talk about irony. 

since assuming office as 'determinator of even the most crypto anti-semiticism' and being granted the power to view into all mens' hearts and see the moral rot therein,  moderateman has been unrelenting in sniffing out and denouncing as 'jew haters' anyone who dares criticize policy implemented by the civil government of israel.

so it is that his most recent screed (featuring introductory actual anti-semitic quotes attributed to howard dean and senator john kerry) strongly suggested soon-to-be-former senator joe lieberman's recent primary defeat was driven by racism rather than lieberman's unpopular support for the administration's decision to neglect its proclaimed 'war on terror' while attempting to effect regime change in iraq. Link

one reader agreed with mm's allegation (reply #7), citing as evidence an opinion piece published in the washington times ('donkey see, monkey do' authored by guest commentator, robert goldberg) Link.  according to goldberg, democrats have no room to criticize george allen's deliberate use of a racial slur to demean a person in his audience.  (the incident was caught on video so anyone who wants to fool themselves into believing it was an accident after seeing that nasty grin on allen's face is clearly self-delusional.)

why not?

because, according to goldberg, moveondotorg's forum is filled with "malicious Jew-baiting of the Moveon crowd" demonstrating "boy do the Moveon folks hate Jews".   quotes from at least 5 of what goldberg claims to be 'hundreds' of antisemitic posts are provided. 

just so there's no misunderstanding, each of those examples goldberg cites contains one of more disgusting racist statements.   there is no place in american politics nor in american society for that sorta bigoted hatred and i find it reprehensible.  

altho goldberg correctly identifies moveondotorg as a "political organization that donates millions to Democratic candidates and uses the Web to whip up support for its policies", the reader who posted reply #7 isn't nearly as concerned with accuracy.   here's the way his reply concludes:

I had no idea as to how racist some of the left are. In todays age, one rarely sees this amount of blatant racism, especially by a well known group.

It amazes me that this type of thing is not widely reported by the MSM with MoveOn.org being an accepted mainstream Democratic organization.

On second thought, I suppose it doesn't really amaze me at all.

in subsequent threads and in two spinoff articles (all of which share the same inflammatory title as mm's original), it becomes very clear there are others who seem to confuse moveondotorg with the democratic national committee or its equivalents in each state. 

all of which, taken together, might easily mislead the uninformed and unwary to go away believing moveondorg is the democratic party the majority of whom hate jews.  

so i decided to bring a lil truth, moderation and an actual voice of sanity to the table.  (a table from which no replies have ever been deleted nor anyone blacklisted...ever.)

let's start with moveondotorg.

i've not been there since it was first founded and wouldn't have visited it today but i was appalled by goldberg's claims and had to see it for myself.   it appears some of the other experts--those who are amazed  "this type of thing is not widely reported by the MSM" or "Two: Moveon claims credit for anti-semitism.  Big time (shall I link?) not to mention mm himself--might have benefited from doing so as well.

there were 57793 posts available for viewing as of about 930pm pdt (that would be gmt-8).  without doing a lil tweaking to the url,  5 posts are presented on each page.  after about 10 pages i fixed it so i was seeing 100 posts to a page and went all the way to the beginning of august 8, 2006  (that would be post 3087 for those of yall who are counting).   

i hate to break all yall's bubbles but...there are not hundreds or even dozens of anti-semitic posts as goldberg and his promoters would like you to believe.  i found those mentioned in his article which pretty much add up to all there is.  too many no matter how you look at it, but...  

i did find a lotta posts repudiating or rebuking those.  i also found some repudiating and rebuking those who posted what was described as anti-semitic remarks on other sites (including lamont's). 

so yeah drguy.  please provide me with some links.  

before you start, i don't consider criticism of israel's policies anti-semitic.  israel is not sacrosanct nor infallible.  far from it.  that may not please those who've criticized ken roth--head of human rights watch--as rosa brooks recounted in this exerpt from "Criticize Israel? You're an Anti-Semite!" published 9/1/2006 in the la times:  

"EVER wonder what it's like to be a pariah?

Publish something sharply critical of Israeli government policies and you'll find out. If you're lucky, you'll merely discover that you've been uninvited to some dinner parties. If you're less lucky, you'll be the subject of an all-out attack by neoconservative pundits and accused of rabid anti-Semitism.

This, at least, is what happened to Ken Roth. Roth - whose father fled Nazi Germany - is executive director of Human Rights Watch, America's largest and most respected human rights organization. (Disclosure: I have worked in the past as a paid consultant for the group.) In July, after the Israeli offensive in Lebanon began, Human Rights Watch did the same thing it has done in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia, East Timor, Sierra Leone, Congo, Uganda and countless other conflict zones around the globe: It sent researchers to monitor the conflict and report on any abuses committed by either side.

It found plenty. On July 18, Human Rights Watch condemned Hezbollah rocket strikes on civilian areas within Israel, calling the strikes "serious violations of international humanitarian law and probable war crimes." So far, so good. You can't lose when you criticize a terrorist organization.

But Roth and Human Rights Watch didn't stop there. As the conflict's death toll spiraled - with most of the casualties Lebanese civilians - Human Rights Watch also criticized Israel for indiscriminate attacks on civilians. Roth noted that the Israeli military appeared to be "treating southern Lebanon as a free-fire zone," and he observed that the failure to take appropriate measures to distinguish between civilians and combatants constitutes a war crime.

The backlash was prompt. Roth and Human Rights Watch soon found themselves accused of unethical behavior, giving aid and comfort to terrorists and anti-Semitism. The conservative New York Sun attacked Roth (who is Jewish) for having a "clear pro-Hezbollah and anti-Israel bias" and accused him of engaging in "the de-legitimization of Judaism, the basis of much anti-Semitism." Neocon commentator David Horowitz called Roth a "reflexive Israel-basher & who, in his zest to pillory Israel at every turn, is little more than an ally of the barbarians." The New Republic piled on, as did Alan Dershowitz, who claimed Human Rights Watch "cooks the books" to make Israel look bad. And writing in the Jewish Exponent, Jonathan Rosenblum accused Roth of resorting to a "slur about primitive Jewish bloodlust."

Anyone familiar with Human Rights Watch - or with Roth - knows this to be lunacy. Human Rights Watch is nonpartisan - it doesn't "take sides" in conflicts. And the notion that Roth is anti-Semitic verges on the insane.

But what's most troubling about the vitriol directed at Roth and his organization isn't that it's savage, unfounded and fantastical. What's most troubling is that it's typical. Typical, that is, of what anyone rash enough to criticize Israel can expect to encounter. In the United States today, it just isn't possible to have a civil debate about Israel, because any serious criticism of its policies is instantly countered with charges of anti-Semitism"

getting back to the allegations against moveondotorg, i just have three additional things to say.

1. if you're going to condemn a person or organization on the basis of alleged statements, you're much less likely to wind up looking foolish and feeling shamed (an emotion which, if you're capable of it, those of you who jumped on the bandwagon should be feeling now) if you make an effort to find the actual statement in its original form rather than blindly accepting the opinion of a 2nd party commentator.

2. if you're gonna persist in claiming moveondotorg to be the voice of the democratic party, it's only fair you also represent littlegreenfootballsdotcom and freerepublicdotcom to be voices of the republican party.  while they may be more coherent voices than that of the current president, there's no shortage of bigotry, extremism and anti/un-american views regularly expressed at one or both.

3. if you're gonna cite the washington times as a source for anything, keep in mind i'm well aware its publisher and chief financial backer is sun myung moon--a lying convicted felon and would-be dictator of the world who claims to be the reincarnation of jesus and who rejects anyone but koreans as being the chosen people.  the times is quite clearly a tool he uses to advance his personal ambitions.  i mean, you can cite world weekly news too but...don't expect me to buy into that bullshit just cuz you do.