John, I’m as realistic as any other observer about the uphill struggle John McCain faces. He’s got the drag of George W. Bush’s unpopularity, the economy, the falling number of registered GOP voters, and the Iraq war (which, although not calamitous from a political standpoint, is definitely not a winning issue for McCain). But if you look at the race from an electoral college standpoint, it doesn’t seem quite so bleak.

You can quibble here and there with this count, but it’s a helpful starting point. It gives McCain a 245-221 lead over Barack Obama if you include states which are “sure bets” and “leaners.” As Larry J. Sabato said to me when I started asking about all the talk about the electoral map changing, “My guess is that, despite all the happy talk from both sides, the vast majority of Blue States will stay Blue and the vast majority of Red States will stay Red.” (He cautions that everything could go downhill for McCain if the war takes a turn for the worse.)

The South, for example, is heavily Republican. So outside of Virginia (just barely Southern and not at all Southern in the heavily populated suburbs of D.C.), there likely is not another state that truly will be in play for Obama, despite his huge support among African-Americans in the Democratic primaries. There just aren’t enough Democrats in these states to deliver the states for him.

And those states Republican always hope to win but never do (New Jersey and California tend to top the list)? McCain might con the Democrats into spending some money and time there but the chance that either state would actually vote for McCain is slim to none.

So the candidates, once again, will be back to fighting over a short list of states and for the swing voters within those states. Can McCain win states like New Mexico, New Hampshire, and Ohio? If Ohio remains problematic for Obama, and New Mexico and New Hampshire break for McCain, then the race looks do-able for him.

Yes, the Democrats have more registered voters in all these states than they used to and more money than any political party has ever had. But looked at from an electoral standpoint–which is the way Presidential elections actually work–McCain may be remarkably competitive. The underdog to be sure, but competitive.

Jennifer, all those numbers you just quoted, along with everything else coming down the pike, bring home a very hard reality: Barack Obama is going to have to work hard to lose this election.

So apparently Barack Obama is back to wearing an American flag on his lapel. It’s such a seemingly minor matter, yet one that tells us something worth knowing about the junior senator from Illinois.

To begin at the beginning. Just who among the right wing attack machine made this an issue? Was it Floyd Brown or David Bossie? The Young Americans for Freedom? Maybe the RNC? Perhaps relatives of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Or maybe even the ghost of Lee Atwater? Actually, it was Barack Obama. This is from an October 4, 2007 Associated Press story:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says he doesn’t wear an American flag lapel pin because it has become a substitute for “true patriotism” since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Asked about it Wednesday in an interview with KCRG-TV in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the Illinois senator said he stopped wearing the pin shortly after the attacks and instead hoped to show his patriotism by explaining his ideas to citizens. “The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin,” Obama said. “Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security. “I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest,” he said in the interview. “Instead, I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism.” On Thursday, his campaign issued a statement: “We all revere the flag, but Senator Obama believes that being a patriot is about more than a symbol. It’s about fighting for our veterans when they get home and speaking honestly with the American people about this disastrous war.“

So Senator Obama declared those who wore an American flag pin on their lapel were relying on a “substitute” for “true patriotism,” which apparently he alone embodied. And in a Democratic primary that he thought would be decided by the hard Left, Obama manfully declared, “I won’t wear that pin on my chest.”

To top it all off, Obama and his campaign made sure that, having put this issue in play, none of his critics could say a word about it. If they did, they were guilty of trying to “distract us from the issues that affect our lives” and “turn us against each other.” Serious people don’t care about trivial things like an American flag pin on a lapel–except when you’re Barack Obama, who considered it a serious enough matter to first remove it and then proudly declare his courageous act of defiance to the Democratic voters of Iowa. And now that he’s essentially secured the Democratic nomination, Senator Obama is . . . once again wearing an American flag on his lapel!

It’s understandable if you’re a bit confused by all this. Late last year the American flag lapel pin was a substitute for “true patriotism.” So what has changed between then and now to make it a symbol worth wearing once again? What happened to the proud declaration that “I won’t wear that pin on my chest”? Why, the general election in November. If you understand that, the clouds will part and everything will become clear again. What you should have paid attention to is not the arguments Obama made, but the constituency to which he was playing. Obama tacked left in the Democratic primary, ridiculing people who wore an American flag on their lapel, perhaps because it played well with that particular audience. But now that he’s going to be the nominee, it might not play so well–and gosh darn it, who says there’s anything wrong with wearing an American flag on your lapel anyway?

What we see in this little episode is a man who is extremely smooth and skilled–he saw he had a potential problem and he’s now addressing it–and also deeply cynical (even as he runs against, you guessed it, cynicism). He is able effortlessly to put issues in play and then, with the aid of the MSM, declare those issues off-limits–until he decides to declare them legitimate again. Welcome to the wonderful, transcendent, sublime “new politics” of Barack Obama.

In the Washington Post today, I point out some of the problems with retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez’s new memoir, Wiser in Battle. But even a 1,000-word review is insufficient space to deconstruct all of the myths, misunderstandings, and false impressions that Sanchez tries to peddle. On his own blog, Phil Carter offers trenchant thoughts on what else Sanchez got wrong.

I was particularly struck by Phil’s comments on what Sanchez has to say about the lessons of Vietnam. As Phil notes, Sanchez peddles the old stabbed-in-the-back thesis, writing that

civilian leaders in the White House micromanaged many aspects of the Vietnam War. They did not allow the U.S. armed forces to utilize the full extent of its resources to achieve victory. Instead, the military was forced to fight incremental battles that led to a never-ending conflict.

This was the conventional U.S. Army takeaway from Vietnam, as exemplified by Harry Summers’s influential book On Strategy. Unfortunately, more recent historical work has largely refuted the notion that civilian micromanagement was to blame for our defeat. Sure, it didn’t help that LBJ personally chose bombing targets in the Oval Office, but even more corrosive was the inability and unwillingness of the U.S. Army in the early years of the war to adapt to counterinsurgency warfare. It’s noteworthy that Sanchez, who fails to comment on this lack of adaptation in Vietnam, was guilty of a similar failure to adapt to conditions in Iraq when he was in charge in 2003-2004.

And, just like many of the Vietnam War generals, he tries to lay the blame at the feet of civilians. Of course, civilians–notably President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld–do bear the ultimate responsibility. But Sanchez is off-base when he writes, “I observed intrusive civilian command of the military, rather than the civilian control embodied in the Constitution.” Sanchez seems to be under the misapprehension that the Constitution designates the President as “controller in chief” rather than “commander in chief.”

The problem in Iraq wasn’t that the President was too intrusive; it was that he deferred too much to a military chain of command that made huge mistakes and was slow to correct them. Rumsfeld, while nit-picking minor details, also washed his hands of big strategic decisions (such as the disbanding of the Iraqi armed forces).

The proper lesson of Iraq, then, is the same as the lesson of Vietnam. It is not that we should have less civilian command of the military; it is that we should have better civilian command.

It is not like Hillary Clinton needs any more encouragement to stick around. She and her husband–in a flashback to old times–seem impervious to the growing chorus of Democrats hoping she’ll exit quickly. The latest Washington Post/ABC poll won’t please those trying to sweep her off the stage.

A surprising 64% of voters want her to stay in the race. That includes 42% of Barack Obama’s supporters. Are these Democrats mad? Do they enjoy the spectacle of Clinton possibly beating the surefire nominee today and damaging his electoral chances? Perhaps they are more polite than the pundits and want to give her the courtesy of finishing the primary season. (According to the poll, they actually seem to have bought into the idea that Clinton’s continued presence isn’t damaging the Democrats’ chances in November.)

Other than that, there is not much good news for Clinton, who trails by a healthy 12% to Obama and now lags on questions of electability and leadership. As for John McCain, he trails Obama 51-44% but can extract a few kernels of good news: 26% of Clinton’s supporters say they will vote for him, he leads Obama 71-18% on experience, and he beats Obama 65-24% on foreign affairs.

But wait: if those two issues are his strong suits and he still trails  Obama, does this mean those issues aren’t that important? It seems that if McCain could improve in one key area–ability to bring about change, where he trails (29-59%)–it would have the most impact. After all, that’s how Clinton lost her aura of invincibility. So long as the argument is “change vs. status quo,” Obama has the undeniable upper hand. If the argument ever becomes focused on what kind of change is each candidate proposing, then McCain may have a shot.

You would think the mainstream media would be reveling in the triumph of post-racial America. We are, it appears, on the verge of having the first African-American as a Presidential nominee. White voters have turned out in the millions to vote for him. But are pundits congratulating their fellow citizens on putting American race relations on a new footing? Not quite.

The mainstream media is now increasingly fond of tales of racism directed toward Barack Obama and fixated on the near-certainty that racist tendencies, however submerged, will consume voters in November. John Judis takes us through the psychology of Americans’ intractably racist views, so subliminal they are hard to quantify and address. Then he delivers this news:

Obama is likely to continue having trouble with white working-class voters in the Midwest–voters who tend to score high on racial resentment and implicit association tests and who, arguably, decided the 2004 election with their votes in Ohio. Obama will also have trouble with Latinos and Asians, groups that score high on both indexes, and that can be important in states like California. It’s not hard to quantify Obama’s problem: If 9 to 12 percent of Democratic primary voters in swing states have been reluctant to support him because he is black, one can assume that, in the general election, 15 to 20 percent of Democrats or Democratic-leaning Independents may not support him for the same reason.

One wonders, then, why Hillary Clinton was excoriated for making the same point in far gentler terms and without the psycho-babble. What’s more, if Judis is right, polls are useless and voters are lying in massive numbers when asked about their preferences and if race matters.

You can debate whether Judis is correct (or whether Obama’s disdain for the lives and values of working-class whites is to blame for his poor showing with certain blocs of voters–remember, it’s never his fault), but one thing is certain: the Left seems ready to bludgeon Americans, state by state, if they choose to reject the Agent of Change. It’s racism pure and simple if we don’t all embrace the great Obama.

And if it’s true that we are unredeemable racists, one wonders if the Democrats should have thought this through, paid a bit more attention to exit polls and asked themselves whether, despite her annoying tendency to sow discord, Clinton was right.

Yesterday’s Barack Obama interview caused quite a stir on the Right blogosphere. The New York Times not surprisingly finds the interview a smashing success for Obama, perhaps because the reporter leaves out any mention of his assertion that Hamas likely finds him “worldly,” or that he doesn’t seem much bothered by the Hamas endorsement.

I do agree, however, with those who criticize statements put out by Reps. John Boehner and Eric Cantor accusing Obama of calling Israel a “constant sore” and “constant wound.” From the context I think it is obvious that Obama was referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not Israel per se. Those and other comments were disturbing enough for reasons discussed here and elsewhere without willfully misinterpreting them. (Neither the RNC nor McCain’s campaign representatives indicated any inclination to join in these responses, apparently content for now to let Obama speak for himself.)

The Republican Jewish Coalition did have this to say:

Once again, Senator Obama demonstrates his questionable grasp of America’s foreign policy. Senator Obama manages to excuse the inexcusable actions of anti-American militant jihadists by putting the blame for their actions on America’s foreign policy. America stands with Israel because it is one of our strongest allies and the only democracy in the Middle East. Senator Obama naively believes that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will solve the global scourge of radical Islamic extremism. Yet Senator Obama never says how he will reign in Hamas’ daily onslaught on Israel or Iran’s scurrilous condemnations of Israel. Is it any wonder Hamas has endorsed him for president?”

That seems to get it right: what is most disturbing is his acceptance of the perspective that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the source of all of the region and “all of our foreign policy” problems and his blasé attitude toward Hamas. He does not seem the least bit concerned that a terrorist organization would endorse him. At the very least this should demonstrate how absurd is his claim that there is no difference between his position and John McCain’s on this topic.

While the death toll in Burma rises, its government continues to block foreign aid shipments, and Western governments fret about what to do, some outspoken voices across the pond are offering up some useful ideas. British Conservative Party leader David Cameron has come up with a novel proposal to the crisis in Burma: air-drop supplies to civilians with or without the consent of their government. “The case for unilateral delivery of aid by the international community will only grow stronger,” as the death toll grows, he said yesterday. Meanwhile, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates all but rules out American aid drops, telling reporters that he “cannot imagine us going in without the permission of the Myanmar government.” It’s good to know that the spirit of Tony Blair still exist in British politics, if not within the higher ranks of his own party.

Writing in yesterday’s Times of London, David Aaronovitch goes for the Full Monty, so to speak, and says that the only justifiable objection to military intervention is whether or not it is feasible:

How often do we need it proved? The issue isn’t whether we have the right to intervene - because the consequences of vicious dictatorships usually catch up with us in time - but whether or not, practically, we can. Everything else is a polite conversation in a sunny church.

Nick Cohen, another liberal hawk, echoes the call. If the arguments of these men are not morally pure enough for the Left, a coalition of domestic opposition groups in Burma released a statement explicitly calling for international intervention:

To save thousands of lives before it’s too late, we would like to urge the United Nations and foreign governments to intervene in Burma immediately to provide humanitarian and relief assistance directly to the people of Burma, without waiting for the permission of the military junta.

With the United States stretched thin in both Iraq and Afghanistan, intervention in Burma ought to be left to the British (they could put to use soldiers they withdrew from Basra last year). Not only are the British better equipped to deal with this crisis, but Burma is a former British territorial possession, and so the Brits probably have a better understanding of the lay of the land. The moral and legal case for military intervention is airtight. The question is whether or not Great Britain could ever pull it off.

Barack Obama criticized John McCain sharply for McCain’s global warming speech, deeming it “breathtaking” in light of McCain’s alleged record of voting against (unnamed) efforts for clean energy. McCain’s camp turned the tables and bashed Obama for voting for the Bush energy bill. That’s right: McCain is attacking the Democratic near-nominee for voting with George W. Bush on energy.

McCain also caught a break today from Hillary Clinton, who put out a statement saying, “While Senator McCain’s proposals may be improvement on President Bush’s, that’s not saying much.” It’s been a good day for McCain: he’s distanced himself from President Bush, reminded voters how his opponent voted for the much-demonized Bush-Cheney energy bill, and had Clinton say he’s essentially a centrist.

In a radio interview, President Bush said “the world ought to be angry and condemn” the Burmese junta for their response to the cyclone that devastated their country eleven days ago. Waiting for “the world” to condemn something other than America or Israel will bring us into the next Presidential administration and beyond. And by then a million-plus Burmese will have died waiting.

Consider this tough talk from UN chief Ban Ki-moon: “I want to register my deep concern and immense frustration on the unacceptably slow response to this grave humanitarian crisis.” The problem is, something is only unacceptable if it’s not accepted. So, eleven days into the unacceptable, we’re still pretending that the UN is going to get around to caring about corpses that can’t be linked to the American military or the Israeli Defense Force.

On the heels of Ban Ki-moon’s statement, Richard Horsey, a spokesman for the UN’s humanitarian arm, said “This is a huge disaster. It would overwhelm the capacity of any country.” In other words: accept it. So speaketh “the world.”

Abe notes some highlights from Barack Obama’s lengthy interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of Atlantic Monthly on Israel and Hamas. There are some other startling exchanges. No, he wasn’t asked hard-hitting questions as to whether his willingness to meet directly with Iran has sent a mixed or harmful message to groups like Hamas. And, no, he wasn’t grilled on Robert Malley. Oh, and don’t get your hopes up that he was asked how he could sit in the pews of a pastor who declared Israel a “dirty word.” But there was quite a bit to chew on.

He was asked if he was “flummoxed” by Hamas’ endorsement. The answer is not likely to set your mind as ease:

I wasn’t flummoxed. I think what is going on there is the same reason why there are some suspicions of me in the Jewish community. Look, we don’t do nuance well in politics and especially don’t do it well on Middle East policy. We look at things as black and white, and not gray. It’s conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, “This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he’s not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush,” and that’s something they’re hopeful about. I think that’s a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they’re not confused about my unyielding support for Israel’s security.

No one is right or wrong, it’s all “gray” and he’s just the guy to let everyone know. What is jaw-dropping, however, is his assumption that Hamas might be impressed with his “worldly” outlook. That’s what Hamas has been searching for: someone who is worldly. And notice the evasion he employs (”talks with people”) to escape stating the obvious: they are thrilled he’s offered direct talks with their sponsor and Holocaust denier Ahmejinidad.

But that’s not the half of it. There is this exchange:

JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas?
BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that, and some of the tensions that might arise between me and some of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United States might stem from the fact that I’m not going to blindly adhere to whatever the most hawkish position is just because that’s the safest ground politically.

I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he did not mean that Israel is the “constant sore,” but the sentiment is likely to make Islamic militants swoon. They have long argued that the central problem in the Middle East is not lack of democracy, the appalling conditions of Arab populations, jihad terrorists or Shia-Sunni violence: It is the failure of Israel to recognize the aspirations of the Palestinian people. Now they have a candidate to mouth their platitudes and, as a bonus point, disparage “hawkish” elements in the U.S. who would insist on a stalwart defense of Israel. (Might that include these elements’ opposition to meeting with Ahmejdinidad?) No wonder he wasn’t flummoxed by Hamas’ endorsement. He’s the best candidate Hamas could hope for.

John McCain is talking climate change this week and has a new ad out on the subject. He outlines his embrace of a “cap and trade” carbon reduction plan in a speech in Oregon today. Even more interesting than the substance of the ad, I think, is the underlying message that he is, excuse the expression, the “third way,” standing between Democrats’ environmental extremism and Republicans’ inactivity. He’s looking for an issue to demonstrate his independence from standard-fare Republican policy–and this is it.

In response to the predictable attacks on his plan coming from the DNC and Obama’s team, the McCain folks have responded via email with a long list of the nice things all sorts of Democrats–from Harry Reid to Hillary Clinton to, well, Barack Obama–have said about his bipartisan efforts in this area.

In short, this is all about not being a George W. Bush Republican. It’s an attempt to assure independents that on a feel-good issue like global warming McCain will chart a middle course. Are conservatives grousing? You bet.

And McCain is probably delighted. That’s the point of all of this triangulation: to portray himself as occupying the sensible center. Will it work? Well, he’s not going to get Al Gore’s vote, but he never was. But for moderate voters opposed to supporting a candidate who’s “out of it” on an issue that has taken on the aura of a civic religion, this may help.

Hillary Clinton’s remarks suggesting that Barack Obama has a white voter problem brought howls of protest from Democrats and pundits. What she didn’t say, probably because she is still nominally running for the Democratic nomination in a primary dominated by liberals, is that his race may not be as big a problem as his views. That’s the premise of this Los Angeles Times column, which makes a persuasive case that Obama’s appealing demeanor and the issue of his race have masked a larger, ideological problem.

Senator Claire McCaskill, a prominent Obama supporter, admits: “The key is going to be whether Barack can avoid getting on defense on social ‘wedge’ issues and can stay on the offense on economic issues.” She’s not the only one who thinks Obama may be caught on the wrong side of the ideological divide. The LA Times piece explains:

Obama has “handicaps and potential problems, race being one of them, [but] it’s not the only one,” Pew Center President Andrew Kohut said. “He is perceived as a liberal. He is perceived by many voters as not well grounded on foreign policy and not tough enough . . . and he has a potential problem, distinct from race, of being seen as an elitist, an intellectual.”

Well, that sounds quite a bit like the McCain game plan. Jill Zuckerman reports:

“We’ll make the case that Barack Obama is a wonderful new voice selling old, discredited ideas, including the most massive tax increase since Walter Mondale ran for president,” said Steve Schmidt, a senior McCain adviser. “It’s a combination of weakness, not being ready to be president and not being able to deliver on the things he says he will deliver on.”

So it might have been more accurate for Clinton to have said that Democrats who nominate a left-liberal without foreign policy experience do so at their own peril, though she did try a bit of that with her “3 a.m.” ad. Obama has yet to confront an all-out ideological attack. Such criticism may sound like “old” politics. But all politics, in the end, is about making distinctions and getting voters to choose between candidates’ competing visions.

McCain’s camp appears eager to do just that, perhaps in the town hall formats where they believe their candidate thrives. (Has Obama ever faced questions from a crowd that doesn’t agree with his ideological premises?) How Obama stands up to that line of inquiry will in large part determine, just as much as the unavoidable politics of race, who wins in November.

Often, when the U.S. is about to take some tough step abroad, advocates of a softer line will argue that unnecessary toughness will simply alienate foreign countries that might otherwise be friendly to us. We’ve heard endless variations of that line by those who favor withdrawal from Iraq and accommodation, rather than confrontation, with Iran, Russia, China, and other states.

It was also an argument often heard against the move to recognize Kosovo’s independence. After the U.S. and its allies went ahead, there were many dire predictions that the result would be a takeover by ultra-nationalists in Serbia. In other words, we would gain Kosovo but lose Serbia.

It didn’t work out that way in the most recent Serbian elections. As reported by the Financial Times:

The pro-European Union alliance led by Boris Tadic, Serbia’s president, won the advantage over hardline nationalists in snap elections on Sunday as voters demanded EU integration despite the loss of Kosovo.

The pro-EU list captured 38.7 per cent of votes and won 103 seats in the 250-seat parliament. The nationalist Radical party took 29.1 per cent and 77 seats, according to the Centre for Free Election and Democracy (CESID), an independent monitoring group.

That comforting result calls to mind how Serbia became democratic in the first place. It was part of the fall-out from the 1999 war waged by NATO to stop Serbian ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Slobodan Milosevic was forced to concede defeat in that confrontation with the West, and not long thereafter he fell from power. In the case of Serbia, at least, tough Western actions–including repeated refusals to accommodate hard-line Serbian nationalists–have paid off. Is there perhaps a lesson here for other parts of the world?

Rahm Emanuel, Illinois Congressman and former Bill Clinton aide, didn’t like Ted Kennedy taking a shot at Hillary Clinton. Kennedy, you may recall, said Clinton wouldn’t make a good VP pick because someone with “nobler aspirations” was needed. Emanuel said of Kennedy:“The gratuitous attack on her is uncalled for and wrong. He is a better senator than that comment reveals.”(H/T The Page) You don’t have to agree with the second sentence to think the first is on the mark.

We are now moving into the phase of the campaign where everyone gets their free swing at Hillary. As Cokie Roberts observed, much of the surrogate and media chatter has been “anything but respectful.” It may be emotionally satisfying for Obama supporters and media doyennes. And goodness knows both Clintons have definitely asked for some of the retaliatory shots.

But unless you are supporting John McCain, there is one big problem with all this Clinton-bashing: this is the last thing Barack Obama needs. Clinton, not surprisingly, is using it to whip up a backlash, hoping to ride it to big wins in West Virginia and Kentucky, which will prolong her run. And the Clintons don’t need much more encouragement to drag their feet and withhold full-throated support for Obama when the race does end. Her supporters, meanwhile, are acquiring yet another reason to resent Obama. Terry McAuliffe sounded the warning on Meet The Press:

She has 16.6 million very passionate supporters. We want to make sure at the end of this process, Tim, we as Democrats are all together. Sometimes we like to drive that car over the cliff of the Democratic Party. This is a very fragile time.

So Obama, the candidate who thinks our most vile enemies deserve a dignity promotion, might want to make sure his supporters grant one to his Democratic rival. After all, Obama’s sometime policy advisor Samantha Power tells us “I don’t think anyone in the foreign-policy community has as much an appreciation of the value of dignity as Obama does.” If he fails to demonstrate that he really understands this in a context closer to home (and makes sure his followers execute that policy with regard to Clinton), he’ll have failed in his first significant diplomatic effort. And, I suspect, come to regret it deeply.

From Jeffrey Goldberg’s Atlantic interview with Barack Obama:

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: I’m curious to hear you talk about the Zionist idea. Do you believe that it has justice on its side?

BARACK OBAMA: You know, when I think about the Zionist idea, I think about how my feelings about Israel were shaped as a young man — as a child, in fact. I had a camp counselor when I was in sixth grade who was Jewish-American but who had spent time in Israel, and during the course of this two-week camp he shared with me the idea of returning to a homeland and what that meant for people who had suffered from the Holocaust, and he talked about the idea of preserving a culture when a people had been uprooted with the view of eventually returning home. There was something so powerful and compelling for me, maybe because I was a kid who never entirely felt like he was rooted. That was part of my upbringing, to be traveling and always having a sense of values and culture but wanting a place. So that is my first memory of thinking about Israel.

And then that mixed with a great affinity for the idea of social justice that was embodied in the early Zionist movement and the kibbutz, and the notion that not only do you find a place but you also have this opportunity to start over and to repair the breaches of the past. I found this very appealing.

[…]

JG: Do you think that justice is still on Israel’s side?

BO: I think that the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea, and a necessary idea, given not only world history but the active existence of anti-Semitism, the potential vulnerability that the Jewish people could still experience. I know that that there are those who would argue that in some ways America has become a safe refuge for the Jewish people, but if you’ve gone through the Holocaust, then that does not offer the same sense of confidence and security as the idea that the Jewish people can take care of themselves no matter what happens. That makes it a fundamentally just idea.

That does not mean that I would agree with every action of the state of Israel, because it’s a government and it has politicians, and as a politician myself I am deeply mindful that we are imperfect creatures and don’t always act with justice uppermost on our minds. But the fundamental premise of Israel and the need to preserve a Jewish state that is secure is, I think, a just idea and one that should be supported here in the United States and around the world.