Guess where this sentence is from:
[T]he half-Kenyan-by-way-of-Hawaii candidate, who only recently completed a beer-and-bowling tour to impress blue-collar Midwesterners, has committed more fully to showing off his inner Jew.It comes from a front-page news feature in Thursday's New York Times. If I hadn't read it myself over breakfast, I might almost have guessed it came from der Stürmer. (And I think the reporter who wrote that sentence is Jewish, no less.) Were her editors reading with blindfolds on? Or was it their intention, as a friend of mine believes, to crank up the notion that Barack Obama is an anti-Semitic phony? The article is filled with the sort of material that William S. Burroughs used to refer to as contradictory commands. It includes all the correct denials, but uses a tone that leaves the theme hanging in the air. To wit:
Mr. Obama is Arab, Jack Stern's friends told him in Aventura. (He's not.) He is a part of Chicago's large Palestinian community, suspects Mindy Chotiner of Delray. (Wrong again.) Mr. Wright is the godfather of Mr. Obama's children, asserted Violet Darling in Boca Raton. (No, he's not.) Al Qaeda is backing him, said Helena Lefkowicz of Fort Lauderdale (Incorrect.) Michelle Obama has proven so hostile and argumentative that the campaign is keeping her silent, said Joyce Rozen of Pompano Beach. (Mrs. Obama campaigns frequently, drawing crowds in her own right.) Mr. Obama might fill his administration with followers of Louis Farrakhan, worried Sherry Ziegler. (Extremely unlikely, given his denunciation of Mr. Farrakhan.)
"Simply genius," says my friend. "Now let's wait for the Obama 'endorsement'."
The article, which implicitly defames Jews and paints them as simple-minded racists, is actually a two-fer: It race baits both blacks and Jews. Not bad, eh? And it's currently (Friday morning) the most emailed article on the NYT Web site.
I'm willing to bet that Obama will not only win a majority of the Jewish vote, but that Jews will support him more than whites, Hispanics, Catholics, Protestants, or Mormons will.
Especially for a pathetic excuse for a cpuntry like this one. We are racist, murderous and evil people. And the sooner we face that fact the better.
"The article, which implicitly defames Jews and paints them as simple-minded racists, is actually a two-fer: It race baits both blacks and Jews."
-- Janh
As a Jew, I'm not thrilled. However --
Although it's full of stereotyping and tongue-in-cheek caricatures of Jews, the underlying message has some merit. Lousy as the piece is, it does lay out the misrepresentations of Obama's background and beliefs and then refutes them.
It's possible it was the "most e-mailed" because so many Jewish Obama supporters were busy forwarding it to their Bubbies in Florida, hoping for their enlightenment.
I’m Jewish. Some of my Jewish relatives expressed concern (fear) of Obama. They used the awful word: Farakhan.
So, we talked. I laid it out more or less the same way the NY Times article lays it out and they voted for him in their respective primaries – NY and Texas.
The NY Times article is useful.
I saw the speech, and lo and behold, Brooks clearly doesn't know the definition of pandering.
The NYT continues to print articles on Iran with the same absent ethical standards that gave us their brilliantly wrong Iraq articles.
The pattern isn't exactly hard to discern.
They endorsed two pro-war candidates who refuse to talk with Iran after all.
Their "Caucus" blogs have recently put me on the "exclude" list as I consistently disagree with the degree of slant and bias that is in support of the Clinton Party. The rhetoric that passes for journalism is a joke.
They are enablers for all that is wrong with Clinton campaign tactics.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/us/politics/22jewish.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin
It was in Thursday's paper, not Friday's. When I sent in the blog post the time reference was correct. But HuffPo post this late and put in a wrong time reference. Sorry.