I also welcome the trend (if it is one) towards named, identifiable contributors to this site. There ought to be limited tolerance here for trash talking in articles, and pseudonyms seem to encourage it. When I see it defended in follow-up articles by other pseudonyms, I want to change the dial.

Then I read an excellent, incisive analysis about the situation in India and Pakistan by Larry Johnson, and I stay where I am.

You’re entitled to your opinion but before calling anyone foolish you should first take a second look at your own comments.

In “Political Reality Point No. 4” you say that Obama has been “unable to produce any results” regarding foreign policy. Then in Political Reality Point No. 5 you say that “there was very little separation between Hillary and Barack.” On what can you base the second point on since, as you said, he has had no results yet? You certainly can’t base it on his paper thin resume prior to running for President. And if you are basing it entirely on his campaign rhetoric he has flipped on so many issues that if you mention one I can point to something he said diametrically opposed to that position. No one knows yet whether Obama selected Hillary as window dressing or to be his closest foreign policy aid and if they will agree on issues.

As far as what you characterize as “fears” and state that: “For every “anti Israeli” member of his staff there is rock-ribbed Likudnik fellow traveler. Seeing as the definition of “anti-Israeli” is deeply skewed to mean anyone who does not immediately collapse into heap and lick the Israeli Ambassador’s hindquarters to a lustrous shine” the charge of being “anti-Israeli” is a rather ridiculous.” – - – The fact is that during his campaign Obama’s foreign policy team were all people that were at least cool to Israel if not outright hostile which could have also reflected the influence of Obama’s past associations. That “fear” did not dissipate until the announcement of Hillary Clinton to SoS.

Political Reality No 6 Hillary is no babe in the woods. If the SoS position was a one-way ticket to obscurity that William P. Rogers signed up to, then Hillary would not have touched the offer with a ten foot poll. . . . . no one will know the answer to this until work actually begins and this has a chance to play out.

Political Reality No 8 Obama is keenly aware of political reality No 1. I’m sure he won’t go that far, but understand what selling Israel down the river can mean. If you force Israel to cede land it has occupied since the 1967 War in the hope that his foreign policy team can get a peace agreement with Syria, Lebanon, and an agreement for a separate Palestinian State and a NATO occupied buffer zone then you are selling Israel down the river. How much control do the leaders of Syria, Lebanon, and the PA have over Hamas, Hezbollah and other radical Islamic groups? None. I assume from your tone that you care less about Israel’s ability to protect itself from the constant threat of terrorism it has faced for decades.

To your characterization of Joe Lieberman. What evidence, other than that he is Jewish, do you have that Lieberman supports the Likud Party? What evidence do you have that Lieberman ever placed the interests of Israel ahead of the interest of the United States? You want to remark about Lieberman and his position on Iraq is one thing. To characterize Lieberman the way you have clearly has to come from your own personal animosity toward Israel and probably toward Jews.

Your final point is incredibly flawed with inaccuracies and obvious extreme bias on your part and frankly not worth responding to.

But as I said, you are entitled to your opinion.

Political reality No 1 national politicians who are not full supporters of Israel have the shelf life of a Haddock on hot August day.

Political reality No 2 both Hillary and Barack performed prodigious displays of butt snorkeling toward AIPAC during its convention and at every other opportunity that presented itself.

Political reality No 3 Obama foreign policy stance is boringly conventional and consensus driven. You could not find a more plain vanilla, center of the road, pragmatic policy if you tried.

Political reality No 4 results mater. As Obama is Constitutionally prohibited from running the country at the moment he has been unable to produce any results. His first real opportunity is on January 20th 2009. Any “fears” one may have are purely speculative. ( For every “anti Israeli” member of his staff there is rock-ribbed Likudnik fellow traveler. Seeing as the definition of “anti-Israeli” is deeply skewed to mean ” anyone who does not immediately collapse into heap and lick the Israeli Ambassador’s hindquarters to a lustrous shine” the charge of being “anti-Israeli” is a rather ridiculous.)

Political reality No 5 On policy there was very little separation between Hillary and Barack. It was mainly a question of emphasis and shading. Hillary for political and philosophical reason was more willing to emphasize the big stick while Barack for the same reasons was more willing to emphasize the soft speech. Other than that their world views a much more similar than either were willing to admit in the primaries. Barack crowed about his supposed superior judgment whilst Hillary boasted about ducking incoming fire. Barack edged out Hillary because he had “the speech” while Hillary had the large economy sized political Albatross that was the vote for the Authorization of Force in Iraq.

Political Reality No 6 Hillary is no babe in the woods. If the SoS position was a one-way ticket to obscurity that William P. Rogers signed up to, then Hillary would not have touched the offer with a ten foot poll.

Political Reality No 7 For the last time 2012 is NOT HILLIARY’S YEAR. Get it through your thick skulls! 2012 would be a Kamikaze run for Hillary. There is no way she wins in 2012 period. There is no historical precedent for a successful challenge to a sitting president from a member of his party in a least 100 years. Go all the way back to T.R.’s challenge to Taft even the Rough Rider failed in his quest. He did set the pattern though by helping to elect a the opposition party’s candidate. Wilson glided over the wreckage of T.R.’s and Taft’s smash-up.

Political Reality No 8 Obama is keenly aware of political reality No 1. He is also no babe in the woods. He is fully cognoscente of the need to keep AIPAC placated. He will keep the Israeli lobby in loop and will not make any sudden movements that might scare them. The claim that he might sell the Israelis down the river to his “radical friends” who are secret Muslim sympathizers is laughable. If there was anything that sinister about Obama lurking in the shadows AIPAC would have long ago ripped Obama into tiny shreds. Come on, Obama even forgave Holy Joe Lieberman. Obama offered up a big olive branch to the Likud Senator from Connecticut. An anti-Israeli Obama would have burned Lieberman alive because “he puts the welfare of the State of Israel above that of the U.S.” An anti-Israeli Obama would have made an example out of Lieberman, shoving Holy Joe in to the arms of Republicans. Instead Obama intervened to bring Lieberman back into the Democratic Party fold. Among other things the kid-glove treatment of Lieberman was a big sloppy kiss given to AIPAC.

Final Reality. Our country might be better shape if we were less enamored of Israel. One of W’s numerous mistakes in field of foreign affairs was being too solicitous of the Israeli government. W joined himself to the hip of Ariel Sharon to the detriment of them both. Israel actually benefits from a United States that can say no to it. US policy benefits from honest criticism of Israel. We should at least be allowed to be as critical of Israel as the Israelis are. Israel can do wrong, it is rather proficient in perusing pointless dead-end policies and burying its head in sand. The continued occupation of the West Bank is a running sore on the body politic of Israel. The settlement policy of the Israel is at best counterproductive and at worst a deep miscarriage of justice. Exactly what does Israel really gain by plopping 500 extremist settlers in the middle of Hebron anyway? It is like putting a stash of nitroglycerin under your chicken coop and then being shocked when the resulting explosion covers you in egg yolk and feathers.

It is a good thing that some of Obama’s advisers favor a tougher stand on Israels. The unconditional love we have been giving the Israelis needs to be replaced with something smarter. For the last eight years we have suffered through a NeoCon love fest of Israel. Our policy has out-Likuded Likud; it was W that gave Sharon the push into the disastrous war with Hezbollah in Lebanon. If we are really lucky we might return to the even-handed sanity that used to be our policy pre-W. You remember those days when being a friend of Israel meant you were not a sycophant right?

Ridiculous.