Tim Russert spent a portion of tonight’s debate bringing to life the hateful spam I occasionally get that might as well be titled, “Muslim Obama Will Kill Jews.” And while I agree with all of the prominent (and, as it happens, Jewish) bloggers (here, here, here, and elsewhere for all I know) who are saying that Russert really plumbed the depths with this line of so-called inquiry, the bigger shame was that there were actual issues of interest to American Jews left undiscussed with Obama tonight.
In fact, on Sunday Obama talked about some of those issues with machers in the Cleveland Jewish community. Which, if you don’t know, is a surprisingly large and very active community (check the previous link for some details), notable for giving enormous amounts of money to various causes, both Jewish and not. It’s also an important part of the Democratic machine in Northeast Ohio. Which is the bedrock of the Democratic machine in Ohio more broadly. Which, if you look at recent elections — up to the 2006 midterms and governor’s race — is a machine that’s been in very bad repair. Regardless, Jews matter in Ohio Democratic politics. So Obama went to talk to them last Sunday. And he had some interesting things to say.
Here he is, starting slowly, on Israel, offering up about what you’d expect (the interesting things come later), material that he recycled in the debate tonight:
I will also carry with me an unshakable commitment to the security of Israel and the friendship between the United States and Israel. The US Israel relationship is rooted in shared interests, shared values, shared history and in deep friendship among our people. It is supported by a strong bipartisan consensus that I am proud to be a part of and I will work tirelessly as president to uphold and enhance the friendship between the two countries.
Right. Well, fair enough. Also: ethanol’s pretty great when you’re in Iowa. But Obama gets a bit better, even in the desultory context of an ongoing panderathon:
Two years ago I had a chance to travel to Israel and it left a lasting impression on me. I have long understood Israel’s great dilemma, it’s need for security in a difficult neighborhood and it’s quest for peace with its neighbors, but there is no substitute for meeting the people of Israel. Seeing the terrain, experiencing the powerful contrast between the beautiful holy land that faces the constant threat of deadly violence. The people of Israel showed their courage and commitment to democracy everyday that they board a bus or kiss their children goodbye or argue about politics in a local café. And I know how much Israelis crave peace.
Not all Israelis crave peace, it should be said. But the majority of them usually do. And even then, in mid pander, Obama doesn’t ignore the Palestinians’ struggle:
I pledge to make every effort to help Israel achieve that peace. I will strengthen Israel’s security and strengthen Palestinian partners who support that vision and personally work for two states that can live side by side in peace and security with Israel’s status as a Jewish state ensured so that Israelis and Palestinians can pursue their dreams.
The point here, it seems to me, is clear: there can only be peace if there are two states. The fate of Israel and Palestine are inextricably interwoven. Obama then talks about Iran before arriving at the nettlesome issue of his own church:
It is true that my Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who will be retiring this month, is somebody who on occasion can say controversial things…He was very active in the South Africa divestment movement and you will recall that there was a tension that arose between the African American and the Jewish communities during that period when we were dealing with apartheid in South Africa, because Israel and South Africa had a relationship at that time…
But I have never heard an anti-Semitic [remark] made inside of our church. I have never heard anything that would suggest anti-Semitism on part of the Pastor. He is like an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don’t agree with. And I suspect there are some of the people in this room who have heard relatives say some things that they don’t agree with. Including, on occasion directed at African Americans.
So the point I make is this that I understand the concerns and the sensitivities and one of my goals constantly in my public career has been to try to bridge what was a historically powerful bond between the African American and Jewish communities that has been frayed in recent years.
Um, not only is the part about South Africa historically accurate, and pretty telling, but the later material on lingering racism in the Jewish community is gutsy and true enough. As for his own non-relationship with Farrakhan, here’s what Obama says:
Louis Farrakhan is a resident of Chicago and as a consequence he has been active in a range of community activities, particularly around ex-offenders and dealing with them. I have been a consistent, before I go any further, a consistent denunciator of Louis Farrakhan, nobody challenges that. And what is true is that, recently this is probably, I guess last year. An award was given to Farrakhan for his work on behalf of ex-offenders completely unrelated to his controversial statements. And I believe that was a mistake and showed a lack of sensitivity to Jewish community and I said so.
Yawn. Actually, double yawn. Because that’s the other part of Sunday’s speech we heard regurgitated in tonight’s debate. But Obama’s best lines Sunday come when he addresses the danger of the American Jewish community’s blind support for Israel:
I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel. If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we’re not going to make progress.
Yikes! Did he really say that? Did he really allow that it might be okay to criticize the Israeli government? Oh, my pearls! And he went on from there, suggesting that the status quo in Israeli/Palestinian relations is unsustainable: reiterating that there will have to be a two-state solution, that the Palestinians will have to give up the right of return (perhaps in exchange for compensation), but that their state will have to be contiguous. Nothing specific on Jerusalem’s fate; that can come in time.
And then there’s this, a shout-out to the social justice wing of American Jewry, a historical appeal to the audience to look beyond positioning on Israel when choosing a candidate to back. Which would mean turning away from the Republican Party:
Well look, the Jewish community is a) diverse, b) has interests beyond Israel. There is a … the tradition of the Jewish community in America as a progressive force that is concerned with the poor, is concerned with the vulnerable, is concerned with children, is concerned with civil rights, is concerned with civil liberties. Those are values that I believe are much more evident in our Democratic Party and that can’t be forgotten. I think that what I’ve seen, and you would know better than I would, is that to the extent that there’s been bleeding over into the Republican Party, it all has to do with this issue of Israel. And what I would simply suggest is look at the consequences George Bush’s policies.
It takes real courage to walk into a room full of Jewish leaders and tell them, among other things, that unequivocal support for Israel stands in the way of peace. And also that it’s not okay to use the word schwarze. That’s a major political risk, a roll of the dice that might cost Obama Ohio, but could, beyond that, help bring pressure to bear on Israel to change its egregious policies. Because most American Jews, as I’ve noted elsewhere on this blog, are far more progressive than their ostensible leaders.
But Tim Russert doesn’t want to hear about any of that. Because if he could have had just one more minute tonight to work through his interrogation techniques, Obama would have cracked under the harsh glare of the lights. He would have broken wide open on national television, screaming that the guy, yeah, that one, in the third row, with the curly hair and the Chai necklace, is a kike. Then Obama would have admitted that he is a Muslim. And that he’ll choose the reanimated corpse of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad as his running mate. And America would have had the answers it needs. Because Barack Obama isn’t courageous. Tim Russert is.
[Thanks to my dad, who sent me the JTA story linked way above. Dad has been a die-hard Hillary supporter. Now he’s wavering. Also, Unfogged had a post up on this story earlier today. At least I think so. You can see for yourself.]
51 comments
February 27, 2008 at 2:18 am
Presidential election 2008 |Republicans Vs. Democrats » Barack Obama: Good for the Jews. Tim Russert: Bad for the Jews …
[…] PD staff wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThere is a … the tradition of the Jewish community in America as a progressive force that is concerned with the poor, is concerned with the vulnerable, is concerned with children, is concerned with civil rights, is concerned with civil … Read the rest of this great post here Posted by […]
February 27, 2008 at 3:52 am
drip
Russert is an embarrassment to journalists, Irish Catholics and cowards. I wish he would go away but I fear that Bob Somerby’s analysis of Jack Welch’s collection of Archie Bunkers is correct. These moderators want something far from the exposition of ideas important to the campaigns. In many instances this wouldn’t matter, but Obama and Clinton are well equipped to respond to substantive questions.
February 27, 2008 at 4:11 am
Ben Alpers
Obama’s panderathon (good word, Ari!) in Cleveland could surely have been a lot worse. Nevertheless, I feel moved to note a few ways in which this glass is still half empty….
First, it has become pretty easy in American politics to say that one is for a Palestinian state. Here, for example, is our current president, speaking last month during his visit to Israel:
Second, saying, as Obama does, that it’s OK to criticize Likud is not quite the same thing as saying that it’s OK to criticize the government of Israel (which is not, currently, in the hands of Likud). Indeed, with the creation of Kadima making Likud both more marginal and more rightwing, I could imagine Likud coming to play a similar rhetorical role in American discussions of Israel that the Democratic Leadership Council plays in progressive discussions of the Democratic Party today: a convenient scapegoat, whose organizational failure is celebrated even as many of its erstwhile policies and ideas remain in force and uncriticized.
February 27, 2008 at 7:38 am
rootlesscosmo
This language
I will strengthen Israel’s security and strengthen Palestinian partners who support that vision
is also questionable, I think. Is Obama echoing the claim by successive Israeli governments that they can’t negotiate because they have no negotiating partner from the Palestinian side? Is he signaling Abu Mazen that he would continue US support for Fatah and refusal to deal with the Hamas leadership? Both, I suspect (which is getting a lot of mileage from a single dog whistle.)
February 27, 2008 at 7:42 am
jhm
My thanks to you (and your dad as well) for the link to the Cleveland speech. I was myself somewhat concerned that Hon. Sen. Obama avoided the subject of his pastor’s remarks during the dabate (albeit, with Mr. Russert present, I’m sympathetic). I remain concerned for the potential role religion could play in the general election, however.
February 27, 2008 at 8:10 am
Episode IV- A New Link « Blurred Productions
[…] @Edge of the West: A long and very good (what else is there from Ari and Eric?) discussion of Obama and Iseral. Also: McKinley. […]
February 27, 2008 at 9:01 am
Ben Alpers
Totally OT but I just saw on TPM that William F. Buckley, Jr. is dead.
February 27, 2008 at 9:07 am
ari
Yes, I saw that. What is one supposed to say? Condolences to his family, I suppose, given that some of them aren’t implicated in his crimes and quite likely loved the man, despite his appalling views.
February 27, 2008 at 9:07 am
evets
Obama, as evidenced by this speech, has a remarkably nuanced grasp of American Jewish political psychology. His teasing out the Pro-Likud (as opposed to simply pro-Israel) litmus test shows that he gets it. What’s interesting, of course, is that some of the American Jews who demand absolute fealty to the most unyielding end of the Israeli political spectrum are themselves more flexible on peace/scurity issues, willing in private to display ambivalence, uncertainty, even a touch of open-mindedness. Paranoia and herd-mentality compel them to forbid any such open-mindedness on the part of their politicians.
I thought he handled the Farrakhan debate question with great grace, and intelligently left out the amiguities he brought up in the speech quoted in this post. Acknowledging the historic alliance between Jews and Blacks was a brilliant stroke. Not that this special alliance can actually be resurrected — times and conditions have changed too much. But recognizing its one-time importance was a disarmingly generous move. More thany any hard-line pronouncement on Israel, this simple declaration of gratitude can soften the hearts of many Jews who choose to focus obsessively on instances of black anti-Semitism and who’ve long nursed a grievance (with some justice) over Black America’s reluctance to recognize the disproportionate contibutions Jews once made to the civil rights movement. (Of course, this grievance is most often expressed by those who were not overly sympathetic to those contributions at the time). At any rate, it was a powerful remark, morally and tactically, from a guy who gets better (and shrewder) with each debate, especially since he’s learned how to trim his stump-speech eloquence to fit this punchier medium.
February 27, 2008 at 9:15 am
Ben Alpers
What is one supposed to say?
Well presumably not what Andrew Golis said over on TPMCafé:
Eventually, I think, it’ll be up to us twentieth-century historians to respectfully but forcefully speak truth against the encomiums that Buckley will predictably receive not only from the right but from the “left.”
February 27, 2008 at 9:18 am
ari
Wow, that’s just stunning Ben. And Evets, thanks for a great comment. I’ll think more about some of those above and try to reply a bit later.
February 27, 2008 at 9:44 am
blueollie
About this post and Russert: so many people have consistently underestimated Obama.
When Russert tries this “gotcha” line of questioning, it is almost as if he didn’t dream that Obama *has* fully thought about the issue at hand and has a deep understanding of it.
I sure hope that the Republicans underestimated Obama the way that Clinton and the media has! :)
February 27, 2008 at 9:45 am
blueollie
er…make that “underestimate Obama”. :)
I overestimated by typing skills.
February 27, 2008 at 10:09 am
Ben Alpers
More kind words for Bill Buckley, this time from someone I quite respect, Rick Perlstein (via Crooked Timber)
February 27, 2008 at 12:59 pm
bitchphd
Yeah, I read about that speech somewhere and was damn impressed. I think I’m gladder and gladder that I voted for him.
February 27, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Matt
Bush loves Jews. Hillary loves Jews. Barack loves Jews.
Everyone loves Jews!
That’s because we send everyone a lot of cash.
February 27, 2008 at 2:59 pm
eric
Hey, Matt!
February 27, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Some quickies: first shot in the general election « blueollie
[…] and Jewish Support: Ari and The Edge of the American West has a great article. Tim Russert spent a portion of tonight’s debate bringing to life the hateful […]
February 27, 2008 at 6:38 pm
urbino
Excellent post.
February 27, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Galvinji
Which, if you don’t know, is a surprisingly large and very active community (check the previous link for some details), notable for giving enormous amounts of money to various causes, both Jewish and not. It’s also an important part of the Democratic machine in Northeast Ohio. Which is the bedrock of the Democratic machine in Ohio more broadly. Which, if you look at recent elections — up to the 2006 midterms and governor’s race — is a machine that’s been in very bad repair. Regardless, Jews matter in Ohio Democratic politics.
I’m a late entrant, and off-topic a bit, but I’d disagree that the Jewish community in Cleveland is surprisingly large. There are only about 80,000 Jews in Cleveland, a metropolitan area of 2 million or so. It is, however, a tight-knit community socially, philanthropically, and geographically (at least until recently; when I was a kid most of the Jews in Cleveland lived in one of four or five contiguous suburbs on the East Side). I think it’s been a source of important funding for the national Democratic party as well as the state party (e.g., Peter Lewis). But since Howard Metzenbaum, I think there have been few Jewish politicians of note statewide or even locally, the current lieutenant governor nothwithstanding.
I liked the post, and I found Obama’s Likud comment refreshing. I think Obama faces a tough task in Ohio regardless of what he says to 100 Jewish leaders in Cleveland (and who were they? I’ll have to ask my dad, or maybe you can tell me). What I find interesting in Ohio in general is that, while the state Democratic party has been moribund for going on three decades (the two-term Democratic governor in the mid-’80s won re-election only because the Republicans chose to nominate the state fossil to run against him), the state elected Sherrod Brown of all people by a healthy margin against an incumbent senator. I suspect the presidential election will be closer, but it will be harder to suppress the vote in Cuyahoga county this time around.
February 27, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Seth
Thanks for posting this, Ari. Really interesting speech. He could have gotten away with saying a lot less.
February 27, 2008 at 8:42 pm
ari
Galvinji, despite your corrective, I still think Cleveland’s 80,000 Jews represent a surprsingly large number. That Cleveland is in the top fifteen for Jewish population in the US would surprise most people, I’m guessing. But maybe not. As for who was at the meeting, I think it was supposed to be semi-secret. That said, all of the people you’d guess. And finally, you’re right about Jewish populations winning statewide offices. I can only think of Lee Fisher (as you note). And isn’t Eric Fingerhut still doing well?
On population, here’s what I’ve got:
Tel Aviv, 2,560,000
New York, 1,970,000
Haifa, 655,000
Los Angeles, 621,000
Jerusalem, 570,000
Southeast Florida, 514,000
Paris, 310,000
Philadelphia, 276,000
Chicago, 261,000
Boston, 227,000
San Francisco, 210,000
London, 195,000
Buenos Aires, 175,000
Toronto, 175,000
Washington, 165,000
Be’er Sheva, 165,000
Moscow, 108,000
Baltimore, 95,000
Montreal, 95,000
Detroit, 94,000
And thanks, Seth. I hear what people, rootlesscosmo especially, are saying upthread. But I still think that words like Obama’s are so rare in the context of meetings with Jewish leaders. that it’s worth highlighting them and lauding him for taking a risk.
February 27, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Galvinji
That Cleveland is in the top fifteen for Jewish population in the US would surprise most people, I’m guessing. But maybe not.
What surprises me in the list above are (1) Buenos Aires (though I have distant cousins there because the next boat from Constantinople was to Buenos Aires and not to New York) and (2) Baltimore, which is a smaller metropolitan area than Cleveland. If you think of when the big rush of Jewish immigration was and which were the growing cities then, you’d understand why there are more members of the tribe in Cleveland than in Houston or Dallas. Plus, I think if you count Akron as part of the Cleveland metropolitan area (and why not? that way we get Chrissie Hynde and the Black Keys) Northeast Ohio is one of the fifteen to twenty largest regions in the country.
And finally, you’re right about Jewish populations winning statewide offices. I can only think of Lee Fisher (as you note). And isn’t Eric Fingerhut still doing well?
Only if you consider getting 35% of the vote vs. Voinovich as “doing well”, though I think he’s still in the state senate. I don’t think Joel Hyatt counts either, and Lee Fisher has only won statewide office in his own right once in three or four tries (and not by much).
February 27, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Vance Maverick
San Francisco, 210,000
Out of 750,000 inhabitants? This seems high — it would make Jews the majority of the white population. Maybe the figure is for the whole Bay Area?
February 27, 2008 at 9:12 pm
rootlesscosmo
Thanks for the hat tip, Ari.
On another point: 210,000 here in San Francisco? This seems high; the whole city population is only about 730,000, though immigration from the former USSR has undoubtedly raised the total number of Jews. Or did “San Francisco” in the source you consulted mean the Greater Bay Area?
February 27, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Vance Maverick
Yeah, this study by the Jewish Community Federation estimates 228,000 in “San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties”, in 2004.
February 27, 2008 at 9:23 pm
urbino
That Cleveland is in the top fifteen for Jewish population in the US would surprise most people, I’m guessing. But maybe not.
Exit polls indicate that I’m surprised.
February 27, 2008 at 9:27 pm
ari
Yes, as everyone notes, there’s quite a bit of fudging on city vs. metropolitan region in those statistics. And Galvinji, I’m always surprised at how big Philly is. Not just it’s Jewish community, but the city as a whole. I always forget to count it among the largest cities in the country. Why? I couldn’t possibly tell you. Baltimore, on the other hand, I think of as bigger than it is. Because it used to be bigger, particularly in the era that I know something about. Which is why, I’m guessing, it still has a big Jewish community. Finally, rootlesscosmo, I was just noting that I agree with you: Obama could have, probably should have (in a perfect world), said more. And the dog whistle you heard was pretty shrill. But, the world isn’t perfect. The man deserves credit, I think, for facing a tough crowd and saying some things his audience didn’t want to hear. On the eve of what might be the most important contest of his life.
February 27, 2008 at 9:29 pm
ari
See, Galvinji, Urbino represents our average American. And he’s surprised.
February 27, 2008 at 9:41 pm
eric
Lots more on the 210,000 figure for San Francisco at the source, here.
February 27, 2008 at 9:48 pm
ari
What is that? Aramaic? Druidic? I suppose it can’t be either. Because I read both. So I’m stumped.
February 27, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Vance Maverick
I like the line, “The estimate for Greater East Bay and Silicon Valley was confirmed as reasonable by a local informant.” Probably a Druid.
Anyway, the lumping of other counties into a San Francisco figure is certainly reasonable. I often wonder why the counties didn’t consolidate.
February 27, 2008 at 10:28 pm
ari
Oh, you can actually read it. For some reason, on my machine it comes up looking like ancient runes rather than English. I thought Eric was kidding.
February 27, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Vance Maverick
I don’t have much to add to the theme of the post, except to agree, these remarks were really refreshing. For now, I’m willing to interpret the dubious points as miscues.
February 28, 2008 at 5:52 am
Galvinji
And Galvinji, I’m always surprised at how big Philly is. Not just it’s Jewish community, but the city as a whole. I always forget to count it among the largest cities in the country. Why? I couldn’t possibly tell you. Baltimore, on the other hand, I think of as bigger than it is. Because it used to be bigger, particularly in the era that I know something about. Which is why, I’m guessing, it still has a big Jewish community.
Philadelphia — as anyone who lives in Philly will tell you — tends to get overlooked, situated as it is halfway between New York and Washington (and shrinking in population over the past half century), but there are still 1.5 million people in Philly and about 5 to 6 million in the metro area. The Jewish community, however, is less cohesive geographically and philanthropically than in Cleveland and thus seems smaller. As I understand it, there were three or four Jewish neighborhoods in Philly 75 years ago vs. the one in Cleveland, and thus when Jews moved to the suburbs they spread out more in several directions.
I am hoping, someday, to make a topical contribution to this blog, but I fear that day may never come.
See, Galvinji, Urbino represents our average American. And he’s surprised.
Indeed. I know that I am not average, but whether I am above or below average is for others to decide. But I also believe that Cleveland is inherently surprising.
February 28, 2008 at 8:27 am
ari
Galvinji, your contributions are legion and legendary.
March 1, 2008 at 4:11 am
Liekkiön loki » Peikonmäiskintää Wikipediassa
[…] ja vaaliaihe tarjoaa paljon tilaisuuksia yhdistää etninen historia ja ajankohtaisuudet (mm. jännitteet mustan yhteisön ja amerikanjuutalaisen yhteisön välillä, suhteessa Obamaan). Ja blogissa on muistaakseni kirjoitettu myös sekä Deadwoodista että The […]
March 1, 2008 at 5:06 am
Ben Alpers
So, Ari, is this the thread in which we put our Finnish-language trackbacks?
March 1, 2008 at 10:57 am
Liekkiö (Lieckioe)
Don’t worry, there’s nothing offensive in my blog entry (the one in Finnish). I’m just telling that there’s some interesting stuff in this blog.
March 1, 2008 at 10:59 am
ari
We appreciate any and all links. Thanks so much for visiting the blog.
March 3, 2008 at 8:17 am
Fade
Wow. Great analysis, great post.
March 3, 2008 at 8:37 am
ari
Thanks, Fade, that’s nice of you to say. And thanks for visiting.
May 5, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Stop Barack Obama
Barack Obama is up to his usual pandering. And I can’t believe Tim Russert made the mistake of getting everyone up in the tizzy. I just hope that no one buys what Barack Obama is selling.
May 5, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Vance Maverick
Sharply argued, Stop — and timely too.
May 5, 2008 at 9:59 pm
ari
I bought some bootleg DVDs outside the Port Authority from a guy named Barack Obama one time. At least I think that was his name. I really do like Con Air. And I never would have seen it if that guy hadn’t been there that day. Oh happy day.
May 5, 2008 at 10:05 pm
andrew
Looks like Obama has lost the spam vote. Elitist.
May 5, 2008 at 10:07 pm
andrew
Or maybe not. Closer inspection suggests that url is real.
May 5, 2008 at 10:16 pm
ari
No, I tooled around there a bit earlier tonight. And it appears that a real person is wasting a great deal of time and energy on a website that nobody reads or even visits — until now, that is. Also, it seems that Barack Obama has a radical preacher. And this Obama fellow is a Muslim. And he’s running for to be the leader of these United States. Can you beat that with a stick?
Ah, the internet, where the broken toys all find a home (though sometimes alone, in a very dusty corner).
May 6, 2008 at 3:28 am
The Modesto Kid
Hey! Okay, maybe I’ve been a little careless about keeping my corner tidy. Still there’s no call for you to talk about me that way…
May 6, 2008 at 5:42 am
Galvinji
What is “the tizzy,” and why did Tim Russert put us there?
May 6, 2008 at 5:43 am
Galvinji
More importantly, how do we get down?