Dirt
Just when it was looking safe to come out and talk about grown-up, more-than-identity politics, Richard Cohen pours oil on the embers in this morning's WP column, smacking Barack Obama for having failed to denounce his church's magazine for having made an award to the loathsome Louis Farrakhan for having "truly epitomized greatness."
Defenders of Cohen say that this stuff is already "out there" in right-wing blogs, and that Obama had better show he can fend it off during the primaries before the Republicans have at him. But Cohen's tone is smarmier, more bristling than that.
It would be one thing to pin Norman Podhoretz's blood-lusty foreign policy on his advisee Rudy Giuliani. But the failure-to-denounce game easily metastasizes and can't be called back. Was Richard Cohen up in arms because John Ashcroft, in his incarnation as presidential candidate, sucked up to the unreconstructed Confederates?
Comments (34)
I cannot understand what prompted Cohen to write this column, unless it's his way of trying to reingratiate himself with some of the more right-wing supporters of Israel who were angered by some of the things Cohen wrote during the Lebanon war.
It's one thing to read the endless allegations traded back and forth by lay posters at the TPM Cafe which belong in the sewer. That's just disconcerting. It's quite another thing for a "distinguished" DC columnist to fan these flames, particularly when, by all accounts, it seemed as if both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama were trying to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric yesterday
All of this on the birthday of MLK. Sad.
By the way, we watched you on the PBS special on the JFK assasination last night. Nice job.
January 15, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I can't understand what prompted Gitlin to post his article here which finally only serves to lend a further aura of sense to what is nonsense.
January 15, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The press coverage today is nothing more than the Stalin show trials writ small. Every apparatchik is parsing every singer word uttered or written by every other apparatchik waiting and hoping that every word uttered or not uttered is fodder for a new trial by press corp. Failure to condemn is understood as approval - if Obama doesn't loudly and piusly condemn a magazine article written several years ago, then by default he must approve it. Since he has not made a public scene in his church, he must vicariously believe that Farrahkan is a great and noble movement leader. It's journalism by the negative pregnant - "when did you stop beating your wife?" If Obama has not publicly stated that he has not beaten his wife, then he must either beat his wife or approve of wife-beaters.
What prompted Cohen and his cohort to write articles like this is their belief that the universe revolves around themselves, that if they're thinking about something then it must be a) earth shatteringly important, so wise and rich in meaning and symbolism that the candidate should have thought to answer it before it was asked or b) so fraught with character revealing meaning that if the candidate has not asked and answered the allegation himself, then he must support it.
The other day I, an older white woman was in a restaurant and was served cold potatoes. The server was a black male. I said nothing to the server believing he should have known the potatoes were cold. Why has Obama not spoken out on this? Why does he support the maltreatment of older white women by black males? Why does he not condemn the culinary workers union and their obvious reverse racism? Why has he not anticipated this sexist, chauvinistic problem of this union and spoken out on this before it happened? Why has he not spoken out on it since it happened? Sadly, I have no choice but to assume that Obama approves hatred and contempt of older white women and obviously, since he has not written a column about it, so does Richard Cohen.
January 16, 2008 6:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
More and more the Left is indistinguishable from the Right. Facts, the truth that we don't like denouce it, ignore it, be smug and santimonious about it. It is obvious that the Left will not tolerate any negative commnents about Obama.
What Cohen's column is really about, to suggest it is about Israel is embarrassing, Obama's cowardice. He associated himeself with a Gay Basher. Not a word from Obama. I just spoke to a friend close to the Gay Rights movment. To quote her the major Gay organizations have written off Obama.
Obama's Church has given an award to one of hte leading anti-Semites of the Black community.
Here is how the Trumpet talks of Farrahkan:
“When Minister Farrakhan speaks, Black America listens,” says
the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, likening the Minister’s influence to
the E. F. Hutton commercials of old. “Everybody may not agree with
him, but they listen…His depth on analysis when it comes to the
racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye opening. He brings a
perspective that is helpful and honest.
“Minister Farrakhan will be remembered as one of the 20th and
21st century giants of the African American religious experience,”
continues Wright. “His integrity and honesty have secured him a
place in history as one of the nation’s most powerful critics. His love
for Africa and African American people has made him an unforgettable
force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere
about his faith and his purpose.”
What has Obama said, not about Farrahkan, but the church he attends with a Pastor that is apparently Obama's spiritual advisor?
The racism of this and the fundamental totalitarian nauture of the reach to Cohen
s column is shameful.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 15, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
...or perhaps Farrakhan feels the same way about African-Americans as Zionists feel about Jews?
People shouldn't forget that Farrakhan has also said equally bad things about white people, yet where is the outrage from white people trying to force Obama to denounce him?
Poor Daniel, suffering from a terminal case of 'Podhoretz disease.'
January 15, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ya gotta love precise statements like Facts, the truth that we don't like denouce it, ignore it, be smug and santimonious about it. It is obvious that the Left will not tolerate any negative commnents about Obama.
Right, Daniel, and all niggers are lazy, all kikes are greedy and devious, and everybody south of the Mason-Dixon line is a redneck. All bitches are bitchy during "that time of the month." Huns are either Nazis or beer-swilling ne'er-do-wells. Gooks are smart but treacherous. The only thing that interests any beaner is stealing an job from a real American. And there are no pinko-commie-rat-bastards who support Edwards.
Thanks for reminding us how sensible you "centrists" are.
BTW, watch out or one of us wops will steal your wife!
January 15, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
This whole issue carries with it the strong smell of mendacity. Nevertheless, it presents an opportunity for both Senators Clinton and Obama to display some real leadership and get us all past the snakepits of racism and sexism. Otherwise, God forbid we should ever really have that "national conversation on race" that we used to hear so much about. If not, perhaps fortunately, at least it could present a chance for John Edwards to start picking up some delegates.
January 15, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would have been very easy for Cohen to have a conversation with Obama and the Obama camp on this issue ... instead they go forward with a hit piece without giving him an opportunity to defend himself. What was Obama supposed to do ... find out about the article through clarevoyance and repudiate it in advance?
After the front page muslim hit job in wapo, it is easy to believe this is simply another hit job from an inside the beltway Hillary cabal.
That said, don't expect it to get any easier for Obama should he win the nomination. If he can keep is head out of the sewer, he can win simply by reminding the voters that it is exactly this kind of thing that we all want to avoid and that is wrong with our democracy. Keep the hope alive.
January 15, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has responded to the Cohen piece already today:
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 decisions with which I agree.
January 15, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, he says that now, but where was he before "Trumpet" magazine made the decision? Why has he not spoken out about "Time" magazine's decision to make Hitler their "Man of the Year?" Why does he support Huey Newton? He has yet to denounce his philosophy.
January 16, 2008 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, not only are the candidates supposed to divine and anticipate these comments in advance, they must answer each and every one of them with a strong disavowel and approbation.
Of course the fact that you believe that Hillary Clinton directed Richard Cohen to write a column like this shows just how well this kind of propaganda works. It doesn't matter in the least to you that Cohen has spent years slicing and dicing Hillary Clinton and most democrats, no it must be her cabal in action. And then you wonder what's wrong with democracy?
January 16, 2008 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to say that I just love Richard Cohen's job security--he can include demonstrably false information in his columns, propagate some questionable things about presidential candidates, and do it all in a tone that screams "Pay attention to me! I AM still relevant" and still keep his job. If I were that "competent" in my job, my contract wouldn't be renewed.
I want a job as a columnist for the Post.
January 15, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even more to the point: to me, Richard Cohen is a fog of a man; we don't know all that much about him. I think we should find out what church or synagogue he attends, and then see if there has ever been anything in any of that institution's publications that we can hang on him (and his employer).
In the real world, if it gets unbearable, you part ways with the religious group, finding another congregation or maybe even affiliation. In the meantime, you occasionally roll your eyes.
January 15, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Arguments about somebody being bad because they're "connected" to somebody else (and should have denounced them) I refer to as cantilever arguments. The longer the chain of connections, the weaker the argument. And the weaker the argument, the more the arguer reveals himself as determined to go overboard.
We need to be making adult judgments of proportionality. The big picture here is that campaigns pit the candidates against each other, bringing out what this year are minor differences between the Democratic candidates, any of whom would be enormously better than any of the Republicans. We need to get the Republicans OUT of Washington and just about everywhere else. Passion over one of ours versus another of ours is ill-advised and wrong-headed.
January 15, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hereby denounce all of you, in anticipation of applying for a job.
I mean, I like you all but I just want to be safe here. I'm sure you understand, you great see of the denounced.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 15, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can not speak for anyone else here but for myself I can say brilliant move! because I am just the sort of shady character you would NOT want referenced to you at some future date!
Anyone with advise on how I can denounce myself in lieu of my own bid for an office in politics please let me know. Or better yet copyright it and sell the idea, there's more than a few politicians out there that would be sure to but it from you - just give me an insider's TPMC discount ;-)
January 15, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it difficult to understand the vitriol involved in this year's Democratic presidential race. I don't want Clinton to be our candidate, but that doesn't cause me to be anti-Clinton. I just think other candidates would be better as President, and I don't feel confident that Clinton could resist the arms industry and its followers in their desire for perpetual war. I'm not at all sure any President could resist that industry, but Clinton seems to be the least likely to. Her election would also tend to demonstrate that we have ruling families in this country, and we shouldn't.
Obama is a very appealing candidate, but I am disappointed in his moves to the right, and his reluctance to acknowledge the mistake that the Iraq fiasco continues to be.
Edwards says most of the things I agree with, but never manages to convince me that there are any firm principles behind those statements.
But, any of those three would be orders of magnitude better as president than any of the GOP candidates. I'm against none of them.
Hoppy in Sacramento
January 15, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I also keep on saying that I am not anti-Clinton also and keep saying that I will support her in the general, but as this primary continues, Bloomberg is starting to look better every day.
January 15, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry to have to say this, because I like Obama and I think he would be both a fine candidate and a fine President. (I'll put in the disclaimer that I still prefer Edwards. But if Edwards drops out, I'm going to Obama in a heartbeat).
One of the central themes of Obama's campaign is the idea that we need a Great Concilator; in other words, Obama is the man to bring us all together.
Would that it could be so.
I'm sorry to say that I find this idea a bit naive. I wish I were wrong. I wish I even had doubts about being right about this. If ever there were a man who's background would indicate that he could bring us together, it would be Barack Obama.
The thing is, the people on the Right aren't ever going to let him be that man. Even Richard Cohen, who claims not to be a Rightist, isn't going to let him be that man. I don't think they're going to let anyone else, man or woman, play that role either. Cohen, I'm afraid, is a bit of a bellweather for what the next President is going to be up against.
I think we Liberals ought to drop any illusions we have that the struggle to pull this country out the pit its been digging is going to be anything other than a nasty, brutal, marathon cage match.
We can't shirk from the responsibility to take up that fight if need be. The time to talk about conciliation is after the voters have sent the Right into retirement.
-Dave Adams-
January 15, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The campaign is certainly likely to be very nasty no matter which Democrat is running. I think Obama's appeal to being able to pull the country together refers to the power he will have to do that in office, after he is in command of the bully pulpit. Getting there will certainly not be an exercise in togetherness.
January 15, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps someone ought to clue Harry Reid into this fact.
I'm not enamored of the "let's get everyone at the table and talk" approach to, for instance, healthcare that Obama seems to be reflecting. However, while the fight for the general election is going to be brutal, I guess I have some misgivings about Clinton, as well--she elicits an almost visceral response, it seems, and do we want a candidate who's going to have that effect? It's an interesting dilemma (to put it mildly): candidate A claims that he might be able to "unite the country" but maybe some don't necessarily want uniting, while candidate B makes no claims about uniting the country, but nonetheless, might unite a significant majority in opposition.
On the other hand, I don't mind having this dilemma, at all.
January 15, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does everyone agree that this Presidential campaign will be "brutal"?
It seems to me that the Republican "family values," "small government," and "tax cuts" tide is on the way out, inexorably. There just doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm for that mantra among the voting public. If we must peer into the rear view mirror, '96 looks more likely to pop into view than '04.
January 15, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a liberal Jew, like Obama, don't suspect him of anti-Semitism, but I feel like I've entered the twilight zone here.
I agree that Cohen is creepily appealing to the fears and prejudices of too many Jews. However, the question he raises for Obama is completely legit. What most people here seem not to be aware of is that Obama is personally close to his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and Obama has repeatedly cited Wright as an important influence on his thinking. He's not just a random member of the congregation. So yes, I want to know what Obama thinks about Wright and his church giving an award to Farrahkan. And so do millions of other Americans, Jewish and otherwise.
If Obama is the nominee, his connection to the controversial Wright will be waved like a red flag by the Repugs. Far better that he deal with it now. I like what he said this afternoon, although possibly it should have been stronger.
January 15, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever else Richard Cohen is, if he wrote his column from what he read in NEWSMAX, that makes him just another lazy, slothful journalist, the kind that find expending shoe leather and digging into issues way too much work when you can do what they did during the 90s and the 2000 Presidential race;
just pick up what you find on Drudge, FOX or Limbaugh and other right wing babblers and write a story/column, drop it at payroll and pick up your check.
January 15, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The idea that people like Cohen can get away with this stuff becasue it's "already out there is absurd.
He and other Hillary proxies know full well they get away with it much more than know Republicans and their proxies ever would. They're trying to have it both ways, and it's incredibly sleazy.
For example, imagine if Trent Lott said what Hillary just said about MLK. He'd get hammered. Hillary was able to rationalize her way out of it, and remind people Bill was the "first black President."
January 15, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
How did this get to be about Hillary?
January 15, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zionista said:
WhiteRoseBuddy showed up.
January 15, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh dear...
for brevity just read the latest nysun article -- hoping you get the picture... or rather the connection...!
NYSUN: Primary Colors (AKA How's "It's" Done)
January 19, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just want to know when the media and the columnists are going to take it to Hillary like the GOP will if she is the nominee. Let's put Hillary under some heat as well if that is what this exercise is about. Why should we wait and see what else is out there to clobber her with lets start ambushing her now and denigrating her with the politics of personal destruction based on all the baggage she carries.
It is despicable for anyone to blame a parishoner for the actions of the church. Faith is a big tent just like the democratic party is supposed to be. Obama's church nor his minister are running for any government agency or Presidency.
Obama has stated his views and we need to respect them.
Otherwise we need to start haranging all the candidates for what their churches do.
January 15, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
WRB asks;
Its not their job to do that, unless your're referring to the nut cases on the right, but they've been 'taking it to her' for 15 years.
January 15, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You ain't seen nothing yet...
There is so much MORE the right and corporate media could use it isn't funny and is why I have been so totally anti-Hillary.
IMVHO the new attacks on Hillary WILL work. The players behind the scenes love this kind of sport.
Hillary has made her bed and she has to lie in it.... She should have made friends with the progressives earlier... Too late now.
January 19, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel:
Why have you finally discovered that elements of the left are often indistinguishable from elements of the right? Did you not listen to the Who in the 70s? :)
Seriously, this is not about Farrakhan. Indeed I have no interest in engaging with anyone who thinks the guy is not a total sleaze. This is about pinning Farrakhan's views on Obama because of what Obama's church publication did in honoring the guy. I don't think that's fair and I don't think it is in anyway indicative of Obama's feelings about Jews.
I have been challenged by some for not condemning HRC because Mark Penn has worked to bust unions. There the relationship is even closer because the guy is on staff. But HRC is no union buster so I move on with the knowledge that prounion folks will staff DOL and the NLRB if HRC or any of the other dems are elected.
Daniel I hear you to some extent. But understand that expressing anger at the majority of posters gets nowhere and gives lots of folks the very thrill they come on here for. Take it from one who has stood in your shoes.
I will go out on a limb and posit that in a different climate you probably aren't as angry and are probably far more persuasive.
Bruce
January 16, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what should Obama's action be:
o Transfer to another church?It would seem like sacrificing his religion for his career.
o Make a statement criticizing his friend, minister Wright for praising Farrakhan? An unfriendly way of treating a friend..
Make one disassociating himself from his church's endorsement of Farrakhan? He's soon find himself doing nothing else.
My choice: say nothing until asked what he himself thinks about Farrakhan and then answer that question .Period..
(Like feeding marshmallows to a bear. You'd better have a big bag.)
As W did , with questions about his earlier drug use."When I was young and foolish" etc Then stick to that policy.If you say you won't comment , and then don't, the reporters stop asking.
And you look presidential.
Here's the Obama campaign statement, just out.
Seems good to me.
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.
January 17, 2008 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
A strange thing is that leaders of all major Jewish organizations, including "Likudniks", already wrote a letter defending Obama from earlier innuendoes.
Clearly, the last thing they need is to alienate a major part of Democratic activists and voters. Cohen went really bonkers in my opinion, "more Catholic than the Pope".
"More and more the Left is indistinguishable from the Right."
Statements like this always make me wonder: is it meant to be a good thing or a bad thing? "Left" was denounced as the Enemy of Israel. "No sane Jew should vote for Democrats". But now they are indistinguihable, so we can vote based on issues like the future of healthcare and social security. What a relief.
January 18, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink