Posts
Obama Proves (Again!) That He Gets Jews Better than Anyone
By Daniel Koffler / May 12, 2008
Jeffrey Goldberg interviewed Barack Obama this past weekend. Surprising no one who has spent time studying the senator's career and writings, Obama showed himself to have a deeper and richer understanding of the American Jewish and Israeli experience than any previous presidential aspirants. (By the way, that includes Joe Lieberman, who is becoming a sadder and sadder self-parody with every passing day.) Some highlights:
I always joke that my intellectual formation was through Jewish scholars and writers, even though I didn’t know it at the time. Whether it was theologians or Philip Roth who helped shape my sensibility, or some of the more popular writers like Leon Uris. So when I became more politically conscious, my starting point when I think about the Middle East is this enormous emotional attachment and sympathy for Israel, mindful of its history, mindful of the hardship and pain and suffering that the Jewish people have undergone, but also mindful of the incredible opportunity that is presented when people finally return to a land and are able to try to excavate their best traditions and their best selves. And obviously it’s something that has great resonance with the African-American experience.
One of the things that is frustrating about the recent conversations on Israel is the loss of what I think is the natural affinity between the African-American community and the Jewish community, one that was deeply understood by Jewish and black leaders in the early civil-rights movement but has been estranged for a whole host of reasons that you and I don’t need to elaborate…[snip]…
I think that the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea, and a necessary idea, given not only world history but the active existence of anti-Semitism, the potential vulnerability that the Jewish people could still experience. I know that that there are those who would argue that in some ways America has become a safe refuge for the Jewish people, but if you’ve gone through the Holocaust, then that does not offer the same sense of confidence and security as the idea that the Jewish people can take care of themselves no matter what happens. That makes it a fundamentally just idea…[snip]…
I think the idea of Israel and the reality of Israel is one that I find important to me personally. Because it speaks to my history of being uprooted, it speaks to the African-American story of exodus, it describes the history of overcoming great odds and a courage and a commitment to carving out a democracy and prosperity in the midst of hardscrabble land. One of the things I loved about Israel when I went there is that the land itself is a metaphor for rebirth, for what’s been accomplished. What I also love about Israel is the fact that people argue about these issues, and that they’re asking themselves moral questions. Sometimes I’m attacked in the press for maybe being too deliberative. My staff teases me sometimes about anguishing over moral questions. I think I learned that partly from Jewish thought, that your actions have consequences and that they matter and that we have moral imperatives.
The rest is here.
POST A COMMENT
And anyway, no one "ignore(d)" his "baggage". They responded to points raised about said "baggage" with arguments. Arguments to which you can't respond. Apparently you have no shame in that.
We all choose our own poisons.
So, in other words, you have no argument, and instead express dismay over being incapable of having a name under which to go after the person as an alternative. You have an identity, and no argument, but the bravery that you believe you command as someone with an identity somehow should be sufficient to…, sufficient to accomplish what exactly?
There are plenty of people on record as supporting Obama.
My, My, you people are full of it. This site has become cyper suck-off for Obama. You ignore all of his baggage and embrace him as your G-D. Yes, cowards who hide amongst us. It takes a lot of courage to hide in the unknowns and attack people. I see why you are ashamed to go on record with a name, I would be too if I was an Obama supporter…
Well, well JW. It seems you have contributed at least one blog post here. That makes your signature at least a little more understandable. And you advertise your own blog as well. I'll have to check it out some time. Still doesn't mean I'm any more cowardly than you are uninterested in discussing something substantive about the current slate of presidential candidates. For that I suppose I should be sorry. But not responsible.
Weaver, there are many reasons to not post a profile. Simply not bothering to do so might be one of them. The good thing about cyberspace is that arguments are arguments, and they are left to be responded to or ignored, and that allows everyone to minimize the baggage that comes along with the person with whom each argument originates and evolves. But seeing as how you're so focused on Obama's irrelevant personal details, as if they can be used to indict his character, I lost respect for whatever "bravery" you assume should be ascribed to your on-line public personality, and the asymmetric nature of our identities. Maybe it's not cowardice on my part, but an interest in focus – as I would appreciate the well-argued points of anyone, or no one, pseudonymous or not. But since you seem to not do that, it makes me not only lose respect for your (ta-da!) "revealed" personality – (and BTW, who the f— are you anyway? Are we supposed to intuit some great insights into the fact that your posts are attributed to the Great – but not so notorious or well-known – Jeffrey Weaver? What sort of intellectual authority comes with your name and that picture of you in the red sweater?) – but it makes me wonder if you have some type of exhibitionist issue or publicity-seeking thing that is in no way warranted by the low quality of your posts, especially since it doesn't seem to improve, or even serve as an incentive to improve, their quality regardless.
See?
Well, anyway, if you remain the glutton for argumentative punishment that you've revealed yourself to be thus far, and wish for more verbal lashings in a more "honorable" manner, then feel free to choose some kind of pseudonym for me, if it makes you feel better. I promise to not modify it by much, and if it will help you stay focused on the unimportant person that I am, then so be it. But if past is prologue, the personages who are the subjects or objects of your posts really seem to distract you from the topic at hand more than anything. Which doesn't bother me, but might bother you. That is, assuming that an intellectually honest sense of respect for The Great and (almost) Well-Known Jeffrey Weaver's Jewcy posts is something that in any way, shape, or form you desire.
Philip Roth hasn't yet held a press conference to confirm that his writing demonstrates a distaste for other Jews. Neither did I say he has. What I said was that I didn't think he denied it at this point in his career. "The Ghost Writer", which is based on an encounter he had as a young writer with Bernard Malamud, explores some of his own feelings of guilt for having created characters which were ripe examples for anti-Semitic fodder.
See, this is how memes take on lives of their own. Rezko's a plenty corrupt guy who seems to have broken a whole tranche of laws, and doing business with him after his corruption was exposed is unseemly, but the transaction between him and Obama was perfectly legal. Rezko's dirt doesn't make legal transactions illegal (or even unethical).
Is the only thing that defines you your hatred of Obama?
All you can come up with is transparent b.s., and nothing positive about anyone or anything. It's become quite predictable and tiring.
After the mass ass kissing sessions with Obama, please admit that you are shills. I do not work for Hillary nor McCain. I am simply tired of the heralding of Obama. His deal with Rezko was ILLEGAL and against Senate rules, not that they apply to divinity. You still ignore his actual failures as a politician in Chicago, his gutter politics in this election and his inability to NOT blame staff when he screws up. Dude, Obama is not G-D.
and a real inability to contribute anything cogent on Obama.
Yep Jeffrey, the flag lapel. If this is the kind of non-issue that raises serious doubts in that decent-sized head of yours, as it lays nestled ever so comfortably against the orthodontist chair head rest in your photo, regarding his character and commitment to competently leading the country, then clearly you are more interested in appearances than substance. Which begs the question of your own aforementioned photo.
Oh, and Rezko. Clearly, if having at any one point in time done business with a someone who was later indicted for a crime, makes one a criminal, then we have to re-think that whole freedom of association thing in that damned cumbersome Bill of Rights. And that whole innocent until proven guilty thing, as well.
So basically you've outlined a good view into your thought process for how to indict Obama's political character if he were being considered for office in a totalitarian country. But this is America. So you might want to become familiar with our own country's customs and norms when it comes to looking beyond the propaganda-fodder of lapels that prove nothing beyond your commitment to "looking" like a proud American and legally acceptable associations that prove nothing other than what we already know: Obama is not Rezko and is not accused of being knowingly implicated in any of Rezko's alleged crimes.
Speaking of lapels and other ridiculous ways to prove your patriotism through fashionable attire, I think I've found the perfect candidate for you:
http://www.jumpcut.com/view/?id=F24906CA790011DCB25C000423CF3686
Next time why not try pretending that you have any respect for this country's freedoms. Until then your credentials as a patriotic American (let alone as an authority on what constitutes a consistent display of said patriotism) are much more easily besmirched than are Obama's.
Amusing post Elvis. But it is disappointing that you make light of Foxman's denial of the Armenian Genocide.
I am sick and tired of the criticism of Philip Roth. He is the most eloquent Jew of all times, including Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. During our Passover Seder, we have substituted passages from Goodbye Columbus for the exit from Egypt, using Newark NJ as a metaphor for Egypt and Harvard College as the Promised Land. The liberation of Jews is substituted for Zuckerman Unbound. Anyone criticizing Roth could be subject to a fatwa and barred from eating at Carnegies Deli on Yom Kippur. Hey isnt it time to blame Abe Foxman for the earthquake in China and the Myanmar cyclone
Weaver, you must be a campaign volunteer for McLame or Hillary. When you run out of defensible or rational arguments, you make crude and irrelevant attacks. Quite pathetic!
I take great issue with your statement that Roth's writings are more replete than Duke's with anti-semitism. I don't know if you mean to say that Roth's characters are not always idealized images of Jews, and sometimes, like Woody Allen's characters, laughable, pitiable, ridiculous, and absurd. But I have never felt his writings to come close to anti-Semitism. Even the characters blinded by political ambitions, such as Rabbi Bengelsdorf and his wife in The Plot against America, who would risk their own family's well-being in trade for power, cannot be construed as anti-Semitic. I would like to see where Roth has said that his characters have been. Please provide a link or some kind of reference.
I do think that anyone that looks at the shilling for Obama done here and it helps sway their votes are idiots. Also, people that will not state who they are and hide behind fake names, yeah those people are tools and idiots.
Weaver, you must believe that the readers of Jewcy are idiots! Because it takes an idiot to read the transcript of the Goldberg interview and conclude that Obama is referring to Israel as a sore, when clearly he is referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a sore.
Anyway, got around to reading some of the Goldberg interview. Obama refers to Israel as a constant sore that infects our foreign policy, Yep Koffler is right he knows more about Jews than Lieberman ever could…Please..
"
JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas?
BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound,
that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The
lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for
anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and
so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also
believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I
believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced
of that, and some of the tensions that might arise between me and some
of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United
States might stem from the fact that I’m not going to blindly adhere to
whatever the most hawkish position is just because that’s the safest
ground politically."
He goes on to say that he will be the type of friend who condemns Israel for perceived shortcomings while blaming Israel for the lack of peace in the region. I wonder what he would say if he were anti-Israel?
More fraud – The Flag pin. He wears it after claiming he would not wear it. (And he only wears it for certain crowds).
Jeffrey
The reason you have not heard any serious discussion of Obama's flaws is that Obama is the messiah and is thus infallible. If you continue to bring up these inconsequential issues (Rev Wright, Zbig Brestinky, Rezco, Samantha Powers, George Soros, Iran, Likud, etc), you will prove yourself incapable of salvation
You will not read about Obama's corruption on the Jewcy website, now would you? Look to the Rezko case and the foreign funding of Obama's house for the corruption, sort like Duke Cunningham… As fro fraud, Obama claims to be a new type of politician but runs a dirty campaign and uses surrogates to trash his opponents, the same as others. Yet the others do not go on proclaiming that they are above such things. As for other things, not once has any of the meaningful issues I have with Obama been addressed by his support team at Jewcy. I still do not understand how any so -called libertarian looks to Obama as a kindred spirit or as a Messianic figure…
Just in case anyone forgets it's Obama's footsteps that the Rambam heard coming closer, we will have Dan Koffler to remind us twice a day (three times a day on special occasions!) on Jewcy, (soon to be renamed: Obama: and if we have time, stuff that might interest Jews, too).
Disclaimer: I'm lukewarm on the Senator himself, who is another generic "talk left, vote center right" nobody in the Senate. It's the goddamned groupies hanging off his dick who drive me bananas.
OK already, Obama is the messiah. yawn
That sounds impressive until you consider that Spider-Man or the Energizer Bunny could have beaten Alan Keyes by 40 – 50 points.
Weaver provides no example of, or criteria for, his own personal definition of an "exemplary" politician. Everything in the list Phantom cites perfectly matches what the electorate is looking for in terms of a less corrupt, more transparent, less wasteful government for their politicians to deliver. Perhaps Jeffrey finds corruption, waste, fraud to be abstractions. We know some people are addicted to innuendo, Weaver, but the day that the terms you set for your super-fantastic-extraordinary politician become defined, let alone not invisible, will be the day that you might be taken seriously as someone offering something more to the meaning of this race than just your own rhetoric and bluster.
Those of us who are looking for criticism of Obama that is more substantive than the simple-minded attacks on his patriotism, optimism and rationalism eagerly await that day. And if you care to convince your audience here, so would you.
He should have been able to do better than 70% in that election
It was the most lopsided victory in Illinois senatorial history.
Your slight of the Patriot Employer Act and the Stop Fraud Act, among others, suggests that you are out of touch with the American middle class experience.
Jeffrey, I don't have a problem with the opinion you express in your last posting, even though I disagree with it. But do recognize that your current post is a far cry from your earlier post in which you specifically accuse Obama of being a corrupt hustler and fraud, implying that he is any worse on that front than the other two candidates. Now you seem to recognize that if Obama is what you say he is, he is no different from the other two candidates who are also then corrupt hustlers and frauds.
I don't think Obama is God; nor does anyone else I've spoken to about him. He has himself stated publicly and forcefully that he is anything but perfect. If there is a significant segment of our population that views him as extraordinary, that says more about the American longing and desperation for a fresh approach than it does about the candidate himself. And as for a fresh approach, he is the only candidate that provides any hope of that at all.
I am not from Illinois nor Chicago. Where he worked tirelessly (according to Michelle Obama) in the south side, a place that for generations had been in blight. He fixed nothing and the problems remain. As for your laundry list, there is nothing on that list that is, shall we say, significant. Run of the mill laws for candidates to run on in an election. Winning by 70 to 27% in his election is less than meaningless, his challenger was derailed and replaced by Alan Keyes, an out of town joke. He should have been able to do better than 70% in that election…
As for his platform, there are many things he proposes (as do the others) that he could work on now, but it is simple election year talk that really means nothing. At the end of the day, your candidate is just another politician, not G-D. The constant fluffery presented here for Obama should embarrass the writers and staff.
Weaver, for someone who accomplished nothing in Illinois, he sure has had a record of success in Illinois politics culminating in his election to the Senate from Illinois in a landslide victory of 70% to 27% over his opponent. Since you're not from Illinois yourself, perhaps you should ask those from Illinois what they think? Or why don't we just look at the results from Illinois; Obama picked up 104 delegates to Hillary's 49 and 65% of the popular vote to Hillary's 33%. They must really think he's a slouch in Illinois!
In any case, I'll humor you since you apparently don't know how to Google anything:
- Obama passed legislation with Republican Senator Jim Talent to give gas stations a tax credit for installing E85 ethanol refueling pumps. The tax credit covers 30 percent of the costs of switching one or more traditional petroleum pumps to E85, which is an 85 percent ethanol/15 percent gasoline blend.
- After a number of inmates on death row were found innocent, Senator Obama worked with law enforcement officials to require the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases.
- His first law was passed with Republican Tom Coburn, a measure to rebuild trust in government by allowing every American to go online and see how and where every dime of their tax dollars is spent.
- Obama created the Illinois Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income working families in 2000 and successfully sponsored a measure to make the credit permanent in 2003. The law offered about $105 million in tax relief over three years.
- Obama joined forces with former U.S. Sen. Paul Simon (D-IL) to pass the toughest campaign finance law in Illinois history. The legislation banned the personal use of campaign money by Illinois legislators and banned gifts from lobbyists. Before the law was passed, one organization ranked Illinois worst among 50 states for its campaign finance regulations.
- As a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Senator Obama has fought to help Illinois veterans get the disability pay they were promised, while working to prepare the VA for the return of the thousands of veterans who will need care after Iraq and Afghanistan.
voting.
- In the U.S. Senate, Obama introduced the STOP FRAUD Act to increase penalties for mortgage fraud and provide more protections for low-income homebuyers, well before the current subprime crisis began.
- Obama sponsored legislation to combat predatory payday loans, and he also was credited with lobbied the state to more closely regulate some of the most egregious predatory lending practices.
- Barack Obama introduced the Patriot Employer Act of 2007 to provide a tax credit to companies that maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in America relative to those outside the US; maintain their corporate headquarters in America; pay decent wages; prepare workers for retirement; provide health insurance; and support employees who serve in the military.
- Obama worked to pass a number of laws in Illinois and Washington to improve the health of women. His accomplishments include creating a task force on cervical cancer, providing greater access to breast and cervical cancer screenings, and helping improve prenatal and premature birth services.
- Obama has introduced and helped pass bipartisan legislation to limit the abuse of no-bid federal contracts.
- Obama and Senator Feingold (D-WI) took on both parties and proposed ethics legislation that was described as the "gold standard" for reform. It was because of their leadership that ending subsidized corporate jet travel, mandating disclosure of lobbyists' bundling of contributions, and enacting strong new restrictions of lobbyist-sponsored trips became part of the final ethics bill that was signed into law.
I never believe that a corrupt hustler and fraud is best for this country. I did not mention Foreign policy at all nor did I mention allies. Answer my question. If after 20 years he has NOTHING to show for improvement of the people of Chicago, why do you think he is right for America. That is a valid question. He has no record of accomplishment and is plainly charismatic but that does not mean that he can lead government. Please respond to my issues and not read "Zionist" in it. Point to any domestic issue that he is on lead for.
'
I'm an Obama supporter, but that interview made me cringe. Some of his best friends are Jews. He's read several books by Jews. Some of his professors were Jews. I'll bet he's seen a Woody Allen movie, even. He really feels us. But the questions were equally ridiculous. What kind of chicken soup for worried zionist "kishkas" was being requested of him? It was embarrassing all around. Still, I won't be withdrawing my support as a result. Not every issue is as important as a flagpin.
…or some of the more popular writers like Leon Uris."
The Great Condescender triumphs again. He just can't help himself. I'm sure Goldberg went weak in the knees to think our next Presaident knows Portnoy from Zuckerman, but the contrast w/ Uris was unnecessary braggadocio. No wonder Obama's wowing the folks in West Virginia.
A Chicago native casts about for Jewish literary bona fides, but neglects Saul Bellow? And "good judgment" is his great recommendation?
Weaver, I don't think we are talking about the same candidate. Either that, or one of us is living a paranoid fantasy. My only request from you is that you put the overall interest of America first when you vote in November. That's how I'll be making my decision, and that includes considering the interests of our allies insofar as they are aligned with America's interests.
Obama is a marxist, sought at Marxists at college and uses their vocabulary. Hillary is a socialist and McCain has no clue about ideology, he is what he is. I am not in the tank for any of these candidates, but again I do not believe it is my Jewish duty to support whatever leftist is running for office. Obama is a scoundrel and it will be made clear in the general election. Look, he is a man that has a record of failure. He in 20 years has done nothing to improve Chicago, he is simply a machine candidate that speaks well. He has no record and his plans are naive and dangerous. His inability to admit mistakes, instead he blames staff, has grown tiresome. His bad judgment of personal friends, advisers, and mentors is likewise bothersome. If he uses these same skills to select a cabinet, be prepared for long term special prosecutors…These are things that a more balanced and intellectually honest person would admit have merit.
but if you dig just a little beneath the surface, you can see what he really represents. If you listen to what Arabs and leftist antisemites are saying about the campaign, most of them believe B. Hussein Obama is just "playing politics" and saying what he needs to say to keep the Jewish lobby happy.
Based on the type of people Obama associates with and chooses for his advisors, I would say they are probably right. If it were just one crazy pastor, I wouldn't care, but how do you explain Tony McPeak, Robert Malley, Dan Kurtzner (who just said Israel should give away Jerusalem), Brzezinski, Carter,…
Jeffrey, if Obama is a Marxist, as you allege, then what are Hillary and McLame? Which candidate wanted to tax oil companies for being too good at capitalism and making too much money? Which candidate said it was a stupid idea, and rightly so?
Maybe I'm missing something here, but the reasons don't jump out as "self-evident" to me. Do you mind elaborating?
"Obama showed himself to have a deeper and richer understanding of the
American Jewish and Israeli experience than any previous presidential
aspirants"
That's what's known as a restricted scope. It does include Lieberman, for reasons that are self-evident.
I love Jeffrey Goldberg's writing, but his interview with Obama was beyond embarassing. Goldberg – an American citizen writing for an American magazine – has a one-on-one with the man who in less than a year may be the most powerful individual on earth and this is all he asks about? Could Goldberg do anything more to support the canard that Jews are completely self-absorbed and care only about Jews and Israel? Let Shmuel Rosner, or someother Israeli journalist (actually there are no other Israeli journalists as savvy about American as Rosner), ask these questions. Goldberg's piece reminds me of last week's classis headline in Ha'aretz: devastating earthquake in China – two Israelis missing.
You are of course correct. It seems that Mr. Koffler is not alone. Those smitten with the Obama bug seem to worship the man, regardless of the ideas he espouses (or tries to hide). The idea that Obama gets Jews more than an Observant Orthodox Jew is absurd. Agreeing with Noam Chomsky does not a mensch make…
My biggest issue with Obama as of late is the complete fiction that he is a uniter – I have not seen a more divisive candidate in my life with the exclusion of Jimmy Carter. It may be that it is not Obama causing the issue, it is his supporters. Obama's supporters spend all of their time denigrating those that are not swayed by his smooth Marxism (even those that claim to be libertarians seem able to support this man). It seems that everyday there is a no post that seems to shill for Obama, with scant coverage given to Hillary or McCain (and what coverage that is given is outright disparaging yet this is rumored to be a place for all Jews to mingle intellectually). Today Obama surpassed slice bread in Popularity, tomorrow Obama will end the religious divide in the world be actually showing his divinity to all of us…absurd…
Youth *is* wasted on the young.
It's fine to take issue with Joe Lieberman's politics (I certainly do). I draw the line when Dan somehow infers that Lieberman's Jewishness is not as "authentic", an absurd insult to observant American Jews who most assuredly "get" the Jewish experience in America every bit as presciently as Phillip Roth. The Jewish experience in America encompasses, but is not limited to, Phillip Roth, Joe Lieberman, and millions more, without any one person able offering a quickie Hebrew tour guide window into Jewishness for non-Jews that assures the total comprehension Koffler has marvelously bestowed upon his political paramour. Would Dan Koffler be able to keep a straight face while saying that he "gets" the Black experience in America "better than anyone" because he's read Roots, or Soul on Ice? Of course not.
The Obamatons would do well to take it easy with the Kool Aid. He's all things to you guys, but he is not, in fact, all things to all people. The Senator does not "get" Jews "better than anyone" (his clumsy pandering to us for our vote and campaign contributions notwithstanding), and Dan Koffler's swooning over the Senator's awkwardly phrased philosemitism speaks more about Dan Koffler than it does about the miraculous insights the Senator has gained from reading Goodbye, Columbus or Portnoy's Complaint.
"…Philip Roth who helped shape my sensibility…"
Philip Roth shaped his sensibility? Why is that something that Jews should be pleased about? Philip Roth's writing is more replete with anti-Semitism than David Duke's! His characters, usually Jewish, were hardly ever sympathetic- except for when they were looking down on other Jews. He doesn't even seem to deny that about his career at this point. If Philip Roth truly shaped his sensibilities then I'd sooner vote Republican.
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!