I went over to the ADL website just for the heck of it, and quickly found two columns unreservedly condemning the e-mail smears and other racist attacks directed at Sen. Obama. Glenn's characterization of the ADL as some sort of GOP front group is patently absurd.

But Glenn is correct that the ADL tends to be a lot more forgiving of obviously or arguably anti-Semitic behavior when it comes from people the ADL considers "pro-Israel" (as defined by the ADL). Glenn (like the ADL) is somewhat preoccupied with Israel, and the ADL's hypocrisy in that area drives him crazy and causes his indulgence in hyperbole.

Irina, how you self-identify is of course up to you, but I hope you do realize that neocons comprise only a small (albeit noisy & obnoxious) minority of American Jews (never mind Jews worldwide). If you read GG regularly, you know that 70-75% of American Jewish voters are supporting the non-neocon presidential candidate, which should tell you something. Judaism does not equate to Israel or Zionism; it sure as hell doesn't equate to neoconservatism.

Omooex, I think throwing rocks at people with guns is an incredibly brave, stupid thing to do. I'm glad no one shot you. BTW, I meant to tell you a while back that I read your story about the goat and was quite impressed with your tender & evocative prose. Hope you stay with the writing (beyond your always-trenchant contributions to Greenwaldia).

As a long-time Florida resident and native Californian, I am ashamed of both my states today, even as I celebrate Obama's marvelous victory.

My wife and I never cease to be amazed at the bigotry that prevents people from having what we have, merely because they are of the same gender.

But remember that the civil rights movement which experienced such a ringing affirmation last night also had many setbacks along the way. Those who believe in GLBT civil rights are on the right side of history and will prevail.

Some of the comments above assume that Bill Clinton committed perjury while in office. Although this assumption is widespread, it is highly questionable. Perjury is generally defined as making a statement under oath that one knows to be false. When people accusing Clinton of perjury go into specifics, they usually point to deposition testimony in which he denied having "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky. But the question he was answering was premised on a vague, convoluted definition of sexual relations, and Clinton may well have reasonably believed that being on the receiving end of a blowjob did not constitute sexual relations, as defined by Jones' attorneys for purposes of the deposition.

Although Clinton was certainly hoping to avoid giving complete and accurate testimony about his sex life, that is not perjury. Had Clinton been tried on perjury charges in a court of law, my guess is that he would likely have, er, gotten off. (Sorry.)

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

people in Afghanistan, um, you know, ATTACKED US.

The difference between "attacked us" and "didn't attack us" seems so basic, but I guess when you just want somebody to suck on something, it doesn't matter...

I said that "people in Afghanistan" attacked us, not that "Afghanistan" attacked us. I thought conventional wisdom was that we went to war in Afghanistan because 9/11 was an Al Qaeda operation and AQ was headquartered in Afghanistan, with the knowledge and protection of the Taliban govt. No?

I'm not necessarily arguing for continued US military involvement in Afghanistan; my point is that there is a really obvious difference between Afghanistan and Iraq, having something to do with the 9/11 thingy. Also, that Shooter is a twit.

to acknowledge Israel's right to respond to attacks on its citizens. It is quite easy to have sympathy for the long-suffering Palestinian people, and to recognize the legitimacy of their grievances, without concluding that Hamas should have carte blanche to kill and terrorize Israeli civilians when it pleases.

There are many ways to resist occupation or protest injustice that do not require flinging rockets at civilian populations. But Hamas chooses to fling them, knowing full well that the inevitable retaliation will do far more harm to Palestinians than Hamas is capable of inflicting on Israel.

Apparently, to Hamas, the symbolic value of continuing its violence against an enemy it can never defeat is worth the one-sided carnage that ensues, or perhaps the carnage is exactly what Hamas intends.

When non-psychopaths disagree with me, it is because they are insufficiently objective. If they were objective, they would know that I am right about everything instead of just most things.

GG to Zenwick & me: "Do you have any particular attachment to Israel -- emotional, cultural and/or religious -- which makes you view it as more than just another foreign country?"

Yes.

GG: "Does that attachment to Israel color your view as to who is right and wrong, and what is and is not justified, when it comes to Israel's various wars with its neighbors and enemies?"

I'm sure it does.

"Does it color your view about whether the U.S. should give special treatment to Israel and what the extent of its support and protection should be for that foreign country?"

A harder question. I personally don't really care if the US gives special treatment to Israel. The US has no inherent obligation to treat Israel as special, and you and others may be right that a change in policy would better serve US interests. (You also may be wrong.)

On the other hand, the success of some American Jews in using the American political process to bring about and maintain special treatment for Israel does not offend me, as it offends you. Our current political system allows policy in many areas to be disproportionately influenced by relatively small groups who are single-minded and have money to spend. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Now a question for you: Do you imagine that you have achieved a perfect state of objectivity concerning Israel and the Palestinians?