TNR's Peretz Baffled By Obama

Marty Peretz and Jennifer Rubin both weigh in on one prospective Obama appointee, Chas Freeman.

After my item on it yesterday landed on Yahoo News, the fighting in comments was some of the worst I've ever seen. That happens whenever a discussion of Israel and the greater Middle-east flairs up with elements from both sides involved. My thinking is that Obama hopes to walk some imaginary center-line here. But as that line is more the frontline in a battle that forever rages on, all that tends to do is get one shot up from both sides.

At some point Obama has to decide which side he's actually on in the Middle-east. That seems to remain at best an open question for the new administration in the eyes of many observer's for now.

Peretz: Here is the most stunning prospective appointment of the Obama administration as yet. Not stunning as in "spectacular" or "distinguished" but stunning as in bigoted and completely out of synch with the deepest convictions of the American people.

Rubin: But if Freeman’s judgment and intellectual independence are in fact celebrated and respected by the president, that would be even worse. Then we’d have elected a president with no moral compass or discerning intellect.

Comments

[Mark Turner]

I just read through Peretz's website article and found the following comment (in part):

"Obama has a policy of a team of rivals, it is not based on people who hate each other but on gathering as many viewpoints as possible. Look, I think the guy is a wrong on a lot of issues, but I do think it is valuable that there are amongst his administration who will offer an opposing viewpoint, as wrongheaded as I might think it is."

OK, if that's what people want to think in order to apologize for Obama's seemingly contradictory, misguided, and counterproductive actions, appointments, and policies, they are entitled to have their own opinions. Personally, I would interpret Obama's consideration of Freeman as either total cluelessness or just plain stupidity. It also brings to mind another noteworthy figure in world history who assembled his own "team of rivals" in his government -- Adolf Hitler. We all know how "well" that worked.

[folktunes]

Mark, what is Obama's track record in picking friends and associates?
What experience does Obama have in leading anything including a one man parade.
Most of us from Conservative to raving lunatic fringe liberal (Nancy Pelosi) seem to PROJECT attributes of leadership and fatherly competence onto our Presidents, Mayors etc.
What leadership has Obama ever shown in his life. Ever?? What economic or foreign policy work has he ever engaged in? What associations has he entered into that were of substance and character? Wright? Rezko? Emanuel? Ayers and Dohrn? Seriously. Who is Obama and what are his skills. What is his value system. What is his religion? We know he likes cigarettes and basketball, but what else do we actually know about him except for the fawning slobbering media HOLLYWOOD coverage of him?

[Old Trooper]

No one really knew what Obama is all about but the media promoted him like a product that was new and
the American Voters selected a pig in a poke and generations will regret it big time. He makes contradictory statements, gathered up the hugest bunch of losers in history for cabinet and staffers
and has the full support of the elitist fools elected to Congress.

Whats not to like about it? He is a one termer but the harm done will take decades to repair.

[Mark Turner]

Obama seems to have a problem in his own support base....Jews who are inclined to be pro-Israel and other various "factions" which are bluntly anti-Jewish/anti-Israel/pro-Palestinian/pro-Arab. I can see this conflict from a lot of the openly hostile posts regarding Jews and Israel, on this website and others, that also strongly anti-GOP/anti-conservative and pro-Obama. That might help explain the strange cast of characters he has assembled around him...trying to satisfy everyone in his support base, but ultimately pleasing no one?

[mary]

lately, I've been wondering if it wasn't so much about the candidate as it was about the party "having to win".

[Mark Turner]

Mary -

Some people vote for the party, others for the candidate. I think in Obama's case, it was more about the party on a nationwide basis...although the inner city vote (large amount of new voters) didn't hurt either - and they voted mostly for the man, not the party.