If Obama Loses, Blame It On The Jews

Annette,
Way to stay neutral.

realistic is dead on, Annette.

Neutrality is trumped by the demands of an obvious slow news day. This item, and the one about the NJSIAA, are both some days old.

Let's even things up a bit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhQAHKxuR1Q

Yes, by all means, we must balance the pro-Obama video with an anti-Obama video!!!

There, that's better.

I thought if Obama loses it's because America is racist?

Oh well, blame it on the racists or Jewish folk or those "rural" whites who cling to religion and guns......

Just don't blame Obama.

He's perfect..... ;0)

Neutral? Since when do you expect that from Baristanet?

Sarah Silverman is a potty mouth.

LOL, Appletony! Every tiem I see that video I want to belt out, "Redneck Woman!"

Gee, if Obama lost I was going to blame the democrats for choosing somebody with so many handicaps...

Thank you, Miss M. and appletony, for giving us some balance. I just hope all of the Republican efforts to bring down Obama are similarly convincing.

And I just loved the drunken anti-Obama-ites in appletony's video--the very cream of the Republican Party. Gimme those reg'lar folks over those eastern elites any day!

if I saw it -- and I did -- this IS old news. isn't the stock market plotzing or something?

F@#$!!! F@$@@!!!

(I can't wait until the close of trading.)

Where exactly does this site claim to be bipartisan or neutral in terms of anything? Where does it claim to be anything other than a privately owned socioblog?

Can't find it anywhere. I think perhaps if you're upset by today's news offerings, perhaps you need to look in the mirror and consider that the only common aspect of all your dissatisfying experiences, is you.

I heart Sarah Silverman.

Dannyboor, that post of yours was dazzling in its absolute diamond-faceted clarity.

Could you now explain what it's really about? And exactly WHO and what you're grousing about this fine morning? Does your own old high school how have to play big bad Don Bosco? Or were you relegated to playing smaller private schools?

I thought it was well established that this was a liberally-biased site? I think baristanet is officially classified as a radical leftist blog?

Let's hope the Jewish people in Florida wake up and realize Obama is not a friend of Israel.

He's not a friend of Isreal! He's a muslim! He associates with terrorists! Why...he wasn't even born here! He's a socialist too...

Got a deal for you little richie. You decrypt this gem:

Does your own old high school how have to play big bad Don Bosco?

And I'll go ahead and dumb down my post for you.

The Jewish vote, as I've observed, is a mixed bag. Orthodox Jews are right-leaning and more tend to vote Republican than do Conservative and Reform Jews. As for Israel, JN024 is right.

jn024 and Mrs. M - please explain.

They might want to explain to Israel too, because right now Israel is split on their support of McCain and Obama. It's just about 50-50.

Sarah Palin only a friend of Israel in the "hastening the end of days sense" -- her day-to-day views are best seen in the context of her happily sitting through Jews for Jesus sermons.

Palin "pals around" with the Jews for Jesus guy and her preacher says the Jews control the economy and Obama has a Jewish problem?

McCain bends over backward to gain he endorsement of the anti-semite (and anti-muslim, anti-catholic, etc.) preacher John Hagee, among others, and Obama has a Jewish problem?

Obama is more aligned with the views held by majority of Jewish voters in the US and it is reflected by the fact that poll after poll shows Jewish voters in the US supporting Obama by wide margins.

The facts be damned Pete!

McCain and Palin have bupkes.

Thought you'd all get a kick out of this, from the Huffington Post:

Sarah Palin "represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party" and she is "absolutely not" ready to be president or vice president, Times columnist David Brooks said at an Atlantic-mag sponsored event.

See the video here.

Thanks Walleroo.

Another one.

Here's the latest from George Will.

LINK

I regret that Brooks used the term "a cancer". But his basic comments are important.

It can apply to both parties as well, as divisiveness has come to take the place of honestly discussing and debating policy goals or the effectiveness of programs intended to achieve outcomes.

Instead it has become a game of "who really favors a positive outcome".

Please, I would really like an answer - why or how is it true that we should "wake up and realize Obama is not a friend of Israel." ?

One man's opinion, I realize, but he puts together a good argument:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/barack_obama_and_israel.html

Such comments are not made to stand up to scrutiny NJ Guy.

You're supposed to simply drink the kool aid and accept it.

I can't stay on-line to discuss that specif issue, but to me it illustrates the problem with respect to how we view the candidates and the issues.

They are reduced to emotional responses and attacking "values" because a disagreement about polices or priorities is equated with "defective values".

I see it as part of both campaigns, to some degree, but I can't accept that it's "just the way politics works".

I thinks it's a way to hide from discussing the issues or offering better approaches.

I can define my values - honesty, hard work, respect for traditions. I can list my broad policy objectives - pro growth, pro national security, etc. Then I can say I will work toward those objectives through my policies.

Next, I can say my opponent doesn't favor my policies. He doesn't want to reach the objectives that I embrace. I question his very values.

There is a tendency to take that approach - it's almost human nature.

But we need to define goals and objectives and determine the best ways to reach them and not simply project motives.

Mrs. M - that article so many suppositions and dots that require connecting. The more important and more true indicator of his stand on Isreal his running mate. Obama isn't going to give Rev. Wright a place in his administration, but Joe Biden is on the ticket and is not even mentioned in that article.

American Smear-Artist
Ed Lasky attacks Senator Barack Obama.

-- Ira Forman

Buried between traditional spam messages about get-rich-quick schemes and limited time offers, many members of the Jewish community have found despicable smear emails polluting their inboxes in recent weeks. Such emails aimed at Barack Obama (and targeting Jewish voters) have been so outrageous that leaders from nine non-partisan Jewish organizations recently took the nearly unprecedented step of signing onto a strongly worded letter repudiating these smear tactics.

But the right-wing attack machine is not just using scurrilous emails to mug their opponents. Mainline conservative have been using more "legitimate" web sites to traffic in innuendo about the Democratic candidates with many of their fallacious attacks landing in the discredited emails.

Ed Lasky of the conservative American Thinker has been a primary culprit in this endeavor. He has been writing about Obama for months and his "analysis" is to the Illinois Senator as was Walt and Mearsheimers to the pro-Israel community: a political agenda wrapped in faulty logic and incorrect assertions.

Lasky's recent screed, "Barack Obama and Israel" offers a preview of what the GOP smear campaign would look like should Obama win the Democratic nomination. Given that similar smear campaigns have been launched against Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator John Edwards, it is clear these tactics will be used by conservative operatives in the General Election against any Democratic nominee.

Lasky's piece is filled with half-truths, omission of "inconvenient facts," innuendo, deeply flawed logic, undocumented charges, hearsay, and guilt by distant association.

Before delving into a few examples of Lasky's smear tactics, it is important to note that Senator Obama is a strong supporter of Israel who is immensely popular in the Chicago Jewish community. He has never cast a vote against a pro-Israel position in the U.S. Senate and has been called pro-Israel by non-partisan analysts such as Haaretz's Shmuel Rosner, who wrote that Obama "is pro-Israel. Period." The New York Sun (hardly a bastion of support for Democrats) editorialized: "At least by our lights, Mr. Obama's commitment to Israel, as he has articulated it so far in his campaign, is quite moving and a tribute to the broad, bipartisan support that the Jewish state has in America."

In bashing Obama, Lasky asks readers to ignore the Senator's voting record and strong statements of support for Israel and instead judge the man on peripheral issues, some false, some mischaracterized and some based on oddball logic.

In one bizarre passage, Lasky suggests Obama may be hostile to Israel because he spoke of a desire to see the world rid of all nuclear weapons (as did Ronald Reagan in the 1980's). What does this have to do with Israel, one may ask? Lasky writes that Obama's justification is "identical to arguments made in the Arab world that justify their pursuit of nuclear weapons because Israel has nuclear weapons." To any true American "thinker" such non-sequitor is akin to asking, "do you walk to school, or bring your lunch?"

Lasky pulls a similar stunt when he writes "As Barack has put it, Iraq is under occupation by America (which makes one wonder how he feels about Israeli settlements)." This ridiculous stretch in logic is reminiscent of arguments made by McCarthyites.

In another passage, Lasky tries to make Obama guilty by association because his Church denomination (United Church of Christ) has been critical of Israel. Strange that right-wing operatives take this position with Obama but don't with Bush and Cheney (United Methodist) or McCain (Episcopalian).

Lasky grudgingly accepts that Obama is Christian (while going out of his way to remind his reader of purported ties to Islam, like another conservative flack, Daniel Pipes) and then makes a ridiculous and offensive suggestion that Obama joined his church out of political expediency. This is particularly ironic given that Lasky is trying to score political points by bashing the very same church.

At another point in his article, Lasky seeks to belittle Obama for being the chief Senate sponsor of one of AIPAC's priority pieces of legislation, a bill that facilitates divestment from Iran. Lasky claims the bill is unimportant. AIPAC thinks differently, and readers will have to make their own choice whether to believe a political hatchet man instead of an institution of the Jewish community which is charged with pro-Israel advocacy.

The smear campaign launched against Obama brings back memories of both the Swift Boat attacks of 2004 and a nasty email campaign geared at Jewish voters which falsely claimed Senator Kerry's wife supported Hamas. The Big Lie about Hamas was largely confined to email, however. What is going on with Obama therefore has the potential to be far worse because mainline conservatives are gleefully participating.

As noted the '08 smears have not been limited to Obama. Moreover, when Hillary Clinton ran for the U.S. Senate in 2000 she was subjected to the same type of mudslinging. There is only one way to clear this up within the Jewish community: reject the fear mongering, demand the truth and shun those who specialize in back-alley political muggings, like Lasky and Pipes.

Ira N. Forman is Executive Director of the National Jewish Democratic Council.

I have no use for Sarah Silverman. She's in a time warp, viewing American Jews through 1961 lenses.

For once I agree with you, Perlstein the Godless, my being a Lubavitch rabbi notwithstanding.

I might be Godless, Walleroo, but if you're Lubavitch, I'm Nachmanides.

Well said, J. Perlstein. Her "politics," if you can even call them that are reactionary, as is the image of American Jewry she milks for laughs. Her none-to-subtle message is that all elderly Jews are backward racists.

You're very well preserved, chaver.

Take a look at the Jerusalem Post this week. The attempt to convince American Jews to vote for Obama by twisting the opinions of Israeli politicians and military people was condemned as outright lying. There is a legitimate reason to believe the sainted Obama will be dangerous for the survival of Israel. I do not blame M.O.T. for having doubts about him.

I smell a Rove.

I smell a lanslide victory for Obama. Every drop in the stock market is another nail the the coffin for Mcpain. The Bibba vote is being diffused by the economic vote. Many people now don't give a rat's ass if Obama was from Sedi Alpha V, as long as he has a better plan to fix this mess. Most voters are seeing that the more Palin talks, more they get scared that she might actually be in charge of something. All of the negative ads and comments show that the end is near for McPain. Reality has just set in.

PeoplesRepublic, - she is not subtle on purpose, as it is intended to shock (and to be so extreme that you know that she doesn't actually believe what she is saying).

Her humor is that she acts as if all stero-types were real and were common knowledge. So it's a bit like she is the subject of her own humor.

Sacha Baron Cohen (who created the Borat & Ali G characters) does something similar.

i don't know, Former NJ, Palin seems authentically nasty to me. Irony is not part of her culture,

And Abishag, Israel will do just fine with Obama. That is, except the nut cases that want to live in trailers with rifles on the West Bank. Those outposts are the Wasillas of Israeli society.

Perlstein,

Why such early morning hate on Palin?

You don't like her, okay. Fine.

But why you and others insist on such blind, dumb hatred is telling.

As dumb as the fools who scream, "SOCIALIST" at Obama.

Dumb.

NJ Guy,
You're wrong. Her message is that, in addition to every one of them being an ethnic stereotype, elderly Jews who live in Florida are racists - not to mention ignorant. That's the unsubtle message I was talking about. Everyone gets that Sarah Silverman is doing schtick when she talks about "blacks" and "gays". In this case, however, she wasn't being ironic, wasn't attempting satire,when she pleaded with young Jews to go to Florida and convince their grandparents to vote Democrat. Or perhaps she was. In that case what was the point?

Also, what she does is not the same as what Sacha Baron Cohen does.

The plain fear is no one knows what Sen Obama will do. Perhaps that's also a fear with Gov. Palin, but I expect more is going on there than that. On the basis of his very thin record, all you can do is hope. A very thin reed on which to hang your vote.

On the basis of Palin's record, you have every right to expect serial abuses of power, lack of transparency and attempts to implement the Wasilla Bible Church version of God's plan, which includes zealous work to convert Jews to see the light of a homo-hating, book-banning, judgmental Jesus who can righteously take our side in combat against Russia and Iran, neither of which she could have picked out on a map prior to her cram session of the last month.

(Is this where someone writes the Obama is a commie... terrorist's friend, Wright, Actorn, etc. retort to appletony's "facts"?)

Dumb. Both sides. Dumb.

Anybody see the segment from the McCain town meeting last night, where a guy got up & said he was scared of an Obama Presidency what with his associations with former domestic terrorists like Ayers & his socialist leanings & all?

McCain got exasperated & said to the guy (I paraphrase from memory), "Listen, you don't have to be scared of an Obama Presidency. Whatever our differences, I know that he is a decent man who cares as deeply about the future of our country as I do."

It was like he'd just been pushed over the edge with all the negative stuff that his advisors have been pushing on him & he had to say "Enough!"

McCain just gained a ton of respect from me. We'll see if this translates into a different tone in the campaign, but it was heartening to see him fed up in public with all the inconsequential crap that's been flying around lately.

Prof Emeritus -

re: Sarah Palin:

no one likes anyone who abuses power and then winks and says aw shuks
- early in the morning being no exception.

(sorry crank, it seems those in their corners like the view.)

crank, yes McCain did the right thing in trying to talk the crowd down, and he did something similar when a woman said something about Obama was an arab yada yada. But it's his campaign that's been using the incendiary comments to whip up the anger this whole week, and it's getting ugly, so it's about time he said something since he's responsible for it.

Here's the story from the AP and HuffPo with video.

Prof, your post to Crank makes it sound like we're all in equally deep political corners, as far as we can stuff ourselves, right here in Baristanet. You are creating a false polygon.

Check out the more recent videos of Palin rallies, you know, the ones where the attendees are all screaming on about how Obama a terrorist, Arab,Moslem, etc, etc. (I guess they're still afraid to use the N word in public -this week - so these other words are good substitutes)

If you think us Baristanet posters are all as deep into a corner as these folks, you might need a refresher course in geometry.

Every drop in the stock market is another nail the the coffin for Mcpain.

Can't we just cremate him?

Perlstein,

I'll watch those rallies right after I watch John Lewis embarrass himself by equating McCain to George Wallace.

Again, the view must be lovely from your corner.

Prof, you're stuck on this one, your geometry is off, and these rallies are a must-see, unless you think John Lewis is as salient to the state of America today as the Palin crowd is.