Today, on Meet the Press, Nader was pressed by Timmeh on if he would be comfortable with Mccain as president. Nader, in response, replied with a criticism of Senator Obama's "self-censorship", using the example of Obama's current and former positions on the I/P Conflict.
How should Obama respond to this?
More below the fold.
I give you the example, the Palestinian-Israeli issue, which is a real off the table issue for the candidates. So don't touch that, even though it's central to our security and to, to the situation in the Middle East. He was pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois before he ran for the state Senate, during he ran--during the state Senate. Now he's, he's supporting the Israeli destruction of the tiny section called Gaza with a million and a half people. He doesn't have any sympathy for a civilian death ratio of about 300-to-1; 300 Palestinians to one Israeli. He's not taking a leadership position in supporting the Israeli peace movement, which represents former Cabinet ministers, people in the Knesset, former generals, former security officials, in addition to mayors and leading intellectuals. One would think he would at least say, "Let's have a hearing for the Israeli peace movement in the Congress," so we don't just have a monotone support of the Israeli government's attitude toward the Palestinians and their illegal occupation of Palestine.
MTP
Although both Senators Obama and Clinton are nearly identical in their voting record and policy statements on the I/P conflict, Nader singled out Obama.
Obama has been the subject of Email chains targeting the Jewish and Evangelical Christian Community, raising doubts about his committment ot a fully pro-Israel agenda. These range from silliness about his middle name and education, his participation in Nation of Islam community development initiatives, his home Church advocacy for divestment from Israel equities, and Obama's choice of advisors, Brzynski and Michael O. Malley.
Here is a nice summary of Obama's transgressions from MArk Zell, Co-Chairman of Republicans Abroad in Israel:
1
)Obama openly advocates outreach toward and diplomatic engagement of Iran even though Iran has recently referred to Israel as a "filthy bacteria" and has repeatedly called for the annihilation of the Jewish State, including recent hints that this will be accomplished by a nuclear attack
- "Nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people."
3)"[T]he creation of a wall [referring to Israel's security fence] dividing the two nations is yet another example of the neglect of this [the Bush] Administration in brokering peace... ."
4)"I am opposed to the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in the administration to shove their ideological agenda down our throat." [note that only Jews are singled out despite the fact that the policies in question were promoted by the entire Administration]
5)"Reverend [Al] Sharpton is a voice for the voiceless, and a voice for the dispossessed. What [Reverend Sharpton's] National Action Network has done is so important to change America, and it must be changed from the bottom up." [National Action lead a protest against the Jewish owner of Freddy's Fashion Mart in New York in which picketers, sometimes joined by Sharpton himself, repeatedly screamed epithets about "bloodsucking Jews" and "Jew bastards."]
Obama was the only Democratic candidate who said the onus was on Israel to change its policies vis-à-vis the Palestinians in order to achieve peace.
Jerusalem Post
Pretty serious stuff, eh?
So, how should Obama Respond to Nader?
AS I saee it, he has four choices
Choice 1: Just ignore it. Nader isn't a player, nothing to lose by putting him on ignore.
Choice 2: Straddle, find a typical Clintonian/John Boltonish formulaic statement that says the suffering of the Palestinians is regrettable, but "Israel has a right to defend herself"
Choice 3: Come out an explain his full throated and unequivocal support of Israel and her policies in the territories during these difficult times.
Choice 4: Drive the discourse towards concrete steps to resolve the crisis, with fairness and justice for both parties.
What would you advise? Can he triangulate this to avoid raising the iure of one interest group or another? Or should he make a conscience based appeal for a peaceful resolution?
From an electability perspective, which posture would yield the most advantage?