Wow, so this is probably the biggest news you won't hear anywhere in the MSM. Hillary supporter Rep. Rob Andrews (D-NJ) recently opened up in an interview and gave a disgusting inside view of the Clinton race-baiting strategy:
Andrews, a centrist who had been supporting Hillary in the primaries, told the Newark Star-Ledger that a high-ranking member of the Clinton camp approached him in the run-up to the Pennsylvania primary about using a strategy to exploit divisions between Jews and blacks, as a way of increasing Hillary's share of the Jewish vote in that big primary.
"There have been signals coming out of the Clinton campaign that have racial overtones that indeed disturb me," Andrews said at his campaign headquarters in Cherry Hill Tuesday night after he lost his bid for the U.S. Senate nomination. "Frankly, I had a private conversation with a high-ranking person in the campaign ... that used a racial line of argument that I found very disconcerting. It was extremely disconcerting given the rank of this person. It was very disturbing."
Now there is little reason to doubt what Andrews is saying, because after all, he is a Hillary supporter, not an Obama supporter with a grudge (not that Obama supporters would make up stories to score political points). Most disturbingly, it fits the Clinton M.O. perfectly. I've written before about their race-baiting tactics, and the strategy has been fairly transparent, as has the Clinton thought process, but until now we didn't have an inside look at actually discussions of using these tactics, and the African Americans vs Jews strategy isn't something that has really come up before. It does fit though, she has tried to make Obama look anti-Israel to get the Jewish community to turn on him, and she has tried to make him look "too black" so white people would turn on him, so why not put the two together I guess?
I hope Andrews elaborates on this at a later date, because I think we are owed a full picture of the horrible tactics the Clintons were willing to stoop to in order to win the nomination, or perhaps just to sabotage Obama.
I have been thinking about this whole mess with Hillary, Ferraro and Hillary's hardcore female supporters attacking Obama and others that oppose their views with outrageous and baseless accusations of sexism, and I realized that it reminds me a lot of Bush's way of relating to the world and his response to differing opinions (or let's say how he reacts to democracy). If you recall, pre-2006, if you were against the war in Iraq, or if you had the audacity to question ANY of Bush's policies, foreign or domestic, you were branded "un-American", as if criticism of Bush equaled a rejection of the entirety of America. As if Bush represents America, as if Bush and his policies are America.
We can see the same thing with people who recklessly throw out the term "anti-Semite" or "anti-Israel" to anyone who dares question ANY policy of Israel's, or any part of American foreign policy related to Israel, or even talk too much about the fact that Israel is a state that has policies and influence. As if criticism of specific Israeli policies is tantamount to hating Israel, or wishing the destruction of Israel, or hating Jews, or denying the Holocaust or any number of ridiculous accusations. As if the hardliners in control of Israeli's government speaks any more for Jews than Bush speaks for Americans as a whole.
But none of these things are really about being un-American or anti-Semitic or sexist, they are about brutishly silencing the opinions of others because you don't want to hear them, so you throw out loaded terms such as these to slander your opponents and silence them. It is anti-democratic, it is anti-intellectual, thus it is anti-truth and anti-reality. It is the last desperate fortress of those who can't win on the merits of their arguments, of those who are wrong and know they are wrong and can't admit they are wrong. So when Bush brands his critics un-American, he does so because his policies are based on lies, greed and death, and can't stand up to scrutiny.
When hardline supporters of Israel brand critics of Israeli policies anti-Semitic or anti-Israel, they do so because the policies people criticize are illegal violations of human rights, and they can't continue if exposed for what they are and challenged by an unintimidated international community.
And when Hillary and Ferraro and Hillary's hardcore supporters blast anyone who ever had a negative thing to say about Hillary, or anyone who admits the reality that it is mathematically impossible for her to win as "terribly sexist" or "misogynists", they do so because what people are saying is true, and they are fighting an uphill battle against reality, and the only way to continue to suspend the realization of reality is to intimidate, slander and shout down their opponents, just like Bush, just like hardline supporters of Israel, just like countless tyrants throughout history who have crushed dissent because their positions were so backwards, corrupt and immoral that they could never exist in a free and open society.
And sadly in every example the abuse of these loaded terms makes them eventually lose their edge. People now freely mock Republicans for attacking everyone anti-war as being un-American because the term was used and used and used to the point of absurdity. It lost its meaning and people came to eventually realize that those who peddled the term were corrupt and ignorant, and afraid of truth. To a lesser extent people are starting to realize that the neocons and hardline supporters of Israel are abusing the term "anti-Semitism" in order to crush opposing viewpoints, and that it has nothing to do with the real bigotry against Jews which really does exist in the world. But this is where it gets dangerous, because if the term "anti-Semitism" loses it's meaning, and if the people who use it (and those who they pretend to speak for, namely the Jewish people) are discredited due to overuse, trying to cry wolf too many times, acting too brutishly and playing the victim ad nauseam, then we risk a backlash, we risk real anti-Semitism being ignored.
The same goes for people who claim to be the voice for all women accusing everyone who says or does anything they don't like, no matter how obviously it has nothing to do with sex or gender, of being sexists who are out to get them, constantly attacking others while playing the victim and throwing gender out as both a shield and a weapon, the inevitable result is a backlash, and the term "sexism" losing some of its meaning. There is very real sexism in this country, and in the world, and it does an injustice to that real sexism when you co-opt that term for your own political goals, just as it does an injustice to real anti-Semitism when you use the term to further your political agenda.
I don't want to see a backlash against any of these groups, and I don't want people to start ignoring claims of real sexism and anti-Semitism just because some shameless groups or individuals decided to cynically co-opt these terms for their political agendas, not caring about the repercussions on the very people they pretend they are speaking for. Anyway, it is a dangerous game, and I'm sick of people playing it, which is why I will continue to respond to Hillary and her gang, and to the neocons and the hardline supporters of Israel, and to Bush and the Republicans and anyone else who uses these tactics to silence, slander and bully their opposition.
[Right before Halloween last year, David Horowitz, rabid anti-intellectual neoconservative scumbag, declared that it was Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week. I was of course depressed that such a week only came once per year, but apparently it comes many times a year, because it is here yet again! I really would have liked some warning, as I haven't had time to run up to the attic to get down my decorations yet! I'm very embarrassed, I don't want to be the only house on the street unadorned with bigoted and misogynistic propaganda! For those scratching your heads wondering what this magical time(s) of year is all about, here is a quick breakdown from The Nation, circa last October's IFAW, enjoy:]
I've never been able to explain Halloween to the kids, with its odd thematic confluence of pumpkins, candy and death. But Halloween is a piece of pumpkin cake compared to Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, which commences today. In this special week, organized by conservative pundit David Horowitz, we have a veritable witches' brew of Cheney-style anti-jihadism mixed in with old-fashioned, right-wing anti-feminism and a sour dash of anti-Semitism.
A major purpose of this week is to wake up academic women to the threat posed by militant jihadism. According to the Week's website, feminists and particularly the women's studies professors among them, have developed a masochistic fondness for Islamic fundamentalists. Hence, as anti-Islamo-Fascist speakers fan out to the nation's campuses this week, students are urged to stage "sit-ins in Women's Studies Departments and campus Women's Centers to protest their silence about the oppression of women in Islam."
Leaving aside the obvious quibbles about feminist pro-jihadism and the term "Islamo-Fascism," which seems largely designed to give jihadism a nice familiar World War II ring, the klaxons didn't go off for me until I skimmed down the list of Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week speakers and found, incredibly enough, Ann Coulter, whom I last caught on TV pining for the repeal of women's suffrage. "If we took away women's right to vote," she said wistfully, "We'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream; it's a personal fantasy of mine."
Coulter is not the only speaker on the list who may have a credibility problem when it comes to opposing oppression of women in Islam or anywhere else. Another participant in the week's events is former Senator Rick Santorum, whose book, It Takes a Family blamed "radical feminism" for pushing women into the workforce and thus destroying the American family. A 2005 column on that book in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, began with: "Women of America, I hope you look good in a burqa. If Senator Rick Santorum,R-PA, has his way, we will all be wearing the burqas discarded by our recently liberated sisters in Afghanistan..." (This was the before the Taliban re-emerged.)
Not quite in the burqa-promoting league, but close, is another official speaker for the week, Christina Hoff Sommers, who has made her name attacking feminism for exaggerating the problem of domestic violence and eliminating opportunities for boys. These are the people who are going to save us from purdah?
Another disagreeable feature of jihadism--anti-Semitism--is also represented on the list of speakers for Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week, again by the multi-faceted Coulter. Just last week on CNBC, she referred to America as a "Christian nation." Asked where this left the Jews (not to mention the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans and atheists), she said they could be "perfected" by converting to Christianity.
You might imagine that this view of Jews as "imperfect" would bother Horowitz, who is famously alert to any hint of anti-Semitism on the left. But no, he defends Coulter, writing that "If you don't accompany this belief by burning Jews who refuse to become perfected at the stake why would any Jew have a problem?" Sure, David and if that's the threshold for intolerance, Osama bin Laden could probably win an award for humanitarianism.
Maybe none of this should be surprising. When Mel Gibson, who is not known to be a member of the Hollywood left, unleashed a drunken anti-Semitic tirade on his arresting officers, Horowitz also rose to his defense, arguing that ensuing outrage reflected a "hatred"--not of anti-Semites but of Christians.
As for the anti-feminism of Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week: This fits in neatly with the thesis of Susan Faludi's brilliant new book, The Terror Dream: Fear and Fantasy in Post-9/11 America. She shows that, in the wake of an attack by the ultra-misogynist Al Qaeda, Americans perversely engaged in an anti-feminist campaign of their own, calling for an immediate restoration of traditional gender roles. Coulter was part of that backlash, opining in 2002 that "feminists hate guns because guns remind them of men."
Before you put on your costumes to celebrate Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week, let me set the record straight. American feminists do not condone, defend, or ignore jihadist misogyny. In fact, we were warning about it well before Washington turned against the Taliban and have been consistently appalled by the gender dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Iran.
But if the facts don't fit in with Islamo-Fascist Awareness, they have to go. For example, in a May '07 column in The Weekly Standard Christina Hoff Sommers listed me as one of the "feckless" feminists who refuse "to pass judgment on non-Western cultures." What? If Sommers had even done ten minutes of research she would have noticed, among other things, a column I wrote in the New York Times in 2004 stating that Islamic fundamentalism aims to push one-half of the Muslim world--the female half--"down to a status only slightly above that of domestic animals."
Yes, feminists tend to hate war and sometimes even guns and this may be why Horowitz and company hate us. They should know, though, that we especially hate a war that seems calculated to inflame Islamic fundamentalism worldwide. If many Muslim women around the world willingly don head scarves today, it's in part because our war in Iraq has, tragically, pushed them to value religious solidarity above their feminist instincts.
Or maybe I'm missing the point of Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week. Maybe it's really an effort to show that our own American anti-feminists (and anti-Semites) are just as nasty as the ones on the other side. If so, good job, guys! No need to continue with the trick-or-treating, you've already made your point.
[Update: Please come by and celebrate at DailyKos!]
The current presidential election has begun a sort of dialog in America, superficial as it may be, about bigotry. We have looked at racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and religious intolerance. We have seen race baiting from the Clinton campaign, designed to exploit the undercurrents of racism in our country for political advantage. We have seen idiots yell "iron my shirt" at the first woman presidential hopeful. We have been told white people won't vote for a black man. We have been told Latinos won't vote for a black man. We have seen false insinuations of anti-Semitism used for political gain. We have seen a conservative cable network embark on a campaign to vilify African Americans churches by cynically exploiting cultural ignorance. We have seen the first viable black presidential candidate accused of being an affirmative action candidate by the first woman vice presidential candidate. We have seen all kinds of bigotry in this election, and to some extent we have discussed the implications of such bigotry and all of it has been rejected by varying degrees.
Yet we've missed a very important, yet completely hidden bigotry, a bigotry widely accepted in this country.
The following exchange between atheist Rob Sherman of Buffalo Grove and Ill. Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) took place Wednesday afternoon in the General Assembly as Sherman testified before the House State Government Administration Committee concerning a $1 million grant intended for a local Baptist church:
Davis: I don’t know what you have against God, but some of us don’t have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings. And it’s really a tragedy -- it’s tragic -- when a person who is engaged in anything related to God, they want to fight. They want to fight prayer in school.
I don’t see you (Sherman) fighting guns in school. You know?
I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children.… What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous--
Sherman: What’s dangerous, ma’am?
Davis:It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! Now you will go to court to fight kids to have the opportunity to be quiet for a minute. But damn if you’ll go to [court] to fight for them to keep guns out of their hands. I am fed up! Get out of that seat!
[Light clapping from the audience, one man yells "amen"]
Sherman: Thank you for sharing your perspective with me, and I’m sure that if this matter does go to court---
Davis:You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.
Now try to imagine if a state elected official went off on this tirade against a Christian, Jew, Muslim or Hindu. Needless to say they would be branded a bigot and forced out of office in less than 24 hours, and rightfully so. But here is a man arguing for the separation of church and state, and he is lambasted by this elected official for his beliefs. And let's be clear what this insidious scumbag commie believes in. He believes in evolution, which has been scientifically proven and backed up by every single bit of evidence on the subject. He also believes that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old, a fact backed up by geologists, physicists, and advanced scientific dating techniques. How dare he try to "spew" such "dangerous", excuse me, "extremely dangerous" ideas?! Our children apparently shouldn't even know that such alternatives to creationism even exist! I guess the last thing schools should be are bastions of knowledge that instill in our children the faculties for critical thought! God forbid, literally. Apparently we shouldn't even be teaching evolution in schools, we should be having prayer in schools in its place, because that is apparently a proper reading of the separation of church and state.
The other shocking aspect of this, aside from the fact that Rep. Davis believes that science is abhorrent and it is "extremely dangerous" to believe in anything other than the Earth being created in 6 days, Adam and Eve, talking snakes, giant people, people living to 900+ years, giant floods, walking on water, water turning to wine, people rising from the dead, etc., is that she seems to believe anyone who doesn't believe in God are second class citizens, people who should have no rights, or at least no place in democratic governance. She actually tried to force him to leave the committee hearing because he doesn't share her religious views! She said "Get out of that seat! You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon!" Where do we live? Iran??
"You have no right to be here" Think about that. Imagine again, that this was directed at someone with Jewish beliefs, or Muslim beliefs. Would anyone find that acceptable? Does anyone have any doubt that the ADL and a hundred other groups would be calling for her immediate resignation? But when it is an atheist being targeted, an atheist being attacked for his religious beliefs, an atheist being told he has no right to even voice his opinion in a committee, no one cares, indeed people in the audience clapped in approval of her attacks, one man yelled "amen"! Contrary to what Rep. David appears to believe, this was a country founded on religious freedom, a country founded on religious tolerance. This hostility and intolerance, this deplorable attempt to relegate a person to the status of second class citizen simply for holding differing religious views should shock the conscience of all Americans, regardless of religious faith.
Yes, many of our "founding fathers" had religious faith. Some were Christian, some were deists, but they were also intellectuals who were cognizant of the injustices of theocracy and religious intolerance, thus they purposely created a government based on religious freedom, a clear separation of church and state, and explicitly enshrined this protection twice in the Constitution, in the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Rep. Davis contends that this country, and the state of Illinois was founded on Christian principles, and to favor anything else is to be dangerous, shameful and anti-American. There are those who would fundamentally disagree, like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison who wrote specifically of this subject:
... that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right ...
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
Also, Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, written during the presidency of George Washington, signed by President John Adams and unanimously approved by the Senate in 1797, proclaimed "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." I believe it would be hard to be any clearer than that. George Washington also spoke directly to the sort of religious bigotry shown by Rep. Davis, only in this case it was to assure the first Jewish congregation in the United States of their rights to religious freedom:
All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it were by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.
Long story short, there is absolutely no basis for Rep. Davis's belief that our government or society was founded on the Christian faith. Nothing has been more fundamental to the American ethos than freedom, which is precisely what Rep. Davis is attacking with her bigotry. Thomas Jefferson would roll over in his grave if he heard this elected official, in the year 2008, telling someone that they had no right to participate in their government on account of their religious beliefs. Yet again, no one seems to notice, or care.
And the fact that there is only approval for this vitriolic bigotry, whereas any other group being attacked like this, being told they have no right to be involved in governance (imagine it being said to a Muslim, or a black man, or a Native American), would be vigorously defended and Rep. Davis would be considered a monster, is precisely my point. Rep. Davis faces no consequences, she is not labeled a bigot because our society treats atheists like second class citizens, unworthy of respect or civil liberties.
Consider for a moment this poll which asked "If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be a 'X' would you vote for that person?"
94% say they would vote for a black candidate
92% would vote for a Jew
88% say they would vote for a woman
87% would vote for a Latino
72% would vote for a Mormon
55% would vote for a homosexual, and the worst?:
Only 45% would vote for an atheist, even if that person was their party's candidate
Other polls have shown that atheists are viewed less favorably than both Muslims and Scientologists.
And this isn't from Pat Robertson, or George W. Bush, or even a Republican. This despicable bigotry and contempt for tolerance and civil liberties is coming from a Democrat, and I couldn't be any more ashamed to have her in my party.
For those interested, here is the audio of the exchange, which gives you a better idea of the shocking and unconscionable nature of her attack on this man.
Update: It should also be noted that there has only been one admitted atheist member of Congress in the institutions history, if that gives you any idea of the scope of the prejudice against atheists in this country:
Although the Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office, the Coalition's research reveals that Rep. Stark is the first open nontheist in the history of the Congress. Recent polls show that Americans without a god-belief are, as a group, more distrusted than any other minority in America. Surveys show that the majority of Americans would not vote for an atheist for president even if he or she were the most qualified for the office.
Update #2: Keith Olbermann, once again the only voice of truth and justice in the MSM, made Rep. Monique Davis the worst person in the world last night, beating out Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly! He called on her to apologize, or resign. Olbermann also pointed out that while running for office, Abraham Lincoln was accused of being an atheist by his opponent. It looks like this story got some traction thanks to the blogosphere and Keith Olbermann, hopefully she'll be forced to apologize or vacate her position (I've also heard that her office has been bombarded with phone calls and emails, keep it up!). Give Olbermann a watch and pass it along:
If you'd like to give Rep. Davis an earful of your own, her contact information is right here (but please be civil, we aren't animals, contrary to what she may believe):
Springfield Office: 241-E Stratton Office Building Springfield, IL 62706 (217) 782-0010 (217) 782-1795 FAX
District Office: 1234 West 95th Street Chicago, IL 60643 (773) 445-9700 (773) 445-5755 FAX
There are so many instances of Hillary Clinton being a giant hypocrite, that I think it is now appropriate that we create a new word to describe the phenomenon: Hillpocrisy.
Yesterday, just a day after her ridiculous questioning of the strength of Obama's denunciation of Minister Louis Farrakhan at the Ohio debate based on some apparent distinction between the words "reject" and "denounce" (in Hillaryland, "reject" is much stronger than "denounce", and this is apparently also very important), Hillary was faced with her own bigoted supporter problem to respond to. Yesterday Dallas Hispanic leader Adelfa Callejo, a Hillary supporter, commented that black politicians have done little for Hispanics, and that Barack Obama "simply has a problem that he happens to be black." When asked to respond to the comments she said:
I want us judged on our merits. I believe strongly that the fact that we have an African-American and a woman running for the Democratic nomination is historical and I'm very, very proud of that. I want people though to look beyond, look beyond race and gender, look at our records, look what we stand for, look what we've done.
A total dodge, coming from the same woman who had just lectured Obama on the need to be "stronger" in his denunciation and explained the necessity of leaving no ambiguity on the topic (in fact there had been no ambiguity, ever, in his denunciation of anti-Semitism), and she wouldn't say anything negative about the statements. Her campaign later issued a statement (most likely after they realized the hillpocrisy of the whole thing) saying "After confirming that [the statements] were accurately portrayed, Senator Clinton, of course, denounces and rejects them." I'm sure there will be disagreement, as some may take the Clinton campaign at their word, that they just wanted to get independent confirmation of the comments, which were made to the exact same station that was asking her the question, were accurate. However given that there was no reason to doubt the accuracy of the comments, and even if there was, she could have at the very least say something to the effect of:
This is the first I have heard of these comments, but I firmly denounce and reject them if they are indeed accurate. I reject any assertion that there is any inherent racial divide between blacks and Hispanics, and there is no reason to suspect that Senator Obama would not be very attentive to the needs of Hispanics as president.
What would have been so hard about that? Nothing. She could have strongly rejected the comments (and similar comments in general) even without confirmed them and been no worse off for it even if the quote had somehow turned out to be false (which wasn't likely since the statements were made to the very same station). The fact that she didn't even mention the supporter in question or the comments in her original response shows that she was more interested in pandering than she was in making clear that she didn't support those kinds of comments, which is much worse than what she challenged Obama on, as he has been consistently clear on his denunciation of anti-Semitism. This doesn't matter to Hillary Clinton though, because all she cares about it trying to score points by attacking, with zero regard for how ridiculous her attacks may be, or how hypocritical--I mean, hillpocritical--those attacks may be.
Today came the predictable outcome of the Clinton campaign's shadow strategy of trying to paint Obama as an anti-Semite, which started when the Clinton campaign implied to prominent Jewish Americans that Obama was not a friend of Israel (not true) and surrounded himself with anti-Semites (not true). For quite some time now Clinton supporters have also been spreading lies about his relation (there is none) to controversial Minister Louis Farrakhan (who recently spoke out in favor of Obama), trying to paint Obama as an anti-Semite. At last night's debate MSNBC's Tim Russert pulled the asshole move by actually giving the ridiculous lies a forum by asking Obama if he rejects his support, and then proceeded to beat the dead horse for the next seven minutes despite Obama's consistent and firm denunciation of Farrakhan. Hillary, never missing a good chance to pile on to attack her party's nominee belabored the issue even further by trying to tell Obama that "denouncing" isn't as strong a word as "rejecting", so if he was serious, he needs to say "reject" instead of "denounce" (despite the fact that "denounce" is obviously stronger than "reject").
Going back to that predictable outcome, today the GOP borrowed yet another one of Hillary's lines of attacks against Obama, accusing him (being sure to use his middle name and the picture of Obama in "Muslim" dress that was reportedly being circulated from within the Clinton campaign -- a charge they have not definitively denied) of being in bed with anti-Semites. Here is the press release from the Tennessee GOP:
This would be why it isn't a good idea for Democrats to try to paint their presidential nominee as anti-Semitic, because it turns out the ever shameless GOP will not hesitate to pick up an attack and run with it. Oh, and it isn't a good idea because it is MORALLY WRONG! So thank you Hillary, for once again putting your own political ambitions above your party and common decency.
If you'd like to personally give the Tennessee GOP a piece of your mind about this shameless attack, you can contact them here, or if you'd rather directly contact the person responsible, you can email him here: chairman@tngop.org.
A couple days ago a prominent Hillary supporter, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, weighed in on the election and expressed her belief that Barack Obama is going to be our nominee. She also mentioned many errors Hillary has made in her campaign, including running on "experience", when she had no more (less actually) useful experience than Obama, and much less than many other candidates in the race (Richardson, Biden, Dodd, McCain, etc). She also "lamented" Hillary's decision to go negative, and to question Obama's readiness (which makes sense, since he is our only chance at winning in November, as I've said repeatedly). She said she recently called Hillary's campaign and advised them to "go out on a high note", but she says her advice was "politely dismissed".
In the last few days, we have seen exactly what the opposite of "go out on a high note" is, something closer to this:
So today it comes out that back in January, after her Iowa defeat, the Clinton campaign set out to frame Obama as unfriendly toward Israel, bordering on anti-Semitic, in order to get the politically powerful American Jewish community to turn against him. Her campaign emphasized that Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national-security adviser to Jimmy Carter, is Obama's "chief foreign policy adviser", which is a lie, as Mr. Brzezinski has in fact only advised Obama on a few occasions. The back story to this is two-fold. First, Jimmy Carter unfairly took a lot of heat from the characteristically alarmist Pro-Israel Lobby for his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, which actually takes a very fair and evenhanded look at the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict. Secondly, Brzezinski endorsed a 2006 article by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt entitled "The Israel Lobby", which discusses the significant influence of the Pro-Israel Lobby on United States foreign policy. This article was later turned into a book, "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy", which incidentally I've had the opportunity to read. It is clear from reading the book that it is painstakingly balanced, and is in absolutely no way whatsoever anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. The authors present a well researched and fair analysis of the activities of the Pro-Israel Lobby, and make sure to frame it in the context of legal and normal interest group activities, and not as some evil conspiracy of evil people. In their book, coincidentally, they write about how the Pro-Israel Lobby often reflectively attacks anyone who so much as disagrees with or looks at Israel's actions as anti-Semitic in order to silence their critics, or potential critics, or even friends who aren't hardline enough. Jimmy Carter was a victim of this, as were Mearsheimer and Walt, as was Brzezinski. So having read this book, it came as little surprise to me that the desperate Clinton campaign would stoop so low as to try to use accusations of Antisemitism (or just associations with individuals marked by their interest in research done by those interested in examining an important political institution) in order to turn the American Jewish community against Obama, while also bringing in lots of money to her campaign.
I've also previously written about Hillary's desperate search for new funding which has lead her to form FEC regulation-free swiftboating groups as well as seek even more money from the neo-conservative AIPAC lobby (which already gives her hundreds of thousands of dollars every year to buy her votes on matters relating to Israel, Iraq, Iran and weapons sales). In exchange for this, Hillary no doubt plans to sell the rest of her soul to AIPAC, in exchange for political power, just like pro-war Joe Lieberman did in 2006 in order to get over a million dollars in AIPAC cash to defeat Ned Lamont. I think we can be pretty sure we know how she will be voting for the rest of her time in the Senate.
Frankly, I'm disgusted (yet again) that Hillary would try to brand a fellow Democrat, who in all likelihood will be our presidential nominee, as an anti-Semite in order to defeat him. This, along with her repeated backstabbing of Obama on his readiness to be president, on his experience and achievements, her appalling hypocrisy in attacking his campaign tactics, exploiting fear of terrorism to her political gain, and her most recent stunt, mocking Obama's message of change like an angry child throwing a temper tantrum has truly made me embarrassed to be a Democrat. She cannot win this nomination, she couldn't beat McCain in the general even if she could beat Obama, and instead of leaving gracefully and helping the party, she is ruthlessly and shamelessly attacking our nominee. The only ones helped by her actions are the Republicans and John McCain. Her willingness to attack her own, and demean every voter who doesn't support her disgusts me, and at some point you have to ask yourself, who's side is Hillary Clinton on? She isn't doing all of this for our benefit, that you can be sure of.
Update (2/26): The issue turns up in the Ohio debate, and Hillary cynically tries to jab Obama on semantics. Pretty pathetic. It is no surprise that Hillary wouldn't defend Obama against these ridiculous accusations, as her campaign has been behind fanning them.
The primary is finally over, and now it is really time to get to work. The Republicans still think they can deceive the American people into accepting another 4-8 years of Republican disasters, so we have to keep the pressure on. Any support you can give to Obama's campaign, whether monetary or voluntary will help us keep this movement successful. The time for change is now!
