Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIn her 2000 race for the US Senate, Hillary Clinton was repeatedly smeared for a 1999 trip to Ramallah, where she kissed Palestinian First Lady Suha Arafat and listened as Arafat denounced Israel. Pictures of "the kiss" were repeatedly slapped across the cover of the New York Post, in TV ads and invoked by the campaigns of Rudy Giuliani and Rick Lazio. The flap almost derailed Clinton's campaign.
This time around, Barack Obama has been a victim of an even dirtier smear campaign, with conservative Jews and conservative Christians, rival campaign operatives and fringe conspiracy theorists in the gutter press, like Free Republic, WorldNetDaily and NewsMax, circulating blatantly false emails and articles portraying Obama as a radical Black Israel-hating, terrorist-loving Muslim.
In last night's Democratic debate, Tim Russert amplified the smear campaign by asking Obama about his "endorsement" by Louis Farrakhan, which Obama didn't ask for and who he has repeatedly denounced.
"I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments," Obama said last night. But Russert wouldn't let the issue die, repeatedly pressing Obama to "reject" Farrakhan. Russert then invoked Obama's pastor and asked, "What do you do to assure Jewish-Americans that, whether it's Farrakhan's support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness?"
Obama never suggested any such thing. "Tim, I have some of the strongest support from the Jewish community in my hometown of Chicago and in this presidential campaign," Obama said. "And the reason that I have such strong support is because they know that not only would I not tolerate anti-Semitism in any form, but also because of the fact that what I want to do is rebuild what I consider to be a historic relationship between the African-American community and the Jewish community."
At the end of Obama's answer, Clinton said "I just want to add something here, because I faced a similar situation when I ran for the Senate in 2000 in New York." I thought Clinton would use the opportunity to defend Obama, noting the parallels of their smear campaigns. But she did precisely the opposite, bragging about how she denounced the New York Independence Party back in 2000, when it was led by Pat Buchanan and accused of anti-semitism. In his book, "Hillary's Turn," journalist Mike Tomasky called Clinton's denunciation of the Independence Party "a courage born of convenience."
RUSSERT: Are you suggesting Senator Obama is not standing on principle?
CLINTON: No. I'm just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject it. And there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting.
OBAMA: Tim, I have to say I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word "reject" Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word "denounce," then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.
It was a smart response by Obama, although these smears will continue to linger and grow louder if he becomes the Democratic nominee. But it was undoubtedly a low point for Russert, and a moment when Clinton chose convenience over courage.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
I'm SHOCKED,SHOCKED, I tell you, that Hillary and Russert would have the nerve to press Obama about his endorsement by the Nation of Islam, and Rev Louie Farrakan..
So, Lets all do the Obama Chant!
Hope for Change, hope for change, change, change, hope, hope!
(That should give that 'ol meanie McCain pause!)
Posted by TransitDave at 02/27/2008 @ 11:48am
On a serious note, William F. Buckley died this morning at 82..... as a longtime NR subscriber, and fan, I can say that even my liberal friends enjoyed hearing what Bill Buckley had to say, and just as much, how he managed to say it with uncommon intellect and wit...RIP
Posted by TransitDave at 02/27/2008 @ 11:53am
transitdave-why do you keep repeating the same post?OCD?
Posted by i'm nobody at 02/27/2008 @ 11:58am
Posted by TRANSITDAVE 02/27/2008 @ 11:53am
I particularly enjoyed watching Noam Chomsky make Buckley look stupid in a debate.
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/27/2008 @ 12:02pm
How many Americans are really familiar with the Nation of Islam? I found it interesting that they chose to endorse a Presidential candidate - did they do that in 2004?
I'm a biracial person who has had several run-ins with bow-ties in California and Washington D.C., and I've been made aware repeatedly that they do not, I repeat, do NOT like biracial people AT ALL. Seems hypocritical of Farrakhan to endorse Obama.
In the black community, a small minority of people respect Mr. Farrakhan. Mostly we view him as an embarassment, and almost any discussion about them inevitably includes whispers of the fact that many of us, myself included, still think they (Farrakhan & friends) were responsible for murdering Malcolm X.
Posted by nicR at 02/27/2008 @ 12:03pm
Now comes the OTHER side of the coin, Mr Berman...
all the (as you once called them) "reflexively anti-Israel Left" either saying Obama shouldn't have denounced Farrakhan....or proved that he is "just as much in AIPAC's pocket as Hillary".
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 12:06pm
Seems hypocritical of Farrakhan to endorse Obama.----Posted by NICR 02/27/2008 @ 12:03pm
Plans within plans within plans, NIRC.
Farrakhan is dumb, but not stupid. He KNOWS that what he gave was a "reverse endorsment" (like a Klansman or MARKCANYON endorsing Hillary). And that Obama would of course renounce him.
So now, he gets the opportunity to go on "Meet the Press" and talk about why he was renounced....or hurts the Obama campaign so that an African-American can't become President, which would hurt Farrakhan's claim that America is innately racist.
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 12:09pm
transitdave-why do you keep repeating the same post?OCD?
Posted by I'M NOBODY 02/27/2008 @ 11:58am
Don't you think it gets funnier every time?
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/27/2008 @ 12:11pm
Posted by MATTMAN 02/27/2008 @ 12:02pm
I can't wait to see what Buckley's arch adversary Gore Vidal will say. It should be good. Noam Chomsky did stomp Buckley in that one debate, but you should have seen the one between Buckley and [James] Baldwin. Buckley was made to look even more foolish in that one than the debate with Chomsky.
Posted by Preston-P at 02/27/2008 @ 12:13pm
Posted by PRESTON-P 02/27/2008 @ 12:13pm
I'll have to look for that one on youtube.
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/27/2008 @ 12:14pm
Better to get it out there in the light-front and center- than having it lurk in dark blind allies. Also, he used it to champion bridging the African-American-Jewish bond, another festering sore he used the opportunity to air.
Posted by Lil at 02/27/2008 @ 12:16pm
Mask that's an astute observation...you may be right about that!
Posted by nicR at 02/27/2008 @ 12:16pm
Posted by NICR 02/27/2008 @ 12:03pm
Well said. In fact, The Nation carried a great two part essay about Farrakhan written by Adolph Reed, Jr., a prominent black political scientist. It was one of the best pieces I've read at The Nation.
Posted by Preston-P at 02/27/2008 @ 12:17pm
Buckly was clever with words--but what a toad. The way his tongue flitted out--as if to snap up the airborne knat, was positively repitilian. He was a strange one.
Posted by Lil at 02/27/2008 @ 12:19pm
Farrakhan's primary function (in the media at least) is as a political liability.
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/27/2008 @ 12:20pm
Mattman-Transitdave has no future in comedy.
Posted by i'm nobody at 02/27/2008 @ 12:23pm
Its amazing that this is an issue. No white politician is ever asked to reject or renounce politicians that have had policies that are racist or at least harm minorities. It was just an easy fight to pick by calling into question this "endorsement". I had respect for Tim Russert, but no more. This is a non-issue and only serves to divide our party and nation further. Hillary, if she had any class, would have said something to the effect of "I know Senator Obama is not an anti-semite and I know that this is America and people are free to endorse whomever they like. This is a non-issue". That's what she should have said.
Posted by rasalula at 02/27/2008 @ 12:24pm
Obama has nothing to explain when a lunatic murderer endorses him. Satan himself could come along tomorrow and endorse Obama, it would make no difference, since that endorsement is not solicited.
they will come up with all kinds of weird and stupid stuff, no matter. Obama is a smart boy, he knows how to handle himself in the clinches.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/27/2008 @ 12:26pm
Posted by RASALULA 02/27/2008 @ 12:24pm
I agree. I think Russert, and the media in general, have made it an issue because of Fox and the right-wing pundits' relentless pursuit of associating Obama's name with anything "Islam."
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/27/2008 @ 12:28pm
"Obama is a smart boy"
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/27/2008 @ 12:26pm
You should choose your words a little more carefully.
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/27/2008 @ 12:29pm
That's what she should have said.----Posted by RASALULA 02/27/2008 @ 12:24pm
If she were NOT trying to score cheap political points....or was nice...or something, that is.
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 12:31pm
Before you guys and LIL jump on Buckley too much....read this-
February 24, 2006, 2:51 p.m. It Didn't Work by William F. Buckley
"....This last did not happen. And the administration has, now, to cope with failure. It can defend itself historically, standing by the inherent reasonableness of the postulates. After all, they govern our policies in Latin America, in Africa, and in much of Asia. The failure in Iraq does not force us to generalize that violence and antidemocratic movements always prevail. It does call on us to adjust to the question, What do we do when we see that the postulates do not prevail -- in the absence of interventionist measures (we used these against Hirohito and Hitler) which we simply are not prepared to take? It is healthier for the disillusioned American to concede that in one theater in the Mideast, the postulates didn't work. The alternative would be to abandon the postulates. To do that would be to register a kind of philosophical despair. The killer insurgents are not entitled to blow up the shrine of American idealism.
Mr. Bush has a very difficult internal problem here because to make the kind of concession that is strategically appropriate requires a mitigation of policies he has several times affirmed in high-flown pronouncements. His challenge is to persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality without forswearing basic commitments in foreign policy.
He will certainly face the current development as military leaders are expected to do: They are called upon to acknowledge a tactical setback, but to insist on the survival of strategic policies.
Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat.
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 12:36pm
Posted by MASK 02/27/2008 @ 12:36pm |
The sole, authentic, conservative "intellectual", and a cut-and-runner in his remaining days. (sigh)
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/27/2008 @ 12:49pm
Hillary's behavior last night - and for the last some months - leads me to believe that she would just as soon sink the party as give up her seriously flawed campaign, even when it's obvious that she can't possibly claim the nomination. The danger is that McCain is even now busily campaigning for president and even a few months jump will give him an advantage which his opponent will be forced to counteract - call it time wasted catch-up.
Posted by felicity at 02/27/2008 @ 12:51pm
Posted by MASK 02/27/2008 @ 12:36pm
Though he stood by his beleif that our involvement in WWII was entirely "interventionist", a point that Chomsky refuted in the debate a mentioned earlier.
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/27/2008 @ 12:55pm
The sole, authentic, conservative "intellectual"
Posted by MATTMAN 02/27/2008 @ 12:49pm | ignore this person
Hardly the only one. I may disagree with them, and we would be on opposite sides of the barricades, but there are conservative intellectuals around, writing for magazines such as The American Conservative and Chronciles (which sometimes makes The Am Con sound almost like The Nation). And not just right-leaning Libertarians, but folks coming out of the Catholic intellectual tradition as well, for instance.
Posted by cka2nd at 02/27/2008 @ 12:58pm
"...even when it's obvious that she can't possibly claim the nomination."
Posted by FELICITY 02/27/2008 @ 12:51pm
Don't get too comfortable with that just yet!
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/27/2008 @ 1:00pm
Posted by CKA2ND 02/27/2008 @ 12:58pm
I say this half-jokingly; I'm sure there are others, but they are few and far between.
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/27/2008 @ 1:03pm
Well I've said it and I will say it again I think that question was hitting below the belt. I guess because the media is accused of giving Obama a free ride that now they want to go after him with everything but the kitchen sink. When he answered that he renounce the antisemetism that Luis Farran preaches that should have been the END of it. Why was Tim Russert still pushing and why when Hillary said that she had the same thing happened and she rejected him and then Russert said are you opposing on principles. What was the point of that? I got to say though that even though Obama didnt appreciate that question I thought he handled it well. I didnt see the purpose of it. Obama is open about everything he is not about hate he has talked about everyone coming together why such a question.
Carol
Posted by harriscrl3 at 02/27/2008 @ 1:14pm
Posted by MATTMAN 02/27/2008 @ 12:55pm
It's the conservative model that Ron Paul (odd bird that he is) was able to ride, MATT.
The old "isolationism"...which, by the way, will be joined with the NEW "isolationism" of the Left. From a country sick of "foreign entanglements"...ranging from Iraq to any possibility of "UN" (i.e. us) peacekeepers going to various and sundry sites of inter-tribal rivalries.
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 1:17pm
Posted by MASK 02/27/2008 @ 1:17pm
At what point did he become isolationist? In the debate I keep mentioning he continually argued the perspective of interventionist, all the way up to Vietnam, the period in which the interview took place. In light of the Vietnam analogy that the right seems intent on avoiding when it pertains to Iraq, I'd say Buckley had to have either altered his philosophy, or seen a significant, semantic difference between the two conflicts.
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/27/2008 @ 1:38pm
I think Obama handled this well.
Both Obama and I agree that the anti-Semitic statements by Farrakhan are deplorable, and that Jews and blacks have worked together successfully in the past in the civil rights struggle.
I think where I depart from Obama is the recognition that many Jews have benefited from the civil rights struggle and now no longer feel compelled to work with blacks on inequality issues that still persist today. In fact, some of these Jews (a small minority, thank God) have become virtually indistinguishable from the Neocons, and believe that Israel should take over ALL of the land from the Palestinians and they have become completely insensitive to the rights of Muslim people or even darker skinned Jews.
I am deeply saddened by this given the history of racism against Jews. You would think with all of the oppression they face, they would finally get it once in power that ANY oppression is unacceptable, including the oppression of Muslims and non-European Jews.
Also, in fairness to Minister Farrakhan, while his anti-Semitic statements are deplorable, he and his organization have done an incredible job rehabilitating ex-offenders in the black community and this is a GOOD thing. Sometimes we get so caught up in "one" aspect of a person's character that this overshadows everything else, when the reality is that there may be some redeeming qualities of that person that we ought to respect.
So whether we "denounce" or "reject" Farrakhan because of his anti-Semitism, let's continue to build on his work with ex-offenders and end this shameful over-incarceration of black and brown people. Let's also tell the lobbyists who were responsible for the prison-industrial-complex that they are not going to profit off the poor and disadvantaged with slave labor because we are going to tear down your prisons and build trade schools and universities in their place.
Human beings are much more than a "unit of production", and it is therefore time to end the prison-industrial-complex as we know it!
Posted by Metteyya at 02/27/2008 @ 1:51pm
A much respected conservative guru, name escapes me, recently spelled out why McCain is unacceptable to conservatives.
According to the fellow, conservatives are for tax cuts, drilling in Alaska hinterlande and torture to extract information. They are against limits on political speech/money, amnesty for illegals, closing Gitmo, allowing import of prescription drugs, researching possible climate change, fed funding for embryonic stem-cell research, an International criminal court and gun-show background checks.
No wonder old Bill Buckley died. His fellow conservatives have become a bunch of small-minded, regressive spouters of no-no laundry lists.
Posted by felicity at 02/27/2008 @ 1:54pm
Buckly was clever with words--but what a toad. The way his tongue flitted out--as if to snap up the airborne knat, was positively repitilian. He was a strange one.
Posted by LIL 02/27/2008
I particularly enjoyed watching Noam Chomsky make Buckley look stupid in a debate.
Posted by MATTMAN 02/27/2008
Well, I guess we can't expect any civility from this bunch...Sad..
But, not surprising. And, I hope my chant for Obama doesn't hurt your little feelings............
Posted by TransitDave at 02/27/2008 @ 2:01pm
transitdave-Your chant shows immaturity and won't hurt anyones feelings.
Posted by i'm nobody at 02/27/2008 @ 2:02pm
Buckley was an educated ass, with not much to show except arrogance. he, like Ayn Rand appealed mostly to high school seniors who couldn't get a date friday night. nothing has changed.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/27/2008 @ 2:04pm
Posted by TRANSITDAVE 02/27/2008 @ 2:01pm
The Obama chant only hurts your reputation at The Nation.
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/27/2008 @ 2:08pm
What I REALLY want to know isn this:
Who had more advanced spaceships?
1-The aliens that started the nation if islam.
or
2-The aliens that started the church of scientology.
( Louie is another religious freak and Black redneck..)
Posted by bleedingheart at 02/27/2008 @ 2:10pm
Posted by MATTMAN 02/27/2008 @ 1:38pm |
Merely referring to the small, but general feeling of some on the Right (including Buchanan) who opposed Iraq from the start, or later admitted it's failure....who represented the old "isolationism".
And noted, that there WILL be a new isolationism....gonna be hard to sell a Darfur or Kenya intervention from the folks who said "Iraq never attacked us" or "Iraq never had WMDs" or "It's group violence and civil war"....hmmm?
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 2:17pm
Buckley was an educated ass, with not much to show except arrogance.----Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/27/2008 @ 2:04pm
Boy, if EMILE IS JOHANNESROLF....that hypocrisy is so thick you'd need a chainsaw to cut it!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 2:19pm
This just in, from ONN news....
Di ebold has accidentially leaked the 2008 Election results [theonion.com]
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 2:46pm
And noted, that there WILL be a new isolationism....gonna be hard to sell a Darfur or Kenya intervention from the folks who said "Iraq never attacked us" or "Iraq never had WMDs" or "It's group violence and civil war"....hmmm?
Posted by MASK 02/27/2008 @ 2:17pm
You're probably right...in general about the isolationism. In order to "sell" any future interventions, I think we had better REALLY look into our motives.
(Again with the Chomsky-Buckley debate!) Chomsky argued that there has never been an intervention undertaken by any developed nation in which that nation did not have specific business interests in mind, and did not thereby profit from the conflict. If that model is correct, the likelihood of US involvement with Kenya/Darfur is pretty slim.
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/27/2008 @ 2:48pm
Buckley was an educated ass, with not much to show except arrogance. he, like Ayn Rand appealed mostly to high school seniors who couldn't get a date friday night. nothing has changed. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/27/2008 @ 2:04pm
Indeed. I can recall the classmates who adored WFB & annotated Atlas Shrugged & Goldwater's ghost-written, unconscionable Conscience of a Conservative. The nerd description fits them well. So does bigot.
No tears for WFB, some laughs, many cringes, as exemplified in the NYT obit:
"For Murray Kempton, one of his many friends on the left, the Buckley press conference style called up 'an Edwardian resident commissioner reading aloud the 39 articles of the Anglican establishment to a conscript of assembled Zulus.' ... The merits of the argument aside, Mr. Buckley irrevocably proved that his brand of candor did not lend itself to public life when an Op-Ed article he wrote for The New York Times offered a partial cure for the AIDS epidemic: 'Everyone detected with AIDS should be tattooed in the upper forearm to prevent common needle users, and on the buttocks, to prevent the victimization of homosexuals," he wrote.'"
Posted by sloper at 02/27/2008 @ 2:49pm
Posted by MATTMAN 02/27/2008 @ 2:48pm
Well, Smedley Butler beat him by 30 years on that idea, so what?
Problem is "business interests" can get applied to just about EVERYTHING since the economy of a nation-state is intrinsically linked to its government.
Lenin would have never overthrown the monarchy if the average Russian had been living life like a contemporaneous Brit...so wasn't "business interests" (i.e. taking over the Russian economy) a potential "reason" for the Russian Revolution? Or the Chinese? Or Cuban?
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 3:19pm
The Obama chant only hurts your reputation at The Nation.
Posted by MATTMAN 02/27/2008
But, what about The Nation's reputation with ME?
Posted by TransitDave at 02/27/2008 @ 3:19pm
Posted by NICR 02/27/2008 @ 12:03pm
we are all hybrids.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/27/2008 @ 3:22pm
or proved that he is "just as much in AIPAC's pocket as Hillary".
Posted by MASK 02/27/2008 @ 12:06pm
more like needing jewish votes in new york and florida.
with your stupid electoral system, who cares about muslim votes in michigan.......
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/27/2008 @ 3:24pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/27/2008 @ 3:24pm
So if Michigan had more electoral votes....what? More support for the Palestinians? The "AIPAC rules everything" guys will disagree.
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 3:34pm
Lenin would have never overthrown the monarchy if the average Russian had been living life like a contemporaneous Brit...so wasn't "business interests" (i.e. taking over the Russian economy) a potential "reason" for the Russian Revolution? Or the Chinese? Or Cuban?
Posted by MASK 02/27/2008 @ 3:19pm
I guess in a very general way I can understand that logic, in the sense that control of the economy is sought. But specifically, socialist revolutions occurred for the antithesis of 'business interests', that being the workers' interests-- the flip-side of the capitol coin; labor.
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/27/2008 @ 3:40pm
But, what about The Nation's reputation with ME?
Posted by TRANSITDAVE 02/27/2008 @ 3:19pm
Touche!
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/27/2008 @ 3:41pm
Posted by MATTMAN 02/27/2008 @ 3:40pm
Then it's merely a matter of WHOSE economic interests...
you are willing kill people and have others die for?
The mirror image of the "imperialist capitalists war for business interests"....is the "revolutionary socialists war for workers' interests" (except often the Left version doesn't turn out so well for the workers....gulags, Holodomor, Cultural Revolutions).
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 4:16pm
The questions are only going to get tougher as Obama gets closer to the nomination. McCain is already drawing him out on the GWOT, and we haven't even gotten to issues like WMD proliferation, border control, global warming and the trade deficit. He has to clarify and bring home just what a progressive foreign policy is going to look like, and call the Republicans on confusing belligerence with strength. As for HRC, well, it's just sad at this point, isn't it?
Posted by bagehot at 02/27/2008 @ 5:34pm
obama did well, he's just fine, DONT WORRY.
some folks will try to smear...some folks just wont vote for him no matter what...
the pubs are demoralized and running about like chickens with their heads cut off cause they know deep down beyond all their bullshit that...in terms of the average schmuk's opinion...
any lowdown smear they sling bounces off him and sticks on them like glue!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/27/2008 @ 5:51pm
The mirror image of the "imperialist capitalists war for business interests"....is the "revolutionary socialists war for workers' interests" (except often the Left version doesn't turn out so well for the workers....gulags, Holodomor, Cultural Revolutions).
Posted by MASK 02/27/2008 @ 4:16pm
Well we've apparently diverged slightly from the original question as to whether interventionism was not merely for capitol gain. I don't equate revolutionary action as interventionist, but still I would agree with you that war is bad no matter how you look at it--I happen to prefer the democratic process to implement change.
Posted by MATTMAN at 02/27/2008 @ 5:53pm
Very dissapointed. Now I am even more sure of my vote for Obama. Unfortunately there is a certain percentage of our population who will take this to heart. There in lies the problem for all of us. Chauvanistic phylosophies that devide and call people to arms intead of the peace table. Extreme ignorance and highly divisional. One would hope that these prehistoric views and attitudes would go back to the first century where they came from and where they belong.
Posted by Rudy Andl at 02/27/2008 @ 7:31pm
I don't equate revolutionary action as interventionist...---Posted by MATTMAN 02/27/2008 @ 5:53pm
So you don't think the old Soviets or Cubans or Chinese "intervened" to foster revolutions?
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 7:54pm
Posted by RUDY ANDL 02/27/2008 @ 7:31pm
Has Obama given you the impression of being a ...pacifist?
Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 7:55pm
Its amazing that this is an issue. No white politician is ever asked to reject or renounce politicians that have had policies that are racist or at least harm minorities. It was just an easy fight to pick by calling into question this "endorsement". I had respect for Tim Russert, but no more.
I disagree----back in the 90's a guy by the name of David Duke who was once a member of the Klan, claimed he was becoming a Republican. Republicans all over the country had to answer questions about Duke's relationship to the Republican party and they were expected to denounce and disassociate themselves with him. This situation is quite similar to Farakan and Obama.
Posted by Len Mosse at 02/27/2008 @ 7:58pm
Re: RUSSERT AMPLIFIES "ANTI-ISRAEL" SMEAR CAMPAIGN AGAINST OBAMA ..
Well, isn't that business as usual that the press's always smearing someone or all of the politicos at the same time; and that includes the Nation's edittors. That's fine since you do it for a living.
Posted by HelenDAO at 02/27/2008 @ 9:02pm
You should choose your words a little more carefully.
Posted by MATTMAN 02/27/2008 @ 12:29pm | ignore this person
that had occurred to me, but I let it go. the problem in the south was that blacks were addressed as boy. that is a different matter entirely. how about Hillary is a smart girl?
Posted by emile duBois at 02/27/2008 @ 9:40pm
conservative intellectuals=oxymoron,
Posted by emile duBois at 02/27/2008 @ 9:43pm
After reading the disgusting piece by Noam Chomsky in this issue of the Nation, in which he compares Israel going after PLO terrorists to the murder of a jewish civilian in a wheelchair on the Achille Lauro, its difficult for me to take The Nation's bloggers seriously on this issue.
However, you are in essence right. Obama will likely take the position that israel has the right to defend itself against arab terrorism, and that this defense is not to be considered morally equivalent to the terrorist outrages which inspire it.
In other words, exactly the position that the left hates. When will you jews at the nation wake up to the reality of leftist anti-semetism, and stop flirting with it???
Posted by Stubine at 02/28/2008 @ 08:54am
After reading the disgusting piece by Noam Chomsky in this issue of the Nation, in which he compares Israel going after PLO terrorists to the murder of a jewish civilian in a wheelchair on the Achille Lauro, its difficult for me to take The Nation's bloggers seriously on this issue.
However, you are in essence right. Obama will likely take the position that israel has the right to defend itself against arab terrorism, and that this defense is not to be considered morally equivalent to the terrorist outrages which inspire it.
In other words, exactly the position that the left hates. When will you jews at the nation wake up to the reality of leftist anti-semetism, and stop flirting with it???
Posted by Stubine at 02/28/2008 @ 08:56am
So if Michigan had more electoral votes....what? More support for the Palestinians? The "AIPAC rules everything" guys will disagree.
Posted by MASK 02/27/2008 @ 3:34pm
of course. the muslim lobby, like the hindu lobby are growing stronger and stronger..........
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/28/2008 @ 09:20am
Libs, I'd say its your side, with the constant refrain of "we can't talk about israel without being called anti-semites" which jumps the gun on the namecalling. It's obvious that there are people on the left of today that while may criticize israel, also have a problem with jews generally. I'm not talking about everyone who criticizes israel so please give me a break with this canard.
Palestinians who are trying to murder israelis are not innocents, and killing them first is not unjust. Of course civilians get killed, thanks to the terrorists using them as human shields, but unlike the palestinians who ALWAYS target civilians, the IDF never does. There's just no comparison at all.
Posted by Stubine at 02/28/2008 @ 09:52am
osted by STUBINE 02/28/2008 @ 09:52am | ignore this person
you don't understand how this asymmetrical warfare thing works.Israel has tanks, planes, helicopter gunships, etc. the west bank palestinians have none of these things.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/28/2008 @ 09:57am
Emile, the police who arrested Jeffrey Dalhmer, for example were far better armed then he was, so I take it he must have been the good guy and they the "bad guys" right?
It's completely irrelevant what weapons both sides have, what matters is how they use them and for what purpose. The palestinians use their weapons to murder as many civilians as possible for the purposes of genocide, while the israelis use their weapons to kill as many terrorists as possible, for the purposes of security.
Again, no comparison at all.
Posted by Stubine at 02/28/2008 @ 10:00am
There is nothing that Hillary did that was inappropriate. This is nothing but a reflexive anti-Hillary reaction on the part of so called liberal media. I am so incensed by the conduct of liberal blogs that is far worse than mainstream media that I intend to sit out this election cycle.
Posted by kevin99999 at 02/28/2008 @ 10:16am
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=Stubine
your one sided view exposes you for what you are. a right wing racist.
Dahmer? puleeze.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/28/2008 @ 10:30am
I intend to sit out this election cycle.
Posted by KEVIN99999 02/28/2008 @ 10:16am | ignore this person
and you should be commended for that. you are a great patriot.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/28/2008 @ 10:31am
Emile, I made an analogy that obviously went over your head, which I can't understand.
Racist? So I take it you have no response to my point, because its simply not assailable. You can't compare vile murderers with people fighting for their security, no matter what weapons are used.
Posted by Stubine at 02/28/2008 @ 10:32am
The Palestinians have right to continue their armed struggle against what I considered state of Israel. I wonder what these right wing patriots would do if the U.S. was occupied by a foreign power.
Posted by kevin99999 at 02/28/2008 @ 10:39am
Kevin, there is no comparison between the US being occupied and anything going on in Israel. Palestine was never a country, it was a british colony, and when the british divided it, the arabs of the region rejected this. The idea of a state called "Palestine" and a people called "Palestinians" was invented later.
But, since the "armed struggle" the palestinians are engaged in primarily targets civilians, do you agree with the murder of israeli civilians? Do you agree with the murder of jews worldwide?
Posted by Stubine at 02/28/2008 @ 10:42am
Posted by STUBINE 02/28/2008 @ 10:00am | ignore this person
The Isreali/Palestinian conflict is an issue that cannot/will not be resolved until the Isreali's grant Palestinian land to form their own nation. This would probably require a mutual cease-fire agreement that could not be violated for, say, 3-5 years before any sovereignty woudl be granted. Nato or (gasp!) the UN would have to be brought in to "gaurantee" peace for this time period and the 2-3 year transitional period after land transfer occurs. If the Palestinians continue to bomb civilian targets after they have a nation of their own, well, then all bets are off and Isreal would clearly have justification for their tactics. This issue has too many gray areas and neither side has dealt with it appropriately. Palestinian nut jobs blow up a bus in Tel-Aviv while providing water and electricity to bombed out civilians in the West Bank; Isreali helicopters fire rockets into PLO hideouts knowingly killing human shields while trying to protect their own citizens from further bombings/murder. It is an endless cycle of civiliandestruction (madness) and both sides are operating without logic. The West does not wield their power effectivley to bring about change (cue the anti-AIPAC and conspiracy theorists) and help bring an end to this nonsense.
Without an equitable solution to the issue of territory, the arguement over who has what rights to defend what land will continue ad nauseum, and that region will NEVER see stability. And as long as oil fuels our economy, we will never be able to stay out of the conflict.
Posted by BizarroRio at 02/28/2008 @ 11:06am
Posted by STUBINE 02/28/2008 @ 10:42am | ignore this person
Regardless of when the idea of Palestine occured, do you agree that their is no peace without the idea of a Palestinian state? Or would you prefer to just eliminate the Palestinians altogether?
For a discussion on the justifications and the killing of jews, please see MarkCanyon...
Posted by BizarroRio at 02/28/2008 @ 11:17am
Kevin, there is no comparison between the US being occupied and anything going on in Israel. Palestine was never a country, it was a british colony, and when the british divided it, the arabs of the region rejected this. The idea of a state called "Palestine" and a people called "Palestinians" was invented later.
But, since the "armed struggle" the palestinians are engaged in primarily targets civilians, do you agree with the murder of israeli civilians? Do you agree with the murder of jews worldwide?
Posted by STUBINE 02/28/2008 @ 10:42am
well a huge influx of europeans taking their orchards would certainly piss them off.
it seems the americans also rejected british ideas way back when.......................
it also seems that the israeli army tends to fuck around civilians a whole lot.
anybody who kills is an asshole.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/28/2008 @ 11:33am
I'm not against a Palestinian state bizrro. I would be fine with pulling back to '67 borders in fact, but not as long as this will merely be interpreted as another victory on the path to the total destruction of israel, which is exactly how it would be seen.
Anyway, I've pulled this off topic. Obama seems to me to at least be VIEWED by the arab world as being more sympathetic to them, So even if his policies really aren't, they would be viewed more favorably.
Posted by Stubine at 02/28/2008 @ 11:37am
What I have been wondering is how did the Press find out about the Farrakhan endorsement? Did he call the Press up to tell them about it. I am sure they do not attend his gatherings.
Posted by bacalove at 02/28/2008 @ 12:08pm
Posted by STUBINE 02/28/2008 @ 10:42am | ignore this person
you cannot even get your history right. Palestine was never a British colony. it was a British mandate.
you are a likudnik, and a stupid one at that.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/28/2008 @ 12:08pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/28/2008 @ 11:33am | ignore this person
you're pretty ignorant on this bubbele. do your research. Smith and Brown, Brown and Smith.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/28/2008 @ 12:11pm
Posted by LIBSWARNEDU 02/27/2008 @ 11:56pm | ignore this person
you are onto something. Obama is an alert listener.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/28/2008 @ 12:26pm
Emile there is absolutely no distinction, for the purposes of sovereignty, between a "british mandate" and a colony. The point is, the british were in charge. I'm willing to bet that you throw the word "colonial" about quite a bit, so splitting hairs and insulting me is a bit much.
But I understand, since you don't have a response to my argument.
Posted by Stubine at 02/29/2008 @ 01:00am