However, I wouldn't take it too seriously. From my perspective as a long-time consumer of US politics, it is clearly triangulation. Obama's politics of hope may end up meaning "say everything and anything and hope for the best".
I have two, mutually exclusive theories about what Obama meant:
1) It wasn't just triangulation, it was clumsy triangulation, revealing his lack of experience and delicacy on this matter. Obama could have easily met expectations at his AIPAC address by repeating boilerplate Democratic talking points that stop well short of what he said. The Jewish vote in the US is influence by AIPAC, but not controlled by it; Obama's demographics favor white collars and academic robes, which is generally speaking the Jewish demographic as well. So he already has most of their vote without pandering to AIPAC, and it isn't like he is so desperate for money that he needs AIPAC fundraising. And AIPAC knows a pander when they see it.
Obama is a quick study, and will probably clean up his rhetoric in time for the general election. But he will pay a certain price for absurdly and unnecessarily trying to get to the right of McCain on this.
And, it could mean that his foreign policy in office will be equally ad hoc, which could be, as you say, a disaster waiting to happen.
OR...
2) It was clever triangulation. The purpose was to make headlines, and to insulate him from his past association with Palestinian radicals (in my opinion) like Rashid Khalidi (about whom AIPAC audience members quizzed him). An intriguing possibility is that the undivided Jerusalem rhetoric was designed to get Hamas to withdraw its "endorsement". Which they did, conveniently just a few days after the remark, but with remarkably mild rhetoric (for Hamas, that is). Obama, having got what he wanted, will probably "clarify" that he meant an undivided "open" city, not an undivided Israeli city, or perhaps pretend he never said it and reiterate US policy boilerplate. Or something like that.
This could mean that his foreign policy will be downright Machiavellian!
So, I don't know if 1) or 2) is correct, but either way, I can guarantee you he didn't mean it as a serious statement of policy. __ I am the most conservative Unitarian-Universalist you will ever meet.
But that leak blew up in his face, big time. Progressives alienated, Canada embarrassed, advisors resigned or sidelined, etc.
If on the other hand we assume his team was being clever in the NAFTA incident, what does it mean that he reassured Canada, but not Mexico? Under this theory, he is sending the message that his anti-NAFTA rhetoric was directed mainly against Mexico, which sounds uncomfortably like a racist pander to steal Anglo blue-collar votes away from Clinton. And, there's plenty of anti-Hispanic animus in the African-American community, although it is taboo to talk about it.
So, you may be right, but I am still torn between 1) and 2). __ I am the most conservative Unitarian-Universalist you will ever meet.
Maybe he's just the least incompetent of a field of 16 incompetent presidential candidates. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
