In the right’s continuing quest to damage Obama by any means necessary, they have found a useful ally in Jeralyn Merritt’s dog-whistle bigotry at Talk Left. Evidently, according to Merritt, Obama’s even-handedness over I/P issues raises troubling questions. I realize that this type of argument represents the inherent weakness of arguments coming from Clintonites about Obama’s electability, and I could care less that they support Clinton, but as a tactic, the argument bears the mark of the Beast, nonetheless, by playing fear, race, religion, and nationalism cards in one swell foop. Here is Merritt playing "telephone" with whispers that Obama has expressed dangerously kind words toward Palestinian friends.
...And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.
Their belief is not drawn from Obama's speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.
Aside from calling into question Obama’s honesty, this is a transparent attempt to smear Obama with anti-Israeli and anti-American values. And being present at events allowing free speech and dissent in America? I suppose Merritt included this quote to flash her own "America, Love It or Leave It" credo, but really, is he openly anti-Israeli and –American or only surreptitiously anti-Israeli and –American?
Merritt then pulls some citations out of Abe Foxman’s ass to bolster the point that Clinton’s pro-Israel stance is known, whereas Obama is untested, despite his repeated claims to being a stalwart supporter of Israel and its security needs.
Here’s part of the article using a direct quote from Obama on the issue that Merritt doesn’t see fit to include:
His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."
OMG. Obama will be a President with a flexible, open mind, capable of learning things from conversations with other people, and he will use that ability to reason-through-dialog around the entire world. Oh noes. wE can has d00m.
Now, here’s a quote from an actual ally of Palestine on the issue:
"I am confident that Barack Obama is more sympathetic to the position of ending the occupation than either of the other candidates," said Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow for the American Task Force on Palestine, referring to the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that began after the 1967 war. More than his rivals for the White House, Ibish said, Obama sees a "moral imperative" in resolving the conflict and is most likely to apply pressure to both sides to make concessions.
"That's my personal opinion," Ibish said, "and I think it for a very large number of circumstantial reasons, and what he's said."
What a crazy rag-headed lunatic! Talking about moral imperatives in resolving the I/P by pressuring them for concessions on both sides? What the heck is wrong with the way things are currently going?
The central message of the Merritt’s dog-whistling alarms is this:
Who else are the Obama powers hiding while there are still so many serious questions floating out there among Jews about the man who would be president?
This is Talk Left’s new brand of blogging. I’m sure they’d defend themselves by saying that Obama is ambiguous on the issues, and they are merely pointing that out. In truth, this is nothing but false smears playing on closed-minded bigotry, because inherent to this argument, one cannot be pro-Israel and pro-Palestine. Two-state solution? Never heard of it. Does that also mean that American Palestinians and Jews cannot claim loyalty to America and to Palestine or Israel? Because we really need to know who’s on our (American) side, so we can single out the traitors. Talk Left really used to be a lot better than that. I suppose they’ll be calling for Jimmy Carter’s head next. Right?
Her selective quotes are mainly from this LA Times story.