At this point, all the relevant issues ought to have been sufficiently discussed that y’all ought to have an idea of who you think is going to win the upcoming US Presidential election. So rather than rehash the already well articulated arguments, we want to survey everyone and simply ask who you think is going to win the election on November 4th. Surveys have already shown very strong support for Obama amongst Jews – the latest Gallup poll shows Jewish support of Obama at a current high of 74% while McCain is down to an all time low of 22%. Yet amongst Americans as a whole some still see this election as toss up – maybe it’s the Bradley Effect, or maybe fallout from last minute attacks against Obama – ie Obama’s attendance at a going-away party for former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi and things he may have said there or The Obama’s association with former terrorist fundraiser Hatem El-Hady. This is all conjecture of course and as we know, in US elections anything can happen.
So how do you think it’s going to go?
[poll id=”6″]
- Hawk Tuah Girl Haliey Welch is Not Jewish. Probably. - 8/9/2024
- Jews Blessed by their High Priests - 10/14/2022
- Foolproof Mufletta Recipe & Muflettapalooza / Mimouna Invite! - 3/26/2021
And Sheela, kudos to you for understanding the importance of playing devil’s advocate and trying to see more than one side in things.
If one side goes down in a landslide tomorrow, their refusal to entertain any ideas other that question their own absolutist convictions will probably have played a major role.
But it’s right for journalists to use the discretion borne of simple common sense in determining who’s warping the facts more. As Campbell Brown said, when one candidate says it’s raining and the other says the sun is shining, a journalist should be able to look outside.
Out of touch is a hard label for McCain to beat. It’s difficult for me to see the case a guy could make for leading America in this day and age when was basically computer illiterate up until a few months ago, and as far as anyone knows, still is.
By the time McCain chose Palin, it was probably hard to feel anything but sympathy (both for her in choosing to attach herself to McCain’s quixotic run and for the ticket itself). Not that that’s any reason to vote for someone. But she does come across as much more genuine than Hillary, which does count for something – as it should.
Just looked it up out of curiosity: McCain‘s & Obama‘s health records.
Nah, respecting elders of the community and putting blind trust into a 70-year old man with known health issues, whose values are obviously out of touch with the demographic he intends to lead, are two completely different things. It’s actually quite a straw man to suggest that by calling McCain’s abilities into question based on aforementioned issues, one is suggesting that older people are unfit to lead based on their age alone. The cold hard truth is that it’s perfectly legitimate (and certainly keeping with Jewish values) to point out the obvious — Ronald Reagan struggled with Alzheimer’s and the media had a field day with it. It’s pretty routine procedure in U.S. politics and most Americans are used to it. Which is why I was rather surprised and somewhat disgusted tha they pussyfooted around the issue with McCain, and treated Palin with much more (undeserved) sympathy and respect than they ever have with Clinton.
An omen maybe? Andrea Ypsilanti, presidential hopeful of the federal state of Hesse, who had adopted and altered Obama’s slogan of “Yes, we can” into “Yes, we do” lost the significant election today as she didn’t get all of her party’s votes (she faced internal opposition over her flip-flopping). Re-elections now have just become a matter of time, huge losses for her party are being predicted, and she’s done politically.
Media’s treatment of Palin (and Hillary) has exposed obviously generally accepted misogynism. Too bad women only seem to have feminists’ back as long as they aren’t successful themselves.
As for age and political abilities, I suggest people read up on former Federal Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, and those that deem themselves religious might also want to reflect on the Jewish position on old age and old age leaders in particular.
Internal conflict ain’t such a bad thing… keeps it interesting. 😉
As a U.S. Citizen and a registered voter of course I can’t say I’m 100% completely unbiased, but I’m pretty well-known in my own circle for my ability to play devil’s advocate & hear the case of the “other side”– and I still think the American media has handled Palin with absolute kid gloves. McCain got off pretty easy too… it’s ok to point out Obama’s “lack of experience” (read: he’s too young to be President) but to note McCain’s age and health problems and to suggest he might be the least bit “out of touch” with the majority of American voters is to be tarred with the “ageist” brush.
Anyway, as far as the original question goes, considering his *possible* selection for White House Chief of Staff ¡claro que Obama es lo más Jewlicioso!
Americans are in a constant state of internal conflict with each other (and sometimes, with themselves).
This will not change unless the entire political structure were to be rebuilt from top to bottom, which would pobably never happen. It would be a nearly impossible thing to do.
If a decent philosopher such as Muffti can come out of a place as friendly and free of discord as Canada, then this gives MUL hope for the future state of the world.
(as forgiving as they were with Palin’s daughter re: illegitimate conceptions, in case it wasn’t clear).
It’s a good point that the charges of who gets a pass are ubiquitous. But I tend to find them unconvincing from either side (as well as usually impertinent. Let the politician say why a specific attack or lack thereof is fair or not). Maybe it’s the aggression in me.
But double-standards create an opportunity for further exploring the perceived “fairness” of these charges. Does anyone for a minute believe that if one of Obama’s daughters conceived out of wedlock that people would have been as forgiving? I doubt it. But then again, the democrats don’t tend to run on cultural themes that often beckon to the ancient fertility cults of yore. And a black politician would never be afforded the opportunity to at that level. Forget it!
“While Muffti isn’t a huge fan of your aggressive treatment of your opponents, he can’t help but feel warm and cuddly that someone agrees with him.”
Must be the Canadian in you!
Unfortunately things are a lot rougher here in the states.
And yet it’s kind of an interesting twist that it took 2 comedians from Montreal to make Palin look sillier than anything else has so far. In a weird way, it made me feel much more sympathetic to her. Perhaps she can be a very genuine and warm person when she believes she’s speaking with the president of France, but still clearly out of her depth, and on multiple levels. (Who screened the call? Bexxy! Oh Bexxy!)
Regarding Obama’s break with Wright, perhaps it was all manufactured. But my understanding is that Obama publicly challenged him by asking for clarification on something contentious which Wright had said, only to receive a divisive, obstinate and defensive response. It wasn’t like “See ya, bye. I’ve got a campaign to run.” A more substantive reason preceded the break, even if one chooses to believe it was all staged and entirely political.
ck, something’s really warped on the technical front. These text boxes are taking a r e a l l y l o n g time to register and display keystrokes. Never had a problem like that here before, and it’s just this site right now.
Muffti wasn’t saying that the media hasn’t give Obama passes – he just thought it was ridiculous and ridonculous (to borrow a phrase from his little sister) to say that Obama got a ‘pass’ on his leftie associations. Truthfully, the only obvious potential ‘pass’ is the LA Times concealing a tape that has caused the relevant controversy.
Froylein is right – it is about proportions. But truthfully, as a regular LGF checker-in and a regular Dailykos reader (as well as a host of others), the charges of who gets a pass on one are ubiquitous and, in some cases, convincing on both sides. Which generally makes Muffti think that there is either no agreed upon notion of a pass or, more probably, people care about things that the media doesn’t always care about and vice versa. (Muffti has tried to check out some of hte more objective media rankings but again, he regards them with a fair bit of skepticism vis a vis what they use as standards).
anyhow, it will all be over soon and then we can all point fingers and say ‘told you so”.
Well, yeah, McCain should answer those questions, absolutely.
Muffti’s not satisfied with my offer of proof re: a pass for The One. Well, then. How about his ineffable running mate? Can someone, Middle maybe, let us know how we teamed up with France and cleared the Hezzies out of south Lebanon?… Just wondering.
It’s about proportions, Mufftele…
Muffti doesn’t really understand the phrase ‘pass’ here. Did the media not report it? They did. Did the media allow people to bring it up over and over again? They did.
What you are calling a ‘pass’, so far as Muffti can tell, is a total lack of head on non stop blaring in your face of an association. And insofar as that goes, there have been passes a plenty. No one bugs Palin about her associations with the Alaskan Independent parties. No one asks mccain why he gave khalidi half a mil to start up a centre from the IRI. No one harasses McCain all day long about the Keating scandal…
So where is the pass the Obama got? As you yourself pointed out, Mr. Morrissey, and Muffti quotes “He gave perfectly plausible answers about their friendship, which I may choose to believe or not. But he got asked, and he answered.”
That’s not a pass – that’s how journalism should be conducted, along with fact checking to ensure that the candidates, to the best of our ability to discern, answer honestly. A reasonable question of pertinent interest comes up, you ask it, and then you let the public know the answer and re-ask if new information comes up.
Now now. There’ll be plenty of time for sex after next Tuesday…. Though we’re all a little stressed, and could use, I don’t know…. shouldn’t take too long…
I agree with pretty much everything Muffti wrote. Obama learned from the Wright fiasco: he didn’t drop Ayers like a hot potato. He gave perfectly plausible answers about their friendship, which I may choose to believe or not. But he got asked, and he answered. As froylein observes, MSM has treated him with kid gloves next to Palin. (Imagine if she or, say, Cheney, been cavorted with Khalidi? How do you think that tape would’ve been treated?)
I too regret we live in such a polarized environment, in which nuance is the first casualty. However, I believe there’s a middle ground between giving Obama a pass on his lefty associations, and accusing him of being an anti-semitic PLO lover. He’s not Noam Chomsky to John McCain’s George W. Bush. He may, however, be Jimmy Carter to McCain’s Reagan in his view of the role of American hard power in the Middle East and elsewhere. Surely Obama won’t exempt foreign and defense policy from the “change” he’s promised. But we’ve got to read him like a detective novel, always on the lookout for clues. In that regard, Ayers qualifies.
It’s a menage a trois…
Muffti said nothing about avoiding certain topics – the topics are out in the open and frequently criticized. Hell, members of muffti’s families hold views he thinks are often downright ridiculous and unconscionable. He loves them just the same for that. In anyc ase, it’s not like Wright and Obama were dating and needed to plan a future together!
If maintaining friends comes with avoiding certain topics, methinks (not just me, psychology as well) the ties are not as healthy as Muffti suggests. But Muffti is an extremely amiable person to begin with, otherwise I’d never have stayed up till 2:30am on a workday to talk with him. 🙂
Muffti thinks that rummaging through Palin’s trash is ridiculous and unethical. He’s in no way arguing that slimy media tactics have been one sided. As for investigating serious issues concerning Obama, which are you thinking of? And what whitewashing in particular are you referencing?
Muffti doesn’t think what you say about friendship or complex relationships is true, though it may characterize the norm. Muffti is fortunate enough to have friends across the political spectrum (and the moral one). Some of his friends, for example, are deeply spiritual and religious people and Muffti is clearly at loggerheads with those guys. Some treat women in ways that Muffti (even Muffti!) finds perplexing and wrong and he thinks that’s their business and not the basis of his friendship with them. Some have views about Israeli-Palestinean relations that Muffti finds downright disgusting. Luckily they have many other redeeming qualities. Long story short, you can admire and love someone when you have significant overlap in values, but it doesn’t imply a broad acceptance of everything they stand for or aim towards. It’s certainly not an endorsement of everything they think.
it would be extremely difficult and lonely to get on in this world if you were required to share all your values with your friends because you would have very few. So we know that you won’t share ALL your values with your friends and loved ones. Once we accept that friendship is not just commonality in values but also a matter of friciton and dialectic over issues, we can realize that there is no straight function from value disagreement to level of friendship. Thank god for it or you would never find yourself in unlikely but interesting alliances 🙂
But what does Muffti make out of the contextual irony that “journalists” would actually rummage through Palin’s trash cans but not investigate into serious issues concerning Obama if only just for the matter of clarification and whitewashing? Also, Muffti applies a definition of friendship to this “complex relationship” that reflects his personal take on friendships. I suppose all people can be nice in some way, but I don’t think many a person can and will want to be friend with someone who is diametrically opposed to what one professes to believe in. Sociology suggests people make friends with people that they share a set of values with. If somebody who I knew was opposed to some of my core beliefs and still wanted to befriend me as I could be of great service to that person in one way or another, I’d consider that person a cheap and slimy opportunist. Not that opportunism isn’t uncommon in politics, but there is a difference between a moral kind of opportunism as in grabbing a chance when it arises and using (and discarding of, which clearly outrules what most people would consider a solid friendship, no matter how complex) people as it fits one’s purpose. I know that if I used Muffti that way, I’d feel like dreck.
Muffti was away for a bit (crazy halloween excursions) and he can see an awful lot has taken place. He’ll make a few points and appologize to anyone he slights.
1) MUL, thanks for the love. Nothing warms the cockles of an academic’s heart like being not only cited but *gulp* quoted! While Muffti isn’t a huge fan of your aggressive treatment of your opponents, he can’t help but feel warm and cuddly that someone agrees with him.
2) Tom, Muffti knows the (at a crude level) general working of the church’s and that you are free to leave and go wherever you want when you are a ‘heretical brother or sister’ His point wasn’t that Obama loved the church so much but hated the minister that he was conflicted. His points was that there was clearly a complex and evolved relationship between him the church and its minister/leader. And complex relationships are complex relationships and when you have friends you have to sometimes deal with people asking you why you are friends with that guy. As Ephraim pointed out (though Muffti thinks the comparison is extremely stretched, given that Wright said some akward things while Kahane had actual policy recommendations, but whatever) associations lead to reasonable questions, and Muffti doesn’t think that it is unreasonable to ask about a politicians associations. To ASK about a politicians association.
That’s not what happened, and we all know it. People went directly from ‘there’s an association to ask about’ to ‘there is a massive guilt by association we can tarnish this guy with and we shall judge his every move with suspicion and bring this up as though it were a key and central defect in Obama’s character and bahviour’. Those are different attitudes and all that has happened with Ayers, Khalidi are lame attempts to pile on more unwarranted suspicion and guilt by association in order to avoid focus on substantive issues on which nearly across the board McCain/Palin are getting their arses kicked.
Now, Obama’s handling of all this wasn’t very good or skillful, which is surprising given how skillful he generally is at handling politics. He tried to explain how complicated a relationship with a friend (and family member!) can be and reasonably explained that his relationship with the reverend wright was a complex one and managed to transcend politics. He tried to explain that his roots in the church were long standing and deep. He tried to explain that relationships are multifaceted and complicated, and that your relationship to a spiritual leader can be one of both acceptance and some degree of friction when there are issues you don’t agree with.
No one gave a shit. The reason is simple: there was never an argument here against obama in the first place but a nasty name and a few videos to try to associate with his. As though none of you have friends you would have to explain a connection to if you were ever put in the spotlight. Muffti, were he ever to run for any office, would immediately have to explain his friendship with CK so he knows how Obama must have felt!! In any case, what disspointed the Grand Muffti is that rather than stick to his guns, O threw the reverend ‘under the bus’.
But honestly, repeatedly mentioning a bunch of names who Obama is associated with to various degrees as though it’s a charge against him isn’t an argument, it’s a smear of the cheapest kind. And to what end? Do any of you people seriously entertain the thought that deep down Obama is really a white man hating, America despising, PLO advocating candidate who has successfully smuggled himself under the radar to fool us all and who has done a slightly poor clean up job by not pre-emptively getting rid of his dubious associations? Really? Are y’all that paranoid and carried away by such trashy accusations of why didn’t Obama break off all ties with a preachers who had done Obama a great deal of good since he was younger and a few loose connections with a former never-convicted terrorist and a putative PLO speaker from years and years before Obama met him? Muffti is too charitable towards you guys and your intelligence to relaly believe this so he has to assume y’all are arguing for the sake of arguing. An activity Muffti totally endorses.
None of this is an endorsement of Obama, but a rejection of slimy american politics where a legitimate question becomes a de facto charge. If in the Illinois Senate obama had employed Ayers as his chief strategy advisor, Wright as his race relations advisor and Khalidi as his middle east advisor and routinely acted on their advice you would have something here that would make any reasonable person wonder about hot Obama would govern. Instead there are a bunch of half made accusations and a few names and video to throw around. So shame on all of you who participated in this sort of political shenanigans to score points in lieu of actually arguing or providing enlightenment.
Ahh… Now I see. Tx!
Is it just the underscores? It seems like the mere length is messing with the text. Which isn’t fair. What if my name was John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt, for instance? I can’t tell you how many permutations of the same name in a shortened version I tried, just to see if I could carve off some length. Darn it! But I will keep trying. Will do what I can for the glory of Jewlicious.
Pssst. MUL. Lose the underscores, you’re breaking my new layout!
Tom – I thought, per Tina Fey, that “bitch is the new black.”
But per Tracy Morgan, black is the new president, biyatch.
Bill Maher says John McCain will introduce of a line of cologne called “Desperation”.
Sexy don’t mean nothin’ without smarts, sophistication, the right sentiments and a solid and selfless sense of purpose.
Enigmatic is just a sordid way to cast sorcery on easily stunned and spellbound sorry-asses who think they’re studs, but are really just simple-minded slime-molds.
Everything else is just sophistry.
MUL, enigmatic is the new sexy, you clod.
Middle, Biden will protect us!
Sorry for standing in the way of progress, I just like to make sure the records are set straight – especially when it comes to how people characterize what I say. And such cryptic references you use. Very enigmatic!
And while I realize you concede my point when it comes to (old?) ladies and the autobahn, the fact is that Wright stands accused of no crime – he’s no felon, he’s no murderer, he’s no Hitler, and even if you just need these examples in order to make an analogy, it’s wise to steer clear of Godwin’s Law.
Regardless, if you want to charge Wright with “rabid racism” as a religious leader, let’s see the evidence. Are his followers perpetrating acts of intimidation against a persecuted minority? Are they agitating to set up such a system? I don’t think so. Again, people like to lump things together, especially with ideas they are antagonistic to.
Wright was accused of being anti-American, not racist. People should get their allegations straight. Again, just some advice.
… and the conversation had progressed …
And to mind comes Menenius.
Froylein, before you reactively fly off the handle on the assumption that the last comment was too harsh, I remind you that you are trying to emphasize the idea that “Obama’s relationship with Wright differed from that between an average congregant and an average spiritual leader”. I take Muffti’s comment, to the effect that “ARe you guys that shallow and stupid and unable to have complex relationships with the particular personages and philosophical groundings of your particualr faiths” to mean that there is no reason we need to differentiate between “average” congregants and “average” spiritual leaders. The fact that Muffti argues for accepting a degree of complexity in these relationships really does seem to encourage us to go above and beyond “average” relationships, assuming those should be some kind of norm, and to be, at the very least, accepting of ones that allow for more complexity than perhaps what you think “average” people are capable of.
Well then, I guess voting for Obama means voting for a terrorist attack. 🙄
No matter what sort of chutzpah allows you to proclaim yourself czar of what the conversation is about (there was more dialogue between others – particularly Ephraim – and myself than with you, BTW), that doesn’t change what Muffti’s second comment was all about, or the fact that I was referring to it. Again, read these words and tell me that it’s not what I said it was about:
“You find a place you like and then if the rabbi/head/etc. has a particular way of thinking you don’t like, or flirt with but as you mature come to have disagreement with, you just take off and find a new place? ARe you guys that shallow and stupid and unable to have complex relationships with the particular personages and philosophical groundings of your particualr faiths?”
Grand Muffti, 10/31/2008
The fact that you didn’t know that this was the quote I was referring to doesn’t change the fact that it actually was the quote I was referring to. And no amount of selective reading will change that fact.
Again, I’m glad that you’re able to ground your self-esteem in what other people think of you. There’s an audience for everyone, isn’t there? And that includes an audience for Palin, an audience for Obama, an audience for Jeremiah Wright, and and audience for Hitl– well, you get the picture. But only the most megalomaniacal of those actually believe that criticism of what they say amounts to a way to “silence” them.
This being reported by the Telegraph newspaper in the UK:
“Barack Obama has been warned by intelligence officials that terrorists will attack US targets or a friendly state such as Britain or Israel to test his mettle if elected.
“The briefings given to the Obama campaign about possible attacks were based on specific intelligence picked up monitoring terrorist networks and informers, according to a senior military source aware of the contents of the reports.
“Indeed, when Mr Obama’s running mate Joe Biden raised the prospect of such an attack during what he believed was a private fundraising dinner, he is thought to have let slip the conclusions of those highly-classified briefings.
“Fred Burton, a former senior US counter-terrorism agent, separately told The Sunday Telegraph that Britain could be targeted by al-Qaeda if the organisation was unable to mount an attack on US soil early in the new administration – as they did soon after the election of George W Bush in 2001 and Bill Clinton in 1993.
“‘It is unlikely that al Qaeda would have the capability to conduct such an operation in the US now, but the UK is a different story,’ said Mr Burton, head of counter-terrorism at Stratfor, a leading international intelligence and analysis company.
“‘MI5 and Scotland Yard are going to have their hands full as there is a much greater probability of a major attack in Britain than America. Would it suffice for al-Qaeda to attack a close friendly nation instead of the US? Almost certainly yes.'”
Hard to look at Foreman without thinking of the grill….
MUL, had you been “mature” enough to follow the course of the conversation, you’d have come to understand that at that point, the crux was how Obama’s relationship with Wright differed from that between an average congregant and an average spiritual leader. I’m aware stating the obvious will provoke yet another condescending remark as your chutzpe and your selective reading apparently know no limits. As for my blogging here, there are people out there that enjoy what I write as I can tell from the feedback I’ve received off the blog and a few personal encounters. I won’t let myself be silenced by your snarky remarks, particularly since your winding yourself tells me that I’ve hit the nail on the head.
BTW, and please try to understand the analogy for a change instead of accusing me of making allegations, Hitler had the Autobahn built, which is a convenient part of the German road system, but law and psychology (and not just my rigid impressions) clearly state that pointing out the “good deeds” the Nazis did, partiularly in a manner of relativism, qualifies as right-wing extremism. A felon that at some point has helped a lady across the street still is a felon.
Tom, thanks for the boxing moment but it’s hard to see Foreman without visualizing him, exhausted beyond belief, chasing Ali against the ropes until the moment when Ali sniffs victory and takes away the match.
Froylein, the more I hear from you, the more I get the impression that I’m listening to a very insolent person. It makes me want to be cautious in the way I speak to you because there really does seem to be a considerable maturity gap that prevents you from accepting or even considering certain ideas that challenge your rigid impressions. But you upload posts here, Jewlicious sees fit to allow that, and I don’t want to offend ck, or Muffti, or even Middle. So your self-esteem is indirectly important to me, and I therefore will allow you to accuse me of not understanding what Muffti wrote, even though that is perhaps the most confused interpretation of what I said that I can imagine. Because perhaps my doing so will make you feel better as it might allow you to believe that it’s a serious accusation.
What we’re talking about is reductionist interpretations. Even if you want to call Wright a “rabid racist” that doesn’t mean he didn’t have other things to say or that he wanted to talk or preach about, even legitimate things.
But the issue is that you obviously didn’t read comment #59. It has to do not with murderers, not with befriending people, but with mandating absolute agreement with one’s religious leader. That was the point. I won’t accuse you of not being able to understand that point, but I will ask that perhaps as part of an innocent little mistake, you might have thought I was referring to something else. No huge deal and not a mean personal attack. Just a friendly suggestion that I hope you will consider.
Ephraim:
It seems that you take issue with the idea that the way politicians market their “message” disrupts the spirit or high-minded sense of purpose that we might expect in a political leader. I agree that this idea can be taken to the extreme of dumbing down one’s purpose in running to nothing more than putting out the right rhetoric in order to get the votes they need. But that isn’t the only way of looking at it, even though in recent memory, examples show that with people like Karl Rove it certainly was.
But America is a big place and there are many people who have many different issues that are important to them. So for someone to win nationwide in a two-person race, they will have to understand what’s important to a large number of different people, and important to different groups of people, and speak to that. Skilled rhetoric certainly helps. But this does not mean that just because someone uses skilled rhetoric to speak to a large number of people and different groups that they have no sense of principle.
Being able to do this successfully can be a very positive thing. Think of Franklin Roosevelt, for instance. Just because people have become used to politicians becoming very calculated in how they play this game doesn’t mean that there aren’t passionately idealistic, principled and inclusive politicians left. In fact, much of the reason for Obama’s success is that many people seem to feel he does this better and means it more sincerely than anyone else that they’ve heard from in a long time. Perhaps you think it’s just a ruse. But be careful to consider the possibility that it doesn’t have to be, and many people seem to have picked up on reasons for why they think it isn’t.
Authenticity is a good thing. It would be good if we could put away enough of the the cynicism we’ve rightly developed over time to become better at recognizing it.
Now that we’ve all agreed on Wright– this one’s for Middle. Just for fun, another greatest hit from ABC Sports. Yeah, it’s off topic– but there is a Jewish theme: one of the greatest on-air calls of all time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7GHxyRx4fw
OK. Have it your way. I’ll just have to accept the fact that nothing you say makes any sense, then.
Part of the whole problem, anyway, is that you think Obama’s speech was addressed to a certain “demographic”. That kind of thinking is precisely the problem. Obama, or any other politician, is not a prioduct to be mareketed. They have become that and it is precisely what’s wrong, since instead of speaking out of priniciple and convction they parse their words and tailor them to appeal to so many different “demographics” at once that they become either completely incoherent or just resort to spouting lowest-common-demoniator pabulum.
Again, I have to say that I don’t particularly like McPalin, so I’m not railing against Obama because I’m a Republican. I’m a registered Democrat and I always have been. I’m just bitterly disappointed at the way the party has gone and the candidate they chose.
Considering it anything else but rabid racism convincingly shows that double standards are being applied. It’s not about challenging principles; I need not befriend, for instance, convicted murderers to know that murder is morally despicable.
And I got Muffti’s point even though you didn’t see the distinction he’d made.
McCain gave over $400,000 to Khalidi.
And I think you missed Muffti’s point.
Reducing Wright’s thoughts to nothing more than “rabid racism” is not a convincing way to show that you have read them. Then there’s that whole part about challenging one’s principles that you didn’t respond to.
Ephraim:
“I’m not sure that Wright is guilty of any atrocities, let alone humanitarian catastrophes.
Huh? Did I say he was?”
I am responding to more than one person in that comment.
“Oh, wait a minute: a Sharon reference, right? Cute.”
Ok. So you won’t apply the same standards to Sharon that you apply to Obama.
“…intellectual stimulation becomes more important – as does the ability to maintain ties with people who challenge your principles and vice versa – especially to a competent politician.
Huh? Are you now saying that Obama was a member of Wright’s church for 20 years because he disagreed with Wright?”
No.
“Anyway, all you’re saying is that Obama based his associations and actions on political considerations. In other words, he was calculating, like a politician should be.”
Nope again.
“That seems to be why you like him; but I’ve always hated people like that. The least he could have done is be a little more skillful and make his self-interest a little less obvious.”
If it makes you feel better to believe that, then believe it.
“I don’t care what black people, or any other people, thought about his speech. I care what I thought about it,”
Why? Because you’re the only person or belong to the only demographic it was addressed to? You aren’t.
“and his reasons for giving it.”
You can’t do that if you believe you’re the only member of the audience who matters, or assume that your thoughts and experiences are the same as theirs.
“Why should I base my opinion of him on somebody else’s opinion of him?”
I don’t know. Why?
“With everything you say you saying that Obama can only be evaluated fairly through what the black community thinks of him. Do you seriously believe that?”
Nope. And nope.
I’m not sure that Wright is guilty of any atrocities, let alone humanitarian catastrophes.
Huh? Did I say he was?
Oh, wait a minute: a Sharon reference, right? Cute.
…intellectual stimulation becomes more important – as does the ability to maintain ties with people who challenge your principles and vice versa – especially to a competent politician.
Huh? Are you now saying that Obama was a member of Wright’s church for 20 years because he disagreed with Wright?
Anyway, all you’re saying is that Obama based his associations and actions on political considerations. In other words, he was calculating, like a politician should be.
That seems to be why you like him; but I’ve always hated people like that. The least he could have done is be a little more skillful and make his self-interest a little less obvious.
I don’t care what black people, or any other people, thought about his speech. I care what I thought about it, and his reasons for giving it. Why should I base my opinion of him on somebody else’s opinion of him? With everything you say you saying that Obama can only be evaluated fairly through what the black community thinks of him. Do you seriously believe that?
Intellectual stimulation? Rabid racism has always only been intellectually stimulating to the lowest forms of human society possible. As Muffti pointed out above, you may have to interact with people you disagree with, but you don’t have to befriend them. Of course, opportunism isn’t uncommon in politics on whatever end of the political sphere, but intellectually stimulating this is not.
I’m not sure that Wright is guilty of any atrocities, let alone humanitarian catastrophes. And while I can understand how choosing one’s friends on the basis of social affiliation or the presumption of shared morals alone is important in adolescence, to adults, intellectual stimulation becomes more important – as does the ability to maintain ties with people who challenge your principles and vice versa – especially to a competent politician.
Ephraim: Read the speech Obama gave in Philadelphia in the wake of l’affaire Wright and let me know what you make of the reaction of African Americans to it, if you wouldn’t mind, if you want to assume that what you “think” alone is going to be persuasive to me vis a vis the effectiveness of his pronouncements.
Once again, if anyone is willing to condemn Sharon’s character based on his friendship with Rehavam Ze’evi, or Trent Lott’s character on account of his friendship with Strom Thurmond (as opposed to his judgment based on the things he said about his failed presidential bid as a segregationist), then let’s have at it. Any takers?
Didn’t think so.
Oh, yeah: I really don’t understand what you mean by Obama’s resignation from Wright’s church being “effective”. What do you think it was supposed to accomplish? If you think it supposedly taught some great moral lesson to America, I think you’re quite wrong. And if he did it for that purpose, he’s more manipulative than I thought.
Is this something like “if a principled stand takes place in the forest and no one is around to see it does it have an effect?” sort of thing?
Like I said: if I were a member of Meir Kahane’s shul for 20 years, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for people to infer from that that I had certain ideas about, say, Arabs. I don’t see how I could blame them for it. They hear what Kahane says and assume I must endorse it, since I have been a member of his shul for so long. It’s a perfectly reasonable assumption.
The rabbi/pastor sets the spiritual agenda for the shul/church. He is the public face of the shul/church. So if the rabbi’s views are not to your liking and you think they reflect badly on you by being asociated with them, yes, you leave and go find/found another shul. It happens all the time. Usually not for such high-minded reasons, but it happens.
If that is justification enough, there’s no point in criticizing anybody who remained (allegedly) silent on history’s humanitarian catastrophies. Indifference doesn’t fare well in democracies. This is not about forcing people into line, but about whether one possesses enough character to stand up for what they claim to believe in. Friends are not family; there’s no blood tie, and even families rather are sociological than biological constructs. I pick my friends deliberately and therefore my environment reflects back on me as well.
Wright was a friend of Obama’s. And Rehavam Ze’evi was a friend of Ariel Sharon’s. And Ted Kennedy or some other politician was probably a friend of former klansman of Robert Byrd’s. This has all been covered. Again, the question is so what?
There is a disturbing conflation here between what one person believes and what someone associated with them – in any way – believes. That is not the same thing as wondering if Palin really does take seriously the witchcraft etc. Not many people here are taking seriously the difference between intellectual conformity (which, I agree, is a ridiculous notion – both to hold to in itself or to assume among others), and differentiating between what two different people believe. Different people can actually believe – get this – different things. Regardless of their relationship with each other. That’s the beauty of not being linked in some massive organic perma-lock mind-meld with others.
Everything I’m saying here I defer back to Muffti for more detailed explanations on.
Tom, I’ll brief Muffti in on Protestant theology one of these days.
While I personally don’t see any appeal in witchcraft, reiki, feng-shui and thelike esoteric approaches to life (the vid of Palin made me read up some scientific stuff on the history of witchcraft; pretty interesting), if this is part of Palin’s beliefs, it’s covered by the freedom of creed. I find Wright’s supremacist notions, which also were found in his church’s bulletin, which could be found online until early into the primaries (didn’t check back again later) and which was also mailed to the congregants, rather worrisome. I find the claims that Obama didn’t know about Wright’s views absolutely unconvincing unless somebody can convincingly show how Wright would change his sermons on the spot whenever he spotted Obama in the pews. Also, I recall Obama repeatedly calling Wright “a friend” before he distanced himself from him at the most urgent / convenient point in time. Now, the US, like many other states, reserves the right to not admit visitors or immigrants that hold unconstitutional views or have at some point in their lives associated with people holding unconstitutional views or acting in unconstitutional ways. I cannot be held responsible for who sits next to me on a plane if I have been assigned a random seat, but if I walk up to the information desk at the departure gate and urge ground staff to get me a seat next to a certain person, I will have a hard time pretending I didn’t do so deliberately.
As for not voting, I found this clip interesting:
In order to understand Obama/Wright, you need to understand that religious culture. US Protestant Christians understand the relationship intuitively, because they live it. Just trying to help y’all out.
Ok. Clarification noted. You’re telling them what they should do in order to be respectable heretics – from the perspective of how they conduct their religious affairs – in the eyes of someone who doesn’t consider himself a heretic. So noted. Still ironic.
Whatever Muffti needs or doesn’t need – and he seems a pretty well put-together guy – I’m sure someone will be willing to offer him the hug and warm milk. Not sure what they’d make of his title and/or atheism, though, especially if it’s an Episcopalian church.
I’m not telling ’em, MUL, I’m observing what they do and conveying it to Muffti, who clearly needs to find an Episcopal church for a hug and a glass of warm milk.
Tom, is the irony of telling people you consider heretics how to conduct their religious affairs not apparent to you?
Muffti, you need a crash course in Protestant Reformation 101. I’m a Catholic. The archbishop sticks my parish with a priest who’s on a 5-year contract. He’s great, he sucks, I love him, hate him, it doesn’t matter, tough titties. I have no role in how the operation’s run.
It’s different for our heretical brothers and sisters. You get to choose to belong to a church. Many evanglicals, e.g. Sarah Palin, choose not to formally belong to one. You don’t like First Baptist on Main Street? There’s First Baptist the next town over. Or St. Mark’s Episcopal, whathaveyou.
Now, suppose you feel an investment in the faith community, so you don’t want to simply take off even if you don’t like the minister. There are lay ministries that enable congregants to shape the social mission of the church. (Again, Muffti– they’re Protestants.)
Check out Trinity’s website, as I just did, for more information, under ministries– there’s a shitload– which begins with these words:
“Our ministry at Trinity United Church of Christ has been shaped by our vision as a church “In the Heart of the Community, ever-seeking to Win the Community’s Heart.” and the motto we are “Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian.”
“For more information about any ministry listed on this page, please contact Ministry Services.”
Obama says he wasn’t around during Wright’s rants. Obama said and did nothing until his political ass was on the line.
wtf is this so hard to understand?
I dunno, Tom. I think he did a good job standing up to Hillary (and Bill) Clinton.
Is he not standing up to John McCain?
There’s more than one way to skin a cat.
And regarding the financial crisis, the ability to not just stand up to anyone but to listen to a variety of views is probably a leadership asset. My understanding is that many more economists are endorsing Obama than McCain.
The speech in Philadelphia was a way of putting it in words that the American public could understand, if they were so inclined. The point is that problematic attitudes are not the exclusive realm of this easily delineated group which we can demonize or that easily delineated group which we can demonize, but exist in many forms and often apply in some way to more of us generally than we’d like to admit.
The fact that people don’t give the Wright treatment to every politician who has had long-standing relationships with religious icons of American politics such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, tells you everything you need to know about the existence of a black-white double-standard regarding the Wright fiasco. It’s a form of hypocrisy that I’m surprised more people here don’t get. But more Jews seemed to think they got it once the spectacle of Sarah Palin’s interaction with a witch-doctor was exposed. Or maybe they just got something else, but something that was no less important
Ephraim, the principle of it is less important when an action can actually be effective. You’re assuming Obama’s audience consisted of white people only.
Wright’s a lot more relevant than Ayers, because Obama spent 20 years at his church, was married there, etc. It’s much more plausible for Obama to cast Ayers merely as a friend who did bad things when Obama was a kid. I’m prepared to agree with him about that.
My biggest concern about Obama as a voter is this: has he ever stood up to anyone, ever? Has he ever departed from orthodoxy in a risk-taking manner, as McCain, whatever else may be said about him, has done again and again? In this regard, Obama’s associations; his doctrinaire voting record (when he votes at all); his extreme reluctance to revise his views in the face of overwhelming evidence, e.g. the surge in Iraq; and his flip-flops to accommodate interest groups are all of a piece. He goes along to get along. Or he goes along because he wants to– while promising everything to everyone. (Well, except for the “rich” and union workers who value a secret ballot.)
In medias two wars and the worst financial crisis since the Depression, these are signs of grossly inadequate leadership skills. Another failed presidency is the last thing we need.
yikes. Muffti should really not try to edit on the fly. But you see his point despite its not really being stated in english.
What’s dumb about this, Ephraim, is that Obama ditched the guy for such ridiculous guilt by association reasons. Muffti would have respect O far more if he’d stuck to his guns and said ‘what you are doing is insulting to all religious people and at grounds of mere reasoning completely embarassingly fallacious’. Though he probably should have put it in words that american public could easily understand. Muffti has been out of the religion game for a long time but is this really how it works? You find a place you like and then if the rabbi/head/etc. has a particular way of thinking you don’t like, or flirt with but as you mature come to have disagreement with, you just take off and find a new place? ARe you guys that shallow and stupid and unable to have complex relationships with the particular personages and philosophical groundings of your particualr faiths?
Shameful. Just shameful.
You’re completely wrong, Montana.
When a high-profile politician reluctantly reverses himself under public pressure, people see that for what it is: a pathetic attempt at CYA to garner votes, not as an action motivated by any kind of principle. If they’re not easily duped, I mean.
Thank you, Muffti, for some very welcome insight and, when it comes to the guilt-by-association perspective, some sanity! At least IMO.
That said, enjoy this video!
(It’s very fun and I don’t see how anyone can find it politically objectionable. Unless they’re anti-dance).
Muffti can say first hand that University professors are bound to run into a whole host of characters from the very mundane to the extremely bizarre. And for both professional and social reasons, you learn to often separate the person from the academic unless it is completely intolerable. The founder of modern logic which philosophers find an invaluable tool and all of you who use computers indirectly depend on was himself a proto-nazi (Frege, and apparently Gentzen after him…) Muffti respects the philosopher/logician and if he were resurrected, Muffti would take the opportunity to ask him questions about the nature of logic and ontology. He’d avoid politics (or not avoid politics in order to find out why such a brilliant guy had such deeply disturbing views). Like it or not, that’s life in academia and Khalidi and Obama were colleagues.
That’s the way it goes: some people that you find interesting to talk to and discuss work with and even argue virulently with are going to be at great odds iwth you in the academic world. You learn to work with them if you can stand them or ignore their politics/ethics etc. If you can’t, you ignore them but after a while you build up a tolerance that you may find morally objectionable but is frequently necessary for getting things done.
It’s the lamest sort of guilt by association Muffti can think of. The cases of Wright and Ayers are at least potentially interesting (though truthfully both, and especially the wright one, seem pretty lame to Muffti.) People seem to have an image of church goers as passive recipients of whatever they are yelled at from the pulpit rather than active engagers in a dialectic. It may be true for some but even Muffti, head atheist in chief at this site, thinks it’s nothing short of insulting to say think of as the norm for religious people. Y’all here aren’t sheep slavishly copying down and committing to belief everything your favourite rabbis tell you. Why think christians are that much worse?
Now that he is running for president, he has done that, Tom. Why you continue to assume that Obama should have done something more at an earlier point leads me to believe that you think he had more power to influence people than he did.
Tom, the quote had to do with the fact that at that point, Obama had challenged Wright directly on some recent statements, and Wright confirmed them and let them stand. Why it would be more important for Obama to have made a series of little public squabbles with Wright, when no one outside of Chicago knew either person, for the purpose of the prospect of local grudge matches, that would have amounted to nothing done, is something I suppose you’ll have to explain to me. Unless your contention is that the bully pulpit or positions close to it don’t give one the gravitas to challenge and pronounce on such things in a more effective manner.
I’ve already e-mail this to some, but here’s as simple as it gets:
“If McCain loses CO and the rest of the 2004 map stays the same, he can afford to lose one of either NM, NV, or IA. But he must hold VA. If he loses CO, plus more than one of NM, NV, or IA, he needs PA. If he loses CO and just VA, he needs PA. If he loses CO, NM, IA, and VA, he can still win with PA. If he loses CO, NM, IA, NV, and VA, he loses even with PA.”
The answer, MUL, is that Obama can fairly be required to have either left for someplace else, or done something– anything– to address the ignorance and bigotry at Trinity.
He’s running for president, right?
Tom, why is it Obama’s job to get Wright to retract statements?
There really seems to be an undercurrent of assumptions based on the idea that people do or should speak for others.
Froylein, your first paragraph is largely unresponsive as it proclaims things you apparently like to read into what I say without really asking me what I think or know, but no matter. I’m used to you doing that. That said, I agree with your last sentence re: criticism, but there is a limit. If someone makes really wacky and unexamined, nonsensical accusations about one candidate and never displays the same approach toward another, I think that pointing that out is a meaningful observation and possibly revealing of their personal, political sympathies. If it explains your accusation then you seem to be accusing me of what you were doing. Most of my comments amount to criticism, criticism of criticism, praise or neutral analyses, sometimes with historical context, of third parties who are usually well-known. I’m not telling other people what they should do or think.
Why would I want to go to Froylein’s door, Tom, and why the extended bit on it? Do you guys really think I don’t know people who are less mean to me with whom to interact socially? That’s really insulting. 😉
“Obama did leave Wright’s church once it became clear that he was going to make divisive statements and let them stand.”
As opposed to all the divisive statements Obama had gotten Wright to retract.
It’s not me who frequently evaluates their comments as “intelligent” or “well-reasoned”. I don’t get outraged either. I also don’t claim a lack of intelligence on my conversation partner’s part whenever I don’t understand something, but will point out an either intended or reader-immanent lack of comprehension. I don’t assume that criticism of either political candidate mandates support of the respective other one.
Tom, no poisoned apples here, but one of my brothers might answer the door.
“How did Obama reluctantly resigning from Wright’s church under pressure of public opinion only after people found out what a racist/bigot Wright was carry more moral weight because he was a presidential candidate than it would have if he had been just Joe Shmuck?”
Because it just does. What high-profile politicians pronounce on, more people listen to and take more seriously than if Joe (Shmuck or “the Plumber”) says them, Ephraim. That’s just the way it works.
“How does what I say about Obama have anything to do with your (wildly innacurate) assumptions about what I do and do not know about Jewish culture?”
I was talking about what you know of black American culture.
“How do you get from “I don’t like Obama because he hangs around with racists and PLO tools and so I think he’ll be bad for Israel†to comparing me to a Nazi?”
No one compared you to a Nazi, dude. Would you chill out, just a tad?
I appreciate that you’re trying (or at least pretending to try) to be jovial about things, Tom. But I assure you: I feel pretty relaxed and in positive spirits today, regardless of the election. There’s a festive mood from my vantage point (meaning outside of cyberspace) today and in the coming days, for many reasons.
Things are good.
Jesus, I cannot believe how it is possible for you to so consistently miss the point.
How did Obama reluctantly resigning from Wright’s church under pressure of public opinion only after people found out what a racist/bigot Wright was carry more moral weight because he was a presidential candidate than it would have if he had been just Joe Shmuck? For me, it is clear that he only resigned from Wright’s church for calculated political reasons, not because of any moral conviction. Resigning for the right reasons when it does not necessarily have any upside for you is a sign of a moral man, not the other way around.
How does what I say about Obama have anything to do with your (wildly innacurate) assumptions about what I do and do not know about Jewish culture? How do you get from “I don’t like Obama because he hangs around with racists and PLO tools and so I think he’ll be bad for Israel” to comparing me to a Nazi? And I’m the one who is simple-minded?
The link is not “self-explanatory”. I will quote your accusation from above if in any subsequent comments if you’re having trouble reading it. Take a single excerpt from the link and explain how it proves what you claim it does.
Or just move on. If you can stand to. If you can stand to not become outraged, OUTRAGED, I tell you(!) about each and every comment that doesn’t accept what you say at face value just because you’re the great Froylein.
Come on, Froylein. Everyone should chill out from time to time and not fall back on some expectation that they are the embodiment of righteousness and that what flows out of their mouths is the pronouncement of virtue, intellectual virtue or otherwise. Unless they’re willing to analyze those things. In detail. If you’re up for it, I’ll play along. But I’m becoming bored by the prospect of it and prefer to remain amused by your willingness to go to such lengths to prove nothing but how much I get in the way of your amazing ego, pseudonymous though it may be.
I’ve got some fun to have today. Much, much more of it can be had away from these shenanigans, though, I’ll let you know. At least today.