It's called the "slow - motion Kerry reflex". I see Obambi potentially getting steamrolled this fall. Walker was just craven at the Knesset this week. There will be much more of this sort of thing, if not from the White House , then from 527's and Republican politicians and operatives. The right is going to try to frame this election as a security one; the economy is in the doldrums, the House Republicans are fit for the landfill, in the words of one of their own leaders, and Walker's approval ratings are in the basement. That is the only hope that they have.

Obama probably does need to work on his sound bite answers to attacks by McBush, but, then again, it's really hard to beat Biden's response.

LR: For all your talk of "hermeneutics", to go on and use Maureen Dowd's slur against Obama is just too much.  Taking a day to respond, in any event, is not "slow-motion Kerry" reflex.  What do you want him to do, come out screeching like a fucking banshee with arms aflail, "Shame on you, George Bush, SHAME ON YOU!!!!"  Chill man.

Michael: GET A GRIP.  The news cycle and the blogosphere might well work on "lightning speed" reactions that are unconsidered, not well-thought out, reflexive without being reflected on, but the candidate who proposes to transcend this type of reactive politics and someone who speaks in full sentences should not react in a rush.  For one thing, he did react and his response was pretty well-done.  For another, for a more policy-based, coherent response, he should well take a day, or two.  Obama is not Kerry; Bush 08 is not Bush 04.  Take a valium.

"[I]n general it feels like McCain and the GOP--despite the whole 100 years in Iraq thing--have done a more effective job of coming out of the gate strong and defining the race."

I don't know, I feel like "Bush's Third Term" has been--and will continue to be--pretty effective in preventing McCain from saying and doing the things it will take to shore up the usual Republican coalition.  

Hi Guys.  What's happening here is you see the opening shots of what will be an intense Republican offensive on the Israel Issue which swings many Jewish voters and galvanizes conservative Christian voters.  This is a HUGE problem and they will try and turn it into a wedge issue, leverage it to further question Obama's commitment to the War on Terror and (surprise, surprise, surprise) move the discussion to that oh so familiar domain of National Security.

The subtext is an all-but-unspoken question of "Do you really trust Obama's patriotism?"  This will clearly help the Republicans in "Jewish Swing-States" like Florida and New Jersey, but with proper effort, could help them in the "Suspicious Swing States" of Ohio and Pennsylvania and could (dare I say it?) even put New York somewhat into play.

As an Observant Jew who both supports Obama (yes, there are a few of us) and hates seeing the Jewish community torn in two and played against each other through fear and political manipulation, these concerns have led me to quite my job to work on the Obama campaign as well as start a PAC.  

Wish me luck!

Icarusr: The clown in me jostles against the Richard Rorty in me. I thought you knew. You say tomato, I say tohmato. You say "slur", I say "descriptive". At least you are literate and read the New York Times. As for chilling, your advice is amusing coming from a hyperreactive person. Freud had projection down pat.  Though I am staunchly opposed to Obama, he seems genuinely a nice guy. As I have asked another commenter out here, when is the Great One going to rub off on you?

Gavriel Meir-Levi: Even though I am not for Obama, I wish to commend you on your eloquent and civil post. May we be the beneficiaries of more such from you. Good luck.

Gavriel Meir-Levi: Even though I am not for Obama, I wish to commend you on your eloquent and civil post. May we be the beneficiaries of more such from you. Good luck.

Love this new hard-edged response to the Bushies (Bush, Cheney, McBush, Limbaugh, etc.).

Long overdue, guess the low ratings on every index makes them sitting ducks.

It's good to see the language get saltier, more meaningful.

The ripostes from Gore and Kerry were just that, effete and always ineffectual.

Time to draw blood!

Gavriel, that's indeed exactly what it's felt like the GOP has been building toward for the last few weeks.

Which leads me to wonder: What kind of twisted world is it where "support" for a foreign country is used as a proxy to measure one's love of one's one country? For an American, there is nothing patriotic about being for Israel (as Obama is). Nor is there anything unpatriotic about being against Israel. Patriotism is about love of one's country, and for an American, Israel is not one's country.

Aside from wearing an Israeli flag pin on one's lapel, how does one counter this absolutely perverse line of attack as unpatriotically-weak-on-Israel?

I've pretty much come up with a formula at TNR: If Crowley thinks one thing, go the other way. I've never seen a bigger bed wetter. McCain siding with Bush on anything is a net positive for Obama. Pray for more of these "flat footed" moments.

Biden rocks!

Gavriel,

Wonderful post, and good luck with the PAC -- as maybe the second observant Jew who likes Obama (OK, with Daniel Kurtzner I might be the third), sign me up!  Hopefully we can at least get to a minyan, or else have Axelrod hanging around in the back with his Blackberry during Mincha.

One constructive note for Obama is that, for better or for worse, he will never get the votes of those conservative (lower case "c) Jews and Evangelicals for whom Israel's security is their #1 issue in the campaign -- there will be no pander-proof way to get to Bush and McCain's right flank with such people (although more reports about McCain's nice words for Hamas might not hurt).  But these folks are now part of a core Republican constitutency, so chasing after them is a hopeless endeavor.  By clear and consistent argument about the Middle East, and an emphasis on his support and understanding for Israel and Israeli concerns, coupled with some well-timed criticism of the Jimmy Carter wing of his party, Obama can retain the support of the 79% bulk of Jewish voters that Kerry and Gore won in prior elections.  I think his responses to the "appeasement" flap at the Knesset are right on target.  The argument that tough talk backed by incompetent action is what got us into a mess in the Middle East is resonant for American Jews and Israelis, not least for those who recall the results of the Second Lebanon War and the Bush-endorsed elections that brought Hamas to power.  

Rhubarbs:  "Aside from wearing an Israeli flag pin on one's lapel, how does one counter this absolutely perverse line of attack as unpatriotically-weak-on-Israel?"

Exactly -- at some point there's not going to be any more space on the average lapel for the various pins one has to wear.

Maybe Dems should design a "Katrina Pin" -- this would be an American flag half submerged in water.  To remind people of Bush's finest hour.

LR - thanks, it means a lot to me!

Rhubarbs - yours is EXACTLY the question the Obama campaign needs to be asking itself.  Although they are doing a lot to address the issue, one gets the sense that the high-stakes nature of the matter at hand and it's role within the Republican Playbook are not yet realized.

Obama criticizing Bush's War in Iraq earlier today for having destabilized the region, enhanced Iran's power and by extension threatening Israel is of course a good start.  They probably should have widened the scope of their attack to include Lebanon which is now being thrown under the bus in order to appease (yes, that's right appease) Iran and Syria because they need Iranian and Syrian cooperation to stabilize Iraq.  Sometime Obama has furthered this line of attack to include irresponsible energy policies, but hitting back harder could include attacking Bush's policies that have "emboldened our enemies" and funded the "very extremist terrorists that Bush claims to be protecting us from.  Now Bush wants to let his Saudi buddies build nuclear reactors.  They say it's for peaceful purposes, but why would the country with the largest known oil reserves in the world need a nuclear reactor?"  The answer to that question of course is that if Iran get's the Bomb then the Saudi's want it too - a regional nuclear arms race if you will.  All of this helps Israel how exactly?  

So that's step one: taking 'em on on their own home turf and discrediting the notion that they have some sort of monopoly on th security issue.  To do that you really have to give 'em hell and not pull any punches.

Step two is invoking Harry Truman's support for Israel.  In today's political post-Holocaust environment to be anti-Israel is perceived by many voters as being "un-American."  American sentiments in support of Israel run very high for political, emotional, ethical and even religious reasons.  Israel is a strong ally and is in a sense a modern miracle/success story that key voters (most Jews and many Christians) take a lot of pride in, especially post-1967.  They also take a lot of pride in their perception of America's role in helping Israel throughout the past 60 years, first being Truman's support in '48 followed by Nixon in '73, Reagan in the 80's and yes, Bush in the 2000's.  Administrations who are perceived to have broken from that supportive stance (Carter and Clinton for example) are not as trusted or well-liked by these voters.  Whether that's fair or not is a question for another time.  

Harry Truman won his election without the Jewish vote, but his knowledge of history and personal friendship with Jews (most notably his friend Jake who guilted him into meeting with Chaim Weizmann) turned him into the best president that Israel ever had.  A self-proclaimed dirt farmer from Missouri  ended up helping the Jewish People reclaim their national sovereignty after a 2000 year exile.  So invoking Harry Truman sends the message that Israel's greatest help came from someone completely unexpected.  If Obama where to say things like "I want to be remembered as someone who followed in the footsteps of Harry Truman regarding the State of Israel" that would serve as a reminder that sometimes decent people with a knowledge of History (i.e. Obama) are more helpful to Israel than tough-talking "security hawks" (i.e. McCain).

Third, avoid AT ALL COSTS having senior Middle-East policy advisers make pubic statements such as "It will be impossible to make progress on serious peace talks without putting the future of Jerusalem on the table."  In an election year with Florida and NJ as swing states... well, you probably shouldn't do that.  Hot-button terms such as "peace-process," "Oslo" and "Palestinian Authority" would probably be worthy of consideration for the political dust-heap as well.  Calls for "pluralism" with regard to these terms will be disregarded at best and counter-productive at worst.  Better to talk about "A fair peace for Palestinians and Israelis alike" and "peace negotiations that are supportive of, not imposed upon, both parties involved."    

Most importantly, the Obama Campaign must actively reach out to and engage someone of "Jewish/Israel Senator Casey" standing, in other words someone of standing who can vouch for Obama much as Senator Casey vouched for him to rural Pennsylvania (thus saving the campaign from a major blow-out that could have given Hillary the "comeback" she was trying to engineer).  Here are some people who could accomplish that:

1) Rabbi Avi Weiss of the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale.  Has a long track record of involvement in civil rights but has reservations regarding Rev. Wright.  If Senator Obama engage in a dialog with Weiss that would put those reservations to rest that could have a significant impact.

2) Rabbi Shlomo Riskin of Efrat in Israel.  One of the highly regarded leaders of the American Jewish Community who is relatively left-wing politically and probably the best public speaker in the Jewish Community.

3) Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post.  She's tough, opinionated and would probably appreciate the opportunity to present the "hawkish" side of the story to Senator Obama much in the way that he has sought out constitutional advice from professors he disagrees with but highly regards.

4) Dr. David Luchins of Touro College who is very highly regarded within the Orthodox community and has been actively involved in the Democratic Party since 1968.

5) Meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu, head of the Likud Party.  Admittedly a long shot, but it would help Netanyahu shore up his "centrist credentials" for his upcoming election contest against Ehud Olmert, crucial for the Likud lest it be eclipsed by the far-right wing parties.  Netanyahu would not have to endorse Senator Obama, just to the politically correct AIPAC line that Israel has two good friends running for President.  It goes without saying that if Netanyahu were given the opportunity to address a large public gathering he would acquit himself most compellingly as he is by far the greatest speaker in Israeli Politics today.

6) Nathan Sharansky, former Soviet refuznik who is one of the most admired people in the eyes of American Jewery.

Up until recently Obama's Midle East Policy and Jewish Outreach team has been more focused on winning the primary, with some encouraging results.  Since winning the primary has been effectively accomplished, some of these issues ('tis hoped) can now be addressed.

Hard to see Obama winning Florida when McCain goes after nat-sec'y, Israel-focused moderates in South Florida.

If FL's gone, then he absolutely needs to win either OH or CO/NM/NV, which means BHO really needs to step up his game with southwestern hispanics and white rustbelt working-class voters.

Wildboy - thanks man, I'll keep you posted!  I plan on working on the website over the weekend.

Gavriel - great posts. Hope Obama's people listen to you.

After reading Bush's comments and then watching the video - there's no comparision - well, his speech was one of the lowest points of his presidency (that says a lot) and only makes America look lost and desperate in the eyes of the world. And then going hat-in-hand to the Saudis, and coming away with nothing. Buffoonery.

Mark Shields and all of the pundits see this as good for Obama because it keeps Bush center stage. But is it good for McBush or anyone in public life to be talkling about the extinction of Israel as an "issue", something there can be two sides to? Something is terribly awry in the way the Republicans frame Israel, as right-wing allies of the GOP - both huddled together, angry at the world.

I hope Gavriel and others can help to improve the opinions of Americans and the world towards Israel. Bush's friendship is a friendship to reject.

Conversations with Sharansky and Dr. David Luchins would be a good place to start.