Senator Barack Obama’s credibility gap resulting from his policies and disturbing pattern of association with anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, and anti-American friends and advisers is raising alarm throughout the Jewish community. The Democratic Party risks losing electoral and financial support from the Jewish community should Senator Barack Obama be the Party’s presidential nominee. Rank and file Democrats are telling pollsters that they will vote for Senator John McCain if Barack Obama is the Democrat’s choice, and major Jewish donors have already withheld support to the Democratic National Committee and other party efforts.
In Pennsylvania, exit polls show that Senator Clinton beat Senator Obama by 24 percentage points amongst Pennsylvanian Jews, outpacing the general population by 13 points, and even outpacing the Protestant population which favored Senator Clinton by a ten point margin. With Jews comprising 8 % of the Pennsylvania primary electorate, these percentages are large enough to be determinative in a close general election race. Senator Clinton won amongst Jews by similarly large margins in states like New York and New Jersey. In Florida where Jews accounted for 9% of primary voters, the margin exceeded 30 points. In Nevada where Jews accounted for some 5%, the margin exceeded 40 points. Data is not available for other key swing states like Ohio, Michigan, New Mexico and Wisconsin.
Despite historic trends, shifting demographics, international concerns, and great distrust of Senator Barack Obama’s record and associations will lead to mass defections from the Democratic party of critical blocks of the Jewish community in November’s election. These defections will contribute to Democratic defeats in critical battleground states such as Florida, Ohio, Nevada, and Pennsylvania, will put into play others such as New Jersey and New York, and give a third consecutive White House victory to the Republicans. This potentially seismic realignment of Jewish support in favor of the Republican Party could be generational, lasting well beyond 2008.
The fundamental trouble with Barack Obama is his lack of credibility. Senator Obama makes statements of solidarity with the Jewish community. Yet, his determination to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad runs counter to his professed sensitivity to Jewish concerns. His relationships with unabashed anti-Semitic and anti-Israel individuals calls into question his sincerity. His 20-year comfort with Jeremiah Wright, and his previous tolerance and defense of his pastor who preaches “Zionism equals Racism” reveals his ability to tolerate, defend and find comfort with others who share such views. While defending his relationship with Reverend Jeremiah Wright Obama boldly proclaimed:
“And nobody has spoken out more fiercely on the issue of ant“And nobody has spoken out more fiercely on the issue of anti-Semitism than I have."
Barack Obama’s claim to be the most vocal opponent of anti-Semitism is intellectually dishonest and fits a pattern of saying one thing and doing another. If Barack Obama truly believed Louis Farrakhan to be a reprehensible human being and the Reverend Jeremiah Wright to be a truly divisive and hateful person, if he honestly felt the pain their anti-Semitism causes the Jewish community, then Barack Obama would have condemned these individuals and disassociated himself from them completely before it became convenient for his campaign to do so. That he did not, reveals his true character and the hollowness of his proclamations and is the reason why the Jewish community will abandon the Democratic Party if Senator Barack Obama were to receive the nomination.
Barack Obama’s Credibility Gap
Senator Barack Obama is an unacceptable candidate for many in the Jewish community and the numbers will increase once the Republican Party begins drawing further distinctions between McCain and Obama by exploiting Senator Obama’s weaknesses. These attacks will be factually based and will use Senator Obama’s own words and actions against him. In this way, these attacks will be a far cry from the crude and offensive e-mail and blog generated smear campaigns employed earlier this year which called Senator Obama a Muslim and sought to misrepresent his various associations.
blockquote>Particularly difficult for Senator Obama and the Democrats will be his inability to credibly defend himself. Senator Obama lacks the substantive record or experience on many matters that will be at the center of concern. Instead, Senator Obama will be forced to retreat to his familiar refrain that judgment should be what counts. However a pattern of recent revelations show that Senator Obama lacks judgment and as voters learn more about him, they further question his viability.
Senator Obama has gone to great lengths in recent weeks to assuage legitimate concerns in the Jewish community, however the record proves that Senator Obama lacks judgment and is substantively wrong on these issues. The record:
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Foreign Policy – The critical foreign policy difference between the two Democratic candidates for president is Senator Barack Obama’s commitment to meet with rogue leaders without precondition. When exploited by the Republicans, this issue alone will be enough to make Senator Barack Obama an unacceptable candidate to the majority of Jews and the general population.
Since the Holocaust, few individuals advancing dangerous anti-Semitic views have risen to lead nations. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, calls for the State of Israel to be wiped off the map and defies the international community by continuing to pursue nuclear capability. Iran is also the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism – arming, training and directing groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
In 2001, Ahmadinejad’s predecessor, Hashemi Rafsanjani made clear the Iran’s nuclear intentions. He said “The application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel, but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world… Jews shall expect to be once again scattered and wandering around the globe the day when this appendix [Israel] is extracted from the region and the Muslim world.” For his part, Ahmadinejad has more vocally endorsed this by continually referring to Israel’s “demise,” “destruction,” and “annihilation.”
Senator Obama has pledged to meet with Ahmadinejad without precondition. Senator Obama defended Jeremiah Wright even after he learned of comments Wright made about Israel and America that are similar to Ahmadinejad’s views.
Such a meeting would be devastating to the psyche of entire Jewish world. Since 2005, Jewish communities around the world have been fighting to marginalize and contain Ahmadinejad. Jewish communities condemn Hugo Chavez and other radical leaders for welcoming Ahmadinejad. They condemn the Russian government for their relationship with the Iranian regime. Recently, the United States, Israel and Jewish communities around the world condemned the Swiss for an economic agreement with the Iranian regime.
Throughout Europe there is a multinational effort to designate Ahmadinejad persona non grata throughout European capitals and at the EU. For years, the United States has worked with begrudging allies to isolate and contain the Iranian regime. And yet, Senator Obama has pledged that as President of the United States he will be featured on the front page of newspapers around the world shaking hands with a rabid anti-Semite who supports terrorist attacks against the United States and its allies, is pursing a nuclear capability, and denies the Holocaust. Such an image would be a victory for terrorism, a victory for extremists, and a defeat for peace and international security. The Jewish community will sooner vote for Senator McCain than be party to facilitating that meeting with Ahmadinejad.
Republican groups are readying attack ads which amplify this point and raise legitimate fears about Barack Obama’s foreign policy. This campaign will not only turn Jewish voters away from Senator Obama, it will draw moderate and foreign-policy minded Democrats away from the Democratic Party.
When given the opportunity to retract or qualify his pledge to meet with rogue leaders, Senator Obama repeated and defended his foreign policy, boldly equating his willingness to meet with Ahmadinejad with Kennedy’s meeting with Khrushchev, and Reagan’s meeting with Gorbachev. These comparisons show the shallowness of Senator Obama’s foreign policy understanding. Both Presidents Kennedy and Reagan met with their Soviet counterparts during a time when the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction prevented either side from committing an act of war. However, in the present instance, mutually assured destruction is irrelevant to the Iranians. Rafsanjani’s remarks make clear that the regime is ready to sacrifice or ‘martyr’ millions of its own citizens – and even the majority of the world’s Palestinians – in exchange for a first strike nuclear attack against Israel and other Western enemies of the Islamic Republic.
Reverend Wright and Trinity Church – By now, America has received a large view of the Jeremiah Wright and Trinity Church controversies. Senator Obama’s nearly two-decade relationship with the Church and its radical Reverend call into question Senator Obama’s judgment and principles. Senator Obama’s repeated obfuscations when responding to the controversy ranged from denials to knowing anything was wrong, to not being in Church, to defending Reverend Wright, to condemning the rhetoric but embracing the man, to comparing the man to the whole Black community, to finally repudiating the individual and his statements. The Republican Party will exploit Senator Obama’s 20-year relationship with Reverend Wright, and the Reverend’s anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, anti-white tirades and Obama’s own credibility gap on the issue.
Yet for the Jewish community, the Reverend Wright and Trinity Church controversies raise much more profound questions. “We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic,” proclaimed Reverend Wright in one of his speeches.
The Trinity Church bulletin included an open letter from Palestinian Ali Baghdadi who wrote, “I must tell you that Israel was the closest ally to the white supremacists of South Africa. In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israeli’s were given a blank check: they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs.”
Initially, Senator Obama denied ever hearing any controversial statements from Mr. Wright. Then, he acknowledged them and sought to explain them. Even in his most candid moment, when Senator Obama condemned Mr. Wright’s statements, he sought to justify the vitriol by referencing apartheid, Jim Crow and slavery. Senator Obama would have us believe that Reverend Wright and Senator Obama’s fellow parishioners condemn Israel because South African apartheid was part of a grand Anglo-Jewish alliance to reinstituted slavery in the United States and resurrect Jim Crow. The absurdity of that notion is surpassed only by the belief that Senator Obama can sufficiently distance himself from a man he still holds in high regard and considers a member of the family.
The fact is, that Reverend Wright’s anti-Semitism and Trinity Church’s tolerance of it goes beyond Israel’s supposed links to apartheid. In introducing an article by a Hamas leader, Mousa Abu Marzook, the Church newsletter referred to Hamas as an “Islamic Resistance Movement.” In the published article, Marzook referred to Hamas’s terrorist activities as “legal resistance… explicitly supported by the Fourth Geneva Convention.” The Conventions do not support suicide bombing or rocket and missile attacks against civilian populations. Marzook also compares Hamas’ charter to the Declaration of Independence. Hamas’ charter calls for the murder of Jews, and the elimination Israel. Senator Obama’s response?
“I have already condemned my former pastor’s views on Israel in the strongest possible terms, and I certainly wasn’t in church when that outrageously wrong Los Angeles Times piece was re-printed in the bulletin,” he said.
In another instance in the Church bulletin, Reverend Wright introduced an article on “Progressive Muslims” by informing the reader that:
"Islam has many manifestations as Christianity and Judaism, but most American are only fed a media diet on Islam as it relates to the 'war on terror' and the Palestinian Muslim problem in the 'state' of Israel."
Senator Obama has claimed that he did not seek political advice from Reverend Wright, noting rather that the Reverend was his Pastor, a religious figure who brought him to Christianity and has used him as a “sounding board.” Senator Obama exhibits a profound lack of judgment if his spiritual advisor uses foul language from the pulpit and preaches lies to instigate hate amongst his parishioners.
Senator Obama sought to diffuse the Reverend Wright and Trinity Church issue by noting that other Churches in the African American community preach a similar tone. For many Jews, this strikes at their core. Synagogues are houses of worship, a place of thoughtful contemplation and prayer, and not podiums for political provocations. Around this country, Jews say a specific prayer every Saturday – many synagogues do so with the Torah Scroll out and before the congregation. In the prayer, they beseech G-d to bless the United States and protect its institutions and leaders. Could these same people then cast a vote for an individual whose spiritual father urges his congregation to sing and pray ‘G-d Damn America’?
Father Michael Pfleger, a priest in Chicago’s South Side and a person identified on Senator Obama’s campaign website as an notable endorser further defended Reverend Wright’s comments: “The idea that this preaching is divisive is absolutely ridiculous… The job of a pastor is to shepherd his or her congregation, and that requires speaking to your congregants in the language and context they understand.” Reverend Pfleger seems to believe that profanity laced tirades filled with racism, anti-Semitism, and anti-Americanism belong Trinity Church.
Senator Obama’s belated denunciation earlier this week was much too little, much too late, and focused on only the recent “rants” of the Reverend, not his long history of positions inimical to Jews everywhere.
Louis Farrakhan – Louis Farrakhan was recognized and awarded by Senator Obama’s Trinity Church. In responding to the controversy raised by the issue, Senator Obama told a gathering of Jewish Leaders that the award to Louis Farrakhan “showed a lack of sensitivity to the Jewish community.” Honoring Louis Farrakhan is not wrong because it showed a lack of sensitivity to the Jewish community. It is wrong because it showed a lack of sensitivity to moral, just and decent people. Honoring Louis Farrakhan should have offended Barack Obama’s sensitivities long before the matter became a campaign issue.
Reverend Wright, however, defended Farrakhan and sought to justify his own views by paralleling them with Farrakhan’s: "Louis said 20 years ago that Zionism, not Judaism, was a gutter religion. He was talking about the same thing United Nations resolutions say, the same thing now that President Carter's being vilified for and Bishop Tutu's being vilified for. And everybody wants to paint me as if I'm anti-Semitic because of what Louis Farrakhan said 20 years ago. He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century; that's what I think about him.”
Staff and Advisors – In addition to Reverend Wright and other members of Senator Obama’s personal inner circle (Reverend/Senator James Meeks and Reverend Eric Lee in case you missed the pattern), Senator Obama has a habit of surrounding himself with individuals who hold foreign policy views that fall outside of the mainstream of traditional American foreign policy.
Senator Barack Obama’s military adviser and national campaign co-chairman Merrill A. McPeak, a former Air Force chief of staff gave an interview in 2003 in which he blamed the lack of peace in the Middle East on American Jews in Miami and New York. In a 2003 interview in the Oregonian, General McPeak responded to a question about where the problems prevent Middle East peace by saying: “New York City. Miami. We have a large vote – vote, here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it.” What role will General McPeak and his views play in an Obama Administration?
Samantha Power, formerly one of Senator Obama’s closest advisers who was recently dismissed from Senator Obama’s campaign for making unflattering remarks about Senator Hillary Clinton, advocated investing “billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the state of Palestine.” What role will Ms. Powers and her views play in an Obama Administration?
In February 2006, after Hamas won a majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament and amid a U.S. and Israeli attempt to isolate the Hamas-run Palestinian Authority, Robert Malley, a foreign policy adviser to Senator Obama’s presidential campaign wrote an op-ed advocating international aid to the terror group's newly formed government. "The Islamists (Hamas) ran on a campaign of effective government and promised to improve Palestinians' lives; they cannot do that if the international community turns its back," wrote Malley in the piece. Malley contended the election of Hamas expressed Palestinian "anger at years of humiliation and loss of self-respect because of Israeli settlement expansion, Arafat's imprisonment, Israel's incursions, Western lecturing and, most recently and tellingly, the threat of an aid cutoff in the event of an Islamist success."
Mr. Malley, also wrote numerous op-eds calling for dialogue with terrorist group and blasting Israel for policies he says harm the Palestinian cause. Mr. Malley blamed Israel for the collapse of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at Camp David in 2000, contentions strongly refuted by key participants at Camp David, including President Clinton, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and primary U.S. envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross, all of whom blamed Arafat's refusal to make peace for the talks' failure. What role will Mr. Malley and his views play in an Obama Administration?
Senator Obama’s pastor blamed the Jews for apartheid in South Africa and prejudice in America. Senator Obama’s military adviser blamed the Jews for stalling Middle East peace process. Senator Obama’s close adviser blamed the Jews for internal Palestinian failures and US appropriations. Senator Obama’s foreign policy adviser blamed the Jews for keeping the Palestinians down, not negotiating with terrorists and failure at the 2000 Camp David accords. The pattern is frightening.
The presence of these people in Senator Obama’s campaign raises significant concerns about Obama’s principles, his foreign policy and the kinds of people he will be surrounding himself with in the White House and those he will select to work in the National Security Agency, and the Departments of State and Defense. Most of all, it raises significant doubts about his judgment and credibility as evidence mounts that there is a disconnect between his rhetoric and his beliefs.
Discussion of these individuals does not complete the picture of Senator Obama’s questionable associates. His tolerance for anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian activists like Edward Said, Ali Abunimah, Rashid Khalidi and others have all been defended by the Obama campaign, much the same way they until recently were defending Reverend Wright. However, Barack Obama’s relationship with these individuals in the context of having spent 20 years in a church where it is clear there was anti-Semitic and anti-Israel rhetoric suggests that he has an uncomfortable level of tolerance for anti-Semitism.
McCain as a Viable Candidate
The unacceptability of Senator Obama alone does not necessarily translate into Republican victory in the fall should Obama get the Democratic nomination. However, the presumptive Republican nomination of Senator John McCain to run for president all but guarantees a mass exodus from the Democratic Party should Senator Obama get the nomination.
Senator John McCain is a less controversial, more certain candidate. His high national profile and past presidential campaign give him a degree of vetting and scrutiny which Senator Obama has yet to fully receive. Senator McCain also has a record with which to back up his rhetoric. While Senator Obama makes speeches proclaiming his bipartisan approach to politics, Senator McCain has actually walked through the fire of bipartisan politics, crossing party lines, and crossing many leaders in his own party to do what he thought was right. Senator McCain is a man of principle who has displayed the courage both to stand by those principles and compromise when necessary for the good for country.
Senator McCain possesses strong foreign policy credentials and his past personal history makes him an attractive commander-in-chief. His moderate and pragmatic social views make him acceptable to Democratic moderates. His insistence on fiscal discipline evokes great support amongst fiscal conservatives in the Democratic Party, the so-called Blue Dog and New Democrat factions of the party which were critical constituencies in the only two Democratic White House victories of the past three decades.
In the party crossover, McCain’s age is also a plus. Though many view McCain’s age as acceptable in this election cycle, there is a consensus, even in Republican circles, that his could be a one-term presidency simply due to his advancing years. This presumed inevitability would allow even more Democrats to vote for McCain in this election without guilt of abandoning the Democratic Party. Further, this sense of abandonment could be tempered by the presumed inevitability of continued Democratic control of the House and the Senate.
Senator McCain is far from a perfect candidate. To the contrary, he possesses numerous flaws which would make him vulnerable and even unappealing given the right circumstances. However, when faced with the alternative of an unacceptable Democratic nominee, the Jewish community can readily and easily embrace Senator McCain and most of his policies.
General Party Direction
Many in the Jewish community, particularly in the traditionally more socially conservative Orthodox community (the fastest growing segment of the Jewish community in the United States) are wary of the rising strength of the radical left-wing of the Democratic Party. These Democrats are as much disturbed by the Party’s radical leftists as they are by the radical right-wing of the Republican Party. These extreme, reactionary temperaments are out of sync with the Jewish community’s more reasoned and moderate approach. Senator Obama is not seen as the candidate of the Democratic middle – he is the candidate of the Party’s left. He has been labeled the most liberal member of the Senate and receives major support from George Soros and Moveon.org; while Senator McCain is most decidedly the candidate of the Republican center.
Conclusion
The pattern of Senator Obama’s policies, associations and lack of credibility make him an unacceptable candidate to large portions of the Jewish community. Data already suggests that Senator Obama lacks support in the Jewish community. By exploiting Senator Obama’s own positions and associations, the Republican Party will solidify Jewish opposition to Senator Obama if he were the Democratic nominee. Should this occur, crossover for Senator McCain will reach numbers greater than those achieved by the Reagan Revolution when so many Reagan Democrats were Jews. In turn, this can translate into down-ballot victories that extend beyond the presidential race, to congressional and local races in critical swing states.
Major donors are already holding and pulling their contributions from the Democratic National Committee and other campaign efforts. While record sums are being given to candidates themselves, donors are reluctant to give to efforts working against the Republicans, because these same donors may end up endorsing John McCain over the Democratic nominee. One effort designed specifically to define and attack John McCain has failed to meet its fundraising goals and is relying on George Soros – an avid Obama supporter – as its principle backer.
Given the geographic concentration of Jewish communities in large and critical swing states, and their tendency to get out the vote in large blocks, the Jewish community stands to make a substantial impact on this year’s election. Should the Democratic Party nominate Barack Obama, the Party can end up with significant losses instead of large gains.
ADDENDUM
May 13, 2008
UPDATE I:
In the days following the original publication of this memorandum, it was revealed that Robert Malley, a foreign policy adviser to Senator Obama had been conducting secret meetings with Hamas. This news broke around the same time that a Hamas leader, Ahmed Yousef, was quoted saying, “we like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election,” and at a moment when Senator Obama was trying to distance himself from Jimmy Carter’s recent overtures to the terrorist group.
To avoid responsibility, Obama surrogates were quick to cut Malley loose, denying that he ever had any substantive role in the campaign. This follows a pattern of Obama blaming or jettisoning surrogates and advisers when their shared views are deemed inconvenient for the campaign. The revelation that Obama associated his candidacy with yet another individual who negotiates with terrorists is disturbing to many Jewish voters.
UPDATE II:
ABC News has done a remarkable job proving the point made above, that Senator Obama blames his staff when his extremely disconcerting views become inconvenient for his campaign. The report by Jake Tapper points out that in 2004 Jews became alarmed that Obama failed to denounce Yassir Arafat or express strong support for Israel’s security. Again, Obama blamed his staff. It would seem that the Malley fiasco is just another in a long and revealing pattern.
Nevertheless, Senator Obama retains sole ownership of his pledge to meet with the world’s most vicious and dangerous demagogues and terrorists. Senator Obama cannot blame his staff for his pledge to meet – without precondition – with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iran is the world’s largest state sponsor of terror. Iran helps insurgents kill our troops in Iraq, Hamas attack Israeli civilian centers, and Hezbollah reign terror upon Lebanon. Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, preaches for the destruction of Israel and Western society, and is seeking a nuclear capability to achieve his goals. Yesterday, Ahmadinejad called for Israel to be “swept away” and said that nothing would save the “rotten and stinking corpse.” He also declared that no nation in the region accepts Israel’s right to exist.
Senator Obama would have us believe that his new breed of politics, his wit and charisma is enough to win over Ahmadinejad. Obama defines this as a rejection of the Bush approach to international affairs. However, replacing the failed foreign policies of George W. Bush with the failed foreign policies of Jimmy Carter is a dangerous recipe for disaster. Negotiating with terrorists is never in the best interests of the United States and Senator Obama would be wise to study presidential history. If he did, he might discover that it was Jimmy Carter’s failed diplomacy that created our current relationship with Iran and that a return to that brand of foreign policy is not what the American people – and least of all the American Jewish population – are looking for.
