Blake Zeff wonders why Sheldon Adelson hasn’t become more of an attack point for Obama’s campaign, despite that he’s “the very picture of influence-buying.” One theory:
Sometimes, when you’re running a campaign, you find it difficult to define your opponent negatively. In these instances, you begin to dissect his associations to see if there’s someone with whom he’s affiliated that might suggest vulnerability. This is when donors and surrogates like Soros or the Koch brothers attract notoriety.
But Mitt Romney has made such bank-shot strategies unnecessary. The Obama campaign has already succeeded in painting him as a greedy, secretive, out-of-touch, Gordon Gecko-like outsourcer who likes to fire people.
Another answer is obvious, as Zeff also acknowledges: if anyone connected to Obama made a big thing out of Adelson, the usual suspects would trot out the anti-Semitism canard. Doesn’t Blake Zeff realize he is an anti-Semite – or “something much darker” – simply by applying the words “influence-buying” to anyone Jewish? Remember: the truth doesn’t matter. Tropes always defeat truth in the dying world of guilt-by-association neoconservatism.
The Dish 