Obama's Church Endorsed Terrorist Organization HAMAS!

[michaelintp]

DamonO, you can question my sincerity all you want.  You (and others) might find interesting an article published in this week's Los Angeles Jewish Journal:

http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=19113

Dear Senator Obama 
 
By Rob Eshman, Editor-in-Chief
 
Dear Senator Obama:

Twelve-hundred Jews booed you last month.

This happened at the "Live for Sderot" concert at the Wilshire Theatre on Feb 27. All three presidential candidates each appeared on screen to deliver a videotaped statement of support for the Israelis undergoing a brutal campaign of terror in the southern Israeli town of Sderot.  [For rest of article, see link]

Rob Eshman is not some evangelical-loving neo-conservative Republican goose-stepper.  He is a liberal Democrat. What he writes is pretty even handed. Perhaps he does a better job than I in explaining the concerns.  You'll note that he does tip his hat to the view that "latent racism" may be a factor.  But he also cites considerations that may be more justified to explain Jewish concerns.  Because it is a pretty balanced article, I thought you might like to read it. 

Senator Obama's voting record and statements since he has been in the Senate are supportive of Israel.  He threw in a line in his now famous "race" speech about Israel.  He condemned the pro-Hamas publication in his Church's bulletin last week (after it received negative coverage) and a little while ago indicated that he opposes negotiation with Hamas (though it seems some of his advisers have taken contrary positions, and he himself seems to take a different view with respect to extremist leaders elsewhere).

However, from the moment he entered the Senate he has had his eye on the Presidency.  He doesn't have a long track record spanning decades to point to.  That is why people are looking elsewhere.  Not too long ago Ralph Nader was interviewed on "Meet the Press" (or some such show) and he indicated that Obama did a major about-face on these issues when he started running for the U.S. Senate.  Maybe Nader was lying, maybe he has it in for Obama too, according to you.  Apparently Obama has served on the board of some charity that gave money to a Palestinian organization in Illinois that sponsored several programs very hostile to Israel (advocating Israel's destruction, to be replaced with a single Palestinian state).  So there is all kinds of mixed info floating around regarding the candidate's prior views and current views.

The comparison to endorsements by evangelical ministers is misplaced.  We've already discussed this on the "Pastor" thread, no need to repeat it here.  McCain has a long voting record in the Senate.  It is not hard to determine what positions he's taken over the years.  One can reject him or support him based on that record.  Senator Obama does not have a long record to substantiate what he really believes.  Thus, it is natural that people will look elsewhere to get a sense of who the candidate really is.

We are talking about a man who could be next President of the United States.  A man who could support, or do irreparable harm, to Israel.  For most American Jews, this is an important issue.

[Redjack]

So what?

Who cares what happens in Israel? Israel isn't an American state (and they should thank God for that). While I have lots of negative feelings about the concept of dual citizenship (I'm totally against it for anyone), the majority of Israelis are not allowed to vote in American elections. If they don't vote, they don't matter.

While a segment of the US population is concerned with Israel's well being, a larger segment is concerned with that of Ireland. NEITHER country matters, at all, when we are deciding who our president should be. They are meaningless. Not relevant. So a president's opinion pro or con the status of any foreign nation, is equally irrelevant.

If they serve our interests we should be helpful to them. If not, not.

[Tanksleyd]

I always thought dual citizenship was cool, like an international spy or  an international man of mystery, somethin' like that.

[Princesa]

I'm hoping this story about Hamas is not true. The reality is unless he's running for presidency of the black lunatic fringe Obama can't have this kind of mess. He needs to have better judgment than this. Can he go to any church he wants? Yeah. Can the country reject him for it? Yeah. This truly disapoints me.

[Tanksleyd]

What Hamas story?

I've been looking at the news all day and 20 minutes of Fox last night. What Hamas story?

In fact Obama came out today with another statement DIRECTLY supporting his church:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/obama_on_wright_this_is_not_a.php

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

When I googled the above link I found this one from some paper, the  Jerusalem Post

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1205420759325&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

(ex)Mayor Koch is a SUPER liberal but on the subject of mid-east war, like Lieberman he is SUPER pro-war.

Everyone has their favorite issue no politician is going to mirror all my concerns. But this "Hamas" thing is a non-issue. Thanks to people like Ted Turner and things like the internet, the media control once enjoyed by Jews is no more. There are no more Cecil B. DeMille pictures of grandeur. The world is quickly learning that this is no country for old men. A growing number of Americans are tired of the same policy that has failed us since the "Shores of Tripoli" and given us 50 years of (successful) Israeli war. We can't tell the PLO from the Sunni from the Iranian from the Hamas from the Abbas. Much as many Americans can't tell Jesse Jackson from Malcolm X. The old policies that lead us to this quagmire need a fresh and exciting perspective. The world and America needs the new leadership of Obama.

[Open palm]

I was greatly disturbed by the rant of that pastor. On CNN it's been a hot topic but it doesn't make me favor Clinton more.

Since I live in the Philippines my real concern is the stand the next president will make on this country's human rights issues and corruption. Most of the people here believe Clinton will not criticize Pres. Arroyo and just give carte blanche. I don't trust the Republicans because of their view on foreign policy and their warmongering. I don't approve of their continued military support of my country's armed forces operations.

That being said, I don't care what Obama's church said about Hamas. It is not a high priority to me. I only hope if Obama does get the presidency he won't excuse Hamas and lead them to believe he'll excuse their violent attacks.

[Sinister8578]

Ditto to Redjack and Jenn.


NUff said.

[DamonO]

DamonO, you can question my sincerity all you want. 

For the record, I'm not questioning your sincerity.  I'm questioning what appears to be a double-standard when scrutinizing one candidate (Obama) vs. another (McCain).

I'm no fan of McCain's.  Quite frankly, I think he'd make a terrible president and that his presidency would be tantamount to a third Bush term.  But that doesn't mean that I think he believes everything that nutty John Hagee believes, or that racist Jerry Falwell believed.  I also don't believe its fair to paint Obama with the same brush as his pastor or his church, especially when he condemned the offending remarks and views.   I judge people by their own words and actions -- even when they are people with whom I disagree with politically.  

[michaelintp]

DamonO, you can question my sincerity all you want. 

I judge people by their own words and actions -- even when they are people with whom I disagree with politically. 

But how do you evaluate whether a candidate is honestly presenting what he really believes, when he lacks significant tenure?  How do you validate, how to you cross-check, his current policy positions to see if they are consistent or inconsistent with what he has done in the past?  How do you validate whether he is being totally honest, or whether he is just doing and saying what is politically expedient at the moment? 

Do you just accept what the candidate says at face value?  Or do you do the same thing the U.S. Government would do to evaluate whether the candidate would qualify for a top secret security clearance? -- i.e. do a background check.  Which normally would include looking at those with whom he has most closely associated in the past.  To the extent you find disconnects or inconsistencies, alarm bells start ringing.

Part of the problem Obama faces is that he is a bit of an enigma because he does lack a longstanding track record.  While some folks on the forum have (probably rightly) theorized other reasons why people are looking into Obama's church and other institutional affiliations (charities he has been active in, etc), the fact that he is (to some extent) a blank slate is certainly one of the reasons.  Probably the most legitimate reason.

Forget we're talking about Barak Obama for a moment.  This question applies to any political candidate for any significant national office who lacks a long track record. 

[Redjack]

There's no such thing as being "qualified" to be president. ANYBODY can be president. ANYbody. There's no Presidential training course. There's no home learning package. There is no other job that is even remotely similar. Not even the Vice president is automatically a better choice for president than the guy who delivers your mail. Remember Dan Quayle?

Everyone who tries for the job: businesspeople, legislators, governors, lawyers, activists, puppets, everyone, is doing precisely the same thing: telling you the stuff they think will get them the big chair and spinning their biographies to fit. DUH!

EVERYONE is giving you the same sales pitch: "Here's why you want me. Here's what I mean to do if I get the job. Here's why the others aren't right for it. I want you to take it on faith that I can do what I say I can because there is literally no other way you can make the decision." Do we really need a list of all the criminals and cronies in the woodwork of every pol who goes for the job because let me tell you, under that standard NO ONE would be qualified.

George Bush was a drug-addicted, frat hazing, probably racist daddy's boy who opted out of frontline service  in Vietnam to protect Texas from Mexico. Bill Clinton was a glad handing, OPP hound with a massive talent for being liked by lots of people and was governor of the dumbest poorest state in the union. Ronald Reagan was an actor and a pretty crappy state governor of one of the richest states in the union. he didn't believe there was such a thing as racism and that apartheid was just the way things were "over there.". Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer. Richard Nixon was not only a crook but an inept and stupid one as he got caught doing things EVERYBODY had been doing and getting away with for decades. Shall I continue?

There's only one way to get presidential experience: be the president. And, as the current idiot has been proving over and over relentlessly for years, even HAVING the job doesn't guarantee you know a damn thing about doing it. He's actually gotten worse at it with time. So much for "experience." I'd be a better president and I'm totally crazy.

All this crap about qualifications and vetting is bs. There are about ten things Americans ALL care about. Convince us that you can solve seven of them and you get the job automatically. Convince us that you can solve five and we'll flip a coin or maybe bounce you because of your faith, gender, race or ethnicity. 50/50 chance.

Convince us you can solve only ONE thing and you end up like Nader or David Duke. Ignored. irrelevant. CYA.

That's how it works. That's how it has always worked. That's how it always will work.

Welcome to the terrordome.
Come on down.
Get down. Get down.

[Open palm]

Hey Redjack. You forgot to mention that Dubyah and his pop personally know the bin Laden family. They have done business with them.

[michaelintp]

While the job of President is unique, that was not my point.  My point was that investigative journalists, and nowadays "everyone" as Internet Bloggers, look into the background and prior associations and organizational memberships of candidates to "hold their feet to the fire."  Some because they have partisan motive to "nail" a candidate.  Some because they want to get credit for identifying a candidate's inconsistencies.   Some just because they really want to find out who the candidate really is.  That's just the way it is.

Redjack, some of the candidates you named did have long public records.  Everyone knew Reagan's stance against Communism and for Small Government.  Richard Nixon did not get the nickname "Tricky Dick" for nothing.  Clinton may have been more of an enigma, though he surely did have a reputation for being a bit of a ladies man. Carter too didn't have a long track record ... and his election was more of an anti-Republican thing than a pro-Carter thing. George Bush was criticized for many of the things you note when he was running (and if not for Ralph Nader taking a chunk of the liberal-left votes, the whole "Florida" thing would never have happened and Gore would have been President).  Bush's case may be a case in point -- as one of the major themes in 2000 was his opposition to "nation building" -- though he didn't have a long track record to verify to what extent he really believed that (nor to contradict it). 

Journalists' and bloggers' "background checks" on candidates are not infallable.  But sometimes issues do emerge, particularly when there is some seeming disconnect between a candidate's current public personae and his background.  Requiring the candidate to do some explaining.  In some cases this process can affect the electorate's perception of the candidate (rightly or wrongly).  With a candidate who lacks a long track record, there isn't a lot to go on, so you go with what you can.  That was my point.

[karaszero]

Mike you have thus far only been willing to hold ONE candidates' feet to the fire, and that is the problem. You have never to my knowledge been as critical of the behavior of Republicans or their supporters, much less the behavior of Israel. Every point that has been made about Israel and their actions have been defended or rationalized by you, and quite frankly some of it's actions are not defendable so these discussions never go anywhere productive. I again would like to see parity in these debates and not a holier-than -thou view of Israels actions/behavior while in the same instant be so certain of the motivations behind an opposing view of Israel, everyone who criticizes Israel is not Anti-Semitic

[michaelintp]

Mike you have thus far only been willing to hold ONE candidates' feet to the fire, and that is the problem. You have never to my knowledge been as critical of the behavior of Republicans or their supporters, much less the behavior of Israel. Every point that has been made about Israel and their actions have been defended or rationalized by you, and quite frankly some of it's actions are not defendable so these discussions never go anywhere productive. I again would like to see parity in these debates and not a holier-than -thou view of Israels actions/behavior while in the same instant be so certain of the motivations behind an opposing view of Israel, everyone who criticizes Israel is not Anti-Semitic

Some time ago some folks on this forum went on and on and on and on and on and on and on about Israel, with several forum members bringing up Israel whenever I would post anything -- even when the topic of the thread was wholly unrelated to Israel.  I must have posted 100,000 words (if not 100,000 pages) on the topic in response to personal attacks on me or in respose to distortions regarding Israel posted by others.  Much of the popular mythology has nothing to with what really happened.  Nothing at all.  But I've shared the facts with you and others multiple times, including recently.  It is clear that on this topic we disagree.  I've no desire or intention to again resume that interminable discussion.  And while this may surprise you, there are plenty of people who use "condemnation of Israel" as a surrogate for Jew-hatred -- that they disparage my faith, they look down on Jews, etc etc etc.  Which is not to say a person is an anti-Semite just because he or she is critical of this or that Israeli policy or action.  But when you see a recurring pattern emerge, that goes way beyond reason, rising to the level of an obsession (not reserved for any other nation), well ... it is pretty clear to me what is going on.

I didn't start the Obama threads here ... until the Hamas thread. The only reason I brought up the issue of Obama's church endorsing Hamas is because someone shared the story with me and I was truly shocked, angered, and disgusted that a Presidential Candidate's church would (in effect) endorse the vicious ideology of a terrorist organization as "fresh view."  Given that this is a matter that I feel strongly about, I thought maybe some folks on the forum might be interested in the reaction of someone from the Jewish Community.  Which more broadly touches on the issue of the effect such revelations might have on Jewish support for Obama.  [Time will tell, on that point]. 

Not that I speak for everyone.  Not by a longshot.  My father-in-law, a man in his 70s, a Holocaust survivor, family exiled to Siberia, oppressed by the Communists, whose father was murdered by Soviet police in Poland after the War for a wrist watch, an immigrant who came here with nothing -- that Jewish man is a strident supporter of Obama.  Last night tears came to his eyes when he recalled Obama's recent speech. So there you go.

Recall how I described the Obama speech in the "pastor" thread? My reaction was wholly positive. 

Then came the Hamas thing.  Admittedly something I am emotional about, based on what I've (indirectly) experienced.  I assure you if the same revelation had been made regarding a Republican candidate whose church had endorsed Hamas, my reaction would have been identical.  Only then ... probably a few more people on this forum would actively join me in the condemnation.

[Reginald Hudlin]

Redjack, as usual, makes EXCELLENT points. 

In my position I hire a lot of people.  Not only do I have to be a quick judge of people, I think that can actually aid the process.  I think your gut knows more than your conscious mind does. 

People respond to Obama because he projects honesty, decency and fresh thinking.  He's not perfect, but he's frank about that without being so self-deprecating that he tears himself down.  He speaks plain English that anyone can understand, which puts me in awe of him.  Almost everyone tops in their field uses professional jargon, so that really impresses me.

BTW, I also like Huckabee.  Not for his policies, but the first time I saw him in the early Republican debates, he seemed far and away the most human guy on stage. I didn't even know he was a pastor!  But I could see why. 

And that's my point about Obama, Mike.  You may not agree with his policies, but you have to acknowledge the quality of the man.  And that's what matters most to me.