Obama Responds To Richard Cohen Column About His Church And Farrakhan
I asked the Obama campaign if they were going to respond to today's highly questionable column by WaPo's Richard Cohen raising questions about the fact that his church and its minister launched Trumpet Newsmagazine, which hailed Lous Farrakhan as a great man.
Here's Obama's response, sent over by the campaign:
I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree.
One point about Cohen's column. When he writes...
It's important to state right off that nothing in Obama's record suggests he harbors anti-Semitic views or agrees with Wright when it comes to Farrakhan.
...Cohen is of course raising questions in people's minds as to whether Obama does believes this stuff, which is exactly what the original smears are supposed to do. It's surprising that Cohen dragged his paper down to this level, particularly in light of the big controversy over WaPo's piece front-paging the Obama Muslim smears without declaring them false.
On second thought, maybe it isn't surprising at all.
Late Update: I've got more on Cohen's column right here at The Horse's Mouth.
Comments (141)
Helter wrote on January 15, 2008 1:05 PM:Any answer to the question posed on the front page, i.e., did he work this angle on his own, or did someone within a campaign pitch it to him?
Greg wrote on January 15, 2008 1:10 PM:we think the column idea may have come from an email that's been circulating in the Jewish community...but not sure
Geek, Esq. wrote on January 15, 2008 1:12 PM:Josh Marshall wondered who pitched Cohen for this column.
My guess is that it's the same people who pitched the NY Post for its racist Page Six item yesterday about Obama entering his victory party to the sounds of misogynistic rap music (ooh, scary black man who hates women).
The timing of these columns is no coincidence, given what certain surrogates have been saying in public.
Kevin wrote on January 15, 2008 1:14 PM:This is about the 10th attempt this week to push Obama off of the racial tightrope that he has walked better than any politician I can remember. There is absolutely no way this column wasn't written on direct order from the Clinton smear machine.
On a brighter note, if Obama wins this campaign, he will have faced everything that the right wing will throw at him and survived. It is just sad to see that thus far it has come from his own side.
I'm not an Obama supporter but I cannot think of anything I've read more ludicrous than this. As to the poster above, I will reserve speculation on that as I have for all the candidates, I'm praying for party unity to win back the White House and was pleasantly surprised to see Barack denounce the tone the campaigns have recently taken and then to see Hillary follow suit. I have held neither of them responsible for the gaffs of surrogates and would love to see supporters follow suit. For example: "I disagree with Hillary on X and feel Obama is better on X, here's why" as opposed to "Hillary is a bitch and deserves to die, Obama is a star." It is a primary and supporting different candidates on reasoned findings will not hurt the party, in-party mudslinging will. I think Hillary had the most apparent mishaps but I don't feel Obama's campaign has shown themselves above politics either. They have said stop it and I again am taking them on their word and hope we can too.
steve wrote on January 15, 2008 1:15 PM:And here we have exhibit #473 that Obama and his supporters can't handle a little scrutiny. Cohen's column raises good and important questions. Obama should have answered them sooner. Why push the alarm buttons when questions like this are raised, Greg? Frankly, what this column reminds us is that Obama has faced little to no real scrutiny, and that should terrify any Democrat who hopes to take the White House this year. Obama is the express train to certain defeat, partly because he lacks any real experience and partly because there seems to be an outright refusal to seriously vet him.
lombard wrote on January 15, 2008 1:16 PM:Helter wrote on January 15, 2008 1:05 PM:
"Any answer to the question posed on the front page, i.e., did he work this angle on his own, or did someone within a campaign pitch it to him?"
I answer my view on that question by posing another rhetorical one. Do the campaigns pitch the denunciations of candidates viewed on these pages or do bloggers decide to take the initiative themselves?
We really do have two outstandingly capable candidates if they are able to orchestrate and direct all of this rhetoric by their own sheer wills.
Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 1:17 PM:No sooner than I posted was my point proven, Steve blends opinion and fact that seems reasoned with a jab at Obama supporters, one is appropriate and effective sans the other.
Common Sense wrote on January 15, 2008 1:17 PM:Still, he could be a scary black man. Has he ever listened to Public Enemy or watched Roots? Isn't he friends with Spike Lee?
There's a whole list of black folks he's apparently going to apologize for or distance himself. Imagine if he was 100% black....
What a country.
Tom wrote on January 15, 2008 1:20 PM:What's funny about Cohen writing this is that he himself was accused of anti-Semitism when he said "Israel itself is a mistake" in one of his columns.
So it's odd for him to go after a Presidential candidate just because a magazine associated with the church he attends praises a man who was also accused of anti-Semitism.
Of course, it was also odd when he called Obama a liar for saying more black men were in prison than in college. The evidence to justify Obama's statement was later produced, but Cohen did not issue a correction. This is the same man who gushed at Colin Powell's UN presentation and said "Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise".
Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 1:21 PM:Good point Lombard. To expand I recently had a discussion with a friend where I reasoned that it was amazing to me that all the political blogs were blasting the media for getting it wrong, they don't know what the average voter thinks, et al while they are fooling themselves to think they understand any better. We politicos are not your average voter. Our discussions go right over their heads. Thus why Hillary is still competitive when looking at the blogs Obama should already have this clinched. For the record, I must admit I am supporting the annoited loser: Edwards, but will fully support Obama or Hillary as the nominee.
Publicus wrote on January 15, 2008 1:23 PM:I'm pretty sure Cohen is going to find something not to be happy about. He didn't call Farrakhan at hateful man or claim that he despised him. Or repudiate bean pies. Something. Anything to keep the fear mongering going.
It was ridiculous that he had to respond to Cohen's smear job, but I'm glad he did and if I were him, I wouldn't answer another question about it. This is a dead issue if you ask me (his record bears this out and the statement should foreclose any doubt).
ColumbiaDuck wrote on January 15, 2008 1:24 PM:Question - if Mike Huckabee belonged to a church whose pastor recently honored David Duke, would that be a legit issue? And this pastor was a close spiritual advisor.
That's the distinction between someone faith in general (ie Catholics all having to agree with the extremes in Rome) and you corner house of worsip.
wj wrote on January 15, 2008 1:25 PM:Not only, as Common Sense, points out, is Obama black, it may be the case that he doesn't support the West Bank settlements. Do we really want a black candidate, who during his youth experimented with drugs, and who might not defer to a robust and tough Zionism, as President of the United States?
manu wrote on January 15, 2008 1:26 PM:People - check out Kessler's column in Newsmax - it was posted yesterday, well before Cohen's (http://newsmax.com/kessler/obama_wright_farrakhan/2008/01/14/64332.html). Weirdly similar. And what about the timing?
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 15, 2008 1:27 PM:Cohen's column raises good and important questions.
Really? Care to name one? What is the good and important question here? "Why hasn't Sen Obama been more forceful in denouncing an article in an obscure magazine that only a few dozen folks ever read?" This is an important question in this campaign? Lord have mercy! I thought that last week's headlines concerned trivialities, but this is just getting too silly for words.
Jonathan wrote on January 15, 2008 1:28 PM:Steve above suggests that Obama (a) cannot handle any scrutiny and (b) should have responded sooner. How or why would any candidate respond to an allegation that has not yet been made. I assume Cohen's piece came out today. Second, I don't think a candidate should have to preemptively anticipate every slight or slur one might make against church, community or associations.
Steve also suggest he can't handle the heat. Quite the opposite. The fact that he responded, as he generally does, shortly after the insinuation was made indicates not only that he can handle the heat but - unlike the Kerry campaign with the Swift boaters - also will respond before the false accusation gets legs.
Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 1:28 PM:wj wrote on January 15, 2008 1:25 PM:
Not only, as Common Sense, points out, is Obama black, it may be the case that he doesn't support the West Bank settlements. Do we really want a black candidate, who during his youth experimented with drugs, and who might not defer to a robust and tough Zionism, as President of the United States?
Go away. We need a Democrat to be POTUS. I'm fine with the candidate you describe by the way.
yesterday gone wrote on January 15, 2008 1:30 PM:steve: and partly because there seems to be an outright refusal to seriously vet him.
get real. if there was any real dirt on obama, hillary would have dropped it long ago.
Polly wrote on January 15, 2008 1:31 PM:It goes right to the top.
According to an April 30, 2007 Washington Post article by Ann Kornblut :
"In their $5 million Georgetown mansion, Penn and his wife, Nancy Jacobson, a former staff member for Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) who is now a fundraiser with the Clinton campaign, run something of a salon for like-minded friends..... On another occasion, they hosted David Brooks, the conservative New York Times columnist, for a dinner party and political discussion.”
I guess it takes a village to smear a candidate, and the village is Georgetown.
I think I liked it better when Sally Quinn was in charge.
Try to sway Steve, don't insult him. Use facts. Respect him and reason with him.
Michael A wrote on January 15, 2008 1:34 PM:This whole political game being played by the clintons to wrongfully smear obama and to try and bait him or his campaign is very, very depressing. I can't wait until the primaries are over. I expect this kind of stuff from republicans, but not democrats. Kudos to the way the obama campaign has handled this filth.
Common Sense wrote on January 15, 2008 1:35 PM:Party Police:
If you read Steve's post, it's clear that reason won't penetrate what he's pushing. Otherwise, I'd agree with you. But the evidence is clear, Steve's got a view point and he's sticking to it, facts be damned.
ceti wrote on January 15, 2008 1:36 PM:This seems like just another effort (or a repeat of the spurious emails being circulated) to browbeat candidates into towing the Zionist line by making suggestions and innuendo that Obama's associations might be anti-semitic. It's a very dicey game, and one that engenders the very feeling it decries.
It's already quite hideous that any expression of sympathy for the Palestinian people has to be qualified as if they are subhumans to be completely disregarded and stripped of their human rights. All three major candidates have already paid their obeisances to AIPAC and taken hard pro-Israel lines, just so they don't get attacked like Dean did when he advocated for a more even-handed approach.
Coupled with the Republicans insane warmongering, their seems like less hope, everyday.
yesterday gone wrote on January 15, 2008 1:37 PM:wj wrote on January 15, 2008 1:25 PM:
Not only, as Common Sense, points out, is Obama black, it may be the case that he doesn't support the West Bank settlements.
see:
http://www.nysun.com/article/50846
note also dennis ross is an obama advisor.
Eeek! A Terrist! wrote on January 15, 2008 1:37 PM:manu's got it!
The Rovian Daleks know that their party is disintegrating before their eyes and the push is on to get the Dems fighting amongst themselves.
PulSamsara wrote on January 15, 2008 1:39 PM:blah blah blah
Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States of America.
Matthew wrote on January 15, 2008 1:40 PM:I just read Cohen and don't see the problem. If Obama is a member of the church and expresses support, then he is a member, warts and all. Cohen's last paragraph noting that Obama needs to clarify who he is (and was) and that voting PRESENT doesn't hack it. This is true of his church affiliation and of his legislative history. It really seems to increasingly make Obama a light-weight just doing things to get along--right local church, no tough votes... Not the mettle for a president.
bob wrote on January 15, 2008 1:41 PM:After writing this paragraph:
"It's important to state right off that nothing in Obama's record suggests he harbors anti-Semitic views or agrees with Wright when it comes to Farrakhan. Instead, as Obama's top campaign aide, David Axelrod, points out, Obama often has said that he and his minister sometimes disagree. Farrakhan, Axelrod told me, is one of those instances."
How could Richard Cohen not realize that the premise of his whole column had disintegrated before it was even published?
Tamar wrote on January 15, 2008 1:42 PM:Greg -- good piece.
2 points:
1. I think Cohen's column makes no useful contribution to issues in the election, but just out of curiosity -- has anyone even checked out the accuracy of the information?
And
2. Please amend your statement:
"we think the column idea may have come from an email that's been circulating in the Jewish community...but not sure"
to "some parts of the Jewish community," because, believe me, this hasn't been circulating in MY part of the Jewish community.
OF NO MOMENT! wrote on January 15, 2008 1:42 PM:SPARE THE WORLD OF THIS STUPIDITY!
IN DUE TIME FOOLS TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES! ENOUGH SAID!
Don't you think that the President of the United States has to be exceedingly careful about how close his connection is to out-and-out racists, given the obvious symbolism of such a connection? Does anybody believe that if, say, Bush were to worship regularly at a church where the pastor gave a prize to David Duke, Bush wouldn't be held to account for that? How do people make out the difference?
One reason to bring up the analogy with Bush attending a church in which the pastor openly admires David Duke is that that is exactly what would be thrown at Obama come the general election.
And the problem for Obama, and for all Democrats if he becomes our nominee, is that, if Obama has no answer to that question, it's going to wreak some major damage to his viability as a candidate.
Questions like this just don't go away, particularly when they seem entirely fair questions. Better to deal with this question now, before we decide whom we're going to make our nominee, than when Republicans choose to do the same. Republicans, after all, will hardly worry about walking on eggshells on this issue. They won't much care if they offend African-Americans, since they are hardly a voting bloc for them, and they won't fear being perceived by the vast majority of voters as racist, because the question would seem entirely fair.
Unless someone can explain why this question is not really a fair question, and why the analogy with the imagined church of Bush's and David Duke is simply off the mark, I don't see how anyone could fend off such an attack.
grover_rover wrote on January 15, 2008 1:43 PM:So basically the WaPo published another story, with absolutely no point whatsoever, that could lead people to believe wrongly that there is some moral or ethical flaw in Obama's character? That's great...got to love the quality journalism coming from the Post.
and steve, you are just another fine example of the garden variety ignorant anti-Obama (and I can assume pro-Hillary since you echo her BS "vetting" talking points) lemming. You are an embarrassment to the Democratic party. I expect this type of robotic ignorance and lack of critical thought from hardcore Republicans, but from so many in our own party...I'm quite disgusted. If Hillary wins the nomination and becomes the face of our party, I'm switching to Independent because I don't want to be associated with her "win at all costs" character or her dirty tactics.
and to Party Police, yes, I know, I'm not doing a good job at "swaying" him, but I have seen that kind of ignorance way too often on here and other websites (and in person), and I have learned the hard way that facts don't work on these people. They decided long ago that they were going to support Hillary, or hate Obama, and nothing (facts, morality, common decency) will stand in their way. Like I said, I've had the exact same problem trying to reason with hardcore Republicans, it is like talking to a brick wall. Just expose their utter contempt for reality and independent thought and move on...
xargaw wrote on January 15, 2008 1:44 PM:It is impossible to under estimate the press. And, apparently, it is also impossible to under estimate the Clintons. Hillary said that eight years in the WH being attacked by the GOP taught her how to fight. I guess it did. Too bad, it was gutter politics she learned.
yesterday gone wrote on January 15, 2008 1:48 PM:google cohen's wiki profile. see what he himself says about israel.
Common Sense wrote on January 15, 2008 1:48 PM:Frankly0:
Question was answered. What's your point?
jillstanek wrote on January 15, 2008 1:50 PM:OH NO.. wait till you get to the Unborn Infants Protection Act.
the pro-life community will go overboard in branding him as an advocate of infanticide in the Illinois State senate. Keep in mind, that the unborn infants protection act passed in the Illinois legislature after he left, and an identical bill was passed in 2002 on a 98-0 in the Senate.
Jill Stanek... that will be the name to look out for on FOX NEWS.
frankly0 wrote on January 15, 2008 1:51 PM:Question was answered.
And I suppose that if Bush attended a church which regularly praised David Duke it would be a satisfactory answer that Bush, himself, disagrees with David Duke?
Please. Just please.
DrumMajorForJustice wrote on January 15, 2008 1:52 PM:The mental list I keep of people I perceive as being uncorruptable and credible grows shorter each day; Mr. Cohen now joins president and Mrs. Clinton as the latest names to be excised from this list. His WaPo article today is a tranparent stretch, sophomorically designed to unjustifiably smear Sen. Obama. My non-vote for Mrs. Clinton in this Fall's general election reaches a probability of one (for the non-matematical readers this is CERTAINTY!).
John Y wrote on January 15, 2008 1:53 PM:"And here we have exhibit #473 that Obama and his supporters can't handle a little scrutiny. Cohen's column raises good and important questions. Obama should have answered them sooner. Why push the alarm buttons when questions like this are raised, Greg? Frankly, what this column reminds us is that Obama has faced little to no real scrutiny, and that should terrify any Democrat who hopes to take the White House this year. Obama is the express train to certain defeat, partly because he lacks any real experience and partly because there seems to be an outright refusal to seriously vet him."
Hey Mark Penn! How's it going?
Seriously - what happens when people start seriously asking what kind of "experience" Hillary actually has. So far the press has taken it as a matter of faith that she has governing experience, not campaigning experience. That luxury won't last forever, especially when she's up against McCain.
And what's Bill been up to these last 7 years? I haven't seen any serious examination of that either.
what on Earth would ever be surprising about WaPo promoting racist, disingenuous, smearing? ...its what they do best; perhaps the only thing they do well.
.
Steve and frankly0 raise good questions. How come Obama did not make his rebuttal of Farrakhan the cornerstone of his campaign? Farrakhan is a figure of such importance that, I'm sure, Obama knew of his being honored in the magazine that is associated with his Church. Does he subscribe to this magazine? Does it inform his social and/or foreign policy? How many times did he read the article? These are questions which need to be answered.
Kefa wrote on January 15, 2008 1:58 PM:If you have to question what Bills been doing the last 7 years you've been under a rock.....btw...Clinton/Obama 08.
frankly0 wrote on January 15, 2008 2:01 PM:wj,
Your answer is irrelevant.
The question remains: why does Obama choose, among all the churches in Chicago, this particular church, which heaps great praise on a self-avowed racist, as his regular place of worship?
If you can't see how the like question about a Republican doing the same would, quite appropriately, be an enormous issue for them, then your powers of imagination need some medical work.
grover_rover wrote on January 15, 2008 2:02 PM:John Y,
No, I think the media actually looking at her "experience" claim (you know, the one on which her entire campaign rests on) is a little too much to ask from them. I mean c'mon, obviously the press is soooooo hostile to the Clintons, that's the only explanation for the whole MSM to give her a complete pass on the very foundation of her candidacy.
Yeah, she is the one who hasn't been "vetted" yet. Wait until the general election when she tries to run "experience" against McCain. She'll get a vetting that she will not soon forget.
yesterday gone wrote on January 15, 2008 2:02 PM:Polly wrote on January 15, 2008 1:31 PM:
It goes right to the top. [...]
I guess it takes a village to smear a candidate, and the village is Georgetown.I think I liked it better when Sally Quinn was in charge.
along the same vein, this could explain the anti-obama hostility amongst leading bloggers.
from nyt:
Hillary Clinton had just begun running for the White House, and her husband was already trying to help neutralize her critics on the left; when I arrived at the office, Clinton was meeting with about 20 influential bloggers, who were gnawing on barbecued chicken and enjoying their first-ever audience with a former president.
I think this article raises some valid concerns about Obama's judgment. It is unlikely that he is an anti-semite (as there is no indication in record that he is), but why does he associate with anti-semites, then? Josh posted a comment from a reader who said that just because Obama was a member of this church said nothing about his views and compared it to disparities between Rudy and the catholic church or Mccain and episcopalians. However, there is a big difference. The latter two men were born into their religions and as far as I can tell, neither actually is an active churchgoer.
Obama, OTOH, wears his religiosity on his shirtsleeve (which BTW, is the main reason why I have complete contempt for the man). He joined this church as an adult and his biography suggests that it is this church that saved him from his wayward ways (just as the nation of islam has saved so many black men from theirs despite their preaching of hatred). He has already shown poor judgment in his association with an anti-gay minister. Now, he is closely associated with one who is an anti-semite. Sure, much of the black population is anti-semitic, as are a fair minority of so-called progressives. So, either Obama is in line with most of his church's heinous beliefs or he is using them to rally support from a certain segment of the black community. Either way, he is a hypocrite.
And the poster who thinks that getting vetted this way during the primaries will insulate him in the GEs has another thing coming. Even if primary voters ignore this stuff, that tells us nothing about how GE voters will behave. We need our nominee to win in purple states in order to be elected, and voters in those states are exactly the ones who are not gonna like this stuff. Fact is, it may be overblown and misleading, but we know the reasoning powers of the average mind are weak, so beware.
HumanityCritic wrote on January 15, 2008 2:10 PM:"I think this article raises some valid concerns about Obama's judgment."
No it doesn't, and to think otherwise suggests that you are a product of inbreeding.
steve wrote on January 15, 2008 2:12 PM:To the poster who asked what good and important questions Cohen raises, how about: Just who is Obama, what has he done, what does he believe, and what will he do as president? Take off the rose-colored glasses and you'll see that Obama is a blank slate, an empty vessel into which people are throwing their own hopes, ideas and beliefs. I know the small but vocal Obama crowd on here will all claim to know Obama's beliefs and will hold him up as the Second Coming, but if you step back really look at him, there's not much "there" there. And that's the problem.
blogenfreude wrote on January 15, 2008 2:13 PM:And shouldn't someone ask Huckabee about his ties to whackjob Reconstructionist Christians?
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/12/20/follow-huckabees-money/
the president of the united church of christ denomination denounces the smear campaign against obama's church in chicago.
http://www.ucc.org/news/thomas-denounces-smear-1.html
check out the list of other notable members.
And shouldn't someone ask Huckabee about his ties to whackjob Reconstructionist Christians?
Um, yes.
And, if he becomes the Republican nominee, don't you imagine that Democrats will do so with glee, chortling about those feeble-minded Republicans who served up such a sitting duck for a target?
And God knows what will happen if we get Huckabee vs. Obama. It will be hunting season for the two fish in the barrel.
Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 2:19 PM:steve wrote on January 15, 2008 2:12 PM:
how about: Just who is Obama, what has he done, what does he believe, and what will he do as president?
this is a good place to start:
http://obama.senate.gov/issues/
hillary, on meet the press, mocked obama's ethics reform package. who is she to mock what she has failed to pass. where is her ethics reform legislation? hillary talked about wanting transparency in government spending. obama already passed that legislation.
Michael wrote on January 15, 2008 2:22 PM:To the poster who asked what good and important questions Cohen raises, how about: Just who is Obama, what has he done, what does he believe, and what will he do as president?
Um, if you don't know the answers to these questions already, you're clearly trying not to find them.
Who is he? He's got a freakin auto-biography that's been a best-seller and about 800 profiles written about him in the past 10 months, in the New Yorker, Harper's, the New York Times, Time, Rolling Stone, and on and on ad nauseum.
What has he done? This has been re-hashed multiple times. An article in the Washington Post detailed his commitment to ethics and campaign finance reform. An article in the Chicago Tribune gave a retrospective on his work community organizing and his early political career. A recent article (can't remember where, but it was a major political magazine) detailed his work on death penalty reform, ethics reform, and expanding health care in the Illinois state senate. The NY Times did a whole write-up on his history in the State Legislature. There have been articles in major national newspapers and magazines on his work on expanding Nunn-Lugar (including an op-ed co-authored by Obama and Lugar in the NYTimes on the Lugar-Obama bill), about his work on ethics reform, the blogs have detailed the hold he put on Hans van Sparksy, etc etc.
What does he believe? Well, if you can't ascertain that from, I dunno, all the f**kin articles & profiles I just mentioned, nor from either of his two books, nor from his myriad speeches detailing exactly what he believes, well...I guess you must be one dense piece of s**t.
What will he do as President? Maybe you haven't noticed, but he has, you know, a website, where he has, you know, position papers, and the transcripts of all the speeches he's given the past 10 months detailing just exactly what he would do as President. He's answered questions on this issue countless times in debates.
Basically, either you just woke up from a 10-month long coma, or you're a complete idiot, or, most likely...you're just very "concerned", troll.
Thanks for the concern. Now begone.
brad wrote on January 15, 2008 2:23 PM:I always read Cohen and believe him.
That's how I know Isreal was a mistake, the Iraq war was not a mistake, writing promotes reason while algebra does not, its cool to sleep with the wives of your colleagues, and Scooter did nothing wrong.
I look forward to what I might learn from him tomorrow.
nrglaw wrote on January 15, 2008 2:24 PM:Ceti's post is the most disturbing thing on this thread. I'm sorry to say it, but I think this whole story is much more about scary Jews who "tow the Zionist line" and circulate nasty anti-Obama emails "in the Jewish community" (a la Greg) than it is about a "scary Black man" (a la Geek).
In MY Jewish community in Ann Arbor, which is an overwhelmingly Dem community, I have not met a single person who has said anything other than that they will happily and fully support Obama if he is the nominee. (In Ann Arbor, at least, he is the choice of many, many Jewish voters.) I have also never heard a single Jewish voter anywhere (I'm in New York at the moment)suggest that Obama is anti-Semitic. Richard Cohen is merely asking a question.
What the "Zionist line" has to do with any of this is, I suggest, largely in the heads of Ceti and others in the emerging (and hopefully small) anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish block within the Progressive movement.
nrglaw
Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 2:25 PM:Michael- I think you make very sound arguments, but in trying to bring voters over, do you have to insult them? Even if they were unreasonable, do you have to respond in kind? Rise above. Bashing naysayers is not the politics of change. I would also say that I hope Obama does become more specific in his talking points. You and I may visit websites and peruse policy positions, most people simply don't, that's reality and we will not win them over by blasting them for not being as involved as we are. Politics of hope please.
Michael wrote on January 15, 2008 2:26 PM:Man, Obama's membership in this church raises _serious_ issues!!
Known for arriving early on social justice issues, the church's history includes being the first to practice democracy in church governance (1630), the first to ordain an African-American pastor (1785), the first to ordain a woman (1853), the first to ordain an openly gay man (1972), and the first to support same-gender marriage equality (2005).
OMG what a bigot.
http://www.ucc.org/news/thomas-denounces-smear-1.html
Shelly wrote on January 15, 2008 2:27 PM:To Steve and those who throw out the "empty suit" rhetoric...
All of those questions you asked are easily answered in one of two ways - read his books to see what he believes and what his plans are, or visit his website: www.barackobama.com .
Barack has a wonderful "Blueprint for America" at his website that lays out many of the largest problems we face as a nation, what he believes to be the root causes of those problems, and ideas for how to address those problems (or begin addressing them) in real, concrete ways.
Just because you are too lazy or unwilling to do your homework as an educated voter doesn't mean that the information isn't there.
To claim that any democratic presidential candidate doesn't have ideas is ridiculous. They all have them laid out, usually on their websites, for all to see.
Be a conscious citizen and do your freakin' homework...
Barth wrote on January 15, 2008 2:28 PM:The comments about the emails circulating and Sen Obama's failure, until today, to respond to them are right on point. So Cohen did us all a service so that, unfair as it is, Sen Obama could address the issues concerning Rev. Wright.
Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 2:29 PM:frankly0,
Obama chose to attend this church because it does real and good work within the neighborhood in which he organized. It helps in a real and substantial manner the poorest and most systemically disadvantaged people in Chicago's urban society.
In Chicago, many of these people are black. And it is no doubt true that, as often happens to systemically disadvantaged and neglected members of a society, some of them seek to explain their predicament by recourse to over-simple, reactionary beliefs. Some of these beliefs, held by some of these members, could, as Hectic points out, be construed as anti-Semitic.
It is quite possible, even, that the pastor of this Church, a man who spends quite a bit more time thinking about his congregation of struggling black men and women in Chicago than the national press, might happen to praise a man, in a magazine that is related to though separate from the Church, who has done real and substantial good for black men and women but who holds views on other topics that are unacceptable. Call this man Farrakhan.
Obama has stated repeatedly that he disagrees with this pastor on occasion, and has reiterated his belief that Wright was incorrect to praise Farrakhan in the manner in which he chose.
What would you have him do?
Michael wrote on January 15, 2008 2:31 PM:Anonymous--
I appreciate your temperance of spirit. However, I suspect it may be borne of a lack of familiarity with the internet, or specifically, the notion of the "concern troll."
Rather than just blathering invective, a "concern troll" posts under the guise of innocent concern. "But I have these questions, certainly they are reasonable..." when in fact the only goal is to raise the objectionable material in a seemingly non-objectionable manner. steve, for example, is the class concern troll.
There's no point in rationally engaging a concern troll, because their goal is not rational engagement, simply to engender doubts about the issues at hand for anyone bothering to read the comments.
BTW, do all of the following have to answer to their membership in the united church of christ?
While Obama is the only UCC candidate in the 2008 presidential election, the 2004 campaign included two UCC members, both Democrats. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, now chair of the Democratic Party, is a member of First Congregational UCC in Burlington, Vt., and then U.S. Senator Bob Graham is a member of Miami Lakes Congregational UCC in Florida.Elizabeth wrote on January 15, 2008 2:32 PM:The current U.S. Congress includes 10 UCC members -- five Republicans and five Democrats.
Five U.S. Senators are UCC: Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Obama.
Five House seats are occupied by UCC members: Thelma Drake (R-Va.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Jim Ramstad (R-Minn.), Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.).
Other notable UCC members include New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D); former U.S. Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.); actress Lynn Redgrave; current U.S. Poet Laureate Donald Hall; Pulitzer-prize-winning newspaper columnists Connie Schultz (and wife of U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio) and Leonard Pitts Jr.; and Marilynne Robinson, the Pulitzer-prize-winning author of Gilead.
The Rev. Andrew Young former congressman, U.N. ambassador and Atlanta mayor is an ordained UCC minister, who began his Civil Rights activism working for the UCC.
The late Rev. William Sloane Coffin, the legendary social activist who became immortalized as the pastor in Gary Trudeau's Doonesbury comic strip, had ministerial standing in the UCC and served as pastor of the UCC's Riverside Church in New York.
The Rev. Reinhold Niebuhr, a UCC minister considered to be one of greatest Christian theologians of the 20th century, authored the now-famous Serenity Prayer.
It isn't a bad thing that the issue was raised: it's a legitimate issue (we'd certainly think so if Pres. Bush belonged to a church that gave David Dukes an award) and Sen. Obama will hopefully be able to handle it in a convincing, mature fashion. If he can't, then there's going to be trouble in the fall if he's the nominee ----------- The real problems with Cohen's article, I think, are:
1) timing - It's MLK's birthday (invoking a time when there was great harmony an mutual support between many blacks and Jews) and the day after the end (one hopes) of a bruising, damaging round on another sensitive and emotional topic. Whatever his intention, this article seems like a continuation of the steady drum beat of doubts and aspersion being thrown at Sen. Obama. If Cohen is acting independently and didn't want to be accused of being part of a deliberate campaign ... then he should have exercised better judgment and waited at least a day or two.
2) failure to check the source -- He should have figured out from his story about young black men in prison v univ. that there may very much be another side of the story and he could be wrong or at least misdirected. Particularly since he faulted Sen. Obama without (it turns out) justification, eliciting the candidate's views on this before going any further would also have shown better judgment and - to use some old-fashioned words - been more responsible, more fair.
So, in the end, one is left with a small, rather remotely-connected question about Sen. Obama (which I trust he can adequately address)........ and a very large suspicion of and wariness about Richard Cohen.
OK folks - first and foremost the following:
"Any Democrat '08"
My preference is one from the democratic side of the Democratic Party. Not the DLC side (republics lite).
Any and all in this thread that sign on to every and anything their church, synagogue, temple, etc puts into a newsletter please step forward - unchurched don't count.
Let's drop this crap and start getting this country back on track. It's been 1-20-81 since we had someone with any resemblence to a Democrat in the Whitehouse - and he was from a 'right to work state'. So by that standard it's been since November 1963.
Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 2:33 PM:Michael- I get it, my point is let them look like idiots, ignore if you must, but I think it reflects badly on Barack Obama when his supporters are so negative in their speak.
Michael wrote on January 15, 2008 2:34 PM:Shelly--
You forgot to add that all that information has been detailed in hundreds of articles, profiles, speeches, interviews, debates, etc.
It's not like Obama's campaign is trying to hide this stuff. The opposite is true; they've spent 10 months of non-stop campaigning and invested somewhere around $80 million doallars to get that information out there.
Anyone who claims to think this is some sort of mystery literally must've been in a coma for 10 months, or not arguing in good faith. Even someone just waking up to the political campaign now would have similar questions about other candidates and be making a good faith effort to find answers to these "pressing" questions.
Please.
Columbiaduck wrote on January 15, 2008 2:35 PM:I would add that there is a very big difference between a demonimation (UCC, Catholic, whatever) and a specific house of worship. I'm assuming that Dean, Klobuchar and others don't also have a pastor and spritual advisor who awards prizes to Farrakan.
foxx wrote on January 15, 2008 2:36 PM:Bottom line: If it is true that Obama has chosen as his personal mentor someone who enthusiastically endorses Farrakhan,Obama cannot survive this. And he was incredibly stupid to have done it in the first place.
c wrote on January 15, 2008 2:38 PM:Uh huh. So if the pastor of my church is associated with a magazine, I'm responsible for every editorial decision made by that magazine?
Obama's record has been written up pretty fully e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802262.html
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/31/040531fa_fact1
You want to criticize the record, fine, but don't claim it's not there.
Michael wrote on January 15, 2008 2:42 PM:Bottom line: If it is true that Obama has chosen as his personal mentor someone who enthusiastically endorses Farrakhan,Obama cannot survive this. And he was incredibly stupid to have done it in the first place.
Mentor? When has that ever been suggested.
I mean, I thought it was Joe Lieberman who was Obama's mentor, right? Or George Bush on Iraq, right? Or Karl Rove on campaigning, right? How many mentors does Obama have?
Actually, only one, as far as I can tell: Dick Durbin, the senior Senator from Illinois, who has a famously good relationship with Obama and was actually who pushed Obama to run for President in this cycle.
But hey, why let facts get in the way of your "concern"?
Josh-Quasimoto wrote on January 15, 2008 2:42 PM:nrglaw- I think your comments are appropriate in that they point to the obvious, every cultural community is made of indivisuals who have varying viewpoints on any range of subject matter. Obviously what may be OK with me may not be OK with you. Here's my two cents regarding Cohen's article, if his point is that Obama's association with his church and then the church's association with Farakhan(spelling?) then why don't we start talking about all the SIX DEGREES OF KEVIN BACON that exist between people and their constituents. I mean surely we could get something more Juicy than this! Why didn't he just call Obama and ask him to respond to his article? Isn't this what journalist do? Maybe I am naive but really would it have been that hard.
More to the point, let's get over it and move towards rebuilding this country by believing in the best that this country has to offer and the best has nothing to do with race, gender, or political affiliation!
Gotta Go, Stay Solid!
wj wrote on January 15, 2008 2:44 PM:foxx,
That's why the first question I ask upon entering any black place of worship is: Has your pastor publicly condemned Farrakkan? Will he ever utter any public support of Farrakhan in the future? Just in case, you know, fifteen years down the line I want to run for office.
frankly0 wrote on January 15, 2008 2:45 PM:What would you have him do?
Leave his church, because it heaps unbounded praise on an avowed racist.
Obviously, whatever else may be true of Obama, the praise of a well-known racist by his very own pastor isn't sufficient for Obama to say to himself or anyone else, I should not worship with this man.
The need for Obama to make that step, to make a moral statement about racism, should have been addressed by him long, long ago. In the act of moral maturation, one does eventually come to see that some old alliances cannot stand. I'm sure that there have been white congregations in the South that have done considerable good for the poor in their parish, but which tolerate or even promote racists. Are politicians who attend such churches to receive a pass because of the good works the church might do, or because of personal connections to that church?
Now even as State Senator in Illinois the admiration of avowed racists in his church should have been enough for him to choose another place of worship, one would think. Even as an average citizen, it should, in a morally mature person, be sufficient to motivate him to go elsewhere.
But today Obama is running for President, the most prominent leader in the nation and the world. The potential power of the symbolism of a President's connections is simply vast. That symbolic power far exceeds in breadth and depth that projected by a State Senator in Illinois.
Yet Obama has not chosen to cut off this connection.
It simply does not speak well of the basic integrity of the man.
Dan S wrote on January 15, 2008 2:47 PM:As someone who could vote for either Clinton or Obama, I have no concern that Obama is actually antisemitic himself. But his association with this pastor is symptomatic of the left's tolerance of anisemitism. No doubt Obama approves of the general progressive environment of the church he attends. In that environment there are some who believe it is important to make alliances with all forces fighting white supremacy. To them, Farakhan's antisemitism is like the homophobia of certain black pastors--just a quirk to be ignored. It doesn't count as prejudice and hate. To some here in the comments, it is illegitimate even to raise the issue, and they turn the discussion to Israel, AIPAC and the Palestinians, none of which have anything to do with the fact that Farakhan is an antisemite, or the fact that any pastor who gives him honors is despicable. I am glad to see Obama coming out with his statement, and there is nothing wrong with pressing him on the matter. He is a politician and if he wants to be president he should expect to have to explain his views.
Court Jester wrote on January 15, 2008 3:00 PM:I have not yet decided on who is the best of the top 3 Dem candidates. But let's understand that politics is politics. The very people who will instantly blame the Clinton campaign for every bit of bad press about Obama will turn a blind eye to what comes out about Clinton.
I'd *love* to see more issue-related discussion, and less negative campaigning. But the reason we still see negative campaigning used is because IT WORKS! And it works because people let it. Because many people can't find or won't make the time to make up their own minds. Something that used to be called "civic duty".
Clinton's not a monster, and Obama's not a saint. They both have people on their campaign staff who throw mud. They both try to keep their own hands clean, at least in public.
None of us can control their campaigns; but we can control our own discussions. Except for the more obvious trolls, we're all hoping for a Dem to win the White House. Let's follow the lead that Obama and Clinton recently put out to *raise* the level of discourse, not *lower* it.
FlipYrWhig wrote on January 15, 2008 3:00 PM:
Everyone who rushed in this direction, explain to me how this has fuck-all to do with Hillary Clinton. And it had better have something to it beyond the fact that it's anti-Obama.
Look, there are _legions_ of people out there who hate both candidates and would like nothing better than to tear apart the Democratic party. That's the true "Rovian" strategy: throw out a smear and make it look like it came from somewhere else, thus making the smear-ee and the falsely accused smear-er _both look bad_. Why do people keep falling for this shit? Use your heads.
wj wrote on January 15, 2008 3:01 PM:frankly0,
It is heartening to see you propound on the"act of moral maturation", as you so eloquently put it.
We agree (with Obama) that Wright was wrong to "heap unbounded praise" of Farrakhan. But it seems that, to you, the only acceptable response is if Obama breaks with Wright, whereas I see a more positive approach in Obama's stating his principled objection to Wright while nonetheless not throwing him to the curb. Both because it is very likely that Obama's influence will help dissuade those elements of his Church that are in any way remotely associated with anti-Semitism, and because your approach holds Obama to a double standard.
Billy Graham, close *direct* advisor to both Clintons, has on occasion repeated comments as anti-Semitic as anything Farrakhan has said, and yet we do not expect the Clintons to publicly break with him, even though there we have a direct connection, whereas in the case of Obama we have only the remotest of links.
Are you being sincere, then, in your moral outrage? Or are you merely posturing?
FlipYrWhig wrote on January 15, 2008 3:02 PM:And Farrakhan has fuck-all to do with Barack Obama, either, so everyone pretending to be concerned about the "legitimate issues" raised here is getting played even worse.
yesterday gone wrote on January 15, 2008 3:03 PM:cohen has links for everything else. where is the link for this trumpet newsmagazine?
according to wiki:
Cohen was in turn criticized by Media Matters for America for factual errors in his presentation, including his contentions that Plame had not been a covert agent, and that there "outing" Plame "turns out not to be a crime.
Anyone who wants to look at the actual texts can find them here:
http://www.trumpetmag.com/current_issue.cfm
http://www.trumpetmag.com/pdf/nov_dec_publisher.pdf
http://www.trumpetmag.com/pdf/nov_dec_feature.pdf
Again, it's a magazine, not "the church." The one-page article on Farrakhan is superficial puffery, but the NOI retains a place of respect in some communities because it does serious social-service work, whatever stupid or evil things its leaders say.
Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 3:07 PM:Court Jester- if you get a blog, let us know, that would probably make for good reading.
Now, leaving his church seems a bit extreme to me. Where would the process end in disassociating yourself from all people who may in someway be somehow connected to some idea that you are not in agreement with? An impossibility. I strongly disbelieve that Obama or the large majority of his fellowship share some of these sentiments. We do control the company we keep, but to what extent do you really deem feasible? Barack can't shut anybody up any better than Clinton and neither are to blame for the actions of others.
Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 3:08 PM:frankly0
"yet Obama has not chosen to cut off his connection"
Why, Richard Cohen has not written a piece asking to Giuliani to denounce the well written history of anti-semitism from the catholic church.
I'm catholic and the late pope PIE IX complicit silence during world war II when millions of jews where butchered in Europe is well known.
I'm usually less profane. I hate the "disavowal" and "denunciation" games. Does Richard Cohen feel the need to distance himself ritualistically from things that Charles Krauthammer believes, because they--gasp!--have the _same employer_?
Court Jester wrote on January 15, 2008 3:12 PM:Someone else upthread pointed out an often-forgotten fact: the fact that we are posting here means that we are political junkies. We have made the time to immerse ourselves in what's going on.
We are a tiny minority.
To *most* of the electorate, Obama is a blank slate. If he wants to change that, he's going to have to go above and beyond what some of the other candidates have done in terms of explaining himself. How he handles himself over the next month or so could really make or break the legitimacy of his candidacy for many people.
frankly0 wrote on January 15, 2008 3:13 PM:wj,
Please, Billy Graham has not publicly and methodically espoused anti-Semitism, right? He was, after many, many years in the public eye, exposed as having uttered, in private, anti-Semitic statements. He then publicly expressed an apology for ever having said such a thing, and denounced anti-Semitism.
How you can compare his case to that of Farrakhan, who has never renounced his very explicit, very public, racism and anti-Semitism is beyond my understanding. He is little more than the flip side of David Duke -- and pretending he's the flip side of Billy Graham instead is completely disingenuous.
If it's sincerity your questioning, maybe you should examine your own, given that you even bring up this example.
larryepke wrote on January 15, 2008 3:14 PM:Actually, George W. Bush’s church has taken the following stance:
http://gc2006.org/legislation/view_leg_detail.aspx?id=252&type=CURRENT
"Resolved, That the 75th General Convention call upon all Episcopalians as an act of penitence, to oppose and resist through advocacy, protest, and electoral action the continuation of the war in Iraq, and encourage the President and Congress to take proactive steps to end our participation as soon as possible."
Why doesn't he follow the church’s teachings, or quit? (Yes, I know he doesn't really go to an Episcopal church, but he's sure ready to tell us what God thinks.)
anonymous--I agree that leaving one's church is not an appropriate suggestion. But the problem here is not really the UCC, it is simply Pastor Wright. If you wish to see what a headache this guy has made out of himself for Obama, just Google "pastor and obama" and judge for yourself.
nrglaw
blackstar wrote on January 15, 2008 3:21 PM:i heard X attends a Catholic Church who's previous priest was convicted of sexual transgressions with an alter boy.
is X IN FAVOUR of child molestation?!?
what total and utter nonsense.
If it is true that Obama has chosen as his personal mentor someone who enthusiastically endorses Farrakhan,Obama cannot survive this. And he was incredibly stupid to have done it in the first place.
-----------
are you insane? there is nothing, absolutely NOTHING that suggests Mr. Obama's views are influenced by the views of the magazine of the pastor of the church he attends. as this article itself admits (and in the process negating all reason for publishing it).
Obama has to stop responding to these stupid allegations and go on the offensive. Attack Hillary's strength, her supposed experience. Fine let her run on her accomplishments, but poke holes in all the ways she has disappointed and failed us.
We have to stop playing defense and get on offense. Let Hillary respond to attacks on her record, rather than Obama always having to respond to these.
Liam wrote on January 15, 2008 3:26 PM:Matthew wrote on January 15, 2008 1:40 PM:
"I just read Cohen and don't see the problem. If Obama is a member of the church and expresses support, then he is a member, warts and all."
Really?. So that means that all Roman Catholics who have supported their church should be treated as child molestors, since several catholic priests are!.
Michael A wrote on January 15, 2008 3:30 PM:The clintons will keep this up until the primaries are over one way or another. They want to divert attention away from her lack of experience, her iraq war vote, and all the other clintonian bs by continuing these types of smears. They want to bring everyone down to wallow in the mud with them. Truly pathetic.
ChrisO wrote on January 15, 2008 3:32 PM:For the most part, I don't see many people saying Obama should leave his church, or that everyone should question every action a church has taken before entering its doors. This attempt to minimize the issue is pathetic and silly. The magazine that honored Farrakhan is the official magazine of the church, if I've read correctly. Why shouldn't it be taken as the official stance of the church? And I'm not even saying Obama needs to make some grand gesture, or disavow his pastor. But what's wrong with him addressing the issue? To pretend that candidates' associations don't matter is slly and naive.
It's interesting how many people are on here decrying the "smear," then stating with assuredness that they know the Clintons were behind it. Does it occur to you that such an accusation, that is not only unsupported by any evidence, but also contradicted by the evidence that this may be the work of right wing Jewish activists, is itself a smear? I guess throwing around unfounded accusations isn't a smear if tyou're on the side of Purity and Truth.
It's also funny to hear that associations don't matter, then read Polly's comment that Mark Penn had a dinner at his house that David Brooks attended. No guilt by association there.
For all of the talk about Obama being a "uniter," his supporters don't seem to walk the walk. I don't recall seeing many Clinton supporters saying they won't vote if Obama is nominated, or they'll vote for McCain. I guess to Obama supporters, unity only counts when their guy wins.
Michael:
How nice of you to educate those who don't know the Internet as well as you. Now perhaps you could go and educate yourself as to what a troll is. Your condescension is really obnoxious. Just because someone presents a viewpoint that differs from most of the posters on the board, doesn't make them a troll. That word gets thrown around so much it has lost all meaning. Steve was very directly critical of Obama. He didn't pretend to be an Obama supporter who was "concerned." He also returned to the comments section to respond to people. None of this makes him a troll. If you're going to lecture people, perhaps you could know what the hell you're talking about. And nice try obfuscating the issue by posting a list of members in the UCC, along with a history of the UCC. This issue has never been about the UCC as a whole, so perhaps you could drop the attempts at misdirection.
FlipYrWhig wrote on January 15, 2008 3:33 PM:Someone, anyone, show me that there is any connection to "the Clintons" here.
This is like presuming that the Hillary Clinton nutcracker novelty toy _must be_ a creation of the Obama campaign, because, hey, who benefits most from making her look bad?
Jake wrote on January 15, 2008 3:34 PM:OMG Barak is a schwartze. And isn't Andy Young a schwartze who met with Arafat and was shit canned by democrats. I see the pattern. Can't trust those people since the principal job of an American President is to protect Israel from all enemies foreign and domestic no matter how stupid Irali policies could be. And schwatrzes can't be trusted, even though we did so much for them during the civil rights movement. We in Illinois are going through this exercise with Democrat Dan Seals who, also being schwartze, is attacked as not being close enough to Israel to earn a nod for the Democratic nomination for Congress. Oh right, his democratic opponent is jewish. Religious test!? I can just imagine the emails in Florida going on about Obama the closet muslim, friend of Farakhan, etc. Anyone check out that his national finance chair is Penny Pritzker and many of his main advisors, including the fabled Axelrod, are jewish. Oooh must be self haters.
referen wrote on January 15, 2008 3:34 PM:steve wrote: "Cohen's column raises good and important questions. Obama should have answered them sooner."
Obama answered them long before Cohen was even on the Obama trail.
Read Obama's memoir, written in 1995. He gives his opinion of the Nation of Islam in no uncertain terms, and talks about the problems they have by basing a movement on the idea of victimization. He also wrote about how he was willing to work with NOI organizers on shared interests.
Can you honestly believe Obama would consider his own mother and grandparents (with whom he lived while going to school in Hawaii) "white devils"? Get real.
ringNnose wrote on January 15, 2008 3:36 PM:MSNBC, NeWseek, WAPO triage supposed news they got their hooks in your souls consider and actually fox would have done less damage they are not acting as if the were Pro Dem:
This Triaged Newsweek, Wapo, NBC, MSNBC tweety spit baller Obama cheerleading squad of co-captains, I cried when he speaks we don’t need women we need men, showed their fingerprints clearly this weekend in the airing of the kickoff Jackson Jr. Dyson hate baiting scarlet R claims notice no mention in their own reporting of that which we all watched take flight, just like the weekend when the B was dead. I am waiting for the MSNBC-NEWEEK-NBC-WaPO triaged the ho in the race sucked the donkey off while wearing a blue dress story next week.
Personally Im boycotting the debate I am not interested in watching the slaughter that comes with MSNBC MBC ratings desire and a national audience is not going to be as accepting of racisim and Farrakhan no matter how much you want it, well they gotcha
It's inconceivable that Barack Obama was simply an innocent bystander (i.e. worshipper) when his church decided to award Farrakhan with this honor. As his church's most famous, most important, most influential, and most powerful member, it's not possible that he would have had no part in its decision to publicly honor one of America's fiercest anti-semites and currrent leader and founder of the Nation of Islam, a fifth column if there ever was one! To assume he would have been as surprised and unaware of the honor beforehand, like the rest of his church, is pathetic.
If there is one unsurprising consistency with responses to any presentation of negative facts about Obama, it's that the first reactions of too many of his supporters is to instinctively call them part of a "smear campaign." Each one of those Kerry-like reactions without offering any contrary facts, is equivalent to a marginalizing of a good portion of the Democratic Party as adolescent.
It's also completely laughable to pass no responsibility to Obama for remaining a member afterwards. There must be hundreds of churches that would be happy to accept him. By remaining a member, he knew, his church new, and the Nation of Islam knew, that he, an American black senator, would be giving his blessing to his church's philosophies and its supporters.
These are not rocket science comments. They are obvious and expected conclusions on their face. Every time I read "smear campaign" instead of facts, I feel like the Titanic Democratic Party is sinking ever quicker.
yesterday gone wrote on January 15, 2008 3:43 PM:hillary's own secretive prayer group has questionable membership.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer-2.html
Robert wrote on January 15, 2008 3:45 PM:Your treatment of the Obama/Farrakhan matter is outrageous. It is no small thing that Obama's longtime minister is an ardnet supporter of Farrakhan. I can't believe what an whore for Obama you are. It's disgusting.
FlipYrWhig wrote on January 15, 2008 3:47 PM:As his church's most famous, most important, most influential, and most powerful member, it's not possible that he would have had no part in its decision
I really, really hope this is a parody of some kind.
nrglaw wrote on January 15, 2008 3:47 PM:Jake--A new low for posts at TPM. If that is the way you think Jewish voters in 2008 think, you need to do some reading.
Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 3:49 PM:Yellow Jacket,
What a preposterous load of bull your comment is, which starts by engaging in rampant speculation and ends by calling for "facts."
referen wrote on January 15, 2008 3:50 PM:YellowJacket wrote "If there is one unsurprising consistency with responses to any presentation of negative facts about Obama, it's that the first reactions of too many of his supporters is to instinctively call them part of a "smear campaign."
I support Obama, and I haven't called it a "smear campaign." I just think Cohen is horribly ignorant about the nature and history of Barack Obama, yet he chose to write an entire column based entirely on someone else's opinion. That's just plain stupid.
If Cohen had bothered to read Obama's book "Dreams from My Father," he'd know exactly what Obama thinks of the Nation of Islam. Rather than do that, Cohen jumped on some second-hand information and ran with it, making himself look like the complete and utter fool that he is.
Bupalos wrote on January 15, 2008 3:51 PM:This is getting boring.
Russ wrote on January 15, 2008 3:51 PM:Richard Cohen has been at this for 21 years, dating back to one of the first issues of the Washington Post Magazine in which he posited shopowners who do not allow blacks under the age of 30ish to shop in their stores are absolutely being prudent. He followed up with a defense of that column, then proceeded to wax poetic on women dressing like prostitutes. The women bashing was while he was in the middle of a sexual harrassment issue with (drumroll please) a black woman.
Perhaps Little Dickie Cohen doesn’t like male goats after all…
RP wrote on January 15, 2008 3:52 PM:I think the Clintons have gotten too close to Bushs. Clearly, the Establishment, the Clinton machine, the Bush machine, the DC media elites, are very worried about somebody they don't know or control becoming President. Why, the last time that happen, in 1992, government, for a time at least, actually worked for the average person and solved problems. Then, the Clinton's were on the side of change, now they are part of the elite that wants to maintain permanent gridlock and continue to have a country divided a long racial, generational, and gender lines. Much better to have somebody like Hilary or John McCain as President. They will act in a very predictable way -- making sure government protects the elite, not the little people who work hard and play by the rules.
Don wrote on January 15, 2008 3:58 PM:Greg, it would be nice to see someone follow up with Cohen and Kessler.
Given the timing and similarity of these two articles it's obvious they were both pitched from somewhere.
Did they both receive the same anonymous email?
I'd be willing to bet that if you followed this to it's source you would find a Republican.
Dan S wrote on January 15, 2008 3:59 PM:Comments like Jake's exemplify the idea that antisemitism is no big deal. To him it's perfectly all right to put on a Jewish accent and smear anyone who voices a concern about antisemitism as a user of terms such as schwartze. It's because of people like him that I thank Senator Obama for speaking out against antisemitism today, and I hope that he does it more often.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 15, 2008 4:04 PM:And I'm not even saying Obama needs to make some grand gesture, or disavow his pastor. But what's wrong with him addressing the issue?
Well, I think even this is silly, but if I grant the premise of your remarks, do you then agree that the matter is settled? After all, Sen Obama has now addressed the "issue" (if such a large word can be applied to such small affair). Greg Sargent quoted Sen Obama's response up-top.
Now that we have all made quite clear that Sen Obama is not an admirer of Louis Farrakhan's, is there really anything left to discuss here? Or do we need also to solicit Sen Obama explicitly to condemn Pol Pot's killing fields, the Bataan Death March, the Supreme Court's Bush v Gore decision, Sanjaya Malakar's May 23rd peformance of "You Really Got Me" and the designated hitter rule?
BRockNYLA wrote on January 15, 2008 4:07 PM:Do people read Cohen? I'm afraid that by responding to it Obama will bring it to the attention of people who might not have heard of it.
-BRockNYLA, proud Clintonite
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 15, 2008 4:09 PM:Someone, anyone, show me that there is any connection to "the Clintons" here.This is like presuming that the Hillary Clinton nutcracker novelty toy _must be_ a creation of the Obama campaign, because, hey, who benefits most from making her look bad?
Indeed. Are we really to believe that Richard Cohen is unable to come up with a stupid idea for a column all on his own? Honestly, I am one of the WaPo op-ed page's most faithful and regular readers. I can assure you that Mr Cohen comes up with all sort of flops that have no connection to any political campaign, so one need not invoke nefarious behind-the-scenes actors to explain this one.
nogo war wrote on January 15, 2008 4:15 PM:Today marks the birth Of Martin Luther King Jr.
I have walked/march in Denver since the early 80's..
Since the annual march of respect starting in 2003, I listened while African-American Civic and Religious leaders spoke about the strength of MLK.
Yet, I have yet to see these same individual at Denver rallies against our illegal invasion and occupation.
This year, I will approach them, as I have before, and ask "Where are YOU when we stand against this war?
How can you appear every January and speak with eloquence about the heritage of Dr. King and ignore the fact that for too brief a time, Dr. King was THE Voice of the anti-war moment?
And as I walk the 2 miles down Colfax AVE.
I play a tape of this..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b80Bsw0UG-U
bvd wrote on January 15, 2008 4:15 PM:Most religions have a clear stance against homosexuality and equal rights for gay people.
Most churches do not allow women to become clergy; many view a woman's role as subserviant to a man's.
The Baptist church supported slavery, segregation, fought integratation and continues to be against, if nothing else, the "gay agenda." The Catholic Church in recent years actively protected and enabled priests who molested children. Judaism has Leviticus as part of its foundation, a hate-tract if there ever was one. Islam has... oy.
Okay, so maybe religion isn't the best place to start throwing darts at other people. I may not like what this church and its reverend are saying - I may condemn it as evil - but there's plenty of evil to go around.
Pass the collection plate.
referen wrote on January 15, 2008 3:50 PM:
If Cohen had bothered to read Obama's book "Dreams from My Father," he'd know exactly what Obama thinks of the Nation of Islam. Rather than do that, Cohen jumped on some second-hand information and ran with it, making himself look like the complete and utter fool that he is.
ok, i'll bite, what did obama say about the nation of islam?
JB wrote on January 15, 2008 4:32 PM:Here's an excerpt from Farrakhan's newspaper interview on the election, (http://www.finalcall.com)
January 2008 will begin the official primary season to select the Democratic and Republican nominee for the White House in 2009. For the first time in American history, we have a female frontrunner: Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton; and a strong African-American contender: Senator Barack Obama, who has great appeal across racial, gender and age categories.
Do these candidacies indicate a real change in America regarding her history of racial and gender bias? Will the hope of a potential female or African-American president change the reality of the Black, Native American, poor and oppressed people of this land who seek Freedom, Justice and Equality?
MLF: These candidates and their rise in popularity among the people do indicate a change in the attitude of many Americans concerning females and Blacks.
Barack Obama has been very careful not to position himself as Reverend Jesse Jackson or Reverend Al Sharpton as a promoter of “The Black Cause.” He has been groomed, wisely so, to be seen more as a unifier, rather than one who speaks only for the hurt of Black people. In this, he has tapped the dissatisfaction of many Whites, Blacks, Hispanics and Asians across the spectrum, because who cares what color you are if you can save them from the mess that they find themselves in.
However, the hope of a potential female or African-American president I don’t think is enough to change the reality of the Black, Native American, poor and oppressed people of this land. There are forces, beyond the president, that dictate how the president presides. There are forces that Barack Obama may see, or may not see, and these are the forces that kill presidents when presidents don’t act as they think the president should act to further their ends; thus the killing of Abraham Lincoln and the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
The forces of racism in this country are still very strong. Even though there is strong mass appeal, if the racist element in this country thinks that Barack Obama will be our next president, they may come out of the woodwork if they can’t bend him, and hurt our Brother, and therefore show the country though the masses may say “We like him,” the forces may say “He is not one of us.”
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_4256.shtml
I didn't know (didn't care) what exactly Cohen had written until now.
Farrakhan????
Woooo...
Obama isn't going to say too much against Farrakhan.
No.Chance.In.Hell.
Although I'd get a giggle out of him trying it.
Viking wrote on January 15, 2008 4:39 PM:Greg:
You THINK the story may have been sparked by an email criculating "in the Jewish community? Have you seen this email? You're as guilty of slurring as The WaPo is. Put up or shut up.
NCSteve wrote on January 15, 2008 4:48 PM:Viking, you think Josh doesn't get every insane political email that circulates in the Jewish community forwared to him whether he wants it or not? I certainly seem to get every insane email that circulates among the fundie Christain community forwarded to me, whether I want it or not.
And you think he'd republish them on his own site just so he can help amplify the meme? You've obviously confused this site with Politico.
Viking wrote on January 15, 2008 4:50 PM:Sorry, Greg, that was an intemperate first draft that I sent before editing. But I do think we should see this email that's supposedly circulating. I'm Jewish and get tons of political email and have not seen it. I did some more hunting and understand other bloggers say they have seen it--and it seems to be coming from the lunatic fringe in the Jewish community--people outside the pale, people who praised Rabin's assassination.
foxx wrote on January 15, 2008 5:11 PM:Let me be even clearer: Obama has become unelectable.
For sure the Republicans have known about Wright for a long time. They want to run against Obama and use it. It will destroy Obama's candidacy.
That is the issue. There is no damage control that can undo this.
Josh wrote on January 15, 2008 5:18 PM:I've haven't made a decision yet about who I will vote for and fortunately my state's primary is not until March so I can sit back and enjoy the show before deciding. This episode is very interesting and most troubling. If Obama is the leader and agent for change that he purports to be he should have been able to work with his pastor and congregation to make them understand that Farakan is not someone to be honored (and he is not!!!). But either Obama was not effective or he did not try...equally as bad. If his congregation insisted upon giving this honor to Farakan, Obama should have severed ties with the congregation. A public figure is judged by their associations. Farakan is not someone that Obama should be associated with in any way or form. I don't think Obama believes the things that Farakan believes...but I do think Obama handled this very poorly.
Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 5:39 PM:Unfortunately foxx is probably right. The Republicans *will* run with this--perhaps not McCain, but can you imagine Thompson, or Romney or, God help us, Giuliani in a debate? He'd demand to know why Obama had associated himself with someone who praised Farrakhan; he'd portray Obama as a racist, or at least as a racial separatist; he'd portray Obama as an anti-Semite. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly---they'd all be filled with moral outrage and we'd hear quote after quote from Farrakhan for weeks on end.
It is pathetic that this should be an issue in our national politics, but it will be.
As anyone noticed? wrote on January 15, 2008 5:49 PM:...that the Clintons are not good politicians or promoting anything other than themselves.
Under Bill, the Democrats lost the House, lost the Senate, lost the majority of state legislatures, and lost the majority of Governors' Mansions.
yesterday gone wrote on January 15, 2008 5:50 PM:Let me be even clearer: Obama has become unelectable.
his death knell has been rung before.
drudge has this story framed as obama's sister soldier moment.
Elly wrote on January 15, 2008 5:52 PM:Funny the Cohen article is all over the place...but no mention of the Califano article (It takes a Partnership) in WaPo today. Another example of fair and honest reporting!!!
Scott Horton has a great piece on Cohen and how he's been trotting out his Farrakhan bugbear for the past 20 years. "More of the same" seems to be the operative criticism of Mr. Cohen.
hello_world wrote on January 15, 2008 5:56 PM:Let me be even clearer: Obama has become unelectable.For sure the Republicans have known about Wright for a long time. They want to run against Obama and use it. It will destroy Obama's candidacy.
No, it does not. There is a reason why we have a primary process, and one of these reasons is the "vetting" of a candidate.
Full disclosure, I am an Obama supporter. I spent time considering this decision, and learned quite a bit about each candidate before choosing Barack. I learned of this issue some weeks back, and knew that at some point, he would have to address the issue of his church. For me, I took a measure of the man (such that I was able), and using his deeds, actions, words, votes, and reputation and decided that whether or not Farrakhan was honored by Obama's church had absolutely nothing to do with his character as a man or how he conducts himself as a Senator. Farrakhan may be very controversial to certain people, but I understand that there are many very personal reasons that people choose their churches. And I won't judge that process unless it clearly and directly indicated a lack of moral and ethical judgment. I'm guessing very few people here throwing accusations and besmirching Obama's religious choices live in Chicago, and have no idea what programs his church offer to inner-city youth. Or to low-income families in their congregation. If a church does real and measurable good in a community, it would be silly to turn away from it just because they dared to not vilify Lewis Farrakhan.
This is part of the vetting process, and it's up to voters to decide if they're fine with it, as no man or woman is perfect. But it's silly to hold one controversial stand from his church against Obama.
Clint wrote on January 15, 2008 6:00 PM:Why does he go to church there? Have you seen their website? They don't even allow whites to attend there!
Look at the website...
They have an African flag on it and only black people. They think more of being black and African than being Christian and American.
savvy wrote on January 15, 2008 6:11 PM:Hillary was supposed to win Iowa and NH by big margins.. this race was supposed to be over.
They are frantic and know that he can beat them. They see the nunbers and they see him winning.
They have to go negative. They have to!
And they will lose.
Clint, feel free to join the conversation when you can contribute something other than blatant lies.
Harvey K. wrote on January 15, 2008 6:19 PM:hello_world wrote:
[i][b]"...it would be silly to turn away from it just because they dared to not vilify Lewis Farrakhan."[/b][/i]
Your post sounded fairly reasonable until you wrote this conclusion which completely killed your logic. Since when is [i]not[/i] honoring someone equivalent to "vilifying" them?
Can the Clintonistas now stop complaining that Obama has been immune from unfair press treatment?
ChrisO wrote on January 15, 2008 6:28 PM:Greg DeLassus
I do think it's pretty much settled. The issue for me was primarily the insistence by Obama supporers that he had no need to address the issue, along with the secondary issues, such as the unfounded blaming of Hillary, and the attempts to pretend that this barely involved the church at all. Obama addressed it in a brief statement, which I think is appropriate.
And count me as one who doesn't think this will have much effect on the general election. If Obama's the nominee, the Republicans are going to throw everything at him anyway. I don't think he can ignore issues like this, but they're hardly crippling. People who are going to take these issues seriously are probably not going to vote for him in the first place.
pinetreestater wrote on January 15, 2008 7:27 PM:Why didn't Cohen just call Obama and ask him what he thought? Is it against the pundit rules to do some basic reporting?
MT wrote on January 15, 2008 7:43 PM:One of the most insidious aspects of this attack is that it's specifically designed to drive a wedge (or pour salt in the wound, or whatever other catch phrase you want to use) between Blacks and Jews and depress liberal or progressive turnout - not only in the primaries, but the general election. If Obama makes a strong statement against Farrahkan, he loses support from some segments of the Black community that still view Farrahkan as a leader who has stood up for Blacks. If he fails to speak out unequivocally to condemn him and everything (good or bad) that he's done, the media machine on the right (aided and abetted by pundits like Cohen) will condemn him anyway, and he'll lose some Jewish votes (in the primaries and general election). Seeking to reopen and enflame the split between Jews and Blacks as a way to depress Dem. votes is a despicable trade, and has been a tried and true tactic of ruthless Republican operatives for decades. This should be actively attacked and condemned for the ploy it is.
James Pratt wrote on January 15, 2008 8:01 PM:Why should anyone agree with, knowingly associate with, or care about FranklyO?
He quotes with approval the Pro-Iraq-War, Pro-Bush Richard Cohen of WaPo and thereby willingly associates himself with enough evil to destroy his credibility as a Democrat.
MT wrote "Seeking to reopen and enflame the split between Jews and Blacks as a way to depress Dem. votes is a despicable trade, and has been a tried and true tactic of ruthless Republican operatives..."
Nice inverted logic there. Considering it was Obama and his church that decided to honor the nation's most famous black anti-semite during Obama's election campaign, you can hardly be surprised that intelligent Republicans would react to this "tried and true tactic of ruthless" promotion of divisiveness.
MT wrote "Seeking to reopen and enflame the split between Jews and Blacks as a way to depress Dem. votes is a despicable trade, and has been a tried and true tactic of ruthless Republican operatives..."
Nice inverted logic there. Considering it was Obama and his church that decided to honor the nation's most famous black anti-semite during Obama's election campaign, you can hardly be surprised that intelligent Republicans would react to this "tried and true tactic of ruthless" promotion of divisiveness.
OMG he's not black enough.
OMG he's too black.
OMG he was exposed to Islam as a kid.
OMG he's a black Christian.
OMG he's educated and elite and therefore not a true black fellow.
OMG he's committed enough to the community he lives in to join a key church in that community, even if the magazine the pastor founded says some dumb things...
We could go on.
There are good historical reasons for Africentric churches, especially in overwhelmingly Black communities. For people who are adult enough not be be freaked out by images of Black strength and dignity, there's plenty to read on this e.g.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070402/26665_Keeping_the_Faith_at_Trinity_United_Church_of_Christ.htm
http://johnharmstrong.typepad.com/john_h_armstrong_/2007/04/trinity_united_.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_11_124/ai_n19328537
The link below is a good summary to date of Obama's Muslim background.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon212.htm
DownriverDem wrote on January 16, 2008 11:11 AM:Come on folks.
Keep your eyes on the prize: 11/08
Clinton/Obama in '08!
Now that's a winning ticket!
