Obama is the consumate flip-flopper–not due, I suspect, to dishonesty, but rather to naivete regarding foreign policy. He’s just outspoken enough to say something foolish before his advisers can correct him. Or rather, with his comment of full support for Israel’s claim to an undivided Jerusalem, just foolish enough to say something good and honest and true before his advisers have time to reel him in, like when he said
Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided
Palestinian leaders reacted with anger and dismay on Wednesday to Obama saying Jerusalem should be Israel’s undivided capital.
Which led Obama to respond…
Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations
Which is true enough, no doubt. But you can’t have it both ways. You can’t be all for an undivided Jerusalem on Tuesday and then toss it into the negotiation-pile on Thursday. It simple can’t work that way. Now, if I were Obama, I would get my ducks lined up prior to speaking with AIPAC so as to avoid commitments I couldn’t keep.
Obama is right to say that Jerusalem will play a part in the peace process. It has been a contested city for over a thousand years. The problem isn’t that Obama isn’t honest, it’s that he has so little experience in one of the primary roles the President must take on: Foreign Policy.
As much as we like to imagine our President at the head of our domestic policy, truly this is the realm of the Senate and House. Most of our domestic agenda is set by our representatives in Congress, or at the state level. The President mainly holds the power of veto in this sphere. However, and perhaps due to the rather clipped domestic wings of the President, foreign affairs are always on the forefront of the President’s agenda. They are the number one diplomat–another object of concern for many experienced diplomats who view Obama’s willingness to meet with rogue states sans preconditions as another act of naivete–not bad faith, or dishonest intentions, but inexperience.
As the Jerusalem post puts it…
From our perspective, as international spectators for whom Israeli and global security must be of foremost interest, while observing the American elections we should look at the Obama candidacy with some degree of concern as we hope to answer that all-important question, “Who really is this man, and what policies will he impose?” For America’s policies, whether economic, social or foreign affairs-related, all affect the entire global community.
This is very true–especially the bit about Israeli and global security. Who is Obama regarding these paramount topics? I for one am not swayed by the man’s middle name (Hussein, as though he had a choice in it–and as though it was a reference to Saddam Hussein! Ludicrous!); nor am I bothered by his lapel pin or any of the various photographs that swirl about the blogosphere, depicting him as un-American.
No, I believe Obama is a true American and wants the best for this country. I am more nervous regarding his lack of experience, and perhaps his lack of good, solid judgment–both in terms of his judgment of character (Trinity Church, anybody?) and his judgment of international diplomacy and the very complex nature of international relations.
Rogue states such as Iran do not fit inside the comfortable cradle of normal relations. Any world leader who calls for the destruction of a neighboring state should not be taken either lightly or given too much credit. Ahmadinejad is a lunatic, and does not deserve to be met with mano y mano with any US President (or British PM and so forth).
Diplomacy is all about nuance and strength–balancing our talk with our guns, so to speak. I fear Obama will be too willing to concede, and not willing enough to stand firm, even if that means the rebuke of his own followers.
E.D. is a writer and the editor in chief at NeoConstant. He works and writes in Arizona where he lives with his wife and daughter. He also writes at 
on Jun 11th, 2008 at 12:05 am
As a moderate Democrat who followed the minutiae of this campaign closely for over a year now, I find you far too generous to Barack Obama.
As evidenced to me over the course of this campaign by his deeds, actions, and the official actions of his surrogates, I feel this man is blatantly dishonest. He has no center; he will say one thing when speaking before AIPAC and another while dining at the home of long-time friends Bill Ayers or Rashid Khalidi. He will change his tune on a scandal or crisis based solely on the momentum of the media and pundit buzz around him.
I’ve always tended to vote Democrat but Obama is the first Democratic candidate of whom I can sincerely say: I’m more afraid of what will happen to the nation if he wins, than if he loses.
on Jun 11th, 2008 at 3:25 am
I’m a cynic. I feel very doubtful of most politicians’ having a “center” but I think the point here is to try to see Obama in a more human light than either the Obamamites present him (as savior) or the right-wing pundits decry him (evil socialist Muslim anti-American, etc.)
I think he is a human with flaws. I don’t think he’s the best choice for President, I just think we need to be realistic about why…
on Aug 20th, 2008 at 4:54 pm