Shmuel Rosner's, the U.S. columnist for Haaretz, view is that all those running for President are pro-Israel. At the time he was specifically defending Obama but suggested the whole debate was silly.

The Democrats were driven into a ditch in the 1990s? Nixon, Reagan, Bush (1) and Bush (2) would suggest it was a lot bigger trend than just the 1990s. The first decade in which a Democrat was re-elected since FDR.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

The Post Reports re: Mark Penn:

 In 1981, he and business partner Doug Schoen helped reelect Menachem Begin, one of the most right-wing prime ministers in the country's history, and emerged with a new outlook on the Middle East.

and

His client list includes. . .  British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose campaign he advised when Blair won a historic third term in 2005.

Perhaps MJ or one of the readers more aware of the nuts and bolts of professional consultants can answer this one.  Is this normal?  It strikes me as strange that a person would actively work on political campaigns in three countries.  It it o.k. to do this for some politicians in some countries but not for other politicians elsewhere?  I can imagine the ruckus if a private American citizen worked on the political campaign for one of the candidates for the Turkish or French presidencies.

I don't care much whether or not the guy worked for Lieberman (well, I do, but not as much as some of the other readers probably do).  I don't care whether or not he lives in a $5 mil. mansion...so does John Edwards.  I care quite a bit when he hosts "like-minded friends" for salons featuring the likes of David Brooks, no friend to Democrats of my stripe, and not much of a friend, MHO, to democrats of any stripe.  If this is the kind of person tweaking Senator Clinton's campaign, my estimation of her is not raised any. 

aMike

Thanks, MJ:

I guess one can morph "a chicken in every pot" to "a yoghurt in every yurt."  :-)   But for the life of me, I wonder how a person can know multiple cultures well enough to avoid having to extract one's foot from one's mouth all the time. 

Seems to me, too, that this comes a bit close to private individuals conducting foreign policy, at least to the point where they work to elect specific individuals with specific policy objectives in mind. 
Ah well... off to the dentist, exchanging one podium for opening one's mouth for another less enjoyable one.

aMike

Actually, history has shown that all Presidents follow more or less the same policy on the Israel/Arab conflict. They try to be "evenhanded" and "pro-Israel" at one and the same time. All ideally would like Israel to withdraw to the pre-1967, create a Palestinian state and have peace. The problem is they have all learned this is NOT possible. Some Presidents are very active trying to impose a settlement or push the sides into negotiations, others see that their predecessors failed so they try a hands-off policy and simply try to manage the problems. There is a common misconception that if the President would really try, try, try and use every pressure trick he has up his sleeve, he could force a settlement, but history has shown, particularly with Bill Clinton, that this can't work.
We also must define what a "pro-Israel" President is. Almost all Presidents are called "the most pro-Israel President of all-time". What is the definition of a "friend"...someone who will stick his neck out for you when you are trouble. By the definition, Lyndon Johnson was the best friend Israel ever had. He refused to pressure Israel during the Six-Day War and allowed Israel to knock out all its enemies, he refused to pressure Israel to withdraw from the territories captured in that war, and he had the UN accept Security Council Resolution 242 which is very favorable to Israel, not demanding a total withdrawal, giving Israel internationally legal status in Judea/Samaria/Gaza (this is among the reasons that the claim that the settlments there are "illegal" is incorrect). It is a mystery to me why Bill Clinton is considered a friend to Israel, he coddled terrorist chieftain Arafat (invited him IIRC 12 times to the White House, a record for that administration), he kept blabbing in front of Jewish groups the mantra "we know Israel is taking risks and you can count on us to back you up", but when the moment of truth came in October 2000 and Arafat began his terrorist war against Israel, Clinton turned his back, refused to back Israel (claiming he was "neutral"), refused to carry promises of weapons deals with Ehud Barak, refused to release Jonathan Pollard AFTER HE PROMISED TO DO SO, etc. and kept pressurin for more and more concessions in the talks that went on at Taba while the terror war was going on.

The bottom line is, for those in the US who want to vote for a President who is "good for Israel", I would say it doesn't really matter in the end. In fact, with "friends" like Bill Clinton and George Bush in the White House (Bush pressured Sharon to destroy Gush Katif bringing a disastrous war on Israel and also prevented any serious Israeli response to Arafat's terrorist war in 2000-2002) maybe it would be better for Israel if a more openly unfriendly President would be in the White House, forcing the Israelis to stand on their own two feet instead of relying on Uncle Sam for everything.

As was pointed out in a previous thread,
the "neo-cons" came out of the Left, so
it may not be hard for them to return to
there, seeing as how their foreign policy adventures have failed.
However, the Democrats supported the American invasion of Iraq so I don't understand what Lieberman's crime is.

James Carville, who was Clinton's advisor
also worked in Ehud Barak's campaign for Israeli Prime Minister in 1999. It is now common for these guys to work in different
countries.

Incidentally, I am no fan of the neo-cons. I pointed out in another thread that I don't view them as particularly pro-Israel.
I, and the vast majority of Israeli supported get rid of Saddam in Iraq because of the WMD's (which we had been on the receiving end in the 1991-i.e. the Scud missiles) which it turns out didn't exist.
Few Israelis believed in the nonsense of "bringing democracy to Iraq" that the neo-cons were so found of. Had I known that the WMD's didn't exist, I would have opposed the American invasion, and it pains me very much, especially as a former American (current Israeli), seeing American soldiers
wounded and killed in that insane war and cursed by the very people they are trying to help.
I should point out that it was the "democratization" of Eastern Europe that brought Theodor Herzl to Zionism. Whereas the Hapsburg regime tried to keep blatant anti-Semites, such as Karl Lueger (anti-Semitic mayor of Vienna) out of power,
the demands for democratization brought populist anti-Semites to power there. Democratization of the Arab world will do the same.

being incapable of telling the difference between a neo-conservatism and liberal interventionism is very sad.

An isreal first presidential canditate surrounded by isreal first advisors and money men who have links to the backstabbing defacto rethug isreal firster LIEberman. I'm shocked.

It's a foolish gesture but I'm sending a tenner to Mike Gravel's campaign today.

I am not sure what your point is. I said I agree that the aid should be ended.
You are right, I have retained my US citizenship. So have millions of other people living in every other country in the world. The Soviet Union required people who managed to get out to relinquish their citizenship. The US is not like that.

You don't seem to realize that support for Israel in the US is popularly based, and reflects American public opinion, regardless what Mearsheimer and the other guy claim (i.e. AIPAC controls the US). In this week's New York Times, there is an article about former Saudi Prince Bandar's relationship with top US officials. He, and his uncles, the various kings have given millions of dollars in "gifts" to the Bush family and other former Presidents, including the saintly Jimmy Carter. The article says how Colin Powell's wife mentioned in passing to him how she would like to have a Jaguar automobile. A little later Bandar shows up with one and gives it to her, as a "gift".
Extrapolating from this, we can be sure that Arabs are pouring huge amounts into the political system. I am sure they are trying to get the Congressmen on their side. The fact that they have failed shows to me that Congressmen realize that their voters are in the pro-Israel camp and that the aid that is given has the support of the American people. I am sure you have seen the polls that show American public opinion is solidly pro-Israel.

So he says, "I couldn't agree with you more," and goes on to explain why he agrees, and you disagree with him?

Um...hello? Isn't there a problem here?

Penn has deep roots in the national security wing of the Democratic Party, along with other centrist Democrats -- some of them Jewish and pro-Israel, like Penn -- who saw the merits of invading Iraq before the war began.

In other words, he's a big f*&king idiot who should not be trusted with anything to do with our country's foreign policy.

And, seriously, what is the "national security wing" of the Democratic Party? You've got to be kidding me.

Does it not occur to reporters writing this crap that the "national security wing" of the Democratic Party GOT EVERYTHING WRONG when it came to national security???

MJ, seriously, how does a guy who thought it was a great idea to invade Iraq earn "brilliant tactician" status in your mind?

Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...

Not that I give penn credit for being a good tactician but great tacticians do not always make good strategists. And the Iraq debacle is the cornerstone of piss poor strategic "thinking."

I agree, there is a distinction.

So far, from the National Security Wing of the party, I've seen no brilliance in either department.

Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...

How influential is Penn's stance on foreign policy?  Interesting question, but I loved the opening of the article, on another note entirely.  He tells Gore that the latter's policies are going over great but not Gore personally.  I bet Penn got that right, and while we may or may not snipe at Gore for not taking courageous stances, it's yet another excuse to have me start ranting at the media that turned the election for Bush.  Score it again for debate commentators, Maureen Dowd, Frank Bruni, and the rest of the bunch complicit with the GOP spin machine. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

Yeah it is pretty standard pro-Israeli stuff. If it makes you happy there are plenty of Jews who rather peculiarly won't support Hillary because she hugged Suha Arafat.

Many American political consultants work for foreign leaders. Why would it be illegal?

By the way the neo-Cons just show what happens when Leftists become Rightists and bring their assurance that they can change the world with them.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

No, Bev. Unlike Edwards, she stands by her vote.
He has repudiated his.
The only reason she voted for the war was political expediency. Did she believe Bush? Not too likely, and if she did, she's an idiot.
No one I know believed anything this administration put out about the war.
Anyone who did should flatout apologize.
She's a hawk and a neocon. She is not selling her soul for money or anything else. That is who she is.

No Madison, you are wrong. Maybe no one you know supported this war, but the majority of Americans polled at the beginning of it did support it, believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and believed that Iraq and Al Qaeda were connected. Just because the majority of people in this country trusted this administration it doesn't mean they're idiots or hawks or neocons - it means that they were betrayed and lied to and tricked into a war by this administration and the media which failed in examining the "evidence and claims" of this administration. Sen. Clinton has said that "if she knew then what she knows now, she would not have voted for the authorization."

Why anyone should apologize for trusting and relying on their government to be truthful and honest, especially in such a grave matter as war is beyond me. The people who should apologize are those that lied and tricked us into this war. Why should the American people have to apologize for believing and trusting this administration? This isn't the fault of the victims, this is the fault of the perpetrators. Your comments remind me of something Gerda Weissmann Klein said when asked why the Jews so docilely went to the camps, (and I am paraphrasing) "we couldn't believe that anyone was capable of such wickedness, we simply could not imagine it." Who in this country could have believed this administration capable of such wickedness, disregard for human life and sociopathological lying?

I've found in life that senators, congressmen, pundits and other sundry politicos really don't know anymore than we do about what's going on in the world and are as reliant as we are on a free and diligent press to present facts and information. What's the first thing they do in times of national crisis? Turn on CNN, just like us. They are just as reliant on the administration to brief them on events, actions and strategy as we are.

 I've found in life that senators, congressmen, pundits and other sundry politicos really don't know anymore than we do about what's going on in the world and are as reliant as we are on a free and diligent press to present facts and information.

Ahh....but the free and "diligent" press relies on the senators, congressmen and punditry get their facts and information.

You've hit on the real problem in today's news media environment.  

Very little actual reporting goes on within that free press of ours...

Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...

Exactly. Look at this piece of reporting - written by Ann Kornblutt, whose earlier reporting on Sen. Clinton was biased and tainted, an emphasis on Penn's financial status (everyone hates rich democrats because they're hypocrites if they're rich)and not one quote or comment from anyone in the Clinton campaign or Clinton herself. The only person who benefits from this piece and whose friends and business associates are quoted is Mark Penn. It reads like a business prospective, ("hey look how powerful I am!") and tells us nothing of Clinton.

Because it's smart politics. Everyone in this country knows it was a mistake. Everyone is against the war.

What could the RNC say? "Hillary Clinton voted for this war, and now she says it's a mistake!"

Well, yeah.

(Note, I could care less about an "apology." That's largely irrelevant. What's essential is she admit she made a mistake. Bush doesn't admit mistakes, either...that's what's troubling.) 

Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...