Having It Both Ways

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.

Comments

[Dehrenstein]

Being black, half-Jewish and gay I suppose my self-hatred is off the charts. It's not that Obama (about whom I've written here http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center ) is "Too good to be true," He may be Too True to Be Good.

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.

[Wolfgang]

The NY Times article by Jodi Kantor is very good. However she violates several media rules. First she mentions black crime which you are not allowed to do unless it is in the context of black on black crime. No other form of black crime is allowed to be mentioned. Second, she writes that this black crime is one of the reasons that Jews fear and distrust a black candidate. There is a good reason that these old folks choose to live in a gated community. Third, she skewers the myth of the "special relationship" between Blacks and Jews. Blacks and Jews are supposed to embrace and love each other because of their shared history and Jews are supposed to automatically support any black candidate. Jodi Kantor's attack on this myth is, I suspect, what really upsets Jan Herman.

[JanH]

What "really" upsets me, as posted, is this:

"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

[wakupmagy]

Thanks to one of the commentator's link, I read the article.

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.

[PuppaX]

I, and almost every other Jewish person I know in NY and NJ, support Obama and are disgusted with Clinton.

[Silver123]

Thanks for the thoughtful post. However, I must disagree. The NY Times article is useful.

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.

[lennix]

the new york times has sold out to the nut jobs and hire fools like david brooks who for ever gets things wrong and we let it happen they pit blacks against poor whtes , jews aginst blacks ,latinos against blacks but i truly belive that most of the peope of these races see though this yes thier are people in all races that you can fool all of the time. but this time the truth will be told who the real race baiters are and its the msm, fox news ,cnn and the rich people they work for if they keep us at each other by printing these lies we can't focus on them they are robbing us blind and sending our kids out to wars so they can stay rich and send thier coward kids to collage to learn how to be great liars too.but like every thing else this also will come to a end please don't buy in to this not this time not this time

[altohone]

David Brooks, coincidentally of the NYT, insisted Friday on the NewsHour on PBS that Obama was "pandering" to jews when he visited a synagogue in Florida.

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.

[burnt]

It's my opinion that the NYT has become almost as desperate as the Clinton Party to see Obama lose. They have banked on it. So far, the returns have not been good... thousands have relinquished their subscriptions, job layoffs are in progress and advertising revenue....

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.

[S1m0n]

I wouldn't brag about getting barred as a nuisance from any site, if I were you.

[outnow]

That's why Prozac was such a best seller - it purported to make insecure people more secure. How many people are still taking Prozac today? The answer is not many. The media is good at selling insecurity. John McCain made himself more secure by marrying the richest woman he could. He is unable to make the rest of us secure. He is just a product packaged to sell to insecure people. I wish them well. One day, he will be just as much snake oil for insecurity as was Prozac. Some people need to get a life. The biggest threat to America and Israel is their right wing hawks. Their fears are self-fulfilling prophesies. If they would just get a handle on their anxieties.......We need governance, not fears. Those how play on insecurities will only make matters worse.

[leahlex]

Are my posts getting posted

[Yohomegirl]

Preferring not to fly off the handle until I see the article that you are referring to, could you send me a link. I looked at the NYT and couldn't find it. Thanks!

[JanH]

This is the link for the NYT front-page news feature:

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.