Obama: 'Never waver in our unshakeable commitment to help Israel'

Seeking to dispel rumors, and some news reports to the contrary, Barack Obama has stated several times that he is a passionate believer in a Jewish state in Israel. Obama has won the vote of quite a few Jews, but others remain unwilling to enter the fold. As Israel approaches its 60th anniversary, Obama pledged last night what sounds a lot like unconditional American support.

While threats to its existence have endured, Israelis have built their nation into a strong, vibrant democracy, with a prosperous economy, a rich cultural life, and a deep friendship with the United States that benefits both our peoples in so many ways. Even in hard times, Israelis have so much to be proud of. As the Jewish State continues to grow and prosper, the United States will always stand with Israel to ensure it can defend itself against threat of terrorism and violence, from as close as Gaza and as far as Tehran. We must never waver in our unshakeable commitment [to] help Israel achieve its goal of true security through lasting peace with its neighbors.

Clinton carries Keystone Jews

Hillary Clinton last night not only won the Pennsylvania primary, but carried the Jewish vote, 62 percent to Barack Obama's 38 percent.

Her margin was similar among whites overall, winning 63 percent to 37 percent. Clinton's performance among white Catholics was particularly strong, winning 70 percent to 30 percent.

"I think much of the Jewish vote voted for their comfort level, and they were more comfortable with Senator Clinton," said Marcel Groen, a Clinton supporter and the head of the Montgomery County Democratic Committee, in an interview with JTA a day after the primary. "I just think generally from a Jewish perspective, Hillary Clinton was a known commodity."

This news really shouldn't be a surprise. When you talk about "comfort level," Obama has had a lot of trouble convincing the Jewish community, and a few others, that he's no sheepskin wolf.

Clinton to Iran: We will 'totally obliterate' you

A pair of Silversteins, Richard and Ken, drew my attention this morning to Hillary Clinton's promise to wipe out Iran if it were to strike Israel with nukes in the near future. Here's the story from Ha'aretz:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, facing a crucial primary in Pennsylvania Tuesday, said that if she were in the White House and Tehran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, the United States would be able to 'totally obliterate' Iran.

Interviewed on ABC's Good Morning America program, Clinton was asked what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton replied. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Meanwhile, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said he believes Iran is "hell-bent" on acquiring nuclear weapons, but he warned in strong terms of the consequences of going to war over that.

"Another war in the Middle East is the last thing we need and, in fact, I
believe it would be disastrous on a number of levels," he said in a speech he was delivering Monday evening at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York.

Pope Benedict's White House address

Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the United States has been getting seemingly wall-to-wall coverage on religion blogs and has supplanted religion coverage at major papers. Here is Reuters' report on his speech at the White House this morning:

Saying he had come as a friend of the United States, Pope Benedict urged Americans and their leaders on Wednesday to base their political and social decisions on moral principles and create a more just society.

In an address to President George W. Bush at the White House on the first full day of his U.S. visit, the pope also called for "patient efforts of international diplomacy to resolve conflicts" and promote progress around the world.

"I come as a friend, a preacher of the Gospel and one with great respect for this vast pluralistic society," Benedict said in a speech after Bush welcomed him to the White House at a ceremony that included 21-gun salute.

Bush cited the role of faith in U.S. life, which the pope had praised in remarks to journalists traveling with him as he crossed the Atlantic.

"Here in America, you'll find a nation that welcomes the role of religion in the public square," Bush said.

"In a world where some evoke the name of God to justify acts of terror and murder and hate, we need your message that God is love. And embracing this love is the surest way to save man from falling prey to the teaching of fanaticism and terrorism," he said.

The pope, marking his 81st birthday, was full of praise for American society, sprinkling his speech with references to the founding fathers -- citing the Declaration of Independence and the first president, George Washington.

But he made no specific references to issues such as abortion and the war in Iraq, appearing at pains to avoid saying anything that could be seen as taking sides in the presidential campaign apart from saying that freedom called for "reasoned public debate."

Benedict and Bush both oppose abortion and embryonic stem cell research, but differ on questions such as the Iraq war and capital punishment.

Instead, the pope concentrated on America's religious roots, which he said were a driving force in a process that "forged the soul of the nation" and won the admiration of the world.

(Photo: New York Times)

Kristol on Obama's 'bitter' religious believers

Barack Obama's recent closed-door comment about "bitter" country folk who "cling to guns or religion" has been getting a lot of play, thanks in large part to Hillary Clinton's willingness to castigate him for it. Here's more via Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish:

Bill Kristol, trained in the same politics as Hillary Clinton, now argues that Obama's remarks in a fundraiser q and a are the "real Obama" - and that his voluminous writing and speaking about the sincerity of his own religious faith, and of others, are presumably "masks." The reason for inferring Obama's Marxism is the following point Obama artlessly made about the way in which economic distress can alter people's tolerance for others:

"It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Is this indistinguishable from saying, along with Marx, that all religion is an obviously false consciousness caused by the alienation of the world-historical class struggle? No, it obviously isn't. It's saying that economic distress does often in human history express itself in more rigid forms of religion, more reactionary cultural identification, less tolerance of "the other." Since large swathes of human history have shown this to be true - and perfectly arguable without any materialist understanding of religion - Kristol is deliberately distorting to paint Obama as a cynical manipulator of religious faith for political ends, rather than as a genuine Christian. He's calling him a lying, Godless communist.

(Image: Time)

Is Hillary God's choice for prez?

At the Democratic presidential forum last night, Sen. Hillary Clinton was asked a question quite comical when considering the event's host (Messiah College in Pennsylvania).

There was a moment of levity on Sunday night when Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was asked at a nationally televised faith forum whether she believed "God wants you to be president?"

"Well, I could be glib and say we'll find out," Clinton said to laughter from the audience.

"But I -- I don't presume anything about God. I believe, you know, Abraham Lincoln was right in admonishing us not to act as though we knew God was on our side," she said.

I'm glad she opted for grace and didn't deem herself the next divinely appointed President of the United States of America. Don't get me wrong: There is no endorsement I'd rather have. It's just kind of frowned upon when you tell the populace that God spoke to you and said He had picked you to lead this nation.

'Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Obama'

CHICAGO — It was a celebration of Palestinian culture -- a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.

A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."

Today, five years later, Obama is a U.S. senator from Illinois who expresses a firmly pro-Israel view of Middle East politics, pleasing many of the Jewish leaders and advocates for Israel whom he is courting in his presidential campaign. The dinner conversations he had envisioned with his Palestinian American friend have ended. He and Khalidi have seen each other only fleetingly in recent years.

And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.

Their belief is not drawn from Obama's speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.

At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."

One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."

Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground. But his presence at such events, as he worked to build a political base in Chicago, has led some Palestinian leaders to believe that he might deal differently with the Middle East than either of his opponents for the White House.

This is the top of a story that ran on the front page of today's LA Times under the headline, "Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Obama." With all the work Obama's campaign has been doing trying to convince American Jews their guy's a good friend of Israel, I can't imagine they appreciate stories like this or that one that predicted Obama's the Muslim favorite.

McCain supporter draws more bad press

A megachurch pastor and supporter of John McCain has called on Christians to wage "war" against the "false religion" of Islam. Liberals are calling on the presidential candidate to distance himself from an important ally. And guess what: It's not John Hagee.

Mother Jones takes on the Rev. Rod Parsley.

Parsley is not shy about his desire to obliterate Islam. In Silent No More, he notes—approvingly—that Christopher Columbus shared the same goal: "It was to defeat Islam, among other dreams, that Christopher Columbus sailed to the New World in 1492…Columbus dreamed of defeating the armies of Islam with the armies of Europe made mighty by the wealth of the New World. It was this dream that, in part, began America." He urges his readers to realize that a confrontation between Christianity and Islam is unavoidable: "We find now we have no choice. The time has come." And he has bad news: "We may already be losing the battle. As I scan the world, I find that Islam is responsible for more pain, more bloodshed, and more devastation than nearly any other force on earth at this moment."

Parsley claims that Islam is an "anti-Christ religion" predicated on "deception." The Muslim prophet Muhammad, he writes, "received revelations from demons and not from the true God." And he emphasizes this point: "Allah was a demon spirit." Parsley does not differentiate between violent Islamic extremists and other followers of the religion:

There are some, of course, who will say that the violence I cite is the exception and not the rule. I beg to differ. I will counter, respectfully, that what some call "extremists" are instead mainstream believers who are drawing from the well at the very heart of Islam.

The spirit of Islam, he maintains, is one of hostility. He asserts that the religion "inspired" the 9/11 attacks. He bemoans the fact that in the years after 9/11, 34,000 Americans "have become Muslim" and that there are "some 1,209 mosques" in America. Islam, he declares, is a "faith that fully intends to conquer the world" through violence. The United States, he insists, "has historically understood herself as a bastion against Islam," but "history is crashing in upon us."

Huckabee ends presidential run

DALLAS — Mike Huckabee, the bass-playing Baptist preacher and former governor of Arkansas, dropped out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination on Tuesday night and endorsed Senator John McCain as the party’s candidate in November.

Though Mr. Huckabee has known for some time that he could not win the nomination, he had pledged to stay in the race until Mr. McCain accumulated the 1,191 delegates he needed to cinch the candidacy, remaining as one of two Republican challengers to Mr. McCain; the other is Representative Ron Paul of Texas, who is still in the race.

His wife, Janet, standing by his side, Mr. Huckabee spoke shortly after the polls closed, addressing a bank of television cameras and a crowd of about 150 supporters, including families, ministers and a few people who wandered in from a business convention down the hall.

“Ladies and gentlemen,” he said, “I called Senator McCain a few moments ago. It looks pretty apparent tonight that he will, in fact, achieve 1,191 delegates to become the Republican nominee for our party.

“I extended to him not only my congratulations, but my commitment to him and to the party to do everything possible to unite our party, but more importantly to unite our country, so that we can be the best nation we can be,” he said.

He praised Mr. McCain as an honorable man who ran an honorable campaign. But he also said he was proud of his own campaign, which started out with little attention and few resources and ended with some attention though still bare-bones — just 30 aides, he said — and still underfinanced.

Quoting from the Apostle Paul, Mr. Huckabee said: “We’ve kept the faith. And that for me has been the most important goal of all. I’d rather lose an election than lose the principles that got me into politics in the first place.”

Huckabee took a cue from that "Saturday Night Live" appearance in ceding the floor. Evangelicals now will have to decide between a Republican nominee they're not thrilled about, though one who is a social conservative in many ways, and either a liberal Christian who is accused of being a Muslim or a Methodist believed to be the Antichrist.

An online poll today at ChristianityToday.com showed 31 percent of the 1,900 participants supporting Huckabee while McCain and Obama each received 26 percent support and Hillary Clinton got 8 percent. The real question, though, is who will she vote for?

'Hating Hillary'

A Christianity Today editorial now online takes up a phenomenon that could dog Hillary Clinton if she survives as the Democratic nominee -- an increasingly unlikely event unless things turn around tonight. The issue is one I've mentioned here before: Despite the findings of a recent Zogby poll, evangelicals love to hate Hillary.

Her public persona, a brand of East Coast liberalism with roots in '60s radical politics, strikes many Americans as uppity and unapproachable. Open talk about her personal faith in recent years strikes some as politically convenient. And Clinton's consistently pro-choice stance on abortion clashes with most evangelicals' deeply held belief that life begins in the womb and should be protected at great cost.

But then come more baseless blows to the former first lady. No small amount of jokes and hate-marketing attests to how far the "Hate Hillary" demographic stretches: T-shirts, bumper stickers, voodoo dolls, and "No Way in Hellary" BBQ aprons are now among the items you can purchase to advertise your anti-Hillary stance. On the nonprofit side, scads of websites dish on Hillary's supposed crookery, while bloggers invent new derogatory nicknames, such as Hitlery and Hilldabeast. We seem to simply enjoy hating Hillary. ...

Perhaps Hillary-bashing says more about the political climate Americans have created than it does about Clinton herself. The current President? "Village Idiot." The one before him? "Slick Willy." And on it goes. Instead of researching a candidate's voting record or listening to position statements on pressing issues, it's easier to mark someone ENEMY and begin the verbal whacking. There's admittedly something comforting about this: It helps make sense of the world and creates a feeling of mutuality among those with whom we share dislike. The factions created around enemies may even bear a far-off resemblance to true community.
Better than bashing

Evangelicals, knowing that turning candidates into verbal punching bags will never create real community, are called to talk about political figures in ways starkly different from the pundits and hate-marketers.

While the loudest political voices this election season will keep only a loose rein on their tongues, evangelicals do well to ponder the Bible's insights into the mysterious yet profound connection between a person's heart and mouth: "The things that come out of the mouth," says Jesus, "come from the heart." Which is why Paul says, "Now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips" (Col. 3:8). Biblical psychology assumes not only that the words of our mouths reveal the state of our hearts, but that words have power to shape the heart—for better or worse.

Israel: In Obama's words

Barack Obama's campaign office is no doubt still worried about the whisper campaign against him. Over the weekend, they sent me an e-mail with links to a number of short videos from Obama's meeting with the Cleveland Jewish community that they had posted on YouTube.

In the above video, Obama says that Israel must remain a Jewish state. There are also short videos about the responsibilities of Palestinians, about Israel's right to defend itself against its neighbors, on opposing negotiations with Hamas, on relations between blacks and Jews, on his difference of opinion with Brzezinski and on President Bush's foreign policy.

I wonder, though, what Obama would have to say about what happened in Gaza and nearby Israel during the past week.

Bloomberg as Obama's running mate?

Putting New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on the ticket with Barack Obama might finally quell those Internet rumors about Obama being an undercover Muslim and an anti-Semite and a Palestinian sympathizer. But would Bloomberg play second fiddle? The NY Daily News, via the Bintel Blog, editorializes about why he might and why Obama should inquire.

Bloomberg gives Obama instant economic credibility, exemplifies postpartisan partnerships, offers a deep resume, even deeper pockets, experience confronting terrorism and the ability to think big. The downside?

Let's be frank, some fraction of Americans would vote against any black-Jewish ticket. In a close election, that could hurt.

But the rewards far outweigh the risks. With a bold move, Obama could signal he really is a different kind of politician — and one who can win it all.

As one New York political heavyweight commented recently: No one wants to be the vice president ... until they're asked to be vice president.

LA Times poll: McCain would beat Democrats

We already know Hillary Clinton's campaign has one foot in the grave. But is the Democrat's overall effort to take back the White House also moribund? Another shocker in a wild presidential election:

WASHINGTON -- After a sometimes bitter primary campaign, presumptive Republican nominee John McCain now presents a stiff challenge to either of his potential Democratic opponents in the general election, a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

The findings underscore the difficulties ahead for Democrats as they hope to retake the White House during a time of war, with voters giving McCain far higher marks when it comes to experience, fighting terrorism and dealing with the situation in Iraq.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have made ending the war a centerpiece of their campaigns. But in hypothetical matchups against either Democratic senator, about half of voters polled said McCain, a Vietnam veteran, was best able to deal with the war. Just over a third of voters polled favored the Democratic candidates on that issue.

Overall, McCain would beat Clinton 46% to 40% and Obama 44% to 42%. His lead over Obama is within the poll's three-point margin of error.

Last night, Karl Rove offered two contradictory remarks/jokes that could explain how Democratic enthusiasm is now behind the eight ball. Rove said he was certain he could get either Clinton or Obama elected, but wouldn't say how. "I only work for Democrats -- and Joe Lieberman." Lieberman is, of course, a friend and supporter of McCain; Rove is too, despite an icy introduction. But at another moment in his lecture, Rove joked that he secretly was advising both Clinton and Obama, explaining why they had turned so hard against each other.

Such a scenario would certainly bare what President Bush's former chief strategist said has become known as "the mark of Rove." "If you can't explain," he said, "Rove is responsible."

Too much credence probably shouldn't be put into this hypothesis.

Karl Rove and the politics of religion

Last spring, Karl Rove was outed by atheist superstar Christopher Hitchens as a fellow nonbeliever.

"He doesn't shout it from the rooftops, but when asked, he answers quite honestly. I think the way he puts it is, "I'm not fortunate enough to be a person of faith."

But last night Rove told me he is in fact a religious person, though he didn't specify how his Christian roots manifest themselves in his life.

Rove was in Los Angeles to speak at the Gibson Ampitheatre, one of a number of distinguished voices in this year's Public Lecture Series by American Jewish University. His invitation had caused a bit of consternation in the Jewish community, but he quickly won over many of his skeptics, which I wrote about in an article that will be online Thursday.

"I spent part of my childhood in Utah," Rove said at a VIP dinner before the lecture. "I went to a high school that is 95 percent Mormon, and only in Utah could a Presbyterian and a Jew both be gentiles."

Regardless of his own beliefs, Rove, who left his post as chief adviser to President Bush in August, was instrumental in helping Bush monopolize the support of evangelical voters and making religious rhetoric an essential part of presidential campaigns, something we are seeing plenty of this year.

"Roosevelt used to say to his speech writer, Rosenman, Don't forget the God stuff at the end. That's a bit colloquial," Rove said, "but the point is Americans have always valued leaders of faith."

In fact, as early as 1800, in the race between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, religious piety and divine reverence played an important role in politics.

As Jefferson and John Adams, a publicly devout Christian, slugged it out on the campaign trail, the Gazette of the United States ran this:

THE GRAND QUESTION STATED

At the present solemn and momentous epoch, the only question to be asked by every American, laying his hand on his heart, is: “Shall I continue in allegiance to

GOD—AND A RELIGIOUS
PRESIDENT;

Or impiously declare for

JEFFERSON—AND NO GOD!!!”

Jefferson was vehemently attacked for being a godless, slave-owning (-impregnating) sinner. But the underlying issue was what kind of liberties would this country afford its few voting members and everyone else who lived here. Jefferson favored greater freedoms while Adams sought to strengthen the office of the president. (A proto-Bush?)

Still, many people couldn't get over the fact that Jefferson didn't believe in God. And though he eventually won through a complicated process in the Electoral College, some members who didn't want to give their vote to an atheist said they would rather "go without a Constitution and take the risk of civil war."

Now, though, Godtalk dominates -- whether it is about what kind of Christian John McCain is, why evangelicals can't stand Hillary Clinton or whether Barack Obama is a "covert Muslim." The question, and it's one Rove didn't answer, is why did religious rhetoric has become so central to running for president. So-called "moral-values issues" were just as important to voters in elections that brought Bill Clinton to the White House as those that elected and re-elected George Bush. Something else is certainly at play.

Huckabee campaigns on SNL

"I'm not a math guy. I'm more of a miracle guy."

The words of Mike Huckabee a few minutes ago on "Saturday Night Live's" mock news show "Weekend Update." The former Arkansas governor was there to explain, in self-deprecating form, why he remains in the race for the Republican presidential nomination even though he'd still be trailing John McCain if he swept each and every remaining delegate.

"Mike Huckabee does not overstay his welcome," he said. "When it's time for me to go, I'll know. And I'll exit out with class and grace."

He then remained behind the anchors' desk, even after anchor Seth Meyers made it clear it was time to go.

Islamic Jihad: Let's have a bake sale

I wasn't able to see Jeffrey Goldberg -- the author of "Prisoners: A Muslim and a Jew Across the Middle East Divide" who had a great Atlantic cover story this month on the future nations of the Middle East -- when he spoke at UCLA Hillel and Sinai Temple this month. But Jewish Current Issues has an interesting quote about the presidential election from his talk at the latter location.

There is almost this childish belief that on January 20, 2009 we will elect another president and that it will be Obama, or at least a woman, and the world will say “Oh great! Now we can like you again!”

There is this level of childish certainty in that -- that I find unfathomable. Because the next American president will have to advance America’s interests around the world. Some of those interests will have to be advanced in hard ways.

I predict that if Barack Obama becomes president, by late 2009 the stories in newspapers in Europe and on TV across the Arab world will be “Oh my God, this Obama is like Bush Lite!”

Why? Because he’s had to take hard steps in Afghanistan. Because he’s had to take hard steps in Pakistan. Because he hasn’t actually pulled out of Iraq, because pulling out of Iraq is not as easy as it sounds when you are debating Hillary Clinton on a stage somewhere. . . .

Because the next president -- whoever it is -- is going to face the same set of enormous problems, and like any president is going to have limited maneuverability to deal with those problems. And those problems are not going to go away. The Islamic Jihad is not going to say “Well! They elected Barack Obama! I guess we should just have a bake sale or something.”

Godtalk gone wild

I spoke last month with Jacques Berlinerblau, author of "Thumpin' It: The Use and Abuse of the Bible in Today's Presidential Politics." Jewcy recently caught up with the Georgetown professor and has this Q&A:

In light of presumptive Republican nominee John McCain's virtually nonexistant “Scripture game” and his past skirmishes with prominent evangelical figures, do you think 2008 offers an opening for the Democrats to close the gap with religious voters?

Absolutely. You know, it’s strange: on many issues of great concern to conservative Christians (abortion, national security, showing the love to Intelligent Design curricula) McCain delivers the goods. But as I noted in Thumpin’ It, he has this longstanding history of personal enmity with their leadership. I once suggested in my blog for The Washington Post that McCain and conservative Evangelicals would benefit from couples counseling. When the senator from Arizona says ours is a “Christian nation” (as he did this past fall) what Evangelicals should hear him saying is: “please don’t accuse me of having fathered an illegitimate child” (as some unidentified Bush operatives famously did in 2000 in South Carolina).

That being said, a candidate like Obama would steal Evangelical votes from McCain and even McCain-Huckabee in large Kansas-sized chunks.

Speaking of which, you discuss a growing rift in the evangelical movement due to the rise of progressive evangelicals like Jim Wallis and the evangelical environmentalists. What is the state of progressive evangelicalism and how will it affect the 2008 election?

This is the big question: to what degree will Evangelicals behave the way they did in 2004. Nearly 80% of them voted for George W. Bush. That’s 80% of a quarter of the electorate! But I don’t think that will happen again in 2008. For starters, progressive Evangelicals are finding their voice. And a new generation of younger evangelicals is rising that doesn’t seem eager to focus solely (and obsessively) on abortion and gays. This is a great opportunity for Democrats. Remember: they don’t have to win Evangelicals—they just have to stanch the Kerry-like hemorrhaging they endured in 2004. That is eminently doable.

The book focuses primarily on how the “Scripture game” plays to Christian Americans. How does it play to Jewish Americans? Are the rules any different?

With the possible exception of certain Orthodox groups, my sense is that most Jews would prefer that Bible-thumping politicians put a cork in it. Public, state-sponsored displays of religion tend not, historically, to be good for a minority group once aptly described by Max Weber as a “pariah people.” Even when Christian politicians invoke the Old Testament they are usually citing prophetic texts and Psalms that they read in a deeply Christological manner. So Jews aren’t about to respond to that with cries of “yesher koach!”

McCain loses conservative Christian vote, according to GodTube's unscientific, but possibly accurate, 'stunning new poll'

Via the DMN religion blog:

GodTube is a Dallas-based online service aimed at Christians. It's hosted a presidential poll that is no more scientific that me sticking my finger in the air. Self-selecting, non-random, it's own population. But that doesn't mean it's not interesting. GodTubers (which sounds like a sacred potato, no?) clearly do not (heart) McCain. Specific results after the jump.

From my e-box:

DALLAS, Texas (Feb. 14, 2008) - GodTube.com has announced that despite the recent sweeping victory for John McCain, a stunning new GodTube.com poll reveals that if McCain wins his party's nomination, Christian Conservative participants would rather vote for one of the two Democratic candidates.

With a slim 9.1% support for McCain, Obama has become a viable choice for many Christian Conservatives with 26.3% of the Christian vote, up 8% from last week.

Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton showed no increase in the GodTube.com poll this week maintaining her 19.6% of the Christian vote while Republican candidate Mike Huckabee increased his lead 30% last week, leading the GodTube.com poll by 45% of the overall Christian vote.

VideoJew: Jews Choose 2008

This is awesome! Jay Firestone doing his best NBC Nightly News impression, some of the most patriotic graphics I've seen, not to mention a great score and my political expertise telling people to "do the math" -- watch and enjoy.

Calling it quits: In Romney's words

Romney did indeed pull the trigger in a speech to CPAC a few minutes ago:

"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and frankly I would be making it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror," he said.

"This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters... many of you right here in this room have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming President. If this were only about me, I'd go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, in this time of war, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country," he said as the crowd exclaimed, "No, no."

"I will continue to stand for conservative principles; I will fight alongside you for all the things we believe in. And one of those things is that we cannot allow the next President of the United States to retreat in the face of evil extremism!"