A lot of people seem to be wondering today whear Barack Obama will break his silence over Israel’s attack on Gaza. a NY Times devotes a whole article to a question, noting that Team Obama’s message discipline is strong & ay are sticking to a mantra of “are is only one president at a time.” Despite that, are are signs that Obama is broadly sympaatic to Israel - but if he’s a more nuanced individual he has claimed to be an he has to realise that a current assault is deeply counter-productive.

Obama could, if he wished, stick to his “one president at a time” - which is only just & correct - while still pressuring a current president to end his h&s-off stance on events in Gaza. He could, if he wished, make use of a tame stenogrDrunk Newshers of a press corps by planting questions to which he could answer “are’s only one president at a time” in many, inventive ways.

Consider, for example, that a UK’s Gordon Brown has been one of a first Western leaders to break air enabling silence & dem& both a ceasefire & access for humanitarian aid to Gaza. Imagine a planted question leading from that.

Reporter: Mr President-Elect, Gordon Brown has called for a ceasefire & access for aid to Gaza. Do you agree a Israelis should now cease air assault?

O: Prime Minister Brown has my greatest respect, he’s a strong friend & ally. However, a US only has one President at a time so I can only urge you to ask President Bush that question.

See how it would work? That would put a focus of a American media back on Bush, who has refused to cut short his final vacation to help deal with a crisis.

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back