Who Is He Dogwhistling to? (IMPORTANT UPDATE)

by: Matt Stoller

Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:01


Here's some nice dogwhistling to the Village, 'Social Security is in crisis' style.

Dear Ambassador Khalilzad,

I urge you to ensure that the Security Council issue no statement and pass no resolution on this matter that does not fully condemn the rocket assault Hamas has been conducting on civilians in southern Israel...

All of us are concerned about the impact of closed border crossings on Palestinian families. However, we have to understand why Israel is forced to do this... Israel has the right to respond while seeking to minimize any impact on civilians...

Sincerely,
Barack Obama

For more on Obama's heavy courtship of AIPAC, you can read this.  Clinton is probably no better, in all likelihood.  And I'm sure Obama's supporters will say he has to do this to get elected.  Or perhaps there is an argument to be made that this is the pro-Israel position to take.  For a variety of reasons, I don't think either of these is true, but those are some of the arguments.

Again, I'm worried, because this is not the attitude that an America seeking to relegitimize its role as a third party broker in Middle East peace talks, which are of course a key to stability in that region, needs to have.  I keep going back to this article on being one pole in a multipolar world.

Regardless, note the dogwhistling to the Village.

UPDATE: Both the Magnes Zionist and a Tiny Revolution point to Obama advisor Robert Malley as a potent force for reform, and they seem very good on this stuff.  Perhaps Obama is marginally better than Hillary on this issue, which is significant in my estimation.

Matt Stoller :: Who Is He Dogwhistling to? (IMPORTANT UPDATE)

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Who Is He Dogwhistling to? (IMPORTANT UPDATE) | 42 comments
I wish it weren't the case (0.00 / 0)
but I think this is just true of all the presidential candidates. As an honest Barack supporter, this is the kind of thing that does genuinely concern me - yet on the other hand, I do believe you could have just as easily switched Barack's name in the signature for that of Hillary or Edwards.  Even Edwards, who has a populist style I do enjoy seeing and hearing, had some pretty strong pro-Israel rhetoric in front of AIPAC, no?
Like I say below- this doesn't answer how Obama (2.00 / 2)
will bring anything different to foreign policy. The claim has been that since he was first amongst the three to be against the war this somehow indicates a judgment that will lead us to a different American foreign policy. Where is that policy? Certainly not in his Iraqi policy. Not here either. Nor Pakistan. He wasn't there for the Iran vote so I can't judge that. So- where?
[ Parent ]
Well you are NOT looking hard enough... (0.00 / 0)
You are obviously ignorant on how Jewish politics works within the Democratic Party as well.

Instead of bringing hand wringing and troll concerns to these Clinton vs. Obama threads -- try bringing some substance... once in awhile.

[ Parent ]
Samantha Power will be radically (0.00 / 0)
better on Darfur than anyone on the Clinton team.  That would be my guess.  She's likely to be the fiercest advocate for humanitarian intervention and refugee crises around the world with an unusual ability to reach the ear of the president --- it's clear that the two are close.  When Obama released a new Iraq plan in Clinton, Iowa, it was covered in details about resolving the refugee crisis, speeding processing of visas, etc, etc --- Power's fingerprints.

Second, in the last debate, Clinton challenged Obama on his proposal to double foreign aid by complaining that he hadn't laid out how to pay for it.  Right-wing talking points against foreign aid, which is a tiny part of the budget and should be far more extensively supported.

Third, it's telling in itself, as Yglesias pointed out, that leading foreign policy figures who endorsed the war in Iraq are by and large behind Clinton now, while more rank and file or more academic foreign policy figures who opposed the war and spoke out have fallen in behind Obama.  Don't think that those choices won't influence the atmosphere of a future state department.

Fourth, the argument Bush used against Kerry in 2004 repeatedly was the same: the past is the past, you're not going to do anything different now, so why are you any better?  Which conveniently left aside his own responsibility for starting the war.  Clinton bears some responsibility here, and she's the greater risk.

Fifth, I fundamentally believe that Clinton believes that the war was poorly executed, not poorly conceived --- that it was managerial incompetence, and not bad judgment, that was the problem.

Lastly, perhaps best of all, Obama brings a keen and focused attention on Africa that I personally find intriguing--- given his record on pushing legislation on it, his choice of advisers in Susan Rice and Samantha Power, his speeches on it, and obviously his personal history.  (Okay, okay, I'll stop, sorry this is so long.  How else are you supposed to lay out Obama's entire foreign policy?)

One Million Strong --- Join up!

[ Parent ]
Matt... (4.00 / 2)
I am pretty sure this is just a reaction to the smear tactics that you see that Obama has several "anti-Isreali" advisors, not to mention the whole "he is a muslim" theme. 
"Clinton is probably no better, in all likelihood." (4.00 / 2)
This is disingenuous. You know that the view expressed in this letter is identical to not only Hillary Clinton's, but also to that of practically everyone else in Washington. And yet you choose to attack Obama for it, as if its shocking that someone running for president should be pro-Israel.
Isn't the whole argument for Obama that he's better than Clinton? (3.33 / 6)
If he's not, doesn't that destroy the reason why we should elect him? I keep saying this, but your burden is higher than "he's doing the same thing that Clinton and others are doing." You place yourselves on this pestal, and I don't think you can whine everytime someone points out that there really isn't anything particularly new. As a politician, one can understand Obama's decisions. As something new under the sun, that will fundamentally change foreign policy (and yes, I've seen people make that claim) in the middle east and elsewhere in the world in a way different from Clinton- then this is not so good. It's really that simple. You can't have it both ways or else people start to notice.
[ Parent ]
No one is saying (4.00 / 2)
(or at least I'm not) that Obama is universally better than Clinton, or that he is far superior on every single matter of policy possible. While he is not better on this specific issue, on the whole of foreign policy I believe he's better, and he's certainly better in terms of the way he conducts his campaign, voting rights, and related issues.
[ Parent ]
so much for new ideas (0.00 / 0)
This just confirms my suspicions - Obama will perpetuate 60 years of the disastrous American Mideast 'Israel first' foreign policy.

How is he going to repair our relationships around the world if  he justs spouts the AIPAC party line?

I doubt he's as far in the pockets of AIPAC as Hillary is, but still - this is not a good sign.


Iran (0.00 / 0)
P.S. - this puts his Iran non-vote in a whole new light, doesn't it?
[ Parent ]
Better to not vote (0.00 / 0)
than to vote yes.
[ Parent ]
Rubbish (0.00 / 0)
...and you living in New York should know this!

The insidious behind the scenes special interest peddling using political networks and the threat of withdrawing camapaign money are strong within the Democratic Party just as much as in the Republican Party.

Baring in mind .... the influence of pro-Israeli money within our politics...

"...In states such as Florida and New York, Jewish voters are a large enough percentage of voters to play a crucial role in election outcomes. In presidential elections, Democratic candidates depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 percent of the money raised from private sources. Any significant reduction in the financial support will weaken Democratic candidates and the Democratic Party organizations..."

http://www.washingto...

I have other sources I can supply, but don't want to take up the whole of this thread...

Sufficed to say...  The pr-Israel money comes with strings attached!  Huge freakin' strings that can be yanked at any time with massive email and telephone robocalling attached.

...And those strings are especially strong during election time... least everyone here forgot what happened to Howard Dean when he 'dared' say that he was prepared to be 'even-handed' when it came to Middle East issues...

On Howard Dean and the third rail of American politics
By Dan Fleshler | January 10, 2008
http://www.realistic...

The difference with Hillary is she's prearped to say 'anything' to get AIPAC hawks on her side, with Obama with what I've heard regarind his other foreign policy perscriptions, I have no doubt he would be fair and honest broker.

[ Parent ]
OK (0.00 / 0)
so let's just say that Hillary is bought and paid for (many times over), and Obama is what - trying to get in the $game$?  Obama might be a fair and honest broker, but I haven't seen proof of it yet - maybe I just need to hear more of his views on foreign policy. 

This is one of the reasons, tho, that I have a hard time supporting democratic candidates in general, especially Hillary and Senator Press Conference.

[ Parent ]
Right-wing Jews think Obama is anti-Israel (0.00 / 0)
Just Google "Obama on Israel" and scroll down the results if you think that Obama is in Israel's pocket.  If he is "dog whistling" it is only to moderate to liberal Jews who might be influenced by the smears coming his way.  You have to see this in the context of the really scurrilous "Obama is a secret Muslim" types of e-mails that are circulating about Obama.

MJ Rosenberg and Daniel Levy at TPM Cafe have wrtiten a great deal about this.  Surprised so many of you seem to have missed it.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Just got found this 'news' link: (0.00 / 0)
from Matthew Yglesias blog:

Hawks for Hillary
http://matthewyglesi...

Barack Hussein Obama
Obama supports Palestinian state cutting Israel in half 
By Israel Insider staff  January 29, 2008
http://web.israelins...

How many American Jews read this?  Is this considered a legitimate news source?

Grief!

[ Parent ]
Obesiance to AIPAC (4.00 / 2)
I am not an Obama supporter or in any energetic way a supporter of any of the rest of them. But I don't particulary hold this noxious bit of pandering against Obama.

I learned long ago that if I were to make a US politician's insistence on civilized behavior from Israel a threshold for my support, I might as well drop out of politics. Every one of them learns early that naming obvious truths about injustice to Palestinians and rampant Israeli brutality and arrogance will simply get them thrown out of the game. As long as they believe pandering to the AIPAC is less costly then working for a just, viable solution, they will dodge, duck, bow, and scrape. GWB's folly in Iraq has reduced their margin for error some by showing the limits of US power in the region. But this kind of politicking isn't actually about foreign policy or even maintenance of the empire. It's a ritual show for domestic consumption.

Like a lot of things our rulers do -- they'll stop when they have to and not before.

Can it happen here?

The Reality Is (4.00 / 1)
Every presidential candidate will continue to pander to Israeli hard-liners and AIPAC until AIPAC and Israeli hardliners are treated with the same contempt that you treat Bush Dogs.

It is much harder to voice a moderate policy toward Israel without being subject to a coordinated PR attack and a counter-fundraising raising effort that AIPAC can unleash.

Exposing AIPAC and the hardliners for what they are -- organizations that hope to use American military power and American tax dollars to "benefit Israel" regardless of America's best interests -- is the only way to reduce its influence on American political leaders.

I put "benefit Israel" in quotes because Israelis themselves freely debate the harmful effects of the hardliners' policies.  Yet here in America, and even on liberal blogs, we are reluctant to debate such issues out of fear of being called anti-semites. That has to end.

Build popular support for a moderate, sensible policies toward Israel and Palestine, and the political support will follow. It won't be easy. But it starts right here.

Obama correct in his concern (4.00 / 2)
Has it occured to anybody that perhaps he is being sincere in his concern? That it is legitimate to say that Hamas or Palestinian rockets and missiles firing into Israel and targeting civilians is a BAD thing?
Yeah (4.00 / 2)
I was about to say... Since when is condemning rocket attacks against civilians not something progressives do?
[ Parent ]
It doesn't stop there! (0.00 / 0)

we have to understand why Israel is forced to do this... Israel has the right to respond ...

And thus the figleaf for terrorizing the entire population of Gaza.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
You're half right (0.00 / 0)
From what I can tell, it's this one sentence that's objectionable:


However, we have to understand why Israel is forced to do this.

But do you really see a problem with the other portion of your excerpt:


Israel has the right to respond.

The first doesn't invalidate the other.

[ Parent ]
The problem isn't the right to respond in the abstract (0.00 / 0)
It is that the actusl response is to terrorize the entire population of Gaza.  The Palestinins also have right to respond!

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...
[ Parent ]
Come on Matt, COME OUT (0.00 / 0)
You know you want to support Hillary.
All that canvassing with my gay brothers in South Carolina, convinced you...come on, you can do it. You know like the wingnuts say, the gays are recruiting straights, well it sounds like you were recruited by the gays you canvassed with the other day.

LMAO

disclosure: I am a gay male!

Where's the whole letter? (4.00 / 1)
I am amazed that you would pass around this email smear attempt which never has been authenticated.  I first received this with at least the heading that it was "purportedly" written by him.  Do you think his letter is filled... with... ellipses mid-sentence?  Since you've thrown caution to the wind and published this, I challenge you to either present the whole letter in its entirety or publish a retraction.
The letter appears legit. (0.00 / 0)
I'm not surprised...

probably written by an AIPAC staffer (there are many)...

http://www.richardsi...

What not is discussed on the blogs are the subtle 'hit-jobs' that have been going on against Obama in the Jewish Press...

Here's just a few - to put those seeds of doubt in the minds of voters:

ADL Chief To Obama: 'Confront Your Pastor' On Minister Farrakhan
Candidate denounces Black Muslim leader his spiritual mentor embraces; just a first step, says Foxman.
http://www.thejewish...

As Obama Heads South, Rumors Follow
In South Carolina a Historic Candidacy Puts Black-Jewish Ties to the Test
http://www.forward.c...

ADL to Obama: We accept your dis of Farrakhan
By Ami Eden on Jan 15, 2008 in Presidential Race
http://elections.jta...

Poll: 'Overwhelming' support for Obama among Arab Americans
http://www.jpost.com...

[ Parent ]
bold (0.00 / 0)
stopping
the bold
did it work?
[ Parent ]
</b> (0.00 / 0)

test
[ Parent ]
Here's the letter (4.00 / 1)
The letter is here.

Matt's diary leaves out Obama's point that Hamas has been bombarding Israeli civilians on a daily basis for almost two years.

That said, I'm not defending Obama's letter, because even though I support him and plan to vote for him, I think Israeli persecution of the Palestinians is a massive violation of human rights and needs to be addressed. 

Unfortunately, until Americans realize that Israeli interests don't always coincide with America's interests -- and that very often those interests are in direct conflict -- it will be hard for any politician to counter the PR and financial onslaught AIPAC is capable of. Not impossible, but hard and very expensive.

That's why I think it's necessary to begin now at chipping away at the story line that says America's interests and Israeli interests are always the same. As they relate to the Palestinian crisis, those interests are NOT interlinked. And every American needs to understand this in order to build the popular support necessary for political change.

[ Parent ]
Ellipses (0.00 / 0)
I saw it ellipsized like that in an email that Michael Lerner and Tikkun sent around (obviously upset).
[ Parent ]
Problem with running on persona (4.00 / 2)
You certainly cannot clarify your positions or actions very well, since you do not need to, that is at first an advantage.

It also leaves a lot of room for elevated expectations which, when debunked, can really disappoint those who have not hitched to the wagon. It's very much like a rock star.  There is an ideal there that I am  not sure is accurate.  I am not saying he isn't great or talented, but he has been pegged as the anti-establishment candidate. That makes every thing he does that can be construed as "establishment" look like hypocrisy, even if it is completely within character.

Matt, (4.00 / 1)
What's the point of this?  Everyone knows that all the major contenders for president of both parties are natinal security candidates and that all will fall over each other to curry favor with AIPAC.  This is nothing new.  This is not news.  This is not hot off the press stuff.  This post is the equivalent of Claude Rains in Casablanca saying: "I'm shocked, shocked that gambling is going on here."  Give us a break!
dogwhistle? (0.00 / 0)
This isn't dogwhistling.

Not even remotely. 

Lieberman (1.33 / 3)
Lieberman told him to write this.

"Yes, my mentor", Barack dutifully responded.

Meanwhile, throughout the conservative blogosphere (0.00 / 0)
Obama is condemned for having a pro-Palestinian adviser.

http://tigerhawk.blo...

Attempting to stop the boldness... (0.00 / 0)

There!  Much better!

One more time (0.00 / 0)

Any better?

[ Parent ]
bold (0.00 / 0)
bold be gone
please
THERE!
[ Parent ]
Moderators -- Can you please turn off my bold tag... (0.00 / 0)
please please can we have a limited time edit feature --- please...

I know there's preview feature -- but please consider a edit feature...

jumping to conclusions, are we? (0.00 / 0)
I'm as concerned about the Israel lobby as anyone. I'm a member of Jewish Voice for Peace. But I don't think that encouraging a resolution condemning rocket attacks by Hamas constitutes pandering to AIPAC.

Making pro-Israel statements is fine. Making unreasonable pro-Israel statements is not. Was Obama's letter unreasonable?

The truth about Saxby Chambliss

Some additional data points (0.00 / 0)
Haaretz provides a monthly ranking of all possible candidates based on "The Israel Factor" here

John Edwards, btw, gave quite an interesting speech a year ago to the Herzliya Conference during which he reiterated the position that no options are off the table v-a-v Iran and
spoke at length in support of Israel's actions in Lebanon last year and well as suggesting that Israel could become a member of NATO in the future. The speech is online here

Until we radically change the relationship of US foreign policy to Israel, I suspect we will continue to see such statements from all campaigns.

memes for hardliners (0.00 / 0)
Bolton spoke at this year's Herzliya Conference and here's what Israeli peace nogotiator Daniel Levy had to say about him:

Bolton inhabits that neo-con netherworld where philo-Israelism comes exceedingly close to being anti-Israel.  Their ideal image of Israel bears little resemblance to the actual Israel that exists or the predicament that it finds itself in.  They literally love Israel to death-being almost totally indifferent to the living, breathing Israelis who bear the consequences of the warrior policies that the neo-cons advocate.  Their version of Israel is destined to live by the sword in perpetuity, should cede no inch of territory and is thrust into the front line of their clash of civilizations.

Most Israelis and most of their recent leaders have preferred a more somber approach-peace negotiations, territorial withdrawals, ceasefires, etc…what a terrible disappointment they have been to the Boltons of this world.  It reminds me of the Zionist Christian Evangelical right whose supposed philo-Semitism bears more than a passing resemblance to anti-Semitism.  The largest "pro-Israel" Christian lobby, CUFI, is led by Pastor John Hagee-a promoter of end-times theology (Jewish fate = conversion or death).  Hagee has also written about the necessary historical role of the Nazis in encouraging the ingathering of the Jews to the Holy Land. With friends like these…


[ Parent ]
yep! (0.00 / 0)
I hadn't seen that ... thank you.

Very good point!

[ Parent ]
Who Is He Dogwhistling to? (IMPORTANT UPDATE) | 42 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox