·:[ Ararat Scrolls ]:·
• • • • •

OK, so I am a little late with this…

But did anyone notice that the Torah portion for the first full week of the presidency of Barack Obama was Bo?

Symbolic of our deliverance from the past eight years, no doubt.

WOO HOO! Barack Obama is President-Elect of the United States of America!!!!!!!!!!!

OK, we interrupt this celebration for some analysis.

Nate Silver has done what I have been too preoccupied to do myself: compare the performance of Obama to that of John Kerry in 2004, based on exit polls.

The numbers show that Obama won the vote of 78% of Jews, compared to 74% for Kerry.

Sure, that increase is not statistically significant. Nor is it greater (actually a little less) than the overall swing towards the Democrat in this election. Still, it is a defeat for those employers of scurrilous tactics who attempted to delegitimize Obama in the eyes of American Jews.

We knew which candidate would have the greater potential to make the country and world a better place.

OK, back to celebrating!

Sarah Silverman explains what’s at stake. As only she can.

Sean, at one of the greatest election-watch sites:

So my reaction: St. Paul loved this speech… and so did Chicago. Palin swung for the fences, mocking the very notion of community organizing. So did Giuliani. This was the day after “Service” was the theme, and Republicans fell all over themselves praising their party’s commitment to give back to the community. Jarring.

Yes, jarring.  I was very jarred by it (and I don’t even belong in the category of the other party’s “base.”)

And, indeed, “service” has to be about more than putting on a uniform and killing for your government, just because it says all its wars are about FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY.

Service to mankind: community organizing, doing G-d’s work, healing the planet.

Obama will disappoint those of us in that base. After all, who do we think he is, the Messiah? Uh, no. But the thing about Obama, fallible human being running to head the cumbersome government of a world superpower, is that he  ‘gets’ it, that much is for certain. And Republicans don’t, and never will. They are a party that has spent four deacdes undermining the very idea of a ‘commons.’ Obama is, for now at least, the last great hope for restoring a sense of the commons to America. Is that too much to expect from a president? Absolutely. But it has never been about him. It is about us. And, again, Obama with almost every speech he gives shows he gets it. And Republicans–with the odd exception of John McCain in his out-of-character 2000 presidential campaign–show that they just don’t get it.

A very  unfortunate line in Sarah Palin’s speech at the Republican convention was the derision she heaped on Barack Obama by wondering what he would do after turning back the waters and “healing the planet.” Whether the speech-writers were too ignorant or not to know it, I do not know. But, of course, every Jew’s mandate in this life is tikkun olam, which is translated loosely as “healing the world.” Obama’s references to this concept, like his past work as a community organizer (also a target of Palin’s derision) is precisely why Obama resonates with Jews, the scurrilous attacks that have been floated around our community notwithstanding. (He would be the “first Jewish president” in the same way Clinton was famously described as “the first black president”!)

That line in her speech just touched a nerve very badly for me. I suspect I was not the only one, though I will concede that anyone for whom that nerve was touched is unlikely to vote for this ticket in any case.

I don’t much like the religious aspect of political campaigning in America, but it is what it is. Thanks to a handy side-by-side comparison of the transcripts of each major-party presidential candidate’s appearance at Saddleback last week, we can get some insights into how the candidates view religion in their lives and campaigns.

Each was asked a variant of a question about his Christian faith.

Obama: Well, as a starting point, it means I believe in — that Jesus Christ died for my sins, and that I am redeemed through Him. That is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis…

OK, I don’t like hearing those words–those sectarian words, to my ears– from a presidential candidate. But I admire his ability to speak so openly about his faith. And it sounded sincere in the broadcast snippet I heard.

McCain: It means I’m saved and forgiven. And we’re talking about the world. Our faith encompasses not just the United States of America, but the world.

Can I tell you another story real quick?

It is almost as if McCain could not wait to change the subject. Sure, his story about a POW camp guard that follows is compelling (and one I have heard more than once before, given that his POW experience sometimes seems to be all McCain wants to talk about). He does not even elaborate on his statement of faith, as Obama does, only referring to it as, well, “it,” followed by a less-than-one-line definition. Then war-story time!

The excerpt above from Obama’s response is only the preamble. He is just getting going, a bit later in the same response:

But what it also means, I think, is a sense of obligation to embrace not just words but, through deeds, the expectations, I think, that God has for us. And that means thinking about “the least of these.” It means acting, well, acting justly, loving mercy and walking humbly with our God. And that, I think, trying to apply those lessons on a daily basis, knowing that you’re going to fall a little bit short each day, and being able to kind of take note and saying: ‘well, that didn’t quite work out the way I think it should have, but maybe I can get a little bit better’.

This is brilliant, in that it turns what would otherwise be a sectarian response (reference to Jesus Christ) or a purely personal one (as McCain’s would be) into a universal response. In fact, it could be a Jewish response, by which I mean the same thing. He is essentially expressing the religious mandate to engage in Tikkun Olam. He expresses the sense that it is acting on the universal message of “the expectations… God has for us,” and not simply faith, that is the hallmark of religion.

As I have said before, that’s the right way–in fact, the only way–to mix religion and politics.

The week of the new moon of Sivan, 5768, will go down as a historic week: the week in which Barack Obama became the first African-American to clinch the nomination of either established political party. He is highly likely to be the next President of the USA. Stop and think about that for just a moment!

Somewhat unfortunately, the clinching week was also Pander to Likud Week, otherwise known as the week in which both major-party candidates, plus one still-lingering pretender to the throne, gave their speeches before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).While the Forward suggests AIPAC was a “battleground” for John McCain’s and Barack Obama’s differences over Middle East policy, what stood out to my ears was Obama repeating–not once but twice–that as President he would do everything in his power to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. I don’t mean to suggest that Iran’s having nukes would be a good thing (though it is worth noting that other “radical” regimes have become a good deal more cautious upon acquiring the devices). Is accepting a nuclear-armed Iran, if it comes to that, worse than the major war that would be required to use everything in the US President’s power? No. Besides, both McCain and Obama are taking the stock right-wing Israeli/Cheneyist line that Iran actually is about to build a nuclear bomb, rather than questioning the premise itself (as none other than the US National Intelligence Estimate has done).

The taming of Barack Obama–strangely shocking to certain Arab audiences–will continue. It has to continue, for him to be elected President of this country. It will be worth the effort. But it will not be pretty for us left-libertarian, anti-war Jews to watch. We progressives really do need a counterweight to AIPAC.

Still, I am more than ready to declare myself a Jew for Obama and a Green for Obama (sorry, Cynthia).

As a social scientist, I know the importance of heuristics–basically drawing inferences by the use of shortcuts or cues. But some folks are rather too quick on the draw.

I have been accused of many things in my time, but saying that it was good that King was assassinated? Well, that’s a new one.

I would not even dignify the post with a link, if not for the fact that I am currently coveting my neighbor’s Hebrew Barack Obama button.

Ari, of Edge of the West, has a terrific review of a speech that got less attention at the time than it deserved. It could be almost as important as the later speech on race and religion that did get a lot of (deserved) attention.

I will not try to summarize; I will just refer readers to Ari.

Barack Obama today:

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

Ken yehi ratson.

Considering all the smear campaigns going on about Obama supposedly being less than supportive of Jews (about which, see a couple of earlier posts here), he did not do too badly with Jewish voters on ‘Super Tuesday.’ He actually won the votes of Jews only in one state, but he ran better than he did in the electorate as a whole in several others.

Following are the results, always reported as Clinton-Obama, based on exit polls (with the statewide election result in parentheses).

NY, 65-33 (57-40)

CT, 38-61 (47-51)

NJ, 63-37 (54-44)

CA, 47-49 (52-42)

AZ, 51-44 (51-42)

So, only in New York and New Jersey did Obama run worse among Jewish Democrats than among Democrats as a whole. In Arizona, there was essentially no difference (given margins of error). Elsewhere, he ran several points stronger among us Jews than among the rest of the party’s primary voters. The Connecticut result is especially noteworthy. I am not sure why that would be: not only was Connecticut the one state on this list in which Obama won the plurality overall, but it was also the one state where he ran far ahead of Clinton among Jewish voters.

Maybe there is a Joe Lieberman effect: Among the 32% of Democrats in the state who have a ‘favorable’ opinion of the Jewish Senator who defected from his party and won reelection as an independent, Clinton narrowly won, 50-47. However, among the 66% whose view of Lieberman is ‘unfavorable’ Obama won, 53-45. (Unfortunately, there is no breakdown available of Jewish opinion of Lieberman.)

These are all the states to have voted on 5 February in which there were enough Jews in the polling sample to report results. (We were 16% of the sample in NY, 10% in CT, 9% in NJ, and 5% in CA and AZ.) The data are from CNN’s website.

There is not exactly a mass movement of Jews for Obama, but at least we aren’t succumbing to the smear campaign mounted by some anti-Obama forces. That is good news.

Full disclosure: AviShalom voted for Obama.

I think it borders on offensive that this question is even being asked. And I am no fan of Martin Peretz. But I am glad that his answer to the question is, “in a word, yes.”

For all those swayed by my vote… with Edwards out (and Kucinich), it is now pretty certain that I will vote for Obama. I could still wake up next Tuesday and vote my sincere first choice. But that is not to say a vote for Obama would not also be sincere–just sincere in a different way. Not my policy ideal at all, but I sincerely believe he has the potential to be a transformative president.

So an op-ed columnist in the Washington Post, Richard Cohen, is jumping on the smear-Obama campaign, by linking him (with the most tenuous of “arguments”) to Louis Farakhan. Here the claim does not rest on nonsense like Obama allegedly being a Muslim with ties to Al Qaida, but it is still nonsense. Guilt by association:

Barack Obama is a member of Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama’s spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright’s daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said “truly epitomized greatness.” That man is Louis Farrakhan.

Let’s see, I can hardly keep up with the links in this chain here. So Obama goes to this church, and the minister has a daughter who edits the magazine…

Smears like these show that Andrew Sullivan was perhaps just a bit premature when he said that Obama would be the candidate for an America that had gotten over the culture wars.

I said a couple of posts down the main page that I was not yet persuaded on Obama, but was starting to lean his way. Stuff like the following could help me make up my mind–in his favor.

Illinois Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has been targeted in a recent smear campaign which claims that he is a fundamentalist Muslim working for al-Qaeda in an effort to topple the US government. [Ynet]

Fortunately, prominent leaders of the American Jewish community have responded, and called the (anonymous) author on the scurrilousness of the arguments. (The Ynet item discusses the response, and Politico has the text of the letter.)

I am still not persuaded, and I disagree with the main premise of the piece–that the person can transcend the policy–but Andrew Sullivan sure has me thinking. His piece on Obama is really worth the considerable period of time it takes to read and digest. He really got me going with two things. First:

…if you sense, as I do, that greater danger lies ahead, and that our divisions and recent history have combined to make the American polity and constitutional order increasingly vulnerable, then the calculus of risk changes. Sometimes, when the world is changing rapidly, the greater risk is caution. Close-up in this election campaign, Obama is unlikely. From a distance, he is necessary. At a time when America’s estrangement from the world risks tipping into dangerous imbalance, when a country at war with lethal enemies is also increasingly at war with itself, when humankind’s spiritual yearnings veer between an excess of certainty and an inability to believe anything at all, and when sectarian and racial divides seem as intractable as ever, a man who is a bridge between these worlds may be indispensable.

The other is from a speech by Obama himself, about his conversion to Christianity as a young adult (an experience I had not known about before; he was raised in a secular home):

But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to his will, and dedicated myself to discovering his truth and carrying out his works.

Although I was standing before the ark, I know what the man means.

Still, I am not persuaded. I am getting closer. I am not quite there. And, as I said at the outset, I have reservations about using these kinds of indicators in judging for whom to vote.

Besides, I still expect Clinton to win the nomination. Of the top three Democrats, I’d marginally prefer Edwards (on policy promises, not on past record or any other indicator). Of all the candidates, I’d prefer Gravel, Kucinich, and maybe Richardson (who is now out), probably in that order. And, from my safe state, I still intend to vote for the Green candidate in November. But the prospect of an Obama presidency is far more appealing than another Clinton one. Time to break the Bush-Clinton-Bush… sequence already!