I agree with Max that it there has been a tradition of friendship, but it is true that it was not a broad love between most blacks and most jews. It was always about activists and intellectuals who looked at the plight of the two people as parallel stories and who worked to forge the connection.

What Coates is probably right about is that it was indeed a _historic_ connection, as historic as the civil rights movement and the pre-neocon Jewish intellectual. And just as the friendship idea didn't apply generally to "working people," it doesn't hold today for most gen x and gen y black and jewish people. It's a connection that requires the efforts of those who see it as important, and is not based on natural shared affinities or anything else. The friendship had a historical reality, and not just a local NY one.

Because of this, I think Coates deflation of the idea, or calling it "hokum," is misguided -- he's holding the friendship up to more than it ever was. Admittedly, the intellectuals and activists that constituted surely dreamed it as a bigger dream; but it's still something worth aspiring to for self-consciously progressive blacks and jews.

Posted at May 13, 2008 4:47 PM in response to The Negro Sings Of Zionism

This comment, and many here, display the worst tendencies of the blog commentarati. Partisanship before objectivity. Quick reaction and assumptions of bad motives, before investigating fully.

Wake-up call to lots of people: Fowler did not call Obama an "elitist" in her piece. She reported what he said, buried in PARAGRAPH SIX (in the middle of the paragraph). That is no hatchet job.

So, her husband supports McCain and she went to school with Hillary. Aha! Proof that she is a covert Republican supporting Hillary! That is ludicrous, lazy thinking.

She and people around her say she is an Obama supporter. The money she's given supports it. I also recall an early piece by her about an Obama rally that was very positive. There is no reason to doubt that she supports him.

And to spunout -- she's also a journalist (a "citizen journalist"), and we assume and should hope, not trying to fit her reporting to maximize Obama's advantage. She was there, and decided to report on what was said. I don't see the problem in that, even though the story has hurt the candidate I prefer.

Btw, for ALL of you who never actually read the piece, look at what she says right after reporting on the "bitter" comment:

Obama made a problematic judgment call in trying to explain working class culture to a much wealthier audience. He described blue collar Pennsylvanians with a series of what in the eyes of Californians might be considered pure negatives: guns, clinging to religion, antipathy, xenophobia.

I'm not sure this is what at least this lot of Californians needed to hear about Pennsylvanians. Such phrases can reinforce negative stereotypes among Californians, who are a people in a state already surfeited with a smug sense of superiority and, as an ironic consequence, a parochialism and insularity at odds with the innovation, prosperity and openness for which California is rightly known. (Of course, this is a generalization, and as such does not fit everyone; but as a state characteristic I stand by it.) Californians might be better served by hearing that Pennsylvanians have a strong sense of their place in American history, for here California is wanting. California needs to hear that other Americans have gone through hard times and survived, humor intact. Since Barack Obama sees himself as the candidate best able to unify the country, these are the messages he needs to carry and his frank words about Pennsylvania may not have translated very clearly.

To give Obama his due, he spoke about working class Pennsylvanians likely because he had been thinking about them a great deal. And he spoke, as he often does away from large rallies, in a calm, even, matter-of-fact way. Every town hall meeting I've observed, from California to Iowa, Nevada to Texas, has showcased Senator Obama's core decency and high measure of regard for each individual.

Posted at April 15, 2008 9:01 PM in response to Woman Who Broke "Small Town" Story Says Obama Campaign's Response Was "Classy"

The problem with your analysis, Greg, is that Clinton could easily have said what you are imputing to him. Try this version -- adding the parenthetical comments and removing the bracketed ones:

"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where [you had two people who] (the focus was not on whether the candidates) loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country. And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."

Would that have been so hard? If Clinton wanted to say that, he easily could -- I've heard he's a pretty smart guy. Since he didn't, it seems he was subtly trying to invoke the idea of patriotism, and remind people of various attacks on Obama that have been brewing just under the radar. I don't think its hyperpartisanship to see this in his comment.

And it doesn't matter what Richardson (positive energy make everyone happy man) or Sullivan (who could be wrong) thought. Your view wasn't based on their perception was it? I'm not going to base mine on theirs either.

Posted at March 24, 2008 4:19 PM in response to Obama Campaign Manager Hints Clinton Camp Has "Pattern" Of Questioning Obama's Patriotism

some good points, but I think the fiscal conservative argument is a bad one -- it basically is saying that public financing is a waste of taxpayer money. Not so good if you ever want to revive such a plan, in any form.

Posted at February 28, 2008 8:55 PM in response to Why Obama Should Reject Spending Limits

Not defamation. Hillary and Chelsea are public figures so that a would-be defamer has an increased first amendment interest in speaking about them.

Also, saying Clinton was "pimping out" Hillary is really just figurative language -- it makes no assertion about sexual conduct that either was involved in (of the type that could be defamation per se), and is not a "false" statement that was said with reckless disregard for its truth. It's just a way -- an inappopriate one -- of saying something else (i.e. that the campaign is "using" or "deploying" Chelsea, in a way that suggests coercion anad general nastiness)

It might be defamation if Shuster said: "Hilary is running a prostitution ring and pimping out Chelsea as the star harlot"

Posted at February 9, 2008 7:30 PM in response to Missing the Forest for the Tree

distinction WITH a difference.

"Working to support" sounds like: will you work on the campaign. She's not sure.

That does not mean she will not VOTE for Hillary.

Will Bill and Hillary work on Obama's campaign?

On the other hand, Michelle does back out though in her later comment (" You know, everyone in this party is going to work hard for whoever the nominee is. ") which suggests it was a boo-boo.

Posted at February 4, 2008 8:37 PM in response to Michelle Obama: "I'd Have To Think About" Supporting Hillary As Nominee

Obama is not choosing mandates for two reasons:

(1) the politics, as you say (younger voters, let's make sure it can get through)

(2) He's not sure they're necessary, and rather
than forge ahead with a tougher sell, he's taking a more experiential approach.

Everyone agrees, as you say, that we need a large risk pool. The main benefit of mandates is that they force as many as possible in the pool. The only benefit of mandates over other programs, then, is to bring in people who will not come UNLESS FORCED.

This is encapsulated by the economic theory of "adverse selection." My problem is that everyone takes adverse selection as an absolute fact, when it is just a theory whose empirical support has been questioned, and no one nows how it would play out under a plan like Obama's where the price would be lower and where there would be strong efforts outside of "mandates" to ensure that people know about coverage and sign up. That is, can AFFORDABILITY + ACCESSIBILITY achieve the same or similar amount of insureds as Mandates? I think Obama thinks it will be close, without the negative baggage.

So -- who is RIGHT? I don't think we know. Mahar's quotes of Cutler basically admit that the mandate issue is really about how many free riders there will be, and that Mahar doesn't know the answer either: "In other words it seems that Obama, like Edwards and Clinton, realizes that in the end mandates may well be needed."

Yes -- they MAY WELL be needed, but it's not clear at this point, and why risk everything by insisting on this theoretical necessity?

If you have the data, please show me to the door. But citing 200,000 in Mass, without any relative numbers, and without an account of the price and accessibility issues, doesn't seem adequate.

As Mahar' quote of CUtler shows, even Obama would go for the mandate if needed down the road. So, as said, it's a matter of getting something that will pass through, that will not create a conservative backlash, and that is experimental and adaptable to conditions as they emerge...

Posted at December 4, 2007 10:40 PM in response to Obama Says No One Should Be Forced to Sign up For Insurance; Edwards Says If You Don’t, He’ll Garnish Your Wages—Who is Right?

Thanks for the addendum. It's a fiction that children of the elite (i.e. with college educated parents and good-paying jobs) have the same choices as children without that headstart, who don't have the same types of help along the way to pursue the careers they choose.

It's also one that those of us in this category too easily indulge, imagining that our tough straits are the same as the tough straits of someone who can't afford to fail (and whose salary might also be expected to help out other family members not lucky enough to have made it so far). And that all college students -- even at elite universities -- are similarly situated as they go out to pursue their careers.

I haven't read the book yet -- but it seems the fact that those who DO have the headstart still pursue money over public-good professions is the problem.

Posted at October 17, 2007 8:23 PM in response to The Choices of the Elite

Wigmar1:
With meaningless utterances like th[o]se, you marginalize yourself. but a bus fare blog, not bad...

Nathan's point is the widely-held perspective of legal realism, also associated with critical legal studies, that understands the law to be a political venture and not a platonic undertaking in which we slowly approach the truth that is embedded in our constitution or in the ideal of law. I think most Americans are implicit legal realists. But nevertheless, the guise of intellectual consistency is never shed, and probably cannot be if we are to keep our confidence in the way the law is made. But see Judge Posner.

Posted at June 29, 2007 3:30 PM in response to A Court Out of Touch With Political Reality

mrs panstreppon, that was an awesome ironic post conveying the divide Golis is talking about!

But I think, for those that didn't get it, it's really the netroots that should (and I'm sure is) talking about this massive corruption of Lexis-Nexis. The grassroots that Blumenthal highlights might have some other issues a little more central to their progressive agenda.

Posted at June 22, 2007 7:49 PM in response to Friday Movement Blogging