I simply don't follow Hersh's logic here. Seems to me the actions of a president are more important than some familial affiliation with a particular religion - not to mention that candidate Obama has aligned himself with Israel.
These are some of Obama's comments during a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC):
"Our job is to rebuild the road to real peace and lasting security throughout the region... Our job is to do more than lay out another road map."And calling for sustained military support to Israel, Obama said: "We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs."
"That effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: Our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That will always be my starting point."
For Barack Obama to say that "our job is to lay out another road map" for peace while we are providing military support to Israel as the country launches attacks on Palestinians is hypocrisy. There is more than a conflict of interest for the US to go to the table, act as peace brokers, and make demands. But, then, that is what we do as self-appointed police officers to the world. We decry the violence in Kenya. Condi Rice has just made a statement that it must stop. But the violence perpetrated on the Iraqi and Afghan populations by her boss's policies continues without end. Our violence is good violence. Anyone else's is barbaric.
It matters little to me that Barack Obama says he was against invading Iraq. After all, he votes to continue funding it. If this presidential candidate wanted to mend relations with Muslims, he could start by voting against additional war funding.
And he could say no to AIPAC - but this would be political suicide.