I have been searching for a way to convey to Clinton supporters how offensive her attempts to change the topic from the Tuzla Fables to the Wright sermons ever since the former undercut her campaign. If fanning the flames of white racial resentment against Blacks is her only path to victory, she has no path to victory. It has struck me the old consciousness-raising technique of recasting acts based on race, gender, sexuality or religion as if they reflected one of the other dimensions of difference, may shed some new light here. Being a Jew who originally wanted Russ Feingold to run for President (despite some misgivings about his electability), it occurred to me that we can examine the legitimacy her actions are by imagining how they might translate to a situation where religion, not race, was the concern.
Join me, then, in the parallel universe where it is Russ Feingold rather than Barack Obama who won Iowa, drove John Edwards out of the race, and now had an insurmountable pledged delegate lead over Hillary Clinton.
In this universe, controversial sermons from Feingold’s rabbi have recently come to light. How might the Clinton campaign respond?
Exhibit 1: The Background. From the Washington Post, March 18, 2008:
Videotapes have been widely broadcast on cable news for the past several days of excerpts of sermons by Jeremiah Roth, the recently retired Senior Rabbi of the synagogue long attended by her opponent, Senator Russell Feingold. The brief excerpts show Rabbi Roth saying “As Jews, our loyalty is not to America” and that “We hear the echoes of Nazi speeches in the remarks of these Christian leaders here in the United States.” Rabbi Roth’s defenders claim that the remarks are being intentionally taken out of context. Senator Feingold plans to give what his campaign terms a major address on the issue of religion in politics tomorrow in Philadelphia.
Exhibit 2: “Context Matters.” Post from “Feingoldilocks,” Daily Kos, March 19, 2008, 9:01 a.m. EST.
It should be obvious on reading the context of the sermons that Rabbi Roth was not saying anything anti-American. The full context of the first quote was:
As Jews, our loyalty is not to America, in some abstract sense, nor is it to Israel or any other country or cause. Our loyalty is to justice. “Justice, justice thou shalt pursue!” the Torah tells us. Our obligation is to see justice done, to influence America to use its power for the betterment of the world and all its people — not to serve the wealthy and poweful at home and abroad.
I don’t see why this should be controversial, but given its reception in the press I understand why Feingold had to distance himself. As for the second quote, the full sentence was:
The policies promoted by these so-called “Christian leaders” in this country — who do not reflect the views I see among the Christian leaders with whom I’ve worked for the past 50 years — begin to approach the supposedly scientific racially based hatred of Nazi Germany. So far, we have been able to hold off these people who would treat minorities — and inevitably someday Jews — as subhuman. But I remember how things started in my youth in Europe. We have our early warning. We hear the echoes of Nazi speeches in the remarks of these Christian leaders here in the United States. We must work with Christian leaders of good faith, of true faith, to stand against them.”
Hyperbolic, sure, as is some of the Rabbis other theorizing about the role of former Nazis in shaping current U.S. policy. But he’s a Holocaust survivor, his bitter experiences give him this perspective, and I think people should cut him some slack. Someone has to call out these so-called “Christian” leaders and I’m glad he did. As a Christian, they certainly don’t represent me.
Exhibit 3: “Feingold’s failure.” Post from “Hillary4sure,” Daily Kos, March 19, 2008, 12:50 p.m. EST.
It doesn’t matter why Rabbi Roth said what he did. Feingold’s continuing to support him today has doomed his candidacy. He can’t even fix the mistake now; he should get out of the race. Look, people, I’m sorry that it’s so, but anti-Semitism is a fact. Go to rural states and ask them what they think about New York and Hollywood. It was always going to be hard to elect a Jew as President. You have concerns about mixed loyalty, disloyalty, the reports that Feingold attended a religious school taught by communists, even if that doesn’t turn out to be true. You have the resentment that Christians feel towards Jews, thinking that they have too much control over banking and the media. And people didn’t need to be reminded that Judaism is a rejection of the central truth of Christianity, that Jesus is the prophesied savior. How is that going to play in Middle America, or in the South? Feingold has not shown that he’s up to facing these attacks, and the worse that will come from Republicans this fall. We need to cut our losses and go with a tried-and-true candidate who won’t open up these wounds. Plus, she’s a candidate with more direct experience in the White House, and she has a better record on opposing conservative appointments like John Roberts. This election is too important to lose.
Exhibit 4: “Don’t Muss Russ!” Post from “YiddisheKopf,” Daily Kos, March 19, 2008, 5:33 p.m. EST.
I can’t believe that I am reading this here, on this site. I believe that the public will understand that you can’t pin Rabbi Roth’s comments on Feingold, and most of them will agree that the comments themselves are fair when you read them in context. Yes, the RWNM is going to take them out of context and repeat them, but it won’t work. Feingold’s speech showed that he can survive these attacks. Besides, there is just something disgusting about saying that because some segment of the electorate is anti-Semitic, we can’t nominate a Jew. I thought that Senator Obama’s comments on this today were dead on, although he may have an eye on his own political future if he ever runs. As for their records, they’re both better in some areas, worse in others. Overall, I still prefer Feingold, though of course I’d vote for Hillary if she wins.
Exhibit 5: Hillary’s first comments. From the Washington Post, March 26, 2008:
Senator Hillary Clinton told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review yesterday that she would not have remained a member of a religious institution where sermons reflected the views expressed by Senator Feingold’s Rabbi, Jeremiah Roth. The interview came as attention to Rabbi Roth’s comments appeared to be receding, as criticism has mounted of Sen. Clinton’s misstatement regarding coming under sniper fire in Tuzla, Bosnia.
Sen. Feingold gave a widely-praised speech one week ago about running for President as a Jew in which he rejected Rabbi Roth’s remarks but would not distance himself from the rabbi personally despite them, and stated that he understood both why the Rabbi made them, given his life experiences, and why others would find them offensive. Polls taken since then indicate that Sen. Feingold has largely recovered from the ten-point drop in his national polling numbers versus Sen. Clinton since the initial airing of the Roth videotapes on March 13.
Exhibit 6: “It’s the truth.” Post from “Hillary4sure,” Daily Kos, March 26, 2008, 10:57 a.m. EDT.
I don’t see what people are upset about. Hillary is just saying what she, personally, would be doing in a situation where her religious leader was making anti-American and anti-Christian comments. She never even mentioned Senator Feingold. If he wants to defend those sorts of comments, that’s his right. But the automatic delegates have to be aware of what the right-wing is going to do with him. All you had to do was see Pat Buchanan on the Sunday talk shows to see that they are going to, quite literally, depict him as the Antichrist — and a secret communist to boot! How can the automatic delegates let us go into an election led by someone that leaders of the religion to which 80% of the people of this country belong think is the Biblically foretold agent of Satan? Don’t you think the chance to “reject the Antichrist” is going to get out the Christian vote in swing states?
Exhibit 7: Whither the Jews? Post from “Feingoldilocks,” Daily Kos, March 26, 2008, 9:01 a.m. EST.
I’m not Jewish, but I have to say that if I were I don’t know why I’d vote at all given what you wrote. Jews have been an important part of the Democratic coalition since FDR, and you’re saying that it turns out that they can’t run for President because of some prejudiced goobers whose votes we won’t win anyway? If you want to argue the merits against Feingold, go ahead, but after last week the question of who’s going to have more pledged delegates is pretty much settled. The only way he can lose is if Superdelegates take it away from him. For them to do so on the grounds that people won’t vote for a Jew for President — that’s just repulsive. If it’s a risk, it’s a risk that voters have decided to take, and superdelegates can’t take it away from them without deadly repurcussions for the party. Shame on Hillary for playing with fire this way. Her only chance to win was if she stayed away from this.
Exhibit 8: “Stop distorting her.” Post from “Hillary4sure,” Daily Kos, March 26, 2008, 10:57 a.m. EDT.
Hillary isn’t saying that Feingold can’t win because he’s a Jew. Of course she can’t say that. But it’s true, and I’m not running for President, so I can say it. Do you really want to lose because we decided to ignore 3000 years of hatred of Jews? Do you want the automatic delegates to make the choice that will allow war to go on just because a bunch of far-left-wing patchouli-stinking idiots at caucuses want to believe that we’ve transcended anti-Semitism? I sure don’t. I don’t think most Jews do either.
Exhibit 9: Hillary to superdelegates: ‘Feingold can’t win’ From the Washington Post, April 2, 2008:
As superdelegates continue to break slowly towards Senator Russell Feingold, the strategy of the campaign of Senator Hillary Clinton to win the nomination has become clear. As has been reported in various venues, Senator Clinton and her surrogates, including former President William Clinton, have been making the forthright argument that Sen. Feingold cannot defeat Senator John McCain, and that the Democratic Party’s only chance for victory is for party leaders to reject Senator Feingold’s candidacy and nominate her instead.
Exhibit 10: “If I believed in hell” Post from “YiddisheKopf,” Daily Kos, April 2, 2008, 9:28 a.m. EST.
I would damn her to it. I cannot adequately express how completely alienating it is to have a Democratic candidate making this argument. The only thing worse would be if superdelegates bought it. Luckily, it doesn’t look like they will. Essentially she’s saying “Feingold can’t win because he’s Jewish and people won’t vote for a Jew.” Well, I’m sorry, but you know what? If that is really true, then Democrats like Hillary Clinton are going to have to come together and change that between now and November. If voters rejected Feingold because he was Jewish, that’s one thing. But for superdelegates to override them and do it? Sorry, there are some things I won’t accept. I’ll vote for Nader if I have to, and I hate Nader. I will not let my party tell me that I’m not qualified to be nominated for President because of my religion — even if the voters think otherwise. I thought we were past this point in our society.
Exhibit 11: “You should know” Post from “Hillary4sure,” Daily Kos, March 26, 2008, 9:47 a.m. EDT.
better than anyone how significant anti-Semitism remains in our society. What do you think the hatred of Hollywood and bankers is really about? People resent Jews — irrationally, but profoundly — and when the argument is made the way the GOP is capable of making it — where they talk about loyalty to the U.S., internationalism, cosmopolitanism, and the long history of Jewish socialists and communists, some of whom even support Feingold today — the public will just roll over for them. It’s awful, but it’s how things are. Do not ask the party to follow you to the bottom of the ocean just to preserve your pride. In the end, you and other Jews will realize that the only vote you can cast in this election is for Hillary, because you’re certainly not going to support the party that will have prospered from anti-Semitic appeals.
Exhibit 12: Right there Post from “Feingoldilocks,” Daily Kos, April 2, 2008, 11:11 a.m. EST.
at the end. That’s what tears it for me. You say we won’t “support the party that will have prospered from anti-Semitic appeals.” Well, the same goes for supporting the candidate that does so. I’m Catholic. When my father worked in a factory in the 50s, no one would shake hands with the one Jew who worked there. It wasn’t until Pope John XXIII said it was OK as part of what became Vatican II that things changed, and I remember him tearing up when he told me that 200 or so workers filed by in a single line to shake that man’s hand. People have a latent goodness, they can change with the right enlightened leadership, and part of that leadership means not backing down in the face of prejudice. Hillary is asking us to back down in the face of prejudice, and she’s doing it for her personal gain to boot. Well, as my dad used to say, “nerts to that!” Her trying to win based on this argument is part of what I think disqualifies her from being nominated. We will have to win the right way, and if it means changing society a little, I think that Russ Feingold — and the other true leaders in the Democratic Party — are just the ones to do it.
Exhibit 13: “I’m just glad” Post from “Hillary4sure,” Daily Kos, March 26, 2008, 11:22 a.m. EDT.
that our automatic delegates are more sophisticated about politics than you are.
