The Times today has a story about Obama and the Jews. I have the following comments:
[UPDATE: I just caught the transcript of Obama's meeting with Jewish community leaders in Cleveland last week. Unfortunately, Obama lies pretty blatantly, to wit (referring to the award his church's magazine gave to Farrakhan): "An award was given to Farrakhan for his work on behalf of ex-offenders completely unrelated to his controversial statements." As I've noted before, the honor for Farrakhan was for his dedication to "truth," with no mention of ex-offenders. You can watch the magazine's video tribute to Farrakhan here, and decide for yourself if Obama is accurately represented the award. (After a clip of Farrakhan discussing his willingness to die for "truth," the narrator explains that Farrakhan is being honored for his commitment to "truth, education, and leadership.") The award is named after Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's spiritual mentor who, as noted below, has also fulsomely praised Farrakhan's devotion to truth. [And this video calls Rev. Wright the magazine's "CEO" at the time of the award.] Back in mid-January, Obama, when asked about the award, said, "I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree." At the time, one could reasonably attribute Obama's statement to a false assumption that he and his aides hadn't the time to check up on. Now, with his aides having had a month and a half to discover the easily verifiable truth, I have to conclude he is simply being disingenuous. Obama thus avoided addressing the real concern, which is that his church's magazine and his spiritual mentor state that they honoring and praising Farrakhan precisely because of his stated political and racial views, which they claim are "honest" and reflect "truth." Note that as Andrew Sullivan has pointed out, this is not something that concerns only Jews.]
(1) The problems Obama is having with Democratic Jewish voters are exaggerated. Obama is doing about as well as one could expect while running against Hillary Clinton, a Senator from the state with the largest Jewish population in the country, and the wife of a former president who is extremely popular among Jews, and Jewish Democrats in particular. Much of the current handwringing over Jewish support from Obama comes from very liberal Jewish activists such as Josh Marshall and M.J. Rosenberg, who are infatuated with Obama, and can't understand why their fellow Jews aren't as well, given their belief that Obama, unlike Clinton, has the potential to lead the U.S. to a new era of Progressive liberal politics.
(2) The answer is that "Progressive" Jews tend to overestimate how liberal their ethnic cohort is. While Jews are much more liberal than the population as a whole, "self-described moderates and conservatives in the Jewish community outnumber self-described liberals by 57% to 42%", and those who identify themselves as "slightly liberal" outnumber "extremely liberal" 12% to 4%. And given that only about 15% of Jews are Republicans, even among Democrats and independents there are at least as many self-described moderates and conservatives as liberals. I'm sure that some of these "moderates" are actually reasonably liberal by mainstream standards, but when it comes to voting behavior self-description presumably often trumps detailed issues analysis, given voter ignorance.
(3) But why are many Jews suspicious of Obama? First, Jews (beyond the activist minority, which I suppose includes me) generally are inclined to prefer stability, as stable societies tend to be tolerant ones. And most Jews, like most Americans, never heard of Obama until recently, and many of his supporters seem to premise their support of him on the view that he will be destabilizing in some way ("change"). Not to mention that the last Democrat who came out of nowhere to become president promising change, Jimmy Carter, quickly became uniquely unpopular among Jews, failing to even get a majority of the Jewish vote in 1980.
(4) Second, Obama gives occasional signs of being a leftist. While leftist Jews are a vocal minority, leftists give even many mainstream liberal Jews a certain queasiness. In part, this is for the stability reasons suggested above. But it's also because left-wing hostility to Israel, suspicious to Jews as such, often crosses over into hostility to Jews. And it's not just a fringe phenomenon, as even respected leftist academics are occasionally known to say things about prominent Jews such as "Having a Likudnik as the number three man in the Pentagon is a nightmare for American national security, since [Douglas] Feith could never be trusted to put US interests over those of Ariel Sharon." For that matter, one can look at any comment thread on the Huffington Post when Dershowitz writes about Israel.
And even if Obama himself is a mainstream liberal, not a leftist, the fact that he has been receiving dispoportionate support (compared to Clinton) from the leftist contingent of the Democratic Pary raises suspicions that at best some of these people will get political power in an Obama admnistration, and at worst, "they know something we don't know." (The latter suspicion stoked by comments by a prominent Arab American activist who interacted often with Obama that Obama used to be very pro-Palestinian before he decided to run for president, and promises to be again.) It's entirely possible, and I think actually probable, that Obama is actually far more "conservative" personally than his longstanding political persona would suggest; I take it that one doesn't get elected to his former seat in the Illionis legislature if one is anything but a very liberal Democrat, and running to the clearly right of Clinton wouldn't have been a sound political strategy. But experience trumps speculation.
(5) It's no secret that according to polling data, anti-Semitism is much higher among African Americans than among the public as a whole, and that a parade of prominent African American politicians--Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Cynthia McKinney--has been implicated in provoking or taking advantage of such sentiments. Perhaps nothing is as disturbing, or as mystifying, to Jews as the longstanding and continuing respect and admiration that Louis Farrakhan receives from prominent African Americans. It is, after all, undisputed that Farrakhan is an unrepentant bigot, whose Nation of Islam cult sells blatantly false, hateful tracts claiming a longstanding Jewish plot to suppress African Americans. When Obama decided on a spiritual mentor, he chose Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who has longstanding ties to Farrakhan (he took a trip to Libya with him in 1985, for example), and who recently praised praised Farrakhan for his "astounding and eyeopening" analysis of the "racial ills of this nation," a "perspective," he added, that is "helpful and honest." He chose to be a member of Wright's Afrocentric church, whose magazine recently honored Farrakhan for his purported dedication "truth, education, and leadership."
The Times article's author seems perplexed that "Obama's pastor" "has been viewed with suspicion." Quite obviously, it's not perplexing at all. Obama's ties to Rev. Wright raise some interesting questions. It's not that people think that Obama likes Farrakhan, or likely shares Wright's puerile anti-Israel views. The question is, why this church, and this pastor? The charitable view is that Obama was genuinely, religiously moved by his encounters with Wright and his congregation, and he found a spiritual home completely removed from politics. But Obama is a politician, and people tend to be somewhat suspicious of politicians. The cynical take is that the church and its 8,000 congregants served as an important political base for the previously irreligious Obama, and that he was willing to overlook Wright's more incendiary and dubious stances to secure that base. Now that Obama is running for president, he is conveniently distancing himself from some of this, but always in a manner that suggests he's still afraid of alienating people who find Wright's perspective congenial. Jews, not surprisingly, are inclined to support someone who stands up to anti-Semitism and its enablers (Rev. Wright) directly, and not just when it's politically convenient.
(6) All that said, Obama has been generally saying exactly the right things to soothe concerns among Jewish voters, including his MLK Day speech in which he denounced anti-Semitism in the black community, and his invocation at the recent debate of the historical civil rights ties between blacks and Jews. But if we keep in mind how popular the Clintons are among Jewish voters, that Bush received 25% of the vote against Kerry, and that McCain has a moderate reputation and has virtually no specifically Jewish-related blemishes, it's hardly surprising that Obama isn't being received with universal adulation in the Jewish community.
But some Jews are, indeed, still troubled by this. I don't think it's because they actually think Obama likes Farrakhan or is an anti-Semite or even is disinclined for support of Israel as the linchpin of U.S. Mideast policy. Instead, I think the difference between they and I is that I think the best thing for Israel and the U.S. alike is an approach to the Mideast which does not contemplate unilaterally toppling governments we don't like via full-scale invasion. They're thus inherently skeptical of the peace candidate (Obama) and inclined toward the hawk candidate (which HRC clearly is at least as between the two).
Looking at the primary results in Massachusetts, Clinton carried almost every community in the state with two exceptions: university towns (Cambridge, Amherst, Northampton etc.) and well to do communities with large Jewish populations such as Brookline and Newton. I doubt that the communities in the latter category went to Obama because wealthy WASP voters overwhelmed the anxities of their Jewish neighbors.
I do think that the minorty of Jewish voters who are heavily focused on Middle East policy (unlike the much larger number who would be concerned only if there were a dramatic difference in expressed views)are the ones who have anxieties about Obama.
Obama is clearly a leftist given his support for multiculturalism, bilingualism and open borders.
(Although McCain is no different in these areas.)
Perhaps these latter views are giving some Jews who are nominally Democratic voters some cause for concern. A multicultural society which pits one group against another in an ethnic spoils system will invariably be most hostile towards high-achieving groups like Jews. Obama may not get the automatic 80% of the Jewish vote he is expecting.
It is NOT forgivable that one, for decades, chooses to be a member of a church where the pastor is openly and explicitly hostile to Jews and Israel.
Jimmy Obama will be a disaster for the Jewish people, and he'll be elected with the help of millions of Jewish "useful idiots".
In my Jewish family, there will be one vote for Obama (my 82-year-old mother) and three votes for McCain (me and my siblings). Our spouses will probably also all vote for McCain. My mother can't figure out what she did wrong.
IIRC, the Clinton campaign in '92 was pretty enthusiastic about nonspecific change, too. If that's so then your hypothesis that (some) Jews react badly to such campaigns may not hold up.
If a white candidate belonged to a house of worship where the spiritual leader of said house of worship was openly and explicitly hostile to blacks, that candidate's candidacy would NEVER get off the ground.
However, the media finds no problem when a candidate such as Obama belongs to a church where the pastor is openly and explicitly hostile to Jews and the Jewish nation.
Obama is indeed responsible for Obama's own actions in Obama's choosing to belong to a church headed by a bigot.
I am a Jewish Obama supporter, but, seriously, I am not trying to score points here. I honestly can't figure out how it is "good for the Jews," or good for America, to lend authority to theocrats like Hagee. McCain had it right about these people in 2000, and it is sad to see him walk back from that.
Who cares? Why should any jew be concerned about Christian eschatology? We don't believe in their vision of the "end times". Here's a news flash for you: the evangelicals know that and are ok with it. They think we'll all come around in the end. Whatever. Again, who cares? The need for some very liberal jews to poke fun at a core evangelical belief, while being offended if they poke fun at us is deeply hypocritical.
What matters is not what their ultimate theological beliefs are, but what McCain and Obama think and feel about Israel. Jews in the know, know that not only does Obama not "feel" Israel in his kishkes, but that Obama's kneejerk, leftist reflex is to "feel" for the Arabs in the West Bank &Gaza who are, mostly, pining for the disappearance of Israel.
The kneejerk leftist Jews will vote for Obama, and they will be electing a President instinctively hostile to Israel, a Jimmy Carter II.
As Bill Donohue of the Catholic League noted, Pastor Hagee has called the Catholic Church "The Great Whore" and "the anti-Christ."
All McCain is willing to say is that he "does not agree with all of Hagee's views."
Obama has already denounced Farrakhan and everything he stands for. To try to make this fatuous line of talk the main issue for Obama is not only unwarranted. It also reveals a disturbing double standard. Why must Obama be asked always about his position on every black extremist (again and again, even when he's made that position already clear.) Obama, for crying out loud, has even been asked on national tv about his position on Harry Belafonte — which makes about as much sense as asking McCain to comment on Madonna's political views.
Meanwhile, McCain gets to stand up and get embraced by Hagee — without any clamour for him to make anywhere half as strong a denunciation as Obama has already repeatedly made of Farrakhan. (And let's not forget the revolting, stomach-churning spectacle of George Bush going to Bob Jones University in 2000, when that place still forbade interracial dating!)
I am a white jew who is very concerned about Israel. I have relatives who perished in the Holocaust, and I am here on this planet only because by the grace of G-d my own forebears narrowly escaped. When I see people like Richard Cohen employing this double standard merely to try to raise a false issue to a fver pitch against the candidate he dislikes, it makes me sick to my stomach. Antisemitism is a real problem. Raising false charges — even at the level of innuendo — is a disgrace to the memory of those who have perished or been imperiled by real antisemitism.
(Of course, Hagee also believes that it's important to usher in a massive nuclear confrontation in the middle-east to usher in Armageddon and the second coming. Maybe he thinks McCain is most likely to lead to that result. And who knows — he could be right...)
As for the anti-Catholic allegations, I don't know enough about how much Catholics care about such things to offer an informed opinion as to whether this will affect McCain.
Do you have evidence for that claim or does it just feel true to you? While certainly Obama has more support among "leftist" bloggers, among all voters he tends to underperform (compared to Clinton) with self-identified Democrats and overperform with self-identified Republicans and independents. The fact that some of his most overwhelming wins have been in states like Alaska and Idaho, hardly bastions of leftism, while Clinton has done much better in more staunchly liberal states like New York and Massachusetts, suggests to me at least that he certainly doesn't want for conservative and moderate supporters.
Both Hillary and Chuck Schumer seem to have no problems being bosom buddies with Al Sharpton. Why should Obama be criticized for a much more distant (his minister likes Farrakhan)relationship with Farrakhan?
Contrary to what you say, I do think you express a double standard for African American politicians. I'm guessing that you view white Democrats who do this as doing what they need to do to maintain good relations with black voters, while you fear that black politicians actually do at some level share the hostility toward Jews and/or Israel that the Sharptons and Farrakhans hold regardless of their public statements.
How else would you explain why Obama should be forced to answer for Farrakahn?
Anyone want to try to explain that one?
[I hope you don't think my cuts distorted any of your meaning.]
As a mainstream liberal, pro-Israel Jew who does battle on those threads with the Dershowitz/Israel haters, I don't think the threads stand for what you think they do:
1. Most of the hostility is directed at Dershowitz personally, it's ill-informed, and when you scratch the surface it's utterly innocuous to Jews. All most of these people think they know is that he's a Zionist who "supports torture." And their ignorance of his actual views on torture only magnifies their ignorance of how a self-described Zionist might see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When I ask what they think he advocates in that regard, few have any idea, and many are shocked to discover his views are pretty close to their own. There’s nothing remotely anti-Jewish in this group, and they constitute most of the commentators.
2. There's admittedly a minority contingent for a Noam Chomsky-type two state solution, i.e., one that pays lip service to Israel's legitimacy, but supports a Palestinian right of return that would do away with the Jewish State. This is where much of the real debate goes on, but those on the other side are a small band of usual suspects, just as a few others and I are on ours. This consumes lots of screen space but reflects few participants. If I had to guess, I'd say most of the Chomskyites support Nader, if anyone, but I suppose a Barack or even a Hillary outlier isn't impossible.
3. Finally, there's a tiny element of genuine anti-Semitism that most definitely is fringe, and gets repudiated, sometimes even by the Chomskyites. Moreover, it reflects Hezbollah-type sympathies that have as much affinity for the Stormfront/Timothy McVeigh far right as they do for the typically European/Fisk-Galloway far left. The only Jewish voices uttering this nonsense are the Norman Finkelsteins, who having just lost a charter member in Bobby Fisher can now hold their meetings in a phone booth. No one here has any more use for Barack Obama than Michael Savage does.
I’d argue that even if you counted every unique participant on these threads it wouldn’t amount to a large enough number to draw any reliable conclusions. When you whittle it down to those actually expressing anti-Jewish views, and further allow for the ability of nuts the world over to participate, the number you can safely attribute to liberal American voters is meaninglessly tiny. Whether anti-Semitism on the left is indeed only a fringe phenomenon is an open question, but one that certainly can’t be answered affirmatively by these threads.
Interesting assessment of the situation in Israel, Mr. Laudig.
Arabs who inhabit Israel have the same rights as the Israeli Jews. Take religious freedom, which a right that Jewish inhabits of other countries in the region do not enjoy. Israel's parliament, the Knesset, has representatives from several Arab parties and, in 2004, an Arab was reported to the Israeli Supreme Court. If you are referring to Gaza and the West Bank, those areas have not been incorporated into Israel. It is dishonest and inaccurate to label the Palestinians who live there "national minorities" because they aren't nationals.
Causal disregard of the rights of prior inhabitants, etc. Which rights and which inhabitants? Jewish settlement in the Palestinian territories began at the end of the 19th Century and beginning of the 20th Century - when it was still under Ottoman Rule. There has been a Jewish presence in Jerusalem throughout history - it was not devoid of all Jews until the creation of the state of Israel. Throughout the First and Second Aliyah, Jews bought land from the individuals who owned the areas they wished to inhabit. I was not aware that one continues to have rights in property after having sold it. Your cursory labeling of some as prior inhabitants simplifies the situation and destroys considerable nuance. Furthermore, making normative assessments based on prior ownership only begs for more conflict - what is the Israeli answer? Assuming all of the Palestinians are "prior owners," we are the prior owners of these prior owners. At a certain point, appeals to history and the use of a "first in time" argument have to stop.
Regarding anti-semitism in the criticism of Israel, yes, it is possible to be opposed to some Israeli policy without being anti-semitic. BUT, the important question is whether a critic of Israeli policy is equally as critical of other countries that adopt similar or considerably more heinous policies. If the answer is that the condemnation is focused singularly on Israel and not on other countries whose human rights policies are truly disgusting (use of slave labor, public beatings, public executions, etc.), then anti-semitism is likely to be the underlying motivation for the criticism.
Way to stick the landing on that triple negative.
"I am a Jewish Obama supporter, but, seriously, I am not trying to score points here. I honestly can't figure out how it is "good for the Jews," or good for America, to lend authority to theocrats like Hagee. McCain had it right about these people in 2000, and it is sad to see him walk back from that." psaf
It's an exceedly overly wrought concern. A Christian, to forward a counter example, may as well be concerned that a Lieberman candidacy would usher in animal sacrifices. The eschatological interests per se, of such Christians, is, at least for any practical political effect, non existent, a nullibiety.
It's true that their support of Israel will sometimes, even often, be articulated upon a fideist and biblicist basis, rather than a basis that is more likely to be heard in a university classroom - but even that reflects a "too neat" comprehension and a too simplistic dichotomy.
LM, having read more comments threads then I should on left blogs, I'd say that there is relatively little "genuine anti-Semitism", in the sense of having a hatred for Jews as such out there. What there is, however, is incredible vitriol launched at anyone who is both (a) Jewish and (b) takes a view on Israel to the right of, say, Shimon Peres, or perhaps even Yossi Sarid. The attitude seems to be "we have nothing against Jews in general, so long as they are politically left wing and don't show signs of purported 'dual loyalty' to Israel. But if they are what we consider 'right-wing' [a moniker I've seen applied even to mainstream moderate liberal Jewish groups], we'll go all Pat Buchanan on them." Hardly comforting, from a Jew's perspective, to find that tolerance of one's group extends only so far as political agreement allows. The analogy is not to, say, Stormfront anti-Semitism, but to the right-wingers who have nothing against Jews in general, and indeed are quite find of Orthodox, Torah believing Jews, except when it comes to those ACLU-atheist Jews who are undermining Christianity!
What is an assimilated Jew? What is an unassimilated Jew? Assimilated into what? Examples? Do Cathlics, Buddhists, and Armenians fall into the same categories of assimilated and unassimilated?
If so, is it OK to support those who tell us either Duke or Farrakhan have provided a correct and valuable analysis of race in America?
Are you kidding? You won't comment on Hagee calling the Catholic church "The Great Whore" because you don't know whether Catholics care? Or is it because you can't defend it and it reveals a blind spot in McCain's judgment as he seeks fundamentalist support in his pursuit of the Rep nomination?
Let me get this straight: if Hagee had said that blacks are inferior to whites, you wouldn't comment either because you wouldn't know how much black people would care?
And will an explanation of why "how much Catholics care" is the metric for whether someone is an anti-Catholic bigot be forthcoming? Is "how much Jews care" the metric for whether someone hates Jews?
Hagee also believes that the Jewish people brought the holocaust on themselves. I wonder if anyone cares about that?
Until after World War II Jews were not overrepresented in the professional fields. The Jewish quotas on universities forced the creation of universities like Brandeis. Professional associations were equally biased. It was only in the postwar period that this changed, at the hands of a specifically multiculturalist movement which has since passed into the hands of people who treated it far worse than did the Jews who started it--primarily by treating it as a demand for equal outcomes instead of equal opportunity.
You described some of the (I assume gentile) Chomskyites very accurately. I'd only add that, like stinkbombs, one or two can cover a lot of ground. Speaking for myself, reading and reacting to that stuff gets me angry enough to color my perception of the thread. I have to make a concerted effort to get an accurate take on how many people are actually responsible for the unpleasantness. And as a general rule I find they're not remotely as numerous as they are offensive. Of course, YMMV.
That’s an overstatement. Obviously that’s true of some, but I think most of those people are just credulous consumers of distorted news coverage. It’s fair to say they have an anti-Israel bias, regardless of its origins, but not to ascribe anti-Semitic motives.
1. Moderate Democrat endorsement. While DB is correct that much of Obama's support comes from the left, he leaves out the Martin Peretz/New Republic crowd, whom the far-lefties generally consider "neocons" (at least on foreign policy). An understanding of why this support exists might shed some light on what will happen in the broader electorate with similar views. As one of those "self-described Jewish moderates" (on one of those internet tests I came out .05 left and +6 libertarian)Peretz's defense of Obama jibed with my own assessment. Of course, I am from Chicago and more familiar with its politics. (In a comment to one of DB's earlier posts, I explained why this mattered.)
2. It is important that this is a static rather than dynamic analysis on how the Jewish vote might be divided. That is, one cannot assume that Obama will do nothing about this issue through the general election. To those Jewish commenters where the Israel question is the McCain vs Oboma tie-breaker (rule of thumb: you did not vote Republican in any of the last 3 presidential elections; ok 2 out of 3 can play too), would any of the following cause you to reconsider:
I guess this a long way of agreeing with DB. The very fact that I think Obama can and will do something to counter the uneasiness among Jewish voters recognizes that it exists. Politically, Obama need not dissipate it entirely--only reduce it to a non-deciding factor--which I believe Obama could potentially do. Further these factors definitely support DB's initial observation that: "The problems Obama is having with Democratic Jewish voters are exaggerated." If I'm McCain, I try to work with this issue, but I don't do so with any great expectations.
(spits beer across room)
BHO might run to the center for the campaign, but I'm afraid he really is a true believer. That's what makes him scary to some Jews.
“It was only in the postwar period that this changed, at the hands of a specifically multiculturalist movement … “
I believe that the Ivy League schools had about a 10% quota for Jews before WWII, which is still disproportionate. The quotas came about as a reaction to the large number of Jewish students. In those days Jews did have trouble working for corporations, but all that ended for economic reasons, and not through the efforts of the multiculturalists. In general the Jews did not go running to government or the courts for help.
The over representation by Jews in the learned professions is easy to understand because their average IQ is 1 standard deviation above the US/UK population mean. On the other hand, blacks are 1 standard deviation below the mean. If we set the IQ threshold for the learned professions at 125, then about 25% of Ashkenazi Jews qualify, but only 0.1% of the US black population qualifies—a factor of 250. However the current multiculturalists don’t accept this explanation and will always attribute the disparity to invidious discrimination. Ultimately we will end up with quotas again if the multiculturalists can wield enough power.
It doesn't sound like you voted Kerry in the last election. (BTW: how's Flash?)
Fixed that for you.
Obama's pastor, Wright, is worse than even the grossest left wing caricature of a religious-right pastor. Wright is a demagogue, a racist, and a hate-monger. He trades in white-led conspiracy theories and speaks the language of black separatists.
You can hear a sermon from Wright here. Judge for yourself.
A man who belongs to Wright's church for decades is not fit to lead this country.
"the last Democrat who came out of nowhere to become president promising change, Jimmy Carter, quickly became uniquely unpopular among Jews, failing to even get a majority of the Jewish vote in 1980."
strikes me as wrong, at least misleading. According to my recollection (it is often wrong) Carter won the Jewish vote overall in 1976, and he lost the Jewish vote in 1980 by less than Carter lost the non-Jewish vote in Reagan's commanding 1980 win.
I am surprised by the numbers of Jewish supporters of Obama over McCain -- especially those who who are truly concerned with threats to Israel.
I can imagine the anguish and psychotherapy needed on the day after election day when you all realize you'll have a Republican president for at least 4 more years! Dress warm for Canada!
It seems that if Hagee and Wright cancel each other out, then the whole thing becomes a non-issue: neither is better than the other on this point. If it becomes a shouting contest of "well, you're a worse one" I'm not sure McCain wins. No Jewish organization has condemned Obama, but the Catholic League has admonished McCain. Obama lectured black audiences on anti-semitism is the black community. I doubt McCain will tell an audience at Hagee's church that they need to get over this anti-Catholic stuff. As I noted earlier, I think I Obama has more room to run for the center than McCain, who will have to continue to maintain the base to his right. He needs Hagee much more than Obama needs Wright, much less Farrakhan, who Obama has already "denounced and rejected."
Electorally, if it sufficiently alienates Catholics, who outnumber Jews in the electorate, McCain loses again. I have no idea if that will happen.
On the other hand, one major difference is that anti-Catholicism (and Hagee's ole time antisemitism) however offensive, do not translate into a concrete policy like anti-Israel feelings that people fear Obama harbors. I doubt McCain is anti-Catholics, but if he is, he'd be hard-pressed to find a policy where that antipathy can be implemented.
So, on the clear rejection of odious opinions front, Obama should be harmed no more than McCain, who will take whatever political damage flows from such things. On the policy questions raised by the association, Obama takes more political damage than McCain because it undermines no beliefs with respect to his articulated policies.
It seems that if Hagee and Wright cancel each other out, then the whole thing becomes a non-issue: neither is better than the other on this point. If it becomes a shouting contest of "well, you're a worse one" I'm not sure McCain wins. No Jewish organization has condemned Obama, but the Catholic League has admonished McCain. Obama lectured black audiences on anti-semitism is the black community. I doubt McCain will tell an audience at Hagee's church that they need to get over this anti-Catholic stuff. As I noted earlier, I think I Obama has more room to run for the center than McCain, who will have to continue to maintain the base to his right. He needs Hagee much more than Obama needs Wright, much less Farrakhan, who Obama has already "denounced and rejected."
Electorally, if it sufficiently alienates Catholics, who outnumber Jews in the electorate, McCain loses again. I have no idea if that will happen.
On the other hand, one major difference is that anti-Catholicism (and Hagee's ole time antisemitism) however offensive, do not translate into a concrete policy like anti-Israel feelings that people fear Obama harbors. I doubt McCain is anti-Catholics, but if he is, he'd be hard-pressed to find a policy where that antipathy can be implemented.
So, on the clear rejection of odious opinions front, Obama should be harmed no more than McCain, who will take whatever political damage flows from such things. On the policy questions raised by the association, Obama takes more political damage than McCain because it undermines no beliefs with respect to his articulated policies.
And, DB, I would argue that Bill Clinton was the last dem candidate to come out of nowhere, not Carter.
I always suspected Justice Sunday was a liberal conspiracy.
Just read your update. I read the transcript after Peretz posted it, but did not catch the contradiction. Obamae should take your advice in your earlier post at the next opportunity, if not sooner. ["I decry ...etc.] You are correct that an aide should have, and most probably did, look up the specifics, if for no other reason than to find some detail that might help, and certainly to assess the issue in its entirety. The only remaining detail is nailing down what was said in the magazine itself. I doubt very much it would differ from the video, but the remote possibility exists.
Even more puzzling is that the magazine calls the honor its "Empowerment Award." The award's title could be almost as benevolently construed as an award for assisting ex-felons. That is, it could be thought to refer to the social service side of Farrakhan's efforts, including things like work with ex-felons, reforming drug addicts, preaching the value of hard work and other activities leading to a feeling of "self-worth" in his followers. The marginal rhetorical gain between an award for "working with ex-felons" and the usually vacuous "Empowerment" seems very small to me. I don't think it would have been significant enough to change anybody's mind. So why do it? I'm bewildered.
[BTW: anybody who does not appreciate the quality and civility of the comments on this blog should take a look at the ones under the Farrakhan award video you link to. The Farrakhan vs. Keyes supporters' comments are how I imagine Alien vs. Predator might debate.]
He got caught saying the right things to soothe Canadian concerns about NAFTA.
Politically savvy Catholics get very upset about the anti-Catholic bogotry of white Evangelicals. But let's be honest: If you go to a Black Evangelical or Fundamentalist Church (Including such major denominations as Missionary Baptists and AME), you will find anti-Catholic bigotry that seems right out of the 1920s.
The degree of anti-Catholic prejudice among "Bible Christians" of both races is strong, and I don't kid myself that it is not. But the extent of this bigotry in the African-American fundy community is absolutely stunning. And it is as prevalent in placed like Chicago--where I first encountered this--as it is anywhere in the South.
So, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that Obama has been attending a church headed by a (if I may) Romo-phobe. Keep in mind that MLK Sr. went public in 1960 with his fear for American independence if JFK should be elected to the presidency.
Kennedy, with his characteristic irony, remarked something along the lines of: Imagine that, *Rev. King* has a bigot for a father.
Things have not changed since then, from what I can tell. Reading Fundy Af-Am magazines, Bible-Study Books, and such has convinced me that the fight is not over. But "we shall overcome. Some day."
One cannot really say that *Bill* Clinton was an "out of nowhere" candidate. He was given an opening-night, prime-time slot at the Democratic Party National Convention in 1988, allegedly because he was viewed as a real up-and-comer. (I suspect that many people will remember this half-hour-long yawner, though not its contents.)
Carter got a handful of VP votes at the '72 convention, but otherwise was ignored completely.
In his book on the Carter presidency, Barton Bernstein reports that, when Carter told his mom he was gouing to run for president, "Miss Lillian" asked: "President of *what*?" This sounds too good to be true, but it at least illustrates the plausibility that Carter was the only person who thought of himself as presidential material in early '76.
As a direct electoral matter, jews are virtually irrelevant. Even if Obama lost every single jewish vote, the worst case scenario is that he might lose Florida when he would have otherwise won it. But he might lose it anyway, and he almost certainly will lose it if the election is close enough nationally (signaling the GOP did not self-destruct) that Florida makes the difference in the final outcome.
On the other hand, the votes of African-Americans (and perhaps latently anti-semitic whites) are a potential goldmine under the current map. If Obama could raise black turnout significantly, his campaign becomes strategically relevant in the old South, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Missouri.
The only logical downside for Obama are:
1) Jews are disproportionately influential in the financial and op-ed aspect of elections.
2) Many white voters might be turned off by someone who is openly hostile to jews. Certainly I would not be as interested in a candidate for that reason (although, contrary to what many jews think, it's not a damning characteristic to the average voter. It's too peripheral in many voter choice cases).
So I think Obama might be "smart" in his straddle-the-line approach, just as Reagan was "smart" to strategically use rhetoric to signal his soft racism to white voters. Sure, DB and other jews will throw a fit, but most people won't care, especially if BO says all the right thing. Those activated by anti-semitism, however, will get the message.
JTA
the jewish vote has put itself in the same position as the criticism levied at the black vote by voting D no matter what and is now taken for granted. it has an even bigger risk, however, as there are a lot fewer of them.
I expressed my thoughts on McCain-Haggee/Obama-Farrakhan and Ron Paul here.
Second, if Clinton "did not come out of nowhere" because of his speech, then Obama, who gave a famous and well-received speech in 2004 also did not come out of nowhere. My precise point was to dispute DB's point that voters may associate him with the last nominee who "came out of nowhere" who he deemed to be Carter. So any way you slice it, the association would be Clinton, not Carter.
Esp. since the conservative Hispanics now outnumber the liberal Jews in south FL. Outside of the "lower east coast" (Jupiter south to Miami) and Tampa (which, I'll ack, represents a *lot* of the population) FL tends to be, areawise, substantially conservative. The other two major metro areas tend to be neutral (Orlando) and conservative (Jacksonville).
I'll point out, FL remains one of the two states without a state-level income tax -- and is very likely to stay that way since it would require an alteration of the state constitution to implement one.
Oh, c'mon. Giving someone the "benefit of the doubt" is one thing. Handing him your own brush to paint himself with is anyother thing entirely.
a) His voting history is left of Teddy, Kerry, Edwards AND Clinton. It's the *most* left in the entire Senate last year.
b) Citing Frank Davis and wife as one of your main influences in life does not suggest a belief in centrism.
The man's as Left as any pinko ever *interviewed* by HUAC. He's Left of most of the old Wobblies.
That being said, when I worked on a state department project for economic law reform in the palestinian territories as a research assistant, I was baffled by what can only be described as one-sided policies being pursued by Israel. I know that the history is complicated, but the perception those policies alone must create in the Arab world must be astounding.
I accept that Israel is the most democratic country in the middle east (pretty minimal competition), but there is an inherent contradiction at its core that undermines moral standing. Whatever the merits of the security arguments advanced by Israel, the actual policies give off an air of apartheid and colonialism. My cousin's husband, who has served in both Iraq and Afghanistan and called Senator McCarthy an American hero who was instrumental in stopping Communist infiltration of America (we disagree on this point), is a pretty harsh critic of Israel.
a. Ask some pro-Israel advocates, and they will cite you chapter and verse how the State Department has a long history of being institutionally "Arabist" and anti-Israel, and advised against its recognition in 1947. Indeed, the U.S. position on Israel until at least 1956 was pro-Arab. I take no position on the matter, but just so know, your State Department experience might very well be taken as proof of inculcated bias rather than as a place from which objective observations may be made. Just out of curiousity, how many of your State Department colleagues were strongly pro-Israel? And, just who described the Israeli policies to you? Was it a Palestinian, Israeli, or State Department source, and did you verify any of what you were told?
b. Occupation is a bad, bad business. There is simply no way to make it pleasant for either side. The Israelis hated it so much they left Gaza, and, until the rockets, planned to retreat behind the fence and pull out of the West Bank. But their absense from Gaza did nothing to reduce terrorism. Yes, there are complexities, and choices that can be made. Specific policies on security can be open to debate. But in view of the security concerns, can you think of any effective security policies that would avoid all aspects and types of treatment that you found objectionable?
c. While there were many pro-McCarthy Jews (e.g. Roy Cohn), many of the strong anti-communist folks of the day associated communists with Jews, (much like the sometimes loaded use of "neocon" today), many people thought (and the antisemites still think) that communism was a Jewish conspiracy or at least that most Jews were communists. The Rosenbergs as Exhibit A. And, actually, many of the founders of Israel were socialist, hence, the kibbutzes. Until the Likud took over, Israel was run by Labor, an overtly socialist party.
This is a long way of saying that, again, like your State Department experience, your uncle's fondness for McCarthy and dislike of Israel are not persuasive examples of sources which one would necessarily expect to be pro-Israel, at least by reputation, and therefore add no real authority to your argument.
This is not to say that at the State Department you got a one-sided story, nor that your Uncle is any kind of antisemite or comes to his conclusions on the basis of bias. It is just to say that without more, neither adds any objective weight to your point.
See "The Quiet American" about Varian Fry, reviewed by yours truly on Amazon.
One Saudi prince observed that, "if we take care of our friends when they retire, we'll have more friends before they retire". He was referring to the State Department.
Those bastards are bought good and hard.
Jew BoysZionists, and then pronounce, after every election, that the Zionists won again.I'm not sure why the Zionists--being so famously cheap with their coin--are willing to fund *both* political parties. I mean, why not just pick one to control, and then make it win every time?
It just seems so stooooopid for the
Dead Sea PedestriansZOG to vote 80% or more for the Democrats if they also control the GOP. Jaysusmaryandjoseph! How did these morons ever get control of our country in the first place?I don't know why Splooge and his type bother. There's no hope. The Jews are just too smart.
I'm just wondering what, in your mind, is the difference between a "Zionist extremist" and a non-extreme Zionist. I always thought the "extreme Zionists" were those who were against the very idea of a Palestinian State, pro-settlement/expansionist and anti-Oslo. If that is true, then it is not only morning, but about noon by now, as US presidents Carter-Bush-Clinton-Bush supported none of these ideas.
So let me know what you think is the difference between extreme and non-extreme Zionists.