"He is not as pro-Israel as he appeared to be." [UPDATED AGAIN]

(Whatever you do, please don't miss the updates.  Just look for the red.  And don't miss the comment thread.)

Keep an eye on this:  Barack Obama "clarifies" what he meant by an "undivided" Jerusalem. 

[A] campaign adviser clarified Thursday that Obama believes "Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties" as part of "an agreement that they both can live with."

"Two principles should apply to any outcome," which the adviser gave as: "Jerusalem remains Israel's capital and it's not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967."

He refused, however, to rule out other configurations, such as the city also serving as the capital of a Palestinian state or Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods.

"Beyond those principles, all other aspects are for the two parties to agree at final status negotiations," the Obama adviser said. [...]

Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America and another Jewish activist who had originally lauded Obama's statement, now called the candidate's words "troubling."

"It means he used the term inappropriately, possibly to mislead strong supporters of Israel that he supports something he doesn't really believe," Klein charged.

But congressman Robert Wexler, a Democrat from Florida with ties to the Jewish community and a long-time supporter of Obama, rejected the idea that the Illinois senator had been misleading with his comments.

"Everyone knows that Jerusalem is a final status issue. That is not a secret to anyone. Senator Obama says emphatically that should the Israelis and the Palestinians negotiate [an agreement], he will respect their conclusions and that he will not dictate a particular resolution."

And some groups were pleased by the clarification on Jerusalem provided by the campaign.

"There was reaction from some of our base who were taken aback by it and thought he was undermining the peace process," said Americans for Peace Now spokesman Ori Nir, who described his organization as "gratified" by the clarified position which seems to follow APN's policy that sovereignty of Jerusalem could be shared in a final peace settlement.

I post this not as one who thinks exclusive Jewish possession of Jerusalem is even possible, but as one who recognizes the near universality of but still dislikes the "tell 'em what they want to hear" school of politics.  I think it is possible to unequivocally support the security of our ally Israel and still insist that Israel will have to make some concessions if achieving a two-state solution is even to be possible (as most Israelis understand).  That is probably Obama's true position.  He harms himself by not being honest about it.

UPDATE:  Every word of this essay by Virginia Postrel (recommended by Sissy in the comments) is painfully brilliant.  Especially this:

Glamour is a beautiful illusion—the word glamour originally meant a literal magic spell—that promises to transcend ordinary life and make the ideal real. It depends on a special combination of mystery and grace. Too much information breaks the spell. So does obvious effort. [...]  To rely on illusions is to risk disillusionment.

I'm not sure you can stop people from falling in love politically any more than you can stop them from falling in love privately, even when what they are falling in love with is a projection of their own fantasies.  But when it's the presidency of the United States, rather than the presidency of one's heart, the stakes are collective.  I started out to say they're "higher," but romantic love can also lead people to self-destruction -- just one at a time.

If Obama is elected, it'll be as big a gamble as love at first sight and a wedding in Vegas three weeks later.  And that is, in its way, tempting -- a rush.  You want to go with your heart.  You want to dare, to fling yourself into the future.  Sometimes people get lucky.  Often not.

I'm reminded of a joke from back in the '80s, told to me by a friend in Massachusetts, a postal worker's daughter who'd become a star in real-estate sales.  (You have to read in the Boston accent, like in "The Depahted" -- "My haaht.")

My heart says vote for Bush.

But my bush says vote for Hart.

UPDATE II:  Jesus, I can't believe I'm reading this.  Pastor Jeff found it.  Discussed in the comments.

Even Bill Clinton, with all his effortless, winking charm, didn't have what Obama has, which is a sort of powerful luminosity, a unique high-vibration integrity. [...]

Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul. [...]

There's a vast amount of positive energy swirling about that's been held back by the armies of BushCo darkness, and this energy has now found a conduit, a lightning rod, is now effortlessly self-organizing around Obama's candidacy. People and emotions and ideas of high and positive vibration are automatically drawn to him. It's exactly like how Bush was a magnet for the low vibrational energies of fear and war and oppression and aggression, but, you know, completely reversed. And different. And far, far better.

Gag me with a rune!

Comments

[Clark]

It was quite an error to call for an undivided Jerusalem. That is considered a far right position among Israelies. I don't think he meant to say that.

Since both Isreal and Palestine insist on having their capitols in Jerusalem, they are going to have to get very chummy with each other in order to have a final peace settlement. Of course we expect this to happen by the time Bush leaves office, 'cause he said so. :)

[Pastor_Jeff]

Given that "divided" Jerusalem from '48 to '67 meant ethnic cleansing, barbed wire, and no entry for Jews, and that the Palestinians have made it clear that's what they'd like to return to, one would think an undivided Jerusalem is not particularly a "conservative" position. But YMMV.

Anyway, cut the guy some slack. He held firm for a day, until Fatah complained.

[Sissy Willis]

Apparently a lot of folks think they know "Obama's true position," based upon what Virginia Postrel identifies as "the personal qualities and political positions they want in a president," which they project upon the "glamorous" fellow. Are we all pre-pubescent young girls now?

[amba]

Dear God, that's brilliant.

[Meade]

Brilliant is right. Thanks, Amba, Sissy, Virginia.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

The underlying difficulty is that we all want to know what Obama really really believes.

Personally, I think he really really believes he'd like to be President.

[Pastor_Jeff]

That is indeed an unbelievably insightful essay, on all points.

But what happens when it comes time to deal with dangerous people who aren't under his spell?

[Pastor_Jeff]

And right on cue:

Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.

Words fail me.

[amba]

"Coweringly religious." That's way better than "clinging," and from the same city!

That is beyond belief! And a perfect illustration of what Postrel is saying.

There is an intermediate position; I don't think Obama's a calculating, manipulative, coldly ambitious phony. I don't doubt that he is one of those people who has a sense of destiny or mission, which is perfectly human, a product of his particular history, a meld of ambition and idealism. How his "destiny" intersects with the rest of ours, the country's, is a huge unknown. Among other things, I really fear for him and for the sanity of the country if his charisma attracts crazies, like JFK's, MLK's, RFK's, and John Lennon's did. Unreal charisma like his is very dangerous that way. Someone else, some nut, wants to be the anti-messiah who takes him out.

Democrats who feel they've been in the wilderness for too long see him as a political redeemer, the guy who by snowing enough of the electorate can get them back into power. But there's nothing mystical about it, and a new way of being on the planet (in reverent, hushed italics) is the same old crock Postrel puts her finger on: that promise "to transcend ordinary life and make the ideal real." Never happen, baby, except in moments, glimpses that always pass again.

We devise new ways of being on the planet all the time, and they are pretty extraordinary, but not in the way these mystic bourgeoisie are dreaming of (check out that link, it's all about the ties between mysticism and fascism). At the end of the day we're still going to be at the mercy of hatred, boredom, need, fear, and grief.

[amba]

And the thing about the crazies is they saint these people. We never have to find out what they would have done on earth (well, MLK had already done it, but he was taken out just as his work was taking a harder-edged turn, so we can remember him as a saint, albeit with a woman problem). And the dreamers can then say: "We would have passed over into heaven on earth, if not for Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, etc." But no. The killers are an inextricable part of the picture. They prevent the good work of disillusionment. They keep the dream alive. WATCH OUT, you idiots, by making this man you love a messiah you are mortally endangering him.

[Outis]

"Coweringly religious."

Personally I am more or less an athiest. But in the sight of an All Mighty God, or when facing the terrible vastness of our Universe, what intelligent person wouldn't cower? To not cower reveals one as either an unperceptive or an idiot.

[amba]

So, you can either be coweringly awestruck or deeply full of shit. That's about right!

[amba]

Rereading what I wrote about Obama's "ambition and idealism" I realize I left out the third ingredient, bare-knuckle politics. That is not incompatible with idealism: it's a case of "the end justifies the means." It's what's scary about idealists: they think they can do bad things and it's okay because it's for good reasons. (Whereas real progress, I do believe, comes from getting people to do good things for bad reasons. Like for instance those white people who are so )ready to move beyond racism now that it might be aimed at them.

[Outis]

MLK had already done it, but he was taken out just as his work was taking a harder-edged turn....

As a Southerner I have to laugh at this line. His work only took on a harder-edged turn when he started holding northerners' feet to the fire! I wonder how he would have reacted to the Boston busing fiasco or the Charles Stuart case?

[amba]

Not only that; he was going beyond the American race problem and attacking the Vietnam war, saying "my country is the greatest purveyor of violence on the planet."

[Outis]

So, you can either be coweringly awestruck or deeply full of shit.

Precisely.

[Peter Hoh]

That bit from the SFGate reminded me of an awful Saturday during which I had to listen to someone prattle on about Indigo Children. Ugh.

Hey, anybody reminded of another candidate who was sort of vague and got some people all worked up with his promises of compassionate conservatism?

[amba]

Actually, some of (Peggy) Noonan's swoonin' about Ronald Reagan was pretty embarrassing. But at least two orders of magnitude short of this.

[Outis]

Peter, Postrel has this line in her article:

"George W. Bush ran as a uniter, and Jimmy Carter promised national renewal."

That ought to be enough to scare people from both parties, and the independents too!

[Peter Hoh]

In the past couple of days, I read something that said that Obama studied the campaigns of GW Bush.

When I see the negative reaction Obama generates among some people, it reminds me of my gut reaction to GW Bush. I never liked nor trusted the guy, and I couldn't fathom why other people seemed to be okay with him being our president. I preferred McCain in that race. I still wish he had won the nomination then.

To a lesser extent, I am reminded of how people loved Reagan while I (and GHW Bush) thought he was pushing voodoo economics.

Popularity and glamour don't necessarily mean that a candidate will be a bad president.

Andrew Sullivan pointed to this today:
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/06/05/style-over-substance/

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Popularity and glamour don't necessarily mean that a candidate will be a bad president.

I'm not as worried that he'll be a bad president as that he'll become a caudillo. There's a whole lot of "we're going to take your stuff and make you get in line with the Program" in his speeches.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Oh, and to be fair about the charisma thing, Jerry Ford got shot at too.

[Peter Hoh]

Now that he's got the nomination wrapped up, I expect to see Obama move to the center. My wish is that he had a Republican House or Senate. I think he'd be a much stronger president if he something to counter the Dems in Congress.

[Tom Strong]

I'm not as worried that he'll be a bad president as that he'll become a caudillo.

Oh please, Charlie. This from someone who has consistently defended the Bush Administration's record on executive power!

(Love your new blog, btw)

[amba]

The whole point of opposing excessive executive power is that you can't just turn it on when your guy is in office and then turn it off when someone you disagree with gets in.