslim, and I believe him, the fact remains that Muslims don't consider religious practice the deciding factor. From what I've read, the fact that he's descended from a Muslim male is good enough. I doubt that a Muslim apostate will hold much influence in negotiating with Islamic radicals, like Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah, and even Abbas.

Your point about American Jews who aren't in the Likud camp is outdated and irrelevant. The majority of Israelis don't trust Abbas as an honest negotiating partner, and furthermore, the majority of Israelis are currently wondering what benefit came from withdrawing from Gaza.

clifton, damn right. The only question to ask about military people is how well can they fight. To do otherwise with our national defense is to risk our very lives. Obama should just tell him to stick to the script of bashing Bush and he will be fine.

"Which brings us back to where I started. I don't think McPeak tells us much about what kind of president Barack Obama would make"

Some people don't agree with you.

.

www.prospect.org/.../articles

"When considering any presidential hopeful's foreign-policy promises, it's important to remember that what candidates say is, at best, an imperfect guide to their actions in office. What proves to be a more reliable indicator of presidential behavior is a candidate's roster of advisers

lymon and reb,

I'm not going to deny that people with similar views tend to associate with one another.  This is clearly a major influence on how people form associations, but I think the notion of judging somebody on a particular issue by the company they keep has a few major flaws.

First, to the extent that people seek out those with similar views, they generally do so on the basis of a broad range of issues.  Obama probably agrees with the people that have been mentioned on a variety of issues other than Israel.  If you insist on finding associates who agree with you on every issue, you'll have a very long and very lonely search.  The fact that more than one issue is important to people is evidenced by the heterogenous nature of political parties.  Democratic proponents of free trade associate with Democratic protectionists because they share views on so many other issues.  Associating with lots of protectionists does not imply that you agree with their philosophy on that particular issue.

Second, having similar views is an important factor in forming associations, but it's hardly the only one, nor should it be.  In looking for an advisor, you do not simply want somebody who agrees with you on everything; valuing like-mindedness over competence is one of the main shortcomings of the Bush administration.  If you want to criticize Obama judgment because you think his advisors are incompetent (e.g. arguing that Sam Power was bad at her job), that is a different matter entirely, and one where I think criticism is completely legitimate.

jacob, military adviser is far too important to pay politics with. Rummy only promoted people who shared his ideas politically, the result was 5 years of a disaster in Iraq. Do you have any evidence that McPeak is an unfit military adviser? That he would advise a course of action in any military endeavor that would lead us to defeat? Of course you can't. But to throw him overboard because you don't agree with his politics could get young soldiers lives killed.

I am not saying that military genius is sufficient to grant blanket immunity (McCarthur found that out) but it does grant a hell of a lot of leeway (Patton found that out)

If McPeak crosses that line it will be evident to everyone, he isn't even close to it now.

Noam - have you seen the post by Fallows on McPeak over at the Atlantic?  I respect Fallows quite a bit...

rebml, are you saying that you actually care what radical Muslims think? Somehow I doubt that you do. And I don't think that we should spend even one second worrying that some radical Muslim somewhere might think that Obama is an apostate Muslim because his father was a Muslim. Whether that story is true or not, it is nothing more than a little bit of noise.

I think it would be really dumb to dump McPeak over this. It is not even a tempest in a teapot. Maybe a gentle stirring of the teacup? If Obama says nothing, this will be forgotten tomorrow. If worse stuff comes up, he may have to make it clear what McPeak's brief is. But this is an argument over nothing, to fill space when nothing important is happening.

Alan -- no disagreement on having diverse views in the cabinet/amongst advisors and the danger of a Bay of Pigs syndrom.  I don't think that's the issue here, but rather the spectrum between "a needle in a haystack" (Power, McPeak, Brzezinski) and a haystack that is bursting with needles.  I suspect that the anti-Israel people in his "orbit" are simply more visible than others (and the media is on high-alert for them), but how many more such people can he afford to have (or have revealed) amongst his foreign policy braintrust before a lot of people's instincts are going to make them suspicious?  

I'm sure that all the Arab world needs is for some American with African roots named Hussein to tell them what to do. More likely, they will bellyache that they are victims and demand that Israel give in to all their demands without any reciprocity. That's what they mean when they say they want "even-handed" treatment.  

In case the Jewish gentleman from Chicago hasn't noticed, Likud is not in power, nor were they in power in 2000 when Barak handed the Palestinians all they wanted on a silver platter and they rejected it and started their suicide war. Nor was Sharon still a Likudnik when he founded Kadima and unilaterally evacuated Gaza which led to rocket fire from Hamas.  When Israelis believed in the peace process they elected Labor. When it became clear that the Palestinians were not interested they elected Likud. And even then, they were willing to make a grand gesture for peace. It is a slander to say that supporters of Israel are warmongering Likudniks.

It's nice that we Jews are so mindful of other people's rights, but if the sentiment is not reciprocated, what good is it? From Proverbs. Im ayn ani li mi li? If I am not for myself, who is for me?

Jeff Frey: You're right; I don't care what radical Muslims think. I offered that perspective because Irsslex implied that Arabs might be more flexible dealing with a president who's middle name is Hussein. I apologize for the digression -- in the long run, it won't matter.

That's a fair point, rebml.

I just wonder how anyone gets off calling Gen. McPeak "anti-Israel." The man commanded the U.S. air war in the first Gulf War. We now know that the aerial campaign during Desert Storm permanently ended Iraq's ability to project conventional or WMD force against its neighbors, including Israel. As such, there aren't many Americans, and not many more Israelis, who have ever actually done more to contribute to Israeli national security than Gen. McPeak.

Now, we may disagree with his assessment of this or that domestic political or international diplomatic issue, but calling him "anti-Israel" goes too far. Until he says something overtly anti-Semitic as such, or until one of us has permanently defanged one of Israel's most dangerous regional enemies, then we can talk about his suitability as a military advisor to a Democratic candidate.

Who thinks that Obama's tenuous Muslim connections would help us with Muslims-- especially extremists ones?

Do not people named Hussein blow up other people named Hussein every day?  Hve not the Islamists had a lethal schism for 800 or 900 years of their 1000 year history?

May I also remind you that the King of England, the Kaiser, and the Tsar were all grandchildren of Queen Victoria and first cousins.  It hardly prevented WW1.

<i>there aren't many Americans, and not many more Israelis, who have ever actually done more to contribute to Israeli national security than Gen. McPeak.</i>

Thank you.  The silliness of this  flap is unbelievable.  We are in the middle of two wars and a recession, and yet people want to keep busy with silly stuff such as  this.

"And I certainly don't think Obama endorses his views on McCarthy-ism ..."

If not, why was Obama standing right beside him, giving his tacit consent, as McPeak read his statements about McCarthyism.  (He was reprising his original charge from the day before.)  And, who wrote the remarks for him?  Did he do it, or the campaign?  In either case, the campaign was certainly aware of what he was going to say, since he had just said the same thing the day before.

Here's the event in Oregon where McPeak and Obama appeared together at a rally:

www.youtube.com/watch

Noam writes:

"I don't think McPeak tells us much about what kind of president Barack Obama would make. And I certainly don't think Obama endorses his views on McCarthy-ism and the outsized influence of some South Florida condo commandos."

I'm no Washington insider, but my understanding is that the people who get someone elected president are owed favors. That these favors are paid in staff appointments, ambassadorships, etc. How then, can I be assured that even if Obama does not share the views of his supporters, even jettisons them from his entourage in the last leg of the race, they won't be back with open palm come the inauguration?

I CAN'T. And that's why the Reverend Wrights and Samanthan Powers and Gen. McPeaks of this world are  important even after being humbled or ousted from the inner sanctum. Ultimately, the people Obama is indebted to – or their friends – will be the people running his administration.  

Deny it, if you can.

What's all the controversy?

Billy Clinton implied very strongly that Obama's full fidelity to the country wasn't quite as full as Hill's and McCain's?

When your the former president of the United States, and you publicly hint that you suspect a senator and main presidential candidate of insufficient love of country, is that not in a pretty close realm with McCarthyism?