Too sensitive?

Guest post by Greg Prince

At The Debate Link, David Schraub accuses 1,200 Jews of booing peace. The context is that of a benefit in Los Angeles for a border town near Gaza that has been under near constant siege for months. All three (two and a half?) presidential contenders delivered taped remarks. Obama's remarks weren't well received and Rob Eshman, editor-in-chief of The Jewish Journal writes to Obama, asking if he knows he was booed:

This happened at the "Live for Sderot" concert at the Wilshire Theatre on Feb 27. All three presidential candidates appeared on screen to deliver a videotaped statement of support for the Israelis undergoing a brutal campaign of terror in the southern Israeli town of Sderot.

Sen. Hillary Clinton appeared first, spoke clearly and decisively and received a smattering of applause. Then you came on. The crowd jeered throughout your brief statement and booed and hissed at the end of it. I didn't have the opposite of an applause meter with me, but I'd say the reaction hit a low point when you said we must all look forward to a day when "Israeli and Palestinian children can live in peace."

Jimmy Delshad, the Persian Jewish mayor of Beverly Hills, bristled. "Palestinian?" he told me. "It's like he has to throw that in our face."

Then Sen. John McCain appeared on screen, and the place exploded. Applause, cheers, standing ovations. McCain spoke with utter conviction of Israel's right to live in peace, and when he was through, even more cheers.

That brief audition was as clear a demonstration as any of something I've noticed happening over the last few months: the giant sucking sound of Jewish support for the leading Democratic candidate.

Schraub observes:

There a couple of things that could be noted here, particularly that the type of Jew that is engaged enough to attend a "Live for Sderot" concert might differ from the average. That being said, I actually have a friend who is from Sderot (a border town under consistent rocket attack from the Gaza Strip), and I certainly think that Jews (and human beings) of all political stripes have an obligation to stand for its security and the safety of its inhabitants.

But booing peace for Palestinian children? "Bristling" when their lives, too, are brought up? Claiming that it is something that he "threw in your face"? It's sickening. For that is the dream, isn't it? We can disagree over how to get there and what needs to be done, we can be adamant (correctly) that Israel's security must be maintained. But the end of this trip has to be a world where Israeli and Palestinian children live in peace. One in which either has peace, but the other has fear and strife, is no world I wish to live in.

I wonder if he's missing the point though, and I don't agree that peace for children is what's being booed here. Rather, it seems the audience reacted negatively to the presumptiveness of an American politician speaking platitudes (which, let's face it, is something Obama does really, really, REALLY well) about peace and children from the safety of being a hemisphere away, and as if both sides in the border skirmishes were morally equivalent.

Eshman's larger point is that Obama hasn't really captured the imagination of Jewish voters who have historically done a lot organizationally, financially, and simply turning out to the polls to help Democratic candidates, and how that might bode ill in November. I've spoken before about how Obama's resume is promising but still thin. It's still developing. The cynic might even note that he's so new on the federal stage it's been crafted every step along the way with a campaign in mind.

Then there is the lack of a track record. Yes, you received a perfect score from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. You have longtime Jewish supporters, some of whom, like campaign manager David Axelrod, have been integral to your campaign. Your record on Israel and other Jewish issues is solid -- but not long. "We know Hillary; we know McCain," a Washington pro-Israel activist told me last week. "Obama -- we don't know him."

With Israel facing Hamas to the south, Hezbollah to the north and Iranian nukes further east, it's hard to blame Jews for being hesitant to cast their lot with an unknown. Finally, there is what Carroll calls the "kishkas factor," the lingering question among less partisan Jews whether you feel for Israel in your guts, or kishkas.

It's been said the presidency is not an entry level position. That's true, but I think the significance of that statement is overblown, so I've not dwelt on it a lot. First, one's record may or may not reflect how one actually governs. When all the candidates have primarily legislative backgrounds. it's just conjecture what that will mean in terms of an Obama or Clinton Deux or McCain administration. Second, while the presidency is not entry level, it's not your typical career ladder either, and I'm not sure there is a specific formula or resume one should expect to prepare one for a one-of-a-kind office. Some presidents with unconventional pasts have been successful, and some with stellar resumes have been disappointing in office.

But still, Obama is the new kid on the block. He's new to the federal stage and he doesn't have executive experience. He comes off well and his rhetoric is stellar. But that only goes so far. There are a lot of us who are still doing the gut check with Obama. Different reasons, different criteria, but still it comes down to the gut check.

I've been asked several times recently who I'm favoring in the race -- apparently my writing has been too even-handed. Well, that's a good question. Depending on the day of the week and phase of the moon, I went back and forth between Richardson and Edwards, and with them out of the race I say with confidence only that I will support the Democratic nominee in the general election. As I've already discussed a few times, it's pretty plain at this point that the "legitimate" nominee is not Hillary, and the question is whether she's prepared to rip the party to shreds, jeopardizing what should be a gimmie in November, rather than step aside gracefully.

Obama and Clinton both would do OK as president. Both have factors pro and con. But we can vote for only one. At the Minnesota caucus, I voted for Barack Obama.