BlogHer - Obama, Hillary, and the Jews - Comments

voting for hillary clinton

ghingh34 — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:41:58 -0600

1
AN ODE

MY VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON

THREE WAYS TO SEE ME

JANE WOULD UNDERSTAND

Do you know who I am?
I am dignity
Finally my self esteem
Speaks of me
Sees me
To place me
Before thee

That you will spare me
The indignity that
Has happened in my past
Set before me
In your morbid light
That would set you
So above me

You think this does
Not happen now
Yet it does
Jane would know
You think it has changed since far ago

And know
Now I can realize
I can look down upon you
From the height of myself
As you once did me

AS
YOU YET KNOW THIS NOW
I WILL NOT BEAR THAT SHAME SHAME ON YOU

2
AN ODE
MY VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON

For do you know who I am

I am Artemee’s and Robert’s
Dutiful granddaughter
This boatman and farmer and that constable
Salted in the rights of
Cuchulainn’s daughter
Raised in the dignity of the Mystic Carmen Sylva
Named for her raised for the pride of her
Raised beyond your slight of her
A Jew A Greek A Roumanian
Scandanavian French Scots Irish
The Roumania Greek Orthodox, Jew and Protestant
The spirituality that is as a thread woven through my life from her

You are forgetting who we are from her
You Anglicized past her
And I held my grace with her
I can not forget my common past
The greatness I felt in being Earl’s daughter

You think I can forget the dignity & passion
That drove those men to find their place in this harsh world and land
Jane would know
I so feel the self respect from her/them

Do you know your place?

Remember that

Do you know who I am?

I am Americas 2nd daughter
Not the pride of the DAR the seed of the revolution

I am the seed of the émigré’
Coming here to fill the vast empty spaces
Sheltered in those spaces by invitation

“Give me your tired, your poor
Your huddled masses yearning to breath free”

3
AN ODE
MY VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON

I am the 2nd daughter 2nd generation 2nd wave of the future
Umbrellaed by the Thomas Jefferson and the Constitution
He so knowingly wrote
Knowing that émigré would not stop at Scots & English & Welsh Anglican
It would encase, enclose and enmesh all
All nations all races ALL GENDERS

So knowingly he embraced all of the freedoms
we would need to protect our
freedom and freedoms

ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL

And I and my sister Hillary Clinton stand under that light
Though you belittle us make us only slightly smaller
That slightly is enough for me to say

Do you know who I am

I am America’s daughter
Granddaughter
Daughter
Niece
Niece
Sister
Aunt
Mother

grandfather Quarter Master Sargent Zenofor Hortopan WWI
daughter Sargent Earl Melvin Johnston WWII
uncle Petty Officer Walter Swick WWII
uncle Petty Officer Guy Robert Johnston WWII
brother Lance Corporal John Zenofor Englemann Vietnamese War
nephew Airman Ben Englemann Civil duty
son Lance Corporal Christopher Marc Lenehan Desert Storm

4
AN ODE
MY VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON

Do you know who I am

A woman

Hillary’s sister

Jane would understand

The cradle at
Whose breast
We nurtured
This nation

I NEED HILLARY

SHE KNOWS MOST

What this nation needs

WHAT WE NEED

DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM

A WOMAN

A SINGLE 2ND GENERATION MOTHER

WHO RAISED A CHILD ALONE IN AMERICA

HAASE JOHNSTON
MOON TWP.
PITTSBURGH, PA
This is written for Hillary Clinton and she may use it any way she chooses with my permission Virginia haase johnston

Tim Russert got it wrong, according to author of Farrakhan story

Kim Pearson — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:11:48 -0600

For what it's worth, the author of a complimentary story on Min. Louis Farrakhan said that a description of him as someone who "truly epitomized greatness," said NBC's Tim Russert was wrong to attribute that compliment to Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Here is the text of her statement:

To whom it may concern:

I write to bring some journalistic clarity to what has become a widespread inaccuracy. My name is Rhoda McKinney Jones, managing editor of the Trumpet Newsmagazine, and the author of the Minister Louis Farrakhan article in our November/December issue.

Over the last few weeks, I have watched in disbelief as seasoned journalists and not-so-well-intentioned bloggers have attributed to Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., pastor emeritus of Trinity United Church of Christ, the last three words of my first person, introductory piece on Minister Farrakhan.

Those words are now familiar to you, especially after Tuesday night’s debate and Tim Russert’s use of them—“truly epitomized greatness.” Dr. Wright, never said, wrote or uttered those words. Those words are mine and mine alone. Whether one agrees with my assessment is not the issue or the reason I was prompted to correct the record.

As a well-trained journalist, I know the most basic fact checking would have revealed the truth. Next time, when attempting to sully a presidential candidate by discrediting his church and its renowned, religious leader, let’s get the facts straight.

Rhoda McKinney Jones

Managing Editor

Trumpet Newsmagazine

Graduate of Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and Spelman College

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Thank you Jill

Denise — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:35:37 -0600

Thanks for pointing the way and for sharing the positive feedback from someone new to BlogHer.

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings

More evidence that people want what BlogHer offers

Jill — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:27:52 -0600

Yesterday, I discovered, through my Google Alerts of all things, that there is a blogger who lives one town over from me in a city called Beachwood who had questions and reflections on this portion of the debate that we're discussing in this thread. I left a comment on her blog, she emailed me to tell me that she lives just one town over and voila - a new connection.

But in addition, I'd referred her to this thread and here she writes about how happy she was to find it:

Jill Zimon, Cleveland Blogger (Writes Like She Talks) offered me a metaphorical Advil this morning for my post debate headache in her comment to this post.

Thank you Jill - I followed your link to blogher and got some stress relief. The first few paragraphs of the post “Obama, Hillary and the Jews” was more of what I am hearing in the neighborhood, however, in a discussion thread to be commended on its civility, there is much important information. Check it out.

Thank you, BlogHer - A discussion thread to be commended on its civility! I couldn't say it any better. :)

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

Wow - thank you for sharing that, Kim

Jill — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:10:02 -0600

What a fabulous background - well, I'm the kind of person who reads all that and loves the diversity of it, I should realize not everyone embraces it the same way though.

Anyway - that is incredibly cool. Total aside - you might really enjoy this re: hamantashen.

I nominate you for the next secretary of state, Kim. :)
Jill
Writes Like She Talks

No problem, Jill

Kim Pearson — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:41:16 -0600

I'll admit that I have done some second-guessing as I've written each comment here. Part of that (and I have wondered whether to say this) is because I kind of have an adopted Jewish family. (Worrying that it will sound as if I'm saying, "Some of my best friends are Jewish" -- and definitely not trying to go there!) But they have been important part of my life for more than 30 years, and I lived with them for a while, learning to keep Kosher, and developing a jones for hamantashen, horseradish and pickled herring that I've never been able to get out of my system. I have Jewish friends who live in Jerusalem, one of my closest friends helped to write the Palestinian constitution, and another of my closest friends is a diplomat detailed to the middle east.

All of that is to say that I care a lot about these issues, just as many other Americans do, and I despair at the shallowness and hostility of so much of the conversation out there. I really do appreciate BlogHer because we can have a more nuanced conversation.

Peace.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Oh - I think it was me!

Jill — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:16:10 -0600

I didn't mean to imply that I thought you or anyone here was saying that it's not a legit question. I had a negative experience on a different thread where I asked about this topic and I was questioned immediately; comments right away went to "how can you even ask this! you are such a racist!"

But no no - I did not think at all that you were saying that, emphatically no. :)

Sorry if I get pre-emptively defensive. Maybe I'm like a pet that's moved from a bad home to a good one. ;)

As I said, it is so easy to express different opinions here - where as on some other blogs, wow - you can really get beat up for asking a question, no matter how much you insist it's sincere. Guess I know where I should be spending more time.

Thanks again Kim.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

I didn't mean to suggest that the discussion wasn't legitimate

Kim Pearson — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:08:35 -0600

Did I give that impression? If so, let me make myself clearer.

I think it's fair to ask about Obama's beliefs, particularly as it affects his policy positions. I don't even mind that a question was raised about how Obama feels his church featuring Farrakhan in their magazine. That question was asked and answered back in January.

Where I think journalists could have done a service is to ask the editor of the magazine what their intent was. Perhaps they did. I know that TUCC has had a testy relationship with the press. They could have done some research and found out about Jeremiah Wright or TUCC's relationship with the Jewish community. I am simply pointing out that there seemed to be a simplistic assumption that Dr. Wright endorsed Farrakhan's 1984 statements or views, when that's not clear at all. Does that make sense?

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Great post

Denise — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:48:27 -0600

But I'm exhausted just reading it.

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings

Oh you are absolutely right

Jill — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:28:16 -0600

I too understood the connection to be the magazine's award and not the Rev. per se making this recognition.

Rev. Moss and the Moss family are very, very highly regarded in the NEOhio community so I can imagine that there is an expectation of some change or shift, in style and/or content.

I know others will disagree and I think here we all express ourselves respectfully enough that disagreement isn't considered violative of being in the community - which is something I love about BlogHer. But I do think this discussion is a legitimate one if we're looking to learn "what is going on here?!" that it keeps coming up in the press etc.

That's how I view this thread and others like it and I am appreciative that people are willing to share, challenge and be challenged. I don't know how else we learn.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

Good question!

Jill — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:23:20 -0600

I chose the person who lives five minutes from me and was a total control freak - so I didn't have to worry about anything. This was my first bar mitzvah to put on so to speak - I have two more.

No - they weren't offended at all. They get asked all the time and both of them are very successful at what they do and busy all the time and swap customers all the time. The other guy also is a kosher-only caterer and we really didn't need that because we weren't having a kosher event (we don't keep kosher and we were having the evening events outside the synagogue). The person I chose does kosher and non-kosher catering.

Oy it was a lovely thing. :)

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

Who are "The Jewish People," anyway?

Suzanne Reisman — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:16:14 -0600

Just as I hate seeing Hispanics and blacks lumped together as monolithic entities who are exactly the same in every thought, feeling, and expression, I cringe whenever I hear about "the Jews." "The Jews" no more agree on every single issue than "the blacks" or "the Hispanics." While I certainly am no fan of Farrakhan, I can also understand that Obama's response does not mean that he has anything against "the Jews" himself. And guess what? Israel is an important ally for a variety of reasons. Nothing wrong with saying that, either. If Obama mentioned that Britain was a crucial ally, would anyone think he was pandering to British-Americans to get their votes?

As for Tim Russert, I gave up on him in 2004. My expectations from mainstream media are so low at this point that I'm shocked when they ask any intelligent questions that relate to an actual issue.

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants

So how did you choose?

Denise — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:48:52 -0600

And how offended were they that you asked the question?

Love the story!

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings

I'm well known for my duh moments :)

Jill — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:39:30 -0600

Weeeell - of course most of us aren't perfect and do it all the time, either in our head or with friends about little things (her hair looks awful) and bigger things (how can she support "fill in the blank").

But yeah - duh. :)

I think I've written this story before but it's a good one: when I was interviewing for caterers for my son's bar mitzvah last year, I went to two local people, very experienced, very well-known in the community. Both great, both about the same price and able to do whatever I wanted.

So I asked both of them, at the end of the time I'd spoken with them, "Ok - you and the other one are both great - what is the one thing you would tell me that you do better that would convince me to choose you" or something like that.

And you know what they both said - almost exactly?

They both said, "Look, I can't answer that - I can just tell you what I do and how I can meet your needs." No matter what I could not push them to speak about the other.

In Judaism, there is a notion of bad tongue or lashon hora - if you speak bad tongue it is considered almost as bad as murder. Seriously. Of course we all do it much of the time but still - these two caterers absolutely would not engage in it - certainly not in regard to the other. In their homes, what do I know!? :)

Anyway - I really wish that political campaigns were run that way - where people only talked about why they are good for us and can meet our needs, rather than do nothing but reveal or spin why they think the other is bad.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

That last line so spot-on re: controlled

Jill — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:34:03 -0600

This is a just a bit off-topic but not entirely and maybe it's really worth thinking about in the case of this specific situation:

When I was in the spin room after the debate, I sought out people to talk to that no one was talking to, much like I spoke with the CSU volunteers in the elevator and at the food table. And now I can blog about them, about the debate, the audience, the media and so on.

BUT - many of the media that were there - what are they doing and do they do with their interviews: the media go back to the spin room with their jotted notes and their recordings or video and they write down and record, for others to read or see, whatever they were just told...

By whom? the strategists, the advisors, the supporters, the opponents - people with bias.

Which is, of course, all spin, that then gets spun as supposedly neutral.

In some ways it's just a transcription process - so what we actually read in the newspapers or the news sites' blogs is transcribed bias and spin - and we call that "reporting."

Now - I wasn't intending to write a screed against that kind of news provision - I am being unfair really. I know we get better news than that. But my point is that it starts OUT as spin - as Morra wrote - it is a totally, totally, totally controlled message.

And that becomes the conversation starter.

I know I try to resist that control and spin, but, obviously, I'm as susceptible as anyone.

Seriously - when I thought about it today, it seemed so absurd to me that here are these people calling themselves journalists who are just there asking questions and writing down the spin.

Is this perverse? Or am I in over my head in politics, being in Ohio right now!?

The other thing I guess I'm also saying that while I think it's totally acceptable to be looking into Rev. Wright's church, I also think Babz' view is right too - or at least I can understand it. We shouldn't blindly accept anything as being an issue just because someone else says it is.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

Obama, Hillary, and the Jews

Morra Aarons Mele — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:49:12 -0600

The presidential contenders are racing to prove how much they love the Jews, just scan the news articles from today. Here is Obama, questioned by Tim Russert at last night’s MSNBC debate whether he would denounce Louis Farrakhan’s endorsement:

SEN. OBAMA: You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can't censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we're not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you reject his support?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, Tim, you know, I can't say to somebody that he can't say that he thinks I'm a good guy. (Laughter.) You know, I -- you know, I -- I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements, and I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments.
He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can't censor him, but it is not support that I sought.

Blogger Taylor Marsh knows how things work: “It's really simple. You don't go near anyone like Louis Farrakhan.” Ann Althouse dissects Obama’s clever parsing here:

“Clearly, this is a failure to reject Farrakhan. It's extremely clever, but don't be fooled by the cleverness, which was hard to catch in real time. He's creating the space for Farrakhan to operate separately, bringing him support. Farrahkan didn't coordinate with the campaign in any way. Fine. That wasn't the question. Farrakhan has said some good things about Obama, and Obama doesn't want to say I don't accept support from this man. He talks about the nonissue of censoring him. Of course, Obama can't make Farrakhan stop, but he can do what Russert asked him to do: Say that he rejects the support.”

Obama should have firmly denounced Farrakhan. Instead he sounded a bit weasely. Hillary Clinton promptly schooled Obama on how things are:

I just want to add something here, because I faced a similar situation when I ran for the Senate in 2000 in New York. And in New York, there are more than the two parties, Democratic and Republican. And one of the parties at that time, the Independence Patty, was under the control of people who were anti-Semitic, anti- Israel. And I made it very clear that I did not want their support. I rejected it. I said that it would not be anything I would be comfortable with. And it looked as though I might pay a price for that. But I would not be associated with people who said such inflammatory and untrue charges against either Israel or Jewish people in our country.

Some say the episode is reigniting tensions between Jews and the African American community that hearken back to Jesse Jackson and "Hymietown." Others say Russert was irresponsible and baiting Obama; Josh Marshall called it "Russert's lowest moment."

I'm asking myself, what does Obama’s non-denouncement of Farrakhan say? I see it as a sobering moment in our Obama ardor: the first hint of politician-speak. Is Obama unwilling to alienate certain African American voters (although which ones support the Nation of Islam, I don’t know) while clearly being scared to alienate another linchpin of the Democratic Party, the Jews?

Lord, we’ve been here before. This conflict only gives the GOP and right wing more ammunition against Obama, and I hate to see Obama ducking and trying to have it both ways. He should have denounced Farrakhan, because of Farrakhan’s record of hatred and anti-semitism. Now Obama will have to grovel before the Jewish community too, and get lost in more explanations.
When Louis Farrakhan endorsed Barack Obama this week in Chicago Clarissa Pinkola Estes noted:

Minister Farrakhan’s endorsement aside, in the US, a political endorsement of one candidate over another, is understood, by some, as an absolute command… for the ‘congregation’ to vote for the endorsee
…. rather than just a prominent person simply saying, “This is what I personally think.”
Endorsements are still seen as tribal exhortations to the masses. And perhaps they are, often enough.

No matter who the Minister's “masses” might be, when it comes to a hate-mongerer like Farrakhan, Obama can't have it both ways.