Beyond the Dome

In the interview transcript, Obama can be seen talking more broadly about the tensions over Israeli settlements. Even though the question he was asked to answer is specifically about Israel, it’s the broader context that makes more sense – especially since Obama’s views are pro-Israel in, well, pretty much the entire rest of the interview.

Here’s the exchange:

JG: If you become President, will you denounce settlements publicly?

BO: What I will say is what I’ve said previously. Settlements at this juncture are not helpful. Look, my interest is in solving this problem not only for Israel but for the United States.

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.

Obama’s rapid-response team blasted out an e-mail insisting that Obama “was clearly referring to the ‘lack of a resolution to this problem.’ ”

By Tuesday morning, Goldberg had posted a request for Boehner to correct his statement, calling it “mendacious, duplicitous, gross, and comically refutable.”

Boehner Spokesman Don Seymour’s response to the criticism: “The Senator said what he said. . . . The policies Senator Obama advocates would weaken Israel and America’s national security, and in Mr. Boehner’s view it demonstrates a lack of judgment and an inexperience that shows he isn’t prepared to be President.”

Reid hasn’t stirred up anywhere near as much trouble with his own activities. But he did post this curious video on the Web site Bigthink.com earlier this month arguing that McCain, despite all that you may have heard, isn’t very good at working across the aisle after all.

“I think that this illusion that’s out there that he’s a great bipartisan person is really without much foundation. He worked with Russ Feingold on campaign finance reform – that’s nice. He’s reached across the aisle on a couple of occasions, but it’s been a couple of occasions.

“He supports the president on all those crazy economic policies. He has supported the president on this war, the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of the country. So I can’t get my juices flowing for John McCain. There are a lot of them flowing to do everything I can to make sure he’s not president.”

At this point, Reid is more of an anti-McCain surrogate than a pro-Obama or a pro-Hillary Rodham Clinton surrogate (he hasn’t taken sides yet). But either way, Reid’s video is easy to refute as well. McCain’s reputation for bipartisanship isn’t based on the campaign finance bill alone, but even if it was, the achievement was notable because McCain had to overcome the opposition of most of his own party’s leaders – and President Bush.

And Reid never mentions two of McCain’s most well-known bipartisan efforts of recent years: the “Gang of 14,” the centrist senators who prevented a showdown over judicial filibusters three years ago, and the immigration overhaul bill he worked on with Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts. If either Obama or Clinton had worked on that many high-profile bipartisan efforts, you can bet Reid would be the first to let the world know about it.