Obama Says Jerusalem Status Did Not Come Up With Palestinian Leaders*
EmailSen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, issued a statement clarifying that he and Palestinian National Authority officials didn’t discuss Jerusalem during their meeting today.
“Senator Obama did not discuss Jerusalem in the meeting with President Abbas, Prime Minister Fayyad and their colleagues," Obama senior adviser Robert Gibbs said in a statement. "His position on the issue was never raised.”
Obama himself told ABC News’ Charles Gibson in an interview to air Wednesday night on World News with Charles Gibson that the topic was not raised.
Earlier on Wednesday, a reporter had accidentally combined editorial notes with a statement from President Abbas and circulated the combined statement among other members of the Obama traveling press corps, giving the impression that Abbas had claimed that Obama had "corrected" a statement he’d made.
- jpt
UPDATE: The content of this blog has been corrected to account for inaccurate information accidentally transmitted from a pool reporter.
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Jake I don’t think this conflicts with what the PNA said…they sound like they may have been referring to his previous statements not what he said in the meeting.
Posted by: dl | July 23, 2008, 11:54 am 11:54 am
the tight-rope that oddbama’s been walking on is getting thinner and thinner
from community leader to commander in chief—uh not unless we really do have pink unicorns to take us over the rainbow
Posted by: carpenter.nyc | July 23, 2008, 11:56 am 11:56 am
How long before Obama has to say this aide’s response was “unartful”.
Posted by: geevill | July 23, 2008, 11:58 am 11:58 am
So did he meet with Hamas also?
Posted by: spock | July 23, 2008, 12:06 pm 12:06 pm
The statement was “corrected”. That’s the important thing. A lot of press coverage was devoted to this trip. In fact, with so much press coverage, it’s hard to believe the Republican nominee is close in the polls. In a year when the Democrat should be far ahead, the polls show a tight race. Even with the media’s support, it is essentially tied. Voters just seem to like an underdog.
Posted by: Independent | July 23, 2008, 12:11 pm 12:11 pm
A naive, inexperienced, double-talking POTUS is dangerous. Obama is just too risky.
Posted by: HoosierSue | July 23, 2008, 12:12 pm 12:12 pm
Interesting conflict in “recollections”.
Posted by: Stephen Gianelli | July 23, 2008, 12:13 pm 12:13 pm
Perhaps the prophet Obama will learn the peril of bi-lateral unscripted meetings with world leaders on this trip.
Posted by: smith | July 23, 2008, 12:18 pm 12:18 pm
“In a year when the Democrat should be far ahead, the polls show a tight race.”
Posted by: Belle Starr | July 23, 2008, 12:27 pm 12:27 pm
With all the attention this tour is bringing to Obama’s remarks on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, he’s beginning to sound like like George Bush’s REAL third-term. Take ‘em out of Iraq, send ‘em to Afghanistan, bomb Pakistan! Sounds like a “war president” to me!
Posted by: Charlie35 | July 23, 2008, 12:30 pm 12:30 pm
HoosierSue, “A naive, inexperienced, double-talking POTUS is dangerous”
You and your fellow republicans should know, you’ve kept Bush in office for 8 years.
Posted by: JR | July 23, 2008, 12:32 pm 12:32 pm
“With all the attention this tour is bringing to Obama’s remarks on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, he’s beginning to sound like like George Bush’s REAL third-term.”
Posted by: Belle Starr | July 23, 2008, 12:33 pm 12:33 pm
Poster “tanarg”, in another thread here:
“I pray that the Democrats are now scrambling behind the scenes to knock this guy off his pedestal — and quickly.
Those delegates who haven’t been brainwashed need to be recruited to get rid of him before the convention.”
Posted by: Belle Starr | July 23, 2008, 12:41 pm 12:41 pm
PNA states that “undivided Jerusalem” statement was corrected, Obama said the issue did not come up: so did Obama say to the PNA leadership, “I was just messin’ wit ‘em, I meant an undivided Jerusalem, but as part of Palestine.”
Posted by: strike a pose | July 23, 2008, 12:41 pm 12:41 pm
We know the playbook. Obama reassures themin private that his campaign rhetoric is all for show. When it becomes public Obama denies he said that.
Posted by: geevill | July 23, 2008, 12:42 pm 12:42 pm
—No guts, no glory.—
It reminds me of a reality show where the mob gets to select the winner. Not a bad process, except the media gets to select the contestants. There were a few good candidates, they just didn’t get the media exposure to contend.
Posted by: Independent | July 23, 2008, 12:45 pm 12:45 pm
We know the playbook. Obama reassures themin private that his campaign rhetoric is all for show. When it becomes public Obama denies he said that.
Posted by: geevill | Jul 23, 2008 12:42:29 PM
______________
geevill, I’m curious. How do you know what Barack Obama says in private?
Posted by: obamamama | July 23, 2008, 12:50 pm 12:50 pm
I am confounded that some people actually think Barack Obama is not going to be the nominee. What sort of dream world do you live in, Belle Starr?
Posted by: obamamama | July 23, 2008, 12:52 pm 12:52 pm
“It reminds me of a reality show where the mob gets to select the winner. Not a bad process, except the media gets to select the contestants.”
Posted by: Belle Starr | July 23, 2008, 12:52 pm 12:52 pm
“What sort of dream world do you live in, Belle Starr?”
Posted by: Belle Starr | July 23, 2008, 12:55 pm 12:55 pm
geevil
considering all these people have been “reassured in private” as you say…and they all have seen his public statements to which you are alluding are contradictory to what he is tellign in private…
do you think all these leaders are just stupid and that’s why they give him such great praise and in your mind political cover after their meetings…
oy sometimes the theories on here…
you have to be an idiot to come up with theories like that.
these leaders are smarter than you and they have seen more than you have…
yet you want to push the your genius theory that they are being doubletimed by Obama and you can see it but they don’t…
you are a moron. next you are going to say that Obama is really not black or white…he’s actually a giraffe who wants to take over the world for his home planet…the land of abracadabra…and on the way he shot elvis and jfk…
Posted by: dl | July 23, 2008, 1:04 pm 1:04 pm
“Not a bad process, except the media gets to select the contestants. There were a few good candidates, they just didn’t get the media exposure to contend. ”
(snipped from a very wise “Independent”
______
It’s like living behind an iron curtain, enslaved by the media in a new reality TV program from which all the contestants will depart as losers.
Loss of Freedom of the Press.
Loss of Freedom to unbiased information.
Loss of Freedom to the fair selection of
of Candidates.
Loss of Freedom to say anything
negative about a
candidate without being
labeled a “racist”.
Posted by: hmmmm | July 23, 2008, 1:12 pm 1:12 pm
One in which a man of real intelligence and integrity (Barack Obama) is about to be elected POTUS. One in which we regain the respect of the world and seek peace through diplomacy. One where not only the rich have a chance to thrive.
Posted by: obamamama | July 23, 2008, 1:22 pm 1:22 pm
“a man of real intelligence and integrity”
Posted by: Belle Starr | July 23, 2008, 1:38 pm 1:38 pm
Belle, I haven’t yet found a candidate who didn’t have a long list of less-than-palatable associates. The Clintons do, McCain does. These people rub elbows with at fundraisers and events, on boards, etc. with so many opportunists. They can’t possibly vet everyone in their lives and everyone they meet. We’ve gone totally over the top expecting it. None of us could live up to that kind of scrutiny unless we lived on Sesame Street.
Posted by: obamamama | July 23, 2008, 2:51 pm 2:51 pm
The press corp. You mean the Paparazzi that call them selves ABC, CBS and MSNBC
Posted by: nowaty | July 23, 2008, 3:01 pm 3:01 pm
Rezko and Obama had a reciprocal “you wash my back, I’ll wash yours” relationship. Wright was Obama’s pastor and mentor for 20 years until he became too much of a political liability. Ayers and Obama go back to Columbia U and are connected through the Woods Fund and Annenburg Challenge. These are not “acquaintances” or “supporters/endorsers”. They are part and parcel of who Barack Obama is. You don’t wash Obama’s sins clean by pointing fingers at everyone else. You can’t “hope” the truth away!
Posted by: HoosierSue | July 23, 2008, 3:40 pm 3:40 pm
Rezko just went through a trial. If they had anything on Obama, it would have come out. All I’ve ever seen about the relationship with Ayers is that they served on a board together. I’ve served on boards with people I know nothing about. I don’t go to church and have no idea what anyone’s pastor says. I don’t like Wright much myself, but he’s certainly not going to push me to vote for McCain, whose positions are far removed from my own. I don’t share your disdain for hope. I am realistic enough not to put a candidate on a pedestal. I’ve read their books, watched and read as much varied news as possible, and formed my own opinion between flawed, human candidates.
I do not share your disdain for hope. It’s what makes us get out of bed each morning.
Posted by: obamamama | July 23, 2008, 3:55 pm 3:55 pm
“All I’ve ever seen about the relationship with Ayers is that they served on a board together.”
Not true. See the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. They had a working relationships for some time.
Rezko is more interesting. Trials do not cause all facts of a relationship to come out, only the ones pertinent to the matter before the court. It is evident that they had a fiduciary relationship with many aspects to it.
Criminal? No information has been brought before a grand jury that has been released publicly. But for historical comparison, Rezko is Obama’s Billy Sol Estes.
The information goes to character and judgement. Obama is light in experience and has a history of bad associations. Is that a disqualifying quality? Not to the leaders of the DNC. To the American voters then? To be seen. The poll numbers don’t show an electorate as entranced with him as his supporters and the media are and those numbers appear to be holding despite the best efforts of both.
So something is sticking the voter’s gut about this man. They don’t seem to trust him. And that is precisely what questions of character and judgment tend to cause.
Posted by: len | July 23, 2008, 5:07 pm 5:07 pm