Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Swiftboating Obama
Note to McCain operatives: Any and all attempts to malign Barack Obama as “all hat, no cattle,” "electoral eye candy," “eloquent but empty,” are doomed to fail.
Most Americans will find it difficult to reconcile those descriptions with the heady and effortlessly intelligent person they see on the nightly news. Most Americans will reject the argument that the fellow with the J.D. from Harvard who lectured on constitutional law at the University of Chicago is all fluff.
As the Clinton campaign has proven, efforts to depict Obama as lacking substance are not persuasive. This inability to undermine the credibility of this “hopemonger” should be of grave concern to John McCain’s advisers. This is because a nominated Obama will run a “base-plus” campaign. He has energized the traditional Democratic constituencies. But in addition, he could grab scads of traditionally Republican voters--most notably “Obama-Curious” Evangelicals.
So what types of attacks might we expect from the party that gave us Willie Horton and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Let me first observe that John McCain’s oft-observed human decency may forestall some of the most unsightly initiatives. The question is: if the Maverick is down 14 points in mid-September would he unleash the hounds of hell? Would he (or perhaps someone else) set the Opposition Research divisions loose? If he does--and I am not entirely sure that he would--here are some of the accusations that may surface:
A problematic spiritual mentor: The Reverend Jeremiah Wright has been described by The New York Times as “a dynamic pastor who preached Afrocentric theology, dabbled in radical politics and delivered music-and-profanity-spiked sermons.” In a recent meeting with Jewish leaders in Cleveland, Obama referred to him as being “like an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don't agree with.” But Wright’s remarks about Zionism, 9/11, white privilege, American hegemony, and so many other things, do not make him look like some nutty, but loveable Uncle Fester. Obama will distance himself from Wright (which he already has done). His opponents will counter by cheerfully citing Obama’s glowing testimony to his mentor in Dreams from my Father.
Obama is not Liberal, but Left. Radical Left-Accusing Obama of being a Liberal with a capital L is not an effective ploy. That's because his brand of less-secular liberalism does not exclude or threaten most of the religious constituencies that are up for grabs. A better strategy might try to paint him as a friend of the radical Left. Everything and everyone from Louis Farrakhan’s (unsolicited) endorsements, to Obama’s youthful penchant for perusing Frantz Fanon, to a picture of him supping in 1998 with the Provost of academic anti-Zionism, Edward Said, to former activists he worked with in Chicago who still sport Black Panther chic, may be trotted out in an effort to portray him as too radical for High Office.
“Obama’s Jewish Problem”: If this were to become an issue in 2008 it would be a tragic scenario for both the candidate and Jewish Americans. As far as Obama is concerned, guilt-by-association charges (see above) of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism would damage his credibility as a proponent of tolerance and a person who sees himself as an “effective bridge” for Black/Jewish reconciliation. As many Jewish sources are telling me, any effort to depict Obama as anti-Jewish would most certainly not come from mainstream Jews (who traditionally vote Democratic and have generally favorable impressions of Obama), but political operatives bent on sullying the Senator’s reputation among pro-Israel Evangelicals. The consequence of such a smear tactic would be to further complicate the already tensile relations between African-Americans and Jewish-Americans.
(For more information about religion and the candidates check out Faith 2008 by the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs).
By Jacques Berlinerblau |
February 29, 2008; 12:08 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Are Evangelicals Obama-Curious? |
Next: Introducing: Brumberg on Islam and the West
Posted by: Howard | March 13, 2008 5:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Howard Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 13th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Why does Obama keep getting a free pass? Why is any inquiry, or challenge to his record, or unsavory associations, met with accusations of racism? Jeramiah Wright, an obvious racist and anti-Semite, not only endorses, supports and praises Farakan … Obama is a lot more connected to Wright than a mere case of guilt by association. Obama himself has described Wright as his spiritual advisor and mentor of 20 years. Obama was going to have Wright speak at his announcement to run ceremony, until he realized it would be a bad political decision. Any fool can weigh 20 years of involvement against a momentary half hearted denouncement, motivated by personal political ambition. The left and the media has fashioned Obama into a sacred cow, who is above reproach. Obama’s record, and associations have become like the Emperor’s new clothes, even when the future of the world is at stake!
Posted by: Howard | March 13, 2008 5:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Justice, justice shall you pursue." That's why I support this just man.
Posted by: Steven Rivkin | March 7, 2008 9:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Whether he was raised as a Muslim or not, makes no difference, according to Islam if your seed comes from a Muslim father, you are a Muslim. That is the case with all religions."
Except Christianity, which is his religion, and Paganism, which is mine, and Buddhism, which other people are, etc etc etc.
He has every right not to call himself Muslim, and people don't have the right to say he isn't, just cause they want to smear him as some terrorist sympathizer.
"On one hand he says that the Super delegates must not over-rule the writ of the people and on the other does not want Florida and Michigan delegates be allowed to vote at the convention. What a flip-flop, what happened to the writ of millions of Folrida and Michigan voters? Oh' I forget Mr. Obama did not win those states."
Actually, Obama and Edwards did not appear on the ballot in Michigan or in Florida, because those states decided to get in a snit about scheduling, and it was made known the votes wouldn't *count,* so delegates from those two states would have to *guess* what candidates the people supported.
That's not a 'flip-flop,' that's the reality. Few actually *showed up to the polls* (except on general principle, but Obama wasn't on the ticket there, while Hilary was, and write-ins for Obama and Edwards would be tossed out, anyway.)
Posted by: Paganplace | March 3, 2008 2:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
All hail Obama! Do not blaspheme by questioning his credentials to be President! Failure to acknowledge Obama as lord and savior is heresy!
Obama Akbar!
Posted by: Mike | March 3, 2008 10:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
For those who think that if a lot of people love somebody he should be made a President then they should also find him an island where he does not have to work with anyone, simply rule, and and "change" as he wants, please spare us.
Following is what I found at the website of the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR);
"Rep. Keith Ellison said Wednesday that attempts to insinuate that Barack Obama is Muslim won't have any effect on the presidential candidate, arguing that Americans won't fall for such a "bigoted" appeal.
Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat and the first Muslim member of Congress, also said he has no doubt a Muslim could be elected president.
"It's a deliberate attempt to associate him with things Islamic," Ellison said of the use of Obama's middle name.
Obama's father and stepfather were Muslim, and he spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, a largely Muslim country — but Obama was not raised Muslim.
"Assuming that the American public is bigoted, and infused with religious bigotry against Muslims, is incorrect," Ellison said.
And he insisted that a Muslim could become president.
"Look, we elected a Catholic," Ellison said. "Mitt Romney was a viable candidate in this race. I don't think that his decline had to do with him being Mormon." Romney, a GOP candidate, dropped out of the race earlier this year.
"So I think that certainly America could elect a Muslim president," he said. "America could elect a woman president. I think we probably are going to elect a black president. And we'll all be better for it."
Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which fights anti-Muslim bigotry, said he agreed with Ellison.
"There clearly is a level of anti-Muslim attitude in our society, but I think it's still a minority," he said. "It's a vocal minority, but it's still a minority. The majority of Americans respect people of all faiths, and I think while taking faith into consideration, it would not be the main factor in their voting." (End Quote)
There is nothing wrong with being a Muslim, but lying, decetion, concealing and getting irrated about the truth is a major sin in Islam.
Whether he was raised as a Muslim or not, makes no difference, according to Islam if your seed comes from a Muslim father, you are a Muslim. That is the case with all religions.
Anytime I see Mrs. Angry Obama I run in the other direction, why to put a spin and call wolves? Accept what you are and move-on.
On one hand he says that the Super delegates must not over-rule the writ of the people and on the other does not want Florida and Michigan delegates be allowed to vote at the convention. What a flip-flop, what happened to the writ of millions of Folrida and Michigan voters? Oh' I forget Mr. Obama did not win those states.
We are not a Kingdom, Sheikhdom or an Empire where one man drives the whole country. Very recently it was tried by Pervaiz Musharraf of Pakistan and by the Kenyan President, it did not work there and out of question here in USA. Our President even President-Elect works with the Congress. Mr. Obama's rhetoric of change is so vague and far away from the 2+2.
He also talks about absorbing Republicans in his cabinet, how about taking Lieberman as your running mate, Mr. Obama? Did you consider McCain, yet? Wouldn't that be nice if after the conventions McCain and Obama become each others side-kick and save us a lot of money by sparing tax payers's money in the general elections? Wouldn't that be a real change? May be then we will have some money to at least fulfill one of the "promises" of Mr. Obama as the rest of the promises would require money that China may not want to give us. Why risk! Resolve!
Oh' yes, he is against the Iraq war resolution because he was not in senate when it was passed. But willing to attack Pakistan on "credible intelligence" did not his Republican friend Bush and his cousin Cheney got involved in Iraq on the same "credible intelligence", I am shocked Mr. Obama's IncredibleIntelligence" and majority of the supporters "incredible arrogance".
The millions of dollars he spends on TV adds and calling everybody a divisive but himself, how many families could have been helped, why you need so much money to prove your worth, if you are already loved by the whole world????
Regards.
Najam
Posted by: Najam | March 2, 2008 9:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This man,Obama, is a once-in-a-lifetime phenomenon. He is "hope" and "change" personified. Any attempt to deny this man the presidency which he's most qualified for will bring great condemnation of this generation by all lovers of change all over the world. Come to think of it, our lives would be meaningless if there were no changes!Americans, please reason!! The world loves Obama if you don't!
Posted by: Awele Odigo | March 2, 2008 5:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
B-MAN, I wish you were right, but you are mistaken.
If anything in politics is certain, if history has taught us anything, it's that you can swiftboat anyone.
A certain element of the population will do nothing but say "Hussien" all year. Another element will find this entertaining, but will latch onto an actual policy issue, like teaching sex education to second-graders, or immunizing 11-year-old girls against a sexually transmitted disease. And it goes downhill from there.
Posted by: Kacoo | March 2, 2008 4:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Obama has proven himself a master deflector of criticism. In the eyes of most Americans, any attempts to smear him will only diminish those who try. Bring it on!
Posted by: B-man | March 1, 2008 9:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
A pre-election day attack, ironically, might HELP Obama. The standard GOP apology for Bush's undermining of American civil liberties has been "Well, we haven't been attacked since 9/11," while conveniently forgetting to mention who WAS the President on 9/11. A pre-Election Day attack would blow the GOP's Security Party designation out of the water.
Posted by: Dan Drazen | March 1, 2008 8:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
it doesnt take a genius to figure out that the republicans have already stuck their toe in the water of swift-boating obama from an ethnic presepctive-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"At Cincinnati, Bill Cunningham, according to the LAT, who "introduced presidential candidate John McCain at a rally here today accused Barack Obama of sympathizing with 'world leaders who want to kill us' and invoked Obama's middle name -- three times calling him 'Barack Hussein Obama.' " John McCain repudiated Cunningham's low tactics and said that using the middle name like that three times was "inappropriate" and would never happen again at one of his rallies."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and failed- i tend to believe that mccain himself was not aware that his over-zealous supporter was going in that direction-
your comment -
"As the Clinton campaign has proven, efforts to depict Obama as lacking substance are not persuasive."
i don't really know about the clinton's efforts-
nor do i rely on the opposition party to influence my perception of any candidate-
i let them influence my vote and judge their efforts from their actions,policy and consisitency.
as a liberal voter- who really WANTS a candidate i can believe in-
it didnt take the clintons for me to realize the emptiness and lack of substance in obama's speeches.
and i am really rather biased in his direction, and looking very hard to find something to latch onto substantially-
and as you noted, no mainstream jewish people are even imagining obama is anti-semitic.
he has already proven himself an obedient and (if not entirely loyal) politicaly ambitious and savvy enough character to aggressively court AIPAC-
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/070302-aipac_policy_fo/
he learned his lesson after making an "unfortunate" remark that "nobody suffers more than the palestinians".
after he was schooled by AIPAC that he wasn't going to even be a candidate, if he continued his sympathy to the pals- he quickly morphed his statement to" the israelis and palestinians are BOTH suffering because tof the VIOLENCE of the palestinian leaders"
i guess you could say he's a very quick study-
so i cant imagine why you think his staunch pro-israel support would gain critique from staunch pro-israeli evangelicals-
it doesnt make sense in any universe.
and it seems that this cycle, specifically BEAUSE of the distaste in the american publics mouth over the swift-boating and negative tactics last election-
has created a different kind of campaign- where candidates don't actually dirty their own hands with the unseemly character assassination of their opponents- but leave that to easily discarded and denounced "supporters"
(we can only assume these supporters will resurface under pleasanter climes if their candidates win)
one always has to ask who will benefit from any situation-
i have a suspicion obama's camp is diffusing potential swift-boating by leaking the info (drudge report anyone?) early on-
knowing that 'wise' voters will naturally suspect the opposition-
which, of course, happened-
" (Monday) Drudge is reporting that Hillary staffers are circulating the Obama photo today."
then of course-
"Obama slams the "shameful offensive fear-mongering."
"Now, the Clinton camp responds to the Obama Campaign:
e-mailed to reporters from Maggie Williams, manager of the Clinton campaign, posted at USA Today:
"Enough.
"If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.
"This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry."
"We will not be distracted."
this is a campaign of surrogate swift-boaters-
the success of that 1 or so million dollar ad-
weighed against the 300 million spent campaigning last cycle-
assures us a lucrative career in the future for the one who comes up with the next swift boat ad-
but we won't see the fingerprints of the candidates on it-
just committed supporters
Posted by: VICTORIA | March 1, 2008 3:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The truth of the matter is, I can't vote for
Obama because of his church.
Recently, an article by www.worldnetdaily.com,
referenced a statement made by Obama's Pastor
Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Rev. Wright spoke about "Natalee Holloway" in his church publications. Prayer?
"Black women are being raped daily in Darfur....
that doesn't make the news....but one 18 year old white girl from Alabama gets drunk on a...."
Please read the article and study Mr. Obama's church. From Muslim upbringing to a (20 year
support for this church)...Mr. Obama must have
absorbed some hate.
Posted by: Pat | March 1, 2008 9:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The truth of the matter is, I can't vote for
Obama because of his church.
Recently, an article by www.worldnetdaily.com,
referenced a statement made by Obama's Pastor
Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Rev. Wright spoke about "Natalee Holloway" in his church publications. Prayer?
"Black women are being raped daily in Darfur....
that doesn't make the news....but one 18 year old white girl from Alabama gets drunk on a...."
Please read the article and study Mr. Obama's church. From Muslim upbringing to a (20 year
support for this church)...Mr. Obama must have
absorbed some hate.
Posted by: Pat | March 1, 2008 9:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The truth of the matter is, I can't vote for
Obama because of his church.
Recently, an article by www.worldnetdaily.com,
referenced a statement made by Obama's Pastor
Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Rev. Wright spoke about "Natalee Holloway" in his church publications. Prayer?
"Black women are being raped daily in Darfur....
that doesn't make the news....but one 18 year old white girl from Alabama gets drunk on a...."
Please read the article and study Mr. Obama's church. From Muslim upbringing to a (20 year
support for this church)...Mr. Obama must have
absorbed some hate.
Posted by: Pat | March 1, 2008 9:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Obama seems to court everyone like my old age courted me, by appearing in a steamed mirror one morning and not destinguishing clearly who or what I realy was all about. I personally don't like Mr Obama just as I don't like many people who seem to project a hidden agenga to abtain an end. Most of us seniors deal with people like this every. Quick answers, empty solutions, and an unflapable belief that he as a mear mortal, has all the answers. I call it the Pied Pipper affect. The young of all nations are infected with this affliction and follow blindly a conclusion which later under durest seems weak.
Posted by: Come Back Jack | March 1, 2008 12:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
In answer to your statement, Mike, no, a smear is not defined by whether or not the person saying it is a member of one party or another. It is defined by whether or not the statement attempts to create a false impression of a person using innuendo and irrelevant (or false) facts.
Mr. Berlinerblau’s article made the innuendo that Barack Obama is somehow a tool of left-wing anti-Semitic demagogues when it dwelt upon the fact that he had received Mr. Farrakhan’s endorsement and then suggested that Obama would (and by inference might deserve to) lose votes for his association with that known anti-Semite.
But Mr. Berlinerblau did NOT mention that the majority of Israelis emphatically desire the policies toward Hamas which Mr. Obama supports. Nor did it mention that Obama has repeatedly and vociferously denounced Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism and expressed great regret that a man whom he has respected for many other things (Rev. Wright) has occasionally voiced significant anti-Semitic viewpoints. I take that omission of those very important and very public facts as a sign of possible bias on Mr. Berlinerblau’s part, however subtle. At the very least, it is sloppy reporting.
On the other hand, Mr. Berlinerblau’s article did not mention that Obama’s opponent, John McCain, has publically accepted endorsements by Rev. Hagee and Rev. Robertson- both of whose homophobic and anti-Muslim statements are a matter of public record. Specifically, THIS record:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/29/hagee/
In sum, Mr. Berlinerblau’s article systematically infers a negative claim against Mr. Obama and fails to present easily-obtained evidence to refute that claim. But it does not mention that a parallel claim can be made- with greater supporting evidence if not necessarily any validity- against his political opponent. That is why Mr. Berlinerblau’s article constitutes the continuation of a smear campaign, Mike. It targets Obama specifically for something that false and is easily proven to be false, while ignoring the fact that a parallel charge of homophobia can be leveled against his opponent with actual documented evidence to support it.
That is the precise difference between a smear and a valid inference.
Posted by: Michael English | March 1, 2008 12:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment
reading these stupid comments reminds me why I gave up reading Newsweek years ago. Thanks for the trip down bad memory lane.
Just remember the democrats are the ones who started the "politics of personal distruction" just as usual.
Posted by: walt | February 29, 2008 11:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Roy -
"Be afraid of neocon penises in dark suits and ties - be very afraid."
Thanks for demonstrating again the wit and intelligence of the typical Obama zealot. Grow up.
Posted by: Mike | February 29, 2008 11:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jesus, Bush and McCain think Americans are stupid.
Bush talks about the threat of al-Qeada while they and their leader Osama are getting stronger by being protected in Pakistan by the fascist Mushariff who Bush paid off to take care of this for him.
McCain says the war "will end soon .... but the insurgency will go on for years and years and years."
And the 30% (80% of which are mindless neochristians) continue to buy this crap. When Rove comes out of hibernation and goes to work on Obama, he'll make the Swift-boaters look like Sunday school teachers. Bush and his family friend Osama have an October surprise for Obama and more Americans will die in the process. Be afraid of neocon penises in dark suits and ties - be very afraid.
Posted by: Roy | February 29, 2008 9:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Edward Said was a Palestinian who courageously wrote about the Palestinian struggle for freedom in New York City despite death threats. Your demeaning description of him is the equivalent of spitting up at the sky. Whatever you are a professor of could not have much to do with "civilization".
Posted by: VoicesintheWind | February 29, 2008 9:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Berlinerblau:
Your recent attempt to illustrate the political positions that my threaten Mr. Obama's candidacy are not very well thought out or convincing.
I especially wonder at your blindness to the fact that the overwhelming political feelings of most Americans has been a general political malaise if not outright antagonism towards the many falsehoods, fabrications, constitution bending and bellicose practices of the present administration.
What actually you have missed is that Mr. Obama has hitched his wagon to the national antagonism towards this administration and has begun to preach a sermon of political redemption which sounds pretty good to the people who hear him.
Therefore, the so-called weaknesses you think youve identified arent really vulnerabilities at all. They are the natural soundings of a young man, of mixed race, seeking to find his way in a white dominated US society. Its pretty normal for him to read Fanon, and probably a dozen other black revolutionary authors, in order for him to measure how far they have gotten in criticizing this society and offering solutions that point towards a better way to bring the various ethnic factions together in this still divided society.
And it seem eminently reasonable to assume that with his multicultural background and international perspective, that is exactly what the US needs today.
So, Mr. Obama's job is to steer a course that is not threatening to the white population, but also includes the views of other major ethnic groupings such as various Asian, AFrican, Latin American and Middle eastern strains.
Now that is a tough job given that most US administrations have generally treated ethnic groups as a sub-category in a census survey.
Conclusion? Mr. Obama is exactly the right kind of person to blend the unhappiness of Americans with the war in Iraq with the aspirations of the US people today in a country which will soon be comprised of 50% ethnicities other than caucasian.
How do I know this? Because I have lived and worked as a journalist outside the US for over 20 years and have learned to view the world through other than US centric eyes.
Finally, the putrified US political system which is based on who can smear the other candidate the most should be relegated to the dustbin of history. It not only has outlived its usefulness, but it has been surplanted by time and a growing and diverse US population.
Tony Gillotte
Posted by: Tony Gillotte | February 29, 2008 8:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Berlinerblau:
Your recent attempt to illustrate the political positions that my threaten Mr. Obama's candidacy are not very well thought out or convincing.
I especially wonder at your blindness to the fact that the overwhelming political feelings of most Americans has been a general malaise if not outright antagonism towards the many falsehoods, fabrications, constitution bending and bellicose practices.
What actually you have missed is that Mr. Obama has hitched his wagon to this national antagonism towards this administration and has begun to preach a sermon of political redemption which sounds pretty good to the people who hear him.
Therefore, the so-called weaknesses you think youve identified arent really vulnerabilities at all. They are the natural soundings of a young man, of mixed race, seeking to find his way in a white dominated US society. Its pretty normal for him to read Fanon, and probably a dozen other black revolutionary characters, in order for him to measure how far they have gotten in criticizing this society and if there is a better way to bring the various ethnic factions together in this still divided society.
And it seem eminently reasonable to assume that with his multicultural background and international perspective, that is exactly what the US needs today.
So, Mr. Obama's job is to steer a course that is not threatening to the white population, but also includes the views of other major ethnic groupings such as various Asian, AFrican, Latin American and Middle eastern strains.
Now that is a tough job given that most US administrations have generally treated ethnic groups as a sub-category in a census survey.
Conclusion? Mr. Obama is exactly the right kind to blend the unhappiness of Americans with the war in Iraq with the aspirations of the US which will soon be comprised of 50% ethnicities other than caucasian.
How do I know this? Because I have lived and worked as a journalist outside the US for over 20 years and have learned to view the world through other than US centric eyes.
Finally, the putrified US political system which is based on who can smear the other candidate should be relegated to the dustbin of history. It not only has outlived its usefulness, but it has been surplanted by time and a growing population.
Tony Gillotte
Posted by: Tony Gillotte | February 29, 2008 8:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It's thinking like this that is another example of why I'm voting for Barack. The republicans just don't get it.
For once, most level headed Americans just want the candidates to argue over issues, and not silly stuff that has no merit. John McCain has his own skeletons, so for those of you putting him on a pedestal, you will be sorely disappointed.
The negativity of the 527's is why Americans are voting for Barack Obama.
The more they attack, the more it will work against them because we're sick of it and the movement towards Barack has proved that thus far.
Posted by: Suzanne | February 29, 2008 8:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Can someone please tell me why it is the right goes ballistic when Louis Farrakhan gives Obama an unsolicited endorsement, but is silent when McCain is endorse by anti-Catholic and radical fundamentalist named John Hagee?
Oh, never mind -- I answered my own question.
No matter loony, no matter how un-Christian these radical right theocrats are, their word is always golden.
Yet another example of just how far the GOP has fallen ...
And just what is Obama's Jewish problem, anyway?
Posted by: vegasgirl | February 29, 2008 8:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Let's just nip this in the bud right now:
Posted by: mateosf | February 29, 2008 8:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
instead of plotting against america,
why cant the cheney/rove party consider
all americans and their priorities.
why that would call for real human concern
for those that can offer you nothing.
the measure of a society is how it treats
its lesser members.
vote for the dick/karl show
cuz its been a great 7 years.
smarmy is the #1 republican election mode.
they remind me of a line from "animal house"
"you f****d up,you trusted us"
Posted by: dick bohanon | February 29, 2008 6:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Craig,
Right you are. I read that column when it was published, and at least one other column before having the same information about Lincoln vs Buchanan. I have related that information here in other threads of 'On Faith'. Alas, some people really take offense at being confused with the facts.
Arminius
Posted by: Arminius | February 29, 2008 6:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Kevin wrote:
"Many Americans will make a fatal mistake when voting. They are preparing not to vote for the most qualified candidate, but rather for the first female candidate or the first African-American candidate. All style with no substance."
This whole "who is qualified" thing is really overplayed. Read this column: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022002268.html
Especially this part:
"Nothing, however, will assuage Clinton supporters' sense of injustice if the upstart Obama supplants her. Their, and her, sense of entitlement is encapsulated in her constant invocations of her "35 years" of "experience." Well.
She is 60. She left Yale Law School at age 25. Evidently she considers everything she has done since school, from her years at Little Rock's Rose Law Firm to her good fortune with cattle futures, as presidentially relevant experience.
The president who came to office with the most glittering array of experiences had served 10 years in the House of Representatives, then became minister to Russia, then served 10 years in the Senate, then four years as secretary of state (during a war that enlarged the nation by 33 percent), then was minister to Britain. Then, in 1856, James Buchanan was elected president and in just one term secured a strong claim to being ranked as America's worst president. Abraham Lincoln, the inexperienced former one-term congressman, had an easy act to follow."
In short, having a lot of experience doesn't really count for much.
Posted by: Craig | February 29, 2008 5:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
What a scumbag Berlinerblau is, and what a hypocrite. This whole column is like saying "oh, goodness, I sure pray nobody breaks into my neighbor's house, because it would be a real tragedy if someone found the key he keeps under his front doormat, and went in there and stole the Picasso painting he has hanging in his living room. Especially this weekend, when the burglar alarm will be disconnected for maintenance. Oh, dear God, please don't let someone do that."
You remind me of Judas kissing Jesus to show him how much he loved him.
Posted by: Gasmonkey | February 29, 2008 5:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Being a brilliant student or teacher does not include being brilliant of foreign policy, see Jimmy Carter.
His foreign policy ideas are just down right wacky. Meet despots and dictators personally without any preconditions is the kind of idea that would have come from Carter. These people will use him for a photo op and make a fool of him.
Pull the troops out then send them back if Iraq falls into chaos and Al Quada comes back. Is he stupid enough to believe that he can do that?
Posted by: JG | February 29, 2008 5:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Maligning Obama and the Democrats who want to bring the troops home is arguing against the interests of the United States. The Republicans actually should be faulted not the Democrats. Why are we spending an inordinate amount of money and lives on Iraq which had nothing to do with 911? If we really want to annihilate AlQaeda, we should go back to Afghanistan and pound the border area between Pakistan and Afghnistan and capture Bin Laden dead or alive. WE are wastinf $2 billion per week in Iraq. Karzai in Afghanistan is on the brink of being toppled. George Bush started 2 wars and he has done a poor job because of his incompetence. McCain accuses the Democrats of "waving the flag of surrender" because we want the troops home. Saddam had been deposed and dead; the Iraqis should wage their own insurgency war, not the US troops.
Posted by: M . Stratas | February 29, 2008 5:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Sir you have done a good job of priming the anti-Obama campaign. McCain/Clinton people should hire you.
I think Obama is the right person for the job and would be bring great prestige to the country by proving it is not racist and the country is not only for the rich and connected. Would bring people of the world together.....
But that would be asking too much as it would not be true because money is god and racism eradication has long way to go.
So I would vote for Clinton just keep another war monger with tortured brain away from the nuclear button.
Posted by: voteclinton | February 29, 2008 5:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Check out this piece on atheism:
http://think.mtv.com/044FDFFFF0098A06900080098D471/User/Blog/BlogPostDetail.aspx
Posted by: Brian | February 29, 2008 5:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I am a lifelong Democrat. I will vote for Obama in the fall since he will be the nominee. But I am pretty offended by his friends in Chicago. I consider myself a "mainstream" Jew and am perplexed by the assumption that Jews (and other people of conscious)should not and are not concerned about the close association Obama has with a pastor/mentor who has been a longtime, vocal admirer of Louis Farrakhan a man who has said notoriously hateful things about Jews, Koreans, Vietnamese, gay people and I'm sure many others.
If my synagogue's pastor participated in a glowing tribute to a bigoted Jewish agitator the members of my synagogue would undoubtedly call for his immediate dismissal. If they did not, I would leave in protest. A press release after the fact doesn't quite cut it. Further this is a man who traveled to Libya with Farrakhan in the 80s, collaborated with him on the Million Man March, when many Christian pastors did not. Why in the world would Obama even be in a church led by such a man for 20 years?
With regard to the dismissal of "guilt by association," don't the people with whom we choose to associate say something about who we are as people? If not, why all the fuss every election cycle over Bob Jones University?
Count me as a qualified Obama supporter without illusions that this man is some kind of white horse.
Posted by: dave ronald | February 29, 2008 4:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
John McCain is becoming a figure of ridicule before our eyes. As gaffe prone as Romney. This whole thing is a joke. A man who is 'tongue-tied' and can't think on the spot. I wonder who that remind me of???
Posted by: SonnyL | February 29, 2008 4:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Obama is being cricized because he wants to do a phased withdrawal of troops within 12-18 months. Why him? The criticism is misplaced. We should denounce Bush for putting America in this untenable position because Bush was reckless and stupid. Going to war in the Middle East is serious business, not some enterprise that he concocted at the last minute. Bush and cohorts decided to go to war on a whim! Nobody seems to demand an answer from Bush for his utter failure in Iraq. Obama has the right approach and sense. FIVE YEARS OF STALEMATE IS DUMB. $3 TRILLION DOLLARS NEEDS AN EXPLANATION. Obama may be young in years but he certainly has the maturity not to engage in silly rhetoric about his background and origins. He is an American; his mother was American, his grandfather fought in the 2nd World War, his grandmother who raised him in Hawaii was the 1s woman VP of Bank of Hawaii. You all sound as if Obama were some alien. Obama has real intellect; graduating with honors from Harvard is not mean feat and to be president of the Law Review, well even George Bush can only dream. Obama can beat McCain whose only credential seems to be having crashed in Vietnam and became prisoner. Well, we have thousands of heroes like that.
Posted by: M . Stratas | February 29, 2008 4:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Several of the posters have noted that John Kerry was "swiftboated". As I recall there were two books written in substantion of the claims distuping several of his assertions and claims. One example of was his claim of being in Cambodia for Christmas, he also asserted that he sent there by the Nixon Administration, but both of these claims were proven to be false. There were others but I don't remember. The national media's position is the opponents to his claims are liar's, but they never offer any evidence, they only yell loudly in unison. But I also remember, that the media and democrats defended the Clinton's in the past, but now they are now cheerleading for Obama and have turned on the Clinton's. Another distrubing event is the racism being engaged in by the black democrats. Both Obama and Hilliary, are both left-leaning democrats, but blacks are voting primary for Obama. This trend clearly can only be attributable to racism. How can they distinguish between two liberal democrats? It could be based on sex, or race. Clearly, the blacks have decided on race.
Posted by: Bernard Thompson | February 29, 2008 4:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Several of the posters have noted that John Kerry was "swiftboated". As I recall there were two books written in substantion of the claims distuping several of his assertions and claims. One example of was his claim of being in Cambodia for Christmas, he also asserted that he sent there by the Nixon Administration, but both of these claims were proven to be false. There were others but I don't remember. The national media's position is the opponents to his claims are liar's, but they never offer any evidence, they only yell loudly in unison. But I also remember, that the media and democrats defended the Clinton's in the past, but now they are now cheerleading for Obama and have turned on the Clinton's. Another distrubing event is the racism being engaged in by the black democrats. Both Obama and Hilliary, are both left-leaning democrats, but blacks are voting primary for Obama. This trend clearly can only be attributable to racism. How can they distinguish between two liberal democrats? It could be based on sex, or race. Clearly, the blacks have decided on race.
Posted by: Bernard Thompson | February 29, 2008 4:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The pro-Israeli hawks do not want the US to make peace with Islam, but rather to intensify the fight against what they like to call "Islamo-fascism". They do not want the US to reach out to Iran, but rather to intimidate it and, if possible, destroy its economy.
The neo-con patriarch, Norman Podhoretz, wants the US to bomb Iran, not to engage it in dialogue. Podhoretz happens to be the father-in-law of Eliot Abrams, the hardline official in charge of the Middle East at the US National Security Council.
Israel's hardline supporters have even insinuated that Obama attended a "madrasa", when he was a child in Indonesia; that he may be a secret Muslim; that he attends a church headed by a former Black Muslim, who is viscerally anti-Israel
The key question is this: whose policy is best for Israel?
Israel and its friends should perhaps consider whether resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict is not better for Israel than the present violent confrontation; and whether defusing America"s hostile relations with Iran, Syria and Hezbollah might not be better for Israel than having these angry and threatening neighbours on its borders.
Instead of fearing and smearing Obama, Israel and its friends might consider that he just might be the US President who can bring peace to the Middle East at last, and effect a much needed reconciliation between the West and Islam.
Is not overseeing Israel's peaceful integration into the Arab world far better for its long-term security and prosperity than Bush's bankrupt policies of making war on Iraq, threatening Iran and Syria, encouraging Israel's wars on Hezbollah and Hamas - policies which have done nothing but create a thirst for revenge and hate for the US and Israel throughout the Arab and Islamic world, and beyond?
Posted by: Anonymous | February 29, 2008 4:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It appears to me that the republicans will stop at nothing to win the presidental election - they are the bastion of corrupt money politics that only know how to smear good people - Obama will not be an exception. I would think a good electoral strategy for the Dems would be to take the 2004 photo of a short and rumpled McCain hugging Bush with a photo montage of the Iraq war, Katrina aftermath, and housing foreclosures with a caption - 'Enjoyed the last eight years? With McCain you will get four more of the same.' should be emough to scare most voters from voting republican
Posted by: don | February 29, 2008 4:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Whether the target is Obama or the other candidates, we're sure to see many examples of reprehensible slander in the months ahead. Regrettably, the press gives more attention to the allegations than to the people behind them, many of whom hide behind the facades of political action groups. Such people deserve no more privacy than the people they attack. The press can do much to elevate the quality of public discourse in America by investigating the slander merchants. Name names, put their photos and addresses on page 1, and let the public hold them accountable for their actions.
Posted by: keith_in_seattle | February 29, 2008 3:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
>mainstream Jews (who traditionally vote Democratic
This has not been true for as long as I have been politically aware (since about the early 1980s).
Signed,
A Jew
Posted by: Jeffrey | February 29, 2008 3:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Obama, apparently moving to the right, is now threatening military intervention in Iraq after years of demanding America's immediate surrender. As the Associated Press reports:
McCain criticized Obama for saying in Tuesday night's Democratic debate that, after U.S. troops were withdrawn, as president he would act "if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq."
"I have some news. Al-Qaida is in Iraq. It's called 'al-Qaida in Iraq,' " McCain told a crowd in Tyler, Texas, drawing laughter at Obama's expense. He said Obama's statement was "pretty remarkable."
Quips Glenn Reynolds: "In Obama's defense, he probably reads the New York Times, which always calls it 'Al Qaida in Mesopotamia.' That may have confused him."
Obama's response to McCain, described in the same AP dispatch, makes even less sense:
"I do know that al-Qaida is in Iraq and that's why I have said we should continue to strike al-Qaida targets," he told a rally at Ohio State University in Columbus.
"But I have some news for John McCain," Obama added. "There was no such thing as al-Qaida in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq. . . . They took their eye off the people who were responsible for 9/11 and that would be al-Qaida in Afghanistan, that is stronger now than at any time since 2001."
Obama said he intended to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq "so we actually start going after al-Qaida in Afghanistan and in the hills of Pakistan like we should have been doing in the first place."
So let's see if we have this straight. Al Qaeda in Iraq isn't worth fighting because it wouldn't be there if it weren't for Bush and McCain. Obama is going to pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq to go fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan, although he will send them back to Iraq if al Qaeda are there, even though he now wants to withdraw notwithstanding al Qaeda's presence.
Great Plan ! Great Judgement !
Posted by: Petras Vilson | February 29, 2008 3:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
David Weiss -
Thanks for demonstrating how intolerant, arrogant, ill-informed and obnoxious many Obama's supporters can be. I didn't know that Obama's message of "hope" and "change" included calling anonymous strangers who don't share your views "right wing Nazis". Kudos to you for your wit and intelligence.
Posted by: Mike | February 29, 2008 2:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
David and Kathy, your Abraham Lincoln reference works both ways.
He was a Republican fighting against the Democrat establishment (the party of slavery) that wanted to surrender the civil war and negotiate with the slavers. The public was weary of the deeply unpopular war, but Lincoln convinced them that freedom and democracy were inalienable rights for all, and that surrender was not an option.
Or didn't you leftwing idiots study history?
Posted by: Aaron | February 29, 2008 2:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Yes, the questioms above would represent another "swiftboating". Questioning a candidate about past votes, statements, and associations is so unseemly....which is probably why the MSM never does it!
Posted by: Sarge | February 29, 2008 2:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Berlinerblau states that to be a mainstream Jew you must vote Democratic i.e. good Jews must be liberal idiots in the bag for Obama.
Obama has a long history of supporting PLO terrorists policies and associating with people that want Israel carved up like an orange. He belongs to a church that give awards to Farrakhan.
Berlinerblau is like the Hollywood liberal Jews that were afraid of saying anyting against the nazis before WWII because they did not want to isolate themselves and cause anti-semitism.
Any Jew that listens to the likes of Berlinerblau and supports ultra-left wing radical Israel basher Obama is basically committing suicide.
Have a Brain:DON'T Support Obama
Posted by: Garrett Smythe Brown, II | February 29, 2008 2:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It never ceases to amaze me. That is, the intense defensiveness of Obama's disciples, and this article is a good example. After saying that Obama has been falsely accused of not being substanitive, Jacques Berlinerblau then writes defensive prose of praise which is also mostly fluff and little substance. It takes one to know one, they say. What is happening in this election is far too important to leave to an inexperienced man who has been campaigning since he started his US Senatorial career only three years ago. He is charming and he is brown-skinned. This is no reason to elect him as world leader, even if it assuages the conscience of Jewish people who want so much to be politically correct. Slow down.
Posted by: Dr.Annette Reed | February 29, 2008 2:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Wright has been displaying his anti-Jewish feelings for years, not only in his sermons, but in his association with Farrakhan. Obama apparently was not offended enough to change churches or distance himself from this behavior until the story appeared in the Washington Post. What would he say about a white candidate who attended a church that honored Trent Lott or one of the other Southern racists?
Posted by: Rhoda Miller | February 29, 2008 2:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Wright has been displaying his anti-Jewish feelings for years, not only in his sermons, but in his association with Farrakhan. Obama apparently was not offended enough to change churches or distance himself from this behavior until the story appeared in the Washington Post. What would he say about a white candidate who attended a church that honored Trent Lott or one of the other Southern racists?
Posted by: Rhoda Miller | February 29, 2008 2:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
John Kerry has two, count them, TWO silver stars won in combat. The US military do not hand out silver stars like candy. It is reviewed and reviewed up the chain of command.
McCain however, has only the distinction of being a prisoner. John Kerry's service was honorable, McCain has been crippled by his experience in Viet-Nam. He is so disformed by his experience that he wants to fight the war all over again - this time in Iraq. He's willing to fight there for 100 years - his own words! We can't have a war nut like McCain in the office of the Presidency. America can't afford to have more of the same old, same old foreign policy.
As to Obama's experience: I can think of at least one president that had a lot less experience, no formal education and was truly one of the greatest leaders of all time - Abraham Lincoln. Look it up, you lacking in education, right wing nazis.
Posted by: David Weiss | February 29, 2008 2:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
John Kerry has two, count them, TWO silver stars won in combat. The US military do not hand out silver stars like candy. It is reviewed and reviewed up the chain of command.
McCain however, has only the distinction of being a prisoner. John Kerry's service was honorable, McCain has been crippled by his experience in Viet-Nam. He is so disformed by his experience that he wants to fight the war all over again - this time in Iraq. He's willing to fight there for 100 years - his own words! We can't have a war nut like McCain in the office of the Presidency. America can't afford to have more of the same old, same old foreign policy.
As to Obama's experience: I can think of at least one president that had a lot less experience, no formal education and was truly one of the greatest leaders of all time - Abraham Lincoln. Look it up you lacking in education right wing nazis.
Posted by: David Weiss | February 29, 2008 2:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I would like to remind all of those who knock Obama's lack of experience, that another President from the same state had as much if not less experience in Government than Obama. He had no war or foreign policy experience. Yet every American should thank God (or whatever higher power you thank) that we had him in our time of need. That time of need was the American Civil War and that President was Abraham Lincoln.
Posted by: Kathy Wilson | February 29, 2008 2:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
My personal complaint about media coverage of the Obama campaign is the repeated use of the words "messiah" and "messianic." I have a sneaking suspicion those are code words designed to instill fear in both Jewish voters and evangelicals.
Also, the NY Times article was not "swift boating" McCain. The article may have been poorly sourced, but it was written to raise questions about the propensity of a self described ethical politician to rely on lobbyists for so much of his political work. There were a lot of blind quotes but they still had John Weaver on the record.
"Swift boating" is the collection of anonymous donations to fund a campaign of half-truths and lies aimed at discrediting a political candidate. Democrats may engage in it, but they haven't perfected it nearly to the level of the party of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove.
Posted by: TomPaine | February 29, 2008 2:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
you just named all the reasons this man should not even be in the senate let alone president,then you tell us to disregard all of it as smear tactics. typical lib. any critizism is facist when it is really the other way around.you say his opponents will 'cheerfully' cite the truth about this guy when it is really with sadness that the people of this country look at the candidates and wonder why we can't do better.
Posted by: gary | February 29, 2008 1:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I like the idea that Obama may become a bridge between Jewish americans and black americans. It seems such a unique opportunity that I think American should no miss.
Posted by: Kool | February 29, 2008 1:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
McCain will paint Obama as just another tax-and-spend, anti-free market, anti-national defense, left-wing liberal. Voters will be swayed by this picture of Obama because it's true.
Posted by: Albert | February 29, 2008 1:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
in regards to mr. Berlinerblaus comment:"Obama's brand of less-secular liberalism does not exclude or threaten most of the religious constituencies that are up for grabs. " Mr. obama's view of religion is really a view that comes from his formative years as an adolescent and child growing up in hawaii --- and in indonesia. Religious and cultural tolerance is the main feature of being from hawaii. I grew up in hawaii too.He is more hawaiian in approach to the world than I really think he thinks he is. I no longer live in hawaii but can't deny my upbringing. He has christian leanings and I think that should make religious people comfortable. Being from hawaii, i am sure he knows all about hawaiian gods and also respects them as I do being a prostestant myself albeit not a very good one. Chappy
Posted by: Chaplin L. Liu | February 29, 2008 1:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Mr. Berlinerblau has, however inadvertently, become an active participant in the Republican smear campaign."
Yes. Any criticism by a Republican is a "smear". But every criticism by a Democrat is "speaking truth to power".
Are the potential criticisms you describe a "smear"? If so, are you "smearing" McCain with your counterpoints? Or do you just have different rules of conduct based on party affiliation?
Posted by: Mike | February 29, 2008 12:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It seems to me that the biggest problem Barack Obama faces right now is not so much the spurious charges of anti-Semitism launched by the right-wing smear machine as it is the media echo chamber which repeats those charges without analyzing whether or not they are true.
Take THIS article, for example. In it, we read three separate premises: One, that Barack Obama was spiritually mentored by a radical anti-Semite; two, that he associated with anti-Semites and used to read anti-Semitic literature and hung out with Black Panthers; and (3) that he might not be able to win because his past "anti-Semitic associations" might destroy his electability with the Evangelical Right.
So, while presuming to warn Barack Obama about the threats he will face while seeking election, Mr. Berlinerblau has carefully introduced any readers to all of those charges, said almost nothing to place them in perspective, and effectively acted as a mouthpiece for the originators of those charges while attempting to dodge any type of accounting for his own role by claiming to write out of concerned analysis and not out of disingenuousness.
It would have been far more responsible of Mr. Berlinerblau (assuming, of course, that his motive for writing the article is genuine analysis of the issues) to give a detailed explanation of whether those charges have any significance in comparison with his opponent.
Mr. Berlinerblau could, for example, cite the Feb. 27th Haaretz newspaper poll showing that a 64% majority of Israelis support Mr. Obama's call for direct negotiations with Hamas.
He could compare, line by line, questionable or anti-Semitic statements made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright with anti-gay, anti-Muslim statements made by Rev. Pat Robertson and Rev. John Hagee - both of whose endorsements, by the way, John McCain has openly embraced. Obama has flatly rejected and denounced the anti-Semitism of Louis Farrakhan.
An you could compare Obama's going to the same college as members of the Black Panthers with John McCain voting to grant immunity to torturers after apparently (but not substantively) opposing the grant of such immunity.
If Mr. Berlinerblau had done these sorts of comparisons, he would have a truly fair and balanced article. Instead, in the name of concern he has repeated the charges against Obama as if they actually illuminate his character in some meaningful way, when they evidence of Obama’s words and deeds indicate that they do not. In doing so, Mr. Berlinerblau has, however inadvertently, become an active participant in the Republican smear campaign.
Posted by: Michael English | February 29, 2008 12:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
So let me get this straight. "Swift boating" means having any type of criticism of a Democrat.
Why isn't Obama's constant partisan attacks on Bush "swift boating"? Because he isn't a Democrat?
Why isn't the smear of McCain by the Times and the Post "swift boating"? Because he isn't a Democrat?
Just as idiot partisan conservatives claim any criticism of America is "unpatriotic", so do idiot partisan liberals claim any criticism of their candidate (no matter how accurate) as "swift boating".
Grow up people. If you can't tolerate fair criticism of your candidate, then you certainly should be offended by the partisan sliming by your party. Better yet, face reality and stop thinking that your candidates can not be criticized at all, at the same time they slam Bush every chance they get.
I guess what I am saying is stop being such pathetic hypocrites.
Posted by: Mike | February 29, 2008 12:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This is a red herring. I don't think Obama supporters need to worry about the right swift boating his candidacy. This campaign has proven that Obama's pals in the media (well, which basically means the entire media, since they have abandoned any pretense of objectivity and became cheer leaders for Obama) are pretty good at smearing their political rivals such as Clinton,with and without the connivance of Omaba's campaign. So, I think it is McCain who needs to watch out.
However, the Republicans and their media supporters will not be as accommodating as the Clinton people and slowly Obama's true colors will come out. By then however, unfortunately it is too late for the democrats.
Posted by: intcamd | February 29, 2008 12:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I get it now. When repubs reveal dems it's 'swiftboating'. When dems reveal repubs it's 'speaking truth to power'.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 29, 2008 12:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
When you are stuck in a hole, the first rule to getting out is to stop digging.
Al Quaeda in Iraq occurred because of the invasion, but is not sustainable without a U.S. presence there. If the U.S. leaves immediately, I do agree it will be bloody, but that is because the majority Shiites will slaughter Al Quaeda. The problem would come from many innocent Sunnis being caught in the bloodbath, but make no mistake... absent the U.S., Al Quaeda in Iraq is NOT the dominant power. The key is drawing down the U.S. presence while guaranteeing no Shiite reprisals.
Second, Obama repeatedly points out the mistake of going to war in the first place for a good reason. It is to balance experience with judgement. Experience without judgement is useless. And it does McCain no favors to point out his experience while singing bomb bomb bomb..bomb bomb Iran. McCain has to make the case that he has the judgement to avoid the mistakes of the past. And not admitting they were mistakes will continue to haunt him if 70% of the public disagrees.
Obama can go to town on Hillary's add by simply pointing out that not only can he be ready to handle the crisis when he receives the call, but he has the judgement that would keep us from manufacturing crises of our own.
Posted by: Phil | February 29, 2008 12:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"If only Jews had been allowed to vote in the 2004 election, there probably wouldn't be a single Republican in Congress."
Let me re-phrase that:
"If Jews had been the only people allowed to vote in the 2004 election, there probably wouldn't be a single Republican in Congress."
Posted by: OD | February 29, 2008 12:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Heaven forbid that anyone would "Fahrenheit 9/11", a candidate, or even that anyone might mention that it has ever been done.
What do we call it when a Hillary staff member shows up and takes over the mic at a Republican debate. That should rate high up there on the list of dirty tricks, but it won't be, now will it?
Posted by: Sternberg | February 29, 2008 11:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Disclosure: I have been against our invasion of Iraq from the outset. Right now I am just trying to understand the logic behind Al Qaeda attacking inside the US in order to affect the outcome of the election. I do agree that they would only do this if they wanted to increase the likelyhood of McCain being elected. But I don't see that as in their interest.
I would assume that they are in Iraq because they see some military advantage to being there.
(perhaps it is a mistake to believe that they operate under a coordinated leadership with a single goal in mind). That will not change if the US leaves. I don't believe they are in Iraq only to drive us out, since they must understand that their activities in Iraq only draw out the US's length of stay. Also, they must understand that anything they do militarily in Iraq will lead that country deeper into civil war. It does look like the indigenous groups have their number now, and will make things more difficult for them to operate. But I just don't see the logic in thinking that they will do anything to try to affect the outcome of the election. In fact, I would think they would be highly motivated to not attack on US soil before the election because it would affect the outcome in a way contrary to their goals.
Posted by: Dr.R.P. | February 29, 2008 11:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment
It's a great pity, the harm America's fanatical Christians have done to the reputation of America's generally moderate Jews.
Certainly, much of the Bush Administration's wrongdoing has been pushed partly by the Israel lobby, but the Israel lobby actually consists of representatives of one section of Israeli opinion, Likud, plus millions of American evangelist Christians, and a quite small minority of American Jews.
I'm always amazed when people blame American Jews for the Iraq war. If only Jews had been allowed to vote in the 2004 election, there probably wouldn't be a single Republican in Congress.
Posted by: OD | February 29, 2008 11:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
IT's true that Al Qaida was not in Iraq before the invasion. But it certainly is there right now. Obama is great at crying about spilt milk. What's done is done. Ultimately, what is his plan going forward? To withdraw from Iraq, and then reinvade? Obama is a smooth talking player.
Posted by: Jack | February 29, 2008 11:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
IT's true that Al Qaida was not in Iraq before the invasion. But it certainly is there right now. Obama is great at crying about spilt milk. What's done is done. Ultimately, what is his plan going forward? To withdraw from Iraq, and then reinvade? Obama is a smooth talking player.
Posted by: Jack | February 29, 2008 11:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The "Obama problem" is not one of religion. Quite simply, Obama is too young, too new to politics and has no track record on handling tough situations. I was going to say military and foreign policy - but I can't - he has absolutely no military or foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton is only marginally better.
The post 9/11 world will not be made safer for Americans because Obama can make flowery speeches. Obama acts as though he is trying out to be the National Cheerleader. He uses the word "change" continuously, yet his "change" is connected to nothing concrete. It's much like the American auto makers in the 1980's all chanting the word "quality." American cars during the 80's were rolling disasters.
Many Americans will make a fatal mistake when voting. They are preparing not to vote for the most qualified candidate, but rather for the first female candidate or the first African-American candidate. All style with no substance.
If that's the kind of change you want don't vote for the "fluff" candidates, look to Elizabeth Dole or Colin Powell.
Our adversaries are licking their chops at the prospect of an Obama or Clinton presidency.
Posted by: Kevin | February 29, 2008 11:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The "Obama problem" is not one of religion. Quite simply, Obama is too young, too new to politics and has no track record on handling tough situations. I was going to say military and foreign policy - but I can't - he has absolutely no military or foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton is only marginally better.
The post 9/11 world will not be made safer for Americans because Obama can make flowery speeches. Obama acts as though he is trying out to be the National Cheerleader. He uses the word "change" continuously, yet his "change" is connected to nothing concrete. It's much like the American auto makers in the 1980's all chanting the word "quality." American cars during the 80's were rolling disasters.
Many Americans will make a fatal mistake when voting. They are preparing not to vote for the most qualified candidate, but rather for the first female candidate or the first African-American candidate. All style with no substance.
If that's the kind of change you want don't vote for the "fluff" candidates, look to Elizabeth Dole or Colin Powell.
Our adversaries are licking their chops at the prospect of an Obama or Clinton presidency.
Posted by: Kevin | February 29, 2008 11:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The "Obama problem" is not one of religion. Quite simply, Obama is too young, too new to politics and has no track record on handling tough situations. I was going to say military and foreign policy - but I can't - he has absolutely no military or foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton is only marginally better.
The post 9/11 world will not be made safer for Americans because Obama can make flowery speeches. Obama acts as though he is trying out to be the National Cheerleader. He uses the word "change" continuously, yet his "change" is connected to nothing concrete. It's much like the American auto makers in the 1980's all chanting the word "quality." American cars during the 80's were rolling disasters.
Many Americans will make a fatal mistake when voting. They are preparing not to vote for the most qualified candidate, but rather for the first female candidate or the first African-American candidate. All style with no substance.
If that's the kind of change you want don't vote for the "fluff" candidates, look to Elizabeth Dole or Colin Powell.
Our adversaries are licking their chops at the prospect of an Obama or Clinton presidency.
Posted by: Kevin | February 29, 2008 11:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The "Obama problem" is not one of religion. Quite simply, Obama is too young, too new to politics and has no track record on handling tough situations. I was going to say military and foreign policy - but I can't - he has absolutely no military or foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton is only marginally better.
The post 9/11 world will not be made safer for Americans because Obama can make flowery speeches. Obama acts as though he is trying out to be the National Cheerleader. He uses the word "change" continuously, yet his "change" is connected to nothing concrete. It's much like the American auto makers in the 1980's all chanting the word "quality." American cars during the 80's were rolling disasters.
Many Americans will make a fatal mistake when voting. They are preparing not to vote for the most qualified candidate, but rather for the first female candidate or the first African-American candidate. All style with no substance.
If that's the kind of change you want don't vote for the "fluff" candidates, look to Elizabeth Dole or Colin Powell.
Our adversaries are licking their chops at the prospect of an Obama or Clinton presidency.
Posted by: Kevin | February 29, 2008 11:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The "Obama problem" is not one of religion. Quite simply, Obama is too young, too new to politics and has no track record on handling tough situations. I was going to say military and foreign policy - but I can't - he has absolutely no military or foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton is only marginally better.
The post 9/11 world will not be made safer for Americans because Obama can make flowery speeches. Obama acts as though he is trying out to be the National Cheerleader. He uses the word "change" continuously, yet his "change" is connected to nothing concrete. It's much like the American auto makers in the 1980's all chanting the word "quality." American cars during the 80's were rolling disasters.
Many Americans will make a fatal mistake when voting. They are preparing not to vote for the most qualified candidate, but rather for the first female candidate or the first African-American candidate. All style with no substance.
If that's the kind of change you want don't vote for the "fluff" candidates, look to Elizabeth Dole or Colin Powell.
Our adversaries are licking their chops at the prospect of an Obama or Clinton presidency.
Posted by: Kevin | February 29, 2008 11:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
My guess is the Swiftboaters will be so clumsy and obviously over-the-top that it will backfire.
Witness many an internet poster saying that if Obama is elected Osama Bin Laden will end up raping our children.
This stuff is truly demented and obviously silly. As Mr. Berlinerblau points out, the American people will see through it. It will damage McCain's effort more than Obama's.
Posted by: steve boyington | February 29, 2008 11:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Dr.R.P.:
Well, there waas no Al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded, and there's little indication as to how and why they would remain. Iraq's population in 60% Shiite and 15% Kurd, and neither of these groups are any friends of Sunni extremists. Moreover, Iran, no friend of Al Qaeda or Sunnis of any kind is right next door. Now, Iran hasn't invaded anyone since the 18th century, but, if there is civil war in Iraq, they will intervene. Nope, if we leave, the small number of Al Qaeda in Iraq will move to Pakistan along the Afghan border.
Posted by: DZ | February 29, 2008 11:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Isnt it curious that thosee same negative tactics that Mr Berlinerblau admonishes is used as references to this article. It typifies the right wanting it both ways, ie to be their usual divisive selves, which is the only way they can win and criticizing their surrogates when they swiftboat and play the racist, fear mongering card.
Posted by: gideon | February 29, 2008 11:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Some of the things that Obama can expect from the "Party that gave us Willie Horton and SwiftBoat Veterans" is an expose of his Palestinian pals Ali Abunimah and Rashid Khaldi and their connection to Fatah. Certainly, you won't be getting that from the liberal talking heads even though its already all over the Internet.
Ditto his duplicitous positions on renegotiating NAFTA.
If Obama didn't exist Karl Rove would have to invent him
Posted by: Norman | February 29, 2008 11:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
If I look at the election from Al Qaeda's perspective, or from a military perspective in general (not our military) it seems that they would want someone to win who will pull out of Iraq ASAP, so they can start trouble back up there (I assume they are there because they eventually want to have at least part of the area as a safe operating area, as they had when the Taliban gave them a safe haven). In that case, McCain would be the last person they would want in office, since he has basically said he would stay there forever if need be. What is wrong with this logic?
Posted by: Dr.R.P. | February 29, 2008 11:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment
he's gotten two pieces of legislation passed.
he named a post office , and promotes democracy in Ghana.
he is an empty suit.
Posted by: tray | February 29, 2008 10:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Berlinerblau, did you write your "opinions" before or after the Democratic Debate on Tuesday?
This sounds very similar to issues that Tim Russert brought up during the debate that were addressed by the candidates.
You aren't plagiarizing Mr. Russert here, are you professor?
Posted by: Hello | February 29, 2008 10:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
TEXANS VOTE FOR HILLARY!
SHE IS QUALIFIED AND FAIR TO ALL AMERICANS!
OBAMA AND HIS WIFE HAVE SHOWN HOW THEY RUN THEIR HOUSE, AND IT IS NOT THE WAY WE WANT OUR HOUSE AT 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE RUN!
Posted by: Texas Democrat | February 29, 2008 10:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Well I suppose the other option is for the Dems to bring back the innuendo against John McCain being a traitor, or fathering a black child with a prostitute. Maybe they could even toss in some new fresh sleaze.
Heck it worked for President Error back in 2000 with the foolish Neo-Cons who elected him to office twice. I'm sure the "mind numbed robots" would believe it again.
Posted by: Hello | February 29, 2008 10:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Liu,
I appreciate your insight. I've noticed every time a Muslim extremist blows his nose, it helps the Republicans win a Presidential election, from Robert Kennedy's murder to the hostage crisis of the late 1970's to 9/11. And it makes all the sense in the world that extremists do not want a President who will make an honest attempt to broker peace. (The Sadat-Begin treaty, Carter's great foreign policy triumph, was threatening to Shi'ite extremists who successfully manipulated the country into electing Reagan.) You are absolutely correct that Obama has to nip this in the bud BEFORE it happens.
Posted by: Peter | February 29, 2008 10:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Frere Jacques' paean to Obama (a man of faith, but not belief?) rivals Frere Jacques' thin skin for criticism!
In this peaen, Frere Jacques tells us why we better not kick his dog around! He doesn't care if he is a hound!
Posted by: Frere Jacques | February 29, 2008 10:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
This is the second article I have seen advisng Johm McCain on how he can swiftboat Barak Obama without actually appearing to swiftboat him.
I have a novel idea. Why don't you people just lighten up and let the two candidates be who they really are? Why don't you stop giving out clearly partisan advice and just let the campaigns progress naturally and let the American peple make a clean decision?
What you are advising Mr Berliner is essentially no different from the smear merchants on the right who simply cannot seem to win an election without this sort of squalid behaviour.
Jesus! No wonder the world hates America!
Posted by: Gary Jackson | February 29, 2008 10:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Sorry, my above post should have said "Muslim extremist," not "Arab extremist."
Posted by: Peter | February 29, 2008 10:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
What about McCain's time in Vietnam, really? When is someone going to go to Vietnam and get the records that exist? Do the interviews with Vietnamese? And stop the bs of telling us what the McCain hacks and lobbyists like Black tell us is the truth?
Also, when will we hear more about McCain's health? Look at his face? See anything that needs to be explained?
Next, the fact that he has had affairs while married is important. It is especially important when some of those lovers are lobbyists. When are we going to hear about McCain's other relationships?
Posted by: John Tull | February 29, 2008 10:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Berlinerblau has nailed all the salient points. But here's a question: why is Obama called up time and again to denounce or reject or "denounce and reject" the words or imputed views of Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright, while John McCain gets a complete pass for his enthusiastic embrace of End-Times-a-Comin' fringe-right anti-Catholic zealot and psychopath John Hagee?
Just asking.
Posted by: Tom | February 29, 2008 10:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The last thing Osama bin Laden wants is Obama in the White House, for that would act to diminish some of the hate towards America around the world...which he of course counts on for new recruits.
Posted by: Mike NYC, NY | February 29, 2008 10:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Obama should be concerned about the impact of a likely Al qaida attack in the world or in the United States before the november election . There is likely to be some unknown comment or endorsement by Osama Bin Laden or his top associates that may result in a adverse reaction by our citizenry . He should neutralize this problem by predicting a likely attack will occur and that these attacks are designed to incite an expected sympathy for Mr. McCain's position on the continual prosecution of the war. he should also neutralize before hand any Al Qaida comments that may be perceived as an endorsement for Mr. Obama and the Democratic ticket. From the terrorist's position, George W Bush's prosecution of the War in Iraq has been a gold mine for them and they have used this to their advantage to embolden their terrorist leaning supporters. The terrorist are not oppose to using reverse psychology to promote their terrorist agenda. Chappy Liu
Posted by: Chaplin L. Liu | February 29, 2008 9:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I'm sorry, since when is reading Frantz Fanon emblematic of the far "Left" as you put it? Fanon, Bhaba, Said...these were all assigned readings for one of my law school classes.
Is looking critically at colonialism and its impact on not only Africa, but American history a leftist education? I went to the University of Arizona for law school. I would hardly call a law school with a Center for the Study of Federalism, named after Justice Reinquist, a leading leftist University.
These are culturally relevant and mainstream works.
It is the Right that is drifting further and further from the educated Middle.
Posted by: Jared Hautamaki | February 29, 2008 9:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"He wants to cut and run and see America defeated." That's the core Republican argument I expect to hear during the campaign.
Posted by: Robert | February 29, 2008 9:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Howard Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 13th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Why does Obama keep getting a free pass? Why is any inquiry, or challenge to his record, or unsavory associations, met with accusations of racism? Jeramiah Wright, an obvious racist and anti-Semite, not only endorses, supports and praises Farakan … Obama is a lot more connected to Wright than a mere case of guilt by association. Obama himself has described Wright as his spiritual advisor and mentor of 20 years. Obama was going to have Wright speak at his announcement to run ceremony, until he realized it would be a bad political decision. Any fool can weigh 20 years of involvement against a momentary half hearted denouncement, motivated by personal political ambition. The left and the media has fashioned Obama into a sacred cow, who is above reproach. Obama’s record, and associations have become like the Emperor’s new clothes, even when the future of the world is at stake!