Upon more careful reading of your post,while I stand by what I said, I apologize for mis-reading what you said (which I pretty much agree with, btw).

Max

He also said:” no one has suffered more than the Palestinians,” where no candidates have echoed this message, and that’s why he felt he must present himself as a loyal supporter in his speech at the Aipac gathering:
Israel is “our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy,” and “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.”, and “from Iran to Iraq to the resurgence of al-Qaeda to the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah, that loyalty and that friendship will guide me as we begin to lay the stones that will build the road that takes us from the current instability to lasting peace and security.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/obama03052007.html
But apparently all this devotion and loyalty have not earned him the trust he needs. In a memo which was leaked out the pro Israel group have raised their concerns. Forward writes:
“A confidential memo questioning Senator Barack Obama’s potential approach to Middle East policy was distributed earlier this month among staffers at a major American Jewish organization.” It warns the Israel group that:
“Obama’s approach to dealing with Iran “raises questions,” said the document, which circulated within the American Jewish Committee. It also suggested that Obama placed the burden of solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict primarily on the Jewish state.”
http://www.forward.com/articles/12543/
They are also concerned about Obama’s emphasis on diplomacy, particularly in dealing with Iran.
The memo noted Obama’s presence at a fundraiser headlined in 1998 by the now late Edward Said, and of public suggestions by Ali Abunimah, a Chicago-based Palestinian activist, that the senator was more openly critical of America’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before his first run for Senate.
The evolution of Obama regarding his position on Israel is both interesting and alarming. While there is doubt surrounding Obama’s loyalty, McCain remains the trusted son for the Neocons and they view Obama as an easy prey against McCain which has nothing to do with loyalty of Hillary to Israel because that is not shaken. That’s why, I think, the media has been “soft” on him so far.

While there is a shade of truth in this, it seems rather hypocritical to see this need to “satisfy higher power, the lobby” when addressing Obama, but not when turning the light to Hillary Clinton. Both are under the same scrutiny. When John Edwards made the consistent and forceful case during his run against corporatism and all that means to the world, to American society and to the workers and the poor, he was marginalized by both Obama and Hillary, and the media who loves Obama, called him (Edwards) angry and lacking in “hope”. In fact, Edwards, the white male from the South was speaking truth to power (the lobbyists) while neither Hillary nor Obama would. In fact, both, during the debates, capitulated the corportists time and again.

With Kucinich, the white fellow from Ohio, the force of speaking truth to power was a 100 fold to that of Edwards.

Ah the story is not so simply as you would like to paint. It’s important to be very clear about these things if one is not to fall prey to the very propaganda that keeps the machine going….the one that supports the Zionist movement. You see, you are what you say because what you say becomes what you begin to think and do. Obama (as has Hillary who must show she is “man” enough for the CIC job) has become the mask.

Thank you for your efforts to analyze the behavior of those who are players in the circus known as “election.” But I have to warn you on some of your analysis because they do not reflect the facts on the ground. You are right when you write:
“Hillary Clinton is being allowed to define the terrain.”
Obama must go after her and expose her fully but since he, like the rest of the candidates, must satisfy higher power, the lobby, therefore he as an African American feels has to go extra miles to gain trust. He, therefore, says nothing different from her and remains a good servant. As long as American people do not pay attention to these servants of the Zionist interest who feel they have an obligation to preserve an apartheid state against the interest of American people and the world then they must face the consequences. You are also correct when you write:
“If John McCain were president today, we would likely be at war with Iran, Syria and Lebanon.”
As you have pointed out McCain’s policy is very close to Neocons’ policy on Iran. The Jewish Lobby is seeking a war against Iran for years now. They wanted Bush, who does not distinguish the American people’s interest from the Zionist’s interest because he needs their support, to attack Iran before Iraq but it was not feasible at the time and Iraq was ripe enough to be invaded due to Clinton’s policy of Sanction and bombing and partition according to the policy of “no fly zone” during Clinton administration, the most pro Zionist administration in the history of American presidency. But when you don’t believe her and write:
“The Senator from New York has the New York media in her back pocket yet Hillary is allowed to cry foul on alleged media bias favoring Obama. “
I think you are wrong and Hillary is right when she complains about the media. The reason is that Obama, this time, has been chosen as a Democratic nominee and McCain for the Republican nominee by those who select a president, the Jewish Lobby. They want to select McCain, the war monger, as US president in November against Obama, therefore, they must refrain from criticizing Obama before making sure he is the nominee and after that they will tear him apart using race card and “security” issues. The neocons do not want Hillary, AIPAC girl; because they think it is more difficult to beat her against McCain.
You are also wrong on Samantha Power when you write:
“When someone as thoughtful, authoritative and fundamentally non-political as Pulitzer Prize winner Samantha Power decries Hillary as a monster — even in a political context — it deserves a second thought.”
You should do a little bit of research about her role as an empire builder and about her cooperation with the Zionist forces including Charles Jacobs, founder of CAMERA pro Israel group, who was very much behind the lies and deception campaign through “anti child slavery group” on South of Sudan with a phony slogan, “child slavery”, to implement the US and Israel policy in Sudan, another Islamic country, through divide and rule trickery arming the terrorists with the leadership of John Garang who received military training by US and Israel in addition to weapon and financial support in name of “humanitarian aid” to fight against the government of Sudan to force Sudanese government into submission to give autonomy to the South, like North of Iraq, and set the path for further partition of the Sudan through campaign of lies and deception, Save Darfur, with a spurious charge namely “Genocide in Darfur”. Samantha Power, a monster, has abandoned Congo with 5 millions deaths, a Christian country, and gone after Sudan, an Islamic country, forcing sanction and partition on Sudan and manipulating public opinion. She, therefore, has no difficulty to distinguish another monster, Hillary. She moves her long blonde hair skillfully around her face when she speaks and distracts attention to create confusion to escape her critics but definitely not from me.