Obama and the Jews III: Bloomberg Steps In June 22, 2008

New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg stepped up to the plate for Barack Obama on Friday forcefully denouncing anti-Obama propaganda e-mails directed at the Jewish community, the New York Times reported yesterday. Bloomberg, in a rare display of faith, spoke to Jewish communities in South Florida denouncing the e-mails as “lies” and raising speculation about an outright Obama endorsement, or perhaps even an Obama-Bloomberg ticket:

Speaking before a crucial constituency in the coming election, Jewish voters, in the pivotal state of Florida, Mr. Bloomberg said that rumors of Mr. Obama secretly being a Muslim represent “wedge politics at its worst, and we have to reject it — loudly, clearly and unequivocally.”

“Let’s call those rumors what they are: lies,” said Mr. Bloomberg, who has been mentioned as a potential running mate for both Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain, the likely Republican nominee.

Residents of South Florida, home to the second-largest population of Jews in the United States after New York City, have received e-mail messages claiming that Mr. Obama sympathizes with radical Islam and does not support Israel. Mr. Obama, a Christian, has repeatedly rejected both claims.

The article continues:

Mr. Bloomberg is Jewish, but he rarely discusses his faith in public. On Friday, he broke with that tradition. He joked about sitting through long Jewish holiday services (“I thought Yom Kippur was the longest day of the year”) and referred to “our people.” Mr. Bloomberg, an outspoken supporter of Israel, said that fears about Mr. Obama’s faith “are cloaked in concern for Israel, but the real concern is about partisan politics.”

“Israel is just being used as a pawn, which is not that surprising, since some people are willing to stoop to any level to win an election,” he said.

Jewish voters, he added, “have a particular obligation” to fight such false claims.

A particular obligation.

A particular obligation to declare that Obama’s “links to radical Islam” are outright lies, that Obama is not a Muslim but an observant Christian, to declare that Obama’s future will be adamantly Wright-free.

Obviously lie-filled emails like these also damage Jewish-Muslim relations as well, with Bloomberg also saying that this most recent email campaign “threatens to undo the enormous strides that Jews and Muslims have made together in this country.”

The National Jewish Democratic Council also recently released their “Obama vs. McCain - A Jewish Perspective” checklist, worth reading (even if they connect their premise only to “progressive” values).

Jews in particular — but all American Democrats also — need to realize that there is far too much on the line when the election contest is Obama vs. “in Iraq for 100 years.” There is far too much on the line when the economy is in recession, human rights are under suppression and the people are feeling depression. From health care to the economy to homeland security to domestic spending — America is in desperate need of change and one should shudder at the thought of four more years of Bush policies, whether foreign or domestic.

America deserves far more than this, far better than this. America deserves the positive change that Obama represents — the tikkun if you will — and I hope all Jewish Democrats (and Independents, and even some Republicans) realize that this November.

Hawking Anti-Obama Propaganda June 18, 2008

Apollo Braun (real name: Doron Braunshtein), an Israeli-born New York-area visual artist, has begun to gain notariety as of late for his ever-creative anti-Obama gear. In March, he launched his line of $129-250 custom “Who Killed Obama?” T-shirts, calling himself very “punk rock” to the fashion blogger at the New York Press. In May, Braun launched his Jews Against Obama T-shirt (pictured), also retailing for $250 from his Lower East Side boutique. On the release of this newest piece of politico-fashion, Braun gave his true feelings on Obama in a statement:

“I am a true anti-Obama New York Jew. The word on the street is that New York Jews will vote for McCain anyhow. The majority of the Jews – at least the ones that are proud of their religion and practice it – like me, don’t want to see Obama – a man who’s middle name is Hussein, and his family from his Kenyan father’s side is Muslim, as the leader of this great country.

More than that, after Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright honored Louis Farrakhan – definitely one of the most racist and anti-Semitic people alive – Obama lost us Jews totally. That made me start this political movement in the first place.”

And today, I get an Email from Mr. Braun’s publicist, telling of his new $30-creation, an “Obama=Hitler” T-shirt, perhaps his most shocking creation to date:

Israeli born, New York based pop artist and fashion designer Doron Braunshtein, also known as Apollo Braun, owner of the five year old “Apollo Braun” boutique on Orchard Street on the Lower East Side, crossed all limits and boundaries with his new creation: a t-shirt bearing the slogan “Obama = Hitler”. As of yesterday, the batch of the first 200 t-shirts came to his store and seven of his most devoted customers already bought the t-shirt, which cost only $30. “I never thought I would ever sell something that I created at such a cheap price,” Braunshtein says, “but you have to understand me, I want to see as many people as I can wearing my idea, and I don’t want money to stand between them and this fabulous t-shirt.”

Braunshtein explains why he made the association between Obama and Hitler: “I have an incredible imagination, you can call it a Jewish imagination if you want and it is what it is, Obama reminds me of Hitler in more ways than I can explain. I mean, every time I hear Obama speak, I automatically think about Hitler.

Hitler was an excellent speaker, who gave great speeches and made the masses follow him almost blindly, Obama is also an excellent speaker, who gives great speeches – like the incredible speech about race – who encourages the masses to follow him. But exactly like Hitler, in my opinion, Obama doesn’t talk, he just preaches, for God’s sake, does anyone understand a word he is saying? All I hear him do is just preach and preach. Also, Obama, exactly like Hitler in his time, will tell you whatever you want to hear, can manage any kind of crowd of people and will promise you the world, but what can I tell you, I am just not his fan. He cannot fool me.”

First of all, the fact that any Israeli-born artist would ever call anyone who is as pro-Jewish and pro-Israel as Obama “Hitler” makes me shudder and cringe. To do so is shortsighted, ignorant, and completely baseless. Dov Hikind’s March assessment of Barack-lash, that Jewish voters would make “a mass movement toward Sen. McCain” in November, while it could be expected, should not be applauded and certainly not taken as a harbinger of a “true New York Jew.” Obama was so pro-Israel when he addressed AIPAC it would leave Arab-Americans and Palestinians wondering if they could even support the nominee.

As blogger Gershon Goremberg says in the name of ambassador Dan Kurtzer: “The one candidate who speaks in clear terms of taking a new approach to the Mideast is Obama. This is what scares the small coterie of American Jewish rightists who would eagerly fight to the last Israeli. If you care about Israel, you should hit “delete” when you get their emails.”

People who care about Israel, says the ambassador, delete such filth from their inboxes.

So given Obama’s fervently pro-Israel stance, pro-Jewish stances, pro-diversity and anti-racist stances, and his distancing himself (or outright rejecting) sequentially from every prejudiced member of his inner circle, precisely where does one draw the parallel between Obama and Hitler? Precisely where does one get off making visual fiascos as offensive as to have someone dressed as Hitler in front of a Palestinian flag?

I’d say that “some people do anything for a buck”, but Mr. Braun is letting these objets go at one-eighth his normal asking price. Besides, he believes his own filth anyway.

Apparently, in some minds, no amount of fact can change a fallacious opinion.

Obama and The Jews II May 22, 2008

These past few weeks I’ve been touring, promoting my album, This is Babylon and haven’t been able to write as much as I had been in the past. From Berlin to LA and everywhere in between, these past few weeks have been a non-stop marathon of promotion and performance.

And I believe today’s travesty which graces the front page of the New York Times is a quite apt segue to make my return to the blogosphere.

Jodi Kantor’s “As Obama Heads to Florida, Many of Its Jews Have Doubts” highlights, in black and white, perhaps one of the most lamentable upshots of collective Jewish consciousness: the anti-Semitism still latently looming over America (and the world)’s present and ominously towering over the world’s recent past, combined with the advent of Web 2.0, has opened the door to a whole new era of misinformation and paranoia. Ms. Kantor’s article chronicled her visit to the “Aberdeen Golf and Country Club” (so right off the bat — mince no words — we know precisely which class of people we’re dealing with) where she met Jews who voiced their insecurities with voting for Obama.

Predominantly representing the aging South Florida demographic whose largely 70+ populace have become anecdotal (and the butts of painful puns like “Botoxodox Jews”), Ms. Kantor’s interviewees showed a downright depressing susceptability to the Obama-noia that’s been plaguing the inboxes of many likely Democratic voters:

“The people here will not vote for Obama…because of his attitude towards Israel,” Ms. [Shirley] Weitz, 83, said…”They’re going to vote for McCain.”

Does anyone realize — or care — that the Jerusalem Post said that Obama’s voting record was “impeccable” regarding Israel? Is it that Sen. Obama supports a two-state solution regarding Israel and Palestine — the same thing that is advocated by both Hillary and McCain? Is it that Sen. Obama expressed willingness to speak to Iran? Would it be better to just consider Iran the world’s first “suicide state” prima facie, and react accordingly?

Perhaps the most disturbing thing is the rundown in the continuation of the article. Ms. Kantor’s article continues with an interview with Rabbi Ruvi New — who mused about the entire election coming down to a “few old Jews in Century Village” — and then moves on to Jews who have become a “conduit” for Obama misinformation.

Ms. Kantor’s article notes that some “older Jews…as well as many younger ones” believed any number of fanciful inaccuracies, One man believed his friends’ word that Obama was “an Arab”. One woman suspected affiliation with Palestinian organizations, and one woman suspected al-Qa’eda had endorsed Obama. As Jack Cafferty alluded today on CNN, how is it possible that such affluent people, such educated people, such worldly people could be susceptible to such misinformation?

And perhaps the worst part of all comes out when racism — the elephant in the room thus far — gets brought up. Ms. Kantor alleges that some of the voters’ apprehension was as rooted in race as it was in Israel relations:

At brunch in Boynton Beach, Bob W…in his 80s, said…bluntly, “Am I semi-racist? Yes.”

Is this really just “par for the course”, the “nature of the beast”? Does it have to be this way? Is Obama campaigning in Florida in vain? Is there really nothing that David Axelrod and Robert Wexler, Obama’s Jewish Florida strategist, can do to change these opinions? And perhaps worse — will these Jews vote for a right-wing candidate who Bush said will “continue…his policy”, in spite of their own and the country’s best interests, just because at the most cursory of face values, a white face is more trustworthy than a brown one? Mr. Obama shares very little psychographically with most of the anti-Semites in the black community, as Ms. Kantor notes — he lives in a community alongside Jews and has “close ties” to Jews his entire career.

Obama has denounced Farrakhan, Rev. Wright, and virtually every other enemy of the Jews in the African-American community. The Jews in Florida are demographically less poised to flip-flop to the GOP — as opposed to their New York counterparts — and if it’s really racism that would cause such a flip it is time for anyone who has come to pooh-pooh such conduct to engage in self-examination.

All the information on Obama’s voting record is available and can easily disprove the online rumormonger set. But nothing in the world can make him un-black. We have to remember what is at stake — and if American troops are put on track to “stay in Iraq for 50 years”, it will be small consolation that an old white man sent them there.

“Bitter-gate” No Problem for Obama April 16, 2008

It doesn’t matter what Mitt Romney said (”quite offensive…strange and elitist”), what Karl Rove said (”an elitist…he is arrogant”), what John McCain said (”a fundamental contradiction of what I believe America’s all about”), what network news said, what the pundits said (”[the Obamas] ooze a sense of entitlement”), or even what Hillary said (”elitist…out of touch”).

The “bitter-gate” controversy has not only not damaged Obama, but a new Gallup poll has already been released showing that Obama’s lead over Clinton has actually grown, and in the key “offended” demographics, absolutely no change in opinion has taken place, as the Kansas City Star’s Matt Schofield reports:

The political pundit class isn’t going to like this one, but a new Gallup Poll (released today) indicates that Barack Obama is actually at least as popular (if not a bit more popular) after the controversy about his comments that small town Pennsylvanians “cling” to religion and guns in tough economic times.

Hillary Clinton and John McCain have described the comments as condescending, and labeled the Democratic frontrunner an elitist.

The Gallup Poll, however, shows that while before the controversy began (April 8-10) he had a nine point lead among Democrats (51-42) a poll after the controversy shows him with an 11 point lead (51-40). …

In fact, they also polled the specific groups assumed to be most offended by the comments, and found that there had been little if any (no statistically significant) movement in their opinions of the campaign.

In addition, some are branding Hillary’s use of the word “elitist” a synonym for ‘uppity’ when viewed in American race-conscious context, something Obama himself rejected when a voter suggested it to him.

Vibe Magazine’s Mark Anthony Neal stressed this parallel between “uppity” and “elitist” (one Rolling Stone blogger called “arrogant” no more than a “code word” for “uppity”), noting the “irony that two of the wealthiest members of the Senate would describe a former community organizer as out of touch”, and pointing out that “in terms of instigating anti-Black racism and violence in this country, few things were more potent than the perception that black people, and black men in particular, did not know their place.”

I find myself inclined to, however, agree overall with Mary Mitchell from the Chicago Sun-Times on this one, though. These polarizing tactics are part of Hillary’s MO, and blowing this “bitter” statement up in media outlets is par for the course for the Clinton campaign. Hillary is just as divisive and polarizing now as she was accused of being at the beginning of this campaign in the minds of an increasing number of voters — and it is actions like this that testify to the “slice and dice” politics Obama accuses her of.

For the record, for anyone who’s still confused: no one’s bitter, no one’s sleeping while clutching Bibles and 12-gauges. Obama was speaking about an anecdotal psychographic, far from the “offensive” label Romney (of all people!) tried to affix to the only candidate preaching hope and positive change.

Hillary, the media, the Democratic campaign, and all concerned parties in America need to move on, for the sake of the greater good, and for the sake of us all.

Hillary: Trying to be the new Huckabee? April 13, 2008

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary.

First she got played out by Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press, where she was shown, vis-a-vis her campaign platform, to have flipflopped on a number of issues, most notably the Iraq War where, despite her claims to the contrary, she voted to fund the war numerous times.

But now, in her desire to paint herself as different from Obama, after Obama’s remarks about “small-town voters” being “bitter”, she’s reinvented herself — and now she’s a gun-totin’ hunter. ABCNews reports:

Sen. Hillary Clinton continued her critique of Sen. Barack Obama’s comments about small town America today, and used it to connect herself with the voters her opponent may have alienated.

Speaking about how Americans value their Second Amendment rights and enjoy hunting prompted Clinton to tell a story about her own hunting experience.

“You know my dad took me out behind the cottage my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl,” she said. “You know some people have continued to teach their children and their grandchildren. It’s part of culture, it’s part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s part of who they are. not because they are bitter”

When did the R in Hillary R. Clinton begin to stand for “rifle”? From Bill Ruthhart at the Indianapolis Star:

“I grew up in a church-going family, a family that believed in the importance of living out and expressing our faith. The people of faith I know don’t ‘cling’ to religion because they are bitter. People embrace faith not because they are materially poor, but because they are spiritually rich.”

While her comments about Obama headlined her Indianapolis visit, Clinton also touted her plan to create a “new generation” of defense manufacturing jobs…

The New York Times’ Julie Bosman said Hillary described herself as a “pro-gun churchgoer”.

CBS News’ Fernando Suarez:

“I am the granddaughter of a factory worker,” Clinton said. “My grandfather went to work at the age of 11, before there were child labor laws, and worked in the lace mills in Scranton, Pennsylvania.”

She added, “I grew up in the Midwest, born in Chicago, raised outside of that great city, and I was raised with Midwestern values and an unshakable faith in America and its promise.”

So now she’s avidly pro-gun, church-going Hillary with “Midwestern values” and “lives out” the “faith of her…grandparents” and wants to create a “new generation” of “defense manufacturing jobs”?

Not sounding very much like a Democrat.

While Obama “could have spoken better” about small-town voters, Obama was not referring to the millions of hardworking Americans who form the backbone of the American working class, he was talking about those who deviate from our social norms and turn to hate. “Clinging to guns and…religion” or “antipathy” does not happen to the average American hopefully; this is the reaction of a certain portion of the population.

Clinton called his remarks demeaning and her supporters handed out stickers saying “I’m not bitter” while Obama apologized, saying, “If I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that.”

While Obama undoubtedly could have used a better choice of words — is Obama’s misspeaking a reason for Hillary to completely rebrand herself? Is she trying to out-rightwing the right wing? Is she trying to be the new Huckabee, positioning herself as the choice of churchgoing traditional voters? To do that, she will put herself at odds with most of the Democratic party — and even if Obama (G-d forbid) doesn’t get the nomination, she will have to somehow appeal to all of us who supported Obama because we do want change.

Or maybe she wants the election to go to the GOP?

McCain Spiritual Advisor: “Islam Must be Destroyed” April 8, 2008

John McCain’s controversial Hagee endorsement may soon prove itself to be small potatoes. When Pastor John Hagee endorsed McCain back in February, McCain chose to fall into silence as his reaction to his sought-after evangelical nod, being taken by surprise by the ire raised from Catholic and other groups at Hagee’s inflammatory rhetoric. Indeed, Hagee’s hardline stance on Israel, insisting on a 100% Jewish return to the West Bank and saying that giving part of Jerusalem to the Palestinian Authority was tantamount to turning it over to the Taliban, moved the American Reform Jewish movement head Eric Yoffie to call him an “extremist” whose organization was harmful for Israel and whose views spelled disaster for the Holy Land.

Some Israeli politicians were quick to defend Hagee, with one prominent Israeli rabbi saying that the rapprochement between Christians and Jews was “one of the miracles of the 20th century.”

But Hagee, for all his abrasiveness, has nothing on Rod Parsley, McCain’s “spiritual guide”.

The president of the Chicago Theological Seminary, Rev. Dr. Susan Thistlethwaite, writes in the Washington Post’s On Faith that one must be extremely wary of this man, and precisely what it is that he stands for:

John McCain should immediately renounce Rod Parsley not only for his astounding hate mongering against Islam, but also for his extreme views on a range of issues including his denunciation of separation of church and state….In his writings, Parsley has called upon Christians to actively confront the “false religion” of Islam with the aim of destroying it. He urges his readers to realize that a confrontation between Christianity and Islam is unavoidable: “We find now we have no choice. The time has come.”

According to press reports, the leader of the movement - the senior pastor of a large church in suburban Columbus [Parsley] - casts the 2006 elections as an apocalyptic clash between ‘the forces of righteousness and the hordes of hell.’ The fear and loathing in his message is palpable: He denounces public schools that won’t teach creationism, require teachers to read the Bible in class, or allow children to pray. He rails against the ‘secular jihadists’ who have ‘hijacked’‘ America and prevent school kids from learning that Hitler was ‘an avid evolutionist.’

Parsley, according to the Rocky Mountain News’ Dave Kopel, believes that “one of G-d’s purposes in creating America was to fight a holy war against Islam”, and in Silent No More, says:

“I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.“

(more…)

Jews from Middle East Granted Refugee Status April 3, 2008

In what is being termed as a “dramatic shift” in US policy, Congress granted, for the first-time ever, refugee status for Jews from Muslim countries.

The bill (click here for the full text) was introduced by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Joseph Crowley (D-NY), and Mike Ferguson (R-NJ) and declares that it would be “inappropriate and unjust for the United States to recognize rights for Palestinian refugees without recognizing equal rights for former Jewish, Christian, and other refugees from Arab countries”. Some 900,000 Jews were displaced from Muslim countries, with 850,000 Jews being expelled from “10 Arab countries” following Israel’s creation in 1948.

One of the main proponents of the legislation, the organization Justice for Jews from Arab Countries (JJAC), was quick to note that this is not about financial compensation or ulterior motive:

The organization’s executive director, Stanley Urman of West Orange, called the resolution “a historic milestone.”

“It may be the first fundamental change in U.S. Middle East policy,” said Urman in a separate interview with NJJN. “Previously virtually all U.S. focus on Middle Eastern refugees was exclusively on Palestinians. It may be the first fundamental change in U.S.-Middle East policy. This expresses the sense of Congress that Palestinians were not the only Middle East refugees.”

“This is not about compensation,” said Urman. Rather, the resolution will help ensure that “2,500 years of Jewish life in what is today the Arab world is not erased from history. The Jews are an indigenous people in the Middle East. In a peace process that seeks to resolve a half-century of conflict, these victims and their rights must also be resolved.”

Rep. Ros-Lehtinen told the Jewish Week that the legislation is “an attempt to redress a critical imbalance”:

“Discussions of Middle Eastern refugees inevitably focus exclusively…on the plight of those of Palestinian descent,” said Ros-Lehtinen. But Jewish refugees “lost their resources, their homes and their heritage sites, fleeing in the face of persecution, pogroms, revolutions and brutal dictatorships.”

(Ignoring Ms. Ros-Lehtinen’s omission of “Christian refugees”…) I applaud this legislation, and as Ehud Olmert has already said, this is US policy, not Israeli policy (unlike critics who imply that this is some flipside of the Palestinian claim to right of return). I hope that the US government stays true to its word and provides refuge and asylum for all victims of the wars in the Middle East.

And may there be an end to those wars, b’m'heira b’yameinu.

Obama on Wright: “Outrageously Wrong” March 23, 2008

And I agree.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s decision to publish a Hamas manifesto in his church bulletin — perhaps one of the most abrasive things one could print in one’s church newsletter — seems to be part of his now increasingly indefensible MO. Obama has called the decision “outrageously wrong” and told the JTA:

“I have already condemned my former pastor’s views on Israel in the strongest possible terms, and I certainly wasn’t in church when that outrageously wrong Los Angeles Times piece was re-printed in the bulletin,” Obama said in a statement e-mailed to JTA late Thursday.

“Hamas is a terrorist organization, responsible for the deaths of many innocents, and dedicated to Israel’s destruction, as evidenced by their bombarding of Sderot in recent months. I support requiring Hamas to meet the international community’s conditions of recognizing Israel, renouncing violence, and abiding by past agreements before they are treated as a legitimate actor.”

Obama needs to keep this guy as far away as possible.

Just Deal With It, Gerri March 12, 2008

Geraldine Ferraro messed up. Bad. And refuses to admit it.

After making the now famous faux pas in Torrance, California’s Daily Breeze where she implied that the only reason Obama was in such a prominent position was because he happened to be black:

When the subject turned to Obama, Clinton’s rival for the Democratic Party nomination, Ferraro’s comments took on a decidedly bitter edge.

“I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama’s campaign - to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against,” she said. “For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It’s been a very sexist media. Some just don’t like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,” she continued. “And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

Obviously anyone with a shred of dignity would feel patronized by such an implication — “the only reason you’re even in here is because you’re black” — and Obama was no exception, telling the Today show:

“Part of what I think Geraldine Ferraro is doing, and I respect the fact that she was a trailblazer, is to participate in the kind of slice and dice politics that’s about race and about gender and about this and that, and that’s what Americans are tired of because they recognize that when we divide ourselves in that way we can’t solve problems.”

Obama’s campaign manager David Axelrod said that Ms. Ferraro should “be removed” from her responsibilities on the Clinton campaign, to which Clinton responded that she did “not agree” with Ms. Ferraro’s ever-so-enlightened assessment of the situation.

Marc Ambinder from The Atlantic rightfully notes, not only did Hillary not fire Ms. Ferraro, she did not denounce her statements or even “feel as if she has to apologize for Ferraro’s comments; after all, they are Ferraro’s, not her own”, according to her aides. Far worse than the “monster” comment from the Obama camp, Obama’s campaign manager David Axelrod said that for Hillary at this point, other than firing Ferraro, “there’s no other way to send a serious signal that you want to police the tone of this campaign.”

At this point, perhaps Ms. Ferraro should perhaps shut up for a while. Go below the media radar and work behind the scenes for a bit. Maybe take a strategically-timed “vacation”.

Or, she could try to make a huge stink, and try to turn the tables on Obama’s camp, claiming racism and discrimination herself and “vigorously” defending her statements:

‘Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world, you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up,’ Ferraro said. ‘Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?’…

Ferraro said she was simply stating an obvious truth, as seen in exit polls that show Obama taking as much as 80 percent of the black vote in the Democratic primaries.

” ‘In all honesty, do you think that if he were a white male, there would be a reason for the black community to get excited for a historic first?’ Ferraro said. ‘Am I pointing out something that doesn’t exist?’ …”

She says her comments were not racist, but a fact, and as far as Hillary is concerned, the New York Times says there is “no indication” that Ms. Ferraro will step down from her duties. And her attempts to throw gender into the mix and cry “sexist media” and portray herself as the dual victim of patriarchy and anti-white racism caused Feministing.com to respond simply, “F you, Geraldine Ferraro.”
(more…)

Awakening the “Media Beast” March 11, 2008

New York Magazine’s Daily Intelligencer today features a story from columnist John Heilemann, “Can Obama Handle the Awakened Media Beast?” which speaks about the transition from the media’s having dealt with Obama with “kid gloves” to now, where Obama is being caught up in a journalistic flood:

By now, of course, it’s clear to anyone with two eyes in his head that the kid-gloves days are over for Obama. Suddenly, the press is treating him more like it has handled Clinton since, er, day one.

As a front-runner, in other words.

The shift in tone and temper is coming as something of a shock to Obamaland, and not least to the candidate himself. In a post a few days ago, I remarked on the somewhat contentious news conference that Obama held last Monday in San Antonio, the one that ended with reporters annoyed at its brevity and Obama saying, plaintively, “C’mon, guys, I just answered, like, eight questions.”

Last night at dinner with two of the savviest political analysts I know, one of them maintained that this was an utterance infinitely revealing about Obama — the equivalent of “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is” for WJC or “No controlling legal authority” for Al Gore. I’m not sure I’d go quite that far, but I do believe that it speaks volumes about BHO’s mind-set and expectations regarding the national media…It also gives off the distinct whiff of arrogance and entitlement that’s lately been emanating from him. “Eight questions! OMG! That’s, like, three more than I usually answer — and five more than I should have to answer!”

First of all, the “arrogance” and “entitlement” crack was a low blow, especially in light of the fact that at least a few people are saying that Hillary Clinton’s offering the more-popular and better-liked number-one rated Obama her number two spot in light of number clearly not in her favor looks a lot like entitlement. Were Obama less intelligent, I’d say he doesn’t know how to spell the word “arrogance.” Nothing in his media dealings reflects anything haughty.

However, perhaps we could say that Obama may have bordered on naivete with the statement. One of his campaign bigwigs did just call Hillary a “monster” (with an explicit “ugh”), and perhaps Obama simply underestimated precisely how much pressure is behind a full-on media deluge. Eight questions in a row? Granted, not much for any person to deal with. Eight questions in under 60 seconds from four different reporters on minute details of the same topic? Yes, it can be a bit stressful — as I know from personal experience.

However, this is the world of Web2.0/3.0, where everyone with hands and a cell phone is a media outlet scrambling for a unique angle. Even today’s “press corps”, once reserved for the Sam Donaldsons and Walter Cronkites of the world, is now much more populous, and the candidate which may have had to answer 30-50 questions in a weekend now has to answer 200-500, and Obama may not have expected this.

Obama, however, is intelligent, adapts to situations well, and has the judgment to navigate through any media Charybdis any network can conjure up. There is no doubt in my mind that Obama has learned from any mistakes he has made, and is much more prepared now than he was before.

Will McCain Reject? Will Jews Accept? March 5, 2008

The American Prospect clued me into a little piece of GOP double-talk and double standards that I didn’t know about during this primary campaign.

Howard Dean, DNC Chair, went after John McCain on CNN Late Edition this past Sunday for not having come out as saying he “rejected and denounced” the vehemently anti-Catholic pastor John Hagee after Hagee endorsed him — the way Obama was asked to do (and complied in flying colors) with the anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas was called in to defend her fellow party member, and the transcript shows just how hypocritical this really is:

BLITZER: But here’s the point that the critics are making right now, and those Catholics who are urging John McCain to reject Pastor Hagee. Louis Farrakhan has called Judaism “a gutter religion.”

Hagee has suggested, at least according to the Catholic League president — we’ve done some checking of our own – he said that Catholicism is “a great whore and a false cult system.” That sounds very, very damning, Senator.

HUTCHISON: Well, John McCain has said he doesn’t agree with that.

BLITZER: But is he ready to embrace someone who calls the Catholic religion “a great whore?”

HUTCHISON: Well, I think John McCain’s statement that he put out from the campaign, after the question was raised, speaks for itself. And I think that, many times, people who endorse someone are not in total agreement with them on every issue. That’s the case with most people. I think this is turning into a political attack, rather than anything that’s substantive.

What did this chick just say? “That’s the case with most people”?

And let’s not for a second confuse this endorsement with the wholly unsolicited and unwanted Farrakhan endorsement Obama had the unfortunate displeasure of having to deal with. As recently as this past weekend, McCain was making decisively pro-Hagee statements, saying:

I am very proud of the Pastor John Hagee’s spiritual leadership to thousands of people and I am proud of his commitment to the independence and the freedom of the state of Israel. That does not mean that I support or endorse or agree with some of the things that Pastor John Hagee might have said or positions that he may have taken on other issues.

Here’s how John Hagee introduced John McCain on his “No Surrender” tour, featured on the John McCain.com site:

Yeah, McCain totally doesn’t want Hagee’s support.  Hagee has since amended his anti-Catholic statements, which included his calling the church the “anti-Christ” (video), but the Catholic League is not buying it, saying “no amount of spin” can change “reality”. (Hagee also said that he believes that the anti-Christ will be the head of the European Union.) McCain initially said that he was “very honored”‘ by Hagee’s endorsement.Former GOP candidate Mike Huckabee also appeared, however, at Hagee’s church, so apparently McCain is not the only GOPer to seek an endorsement from the man who said:

“Adolf Hitler attended a Catholic school as a child and heard all the fiery anti-Semitic rantings from Chrysostom to Martin Luther.”

“Pope Pius XII, called by historians ‘Hitler’s Pope,’ joined Hitler in the infamous Concordat of Collaboration, which turned the youth of Germany over to Nazism, and the churches became the stage background…To those Christians who believe that Jewish hearts will be warmed by the sight of the cross, please be informed—to them it’s an electric chair…”

And let’s not forget about Hagee’s racist slurs. The Emerging Minds blog (among others) points out a San Antonio Express-News article from 1996 which mentions Hagee meeting with black ministers about running a “slave sale” fundraiser. Its advertising promised “[s]lavery in America is returning to Cornerstone”. And let’s not forget the sexism:

“Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pinscher? The answer is lipstick. Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist.”

Racist, sexist, anti-Catholic, wholly insensitive, Islamophobic and anti-Arab.

A man John McCain is “honored” to be endorsed by.  Will McCain step up and “reject and denounce” his prejudiced endorsers the way Obama did?  Or will GOP supporters just have to wonder precisely how much of Pastor Hagee’s “gospel” McCain agrees with?

How About That Economy? February 19, 2008

The report released by BIGResearch and MediaPost today reports what many have known for a while: consumer confidence in the economy is slipping, slipping, slipping, and it’s manifesting itself everywhere.

BIGResearch’s Consumer Intentions & Actions Survey involved 8,000 adults whose responses, the company said, “provided unique insights & identified opportunities in a fragmented and transitory marketplace:”

Every pundit is throwing around that word recession, and it appears that consumers unfortunately agree…only one in four (26.2%) are confident/very confident in chances for a strong economy in February, a five year low. What difference a year – and a sinking housing market, credit collapse, and record prices at the pump - makes…back in February 2007, twice as many consumers (53.2%) held high hopes for the future of our economy…

Consumers envision a rocky road ahead for the employment outlook…the majority (50.4%) contend there will be “more” layoffs in the next six months, up from 41.5% in January and the highest reading since March ’03 (50.4%)…

With pump prices rising from $2.227/gal one year ago to today’s average $2.972/gal (source: AAA)…driver’s budgets are increasingly strained by additional fuel expenditures. While two in five (40.5%) are attempting to cope by simply driving less, more than a third say pump pressures have led them to reduce dining out (35.3%) and decrease vacation/travel (33.6%). Additionally, 29.8% are spending less on clothing while 22.4% are delaying a major purchase, such as a car or furniture…

[D]rivers are easing up on their pricing predictions come St. Patrick’s Day…while half (49.9%) contend that pump prices will rise through March 17 (compared to the 69.8% who predicted “more” at Valentine’s Day), 44.2% assert they’ll remain the same, while 5.8% call for a decline. Consumers are predicting an average pump price of $3.11/gal at St. Patty’s, $0.16 lower than the $3.27 forecasted for Valentine’s Day.

At the end of January, the Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index, based on a representative sample of 5,000, declined to 87.9 (1985=100), with the Board’s Research Center head, Lynne Franco, saying:

“Looking ahead, consumers are quite downbeat about the short-term future and a greater proportion expect business conditions and employment to deteriorate further in the months ahead. In addition, the percentage of consumers anticipating an improvement in their earnings has declined and could potentially impact spending decisions.”

On Friday Reuters/University of Michigan’s revealed that their Consumer Confidence index declined from 78.4 to 69.6 in a month, hitting a 15-year low. “Industry activity in New York state had dropped for the fourth consecutive month [in January] to its lowest level since 2003,” the Financial Times notes of the Empire State Manufacturing Index’s results.

It’s not a done deal, though — the US can still avoid recession, says the UK’s Investors’ Chronicle: industrial production overall rose 0.1% and retail revenues rose 0.3% in January (but, as they note, “some of this rise reflects higher prices rather than real growth”), but the truth of the matter is, at the end of the day, this is subjectively irrelevant for many Americans. Knowing that the economy “isn’t in a recession” doesn’t make one feel the resounding “yes” to the internal question, “Food is on the table now, will it be on the table next month?”

Bush’s economic stimulus, for many people, is too little too late. The rebate checks in the mail will simply be deposited into bank accounts, comprising one more credit card payment, a mortgage payment, maybe a down payment on something to create more debt. The knowledge of this doesn’t make confidence in one’s medium-to-long term financial future come back. People simply aren’t as confident in the economy anymore, even on the most micro- of levels, with the number of people afraid to be laid off rising.

Someone has to give America its hope and security back — the type of security that can’t be procured with any amount of guns or defense spending.