Doctor Faust in 2008
Anyone who has spent any time around politics knows that there are various paths to power. Most of these paths lie between the high road and the low road. The lowest road is the one that leads to power through destruction of one's opponent. That road is also the path to the garden of cynicism. But if the goal is power, what does a little cynicism matter. The Devil may help you get power. But he'll collect your soul in return.
Over recent weeks, and particularly in recent days, rumors circulate questioning Senator Barack Obama's commitment to a free and democratic Israel. Most recently, the rumor is that Senator Obama's strongest supporters in the Jewish community were defecting to his opponent because he had endorsed former President Carter's decision to meet with representatives of Hamas, generally recognized as a Palestinian group organizing terrorist attacks on Israel. The fact is that Senator Obama immediately and without being challenged to do so stated his disagreement with such meetings. Meeting with heads of state or heads of government is one thing; meeting with groups advocating terror is another.
One does not enter the hornets-nest of the Middle Eastern debate without armor. In my case that armor includes consistent and unwavering support for the U.S.-Israeli partnership and it includes participation in tank maneuvers on the Golan Heights, flights in the back seat of Israeli high performance aircraft, and night naval patrols off the Israeli coast. I have been honored to be the guest of former Israeli prime ministers and have carried out serious discussions regarding mutual security concerns.
Having established that, I can now say that I find it outrageous and the height of political cynicism for any other candidate or campaign, Democratic or Republican, to question Senator Obama's commitment to continuation of the U.S.-Israeli partnership and particularly to do so in a sinister, duplicitous, and scurrilous manner by spreading false rumors. When he campaigns against the politics of the past, and attracts hundreds of thousands of young people and independents as a result, that is the kind of politics he means.
I personally know the leaders of the Jewish American community to be intelligent enough, thoughtful enough, and most of all fair enough to categorically reject the path of cynicism and those cowardly enough to promote it by whisper and innuendo. Perhaps above all others, they know what it is like to be the victims of hateful rumors. In the final analysis, the issue isn't Israel. The issue is honesty, justice, and fairness in American politics.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
thank you for stating the obvious. this woman's campaign has gotten so UGLY i'm beyond amazed
it's disturbing and sickening
It's her 1992 healthcare plan all over again. She scorches the earth and then is hurt and amazed when she finds out that nobody is following her when she comes out of the room. This is not an honorable person and she is surely not a loyal democrat. What a travesty it would be if at such a crucial time, on so many fronts, we let her live in the White House. This whole nasty campaign is a picture of what the Hillary Clinton White House would be like. Do you remember the pictures of her as a young lawyer during the run up to the Nixon impeachment process? Her boss at the time fired her without a letter of reference for dishonesty and lack of integrity and for lying. He kept a diary of her behavior and he still has it. She says she has 35 years of experience and she surely does. She hasn't changed. She really will do anything to gain the power and glory she so craves.
What a load of crap. Hillary Clinton's 1993 healthcare plan was excellent. She didn't "scorch the earth" that's baloney. It was a way to get the US on the path to Universal Care. It was the insurerance giants, Republicans and their followers who used the scorched earth policy. Clinton offered many times to amend the plan to fit the concerns of congress. She was rebuffed when the Republicans and a number of DINO senators scuttled it. Instead of her plan, they offered? NOTHING. So, that's what we've got in health care reform. To blame that on Clinton is the height of ignorance.
And your pathetic story about the Nixon impeachment hearings is classic. I suppose you were disappointed that Nixon had to resign?
If she was willing to do "anything" to gain power, Obama would be in big trouble. Wait until the Republicans have a go at him, then you'll see what those who grasp at power will do.
And what was wrong with her health plan?
Just that it failed because the American Medical Association and the Health Insurance industry ...not forgetting the Republican Congress was against it?
Sorry but I disagree wholeheartedly!
Health care costs too darn much...I don't forget about those who are young...they don't care either for they are young!
It's only when you get older or start a family that you start to realize how much everything costs!
Lempira: Do you see any reference by Sen. Hart to Sen. Clinton or her campaign? Do you have any evidence to support your allegation that she is behind the "rumors"? If so, please share.
Hart never mentioned Clinton. And I had never heard of this supposed rumor before reading about it right now. Enough with blaming Hillary every time Obama steps in some crap. He's an adult. If he can't handle primary season, there is no way he will survive what the Republicans do to him in the general election.
LIES and '180-speak', Senator, seem to be the coin Obama's two opponents deal in as a campaign currency. What is particularly disgusting, is the manner in which 'the Clintons' continually praise the republicant opponent that they KNOW will bring OUR country more of the same betrayal the current preznutz has delivered, seemingly doing their best to ensure that if the Hillary is not nominee, the '100 years of occupation' candidate will win in November. It's smacks of the 2006 treatment 'the Clintons' gave to Ned Lamont in Connecticut, ensuring that their cross-over Independent 'DLC' friend, Joe LIEberman, was able to win there with republicant votes.
I see your party now at it's WORST because of this BAD apple couple, sir, that only 'claim' to be Democrats.
What is particularly disgusting is how some Obama supporters continually trash the Clintons with far more bile and deceit than any attack they have ever made on Obama.
Did it ever occur to you that praising McCain for his obvious patriotism is the decent thing to do? Do you doubt Obama will do the same if he is the Democratic nominee? Do you think it is bad politics for the Clintons to express their admiration for McCain, when they know that drives his base bananas? The Clintons, by saying nice things about McCain--but not his policies--are using a brilliant tactic. That of course is lost on the many Obama die-hards.
As for the Lamont/Lieberman race, where was Obama on that one? The "anti-war" senator was also supporting Lieberman, but of course you knew that.
The Clintons are Democrats and have done much for the Democratic party. If you don't realize that, perhaps you are not really a Democrat?
The Clintons are trashing themselves, no one needs to help.
Nothing wrong with praising mcCain as a vetran... thats not what she did. She stated he was the only other canidate running with the experience to be President and no doubt to dodge sniper fire!
I cant belive I was for Hilary. i cant belive all the time I spent defending her in the south where she is hated.
Regards
I would say the same thing about you. I smell troll.
The Clintons are causing their own mis-fires. Obama is running HIS campaign, not theirs.
Look at my profile, you'll see I'm indeed NOT a Democrat. Yes, the Clintons AND Obama endorsed LIEberman before Ned Lamont was nominated. But the Clintons are 'DLC LIEbercrats' and were original members with Joe to win back 'Ray-gun-crats'. Also, you overlooked my telling Senator Hart that it's HIS Party. Most EVERY elected Democrat blogging at HuffingtonPost has received some crap from NFJT, including this fine Senator.
While I've NOT endorsed anyone since Richardson, I've taken frequent extreme exception to the SAY ANYTHING, smear tactics, lobbyist-bought, dishonest and resume padding, machine politics employed by 'the Clintons', and I've not put Obama '08 on a single comment.
I've often specifically stated, due to conscience, I won't vote for anyone that helped approve this preznut'z Iraq invasion and occupation WAR CRIMES, as I would then be complicit in those crimes. Hillary COULD'VE voted for the Levin Amendment and AGAINST Kyle/LIEberman approval to attack Iran. I DO like Obama's '02 speech AGAINST the Iraq crime over 'the Clinton's' NAFTA leadership.
I don't believe, as you seem to, McCain's a better choice than Obama. But speaking of deceit, I KNOW which one has accepted the MOST lobbyist money, and I'm pretty sure who's told the MOST LIES in this race. Do you?
Can be specific how I deceived? If not, YOUR comment's just an ad-hominem troll attack.
Amen. Thank you for your courage for speaking out, as well as for recognizing the insidiousness of those who will win election by any means necessary.
The attempts to smear any candidate based on whether or not he, or she lives up to a religius litmus test is to expose a fundamental lack of comprehension about the separation of church and state.
Those who triumph at the expense of others are those who will pay for the mistakes they have made along the way.
Thank you, Mr. Hart, for your bravery in taking a stand against the misleading and deceitful politics of the past. By doing so, you simultaneously take a stand for the American public, for true democratic elections, and good, old fashioned decency.
Again, thank you...now, could you please convince some of your fellow politicians to grow a pair as well?
Does "taking a stand against the misleading and deceitful politics of the past...for good, old fashioned decency" include continuing to ignore the genocide the Israeli government (the GOVERNMENT, not "the Jews") is currently perpetrating upon the Palestinian people with US support?
And no, I'm not being rhetorical with the word 'genocide,' I'm being specific. In February Israel's deputy defense minister approvingly referred to his government's actions against the Palestinians as a "shoah." This word is normally used only to refer to the Holocaust. No matter how many rockets Hamas lobs at Israel (attacks I don't support), that does not justify collectively punishing the Palestinian people.
I rather think "taking a stand" as you describe would include a rational, non-biased account of the crimes, sufferings and basic rights of both sides, without uncritical support for either. The US's current uncritical support of the Israeli government is a major reason for anti-American feeling in the Middle East. It only harms the US. Nor, I'd argue, does it actually help the people of Israel.
Let me point out that I'm not anti-Israel, I'm anti-genocidal policies, no matter what government is using said policies. I say this as someone of Jewish descent. To me Israel ought to be a beacon for human rights, but I seem to have too-high expectations of politicians everywhere. It seems impossible to have a rational discussion about this subject here in the US.
Your mis-translation of Hebrew has been corrected in previous posts and comments.
HaShoah = The Holocaust; shoah = calamity or disaster. For example, shoah would be used to describe a nuclear disaster such as occurred Cherobyl.
As in English we say an inferno to signify any fiery environment, such as a wildfire. But "The Inferno" means Hell.
Perhaps and honest mistake based on reading the wrong sources. Consider yourself now educated on the subject
Roger that. But it goes beyond the Hamas issue. Jewish Americans -- I'm one -- should watch out for those who exploit their fears.
But wasn't Barack educated at Columbia by leaders of the PLO? Was this when he changed his name?
Educated at Columbia by leaders of the PLO...
Leaders of the PLO supposedly now have professorships at Columbia University.
Who pays you to troll around posting this offensive drek, Clinton or the RNC?
It was so stupid it seemed like a joke.
Some insist that trolls are paid by rabid funie, radical reactionary right wingnuts of the neo con persuasion, suviving former members of the John Birch Society who advocate the causes of pre WW II America 1sters. & assorted schlock meisters who've become very wealthy by the growth of their ill gotten gains. The trolls & those who pay them feel that there is no need to check the facts if a charge is lurid enough, biased, divisive & repeating the baseless charge makes it into a fact which can't be refuted. They're convinced that putting a comment or blog into caps establishes that they are being objective & truthful.
Good heavens, where do you come up with this stuff?
You should read more and tear yourself away from drudge, Rush and faux news.
Shameful!!!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
