Pandering in Vain

Tom Schaller critiques Hillary Clinton's pander judgment:

I can maybe see it in the immediate aftermath of Texas v. Johnson when such silliness briefly became a salient issue, but at this late date does anyone think that sponsoring Constitution flag-burning legislation is going to convince anyone to vote for her?

Actually, to me here's the thing about the flag-burning legislation. Clinton sponsored it. I, at some point, wrote a blog post deploring that sort of thing. I promptly received an email from one of Hillaryland's liberal outreach people explaining that the real reason Clinton had sponsored the legislation was to forestall the drive for a flag-burning amendment. That, to me, is pathetic. If you're going to pander on a symbolic issue, you've got to own the pander, take the punch from the left and stand up, damnit, for the cause of flag preservation. Otherwise, what are you accomplishing.

Somewhat similarly, the most pathetic thing about Barack Obama's efforts to bow and scrape for AIPAC are that the AIPAC crowd has been suspicious of him from Day One and his pandering doesn't change the fact that they don't like him. Why not just accept that he'll have to live without that small segment of the public and stand up for a more reasonable policy? Instead, he seems determined to pander in vain.

Comments

Somewhat similarly ...

No, I don't think they're similar at all. Clinton is a technocrat, making one of her usual, cynical moves. Obama wants, apparently, to be seen to be nice to everyone because that's useful to him generally, even if AIPAC isn't going to like him specifically.

These are the things that drive Democrats crazy about these two candidates. You could probably run some kind of news aggregator to write a post like this every day without having to lift a finger.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | January 29, 2008 1:46 PM

Shorter Israel Lobby: "All your politicans are belong to us"

Don't like it? How many $Millions have YOU contributed?

Read'em and weep, Rubes.

Posted by Don Williams | January 29, 2008 1:51 PM

Well, because there is a big difference in AIPACland between being someone that says and promises all the right things and is mistrusted, and someone who outright says the wrong things. The second category is fought hard, has millions spent to destroy their political career and faces an all out public lynching by the media and politicians calling him an anti-Semite.

The first is merely tolerated. He'll never win the AIPAC vote or AIPAC money, and he may yet win without it. But he won't incur their wrath, and he will not ever win if he incurs it.

Think of Howard Dean in 2004. No one in their right mind expected that he could've rivaled Lieberman, Kerry and Edwards for the pro-Israel-nut money and votes, but he was still in the race, and yet when he misspoke, he was doomed.

Posted by saifedean | January 29, 2008 1:53 PM

Say what you want about Bill Clinton, he knew how to own the pander. A master panderer.

Posted by Peter | January 29, 2008 1:58 PM

Bill Clinton ran to the right of Poppy Bush on Cuba (Florida) and Israel, pandering like a madman.

Posted by Peter K. | January 29, 2008 2:04 PM

Or maybe ... Obama agrees with the overwhelming number of Americans who support AIPAC's goals - maintaining a safe Israel, distrusting Palestinians who use every accomodation by Israel as a new launching pad for terrorism against Israel, new opportunities to destroy or exile the Christian Arab community and oh, let's not forget kill gays and young women who embarrass family honor. I don't see why one should not take Obama at his word when he wonders how Israel can be criticized for responding to daily missile attacks from Palestinian territories. AIPAC like all lobby groups feel most comfortable with what they know if what they know has supported them in the past. Obama is wise to reach out to them, eventually he will be the known quantity that they can trust.

Posted by sbmike | January 29, 2008 2:07 PM

Hillary panders in accord with what her focus groups tell her. Her position on "violent video games" is another example of that. There's no science to back her up (in fact, the year that Doom came out was also the year youth violence rates began to nose-dive in the US), but the issue provides (a) great opportunities for moralistic rhetoric, and (b) the safe knowledge that the First Amendment will by and large insulate her from doing anything concrete about it. Talk about wind energy!

Posted by sunsin | January 29, 2008 2:07 PM

None of this has anything to do with Sept 11 , of course. After all, we know they attacked us because they hate our freedom. George Bush and the New York Times told us so.

Posted by Don Williams | January 29, 2008 2:08 PM

That TAP post is Lemieux, not Schaller.

Posted by Scott E | January 29, 2008 2:08 PM

Why not just accept that he'll have to live without that small segment of the public and stand up for a more reasonable policy? Instead, he seems determined to pander in vain.

Because as Saifedean says above, if Obama does that he will not win. I, too, remember Dean saying in the last campaign that the US should be an honest broker between the Israelis and Palestinians. He was savaged for it and had to backpeddle. Because to AIPAC et. al., if you aren't clearly on their side, you are the enemy. That "small segment of the public", as Matt puts it, has outsized influence and power, and if Obama were to say what Dean said it would sink him. I'm surprised Matt would write this after saying that Walt and Mersheimer were more right than wrong about the Israel Lobby.

My hope is that Obama wins, actually does feel that the US should be more evenhanded in its Israel policy, and after 4 or 8 years severely curtails the influence of AIPAC and the Israel Lobby. But Matt is misguided if he thinks that Obama could say he will (try to) change US policy toward Israel before he wins the office.

Posted by blah2 | January 29, 2008 2:32 PM

Obama wants, apparently, to be seen to be nice to everyone because that's useful to him generally, even if AIPAC isn't going to like him specifically. - Grand Moff Texan

To go further, Obama likely knows he's not getting the AIPAC vote. What he's trying to do is to be "kosher" enough to get the votes of many of us Jewsian-types who are certainly not going to vote according to the dictates of AIPAC but who want a candidate who has some degree of sympathy and/or empathy for Israel.

*

Think of Howard Dean in 2004. No one in their right mind expected that he could've rivaled Lieberman, Kerry and Edwards for the pro-Israel-nut money and votes, but he was still in the race, and yet when he misspoke, he was doomed. - saifedean

What you say about the distinction made in AIPAC-land seems alas true ... they'd rather have a dishonest pol who panders to them yet stabs them in the back than someone who is honest, it seems. I think this says something about AIPAC does it not? Indeed, as you point out, AIPAC and friends helped to sink Howard Dean. Ironically, he was the best shot we Jews had of actually having a Jew living in the White House (albeit as the First Lady rather than the Pres).

Maybe they were afraid of a "Nixon goes to China" moment vis-a-vis the Israeli/Palestinian peace process?

Posted by DAS | January 29, 2008 2:37 PM

That was actually me...

Posted by Scott Lemieux | January 29, 2008 2:37 PM

This commenter has the right of it:

http://www.openleft.com/showComment.do?commentId=31971

I am not an Obama supporter or in any energetic way a supporter of any of the rest of them. But I don't particularly hold this noxious bit of pandering against Obama.

I learned long ago that if I were to make a US politician's insistence on civilized behavior from Israel a threshold for my support, I might as well drop out of politics. Every one of them learns early that naming obvious truths about injustice to Palestinians and rampant Israeli brutality and arrogance will simply get them thrown out of the game. As long as they believe pandering to the AIPAC is less costly then working for a just, viable solution, they will dodge, duck, bow, and scrape. GWB's folly in Iraq has reduced their margin for error some by showing the limits of US power in the region. But this kind of politicking isn't actually about foreign policy or even maintenance of the empire. It's a ritual show for domestic consumption.

Like a lot of things our rulers do -- they'll stop when they have to and not before.

-Janinsanfran

Posted by blah2 | January 29, 2008 2:42 PM

Think of Howard Dean in 2004. No one in their right mind expected that he could've rivaled Lieberman, Kerry and Edwards for the pro-Israel-nut money and votes, but he was still in the race, and yet when he misspoke, he was doomed.

I think this is correct. I hate that Obama is pandering to AIPAC. I really do. Yet, after seeing what happened to Dean last time, I really don't question Obama's decision. That was really the start of Dean's collapse. I was proud of what Dean said when he said it, but in retrospect I don't think it was worth the price he paid. It's hard not to conclude that the Israel lobby really does run Washington.

While I'm all for truth-telling, fighting off charges of antisemitism is not what Obama needs at this moment. Obama is urgently trying to build momentum going into Feb. 5. That sort of distraction and drama is exactly what he needs to avoid. He has to put this issue to bed as quietly as possible and move on -- that means he has to say the same bullshit about Israel that every other candidate does so that it's a non-story for the reporters. I don't like it, but I see why its necessary.

Posted by J.B. | January 29, 2008 2:44 PM

Matt,

This one short letter from Obama to the Ambassador Khalilzad is supposed to represent Obama's efforts to "bow and scrape for AIPAC?"

Come on Matt.

Please understand, I am a strong supporter of real and meaningful peace negotiations as well as a just two-State solution between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I've been a vociferous critic of AIPAC, Likud and the Right-wing in both Israel and the United States. My favorite writers on all issues pertaining to the Israelis and the Palestinians are M.J. Rosenberg and Daniel Levy (whose positions on this topic very closely mirror my own).

However, in this particular case, I believe that Obama's comments are not unreasonable. Note that he does NOT attempt to justify the suffering of the people in Gaza, he is only asks that Amb. Khalilzad ensure that any statement or resolution that comes out of the Security Council on this matter demonstrate some balance. If for no other reason, it would provide some reassurances to Israelis, already distrustful of the UN and the Security Council, that there is at least some understanding that their actions (while in my opinion disproportionate and not particularly effective) represent their response to recurrent rocket attacks from within Gaza (by Hamas).

And while I genuinely dislike AIPAC and the positions for which they lobby (which I believe have done much more harm than good for Israel), I do not see the point in any candidate burning bridges with them (which all by itself would become an exaggerated and misleading story).

And as far as pandering is concerned, I think it is important to note that there really exists two types of pandering: an honest type and the dishonest type.

I think it is also important to note that Obama has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to employ honest pandering in order to voice some important truths when speaking (directly or indirectly) with influential interest groups. What Obama routinely does in these instances is to first engage in some honest pandering (on positions, ideas, and policies supported by that interest group that Obama believes are right); then, once he has gained some trust by demonstrating his agreement on key issues, he will then begin to communicate some necessary truths. He has done this with the Teachers Union and his support for merit pay; he has done this with Auto Manufacturers in Detroit who he criticized for not making more fuel efficiency vehicles; and he has done this while talking with Union members about the importance of free trade.

And he has done this with AIPAC. In the Spring in 2007 when he spoke at an AIPAC conference, he did in fact say a great deal of what the attendees wanted to hear (we have a special relationship with Israel, we must always work to ensure Israel's security) which (I believe) Obama genuinely believes. Then he added that we must not forget the suffering of the Palestinian people; that we must return to peace negotiations and that a peace agreement is in the best interests of Israel and her long-term security.

Finally, I am NOT saying that Obama is perfect, or that his technique of providing bitter medicine with a spoonful of sugar is ALWAYS the most effective strategy (though I believe it often is); all I am trying to say is that not all pandering is equal.

And yet your post seems to engage in a "pox on both houses" narrative (Clinton and Obama both engage in harmful pandering), rather than the more thoughtful analysis usually reflected in your writing.

Posted by Aaron M | January 29, 2008 2:46 PM

Imagine some future debate.
Romney:
Clinton is a liberal she even opposes banning flag burning

Clinton:
Actually I think flag burning is reprehensable which is why a sponsored legislation to ban it.

Posted by Craig | January 29, 2008 2:48 PM

"Bill Clinton ran to the right of Poppy Bush on Cuba (Florida) and Israel, pandering like a madman"

He could do that because Herbert Walker was suspicious of the Israelis and a great friend to the residents of the Gulf. As for the Cubans, Bush couldn't see any problem in meeting Gorbachev or the Sheiks, so why should he consider El Presidente any differently?

Posted by Greg | January 29, 2008 2:51 PM

Eric Trager, another Commentary blogger, joins the anti-Obama bandawagon:

Rather, Jewish concerns regarding Obama’s candidacy should focus on whether Obama and his posse view American Jewry as a stumbling block in the way of promoting U.S. interests in the Middle East.

And Likudniks wonder why people accuse them of dual loyalty.

Posted by ndm | January 29, 2008 2:54 PM

Excellent takedown of Matt's reasoning, commenters. When a couple of authors get drummed out of polite society for writing a book about the anti-flag burning lobby, I'll have more sympathy for Mrs. Clinton's positioning.

Posted by brewmn | January 29, 2008 2:56 PM

There's a difference between not getting AIPAC's support and getting crucified by AIPAC (no pun intended).

Its suicidal for a politician to talk about being "evenhanded" between Israel and the Palestinians, like Dean did.

Posted by Jim W | January 29, 2008 2:56 PM

Why AIPAC would favor Hillary, who berated one of Bill's advisors as a "fucking Jew bastard" after he lost his Congressional race, is beyond me.

Posted by Gremlin | January 29, 2008 3:03 PM

Imagine some future debate.
Romney:
Clinton is a liberal she even opposes banning flag burning
Clinton:
Actually I think flag burning is reprehensable which is why a sponsored legislation to ban it.

I wish someone would respond:
"An anti flag-burning amendment would be a humiliating desecration of the Constitution. What should we do - add it after the 'stop calling my mom a whore' amendment?

Posted by ano | January 29, 2008 3:21 PM

In 1987, secret internal AIPAC memos were published in the Washington Post shedding light on how the group really operates. Consider what AIPAC did to presidential candidate Jesse Jackson:

**************************************************
"...the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group, Oct. 6 disavowed a year-old memo that had recently come to light. The memo urged Jewish reporters to raise questions about Jesse Jackson's sex life and finances...."
***************************************************

By now, everyone knows Obama does not want to be Jesse Jackson. Now you know another reason why.

(referenced on page 83 of the book "Foreign Agents: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee from the 1963 Fulbright Hearings to the 2005 Espionage Scandal")

Posted by AIPAC Drive-by Shooting Analyst | January 29, 2008 3:27 PM

What intrigues me is that, in spite of everything, Romney has been able to pander competently, it seems. I mean, his record is awful by Republican standards, and the persona he claims to be -- a conservative, but a *Mormon* conservative -- is better, but still not the ideal of most Republicans. Yet he's sweeping his way through to the nomination, even though he comes off as less sincere than ban-flag-desecration Clinton or how-dare-Hamas Obama.

Posted by Julian Elson | January 29, 2008 3:33 PM

Why AIPAC would favor Hillary, who berated one of Bill's advisors as a "fucking Jew bastard" after he lost his Congressional race, is beyond me.

If you didn't get your news from the National Enquirer, you wouldn't have that problem.

(Yes, I know the story first broke in the New York Post, but the author of the book in question really did work for the National Enquirer.)
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | January 29, 2008 3:35 PM

That's right folks, oppose AIPAC and we "Jewsians" (rightest Likudniks and our brainwashed evangelical puppets) will "crucify" you.

Very nice.

Just the kind of thing Father Coughlin, Henry Ford, and the CPUSA folks used to say.

The Palis happily have their religious leaders preach genocide, blow up pizza parlors, stone homosexuals, and steal from one another. But according to you, the problem is the Jews - the same people who have created a progressive, social democratic state with welfare, women's rights, and a vibrant economy that has more technology companies on NASDAQ than any other foreign country and is a recognized world leader in biotechnology, green energy, and water conservation, and all WITHOUT the massive international welfare payments given to the corrupt thieves who run "Palestine."

Progressive leftists - supporting terrorists, hating Jews, and proud of it. You all must be very proud, following in the footsteps of Karl Marx, Joe Stalin, and that whacky National Socialist, A. Hitler.

Wankers.

Posted by Eagle613 | January 29, 2008 3:42 PM

You all must be very proud, following in the footsteps of Karl Marx, Joe Stalin, and that whacky National Socialist, A. Hitler.

Another one of Jonah's victims, apparently.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | January 29, 2008 3:48 PM

I really am surprised at how someone as sophisticated as you has fallen into using the "AIPAC conspiracy" label rather than talking about the strong support for Israel that most U.S. politicians have.

You could get rid of AIPAC tomorrow and it would not change things much in this regard. That would allow politicians to be quieter on the topic but it would probably not change the underlying dynamic very much. There is a deep sympathetic preference in this country for Israel over Palestinians, deal with it, politicians have to.

What AIPAC does well is make them talk about it and they publicize and rate whatever they say. I'm willing to bet that what most politicians fear is not loss of AIPAC money or votes from AIPAC members but the publicity if they don't say something sufficiently pro-Israel.

Pandering to the anti-Castro lobby has always been much more of a cynical political ploy aimed specifically at important electoral districts or demographics because most Americans don't care. It is not so necessary for a national politician once elected to continue to do it, example: Elian Gonzales and Bill Clinton.

But not "pandering to AIPAC," as you call it, is something politicians cannot easily do even if they'd like to until they are totally out of office like Jimmy Carter. That's not because of AIPAC, but because most Americans, not just AIPAC, still hold a preference for Israel's side of the story even as they probably look down on both sides.

A Jim W says:

There's a difference between not getting AIPAC's support and getting crucified by AIPAC (no pun intended).
Its suicidal for a politician to talk about being "evenhanded" between Israel and the Palestinians, like Dean did.

It's all about AIPAC being willing to spend money to publicize it when a politician voices an opinion that's out of sync with the sympathies of the bigger public.

Posted by artappraiser | January 29, 2008 3:52 PM

those who laud obama's politics of hope and inclusion for its effort to achieve bipartisanship can't really criticize hillary for throwing red meat to the right wing base, can they? unless there is a double standard that i am missing here somewhere.

Posted by english teacher | January 29, 2008 4:45 PM

They're politicians. Pandering is what they do.

Posted by Gus | January 29, 2008 4:50 PM

Re artappraiser's comment "It's all about AIPAC being willing to spend money to publicize it when a politician voices an opinion that's out of sync with the sympathies of the bigger public."
----------
When S Daniel Abraham stabbed Howard Dean in the back with a barrage of TV attack ads in the 2004 Iowa primary, Abraham didn't engage in a Socratic Dialogue with the voters re the merits of US Israel policy.

In fact, S Daniel didn't even reveal that it was he who was behind the ads -- the attack was hidden as 527 (Americans for Jobs) which REFUSED to reveal its funding sources until months later.

Similarly, that deluge of money flowing into a rural Georgia district to kill off Cynthia McKinney in the Democratic PRIMARY didn't reveal its source -- nor did it engage in a dialogue with the poor blacks of that district re whether their sons should die in Iraq defending Sharon's aggression.

In my opinion, AIPAC is filthy, it's dishonest and it's disloyal to this country --as are those who defend it's despicable acts.

Posted by Don Williams | January 29, 2008 5:13 PM

What I most dislike about AIPAC however, is its anti-Semitism. It's claim that its character is representive of the Jews of this country.

Posted by Don Williams | January 29, 2008 5:15 PM

In my opinion, AIPAC is filthy, it's dishonest and it's disloyal to this country --as are those who defend it's despicable acts.

The actions you describe don't really distinguish AIPAC from any other PAC, so far as I can tell. But I do suspect that their members are in violation of US Code Title 18, section 951.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | January 29, 2008 5:20 PM

For those who don't think Obama is pandering based on his letter to the US UN Ambassador, try this:

Obama rejects Palestinian right of return
http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3499906,00.html

Money quotes:

Obama declared that he objects to a Palestinian right of return into Israel and to negotiations with Islamic group Hamas as long as it clings
to its current stance, which rejects Israel's right to exist. He added that he will make sure to guarantee Israel's security should he be elected president.

"I've also repeatedly made clear that I'm committed to ensuring that Israel remains a Jewish state and that's why I've pledged my personal
leadership in a process to establish two states living side by side in peace and security," he said.

"committed to ensuring that Israel remains a Jewish state"? WTF?

Since when is that a requirement to be elected President of the US according to the Constitution, hmmmmm?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 29, 2008 6:58 PM

You could get rid of AIPAC tomorrow and it would not change things much in this regard. That would allow politicians to be quieter on the topic but it would probably not change the underlying dynamic very much. There is a deep sympathetic preference in this country for Israel over Palestinians, deal with it, politicians have to.

There's some truth to this, but it's also hard to imagine that American policy wouldn't be different in the absence of AIPAC (and other pro-Israel groups. First, while American public opinion has always been on the side of Israelis, I don't think the Arab-Israeli conflict is very important to voters who aren't Jewish (or Arab). Second, to the extent public opinion counts, it's balanced by other factors, such as the geopolitical interest in maintaining good relations with oil-producing Arab states.

If you look at American policy towards Israel in the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's, when public opinion was overwhelmingly on the side of Israel, but the Israel Lobby was nowhere near the powerful force it is now, the United States (1) gave far less military & economic aid to Israel than it does now, (2) was far more willing to vote against Israel on the UN Security Council, (3) was much more inclinded to place pressure on Israel vis-a-vis its Arab neighbors. And this was during a period when Israel's geopolitical position was far more precarious than it is now. Obviously, the rise of AIPAC wasn't the only factor, but it's hard to imagine that it wasn't significant.

Posted by Peter H | January 29, 2008 7:38 PM

Re Richard Steven Hack

The blogs resident bank robber and ex-con once again
pops off. Mr. Hack considers anyone who doesn't think it a good idea to give the Jews in Israel the Eichmann treatment to be a panderer to AIPAC. It is most certainly not a requirement that Senator Obama or any of the other candidates pay any attention to someone who forfeit his right to vote when he stuck a gun in a bank tellers face and suggested that failure to empty the cash drawer would be tantamount to a suicidal action on the part of the latter.

Posted by SLC | January 29, 2008 7:42 PM

Someone who repeatedly calls for "Hama rules", i.e., extermination. to be applied to the Palestinians, is in no position to talk about "Eichmann treatments."

And BTW, having been a bank employee, I was perfectly well aware that bank employees are instructed to cooperate fully with bank robbers, so the risk of a bank employee being shot was fairly small - unless of course some cop was standing in line and tried to shoot me (which was possible.)

Not to mention that there was no round in the chamber, to insure that under the tension of the moment I didn't accidentally shoot someone.

I even thought to bring that up at the sentencing hearing, pointing out that it placed me at risk since I would have had to chamber a round if attacked, but my attorney nixed that as indicating I had thought too much about planning the robbery.

Some inmates I spoke with later who fantasized about being bank robbers thought that the best approach was to shoot someone immediately on entering the bank, to show people you meant business. I told them that was stupid. Your goal is to get money, not start a panic which might interfere with that.

Since I'm an anarchist, forfeiting my right to vote isn't actually a big issue with me, either.

I think foreign agents of Israel probably ought to lose the right to vote in the US. People like Doug Feith, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz...SLC.

You know, traitors...People who sell US classified information to Israel...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 29, 2008 8:24 PM

One of my favorite things about Obama is that he doesn't naturally make enemies. My absolute biggest concern about him is that he won't make the right enemies (and I don't mean AIPAC, although that might be necessary.)

Posted by aleks | January 29, 2008 8:56 PM

"committed to ensuring that Israel remains a Jewish state"? WTF?

Since when is that a requirement to be elected President of the US according to the Constitution, hmmmmm?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack
*****************

It's not a constitutional requirement, any more than creating jobs or securing the national apple pie supply is. It's a policy position.

Posted by aleks | January 29, 2008 9:02 PM

Should banners symbolize banning everything? Let’s hope the fabric of democracy is stronger than a piece of cloth. ('Flags On Fire' at www.roughgang.com)

Posted by Jarvis | January 29, 2008 10:57 PM

I believe I was aware that it was a policy decision.

The question might have been better phrased as: Why is this a policy decision that is required to be promoted in order to be elected President of the US, as opposed to being elected in Israel?

May I assume you get the point?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 30, 2008 1:58 AM

Forgot to add:

If Obama wants to guarantee that Israel remains a Jewish state, what is he going to do when the Arabs in Israel outnumber the Jews in Israel, which should occur in a few decades based on relative birthrates?

Is he then going to advocate apartheid IN Israel as opposed to merely ignoring it in the occupied territories?

The President of the US has no business committing either to Israel's security - for which we have no treaty - and still less committing to insuring that the internal demographics of another state favor a particular religious or ethnic group.

Of course, he doesn't. He's merely pandering out of sheer IGNORANCE of the facts, and not caring as long as he can extract some Jewish dollars into the campaign coffers - which he will fail at, since he's not liked as much by the AIPAC crowd as Clinton is - by far.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 30, 2008 2:04 AM

Re Richard Steven Hack

1. Mr. Hack states that when he stuck his gun in the bank tellers' face, there was no round in the chamber. I don't know if he was using an automatic or a revolver but in either case, it is elementary gun safety not to have a round in the chamber. Tell us Mr. Hack, was the gun otherwise loaded. Mr. Hack will have a hard time convincing us that he stuck up a bank with an unloaded gun.

2. Mr. Hack seems to think that he's some kind of hero because he didn't have a round in the chamber. Tell us Mr. Hack, if the teller had said "fuck you," would Mr. Hack have quietly walked out of the bank or would he have jacked a round into the chamber to show that he meant business (assuming he had an automatic).

3. From the point of view of the bank teller, he/she had no way of knowing whether Mr. Hack was high on smack or crack, which is ofter the case these days. Cooperation with someone in that state might not be sufficient to avoid being shot. The bank teller could have easily suffered a fatal heart attack, in which case, Mr. Hack would have ended up strapped to a gurney, rather then spending 9 years bending over for the brothers and then spending the rest of his miserable life posting crap on various blogs.

Posted by SLC | January 30, 2008 7:57 AM

An AIPAC post from Matt Y. and no mention of the famous aviation pioneer?

Posted by otto | January 30, 2008 10:58 AM