THE PLANK APRIL 14, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
A couple days ago, Ezra Klein suggested that Barack Obama's refusal to negotiate with Hamas is inconsistent with his beliefs and therefore must be a kowtow to the Israel lobby. I tried to explain that such a refusal is not at all inconsistent with Obama's position. Ezra, possibly unwilling to concede that on this narrow point he's simply wrong, replies with a flurry of unrelated arguments.
He begins, "Man, I remember last time Jon Chait was talking about "lefty foreign policy types," he was hating on them for opposing the Iraq War." Has it really been that long since I hated on lefty foreign policy types? I guess I need to pick up the pace. Anyway, I'm not sure what we're supposed to make of this. Does he object to being described as a "lefty foreign policy type?" If so, I apologize -- it struck me as a neutral description of someone who wants to move American foreign policy significantly leftward. I'll happily accept an alternate phrasing. However, I suspect the real purpose of this sentence was for Ezra to remind his readers that I'm a not-to-be-trusted hawk whose arguments they should disregard.
Next, Ezra subtly redefines the dispute. His item that I disagreed with claimed that Obama's stance on Hamas "doesn't really track with his past approach," and so he must have taken it because he "fears pressure" from the Israel lobby. Ezra now describes his position as saying Obama "might possibly be influenced" by the Israel lobby. I agree that it's possible that Obama's position might be influenced by the Israel lobby. But with all those qualifiers, that's a very weak statement.
Finally, Ezra turns the question into a normative debate about the perils of Israel's refusal to negotiate with Hamas. "Maybe Jon has some solution he's not telling anyone about," he snarks. No, sadly, I see nothing but bad alternatives But is it okay for me to make a narrow point about Obama and the Israel lobby, or must it be accompanied by a comprehensive Middle East peace plan?
--Jonathan Chait
8 comments
Again:
Ezra Klein = twit
- tomeg
April 14, 2008 at 1:15pm
Spencer Ackerman enters the fray on his new Attackerman blog:
-- And look: the politics of talking about Israel on the campaign trail are much different than talking about any other country. That’s all Ezra is saying. Nowhere in his post does he ever suggest, contra Jon’s headline, that Obama is a "puppet of the Israel lobby." It is, however, a plausible reading on Ezra’s part - absent, admittedly, any reporting from either Ezra, Jon or myself - that Obama might have decided the domestic political risks of coming out for negotiations with Hamas outweigh the benefits. Jon, do you really find this implausible?
thinkprogress.org/.../obamaezrachait
(crossposted from the now vanished earlier thread)
- ndmackenzie
April 14, 2008 at 1:34pm
"Next, Ezra subtly redefines the dispute. His item that I disagreed with claimed that Obama's stance on Hamas "doesn't really track with his past approach," "
I hate to say this, but Ezra Pound Klein may have a point. If by past stance on Hamas Ezra means an "Obama-Wright" foreign policy approach.
- jacksondyer
April 14, 2008 at 1:43pm
Spencer Ackerman= twit2
- jacksondyer
April 14, 2008 at 2:46pm
jackson - I respect your right to favor Hillary over Obama and to be concerned about the depth of Obama's support for Israel, but your reference to an "Obama-Wright foreign policy approach" is snark without substance. There is no evidence even remotely suggesting that Wright is a foreign policy mentor or influence on Obama. This is a departure from your usual insistence on substance and intellectual rigor.
- JackR
April 14, 2008 at 2:55pm
JackR I respect your right to favor Obama, also.
However, I want the Democrats to win in November and Obama is not going to do that.
If not Hillary, hopefully, the party will ask (beg) Al Gore to run.
At this point it's ABO (anyone but obama) for me.
- jacksondyer
April 14, 2008 at 3:46pm
jackson - Well, we seem to agree on our shared desire for the Democrats to win in November but disagree on who's more electable. Personally, I think it's a bit of a crapshoot--it's hard to find evidence for future events with so many intervening variables (e.g. more Tusla's? more Bittergates? or McCain worrying about all them Shia in India). I have a variety of reasons for preferring Obama, but on the issue of electability I'm puuting my faith (and that's pretty much what it is) in his proven ability as a campaigner eloquent enough to inspire hard-to-inspire young people, agile enough to survive rough scrapes like Wright and Bittergate. Of course I could be wrong. It might help him if he would pick Joe Biden, Jim Webb, or Ed Rendell for the Veep slot. Regarding just the electability issue, what are your specific concerns about Obama as our candidate and how do you see Hillary as more electable?
- JackR
April 14, 2008 at 6:05pm
JackR said: “jackson - Well, we seem to agree on our shared desire for the Democrats to win in November but disagree on who's more electable.”
Very true, Jackr. As to your specific questions, I am not going to answer them in detail because I have already written about them on so many websites that my hands feel “hoarse.”
Instead what I want to say is that I believe the Democratic primary process is broken and it needs to be fixed. (Probably the Republican too, but since I don’t vote there it’s I don’t care about it.)
Of all the great candidates that were available to the Democrats we ended up with two dubious candidates. Of the two, it’s no secret that I prefer Hillary. She is a known quantity and she is capable. Obama shows promise and a good manager of a major league baseball would have saved him for a later start up. He needs to mature politically and there is no hurry. He is young and if he is good as people think he can only get better with time.
For me he has made the kinds of mistakes in his campaign (that will cost him the election if he is nominated) that only a young brilliant novice who is full of self confidence and hubris can make. I won’t go into all the mistakes since they are prominently in the news.
In any case, I don’t see this as an Obama problem but a Democratic Party problem Since 1980 we have performed very poorly in elections (with few exceptions) so poorly in fact that if the Party were a private company it would have gone into bankruptcy a long time ago.
I don’t know if Hillary will win, but I do know she has a fighting chance. Her advantages are that many, many women of all backgrounds will be motivated to vote for her. She has gone through many campaigns and is a bull dog on the campaign trail. Besides once the nominee the Party will close behind her and present a unified face.
Obama has alienated too many people with his performance thus far. If McCain were to choose someone like Colin Powell as his VP Obama’s advantage even in the Black community will shrink to zero. I don’t think that any VP nominee will help Obama as much as a Powell will help McCain. Of course if McCain chooses a Romney type than the Democrats will be more competitive, but I won’t count on it.
Finally, though I don’t it, wish the silver lining in a McCain victory would be that he will take the Republican Party back to a more centrist position; away from the Limbaughs and the Gingriches. That in-itself will be good for our country.
- jacksondyer
April 14, 2008 at 8:59pm