Pulling The Plug on Lieberman PLUS Obama Talks About Israel
So now Lieberman is putting out the line that a Hamas "endorsement" of Obama is the same as an Obama endorsement of Hamas.
I'm not going to argue about the illogic of Lieberman's statement. Or its sheer obscenity. If Obama is such a Hamas man, why did Lieberman demand (and get) his endorsement over Lamont in lhis 2006 primary.
It's a stupid, ugly and obscene statement.
But the worst thing about it is that it hurts American Jews and Israel. Joe Lieberman is the most prominent American Jewish politician. He is the only Jew to have ever been nominated on a national ticket. He is, by definition, a national figure.
When he uses this kind of language against Obama he is (1) suggesting that the prime concern of Jews in a US election is a candidate's position on an anti-Israel terror group (2) he is sending a message to the African-American community that Jews are uncomfortable with THEIR first national candidate and will use even the most baseless issues to undermine him (3) he is sending a message to liberal Democrats that Israel is an issue to be used against Democrats by Democrats (even a renegade Democrat), and Jewish Democrats in particular (4) it raises the ridiculous canard of dual loyalty by suggesting that this type of extraneous irrelevant parochial garbage will move Jewish votes, not American concerns. This produces anti-semitism.
In short, what Lieberman is doing is bad for Jews. It won't hurt Obama. Obama voters and potential voters do not take their cues from Joe Lieberman. In short, this is not an Obama problem.
It's a Jewish problem. I wish we had a Pope or Chief Rabbi to get on the phone with him to tell him "you are hurting the Jewish community. Stop. Now!"
In my own effort, to counter the negative effects Lieberman's remarks will have on the Jews, I remind my readers to consider these facts.
(1) Jews are the most consistently liberal white ethnic group in the country, averaging 80% Democratic in every election since 1932.
(2) According to the American Jewish Committee poll, 70% of Jews opposed the Iraq war when it began, more than any other group
(3) Two-thirds of American Jews support the two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians
(4) Jews do not and have never voted based on Israel. In 1956, Eisenhower did better in the Jewish community than any Republican before or since (40%). He got that record vote days after strongly opposing the Israeli-French-British invasion of Egypt. Eisenhower demanded that Israel get out of the Sinai peninsula, no ifs, ands or buts. But Jews loved him (had something to do with him winning WW2).
Also, George McGovern, the biggest dove ever to run for President got 65% of the Jewish vote (38% of everybody else). This despite the fact that he ran against the very pro-Israel hawk Richard Nixon.
Bottom line. Jews care about Israel. Deeply. But they are Americans and vote as other Americans do....only they are alot more liberal than most.
Here is Obama speaking about the Hamas flap.
The interview is fascinating. One, Obama speaks about Israel with more fluency than any candidate we've ever had running for President. He also manages to stay within the bounds of safe discourse on Israel without Palestinian-bashing or jingoism.
Comments (25)
Thanks for that post, J.J.
"Irresponsible" is the only word I can use to describe Joe Lieberman during these past few years. He has tied himself to reckless positions and reckless candidates, and refuses to own up to the devastating and tragic consequences of his actions. This smear is just another example of his irresponsibility. As Andrew Sullivan wrote on May 9, "The right answer is that nominees for president [or their slimy surrogates...] do not legitimize the attempts of foreign terrorist groups to intervene in American elections." Should we ask who the Klan or the Burma junta is supporting in the general election and then act as though that is meaningful (or is responsible politics?)? No.
Responsibility/irresponsibility may be a good theme for Obama to hit McCain et al over during these next few months (especially as McCain attempts to paint Obama as "naive")-- both on domestic and foreign policy. McCain/Lieberman/NewsMax's smears are not just distractions-- they are symbolic of the irresponsible politics that got us into our current messes.
May 12, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant "M.J."
Doh.
May 12, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Irresponsible" is the only word I can use to describe this misleading article. Joe Lieberman never said anything close to what Mr. Rosenberg suggests in his article. All he did was point out that the leaders of Hamas prefer Obama to McCain, guess what? That's true; they said so themselves. He then asked the question, why? Because based on what they've seen they would prefer to deal with him...is there anything factually incorrect with that?
May 12, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing factually incorrect. And I read that the KKK supports McCain.
What would be wrong if Sen. Durbin pointed that out.
NOTHING. Except it would be despicable. You see, there is no correlation between who supports a candidate and what a candidate supports. So even though every white racist group in the country will support McCain in November does not make McCain a racist.
May 12, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"So now Lieberman is putting out the line that a Hamas "endorsement" of Obama is the same as an Obama endorsement of Hamas."
Sorry, but THAT is factually incorrect. Lieberman never even insinuated an endorsement of Hamas. He insinuated that Hamas feared a McCain Presidency more.
May 13, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, you need to look at why the particular group backs one candidate over the other...The KKK are a bunch of racists....they back McCain, because he's white and Obama is black. Hamas is a bunch of terrorists...they back Obama over McCain...why? That's not saying Obama is a terrorist or endorses Hamas, it's pointing out that Hamas wants to see Obama beat McCain...why?
May 14, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the problem is that Joe Lieberman believes that
(1) the prime concern of Jews in a US election is a candidate's position on an anti-Israel terror group (2) he is uncomfortable with African-American's first national candidate and will use even the most baseless issues to undermine him
(3) Israel is an issue to be used against Democrats by Democrats (even a renegade Democrat), and Jewish Democrats in particular
So I don't think Lieberman would ever see this as a problem.
May 12, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jews shouldn't have to bear this cross alone
My long shot pick and fervent prayer: the Ole Maverick picks JoeMentum, Vice-President
May 12, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Lieberman became irrational after 9/11. I think he's got some kind of PTSD that mixes it all up with Israel and the Holocaust and enemies everywhere. He's totally paranoid. Him as VP or Secretary of Defense is totally scary.
May 12, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
We've all heard of the suicide strategy called "death by cop". Lieberman is out to force a "death by GOP". Lacking the balls to make his own clean break, he will ratchet up the outrageousness of his attacks on Democrats until Harry Reid and others put him out of his trans-partisan misery. Poor, pathetic Lieberman is a Republican trapped in a Democratic body. Give the guy his freedom.
May 12, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait a minute... if Hamas endorsed Obama and Obama endorsed Lieberman, doesn't that mean that Hamas has vicariously endorsed Lieberman? I just solved all I/P problems in one comment.
May 12, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
As usual, you nailed it.
May 12, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like AJ, the Sopranos kid
May 12, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
It is no longer news that Lieberman is the biggest schmuck in the US Senate and the most reprehensible two-faced Democrat in a long, long time. And while he's Jewish, I wouldn't fret too much about his odious statements and actions tainting the Jewish community primarily because Lieberman has attained a status that simply is too big for that narrow association. He's such a collosal jerk that he has reached a place unique and applicable only to himself and has entered the competition for biggest hypocrite and liar of all time.
May 12, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
In response to "I think Lieberman became irrational after 9/11. I think he's got some kind of PTSD that mixes it all up with Israel and the Holocaust and enemies everywhere. He's totally paranoid. Him as VP or Secretary of Defense is totally scary."
Think back to the election campaign of 2000. Al Gore chose Lieberman as Vice-Presidential candidate. I never understood that. Was it because Al really liked or respected Lieberman? Was it in a cheap pander to the Jewish voters? Nevermind.
What did Lieberman do. First he chose to stay in the Connecticut Senate race. The balance in the Senate was at stake Joe said. Horsesh!t. There is no way a Republican could have won in CT that 2000 Senate race. I think that Joe never learned as a little boy how to behave on the playground. If you play with the big kids you don't also stay in the game with the third graders. Running for VP you quit the Senate race. Why? Because you expect to win! You play to win! Did joe play to win? Recall the VP debate with Dick Cheney. What did Joe do? Practically sat in Cheney's lap licking his face.
No, it was not 9/11 that created Liberman. It was much earlier than that. Probably in the playground when he was a kid. He is still a whiner. Puke. And he is MY Senator. Sick in Connecticut.
May 12, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman was not the only VP candidate to run for re-election to the Senate. LBJ did this in 1960 and Lloyd Bentsen did it in 1988. In neither case was it a big deal, any more than when Lieberman did it. No one thought the two Texans were not "playing to win." If you think Lieberman would have preferred to remain in the Senate than be Vice President you are crazier than you think he is.
The pick of Lieberman was well-regarded at the time. It was seen as part of Gore's separating himself from Bill Clinton's sleaziness, a factor that, very unfairly, hurt Gore that year. If it was also a "pander" to Jews then given the closeness of the Florida result it seems to have been a well-advised one. Bob Graham might have also been a good choice on that basis, but he was ruled out for other reasons.
May 12, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well you know more about CT than I do but I don't remember him being a total nutcase before 9/11.
May 12, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a loathsome creature.
And so I say again....McCain Lieberman 2008
That's a win-win
McCain can claim that it shows TRUE independence from the liberal Democratic Party than BETRAYS America just as they BETRAYED Joe Lieberman
Why should we have to endure a YANKEE Zell Miller
BTW Olbermann reminds that he slimed similarly in his first senate race..it was Fidel Castro at the time
May 12, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
That two Sam Houstin style Texans stayed in their Senate races when running for VP would not be seen as a case of "classiness by association" for Lieberman here in New England. What I think is that Lieberman was afraid of losing and having to get a job if he and Gore lost.
There was no consensus regarding Gore's choice of Lieberman. Joe had never done well nationally. There is no region of THIS country where his personality and style go over well. His individual attempts at national office have all failed badly.
May 12, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
What initially infuriated me about Lieberman was the way he campaigned in 2004. I'm a former Iowan and Iowa had very significant early losses of National Guard troops in Iraq. No active military in Iowa - it's all small town National Guard. Senator Neocon wouldn't even campaign in Iowa. The guy is all for sending other people's kids to a war that has not the remotest benefit to their hometowns and families.
May 12, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
So now Lieberman is putting out the line that a Hamas "endorsement" of Obama is the same as an Obama endorsement of Hamas.
After reading the article, I have to point out that Lieberman simply doesn't say this. Nor does he say anything logically equivalent to it. Even the loathsome Joementum doesn't deserve this kind of gross misrepresentation.
It turns out that Hamas prefers Obama to the other two candidates. There is nothing we supporters of Obama can do about that. Obama's opponents will continue to point out that Hamas prefers Obama to the other candidates. It is irritating and disconcerting that these opponents continue to do this. But they are not lying, and they are perfectly within their rights in pointing it out. Rather than launching into fits of politically correct blame-the-messenger hysteria whenever someone points out that Hamas prefers Obama to the others, it would be better for Obama's supporters to have a good response that actually engages with the issue.
But if someone is deeply obsessed with Israel and Hamas, and they are absolutely determined in everything they do to go in the exact opposite direction from the direction preferred by Hamas, there is little one can do to persuade them that Obama is their man.
This is the kind of post that has led me to ignore most of what MJ writes here. His posts are frequently intellectually dishonest, inaccurate, and filled with tortured, illogical and ridiculous arguments, and the worst kind of political hackery and histrionic emoting. MJ is almost a parody of the kneejerk liberal, who is more concerned with declaring 9 out of every 10 political statements to be unfairly out of bounds for some reason, or a "smear" - one of MJ's favorite words - than with responding to the claims and arguments that are made by our opponents.
It's embarrassing for other Obama supporters to be represented in this way. If a person constantly complains about the saying of certain things, rather than responding to the content of what is said, they look like a person with no arguments.
MJ says,
"I'm not going to argue about the illogic of Lieberman's statement."
That sort of stance is typical of people with weak logical powers, whose speech and writing are filled with emotional ranting and hysterics.
May 12, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
God, its hilarious watching the 2 or 3 rightwingers here defend Lieberman AS IF they don't know exactly what he was trying to do with the Hamas smear.
"It turns out that Hamas prefers Obama to the other two candidates." Bullshit. Quite possibly, Hamas prefers McCain simply because they are smart enough to know that any endorsement would hurt their chosen candidate.
Dan K, you can support whoever you like but don't insult the intelligence of TPMers by pretending that you do not know what Lieberman was doing. Just say it suits you fine.
"There is nothing we supporters of Obama can do about that. Obama's opponents will continue to point out that Hamas prefers Obama to the other candidates. It is irritating and disconcerting that these opponents continue to do this. But they are not lying, and they are perfectly within their rights in pointing it out."
Right. And we should lay down for race-baiting too. Fat chance.
May 12, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jimmy Carter, known agent provocateur for Hamas and Enemy of Israel, shortly after his treasonous trip to the Middle East, also praised Obama as someone who'd be a respected voice to the House of Peace
How does that coincide with your post-war Muslim conspiracy, Mandrake? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? That's the way your hard-core Terrorist works.
May 12, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand perfectly well what Lieberman is doing. He is trying to discredit Obama and elevate McCain by pointing out that Hamas's leader declared that Hamas prefers Obama.
But Lieberman nowhere say that a Hamas endorsement of Obama is the "same as an Obama endorsement of Hamas." So why do you express yourself so recklessly and irresponsibly? Why don't we fight that asshole Lieberman with reason, instead of hyperbolic rhetorical bullshit? I know the political marketplace is filled with lying crap and mischaracterizations, but that's no reason to contribute to it ourselves.
Unfortunately for our guy, Hamas's leader did make the statement in question. I wish Ahmed Yousef would just shut the fuck up, but he didn't. He put it out there, and so he gave Lieberman and other McCain supporters a card to play in in the political game. You can try to respond by throwing out some random theory to the effect that Yousef is actually executing some clever misdirectional plan to elect McCain by supporting Obama publicly. But you know you are just making it up.
And when asked about this issue by Jeffrey Goldberg, Obama didn't say, "How dare they toss around these outrageous smears!" He didn't lie and say, "So you and Joe Lieberman are saying I endorse Hamas!" Nor did he obfuscate and try to deny that Hamas's leader actually said that Hamas prefers Obama. Here's the approach he took instead:
JG: Were you flummoxed by it?
BO: I wasn’t flummoxed. I think what is going on there is the same reason why there are some suspicions of me in the Jewish community. Look, we don’t do nuance well in politics and especially don’t do it well on Middle East policy. We look at things as black and white, and not gray. It’s conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, “This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he’s not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush,” and that’s something they’re hopeful about. I think that’s a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they’re not confused about my unyielding support for Israel’s security.
Now this strikes me as an eminently reasonable answer. And this is the difference between you and Obama. When Lieberman asks, "Why does Hamas's leader prefer Obama?", Obama gives a perfectly cogent answer of the form, "There are two reasons: (i) because I am not an idiot cowboy like George Bush, and a number of people in the Arab world - including even some members of Hamas apparently - take heart in that. And (ii), because some members of Hamas are mislead by elements of my personal biography into thinking I am not as much of a supporter of Israel as I am."
Your style, on the other hand, is to launch into a completely unresponsive, incoherent and indignant tirade.
I'm not saying we should "lay down" for anything. But I suggest you take your lead from Obama. People know you to be an Obama supporter. And to the extent they confuse your automated, hysterical, kneekerk responses with Obama's shrewder, calmer and more considered reponses, you make Obama lkook like a fool.
May 13, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
A well-reasoned rejoinder to Mr. Rosenberg's hyperbole.
May 13, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink