This month's The Israel Factor survey concentrated in its first part on the most important piece of news related to the Israel angle of the American election: The policy speech made by Democratic candidate Barack Obama to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Chicago.

Obama, as I wrote after the speech, "sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass." I did make this one distinction, though, between Obama and other Democratic candidates on the issue of Iran: He was clear, but not as tough as Edwards. "Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons" or Clinton's "we cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons."

I was especially interested by how the panel would treat Obama following his speech, particularly after it was reported (in the Chicago Sun Times) that "Obama's camp is well-aware" of the survey and the low marks Obama is getting from the panelists.

	Advertisement

The new survey, expectedly, carries a mixed message on Obama. It was conducted after the speech and the panelists all read it and some of the news reports covering it.

A glass-half-full analysis would emphasize the fact the Obama's marks are higher now (5.12 compared to 3.87 in survey 6), that he is no longer considered as the last, or second-to-last candidate in the eyes of the panel - as he was so far. Obama came ahead of Chuck Hagel (which he did in the past in some of the surveys), but also ahead of Mike Huckabee and almost tied with Clark and Dodd. The speech itself and the things Obama had to say about the Palestinians, Syria and Iran were received favorably.

But there's also a glass-half-empty argument to be made here. Obama is still considered a candidate that's not as friendly and supportive as those leading the pack. The panelists, in written responses, explained that they are still bothered by his "lack of international experience," "ideological tendencies and constituency," and "emphasis on international organizations." One of the panelists expressed doubt as to his true feelings and said, "We don't know and have no way to know to what extent he really means what he says." The panel agrees - it was skeptical when we asked if the speech reflects Obama's actual views. However, some stated that, "The mere fact that he made the effort is encouraging and telling."

We asked the panel to compare Obama to the other Democratic candidates in a head-to-head race. The outcome is quite telling: Obama has a hard time convincing the panel that he will be better than his leading colleagues. However, he does manage to be judged as favorably as some of the second-tier candidates - Dodd and Clark.

Bottom line: This seventh survey need not disappoint Obama's supporters (at least those among them who care both about Israel and about the survey). His effort, clearly, has moved the panel - reluctantly, suspiciously, slowly - in a more positive direction. However, the "unknown factor" of previous surveys is still playing a big role. One of the panelists told me: "You can't change the perceived image of a candidate by making one or two speeches."


Related links: