Yes, we can - pander.

Barack Obama's recent speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Council - AIPAC - dragged many of his supporters back from denial to political reality.

These Obamakins are hungry to believe his candidacy signals an authentic change in how politicians behave and the way American politics are run.

They've had it with the slice-and-dice-say-and-do-anything-to-win Karl Rove playbook. They're weary of political messages that tell us more about focus groups than about candidates. They're disgusted with the dumbing down of our country's political discourse.

And after eight years of George W. Bush, who could blame them?

But Barack's AIPAC speech left many of them wondering if they were perhaps a tad naïve.

Much of what the Illinois Senator told his Jewish-American audience in Miami was totally predictable. He confirmed America's everlasting friendship with Israel. He vowed we would always be there to protect the security of the Middle East's only democracy. He pledged his allegiance to a two-state solution.

But he went further. He said Israel should always be a Jewish state - a thumb in the eye of Palestinians pushing their right of return. And he pledged that Jerusalem would always be the capital of Israel and that it would be undivided. That was an even bigger thumb in the eye.

These were inflammatory - and unnecessary - promises we would expect from a novice or an ideologue - or a politician pandering to a key constituency.

The next American president will have to lead our efforts to play honest broker between the Israelis and the Palestinians. This is a role only the U.S. can play because there is no other nation that has our relationship of trust with Israel.

Hopefully, if Sen. Obama wins the election, he won't wait until the last year of his presidency to re-start the peace process. But whenever he starts, America's legitimacy and credibility as an honest broker won't be helped by his over-the-top and gratuitous remarks.

Because honest and even-handed negotiations can't be enhanced by trashing what one side or the other considers a core position. Even if it plays well in Miami.

What would we be calling these remarks if they came from John McCain? Right - pandering 101!

But what can we call them if they come from the guy who has staked his political future - and ours -- on the promise of change?

How about sad?

Comments

[jhNY]

As the number of Jews in the US number around 6 million, or about 2% of the population, in what way is this shameless pandering to AIPAC and its supporters a practical political necessity? Most American Jews do not support the Likudnik point of view that AIPAC espouses, and most will vote democratic,as they alweays have in every election so far. So why is it so imperative that Obama panders to this minority point of view within a tiny minority of the US public?

[jrockbg]

Fear not. The very next day after his AIPAC speech Obama spoke again about Israel and the Palestinians. He returned to pandering to the far left, anti-Israel fringe. The man is a chameleon. His words speak of change in Washington. I fear that his deeds will not stack up.

[LittleBrother]

Sad indeed.

Of course, Obama supporters are OK with his anti-Palestinian Zionist pronouncements. They explain such things in the context of Obama being a super-smart, super-shrewd super-politician who is using his political ninja skills to avoid the usual trip wires and booby traps that previous Democratic candidates have blundered into.

It's the old ruse of expediency-- Obama "has" to suck up to AIPAC and take pro-military positions, etc., or he could never get elected.

So these Obama supporters, who positively GLOW when contemplating Obama's great gift for oratory and his charismatic expression of righteous and noble ideals, also whisper out of the sides of their mouth to "cut him some slack" and take his non-progressive, even anti-progressive positions with a huge grain of salt.

It's hard for a skeptic to cope with the contradictory truth that Obama is an honest, upright, wise man of integrity whose words can touch and inspire all of us-- except when he's just bullshitting for public consumption, as all politicians must.

He's light years above the Republic candidate, of course-- but it's still sad.

[PixelMarx]

William - sorry but you're way off on your remarks. Not that this is a topic most American's understand from both perspectives but his speech dealt with the reality on the ground. Both sides will have to negotiate, but there must be an Israel state, which includes Jerusalem...at least as long as the US supports Israel. Any suggestion to the contrary has no hope of passing, regardless of the historical unfairness of how Israel was created in the first place. However, I do believe that an Obama administration will not wait until the last year to get this dialogue started. What's sad is for the longest time, both sides have taken the extremes, calling the other side out on their lack of flexibility. This is what needs to change.

[cktirumalai]

The advice you give is salutary but, as you recognize, not easy to put into practice.

[munimula]

Since when has the United States engaged in honest and even-handed negotiations between the Israeli's and Palestinians?

Even a mention of such and approach by a candidate would seem to disqualify that person from holding office in the eyes of AIPAC, The Republican Party and the Democratic party!

[SanityClaus]

Yaaaawwwwwwnnnnn.

OK, this makes, what, 17 columns on HuffPo so far on ONE Obama speech?

Are we to endure this death by a thousand cuts from here until November? Does Obama need to make a major address every day to give you guys something else to talk about?

[XME]

Unfortunately, without some of that, he cannot get elected...and without getting elected, he can't do anything!

[shep1900]

Oldest argument in the book, I'm afraid. Means to an end. See Nixon, Richard M.

If you're going to say you're a transformational, above-ordinary-politics politician, _be_ one.

With each passing week, he has resorted more and more to expediency. NAFTA, Iraq, Iran, and so on. Which is fine--it's what politicians do--but, let's not pretend it's noble or admirable, or...transformational.

[XME]

Transformational, yes...perfect, no.