But does Israel support an Undivided Jerusalem?

The context for this, flub, of course:

The Weekly Standard
“Um, let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s.”

is another far more serious one, where Obama may or may not support an Undivided Jerusalem. Whatever his ultimate position, he certainly didn’t know what those words meant when he said them.

Obama’s inability to speak English (as opposed to read or memorize speeches) may help him in domestic politics. Bush’s certainly has: where a misstatement by Gore would immediately be assumed to be a lie, a misstatement by Bush was just another example of the “legacy kid” screwing up. So I’m not surprised when the “affirmative action kid” screws up. Both are below-average in terms of abilities or experiences of our recent Presidents, and both were given their party’s nomination because of a politically correct heritage.

Still, many of my liberal friends have pointed out that George Bush’s mishandling of the English language hurt our ability to transmit our messages to others in the world. Obama’s mishandling of English will do similar damage.

5 thoughts on “But does Israel support an Undivided Jerusalem?”

  1. People hear what they expect to hear. Here’s the lead from UPI:

    AMMAN, Jordan, July 22 (UPI) — U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Tuesday said there will be no change in Washington’s commitment to Israel no matter who wins the presidency.

    Obama, the presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee, flanked by his traveling companions Sens. Charles Hagel, R-Neb., and Jack Reed, D-R.I., told a news conference in Amman, Jordan, both he and his likely November opponent, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., are “strong” friends of Israel.

  2. Dan,

    I don’t understand your comment. It begins with a cryptic statement, and ends with Obama’s current position (the opposite of his previously stated position). It is as if you had posted.

    One hand claps slowly.

    Obama is no longer a member of Trinity UCC.

  3. Sorry. Don’t mean to be cryptic. I just find it interesting that a mainstream (“liberal”?) news reporting network–one of the largest in the world–didn’t seem to hear the comment you (correctly, I believe) attribute to him. UPI didn’t even “put in in context,” or report “what Obama meant to say.” According to UPI (incorrectly, I believe), HE DIDN’T SAY IT. What are the options?

    (1) Cognitive dissonance: since the reporter and/or editor were sure they knew what they candidate meant to say, that is what they heard.

    (2) Editorial judgment: what the candidate said doesn’t fit the narrative, so rephrase it to fit.

    (3) Editorial judgment (2): what the candidate actually said doesn’t really matter; it’s a non-story.

    (4) Editorial judgment (3): What the candidate said wasn’t particularly funny (unlike some of the things from Quayle and Bush), so it won’t sell papers, so ignore it.

    (5) Conspiracy: Maintain the candidate’s image long enough to get him elected. Don’t confuse people with facts.

    In reality, these probably overlap. If I stick to what I think is the most charitable explanation–that the reporter literally didn’t hear it–I can’t help but wonder what else isn’t being heard. If it a conscious decision, what other things are being excluded?

  4. Thanks for the explanation.

    It would be interesting to know how much of the bias in media reporting this cycle is because the reporters are not cognitively equipped to hear Obama say his own words.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *