Yeah. Me too. I noticed.

And he does not worship Jesus. Why on Earth would he go to a church? Bullshit.

No harm in that. And he has gone to many churches in Vermont.

But, of course, Hillary has marched for civil rights. When? I was in those marches during the 60's and 70's. Have worked for all groups civil rights. I didn't go to churches to do it. Neither did Bernie.

He shows respect to black leaders. After all, that is only civil if nothing else. And BTW many posters here were complaining that he has not spent time in black churches. Now he does it and all he gets is contempt. That's not right. Remember once again, he is not a Christian. Why would he go to a church period. He went to a black church to show respect. I hope you will understand.

Seriously, let's not get too hurt around here.

THOSE people can float antisemitism - but we can't float that among white liberals are people that lock their doors when a young black man walks by their car.

If being a black liberal does not preclude one from being anti-Semitic -

Then being a white liberal does not preclude one from being a bigot towards blacks.

It's like the white liberal who only shows up about race conversations when it is anyone other than a white person doing the wrong thing. Their true colors show under that hat they wear.

They went there - now they better woman up and man up and own it!

such. No human being should! Ever.

Many a Seder at my mom's paternal grandparents house has been spent.

The anti semitism is real.

But so is the racism.

Not my personal experience - my gender and light tan complexion probably has saved me from some of the worst of it.

but I would really love to live to see the day where a person's worth is counted only in that person's character, not in externalities such as skin color.

I am not a POC myself, but some in my extended family are blended, and they are truly beautiful, IMO. My own sons have a North African heritage; two of my grandsons are also Asian-American. My baby sister is married to a Native American, and many family members have married Latinos/Latinas. And yes, we have gays, lesbians, and transgenders represented among us, e.g., a stepson, now stepdaughter.

We simply love each other. We are none of us perfect and we each have our eccentricities (which I like to refer to as "charming eccentricities&quot . Some simply find us nuts! My own mother and father - after many years in a dysfunctional marital relationship which left its marks on their children - finally legally separated and immediately went on a cruise together. They thereafter remained great friends to the ends of their respective lives.

This can be a beautiful world. I HATE all "-isms" that divide us. I also truly believe that Hillary understands that better than Bernie ever can or will.

They thereafter remained great friends to the ends of their respective lives.

I can beat you. My grandmother's parents married and divorced several times in the 1920s! Two good looking people, two passports too many, too much Paris and way too much booze. It's a miracle my grandmother turned out to be such a Holly Homemaker!

They were the originators of Friends With Benefits in their 80's and 90's!

did know how to have good times ...

Flat out refuse. Been trying for hours. Best I could get was that I would not "bait them into a racist diatribe" as if that doesn't say it all

Maybe it would be easier for them if we changed the name of this group to "core constituency."

I guess the admins would have to buy in and that would be too "meta" or something. As IF anything can be TOO meta Maybe in the group purpose? That could be REALLY funny.

The last I read in January, not a lot of American Jews are feeling him.

It’s unclear if the Sanders surge in the polls is paralleled by a rise in his standing among Jews. The only poll available, conducted back in September by the American Jewish Committee, suggests Clinton has strong Jewish support. The poll showed Clinton as the preferred candidate by 40 percent of Jewish voters, with just 18 percent opting for Sanders.

Steve Rabinowitz, who runs a Washington communications firm and helped launch Jewish Americans Ready for Hillary, a pro-Clinton fundraising group, said an early Sanders win could capture younger Jewish voters, but that the important community of Jewish donors remains committed to Clinton.

“God love him, but our community is not feeling ‘the Bern,’” said Rabinowitz. “He does not deny [his Judaism], he does not shrink from it, when asked about it he says the right thing – but we’d like it on his sleeve. We got it from [Joe Lieberman]. Blacks got it from Obama. Hispanics would expect it. It’s not a litmus test, but we kind of want more from him.” http://www.timesofisrael.com/bernie-sanders-surging-in-polls-but-are-jews-feeling-the-bern/

TIA!

after seeing the title link while reading another BLM Sanders' article, but kept the bookmark because I KNEW that charge was coming

Anti-Semitism is an issue on the left, in the democratic party, at DU, and even among some African-Americans. However, I am not seeing, at DU or in general, many anti-Semitic jibes made toward Sanders, and the ones I do see have all been by white people/posters. What I find irritating is some of the people "floating" these theories have themselves engaged in anti-Semitism, and yet now, they are suddenly concerned.

If being a black liberal does not preclude one from being anti-Semitic -

Then being a white liberal does not preclude one from being a bigot towards blacks.

I would agree. The real issues to me are the numbers or allegations are being exaggerated, fabricated, or something in between. There have been plenty of white progressives or liberals who have made racist remarks, supported racist actions, and/or made excuses for racism, which I personally feel is also racist. What I am seeing in regards to recent discussions of anti-Semitism is coming to or implying conclusions which aren't supported by the original claim.

What I am seeing, as a Jew, is some people showing up to a conversation and not having a clue how to conduct it or even understanding the material. Now that is of interest to them because it suits their needs, suddenly anti-Semitism deserves to be discussed, unlike in the past several years, but it has to be discussed on their terms, most of whom aren't even Jewish. Sound familiar?

There have always been those who have confronted anti-Semitism and are willing to discuss it when it is the topic, as opposed to changing the subject, but this new "interest" in anti-Semitism is a bit disconcerting for me, because I can already see the writing on the wall, and it says, "Anti-Semitism isn't worthy of discussion!" "Stop playing the anti-Semitism card" and the like, pretty much what many Jewish posters have been enduring for years, now it just under a new guise.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

ETA: I see there is yet another ""you people" don't really know why you are voting for Clinton" posts, and that, IMO, is racism!

I will defer to you . And you know I call it out when I see it. Much like the lady with a hat shows up to certain discussions (she did on that one) I'm waiting for the lady with an r.


And I see some cross contamination that you are probably seeing too. Because NOW it is a problem when it has been there all along. Now all of a sudden it's a problem - for the usual suspects?

I take it (having read some of your posts) that you are quite concerned with anti-semitism originating from the Left. I don't doubt that there is much of it, the same as you will find anti-semitism in a lot of places. (BTW, in terms of full disclosure I am agnostic on Israel myself. No doubt they stole land from the Arabs but given that we did a much more comprehensive job stealing land from Native Americans I don't think we're in much of a position to criticise.)

However, there has been quite a bit of anti-semitism directed at Sanders. There was one post in particular that is amply referenced here wherein Sanders was accused of financing his campaign via a secret Jewish slush fund in Israel. That post was tacitly endorsed by a number of people who also post here and remain members in good standing.

I take it that you consider, for example, the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement to be anti-semitic. Perhaps it is, but BDS is also roundly endorsed by many if not most of the leaders of Black Lives Matter (Patrisse Cullours, for example), but relatively little has been made of this. So I suppose people would put the same question to you:- why do you criticize antisemitism on the left, but remain silent when it serves the interests of the Democratic Party establishment?

This type of questioning is a logical fallacy known as a "strawman".

I take it that you consider, for example, the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement to be anti-semitic. Perhaps it is, but BDS is also roundly endorsed by many if not most of the leaders of Black Lives Matter (Patrisse Cullours, for example), but relatively little has been made of this. So I suppose people would put the same question to you:- why do you criticize antisemitism on the left, but remain silent when it serves the interests of the Democratic Party establishment?

You are incorrect about my assessment of BDS. While I certainly find aspects of it to be anti-Semitic, I have never said it was anti-Semitic as a movement. You further assert "BDS is also roundly endorsed by many if not most of the leaders of Black Lives Matter" and give one example, this is, again, not sufficient to make the claim you did and, therefore, assumes "facts into evidence" which aren't really facts. Which really begs the question: Despite your claim, "I take it (having read some of your posts) that you are quite concerned with anti-semitism originating from the Left." what makes you conclude I "remain silent when it serves the interests of the Democratic Party establishment?"?

So, let me make it clear, I address anti-Semitism no matter which side does it. I post about anti-Semitism on the left being an issue because this site is supposed to be a center-to-left site. Addressing issues of anti-Semitism on the right is akin to addressing the wetness of water. Whereas I may not be in every thread where anti-Semitism rears its head, I certainly am not known for shying away, and given your claim, I would think that would be obvious.

at this statement:-

and I have to say, I think that many others would be surprised too. Even Norman Finkelstein, no advocate for Israel, has said that he considers BDS to have more than a whiff of anti-semitism about it. And this is Norman Finkelstein we're talking about.



I can give you the names of at least eleven more BLM reps that support a boycott against Israel - including Willaford and Johnson, the two women that memorably confronted Sanders at the rally in Seattle and criticized him for, amongst other things, his support for the state of Israel. How many more names would you like?

http://www.blackforpalestine.com/view-the-signatories.html

As an aside, this is from Alicia Garza, a founder of BLM and the very first woman to utter the immortal phrase "Black Lives Matter":-



http://www.ajamubaraka.com/tag/from-ferguson-to-palestine/

Could you imagine someone posting such a scathing critique of Obama (on this site, for example) and not being piled on by the exact same people who so readily embrace "Black Lives Matter" and who at the same time work assiduously to reduce it to some kind of feel-good middle-class bumper sticker statement to be generously plastered on the swaggering ass of the Democratic Party establishment?

I can't.

I'm a white guy, and it depresses even me. Truly, what the bastards can't destroy they turn into a commodity for sale.

3rd Warning - Thanks - Group Host

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1187&pid=38481
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1187&pid=38482

You killed it with truth.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=307836

And it was hidden. This was a while ago during some Israeli palestinian conflict .

I was so happy to see that ban message in my inbox this morning!

He called Hillary the c-word.

Shocking for such an obviously high class chap. Really.

towards Bernie, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised, I guess they don't really want change.

As he has made anti Semitic comments.

But in this case it's sanders supporters who seem to think he is so great and thst Sanders supported him. And that jackson may endorse Sanders . And black people should think it's so great.

Black posters aren't following Jackson on this.

Also the ones who they keep mentioning as being so horrible in this campaign are jewish like Debbie w Schultz.

Anti semitism is a problem and it should be discussed but there is a lot of dishonesty in how that was brought up. There was a thread in this forum from a while back on it .

so why now?

They started decades ago as a "black" church but accept anyone and everyone, like the Lord intended. I guess some yankees may be a bit more hospitable than some "charming" southerners.

But others want to go all

fall in line. I think it's hilarious.

see what sticks and we keep repeating the same thing It'll sink in eventually.

Compared to the rest of the party, African American Democrats skew more southern and more moderate, at least by self-identification* (this wasn't always true; black Democrats haven't changed much but white southerners, who were often not just moderate but actively conservative, were extinguished from the party over the last decade). I don't see why anybody needs a conspiracy theory to explain why a candidate who everyone agrees will have problems with moderates and the South is not doing well with the one part of the party that is the most moderate and the most southern...

* That said, a black South Carolinian who tells a poster she is "moderate" may actually be to the left of a white New Yorker who calls himself "liberal", on a lot of issues, so take this whole idea with Lot's wife.

them? That his outreach with Cornel West and Killer Mike by his side.. just didn't bowl them over.

Could it be that since President Obama is so popular with African Americans and the whole country that having these two guys, who showed nothing but disrespect towards Obama, just weren't the right spokesmen to get?

Gracias, luna~

http://njtoday.net/2016/02/23/sanders-endorsed-by-black-south-carolina-lawmakers/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Cohen

after all, O'Malley had the same ability to garner black support at the local level but went nowhere with AA voters in a nationwide primary.

Its very difficult to build the sort of networks on the fly that the Clintons have had thirty-odd years to produce. Obama had the same problem trying to crack the Latino vote in the primary in 2008. Ironically Sanders is doing much better amongst Latinos than Obama did back then.

The interesting thing is that "Obama's Latino problem" garnered relatively little attention at the time, although "Obama's Jewish problem" generated innumerable op-eds, much the same as "Sanders' black problem" does now. The fact is that riffing off that old Brooklyn frisson is a good, cheap, controversy-baiting headline that generates a lot of clicks. Witness this place, for instance.

backing of a grand total of one AA elected official AFAIK (Keith Ellison). Relationships are built over time, and few have been on Capitol Hill as long as BS, so that tells me all I need to know about how his colleagues regard him. What has BS done in his decades on the Hill to cultivate those relationships?