The Hate Campaign Against Obama
If you are Jewish and a Democrat, you have probably already received one of the e-mails about the danger Barack Obama's election would pose to Jews and Israel.
Reporters who cover the Jewish world have also received calls -- some associated with other campaigns, some not -- asking them to investigate the Obama threat. One reporter told me that he has been called repeatedly by a figure in the American Jewish community who charges him with cowardice for not revealing the "truth" about Obama.
The "truth" of course is a lie, a lie so obvious that one would think no one would believe it. But apparently some people do (although campaign operatives who are pushing the story almost surely don't).
The big lie about Obama is that he is a practicing Muslim. He (and his wife, children, etc) only pretend to be church-going Christians in order to get into the White House.
It's hard to believe anything so stupid.
Think of it. If Barack Obama had decided to pretend that he was Christian so he could become President, he certainly would have changed his name. In fact, he did the opposite. Known in high school as "Barry," as an adult, contemplating a career in politics, he started going by the name "Barack" again, hardly what he would do if he was trying to deceive people about his background.
But it was Joseph Goebbels's who said that little lies are never as successful as the "big lie." That is why the swiftboating of John Kerry succeeded. They portrayed him as a coward when he was actually a decorated combat hero. The lie worked because it was so egregious and counter-intuitive that some people decided it had to be true.
Like all "big lies," this particular one is also being disseminated in pseudo-intellectual form.
Daniel Pipes, who makes a living off Muslim baiting, has written an article (widely disseminated by Obama's opponents) that concedes that Obama is a Christian but is also an apostate Muslim.
As someone who rejected the faith of his father (a father he never knew!) he will, according to Pipes, be anathema to the entire Muslim world. His election, he says, would do terrible damage to the United States simply because we would be led by the worst kind of Christian of all (one who rejected Islam).
So the haters and the campaign smear artists have it coming and going. Either Obama is a Muslim who will sell us out to Al Qaeda or he is a Christian, an apostate Muslim, who will earn us the special hatred some Muslims reserve for Crusaders!
The bottom line is that the career haters like Pipes and people who oppose Obama's candidacy for all kinds of reasons have decided that religion baiting is the best way to bring down the first African-American ever to be in serious contention for the Presidency.
Sadly, they have chosen the Jewish community as the prime recipient of their message of hate -- overlooking that the Jewish community is the most liberal community in the nation and the one that has traditionally been most enlightened on issues of racial equality.
They think that because we love Israel, we hate all Muslims and even people who are Christians but can be called Muslim.
This is sickening on so many levels. You know, the one really positive thing about how President George W. Bush handled the post 9/11 situation in this country is that he never ever engaged in Muslim-baiting. Say what you will about the Iraq war and its various reverberations, neither the President nor his top political people ever used race hate to stir up partisan hysteria. (Bush was the first President to go to a Mosque and even to hold regular Muslim celebrations at the White House).
How ironic is it, and how tragic, if Democrats allow race hatred to infect the Democratic campaign for President and how insulting is it to Jews that the community which they would use as their guinea pigs is our community.
Is there no shame? Don't bother to answer.
So, who's Instigating (involved in) the smear campaign?
Let's try being a little less shy, shall we!
January 10, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it's Imus.
January 10, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a smart blog. I mean it. You have so much knowledge about this issue, and so much passion. You also know how to make people rally behind it, obviously from the responses. Youve got a design here thats not too flashy, but makes a statement as big as what youre saying. Great job,children health indeed.
January 21, 2011 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
Are Obama's stated ideas about Israel and Palestine much different than Hillary or Edwards?
Is it just ethnic and religious background causing this animus or is there some policy issue at stake that people like Pipes don't want to be honest about?
This isn't a rhetorical or leading question, by the way. I really don't know the answer.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 10, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am under the impression that Hillary is the AIPAC candidate.
January 10, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are mistaken. According to Shmuel Rosner of Haaretz.com all three of the leading Democrats are equally supportive of Israel.
It is interesting that each time Obama seems to be threat MJR charges a racist campaign against him. I have not received emails or calls. With this thread I would have heard nothing about it.
Perhaps the email sure be linked to this thread or just printed. Perhaps if there really emails they are sent by Obama supporters so he White supporters can safely play the race card.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 11, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israeli polling where the question is asked "who is best for Israel?" Obama does very poorly and Hillary does well. Of course no democrat is as well respected and supported in these polls as is President Bush.
January 11, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your patience and sorry for the inconvenience!
Best regards, Mary CEO of youtube to mp3 converter
December 21, 2010 5:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think substantively the differences are all that great, just as I don't think substantively the differences are all that great on this issue between Republicans and most Democrats. It's more of a matter of rhetorical emphasis. Do you emphasize Palestinian "oppression" or do you emphasize Israeli security?
January 10, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there's more to it than that. There are a lot of pretty subtle, but important, differences. Jewish Americans, and even Israelis and AIPAC, also have to ask themselves if they're ready for change.
AIPAC rightfully thinks the Clintons are more establishment candidates. Clinton was praised for the peace talks for example. But, even within Israel there has been criticism of those talks. For example, a prevalent view was allowed and even encouraged that the failure was all due to Palestinian unreasonableness, and that Israel had offered them everything. As we now know, the facts are that Israel offered very little, and that it was Arafat who made far more concessions on lands and settlements. Basically it was Israel who scuttled the peace talks, and Clinton enabled them to walk away without loss of prestige. Which hasn't really served the interests of the Israeli people.
This debate between Norman Finkelstein v. Shlomo Ben Ami (former Foreign Minister and negotiator) covers the 2000 peace talks. Even Ami admits "If I were a Palestinian, I Would Have Rejected Camp David” which undercuts the notion a great package was offered.
Then there are Bush and the Neocons, who were totally pro-Israel, but as many in the Israeli community have pointed out, with friends like that, who needs enemies.
I think American Jews and Israelis would be wise to support a candidate who will show more balance, independence, and leadership. The entrenched interests have achieved.. what?
January 10, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, a number of Jews I know have not will not forgive Hillary Clinton for hugging Sua Arafat.
Ben Ami in his book says that the problem with Camp David was that Barak kept ceding more ground so it was never clear what the final offer was. Also the problem was not what the deal was but that Arafat never offered his own proposal. No matter how hard Clinton or the Israelis tried Arafat would not give his plan either. Finally, Arafat left to sure up his base in the territories by launching the Second Intifada.
Finally you leave out Taba. This was the follow on to Camp David. This is plan Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia calling being rejected a crime against the Palestinians. This is the plan that is fundamentally the basis of current negotiations. Of course it required the Palestinians to lose yet another battle to get this point.
Whether Clinton's book or Ben Ami's it the history of the negotiations don't conform with your recounting of it.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 11, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
This seems right. Obama, contrary to belief in some quarters, also has a habit of telling groups more than they want to hear. For example, with one group--may have been AIPAC--he expressed strong support for Israel and its continued existence, but then said that Israel had to give on the settlements to get peace and had to stop being so harsh on the Palestinians. Didn't go over that well. Clinton is the establishment candidate, like it or not.
January 11, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Sleazy. Not surprising though.
And yeah, Rove didn't invent the Big Lie, and he's certainly not the only person to practice it.
Bill was just saying the MSM has been unduly easy on Obama. lol. After weeks of coverage he was "alledgedly" a Muslim. And, just before his wife dropped a smear mailer on abortion of all things, and just before she did the "cracked voice" moment.
Talk about working the suckers in the MSM!
But what do you expect from a corporate media that promotes pundits and talk radio hacks, based on their looks and entertainment value.
January 10, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's also recall how forciful and angry Bill was in NH about calling Obama a kid, that his campaign was a fairytale, he's a symbol (not even human) and that he had voted to supported the war. Bill's philosophy as told to Hillary is that strong and wrong beats weak and right. I'd say he is putting that philosophy into action with the full weight of his being a former President.
While he is entitled to campaign for his wife it is appalling and a national disgrace that he bashes another democratic politician. He should stick to supporting Hillary but Bill just has to go negative. This campaign role of his will result in him being as unlikeable as her by the time all is said and done.
January 10, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
He can't support her record, becasue it's his record, and he's already had to admit he needs to reverse much of it, messed up with Lewinsky, and so on.
So of course they'll go negative. What else do they have? They can't play the victim all the way into office.
January 10, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are really sending out of a lot of racist messages from that campaign as well. It is becoming a daily pattern between Cuomo with his 'shucking and jiving' remarks, Bill calling him a 'kid' and now this:
In the words of that Clinton adviser: “If you have a social need, you’re with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you’re young and you have no social needs, then he’s cool.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2238148,00.html
January 10, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, and the Republicans will do the same. The Clintons are just like the Republicans in that all they care about is preserving the status quo and taking care of their own. Entitled to power, and holding on to it no matter what.
January 10, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you read either Horse's Mouth or Salon's War Room you would know that the "shucking and jiving" comment had nothing to do with Obama. The smear is of Cuomo, not Obama.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 11, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please elaborate or provide links.
January 11, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
If these thugs had legitimate issues to use, they would use them. In other words, these folks would much rather sink Obama by showing anti-Israel votes or statements but since none exist, they are going after him using race and religion.
In other words, they felt no need to race-bait Jesse Jackson. They had his statements to nail him with. With Obama, they have nothing as AIPAC will tell you in a minute.
As you know, I am no fan of the way AIPAC looks at the world BUT, they do the legislative ratings of candidates from the rightish pro-Israel point of view, and say Obama is 100% with them (for better or worse, depending on your point of view).
It is not AIPAC making these charges but the crazy rightwing of the Jewish community in conjunction with some o his political opponents, Dems and Gopers.
January 10, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks MJ. I'm going to go ahead and believe that people aren't so dumb as to fall for this. I mean, I'll believe that but will naturally correct them when asked. One can believe these days but one can't take any chances.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 10, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . these thugs . . . are going after him using race and religion.
So far, you haven't posted anything by anyone to evidence this swiftboating. Do you have anything?
January 10, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did post one of the least hateful ones, but the others I don't care to disseminate. They are too ugly and I'm not going to give them more traction.
January 10, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sounds as if the email you received was illegal, at least according to the wiki on "spam":
Have you considered reporting the email to your ISP? The wiki goes on to mention that most efforts against spam aren't successful, but it might be worth trying. Another thought would be to have a computer-saavy person check the headers on the email, to determine who sent it. Smear campaigns like this one depend on the senders anonymity for success, and tend to shrivel in the light of day. It would be good to expose this individual or group.
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." --Robert F. Kennedy
January 11, 2008 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't just like before Iowa and some accuse Clinton of playing the race card. Equally divisive and phony.
Apparently Romney has run his own push polls against Mormonism in order to rail against the attacks.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 11, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen, I'd guess it's the same delightful folks who brught us the "black baby" theme in 2000. We are heading for SC, afterall and there is a lot of swiftboat backer money floating around.
http://factcheck.org/articles/articleview.php?id=433
January 10, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guess all you want!
Rosenberg knows and he's not saying.
January 10, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
(!) Yet another diversion from the key issues voters would do well to stay focused on. (you know, minor details like how each candidate plans to keep our country secure and precisely what each candidate plans to do about the economy, health care, education, global warming and energy independence).
Obama would do well to brush this off while continuing to educate the public about who he is and what he stands for.
Perhaps the propaganda will have little effect. The corporate media and interest groups have gone so far off the rails that much of the public has caught on.
I hope this isn't just the beginning of a larger trend as I caught part of an MSNBC panel discussion about the primary and it seemed that every panelist--some more subtly than others--worked to implant the suggestion that Hillary was the only candidate who could really win the nomination.
Of course, suggestions and omissions from media "experts" with their crystal balls have done nothing but lead the public astray. (e.g. suggestions that Saddam had WMD; suggestions that Ross Perot was crazy when he said NAFTA would mean massive job losses; suggestions (or omissions) that led many to think we went to Iraq because of some 9-11 connection)
One could get closer to the truth on many issues by simply reversing any suggestions from the media or groups like this.
January 10, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
This theme is effective. I have a friend who insists that she isn't sure the Obama isn't a Muslim, and that, more mindblowing, Obama is BOTH a Muslim and a Christian.
It was baffling, and impossible to argue with her because she was adamant in these beliefs.
Thank you for keeping the spotlight on this sleazy issue, Mr Rosenberg. But it might be helpful to point out who's the originator of the e-mails.
January 10, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The names on the e-mails mean nothing to me. They are just lists of Jewish names, no one I recognize. These people are not stupid enough to sign them with real names although here is one, on a different anti-Obama theme, that is signed.
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 05:56:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Sid Dinerstein < siddinerstein@yahoo.com>
Subject:Obama and his Jew/Israel hating church
To:
Friends,
When I see a bigot, especially a Jew hating one, I don't really care what his or her political stripes are. David Duke, Cynthia McKinney - Republican or Democrat, makes no difference to me. I would have nothing to do with this person and would be the first one to stand up and condemn him. I would surely expect the same reaction from one who aspires to become President of the United States. Which brings me to Barack Obama who is a proud member of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
January 10, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it true? Did Obama's church honor Farrakhan? If so, should Obama disassociate himself from that action? Has the writer (presumably, Sid Dinerstein) made a reasonable argument?
What say you, Rosenberg?
January 10, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no idea if his church honored Farrakhan. I do know that my synagogue often has speakers who spew racist rightwing crap. But they are outside speakers, certainly not the rabbi.
I don't disassociate myself from those speakers. They are just speakers. Even if my own rabbi said offensive things, I don't see how it would be my place (even though I'm pretty public on the issues) to disassociate myself. Clergymen don't speak for their congregants or parishioners.
It's a totally phoney issue. And I'd think it was phoney if someone discovered the kind of crackpot sermons Huckabee or Romney have sat through over the years. Who cares?
January 10, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it's a phony issue. But that doesn't mean it's not a political liability. Campaigns have been brought down on much less than this.
Surely you can't believe that if a politician belonged to a church that had a neo-Nazi speak, he or she wouldn't have a problem. Of course they'd have a problem, regardless of how great a candidate they were.
January 10, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
True
January 10, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, not true, and awful analogy.
1) this rumor is just that, a rumor.
2) comparing the Nazis, to the leaders of the black community, even greatly flawed leaders, is just obnoxious.
3) This is OBVIOUSLY an attempt to play the race card, as people have been comparing Obama to JFK and MLK, and Hillary's camp needs to stop that. So of course they're going to try and dig up some dirt like this, to compare him to Farrakhan. Which is totally absurd and offensive.
January 10, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who did Farrakhan kill?. When folks bring up the word Nazi, I think mass murders.
January 10, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Farrakhan's hatred of Jews is the sort of hatred that made up the Nazi ideology. He does not have the power of nation to carry out his hatred.
Exactly what compells you to defend such an anti-Semite? Can you really not bare any potential facts about Obama?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 11, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't defend anyone. I stated an obvious fact. Farrakhan has not murdered nor incited anyone to committ mass murder, ergo the nazi analogy is specious.
Farrakhan has nothing to do with Obama. Neither do the Nazi;s.
January 11, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
mjrosenberg,
So far, searching the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times turns up nothing. The only places I've found any corroboration of the Farrakhan claim are NewsMax and the Council of Conservative Citizens. I may not know bupkes, but I'm pretty confident in my skepticism about this one.
January 10, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Farrakhan spoke at Obama's church wouldn't we hear about it day in and day out? Thoug Obama be associated with an anti-Gay bigot has disappeared.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 11, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Because of the Minister's (Farrakhan) influence in the African-American community, Trumpet Newsmagazine honors him this winter at its Sounds of the Shore gala with an Empowerment Award. It seemed a fitting tribute for a storied life well lived." Trumpet, November/December 2007
Trumpet Newsmagazine is Obama's church's publication.
January 10, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This will be a first for me to defend Farrakhan, as I am not African-American, so 'my kind' have been the subject of his attacks as well. That said, I don't think that his message of self-reliance and standing up to oppressors is totally wrong for his 'people'--just as many Jews have expressed support for the Jewish Defense League, or similar organizations who have claimed to put the interests of 'their kind' above all else, despite an inflammatory message to outside groups.
Furthermore, I hope that you are aware that Farrakhan and his group, the Nation of Islam are considered apostates by 'real' Muslims, as they consider their founder, W.D. Fard to be the last incarnation of God, amongst other beliefs that are unique to this organization. The reality is that they are to mainstream Islam as the Jamaican Rastafarians are to Zionism.
I couldn't care less if Obama denounces Farrakhan or not, and frankly, this is old news to America. Regardless, it has nothing to do with mainstream Islam.
January 10, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheers MJ for coming out against the old guilt-by-association muck-rake.
In a different way, I may have engaged in guilt-by-association thinking by implication when I commented in another post that I'd like to know the percentages (not a name list) of Jewish American surnames among journalists (editors & publishers).
My premise was, if there is a disproportion between an ethnicity's population representation and representation in the Fourth Estate, a study of media bias for that ethnicity and against its historic opponents would be warranted. I specifically speculated whether there may be a larger number of Jewish Americans coming out for Hillary Clinton in NH's urban areas because of a fear of Obama's early links to Islam.
My comment prompted an individual to call me a bigot. I railed against that because I'm not. On the other hand, I am sometimes a critic of things I see without much sensitivity for who I might offend. And criticism is a form of judgment. And judging, if it is imprecise as to scope and not experienced with those impliedly criticized, can be pre-judgment, i.e. prejudice. Does an error by failure to qualify the scope of a suspicion equal bigotry? I don't think it does. I think it equals a failure to qualify one's comment. But of course I'd want to see it that way. I implied a judgment of suspicion that an ethnic group might abuse a professional presence by collusion as warranting a study.
I qualified it in later comments and by referring to previous posts in which I filled out wider views on why I think an Israeli state is a reasonable mode of self-protection and so on. Also, I implied that transparency about it would have a positive and protective quality against those who would ask the question with persecution in mind.
However, your counterexample to the implied suspicion, showing a Jewish American journalist not obeying the call of Mr. Dinerstein and / or other similar examples is a check on my implied suspicion showing its opposite.
I appreciate your post, your civil libertarian guts and the humbling nature of these revelations inasmuch as they apply to my implied suspicion in the other post.
Also, I bristled in one of your posts of the other day at the term used in one of your commenters comments, "righteous gentile." I did so because I took it to imply that those not so-designated could be assumed not to be. Although there are likely other alternatives to that view, but I bristled instead. The humility in some of your views and comments, and your magnanimity are exemplary.
Thank you for that, and the fact that you do interact with your commenters.
January 10, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is perfect Ellen!
No offense to you, but your reaction is precisely what the e-mail hopes to generate. This is a mild form of the character assassination that will take place against Obama and Clinton especially, but in truth it will take place against any Democrat in any year. The Republicans are just that sort of scum. No lie is too absurd, no accusation too off the wall for these creeps. And all they need to do is to cause enough people to ask the questions you ask and the rumor mill is off and running.
Making things worse of course is when these things hit the media and the campaign has to deny these bullshit, beside the point trivialities. They do nothing but waste valuable time NOT getting out the message we want to be communicating to voters and going right where the Republican swine want the debate to focus: about personality, side issues, things that don't matter a tinker's damn. You see, if it's about the issues Americans care about and the government can actually do something about they lose. Thus, they must do all they can to divert the attention of Democrats particularly away from the issues and on this garbage. It happens every four years and the Democrats still haven't figured out how to stand up and simply tell the Republicans to go fuck themselves and fight back. Maybe this year, but I doubt it, particularly from the Obama campaign which seems to think it is bulletproof.
I expect this is only a very, very mild beginning to what will prove the most filthy, revolting and sickening campaign of slime and mudslinging in the history of the nation and perhpas in the entire history of the world. Resist the tempation even to ask if such bullshit accusations are true. Just delete them, crumple it up and throw it away and do NOT pass it on.
January 10, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the flyer has a nice Rovian flair and I agree that the best response to Republican garbage is to ignore it. But some of these smear campaigns in the months to come will have to be addressed and countered. The big Republican smears to come will be bad and nationwide and spread through the MSM.
Still, Ellen is asking about the factual assertions in the attack. What is the basis of the attack, race-baiting and name-calling aside? It is obviously a racist appeal. Conflating David Duke and Cynthia McKinney narrows the audience to those it is targeting. But are the facts true and are they any kind of proof positive of racism or anti-Semitism?
I would go further and ask, if the quotes are true, how are they a slur? Obama’s minister referred to “Israel as an apartheid state and calling for a boycott of Israel as punishment for its treatment of the oppressed Palestinians.” An Islamo-fascist if ever there was one. Obama himself said Palestinians are "(t)he most oppressed people on earth." Mercy. Is this guy a commie or what?
Of course, this is a targeted smear like telling South Carolinians McCain fathered a black child. My point is, out of the unlimited weapons available to assassinate a character, how much damage could this do? Are Jewish-Americans going to vote for any of the candidates because of their AIPAC speeches? Is the rest of America going to run screaming down the cul de sac when they receive these flyers? Frankly, I don’t see someone with sympathy for the plight of Palestinians as a devil, but that’s just me.
I posted below about Obama’s flip-flop on the I-P issue, but I don’t really even factor that in when assessing his candidacy (though I do note his subtle threats towards Iran and his Israeli-centric view of the M.E.). Honestly, I think the I-P issue should be off the table in the campaign anyway because candidates have all bowed to AIPAC.
There are other red flags for me about Obama, and for that matter, about Hillary and Edwards, too. All of the candidates have compromised during their careers and all are taking acceptable, draw-the-most voters positions now in an attempt to get in the WH door. The trick is to figure out what they will do when they close that door behind them.
Added: Having said too much already, I saw a diferent email posted below that is nothing but racist bullshit (Obama is a radical Muslim stuff). To be clear, I do think that kind of crap should be trashed immediately.
January 10, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not saying ignore the stuff by any means. By asking the questions at all you play into their hand. I'm saying throw it away. Don't play into it. Don't help them to spread it... but at the same time I am saying to fight back hard against it by simply and very loudly calling them the cowardly liars they are and most definitely do NOT focus on dispelling the rumors factually (it doesn't work)but instead to turn it on it's head and make the issue those lying, thieving, corrupt scumbags who call themselves Republicans! It's the only way to fight this stuff. It isn't an intellectual excercise and it isn't about reason: it's about winning the fight. If you do anything other than fight fire with fire you lose. Republicans know this and live by it--and it has worked nearly every time in every recent Presidential election. Many Democrats don't seem to get it.
In "The Untouchables", Sean Connery played a wise old Irish cop who advised Kevin Costner's Elliot Ness not to do his college boy routine with Capone. Instead, his advice was "If they hit one of your guys, you hit two of theirs." That's precisely the strategy Democrats need to take with the Republicans this year (and every year) instead of the foolish responses we've made in the past trying to explain why the lies weren't true or somehow trying to stay above itall. Once you're in the pit the only alternative is to fight. The reason the Republicans drag us into the pit every single time is because they are quite confident that our side won't fight. They feel confident that Democrats will explain, and try to dispell the rumors, etc... which means the bad guys win.
January 10, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've always thought that Obama's church is his Achilles heel. Sooner or later, a quote from someone in that church will come up in a public forum and Obama will have a tough choice: either distance himself from it and risk pissing off blacks or endorsing it and scaring off whites. Look for the Clinton campaign to play that card if they really get desperate (it's not impossible they or people sympathetic to them are behind some of the emails MJ mentions).
The church's anti-Israel attitudes are the least of it. The black liberation theology and afrocentrism will likely turn off a lot of people.
I assume Obama has given some thought about how to handle this but I hope it doesn't take him by surprise.
January 10, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Huckabee's church his Achille's heel?
January 10, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huckabee's achille's heel (if there is a god) is his own mouth, and all of his many quotes, giving his pronouncements on gays, abortion, phone calls from god, immigration, and his complete ignorance and lack of interest in foreign affairs.
The guy is a complete nutcase, but does the MSM challenge anything he has said?
Achilles - A Greek God. Blasphemy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jan
January 10, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the general election Huckabee's church is going to be more than his Achille's heal. His idea that this is a Christian Nation is horrific.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 11, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sean Hannity is already playing this. On Tuesday, while he was crowing over Sen. Clinton's (at that time) presumed loss, he talked about "bringing Obama down next" and began some unpleasant spiel about his church.
(I listen to Hannity and Limbaugh each for about an hour a week, just to hear wht to expect - it's a nasty job, but somebody has to do it)
January 10, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meh, doesn't worry me. If people are that stupid, and haven't learned anything in the last 8 years, then we're totally screwed anyways. We may as well just wait for another Great Depression or war or something to really push the reset button.
I don't think so, otherwise I would have left already.
And speaking of leaving, I hear there's quite a lot of anti-Zionism as the educated and mobile Israelis are getting fed up and leaving. Which is actually pretty scary, becasue if the reasonable people leave, whose left but the kooks with the nukes. It could grow into another Pakistan.
January 10, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Brad, please see my post above. Don't you agree that what's good for the (Zionist) goose should also be good for the (African-American) gander? Apparently, not.
Hope you had a good time at Wankstock!
January 10, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brad
I have heard nothing about Obama's church. By in large if not for Bush, I would not have cared about any candidates religion or religious institution. Do you have a source of link about it?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 11, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is interesting is that the author of the email conflates opposing Israel's treatment of Palestinians with "bigotry." I always thought bigotry was to hate people for what they are (immutable characteristics), not for what they do.
January 10, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ.
You are one helluva "blogueiro".
Searching for news about Norman Finklestein's tour of southern Lebanon with Hezbollah, I ran across a site that posted reactions to Obama by Iranian bloggers. Unfortunately, the English version won't load for me so here is the Babelfish Portugeuse-to-English translation; this portion of it deals with the Obama is a closet Muslim bullshit:
"Neghano considers [ fa ] the American election a great conquest for the democracy and says that the democracy in U.S.A. is the fruit of 300 years of effort and fight of the civil society, and that it did not appear of the night for the day. The cartnunista and journalist Nikahang Kosar fa still says [ ] that the message of Obama is "change" and that it counts on the support of youth, that Hillary Clinton seems to have more possibilities of being elect in many states. The blogueiro says that the name of the way of Obama is Hussein, and that many of the right section of the press want to make with that the people believe that it has linkings with islamitas radicals. Nikahang says that many Americans have fear of Muslim and Islamic names. Finally, the blogueiro adds that if Obama to win the election presidential, the dream of Martin Luther King finally will be carried through. Amin understood [ badly fa ] the religious past of Obama. Although the press debates the belief of Obama in the Christianity, the blogueiro says that a Muslim black is the way of if becoming the next American president. The blogueiro adds that it has left of the right press wants to make with that the people believe that it is an Islamic extremista, but many think that it is a secular Muslim."
As an Obama supporter, my HOPE for his victory is linked to what it will mean for America on the world's stage. In my mind's eye, the DREAM of President Barack Hussein Obama standing before the UN General Assembly is echoed by the HOPES for an Obama win as expressed by another Iranian blogger, Fahad Afshar:
"Some Iranian blogueiros are debating the victory of the candidate to the American presidency Barack Obama in Iowa. She was first the previous one of the presidential race of 2008. Some are livened up with the victory of Obama, while others evaluate the impact that "Obama as president" would have on the life Iranian politics. Farhad Afshar reflects [ fa ] as the majority of the population in Iowa is white, but still thus it preferred to vote in a black candidate. The blogueiro also writes:
'… the whispers of a Democratic candidate winning the US presidential election could soften the dark and frozen atmosphere in Iran. Iran's current president - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - was elected two years ago to face the foreign threat of having Iran considered a part of the ‘axis of evil'. Two years ago, Iran could have been attacked any moment, and a person was chosen to counter the foreign pressure. If the foreign threat diminishes, a slow democratic movement can go forward. Obama's ideas on foreign affairs and Iran make reformists happy… maybe some do not know but peace and dialogue is like poison for a group whose political existence relies on violence and war.'"
http://pt.globalvoicesonline.org/2008/01/07/blogueiros-iranianos-debatem-a-vitoria-de-obama-em-iowa/
January 10, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
lally: Fascinating. Thanks for taking the time to post the translations. This says a lot:
Let's hope whoever our new President is, that he/she will understand the significance of that simple sentence.
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." --Robert F. Kennedy
January 11, 2008 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wordie.
"Let's hope whoever our new President is, that he/she will understand the significance of that simple sentence. "
Agreed. So much depends on which FP advisors have the president's ear and whether or not he has the will and courage to fundementally change our FP in the region.
January 11, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
I am Jewish, a Democratic Precinct Committeeman and I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
January 10, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zionista, charming as usual.
For all your vaunted smarts on politics, you are clearly not connected if you don't know this is going on. I am in Washington. I talk to the campaigns, the other bloggers, the Jewish activists, the reporters, etc.
This is happening and it's ugly whether you, the Committeeperson, know about it or not. Get out more.
January 10, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Davai" me if you don't like it.
Meanwhile, this much I do know: I am a Jew, a Democratic PC and I haven't received any such emails.
January 10, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Davai was a complete asshole and wingnut troll. He was warned about 20 times.
January 10, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I never saw a swiftboat ad. So what.
January 10, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
argumentum ad ignorantiam
Commonly in an Argument from Ignorance, the speaker considers or asserts that something is false, implausible, or not obvious to them personally and attempts to use this gap in knowledge as "evidence" in favor of an alternative view of her or his choice.
January 10, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ raised the matter of probabilities:
Again, I am a Jew, a Democratic PC and quite qualified to respond -- deal with it. I didn't say this isn't happening. But I question the level of panic we need to express at this point. Obama has been attacked for expressing support for Israel at a Chicago AIPAC conference (as if support for both Zionism and Palestinian national rights are mutually exclusive), and for holding a funder with a homophobic preacher. Where was the panic then?
January 10, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's already covered by the above comment. Zionista.
But keep on trying.
January 10, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nor have I. Davai me too. I don't give a fuck.
Maybe this isn't a newspaper, but people have the right to expect a modicum of journalistic integrity. If MJ Rosenberg is claiming there is a campaign against Obama in the Jewish community, he should focus on some basics: who, what, where, why and when.
I get out a lot MJ. And I ask you sir, have you any sense of decency?
Bruce S. Levine
New York, New York
January 10, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're too articulate to be naive, so by a process of deduction I have to conclude that you're a tacit supporter of the smear campaign. Disgusting. Or perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem; MJ said a segment of the Jewish community, not the entire community. IE the right wing pro republican segment. For my money - your segment Mr Levine.
Now shower me with your phony outrage.
January 10, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have spent over a year at this site, on and off, and I have for the most part worked hard to bring balance to these discussions, notwithstanding an admitted sensitivity to charges against my people. I have tried to earn the respect of my fellow posters. Apparently I have failed with you and many others. I accept that.
I have identified myself by name and location; my life is an open book. I may not be the best union attorney Northern Observer, but I have worked my ass off for the last 20-plus years to make the lives of working men and women, regardless of race or religion, just a little bit better. I spend about two days a week at local union halls in New York City, and the people there are my family. They too are my brothers and sisters, and I am proud to have earned their trust and their love. And the feeling is mutual.
I am not a right wing republican, and I don't hate Barack Obama; in fact I admire him greatly. And I promise you I am not part of this purported e-mail campaign.
What else can I say? It hurts me deeply that MJ and I have come to this point. But this thread should not be about me and so I yield the floor.
Bruce S. Levine
New York, New York
January 10, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce, you and Zionista are real "MAH YOMRU HA GOYIM" people.MJ is more like an Israeli.He calls things as he sees it and he doesn't care who is looking over his shoulder.I don't understand people like you, let alone a Jew here who calls itself "Zionista," a name that would be a joke in Israel.
I think Jews like MJ get you scared because he is supposed to stick together with all the Jews, but he doesnt care about that bullshit. .That concept is alien to me also and to most Israelis under 80.
January 10, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Herzl.
"MJ is more like an Israeli.He calls things as he sees it and he doesn't care who is looking over his shoulder"
Boy, is that the truth! I happen to appreciate Israeli bluntness and when it's combined with humor (Yoel Marcus) and courage (Amira Hass) and pragmatic realism (Ephraim Halevy) it's even better. In that vein, I'm highlighting this excerpt from today's column by Tom Segev:
"An Israeli for Obama
Approximately 100 American historians signed a declaration of support for Barack Obama for president. Some of them teach at top universities like Harvard, Yale, Princeton and UCLA. Their support for Obama appears in a paid advertisement for the excellent Internet site of George Mason University called "History News Network.
One of the signatories is Prof. Doron Ben-Atar, head of the history department at Fordham, a Jesuit university in New York. He is an expert on the American Revolution and also writes about Israel.
"Senator [Hillary] Clinton is very intelligent," Ben-Atar said this week, "but like her charming husband, she is a mistress of triangulating and stands for very little. She was afraid to vote against the war in Iraq and she has not really proposed any substantial reform in the American tax or medical insurance system. Obama can match her intellectual skills and has not shied away from taking on big challenges. He has opposed the war in Iraq, declared he would negotiate with enemies, and has proposed sensible steps to combat the inequalities in the United States. More than any other candidate, he has the ability to change the political landscape in America, by means of a multi-racial coalition that will break the barriers of race and religion.
"As an Israeli who cares all too deeply about 'the situation,' I expect Obama and Clinton to have different approaches to the Middle East. In fact, I expect him to win the Democratic nomination. Can he win in the general election? Absolutely. He'll beat any Republican candidate, apart from [John] McCain," the historian predicts. "
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/943712.html
January 10, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks to both of you. I like the comparison!
January 10, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is beginning to look like McCain will get the Republican nomination after all.
There is no way Hillary with all her negatives can beat him.
Obama has the best chance of defeating McCain. Especially if he makes General Wesley Clark his running mate.
January 11, 2008 3:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Herzl:
Lally is right that you are a valuable addition and I do mean that. I have to tell you, however, that I know quite a few Israelis, more than my share, who, like you, tell it like it is. :-) My wife and I (jokingly please) call it IPD, for "Israeli personality disorder".
But, seriously, I'm sorry about your perception, but respectfully, really respectfully, I have to tell you, you don't speak for all Isralis.
And I'm not scared Herzl, but I do have substantial disagreement with MJ about means for needed change. But I of course defer to you as an Israeli and please know that I most certainly defer to you because of your service.
Bruce
January 10, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neither do you speak for anyone but yourself, So quit acting like you represent Jews or Israel, and are anything more than some schmoe. OK. Good.
January 10, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce,
If you are a good person as you claim then I don't know why you threw a fit at the top of the thread. It's not consistent. Hence my suspicion of you, and not the lovely persona you describe in your own defense.
We will have to leave the truth to God.
January 10, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Northern Observer:
Please, I never claimed I was a good person. I was responding to how you perceived me to be; it struck me and I responded. That's all.
Bruce
January 10, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, NO. There is not a word in my post suggesting that this hate campaign is directed by the Jewish community rather than AT the community. I even (and this is hard for me) make it plain that I think AIPAC would repudiate these charges and probably has.
I have my suspicions about where this is coming from but since they are only suspicions, I'll keep them to myself. Suffice it to say I think the charges come from one or more rival campaigns not from any Jewish organization.
January 10, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, without naming the campaign, can you at least tell us whether you suspect the source is a Democratic campaign or a Republican campaign? The email you reprinted uses the word "Democrat" as an adjective (rather than the correct "Democratic"), which is a typical ploy of Republicans. There's an assumption among many of the posters here that the memo is coming from the Clinton campaign. I wonder if that's a fair assumption. By not stating your source you may be allowing people to jump to possibly unjustified conclusions.
I should add, I am not a friend of Hill . . . I'm supporting Obama and Edwards jointly and would hate to see Clinton win. But we should be fair to her . . .
January 11, 2008 6:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State, I really don't know. But the one you refer to definitely is being circulated by a Republican.
Of course, in New York and California, Jewish Dems will get these things, you can be sure.
Someone should steal Ed Koch's typewriter! Right up his alley.
January 11, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
mjrosenberg,
How do you reconcile this claim with the following statement from your post?
January 11, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Easy--'the' refers to the collective, while 'a' refers to one individual.
January 11, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
It further occurs to me that MJ may have included the reference to that particular individual as an example of someone who had been influenced by the hate campaign, not necessarily someone who was himself responsible for it.
MJ?
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." --Robert F. Kennedy
January 11, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it were so easy to reconcile, leftAhead, then how is it that right here in this discussion it's often enough been a short reach to conclude that Jews are responsbile for the smear? For example...
Here,
Here,
Here,
Tell me, what makes the TPMCafe community so much smarter than the reactionaries who are bound to take the "Dinerstein" spam seriously?
[Update] And there was the original title of this post, Hate Campaign Against Obama in Jewish Community, which was so unambiguous that MJ had to edit out the last three words (thanks for the reminder, bslev). By the way, the pre-edited title still shows up in the URL:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2008/jan/10/the_hate_campaign_against_obama_in_jewish_community
January 11, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand why your panties are in a bunch, as to me, it's despicable, but a tempest in a teacup. I think most of us are smarter because we realize that the segment could be AIPAC or the favorite bugaboo the 'self-hating Jews,' and did not think for a second that *everybody* in the Jewish communityreceived this email (plenty have, and have spoken here, so what about them?) Don't you realize (or want to realize) that Jews are a heterogeneous group? Or perhaps did MJ's title blow the 'Zionist conspiracy' dog whistle in your ear?
January 11, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, I have a little problem with prevailing notions, either implicit or explicit, of guilty 'til proven innocent. And if those of us who see it that way are being too sensitive for you, then why would MJ go back and edit out "in the Jewish community" if he didn't know it was problematic?
January 11, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you are apparently judging MJ as guilty, and dealing in bad faith by editing the title. And, your pretensions notwithstanding, finding out who ultimately sent the emails is futile, yet it is proven here that many members of the Jewish community have, in fact, been receiving them, and your buddy Herzl has stated that he heard these accusations at Temple, so there appears to be some substance that this rumour has been spread around in some areas of the Jewish community--so what again is your beef?
January 11, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
leftAhead,
Not at all. MJ did in fact edit the title as you can see in the original artifact in the post's URL. That this insipid and demagogic spam campaign has a profoundly negative effect on our national political discourse is beyond dispute. My "beef," once again, is that the way it has been reported here compounds the demagogery in the way the Jewish community -- any segment of the Jewish community -- is presumed directly responsible for it. I am not saying it is beyond possibility -- for example, below I support an argument that Daniel Pipes is a career demagogue. But the manner that many in the Cafe community have reached the unchallenged conclusion that this is all part of the almighty Israel Lobby Agenda is remarkable in the way many were led to presume the guilt of "Arabs" for the Oklahoma City and Atlanta Olympics bombings. Get it?
January 12, 2008 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Zionista, please see the end of the posting for my response.
January 12, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously, it's the words "Jewish Community" that raised the ire of several posters here.
Would a qualifier such as "an element of the" have elicited the same reaction?
January 11, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where does the word "segment" appear in this quote:
If you are Jewish and a Democrat, you have probably already received one of the e-mails about the danger Barack Obama's election would pose to Jews and Israel.
I reluctantly enter this battle, because I think it is a mole-hill, but Zionista, with whom I frequently lock horns, and bslev are just saying that this "massive movement" is overblown. That is all they're saying as far as I can tell.
It seems to me that they're right.
Jan
January 12, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Outraged I tell you! lol.
Talk about the phony outrage, with one foot crossing over into comical, as a poorly laid smoke screen. Nice one bslev. Keep trying.
:rolleyes:
January 10, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you know the commenter is being false?
January 11, 2008 5:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would venture to say that if you haven't yet received such e-mails, it's highly likely that it won't be long before you do. Given MJ's work, I'd say it pretty likely he'd get hooked into such things before many folks. Communications on the net are, indeed, fast, but it still takes a while to spread things via e-mail. But who knows? We'll see.
January 10, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are Zionista, Gree, and Davai really different people? It seems as one goes the other pops up.
I'm don't know if they're alts, or just tag teaming. But ideologically, and in terms of "charm" these IDs seem pretty identical.
January 10, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the emmis. Us heebs are all alike and we all stick together.
January 10, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, speaking of Davai and Gree's wing-nuttery, there go the gratuitous antisemitism charges and victim routine. Anyone who points out their BS, must be an antisemite.
Even other Jews! If they don't toe the line, they're self hating Jews! :rolleyes:
Come clean: you're just Dershowitz's alts, right?
January 10, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonsense. I embrace and proudly reclaim the word "heeb."
January 10, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's special. Good for you.
January 10, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stick together? Apparently, you've already forgotten your last post to MJ.
January 10, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sarcasm, mythbuster. Look it up.
January 10, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, humor? You might want to look that up.
January 10, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since Zionista wasn't within ear-shot of the tree falling in the forest, I guess it didn't make a sound.
January 10, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah. That's a zen thing.
January 10, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
My daughter got the e-mail.
January 10, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, this along with MJ's speculation about a rival campaign kinda leads one to beleive this is about women voters. Now, whose demographic would that be? hmmmmm
January 10, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I guess that confirms MJ's post.
And it prooves zionista, bslev, and ellen ain't kosher.
January 10, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think what it "prooves," kozmik, is that your standard of proof "ain't kosher."
January 10, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, back to spell checking. And here I thought you were about to say something intelligent. surprise!
January 11, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kozmik: by saying someone's not "kosher" are you implying they are not Jewish Americans of equal status to yourself?
January 11, 2008 5:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you know which campaigns are pushing this crap MJ? I have a hunch but won't speculate from whence some of this is emanating.
January 10, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
My hunch is that this type of mailing campaign costs a lot of money. Let's see there was a mailer sent out by the unions that was a scurrilous distortion of this same candidates voting record on choice.
I wonder whose campaign has money like this to spend. It sure isn't Edwards or Richardson.
January 10, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You reply to Zionista does not address her point. You are certainly not above making up such a claim. Or as a tool of the anti-Israel left perhaps just convenient source to gin up a pro-Obama post.
Iam also Jewish, a Democratic, a contributor, small, to the party and various candidates. This was news to me except through you.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 11, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Before Obama entered electoral politics he had expressed sympathy for the plight of Palestinians but he has cleaned up his act since then. I know that in Israel he is polling the lowest of any major candidate on the question "Is this person good for Israel". I haven't quite figured out why this is so. No evidence for any organized campaign so maybe it is just inherent racism.
January 10, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Our country needs a president who feels sympathy for both sides in that long lasting dispute. That president should act in the best interests of our country, not either of the two sides. I hope Obama will do that if elected.
This is a long way of saying I don't see where Obama had any need to "clean up his act".
Hoppy in Sacramento
January 10, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hoppy I am just acknowledging a fact of presidential politics, not expressing my preferences. Remember what happened to Dean four years ago when he mentioned 'even-handed' in dealing with the IP question. He got his ass handed to him and apologized profusely. If we are going to back any candidate that has a chance of winning the presidency, we will have to accept that our candidate must avoid certain positions when it comes to Israel.
January 10, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't equate those things.
Dean was a goof ball. Remember his outreach to drivers of pickup truck with confederate flags?
January 10, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this meant to be sarcasm: "Before Obama entered electoral politics he had expressed sympathy for the plight of Palestinians but he has cleaned up his act since then."
January 10, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I’m glad he “cleaned up his act” and started loathing the Palestinians like a good American should. You’re right that Obama has flip-flopped on this as in other areas to enhance his election prospects:
He unabashedly supported Israeli bombing of Lebanon, too. Could be that there is a strong lobby group that pressures politicians into limitless support for Israel.
January 10, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Don Keyote. Always tilting at windmills. What "flipflop" do you imagine there? How will you spin that?
He's absolutely right. What he said is dead on, and not controversial with Israelis or Palestinians.
January 10, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read the Guardian article and gain enlightenment. Expand your Kozmik Konsciousnezz! Obama was active in supporting the Palestinian cause. When he began his national run he started towing the AIPAC line.
January 10, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh baloney. That's just spin and scare tactics.
Obama is like a lot of Progressives, and has his FP adviser Brzezinski, who has been crtiical of the reluctance of Israel to come to the table and make compromises, but most certainly has Israel's interests at heart and wants there to be a peace deal. Both are sensitive to the suffering of Israelis, and Palestinians, and want there to be peace.
The only people who've criticized them are the lunatics like Dershowitz, who will never make peace.
Another problem, as the comments from Shlomo Ben Ami shows, it's been the policy of DLC types like Lieberman and Clinton to paint this as a totally one sided issue, which also has the effect of empowering Israeli reactionaries who are a barrier to peace as much as the Palestinian reactionaries. Most Israelis realize that they'll never get peace until both sides are willing to come to the table and there's an honest broker in the WH.
But keep trying with the oppo-research and spin. Don Keyote.
January 10, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I have to quote myself to avoid this sidetracking of what I said. I said upthread that all of the top candidates take the AIPAC line and I don’t think it should play into a voter’s decision because they all have adopted the extreme pro-Israeli planks. Obama flipped only because he started with a pro-Palestinian position to begin with.
I like Obama but he has adjusted his politics to get ahead, in important ways at times. Maybe he is no more guilty of this than the other candidates, but I was only answering syvanen’s post about Obama. People need to look hard at the candidates because there’s a lot at stake and it will all come out eventually. Opposition research and spin? I linked to Obama’s stated positions and if you can’t accept them or refute them with hard evidence, don’t reply.
January 11, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reality is that due to the power of the Israel lobby, no American politician if he wants to get elected, or even be taken seriously dares depart from the AIPAC party line.
Look at what is happening to Ron Paul. They dug up some very bigoted stuff he had put his name on in the past, which will pretty much silence him. It is no surprise that this was dug up by the Pro-Israli New Republic.
January 11, 2008 3:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd just like to direct everyone's attention to Rosner's ongoing Haaretz piece about who among the U.S. candidates for President is "best for Israel." This is a scale that rates the candidates from best (10 points) to worst (1 point).
Guiliani is at the top with 8.37, while Clinton's score is 7.62, followed closely by Bloomberg at 7.25. The site notes this about Clinton:
Obama and Edwards are toward the bottom with 5 and 5.87 respectively. Obama seems to have fallen into disfavor because of his remarks about Iran. Although the site mentions a number of candidates who have either dropped out or who are very obscure, Ron Paul's name is nowhere to be seen.
For those who may not know, moving the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would be a highly provokative act, and highly detrimental to the peace process. Not even the foolish Bush administration, with it's favoring of Israel in so many ways, supports this, wisely leaving any such move until after the hoped-for peace negotiations might be concluded.
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." --Robert F. Kennedy
January 11, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Before Obama entered electoral politics he had expressed sympathy for the plight of Palestinians but he has cleaned up his act since then. I know that in Israel he is polling the lowest of any major candidate on the question "Is this person good for Israel". I haven't quite figured out why this is so. No evidence for any organized campaign so maybe it is just inherent racism.
Possibly. But I think it mainly foes back to his discussions of his willingness to talk to Iran.
January 11, 2008 3:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel wanted the United States to go to war against Iraq and Obama opposed it.
Israel considers Iran to be a very serious threat and Obama wants to sit down and talk with their leaders instead of bombing its nuclear sites.
Obama's positions are good for the United States, but they are probably not all that good for Israel. Therefore Jews who are citizens of the United States are going to have to decide where their first loyalty lies.
January 11, 2008 3:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's positions (negotiating rather than pre-emptive war) are good for the US, but not all that good for Israel? Why do you say that? Is constant war and unrest in the Middle East really good for Israel?
Only if you agree with the mind-set that Israel's policies are actually in Israel's best interest. Who can say that the policies of the US are always in our own best interest?
War as a solution to all problems is not in ANY nation's self-interest notwithstanding all those who may profit from it. Some people see peace as the coward's way out, when in fact it is a far more corageous option than throwing our heavily armed young at those we disagree with.
Jan
January 12, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
CVille.
"Is constant war and unrest in the Middle East really good for Israel?"
One problem is that the FP establishment in the US has a rather peculiar distorted view of reality in the ME, much of it based on outright bullshit and lies. There's an underground war going on in which some gatekeepers of the FP status quo are threatened by the notion that an alternative narrative might gain some traction in Obama's case. They are concerned that some of his FP advisors hold viewpoints diverging from the acceptable storylines about US FP in the region that could influence him to change the American approach.
More and more Israelis are starting to advocate approaches in dealings with their immediate neighbors, Hamas and Nasrallah included, that diverge from America's best interests for Israel.
What if Obama started listening go them! Horrors! Can one imagine what could happen if Obama talked with Mr Mossad Ephraim Halevy about cutting deals with Hamas and beyond?.......
Hillary and her team are not perceived as a problem at all. According to wiki?, David Halberstam wrote in "War in the Time of Peace" that the Clintons courted the neocons before launching their first presidential run. Clinton's stable of FP advisors hasn't had much scrutiny yet.
They're in the bag, cheek kissies aside.
January 12, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"but he has cleaned up his act since then"
Why is expressing sympathy with opressed people an act that needs to be cleaned up?
If any other country treated a conquered people as badly as Israel treats the Palestinians, liberal Jews would very actively be protesting this horrible injustice.
For example, cutting off electricity to the people in the Gaza strip is mass punishment because its effects are not intended to be limited to the people who are shooting off the rockets. The effect on the people not responsible for this is not collateral damage, but, rather, is intentional and this is therefore a war crime.
January 11, 2008 3:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't just Democrats and/or Jews that are receiving these emails. They are all over the place.
I'm disturbed that they can spin the honoring of Farrakhan into anti-semitic rhetoric that could, I'm afraid, potentially hurt Obama.
Any suggestions on how to counter these attacks?
January 10, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Makes sense.
The nature of the smear tactic reminds me of the one candidate who has had to let go campaign volunteers for sending out faklse rumormongering emails about Obama being muslim. Which candidate was that? The same candidate very early on in the campaign was alleged to have been the source of the muslim madrassa story on Fox, right? Didn't that same candidate also get an endorsement where once again the muslim smear tactic was raised. Gosh, darnnit, what's that candidates name?
O I remember it is the oldest Democratic candidate.
January 10, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I got an email from a long list of Jews in the community telling me that O is a Muslim. Plus my wife heard it at temple. We're Israelis, and can't vote.
Plus, Maarive had a big article about it (it's in Hebrew) by Ben Caspit on Monday or Tuesday all about the smear campaign being waged against Obama in the Jewish community by other campaigns. I'll translate the relevant part if I can find it.
January 10, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thom Hartmann was talking about the e-mails on his radio show, how he'd received them and about being in an airport bar in NH and having to debunk the same story that was being shared around the bar. I don't think the e-mails are exclusively a Jewish thing. I'd guess there are several versions targeted to different audiences.
January 10, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The way I heard him tell it he was waiting for a delayed connecting flight between NH and Washington State, sitting at a bar watching the election results on CNN when the guy next to him remarked that Obama was a Muslim and worse. What struck Hartmann was that more than a few fellow travelers agreed, reinforcing their beliefs stating that they had received similar emails. Hartmann's impression was the slander is rampant.
Full disclosure: His stated preferred candidate is Edwards.
January 10, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Media Matters has a half dozen pieces on the Muslim hit attacks. Here's one.
January 10, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wonderful post, MJ.
January 10, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really, now! Rosenberg links to a blog entry dealing solely with Pipes' article, something he (Rosenberg) already highlighted in the initial post.
And that's "wonderful" by you?
January 10, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, the wonderful post was MJ's--not the link.
January 10, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, this is the complete comment you were replying to:
Media Matters has a half dozen pieces on the Muslim hit attacks. Here's one. MJ Rosenberg
It was typical Rosenberg -- intellectually sloppy and unresponsive. And that's what you claimed was wonderful!
January 10, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give it a rest Ellen. You're screeching.
January 10, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you can be assured I will as soon as the Rosenberg-worshipping vapors-suffering commenters on this thread offer up some content. Wanna be the first, kozmik?
January 10, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Ellen.
Actually, I already posted "content" at the top of the thread, which links to a debate on the issue of the Israeli/Palestine conflict, including Israel's former Foreign Minister, who was a negotiator at Camp David in 2000.
Where is your "content" Ellen? Aside from hissy fits, what do you post Ellen?
January 10, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since you and I have had a diagreements I can only say keep it up. You have point out that emperor here is naked.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 11, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a material difference between morons of all stripes e-mailing all kinds of nasty bullshit, and the kind of bald, inciteful, and provocative assertion made by MJ Rosenberg in this post that there is a campaign in the Jewish community to discredit Senator Obama.
January 10, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "chosen" are the only ones without sin...? That may not have been your intention, but it certainly is your tone.
January 10, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The "chosen" are the only ones without sin...? That may not have been your intention, but it certainly is your tone."
Excuse me?
January 10, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't know what you are talking about. You simply are calling me a liar. So, in the words of your buddy Zionista, f*ck you.
January 10, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not calling you a liar. I am calling you sloppy intellectually, inciteful, and eminently irresponsible.
MJ, let's see how much you stand by your own product. Here's a dare: make this your IPF Friday column tomorrow. Let's see if you put your mouth where your money is hypocrite.
Bruce S. Levine
New York, New York
January 10, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are a very scared man.
January 10, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I claim no monopoly on virtue or courage. I just call things as I see them.
January 10, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
dood, all you're doing it trash talking and being a real schmuck.
MJ has provided copy and laid out the case. You, Ellen, and Zionista have acted like a bunch of children screaming "not uh" like so many davai clones.
January 10, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The way I see it, MJ has provided a lot of info in this thread.
Some trolls have just attacked him viscously without any substance. It shows the kind of Dershowitz piggishness out there.
If these people are going to keep trolling MJ's threads without any substance, they're no different from Davai.
January 10, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Davai was attacked not for being a troll but not yielding to the anti-Semites of this site and those who ignore the facts. Supporting the murder of Jews in the name of Palestinians is disgusting whether said by Farrakhan, Rosenberg or you.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 11, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greenbaum, stop your fucking trivializing of the Holocaust, okay. I have too many Holocaust survivors in my family to sit here while you repeatedly joke about the holocaust and make fun of its victims.Six million Jews did not die to amuse you. Get your Norman Finkelstein ass out of here. Calling TPM people "murderers of Jews" is obscene, you little holocaust denier.
January 11, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, Daniel, the problem with davai was that he was an uber-nudge and a forum flooder.
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." --Robert F. Kennedy
January 11, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't like seeing two of my favorite people here, MJ and bslev, doing battle.
January 11, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
mjrosenberg,
Where did I say that?
January 11, 2008 6:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since other posters here have confirmed receiving similar messages, and Herzl in the above comments has claimed to hear this message at Temple, I'd say there is something here, so perhaps your outrage is misdirected.
Googling the sender of the email that MJ posted, Sid Dinerstein, it is easy to find that he is the president of the Northern Palm Beach Republican Club.
It's easy to spoof an email header, however, the fallacy in your post is easy enough to spot: there are morons of all stripes in any community--including the Jewish one, so please try not to be so disingenuous.
January 10, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amended to more clearly reflect that there are Jewish morons; I know quite a few.
January 10, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great, but your snark doesn't acknowledge my point--my guess is that Herzl was right about you. It's unfortunate, because in the past, I thought that you had made some good posts, and were a thoughtful person.
Apparently, this post for you is like showing Mike Huckabee a fertilized egg and asking for his comment.
January 10, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce,
For years Jackie Mason was one of my favorite comics, he could make me laugh my ass off, but then he got political, he even got his own TV show which was mostly attacking liberals, Democrats, etc., and he was as good at it as any right wing talk radio host.
I lost all good feelings for him.
January 11, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, John, you and I got off to a really rocky start if I can recall, but I think we have managed to become pretty good friends since that time. I appreciate the fact that, even when you have not agreed with me, you have told me why and have always asked me to explain why I felt the way I did on this or that issue. And, in doing so, you have set an example for the entire Cafe community.
The Cafe is lucky to have a WWII veteran like you among its active contributors. I have to tell you that, for some reason, you remind me of the father of my best friend growing up, who was also my neighbor. His name was Rudy Stegemann and, like you, he was a WWII veteran. He was like a second father; I spent more time over there than at my own house I think. I was there on Christmas morning every year and I couldn't wait to see what they would have under the tree for me. Rudy died too young of a heart attack when his son Russell and I were 16 but I will never forget him. I think you guys would have gotten along just fine.
I am in a reflective mood at the moment--trying to figure out what happened last night and what it means in terms of my comfort level here--but I want you to know that, whatever the future holds, I wish you only good things. Remember that old German saying Rudy and his wife Jane had hanging on their kitchen wall: "We grow too soon old and too late smart"! :) G-d bless you and your family John.
Bruce
January 11, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce, a thousand thanks for the kind words.
That saying you mentioned, "We grow too soon old and too late smart"! is popular with the Pa Dutch too. They like putting it on little wooden plaques and selling them. :-)
As to 'reflecting", I find myself reminiscing more as I get older. My wife tells me its my way of reliving my youth and running from my mortality (old age, ya know). I wish I could go back in time for a couple of hours to hang out with my friends in pre-teen days, or maybe relive the first time I saw my wife. I swear I fell in love with her at first sight.
Hey, I'm getting melancholy here.....
One other thing, my war experience frames much of what eventually became of me.
And Bruce, those memories you have of your friend and his father, keep them, and some day when you're as old as I am, you too can reminisce as I do. :-)
January 11, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I wish I could go back in time for a couple of hours to hang out with my friends in pre-teen days, or maybe relive the first time I saw my wife. I swear I fell in love with her at first sight."
That's beautiful John. Just how long have you been married to your lovely bride?
January 11, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had to ask her how long; almost 59 years. :-)
I first saw her at a dance/social in 1948, she was wearing a tight straight white skirt and brown blouse, very modern, a real dish. :-)
I was with a friend of mine and when I saw her, she was with another girl, her back was to us and I said to my buddy, "look at the ass on her," and when she happened to turn and face us, I was a goner. We married in 1949.
Has anyone ever loved who hasn't loved at first sight?
January 12, 2008 6:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well all the best to both of you John.
Bruce
January 12, 2008 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. How could this smear tactic benefit the GOP? The Jewish demographic is like the African-American one almost 90% vote democratic.
Why would the GOP engage in such a costly campaign if inDEED the presumed Democratic frontrunner is the one who they beleive is the most formidable opponent?
January 10, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The smart Republican strategists want to run against Hillary Clinton. They know how to go after her already, and can follow the old playbook. As the Democratic chair of Wyoming said (of all places, and not exactly a black state) Hillary is an easy target for the locker room jokes and to portray as a phony for her voting record. She's an easy target, Republicans already hate her, and nobody really likes her.
Some of the dumb Republicans, the rank and file, want to run against Obama.
But the top strategists are actually pretty worried becasue they don't know how to attack him. Swiftboating an unpopular candidate is easy. But it can backfire badly against a popular candidate, especially with moderates, this year who are very skeptical of the usual tricks.
January 10, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
May I suggest a circle to look at for the source of perhaps some of this. The circle around Rudy Boschwitz.
It sounds so much like the game played a week before the election in 1990, when Rudy sent a personal letter to 2400 members of the Minnesota Jewish Community, claiming that Paul Wellstone was a really bad Jew.
You see he married his highschool sweetheart during his first year of college, and she was, a Kentucky Baptist. Three adult children and nearly 30 years later, Rudy took exception to this relationship. (They died together in that plane crash in 2002.)
Rudy of course signed this letter as Senator Boschwitz, and in the letter he claimed to be the Rabbi of the Senate, and responsible for matching up many single Jews on the Hill. And he wrote some of it in Hebrew, and other parts in Yiddish. But the point was, Wellstone was a really bad Jew, and you should not vote for him. The Synagogues on Friday Night after the letter surfaced had a huge reaction -- not exactly what Boschwitz anticipated.
I am not saying that this is the work of Rudy --I think he learned his lesson when Wellstone defeated him in 1990. But it is from the circle that thinks like him. Just as the Minnesota Rabbi's took on that letter back in 1990, this too has to have a response. It needs to come from Leadership that does not want to be ripped this and that way on this matter, at least not without evidence. Perhaps it comes from Hagee speaking for the Christiam Zionists.
In many respects, Obama's own denomination, the United Church of Christ, is very similar to the Network of Jewish Synagogues, in that they witness as individual congregations, and not so much as a denomination. For reasons that go back to the Abolitionist Movements of the 19th Century, they have established congregations and institutions in the Africam American Community. Among those in King's circle, Andy Young was the United Church of Christ Clergyman, someone who grew up in the New Orleans UCC community, was educated by them, and carried their tradition into the movement. And yes, while at the UN he talked with a Palestine delegate, and that ended his career in the Carter Administration.
So it is time to end this junk stuff, and take it away from the political game players. Too may people have been targeted.
January 10, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Boshchwitz attack was a classic. He attacked Wellstone for marrying a Christian, a "lapse" by Wellstone that did not offend the 99% of Minnesotans who are Christian!
January 11, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you ever noticed how all these really nice people who marry for love are accussed of being race/ethnic/religious traitors....by not so nice people?
January 11, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aah but it did offend Christian Minnesotans. The papers were full of Letters to the Editor, and the talk shows were also filled with it ...Minnesota Swedish, Norwegian and Danish Lutherans talking about how the different Synods of the Lutheran Churches had once encouraged them to keep up the Viking tribal wars in the new world, by not marrying for love, but instead for some version of Viking Conquest. In fact, in Minnesota most Swedish Lutherans are moderate Republicans, most Norwegians are linked to the old Farmer Labor Party -- now part of the DFL, and the Danes split 50-50 with the Holy Danes being mostly Republican, and the Happy or Grundvigian Danes being DFL. Intermarriage has mixed it up a bit, but you can still see the remains of it. A Hanson is probably Swedish, but a Hansen is most likely Danish or Norwegian.
Garrison Keillor once did a riff on this during his Lake Wobegone segment, essentially a comment on how the various town factions had lined up for or against Paul on Election Day, given the Boschwitz attack. Keillor used humor to give it a smack-down, and apparently Paul and Sheila liked it -- first time they had actually laughed at the attack. So while this pattern is serious business -- I do think good humor may be the best way to disarm those who use it as political tactic.
And no, Minnesota is no longer 99% Christian. Remember we sent a real Muslim to Congress last year, with the full support and endorsement of the major institutions in the Jewish Community. We have a State Senator who is Hmong-Buddhist, and a leader in the House who is Hindu. Of course none of these are Republican -- this is a DFL diversity program.
January 12, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Boshchwitz attack was a classic. He attacked Wellstone for marrying a Christian, a "lapse" by Wellstone that did not offend the 99% of Minnesotans who are Christian!
January 11, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
wrb, my guess is that the email header was spoofed, and wasn't sent my Sid Dinerstein. I have nothing to support that except common sense, which would dictate that this would be a monumentally stupid thing for the real SD to send out, but who knows?
January 11, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to this site, it is really a scurrilous false attack.
January 11, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
He said there was a campaign in the Jewish community, not a campaign by the Jewish community. Is this really so provocative?
January 11, 2008 3:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently not DanK; it's just my right-wing and scared Jew tendencies according to MJ and the consensus of myriad posters.
In any event, as I understand things, MJ has explained that he never meant to even suggest that this was coming from inside any portion of the Jewish community at all, but rather from one of the political campaigns, presumably the Clinton campaign. That's not how I read the piece, and it is not how I read the original title of the post which, for whatever reason, has been edited.
January 11, 2008 4:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce: Here are just a few of MJ's words:
One reporter told me that he has been called repeatedly by a figure in the American Jewish community [emphasis mine - note this is singular] who charges him with cowardice for not revealing the "truth" about Obama.
But apparently some people do (although campaign operatives [emphasis mine] who are pushing the story almost surely don't).
Daniel Pipes [emphasis mine - again note this is a singular actor], who makes a living off Muslim baiting, has written an article (widely disseminated by Obama's opponents) that concedes that Obama is a Christian but is also an apostate Muslim.
The bottom line is that the career haters like Pipes and people who oppose Obama's candidacy for all kinds of reasons [emphasis mine]...
Sadly, they have chosen the Jewish community as the prime recipients of their message of hate [emphasis mine]...
It's pretty clear to me that MJ is stating that the Jewish community is a victim of the smear campaign, not a perpetrator. He did offer the two exceptions of Pipes (surely you aren't going to defend Pipes!), and only one other Jewish person as making these horrible comments, but his focus is on campaign operatives who he suspects as having sent the emails and who are creating these smears, not the Jewish community.
I think you are a good man, Bruce, who means well, but you are very much inclined to read things into various posts that simply are not there.
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." --Robert F. Kennedy
January 11, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot to include the original title of the post: "Hate Campaign Against Obama in Jewish Community".
January 11, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
No I didn't forget. But I can easily imagine why MJ would decide to revise it. I'd like to suggest that people ask questions if there is material that's ambiguous. You yourself, upthread, said this to John:
The phrase "in the Jewish Community" as used in the title can refer to an effect on the Jewish community as well as an effort by the Jewish community. As I said, it's certainly possible that the change in the title came about as MJ realized that, But you didn't give MJ any quarter here at all, and immediately leapt to a conclusion.
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." --Robert F. Kennedy
January 11, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You would make a great defense lawyer Wordie, or a talmudic scholar. Parse away.
January 12, 2008 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce: Please see my comment at the bottom of the thread.
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." --Robert F. Kennedy
January 12, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kevin Hayden
I don't think anyone should panic, but the disseminators of hate should have their email and IP addresses publicized on numerous blogs.
This sounds like just another Republican ploy, and Dem solidarity can defeat it.
January 10, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about it sounds republican to you?
January 10, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is what Maariv reported yesterday (from Hebrew, so its not very eloquent in translation.) Reading this, it seems like the Israelis are being spun against Obama by another campaign but aren't necessarily buying it. I know Israel and a story like this doesnt just appear.
WAITING FOR BUSH, WORRIED ABOUT OBAMA
Ma'ariv (p. 2) by Ben Caspit -- While Jerusalem is dressing up for US
President Bush's arrival, Israeli decision-makers are increasingly tense
over another matter entirely: New Hampshire, where the primaries for the
US presidency will be held today and are expected to result in Barack
Obama as the leading candidate for the presidency.
Some officials in Jerusalem have already expressed, in very closed
conversations, concern about the collapse of earlier forecasts that
Hillary Clinton was supposed to take the Democrat candidacy in a walk.
The fact that Obama, who has swept America in recent weeks and has
become the darling of the Democratic Party, and could become, in exactly
one year, the president of the largest power on earth, has aroused
considerable thought, worry and concern in Jerusalem. Outwardly, of
course, the issue, called "an internal American matter," is not being
discussed. But inside the room, some are making calculations and plans.
Until recently, Obama was considered the least attractive candidate,
from Israel's perspective, for US president. All the experts ranked him
relatively low, in light of the fact that his real opinions are unknown,
he is black and liberal, without any real obligations to Israel or to
AIPAC, and with no links to Israel.
He is one of the only presidential candidates who openly declared his
support for diplomatic dialogue with Iran. In a television debate with
Hillary Clinton, they argued fiercely on this subject. His basic
positions, as far as they are known in Jerusalem, are also considered
"objective" at best. However, this opinion is disputed by many Jerusalem
officials. "We must not forget that George Bush was also considered at
the time as an unattractive candidate from Israel's perspective, and
everyone went into mourning when Al Gore lost to him in the 2000
elections," said government sources involved in what is going on in the
US. According to them, "in the past year, Obama has been doing good
things in connection with Israel, his speeches include all the necessary
components and there is no reason to fear him."
January 10, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . Maarive had a big article about it (it's in Hebrew) by Ben Caspit on Monday or Tuesday all about the smear campaign being waged against Obama in the Jewish community by other campaigns. I'll translate the relevant part if I can find it. Herzl
So, that's it? What you've translated above? That's the "smear campaign being waged against Obama in the Jewish community by other campaigns"?
Well, I never!
January 10, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen.
I ran across this Obama is a Muslim bullshit on Arutz Sheva in an OpEd by the influential and unspeakably odious Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs. Geller is a Republican who is also distribution point for the Hillary is a lesbian crap. Geller's OpEd contains many links for those who want to explore her charges. However, I highly recommend the curious go to Atlas Shrugs in order to get the full flavor of her contributions to the discourse.
This "Civilian Soldier" is not a bit "shy".
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/7688
January 10, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm the Hebrew speaker Ellen while English is your first language. MJ did not say the Maarive article is the smear campaign. He said it reflects it. It does. Who is spreading these stories.
January 10, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Herzl.
Thank you for your efforts.
Is the Maariv translation above the same article that you recalled as smearing Obama? Even as is, Ben Caspit echoes what I see in columns by Shmuel Rosner of Haaretz and enlarges my understanding of why Obama comes in last in Rosner's polling of experts as to which candidate would be "best for Israel" as there has no satisfactory explanation of what "best" means.
" All the experts ranked hirelatively low, in light of the fact that his real opinions are unknown,he is black and liberal, without any real obligations to Israel or to AIPAC, and with no links to Israel."
.......
"His basic positions, as far as they are known in Jerusalem, are also considered "objective" at best."
For me, the most interesting information that shines some light is the perception that Obama has a dearth of "obligations" to Israel and AIPAC and that he is considered "objective".
I hope the rudeness that you were subjected to by Ellen won't dissuade you from further contributions to TPMCafe. We can all benefit from hearing your perspective as an Israeli.
January 10, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, where's the "smear," lally?
January 10, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see a "smear" Ellen dear, which is why I asked the following question in the post you presumably read before replying to it.
"Is the Maariv translation above the same article that you recalled as smearing Obama?"
January 10, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You, lally, and kozmik, as well, seem quite confused over the subject of this thread.
It is not about someone's views of Israeli-Palestinian relations; it is not about the US's foreign policy vis-a-vis Israel. The subject is a purported particular Jewish-authored smear campaign against Barrack Obama.
Herzl promised that the article he would translate and post would contain a discussion of this smear campaign. He then posted an article which did nothing of the kind, and you lauded him for his irrelevant (and contradictory) entry and insulted those of us who expect inflamatory allegations (here, MJ Rosenberg's) to be backed up by something more probative than wild, baseless assertions.
Note: I never would have gotten involved in this thread (I generally stay away from Rosenberg's tiresome, impotent hackery) except that his original title (later edited) accusing Jews of smear tactics drew me in.
Bye.
January 11, 2008 3:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen:
Do you recall what the original title of the post was? Thanks.
Bruce
January 11, 2008 4:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
For pity's sake, Ellen, MJ's article does not suggest that this is a "Jewish-authored" smear campaign.
He focuses on the political campaigns as the probable sources, not Jews. He does mention one "figure in the American Jewish community," who wants "the truth" about Obama exposed, and Daniel Pipes (Daniel Pipes!), but those are just two individuals, and that hardly suggests that Jews are the authors of the smear campaign in general.
That said, it probably would have been better for MJ to separate out the concerns of those Jews who may be concerned that Obama is not supportive enough of the AIPAC approach to the ME from those who are deliberately smearing him with hate. The former - while I would disagree vehemently - is still a legitimate expression of political belief in a democracy, while the latter is not.
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." --Robert F. Kennedy
January 11, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen.
Who appointed you thread nanny?
I "insulted" YOU for YOUR rudeness to a specific poster. Period.
Hopefully, you will continue to resist future temptations to get involved in MJ's threads. I think that's a wise choice on your part.
January 11, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there no shame indeed.
So who's in charge at this place? First I read David Kurtz who tells me to look at what Greg Sargent says about media mea culpas, "TPM included," and then I come here and find prime wallowing in yellow journalism style narratives. Which product is it? A political rumor mill or high and mighty journalism?
January 10, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah here it is. Only a few months ago Obama was scaring secularits for talking Christian talk. There's quite a few months to go, folks. The people will figure it out, and the bigots will vote like they always do. If he ends up scaring some Jewish-Americans, it will probably be because he doesn't care if he does scare those particular people because he won't have their vote anyway.
January 10, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, there is something going on, at least at the fringes as seen here.
Warning: You will not likely want to watch the entire thing and may be overcome by a strong desire to shower afterwards.
“I despise ideologues masquerading as objective journalists.” - Bill O'Reilly, March 30, 2007
January 10, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have not seen the email circulating among the jewish community, but I received this little ditty here in North Carolina today.
Oboma's Church according to his website
January 10, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the e-mail message being circulated among the Jewish community:
Who is Barack Obama?
Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu , Hawaii , to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel , Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white Athiest from Wichita, Kansas .
Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii . When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya . His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia . When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia . Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school.
Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, "He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school."
Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that he is not a radical.
Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned
to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son's education.
Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school
in Jakarta .
Wahabism is the RADICAL ISLAMIC teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States , Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background.&nbs p; ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran.
Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegience nor will he show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches.
Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential candidacy.
The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the
President of the United States , one of their own!!!!
Please forward to everyone you know. Would you want this man leading our country?...... NOT ME!!!
“I despise ideologues masquerading as objective journalists.” - Bill O'Reilly, March 30, 2007
January 10, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
My bad. When I discussed this issue earlier with my wife she later said "I got the e-mail" and I assumed that it was the one being distributed among Jewish groups. As it turns out, this e-mail is apparently spreading like wildfire among Christian fundamentalists. It may or may not be the same e-mail.
January 10, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whether or not it is the same e-mail word for word being spread in this or that community matters little. It's a very good example of the crap that gets put out. I've seen many similarly scurrilous e-mails about Hillary Clinton that are completely disgusting, obvious lies yet most Americans are very poorly informed and if even half-well written will believe nearly anything that ends up in their e-mail. Sad, yes, but true.
The point is it's all part of the continuing effort to "spread the word" that Obama is secretly a Muslim which is nothing but plain old character assassination. Why are they doing this? Simply because a)most Americans are now conditioned to be suspicious of muslims and so it follows if you suspect Obama to be a muslim you may develop reservations about voting for him and b)specifically in the Jewish community this sort of smear attempts to associate Obama with the enemies of Israel in the minds of some.
They will stop at nothing to stay in power. Nothing.
January 10, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I received this same exact e-mail from a conservative friend of mine today, who was sending to everyone he knew. Don't know how it came to him, but it's clear that these e-mails are not limited to the Jewish community.
January 10, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I will try this again. Here is the email I received.
Oboma's Church according to his websiteOboma's Church according to his website
January 10, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to downplay this - I have no doubt that these sorts of nasty emails are real and they may have an effect - but doesn't this sort of thing always happen in American politics? For Peter's sake, wasn't practically every politician in the postwar era tagged as a commie by the John Birch Society? Wasn't Bill Clinton supposed to have murdered Vince Foster? Wasn't George Bush Sr. suspect for ushering in the New World Order?
The combination of hatred and political opportunism that leads to this sort of thing is as old as the hills. We should certainly expose and condemn it and then come up with a strategy to render it impotent.
January 10, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The really sad thing is that the Clintons, having been brutally savaged by these kinds of smear tactics, are now willing to resort to using them against Obama.
January 11, 2008 4:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Clintons are anything but babes in the woods but the postings on here are reading like a right wing blog;
if anything evil happens, the Clintons did it!.
January 11, 2008 7:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
And don't forget,
Bill Clinton bombed Pearl Harbor and got away with it by framing the Japanese.
January 11, 2008 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
First off, who could disagree about this kind of underhanded politics? Actually, the SwiftBoaters were upfront about their campaign of lies, and should have been countered more forcefully -- in particular neither daddy Bush nor Dole were called on the fact that these two veterans tried to give credence and cover to the scam by parroting the same line about how 'where there's smoke there must be fire'. That was an instance of the cowardliness of both the Kerry campaign, AND the independent 527s AND the press, a cowardice maintained in the REAL America by underground repression. Liberals think that by being clever and protestating veiledly, they do enough, but they systematically avoid doing ANYTHING effective so as to avoid the repression themselves. (The same applied to the way the flipflop spin was let ride for FIVE MONTHS before being confronted, eg by Jonathan Chait in THE NEW REPUBLIC).
Now, as for this pile of slop noted by MJR, there is an expression in Yiddish that someone more familiar with the tongue could provide that, translated, roughly means "an embarassment to the Jewish people in the eyes of the 'goyim'[nonJews]. It is a marvelously cadenced phrase, but it applies with GUSTO to the ADL types who try to promote this sort of thing, like digging for dirt on Chomsky. As a Jew, that is really the only way to describe the significance of the propagation of this kind of talk. Obama has not, to my knowledge, done or said ANYTHING EVER to warrant this kind of attack.
As for the policy concerns, the Clintons are demonstrated hawks on the Middle East, and those who are hawks on Israel vastly prefer the proven ally to the unknown progressive leaning politician. I can only infer, especially from the particular slime directed at Obama, that there is an element of racism at work here also. (I am generally loathe to raise that issue in this sort of way, but sometimes it's morally requisite).
I think we should separate both the silliness that Piper has peddled during the Cold War, and the other comments made about Obama, from the notion that many jihadists WILL IN FACT hold it against Obama that he did NOT embrace the Islam of his father. (I don't think that this is any reason not to support him as president -- ANYONE who, as I expect Obama would, grapples effectively with jihadist terrorism is going to be a target of hatred and quite possibly at least attempted violence). The possible truth of Piper's observation -- though not necessarily the uses to which the observation is put -- should not be confused just by coupling it with some nonsense others are putting forward.
In any event, there is no doubt that many are the forces that stand in the way of Obama's candidacy. I still think that he would be a more popular nominee (in Nov) for the Democrats, and a more thoughtful, independently strong, and effective president than HRC, which is why I have supported his candidacy including with donations (the most recent one yesterday).
At any rate, yes I am "biased" -- but it's the RIGHT bias.....
January 10, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pity. A lot of dumb ad hominums above even by people as smart as MJ, Ellen and Zionista.
Sadly they don't include one from Davel who certainly wasn't smart but shouldn't have been
banned. "First they came for Davel........"
January 11, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
flavius,
Emphasis mine. Example(s), please?
January 11, 2008 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, well , er. There don't seem to be any. I could have sworn there was one there. Someplace.
Lock the doors. Someone stole the ad hominums(sic).
January 11, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, people, who posted the hate stuff you've received.
It's pretty bad, all of it. The fact is that without the lies and libels (Remember the Swiftboat campaign financed by Dick Fox, who was then appointed ambassador to Belgium as a reward) Kerry would be President.
And this Muslim and n-word baiting is infinitely worse because it taps into the hate that has roiled this country since the beginning.
I posted before I saw Andrew Cuomo's thing about Obama "shucking and jiving."
Holy shit.
January 11, 2008 3:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to some, Cuomo's words were taken out of context. If you read the entirety of what he said, apparently it's pretty clear he's not talking about Obama. Unfortunately, I don't have the transcript.
January 11, 2008 5:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read it, and I agree with you. As I said above, check WAR ROOM in today's Salon.com. Tim Grieve spoke to the guy that interviewed Cuomo and the guy comments on what Cuomo said;
This is another warped version like "Gore said he invented the internet."
January 11, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
Cuomo's comment sounds horrible, but check Salon.com War Room today. It seems its being twisted.
January 11, 2008 7:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is actually a good thing that this is happening before Obama gets the nomination. This will give the Democrats a chance to see whether Obama can successfully counter these kinds of smear tactics because there is going to be a lot more of this when he is running against the Republican candidate. If he can successfully counter it, he will have demonstrated that he is qualified to be the Democratic candidate. If he cannot successfully counter it, he should not get the nomination. In that case it should go to Edwards because Hillary will not be able to beat McCain.
January 11, 2008 4:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Countering smears does not work. Smears keep coming, just like the Cuomo shuckin and jivin remarks.
January 11, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect Jews as a group will be among the strongest supporters of Obama. The emails MJ and others are receiving do point to what I believe is a disturbing undercurrent of racism in a segment of the Jewish community, but overall I suspect Obama will benefit from Jewish support far more than he will be damaged by the racist slanders of Daniel Pipes et al.
January 11, 2008 4:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
And why should Jews be immune to the Wingnut disease affects every ethnic and religious community in America. Some examples:
1. Alan Keyes
2. George Allen
3. Michael Savage (Michael Weiner)
4. William Bennett
5. Raul Gonzalez (former Texas Sup. Ct. justice who "cured" his gay son)
6. Lynn Cheney
7. Louis Farrakhan
8. Dinesh D'Souza
Need I go on....?
January 11, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Donna Brazile makes it clear that she knows who is behind this race-baiting and it's not the Repubs. Also, The New York Times reports today that because of the Clintons resort to this stuff, Rep. James Clyburn may make an endorsement in the SC primary. It won't be of Hillary.
From CNN transcripts.
WOLF BLITZER: Here is a clip. We played a little bit of it earlier. I want to just play it for you, what the former President said in lashing out against the Obama campaign.
BILL CLINTON: You said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution, you said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war, and you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004, and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since. Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairytale I've ever seen.
BLITZER: Were you surprised to hear the former President going at it like that?
DONNA BRAZILE: I can understand his frustration at this moment, but, look, he shouldn't take out all his pain on Barack Obama. It's time that they regroup, figure out what Hillary needs to do to get her campaign back on track. It sounds like sour grapes coming from the former Commander-in-Chief, someone that many Democrats hold in high esteem. For Clinton to go after Obama using "fairy tale," calling him a "kid," as he did last week, it's an insult. And I tell you, as an African-American, I find his words and his tone to be very depressing.
BLITZER: You know, as I said earlier, you have campaign staffers who are supposed to do that kind of talking, whether a Terry McAuliffe or any of the other top people in the campaign, but for the former President to be doing that, it does underscore a certain frustration. [BILL BENNETT]
BLITZER: But tell me why, as an African-American, Donna, you feel that the President's comments weren't appropriate?
BRAZILE: Well, first of all, if Bill Bennett had said some of the things Bill Clinton is saying about Barack Obama, I would have called Bill Bennett out and said that Bill Bennett should shut his mouth because he is not speaking in the right tone. I think his tone, I think calling Barack Obama a "kid," he's a United States Senator, he's experienced, the people of Illinois elected him, and regardless of what kind of items on his resume, this is a man who has worked all his life. He has proven, he's been a college professor, I don't have to give Barack Obama a resume, I'm not for anyone at this point. But I think, for Bill Clinton to go out of his way to become a distraction to Hillary Clinton, and to launch the kind of attacks on Obama is just out of character for Bill Clinton. I think it's time that he helps Hillary talk about her message and not go down this road.
January 11, 2008 6:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Donna Brazile didn't address the gist of Bill Clinton's comments. Was Bill CLinton right?
Look, black people will support Obama and that's perfectly natural, if I were black I'd support him too.
Bill Clinton has supposedly been loved by black people for years, called by some, "The First Black President", but now we have a black guy running for President and we also have Bill campaigning for Barack's opponent and all of a sudden Bill CLinton is the enemy.
Attacking an opponent's record is acceptable, and this includes Obama's record.
Donna Brazil should spend more time criticizing people like the above mentioned Danial Pipes and her CNN co-commentator Bill Bennett, and the rest of the wingnuts, that's where the evil lies.
As a liberal I was never enamoured by the Clintons, feeling them too corporate oriented, but I did vote for Bill twice, and I'll vote for Obama if he's the candidate, but right now, I'm supporting Edwards.
As to Cuomo's comment, from Salon.com War Room:
January 11, 2008 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
John, with all due respect, I disagree. African-Americans have the right, even obligation, to call out racist remarks wherever they emanate from.
Your approach plays into the Clarence Thomas line that African-Americans are taken for granted by the Democrats. Frankly, in my years in Washington (I know you are here too), I've seen every bit as much racial insensitivity by Democrats as Republicans.
True, Democratic policies are infinitely better for African Americans.
But I have seen no evidence that racism does not endure in the hearts of some Democrats as in the hearts of some Republicans.
More to the point. I think both parties will exploit racism to win, whether the political operatives themselves are racist or not.
I'm a Democrat but not a yellow dog Dem by any means. Remember, we now know that the great Democrat and liberal hero, Adlai Stevenson, was a racist and opposed the civil rights movement. He chose a segregationist as his running mate in 1952.
Yet, liberals revere his memory.
Loyalty to political parties as institutions is misplaced, in my humble opinion.
January 11, 2008 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
Sure there are racists in every party, but evey criticism of Obama isn't racist and that was my point. It seems that is what I'm seeing too often, if you criticize Obama its because he's a black man.
I agree, black people, (and others) have an obligation to call out racism whenever it raises its head, I just want to be sure that what the accused is saying is racism and not legitimate criticism.
As to Clarence Thomas' line about African Americans being taken for granted by the Dems; I guess ole stupid African Americans like Charlie Rangle, John Conyers, Jim Clyburn, Jesse Jackson Jr, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, John Lewis, Kendrick Meek, etc...oh, and lets not forget Obama, are just being taken advantage of by the Dems.
MJ, I'm not in Washington, I'm in the Philly burbs. :-)
January 11, 2008 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You should be in DC. Nice town.
January 11, 2008 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
someone once asked me why I watch C-SPAN, I told them;
"It lets me see who my enemies are." :-)
January 11, 2008 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
How is it that the vast majority of people hear a racial slur when Cuomo uses the phrase 'shuckin and jivin' as opposed to just a criticism?. Just how is that? Could it be because it is a southern racist term used to refer to the dissemblance negros commonly engaged in rather than to deal with brutal white authority, such that whites used the term to mean dumb ass niggers always dancin and skinning and grinning yes sir yes sir boss?. That's what it means and that is how it sounds. No one would have thought Cuomo was referring to a white person whether he was speaking about the arts, science or environment even though the topic happened to be politics. The term is an derogatory ethnic slur. With all of Bill and Hill's triangulating doublespeak skirting of the issues never once was it referred to as shuckin and jivin despite that being precisely what they were doing.
And as far as Bill's 'fairytale' line goes it is racist as hell. Fairytales are imaginary and he is calling Obama imaginary. Imaginary things are invisible and everyone knows that racism demands that blacks be invisible. It is nothing but blatant southern racism and black people get it all over the nation. Even if you don't.
January 11, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
white,
your imagination is running wild, control yourself.
January 11, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, the "fairy tale" comment has been debunked.
He wasn't calling Obama, or his campaign, imaginary.
Or anything close.
He was saying that it's a fairy tale to say that Obama and Hillary had substantially divergent views and, more importantly, VOTING RECORDS, on the war.
Moreover, it's a little hard to see how the word "fairy tale" has any racist overtones. Homophobic, maybe; but not racist.
January 12, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
mjrosenberg,
Interesting. Meanwhile, Jews may not even discuss the antisemitic implications of certain narratives and arguments without being spanked by progressive populists for "stifling the debate."
January 11, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice try, but this is a huge whitewash--your euphemistic description 'discuss the antisemitic implications of certain narratives and arguments' belies the many direct ad hominem charges of 'antisemitism' that are regularly leveled around here.
This one is particularly funny because you are falling all over yourself to deny that no Jew could ever possibly have sent these emails, which belies both common sense and human nature.
January 11, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
leftAhead,
Example(s) please?
January 11, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please see Sara's comment above about the Rudy Boschwitz smear campaign against Paul Wellstone. I'm originally from Minnesota, and lived there at that time, and MJ's comment is spot on that 99% of Minnesotans gave it a big shrug, yet I think it illustrates my point. What do you think?
January 11, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please, leftAhead. Be like flavius. Either support your assertion that I am "falling all over [my]self to deny that no Jew could ever possibly have sent these emails..." with an example, if you have any, or correct your error. [See also my reply to you upthread.]
January 12, 2008 6:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I was indeed wrong-it should have read 'cherry picking commenters' responses to support your heightened sense of outrage'. From a previous post of yours:
January 12, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where does this come from: "Meanwhile, Jews may not even discuss the antisemitic implications of certain narratives and arguments without being spanked by progressive populists for "stifling the debate."
Nobody is spanking Jews for anything. Some of us disagree with Israel's policies. That is hardly "stifling the debate."
January 11, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree with your general point.
But I think it's pretty clear that Cuomo's remarks were not directed at Obama in any way.
January 12, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton has every right and duty for that matter to point out Obama's lack of experience. It's the disrespect that he shows Obama that will rankle among African Americans. It could be the difference between a huge turnout among African Americans in November and a total turnoff keeping them at home.
January 11, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, John, for the clarification.
That's how I heard the comment, too.
But loaded words don't just work "horizontally," as it were, but vertically. Much as they do in a poem.
Loaded words resonant and tend to color other words that are at all near them. So, even if Cuomo meant what he clearly meant (at least to me) and the reference wasn't at all to Obama, the words attached themselves to Obama because of the heightened racial sensitivities in this race.
All oppressed groups "hear things," even when they aren't there.
Or are they there at some level? Hard to know. Everyone just has to be a bit more introspective than usual.
January 12, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there any doubt that Hillary Clinton is behind all this? We've always known that the Clinton gang was the original Bush-Rove-Card gang. They were the prototype, but we didn't mind because they were on our team. But now, if you're supporting Obama they are not on your team, and you can see the levels they will stoop to to win.
There is an orchestrated subtly racist campaign to garner support for Hillary. There's all the emails which MJ has pointed out (which I have received also). There's Bob Kerrey reminding people that his name is "Barack HUSSEIN Obama." There's Andrew Cuomo's shucking and jiving line. There's Bill reminding people that he is inexperienced, and a "fairy tale."
It's no coincidence that this is all happening at the same time. I got one of those deranged emails this week.
Now I'm not trying to say the Clintons are racist. I'm just saying that when they run the risk of losing, they will walk a very fine line and if it means playing on peoples' basest instincts, they will. And the Andrew Cuomos of the world are happy to take the fall so they can ingratiate themselves with the Clintons...
January 11, 2008 6:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
bsidewinzagain,
You seem to belong to the Hate the Clintons Campaign.
January 11, 2008 6:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm disappointed with the Clintons, but before I was pretty enamored with Bill. I traveled to the Clinton Library this summer. And I didn't just happen to be in Little Rock. I went out of my way to go to Little Rock to see it (okay, I wanted to eat at the Whole Hog Cafe which I highly recommend also). When I left Little Rock I was as pro Bill Clinton as ever, but the last few weeks have really soured me.
January 11, 2008 7:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
The point is than anyone who stars his argument with something like "is there any doubt but that...blah blah blah" and then goes on to make all sorts of unfounded assertions about some purported connection between the Hillary Clinton Campaign and the anti Obama smear by Pipes etc, is not credible and at best disingenuous.
January 11, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really fantastic counterargument, Kosmo.
You and the other clinton apologists just hold people you agree with to a different standard than those you don't agree with.
You hate when Rove plays dirty, but don't mind when the Clintons do.
Granted, my opinion is just a theory, but would it really surprise you?
January 11, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
No it would not surprise me and your assertion that I'm a "Clinton apologist" is just another piece of bad reasoning.
My point (to repeat and this time with blanks to stand for variables) goes something like this:
Anyone who starts an argument by saying "is there any doubt that so-and-so did this-and-that?" and follows it up by asserting causal connections between some foul deeds and the so-and-so is at best disingenuous no matter who the so-and-so is and what the this-and-that is.
For all I know maybe Hillary's camp did spread the Obama-is-a-krypto-muslim rumor, but you don't prove it by saying that there is no doubt about it. You have to have something more substantial than your apparent sense of certainty.
January 11, 2008 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the "fairy tale" assertion has been debunked by now.
Bill did NOT call Obama a fairy tale; nor his campaign.
It was an assertion about Obama's stand on the war and the difference between him and Hillary on this issue.
To the other point, maybe it's a Republican operative behind it all. After all, it could easily be argued that THEY want Hillary to run because they know how to beat her.
You see, it's circles within circles, and it becomes harder and harder to really tell who's behind what. The possible motivations multiply like images in two facing mirrors.
Is it a misguided (or possibly successful) attempt by Republicans to help get Hillary nominated? Or is it Hillary doing it? Or is it friends of Hillary, or wannabe friends of Hillary hoping to ingratiate themselves?
The dust up in Nevada is another good example? Is Hillary trying to suppress votes by the Culinary Workers? Are friends of Hillary, the teachers, acting on their own? Or is the suit legitimate, as leftahead seems to suggest, given how the at-large caucuses would disadvantage other workers and possibly Nevadans as a group? Is the timing suspicious? Or is it just that folks are now taking a closer look because the caucus is so close and so is the race?
January 12, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not care what what religion inspires Obama or anyone else. I am not the religion police. I do say the sh'ma with my daughter every night so that isn't totally true. For my two year old daughter, I am the religion police.
Any-which-way, there are plenty of reasons to want to or not want to cast a ballot for Obama or for any candidate. Religion is not even on the list.
The reasons that impact a Democrat don't even come to mind for those peddling Rapturian bigotry. In fact, the things that concern me are selling points for them. In sooth, their efforts tend to engerize our base . . . We are more concerned with the edifaction of community than division.
In short, whether a person finds inspiration in a story about hanging one of my tribe up on a stick or feel that infidels should be swept into the sea or stands naked in their backyard, looking up and singing hosannahs . . . I do not care.
Obama and Clinton et al. need to living into the Republican mindset. That includes religion's place in the race.
The Presidency is about leading Americans not communing with a variation of the divine.
January 11, 2008 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Considering how scary our avowed "Christian" candidates are, I would sleep better knowing that maybe Obama is faking, or at least doubting....
January 11, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ says:
MJ,
You know that no amount of factual material ever "settles" anything once the nuttier right-wing elements decide to latch onto it, but that's not all that's going on here. Many of those spreading this bullshit aren't members of the "no information" segment of our society, they know full well its a lie but they have an agenda and they use any tool they can get their hands on to reach that agenda.
Do you think Pipes believes what he spews or is he simply a demogogue?
January 11, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't think he believes any of it. These guys are all fakes.
January 11, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
you're stuttering again :-)
January 11, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't think he believes any of it. These guys are all fakes.
January 11, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
JohnW1141,
If I may interject, I believe that even Daniel Pipes himself knows that he is a demagogue. For example, in a New York Post op/ed back in 2002, Pipes wrote,
Unless Pipes genuinely believed that conservatives led the French Socialist Party, Belgian Liberal Party, and the German United Left Party (Schroeder actually quit the Greens before the events herein), then Pipes was obviously lying and knew it, because it was in fact....
January 11, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Zionista,
you obviously exist in what is called "the reality world'.
tsk, tsk.
January 11, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
HILLARY'S RACIST CAMPAIGN
This is telling. My mother is a Democrat and my father a Republican. She has gotten a half dozen of these e-mails designed to scare Jews. He has received none.
I have not seen or heard about any Republican candidates "accidentally on purpose" slipping into racist talk about Obama. They are saving their racist and other nastiness for the fall. Nor have I seen or heard John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson or any of the other Democratic candidates doing it.
Except for Hillary. Every day another Clinton surrogate, staffer, or big name supporter "inadvertently" brings up race.
Why is that?
Look for Hillary backer Ed Koch to "inadvertently" smear Obama as an Arab in the New York primary. Or one of the NY House members. Hillary will repudiate them but it will work.
The Clintons know what they are doing. They have done it before. (Ask Rick Rector's mom).
Hillary will get the nomination, not because she's a woman but because she is the alternative to an African-American with a Muslim-sounding name.
January 12, 2008 7:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
One thing that hasn't been pointed out enough in this long thread is that calling someone an Arab or a Muslim is not--or at least should not be--a smear.
Maybe the biggest problem isn't that people are trying to label Obama a "muslim" but that so many people seem to accept the idea that calling someone a muslim is a smear.
January 12, 2008 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State:
You are a wise man and I think you understand that words, and the perceptions that surround them, do matter. Speech and the written word are not just academic and linear exercises. And, all I have to say is that on a website such as this, I believe it is fair to charge all, posters and hosts, with a presumption that they are not unaware of the environment in which they write and the potential impact of what they post.
Of course, calling someone a muslim should not be seen as a smear. But there are no doubt folks out there, inside and outside of the American Jewish community, who consider it to be just that. And it's a crying shame sometimes that words, in a given context, though benign superfically, can sometimes hit, and hit hard.
I only wish the Clinton campaign and the other campaigns (I have little hope for the GOP folks), can somehow be guided accordingly.
Bruce
P.S. Waiting for trout season?
January 12, 2008 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
This quote: "Look for Hillary backer Ed Koch to "inadvertently" smear Obama as an Arab in the New York primary."
The larger issue is that calling someone an Arab is now a "smear."
I guess we are back to the one-drop (of blood) or 1/64th rule.
Sad days for America.
January 12, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Zionista-I have been thinking about people's responses here, and how they mirror their respective worldviews; reading MJ's original post, it never occurred to me that this was a consipiracy, only a dirty trick directed *at* members of the Jewish community, possibly by fellow Jews, but never did I read into it the hand of the 'almighty Israel Lobby Agenda' until your post above.
I also think you're being unfair to MJ, because I still don't get how you think the edited title is such a smoking gun. I also don't get how the 'Jewish community' could be responsible for this, unless the emails were signed by all 14 million Jews worldwide!
Perhaps it is a cultural thing, where you feel that some things are 'forbidden' to speak of, however, I am of a mind that people here are allowed to speak their mind, provided that they do it in a thoughtful manner, and, for the most part, I think our dialogue is on a higher level than base demagoguery, and that the bringing up the discussion itself is not demagoguery.
My perception is that you view these posts through the lens of your Jewish identity, and take an attack against one person or segment to be an attack against *all* Jews, and act accordingly. Others of us view it through more of a general human perspective--in other words, where you see someone you might describe as 'antisemite,' I would simply call them ass*****. ( I'm generalizing of course, as we all have this capability and indeed, probably use it every day.)
I'm not saying this to knock you, it's just the way it is. Your Jewish identity is obviously very important to you and others here. However, there are many of us here who have 'identity cards' we could play, but choose not to make it such a public deal, preferring to instead deal in discourse from a more general position.
While it's obvious that I don't see eye-to-eye with you and others here, and our dialogues get heated at times, I am not here to demagogue, and have, in fact, learned many positive things from you and some other people with whom I disagree (then again, some people are just wasting space here, but I take them at face value). I would hope that it is the same for you. This is all a tempest in a teacup.
January 12, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sheesh, Zionista. Why presume that MJ edited the title for reasons that were nefarious? He may have seen your interpretation of the title, and that of Bruce and Ellen, and realized he needed edit in order to make his intention clear. MJ already said that he doesn't believe the Jewish community is responsible.
It increasingly seems you're making a red herring argument here.
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." --Robert F. Kennedy
January 12, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see both sides of this Wordie.
I intially thought from the title that this was a concerted effort on the part of Jews, simply because Obama has a muslim name. Then as I began reading I saw MJ meant that Jews were being targeted in a hate campaign against Obama.
I think the title would have been clearer if it said Jews were targeted or Jewish community targeted.
Even so, once I began reading MJ's point was clear.
I do think that is why he edited it also, because he could see Zionista's point.
I agree with you about the
sheesh,
as it was not a BFD.
January 12, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wordie:
This is definitely my last word on this. You ask us to presume MJ's inadvwrtance. Three reasons why I did not:
1. MJ's not a fool.
2. He has admitted to me that he uses titles in his posts to grab attention, so I cannot believe that a smart man like MJ who is into Jewish and Israeli affairs would have inadvertantly posted the original title. In particular, on September 7, 2007, MJ wrote: "My IPF readers do not need to be enticed into reading my piece by a headline. They are IPF people. At TPM, I, like all bloggers, go for a good headline. That is why headlines were invented."
http://tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/sep/07/walt_mearsheimers_best_seller_why_the_hysteria#comment-297608
3. Compare the more mature and sensitive way MJ addresses this very same issue in his column on Israel Policy Forum's website from yesterday. Same subject, one day after this post. It's the latter portion of his IPF Friday post, which I quote in full below and link to here.
http://www.ipforum.org/display.cfm?id=6&Sub=15
As to people who think Jewish sensitivity on this issue amounts to a tempest in a teapot, as WRB writes above [while, at the same time, with justification and in good faith, he is urging sensitivity to racial innuendos directed against Senator Obama] I would hope and expect that the "tempest in a teapot" standard would not be applied to all minority groups, particularly minority groups who endure more day to day tangible effects from discrimination than the Jewsih community of today endures.
And this is definitely all I have to say about this. Here's MJ's IPF Friday post on this same topic which I endorse and appreciate, titled "Obama's Faith":
January 12, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I try to. I don't see this as any innuendo about the Jewish community. Rather, the way Zionista was going on about it was over the top. I agreed with the basic point. I didn't agree with the badgering MJ took about it.
Also, I only have this thread to judge by. I do not have the other source IPF to judge from. Even so, the excerpt you posted does not differ that much in tone to me than the gist of what MJ wrote here at TPM.
I did not come away with the message that Jews were targeting Obama with a hate campaign, even though that might have been a fair reading of the title alone.
I apologize if you believe I was insensitive to the issue, I wasn't.
I just thought the number of posts badgering MJ for a point he clearly made by posting the email he received was a bit much.
MJ even has a private message system for the exchange Zionista engaged the entire thread in.
January 12, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I realize the compliment was more-or-less backhanded, but thanks anyway, Bruce. But don't you see it was you doing the parsing in the first place?
I've noticed you have, on occasion, done the same to things I've said as well. (I think you labeled as "anti-semitic" my comment in another thread that the one-state solution was idealistic, even though I support the two-state solution!)
For quite some time, I just didn't respond to your posts as this sort of thing was so unproductive. When you put your own interpretation onto someone else's words, and then absolutely refuse to budge when that interpretation is challenged, any hopes at actual communication are dashed. But Bruce, you can't know better what someone means than the speaker does. That's mindreading! I tried to discuss the problem at the time - I don't know that I'll be any more successful here, but, hey, I'm still trying...
MJ has stated elsewhere in the thread - a long time ago in fact - that he didn't mean that the Jewish community is responsible for the smear, but you refuse to accept that. Why?
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." --Robert F. Kennedy
January 12, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wordie:
I have never ever written on here that anything you have written was antisemitic. I do not recall calling anyone on here an antisemite although I may have called a statement antsemitic. And I would never ever ever call someone an antisemite simply because he or she believes in a one state solution. Not my style or my belief system.
January 12, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The exciting answer about why I changed the title.
I don't think there is any real difference in the two titles. I changed it because I thought that the phrase "In The Jewish Community" would keep people who are not interested in that community from reading it. My point is not about the Jewish community but about the hate campaign and I want people to know about it and not skip this piece.
As for the difference between the version posted here and in IPF Friday. The difference is that I could not devote a whole column of IPF Friday to this racism thing at the end of an important week in the Middle East. I had to write about Bush's trip for IPF Friday; that is why it exists. But I thought it was okay to add an afterthought and an afterthought of a title.
Thanks to all of you who do not think I plot and plan my writings so that I can upset Greenbaum, Bruce, Zionista, and the other one or two who are obsessed with any and all references to a particular subject. (And some say Walt and Mearsheimer are exaggerating about the need to weigh every word carefully on this, and only this, subject).
But focus on the real problem. Some R's and D's, are trying to sink a Presidential candidate using race and religion.
January 12, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ:
In light of how you perceive my contribution on here I assure you I will no longer comment on your threads. Perhaps the discourse will improve.
January 12, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to say that the general "direction" of this thread confuses and disheartens me.
MJ's basic point seems simple: An email, or series of emails, are going around claiming that Obama isn't trustworthy because he's hiding the "fact" that he's Muslim.
This campaign appears to be targeted to Jews, though perhaps not exclusively so. No one seems sure about this.
Whether these emails were created by some segment of the Jewish community or not...why should Jews be upset about what MJ wrote? I don't get it. He didn't say that ALL members of the Jewish community had received these emails. He didn't say that ALL Jews were somehow responsible for this campaign. In fact, as near as I can tell, he isn't saying that the responsible parties are Jews at all.
But if they are Jews, so what? Jews are just as capable of doing nasty things as anyone else. The prophets knew that. Meyer Lansky and Arthur Rothstein knew that. Why should a dirty tricknik be such a surprise? Doesn't every community have at least a few of them?
As usual, we've descended into murky and incoherent discussions about anti-Semitism (or something)...and into equally strange charges that so and so is or must be a troll...or a bad person...or worse...because of what he or she wrote here.
Comments are climbing toward 300, f-us are being traded, and I can barely understand the debate or the point of what's being said here. I guess it would be interesting to find who is sending out these emails. Maybe. Obviously a lot of Jews AREN'T receiving these emails as well.
MJ says that a number of reporters are receiving calls about these charges. Don't reporters get nonsense calls all the time? Can't they just tell these folks to buzz off? Isn't it obvious that Obama isn't a Muslim? Isn't it just as obvious that, if he were, it wouldn't matter and there would be nothing "dangerous" to investigate?
So what's the point?
January 12, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome to MJ's thread. It is a consistent downright dizzzing pattern. You just get to the point that you read what he writes and then go away until the threads rise to 100 and come back and post comments, cause it always always always takes a bizarre anti-semitism turn and you do not want to get caught up into the whirling vortex of that should you inadvertently or ignorantly make a remark that can in anyway be perceived as being anti-semitic, you will be vociferously attacked, demeaned and swarmed like a cloud of locusts.
So welcome to MJ threads...it's an experience.
January 13, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
whiterosebuddy,
Apparently much like the racism vortex you have a habit of throwing the Clintons into with every opportunity. Project much?
January 14, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another Israeli for Obama (and US):
Nice things in America, which would do us well
By Yossi Sarid
"We do not always need to look toward America to set an example. It has 70 faces and some should best be suppressed. America is not here and it would be better to take less from it, the New World, and more from the Old Continent.
But the primaries actually reveal America's beautiful faces, which would do us well, too: First, it is becoming apparent that big money is not always the answer for everything. Affluent candidates, the favored offspring of the wealthy, are not the ones who are always winning. There are more and more cases indicating that candidates without deep pockets, who collect their contributions from small change, still have a fair chance. And this is very nice and encouraging: The right to decide is not only reserved for the wealthy. We wish the same to be true for you - America is saying to the entire democratic world, and to Israel, too."
snip)
"Don't worry. Anyone who is elected in America will maintain the friendship with Israel and treat it as an ally. But it would be a welcome change for the friendship not to be a blind one, and for the alliance not to lead to a mishap. It is worthwhile conducting talks with Iran, just as much as it is worthwhile conducting talks with Syria, just as it was worthwhile talking with Libya and North Korea. And it is not worthwhile dancing like a trained bear on every issue according to the tune of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) or the evangelical pastors."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/944032.html
Somehow, THIS election in itself is inspirational far beyond our borders and is serving to "reveal America's beautiful faces" to the world again.
Fucking awesome.
January 13, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Deleted. Similar comment appears elsewhere.
January 13, 2008 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
its really good Canlı Sohbet | and soo nice | Canlı Chat
February 27, 2011 2:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v vhd, iscsi multiple connections
April 11, 2011 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of database high availability
May 5, 2011 3:10 AM | Reply | Permalink