You know there is trouble in Democratic circles when NOBODY that I know who is Jewish that supported Barack Obama before Wright-Gate hit is willing to say that they support Obama today.  And with good reason - when you allow the stench of anti-Semitism into your church, into your heart and into your 'crazy uncle' - you alienate a large part of the Democratic electorate.  That large part is necessary for victory and Obama may very well have turned his chances for strong Jewish backing away when he refused to go further than "don't listen to him - he's a product of segregation speech."  Well, a lot of Jews have been the target of of discrimination all over the world and for thousands of years so forgive me if my Jewish-ness does not feel for a group of people who applaud when anti-Semitic, anti-American and anti-white remarks are made as part of the 'best-of' segment of a church.

You would have thought, from the tapes sold by the church, that this whole thing with Obama was an act, but it is real and it is costing him the Jewish vote - maybe not all of it, but certainly some.

Little more than 48 hours after Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) stepped to the microphones to address the anti-Semitic, anti-American and anti-white rage of his ‘spiritual advisor’ and pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, many Jews are taking a second look at the junior Senator and Democratic frontrunner.

By Wednesday the Obama campaign was trying to make Jews understand that his 20-year relationship with a preacher and church that gave an award to Louis Eugene Walcott (sorry, Louis Farrakhan, do all racists change their names?) and who blamed America for everything from the AIDS virus to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 was just a relationship of a man sitting in the pew of a preacher from the “old black school.”

Unfortunately for Obama he did not talk until the controversy was out of control and when that happens it is far too late.  As of this writing I know Jewish leaders and Israeli politicians who are willing to say that an Obama Administration would be “the worst for Israel” of all the candidates and that Obama was “unacceptable” to the Jewish population not only in Israel, but the Diaspora abroad.

Jewish voters give their votes anywhere between 25 and 27% to Republicans – the balance of Jewish voters in strongholds like New York and California vote in a huge Democratic bloc.  Even more than counting on Jewish votes to get Democrats over the top it is almost equally important to get Jewish money.  Obama now has a problem: why would any Jew give money to a man who associates with a pastor and a church that awards anti-Semites and bigots?

It is a bit more difficult to tally Jewish money in politics since there is no record kept of the faith of the voter.  But, taking the afternoon to compare the directory of membership at my synagogue with records of political contributions it is clear that Jewish political contributions are equally important to Democrats.

So did Obama go far enough in his flag draped explanation about his relationship with a preacher who is willing to honor an anti-Semite and treat Israel like a dirty word?  And why all the flags for a guy who won’t wear a flag on his lapel for fear of looking like he was pandering?

Instead of explaining with a condescending “it’s a black thing” and “we all disagree with our pastors” (no we don’t) not quitting his church he brought out of the woodwork people like the Black Panthers and other black separatists who admire anti-Semitism.  They also believe that America is a bastion of evil where whites and especially Jews cause there to be inequity in America not unlike that seen during the 1950s in the south.

With friends like Wright, Farrakhan and the Black Panther Party on his side Obama does not need any enemies.  The relationship with Wright puts him in the pantheon of black separatism and worse than that is Obama raised more questions than answers when he gave his address.  His campaign called his remarks courageous, but courage would have been taking the anti-Semite to task; not telling us that he is like our crazy uncles.

Truth be told I probably would not have voted for Obama whether or not the highlights of Wright’s hate-filled sermons came to the public record or not, but I was willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt with regard to his judgment.  It is that judgment that Obama is using as his only qualification to be Commander-in-Chief and the leader of the free world – a world that has enemies throughout and enemies that would love a person in the White House who did not care if Israel was wiped off the map.

Obama has not explained how in 20 years of sermons, personal contact and experience that he never heard an utterance of an inappropriate or anti-Semitic nature by his own pastor.  I’ve not been an adult for 20 years, but in the time I’ve been an adult I would remember well sermons, particularly those during High Holy days, that involved hatred for America or the kind that paint Israel as a demon.

The worst part of Obama’s non-explanation was that he gave it with the hope that it would end the questions concerning his pastor, but it hasn’t.  In fact it gave us more to think about.  How could a church release a “best-of” DVD of hate and Obama be oblivious to it?  How could Wright blame America for everything from AIDS to crack and Obama be oblivious to it?  How could Wright be the leader of Obama’s church and be part of his life for 20 years and Obama not be aware that he blamed Israel for the ills of the Middle East – including the fact that Wright and Obama believe that “cynicism” is the reason that there is not peace in the Middle East.

Cynicism?  Does Obama, through Wright’s instruction, really believe that the people of Israel want peace so little that it is cynicism rather than the hatred of the Arab governments and people that surround her that keep peace from happening?  If Obama misjudges the Middle East in theory – how will he do when he is in the Oval Office and is called upon to judge issues for real?

All Obama did on Tuesday was show just how poor his judgment is.  His association with Wright’s church in Chicago may have made him a hero with the black left and helped in a segment of Chicago politics, but for someone that aspired to the highest office in America he should have known better.

Obama knew that Wright was a problem.  When he announced his candidacy for the White House – the New York Times reported that Wright was “dis-invited” by an Obama staffer before his announcement.  Obama’s knowledge that Wright was a problem a year ago makes it that much more difficult to believe that Obama did not know Wright was a problem ten years ago.  That kind of bad judgment cannot be permitted in the White House – particularly when the only thing helping the Jewish vote make a decision is party affiliation.

The Jewish leaders and lay people that I talked to today are just as willing to vote for John McCain, who was at the Western Wall in Jerusalem today, as they would be willing to vote for either of the two Democrats.  One unanimous thing that happened today is that I could not find one person in the Jewish leadership willing to say that they support Barack Obama’s run for the White House and it was not lost on Jewish leaders that while McCain was at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem that Obama was trying to damage control for his association with anti-Semitic and anti-American people that he chose to associate with for two decades.

Jewish people need to examine Obama’s record much more closely and if Obama refuses to not only stand up and “renounce” or “repudiate” the comments and awards that he clearly knew were going on around him then the Jewish vote and Jewish money has an obligation to Israel to stay home or to go to McCain.

Barack Obama’s campaign has done little more than trot out supporters who happen to be Jewish elected leaders in order to explain and disassociate him from his preacher and his church.  My microphone is open to the Obama campaign and I suggest that they take me or another Jewish broadcaster up on the offer because two days ago I was willing to go quietly if Obama was the Democratic nominee.  Today I am unwilling to see him get to the White House and will do everything in my power to see that Jews are not only aware, but outraged, at his conduct and the pretense that he didn’t know anything untoward was happening right under his nose. 

Steve Yuhas is a radio talk show host on AM 600 KOGO in southern California and may be reached by email at  steve@steveyuhas.com or www.steveyuhas.com

Silda Wall Spitzer is not the first, and will by no means be the last, political wife to stand by her embattled husband – soon to be former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. Spitzer announced his resignation Wednesday morning after it became public that he was involved with an international hooker ring – perhaps for the last decade.

Imagine the horror of standing next to the person who shamed you and your family and looking at them with endearing love as they apologize to their constituents for straying from the marriage (or dating) bed. The whole thing is unseemly and it would not be a big deal if it did not happen over and over and over again.

The most famous example is Hillary Clinton who went out defending her husband after news broke on the Drudge Report that he was involved with a White House intern. Former President Bill Clinton took to a podium and pounded his fist and pointing at the camera to deny the charges and the next day his wife and surrogates took to the airwaves to stand by Clinton.

Then the truth came out and the nation was thrust into the first impeachment of an elected President in the history of our nation.

Other political wives stood next to their husbands when they were caught up in sex scandals. Think back to the bathroom arrest of Idaho Senator Larry Craig when he denied charges of soliciting sex from an airport cop in a Minneapolis International Airport bathroom. Sure as anything there his wife stood looking on in shame as her husband defended himself, after pleading guilty to misconduct, declaring that he was not being gay and did not do anything wrong.

I have been cheated on and it was a devastating experience that sticks with me to this day, but I cannot imagine having to go through what I went through in the glare of the public eye. I find the level of privacy that is invaded in simply being a talk show host and therefore a public figure bad enough, but the scrutiny of a bad marriage on top of that - not me! And to have to stand next to a philandering ex would be far too much to deal with and one has to ask what is wrong with these political wives?

What brings political wives to the podium when their husbands find themselves in trouble with the law or caught in the midst of marital infidelity?

Perhaps it is the perks that come with being a political spouse since many of them are treated almost as good, if not better, than their husbands. In the case of the former First Lady, Hillary Clinton, outside of the health care debacle that brought her public scorn, she was able to travel the world and end up with a U.S. Senate seat in a state she was a mere visitor and is now fighting for the Democratic nomination for the White House.

The other issue could be one of force. Maybe not the physical force that comes in domestic abuse, but I find it hard to believe that so many of these women are not privy to the private lives of their husbands. There is something to be said about women’s intuition that nobody in the public should believe does not apply to the wives of political figures. Maybe they know and simply do not care what their husbands are up to because they become used to the good life as the spouse of a political figure.

Whether the wife is someone like that of former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey, who resigned in disgrace after his homeland security advisor (a person uniquely unqualified for the position) turned out to be the former governor’s gay lover or Hillary Clinton who knew of her husbands infidelities and was in charge of helping cover them up – the wives of politicians are willing to stand by their men no matter the case.

I find that simply amazing.

Granted, I am not a psychologist and have no desire to attempt to psychoanalyze any of these women (I've been on that couch and there is nothing I gleaned from it that qualifies me to analyze them), but there is something odd about women who are willing to throw away their dignity and publicly support the men that scorn them.

My experience with infidelity was one of personal turmoil and the last thing I wanted to do was talk about it. I certainly did not want to hear from the person who hurt me, but these women are trotted out as political props for disgraced politicians and look upon them, sometimes ashamedly, but sometimes with adornment and love.

There must be something that can be gleaned about their public appearances by someone in the psych world who can teach us all about what it means to stand next to a person who willfully destroys a partnership in the most public of ways. Surely if these political spouses have some gene or type of personality that makes them more amiable to public humiliation many of us would like to have a bit of it injected, but there are too many from too many walks of life for there to be anything there except force in helping the person they love make it through a very tough time.

From looking at these people on television, none of them are comfortable in their role as political prop and none of them appear outwardly stupid. Their body language and eye movements look disgusted at the people they stand next to and whether they are separated by a dog (as was Hillary Clinton when she and Bill Clinton left the White House for the first time) or a simple podium – it makes no difference if they were forced to stand next to their spouses or not – they consistently do.

They seem ashamed and humiliated and the fact that their spouses put them through it is sick.

Politicians and public figures lead lives that are tough and the scrutiny that they (we) undergo on a daily basis is something that you are not always aware of going in, but once you know that the scrutiny is there you lay your cards on the table and hope that you do the right thing. We've all made mistakes and Lord knows I've wronged people in my life, but you learn from it and the thought of taking the person I love on the walk of shame with me (should there ever be one) is something I cannot fathom.

To think that I would read one day that my significant other was paying for sex or having an affair with interns would be something that I could not ignore and would never stand next to as even a tacit observer. I would hold my head up with some dignity and let him carry the burden of his sin, but that is from a guy who went through a messy break up that hinged on infidelity, but surely even a guy like me learns and if I only had women's intuition things may have been different.

Let’s just hope that Spitzer’s prenuptial agreement left him open to a huge settlement to be paid to his wife who is standing next to him in public, but if she is anything like a normal man or woman is sleeping alone and wondering where to get her next home.

The Lincoln Bedroom at the White House is where Hillary Clinton took refuge – not even the 5th Avenue apartment of Eliot Spitzer is enough to separate the former Empire State first lady from the man who ruined their marriage with $80k in prostitutes over eight to ten years.

Steve Yuhas is a radio talk show host on AM 600 KOGO in southern California and may be reached at steve@steveyuhas.com or www.steveyuhas.com