Wow, talk about a total difference of understanding-- I read your article in the LA Times and it read as opinions and beliefs on how Obama feels and thinks about Israel and the middle east despite his campaign positions and policies. Just like what I read in your opinions Mike - it's like they are saying 'Obama says this and this in his campaign, but my gut instinct tells me that he really feels and thinks like this...'

As to the sentence below, I don't understand where it is coming from. You posted, I responded with a link and a question, then you responded, et al...

>Actually I made a statement about my understanding of Obama's position on the Middle East and you posted the link in response. Not the other way around.
>
>Here is a L.A. Times article which discusses Obama's positions on the Middle East, or should I say how those positions are being taken by the various entities involved. I think it is consistent with the viewpoint that he is more likely to work for peace than to advocate strongly for one side or the other.
>
>http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,0,1780231,full.story
>
>>From the link I gave you:
>>
>>Mr. Obama added: "We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs. This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza."
>>
>>I think it is clear unless he has retracted his statements or the quote is inaccurate...
>>
>>Again, you claimed in your message that Obama implied that his position towards Israel was different than the link I posted. My question was where you got that information since I had read the information I provided and I watched many, many speeches Obama gave (including the one here in my hometown) and never heard anything similar. I was questioning if his position has changed...
>>
>>>First of all, I didn't say it is a propoganda rag. Please don't put inflammatory words into my mouth so you can run over with a fire hose. What I said (actually implied) is I am not all that interested in what a newspaper with a professed political agenda has to "report." I would be equally skeptical of a media outlet whose stated purpose was to counteract a perceived conservative bias in the press. Second, the Times was founded on no such principle. It is a general coverage newspaper. Some perceive it as left leaning. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but in any case there is a huge difference between that and existing specifically to promote a POV.
>>>
>>>The article didn't actually say all that much. It quoted some words from Obama which he used to cozy up to Israel. Show me a politician who doesn't try to pacify any important voting bloc and I'll show you someone who doesn't care whether they win. The article concluded with cautious hope that Obama will be pro-Israel if elected. It's all speculation at this point, isn't it? Nothing was said about how he feels about the other side in the Middle East other than I'm-A-Dinner-Jacket, who is a convenient lightning rod. My guess is Obama would be more likely to work for peace in the Middle East than to side heavily with Israel. Again, there is no way to know yet.
>>>
>>>>Mike, I think you are really showing how out of touch you are if you believe that any newspaper considered right of center is therefore nothing but a propaganda rag and that the columnists you seem to find as 'evidence' that this isn't a 'real newspaper' are somehow less worthy than .. Michael Moore? Do you have a problem wth the NYT - and especially Pinch Sulzberger being 'a little left of center' <g> Would I be ok to dismiss anything appearing their off-hand and not coming from a real newspaper ?
>>>>
>>>>>Before reading the article I tried to find out what the heck the NY Sun is. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Sun):
>>>>>
>>>>>Stoll has characterized the Sun's political orientation as "right-of-center,"[4] and an associate of Conrad Black predicted in 2002 that the paper would be "certainly neoconservative in its views."[3] Editor-in-chief Lipsky describes the agenda of the paper's prominent op-ed page as "limited government, individual liberty, constitutional fundamentals, equality under the law, economic growth ... standards in literature and culture, education."[5] The Sun's roster of columnists includes many prominent neoconservative pundits, including the late William F. Buckley, Jr., Michael Barone, Daniel Pipes, and Mark Steyn.
>>>>>
>>>>>The Sun is "known for its pugnacious coverage of Jewish-related issues";[6] in particular, it is "a strong proponent of Israel's right to defend itself."[4] It has published articles by pro-Israel reporter Aaron Klein.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Was it innacurate?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The New York Sun? What the heck is that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Has his stance changed since this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://www.nysun.com/editorials/obama-and-israel/69154/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Yep, but then the Palestinians have one that lasts for 60 years now and shows no signs of abating - with the trigger happy Israeli government sitting on 150 long ones. I only wish there was one, at least one, American government which would slap hands on _BOTH_ sides and say "get serious about making peace, or else none of you get a single billion until you do", and mean it. Put all of the middle East and all the warring countries in a strict embargo (it doesn't work, but it makes politicians on one side feel better and on the other side get richer ;).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Obama has given hints that he might take such a stance and the Israel lobby is after him like hellhounds already. At this point they feel it is their entitlement to have the U.S. on their side.