Obama: a right wing Zionist perspective
by shergald, Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 03:01:36 AM EST
Obama is an empty suit into which people pour their dreams, or so we are told, by this diary, similarly entitled, Obama is an empty suit, that appeared on Daily Kos a day ago.
The reality is that this antiObama diary is nothing more than a right wing Zionist diatribe about why we should elect Hillary as president and not Obama. Why should we vote for Hillary instead of Obama? Because Hillary has her nose so far up AIPAC's ass, that it is unlikely that she will ever see American foreign policy again without the blinders provided by AIPAC's cheeks. This is a right wing Zionist perspective on the election.
This diary by dhonig appeared on Daily Kos on Sunday, January 27, 2008, and is reproduced here through Daily Kos' broad copyright free policy regarding its content. The content below can be obtained from the original links (see above).
dhonig's essay follows:
Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Well, that depends upon how long he can sustain it. If he can keep it up through November 4, then it works. But I suspect that when the scrutiny focuses on him the house of cards, the everything to everybody, the having it both ways every time and running on little more than a verb of hope, will collapse.
Right now, Obama is doing an AMAZING job of "bringing people together." More than any politician I can remember. My fear? Somebody will pull back the curtain, and the wizard will be exposed. Being everything to everybody will be exposed and everybody will feel betrayed.
I will vote for Obama if he is our nominee, without hesitation. I will contribute to Obama if he is our nominee, without hesitation. I will write about him and draw cartoons for him. I will drive from Indiana to Ohio and knock on doors on election day, just like I did in '04, without hesitation. But I do not think he is our best, or strongest, candidate.
Jews should vote for Obama because he is a strident supporter of Israel. This picture, along with his speech, should help garner Jewish support, right? I suspect this picture and the speech he gave could cost him with Arab Americans, but that's the choice a candidate must make, right? Here is what he had to say:
Our job is to rebuild the road to real peace and lasting security throughout the region. Our job is to do more than lay out another road map.
That effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: Our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That will always be my starting point.
We should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli prime minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States.
We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs.
Arab Americans should vote because Obama is the strongest EVER major party candidate supporter for Palestinian rights. Here he is sitting with Michelle, and with Edward Said and his wife:
And here is an article describing where Obama USED to stand on the Palestinian issue:
As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!"
Here is the question. What if, instead of Jews supporting him for the AIPAC speech, and Palestinians supporting him for his earlier positions, it goes the other way around. What if the Jews start looking behind the curtain and find the Said picture and the Electronic Infitada article? What if the Arab Americans look beyond the Electronic Infitada article and the Said picture and find the AIPAC speech? The answer? He loses both constituencies. You can only hide one hand from the other for a short time. It will work from January to February 5, maybe even the first week or two of March. But can he sustain both faces through November 4? I don't think so.
Homosexuals should definitely vote for Obama, don't you think? After all, he voted against DOMA and is in favor of civil unions, even though he personally believes that marriage is defined as a religious bond between a man and a woman. He said all the right things, including:
I do not agree...that homosexuality is immoral.
... we've got to make sure that everybody is equal under the law. And the civil unions that I proposed would be equivalent in terms of making sure that all the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for same-sex couples as well as for heterosexual couples.
Evangelicals, particularly black evangelicals, should vote for Obama, because he is clearly on their side against the scourge of homosexual marriage. Not only is he against gay marriage (see above), but he threw a "40 Days of Faith & Family" gospel tour in South Carolina. The headliner? Donnie McClurkin. But hey, McClurkin's not all bad, is he? Of course not. Indeed, he actually draws the line at KILLING homosexuals. That must be a relief, eh?
You can't talk about the redeeming and saving power of Jesus Christ when you're still living in the abominable. I know I may get into trouble with some who may think that I am a little too strong saying that homosexuality is abominable but there's a Bible that I have got to concur with. I've got to agree with it. Not to the slighting of those that are involved but to the pulling down and destroying of the thing that they're involved in. We can't kill the people, the people are too precious to God. Everyone is too important to God and God does not dispose of people!
But it wasn't just McClurkin, though that was the name that got the attention. The gospel tour was filled with singers with strident anti-homosexual agendas. He also had Mary Mary, who compares homosexuals to murderers and prostitutes:
Um... how do I feel about homosexuality? I feel how God feels about it, um... but I still love them. You know what I mean? I don't agree with the lifestyle, but I love them. They can come to the concert; I'm going to hug them just like I hug everybody else. They have issues and need somebody to encourage them like everybody else - just like the murderer, just like the one full of pride, just like the prostitute, everybody needs God. What your struggle is may not be what my struggle is, but we all need Him.
But wait, you say, didn't he also include an openly gay man on his tour? Yup. In his black gospel tour in South Carolina he included a non-singing white gay pastor who stood up and spoke a few words then disappeared.
So what happens? Gays should clearly vote for Obama, for his strong positions of support. Anti-gays should clearly vote for Obama, for the strong message he sent with the line-up of his gospel tour, and his refusal to do so much as say to McClurkin, "okay, I invited you, but if you start saying something offensive we'll cut off your mike." But what if homosexuals hear about the gospel tour? What if evangelicals read about his opinion homosexuality is NOT the equivalent of murder or prostitution? Then he loses both groups.
Obama is an "other" kind of politician, the good kind, the kind that stays above the fray and never gets down in the dirt with his opponents. Neither do his "surrogates" (a phrase used quite heavily around here, usually meaning 'anybody who has ever used the word "Hillary" in a sentence'). He would never inject race or national origin into a debate. He is above that. If you want a "new" politician, one you can be proud of, vote for Obama.
Obama can get down in the trenches and fight with the best of them. If he needs to get dirty, he has no qualms about rolling up his sleeves and fighting dirty. If you have any question about that, you need only look way back before Iowa, before all the "she's a racist, no he's a racist" debates, all the way back to June of 2007, to see Obama trying to smear Hillary for her connections with brown people. Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab) headlined an Obama campaign research paper. "Hooray," you say, "he's a fighter. We need a fighter, not some mamsby-pamsby Kerry redux who will let people walk all over him." Except, this was not in DEFENSE, this was Obama's team taking the first shot. Great. A fighter. He knows what it takes to win.
But what if the people who want an "other," or "new," politician learn about the "(D-Punjab)" crack, or his "surrogates" shots at Hillary for Bills pecadillos in the White House (yes, I know the transcript shows she went on to talk about her family, but the tape speaks for itself. She paused for laughs and emphasis, paused again for more laughs and to add emphasis, and only then went on to link it to family):
<object width="425" height="373"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sN1qZMBE9Gc&rel=1&border=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sN1qZMBE9Gc&rel=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="373"></embed></object>
If those people start learning about the real Obama, they might walk away. And what if the people who want a fighter learn all about his "turn the other cheek" theme and say "no thanks, we don't need another wimp"? It's easy to show two faces for two months. It's hard to do it for a year.
This is the story of Barack Obama. He speaks beautifully, he looks wonderful, he is inspiring as hell, and people listen to his brilliant cadences and fill in the details the way they want them to be. He has it both ways on Iraq (against the war, but funding it), bankruptcy (against the bill, but also against a 30% cap on interest rates), ad infinitum. It makes him a brilliant politician over the short haul. If he makes it work through November, more power to him. As I said above, I will support ANY Democratic nominee with my keyboard, my ink, my money, and my feet. But I can't shake the sense he is an empty suit into which people pour their own dreams, or my fear that before November 4, they will see those dreams running out an empty pants leg and onto the floor.
One man's opinion, sourced and supported as well as I could. Accusations of "hit diary" will follow, as well as TRs out the wazoo. Oh well. That is what we are today. Enjoy.
Postscript: No. This is an anti-Palestinian diary hosting the notion that American Jews and Democrats alike should not vote for Obama, because early in his career he showed some sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people, then hypocritically made his case as an Israel supporter before AIPAC. In other words, Obama's defense of Israel should not be believed, because being against Palestinians is the Democratic position, no? No. And the view is quite pathetically submerged in a cover-up regarding Obama's stance on the equality of homosexuals, a comparison here being made between the rights of Palestinians and the rights of homosexuals. Well, in some untoward fashion, the comparison turns out to be the correct one. The disenfranchised, the oppressed, the people living under the ignominy of military occupation, or bigotry, like Blacks under Jim Crow segregation before 1964, are who Democrats should be for and who they must support.
Obama is the closest thing we have for any hope that these peoples, Palestinians and homosexuals, will be rescued from oppression.