I understand your discomfort with having to swear fealty to the neocon vision of Israel. But I'm not all that surprised that Obama kowtowed a bit (disclosure: I haven't read the interview) given the "Obama's a Muslim who hates Israel" background noise.

I'm not denying that there was a political necessity for Obama to do this - just marveling at the fact that, as extreme as it is -- almost debasing -- it's still not enough.

You don't expect Obama to say anything even remotely like what he believes about Israel--do you?

In this regard, as in so many others, his teacher is the person he is still running against in the primary--whether the smart rats want to believe it or not.

In this regard there is no such thing as "liberal" or "conservative" only the manipulated. That the entire neo-con movement stemmed from the pan-Israel ideology needs to be seen.

The underlying problem for the right wing in Israel is knowing they no longer have the support they used to have in liberal circles in this country--Jewish and non-Jewish. This is where the rubber meets the road if and when a non-believer in the ideology gets into office.

Those with a conscience can only hope Obama doesn't capituate when it matters. There isn't cause for any optimism whatsoever if the Republicans return to power--yet there are all these jerks around who still insist they'll vote that way if their candidate doesn't win the nomination.

Chris Wallace is another practitioner of the style. Really, though, the questions are just a series of softballs. Obama is ready for these issues, and has easy thoughtful answers for them.

It's the mendacious attacks, from the right and from the Hillary camp, that really hurt. Even though they're easily swept aside, they will hurt. That and the downright appeals to racism that are already rearing ugly heads, and making it downright dangerous to campaign for Obama.

And to top it off, the Luttwak NYT op-ed nearly called for a fatwa against Obama "the apostate". Sheesh, like the Secret Service doesn't have enough worries protecting the guy.

Perhaps the most telling thing here is how your long defense of Senator Obama is tainted by your headline. Even after Obama has gone to such great lengths to make his perspective clear, you still must plant the seed of doubt. Are you any better than the neocons?

Rather obviously, the headline describes the act in which neocons (and the media) are engaged and which I'm criticizing. It doesn't describe what I'm doing in the column.

Watch out for these people ... they swift-boated Howard Dean [http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/09/23/dean_israel/] four years ago for insufficient fealty to Israel, and they appear ready to do it again to Obama. Notice how Hillary has been playing up [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81Jvk5b3WzI&feature=related] to the Lobby recently?

Glenn, you write: But what's most striking about the reaction is how explicit this strain of neocons has become about the fact that being "pro-Israel" is their overriding political concern. It also reveals, yet again, that there is no issue that permits less free debate than ones related to Israel.

I think that the neocon's overriding concern is to create animus and thus enemies so that they may lead others to fight. They seek nothing more than the glory of victory while carefully ensuring that others do the suffering.

So, what's this I hear about John Hagee apologizing to Catholics, and Bill Donohue saying that "it's over". (I presume he's talking about the dispute with Hagee.) Does this mean that Glenn and Bill Donohue are no longer BFF, and that McCain's "pastor problem" is behind him?

…I'd like to apologise for David Frum.

We're sorry.

Human garbage scumbag John Hagee apologizes to "apostate church", still hasn't apologized for blaming gays for Katrina and secularism for 9/11.

See you in hell, Hagee!

"Has there ever been another country besides Israel to which American politicians are required to vow absolute allegiance?"

In some instances The Confederacy.

Why do necessitate support of a religious, undemocratic, colonizing, apartheid state for our politicians? The suffering of the Palestinian people is absolutely heartbreaking, and our politicians are forced to support it.

“I have a fundamental difference with President Carter and his decision to meet with Hamas,” Mr. Obama said last month in a speech to Jewish leaders in Philadelphia. “We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction.”

I would rather our media take a quote like this and hit Obama HARD for caving to the Israeli Lobby, but you'll only find that on the blogs, not CNN.

Question for you Greenwald: why don't you send an application into each of the major news networks? Get your own TV show.

I'm sure you've seen Juan Cole's piece here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/05/12/aljazeera/

seems theres hope in the Arab world that the Dems are just talking to get elected, and won't actually support Israel unilaterally. Here's hoping they're right.

I appreciate you bringing up this issue, and risking the epithet "self-hating Jew." Thanks also for pointing out that it's never enough.

Hillary Clinton saw her husband forced to repeatedly apologize for his sexual fling, repeatedly be denounced for "not" apologizing, and have to do it again and again, with increasing levels of debasement, to no avail. When it came time for Senator Clinton to "apologize" for voting in favor of Bush's AUMF, she refused to play the game.

One day, US politicians won't have to play the game with the Israeli right wing lobby.

Obama, unfortunately, has to play the game of suck-up politics since he is being described as insufficiently pro-Israel, as the kind of man who is liked by Hamas. (It's intersting that the full Hamas quote of BHO being like JFK is conveniently left out.)

This may means that his new kind of politics may be limited to domestic concerns. Hillary can talk about "obliterating" Iran, but Obama...?

Then you have the problem of the first president of the United States engaging in moral equivalency politics, of want to look after America's national interests first. Who would have thought that moral relevance existed back in the good old days.

It is interesting to note that the the Wash. Post said this today:

"...Few doubt the sincerity of Bush's passion, which has translated into unprecedented backing for Israeli self-defense and the most clearly stated presidential commitment to protect Israel if it is attacked.

But from left to right, Bush also faces criticism for pursuing Middle East policies that, many diplomats and analysts believe, have left Israel more threatened than when he assumed office in January 2001."

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051202957.html