Who do you think is going to win? Click to vote or just leave a comment!


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?

¿Quien es más Jewliciouso? La batalla de los candidatos!

  • Barack Obama (63%, 130 Votes)
  • John McCain (38%, 78 Votes)

Total Voters: 208

Loading ... Loading ...
Follow me

About the author


Founder and Publisher of Jewlicious, David Abitbol lives in Jerusalem with his wife, newborn daughter and toddler son. Blogging as "ck" he's been blocked on twitter by the right and the left, so he's doing something right.


  • …Actually, this post is a bad idea because Middle called this election for Obama back in August or something.

  • Did I?

    I remember being far less certain before. I think the economic crisis is the primary reason he’s pulled ahead and has a very good chance to beat McCain.

  • Regardless of who might or might not win, it is obvious that McCain is way more Jewliciouso than Obama.

    I really cannot understand how any self-respecting Jew, regardless of what they think of McCain, could vote for a guy who hangs around with people like Said and Khalidi and surrounds himself with advisors like Power and Brzezinski.

  • “Exit polls, carried out and analyzed by Keevoon, a Jerusalem-based research, strategy and communications firm, indicate that 76% of the polled voters in Israel said they voted for Republican candidate John McCain; 24% said they cast their ballot in favor the Democrat, Barack Obama.”

  • Minboggling. Jews can be fooled by mob mentality too.

    “”There’s a whiff of the lynch mob or the lemming migration about any overlarge concentration of like-thinking individuals, no matter how virtuous their cause.””

  • All I can say is that I’m headed to Filene’s Basement this weekend to buy a cheap raincoat in preparation of the great O-gasm coming on Tueday.

  • With 70% BHO to 30% JM it doesn’t look like you guys are too far behind the ball on this one, but I’m surprised the race hasn’t tightened more. In any event, if anyone hasn’t done so lately, you should really check out the site maintained by that nice Midwestern Jewish boy Nate Silver, of Prospectus fame – the company that predicts baseball wins. His site, 538, became famous during the primaries for more accurately predicting Hillary and Obama’s returns in North Carolina and Indiana than any other pollster, using number crunching methodology that seems a few exponential steps above the rest.

    Other than that, it’s too bad that some people still think that cliquish high school behavior is a laudable trait in a president, and Khalidi is a respected academic (who shares screen-time with pro-Israel commentators on shows like The Jim Lehrer News Hour all the time, BTW). I don’t agree with his views, nor am I sure that everyone who has debated with, spoken to, or appeared with him does. But I would like to know more about this tenable association of his that people are trying to drum up with Obama.

    I swear, these observations are getting to the point where Nixon and Kissinger couldn’t have gone to China without being labelled Communists!

  • One way to know what sort of a person someone might be is to look at who his frinds are. For example, Obama was a member of the “Reverend” Wright’s “church” for 20 years. He married the Obamas and baptized their children. Obama cited Wright as his spiritual mentor and used one of Wright’s catchphrases as the title of one of his books. He is being deliberately deceptive about his relationships with Khalidi, a PLO tool, and Ayers and Dohrn, both unrepentant terrorists. The LA Times is refusing to release a tape of Khalidi’s going-away party where Obama was in attendance. Think about that for a moment: refusing to release a tape that would almost certainly show Obama’s anti-Israel and pro-PLO sympathies. How is such a thing possible, that a supposedly respected newspaper can deliberately suppress information that could inform the public about a vitally important issue, the true beliefs of a cndidate for POTUS? Unbelievable.

    Etc., etc. How can you not be suspicious?

    Let me ask you: if you knew I had been, say, a member of Meir Kahane’s shul for 20 years, you would be able to make a pretty good guess about how I felt about certain issues. Would you honestly believe me if I said “I listened to his drashot every Shabbes for 20 years but I never heard him say anything bad about Arabs”? Of course not.

    Barack Obama is being given a pass for his association with anti-Semites, racists and terrorists because he’s black and a Democrat. There is no other explanation for this. People are deathly afraid of calling him on his racist associations because they are themselves afraid of being called racists. (After all, this is a campaign where Obama supporters are saying that “socialist” is code for “black”.) There can be no doubt whatsoever that his “mentor” of 20 years’ standing is a gutter racist, anti-Semite, and race huckster of the most execrable kind. Imagine what would happen if McCain had been a member of a “Christian Identity” church for 20 years. Obama’s campaign would have been about nothing but that, and the media would have trumpeted it everywhere. Yet McCain chose not to pursue this. Way too chivalrous, IMNSHO. He should have hammered Obama on it without letup.

    Yet Obama seems to think that we should think nothing of who he hangs out with and who his mentors are. machs nicht. he says. And people are swallowing it. He really must think we’re gullible idiots. I can only imagine the smirking contempt in which he must hold us.

    It has certainly worked on the Jews, at any rate. 3-to-1 for The One. Amazing.

    And we think we’re so smart. WTF did we get that idea?

  • Attention 20 and 30-somethings:

    Voting Obama = voting your generation into wage slavery.

    The boomers who tried to “recreate ’68” at the Dem convention will get health care – just as their knees and arteries start giving out in large numbers.

    Who will pay for this?

    Those who are still working – that means YOU.

    A smaller number of people from Gen-X and younger (’cause the self-absorbed Boomers couldn’t be bothered to, ya know, reproduce – just like many of them couldn’t be bothered to stick around and raise y’all in stable families… too busy “finding themselves”).

    And if Europe and Canada are any indication – the system will be bankrupt by the time you need real serious medical care.

    Get it? You have been suckered into embracing a nostalgic-narcissistic boomer vision that will not benefit you at all.

  • Ephraim,

    Even you are capable of making a pretty good point every now and then, as your reference to the actions of the LA Times shows. Yes, I am suspicious of that, as it gives an actual reason for being more circumspect about Obama.

    The rest of what you write is a little harder to take as seriously, though. The spectrum of religious denominations between African Americans living in Chicago and Jews living in Israel are not comparable. Trinity was/is a huge African American church in Chicago. For a black politician to join it was not to seek out radically extremist views but to be part of a religious denomination that is more mainstream given the local alternatives, such as Nation of Islam. Just because Chicago religious politics looks polarizing to folks in the rest of the flyover, doesn’t mean that Obama’s an extremist. Large, mainstream religions are no less prone to endorsing beliefs that are so extreme as to border on fringe, (and one need look no further than mainstream Islam or the way the Catholic church deals with pedophilia in its ranks, homosexuality, or abortion for that). But I’m not going to call any given Catholic a rank extremist for participating in Mass and welcoming the pope. Some Catholics, OTOH, I would charge with those labels – depending on, – and here’s the kicker, – their particular views. So let’s not conflate the two. Kahane Chai is a fringe movement. Catholicism in the world at large and Trinity United in Chicago are not.

    Let’s not get into the movements that McCain and Palin have welcomed endorsements and spiritual guidance from. I mean, we could, but I don’t think it would go too well for either one if that happened. And they’re starting to realize that.

    Furthermore, hostile feelings among blacks toward whites and hostile feelings among whites toward blacks are not comparable. Blacks never spent hundreds of years taking advantage of a political system (or the remnants thereof) specifically sanctioned to dehumanize whites. White racism against blacks may involve your typical ethnic group on ethnic group resentment, but it benefits from the lingering stereotypes Americans at large inherited from a regime in place in some form or another until at least 44 years ago, which is relatively recent in historical terms. Blacks, OTOH, have not. Yes, some of them may resent whites at large. Some of them may harbor raging hatreds against whites. And some of the latter may even feel that the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons understand and give voice to those sentiments. Sometimes crime and even riots have demonstrated the danger posed in those sentiments, both in an immediate physical sense and in an abstract sociological or political sense. But once again, to equate black “racism” and white “racism” is to pretend that blacks have the confidence to believe that they could come to power and oppress whites in the same way they were oppressed. And to believe that is either insanely self-glorifying or insanely paranoid, depending on whether you’re black or white. But either way, it’s delusional. It’s not based in any reality whatsoever.

    We’re fast becoming a multiethnic society. We’d better learn how to place the baggage that each ethnic group carries with it in its proper context and stop using the excuse of anxiety or ignorance of “the other” as an excuse for irrational fearmongering and demonizing.

    And one other thing. If every friend of mine endorsed every one of my views and vice versa, I would shrink my circle of friends significantly. Sometimes we even like debating each other. It helps open and expand the mind, and sharpen your own sense of reasoning for own convictions. Sometimes, it gets you to challenge or change yours. But if I was a fundamentalist of some stripe or similarly narrow-minded individual maybe I wouldn’t like that. And neither would anyone else who values my contributions in a professional or personal setting for the sometimes clever and often comprehensive views I bring. It’s the sort of attribute many Americans value and are (now?) wise enough to claim to seek in a chief executive. And that’s a good thing.

    Read Louis Menand’s The Metaphysical Club for a history of the philosophy of pragmatism in America, one of the core values of which is that a sense of absolute certainty breeds absolute violence. I imagine you’ll pick up something useful from it.

  • Juat like I thought, you are giving Obama a free ride by basically saying that since blacks have a perfectly good reason to hate whites but that whites don’t have a good reason to hate blacks, black anti-white racism is, therefore, justified. Thanks for proving my point about why supposedly liberal whites (and Jews) are reluctant to confront what is not justifiable grievance against a history of oppression, which would be perfectly understandable, but out-and-out racism. Sorry, I don’t buy it.

    And I do not for a second suppose that Obama is hiding some diabolical plan to enslave whites or whatever. From where did you get that? I simply want both candidates to be judged by the same standard and it is beyond obvious that people are treating Obama with kid gloves dafka because he’s black. Your post absolutely confirms it. You not only admit it, you come right out and say that it is only right that black racism should be judged by a different standard.

    You are also equating Obama’s 20-year close and personal association with a raving, lunatic anti-Semite and anti-white racist with endorsements of McCain by some supposedly racist groups or other. There is no comparison between these two things and I think you know it. Some random racist supporting you against the black guy is not the same as listening to 20 years of Wright’s “sermons” and then pretending you never heard what he said. Oprah Winfrey left Wright’s church years ago. Why didn’t Obama?

    And your argument that you cannot compare Kahane to Wright because Kahane was the leader of a tiny fringe movement and Wright was the leader of a big church is just, well, mind-boggling. Do you mean to say that racist views become OK just because a lot of people in a big organization believe them? You’re not that stupid, I hope.

    I can understand black resentment, at least on an intellectual level. If I were black I would probably, at the least, be suspicious of white people. But I expect the man I vote for for President to be a better person than I am and to represent what is best in this country. The best explanation of Obama’s membership in Wright’s church is that it was from the very beginning either a cynical political ploy or a craven capitualtion to the prevailing mood so as to enable Obama to establish his black “street cred”.

    This is bad enough, but the only other explanation is that he actually believes that shit.

    Not sure what your ramblings about a “multicultural” society and “putting ethnic baggage in context” mean. My guess is that it means you think I don’t want to vote for Obama because he’s black (the “Other”. Quelle horreur!). Utter, utter, bullshit. I voted for Tom Bradley for Governor of California in ’86, so that shit doesn’t cut it with me. I’m not voting for Obama not because of the color of his skin but because of the content of his character which is, at least partially, revealed by the company he keeps.

    Finally, I just want to state that I am not a particular fan of McCain. But he strikes me as a fundamentally honest man. Obama doesn’t.

  • Oh, come off it Ephraim and give me a break! When did I ever say so much as that “black anti-white racism is justified”. I said nothing of the sort. I said it’s nothing to get paranoid over. So no, you don’t have to “buy” your own straw man.

    I’m not advocating anyone treat Obama or anyone else with “kid gloves”. I’m advocating a rational standard of not jumping to paranoid conclusions about people just because you don’t understand the culture they are a part of.

    The comparison is made on the basis of the fact that NOBODY gave a damn about the close associations between scaremongering bigots and “blame America firsters” such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. These associations were, further, to be expected and natural in American politics – if you were WHITE. Until somebody pointed out how ugly they look among black political-religious institutions. It’s the double-standard that people are now being forced, FORCED, to finally grapple with. And they find that ugly prospect to be more daunting than they should if they were more honest.

    “And your argument that you cannot compare Kahane to Wright because Kahane was the leader of a tiny fringe movement and Wright was the leader of a big church is just, well, mind-boggling. Do you mean to say that racist views become OK just because a lot of people in a big organization believe them? You’re not that stupid, I hope.”

    No, I’m not, I think you know it, and I would appreciate less of these straw men. They’re not getting you anywhere except huffy and puffy. And if you want to compare Kahane and Wright on the basis of racism then you have to show Wright’s supposed racism. Stop getting your demonizing confused, though. He was condemned by the wingers for his supposedly anti-American jeremiads. (Look that last word up and tell me about its history).

    “Not sure what your ramblings about a ‘multicultural’ society and ‘putting ethnic baggage in context’ mean.”

    Then you might want to read up more on that.

    “My guess is that it means you think I don’t want to vote for Obama because he’s black (the “Other”. Quelle horreur!). Utter, utter, bullshit.”

    Nope. It’s not. Didn’t say that.

    “I voted for Tom Bradley for Governor of California in ‘86, so that shit doesn’t cut it with me. I’m not voting for Obama not because of the color of his skin but because of the content of his character which is, at least partially, revealed by the company he keeps.”

    You cannot judge someone’s character until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes. That’s not always possible but first-hand accounts can often do the trick. Luckily, Obama is more literate than McCain. If you want to understand the context of his identity then you are better off trying to read one or both of the two very good books he’s written. They give an insight into a character that is more complex than the pride and honor meme typical of McCain given his military background, but I never claimed that Obama’s as simple a person as McCain is – mentally, characterologically or otherwise.

    “Finally, I just want to state that I am not a particular fan of McCain. But he strikes me as a fundamentally honest man. Obama doesn’t.”

    McCain and/or Palin have aired at least a dozen or so incontrovertible lies during the course of their desperate campaign to win. Bald-faced lies that they’ve failed to address or correct. That’s understandable given the fact that even their spokesperson said that the campaign would come down to personalities and not issues. If you want details on them, let me know. I’ll be happy to provide them. They’re out there for anyone who’s interested.

  • The most important aspect of the Obama-Wright relationship is what links it to Obama’s other problematic associations (with Ayers, Khalidi et al.). It’s this: what if any actions did Obama take in response to their diseased, repellent views? Did he lead Wright or Ayers to change their point of view, to see the world in a different way? Did Obama ever remonstrate with Wright about his racism? Did he take action as a Trinity congregant, for example by seeking a role in lay leadership, to steer the church’s teaching in a different (say, a Christian) direction? Did he stand up to protest when Wright, for example, blamed white people for AIDS?

    There’s no evidence Obama took any such actions.

    Obama may say he’s no Wright, not a racist. Fine. But Obama seeks the most important leadership post in the world. Did he lead within his own community? Or, as seems clear, did he go along to get along, glomming on to the likes of Wright to acquire street cred on the South Side?

    What has Barack Obama done to qualify him to be president of the United States?

  • Oh, ok. Now Obama’s to be taken to task for not challenging the leader of his congregation. As if he’s expected to be a religious reformer. Ok, Tom. I’ll make you this bargain. You show me one American politician you’ve voted for who didn’t spend their career actively agitating against certain troubling practices or pronouncements of the Catholic church (if they were Catholic) or the Evangelicals (if they were close to them), and then I’ll suspect that you’re not being a raging hypocrite.

    “Obama may say he’s no Wright, not a racist. Fine. But Obama seeks the most important leadership post in the world. Did he lead within his own community? Or, as seems clear, did he go along to get along, glomming on to the likes of Wright to acquire street cred on the South Side?”

    This may sound confusing to people who casually throw around labels like “messiah”, but Obama is actually not running for a theological position. He’s not running to be the leader of an organized religious group. I understand this might come as a shock to people who have no qualms or are peachy keen with the theocratically-oriented inclinations of The Religious Right, but more and more Americans are getting tired of an unquestioning acceptance of their demands to pretend to speak for every decent American.

    “What has Barack Obama done to qualify him to be president of the United States?”

    Wow. A bit late to the game on that one, are we Tom? If that’s where you’re forced to take your approach now, then you might as well wait until we compare Obama’s accomplishments in 8 years to those of the eminently qualified George W. Bush.

  • Tom, Obama, a US senator, was a state senator for quite some time. Before that, Harvard Law Review. During the time thereafter, professor of constitutional law at Chicago. What’s with the obsession with holding executive or corporate office as the sine qua non of leadership experience? Many people like his ideas, approach, ability to speak to issues that are important to them and most praise what they see as leadership abilities that are evident to them. Being able to make a good argument on the current state of affairs in the country is in itself important. Especially during times as contentious and rife with internal argument as Bush has made them. Of course, that’s nothing compared to the sinecure of a state executive office/fiefdom that you made more corrupt and riven with self-interest (and conflict of interest) than before. But people are becoming less and less impressed by stuff like that.

  • Even W was more qualified back in ’00, MUL. Palin may not be qualified to be POTUS, but she’s more qualified than Obama.

    Not sure about your religious practices/affiliation, MUL, but America’s full of churches and synagogues. If Obama had believed Trinity a poor fit, there were plenty of alternatives. Chicago’s a big city. Ever been on the South Side? (Last time I was there, I had to cough up dough to the local kids to make sure my car wouldn’t be stripped during the White Sox game I was attending, but that’s another story.) More churches there than you can shake a stick at.

    So let’s not pretend Obama lacked options. Even by your standards, that’s an exceptionally goofy argument.

    And we’re not talking heroism here. If my parish priest delivered a racist screed during Mass, I’d get my ass out of there and so would everyone else. The church would be empty the following Sunday (and the priest escorted away by men in white suits).

    We’re looking for normal, not Martin Luther.

  • “Even W was more qualified back in ‘00, MUL. Palin may not be qualified to be POTUS, but she’s more qualified than Obama.”

    That’s an excellent point, Tom. I’m not sure why you don’t realize that it works precisely against what you are trying to argue.

    “If Obama had believed Trinity a poor fit, there were plenty of alternatives.”

    Why don’t you name them, Tom? If you don’t mind. Do explain to me how they are superior as well, in theologically sophisticated terms.

    “If my parish priest delivered a racist screed during Mass”

    Tom, you’re really going to have to get your story straight. If you’re trying to accuse Wright of racist screeds, cough up the evidence.

    “We’re looking for normal, not Martin Luther.”

    “Normal”? Interesting word to use against the first serious black presidential candidate in 216 years. Again, apparently you either assume a Bill Cosby figure (maybe ‘The Cos’ didn’t go into politics for a reason) or you want to tell me what it was like to walk as a black politician in Obama’s shoes, mkay? But I’m not convinced you have a serious understanding about that.

  • Of course I can judge someone’s character without walking a mile in his shoes. Everybody does it all the time. If we couldn’t make judgments about people without having the exact same experiences they had, we wouldn’t be able to have a single opinion about anything of importance.

    I haven’t walked a mile in Yasser Arafat’s shoes, for example, but I’m pretty sure the guy was an anti-Semitic murderer. Which says a lot about his character. Same for Hitler. I don’t need to know what caused him to be a lunatic. But I know he was one.

    Irony alert: These are just examples. Please don’t start screaming that I compared Obama to Arafat and Hitler.

    “I’m advocating a rational standard of not jumping to paranoid conclusions about people just because you don’t understand the culture they are a part of.”

    Ohhhhh, I get it. It’s a “black thang”. So, since I’m white, I don’t (no, can’t) get it. OK. Glad to know I have no right to judge Obama because I don’t understand his culture. Funny, I thought he was an American.

    With everything you say you prove again and again that you are holding Obama to a different standard than McCain precisely because he’s black. I’m not saying that Obama is necessarily a racist, I’m saying that his close associations with known racists must give one pause. Yet all you do is say “I have to understand his culture”. If racism means judging people of differnt races by different standards, I’d say you’re more of a racist than I am. Racist in favor of Obama, perhaps, but it is undeniable that you consider Obama’s race in your judgment of him.

    “You might want to read up more on that?” “Look that last word up and tell me about its history”?

    Are you trying to take me to school or something? I am aware of what people call “ethnic baggage”. I just asked you to explain what you meant by bringing it up in this context.

    I also know what a jeremiad is. Jeremiah railed against the Jewish people for their failure to live up to G-d’s commandments. But he said what he said out of love for his people and in the hope of their eventual reformation. Comparing a racist like Wright to a prophet like Jeremiah shows me that you are the one who has misunderstood Jeremiah. You’re the one who needs to look things up, not me.

    Wright’s supposed racism? What planet do you live on?

    Obama did not need to try to reform Wright’s “church”. But he could have had the decency to leave it.

  • I think a fair standard would be one that admits that black racism (“racism” more accurately defines a system or society, BTW, not one’s own views; “bigoted” is a better way of accomplishing the latter) is not the sort of insidious evil that white racism is and was. The minority wasn’t and isn’t in danger of persecuting the majority. First let’s see if you can admit that and then there might be a basis for everything else you want to discuss related to it.

    Obama did leave Wright’s church once it became clear that he was going to make divisive statements and let them stand. As a presidential candidate, Obama had the power to make such a stand a meaningful one. As a nobody Illinois politician, not so much. But if appearances and bluster are more important to you than effective actions, I’m not surprised to hear that you’re supporting McCain.

  • Obama only left Wright’s “church” when it became a political liability. He was happy to stay in a racist….oh, sorry, Professor, a bigoted church when he thought nobody was looking. I think “hypocrite” is the word you’re looking for.

    And do you mean to suggest that the only reason his leaving the church was “meaningful” was becasue he was a Presidential candidate? And that his leaving it as a Presidential candidate gave the act some sort of “power”? Can you explain your reasoning? Morality isn’t something that has meaning only when someone notices it. Now, if it had come out when Obama started his run for President that he had once, when he was a nobody, been a member of Wright’s “church” and then had left when he realized what a bigot Wright was, that would have made me take notice. As it is, it was a cheap political stunt, done under duress when he was found out. It just made him look like a chump.

    I never suggested that institutionalized racism on the part of white America towards its non-white citizens was somehow not as bad as the crackpot anti-white and anti-Semitic ravings on Wright and his friend Farrakhan. I think it is quite a bit worse, but that is not and has never been my point. And yet you still seem to think that I think that Obama is secretly planning some sort of anti-white pogroms and that that is why I am not going to vote for him. Talk about a straw man.

    My only point is that it makes sense to judge a man by the sort of people he chooses to associate with. Everybody does it all the time and nobody accuses them of being racists. Obama’s choice of pals and advisors does not inspire me with confidence. That’s really the long and the short of it.

  • Middle, that finish is something of a legend. Wottle got into some trouble when he forgot to remove that goofy cap of his for the national anthem.

  • Some degree of anti-white resentment among blacks may be more pervasive than I think you know or would like to admit. That being said, I don’t think it is as much of a problem, morally or practically, as the opposite. Some of the worse or stronger elements within it could stand to be confronted, and they have.

    Of course, Obama’s statements toward Wright carried more weight when he was a candidate than at any other time previously. That doesn’t mean they weren’t more convenient or practical, as well (to assume so would be a false dichotomy). But so what? Which is more important to you?

    The point is that your attitude seems like an incredibly impractical and unhelpful one. Listening to you go on like this reminds me of all the people on YouTube who claim that Jews think they’re superior to gentiles and that Israel is a racist state because they’re, you know, the “chosen people”, and how this is a BIG PROBLEM. Gnaw on that one for a while and then get back to me and tell me how you feel about that. Because both those attitudes and the perspective that animates you here seem to be borne of an incredible sense of ignorance, of either Jewish or African American culture respectively, IMHO.

  • Speaking of associations, Ariel Sharon was a good friend of assassinated Moledet politico Rehavam Ze’evi, who advocated population transfer of Arabs. He referred to Arabs living illegally in Israel as a “cancer” and compared them to “lice”. My understanding is that he was widely looked up to within Israel, having been a part of the original generation that fought in 1948. Assuming you’re willing to condemn every Israeli who didn’t make a career out of confronting him, including his good friend Sharon, I’ll accept that your criticisms of Obama are being made fairly and in good faith.

  • Ephraim, BD, you’re dealing with someone who accused me of trying to more or less sabotage the Obama campaign resp. Obama’s chances in the primaries by my merely just pointing out that Obama’s background was not typical of that of most Afro-Americans and that there still was a lot of (also organized) racism towards blacks in the US today. That person also assumed and suggested a lot of things about me without actually knowing me. Pair double standards with amnesia and garnish it with some hypocrisy, peppered with victimology and you’re set.

  • Please provide the quote that forms the basis for your accusation above or kindly shut up about it, Froylein. We know how you generally are with evidence. Lacking.

    The first time I ever said anything that dared challenge anything you wrote here you suggested I e-mail the site and complain about your intelligence to whoever runs the show. Aside from being a likely ploy, this speaks to that limitless sense of intellectual insecurity and outrage of yours (which has become predictable and boring by now) which you keep throwing at me anytime I dare to disagree with your incredibly hardened and often unexamined views.

    You have incredibly thin skin and take things incredibly personally, regardless of intentions. If it’s wrong for anyone commenting on Jewlicious to disagree with Queen Froylein or present arguments and evidence contrary to what she’d like to believe, just tell me so I can be warned in advance. That sort of tyranical intellectual authoritarianism is not my bag. Seriously, Froylein. But in the meantime, your uncontrolled contempt for me is not the issue being discussed, in case you hadn’t noticed.

  • ‘Queen’? Hmm, if we’re to compare froylein to royalty…. how about HRH The Princess Victoria, Princess Royal (aka the Empress Frederick)?

    For a Halloween disguise, though, I’m thinking Sarah Palin might be a good match.

  • Glad to see you provided the quote and weren’t above providing evidence when pressed for it, Froylein. But I can’t see for the life of me how this proves that I “accused (you) of trying to more or less sabotage the Obama campaign resp. Obama’s chances in the primaries”. If you care to discuss that ridiculous accusation on the basis of the link you provide, I can do that, too. Or I can just wish you and everyone else a Happy Halloween and hope that you don’t always get more spooked than you should about simple disagreements – even if they’re disagreements with you or with the things you say.

    But seriously, let’s not pretend that one can dress up my comments with costumes and make them out to mean things that they clearly don’t. That’s just silly.

  • In regards to Khalidi, however, the guilt-by-association game burns John McCain as well.

    During the 1990s, while he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi, including one worth half a million dollars.

    A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi’s Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank. (See grant number 5180, “West Bank: CPRS” on page 14 of this PDF.)

    The relationship extends back as far as 1993, when John McCain joined IRI as chairman in January. Foreign Affairs noted in September of that year that IRI had helped fund several extensive studies in Palestine run by Khalidi’s group, including over 30 public opinion polls and a study of “sociopolitical attitudes.”

    Of course, there’s seemingly nothing objectionable with McCain’s organization helping a Palestinian group conduct research in the West Bank or Gaza. But it does suggest that McCain could have some of his own explaining to do as he tries to make hay out of Khalidi’s ties to Obama.

  • Tom, I’m still in my clothes from work; no partying for me tonight. Halloween has only slowly been catching on here; it’s mostly kindergarten and primary school kids asking for treats (got plenty of sweets ready). Some sociologist suggested though that Halloween would likely grow more popular here as it is a Celtic holiday originally, it’s close to St Martin’s Day (week after next), which marks the beginning of the pre-Christmas lent and the beginning of the Carnival season, and could be adopted analogous to the Carnival heyday street celebrations, when people here generally dress up in fancy costumes (I was a fishtank this year).

    The link I provided is pretty self-explanatory. Considering that reading things into comments that were never actually said or insinuated (in contradiction to negative suggestions employed in the comment and subsequent ones linked to above) has become typical of your comments, as has not only been noticed by me, it appears to me I’ve found the perfect Halloween costume for you.

  • MUL, don’t bother ringing froylein’s doorbell tonight, OK? She’s not gonna appreciate your Obama costume. And who knows what she’ll slip into that candied apple….

    And speaking of being spooked: I’m not a doctor (nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night) but I sense a creeping anxiety beneath the stock-response bravado. We care about you, my friend.

    There’s no need to pull your hair out over the next three days. Most patients tolerate Ativan well. If you line up a doctor’s appt. this pm, you can score enough to make it into the wee hours of 11/5.

    Please touch base on this later today.

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • “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?

  • 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.

  • “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.

  • 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. 😉

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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.”

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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?