Re: Doubters 1, Oggéd 0

1

The first of many, I think. If he keeps going at this rate, big chunks of the blogs are going to resemble supplemental case studies to When Prophecy Fails.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 2:27 PM
horizontal rule
2

For all our politicians suck up to Israel, you would think they had oil.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 2:27 PM
horizontal rule
3

and so it begins, I guess. sigh.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 2:28 PM
horizontal rule
4

double-you tee eff, barry.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 2:28 PM
horizontal rule
5

Suck it up, ogged. You want him to win. We can betray the Jews later.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 2:30 PM
horizontal rule
6

I really do have some trouble understanding the motivation behind this. Obama can practically print money as he needs it through his website, so what's this about, Florida?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 2:35 PM
horizontal rule
7

Don't stop believing. Hold on to the feeeeling!


Posted by: baa | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 2:36 PM
horizontal rule
8

6: It's not what you say about the issues, it's what the issues say about you.


Posted by: Fatman | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 2:38 PM
horizontal rule
9

Dude, this election has higher volatility than anyone in recent memory. Obama could be perceived as JFK 2.0 and win in a blowout, or he could be seen as scary radical and lose MI, OH, and PA. This is the obvious move. Maybe he even believes it.


Posted by: baa | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 2:38 PM
horizontal rule
10
December 20. The group expects a visitor from outer space to call upon them at midnight and to escort them to a waiting spacecraft. As instructed, the group goes to great lengths to remove all metallic items from their persons. As midnight approaches, zippers, bra straps, and other objects are discarded. The group waits.

12:05 A.M., December 21. No visitor. Someone in the group notices that another clock in the room shows 11:55. The group agrees that it is not yet midnight.

12:10 A.M. The second clock strikes midnight. Still no visitor. The group sits in stunned silence. The cataclysm itself is no more than seven hours away.

4:00 A.M. The group has been sitting in stunned silence. A few attempts at finding explanations have failed. Mrs. Keech begins to cry.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 2:40 PM
horizontal rule
11

You think this election is more volatile than I am, bitch? I'll tear your guts out! I'll feed your toes to rabbits!

What does the AIPAC pander get him in MI, OH, and PA? You think he's just covering all his bases? This seems to be more than required, and alienating to at least some folks.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 2:41 PM
horizontal rule
12

what's this about, Florida?

That would be my guess. I'm sure this makes me anti-Semitic or something, but I'd send money to a presidential candidate who promised to tell AIPAC to shove it.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 2:42 PM
horizontal rule
13

It's not pandering if the Jews really do control everything.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 2:44 PM
horizontal rule
14

Didn't he already hint he'd take these positions in his race speech?


Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 2:46 PM
horizontal rule
15

5 and 7 are right. It's about the fact that almost every filthy Jew in this country votes. And this election just might be close, at least in a few states. And Northeast Ohio, where Obama will have to win huge to win the state, has many Jews. As do the suburbs of Detroit. As do Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Oh, and then there's South Florida, where Obama must clean up to win the state. In short, if McCain wins a bigger percentage of the filthy Jew vote than Bush did, Obama really might lose this thing. Unless he more than makes up the stagger with the votes of Iranians and Palestinians.

And 12 is the rightest of all.

Yours in self hatred,

Ari


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 2:47 PM
horizontal rule
16

He hinted he'd call for Jerusalem to be the undivided capital of Israel?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 2:47 PM
horizontal rule
17

In politics, people who really, really care about an issue are much more important than people who merely have an opinion. AIPAC, NRA, Miami Cubans and the Chamber of Commerce don't represent a majority in this country, but they'll get their way until their opponents get more intense.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 2:47 PM
horizontal rule
18

Northeast Ohio, where Obama will have to win huge to win the state, has many Jews. As do the suburbs of Detroit

Ok, this helps. Fucking America.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 2:49 PM
horizontal rule
19

And by the way, in the context of this post, Obama can practically print money as he needs it through his website, is pretty offensive. But I forgive you.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 2:50 PM
horizontal rule
20

This is the obvious move.

Obvious as in "this was the move he was obviously going to make," but not obvious as in "Obama obviously needs to pander to Israel hawks to win the election." Obama's been doing well enough with his "my opposition to the Iraq War makes me a better commander-in-chief than Crazy John McCain" line, and he could've stuck with it and won easily.

And really, in the broad picture this really hasn't been a volatile campaign at all. All the trends point to 2008 being a very bad year for the GOP and for policies associated with the GOP. Polls pointed in that direction a year ago, and they show that even more today. And Israel/Palestine isn't such a huge issue with voters that it's going to swing the election; it's just not. Iraq and the economy and half a dozen other things are going to be more important in November.

What Obama's AIPAC pander comes down to is the fact that the man still buys into the standard set of assumptions about how a Democrat is supposed to behave, and being Tough On Arabs is one of those assumptions. We knew this was coming since his first speech to AIPAC last year - which wasn't quite as bad as this one but was still pretty terrible. When it comes to the Israel Lobby, both parties are eagerly on board.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 2:51 PM
horizontal rule
21

What does the AIPAC pander get him in MI, OH, and PA?

You're thinking too narrowly. "Won't defend Israel "plays into the "is a radical lefty/democratic sissy" typecasting Obama seeks to avoid.


Posted by: baa | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 2:51 PM
horizontal rule
22

It's more about money than Florida or the miniscule number of Jews in other swing states. Not just from the subset of American Jews who suport AIPAC; defense contractors are also interested in strong support for Israel. Obama has a fair amount of cash but he isn't taking chances.

What down side? McCain won't be any different on the substance. Arab Americans will still vote for the guy with the Arabic name. So will Ogged.


Posted by: unimaginative | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 2:52 PM
horizontal rule
23

18: Yes, this is one among many reason that the Electoral College* is such crap: more power for the Jews (like they need it).

* Or "Electoral Collage," as one of my students just wrote.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 2:53 PM
horizontal rule
24

You're thinking too narrowly. "Won't defend Israel "plays into the "is a radical lefty/democratic sissy" Muslim" typecasting Obama seeks to avoid.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 2:54 PM
horizontal rule
25

Obama can practically print money as he needs it through his website, so what's this about, Florida?

Yes, but Clinton gone he can now tap into funds from the new politics *and* the old politics in hopes of smothering McCain in green.

Also, people think he's a Muslim.


Posted by: Gabriel | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 2:57 PM
horizontal rule
26

21 & 24 are right: This is in addition to Florida, a "Hey, I am Presidential, don't worry" signal to various elites, especially the media. Downside risk is "panderer/flipflopper" (but he is gonna get that no matter what) and ... oh, yeah actual policy.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 2:57 PM
horizontal rule
27

You know, I thought that, and was going to make another Hamas crack. But then I decided: too much.

The dude wears a turban. I saw it in a photograph. In the words of Homer Simpson: "oh my God, those guys are going steady!"


Posted by: baa | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 2:57 PM
horizontal rule
28

I really do have some trouble understanding the motivation behind this. Obama can practically print money as he needs it through his website, so what's this about, Florida?

Getting massive donations doesn't help much if the banks won't let you have the money.

I think it's for Florida, but also because (a) he wants to deny McCain a formidable funding source, (b) he doesn't want some outside group criticizing him during the campaign against McCain, and (c) he knows that the pundit pages and shows tend to be remarkably Likudnik-friendly, while the Palestinians don't have much of a following in those same arenas, and he doesn't need five months of being bashed on their pages and shows.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 2:59 PM
horizontal rule
29

I make the obvious, pragmatic moves for the greater good
You are at times somewhat strategic in your decisions
She is a cynical, pandering bitch.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 2:59 PM
horizontal rule
30

is pretty offensive

You mean in the sense that it suggests there are non-Jewish sources of money? I'm sure it was just a joke.

Obama can have as much money as Mr. Soros says he can.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:00 PM
horizontal rule
31

29: Perfect. I tried that a couple different ways and couldn't come up with anything good enough to hit "post."


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:02 PM
horizontal rule
32

I actually think it comes down to 28c. Most the crap against Obama is on the disreputable side, but pundits feel very comfortable projecting onto voters: "What can Obama do about his Jewish Problem?" They'll run with that shit as long as they can, and the only way to shut it down is to suck up to AIPAC.

Note that this isn't intended as conspiracy-minded; I don't think the Jews control the media or anything. I just think (and have seen a lot in just the last couple weeks) that the media likes this angle, and would like to pound on it. But if BHO gets his AIPAC sticker, then they'll give up on it (since it has no basis in reality).

So what does BHO have to promise to the Appalachian PAC to kill that trope?


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:07 PM
horizontal rule
33

So what does BHO have to promise to the Appalachian PAC to kill that trope?

Subsidies for "clean coal."


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:09 PM
horizontal rule
34

So what does BHO have to promise to the Appalachian PAC to kill that trope?

Gun control?


Posted by: Gabriel | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:09 PM
horizontal rule
35

Mission Accomplished: Hamas unendorses Obama.


Posted by: Grumps | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:12 PM
horizontal rule
36

So what does BHO have to promise to the Appalachian PAC to kill that trope?

Loosening the restrictions on sibling marriage.


Posted by: d. cheney | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:12 PM
horizontal rule
37

Volatile, volatile. I'm telling ya, that was one short "agonizing reassessment" I had in the last 24 hours.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:12 PM
horizontal rule
38

Shorter Obama:

Pay no attention to the black man at the podium.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:13 PM
horizontal rule
39

I don't think it's about all that many jews changing their votes based on this issue. He wants to stop the articles about jews doubting him. His good poll numbers with jewish voters won't stop them, only very vigorously kowtowing before aipac. Also to reassure dem politicans and powerbrokers he's sufficiently pro-Israel.


Posted by: David Weman | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:13 PM
horizontal rule
40

And 35.


Posted by: David Weman | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:14 PM
horizontal rule
41

37: But I bet it was excruciatingly agonizing.
We feel your pain, bob.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:15 PM
horizontal rule
42

In other words, making the media see him in a diffrent light, and cover him differerntly, which will indirectly sway voters.


Posted by: David Weman | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:16 PM
horizontal rule
43

Apart from Florida and money (anti-semites the lot of you, by the way), it may be a consideration of the Obama campaign not to be thought, or said, to be losing a traditionally Democratic voting bloc. No one wants to vote for a loser, and "Obama's losing the Jews... the white men... the Rust Belt bipolars... the lipstick soccer moms... the Acadians..." is not a song that any campaign wants to hear all summer.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:16 PM
horizontal rule
44

39 is true. Especially since the conventional wisdom here is that Jews are the opposite of Muslims. So if Obama is pro-Jew, then...he is probably less than half Muslim.


Posted by: Fatman | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:17 PM
horizontal rule
45

Note that this isn't intended as conspiracy-minded; I don't think the Jews control the media or anything. I just think (and have seen a lot in just the last couple weeks) that the media likes this angle, and would like to pound on it.

The media "liking this angle" is exactly the kind of thing that makes people conspiracy-minded.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:17 PM
horizontal rule
46

16: No, but there was this (which is somewhat less explicit than I remembered it):

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:17 PM
horizontal rule
47

45: You don't need a conspiracy. You just have to have an Village approved I/P policy in 1980 as a prerequisite to getting one these forums, and then something like tenure. The country has moved a fair bit on I/P in the last twenty or thirty years, I think. Though now may not be the time to measure it.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:19 PM
horizontal rule
48

These are good answers, bitches.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:20 PM
horizontal rule
49

since the conventional wisdom here is isn't.

not that this seems exceptional, really.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:20 PM
horizontal rule
50

If you were a covert muslim who had secretly pledged allegiance to Iran and Palestine, wouldn't you shamelessly pander to AIPAC? More evidence.


Posted by: Grumps | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:22 PM
horizontal rule
51

50: Man, that guy's so sneaky, he might actually be Persian.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:23 PM
horizontal rule
52

I'm trying to write a medium long substantive post about Turkey and I've forgotten how excruciating I find blogging. How do you people do it?


Posted by: David Weman | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:23 PM
horizontal rule
53

32: What in god's name makes you think that Jews don't control the media? Okay, perhaps "control" is (very) slightly too strong, but certainly Jews have disproportionate power in the media. We can all agree on that, right?


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:23 PM
horizontal rule
54

We just avoid substantive posts, Weman.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:25 PM
horizontal rule
55

I don't think Obama has to worry too much about losing the Jewish vote in 2008. They supported Kerry and Gore more than Mondale in 1984 and they supported Mondale two to one, for Christ's sake, if you'll forgive the inapposite exclamation. And hasn't someone observed that most Jews, in both America and Israel, support a more liberal foreign policy than AIPAC?

Non-Jews who support AIPAC's foreign policy and would hold it against Obama if he didn't? True, that's a fairly large constituency. John Hagee speaks for about two thirds of them. I hope Barack Hussein Obama doesn't spend too much time trying to get his endorsement.

Don't get me wrong, I realize that McCain's no better than Obama on this issue and much worse on most other issues. And I realize that swing states matter and that Obama might need to do more than most candidates would. But still, to me, going to the right of Bush on this sure looks like an unforced error.


Posted by: Cyrus | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:27 PM
horizontal rule
56

45:Crazy Bob got like all excoriated once for this, but umm if any possible political advantage can be pre-emptively innoculated away, it could prevent an October surprise.

Or not. This week a well-respected German FP (Agonist?) dude said an Israeli attack is a done deal, agreed on during Bush's recent trip to Israel.
Unless McCain wins or looks certain.

I was always worried about Edwards response to an "event" but I knew Obama could handle it as well as any Democrat. Would be nice to have a full-on FP Dove, or somebody who didn't have to act crazyman for the cameras.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:27 PM
horizontal rule
57

Beggars can't be choosers, and the American people disagree with me about most things.

My fundamental political principle is extremely robust.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:28 PM
horizontal rule
58

It's not about "going to the right of Bush" or "appealing to non-Jews who have heard of AIPAC", which is about 0.01% of the US population. It's about being perceived as pro-Jew, and therefore since Jews are the opposite of Muslims, probably not a Muslim.

In 44, "here" meant "in the US", not "in this comment section".


Posted by: Fatman | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:30 PM
horizontal rule
59

53: I dunno. That's not what I read in the New Republic.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:30 PM
horizontal rule
60

Multiply pwned, of course. Oh well, at least I brought a link.


Posted by: Cyrus L | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:31 PM
horizontal rule
61

59: Smiley icon.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:32 PM
horizontal rule
62

The media "liking this angle" is exactly the kind of thing that makes people conspiracy-minded.

That's as may be; I was only defending myself. I say it to 53, as well.

Seriously, though, Obama vs. Teh Jews is just the current angle, but the media likes lots of angles, regardless of the facts. If it were HRC who won, it would be all, "Can she win back the blacks?" and I don't think it's because Blacks own the media.

Although, in truth, the perceived solution to Hillary's "Black Problem" would not consist of really obvious pandering to a nonrepresentative group of blacks, so it's not all that parallel.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:32 PM
horizontal rule
63

I think 35 made this all make perfect sense. Or maybe 50. It's hard to say. Of course, now he opens himself up to "he was for Hamas's endorsement before he was against it."


Posted by: Hamilton-Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:32 PM
horizontal rule
64

What in god's name makes you think that Jews don't control the media? ...... We can all agree on that, right?

Ari is the second coming of Ozzie Freedman and will be warmly welcomed by his people.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:34 PM
horizontal rule
65

Obama's speech is exactly what I'd expect from the anti-Christ.


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:35 PM
horizontal rule
66

Fuck it. With the alternative McCain, I have no dealbreakers. Never have had, I would vote for Dobson if he changed parties and won the Democratic nomination. If the bombing starts and Obama cheers, I go in and vote "D".

And Foreign Policy/War/Torture is third on my list of horrors gagged on in the voting booth, after Economics and Social Issues.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:35 PM
horizontal rule
67

Ari is the second coming

I'm the new Christ!


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:37 PM
horizontal rule
68

I'm the new Christ!

The second coming of Christ is a jew again? After they broke their first one?


Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:39 PM
horizontal rule
69

On Jerusalem, at least, Obama is restating the position of the 2004 Democratic platform. (I think that this is a shitty plank, myself, but it's the official position of the party as a whole as of a couple years ago.)


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:40 PM
horizontal rule
70

Ari is Christ 2.0 , the interactive Jesus.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:40 PM
horizontal rule
71
"Why attack God himself? He is just as unhappy as we could be; since the death of his poor son he has no taste for anything and only nibbles at his food.
Although he has seated him on his good old right hand, he is still completely flabbergasted that men could play such a nasty trick on the one he cherished; and he only has time to murmur, in the saddest way possible, 'That wasn't fair'.
I doubt that whether at this moment he would send down to earth even one of his nephews; mankind has changed his mind about sending members of his family out on trips."
---Erik Satie

Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:44 PM
horizontal rule
72

70: Unfortunately, in this version I'm sweetened with corn syrup (a pander to the people of Iowa) instead of cane sugar. But other improvements make up for the odd aftertaste, I assure you. So, would you like to touch the hem of my garment?


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:46 PM
horizontal rule
73

I'm a little lost, but this means an Ari/Obama cage match, right?

I'm betting on the "used to be black" guy.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:47 PM
horizontal rule
74

Found the Iran thing. It was Nouriel Roubini May 30-June 2

Roubini. Permabear, don't sweat it he would predict the Rapture if he could find a way to shortsell it.

I know I promised to leave Iran alone but they keep scaring me.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:52 PM
horizontal rule
75

||
According to Isikoff and Hosenball, [Khalid Sheikh] Mohammed seemed intent on "dominat[ing] the proceedings." During a lunch break, he even instructed a courtroom artist to change the way his nose appeared in an official sketch. Writing for the AP, Andrew O. Selsky said that "Mohammed seemed noticeably thinner in his first appearance since his capture in Pakistan in 2003."
|>


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 3:54 PM
horizontal rule
76

75: So he had a little work done. What of it?


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 4:00 PM
horizontal rule
77

71 is great.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 4:00 PM
horizontal rule
78

Obama, or betray-us?

C'mon, no one should be surprised at this. Politics isn't American Idol, it's not supposed to be fair. Four, or eight, years of Federal judgeships and US Attorney appointments are going to matter a hell of a lot more to me, and you, and, frankly, the Palestinians, than some campaign promises and a few more cluster bombs.

Someday there will be a harvesting.


Posted by: minneapolitan | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 4:02 PM
horizontal rule
79

75:At least he had a mind left. But I hear he folded fast, seeing as how Bush had his kids. And they had Padilla to experiment with.

I think I am achieving another bad mood.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 4:02 PM
horizontal rule
80

OT: This is so awesome.


Posted by: David Weman | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 4:04 PM
horizontal rule
81

In northern Minnesota there's a M2F pre-op transsexual welfare recipient running for the state legislature as a Republican. Top that, coastal elites!


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 4:11 PM
horizontal rule
82

Obama's main Jewish problem is that Jews don't dislike & distrust McCain as much as they did Bush, because they don't think McCain is a crazy right wing Christian. Certainly there's no specific Jewish problem w/ Hillary Clinton, & yet in general election polling she didn't win Jewish voters by nearly as much as Kerry in 2004. Obama does do a bit worse than Clinton, due to the Hussein factor etc., but the main problem seems to be the need to convince Jews to dislike McCain more.

I am very irritated but not especially surprised. I wonder if this is really politically necessary, or it's just the sort of thing that everyone in D.C. says is politically necessary because they hear it over & over & over again. I realize intensity matters & all, but we're talking about such a small # of voters--it's not just Florida, also Pennsylvania & New Jersey, but I'll tell you right now, Michigan has more Arabs & Muslims than Jews, & a large majority of Jewish voters' votes aren't actually in play....I guess a big part of it is that if you've got 98% of Washington saying "how high" when you say jump, it really is just a lot easier to credibly threaten the other 2%. Whereas what are anti war liberals & Muslims going to do, vote for McCain?


Posted by: Katherine | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 4:18 PM
horizontal rule
83

But this is a senate race, and the other guys, even if they were destined to lose, were apparently real politicians with serious campaigns.


Posted by: David Weman | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 4:19 PM
horizontal rule
84

there's no specific Jewish problem w/ Hillary Clinton

She kissed Arafat's wife.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 4:23 PM
horizontal rule
85

, but we're talking about such a small # of voters

I really don't think he's sweating winning the Jewish American vote, which he'll end up winning handily. He's sweating subsets of that vote: older Jewish Americans in Florida (who may understandably be very hawkish, and may also be important in the general), and media Likudnik-friendlies.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 4:24 PM
horizontal rule
86

Slipped her some tongue, too.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 4:24 PM
horizontal rule
87

She kissed Arafat's wife.

With tongue.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 4:28 PM
horizontal rule
88

80 -- I've had the pleasure of meeting Mr. K. several times, most recently at a bar meeting. He had some interesting resolutions to propose concerning family law, and has some views on the subject that aren't going to help him win. I don't remember exactly why I was talking with him in the 80s, back when he was on his parliamentary system jag, but he cuts quite a figure.

I'd like to be able to predict that he'll help Obama in Montana, along with Schweitzer running for re-election, but there's a similar problem, going the other way, in the House race. (Dems picked a weak candidate to challenge Rehberg.)


Posted by: Nápi | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 4:29 PM
horizontal rule
89

at a bar meeting in 2006.


Posted by: Nápi | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 4:33 PM
horizontal rule
90

And I see that I noted them in a blog post at the time:

Then the business meeting, in which we voted on some very interesting propositions: abolition of common law marriage, for example, or the replacement of no-fault divorce with physical abuse only divorce. The latter was presented as a pro-feminist proposal -- along with proposals to revamp family court and control pornography . . .


Posted by: Nápi | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 4:38 PM
horizontal rule
91

ogged, I know you interests & affects in the ME, but for the campaign season, you just gotta focus on the more important Positive Stories

Even with Teheran and Baghdad smoking cinderblocks, Less PAC Money! Weaker Lobbyists! We will be squeaky clean anew.

It's about priorities, dude.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 5:04 PM
horizontal rule
92

80, 88: Kelleher on the Daily Show


Posted by: beamish | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 5:10 PM
horizontal rule
93

Obama from the speech.

"I had grown up without a sense of roots," he explained. "I understood the Zionist idea, that there is always a homeland at the center of our story."

tf?


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 5:14 PM
horizontal rule
94

93: ?

The Zionist idea, since a century ago, is that if there is an ethnic group of people, it needs to have a homeland or else it has no strong sense of self and will likely end up victimized wherever it goes. And therefore the Jews need a homeland.

That excerpt sounds about right. Not that I agree with the idea necessarily.


Posted by: Fatman | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 5:17 PM
horizontal rule
95

OMG, you also had the blueskinned guy. But Kelleher's so awesome he they had to devote more time to him than the blue guy.


Posted by: David Weman | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 5:23 PM
horizontal rule
96

This should not be overlooked. An 84-year-old, recently a perpetual Green Party candidate, won the Republican nomination for a SENATE seat. In Montana.

Seeing as Baucus is probably the largest corporate whore among Democrats not from New York or Delaware, I'd like to see the Green/Republican guy win. He'd have nothing to lose by following his principles once in office.

I mean...wow!


Posted by: Fatman | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 5:30 PM
horizontal rule
97

Is anyone even a little bit surprised? This was totally predictable. All of Obama's stated positions have been comfortably in the middle of the Democratic party consensus. So is this one.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 5:38 PM
horizontal rule
98

I think it's for Florida, but also because (a) he wants to deny McCain a formidable funding source, (b) he doesn't want some outside group criticizing him during the campaign against McCain, and (c) he knows that the pundit pages and shows tend to be remarkably Likudnik-friendly, while the Palestinians don't have much of a following in those same arenas, and he doesn't need five months of being bashed on their pages and shows.

So Jews have a disproportionate control of money and the media?

I'm Jewish, but I sort of agree with this, so we're cool, you anti-semitic bastard.


Posted by: self-hating Jew | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 5:40 PM
horizontal rule
99

No, we're not surprised, PGD. This is one of many times when we say "Will Obama take a risk and try to lead the party/public opinion in a new direction? No, he won't."

Maybe on some issue sometime the answer will be "Yes he will."


Posted by: Fatman | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 5:40 PM
horizontal rule
100
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama did not rule out Palestinian sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem when he called for Israel's capital to remain "undivided," his campaign told The Jerusalem Post Thursday.
"Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," Obama declared Wednesday, to rousing applause from the 7,000-plus attendees at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference.
But a campaign adviser clarified Thursday that Obama believes "Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties" as part of "an agreement that they both can live with."

Posted by: Michael | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 6:26 PM
horizontal rule
101

I'm not surprised by Obama, but I am surprised by the accent in the title of the post. I thought that Ogged was pronounced like the French town with the enormous nude beach: Agde. But the title of the post seems to indicate that it's a disyllable. My faith in cosmic conformance has been shattered.


Posted by: jim | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 7:04 PM
horizontal rule
102

the only way to deal with the Israel problem in American policy and politics, I think, is for a second-term President to think "historical legacy, I'll be judged right, fuck the short term"--and even then his/her own party would probably stop him/her....


Posted by: lurker | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 7:04 PM
horizontal rule
103

102: Um, I think that's the Bush approach in the Middle East.

Call me an idealist, but I'd just as soon Obama stuck with the majority view in this alleged democracy.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 7:11 PM
horizontal rule
104

101: The accent is self-mockery based on Eli Lake's pronunciation of ogged's name a short while ago.

Cross-posted to Standpipe's blog.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 7:16 PM
horizontal rule
105

101: See this.


Posted by: Otto von Bisquick | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 7:16 PM
horizontal rule
106

Obama should make Powell his running mate. Powell speaks Yiddish, so between the two of them , they will have the Jewish vote locked up.


Posted by: Gaijin Biker | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 7:44 PM
horizontal rule
107

106: yeah and powell's so widely respected and everything.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 7:59 PM
horizontal rule
108

107: Hey, you know he'll lie for you, if it comes to that. Valuable in a subordinate.

100 is encouraging.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 8:17 PM
horizontal rule
109

109: 100 is encouraging.

Kobe is encouraging.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 8:19 PM
horizontal rule
110

Ho. Lee. Shit.


Posted by: NCProsecutor | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 8:26 PM
horizontal rule
111

I have clicked on the link in 110 twice, and both times it crashed Firefox. That makes it the third link ever to do so, in two years.


Posted by: Ardent reader | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 8:31 PM
horizontal rule
112

I just clicked it Firefox and it went through fine. Sorry!


Posted by: NCProsecutor | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 8:33 PM
horizontal rule
113

That page isn't meant to be read by Iranian agents, Ardent reader. I think that's why it won't work for you.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 8:42 PM
horizontal rule
114

110: God bless McClatchy. It's good to know there are a few decent Americans left in the media.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 8:45 PM
horizontal rule
115

110: Ledeen is the Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business. guy. There is also a lot of suspicion of a possible role in the 'Iraq seeking uranium in Africa' forgeries.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 8:48 PM
horizontal rule
116

110: Is this the story Josh Marshall tried to get published for like three years?


Posted by: Gabriel | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 9:28 PM
horizontal rule
117

From 110:

During the Rome meetings, Ghorbanifar also laid out a scheme to overthrow the Iranian regime on a napkin during a late night meeting in a bar. "The plan," said the Senate committee, "involved the simultaneous disruption of traffic at key intersections leading to Tehran that would create anxiety, work stoppages and other disruptive measures" in a capital city famous for its traffic congestion.

Ghorbanifar asked for $5 million in seed money
One of Kiarostami's best movies is an hour he shot at a traffic barricade in Tehran. Every driver tries to weasel past the traffic cop stationed at the entrance to a closed street; almost half of them manage to come up with some reason why the rules have to be bent for them. Over the course of the film, you get the sense that nothing really works, none of the rules are enforcable or reasonable, and everyone is used to---or enured to---the chaos.

I almost hope Ghorbanifar got the money, such chutzpah.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 9:46 PM
horizontal rule
118

and, frankly, the Palestinians

In what way do court appointments and US attorneys affect the Palestinians? It's all well and good to say that on balance, despite Obama's right-wing Israel policy, he's still clearly a better candidate than McCain; that much is obvious. It's quite another to claim that the things Obama will do that will substantively make American liberals happy - say, appointing moderate-to-liberal federal judges - will make Palestinians' lives any better.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 06- 5-08 10:05 PM
horizontal rule
119

110. Only two years late, apparently. Good going McClatchy.


Posted by: OneFatEnglishman | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 1:56 AM
horizontal rule
120

Seems to me that you're all thinking too much about the Jews, whereas the real point is that gentile Americans think of Israelis as (white) Americans too, threatened by the injuns/darkies/muslims. So being "tough" on I/P issues is just another way of saying he's not black and he's on the side of the decent people threatened by the ghetto thugs.
It has nothing to do with the facts of policy. I hope and assume that he was lying in this speech. But it's a reasonable bet that he feels he can't get elected without it. Since he's been right so far about what he needs to do to get elected, I'm inclined to trust his judgement here.


Posted by: Nworb Werdna | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 3:22 AM
horizontal rule
121

I hope and assume that he was lying in this speech.

I hope so too, but why do you assume it? On any real basis of evidence? He's a mainstream politician, when push comes to shove.


Posted by: OneFatEnglishman | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 3:31 AM
horizontal rule
122

Because he's not a fool. He must know that the present situations is unsustainable and that it's ludicrous to blame everything on "terror".


Posted by: Nworb Werdna | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 4:31 AM
horizontal rule
123

it just like proves 'my' theory that the American foreign policies will remain the same no matter who'll be the president, democrat or republican
i always thought that Kerry would not have been a better prez than Bush and all those wars would have happened no matter what like historically


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 6:26 AM
horizontal rule
124

I hope and assume that he was lying in this speech. But it's a reasonable bet that he feels he can't get elected without it. Since he's been right so far about what he needs to do to get elected, I'm inclined to trust his judgement here.

Even if we assume that he's lying - i.e., that he doesn't believe what he's saying - how does it even matter? As has been pointed out a million times in the process of this campaign, the same pressures that exist throughout a presidential campaign continue to exist throughout the presidency. If Obama thinks it's politically necessary to kowtow to the Israeli right today, he'll find it politically necessary to do so a year from now.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 6:30 AM
horizontal rule
125

Shorter thread: OK, we've got someone different. Now let's all be disappointed.


Posted by: OneFatEnglishman | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 6:36 AM
horizontal rule
126

Seems to me that you're all thinking too much about the Jews

Well, I have often said that are open/under-the-table agreements/understandings between many of the ME players. And multiple factions with cooperative/conflicting interests. What does SA or Iran really want in Iraq, and who is supporting who, even down to parts of Iran supporting opposing Iraqi players.

For example, Israel takes all the heat for I/P issues, but I think Jordan, SA and the other Gulf States benefit from having final status postponed and the conflict continued in terms of having a distraction for their citizens.

I think it is an utter myth that the resolution of I/P issues will cause positive developments for the rest of the area. Who am I supposed to believe on that, Mubarek, Islamic Brotherhood, or some impotent jailed moderate?


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 6:48 AM
horizontal rule
127

125: It was pretty much inevitable that Obama supporters were going to be disappointed. There are a host of issues the people here tend to care about that Obama has shown little enthusiasm for, and for which there's little obvious political benefit to making the right stand (Think drug policy, prison reform, sustainable transit, agricultural reform, public financing of elections, and overall opposition to militarism in foreign policy, to name a few). That's not even touching on everything he might flip or turn right on.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 6:48 AM
horizontal rule
128

There seems to be an odd dissonance between the second and third paragraphs of 126.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 6:51 AM
horizontal rule
129

It was pretty much inevitable that Obama supporters were going to be disappointed.

Oh I know. Which is why, as an interested observer, my take throughout has been "Surtout messieurs, point de zèle", because I was concerned that the comedown would be hard for people. I think Obama might make an interesting President, because he appears to be intelligent and willing to learn, but he will certainly be an interim president, because in 4-8 years he will have his work cut out extricating the polity from the bear traps the present mob will leave behind, let alone radically changing the way politics is done. And he will have to focus on the economy (which includes getting out of Iraq).

The question is, would he be interim in the sense of a gateway for more exciting successors, or in the sense of a respite between one gang of robber barons and the next. If he could secure the right outcome there, he would have done as much as can be expected of him.


Posted by: OneFatEnglishman | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 7:04 AM
horizontal rule
130

128:In what way, stras? Ok, wait I suppose there is some dissonance.

So let me put it this way, should I/P be resolved, frankly an inconceivable condition, then SA would find another distraction for the people, like the Shia occupation of Baghdad. It would not result in a more powerful Democracy movement in SA.

I/P conflict, in that sense is useful and convenient to Mubarek, but not essential.

This is not a justification for doing nothing about I/P.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 7:08 AM
horizontal rule
131

124: This might be right. And it might not. The clarification from Obama's spokesperson, though hardly comforting, suggests quite a bit more nuance than the original pander. Assuming that what a politician says during the first days of a general election election campaign is what he really means and instends to do if elected strikes me as very foolish. So, too, does assuming that what he says isn't what he means and instends to do. Too much will change between now and then; there are too many other variables at play to know for sure.

In other words, we'll have to wait and see. In the meantime, yes, we can all be disappointed. At least those of us who were expecting something different. Which is to say, none of us thinking about what it means to run for President of the United States. Not to mention what it means for this candidate to run for President of the United States. Except maybe Ogged, who I suspect was just stung by hearing the news that his suspicions rather than this fondest hopes were right all along. For the rest of us, who almost always default to our suspicions and tamp down our hopes, this tiny disappointment just isn't all that disappointing. Especially because it might signal nothing at all.

Shorter Ari: call me in January 2010; we'll talk then.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 7:08 AM
horizontal rule
132

123

Read: competing with me, Stras, and Bob in the pessimism sweepstakes. And winning!


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 7:08 AM
horizontal rule
133

At least those of us who were expecting something different.

Ari, I am expecting something different, am expecting to be pleasantly surprised and very disappointed. I am expecting Obama to be a powerful active, even revolutionary President (revolutionary in the sense Bush was revolutionary, but in a positive direction). What the details will be, what his three priorities in the first 100 days will be, is unknowable.

We are in a campaign; Bush is still President; and in any case If Obama were as President to do positive things about I/P, we might be the last to know.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 7:16 AM
horizontal rule
134

Put another way, and paraphrasing many others in this thread, who the hell really thinks a candidate named Barack Hussein Obama, a man in danger of being known in the press as Barack Hussein Mumia X Peltier Sacco and Vanzetti Osama was going to stand before AIPAC and speak truth to power? That doesn't mean that I don't wish it had happened. But I also wake up every Christmas morning thinking, "This is the year. There's going to be a free-range pony gamboling in the front yard."


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 7:16 AM
horizontal rule
135

That doesn't mean that I don't wish it had happened.

No you don't. You want the guy to get elected.


Posted by: OneFatEnglishman | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 7:18 AM
horizontal rule
136

133: I find the new Bob bracing. And confusing. So, seriously, what have you done with the old Bob? You're not hurting him, are you? Because while that Bob made me angry sometimes, he doesn't deserve to suffer. At the very least, are his dogs okay?


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 7:18 AM
horizontal rule
137

135 is right. But see my point about the pony.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 7:19 AM
horizontal rule
138

And some policy moves will be contingent and opportunistic.

We might have predicted that Bush would invade Iraq after 9/11; but the ways Bush used 9/11 as a partial justification for moves on I/P, Lebanon, Horn of Africa, Central Asia, and far Eastern Europe (Ukraine) less predictable.

Something will happen, Obama will say:"Damn, that changes everything" and surprise us with policy.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 7:22 AM
horizontal rule
139

The dogs are as happy as dogs on Dallas in summer can be. The walks are much shorter.

I had a purpose or instinct for being negative about Obama while there was still reason to be, and the purpose wasn't to get Clinton the nomination.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 7:27 AM
horizontal rule
140

You're a crafty devil, Bob. And you contain multitudes.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 7:29 AM
horizontal rule
141

His remarks to AIPAC notwithstanding, Obama won't stand in the way of whatever initiatives Israel might make towards Syria, etc. And the thing isn't really going to get done with overt US pressure beyond where Israeli politicians can go anyway. I believe the AIPAC speech to be utterly harmless on the ground in the ME, and helpful in the US.


Posted by: Nápi | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 7:30 AM
horizontal rule
142

The dogs are as happy as dogs on Dallas in summer can be.

We're supposed to hit 100° today or tomorrow, which would be the earliest triple-digit temperature on record here. Apo is not happy.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 7:39 AM
horizontal rule
143

130: I don't think your read of the situation is right there. Yes, the Saudi and Jordanian and Egyptian governments use the Israeli occupation as a distraction from its own corrupt excesses, but this isn't a trumped-up concern; people throughout the Muslim world actually do care about the suffering of the Palestinians. And while governments like the House of Saud would certainly try to find some other distraction for their people in the event of a post-I/P world - which I don't think is unthinkable, by the way, but which I also think might not happen until after the House of Saud falls anyway - I find it unlikely that the presence of a Shiite government in (part of) Iraq would be quite so enraging to the Sunnis of the world as the UK/US/European/Israeli colonization of Palestine has been.

As an aside, it's also not really the case that the Arab governments have done nothing about I/P, especially over the last several years, where groups like the Arab League have tried to actively broker agreements like the Mecca agreement between Hamas and Fatah (that was simultaneously being undone by America's support of a Fatah warlord's attempted coup in Gaza). These moves were done out of political necessity more than an ideological devotion to the Palestinian cause, but this only demonstrates that distracting the masses isn't always the overriding priority in the region.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 7:39 AM
horizontal rule
144

135: You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see someone from a major party try to get elected with a sane Israel policy. Just because it's never been done before doesn't mean it can't be done, because no one has ever tried it. We assume that AIPAC has the godlike power to kill any presidential candidacy at will, and why? Because Abe Foxman will send a press release up to the Five Jew Bankers' orbiting space platform, where they'll activate the Tantalus Field and wipe from existence anyone who wants to decolonize the West Bank? Please. This is akin to the argument circa late 2003 that no one who opposed the Iraq War could become president, because after all they opposed the Iraq War.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 7:48 AM
horizontal rule
145

In the meantime:

An Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites looks "unavoidable" given the apparent failure of sanctions to deny Tehran technology with bomb-making potential, one of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's deputies said on Friday.

"If Iran continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective," Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz told the mass-circulation Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.

"Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable," said the former army chief who has also been defence minister.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 7:53 AM
horizontal rule
146

I look forward to hearing near-identical statements of support for Israel's clusterfuck of a bombing coming from Republican and Democratic quarters.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 7:56 AM
horizontal rule
147

146:Probably. I would expect Obama to try to take at least minimal political advantage from it, along the lines of:"I fully support the Israeli action, but believe it unfortunate & tragic because a stronger emphasis on diplomacy than the unilateralist Bush administration blah blah blah."

But I think we could be in Black Swan territory, and anything could happen from WWIII/depression to Iranian capitulation. For instance, I could see Cheney letting Israel take the lead, hoping for an Iranian reaction against America, followed by horrors.

This still could be brinkmanship.

If bombing does happen, and escalates, I will be very mad at parts of the blogosphere. Madder.

I never really believed the Intelligence estimate about Iranian nuclear ambitions and efforts, and don't think the doves should have derived any reasons for complacency from it.


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 9:01 AM
horizontal rule
148

As an aside, this was far from the first time Obama disappointed on foreign policy. Besides the usual lowlights (his "we'll go into Pakistan" tough guy act, the various ominous "residual forces" signals), his speech to CANF on Latin America was pretty terrible.

If bombing does happen, and escalates, I will be very mad at parts of the blogosphere. Madder.

I never really believed the Intelligence estimate about Iranian nuclear ambitions and efforts, and don't think the doves should have derived any reasons for complacency from it.

I believe the intelligence estimate just fine; it should've been obvious, however, that this wasn't going to stop Bush/Cheney/Israel from pushing forward with their plans to bomb Iran. The hawkish rhetoric never stopped, it just become more unmoored from reality.

And if you're mad at parts of the blogosphere now, just wait until more and more of the big liberal bloggers start acting as apologists for Democratic foreign policy capitulation.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 9:54 AM
horizontal rule
149

144: What he said.


Posted by: Tom Scudder | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 3:31 PM
horizontal rule
150

Holy shit, 144 is funny as hell. And also right.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 3:39 PM
horizontal rule
151

Huh, 150 was me. Stupid computer. Stupid blog. Stupid Jews.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 06- 6-08 3:40 PM
horizontal rule