Another Obama "scary advisor" bites the dust:

"American Thinker" reports:

One of Barack Obama's Middle East policy advisers
disclosed yesterday that he had held meetings with the militant Palestinian
group Hamas - prompting the likely Democratic nominee to sever all links with
him.

Ed Lasky adds:

...Now the Times of London has also identified him as an adviser who has now been "sacked" because it was revealed he had been in contact with the Hamas terror group. The campaign had been telling pro-Israel audiences that Barack Obama would not talk with Hamas unless and until it had renounced terror, recognized Israel, and abided by previous agreements the Palestinians had signed with Israel. Did Malley not get the memo?

A question arises. The campaign has been in full denial mode that Malley was ever an adviser, yet now the paper reports that the campaign has sacked him as an adviser, and furthermore that he was on the Middle East Advisory Council when he left. The paper notes that the Republican Party has been engaged in finding out more about Barack Obama. Did their research reveal this fact about Malley and was that the only reason the campaign now --finally -- was forced to disassociate themselves from this "expert".

The Iconoclast seems to be very familiar with Malley

I know him as Arafat's disinformation agent:

He is perhaps most well known for a controversial series of articles in 2001 blaming Israel and exonerating Arafat for the failure of the Clinton peace efforts.

Malley has recently also been listed by the Washington Post as a Middle East advisor to Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama, though others have disputed this.

While Robert Malley’s past history might seem typical for a bright young man pursuing a senior Middle East policy position in a future Democratic administration, digging a little deeper reveals something quite untypical in his past. Robert Malley grew up in France, where his Egyptian-born father, Simon Malley, and New York raised mother, Barbara (Silverstein) Malley, were radical publishers of a controversial magazine about Africa and the so-called Third World. Malley’s parents were rabidly anti-Israel and counted Yasir Arafat as a personal friend. Indeed, Arafat was among those “leaders” (for want of a better word) who intervened with the French government to readmit the Malley family to France after they had been expelled for their radical activities.

According to this report:

Randy Scheunemann, McCain's foreign policy chief, noted to the Times that Malley is one of a number of Obama advisers let go after causing confusion about the Democratic candidate's policies and positions.

"Perhaps because of his inexperience Senator Obama surrounds himself with advisers that contradict his stated policies," Scheunemann said.

Dreams into lightning comments about the subject as well:

Obama not flattered anymore. Goldfarb at the Standard:

Deftly pivoting on a dime, the Obama campaign has
emphatically declared the irrelevancy of the Hamas endorsement. But it was not
ever thus. Let's enter the way-back machine and journey all the way back to
April when Hamas let its preference be known:

When asked about the endorsement, Obama's chief
strategist, David Axelrod, was flattered that Hamas compared his candidate to
JFK: “We all agree that John Kennedy was a great president, and it's flattering
when anybody says that Barack Obama would follow in his
footsteps.”

And yet suddenly it's dirty pool to mention this endorsement, one that initially flattered the Obama campaign? Actually, Axelrod's initial reaction highlights something I pointed out a couple of weeks ago – Obama loves to be loved, and that leads him to some strange places. We truly have entered some odd ground when a presidential campaign welcomes kind words from an Iranian terror proxy.


I'm wondering about all those Obama's swoonees who relished so much his firm avowal, in the beginning of his campaign, to talk to all the "wretched... scum and villainy" of the galaxy. He seems to have ticked at least one such item off his itinerary. I'm sceptical enough to entertain the idea that he is not being perfectly upfront about his future intentions. But this sure puts his fans in a quandary: either they accept that he is betraying his initial promises, or has undergone a paradigm change (something I'm more inclined to believe) and therefore he is no longer the candidate they were swooning over. Or... he is lying, dissimulating, posturing, in order to get the nomination. Once he gets it, he will revert to his older positions. Which makes him as smarmy and corrupt politician as the ones he has promised to defeat.

So which is he, for them? A wimp, or a manipulative opportunist?

There were other supporters who never swooned, or sang his praises in an abandoned sort of way, but who innately trusted in his judgment. For them, these latest repeatedly stated positions do not come as a surprise.

There is something very unsettling about supporters of a politician swooning over him. It suggests these people think with their hormones, not their minds. It reminded me of those wild-eyed women in "Triumph of the will", in near ecstasy about Hitler's latest speech. Obama retained his cool intellect, and his easy flowing speech, avoiding the big bow-wow of the violin and cello strings. He has an open face and it seems impossible that he would be speaking one thing while secretly nursing another.

I can afford to be a sceptic, since I don't have to make up my mind. I can like the man and even admire him and yet be sceptical. It's a real pleasure to watch this show from the sidelines.

But I have to wonder at his admirers, who have not yet found a decent way of reconciling what he is (an amiable centrist, in the style of Cass Susntein and Marty Peretz) with what they want him to be (a leftist radical like Reverend Wright) . . .