home

Obama Courts Jewish Vote in Florida

Obama sought to reassure Florida's Jewish community he is pro-Israel today. Here's what he had to say in response to a question about Rashid Khalidi.

“You mentioned Rashid Khalidi, who’s a professor at Columbia," Obama said. "I do know him because I taught at the University of Chicago. And he is Palestinian. And I do know him and I have had conversations. He is not one of my advisors; he’s not one of my foreign policy people. His kids went to the Lab school where my kids go as well. He is a respected scholar, although he vehemently disagrees with a lot of Israel’s policy.”

....“To pluck out one person who I know and who I’ve had a conversation with who has very different views than 900 of my friends and then to suggest that somehow that shows that maybe I’m not sufficiently pro-Israel, I think, is a very problematic stand to take," he said. "So we gotta be careful about guilt by association.”

He apparently didn't mention Khalidi hosted a fundraiser for him when he ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 2000, or or that he attended a testimonial dinner for Khalidi and praised him when Khalidi left Chicago to chair Columbia's Middle Eastern Studies Department, or that while he served on the board of the Woods Fund, it voted to grant $40,000.00 to the Arab American Network, an organization headed by Khalidi's wife. From the LA Times: [More...]

It was a celebration of Palestinian culture -- a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.

A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."

On the fundraiser:

....In 2000, the Khalidis held a fundraiser for Obama's unsuccessful congressional bid. The next year, a social service group whose board was headed by Mona Khalidi received a $40,000 grant from a local charity, the Woods Fund of Chicago, when Obama served on the fund's board of directors.

Khalidi's praise for Obama:

At Khalidi's going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. "You will not have a better senator under any circumstances," Khalidi said.

The import:

Today, five years later, Obama is a U.S. senator from Illinois who expresses a firmly pro-Israel view of Middle East politics, pleasing many of the Jewish leaders and advocates for Israel whom he is courting in his presidential campaign. The dinner conversations he had envisioned with his Palestinian American friend have ended. He and Khalidi have seen each other only fleetingly in recent years.

And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.

Why the Palestinians like Obama:

At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."

One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."

Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground. But his presence at such events, as he worked to build a political base in Chicago, has led some Palestinian leaders to believe that he might deal differently with the Middle East than either of his opponents for the White House.

Here's Khalidi on the Charlie Rose Show, May 12, 2004 (available on Lexis.com):

KHALIDI: Palestinians and the Israelis are going to continue to live in a situation of what I would call worse than apartheid. There`s one state and one sovereignty between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. There`s one state and one sovereignty that controls everything to do with security, and the Palestinians live in open-air prison camps, reservations, call them what you will, tiny little dots, splotches in a swath of Israeli control of most of the West Bank.

CHARLIE ROSE: What might change that prognosis?

RASHID KHALIDI: The Israeli people could change it, and the United States could change its policy back. That, and the Palestinians getting -- and finally, the Palestinians and the Arabs getting their act together.

(emphasis supplied)

Here's Khalidi in 2001, speaking at an Open Tent meeting on six prerequisties for peace in the Middle East (Rashid Khalidi Outlines Peace Prerequisites at Open Tent Plenary, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs July 31, 2001, available on Lexis.com):

The third prerequisite, Khalidi said, is Israel's acceptance of the pre-1967 Green Line.

"If we proceed that far," he continued, "the fourth prerequisite is a reversal of settlements, which have led to the settlers-only bypass roads, apartheid, racist zoning and violence." (emphasis supplied.)

Fifth is to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of both states. Sixth, according to Khalidi, is the right of return, compensation and acknowledgment by Israel of its responsibility to refugees it drove from Palestine. "It is outrageous that Israel ignores U.N. Resolution 194 and says the 300,000 Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon cannot return," he asserted, "while any Jew in the world can go to Israel.

....When asked how other world powers could help the Palestinians, Dr. Khalidi commented: "I don't foresee an apocalypse, but there must be intervention to halt the apartheid. This downward spiral is dangerous for the Palestinians. What Washington doesn't see is the fury of the people in Arab countries. What is being done to the Palestinians is hidden in the U.S. but not in Arab states. The people are going to react and boycott U.S. products. (emphasis supplied)

When asked whether he called Israel's policies racist or compared them to apartheid, according to the New York Times, Khalidi responded (NY Times, February 28, 2005, available on Lexis.com):

The New York Sun has reported that Professor Khalidi has called Israel a ''racist'' state with an ''apartheid system,'' and has endorsed the killing of Israeli soldiers as legitimate ''resistance'' to occupation.

TRUE? ''I may have used the word 'racist' about Israeli policies,'' Professor Khalidi said in interviews Friday and yesterday. ''In a speech I talked about the system of control of Palestinians, where they cannot move, and I said if that system is maintained, it would develop into worse than the apartheid system.''

This is not to take a position on the policies and problems of Israel and Palestine -- that's far beyond my expertise. It's to point out that Obama is going after the Jewish vote by stressing his unwavering support for Israel while minimizing his ties to the very pro-Palestinean Khalidi.

Today Obama said he knows Khalidi because he taught at the University of Chicago, he's had a conversation with Khalidi and their kids attended the same school program. He doesn't mention the fundraiser Khalidi held for him at Khalidi's home or his warm testimonial remarks about their dinners together at Khalidi's home, or his voting to fund money to an organization headed by Khalidi's wife.

His minimization of his association with Khalidi is something I think pro-Israel Jewish voters should consider in deciding whether his pitch for their vote is sincere and truthful.

My prior posts on Obama and Khalidi are here.

< The Malign Acceptance of Sexism: UK's New Statesman Notices | Contempt For The Voters And Their Votes >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    How can anyone trust (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by lisadawn82 on Thu May 22, 2008 at 11:59:07 PM EST
    whatever promises he makes with his past behavior?

    ... and Hillary hasn't mislead in the past? (none / 0) (#124)
    by ctrenta on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:47:36 AM EST

    Not to pick on Hillary... but the majority of Washington politicians mislead us one way or another. Was there ever a time when they didn't?

    [ Parent ]

    But that is not the point, (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by bslev22 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:03:37 AM EST
    particularly when Senator Obama is stressing a new direction in politics.  He cannot have it both ways, i.e., he can not be a traditional politician (just like Hillary for the sake of addressing your argument), and at the same time claim that he is something different.  That dog don't hunt.

    [ Parent ]
    I understand your point.... (none / 0) (#166)
    by ctrenta on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:54:41 AM EST

    ... but Hillary doesn't get away with it either. She's contradicted herself many times.

    How soon we forget!

    Point is, they're BOTH guilty of it.

    [ Parent ]

    Plenty of room under the bus! (5.00 / 9) (#2)
    by lambertstrether on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:02:27 AM EST
    But let's look on the bright side! We're not going to have to hear about the grandmothers again!

    you think? i passed the city bus barn (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by hellothere on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:11:38 AM EST
    the other day and started laughing about obama and the unfortunate groups under the bus.

    [ Parent ]
    There's a parade float (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:27:32 AM EST
    Here somewhere.

    [ Parent ]
    or a great theme party (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by boredmpa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:46:00 AM EST
    not that i could find 10 anti-obama folks in SF

    [ Parent ]
    Hey (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:54:49 AM EST
    For all I know there's an open bar underneath the bus.


    [ Parent ]
    The New York Times has an article (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:03:55 AM EST
    by Jodi Kantor on Obama's efforts to reassure Jewish voters in FL.  

    saw it and it left out (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:14:56 AM EST
    Obama's response about Khalidi. It made it seem like the person who asked the question was booed and he didn't bother to answer. It took quite a few articles to find what Obama said in response. That's the point of this post.

    [ Parent ]
    Ah. (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:16:40 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Here is the Kantor article. (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:35:22 AM EST
    It consists of interviews before today's events in FL.

    NYT

    Kantor doesn't delve into Obama's Chicago background re Palestinian causes.

    [ Parent ]

    They should have interviewed some of my neighbors (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by Mark Woods on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:32:31 AM EST
    in Miami Beach -- are they angry and ready to vote for McCain if Clinton isn't on the ticket?  Yes!!!

    Are they angry and ready to dump the Democratic Party if our votes are scrapped again? Yes!!!

    Perhaps an Obama debacle will ultimately serve to cleanse the party of Dean/Brazile/Kennedy/Kerry/Pelosi-types, once they crash and burn and give the Republicans the Ge . . .

    [ Parent ]

    cindyfor congress,org to throw out Pelosi (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by suzieg on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:17:10 AM EST
    Let's support her and donate to her campaign so she can at least give Pelosi a good fight and embarrass her!

    [ Parent ]
    You should meet some of my neighbors (none / 0) (#141)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:39:40 AM EST
    You should come to Detroit here and talk to some of my neighbors that say that if Obama's victory is taken away from him, they will not vote.  Now, as a progressive I defend the Democratic party and try to assure them that a democrat, regardless of who, is the best and only option if we want our civil rights to be protected again.  Do you do the same?

    [ Parent ]
    His vote? (none / 0) (#145)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:46:16 AM EST
    People did not vote for him, they voted uncommitted.  Let those delegates stay uncommitted till roll call.   They will have their turn.

    [ Parent ]
    Yet, it was the only section of the (none / 0) (#23)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:18:50 AM EST
    appearance that FOX News broadcast today :)

    [ Parent ]
    barack, the cherry picker, obama cannot be (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:04:16 AM EST
    trusted...if only there was one person he is associated with that is the problem....the list is quite long and doesn't even include some surprises we may be privvy to in the near future.
    There is NO good reason for the Jewish community to trust obama.  Good for them that they will hold him accountable and he has to prove himself before they will even consider throwing a vote his way.

    please (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:17:22 AM EST
    don't race-bait or call Obama names like "liar." You can make your point without doing either. (Sorry, but I just deleted two of your comments.)

    [ Parent ]
    But Jeralyn (5.00 / 12) (#33)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:26:36 AM EST
    what's the word for it when somebody says they only had "a conversation" with somebody they've been socializing and dining with for years?  Or says he only did 4 or five hours of legal work for Rezko, or that Wright is "just the pastor of the church I attend"?

    There's a pretty unmistakable pattern that's developed here, and nobody would call it truth-telling.

    I have no problem with his being pals with this guy, my problem is that he denies the relationships ever existed.  Why won't he ever defend these things?  Instead, he denies them in the face of the fact that the truth is otherwise.

    I don't know what that's called other than the word you won't allow us to use.  It's extremely troubling.

    [ Parent ]

    disingenuous (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by angie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:31:26 AM EST
    is the "polite" way to call someone a liar.

    [ Parent ]
    Try obfuscate. (none / 0) (#143)
    by Molly Pitcher on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:42:18 AM EST
    Lots of people could not object till they hit the dictionary.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe the (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by mikeyleigh on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:50:51 AM EST
    word mendacious would do.  But, the really sad part of this story is that Obama's past stance on the Palestinian problem is one that I can wholeheartedly support.

    [ Parent ]
    I call it minimizing (none / 0) (#36)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:29:25 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Something tells me that isn't what (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:44:00 AM EST
    you say during closing argument!  

    [ Parent ]
    particularly if I'm talking (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:47:53 AM EST
    about informants, you're right.

    [ Parent ]
    Did you see the recent NYT article (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:49:57 AM EST
    about informants and the economy?  More snitches these days.  I thought of you when I read it.

    [ Parent ]
    Minimize (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:07:40 AM EST
    "Represent or estimate at less than the true value of importance". That's my widget dictionary talking.

    Is disingenuous ok too?

    [ Parent ]

    my issue with that (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by boredmpa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:55:25 AM EST
    is that most people don't understand rhetoric and a lot of rhetorical magic is based on that.  not to mention that the overall context, not just the sentence, is to mislead.

    If the intent is to mislead the audience (and this is a trained/experienced speaker), I personally think it should be called lying.  And I feel like I'm supporting academia and elitism when i don't call a cigar a cigar.

    For example, if the british say "we are surprised to   hear these allegations that rendition flights are going through our country."  And it is later revealed that they new about them, then it's a lie to 90%+ of the populace.  I don't care if it's worded carefully then or when cheney connects al qaeda to iraq, because the intent and the result is to deceive.

    [ Parent ]

    Well. while we're talking of guilt by association (none / 0) (#97)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:22:18 AM EST
    please, watch the anti-intellectual crap.  There certainly are academics who are elistists, but there are others of us from the working class and teaching the working class students at commuter campuses.  We suffer from the elitists, too.

    Simplistic thinking, sweeping generalizations -- whether his on the working class or yours on academia -- are neither correct nor constructive.   And they always say more about the dismissive attitude of the speaker than about those so summarily dismissed.

    [ Parent ]

    i don't think i was being anti-intellectual (none / 0) (#102)
    by boredmpa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:07:35 AM EST
    in my mind, requiring nuanced discourse on something as basic as "what is a lie" on a political blog connotes either an academic, graduate+, or elitist restriction.  

    I'm not judging anyone, I'm just saying that not accepting the vernacular rubs me the wrong way.  Then again, it's a liberal politics blog, it's a left blog, and it's a law/crime related blog.  It certainly fits the legal aspects.

     

    [ Parent ]

    This rule just gives the liars power (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by diplomatic on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:30:36 AM EST
    Liars should be confronted and exposed.  But there are other blogs for that.  I will respect the site rules.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Alec82 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:36:12 AM EST
    ...and that is why no honest person can become president.  

    [ Parent ]
    Honesty is overrated anyway (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:42:35 AM EST
    It's not a pre-requisite really for doing a good job.

    It's also not necessarily something you want to say is a good thing either.

    It's just if the Iraq war was successful, no one but the anti-war idealogues would have cared that Bush lied to get us into it.

    But now it's also more complex than that even, how one lies about something can reveal how they think about something, the attitude they have towards something, so it's also worth pointing out that Bush's lies are a manifestation of just more incompetence.

    But the fact remains, if you're successful, no one's going to care how you got there.

    I'm nothing if not consistent on this issue, if we wake up 8 years from now and Obama has a 65% job approval rating, no one's going to care if he's a liar.

    Really the issue is, can you lie and do a good job, and to the extent one can (IF one can), lying just isn't that big of an issue for me.


    [ Parent ]

    Do what you must, I don't think the comments (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:37:00 AM EST
    were bad, but I respect your decision.

    [ Parent ]
    This is another instance of his believe what I say (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by Serene1 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:06:23 AM EST
    not what I do.

    Either Obama is a politician who will say or do anything to win - in this case hunting with the hounds and running with the hares - or he is deceiving someone purposely either the palestinian supporters who believe he is on their side or the jewish supporters to him he now says as many pro israel statement as possible.
    Didn't his campaign to a similar thing with Nafta also saying all the right things to the local crowd but winking furiously at the candaians on the side.

    Similarly, Obama described (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by oculus on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:09:21 AM EST
    his relationship with Rezko as much more distant than it really was.

    [ Parent ]
    I saw the exchange on TV (5.00 / 12) (#7)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:08:36 AM EST
    Obama did not answer the man's question. He wanted to know if Obama had any similarly close relationships with Jewish leaders. Obama mentioned he had Jewish people on his finance committee, and other casual acquaintences.

    It isn't uncommon to mistrust a person who will not answer simple questions. It begs the question why they can't just answer. Instead, he lectured the crowd on how they were allowed to think about who his close associates are.

    Heavens to Betsy! (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by angie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:14:12 AM EST
    Obama lecturing people on how they should think?!?! Say it isn't so!

    [ Parent ]
    Obama lecture us? (none / 0) (#173)
    by americanincanada on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:12:03 AM EST
    Perish the thought. Except that's what he'll be doing today...when he lectures of and the Cuban community in Miami when Obama delivers his Major Latin America Foreign Policy Address. According to Mark Halperin at The Page.

    I wonder how many speeches this guy can make before people start to tune him out.

    I am from Florida and still vote there absentee and keep very abreast of politics there because of that and family/friends.

    Good luck in Miami, Obama. You're going to need it.

    [ Parent ]

    Is it wrong that (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by LatinoVoter on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:08:29 AM EST
    I'm laughing 'cause Obama just perpetuated a stereotype of Jewish folks and probably doesn't realize it?

    [ Parent ]
    Well as we say in English English (4.85 / 7) (#111)
    by Hope on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:45:32 AM EST
    "I'll take that as a no then".

    Obama needs to come clean about his ideological roots.

    His intellectual roots are Marxist, through to Communist, Post Colonialism, Post Modernism etc (though interestingly he doesn't seem to give a flying f*** about Feminism).

    For those who don't have an Arts education, Material Marxism examines history as a war between the classes. Thus Feminism for example (with a capital F) sees history as a war between genders viz men and women.

    All of his associations, mentors etc are Marxists or people who espouse post Marxist ideologies (Said invented one; though Said was a very great man and does not deserve to be thrown amongst the riff raff Obama leaves him to).

    I wouldn't have a problem with that as long as he had left it behind. His mentors, Wright; Frank see race relations as a war between the races (it says it on the tin; Black Liberation Theology is based on Material Marxism) Has Obama left this behind? We don't know, he won't answer questions on it; they are "distractions".

    Many of Blair's ministers started life as Trots; I have a good political friend who trained as a Trot, he says it's the best political guerilla fighting training you can have.

    But you have to leave it behind. Otherwise you are not a mainstream politician. If the US wishes to elect someone like that, then fine; but they need to know the truth.

    The other thing about Obama I cannot abide is his moral equivalence.. Every time he is called on truly awful behaviour, eg Ayers; he draws an obnoxious equivalence with a US Senator or Congressman. He said Ayers was like the Repub Senator who advocated the death penalty.

    1. Ayers has, by his own admission committed terrorist crimes against America; the US Senator has just advocated a law Obama disagrees with. One is a confessed and a non-repentant criminal; the other is a US Senator who disagrees with Obama. Cherchez l'erreur.

    2. Why does Obama constantly equate US Senators and Congress people who disagree with him with criminals or people who advocate criminal behaviour?


    [ Parent ]
    transformational change... (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 23, 2008 at 06:28:44 AM EST
    this is why I think that Obama's whole "transformational change" thing is going to backfire on him.  People are going to want to know what that means, and they know that politicians will say what they want to hear to get elected, so they look at the background and record.

    And when Obama is dishonest about his past, as he is with his description of his relationship with people like Khalidi, Ayres and Wright, it reinforces the distrust.

    [ Parent ]

    Odd (none / 0) (#175)
    by Virginian on Fri May 23, 2008 at 10:39:10 AM EST
    All of his associations, mentors etc are Marxists or people who espouse post Marxist ideologies...I wouldn't have a problem with that as long as he had left it behind...Has Obama left this behind? We don't know, he won't answer questions on it; they are "distractions".

    I find Obama to be a tough pill to swallow as a Democrat...but intellectually...I am a philosopher by training...your position that Obama intellectually agrees with Marxism, is not at all troubling in the lease...after all, if you study Marx, I think you'll find that Marx was right most of the time...and more to your point about historical materialism...Marx was spot on

    [ Parent ]

    I did not say (none / 0) (#177)
    by Hope on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:41:47 AM EST
    that Obama agrees with this. I said it was the intellectual base of his mentors associates etc (even Michelle's thesis is based on Material Marxist assumptions.

    The problem is that he won't say whether he agrees or not.

    Much of what he says is straight out the play book; the false consciousness of the proles who vote against their interests etc, surely the question is germaine to how people might vote? If Post Colonialism is so brilliant, why won't he stand up and defend it?

    I've had training from Feminists, the history department of my university was founded by a famous Marxist historian; I have worked for actual Communists and I could tell you in 5 minutes that I don't agree with them and why.

    If you agree with Material Marxism/ Post Colonialism, then you agree that all of history should be seen as class war; and more to the point that all of white people's interaction with black people is exploitative?

    Don't we ever interact with each other simply as human beings?

    [ Parent ]

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#180)
    by Virginian on Fri May 23, 2008 at 11:53:02 PM EST
    If you agree with Material Marxism/ Post Colonialism, then you agree that all of history should be seen as class war;
    In a capitalistic society...it is...I think this is beyond debate

    and more to the point that all of white people's interaction with black people is exploitative?
    a bit of historical exegesis is needed in regards to this statement in regards to Marx...but however, I think historically that is probably a true statement...and is still true on the societal level...see Africa for reference

    Don't we ever interact with each other simply as human beings?
    read Foucault  on his ideas of post-monarch power...of course we interact with one another as humans (even Marx agrees with that) but the interactions...all interactions are those related to power...so the real question is can individuals relate to one another as true equals (a true equal balance of power)...the answer is no, individuals cannot...

    [ Parent ]
    So you are a Material Marxist then (none / 0) (#182)
    by Hope on Sat May 24, 2008 at 05:13:01 AM EST
    Well and good

    I totally disagree, as human beings we have free will, your view is determinist. According to you ALL my dealings with men oppress me. Which is ridiculous.

    These things are of course reasons why things have happened as they have, but there are many others.

    A story on this. In my university during my studies on Renoir, a Feminist tutor vituperated over a painting where a mother was breast feeding her son. The Feminist was scandalised by the fact that Renoir's brush strokes supposedly showed he sexually desired the model. This was used to allege that he was oppressing her.

    In actual fact (and Renoir's grandson, who lives in California by the way, confirmed that I was right), the model was Renoir's wife and the baby was his son.

    I have yet to receive a rational explanation as to why it should be scandalous for a man to desire his own wife. And frankly by the expression of Mme Renoir, she was enjoying every second.

    By the way the Renoirs were an activist's wet dream, as Mme Renoir contrary to ALL of "polite" society at the time breast fed her own children. She did not "oppress" some poor Morvandelle woman into feeding her children.

    Although I used to live in the Morvan and the very substantial houses which are called "Milk Houses" which wet nurses were able to build with their earnings are still visible today. Yep, wet nurses were so oppressed that they were able to "oppress" themselves into the bourgeoisie. The rest of the Morvan was, and still is rather poor.

    (there was another story using bouquet wrapping paper to "prove" that a woman was being treated as  a prostitute because of the wrapping on the flowers. I kid you not. I was able to debunk the theory by proving with another painting of an ambassador giving flowers with the exact same wrapping to his daughters was not presumably treating them as prostitutes... not to mention that the same wrapping paper is used by Parisian florists to this day. I have often given myself flowers with this wrapping paper, I guess I Looove oppressing myself)

    [ Parent ]

    Actually (none / 0) (#183)
    by Virginian on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:19:50 PM EST
    I am not a "material Marxist" by any means...by and large one of the most influential thinkers to me is Simone de Beauvoir, I've published a number or essays regarding her views on freedom and individualism. With that said, on to your critiques:

    I totally disagree, as human beings we have free will, your view is determinist.
    Marx (nor I by affirming Marx's economic/material theories) believe in determinism, but Marx DOES believe (as do I) that there are circumstances that are largely outside of the control of the individual...anyone who exists in any social environment can experientially affirm this.

    According to you ALL my dealings with men oppress me. Which is ridiculous.
    Not at all what I am suggesting, again...read Foucault...it may be YOU with the upper hand in relationships...there is not such thing as a true, balanced, partnership in which power is truly balanced equally...this however may change moment to moment, day to day, week to week...one moment you may have more power in a relationship, and in the very next instance the other individual may have more power...power is not fixed...of course when I say power, I am not solely referring to power that is physical, or controlling...power is fairly amorphous...

    As for the rest of your reply, I am not all to sure how that is to tie in with our current tangent...oppression does come in many forms, and I am by no means an absolutism...oppression is obviously most visible in the relativistic mind...if you think you are oppressed, then you are oppress...the fact that your professor found the specific objectification of a female body oppressing, while I disagree in context, the mere fact that your professor found it to be so, means that for her it WAS so...arguably Renoir is not the oppressor in this case though, rather your professor may have been oppressing the self...

    the French feminists ironically believed that the body was the language of the feminism...and in an odd twist, Renoir's beautification of the female body was arguably more feminist than not (this however is not an argument for the obscene...it is an argument for the aesthetic).


    [ Parent ]

    Interesting you like de Beauvoir (none / 0) (#184)
    by Hope on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:12:33 AM EST
    That was one unpleasant lady.

    One of the several students she and Sartre effed around with commited suicide. She would be in prison if she were alive today.

    But I see we agree, these theories show a or some reasons, but are not the whole sum of human experience.

    As for my tutor (not a professor I'm glad to say), I think she has a problem, like a lot of these ultra feminists with sex. In that she thinks it's always wrong.

    [ Parent ]

    politicans hit the usual groups saying (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by hellothere on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:13:49 AM EST
    they are the best thing going. of course the voters don't believe them for the most part and neither does the politican. take a good look at their past conduct. that tells you eveything you need to know. save the flowers mr obama, where's the steak.

    Obama used people (5.00 / 12) (#20)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:17:05 AM EST
    to climb to where he is.  Now those people are not convenient.  So, he discards them one by one.  Grandma, Palestinians, Wright, the list keeps growing.  Who and what is Obama, we still don't know.  What is his core?  Not clear.  

    And, as his momentum built, he began (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:31:02 AM EST
    dumping us enmasse. White working class, older, etc. He didn't any of them, so he discarded without a second thought.

    This current standing came to him so easily (all the party leaders helped) that he thinks once he's officially annointed everything will be just fine. He won't feel an obligation to apologize for anything.

    [ Parent ]

    This is one of the problems I have (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Grace on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:45:02 AM EST
    with Obama.  He doesn't seem to have the ability to pick sides.  How is he ever going to make a decision?  His voting "Present" shows that he's unable to decide on things.  

    Do we really need a president who wants to make everyone happy even though it's impossible?  This is why I believe he is an appeaser.  He'll cave in on issues just to not upset anyone.  

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by Steve M on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:18:14 AM EST
    It's just sad the way you're not allowed to appear even the slightest-bit evenhanded on Israeli-Palestinian issues. And I say this as a Jew.

    I will be even more sad if McCain manages to pick off a significant portion of the Jewish vote in this election.  It shouldn't be that way.

    Being Even Handed Would Be A Good Thing IMO (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:46:11 AM EST
    The problem lies in the fact that he continually distorts his associations with people even when there is ample proof that what he is saying is not factual. His association with Rashid Khalidi was much more extensive than how he is portraying it.  He has done this with Rezko, Ayers and Khalidi. This provides the Republicans with more ammunition to paint Obama as someone who cannot be believed and instill doubts about who he really is and what his positions really are. If they are able to paint him as unbelievable, then they can successfully form a negative picture of him in the eyes of voters. IMO Obama keeps opening the door for them to be able to do this.

    [ Parent ]
    i agree (none / 0) (#150)
    by dws3665 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:16:55 AM EST
    But to me this is about more than his supposed desire to be even-handed.

    It's a thorny issue, but it shouldn't have to involve such transparent ... oh, what did we decide to call it? Mini-varic-fuscation?

    [ Parent ]

    Did Obama just insult people's intelligence again? (5.00 / 9) (#24)
    by diplomatic on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:19:29 AM EST
    Oh, yes he did!  In related news, I found me an orange from an orange tree.

    Please let's discuss (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:23:39 AM EST
    Obama's reach out to the Jewish community without calling him names or engaging in personal attacks. The issue I'm raising is his credibility -- I'm not calling him a liar or mocking him and reader's shouldn't do that either.

    Aren't Jewish voters looking for (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by MarkL on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:25:34 AM EST
    specifics, more than knowledge of associations?
    Where does he stand on settlements, what kind of two-state solution does he support, if any.


    [ Parent ]
    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Steve M on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:47:40 AM EST
    I had a chat with a very right-wing Jewish colleague the other day about some of these issues.  What I got from the conversation is that no, for most Jews, it really is about associations!

    Also, conservative law professor David Bernstein had an interesting post the other day about the Jewish vote.  By my reading, he also seemed to think it mainly has to do with associations.

    So while I happen to think we Jews are savvy voters by and large, that doesn't mean that we necessarily wonk it out when the topic is Jewish issues and Israel.

    [ Parent ]

    "Low information voters" (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Hope on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:53:48 AM EST
    had no problem calling Bill a liar when he said "It depends what the definition of "is" is". And quite rightly too.

    Obama is one smooth operator. He knows exactly what he's doing.

    Remember; he's a lawyer. He's trained to present a certain version of the truth.

    (as you all know here :) )

    [ Parent ]

    When people lie, they are liars who are lying (1.00 / 0) (#35)
    by diplomatic on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:28:29 AM EST
    Jeralyn, it is not the worst thing in the world.  I have never understood your rule on this.  Doesn't seem to foster a reality-based environment.

    [ Parent ]
    it's the name-calling (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:31:06 AM EST
    you can say you don't believe him, he's being disingenous, less than truthful, etc. Calling him a "liar" is name-calling and a personal attack on his character.

    Sorry, that's how I see it.

    [ Parent ]

    Allrighty (none / 0) (#42)
    by diplomatic on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:32:08 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    My guess (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:33:20 AM EST
    It's a legal thing.

    To prove someone is lying you have to prove the person lying knows they lied.


    [ Parent ]

    I understand where you're coming from (none / 0) (#74)
    by Just another person on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:39:05 AM EST
    but it seems to me that you're suggesting that Obama  doesn't know the extent of his relationship with Khalidi.

    [ Parent ]
    what's in a name? (none / 0) (#151)
    by dws3665 on Fri May 23, 2008 at 08:20:55 AM EST
    I would venture to say that we have all lied at one time or another. Does that make us all liars?

    I would think not, and I think that's Jeralyn's point.

    [ Parent ]

    Overnight open thread coming (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:26:23 AM EST
    you readers are intent on having fun tonight and I don't want to stop you, so I'll put up an open thread where you can all have your say on your own topics.

    open thread (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:32:11 AM EST
    is here for those of you who want more self-expression and less deletion of your quips and jokes.

    [ Parent ]
    There is a lot in the NYTimes piece that (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by zyx on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:26:25 AM EST
    ran recently about Khalidi.  The one entitled "Pragmatic Politics, Forged on the South Side", date May 11.

    "For years, the Obamas had been regular dinner guests at the Hyde Park home of Rashid Khalidi, a Middle East scholar at the University of Chicago and an adviser to the Palestinian delegation to the 1990s peace talks. Mr. Khalidi said the talk would often turn to the Middle East, and he talked with Mr. Obama about issues like living conditions in the occupied territories. In 2000, the Khalidis held a fund-raiser for Mr. Obama during his Congressional campaign. Both Mr. Khalidi and Mr. Abunimah, of the Electronic Intifada, said Mr. Obama had spoken at the fund-raiser and had called for the United States to adopt a more "evenhanded approach" to the Palestinian-Israel conflict.

    Still, Mr. Khalidi said ascertaining Mr. Obama's precise position was often difficult. "You may come away thinking, `Wow, he agrees with me,' " he said. "But later, when you get home and think about it, you are not sure."" (and there is more, later)

    You know, a lot of people in Florida probably read the NYTimes...

    Very hard (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:31:42 AM EST
    to look at the contradictions particularly now in his efforts to court the various constituencies and not see the glaring character implications.

    A new open thread is (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:37:21 AM EST
    A pattern of Obama's (5.00 / 7) (#58)
    by Foxx on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:50:27 AM EST
    He just bald faced says things that are not true, that are contradicted by the evidence, that are the opposite of what he said at another time. It is blatant and shameless. And the press doesn't call him on it.

    This really (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by Grace on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:51:14 AM EST
    slays me.  The issue about Obama saying he would sit down with foreign leaders "without preconditions" -- that's exactly what he said.  He said it in a debate.  It's not like you could misinterpret what he said because it wasn't surrounded by a lot of other words and sentences.  He was quite clear that he wants to sit down with leaders of countries we don't get along with "without preconditions."  

    He only started flopping in the wind when McCain and Clinton pointed out how naive he is.  

    Now he clings to the "without preconditions" but has added "with preparations" -- but his preparations sound a heck of a lot like preconditions.  

    I just typed this and I honestly can't believe intelligent people are voting for him.  Are they book smart only?  Don't they have any common sense?  Have they taken any logic classes?  It's just mind-boggling.  

    [ Parent ]

    His problem is naivete more than credibility (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by catfish on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:51:26 AM EST
    He does not seem to sense danger (as in danger to one's own career) until it is too close. As with Wright - how did he not call up Wright and say look, I need a huge favor, for you to keep quiet and if you do you'll be rewarded big time.

    So with Khalidi, who at first seems OK but delves into some extremist language, does Obama not listen very well? He's a little like Reagan this way - like he's day dreaming a lot of the time. Nancy was "the heavy" in that relationship, as Michelle is in this one.

    - armchair shrink analysis.

    But unlike Reagan (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by catfish on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:52:55 AM EST
    who had put in a lot of time with the Republican party, he wanted to move the party in a certain direction, what is Obama's objective?

    [ Parent ]
    This is more (5.00 / 6) (#61)
    by facta non verba on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:53:08 AM EST
    of wanting to be all things to all people. He's a farce. Obama has no convictions of his own. It's what's good for Obama is good for the country. That's his MO.

    The New York Times has an article on his outreach to Jewish vote. Obama Courts FLA Jewish Voters

    and here's an interview of Ed Koch who like Ferraro may not vote for Obama:
    Ed Koch Interview

    Feel free to drop jaw here: (5.00 / 11) (#62)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri May 23, 2008 at 12:54:50 AM EST
    This item from Jeralyn's ABC news source got my attention: "Obama said that members of the U.S. Congress have expressed anti-black sentiments but they are still his friends and it doesn't mean that he avoids dealing with them".

    So Obama says he has racist friends in Congress. Did anybody think to ask, well, do tell, like who, and how are they racist? Surely, he wasn't thinking about poor Senator Byrd.

    That takes the cake. Obama lays claim to racist friends in order to assure Jewish voters that he doesn't share the views of his anti-Israel friends. How "bone-headed" is that?

    One wonders whether Obama has any friends who aren't, in some way, a political liability.

    Ahhh (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:01:00 AM EST
    this is the exact stuff that gets me about the "transcended" and "tranformative" candidacy.  First it's not honest  to say that we are post racial, then it's not honest to constantly use race, culture etc to legitimize his candidacy.  

    [ Parent ]
    People are always so impressed hearing 2nd hand... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Ellie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:54:55 AM EST
    ... that someone lofty, evolved and jam-packed with sincere sincerity like Obama is friends even with those who are beneath him.

    Isn't it flingin' flangin' special of him to consort with lesser mortals that he can, you know, USE POLITICALLY IN SOME WAY?

    Phew, good thing they're too dumb to access his public statements, existing in blissful ignorance of what's behind Obama's largesse in shining his special attention upon their undeserving heads.

    Otherwise, discovering Obama's true motives might make them
    (a) righteously peeved
    (b) prepared to resist being cast off the bus
    (c) inclined to retaliate in some way.

    Add this to the huge cache of yet more unexploded General Election Ordnance dispersed by Obama himself.

    Former allies he's used as stepping stones on his hasty ascendency to fly close to the sun need only to take a shot, from a distance, at an unexploded bomblet for it to go up and they won't get a speck on themselves.

    And people wonder why he has to spend 2, 3 and 4:1 in damage control advertising just to tread in place.

    [ Parent ]

    What a strange statement (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by Steve M on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:06:37 AM EST
    I'm Jewish, and I don't have any anti-semitic friends.  Is that weird of me?

    One wonders who these people are, these Congressional dinosaurs who apparently just can't resist cracking racist jokes in Sen. Obama's presence.

    [ Parent ]

    SteveM, for what it's worth, (none / 0) (#70)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:29:40 AM EST
    I also don't have any "friends" who are anti-semitic, or misogynist, or racist, or ageist, or classist.

    I've worked with some people ('creative-class') who were some, or all, of those things. But, I kept my distance in the work place and I wouldn't be caught dead associating with any of them in any sort of voluntary capacity. Why would anybody choose to do otherwise?

    [ Parent ]

    I'm a sinner + distinguish btwn actions and being (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Ellie on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:01:45 AM EST
    I don't understand this climate of public denunciation. The Conformist Class protests too much and riotously point accusatory fingers now that they are "innoculated" from charges of bigotry by having a new Black BFF.

    (I was just watching the late night rerun of The Daily Show. Jon "Hitler, therefore You're All Racists" Stewart did another weak bit reliant on HRC supporters being racists because they support the white lady and not Obama. The punchline is that Jon Stewart is Jewish and, in closing, Hitler.)

    All I'd ever cop to is my own behavior. If someone I knew was called out I'd more likely implore them to do the same and would stand by them as they made amends. I'm more bothered by hasty denunciations; it's just more evil to "discard" people.

    I wouldn't smack on an *ist label unless someone routinely went to an *ism and consciously ignored calls to make amends, esp. if there was malice involved. This 900 degrees of separation measurement is ridiculous.

    (TMI: I volunteer offline with multi-cultural and multi-faith groups to get local resources for peoople in need. Everyday, the people who routinely get charged the MOST of being *ist are ... yep ... the volunteers. There are too few resources for too many people in need and this is down to tooth and claw. Being called a name in a frustrating situation sucks but the suffering isn't even in the same stratosphere of sleeping on the street or living in terror of domestic violence.

    In Passing: And add this to the dozens of reasons I pathologically detest the Bush/Cheney admins. Apart from the offloading of tax burdens from their cuts for the wealthy, cheeseball "govt shrinking" creative Repug accounting to, eg, use local security for campaign expenses have bled local coffers of money available for "social" use.)

    [ Parent ]

    I hear ya Ellie, in the work place (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat May 24, 2008 at 04:15:04 AM EST
    we don't get to choose our associates, but even there we can still choose our friends, without being unkind to anybody.

    When my time is my own, I have the privilege of spending it with open-minded people of my choice who I call family and friends.

    [ Parent ]

    see my post above (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Hope on Fri May 23, 2008 at 04:57:59 AM EST
    According to Obama the US Senate and Congress is jam-packed with racists and other unpleasant people. Nice isn't it? One wonders how he can stomach walking into such an awful place.

    [ Parent ]
    Problem is, when you hear him say it, (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 23, 2008 at 01:48:01 AM EST
    he talks in slow short sentences with long pauses in between and tons of "uh" fillers. It gives the perception he's searching hard and fast for everything he can think of to cover his butt.

    Look at how the thoughts come from a dozen different directions. And, every time he starts to speak using "well, look" or "look, look, look" he is going to be condescending and instructional on why the audience, or person is wrong and he is the victim of their wrongness.


    And look at "guilt by association" -- (5.00 / 12) (#96)
    by Cream City on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:14:55 AM EST
    that is classic Obamaspeek.  The problem is not him.  The problem is those who say things about him.  

    It is a weasely tactic over and over with him.  I simply can't contemplate listening to four or more years of it.  Bleccch.

    [ Parent ]

    amateur hour (5.00 / 5) (#129)
    by Kathy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:07:02 AM EST
    This kind of stuff is so easy to check, and galvanizes people when they know they have been lied to.  They don't just feel angry, they feel betrayed, an emotion that lasts a heck of a lot longer.

    Rezko, Ayers, Wright, this guy...how many more bad associations does Obama have lurking in the wings?  Rezko was, "that man," or similar, too, and then we find he was Obama's IL senate campaign finance director.  Same with Ayers, and he worked for the guy on that foundation.  And now another instance where Obama sat in an audience listening to toxic hate (this time in the form of a poem) and did nothing.

    The house of cards is looking mighty wobbly. Thank God Clinton is still in it to win.  Rise, Hillary, Rise!

    ps: wtf is going on with U of Chicago and all these leftist loons?

    [ Parent ]

    Chicago School (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by magisterludi on Fri May 23, 2008 at 07:23:24 AM EST
    This is what turned me off to Obama.

    Home to Milton Friedman, the man who inspired Ronald Reagan. His ghost still commands a great presence there. Ask Austan Goolsbee and George Will (who, btw, is VERY comfortable with Obama's trade policy stance).

    These guys are, for the most part, neo-liberals.Just as scary as the neocons.

    [ Parent ]

    You got that right ... (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Inky on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:27:46 AM EST
    And of course, Milton Friedman's son, David Friedman, is a supporter of Obama for just the reasons you mentioned.

    Perhaps I am too optimistic about Obama, but I do not think he is going to turn out to be an orthodox liberal. There is a group of intellectuals connected with the University of Chicago who have accepted a good deal of the Chicago school analysis but still want to think of themselves as leftists. They are, as I see it, trying to construct a new version of what "left" means. Examples would be Cass Sunstein and Austan Goolsby, both at Chicago, and Larry Lessig, who used to be there.

    Sunstein describes himself as a libertarian paternalist, meaning that he wants to take advantage of elements of irrationality in individual decision making to nudge people into making what he considers the right decisions, while leaving them free not to if they so wish. Goolsby, judging by webbed pieces of his I've read, is a pro-market economist who happens to be a Democrat, rather like Alfred Kahn, who gave us airline dereguation under Carter. He is also Obama's economic advisor. I do not agree with all his views--for details of one disagreement see an earlier post--but I like them better than the views usually supported by Democratic politicians and their advisors.

    http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=3273

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly (none / 0) (#162)
    by talex on Fri May 23, 2008 at 09:34:15 AM EST
    Good observation. I, and I know others, saw what you point out in the very first interviews we saw him in.

    [ Parent ]
    So, once again (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by janarchy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:28:24 AM EST
    Obama claims he hardly knows someone that he used to associate with, gave him large sums of money and helped him out along the way. Convenient how these things keep on cropping up?

    FWIW, his talk in FL was arranged by his supposed good friend Robert Wexler who clearly wants to mollify his constiuents. I'm furious with Wexler for turning into another kool-aid drinking fool who is in the tank for Obama and who blocked any efforts to get the Florida primary mess sorted. Pretty funny considering he was one of the biggest mouthpieces in 2000. I hope the voters are smarter than Wexler's turned out to be and din't buy into Obama's pandering today.

    That's what leapt out at me. (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by rghojai on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:48:36 AM EST
    The first graf of your comment was my reaction... in addition to thinking BO's comments weren't smart. It's so easy for so many people to find that he was, er, inaccurate in his description of the relationship... again.

    Can feel like the 527 ads just about write themselves.

    [ Parent ]

    It just blows my mind (5.00 / 5) (#116)
    by janarchy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 05:10:14 AM EST
    that he keeps pulling the same tricks with all of these people and very few people bother to comment or even care. And that his supporters keep falling for it and just back him up!

    What's so sad is that usually the RNC and FOX have to embellish/distort/make up stories in order to sell them to their followers. This year, they've been able to sit back, kick their heels up and take the high road and just point out the facts. It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

    [ Parent ]

    The man in the white shirt behind obama (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by fly on Fri May 23, 2008 at 02:59:27 AM EST
    was not convinced what so ever..i watched this man the entire time giving looks like..b.s...his brow was creased like he didn't believe one word he was hearing..and he was really showing it with his expressions.

    This was a manufactured joke!

    fly from Fla.

    This whole issue disgusts me (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by Siguy on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:09:57 AM EST
    As an American-Jew, I've found my conversations with fellow Jews about Obama to be hideous and upsetting.

    I say to them, why don't you like him? They say "He's not good on Israel."

    I say, "What does that mean? He's not good on Israel? What has he proposed that you don't like? What do you think he's going to change?"

    And all they say is he had this Palestinian friend five years ago and one of his foreign policy advisors "is bad on Israel."

    That's the phrase I hate. People are talked about as "good on Israel"