Trending Topics:

Obama’s victory highlights a bad night for the Jewish right

on 60 Comments
Election map as of 11 o’clock (pale colors are leaners). Nevada and Ohio later went Obama

One thing seems clear from tonight’s election results: the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party, which wanted a war against Iran, has been thumped with Romney’s defeat. Sheldon Adelson and Dan Senor had been successful in politicizing the question of striking Iran; Obama hedged that bet, and he won.

Take it from the Emergency Committee on Israel’s Executive Director, Noah Pollack:

What’s more, the millions of dollars Sheldon Adelson poured into races around the country garnered nothing. Adelson was 0-6 on the night. All the candidates he funded — George Allen, Shmuley Boteach, Adam Hasner, Connie Mack, Allen West and of course Mitt Romney — went down. In addition, the neoconservative Emergency Committee for Israel’s preferred candidate in the Wisconsin senate race went down.

The Palestinians were losers too. Though the Democratic Party can claim victory tonight, and point to some big progressive wins, and a rainbow coalition for a president CNN describes as leftwing, Democratic candidates avoided the issue of human rights in Palestine like the plague.

J Street ad from after Obama won.

So expect liberal Zionists to be crowing that this election means that Obama will throw himself into bringing about the two-state solution. But the campaign and election provided no evidence of such an outcome. Israeli colonies in the West Bank were never politicized in the campaign. Obama never mentioned the Palestinians in the third foreign policy debate; Democratic Party leaders positioned Obama to the right of Romney on settlements; and the Democratic Party platform included disgraceful language on Jerusalem being the capital of Israel. The National Jewish Democratic Council was the number one example of this tendency during the campaign.

Netanyahu is another big loser tonight. He made the mistake of casting his lot with Romney in not so subtle ways in September. Obama never accepted Netanyahu’s red lines on Iran; and Romney’s defeat exposes Netanyahu to his own electorate, which votes in January. Jewish Israelis, Netanyahu’s base,  are sure to wonder why they should support a Prime Minister who seems to be on the outs with the American president.

And on the outs with American Jews, too. Despite a rightwing scare campaign about Obama’s policies on Israel– to which Obama was himself cravenly responsive– Jewish voters seem to have cast their ballots on other issues. That is apparent from Josh Mandel’s loss to Sherrod Brown in Ohio and the news from Florida, which Romney was hoping to snare with his neoconservative rhetoric. The state was leaning Obama late at night. CNN exit polling shows that Jews voted for Obama at a margin of 70-30. The Israeli settler movement feels abandoned:

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is senior editor of and founded the site in 2005-06.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

60 Responses

  1. Graber on November 7, 2012, 12:36 am

    I imagine Dershowitz digging in right now, hoping to repair the chasm between Obama and Netanyahu. Who will he pull in which direction?

  2. RoHa on November 7, 2012, 12:42 am

    Whoop de doo. An incompetent president instead of an insane president.

    • Sumud on November 7, 2012, 5:44 am

      Indeed Roha.

      Though I think you’re being generous in calling Obama incompetent.

      This is the man waging drone wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and possibly also Mali and even the Phillipines. The man who has not closed Guantanamo, the man who has prosecuted more whistleblowers in one term than all other US Presidents combined, and finally (saved the best for last) the first President of the US to grant himself with right to kill American citizens with no judicial oversight or due process of any sort.

      This is not incompetence.

      Have you ever seen the Rap News clips? This is their take on the elections:

      • Citizen on November 7, 2012, 7:08 am

        And check out the Onion’s take on the elections:
        In its “Issue-By-Issue Candidate Guide” published last week (,30184/?ref=auto), the Onion listed both candidates’ positions on many issues, including Israel.

        Here’s how it described Obama’s position on Israel: ”Recognizes there are 41 actual US states that demand less of his attention than this obnoxious, self-important little puke of an ally.”

        And Romney’s: ”Adamantly ‘pro-Heeb’ and lovingly refers to the nation as ‘his little Jew-Jew-Be.’

        Obama, the Onion suggests, is tired of constantly having to come back to the issue, while Romney is so affectionate he’s insulting.

        Food for thought.

      • tree on November 7, 2012, 12:12 pm

        I thought The Onion’s take on Obama’s “Stand on Torture” was also telling:

        Since he’s not running against torture-survivor John McCain this time around, he can finally express his true feelings on the subject: absolutely loves it.

        And the kicker is his stand on “The Economy”:

        Considers the economy a distraction from other issues he considers important, such as being considered a success and having people like him.

      • gamal on November 7, 2012, 12:35 pm

        “Perhaps Obama looks better on domestic policy? Not really. Obama’s deficit commission was what initially established the suicidal dogma that a minimum of $4 trillion must be cut from the U.S. federal debt, (but not by eliminating empire-building and the grotesquely wasteful private medical system, the twin drivers of deficit spending). This was the number proposed by Obama last February 2011 in his annual budget. Huge cuts from Medicare-Medicaid were later agreed to in the August 2011 budget deal, and more cuts are on the way. Obama and Biden have consistently offered hundred of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, without asking for a single Republican concession in return. This severe austerity can’t help but wreak havoc on ordinary Americans, and Obama well knows it. But he has made a career of sticking it to ordinary people in order to help wealthy people who already have more money than they are willing to productively invest. Meanwhile, U.S. annual spending on war is between $900 billion and one trillion dollars, every penny allegedly helping to “keep the American people safe.” Sure.

        For the record, the causes of U.S. deficits and cumulative debt are (1) wars and runaway military spending; (2) the Bush tax cuts, extended by Obama (80 percent of which benefited wealthy investors at a cost to the federal government of $200 to $270 billion a year); (3) the bailouts of banks and corporations; (4) the fiscal stimulus packages of both Bush and Obama – neither of which produced economic recovery; (4) the four years of keeping 25 million American workers unemployed; (5) price gouging by health insurance and service providers.

        Meanwhile, profit margins are at an 80-year high, while real earnings continue to fall for 90 million workers and middle class households.”

      • joemowrey on November 7, 2012, 12:36 pm

        Sumud is correct. Obama is anything but incompetent. In fact, he may be the most cunning war criminal to occupy the White House in decades. And if anyone thinks Obama’s re-election means there won’t be an attack on Iran (by either Israel or the U.S. or both) don’t bet the ranch on it. War is what we do as a nation. It is essentially our only export. Our Presidents are hired to promote and incite global violence. Obama is just another shepherd of empire. He will do what he is told to do. Only now he will do it with a “mandate” from progressives. How sad.

  3. CloakAndDagger on November 7, 2012, 12:56 am

    And the false left/right narrative continues. Tweedledee got more electoral college votes than Tweedledum – whooppee! Meanwhile, the popular vote is split almost identically between the two – proving once again that there isn’t a grain of difference between the two.

    I am sure all the “progressives” are rejoicing at their “victory” tonight. Meanwhile, the republicans can reflect on how the election would have gone had they nominated Dr. Paul instead of Israel’s chattel.

    So, let’s see if all those of you who predicted a harder line on Israel from a resurgent Obama were correct. For my part, forgive me if I don’t hold my breath. I don’t have a wardrobe that matches a blue face…

  4. seafoid on November 7, 2012, 1:03 am

    I guess the Zionists have to reach out to the Hispanic community to convince them that YESHA is good for them too in a delayed gratitude sort of way.

    It is also such a pity that Zionist war mongering is apparently of no interest to American women .

    • MRW on November 7, 2012, 4:21 am

      That’s why Haim Saban bought Univision in late 2006.

      • seafoid on November 7, 2012, 8:23 am

        I guess they don’t feel guilty enough about the Shoah to vote for the republicans. Wasn’t Treblinka staffed by Mexicans and Sobibor run by Palestinians?

  5. PeaceThroughJustice on November 7, 2012, 1:27 am

    “National exit polls are now saying that 68% of Jews voted for Obama – ten points behind the president’s performance in these polls four years ago. Once again, the night is young, and these figures could move. Few expect Obama to hold on to the 74% of the Jewish vote he won in 2008.”–jewish-vote-for-obama/
    November 6, 2012, 8:56pm

  6. Citizen on November 7, 2012, 3:10 am

    Twitterers keep pointing out that 70% of Jews in USA voted for Obama, while 85% of American-Israeli Jews in Israel voted for Mitt. Palestinian tweets show their disgust at both Obama and Mitt.

    • seafoid on November 7, 2012, 8:46 am

      Surely all Israeli Jews live in Israel. Why would anyone want to leave shangri la to live in Galut under the constant threat of intermarriage. ?

      • RoHa on November 7, 2012, 8:47 pm

        ” the constant threat of intermarriage”

        And Christmas lights. Don’t forget the Christmas lights.

  7. seafoid on November 7, 2012, 3:42 am

    I wonder what sort of feedback awaits Netanyahu. He must be disgusted.
    He thought it was still 2004. That War on Terror schtick should be put away .

    And Shmuley Boteach. Such a nice guy. Selling Militant Zionism to the goys is hard, isn’t it? I wonder too how many young Orthodox voted for him after that TV appearance .

  8. Taxi on November 7, 2012, 3:50 am


    More like a kick in the groin to Natanyahu and all his rent-a-girlfriend cabal. No they won’t be having warmongering babies anytime soon.

    And did I hear Obama’s acceptance speech right when he said: Today we close the gates of war? He seemed to say it so understatedly but it’s probably the single most important statement in that speech. Yeah the rest of the speech reminded me of Operah-Speak zzzzzzz yeah nice pep talk.

    Look mondowiesserz: Single Women, Latinos, Asians, Gays – these are the people that tipped it to Obama. These are the demographics that will determine the next few elections too. And there is NO FORESEEABLE REVERSAL for this trend. America has already CHANGED. And the Aipac neohawks and their bible-crazed, big-mouth b*tches are now clearly outnumbered, out-motivated and out in the political wilderness. Let’s keep their poison hands off our government.

    Here I’m wondering, will Obama go to Aipac first thing in the morning and give a thank you speech as per usual despite Aipac’s bitter and pubic opposition to him?

    • Citizen on November 7, 2012, 7:12 am

      You forgot the 90% of blacks who voted for Obama.

      • Taxi on November 7, 2012, 9:40 am

        I was kinda counting the muscly newbies to the election gym.

        But of course, the African American community counts as the Democrats’ veteran bulk of a muscle.

        Thanks for the clarification – I was multi-tasking throughout both speeches.

        “… a country that moves with confidence beyond this time of war”. I think this line bounced about my head for a mo when he said it.

        Meh. We shall see if he means it.

        But I kinda think that Obama is not a fan of traditional war in the slightest. But he sure does appear to be a fan of the 21st century Drone Attacks. Go figure!

      • Mooser on November 7, 2012, 12:08 pm

        “You forgot the 90% of blacks who voted for Obama.”

        You mean those poor deluded African-Americans who chose skin-color solidarity over their obvious economic, social, cultural, and legal interests? That “90% of blacks”?

      • Citizen on November 7, 2012, 12:57 pm

        Yeah, I meant those poor deluded whites who chose skin color solidarity over their obvious economic, social, cultural, and legal interests.

        White voters accounted for nearly three quarters of the electorate

      • Keith on November 7, 2012, 2:37 pm

        MOOSER- “You mean those poor deluded African-Americans who chose skin-color solidarity over their obvious economic, social, cultural, and legal interests? That “90% of blacks”?

        Jeez, I hope you aren’t saying that blacks voted for Obama out of self interests? Blacks and other minorities have been exceptionally hard hit by Obama’s neoliberal policies, and will suffer grievously during his second term. They most assuredly voted for him based upon race and misplaced hope. Obama was specifically chosen by the dominant elites because of his unique ability to screw minorities with minimal consequences. Below is a quote from Bruce Dixon at Black Agenda Report along with a link.

        “It’s hard to see how an election is so darn important for black America when the candidates aren’t talking about the issues. Which one is the candidate that wants to roll back the prison state, or stop the drug war, or question gentrification? Is there a candidate who wants full funding of public education? A candidate who will cut off troops and military aid to Africa? If not, what are we voting for?”

      • Keith on November 7, 2012, 2:53 pm

        Some post election comments from Jeffrey St Clair at CounterPunch:

        “Obama was propelled to his slender popular vote victory by those that the Republicans almost ritually abused: women, blacks, gays and Hispanics. Ironically, these are people that the Obama administration has also ruthlessly strafed for four years. But Obama smiled as he cut the lower-classes adrift in the midsts of a cratering economy, while Romney expressed only contempt for them.”

        “Where does Obama go now?….Clinton will be his template: the Clinton who pushed for the elimination of the Glass-Steagall Act, the gutting of welfare and the war on Serbia. Obama will pursue bi-partisanship with a vengeance. Obama has always been a committed neoliberal, a closeted agent of austerity. Now he no longer needs to even play-act for his political base. He can openly betray their interests.”

        “In a few months, the president will reach out to his old pal Paul Ryan to take a stroll across that tragic terrain known as the common ground in pursuit of those twin obsessions of the elites: deficit reduction and entitlement reform. In the name of political conciliation, Obama will piously move to slash away at Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the last frail fabrics of the federal social welfare programs. These savage cuts will be enthusiastically cheered by the mainstream press, Wall Street and the Washington establishment.”

      • wondering jew on November 7, 2012, 3:28 pm

        What is the largest percentage of black votes garnered recently by a Republican candidate? Certainly less that 25%. Obama’s black vote should be measured against the best that a Republican has done. Romney was about as white as you get in America. But there was a percentage of black people who voted for Obama because he was black and not because he was a Democrat.

      • Woody Tanaka on November 7, 2012, 6:09 pm

        Bush the elder got 21% of the black vote against Dukakis.

    • eljay on November 7, 2012, 7:52 am

      >> And did I hear Obama’s acceptance speech right when he said: Today we close the gates of war? He seemed to say it so understatedly but it’s probably the single most important statement in that speech.

      According to this transcript of Obama’s re-election speech, Barry O. said (among other things):

      We want to pass on a country that’s safe and respected and admired around the world, a nation that is defended by the strongest military on earth and the best troops this — this world has ever known.

      But also a country that moves with confidence beyond this time of war, to shape a peace that is built on the promise of freedom and dignity for every human being. We believe in a generous America, in a compassionate America, in a tolerant America, open to the dreams of an immigrant’s daughter who studies in our schools and pledges to our flag.
      . . .
      Our economy is recovering. A decade of war is ending. A long campaign is now over.
      . . .

      IOW, and as usual, a whole lot of nothing.

    • annie on November 7, 2012, 10:37 am

      rent-a-girlfriend cabal

      omg you crack me up.

      • Elisabeth on November 7, 2012, 12:11 pm

        I loved that too!

  9. ToivoS on November 7, 2012, 4:09 am

    Henry Waxman, LA area is losing right now (1:00 am cali time) to an independent. I have no idea what the issues were but this can’t be good for Israel.

  10. Taxi on November 7, 2012, 4:53 am
  11. mcohen on November 7, 2012, 6:20 am

    Still early days i wonder what plan b is

  12. amigo on November 7, 2012, 6:43 am

    The first test for Obama will come when the Palestinians get their day at the UN.

    Will Obama support Israel when it carries out it,s threats to punish the Palestinians.

    Will we see a more “independent” President or the same weak lily livered AIPAC stooge.

  13. Citizen on November 7, 2012, 7:21 am

    From the Atlantablackstar:
    Steve Schmidt on MSNBC broke down just how much the country has changed over the last 24 years. Romney got about 60 percent of the white vote yesterday, but it brought him only slightly more than 200 electoral votes. The last time a presidential candidate got 60 percent of the white vote was in 1988 with George H.W. Bush—and that number of whites brought him 426 electoral votes in a landslide win over Michael Dukakis. Schmidt called this transformation “stunning.”
    The complexion of the country has changed so dramatically over 24 years that nailing down a sizable portion of whites gets you a sad concession speech on election night.
    In a year when the unemployment rate hovered just under 8 percent, it was supposed to be conventional wisdom that the presidential incumbent would have a very difficult time holding onto his seat. Knowing this, Romney went after the unemployment number with a vengeance, repeating about a hundred times a day that 23 million Americans were still looking for work.
    But it didn’t work.
    In the end, Americans chose to hitch their fate once again to a man who they felt could much more closely empathize with their fate, who more easily understood their lives. While Romney tried to sell himself as a businessman who could put America back to work, Americans more likely saw in him the unfeeling boss who did not care how hard they were struggling. He wanted to be embraced as the smart technocrat, but instead came off as a distant multimillionaire.
    The lesson is that when the economy us suffering, it’s probably more important for the public to feel like you understand and empathize with their plight than for you to throw out some dubious plans for transformation.
    And maybe the final lesson was this: Telling the truth matters. Romney thought he could lie with impunity and get away with it. While there was no one to order him to the principal’s office or to threaten to wash his mouth out with soap, in the end Romney probably paid the ultimate price for his duplicity: A thorough and embarrassing defeat.

    • on November 7, 2012, 5:30 pm

      Let me just make a couple of observations as an outside observer.
      In Germany, the first number that is recorded after an election is the voter turnout, this is then broken down by party and candidates.

      The voter turnout (voters as a percentage of those elegible) in the US this year is estimated at 58% – lower than 2008. In federal elections in Germany it used to be above 80% 25 years ago. In the last election in 2009 it dropped to 71%.

      That people have to stand in line for hours to vote – this was so also in 2008 – is something unimaginable in Germany. I have never seen a line in front of a voting station and I never waited more than a couple of minutes to vote.

  14. edwin on November 7, 2012, 10:17 am

    It is interesting how similar this map is to another map.

    • Jeff D on November 7, 2012, 11:56 am

      Scary, isn’t it? I’ve been saying for years that the United States would have been far, far better off had Abe Lincoln just said to Jeff Davis, “Good luck, Your Excellency. You’re going to need it”, and let them go lie in the bed they’d made for themselves without a fight. My bed is that within a decade either the Confederacy would have lost most of its states as they sought re-entry into the Union, or slavery would have been discarded as uneconomical (for which the handwriting had been on the wall at least since Eli Whitney’s cotton gin). A small, resource-poor country could not afford to have that kind of economic, social and moral toll; could not afford not to have everyone pulling in the same direction for the country’s survival; could not afford to have such a decentralized, incompatible patchwork of government at a time when its economic competitors were strengthening their own central governments. Davis or his successor would have had to fight that battle, and it would either save the CSA from the wingnuts or hasten her states’ return to the USA with a sharply revised view of things.

      Either would have been good for the US, if only by curtailing the almost self-parodying ersatz romanticism over race, religion and economics that’s dividing us so worryingly 150 years later.

      • RoHa on November 7, 2012, 9:01 pm

        And I’ve been saying for years that everyone involved would have been far, far better off had the United States said “Well done, Mr. Castro. You got rid of that bunch of crooks. Now how can we help?”

      • Woody Tanaka on November 8, 2012, 8:04 am

        RoHa, I agree with you on that. It would have been a hard sell, given the fact that the US was the only support for that bunch of crooks, Fidel would probably have gone for it, if he could have kept Cuba independant (a big — perhaps insurmountable — “if” when you’re talking about the US), but it would have caused him a lot of trouble with Che and Raoul.

      • edwin on November 8, 2012, 8:14 am

        The problem of course is Castro did not get rid of the crooks. He managed to get them out of Cuba and they became someone else’s problem.

        On a slightly off topic note – I recently visited Cuba and was extremely surprised to see how small scale capitalistic Cuba is in the tourist industry. It is probably the most capitalistic culture I have ever seen – people really hustle. Very different than my experiences with the US, Canada, Spain, UK. There are definitely class differences in Cuba. For a real taste of capitalism – visit Cuba! Take that Mr. Castro.

      • Hostage on November 8, 2012, 11:06 am

        “Well done, Mr. Castro. You got rid of that bunch of crooks. Now how can we help?”

        LOL! Syria will get back the Golan Heights, and grass will be growing in Castro’s cheeks long before the US stops “leasing” Guantanamo to itself. Castro got rid of the wrong crooks.

      • tokyobk on November 8, 2012, 10:47 am

        Eli Whitney’s cotton engine made gang labor slavery tremendously profitable.
        Slavery for most small farmers and artisans, i.e. most common type of slaveholder, was already shown to be less profitable than wage labor. That was not the point or the appeal of slavery. Thankfully (for my ancestors in Tennessee at least) Lincoln did not listen to arguments such as yours which were quite popular in both the North and South by slavers and their appeasers.

  15. NickJOCW on November 7, 2012, 10:26 am

    The Palestinian predicament will only be resolved within a broader framework. It is unlike South Africa because South African injustices served no outside interests and had no external support. It is a peculiarity of the US psyche to view events emotionally, there are pictures in this morning’s press of supporters weeping for Romney’s loss and others with faces displaying near orgasmic joy at Obama’s success. These responses appear strange to Europeans as indeed they likely do to most of the rest of the world. It is said that Obama does not like Netanyahu, fair enough, but what foreign leader does he like? And does it make any difference? Obama’s personal response to Netanyahu is not going to affect the fate of the Palestinians one way or the other. Foreign policy is a poker game and emotions are anathema to poker, although one may always hope to find some player who hasn’t learned that. As for earnest expressions of US/Israeli solidarity, they are part of the game and carry meanings within meanings. Take ‘shared values’. The implication is that somehow these are moral values, but if one picks that phrase apart, there are no moral values uniquely shared by both. There are interests that coincide but that is not the same thing. Two passengers on a plane will have the same interests faced with serious turbulence on board although one may be headed for his wedding when they land while the other is a hired assassin en route to a contract. As for the well rehearsed expressions of solidarity, it is well established that the break up of celebrity unions is all but invariably preceded by such protestations, and this has ever been so; remember Hamlet’s mother and her, The lady doth protest too much, methinks. The word ‘protest’, of course, bearing the Elizabethan meaning of ‘insisting upon’, and the phrase implying a high likelihood of real feelings for quite the opposite.

    My own, unworthy, prognostication is that we will shortly see a marked receding of the more theatrical expressions of US/Israel unity, until the day when instead of demanding invitations to the White House Netanyahu waits until he is invited. Extravagant military gifts will still flow, like ranch mink coats, alluring to flaunt around the house, but where can you actually go out in one? Somewhere along the line Israeli policy will change, its amorphous boundaries begin to recede like an ebbing tide, demands for recognition as a Jewish state will be quietly abandoned, and the displaced Palestinians will find themselves becoming masters of their destiny. Or something like that.

    Odd as it may seem, the leader Obama most reminds me of is Harold Macmillan who in his own unassuming manner held a steady helm through the most treacherous rapids of the cold war.

  16. Mooser on November 7, 2012, 12:02 pm

    Oh absolutely, JCOW. Everything we read indicates the Israelis will just “chill out” and dismantle the settlements on their own. And without an accounting, or anybody being held to responsibility, Israel will eventually come to its senses, and the flow of US aid will help them do it?

    But, at any rate, thanks for a glimpse into your own calculations about how little Israel can give up to get away with it. You won’t even concede the Palestinians a state, just “Palestinians will find themselves becoming masters of their destiny. Or something like that”.
    Oh sure, evcerything from Israel indicates they are just aching to let the Palestinians be “Masters of their own destiny. Or something like that” No doubt, the Palestinians destiny is only a pale imitation of real self-determinative destiny!
    But then I always have a hard time getting along with “not-a-Zionists”s.

    • NickJOCW on November 7, 2012, 2:35 pm

      No, Mooser, you get me wrong. I was capturing only the tips of receding waves, between each of which there is a great descent and then somewhat less of a rise. The principle ingredient will be the gradual diminution of Israeli influence in US foreign policy. This is inevitable because it mirrors reality, particularly the reality demanded by the necessity to resolve Western/Islamic relationships. The Israelis are not aching for it, anything but, but if their relevance is downgraded they will be awakened to the illusory nature of their present trajectory. If you consider the fate of many of the recipients of their recent election largesse, you might imagine some aspirants for office beginning to wonder whether rather than a ticket to success it might be closer to a kiss of death. I have no idea what Palestinians will do when they find the shackles falling from their necks and ancestral lands, and themselves masters of their destiny, that’s up to them. I do see an alternative route from here into the future but it is Armageddon and I prefer not to dwell on it although, I confess, it not infrequently invades my imagination in the recesses of the night.

  17. Keith on November 7, 2012, 12:36 pm

    “Obama’s victory highlights a bad night for the Jewish Right”?

    Say what? Remove the word “Jewish,” and what do you have? A bad night for the right? It is a sign of the extreme rightward turn of the political system that the reelection of the most effectively evil neoliberal, neoconservative President in history can be considered a victory for progressive forces. The list of Obama’s perfidy is long and well known. The ability of the doctrinal system to scare people into voting for imperial business-as-usual has once again been demonstrated, even as neoliberalism comes home to roost. The big news of the election is the complete lack of electoral support for Third Party alternatives to current policies. The class war has turned into a rout, people taking comfort in shared delusions.

  18. sciri21 on November 7, 2012, 3:36 pm

    Just 70%? Isn’t that significantly lower than the 78% of the Jewish vote that Obama won in 2008?

  19. Philip Munger on November 7, 2012, 5:28 pm

    Back in late 2008, when Obama announced key picks for his cabinet, I was disappointed, except for his picks of Eric Holder for AG, and Rahm Emanuel for Chief of Staff. I was appalled. I had been watching Holder through the lens of his attorney role in Latin American labor rights, and watching Emanuel through the lens of my friendship with Howie Klein from Down With Tyranny, who had despised Emanuel since the 90s and NAFTA.

    Those picks left little doubt that Obama would quickly abandon his base and reach for a neo-Clintonian, neo-liberal administration. The way he let fine people like Elizabeth Warren dangle, twisting in the wind, and encouraged Emanuel to berate and belittle progressives in the party underscored this.

    By early December, we’ll know a lot more than we do now, as the new 2nd term positions get announced. Obama’s staff must be putting some thought into taking back the House in 2014. Howie Klein has been critical of DCCC support for neo-lib candidates at the expense of party progressives. In Klein’s view, Steve Israel, the current chair of the DCCC was a big loser in Tuesday’s House results. If there is pressure from Obama to purge Israel and his ilk from the DCCC, it will be a sign that the administration is getting more realistic about the new demography of the Democratic Party, and more willing to gather progressives back into the post-election fold.

    I’m not optimistic.

    • Keith on November 7, 2012, 7:10 pm

      PHILIP MUNGER- “Obama’s staff must be putting some thought into taking back the House in 2014.”

      Jeez, I don‘t see that at all. If anything, Obama‘s staff is devising strategies to ensure significant Republican congressional opposition to permit Clintonesque triangulation, whereby Obama pursues his neoliberal agenda while blaming his policies on congressional Republicans. To achieve his real objectives, Obama cannot tolerate a Democratic House and Senate. In this last election, “Obama’s advisers tell him to run by himself and not with his Democratic members of Congress, who he needs to retake the House and keep the Senate in order to and get anything done in his second term.” (Ralph Nader)

      Philip Munger- simple question: How can you stare perfidy eyeball to eyeball while pretending you aren’t staring perfidy eyeball to eyeball?

      PS- “…except for his picks of Eric Holder for AG, and Rahm Emanuel for Chief of Staff. I was appalled.”

      You approved of Eric Holder and Rahm Emanuel? Whole eee she it.

      • Philip Munger on November 8, 2012, 8:50 am

        Sorry I wasn’t more clear. I thought the text below explained why Holder and Emanuel appalled me.

    • ToivoS on November 7, 2012, 8:13 pm

      Philip your caution is sensible. I am just a little more optimistic.

      Obama spent most of the last 4 years posturing his macho so he wouldn’t be labelled a wimp in this election. He doesn’t need to worry about that now. Furthermore the neocon opposition has been greatly weakened by yesterday’s election results. They went all in behind Romney. They will, or certainly should, have lost considerable influence within the American media (the fact that they had any over the last 4 years remains a mystery, so this prediction may need to be tempered). In any case, Obama has the opportunity to pursue peace, should he so desire. Let us hope that’s his desire. Obama’s soaring speech last night sounded like he is genuinely interested in how people will view him in four years. He must have noticed that his predecessor’s name is rarely mentioned in public anymore and no one seeks Shrub’s advice or endorsement on anything.

      You are right that we should have a better idea in the next two months. My feelings (if prediction is too strong a term) is that Obama will tune down the war against Syria and will try to find an agreement with Iran (a real one, not the phony demands we have making over the last decade). Of course, doing this will be much easier if he can get rid of warhawk Hillary and her minions Rice and Powers soon.

  20. dbroncos on November 7, 2012, 9:14 pm

    Southern strategy is done. Halelujah! Changing demographic realities are being talked about all over the airwaves with a clear message to whites: share more power with growing minorities. This message has implications for Israel too, much to the shagrin of its supporters.

  21. Inanna on November 8, 2012, 1:33 am

    It might’ve been a bad night for right-wing Jews but it was part of a bad night for right-wingers. Not all of Sheldon’s money could’ve put lipstick on those pigs but then that also goes for non-Jewish right-wing money.

    But what you’ve left out is that it’s still good news for zionists – ‘liberal’ ones, who still support ethno-religious supremacy/privilege, who say they want an end to occupation but won’t even support non-violent Palestinian movements to get rid of it, who support 2-states but want the US veto later this month because Palestinians need to wait until Israel gives them a state, they shouldn’t do it via the UN. And I’m sure Obama had plenty of liberal zionists donate to him too. A good lobby always gives to both sides.

    In other words, the Obama victory is still good for liberal zionist hypocrisy.

  22. Erasmus on November 8, 2012, 5:44 am

    NOW – Ready for a RESTART :

    Appoint Chap Freeman to the post he was denied 2009!

    That might be a fitting new start of NE/ME-policy where the first start in 2009
    went sour.

  23. mcohen on November 8, 2012, 7:07 am

    As i said what is plan B
    joe biden is plan B

  24. crone on November 10, 2012, 11:58 am

    Interesting article at Dissident Voice

    Zionist Lobby in US Takes a Hit in Latest National Election
    by Dave Lindorff / November 10th, 2012

    One little-noted but important result of the November election in the US that returned President Barack Obama to the White House for another four years is that the right-wing Israeli government and the Zionist lobbying organization AIPAC (for American Israel Public Affairs Committee) took a surprising drubbing and emerge a much weaker political influence going forward in US politics.

    more at link

    and another


Leave a Reply