Beating the Bushes:

Barack Obama: The Enemy of My Enemy

  

Barack Obama's back campaigning on American soil after his tour of Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Germany, Paris and London.  Never has a mere "presumptive nominee" received so much press.  Indeed, the three major news anchors went along with him. And depending on what you read or who you listened to, Senator Obama's world tour was a towering success, an embarrassing failure, or the second coming of John, Paul, George and Ringo.  Obama supporters kvelled over his dignified mien, his ability to articulate issues and the almost nonstop adulation he received everywhere he went.  "Finally, finally," his supporters cheered, "an American leader who isn't an embarrassment."  Obama detractors kvetched about what they saw as nothing more than a brazen breach of diplomatic protocol.  "How dare he," they sniffed, "strut about as if he were President of the United States?  Who does he think he is?" 

   I had to laugh when a couple of the conservative talking heads referred to him as a "liberal elitist."  Only in America could the mixed-race son of single mother who was raised by his grandparents be portrayed as an elitist, while the scion of an east-coast WASP dynasty who, like his ancestors, attended Andover, Harvard and Yale, become a "good-ole boy."
  
   Poor John McCain was beside himself during Obama's week away, feeling the loneliness of the only kid on the block not invited to Disneyland.  The nadir of his week came when he traveled up to New Hampshire, only to be met by a single solitary reporter.  In their desperation, the McCain camp tried to turn the cameras their way, one day hinting that their guy was about to name his V.P.,  another questioning Senator Obama's experience, knowledge and patriotism.  Try as he may though, Senator McCain just couldn't gain traction.  The Obama world tour was just too overwhelming an event for anyone in the media to pay McCain much attention. What airtime they did give him wasn't especially flattering; one day he mistakenly referred to the "Afghanistan-Pakistan border," and another he claimed that "the surge" was responsible for the so-called "Sunni Awakening."  

   Oops!

   I for one was particularly interested in how Senator Obama would come across in Israel.  To my way of thinking, he "hit all the right notes"-- but with a difference: he didn't sound like a politician merely attempting to curry favor.  Rather he looked, sounded and spoke like a man with a passion for justice and a clear understanding of history.    

   Despite this, there is still a hard-core of American-Jewish voters who continue buying in to the "Obama's a Muslim," Obama's Osama's Candidate," "Obama will sell out Israel" schools of thought.  To all of them -- and the numbers are apparently shrinking -- I ask that they both remember and ponder an age-old expression:

   "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

   Where in the world does the expression come from?  Well, in the Hebrew Bible [Exodus, 23:22], we find God telling the Israelites that if they fully obey, then "v'ayavti et oyvecha v'tzarti et tzo-r'recha," viz: "I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries."  Likewise, the Chinese have a saying that goes, "It is good to strike the serpent's head with the fist of your enemy." 

   One living, breathing example of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" goes back to the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C.E.  For those who remember their ancient history, the Greek city-states -- a tangled web of argumentative antagonists -- managed to put aside their differences in order to go to war against the Persians, who were their common enemy.  In a sense, the various city-states had the Persians to thank for bringing them together -- if only to beat the daylights out of their common enemy. 

   You may well ask: What in the world does this have to do with Barack Obama, Israel and the American-Jewish community?

   The answer is both simple and direct:

    To much of the Arab world, Barack Obama, far from being their "stealth candidate" is, in fact, viewed as just another American politician  in thrall to the Zionists!

   The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

   Need proof?  Consider the following editorial cartoons, which have recently run in various Middle Eastern publications:

This cartoon ran in Ar-Risala ["The Message"], a Palestinian Authority publication, on June 22, 2008.  The headline translates: The Wagon [that gets you] to the White House."  The quip translates, "Obama's view."

This cartoon ran in Al-Ghad, Jordan's
only independent Arabic-language 
paper on June 9, 2008.  It simply
reads: "Obama, the American
Candidate."

 
This cartoon ran in the Saudi paper
Al-Watan on June 10, 2008. As one can
clearly see, it is putting McCain and Obama into the same "pocket." 

This example comes from www.amin.org an Arabmedia website which serves as a platform for both cartoonists and columnists from all over the Arab world. This particular cartoon ran in Bahrain.

Finally, we have this example from Al-Ittihad ["The Union"], a United Arab Emirati Newspaper.  Published on June 10, 2008, its headline reads: "Obama: 'Jerusalem should be Israel's Capital.'" 

  

[Note: These and other cartoons were gleaned from the Anti-Defamation League website.]  

    Do the cartoons above provide conclusive proof that Barack Obama was, is, and always shall be a friend of Israel?  For those who already support him, no such proof is necessary. For those who are continually suspicious, no amount of proof, I fear, will ever be enough.  I can even hear some proclaiming, "Ah, it's all a conspiracy!  The Muslims have banded together to make it seem like they're anti-Obama, just so that we'll vote for him."  Oh well, some people just don't want to be confused with facts.

   To me, the facts speak for themselves.  Senator Obama went to Israel as a close ally, spoke there as a good friend, and returned home an even more enlightened candidate. Those who will continually challenge his credentials or demean the true excitement he brings by comparing him to Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton [!] are way off the mark.  Those who truly love America -- its hopes and history, its dreams and energy indeed, its Constitution -- need only look at those who are disparaging Senator Obama in order to understand that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

• Those who would turn back the clock to the 1920s are my enemy; and so too are they the enemy of Senator Obama.
• Those who believe that the purpose of government is to protect the perquisites of the wealthy and oversee the morality of the masses are my enemy; and so too are they the enemy of Senator Obama.
• Those who look at the Middle East and see only pipelines and barrels of oil are my enemy; and so too are they the enemy of Senator Obama.
• Those who run on platforms of fear rather than hope are my enemy; and so too are they the enemy of Senator Obama.

   Yes indeed, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

   And from where I sit, Senator Barack Obama is our friend . . .

 

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

It's Not Just the Technology, Stupid

    It has been nearly a half-century since President John F. Kennedy proffered one of the most audacious challenges in all human history: to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely to earth -- and all within a single decade.  Imagine that: nearly a half century!  Where has the time gone? 

   For many Americans, Kennedy's bold challenge -- and its very success -- became the gold standard for national pride and optimism.  Indeed, for nearly two generations now, America's "can-do" attitude has been perhaps best expressed in that well-known construction, "Any country that can land a man on the moon can . . ."

   Over the years this formula has been used almost to the point of exhaustion.  At any given point in time the "Any country that can land a man on the moon can . . . " construct has been the "A-side" of such varied challenges as:

• Ending world hunger
• Eliminating poverty
• Conquering cancer, and now 
• Making America energy self-sufficient

   Ever since Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins reified JFK's bold vision, America -- as many would have it -- has suffered from the lack of a great national challenge; that so-called "B-side" of the "Any country that can land a man on the moon can . . ."formula. Oh yes, we've occasionally been subjected to such rhetorical devices as the "War on Terror," or the "War on Poverty," but these are not national challenges in any real sense of the term. In recent memory, the challenge has been to "go shopping," or to accept constraints and abridgements of personal freedom as a way of safeguarding and maintaining personal freedom.  [Anyone who understands the logic of this, please get contact me ASAP.]  

   This past Thursday, Vice President Al Gore issued what is easily the boldest, most audacious challenge since the days of JFK: national energy independence within ten years.  In a speech to the bipartisan Alliance for Climate Protection Gore, the alliance's chair, issued a challenge to totally remake the way America generates and uses power.  The Gore challenge would see the country moving to "renewable energy and truly clean, carbon-free sources" to power the nation's homes, plants and transportation.  And all within a single decade!

   Talk about a supreme national challenge.

   Already, we can hear both "side-A" and "side-B" coalescing into that marvelous construction: "Any country that can land a man on the moon can definitely create energy independence within a decade."

   Well, as the old Yiddish expression goes, Fuhn dein moyl adztu gaht's oyren -- "From your mouth to God's ears."

   Although both Vice President Gore and his far-reaching proposal have received a lot of positive press in recent days, there are those who are questioning, lampooning and even denigrating. ("Once again, the Goracle speaks!") Despite the fact that most thinking people both appreciate and understand the incredible importance of Gore's challenge, there are, nonetheless, lots of folks who think that what he's proposing is unobtainable, undoable --and not just because he's calling for it to be accomplished within the next ten years.

   Sadly, these folks are probably correct -- but probably not for the reasons they think.  The problem with the "B-side" of the equation is not -- indeed has rarely been -- within the realm of science or technology.  Indeed, if the flip-side of "Any country that can send a man to the moon can . . ." was technologic or scientific, poverty, hunger and cancer -- to name but three of humanity's most pressing ills -- would have been eradicated long ago. Rather, it is precisely because the "B-side" generally resides in the realm of government, politics and economics that Gore's great challenge is going to take far, far longer than a mere ten years.

   Kennedy's great challenge -- unlike Gore's -- did not require radical changes in the way the nation's signal industries did business.  Neither Gemini nor Apollo required the Big-Three automakers to retool; the space program was never a threat to Exxon, Mobil or Shell; it in no way altered international commerce or our balance of payments. It is precisely because Gemini and Apollo were creatures of cutting-edge science and technology that Kennedy's challenge could be met  . . . and on time. 

    Al Gore's challenge for energy independence is not just a question of science or technology.  If it were, we could reasonably expect success within a decade. Sadly, the greatest impediments to energy independence are neither a lack of brains nor a dearth of technological know-how; rather, it is a stunning lack of will and an overabundance of shortsightedness. To wit, it's not just the technology, stupid; it's the macro-economics and geopolitics.

   Oil -- and its many, many byproducts -- isn't just used for the fuel that goes into automobiles, trucks, jet airplanes or ships.  From oil we get plastic and literally hundreds if not thousands or tens of thousands of products in daily use.  A total shift from a petroleum-based economy to one based on solar, wind, geothermal -- and who knows, perhaps one day even anti-matter -- requires nothing short of a social, political and economic revolution.  Its advantages are both many and obvious:

• A cleaner, healthier, more sustainable planet.
• Far, far fewer dollars going from our shores into the pockets of Middle Eastern tyrants.
• Millions of brand new jobs in brand new industries.
• A renewed sense of national purpose and optimism.

   As I see things, there are a couple of major obstacles standing in the way of meeting Gore's great challenge. 

   First, is industrial intransigence and shortsightedness.  Whether it is right or wrong, most corporate CEOs are far more concerned with the next quarter than with the next decade or century.  American tire manufacturers, as an example, have had the ability to market tires good for 250,000 miles or more for many years.  They chose not to of course, because were they to do so, customers wouldn't be purchasing tires nearly so often.  Likewise the oil industry which, so long as there is black gold to be explored, drilled, imported, refined and sold, are loathe to revamp, retool or rethink their future modus operandi.   

   A second major obstacle is what historian Rick Shenkman calls our national stupidity. "We the People" may well be "outraged" by high prices at the pump and "concerned" about global warming; nonetheless, we still seem to spend far more time casting blame than supporting solutions.  If Al Gore's great challenge is to have a snowball's chance of success, it will require an immense investment on the part of "We the People."  We will have to make our demands for renewable energy as loudly heard as has been our pique at high prices.  We will have to make our desire for energy independence real through tangible acts, whether it be using far less gas, giving our precious votes only to those who, like Al Gore are up to the challenge, or above all, by coming to realize that we are as much a part of the problem as we are of the solution.

    Can Al Gore's challenge be met within a decade?  If technology were all that stood in our path, I think the answer would be a resounding "YES!"  For, "Any country that can send a man to the moon CAN become energy independent."  But it's not just the technology, stupid.  Its also economics, geopolitics and, dare we say, human nature itself, that stand in the roadway.

   As JFK used to say -- borrowing a page from Confucius -- "A journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step."

   Al Gore has taken that step.  Its now up to all of us to join him on the long trek.

   It's not just the technology, stupid!

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

  

     

What If . . .?

   One of my favorite "parlor games" from years gone by was "What if . . .?"  The rules of the game were the essence of simplicity: one person would pose a "What if . . .?" kind of question -- almost invariably historic -- then everyone would get a chance to give an answer and try convincing us that their case made the best sense.

   To this day, I often find myself playing "What if . . .?" in my own mind whenever stuck on an airplane or driving endless miles on some boring stretch of I-95.  Among my favorite historic "What ifs . . .?" are:

• What if Moses had led the Israelites to present-day Saudi Arabia instead of Israel?
• What if Napoleon had won at Waterloo?
• What if the South had won the Civil War?
• What if John Wilkes Booth's bullet had missed Abraham Lincoln?
• What if Hitler had won the Second World War? and
• What if the U.S. Supreme Court had decided in favor of Al Gore?

   Then too, there are the more trivial, less earth-shattering "What ifs . . .?"

• What if James Dean hadn't died at age 24?
• What if Sandy Koufax hadn't retired from baseball at age 30?
• What if Bill Gates had decided to stay in school?
• What if the remote control had never been invented?

   So where's all this headed?  

   Why to our three "What ifs . . .?" of the day: 

• What if the New Yorker had decided not to run Barry Blitt's satirical cartoon?
• What if, say, National Review had run a satirical cartoon on John McCain? and
• What if the American public wasn't afflicted with such overwhelming political A.D.D.?

     
   By now, seemingly everyone from Kansas to Khartoum has weighed in on what they think about Blitt's cartoon gracing the cover of this week's New Yorker.  "Is it satiric or is it libelous?" that is the question --  posed by literally tens of thousands of editorialists, talking heads and bloggers.  I for one am both upset and dispirited -- not so much by the cartoon or the question surrounding its propriety -- but by the haunting feeling that so very few will take the time to read Ryan Lizza's insightful article on Senator and Mrs. Obama that runs inside that New Yorker.  If they do, they will see that Blitt's cartoon is more come-on than commentary; a ham-handed way of getting people to buy this week's issue in the first place.  Viewed from that perspective, David Remnick, the New Yorker publisher, has succeeded beyond his wildest expectation; this week's issue is bound to sell like hotcakes. 

   My fear -- and the cause of my upset -- is that where the vast majority of folks will come to know the Blitt lampoon like the back of their hand, very few will have the sitzfleisch to read the accompanying article.  Increasingly we have become a society that scans rather than reads; that favors titillation over elucidation; that more often than not gets its information from those who entertain rather than from those who educate. Indeed, if the gap between the super-rich and the rest of us is vast; that which exists between the "plugged-in" and the "logged-off" is of chasmic proportions. 

   Those who do take the time to read Lizza's 14,550-plus word article will be treated to a fine piece of journalism. Lizza -- one of the first serious journalists to put the presidential bug in Obama's ear -- guides readers through the step-by-step political maze by which Obama progressed from community organizer to state senator, from to failed Congressional candidate, to United States Senator, and from primary aspirant to presidential nominee.  At each step along the path, we see both Obama's growth as a creature of politics as well as his undeniable ability to learn from his political mistakes.  In the end, the most important lesson Lizza teaches is, perhaps, that "Superheroes don't become president; politicians do."

   But back to the "What ifs . . .?"

   What if, say, the conservative National Review had run a "satiric" cover on John McCain?  What would it look like?  What would people be complaining about?  Well, the other day, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's Pulitzer-prize winning political cartoonist David Horsey came up with one such example.  As you can see, it shows a wheel-chair bound McCain sitting next to wife Cindy, who is dumping pills out of a bottle into her husband's hand.  While Senator McCain hums "Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran" [sung to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara-Ann,"] Cindy says, "Here John, take some of my meds to get you through the inaugural parade!"  Where Blitt's cartoon has a painting of Osama bin Laden on the wall, Horsey's has Dick Cheney.  Where the Obama cartoon has an American flag burning in the fireplace, the McCain version has the Constitution going up in flames.  There are, to be certain a couple of key differences between the two cartoons.  Most obviously, Horsey's McCain caricature hasn't graced the cover of a national magazine, where Blitt's has.  Second, and more importantly, where the McCain cartoon lampoons things which are true -- i.e., Senator McCain is a senior citizen and did once sing "Bomb-bomb-bomb . . ." -- the Obama sketch satirizes untruths, distortions, and misconceptions. 

   So "What if . . ." the American public could get over what newscaster Rachael Maddow calls our collective "Political Attention Deficit Disorder?"  Well, first of all, it is highly likely that most of the "newscasters" on Fox and the talkmeisters on conservative radio would be out looking for new careers. Second, voters would begin demanding that both candidates and the media which covers them deal far more with issues, and far less with personalities.  And thirdly, we might finally, finally come to understand that like it or not, only political professionals win elections. If perfection is what we're looking for or demanding in our leaders, we will be far better off renting "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." 

   PS:  If great political satire is what you're after, might I recommend Jonathan Swift?

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

           



 

Pangloss for President?

   All those with a good literate memory -- or a memory for good literature -- will remember Dr. Pangloss, a central character in Voltaire's satire Candide. Pangloss -- from the Greek πᾶν (pan: all) and γλῶσσα (glossa: tongue) -- is young Candide's tutor. He is the self-proclaimed métaphysico-théologo cosmolonigologie -- an "optimistic metaphysician," who views everything through the rosiest of rose-colored glasses.  To the good doctor, this is "the best of all possible worlds."  Pangloss may be a lovely fellow, but he is an ass nonetheless. 

   In the course of Voltaire's bildungsroman, Candide and his tutor witness a series of horrifying spectacles, including the devastating Lisbon earthquake of 1755.  In the end, having seen and experienced so much of the world's pain and woe, Candide despairs; he both rejects and "is cured of" Pangloss' rosy optimism.  The novella's conclusion is deeply enigmatic, for we the reader -- like Candide himself -- are unresolved as to which is the "next best" philosophy to accept. 

   Despite having his eyes opened to the "real world," Candide is unsure of precisely what he has seen, what he believes, or how to respond to it all . . .  

   It would seem that many Obama supporters are now caught up in the "Candide conundrum:"  not knowing what they are seeing, what they believe, or how to respond to it all.  

   Specifically, we refer to what the media have been calling the senator's "flip-flops" and "backtracks."  The press has had a field day scoring Senator Obama's "change of position" on withdrawal from Iraq.  Both the blogosphere and many of his supporters are confused, disconsolate-- even apoplectic -- over his vote in favor of the FISA Act -- the very one he had previously promised to filibuster if it included retroactive immunity for the telecoms.

      The senator's so-called "flip-flop" on Iraq is, to quote the Bard, "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."  On July 8, the Washington Times posted a version of an AP article that asserted: "On Iraq, he has gone from hard-line opposition to the war to more nuanced rhetoric that calls for a troop drawdown process that could last 16 months." The Times and other media outlets also find a "change" or "flip-flop" in the senator's contention that he will have to consult with "commanders on the ground" before making any hard and fast decisions about the precise timing of troop withdrawals. This is nothing new; Senator Obama has been saying this all along. For proof, we offer for comparison a handful of on-the-record statements Senator Obama has made during the course of the campaign:

• Sept. 17, 2007 on NPR's All Things Considered: "If commanders came to me and said, 'We are making progress in reducing violence,' and I see continual political progress taking place, then obviously that's going to be weighed . . ."
• Nov. 1, 2007 in a New York Times interview: "I want to talk to the military commanders on the ground . . . . If there is some sense of security, then that means one level of force. If you continue to have sectarian conflict, that means another . . ."
• Mar. 2, 2008 Washington Post foreign policy Q&A: "What I've been very clear about is that I will always listen to commanders on the ground, but ultimately the commander in chief sets the mission."
• July 3, 2008 in Fargo, North Dakota: "When I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies."

    You tell me: where are is the "flip-flop?"  Where is the change in strategy or rhetoric?  Truth to tell, there is none.  Unfortunately though, many folks accept biased headlines and cynical, self-serving opening paragraphs as the full story.  The truth is out there for all to see, read and digest . . . if only we're willing.

   Senator Obama's FISA vote is another issue.  Yes, he did go on record as saying he would filibuster against any bill that had retroactive immunity for the telecoms.  Yes, he said this more than once.  And yes, he did vote for the bill, unlike Senator Clinton and 27 of their Democratic colleagues.  I for one am in total disagreement with the senator; he should have voted against the FISA bill.  However, to the thinking of many, this is by no means a "deal-breaker."  We cannot -- must not -- become Candides who, having witnessed that which is ugly or disagreeable, lose all faith.

    Again, I do not agree with Senator Obama's vote.  However, I can understand it.  As the Democrats' presumptive candidate, he daily traduces the treacherous chasm betwixt Scylla and Charybdis.  Its the classic "lose-lose," "damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't scenario":  Vote for passage of the FISA act, and many of your supporters will threaten to desert you; vote against it, then McCain and the 527s will attack you for being "weak on terror." 

   Yes, it was a calculated political act; one that only time will tell if it was worth the cost.  But mark this well: Barack Obama is not Dr. Pangloss, and we are not Candide.  Anyone who feels like the stars have been forced from their eyes, has not been seeing the real Barack Obama.  For truth to tell (and I'm sorry to have to inject a healthy dollop of realism into the cauldron) Senator Barack Obama is running for President of the United States.  And the only people who will ever occupy that hallowed office are politicians, not optimistic metaphysicians. 

   Both historically and strategically, Republicans generally run as far to the right as they dare during primaries; Democrats run as far to the left as is comfortable.  And then, once general election season rolls around, both move toward the plausible middle.  That's just the way things are done, like it or not. 

   There are several "flip-flops" on Senator McCain's "Straight Talk" record, but for some reason, these are rarely covered.  It is indeed hard to find headlines or tv teasers about McCain's change of heart on off-shore drilling and the use of ethanol (now he's for it), the Bush tax cuts (he voted against them three times, and now wants to make them permanent) or his "100 years in Iraq" balderdash.  But that's politics, and only politicians get elected president.

    To all those who are disheartened by Senator Obama's vote on FISA, or fear that he has "backtracked" on Iraq, please remember this: that come November, we are not casting votes for the Messiah, a paragon of virtue or a man of utter consistancy. We are supposed to be voting for the candidate we believe will offer the best leadership for both America and the world. 

   If for you this is indeed the case, then Senator Obama wins hands down. 

   However, if you want to continue wearing rose-color glasses and seeking perfection, then cast your vote for Dr. Pangloss. 

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

The Maggot in the Cheese

   Flipping through an old album the other day, I came across two photos that brought back some pretty distressing memories: one of then-Senator Dan Quayle, standing and shaking hands with yours truly, surrounded by a bunch of well-dressed gentlemen; the other of then-Senator Jesse Helms, standing and shaking hands with still yours truly surrounded by the same bunch of well-dressed gentlemen. I'm the one in the blue blazer with a fairly dyspeptic look on his face. [Note: Eerily, within 24 hours of posting this piece comes the announcement that Senator Helms has died.]

   The photos were taken nearly twenty-five years ago when I was an officer of something called GOPAC -- the Gold Coast Political Action Committee.  The group's raison d'être was providing a maximum of $5,000 in campaign funds to those members of Congress the group deemed "good and reliable friends of Israel."   While on the surface this sounds both great and straightforward, there was a problem -- that which poet Edna St. Vincent Millay once called "The maggot in the cheese, the canker in the leaf."   You see, we were a "single-issue" PAC.  What this means is that the only yardstick we used to measure or evaluate the various representatives and senators was the quality of their support for Israel.  For many GOPAC members Israel was the only issue that mattered.

   "Back in the day," I argued long, hard and -- as it turned out,  unsuccessfully -- for us to use an expanded, more diffuse measuring device: a multi-issue approach. Under this proposal, we would look at where potential recipients stood -- and how they had voted -- on ten or more critical issues after we had first determined that he or she was a "good and reliable friend of Israel."  I remember warning the well-dressed gentlemen that "If the only issue by which we judge these guys is Israel, I promise you that the day will come when we  find ourselves making contributions to people with whom we disagree on most everything else -- like economy, Social Security, healthcare,  the environment, etc. . . ."  In political jargon, what I was arguing for was something called a "Mic-Pac," a "multiple-issue" political action committee.

   I lost that battle.  Hence the dyspeptic, "maggot in the cheese, canker in the leaf" grimace on my face in the two old photos.

   To a great degree, many American Jews still employ this single-issue yardstick in measuring a politician's worth -- no matter whether it be the current "Disaster in Chief" or a candidate for president, the Senate or House.   I can't tell you how many of my university students have informed me that "George W. Bush is the best friend Israel ever had."   Whenever I've asked them to back up their statement with examples or facts -- or have asked the simple question "Do you think he's been good for America? -- I'm generally met with either silence or a harangue against Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy and Obama.  In the first case -- about him being "the best friend Israel ever had" -- I presume they mean that he has essentially left the Jewish State alone to do pretty much as she wishes.  Well now, if that's the measure of a "best friend," then I must not understand the meaning of the term.  In the second case -- about W. being "good for America" -- I take the relative silence to be an indication that the person is loathe to say "yes," but can't quite bring him or herself to say "no."   Perhaps they're beginning to discover their own "maggot in the cheese" or "canker in the leaf." 

   In the race between Senators Obama and McCain, this "single-issue vs. "multiple-issue" argument is of absolutely vital, absolutely critical importance.  I firmly believe that the candidate who will ultimately be best for America -- and the world -- on a wide range of issues, will ultimately be best for Israel.  Simply stated, one cannot be "best for America" and at the same time be "not good for Israel."  To my way of thinking, it is counterintuitive. 

   To my way of thinking, there is no contest:  Barack Obama is the candidate who will be "best for America," and therefore "best for Israel." 

   I do not address myself to the benighted souls who persist in forwarding all those emails warning that Senator Obama is a Muslim, a terrorist, or some sort of dyed-in-the-wool Marxist.  These are probably the same folks who believe that Jim Morrison is alive, well, and recording under an assumed voice.

   There are obviously a sizable number of people out there who wouldn't vote for Barack Obama if he were the last candidate on earth; perhaps because he's an African American, perhaps because he's a progressive Democrat.  And some of them are still going out of their way to convince others of the "truths" that they "know" about the senator.  Why just the other day, I received  a rather large envelope from one "Ari ben Canaan" on "Rehov Irgun" in Israel.  [This is obviously a made-up name: "Ari ben Canaan" was the protagonist in Leon Uris' novel Exodus.]  Inside the envelope were nearly a dozen different articles, their assorted authors all "proving" that Senator Obama has long planned on running for president just so he can annihilate the Jewish State.  In his cover letter, Mr. "ben Canaan" compared me to Julius Lowenthal, the "biggest fool on the ship of fools," and told me to "Wake up and smell the friend chicken, Schmuck!" 

    Alice (mom) always taught us not to argue with crazy people, so I chose not to answer him.  But Mr. "ben Canaan" is merely the tip of the iceberg; there are lots of crazy people out there who just won't consider that Senator Obama, who will be best for America, will also be best for Israel.

   I certainly understand how critically important the State of Israel is -- to the Jewish people, to America, and indeed, to freedom-loving people the world over.  At the same time, I understand that many people will base their decision on who they will vote for on the single issue of Israel.  But this is a dangerous trap.  For what will America -- not to mention Israel -- have gained if the next President of the United States continues to support policies that have made us into a fearful nation, enriched the ineffably wealthy, caused our economy to tumble which in turn has forced millions out of their jobs, and left tens of millions without health insurance?

   The answer is nothing . . . absolutely nothing. 

  When it comes to Israel, both Obama and McCain have shown themselves to be "good and reliable friends," no matter what the anti-Obama contingent will claim.  It seems to me that the only way to avoid or forgo "The maggot in the cheese, the canker in the leaf," is to compare the two on issues of peace and economy, environment and education, labor, equality and civic pride. If we can escape the trap of  "single-issue" voting, we will wind up with a president who is not only "best for America," but "best for Israel" as well.  The two are inextricably bound.   

   To my mind, the greatest investment America can make in Israel's future is an Obama presidency. 

©2008 Kurt F. Stone