For months now we’ve talked about the fact that perhaps Barack Obama’s biggest weakness is his supporters.  Those who at the drop of a dime will make a fool of themselves in effort to in some strange way show their allegiance for the candidate.  Everyone from outspoken rappers to radical politicians have provided interesting quotes and soundbytes that the media has dissected in effort to disparage the unflappable Mr. Obama.

The latest? Our old friend Rev. Jesse Jackson.  In a New York Post published interview last week, reporter, Amir Taheri wrote about Jacksons feelings on Obama’s foreign policy specific to Isreal.

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where “decades of putting Israel’s interests first” would end.

Jackson believes that, although “Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades” remain strong, they’ll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.

“Obama is about change,” Jackson told me in a wide-ranging conversation. “And the change that Obama promises is not limited to what we do in America itself. It is a change of the way America looks at the world and its place in it.”

At a time, just days from the election when the Obama camp and RESPONSIBLE supporters have been busy trying to ward of silly allegations that Obama is a “muslim” and thus shouldn’t be trusted to be president its almost unthinkable of why Jackson would make such comments or even give this interview in general.  It has been my belief and the belief shared by many of The Nation that Jackson and Rev. Captain African-America Sharpton should lay low (real low) until after the election.  But as a former Presidential hopeful himself I guess he couldn’t help him self and couldn’t help hurting Obama’s chances.  Naturally he issued a statement through his Rainbow Coalition explaining the comments and of course how they were “slanted.”

The recent column in no way represents my views on Middle East peace and security. The writer is selectively imposing his own point of view, and distorting mine.

I have a long held position of a two state solution to achieve peace in the Middle East. I stand forthrightly for the security and stability of Israel, its protection from any form of hostility, and a peaceful, non-violent resolution to co-existing with its Palestinian neighbors. I have advocated for peaceful, non-violent negotiation. This is a framework that all people who pursue peace and reconciliation embrace. Both
presidential candidates embrace this approach to advance Middle East negotiations and the peace process. It is our national policy.

The slant of this writer’s article is designed to incite fear and division. It must not be allowed to divert our focus away from the substantive and sensitive debate around the critical foreign policy and domestic economic issues in this critical region of the world.