By Alex Lebow

    I’m one of those people who think that this election shouldn’t even be close.  If you had told me six months ago that Obama and McCain would be fighting for the White House today, I would have asked what color Michelle Obama should choose for the Oval Office drapes.

     Alas, according to the latest Gallup Daily poll, McCain and Obama are essentially tied with seven weeks to go.

     Surely, I say to myself while reading these numbers, there must be some kind of mistake. With the economy, Iraq, Afghanistan, energy, climate change, and healthcare – all systematically mismanaged or ignored by Republicans and now looming over this country in an ever-constricting tangle of challenges – how can it be so close? And don’t even get me started on Sarah Palin.  

     Unfortunately, the numbers don’t lie; this is going to be a close election. 

     But why exactly is it so close?  I decided today that instead of merely sitting at my computer and speculating about why some people support McCain (as some elitist, arugula-eating, latte-drinking, liberal bloggers might), I would go out and get some first-person, intelligent answers from McCain supporters.

     So it is with this sentiment that I took to the streets today in a highly unscientific quest to find out some specific reasons for why people support McCain.  Today I will address the first of a handful of common reasons that I heard from Penn students:

 “John McCain will support Israel more than Barack Obama will.”

     I’ve always thought that there is nothing more insulting to our founding fathers and the democracy that they built than the single issue voter, who many of these McCain supporters seem to be.  Even so, the attachment and affection that Jewish Americans (and some Christian groups) feel towards Israel is understandable and proper.  Israel is a true friend of the United States and the American people, a military ally, and the strongest and most socially and culturally similar democracy that we will ever see in the Middle East.  The problem with the above statement deals solely with the logic and reasoning of the argument.

     A cursory examination of Obama’s senate record shows extensive support for Israel.  The following is from the National Jewish Democratic Council:

 

“Senator Obama cosponsored the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act. He has joined several letters urging actions on behalf of the interests of the State of Israel, including a letter calling on the European Union to add Hezbollah to its list of terrorist groups, a letter urging President Bush to press Palestinian leadership to bar terrorist groups from Palestinian elections and a letter expressing solidarity with Israel in its fight against terrorism. He has voted multiple times in favor of foreign aid and is a leader in pushing for divestment from Iran.”

 

     But the real reason why Obama will be better for Israel is because Obama will do more to improve the reputation of the United States in the rest of the world, specifically in the Middle East.  Countless billions of dollars of foreign aid to Israel pale in comparison to what this country does for Israel through diplomatic leverage.  The United States has the power to broker peace between Israelis and Palestinians, to rally the world to condemn terrorists like Hezbollah and Hamas, and most importantly to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.  This diplomatic power has been all but erased by eight years of failed Middle East policy which has erroneously regarded military power a more effective substitute.  John McCain has only shown a willingness to continue this policy by “talking tough” about possible military conflict with Iran, a logistical impossibility.  His approach will only further diminish American influence in the Middle East and leave Israel worse off.  The true friend of Israel will understand these negative geopolitical consequences of a McCain administration.  

 Check back in the coming days for my response to another common reason Penn students cited for supporting John McCain, his tax policy and fiscal conservatism.