Matthew Yglesias (March 25, 2008) - Jews and Obama (Politics)

How come Catholic Americans are 'white ethnics' but not Jewish Americans?

Posted by neil | March 25, 2008 1:34 PM

Yes, exactly.

This is the semi-inverse-image of Obama's support among blacks. I'd guess that an Obama-type candidate with his background, ideology, and campaign focus would normally be losing to Hillary among blacks by about 70 points or so.

But for some totally inexplicable reason, he's doing quite a bit better than that...

Posted by RKU | March 25, 2008 1:36 PM

I'm more interested in seeing how Obama and Clinton match up against McCain among Jewish voters. Not because Clinton has any shot at the nomination, but because she can serve as a baseline.

Other than Florida, are there any swing states where it matters?

Posted by Jim W | March 25, 2008 1:39 PM

I think a big reason for the split in Hillary's favor is that a plurality of American Jews live in New York and she is the Hometown candidate (I bet dollars to donuts, Obama ran much better with Jews living in Illinois). That being said, I am not going to discount the Israeli argument.

I am Jewish but I'm not really plugged into the community like I used to be. But back then, the smallest deviation from the percetion of a pro-Israel stand would get you a lot of grief. I can still remember how much hate there was for the first President Bush because he was accused of selling out Israel in favor of the Arab allies.

So that being said, the fact that Barack's support is up for the debate definitely hurts him with this community. But the effect is going to be fairly minimal. Most of the Jews who prefer Hillary will come home to Obama and the few who would have vote Dem but will now defect to McCain won't register a blip in any state that matters except Florida and I don't think Obama is going to win that state anyway because the number of non-Jewish seniors make it impossible even if he ran on a Likud platform.

Because Jews are concentrated in strong dem states, usually the impact of a dem candidate pissing them off is felt in fundraising not vote totals. Obviously, doubts about Barack's stance on Israel have not undermined his fundraising efforts so there is really no problem here.

Posted by UofAZGrad | March 25, 2008 1:48 PM

Jewish voters are too few to matter; what matters is Jewish money. Which candidate is getting the most Jewish money?

Posted by Harry | March 25, 2008 1:50 PM

I think a big reason for the split in Hillary's favor is that a plurality of American Jews live in New York and she is the Hometown candidate

Hits the nail on the head.

Posted by Bubba | March 25, 2008 1:58 PM

Re "Jewish voters are too few to matter; what matters is Jewish money"
---------------
Not "Jewish Money", really. Most Jews are middle to upper middle class who struggle to pay off their wife's balance at Bloomingdales each month.
"Chosen people" in the sense of being chosen to be a perpetual disappointment to their mother-in-law.

Rather , it's the money of a few billionaires who happen to be Jewish -- and whose egos are bigger than their tiny shlongs.

Posted by Don Williams | March 25, 2008 1:58 PM

Not to be offensive, but according to wikipedia, Jews make up all of 2% of our national population. of those 6 million people, about 2 million live in NYC.

I don't mean to belittle your people or anything, but it's hard to see how they matter a whole lot in terms of electroal politics. 6 million people heavily concentrated in areas where Democrats will almost certainly win, or in states were Democrats will probably lose (like Florida) aren't really all that important. Even if they all voted for McCain, the electoral vote impact would be minimal, if it existed at all.

Posted by soullite | March 25, 2008 2:00 PM

I think the key with any demographic group that we're trying to pull out for significance is to ask how they'd vote in the general.

So, if Jews would vote for McCain or not vote at all, that's a problem. If they prefer Clinton but would still vote for Obama in roughly the same numbers they'd vote for Clinton in the general, it's not a problem.

African Americans are an interesting case, because many became personally offended by what happened in the campaigning, in a way that Latinos, Asians, Jews, and other Clinton-leaning sub-groups had no reason to be personally offended. So, one may have to take more seriously their threat to walk if Clinton is the nominee.

But for everyone else, it's still an open question as to whether their voting choice is so motivated by hatred for the other candidate that they'd rather vote for McCain or stay home.

Posted by JMS | March 25, 2008 2:00 PM

"Jews love Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton could kill a girl in front of us and Jews would say 'Nobody lives forever.' "

---Jackie Mason

Posted by Don Williams | March 25, 2008 2:02 PM

So, there are lots and lots of Jews who'd only vote Democratic if Hillary were the nominee? I didn't know that.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 25, 2008 2:02 PM

So according to Gallup, Hillary is leading by 23 percent among white Catholics, 22 percent among white Protestants, and 5 percent among Jews (who I imagine are almost all white), and we think Obama has some kind of special problem with Jews? Note not only that Jews are disproportionately found in Hillary's home state but also that Jewish Democrats are probably considerably older than the average Democratic voter.

Posted by Dave | March 25, 2008 2:05 PM

Jews, after all, mostly fit into the upscale "wine track" category of Democrats in which Obama is doing well and historically Jewish voters have supported reformist liberals of Obama's ilk.

It's a function of the increasing bifurcation of the Jewish community into those of us with increasing religiosity and increasingly secular Jews (which FWIW, while many Jews whine and complain about this as if we are being uniquely afflicted, is true of pretty much all religious groupings nowadays). The upshot is that as some Jews move away from the moral/ethical underpinnings of Judaism, why should they still be so liberal. And as other Jews become more narrowly parochial, why should they still be so liberal?

Or to put it in a snarky, wine-vs-beer manner: assimilation amongst Jews means we drink less wine and more beer. And increasing religious strictness also means less wine and more beer as you don't necessarily need a hechshir for beer (and much beer is hechshir'd anyway) whilst wine does, according to many, require a hechshir and kosher wine is harder to come by (outside of lower socio-economic status fortified wines like Manishewitz).

Posted by DAS | March 25, 2008 2:07 PM

in states were Democrats will probably lose (like Florida) aren't really all that important. - soullite

Jews turn out. And which way FL swings may very well depend on a small number of votes which includes the Jewish vote.

*

Latinos, Asians, Jews, and other Clinton-leaning sub-groups had no reason to be personally offended. - JMS

Just because we have no reason to be personally offended won't stop us from being offended. I know many Jews who are personally offended because Obama went to a church where a minister was maybe a bit strident. And I know many Jews who are personally offended by the HRC campaign for posssibly being behind some of these anti-Obama attacks (and ashamed that fellow Jews are buying into them).

Never underestimae the capacity for people to have grievances. Remember, that's how the GOP's been winning so many elections!

*

I think a big reason for the split in Hillary's favor is that a plurality of American Jews live in New York and she is the Hometown candidate

Yep. Here in Tally, where the candidates were not even officially campaigning (and certainly not Obama) the only bumper stickers I saw at my shul were Obama bumper stickers. Of course by the "by their signage you can predict their support" metric, Ron Paul should have won the GOP primary in FL, but still -- I think Obama would have handily carried my shul's vote. My wife's shul in NYC is a different story, though ...

*

How come Catholic Americans are 'white ethnics' but not Jewish Americans? - neil

Neither all Catholics nor all Jews are even white, FWIW.

Posted by DAS | March 25, 2008 2:16 PM

"Not 'Jewish Money', really. Most Jews are middle to upper middle class who struggle to pay off their wife's balance at Bloomingdales each month. 'Chosen people' in the sense of being chosen to be a perpetual disappointment to their mother-in-law." -- Don Williams

Don, you've got some great 1967 material going there.

Between the two posts we have "Bloomingdales", "schlongs," a small penis references and, best of all, an honest-to-God mother-in-law joke!

Did you just come out of a 41 year coma? Dude,you make Sha Na Na look fresh and relevant.

What's it like being both an embarassment and a constant douche?

You do realize you're both, don't you?

Posted by Don's Williams' mortified family | March 25, 2008 2:18 PM

I agree with a lot of what was said about New York demographics.

I'd add, though, that it's likely not all attacks and smears (coupled with the demographics) that result in these numbers.

Lots of Jews will be turned off by the Rev. Wright situation. Wright himself has said his association with Obama would hurt him amongst Jews.

Obviously the media machine and attacks were a part of that - a large part of it - but being a member of that church for 20 years, will hurt Obama - to some extent - not just amongst Jews.

He can and will still win, but it's unfair to say that any declining poll numbers with Jews, in particular, and White people, in general, are only because of attacks and smears.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 25, 2008 2:20 PM

It's funny; I read somewhere that people in the Middle East are suspicious that Obama is a Jew, because there's a prominent Jew over there named "Barak".

So now we're at radical Muslim, radical Christian, and Jewish insurgent.

Posted by socctty | March 25, 2008 2:21 PM

as some Jews move away from the moral/ethical underpinnings of Judaism, why should they still be so liberal.... Or to put it in a snarky, wine-vs-beer manner: assimilation amongst Jews means we drink less wine and more beer.

This half of the analysis seems dubious to me (as a decidedly non-Orthodox Jew). Historically, Jewish liberalism doesn't seem to me to be tied to halacha; it's more cultural factors. My stereotype of an old-school New York Jewish liberal isn't a particularly religious Jew, it's a secular Jew who maybe hangs out at the Ethical Culture Society. (Which is where my parents met in the 50s.)

Similarly, there's no reason for secularizing Jews to become beer track voters rather than wine track voters; secularization doesn't make Jews more blue-collar. If anything, this argument would show that secularization would turn Jews from wine-track Democrats into Republicans. But that doesn't seem to happen; Jews still vote Democratic.

Even taking into account the wine track/beer track issue, I think it's reasonably impressive that Obama is keeping it this close in light of the UJC pander gap. (Speaking as another Jewish guy who thinks that Ann Lewis's statement was ridiculous.)

Posted by Matt Weiner | March 25, 2008 2:22 PM

American jews and black people have a long and convoluted political history together in the urban zone, often on the same side, sometimes not. There's been times of tension between the two communities in NYC, at least. As people have noted, Hillary and Bill are very popular with jewish people in the NYC area. It seems to me its because of the wine-track crowd that she's not crushing Obama.

Posted by Helter | March 25, 2008 2:23 PM

Re "Don, you've got some great 1967 material going there. "
----------
Hey, everything I know I learned from Jackie Mason.

Who noted, I believe , that Jewish girls aren't interested in oral sex --just in oral surgeons.

Is that still true?

PS When I said "Upper Middle Class" I was just trying to make Matthew feel bad. I hear he going to move back in with his parents.

Posted by Don Williams | March 25, 2008 2:25 PM

who I imagine are almost all white - Dave

My wife ain't white. OTOH, she likes all the various sorts of stuff white people like even more than I -- and it's hard to get whiter than me without being an albino -- do.

So maybe that is central to your point?

OTOH, pace the identification of "white ethnics", a friend of mine who is a white ethnic actually likes fewer of the sorts of stuff white people like than I do ...

Posted by DAS | March 25, 2008 2:26 PM

I know three jewish people.

One sincerely believes that Obama was groomed from a young age, by muslims, to take over the US government. I know she believes this because she says so, loudly, and gets extremely angry at anyone who aids the conspiracy by voting for him in the primary.

A second doesn't believe the conspiracy theory, but does think he'd be "bad for Israel," because he's too friendly with muslims.

The third thinks the above two are crazy.

I don't know how much my anecdotal evidence counts for, but smears are clearly having SOME effect.

Posted by Patrick | March 25, 2008 2:27 PM

How many Jewish people are old New Yorkers? Isn't that her core demo?

Posted by chris m | March 25, 2008 2:28 PM

Too bad Gallup didn't break down this data by age also. It would be interesting to see if older Jewish Democratic voters show an even greater preference for Hillary Clinton than their Gentile counterparts, and if younger Jewish voters (particularly those in Matt's age group) support Obama less than their Gentile counterparts. That would give us greater insight into whether Jewish Democrats are buying into the smears about Obama being hostile toward Israel.

I would suspect that other demographics play a role here, just as it does with Hispanic voters. Obama's troubles with getting Hispanic voters are correlated with his relative troubles in gaining the votes of older people and of working class people with no college education. Middle-class, college-educated Hispanics like myself under the age of 45 tend to vote for Obama in the same proportion as their Anglo counterparts, while working-class, high school-educated Hispanics over the age of 45 tend to vote for Clinton, just like their Anglo counterparts. I wonder then if older Jewish voters are simply shadowing the behavior of their Gentile counterparts, instead of the behavior of younger Jewish voters.

Posted by eltoro | March 25, 2008 2:28 PM

The proximity to New York thing is a big factor here. I would argue that the Jews who have left the New York area and have rejected the New York lifestyle are more likely to be anti-Clinton/pro-Obama or Republican.

There is also a stronger generational gap amongst Jews. Older Jews are also much more likely to have been raised as Democrats in the Tammany Hall/political machine tradition in either New York or Philly. Furthermore there has been a tradition of animosity between the New York city Jews and African-Americans. My 96 year old grandmother told my Dad that Obama reminded her too much of MLK Jr. She meant this as an insult to Obama. As a former NYC teacher she holds resentment towards the black political establishment for the school strikes in the 1960s and their opposition to the magnet school system. Jews, as with Asians, are probably the worst victims of racial and geographic affirmative action and their is probably some perceived animosity towards Obama for that. There are probably significantly more card-carrying feminists among Jewish voters as well.

As to the political significance of Jews in a general election, they have a major significance within the Democratic base in Pennsylvania (Philly area), and are an important voting block in other fairly close states such as Florida, Connecticut, and New Jersey. The real significance of the Jewish/Democratic affinity is that a lot of influential people (such as Larry Summers and Robert Rubin) were raised as Democrats instead of Republicans, while most of their protestant counterparts of a similar class were raised as Republicans.

Posted by Robert | March 25, 2008 2:31 PM

Jews on the wine track? Maybe, but there's always He'Brew, "The Chosen Beer". I brought a six pack to the Catholic dad's card game a few months back. Pretty good stuff.

http://www.shmaltz.com/

Posted by Beer Here | March 25, 2008 2:31 PM

Re "Don, you've got some great 1967 material going there. "
-------------
This from people who got evicted from an apartment 2000 years ago and are still fighting about it?

Some things NEVER change.

Posted by Don Williams | March 25, 2008 2:32 PM

Why would Gallup spend the time to research something like this for such a small (and to hear it from you guys, seemingly predictable) demographic?

I mean, no one is seeing how Clinton and Obama are doing amongst non-believers, which I'd venture to guess has more people and is a lot less predictable of an electorate.

The answer thrown out miight be that the Jewish electorate influences US policy towards Israel, but I doubt that has much to do with it. It's really more a factor of US economic and strategic interests in the region, and the Israeli lobby. Maybe this is to get a temperature of that lobby? One would imagine the lobby would be extremely friendly with whoever gets elected as POTUS...

Posted by socctty | March 25, 2008 2:40 PM

Reverend Wright is not the only problem. Don't forget Brzezinski and Malley, the Israel bashing twins. In the very unlikely event of Senator Obama wining in November, and despite the claims of Mr. Ackerman, we would see more of these fucktards.

Posted by SLC | March 25, 2008 2:47 PM

Patrick - You said... A second doesn't believe the conspiracy theory, but does think he'd be "bad for Israel," because he's too friendly with muslims.

Could you elaborate more on that person's feelings? I would imagine they would understand that Israel's perceived antagonism and the perception that US policy is shaped in large part by Israel's whims is the reason why so many Arab states are reluctant to play nice with Israel?

Does this person really expect that Israel can spend the rest of their existence relying exclusively on Uncle Sam for backing, without ever having to engage in advanced diplomacy with their neighbors?

Posted by socctty | March 25, 2008 2:47 PM

I wonder if there's a young versus old breakdown in the Jewish community where younger people are going with Obama.

Seems to me the race is over. Obama weathered the stuff about Reverend Wright.Michigan and Florida aren't doing re-votes.

Iraq is blowing up. McCain says he don't know much about economics, except, like Hillary, he's a fan of Greenspan. We could be looking at our first black President.

Posted by Peter K. | March 25, 2008 2:58 PM

"Rather , it's the money of a few billionaires who happen to be Jewish -- and whose egos are bigger than their tiny shlongs."

Do you have some personal insight into the size of their shlongs? Have you been servicing Mike Bloomberg or something?

"This from people who got evicted from an apartment 2000 years ago and are still fighting about it?"

Seems like most of the whining about real estate in the middle east is from the Jews' swarthy cousins, the Arabs.

Posted by Harry | March 25, 2008 2:58 PM

Does this person really expect that Israel can spend the rest of their existence relying exclusively on Uncle Sam for backing - socctty

Many supporters of Israel don't seem to mind this being the case, even if

the perception that US policy is shaped in large part by Israel's whims is the reason why so many Arab states are reluctant to play nice with Israel?

is the case -- those who hate the US because we back Israel actually also hate Israel because the US backs it. Less US support for Israel might not be a bad thing.

What's really odd is that any real Zionist would find Israel's "existance relying exclusively on" any non-Jewish state to be truly sad. After all, isn't the idea of Israel in the first place that we Jews need a sovereign state in order to achieve normalcy?

If it's a-ok for Israel to be so dependent on the US, why not just have a state within the US set up as a Jewish version of Utah or something?

Posted by DAS | March 25, 2008 3:01 PM

"Could you elaborate more on that person's feelings?" -- socctty

Yes, Patrick knows three Jewish people! Clearly he's an expert and we should ask him to elaborate on what's he's observed!

This is a mortifying thread.

I know some of you are obsessed with Jews and Israel, but this is just getting embarassing.

Note: I'm not angry or expressing moral disapproval.

Just real embarassment.

Posted by JC | March 25, 2008 3:05 PM

DAS - I suppose I should have elaborated that the perceptions is that Israel pulls the US's strings in an antagonistic direction, and that if Israel was more interested in diplomacy and engagement, that the US would be inclined to go that direction as well, and we might all be better off for it. Perhaps that's extraordinarily optimistic, as there is, of course deep-seated religious conflict involved and the Arabs are certainly more guilty of this sort of myopia. Nevertheless, this sort of approach to the problem isn't sustainable over the next few decades.

I like your idea about a Jew-tah, actually. Really, why did the UN have to put Israel in, well, Israel? Could they not see the enormous problems this would have caused for us in the future?

Posted by socctty | March 25, 2008 3:10 PM

SLC,

I know we disagree on much, but you've seemed like you are too smart to buy into the "oh noes, Robert Malley is an anti-Semite" line.

If Robert Malley is an anti-Semite because he's not sufficiently pro-Israeli, whatever that means, doesn't that really amount to "crying wolf" about anti-Semitism which alas remains a real threat?

While I disagree with the liberal blaming at the conclusion of this article, please see the Forward on "Wooing the Jewish Vote". If you're accepting false stories about a Jew and deciding that you cannot vote for someone associated with that Jew -- how does that make you any different than an anti-Semite who accepts false stories about Jews? Because the false stories in question tag the Jew as anti-Zionist rather than whatever Jewish stereotype an anti-Semite would come up with (remember "self-hating" is also a Jewish stereotype)?

Posted by DAS | March 25, 2008 3:14 PM

Does Israel even need American aid at this point? It's at EU-levels in terms of per-capita GDP at this point.

Posted by Juan | March 25, 2008 3:16 PM

JC - ? I asked him to "elaborate on that person's feelings", not to "elaborate on the feelings of the entire Jewish population of the US."

Posted by socctty | March 25, 2008 3:22 PM

Really, why did the UN have to put Israel in, well, Israel? Could they not see the enormous problems this would have caused for us in the future? - socctty

I was mainly trying to slap those who are a little too obsessed with the "special friendship" between Israel and the US. While I, as a Jew and an American would want Israel and the US to remain allies, the idea that Israel and the US should be so entwined, as pushed by some on the right, is a little odd -- if the US and Israel really do have such the same interests, why not just push for Jew-Tah and be done with it. One could argue in calling these people, Walt and Mearsheimer (sp?) are better Zionists than those who think that Israel should be a US client (even if they delude themselves, because they buy into anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jewish power, that the US is being Israel's client -- Israel is weaker than the US, so we know which way the power flows) and thus undermine the very idea of an independent Jewish state.

OTOH, where else would you put Israel? If you have a Jewish homeland (*), where else do you put it? If we would have put it in Country Y, then all the Yian refugees would be complaining about their horrendous treatment, etc.

Of course, the real problem in the ME is as old as Cain and Abel and the musical Oklahoma!: the farmers and the cowboys can't be friends. Other refugee problems created in the late 1940s (including Jews kicked out of the Arab world who became citizens of Israel) were solved by integration of refugee populations into the countries in which they found themselves. That Arab cowboys refused to integrate Palestinian farmers into their societies is the root of the problem for which Israel should not have to take the blame some people give it.

Of course, that any Jewish state would be so blamed could have been forseen by anyone who understood the message of the Book of Isaiah and the Song of the Suffering Servant (who was not Jesus, pace the Christians). But even as somehow Zionism has become the sine qua non of Jewish identity nowadays, remember there was a day when religiously-oriented Jews, whether of the Orthodox or Reform stripe rejected Zionism as anti-thetical to a religious Jewish identity (in part because, at some level, they knew Israel would never allow for Jewish normalcy as the Zionists claimed but would be "dispised and rejected" for the sins of others).

(*and there is a good reason to have such a place -- anyone who doesn't see the reasons throughout history for it is a de facto anti-Semite, IMHO ... not, I'm not saying that being against having a Jewish State makes you anti-Semitic ... I'm not about to call the Satmars, as whacko as they are, self-hating Jews ... but if you see the idea as being completely out of left field and only occuring because of some evil plot -- that kinda says somethin' about you that you refuse to understand the history of our people, don't it?)

Posted by DAS | March 25, 2008 3:28 PM

Re DAS's comment "and there is a good reason to have such a place -- anyone who doesn't see the reasons throughout history for it is a de facto anti-Semite,"
---------------
Let's see -- you think history shows that Jews need a protected sanctuary.

For that protected sanctuary, you choose a narrow strip of infertile, indefensible land that's been fucked over for 6000 years by every major power that's come down the pike?

So how is that working out?

Posted by Don Williams | March 25, 2008 3:41 PM

If Jews are as smart as is said, they will join most whites and reject Obama totally. Black hate has been exposed. They hate all whites and they hate jews more. Do you blame them? After all, our places of worship tutor black children, their church corupts their minds, our churches minister to black convicts, their church teaches them to hate us, our churches donate food, their church damns our country, our churches volunteer to build black homes, their church wants to tear mine down. Geez, guess I see their point now. We are evil.

Posted by V Racer | March 25, 2008 3:45 PM

For that protected sanctuary, you choose a narrow strip of infertile, indefensible land that's been fucked over for 6000 years by every major power that's come down the pike?

So how is that working out? - Don Williams

Nu? As I said above, where else would you put that sanctuary? If you put it in country Y, all the Yian refugees will get mad and all y'all "liberals" would say "why didn't you put the sanctuary in Israel where at least the Jewish people have a history".

I'm not so sure if the problems of a protected sanctuary outweigh the benefits (that Zionism really was/is a good idea), but I was just saying that people who think that some rich colonialists came up with Zionism as an idea for their own fun and profit are paranoid, possibly anti-Semitic nuts.

As to the land being infertile. It's not. The land is famously tempermental (hence the resonance of the curses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy) ... but it can be quite fertile as Palestinian olive growers and Jewish Kibutzniks both well know. It's part of the fertile crescent, after all!

Posted by DAS | March 25, 2008 3:50 PM

DAS, Don Williams - While I wouldn't have chosen to word it the way Don Williams did, the question is the same: for a Jewish state, why the Land of Israel? The immediate assumption is that it's because of the religious connection, which is the very reason the area shouldn't have been chosen in the first place. In retrospect, it seems to have only set the Jews up for even more grief.

Posted by socctty | March 25, 2008 3:54 PM

soccty- I doubt she thinks about it very deeply. She has an "us" and a "them" and she doesn't think Obama is an "us."

She actually agreed with the first person's conspiracy theories for a while, until she played around a little at work on Google and found some jewish organization debunking them. Between that, and Obama's line during the debate about how if he were a secret Muslim we'd all have found out about it a long time ago, she was convinced that he's not some kind of plant. But that doesn't make him an "us."

She's not THAT politically engaged, so I doubt she's got a long term vision for Israel's future. She just wants the good guys to win.

Posted by Patrick | March 25, 2008 3:57 PM

n/m, point taken about the "Yians".

Posted by socctty | March 25, 2008 3:57 PM

It's all about money. Somebody has asserted to me that Obama's connections to Jewish money are primarily through rich Chicago Jews (e.g., Mrs. Pritzker, his finance chairwoman), who tend to be less Likudist and more conventional American liberals than are rich New York Jews, who have tended more toward neoconism and Israel-Firstism.

That sounds encouraging (if true) and somebody should look into it.

Posted by Steve Sailer | March 25, 2008 4:00 PM

So how is that working out?

Mostly, really well.

Go and see for yourself.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 25, 2008 4:02 PM

Obama threatens the Zionist Power Configuration. Stating factually "Nobody's suffering more than the Palestinians" last year marked him as an *anti-Semite. The only thing that's new about that is that he's a serious Presidential contender. The fear is that he may not "be good for the Jews" meaning:

1. He may challenge Apartheid Israel's right to sniper shoot Palestinian schoolgirls for "sport".

2. He may restore the capital gains tax to less than a gilded age rate.

3. He's not anxious to nuke Iran, and Syria.

4. He may not be willing to sever all U.S ties to Saudi Arabia.

5. He may tinker with the Patriot Act a tad.

6. He may not declare the month of April "Shoah Remembrance Month".

7. He may not mandate that 'Holocaust Studies" replace American History in elementary schools.

8. He may not be willing to make Joe Lieberman, Richard Holbrooke, or other notable "Friends of Israel" his National Security team.

9. He may be reluctant to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to David Schwimmer.

10. He may be averse to making "anti-Semitism" a mandatory minimum of 30 years in prison.

Posted by Trevor | March 25, 2008 4:06 PM

Re DAS's comment "I'm not so sure if the problems of a protected sanctuary outweigh the benefits "
----------------
1) Well, probably NOT if your "protected Sanctuary" is a narrow strip of land that is:

a) the connecting CORRIDOR between the huge Islamic populations of the Eupharates-Tigris river valley, the Nile river valley, and North Africa

b) Is WIDE open to invasion from every major power in the Mediterrean Basin as well as
Islamic powers bordering on the Indian Ocean/Red Sea

c) Does not have the water or fertile land to support more than a small population

d) Has a 6000 year history of being stomped on every other generation because it has no geographical barriers for defense

2) Excuse me, I'm off to read a new book about the genetic basis for high Ashkenazi IQs.

PS So how big are the oil deposits in Zion?

Posted by Don Williams | March 25, 2008 4:11 PM

I myself thought that ,for the past several hundred years, AMERICA has been a sanctuary for Jews. Whose religion and right to participate in politics is protected by our Constitution.

An America with huge amounts of fertile farmland, large water deposits and roughly 900 nuclear MIRVed ICBMSs. Separated from the rest of the world by two large oceans and protected by the worlds most powerful Air Force and Navy.

An America hostile to anti-semitism and which has allowed many Jews to become billionaires and many more to become very prosperous.

Of course, that may change if the other 294 Million US citizens start to wonder if our loyalty and friendship is being exploited. If we look at the religious affilation of those who did so much to help Bush lie us into an unnecessary war: Scooter Libby, Judith Miller, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Kenneth Pollack, Marty Indyk, etc etc etc.

Posted by Don Williams | March 25, 2008 4:24 PM

Don,

You realize, all those arguments are reasons you should be impressed with Israel.

Especially considering, as Juan pointed out, "It's at EU-levels in terms of per-capita GDP at this point."

I think aid should be reduced and/or cut off, for precisely that reason.

But for a place that's as bad to be as you claim it is, they've done quite well.

So yeah - you should go and see for yourself, once you're done reading your new book.

Trevor, on the other hand, should try to reconcile his #4 with George Bush, without having his head explode.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 25, 2008 4:25 PM

I do not think the disloyal Neocons represent the values and wishes of 6 million American Jews.

But my argument would be stronger if that point was geing made by some of those American Jews themselves.

Posted by Don Williams | March 25, 2008 4:27 PM

If we look at the religious affilation of those who did so much to help Bush lie

Don, what should we do with the all the Christians and/or non-Jewish people in America because of the actions of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Richard Myers, Stephen Hayes, Richard Lowery, etc., etc.?

That's a tough one.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 25, 2008 4:33 PM

Re SoCal Justice's comment "Don, what should we do with the all the Christians and/or non-Jewish people in America because of the actions of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Richard Myers, Stephen Hayes, Richard Lowery, etc., etc.?"
-------------
Er.. Don't make someone National Security Advisor and Secretary of State if she has had a Chevron Oil Tanker named after her??

http://www.aztlan.net/oiltanker.htm

Posted by Don Williams | March 25, 2008 4:43 PM

It's all about money. Somebody has asserted to me that Obama's connections to Jewish money are primarily through rich Chicago Jews (e.g., Mrs. Pritzker, his finance chairwoman), who tend to be less Likudist and more conventional American liberals than are rich New York Jews, who have tended more toward neoconism and Israel-Firstism.

There is a huge Orthodox Jewish population in New York City, and they tend to have right-wing views on Israel (in some cases, their views are to the right of Likud), whereas, from what I know, the Orthodox population in Chicago is much smaller. I'm not sure if that would explain the divergence in fundraising, though.

Posted by Peter H | March 25, 2008 4:44 PM

I myself thought that ,for the past several hundred years, AMERICA has been a sanctuary for Jews. Whose religion and right to participate in politics is protected by our Constitution. - Don Williams

Try telling that to all the Jews who tried to immigrate to the US when Hitler was trying to kill them.

Posted by DAS | March 25, 2008 4:46 PM

A fine idea, Don. And a good place to start.

But, just to be safe, do you share the same ethnicity and/or religion as Bush, or someone in his inner circle? Or as a pro-war journalist? Or a pro-war think tanker?

I mean, you should probably surrender yourself to the loyalty police, just to be sure.

We can't be too careful these days. All the non-Jews in Bush's inner circle, and at conservative magazines and think tanks, have made you suspect.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 25, 2008 4:49 PM

Re SoCalJustice's comment "But for a place that's as bad to be as you claim it is, they've done quite well."
---------------
Glad to hear of it. Usually US government welfare programs turn out badly -- induce a condition of dependency in the recipents.

But I guess $100 Billion in US Tax dollars can make the desert bloom. Well, at least until the aquifer runs dry.

Given this good news, we should now be able to divert the $3+ Billion/year we've been sending to Tel Avis into the Philadelphia school system. After all, those impoverished young Afro-Americans ARE our countrymen. Some of them will probably serve in the US military to protect you and me.

Posted by Don Williams | March 25, 2008 4:55 PM

Re SoCalJustice's comment "All the non-Jews in Bush's inner circle, and at conservative magazines and think tanks, have made you suspect"
----------
Nah. Thomas Friedman and Haaretz say that we lowly Gentiles don't really count. That it was 25 movers and shakers --"most of them Jewish" --who decided on the Iraq invasion:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=280279&contrassID=2&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Posted by Don Williams | March 25, 2008 5:04 PM

PS The last time I checked , they didn't do Pogroms against Exxon Executives.

Although I could be EASILY talked into the idea.

Posted by Don Williams | March 25, 2008 5:06 PM

Glad to hear of it.

Somehow, I doubt that.

I agree with you about the aid - although I wouldn't put it the way you did.

Having said that, you really, really should surrender to the loyalty police.

I know you say you are a true patriot, but I think you would agree we can't be too careful. Too many non-Jews at top levels in the Bush administration, and in the pro-war media/think tanks.

I mean - how do we know that your obsession is not a front? If the Bush administration has proven anything, it's that non-Jews are capable of traitorous disloyalty (i know, redundant, but hey - they were really disloyal). So you should really submit yourself to a loyalty test.

For the good of the country, and us all.

I trust you see it that way now. Thanks.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 25, 2008 5:06 PM

Nah. Thomas Friedman and Haaretz say that we lowly Gentiles don't really count.

So now you're taking the word of someone who is de facto disloyal, Don?

I see - when it's convenient.

That puts your loyalty into question on another level.

But sure, Bush, Cheney, Condi, Colin, Rummy, Franks, Myers, etc.. - not really movers and shakers with the Iraq war.

Kind of a joke, Don. Just pushing that pathetic line makes your loyalty suspect, nevermind your ethnicity or religion.

Unbelievable.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 25, 2008 5:11 PM

"Given this good news, we should now be able to divert the $3+ Billion/year we've been sending to Tel Avis into the Philadelphia school system. After all, those impoverished young Afro-Americans ARE our countrymen. Some of them will probably serve in the US military to protect you and me."

I'm all for phasing out Israel's aid (along with our aid to its good-for-nothing neighbors Egypt and the forever-democratizing-but-never-quite-getting-there Jordan), but putting $3 billion a year into trying to educate American blacks would be like burning the money. That's why Oprah decided to fund a school in South Africa instead of Philly or Chicago. Besides, most of those black kids couldn't even qualify for the military because they're Mental Cat 4s.

At least most of the $3 billion spent on Israel has been spent here, creating jobs at American companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

Posted by Juan | March 25, 2008 5:14 PM

Jewish voters are too few to matter; what matters is Jewish money. Which candidate is getting the most Jewish money?
Posted by Harry

Obama has more ultrarich Jew sugar daddies and sugarmommies. Geffen, Lewis, Bettelu Saltzman, Penny Pritzger, The Crown family, etc.
Clinton has her megarich Jews too. She scooped a lot up when "she was inevitable" and loaded Jews in NYC, internationals like Soros, and the ones Bill Clinton cultivated in Hollywood and Vegas placed their money bets with her. Many are chafing.

While Jews are not unimportant in voting in certain places - NYC, Florida - their immense power and clout comes from the money angle and also the powerful, even dominant position of Jews as media owners & influencers and their place inside the Democrat Party as the true powerbrokers, financiers, and campaign braintrusts that call the shots.

And Jews have enough leftover power and clout to be disproportionately influential on Republicans through strategists, fund-raisers, Jews on Wall Street, the Neocons.

Posted by chris ford | March 25, 2008 6:06 PM

Re SoCal Justice's comment "I know you say you are a true patriot, but I think you would agree we can't be too careful. Too many non-Jews at top levels in the Bush administration, and in the pro-war media/think tanks"
---------------
Hmmmm. I seem to recall denouncing Big Oil's whores --including Dick Cheney, George W Bush, and Condi Rice -- on multiple occasions. And arguing that killing 4000 Americans just to seize oil deposits for Big Oil was disloyal to this country.

I don't seem to recall SoCalJustice or SLC denouncing the Neocons in the same terms.

So I'm curious. Do they think it would be disloyal for a Jewish American to advocate sending American soldiers off to die to protect Israel?

Posted by Don Williams | March 25, 2008 6:27 PM

Clarification: "Do they think it would be disloyal ... " should be "Do they think it would be disloyal to the United States..."

Posted by Don Williams | March 25, 2008 6:36 PM

Re DAS

1. Let's put aside the fact that Mr. Malleys' account of the events at Camp David in 2000 are at variance with everybody else in the American camp who were there. Mr. Malley states that he disagrees with his father relative to the State of Israel. I guess he's throwing his old man under the bus. Now, I have a vague recollection that we have heard this tune warbled before. Ah yes, Mel Gibson warbled this tune after his drunk driving arrest.

2. Mr. Malleys' ethnic background in no way protects him from charges of antisemitism. Any more then Norman Finkelsteins' or Noam Chomskys' background does.

Posted by SLC | March 25, 2008 6:38 PM

So I'm curious. Do they think it would be disloyal for a Jewish American to advocate sending American soldiers off to die to protect Israel? - Don Williams

During the run-up to the war, I remember some neo-con wannabes telling me that "as a Jew you should support the war because it will be good for Israel and ... isn't it great that American goyim are willing to fight Israel's battles?". Of course, Walt and Mearsheimer (sp?) point out that the so-called Israel lobby is trying to get America to fight what it perceives to be Israel's battles (c.f. Juan's comment about who is the real benefactor of the so-called Israel lobby ... btw, re: the comments on our inner city schools? is our "Juan" Juan Williams?) and they get branded as anti-Semites for saying the same sort of things certain Jews'll tell you if they think you are a fellow member of the tribe.

So by that standard are neo-con Jews actually anti-Semites? Are they merely mad at Walt and Mearsheimer for airing some dirty laundry?

Posted by DAS | March 25, 2008 6:46 PM

Re Don Williams

Since we have not yet sent American soldiers to defend Israel, the question is thus far moot. Given our level of incompetence demonstrated in Iraq, maybe the State of Israel should consider contributing forces to help defend the US. Ulp, I forgot that Olmert is even more incompetent then Bush, based on his performance in Lebanon in 2006 so can that idea.

However, as I have stated on many occasions, I think that aid to the State of Israel should be phased out. The only reason we are still contributing such aid is so that Congress won't insist that aid to Egypt also be cut off. Let's remember that the aid is not really foreign aid at all but a bribe to Israel and Egypt to behave themselves.

Posted by SLC | March 25, 2008 6:55 PM

TREVOR: please just kill yourself. You're a bigot and a fool who worked long and hard and came up with, yes, a David Schwimmer joke.

Take a second to think that one over. Truly, my friend.

Clearly, life isn't working out for you. Refuse any medicine developed or administered by Jewish doctors and just go off and die somewhere. Your family will be very grateful.

STEVE SAILER: normally you crank it up a notch and come up with something better than "It's all about money. Somebody has asserted to me that Obama's connections to Jewish money . . . . "

Someone has "asserted" to you! Say no more!

Someone "asserted" about "Jewish money"!

Really, not your A-game, Mr. Sailer.

These yokels may be bringing you down, I fear.

DON WILLIAMS: you're perfect. A buffoon's buffoon. Don't ever change. Please post even more than you are already. We never tired of it and I'm sure you can break the fifteen mark before the sun sets.

Finally, where's the sad man who always rants about the nefarious Israelis and links to his computer repair business in S.F.? That's always oddly touching.

Posted by Thomas | March 25, 2008 6:58 PM

I don't seem to recall SoCalJustice...

Not that this will satisfy your loyalty test, Donny, but here you go:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/im_shocked_1.php#comment-1543040

Very few people "denounce" at the same level you do.

But your point is immaterial. You are disloyal by nature of your ethnicity and religion (as are the traitors in the Bush administration who share your ethnicity/religion) - and you cited someone you claimed was disloyal by virtue of his ethnicity/religion as proof to back you up. Your use of a disloyal source speaks volumes.

You should turn yourself in, just to be safe.

Posted by SoCalJustice | March 25, 2008 7:05 PM

Jews control the media

Posted by Dennis Burkitt | March 25, 2008 7:14 PM

"TREVOR: please just kill yourself. You're a bigot and a fool who worked long and hard and came up with, yes, a David Schwimmer joke. (Thomas)

Bullshit, shit-for-brains. It came in a nanosecond. A bigot and a fool? Hey, back off - I didn't mention your looks once.

Posted by Trevor | March 25, 2008 7:15 PM

Re thomas

"Finally, where's the sad man who always rants about the nefarious Israelis and links to his computer repair business in S.F.? That's always oddly touching."

I think that calling Mr. Hack a sad man is seriously in error. Mr. Hack, the convicted bank robber who has yet to show remorse for his crime for which he spent 9 years in the federal birdcage in Leavenworth is not sad. He is seriously deranged and quite possible dangerous as he has made threats against several individuals. Anybody who would shove a loaded gun in somebodys' face must be taken seriously as a potential threat.

Posted by SLC | March 25, 2008 7:38 PM

Re thomas

"Finally, where's the sad man who always rants about the nefarious Israelis and links to his computer repair business in S.F.? That's always oddly touching." (SLC)

Oh, jeeze, lumped in with an SF computer repair guy. That, I'll never live down.

Posted by Trevor | March 25, 2008 7:45 PM

O.k. Here we go. Jews are black like Jesus so there is no problem between them. Israel is dry and dusty and I think the Joe's Volcano native folks are still welcoming Jews to the warm and wet South Pacific on account of Jews are also Asian - ask anyone older than 60 who lives in Europe. Those in New York and Chicago are White. Those in L.A. are tan. Any questions? Oh, and this Jew has no money but a really cute Irish first name. Love & Hugs and play nice!

Posted by bridget | March 25, 2008 7:51 PM

Jackie Mason (The Ultimate Jew) says that Barack Obama "looks like a Jew with a tan."

Now if they would just put Obama up on a fucking polo pony wearing a white swester, he would be a shoo-in here on the Main Line.

Well, maybe not in Wynnewood.

Posted by Don Williams | March 25, 2008 8:19 PM

Gee...maybe he is not getting the Jewish vote beacuuse...well you know...his pastor anti Israel and pro palestine rhetoric. Obama keeps proving he simply dosnt have what it takes to be president. His anti-Israel associatios make many within the community nervous. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3523709,00.html

Posted by Krammer | March 25, 2008 8:29 PM

Re Don Williams

After all, Barack is close to Barak, although given General Baraks' incompetent sojourn as Israeli prime minister, Senator Obama might not appreciate anyone pointing this out.

I had a colleague whose last name was Arens (he was originally from Munich) who was at one time posted in Saudi Arabia. He was ofter asked if he was related to Moshe Arens, a former Likud defense minister. They were, in fact, totally unrelated.

Posted by SLC | March 25, 2008 8:33 PM

Jackie Mason (The Ultimate Jew) says that Barack Obama "looks like a Jew with a tan." (Don Williams)

Jackie, bless his heart - must have bad eyesight. An old friend of mine is half-black, half-Jewish (a ;a Lenny Kravitz) and he doesn't look remotely Jewish either. Now, half Irish, half Jewish Bill Maher does look and sound Jewish. He's got the punim of an old, ugly yenta. Maybe it's the attitude, the capacity for growth that in some strange way molds someone's features in some distinctive fashion. What's the line? - "After 50 - we all get the face we deserve."

Posted by Trevor | March 25, 2008 8:33 PM

Let's not forget the Stuart Levine effect - Levine has already taken the fall for his corruption, drug addiction, and egregious abuses of power. But Levine is also working, um, honorably?, to bring down Obama's buddy Tony Rezko. So obviously, this is contributing to the downfall of Obama, because we all know that Obama is from the south side of Chicago and Levine is from Highland Park - i.e., Clinton's hometown.

Posted by benintn | March 25, 2008 8:45 PM

Re benintn's comment "But Levine is also working, um, honorably?, to bring down Obama's buddy Tony Rezko"
-----------------
I'm starting to get an inkling re the REAL Reason why Rahm Emanuel is hiding under his desk.

Posted by Don Williams | March 25, 2008 9:02 PM

I am interested, after reading this blog for the first time, if any of you actually read the disclaimer below? "By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory or otherwise objectionable." Sorry. I am pretty open minded about people having a right to their opinions but I find your snarking and truly ugly comments to be OBSCENE, HARASSING and DEFAMATORY. That is OK - I have the choice not to come back!

Posted by jlh | March 25, 2008 9:06 PM

Re Trevor's comment "Jackie, bless his heart - must have bad eyesight."
-------
Actually, I thought Jackie was making a clever snark at Ralph Lauren.

Posted by Don Williams | March 25, 2008 9:11 PM

I am interested, after reading this blog for the first time, if any of you actually read the disclaimer below? "By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory or otherwise objectionable." Sorry. I am pretty open minded about people having a right to their opinions but I find your snarking and truly ugly comments to be OBSCENE, HARASSING and DEFAMATORY. That is OK - I have the choice not to come back!

Well, I'd say that all the "...harassing, defamatory or otherwise objectionable..." comments are the BEST part of this blogsite---lively, interesting stuff, generally wrong (as is most of everything in the world), but frequently very useful and informative.

Certainly it's a million times better than the worthless canned pop on the 2008 NYT Op-Ed page---even those days when Kristol, Brooks, and Friedman aren't turning half of it into used toilet-paper.

Posted by RKU | March 25, 2008 10:04 PM

chapter 14 page 293 he talks about setting in church and listing to write preach about "Hiroshima' hm sounds familiar and also talks about how he agreed with the church creed page 284, I think he is still not being honest. I have the book and read it myself. Dreams from my father

Obama lied read and compare to todays news..Speech on Race

There’s a lot of folks in America right now who have heard that. And I want to ask you why you have been listening to this pastor and close to him for nearly 20 years?

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, first of all, Anderson, you know, I strongly condemn the statements that have been shown on the tape.

I have to confess that those are not statements that I ever heard when I was sitting in the pews at this church. This is a church that I have been a member of for 20 years. This is a well-established, typical, historically African-American church in the South Side of Chicago, with a wonderful set of ministries.

OBAMA: And, as I said, Anderson, if I had heard any of those statements, I probably would have walked up, and I probably would have told Reverend Wright that they were wrong.

But they were not statements that I heard when I was in church.

COOPER: So, no one in the church ever said to you, man, last week, you missed this sermon; Reverend Wright said this; or...

OBAMA: No.

COOPER: I mean, I think I read in your books that you listened to tapes of Reverend Wright when you were at Harvard Law School.

OBAMA: I did.

COOPER: So, you had no idea?

OBAMA: I understand.

I did not. Well, I want to be clear that, when I ran for president, some of these statements started surfacing.

COOPER: I mean, you may not have been there, but have you -- you must have heard that he had said these things.

OBAMA: You know, I confess that I did not hear about this until -- until I started running for president.

And then there was a story that was issued in which I strongly objected to these statements and condemned them. But what I also understood that was -- was Reverend Wright was on the verge of retirement and that a new pastor was coming in. The church f

Jews and Obama

Comments (112)