Harry’s Place

Interesting, Gene. I hear that he has hung out with a lot of Palestinian academics as well, so it seems he has lots of influences. I wonder if one day Jews will end up viewing Obama in the same way that blacks now view Bill Clinton, if you know what i mean?

Anynow, the whole world tuned in to watch Obama’s speech today, and what they got was a lot of extremely pro-Israel rhetoric. I can’t help but find that quite amusing given that he is supposed to be the world’s great liberal hope. A lot of people must have been taken aback.

Which candidate– Obama or John McCain– seems to belong more on the Jewish side of the ledger, and which one on the Goyish side?

Easy. The Goyish side is obviously the candidate who spent 20 years attending a church decorating anti-semite Louis Farrakhan, and who proposes appeasement of Holocaust-deniers in the Middle East.

Anynow, the whole world tuned in to watch Obama’s speech today, and what they got was a lot of extremely pro-Israel rhetoric. I can’t help but find that quite amusing given that he is supposed to be the world’s great liberal hope. A lot of people must have been taken aback.

None of them were readers of this blog. And what’s illiberal about pro-Israel rhetoric?

Mindful enough to cleanse your team of anti-Israeli nuts - Nah!

I tell you now that chap is as empty and as useless as a beach ball.

old Labour,

Obama’s real views probably won’t matter much. If he wants to get reelected he’ll have to suck up to the likes of AIPAC for years to come. Given that there is this suspicion of him, if anything he will have to go out of his way to prove himself, making him more pro-Israel than Hillary would have been.

The only time where a problem might occur is some point during the second term, but American presidents are usually much less powerful by that time anyway and often bogged down in scandal at home.

And what’s illiberal about pro-Israel rhetoric?

Grovelling before a right wing ultra nationalist organisation like AIPAC is not what most liberal leftists around the world will like. As I say, funny.

From The Chicago Sun-Times:

WASHINGTON–Presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is speaking now to AIPAC–the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference. His speech is puncuated with applause and standing ovations. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y) speaks next. GOP rival Sen. John McCain (R-Az.) spoke earlier.

“We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything,” Obama said, departing from his prepared text to add the two everythings for emphasis.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SUL_zc8T8Wg
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aNf1ggyx_ro

Remember for most people abroad, they view Obama in terms of being the antiwar guy, and are delighted he beat Hillary on those grounds.

I’m just glad that they’ve gotten one in the eye today.

Gene,

Isn’t it best not to look at politics through a racial/ethnic/religious lens?

Whatever you think of Obama’s policies, a Presidential candidate’s speech before AIPAC is mundane; it’s the same rhetoric every electoral cycle. So mundane it was broadcast on all cable channels.

I think Lenny Bruce would have called Benjamin goyish even if he was Jewish.

So just why are you looking at politics through a racial/ethnic/religious lens? Seems not very Obama like; he likes to get beyond that.

Grovelling before a right wing ultra nationalist organisation like AIPAC is not what most liberal leftists around the world will like. As I say, funny.

If you could vote in the US presidential elections Mike, who would you be voting for?

Of course, come election time, candidates tend to be wheeled around these sort of ethnic/religious/kinship gigs. I expect that McCain and Obama will do a bit of role reversal this time round: Obama will don the Kippah; McCain will get on down with the brothers at the NAACP.

Herman,

Mike’s a rather lame supporter of Hillary, you’ll notice in such threads that they are invariably peppered with his bitter comments or some sarky remark about AIPAC, he’s nothing if not consistent.

Flanker has crossed over and joined his new buddies at Stormfront.

Is it not amazing that the Jews are the one group whom extremists of all sorts, right, left, Islamist, etec can join together to hate? Proof that the Jews are indeed the Chosen People!

David All, it’s a fake Flanker. I delete those comments as quickly as I can.

Yes, Gene, Obama will be the first Jewish President like he’ll be the first vegetarian roast beef eater. Or maybe you’ve nailed it– he’s the Democrats’ equivalent of Michael Sophocles, the Apprentice contestant who publicised himself as a nice Jewish boy, but tried to get a kosher chicken by asking a hallal butcher in Morocco to say “Allah” over it before he slaughtered it, and then crossed himself when going to the boardroom to account for himself.

It’s a nice analogy for this bit of “Jewishness” by Obama, currently featured on Electronic Intifada by the guy he said it to:

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml

The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing.

As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, “Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.” He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, “Keep up the good work!”

Thanks Gene. Sorry I should have considered that possibility before I wrote my comment. I do have the bad habit sometimes of not looking before I leap or in this case post.

Mod, I’m not sure how to take that.

Yes I am disappointed that Hillary didn’t win and feel a bit aggrieved at how Democrat voters stabbed her in the back by voting for some guy with no record and dodgy history, and I am surprised that there isn’t more of a stink about why the candidate with the most votes has lost, like there was in 2000. But that’s old news really; we’ve known this for months.

I don’t think I’ve ever specifically mentioned AIPAC before. I did so in the context today that liberal minded outside of the US will have been a little shocked at his strong support for Israel’s controversial policies and tough rhetoric on Iran.

I already long knew about this, of course - Gene has posted a similar speech by Obama many times - but a lot of people around the world who would have tuned in today to see his first speech as the presumptive nominee - their antiwar hero who is going to solve all the problems of the world - will have been surprised to hear him sounding like the neocons they despise.

You have to know the USa to know that Obama’s commitment to Israel at AIPAC is required NOT for the Jewish vote but for the Christian vote. He gets an each-way endorsement by doing AIPAC and supporting Israel.

ALl the candidates do it because they ALL need the Christian vote.

Support for Israel also ticks the box “”And we won’t be toleranting Islaimst Terrorism in the USA or Israel”

The idea that there is a pro-Israel lobby that is powerful in the USA is probably correct - but its NOT a Jewish Lobby.

here’s the speech

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/us/politics/04text-obama-aipac.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=aipac&st=nyt&scp=3

Mike writes

Yes I am disappointed that Hillary didn’t win and feel a bit aggrieved at how Democrat voters stabbed her in the back by voting for some guy with no record and dodgy history,

They don’t owe her anything. They decided, rightly or wrongly, that Obama was a better candidate despite a brutal and unconscionable smear campaign against him.

and I am surprised that there isn’t more of a stink about why the candidate with the most votes has lost, like there was in 2000.

Because she didn’t win the popular vote, unless you calculate it by a rather selective set of criteria which is - surprise - only favoured by the Clinton camp.

Willful distortion of the facts, character attacks and a sense of entitlement: that’s why Hillary lost.

No she did win the popular vote. The DNC voted to include Florida and Michigan. You can no longer claim that only 48 states count. Bad luck.

Needless to say, if the media had done their job at any time before super Tuesday, there’s no way Obama would be the candidate. As it is he relied on the party elite to put him over the top.

“No she did win the popular vote. The DNC voted to include Florida and Michigan. You can no longer claim that only 48 states count. Bad luck.”

At 50%

Mindful enough to cleanse your team of anti-Israeli nuts - Nah!

If Obama’s team really is full of anti-Israeli nuts, they must be pretty damn frustrated by now at their lack of influence.

Well including two contests which were against the rules and in which Obama did not campaign (and wasn’t even on the ballot in one case) is one way to claim a victory, I guess. But it might not persuade people who haven’t managed to convince themselves Hillary deserved it.

Truth is, as I suspect you realise Mike, the mixture of primaries and caucuses (especially the bizarre mix in Texas) means that there isn’t a definitive winner of the popular vote. Normally it wouldn’t matter, but in a tight contest it’s not ideal that the result is open to question.

Only here’s the thing, Hillary Clinton spent ages arguing that super delegates should ignore the popular vote and vote for her on the grounds she’s a better candidate. Now that she’s found a way of claiming she won the popular vote, she can’t suddenly start arguing it would be wrong of super delegates to go against the will of the people.

If Obama’s team really is full of anti-Israeli nuts, they must be pretty damn frustrated by now at their lack of influence.

That’s why I don’t believe a word Obama says. Actions speak louder than words. This is the man who metaphorically threw his own grandmother under the bus in the pursuit of power.

Not claiming to be an expert on American politics but from overseas, Barack is seen as a breath of fresh air and shows the very best of what America is all about to the rest of the world. Bush was and is a disaster for the rest of the world and the world needs and asks for change and America to lead that change. Action will speak louder than words but if Americans vote in McCain I doubt America will regain respect in the world.

I doubt America will regain respect in the world.

American never had respect in the world. Not since they defeated the USSR. Most of the planet will not forgive the US for defeating Communism, and have thrown their lot in with Islam, such is their rampart anti-Americanism. The rest of the world would throw Israel to a new Holocaust and don the burqa willingly. So fuck this “world”.

If Obama wins the Presidency within 4 years at least one and probably all of the following will have happened:
1) A law will have been designed specifically to target media outlets owned by Murdoch or he will have been the victim of a tax audit that will have cowed him into submission.
2) The “Fairness Doctrine” will have been intoduced and selectively applied so as to destroy Right-Wing Talk Radio.
3) As has already begun in California serious moves will have been made by Obama appointed judges to illegalise the Home-School movement.

The Conservative counter-culture movement will be destroyed and the overwhelming majority of Americans will get their only information from the MSM or the public school system. You can kiss sweet goodbye to first and second ammenments and I wouldn’t feel too sure about seventh if I were you. In 2 decades America will be no different from western europe or Canada and Americans will know what it is like to be arrested for handing out evangelical literature or publishing an article critical of Islam (c.f. Mark Steyn). The federal healthcare system will have all the downsides of Britain’s multiplied a hundredfold because of the necessary extra cumbersomeness involved in governing a country the size of the U.S. Republicans, now nicely neutered, and Democrats will earnestly debate whether to spend more money or MUCH more money on this catastrophic failure as the Waco model of law enforcement is used to suppress all those who cling bitterly to their G-d and guns.

I suggest that American ignore Mike.

It goes without saying that the HOPE and CHANGE imbued new American kultur that Obama and his pliant Senate and judicial appointments will introduce will be anti-Israel and in a few decades Americans will hate Israel as much as Europeans do now.

Well I told you. They had a bunch of Arabs and lib dems on newsnight all shocked at Obama’s speech today.

They’ve all been led up the garden path.

Breaking news: Hillary to suspend campaign on Friday.

Okay, anybody have any rebuttals to Judy’s link to the electronic intifada piece? Or have Obama’s speech to AIPAC taken care of all doubt as to his being pro-Israel despite spending 20 years in a Church whose pastor praised and honor Farkhaln among other matters?

Please can somebody get G his meds before he loses it completely and has to be forceably restrained.

It’s funny, if anyone else had such power to sway a presidential candidate the Jews would cry foul from Washington to Tel Aviv.

which Jews are that? baffling contrarian?

Okay, anybody have any rebuttals to Judy’s link to the electronic intifada piece? Or have Obama’s speech to AIPAC taken care of all doubt as to his being pro-Israel despite spending 20 years in a Church whose pastor praised and honor Farkhaln among other matters?

I suppose you have to weigh on the one hand an unverified and vague comment from four years ago, and comments of others that Obama has specifically rejected; and on the other hand the clear and consistent positions Obama has taken publicly over the past year, and decide which is more significant.

I am surprised that there isn’t more of a stink about why the candidate with the most votes has lost, like there was in 2000.

Well, Real Clear Politics has Obama winning the popular vote. If you add in Michigan (which did not have Obama on the ballot) Clinton has a slight lead.

The problem Clinton has is her claims about winning the popular vote hinge on Michigan alone, which is highly contentious. A better argument would be Florida and Michigan, but she hasn’t got the votes: Obama still leads with Florida included. Hence her “trump card” is only Michigan, which is a thin argument.

True, Clinton has other arguments - PA, CA, OH - but again there are counterarguments. In the final analysis she didn’t get enough votes and states and Obama’s campaign seemed to know the rules so much better than hers (i.e. caucuses, the PR system etc).

I don’t particularly like the electoral system used. I think it can be simplified and made fairer, simply using the popular vote.

G - Will Obama also enslave the white race and seduce its women? Or merely stop at selling out to Qubt and Al Banna?

No, Benji, even if you give all the uncommited votes in Michigan to Obama - which is grossly unfair since people were also voting for Edwards, plus were using the uncommited vote to protest against the system of excluding their primary - Obama still comes out behind.

Also much of Obama’s other votes in this election season came from the bent caucus system that massively favoured him, whereas hers came from proper primaries that met international standards.

No, Hillary won the popular vote. It’s like 2000 all over again. As a democratic will a small D I know who I think should have been the candidate if the process were fair. Someone like you, however, is free to support who you want.

Obama had the time and money to have a revote in both Florida and Michigan but he blocked it. If Hillary had done the same then we’d have never have heard the end of it from pious people like yourself.

You can’t claim an election is unfair and then ban the revote - it gives the game away.

We really liked the website .. Thank you.

Will Obama also enslave the white race and seduce its women?

Well, I certainly hope so.

I think he is just saying that to be able to get elected, I really do not believe him. Then again he will fit in well with our European who have made lying to their voters an art form.

No, Benji, even if you give all the uncommitted votes in Michigan to Obama - which is grossly unfair since people were also voting for Edwards, plus were using the uncommitted vote to protest against the system of excluding their primary - Obama still comes out behind.

Sure, but you are still only talking about Michigan. My point is that Clinton was reduced to one basic mathematic argument (regarding the popular vote) in the end - Michigan.

You are right about caucuses (they are ludicrous) and the revotes. I would have preferred a simple count of the electoral vote - that’s the type of reform that’s needed. However, Clinton knew (or should have known) about this silly system, and she also endorsed the DNC decision early on to penalise Florida and Michigan. It seemed that Obama ran a campaign to squeeze every last vote of the system as it stood.

1) A law will have been designed specifically to target media outlets owned by Murdoch or he will have been the victim of a tax audit that will have cowed him into submission

Unlikely. Murdoch has seen the writing on the wall and is cuddling up to Obama. He might even keep the rottweilers at Fox News on a tighter leash for an unsaid deal regarding his interests.

In 2 decades America will be no different from western europe or Canada

You say that like it’s a bad thing. I mean, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, etc are not that bad. Switzerland is quite nice. All these countries have (shock, horror) systems of universal health care.

I went to Denmark a while back, and apart from all the beautiful women and widely distributed porn, I discovered, to my amazement, that the place has free political parties, a market economy, and good universal health care etc, and is not remotely Stalinist. I was so shocked by this state of affairs, I had to have a lie down.

The Arab studio guest on Newsnight was called “Armanazi”.

Ming Campbell was little better. The thought of AIPAC clearly stung them. Mr “Arm a Nazi” said it was an unpleasant ritual that Presidential Candidates HAVE to appear before AIPAC (and he mentioned it in the context of “his employers”. Hence the usual ANtisemitic trope/canard/BS)

This was certainly one IslamoNazi who has been disarmed by Obama speaking at AIPAC. Long may they get so upset!

It’s about who has the most votes, Benji, not who is “reduced” to this or that state.

Leave this to the democratically minded people.

Obama alarms extremists on both side of the Palestinian issue, because they believe it’s a zero-sum game, so the fact that he’s both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian just doesn’t compute for them.

‘Arabs shocked by Obama speech’

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/93FE247B-452D-4022-8374-088D870

Correct link:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/93FE247B-452D-4022-8374-088D8704C1DE.htm

In the United States, because of its federal system, with each state having so many electoral votes, (number of Congressman & Senators determines each state’s electoral vote) who gets the most votes in each state, first past the post, wins all that state’s electoral votes in the general election. Similarly in states that have Presidential Primaries the candidate that gets the most votes in that state wins the largest chunk of that state’s delegates to the Party’s nominating convention. It is who won the most votes in each state that counts not the largest number of votes overall.

Those are the rules, yes.

Bush won by the rules in 2000.

Mesquito: The zionist and othrodox Jews.

baffling contrarian,

it’s fairly obvious from your occasional pointed comments around this topic that you have some hangups with Jews, that being the case could you please spell out what exactly you mean by:

“It’s funny, if anyone else had such power to sway a presidential candidate the Jews would cry foul from Washington to Tel Aviv.”

are you suggesting that all Jews in the world work to some common purpose? if so, what is it?

or do you think that Jews control the selection of American Presidents?

please don’t be shy, give us your full and extensive thoughts on this topic

There is always the possibility in US elections, and ours, that the candidate or party with the most votes may lose. It’s the nature of our electoral systems.

The more relevent arguments against Bush are that there was a deliberate attempt in Florida to manipulate the result by removing tens of thousands of people who were likely to be democrat supporters from the electoral roll and also that the decision by the Supreme Court to stop the recount process was a nakedly political one.

Thank you Andrew Adams for pointing out what the real problem with Bush becoming President in 2000. It was not that he lost the popular vote, nation wide. It was that his “winning” the state of Florida’s popular vote and therefor the state’s electoral votes which put Bush in the White House was by corrupt means including a 5 to 4 Supreme Court decision that stopped the recount that might have given the state to Gore. Note that all 5 Supreme Court Justices who voted to stop the recount were Republicans. That is why his opponents said “His Fraudency” Bush Jr. was selected and not elected. Also note the poorly designed “butterfly”, as it was called ballot in one key county which resulted in several thousand elderly Jews voting for Pat Buchanan!

Gene, re your comments on Obama’s “passing comment from some years back versus his repeated stated positions during the current campaign– if the former was the only evidence of that kind, I’d be inclined to agree with you. However, Obama’s remark seems to match his choice of advisers and/or mentors, the majority of whom are lead articulators of blame-Israel & the “Jewish lobby” positions (eg Rashid Khalidi, Brzezinski, Malley et al, to say nothing of Rev Wright on the personal front.

The other thing I’d say is every presidential candidate appears in front of AIPAC and makes extravagant commitments, only to ignore them in office. Both Clinton and Bush, as far as I remember, made speeches to AIPAC about how important it was to move the US embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. Neither of them delivered.

Obama’s commitments seem rather vaguer and non specific eg his I will do “everything” (repeated emphatically x times) to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Compare that to Hillary Clinton’s specificity re talking about what she would do in the event of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel.

But I wouldn’t take either at their AIPAC word– once again, it’s track record over time that leads me to feel that Obama is in fact an emotional radical who wants to shift away from tough and uncompromising sanctions and preconditions-backed pro-democracy diplomacy towards a view that he can achieve so much more by negotiation, and that he will succeed where so many others have run into a dead end of obfuscation and dissimulation. We will see….

Thank you Andrew Adams for pointing out what the real problem with Bush becoming President in 2000. It was not that he lost the popular vote,

Yes there were other problems but there still was a massive stink about the popular vote issue - for years people cited the fact that Al Gore won the popular vote. I know it can happen in many systems but it’s always an issue.

Heres a proper soothsayer

Following is an interview with British MP George Galloway, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on May 2, 2008:

George Galloway: I hope that the new presidency in the United States… I pray for the safety of Barack Obama, and I pray that he can shift the United States attitude to this question. But as you know, Palestine cannot free itself. It is a small country against a huge superpower. The real problem is not in Palestine. It’s not even in London or Washington. The real problem is in the Arab world. From Marrakesh to Bahrain – 300 million Arabs, oil at 136 dollars per barrel… If the Arabs wanted to solve this Palestine problem, they could do so in six days.

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1785.htm

Six Days.
George gets damp at the thought.

modernity: Seems like bc has a bad case of Jews on the brain. He is either Pat Buchanon using a Canadian e-mail address or a Canadian Pat Buchanon wannabe. The latter I believe is more likely.

tim: “Six Days. George gets damp at the thought.”
Ugh, that image upsets my stomach and may give me nightmares, tim!
What’s the matter with G.G? Doesn’t he know that the Jews have a copyright on events that take Six Days?

yeah David A, I think you’re right.

still Galloway’s endorsement is something like the kiss of death

It’s an Israeli site. it’s an Israeli site. It’s an Israeli site. That’s not what I said at all.

“I suppose you have to weigh on the one hand an unverified and vague comment from four years ago, and comments of others that Obama has specifically rejected; and on the other hand the clear and consistent positions Obama has taken publicly over the past year, and decide which is more significant.”

As he has done before, Gene makes a strong anti-Obama argument: Note the key phrase: “publicly over the past year”.

Gene — and anyone else inclined to believe what Obama says — should do two things: First, take a look at the record. Over and over again, news organizations that bothered to check what Obama has said about his past have found discrepancies, often serious discrepancies. (I just wrote about another one a few days ago.) Second, they should think about what Reverend Wright said, that Obama does what a politician does. If the reverend doesn’t believe Obama, why should we?

楽器レンタルOneは、2000件を超える実績と経験を持ちます
東京、大阪、名古屋で英会話レッスン。マンツーマン英会話スクール
デザイナーズリフォーム・珪藻土リフォーム。

Obama, even more then most politicians, is adept at convincing whatever audience he is addressing that he is with them all the way. Like Sydney, the mistress of disguise in the Spy series, “Alias”, Obama can be whatever you want him to be. Will be interesting to see if his lies ever hurt him or will he just float above them like Reagan and to a lesser extent Clinton did.

Actually Thomas Jefferson was our first Jewish president. This may have been the most important election in our country’s history, but it also was a big joke. First there is the fact that Obama is the first “black” president. Did anyone out there vote for him because he could save our nation in the crises that we are all facing? If he said he was going to raise taxes by 40% and everyone was going to suffer, would people have still voted for him? Just because he is the first black president, does not mean he is going to save you and me from the war in Iraq, crashing stock market, and recession our counrty is facing. Did evryone say, “Let’s vote for Thomas Jefferson because he will be the first Jewish president”… I highly doubt it. What I am trying to say is just to make history, did we elect Obama, or was he elected because the counrty needs a change in political office. I guess we will see…