An article from Simon Tisdall of The Guardian grabbed my attention this morning.  He's up in arms about Obama's deafening silence regarding the Hamas/Israeli conflict.  The title of the article, "Obama is losing a battle he doesn't know he's in" [sic], is telling enough.  The gist of the article is that Obama's already a disappointment, because, even though he's not yet president, he's not placating the Moslems in the Middle East.

But evidence is mounting that Obama is already losing ground among key Arab and Muslim audiences that cannot understand why, given his promise of change, he has not spoken out. Arab commentators and editorialists say there is growing disappointment at Obama's detachment . . .

As proof of his assertion, Tisdall states:

The Al-Jazeera satellite television station recently broadcast footage of Obama on holiday in Hawaii, wearing shorts and playing golf, juxtaposed with scenes of bloodshed and mayhem in Gaza. Its report criticising "the deafening silence from the Obama team" suggested Obama is losing a battle of perceptions among Muslims that he may not realise has even begun.

Remember, The Guardian was one of the biggest champions of Obama, pre-election, and practically danced in glee, with most of the rest of Europe, when he was elected.  Clearly, Tisdall is already disenchanted with Obama, but his article isn't much more than an opinion piece, framed as hard journalism.

"People recall his campaign slogan of change and hoped that it would apply to the Palestinian situation," Jordanian analyst Labib Kamhawi told Liz Sly of the Chicago Tribune. "So they look at his silence as a negative sign. They think he is condoning what happened in Gaza because he's not expressing any opinion."

This sounds like posturing to me.  Personally, I think that most rational citizens of both the Middle east, and EU countries are willing to take a wait-and-see approach to Obama's presidency, and recognize posturing for what it is.  Tisdall either buys it hook, line, and sinker, or recognizes it as posturing as well, but won't let it interfere with his opinion.  Either way, it diminishes his credibility as a reporter, as far as I'm concerned.

Regional critics claim Obama is happy to break his pre-inauguration "no comment" rule on international issues when it suits him. They note his swift condemnation of November's terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Obama has also made frequent policy statements on mitigating the impact of the global credit crunch.

Expressing a personal opinion regarding the Mumbai terrorist attacks, and speaking about what his official American government global policy would be, are two different things, at this point.  Nobody approves of terrorist attacks, except for those who either commit them, or back those who do.  Also, any statements that Obama has made about the current global economy are not official "policy."

There is a global credit crunch, to be sure, but at this point, Obama has ideas about how to deal with it, that are not government "policy," and let's face it -- he won't be able to cure it, anyway.  Financial crises are cyclical.  People tend to forget that the economy in the U.S. took a nice little nosedive with the dot-bomb crunch before the end of Bill Clinton's administration, which Bush inherited.  Those who like to say that Bush inherited a boom economy are merely dreaming about the past.

If Tisdall is so quick to criticize Obama for not speaking out about global issues, why is he not whining about Obama's silence regarding Russia's gas supply cutoff to Ukraine, since that's the country through which a good chunk (~ 20%) of Europe's supply comes?  This could easily affect the UK.

On the campaign trail, Obama (like Clinton) was broadly supportive of Israel and specifically condemnatory of Hamas.

So, where, exactly is the contradiction, here?  Obama's designated Sec'ty of State, Hillary Clinton, got elected to the senate, in large part, due to her NYC-based Jewish constituency.  Why does this journalist think that America's support of Israel will change -- or for that matter, should change?

As the Gaza casualty headcount goes up and Obama keeps his head down, those sentiments are beginning to sound a little hollow. The danger is that when he finally peers over the parapet on January 21, the battle of perceptions may already be half-lost.

They were already lost by those of us who didn't vote for him, and groaned when he won the election.  Obama may yet surprise me, but I won't be holding my breath, as long as Pelosi's running the senate.

There's another article about Obama proposing big tax cuts for us U.S. taxpayers, to stimulate the domestic economy, but that can wait for another blog entry.