When 'nutpicking' reaches the presidential campaign level
By Steve Benen Friday Jun 13, 2008 7:15amFor quite a while, conservatives have embraced an annoying strategy — trawl through liberal blogs’ comments sections in the hopes of finding intemperate remarks. The right then takes these comments to “prove” that the left is made up of unhinged radicals.
The practice has always been rather self-defeating. In fact, about a year ago, Kevin Drum came up with a sensible maxim: “If you’re forced to rely on random blog commenters to make a point about the prevalence of some form or another of disagreeable behavior, you’ve pretty much made exactly the opposite point.” Eventually, the practice was even given a name: “Nutpicking.”
And now, “nutpicking” has reached the presidential campaign level.
Little Green Footballs, a prominent far-right blog, had this item yesterday:
A search of the official my.barackobama.com site for “Jewish Lobby” reveals an enormous amount of antisemitic hatred being posted…. There are hundreds, possibly thousands, of posts that refer to the “Jewish lobby” at the Obama site. I stopped looking at the results on page 10. […]
By the way, it is absolutely no excuse to say that “anyone can post a blog there.” Barack Obama isn’t running a Blogspot blog, he’s running for president of the United States, and his official web site is full of hatred and antisemitism.
LGF’s criticism was interesting in part because it was only partially attacking Obama. The candidate, the argument goes, is wrong for having a forum filled with ugly content, even if the campaign didn’t produce the content. And, the argument continues, it speaks poorly of the campaign in general that it attracts people who’d provide the ugly content in the first place.
There are a couple of problems with this approach. First, the Obama campaign (to its credit) created an open online forum. Anyone can “post a blog there,” and it’s not the campaign’s fault when someone adds offensive content. Second, the campaign has moderators to delete the truly ridiculous posts and comments, but it’s hard to keep up with the level of abusive text. That’s just a practical, logistical problem, but it hardly speaks to bigotry within the campaign or among the campaign’s supporters in general.
And third, conservatives forgot to check John McCain’s site before running with this. Aravosis and The Jed Report explain.
Login or Register to post comments.
And fourth, nothing prevents conservatives from posting offensive material on liberal blogs, and then reporting their findings.
Is it impossible to imagine that on an open site, the "nutpickers" might be creating their own scandal? What is to keep nut jobs from the right from going on that site, posting anti semitic comments, and then complaining about those self same comments? I mean, how do you know on an open forum who posted what? And believe me there is no depth to which these creatures will not sink. They are the grubworms of politics, to be found under rocks and rotten logs.
Just asking.
Seems the right is really grasping at straws trying to smear Obama and liberals
Like that pretty Faux News lady the other day with her "terrorist fist jab", the next day claiming it was a media characterization when it was really just some anonymous comment on a blog. Or O'Reilly quoting another idiot comment on Huffington post then calling Arianna Huffington a fascist
Really pathetic
I don't surf the right wing sites much, but I have been surfing around some of the left leaning sites and have been amazed at whats going on. Went to Taylor Marsh and found almost half the comments claiming Obama is a Muslim and is not a American citizen. If you try to comment against these stupid comments the so called democrats on that site will call you ever name they can think of. I don't know if her site has been highjacked by right wing trolls or if these are pissed off Hillary supporters, but I find it strange that so many so called democrats who supported Hillary think McStain is the guy who will now set the country right. I'm sure little green footballs will pulling shit off that site to try and make its case, that democrats don't support Obama.
Per their guilt-by-commenter-association logic here, the staff of Little Green Footballs should immediately be charged with incest.
When you have little to nothing to run on, all that is left is smear campaigns and sensationalism. CONservatives know McCain is not going to win the general election unless through some sort of "act of God", so they are looking for any and all excuses to sensationalize the election. The problem is, not only are they trying to attack those evile liberals, but they are also attacking each other with fingerpointing all around. CONservative "celebrities" such as mANN Coulter are perfect examples. OR, maybe I'm reading it all wrong, and they all really would prefer an election of Obama, which makes one ask, why.
"hundreds, possibly thousands, of posts that refer to the “Jewish lobby” at the Obama site"
Help me out here. There are probably several lobbies whose interests are concerned with Israel and/or Jewish people. Just as there are several lobbies whose interests are every other thing in the universe. Why are posts that refer to the “Jewish lobby” automatically anti-semetic?
Conservatives is so stupid! - Yoesemite Sam
Filthy Harry @ 7:
Jewish leaders have trumpeted the "we are the victims" card for decades and decades, even before the world wars. No matter what the state of Israel does, it is always defended with chants and rants of anti-semitism, rather than actually facing the realities of what they do which is usually exactly what they've always claimed their enemies do. As far as I see it, it all boils down to religious zealots whether they be Jewish, Muslim, or faux christian, all shouting victims while being the exact opposite. It's much easier to say you hate me because I'm black or jewish or female, than it is to admit your weaknesses.
I have tuned out and turned off as it is too depressing to see all the hatred and uneducated ranting. Even the Republican party is going at it.
Just demonstrates what desperate need this country has for good leadership.
I already know I am voting for Barack Obama
LGF has no room to complain about hate in their comments. The whole site wollows in hate thinly veiled as political commentary.
ConcernedCanuck @ 9:
Ok, but every lobby trumpets the "we are the victims" card. That is kind of the whole point of lobbying. You haven't answered the question why any post that refers to the Jewish lobby would automatically be considered anti-semitic, especially from a right-wing blog's perspective. For example, a hypothetical a post on Obama's site says something along the lines of: "If Obama wants to secure the Jewish vote in November, he'd better court the Jewish lobby"
How would that be anti-semtic?
Regarding the actual meat of your comment which seemed to disregard my question entirely, I should point out that the Jews have BEEN victims for centuries. Not just in the world wars. As a people they have been the frequent scapegoat of governments facing hard times going way way back. Hounded at one point or another out of almost every country in Europe.
There you go again, promoting trans bigot Aravosis. I guess it's okay to hate THOSE people, huh? Don't be such a hypocrite, you wouldn't link to a KKK site no matter what content was there.
Steve @ 1:
Amen, brother, that's exactly what I was thinking. I have little doubt that RWNJs (Right Wing Nut Jobs) post their own hateful crap on Obama's site (and others) so they could turn around and make an issue of it. Those pathetic creeps have nothing affirmative with which to prop up their own terribly flawed candidate and their vacuous GOP ideological bullshit, so they gotta resort to setting up straw man arguments to distract the public. They just can't bear to see their treasured ideologies and stupid, narrow worldviews go up in the smoke of W's miserable failures.
I don't see a search function within my.barackobabma.com, so it's hard to tell what Little Green Footballs was looking at.
The first 10 pages of a Google search for "Jewish lobby" and "my.barackobama.com" are mostly comments -- mostly from right-wing sites -- ABOUT an anti-Jewish lobby comment on the site.
Did you actually believe there were "hundreds, possibly thousands of posts referring to the Jewish lobby" ON Obama's site?????
Don't get so caught up in their self-generated "facts."
Steve @ 1:
BINGO!
howie kurtz used to regularly attack blogs for the extreme liberal commentary. he seems to have toned it down after the insipidity of his ongoing attacks on blogs was revealed to be the result of cherry-picked entries. If howie mentions Obama's site, then you know it's been a success. check in tomorrow.
Greg Vitercik @ 15:
john kerry ignored the lies and let them grow until he was swallowed by them.
the name of this site is http://www.crooksandliars.com/ , so we here are glad to point out the lies and liars as well as the crooks. your approval/disapproval of blog topics will rightfully be ignored.
Why pretend this is anything more than LGF looking for an angle to after Obama? References to the Jewish Lobby don't bother those folks at all. Nor does antisemitism. Obama's successes do.
What about when you first plant some outrageous comments in order to "find" them? Can we call that 'salting nuts'?
I suppose that makes me anti-semitic too?
Disagree with anything the state of Israel does and your anti semitic.
Why not just turn Washington over to the Knesset seeing how
their infallible.....
It must be nice to say or do anything you want and be above criticism.
Israel is not perfect. There I said it.
Watch for my quote on O'liely
Filthy Harry @ 12:
They NOW have the power, both politically in DC, militarily and nuclear, in no sense are they victims anymore.
And we all know that is was the twenty five AIPAC AEI neocons with Feith (OSP) that pushed for and started the Iraq invasion and occupation for non US interests.
America lost big time by the debacle that was hatched in 02 and launched in march 03.
Filthy Harry @ 7:
I think the difference here is the fact that the "Jewish lobby" those posters are referring to is AIPAC. An extremely powerful organization that lobbies the U.S. Government on the behalf of the Israeli Government. Many feel that AIPAC has to much influence over U.S. political recourse and may in fact influence U.S. policies to such a degree that they can change those policies to fit their own Government's agenda. Still others feel that AIPAC is also a conduit for Israeli espionage (recall Larry Franklin). True, there are other Jewish and Israeli organizations just as there are from other nations that lobby the U.S. Government but none has the power that AIPAC wields. For many Americans this has nothing to do with Jewish folks in Israel or abroad. Their concern is in regards to that particular lobbyists activities.
ooops..
"they're"
I'm mortified
Finally, there really do exist politically connected and wealthy Jewish people who take a hard line on any issue involving Israel and the region -- much more hard line, than, say, most members of the Israeli Labor Party. Joe Lieberman is the type-specimen, but he is not unique. While fewer in number than in the past, they are effective at lobbying for their position, especially in the Cheney administration. It is not hard make the case that the positions they advocate are not in the best interests of the United States, or Israel for that matter. Apparently to say this is to be anti-Semitic, interesting in my case since all four of my grandparents were practicing Jews.
Steve, the problem with your rational analysis is that it is, well,...too rational. Nutpicking is another smear tactic. Smearing is effective when played over and over again. So, how does the Obama campaign fight the nutpicking?
Ba'al @ 26:
Agreed and I think many of those in the Israeli Government that oppose AIPAC, Lieberman and the others picked up on that. We saw this when Israel went to the peace talks with the Syrians and completely shut Washington out of it. That particular move probably pissed off the Neocons like Lieberman more than anything else. They realize that Lieberman and the others have their own extremist objectives that are neither good for Israel or the United States in the long run. Many in the Israeli Government know this. Now, if we can only get those in the U.S. Government to realize the same.
I would like to address the hypocritical shit-for-brains who engaged in exactly this technique to attack Ron Paul, but now whine about it when it's used against their candidate.
Please kill yourselves.
C&L is the best at moderating comments... well, as i only frequent this site and TP, that opinion is limited... but, it's obvious at TP which comments are "salted" and not... i'll never understand the seemingly irresistable impulse to engage those idjits... pushback with facts, but do not engage...
somedays it's like a gradeschool playground over there... as a TP devotee, it's quite embarrassing...
Yossarian @ 22:
I see your their/they're and raise you a your/you're.
Look, Obama has always been for the security of Israel, but there strill has to be a talk, you can't bring this thing to an end unless you talk to each other.
EVERY effort to stain Obama with the "brush" of anti-Semitism, is itself orchestrated by the AIPAC/ADL/Israeli "Hasbara Program, specifically their use of Megaphone Software - which enables a single zealot to imitate multiple posters in a thread, leaving the impression that actual anti-Semites are present, when in fact this is merely a TACTIC of Mossad's Hasbara program (as are all false flag attacks against Israel).
Nobody plays the victim card better than the Israelis. "By way of deception...?"
Call your NeoCongressman and tell them you're fed up with this crap.
Let me see if I understand this correctly......there is no Jewish/Israel Lobby in this country? And there is no farm lobby and there is no military industrial complex lobby?
Well, someone should inform all the American Jews who give money to such organizations as the one that Lieberman introduced Hagee at that someone is taking their money under false pretenses.
The same goes for farmers, and defense contractors.
All these groups pay money to trade organizations to lobby for them. Since the right-wing is even more "mobbed-up" with lobbyists than our side, when did this term get to be a negative to them?
The other day I was reading some stories on WorldNetDaily, I like to keep up with what the other side is saying, and decided to read the "digg" comments. Here is one comment:
"O-Blah Blah is not a Muslim, I don't believe he is Christian either. His 20 year stint at that racist n..... preachers church is proof. He joined that church for political reasons. The n.... word to describe O-Blah -Blah is officially fair game. His racist c...t of wifes doctoral thesis should cause white America to be alarmed. She is a real big n....... If that n....... gets elected, look forward to an official discrimination against white people."
WND only take comments thru "digg", for their own stories, which allows them get around having posts scrutinized on their site.
:WND only allows comment thru "digg", which allows them get around having posts scrutinized on their site.
I much prefer nuts scratching...
Hold on...
There, that's much better.
CoIntelPro for Pronktastic Democratic Party Victory @ 18:
One of my favorite sayings is, "Any fool can write something, and any fool can read it....that doesn't make it the truth."
If one persons posts something about a Jewish Lobby and people respond, they may use the term again. That doesn't mean they are using it in any perjorative manner. Yet a search would find the term over and over.
So, as I said, "Any fool can write some, and......."
I think we have some salty nuts on this thread.
How did a thread about people picking out offensive and wild comments on websites about candidates and "controversies" become about the Jewish lobby?
Do Jewish lobbies even work on Saturdays?
Not only that, but that is some serious sympathy trolling going on here. We don't need lessons from LGF about commenter decorum considering the venal, racist, violent things posted over there. Douchebags.
Obviously true anti-Semitic posts are not appropriate. But I find talking to an extremist Jewish friend of mine here in New York City, that anything pro-Palestinian is considered anti-Semitic, even if it calls for a "balanced and impartial view of the conflict", it is considered anti-Semitic. There IS a difference and I don't think anyone should be intimidated into slogans like that regardless of content as long as the Palestinians are given a fair chance. These extremists do not even want a two state solution for the conflict. So if someone is labelled "anti-Semitic", look at the content of what is said not the slogan. President Carter for instance, Mandela, Archbishop Tutu are all considered anti-Semitic by this extremist "friend" of mine, and I have never ever read anything anti-Semitic uttered by any one of these three great people. They want peace. Labelling them anti-Semites is ridiculous and should wave a red flag.
john @ 32:
I agree. And that means talking to Hamas which was democratically elected at the behest of the American goverment. Why America considers Israel as the greatest democracy in the Middle East is a blatant and outright lie. It is an Apartheid system and disenfranchises the people they stole the land from. Hardly democratic.
Little Green Footballs? For real. The same site that was so worried about “American firm to casually promote the symbol of Palestinian terrorism and the intifada, the kaffiyeh”
Are you serious? The people who follow that blog are unreachable. Detritus. Nothing more.
I guess it's time to hold McCain responsible for the nuttiness that exists at freerepublic.com.
Mark N. @ 42:
Not to worry. Little Green Shitballs will be on it.
Well maybe not so much.
I don't think America has ever allowed foreign states to determine our foreign policy, hence our often ignoring and disparaging the UN, despite the fact that we started it.
Now if a country attacked us, as Japan did, that's another matter.
At best we would use another country's interests to justify our own, but they're not the reason for it.
Most arguments against Jewish lobbies still sound waaaaay too much like the Protocols for the Elders of Zion.
The nutpickers still ignore Bolton's (not Michael) comments about the top floors of the UN being blown off and nobody would miss them.
Who needs to "nutpick" when a state Democratic Party Executive Committee member in Tenessee, Fred Hobbs says this?
Sorry, i should have included a link.
LOL, McBush is such a tool! Surely nobody is taking McBush seriously! LOL.
Ultimate Anonymity
LGF did the same thing with the Ron Paul campaign. I am really an outside observer of today's politics (libertarian), but I have to say... when it comes to unreasonably psychotic behavior and unbridled stupidity....look no further than the followers of the "new" republican party and the Fox News type media they follow.
The "liberal media" pales in comparison to todays right wing extremism.
Anti-semitic anti-shmuckstick.
Look, I think there's a problem here on two levels:
1. If we live in a democracy and Obama is running for president of that democracy then free speech should be respected. If not on Obama's website, then where?
2. If the remarks posted were TRULY anti-Semitic and therefore constitute hate speech, then they should be removed.
End of story! Why drudge over this nonsense.
On the flip side, there's a double standard here, especially among the same trolls who raise the "Anti-Semitic" flag at every turn, because those are the same people who use the "Free Speech" defense when they post venomous, hate filled remarks about Muslims.
xoites defends Constitution @ 45:
Oi veh!!
I'm going to Knoxville tomorrow for a few days. Sure hope the bars are open on Sundays...
I don't know what these hundreds of commenters were referring to (or whether they actually exist, but let's suppose that they do for the sake of argument), but my guess is that they were using the phrase Jewish Lobby to refer to AIPAC and other groups lobbying on behalf of Israel. I also assume that they oppose these groups, since they're referred to as a collective "lobby", which has the same kind of negative connotation as "special interest" or "cabal".
Calling these groups the Jewish lobby is inaccurate. It's like calling Jack Abramov's outfit the Native American lobby. It assumes the people in question are all Jewish, and it lumps all Jews together in a way that doesn't reflect the reality of diverse Jewish opinion. So it reflects a willingness to generalize about Jews, which is an indication of somewhat irrational thinking about Jews. I don't know if I would go so far, however, as to say that any comment that uses the phrase "Jewish lobby" is automatically anti-semitic. And opposing the activities of AIPAC or other lobbying groups is absolutely no indication of anti-semitism, although it is frequently labeled as such.
I should rephrase that. They lobby on behalf of various people about issues relating to Israel. As Ba'al pointed out, Israelis themselves may or may not feel that the activities of these lobbies are beneficial to Israel.
xoites defends Constitution @ 45:
oh my... how can that be???
sounds like someone that mr. obama needs to take by the hand and have a talk with...
oh, but that probably wouldn't set well in tennessee... that's a tough nut to crack...
but party officials should not be that stupid and say such stoopid things.
good gawd.
Filthy Harry @ 7:
The thing that gives me pause is the fact that this question did not occur to Mr Benen, who wrote this post. There is no reason on the face of it, to categorize the posts as intemperate or offensive. The phrase "Jewish lobby" describes a part of our present political life.
LGF has a big problem with reality, truth, science, and exotic people.
mmeo @ 54:
Well I didn't ask the question in an accusatory tone, I was genuinely curious if I was missing something. Though the question wouldn't be to Mr. Benen as much as to whoever posted at LGF.
I'm left, I'm pro-Obama. I cannot speak to the truth of the claim that anti-semitic or other posts are being made on Obama's site. But I can say that the right wing blog has it right when it says that it is no excuse to say you are running an open forum.
If you are running for the Presidency, then everything that appears on YOUR web sites is YOUR content. If you don't delete it you endorse it. PERIOD. There should be no argument about this. You have no business being in the business of running a free market of ideas. Furthermore, if you DO delete some comments (and I'll bet the Obama campaign does, then you have all the less legitimacy claiming "open forum" for other comments.
Again, I don't know the facts of how many such comments are on Obama's site, and I don't know whether they are "really" antisemitic or anti-Jewish or anti-Israel... usually it is pretty much the same thing in my experience... but if Obama's campaign doesn't delete them I for one am going to have to assume they consider such views to be within the realm of reasonable discourse. I can't see any other way to interpret it.
How's this for exotic?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vepstwPxvf8
katy @ 53:
that's a tough nut to crack...
Ouch!
That comment made me wanna cross my legs.
62 ysbaddaden
Sorry about that link, I thought it was another with Betty as a hula dancer.
But one could take it as an example of past biased imagery.
LGF is a hate site where hate speech is not only welcom, but celebrated.
Nutpicking? thats the best name anybody could come up with?
just asking...
Steve @ 1:
True, true. It even has a name -- "Mobying." For your amusement, take a look at the example that gave the term its name:
And we're not talking about COMMENTS, but actual BLOG POSTINGS by people who are granted the authority to compose their own topics. Whole 'nother level of responsibility.
I would also be curious to see actual example of hate speech from Little Green Footballs. Not comments, but actual postings by Charles Johnson (the site's sole author) that promote hate. Bonus points if you can find one where he actually lies about something (reports something that isn't true, makes up quotes, fabricates photos, and the like) to make his point.
The vast majority of his stuff is simply quotes and pictures and videos from the actual sources, with minimal commentary. I find the "Palestinian Child Abuse" category most educational.
J.
foolme1ns @ 2:
Why should I NOT assume, AS ONE EXAMPLE AMONG THE MANY, that someone who posts pages of anti-Jewish (not merely anti-Israel) ranting that could have been based directly on the ideas in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, who runs in addition a Jew-hatred website packed with the same style of text and the same style of carefully designed anti-Jewish graphics, who provides the anti-Semite community with a monthly newsletter available on his site, and whose site has photos of him walking through the streets with signs and leaflets "evangelizing" against the Jews, actually really did post the materials himself on the MyObama site, that the date showing it to have been there for months is real, and that he actually hates Jews?
Just asking.
Forget McCain and Obama - they won't focus on doing what's right for the country. They just want to smear each other in the hopes that they'll get into office and push their respective party's agenda. Look for true change in the Libertarian Party.
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/
69 Jim Says
Libertarians are so far right when it comes to social spending they make the right look moderate.
This entire discussion is laughable.
The fact remains that if a KKK supporter or Aryan Nations-type established a blog on Barack Obama's site to rant against African Americans there would be little discussion as to whether or not the 'right' to post is the issue at hand.
Espousing some kind of racism is acceptable to progressives and decrying others has been made clear.
Then again, that really isn't news, is it?
Also, no one is asking that the right to express oneself be curbed.
That said, the Obama campaign does have the right- some might say the obligation- to remove what they deem offensive.
Obama's house, Obama's rules.
Let them post elsewhere.
Apparently, most of you failed Logic 101.
Yeah, we evil, baby eating right wingers laugh at the racist, anti-semitic and bigoted comments submitted by your target audience. What LGF has shown us is a bit more insidious. This isn't about random comments by "anonymous". These are blogs that are personally hosted by Barack Obama. It would be like Crooksandliars going to stormfront.org and offering 100 of their most prolific members the opportunity to write for them (I'm just assuming they haven't already done that).
Now I know some of you would forgive Obama even if he were caught molesting a young boy (you'd blame it on the kid) so you aren't my target audience. You've already descended into mental illness and incompetence so don't take offense. For the rest of you..... If YOU were running for President, would you allow anyone to operate a blog in your name that was racist or anti-semitic?
Huh.
Well, in a nutshell:
1. The Obama site displayed a statement that blogs (not comments in blogs; blogs) would be posted on the site after review by moderators.
2. The questionable blogs were posted months ago. They go back to April, March, even January 2008.
3. This isn't about blogs that merely complain about excessive Israeli influence. It's the outright Protocols of the Elders of Zion Jew-hating stuff, plus assorted Marxists, Communists, loonies, and racists.
4. A common rebuttal I see here is that the people who publicized the questionable material must have put it there themselves; such rebuttals ignore the length of time the blogs were there, are provided without evidence, and for some reason rather consistently conflate "comments on blogs" with "blogs." None of the critics are talking about comments. They are talking about the stuff that was supposedly vetted: the blogs.
5. The poor security on the Obama site, and the poor attention to detail, tend to suggest careless/inept management. Obama is running for President. Some management skills are required for that job. Claims that the Obama campaign is internet savvy are also called into question; by which I mean completely exploded.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be news if it occurred. It would be further evidence that the site is poorly managed. But now, you say this hypothetical of yours is a "fact." It's not a fact, it's a daydream. Quite intellectually dishonest of you. The issue is not the right to post, it is that the site managers either had no problem with the material, or were too incompetent to do anything about it, or both. Have they hired their new web master yet? Bit late in the game, don't you think?
I don't favor McCain for president. It's just that I favor Obama even less.
Tell me why voting for Obama is a good idea.
The right wing hate machine pays people to go on the popular leftist blogs and post incendiary comments. I hope Obama has a significant number of folks who can delete these lies before they get posted.
Just out of curiosity, I went to Little Green Footballs and followed the link to what the post referred to as search results for "Jewish Lobby". Turns out that the search was not made for the phrase in quotes, but only for any post containing the words "Jewish" and lobby".
Here is what I found in the first ten results:
1. A response to a post previously listed all in caps excoriating the "Jewish Lobby". An attempt to view the all-caps item returned a missing file error, presumably because the post has been deleted.
2. A comment expressing concern that "extremist" posts had not yet been removed from the site.
3. See #2
4. A post summarizing reasons that the "Israel Lobby's" right-wing policy advocacy is inferior to proposals of left wing Jews such as Tikkun.
5. A remark by a Jew living in Maine who praises the American Jewish community and laments the "terrible things happening in Gaza and Israel".
6. A comment expressing opposition to "the Israeli policy", in reference to his speech to AIPAC, and links to articles on Obama's official policy site and quotes Noam Chomsky about what Chomsky simply calls "the Lobby.
7. A post emphasizing that "the Israel lobby" (in quotes in the post) does not represent the opinion of the majority of Jews, and urging Jews around the world to "end their silence on the matter".
8. Another comment complaining about anti-semitic content on the site in the form of the following comment: "Barack just gave an amazing speech at the AIPAC conference. This is a must see. Jewish brothers and sisters, what did you think of the speech?"
9. A post urging readers to lobby their super-delagate to vote for Obama. This post doesn't even contain the word Jewish.
10. An attempt to provde background information about the diversity of Jewish groups that make up the right-wing "Israel lobby", the Jewish publics unawareness of the complete agenda of these organizations, and left wing Jewish organizations' attempts to influence their activities.
In other words, the "hundreds" of posts that LGF implies are somehow anti-Jewish are in fact a conglomeration of any posts that mention anything Jewish and/or anything to do with lobbying, and the only content that could be considered anti-semitic that this search reveals has been deleted from the site.
9.
I am curious as to why my comments were deleted.
For someone espousing the 'free speech' right, I do find that more than a bit curious.
[ Sorry, we've been losing comments for a few days now. Something is wrong with the spam filter. We're working on it. Feel free to re post. Thank You. Site Monitor]
Apologies extended. My comments were not deleted.
My previous comment was erroneous. The mistake is my own.
chharriett @ 72:
1. Where is your evidence?
2. Why do you think anybody would waste their money on that?
Couldn't resist--I checked the next ten results of LGF's search of Obama's site for Jewish lobby, just to be sure I hadn't looked at a non-representative sample. Five of the next ten search results are about lobbies, and do not even contain the word "Jewish". The five that do are roughly similar to the first ten results.
Wm T Sherman @ 76:
http://www.johnmccain.com/ActionCenter/BlogInteract/BlogInteract.aspx