AIPAC and Obama / Cheering toughness, silent on peace

A couple of quick notes on the speeches made today (Obama, Clinton) and Monday (McCain) at the AIPAC conference. You can see the video and read transcripts here.

1.

Obama is the story of the day, and even those among the AIPAC delegates who are averse to his policies - many will not give him their vote - understand how unique this moment is in American history. Obama will have to fight hard to get votes from the more conservative, skeptical members of the Jewish community, and this morning was a good start. Not that he has said anything of great significance. Today, all he needed to do is show up.

2.

The Iranian threat - or "challenge" - was the focus of this convention, the core of McCain's speech and an important component of Obama's speech as well. But there was a difference: McCain was using Iran as a way to attack Obama, mocking him for his willingness to meet with Tehran without pre-conditions. Obama was more defensive, explanatory, in tone.

"We must mean what we say when we speak the words 'never again'", Obama said. McCain was saying a similar thing: "It is a promise the U.S. will honor against any enemy - never again". But on the point of how exactly to deal with Iran, as Obama acknowledged, "we differ". Obama knows that this difference is one major hurdle on his way to win over a large chunk of AIPAC delegates.

But one must give him some credit for trying to explain his Iran policy to the most skeptical of crowds. How did he do it? Actually, quite wisely: by stressing, time and again, the unarguable fact that the current policy has not been successful.

3.

Generally speaking, the AIPAC delegates tended to applaud the speakers when they talked tough about Iran, and to remain relatively silent when they were talking about peace with the Palestinians. When Obama was vowing to work for peace he was meekly cheered, when he promised to keep isolate Hamas the reaction was more convincing. Similar reactions could be detected when Condi Rice was speaking about the urgency of peace with the Palestinians, and when Prime Minister Olmert was speaking about his talks with President Abbas (and also about talks with Syria).

Of course, some people will make this yet another proof that AIPAC is hawkish, warmongering, radical organization. I think it is a sign of grim and realistic skepticism. Maybe it was better for the delegates to make an effort and cheer more enthusiastically when peace was mentioned - but it was also perfectly understandable, for their part, not to.

4.

Down memory lane, I was reading this morning my article from the day of the Iowa caucuses. "Iowa is a very attractive place, even in winter, for those who love politics", I wrote back then. Was this an understatement?

5.

I was writing this after the McCain speech (at AIPAC) but not sure how many of you had a chance to read it:

"Much like Clinton who uses Gore and McGovern to back her arguments up with historical fact" - that is, as to prove that the numbers are on her side and that Obama's victory is a rip-off - "McCain also pulled off a clever political stunt. The Jewish crowd before him historically leans toward the Democratic Party, and only special incentives will draw the Jewish toward a Republican candidate such as McCain. He therefore presented the AIPAC voters with two incentives: one living - Senator Joe Lieberman who comes with him, and one dead - Henry "scoop" Jackson. The common denominator between the two: both are democrats who were not at peace with their party due to their hawkish foreign policy".

His point: I know many of you are Democrats, but like Jackson and Lieberman, you should think hard and long this year about the candidate of the rival party. You will hear this argument constantly in Liebermanland - Florida, and maybe New Jersey, if McCain believes he can make substantial gains there too.

6.

Clinton's speech might be the best opportunity to be reminded how amazingly close she was and how tragic her loss was for those believing in her candidacy.

And Clinton is the candidate that most AIPAC delegates (that's a guess, not a fact) would feel comfortable to support: Democratic enough to fit their domestic agenda, hawkish enough to make them comfortable when it comes to foreign affairs. After coming second in this battle, she is also more liked than before. How easy it is to sympathize with the loser.