Playing With Fire: Smearing Obama Among Jews
On Friday, when I wrote about the Jewish community being inundated with anti-Obama fear-mongering, some people at TPM expressed doubt. I was even excused of making it up.
Five days later, few Jews active in the community have not received calls or e-mails telling them that Obama is a threat to the Jews.
The latest charge is that the minister of Obama's church publishes a magazine that honored Louis Farrakhan.
Farrakhan! Honestly, I thought he had died. It turns out he is alive but seriously ill and inactive. He is not exactly a threat to anybody right now.
Nonetheless, the whispers about Obama go like this. "You know, Obama's minister is a big Farrakhan supporter." "He's also Muslim, or half Muslim." "He studied in a madrassa." "And he's very anti-Israel."
No one knows if any campaign is behind these charges. According to the informative analysis and poll by Shmuel Rosner in Ha'aretz, the right-wing of the Jewish community does not like Obama and strongly favors Giuliani and Clinton because of their hardline stances on Israel.
But I don't think any campaign is behind this round of swiftboating because it bears all the markings of the Jewish far right, the camp that cheered Rabin's assassination. Nevertheless, the smears will have an effect, regardless of its origins. It will be felt on Super Tuesday when hundreds of thousands of Jews vote in New York, California, and elsewhere.
It's pretty ugly and today columnist Richard Cohen is taking it mainstream. Check out his column in the Washington Post. He shares the story of Obama's Farrakhan-admiring minister and sounds the alarms to Jews everywhere. He demands Obama repudiate the pastor. What idiocy!
Back in 2002, on Yom Kippur, the visiting rabbi at my congregation (he comes every year from Israel) delivered a sermon calling for hatred of Muslims. Citing the Biblical verse, he said, "there is a time for love and a time for hate. This is the time for hate."
From there, he stormed and wept out his hatred of Palestinians. It was amazing!
(In his defense, the rabbi may have been trying to appease Charles Krauthammer. The previous year, right after 9/11, the same rabbi gave a sermon urging that we make distinctions among Muslims, Arabs, etc. Krauthammer started bellowing at the rabbi for not recognizing pure evil. It totally disrupted the service, although it was one of the few not boring moments I have experienced in a house of worship).
In any case, I have not been back to my synagogue on the High Holy Days since, because Rabbi Hater is still there for the holidays. But I didn't use my bully pulpit to repudiate him. Why should I? No one would imagine that he speaks for me? Nor does Obama's minister speak for him.
Cohen must know that but, in his dotage, he has descended into Ed Koch/Jackie Mason land where the Cossacks are always at the gates. Tthis column will be circulated widely and will hurt Obama, perhaps badly.
Richard Cohen was once a liberal. He often invokes civil rights activists Mickey Schwerner and Andy Goodman (who were murdered in Mississippi along with their African-American friend, James Chaney in 1964). .
Does Cohen not understand that these two Jewish boys died in pursuit of a dream that Barack Obama embodies? Does he think Goodman and Schwerner would want the first viable black candidate for President in our history to be smeared because of something his minister did? Would they want him libeled because he is not a hawk when it comes to West Bank settlements?
The answers are obvious. Cohen should be ashamed. But, rest assured, none of the people involved in the race-baiting of Barack Obama are capable of it.
check "excused", you may mean "accused"
January 15, 2008 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your patience and sorry for the inconvenience!
Best regards, Mary CEO of youtube to mp3 converter
December 21, 2010 5:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a smart blog. I mean it. You have so much knowledge about this issue, and so much passion. You also know how to make people rally behind it, obviously from the responses. Youve got a design here thats not too flashy, but makes a statement as big as what youre saying. Great job,children health indeed.
January 18, 2011 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point about Schwerner and Goodman. Doesn't one of their mothers still live in New Jersey somewhere. I seem to remember an interview on the anniversary of their murder, or during the trial of one of their murderers in the past few years. Might be nice to ask Mama what she thinks of the smears of Obama.
January 15, 2008 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Carolyn Goodman (Andy's mom) died recently. Schwerner's wife is still active. Both families are very progressive, left-wing. The old kind of universalist Jews. Wonderful folks.
January 15, 2008 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would be great if *someone* who knows how would ask the questions. /wink wink, nudge nudge.
January 15, 2008 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
The personal attack on Richard Cohen doesn't change anything. Is Farrahkan a Holocaust deny and an anti-Semite? By any standard he is. Did the Church Barack Obama give an award to Farrahkan and gush over him? As is so often with you posts you often lots of smears but no facts.
Of course you stormed out of your synagogue he was the wrong like of hater for you. So did Obama storm out of his Church? Has he been back?
In your effort to change the subject and to shield Obama from the truth you despoil's Goodman and Schwerner's memory with racism combined with anti-semitism.
This post shames you, TPMCafe and those who edit it.
January 15, 2008 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
The question MJ asks is why any of it matters. The facts are there, Richard Cohen is repeating what MJ contends is a pointless story. It's irrelevant whether the church did or didn't, is his point. I tend to agree.
What truth do you think he is trying to shield Obama from? MJ is saying that if he shouldn't be held responsible for the speakers at his shul, why should Obama be responsible for the speakers at his church?
I'm troll rating you for a personal attack, btw....
January 15, 2008 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel Greenbaum trolls every post of MJ's on TPM Cafe. Ignore him and his incoherent criticism.
Don't feed the trolls!
In the larger sense, Richard Cohen's totally unwarranted and massively unfair attack on Obama is patently ridiculous. Cohen could have asked Obama about his views or checked out Obama's policy positions and speeches.
I mean, it's obvious to any sentient being that Obama is not anti-semitic, and to paint his entire church as anti-semitic simply by association is false and misleading.
That's MJ's whole point.
Another way to say it would be, do we judge every Catholic candidate based on the views of the Pope, or their bishop or priest? No, of course not, to do so would be ridiculous. Most Catholic Dems, including Joe Biden and John Kerry for instance, had their own views on abortion. Do we suggest they don't really hold such views due to what their priests say? No, of course not.
But Richard Cohen is a typical Washington gossip columnist who would rather traffic in dirt and smears than anything approaching actual policy analysis.
Exactly the opposite of what Obama stands for and in fact it's the very reason why Obama is running, to change politics as usual. To paraphrase, we can't just change our D.C. insiders for their D.C. insiders. We need to get rid of the current crop of D.C. insiders.
January 15, 2008 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ohiomeister like Rosenberg are big on personal attack but very short on on reality.
Your analogy is totally in apt. This isn't the Catholic Church. This is the church Obama attends. He isn't even being asked to denouced Farrahkan because he is Black. He is being asked about an action of his Church.
Rosenberg's point is Obama is Black and it is unacceptable to criticize Black people, even those running for President. This is racist, not Cohen.
Obama has support from a Gay Basher and said little. Now this. Obama's profile is increasingly that of cowardice. He is afraid of alienating the African-American community so he won't separate himself from the bigots who he is involved with.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 15, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a non-religious person I have been continually appalled by the refusal of religious persons to accept any responsibility for the religious organizations they attend and fund.
Assuming that the facts are as Cohen stated, we have the following: the church which Obama states is his, through its magazine, gave an award to Farrakahn this year. (We have no information as to whether Obama, in the midst of campaigning, was aware of this or not. It is probably fair to assume that the granting of this award – named as it is after the current Pastor and announced in a church magazine published by the Pastor’s daughters --reflects a trend in the Pastor’s thought. It is worth noting also that Obama had intended to have this Pastor participate in his inauguration as Senator but decided not to.)
While it is correct that one is not necessarily implicated in the actions of one’s church or shul, you are responsible for your actions in response to the stances taken by those institutions. MJ faced with a speaker whom he found morally despicable, shunned his shul for the duration. This is precisely the type of reaction that morality demands. The granting of an award to someone morally despicable is a more serious problem in this case because the explicit approval of the despicable views is in writing and can be disseminated widely. So the question is what actions has or will Obama take in response?
Daniel Greenbaum is focused on three basic points: 1)MJ is being illlogical in holding Obama to a much lesser standard than MJ holds himself to 2) that MJ’s failure to hold Obama to the same standard (and outrage at others who try to do so) is itself racist and 3) that the important question is if Obama takes no action in response to this action of his church whether this indicates that Obama is tolerating this strain of ant-Semitic thought in the black community, and if so, why.
January 15, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
For anyone who hasn't noticed, AJM jumps on whatever issue the Hillary campaign or proxies put out. So pardon my skepticism at his being "continually appalled by..." whatever the attack meme du jour is.
January 15, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
So in other words, you have no thoughtful response to what he wrote.
January 15, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thoughtful response to propaganda from a propagandist, is to call it for what it is.
January 17, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think there is a big difference in degree between MJ's reaction to the visiting rabbi and what you believe should have been Obama's reaction to this award given by his pastor.
In the first, the rabbi hurled invective at an entire religion during what was supposed to be a solemn, holy, and spiritual service. Since this is a guest rabbi, MJ can keep his membership to his synagogue yet avoid the offending rabbi by avoiding the services at which he speaks.
In Obama's case, a minister who may otherwise be an effective pastor, inspiring his congregation spiritually, gave a one-time award to a man who has reprehensible views and has fomented intolerance among his people, but has somewhat mitigated this sad state of affairs with effective aid for people in his community whom others might consider beyond help. The minister had his reasons for honoring Farrakhan, and we are all entitled to disagree with the minister's decision, once we discover what that reason was. However, that minister has not invited Farrakhan to preach at his church and exert an intolerant influence upon his congregation.
That Obama backed away from having his minister attend his inauguration implies that Obama is aware that some of his minister's views are problematic. It is reasonable to infer that Obama spoke with his minister about this problem. But this is no reason for Obama to divorce himself from a congregation that is spiritually satisfying. There is no evidence that Obama's minister is fomenting hate; MJ's guest rabbi most assuredly intended to do just that.
Therefore, 1) the "standard" you assume does not hold up when the circumstances are compared; 2) since they are not comparable, not to expect comparable actions from Obama is reasonable, and the assumption of racism disintegrates; and 3) your assumption that Obama's minister is anti-Semitic has no foundation, since you have no evidence that this award "tolerated" anti-Semitism rather than rewarding Farrakhan's discrete good works or that the minister's religious teachings as a pastor encourage anti-Semitic thought in the black community.
I know a lot about art, but I don't know what I like.
January 15, 2008 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except, of course, that it's entirely possible--and even likely--that the guest rabbi ALSO does good works and may be the head of a shul that does good works.
It's also true that Farrakhan hurls invective at entire religions, or at least at one religion in particular.
Beyond that, Farrakhan plays on a much bigger stage (probably) than the guest rabbi who may only be known, if at all, within the Jewish community. How many rabbis are as famous as Farrakhan within the broad American community? Farrakhan is broadly known throughout the country, and his views are correspondingly influential...and damaging.
Bringing this down to the level of Wright, however, one wonders why Obama withdrew his invitation if, in fact, the pastor's views are anodyne.
January 17, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think TPM should allow these personal attacks on its writers.Greenbaum is a troubled guy. I think his obsession with MJ is weird and potentially dangerous.He's on the line where you start to wonder how violent the guy is.Read how he sputters and loses his English when he writes about Rosenberg.
I'm troll rating him. But that isnt enough.
January 15, 2008 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
You like guilt by association? How's this: Hillary's closest campaign adviser and pollster has for years been an active public relations flack and lobbyist for the cigarette industry, a p.r. flack for Blackwater, and has been an active anti-unionist for decades.
Some minister Obama knows allowed a magazine published --what--BY his church?--IN his church--by fellow church members?--to give some award to Farrakhan?
That's nothing compared to Clinton's direct connection to killer industries like Big Tobacco and paramilitary groups.
January 15, 2008 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Long Tom,
I don't think MJ is making the connection between Farrakhan and Obama, he seems to be using the comparison of an example of Obama fear mongering among some in the Jewish community. The Farrakhan/Obama connection is found in Richard Cohen's column.
January 15, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
He was responding to Gree, not MJ.
And there is no "connection" only desperate attempts to smear by the most tenuous and distant of associations. That was MJ's point.
January 15, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Calm down Daniel. You're being childish. If you don't like MJ's posts, don't read them. Or if you need to read them and respond, do so thoughtfully and productively.
This "shame on you!" stuff is childish.
January 15, 2008 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon, Andrew, talk to Josh and ban this guy already.
How many times does he have to cross the line?
He's not even coherent.
You guys are lucky MJ and others put up with it and keep posting here.
January 15, 2008 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
That you allow this anti-Semitic garbage speaks very poorly of you. Shame of you and all associated with the bigotry you allow. You throw around words like "childish" without addressing the substance just as Rosenberg's post doesn't.
I under you are his protector. It reflects very very badly on you and the entire TPM operation.
You want bigotry to be accepted silently. Won happen. So you calm down or be at least more honest.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 15, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel you're not listening. I'm not telling you not to disagree with him, I'm just asking that you not be a jerk.
It's not my job to "protect" MJ from people who disagree with him, it's my job to keep conversation at Cafe productive and not allow people's whose tempers are occasionally more prominent than their intellects dominate the site.
January 15, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
DAVAI LIVES!
January 15, 2008 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rating of 0.1 as of right now. I don't think I've ever seen anyone that low before with 10 rankings.
January 15, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Little Trollie Daniel want a cracker?
(Sorry, I know, but c'mon...)
January 15, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is that from the David Duke handbook or is it the Buchanan one. Rosenberg is the piedpiper of the anti-Semites of this site. One by one those who oppose him leave. I have given money to these sits and I will not be made silent by bigots whether Rosenberg, Golis or you.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 15, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
This site encourages a wide range of opinion. And people frequently express themselves passionately and even make ad homs quite often. But there has to be some honest attempt to substantiate posts coherently.
Gree's routine is obnoxious. Calling MJ antisemitic only based on his willingness to criticize Israel and other Jews fairly on the same standards as he'd criticize anyone, while Gree seems to think they're above all reproach, frankly, it calls Gree's faculties into question.
January 15, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe Pat Buchanan is a well-known, well-established, bona fide anti-Semite. How often has Mr.Cohen asked the Republican Party, his own newspaper, the networks, cable to disown and denounce Buchanan's bigotry? I do not know for certain but I think the number of times is zero. Now why would that be?
Some gems from the always delightful Mr. Buchanan:
1). After Cardinal O'Connor criticized anti-Semitism during the
controversy over construction of a convent near Auschwitz, Buchanan wrote:
"If U.S. Jewry takes the clucking appeasement of the Catholic cardinalate
as indicative of our submission, it is mistaken. When Cardinal O'Connor of
New York seeks to soothe the always irate Elie Wiesel by reassuring him
'there are many Catholics who are anti-Semitic'...he speaks for himself. Be
not afraid, Your Eminence; just step aside, there are bishops and priests
ready to assume the role of defender of the faith." (New Republic,
10/22/90)
2)Buchanan told Elie Wiesel that President Reagan must not surrender to
"Jewish pressure" against visiting Bitburg, a German cemetery where SS men
were buried. In a White House meeting with Jewish leaders, Buchanan
reminded them that they were "Americans first," as fellow staffer Ed
Rollins later recounted to Reagan biographer Lou Cannon. Buchanan
repreatedly scrawled the phrase "Succumbing to the pressure of the Jews" on
his notepad during the meeting.
3) In 1990 William Buckley, Buchanan's former mentor, wrote a 20,000 word
essay on Buchanan that concluded: "I find it impossible to defend Pat
Buchanan against the charge" of anti-Semitism.
4) In Newsweek, December 23, 1991, Jonathan Alter writes that in 1983
Buchanan criticized the US government for expressing regret over its
postwar protection of Klaus Barbie.
5) In 1987 Buchanan lobbied to stop deportation of Karl Linnas, accused of
Nazi atrocities in Estonia.
6) In a March 17, 1990 column, Buchanan wrote that it was impossible for
850,000 Jews to be killed by diesel exhaust fed into the gas chamber at
Treblinka. "Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill
anybody." According to Jacob Weisberg in his article "The Heresies of Pat
Buchanan," October 22, 1990, The New Republic, "Buchanan stands by his
bizarre claim about the diesel engines but refuses to discuss it on the
record. Suffice it to say that he embraces a bolder debunking claim than
he is yet willing to endorse in print...Where did he get the anecdote
("proving" his assertion about the diesel)? 'Somebody sent it to me.'
"Buchanan's source was almost certainly the July 1988 issue of a Newsletter
of the German American Information and Education Association--a known
Holocaust denial group which quotes extensively from a story of
schoolchildren who emerged unharmed after being exposed to diesel fumes
while trapped in a train tunnel.
7)On March 2, 1992, at a campaign rally in Marietta, Georgia, where Rabbi
Avi Weiss called out, "Your anti-Semitism makes America last," Buchanan
shot back, "This rally is of Americans, for Americans and for the good 'ole
USA, my friends."
8)Buchanan was a featured columnist for The Spotlight, a patently
anti-Semitic and anti-Black publication that championed David Duke.
9)Buchanan repeatedly referred to Capitol Hill as "Israeli occupied
territory." (McLaughlin Report, June 1990)
10)On February 4, 1987 in The Washington Post, Buchanan wrote: "Dr. Martin
Luther King is one of the most divisive men in contemporary history..."
11)In a January 16, 1986 column, Buchanan wrote:" But apartheid is not
the worst situation facing Africans today. Not remotely. If it were, they
wouldn't be pouring into South Africa from such "liberated" zones as
Mozambique."
12)In 1990, before the Gulf War, Buchanan wrote that if the US went to
war, "the fighting would be done by kids with names like McAllister,
Murphy, Gonzales and Leroy Brown." The National Review (December 30, 1991)
commented that "There is no way to read that sentence without concluding
that Pat Buchanan was suggesting that American Jews manage to avoid
personal military exposure even while advancing military policies they
(uniquely?) engender."
January 15, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone I know who watched Buchanan on the old CNN show "Crossfire" knew he was an anti-Semite. Some of us even wrote to CNN.
So What? It is does not change the facts of the Cohen story. It does not change the intellectua dishonesty of the original post nor its bigotry.
Farrahkan and Buchanan and Rosenberg aren't all that different from each other. Each wants to shield their prospective causes from the truth while blaming the Jews.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 15, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
What facts?
Is every candidate required to repudiate every stance of everyone they've ever met?
You're obviously not a substance troll. Are you a bridge troll? A cave troll? Just what manner of troll are you?
January 15, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
No.
Repudiate the stance of everyone who has met someone that they have met. This is at least two degrees of separation involving three public figures. It's ridiculous. You can get from Bush to Farakhan in two degrees of separation. Public figures know a lot of people.
January 15, 2008 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
The issue is not repudiating Farrahkan but the action of the Church Obama attends. Doesn't one who is the candidate of the new politics, the candidate of hope who offers a new politics have an obligation to comment on the actions of his own Church?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 15, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
No.
This "obligation" only exists in the minds of people who don't want candidates to address the substantive issues they actually stand for during their campaign.
I wonder why the people who criticize Obama as being "all rhetoric, no substance" don't want him to be able to discuss substantive issues...
I wonder...
January 15, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Taking a stand against bigoty occuring in his own church and discussing substantive issues are not mutually exclusive.
January 15, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
They ARE absolutely mutually exclusive.
NOBODY will pay attention to any discussion of any substantive issue if they are distracted by explosive, racially charged, and irrelevant accusations like this one. Nobody.
Demands for candidates to "address" nonsense like this are simply attempts to shut down all conversation on issues of importance.
Raise your hand if you agree.
January 15, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
^ ^
Both hands raised!
January 15, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It appears that your candidate agrees with me more with than you.
Obama did precisely what he should do. As I noted in a previous post, there is no evidence that he knew about the award previously but once it was publicized -- no matter what the columnist's motivation -- it had to be dealt with. This is like dealing with swift-boating promptly.
January 16, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was sheer genius. Could I suggest a separate post?
April 18, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was sheer genius. Could I suggest a separate post?
April 18, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Invective and accusation are unbecoming of you Daniel. Take a deep breath and offer your thoughts with some reason and calm.
January 15, 2008 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thats meant as a joke right? Rosenberg'is simiply bigoted in a way that is anti-truth, racist and anti-Semitic. That is reasoned and calm. Telling the truth does not seem to be a big priority for the left or the right. That is a very scary thought.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 15, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't matter what MJ writes. You ALWAYS go ballistic. It's quite obvious there's never,ever going to be anything MJ writes that you'll approve of. It's really tiresome and unnecessary---especially the namecalling. You seem to think if you howl "anti-semite" and "bigot" at MJ enough everyone will have to believe you. If you have a point it almost always is lost in your over-the-top reactions.
January 15, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow.
To compare someone who has worked his whole life for Israel to Buchanan and Farrakhan really undermines your entire position demonstrating you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Rather than discuss issues, you would rather make attacks which are not even based in reality.
You have just demonstrated that this isn't about the issues, but rather, about your deranged obsession with MJ Rosenberg.
January 15, 2008 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny about the web. In real world, a person takes out a restraining order on a stalker like Greenbaum. But in virtual world, obsessive fans is the price you pay for being out here.
It feels pretty yukky knowing that some weird dude is obsessed with me. On the other hand, I now know what it must feel like to be Britney Spears.
January 15, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
First I was involved with the site before either you or Golis. Second why should you be free to spout hatred unopposed? Just because the have a fan base here doesn't justify your bilge.
I have suggested to Andrew Golis that he invite someone else to write on Israel. Someone froma liberal rather than a far left position. His response was they would not change the editorial policy of this site and I should respond to you.
That your posts are often factually wanting and morally questionable seems to me evident. You have your groupies. Good for you. So do lots of haters.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 15, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Man, Daniel is one pathetic little man. He thinks he loves my country though (Israel). He would have lasted 5 minutes in Tsahal. He's the type of whining little man who tends to do very poorly in our rather rugged army!He'd be cleaning toilets with his face.
January 15, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
It makes it hard for me to ask Daniel to not be childish toward MJ when you call him a "whining little man." Let's all try to bring up the quality of the discourse here?
January 15, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
He is a whining little man. If you're going to criticize Herzl's choice of words, "man" is the only one you could really quibble with...
January 15, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
For abusive name calling without content. Daniel's name calling coupled with logical points is far preferable.
January 15, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's just end the name calling altogether. There's nothing productive about it.
January 15, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with this. Judging another person without really knowing them is the way toward creating a caricature of the person. The same could be extrapolated to a race or ethnicity, and has. Then, once the caricature is ugly enough, the person is ripe for group attack. When the group attacks, evil breaks out among us and runs rampant.
January 18, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Herzl gets uprated for giving us his viewpoint as an Israeli.
January 15, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think DG is way overstating his case about you. OTOH I think he's sincere in holding the views he holds. That sincerity, however, is rooted in fear driven thinking.
I'm not sure ostracism of a person like this is the best route. Isolation breeds fear. You may prefer to keep your responses short, but if you respond with continual questions that call him to justify his argument, provide a nexus, state evidence for or against, and explain why something is, then briefly point out why you believe the arguments he makes are wrong or trollish, that would work better.
I think that with the most difficult people, our nemeses (word?), our greatest challenge is not to let them make us respond in fear, but to face them and engage them. Much like the sides locked in adversarial relations at point: Anywhere, Earth.
Disclosure: I've responded both ways. Yet another instance showing how forums are themselves studies in international relations by giving insight into human conflict and relations.
BTW, if you ever feel like Brittney Spears again, eat some chicken with rice soup. Good humor. Bad situation...she's like Mr. Merrick, and her spectators and exploiters like the carnival owner and visitors.
January 18, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm. Let's see... One has been the head of a racialist organization that has demonized Jews and whites, and who has stupidly made it possible for right-wing fanatics to use him to scare the uninformed; one has run for president (twice?) on a platform that includes nativist appeals to white conservatives, but who has also written books ripping Bush a new one. (He gets a couple of points from me for the latter, although he probably secretly pines for the return of the British Raj.)
Nope, don't see Rosenberg in that grouping in the slightest. Zip. Nada.
You're annoying and somewhat unbalanced, though, which means you have more in common with the first two-- and Cohen-- than Rosenberg does.
January 15, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Farrahkan and Buchanan and Rosenberg aren't all that different from each other."
Daniel, this is a patently absurd, silly, and stupid remark. You've really gone over the edge with this one. Farrakhan and Buchanan, okay.
But Rosenberg? Good grief!!!
January 15, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Three who denounce the Jewish Lobby with little honesty. Three who blame Israel for everything while ignoring virtually all acts by the Palestinians and Arabs. Three who their groups of devotees.
The similarity between the far left and the far right is closer than either side wants to admit.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 15, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Farrakhan and Buchanan are anti-Semites; MJ is not (obviously).
MJ does not ignore all acts by Palestinians, but he tries to provide balance within the Jewish American community. Even so, he gives the Palestinians their negative due when he sees fit.
I won't touch the Jewish Lobby point because I find that whole argument a little weird and hard to get my hands around.
But to equate these three is to be as unbalanced as you accuse MJ of being. Surely, you can see how MJ is DIFFERENT from the other two. In fact, he's more different than he is similar.
That said, I think your last sentence is interesting and often true.
January 17, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Buchanan: "Da Jews did it!"
DanielGree "No they didn't, MJ Rosenberg did it!"
January 15, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cohen's piece was a pretty scummy hit and I figured that if I was actually going to give him the benefit of having another statistical reader, I might as well write him a letter and share my disdain. So I did:
To: cohenr@washpost.com
Subject: Help me
Mr. Cohen,
Regarding your column today: Help me understand, if you would, what Louis Farrakhan has to do with Barack Obama and vice versa. You connected a rather thin line of circumstantial dots between a magazine, a church, a church leader and one of his parishioners before calling for the parishioner to repudiate the decision-making of the magazine. I can promise you, it will be a very long campaign if everyone in it spends all of their time illuminating and/or repudiating the work of all of their various associates' associates. "What does John Edwards have to say about his paper boy tossing last Sunday's paper into the prized rose bush of a local Clinton supporter?" (Remember John Edwards? He's a former Vice Presidential nominee on the Democratic side and a current Presidential candidate. Is this ringing any bells? At least toss in a $400 haircut reference.)
As I'm guessing you've noticed, today is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday. You alluded to the "tussle" between the Obama and Clinton campaigns over Senator Clinton's recent remarks. You did not, however, indicate any position on that conflict, or even illuminate the fact that it is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to reach that Senator Clinton's comparison of MLK and LBJ was an extension of her "speeches" vs. "substance" talking point. You quoted from the most famous portion of Dr. King's most famous speech. You did not, however, indicate any real understanding of the sum of what his struggle was all about. In fact, all you really did was pen a worm-tongued hit piece on Senator Obama two weeks to the day after your last worm-tongued hit piece, "The Mendacity of Hope."
I wonder what sort of sign John Edwards' paper boy might see in your yard...
Sincerely,
Aaron Cunningham
January 15, 2008 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Farrahkan was given an award by the magazine published by the Church Obama attends. The magazine is published by the Pastor's daughter. Did Obama say anthing about this? Does he still attend the Church as Rosenberg says he avoids services at his synagogue?
Those who can't see that it is the giving Farrahkan and award that is scummy have an interesting perspective on the world.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 15, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Those who can't see that it is the giving Farrahkan and award that is scummy have an interesting perspective on the world."
And there you demonstrate your tenous grasp, either on reality, or at the very least, on Cohen's article/hit-piece.
Obama didn't give Farrakhan an award. Obama didn't praise anyone for giving Farrakhan an award.
Obama's church didn't give Farrakhan an award.
Obama's pastor didn't give Farrakhan an award.
His pastor's daughter, the editor of a magazine published by the church, gave Farrakhan an award.
Obama needs to account for that? It's so ridiculous, it barely merits actually typing it out, and yet Cohen actually decided to squeeze a column out of it and then was actually able to get it published in a major newspaper. Does the Post have an Ombudsman? And is that individual the winner of Obama's church's pastor's daughter's magazine's 2008 "Asleep at the Switch" Award?
And which gets your blood-pressure higher, seeing M.J. Rosenberg on a byline or seeing the word "Farrakhan"? The man teeters on death. He is largely an after-thought in American history. He is basically only relevant as a source of controversy and contempt. And Obama needs to repudiate him because someone else gave him an award? Really?
Happy Birthday Dr. King!
January 15, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you think about all of the Catholic or Jewish magazines out there and try to ascribe what they say to all Catholics or Jews, the ridiculousness of these claims comes into focus.
WaPo does have an Ombudsperson, Deborah Howell.
Deborah Howell can be reached at 202-334-7582 or at ombudsman@washpost.com.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/25/LI2005032500838.html
January 15, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ombudsman/woman/whatever? Ha. If she's anything like the NYT ombudshuman, she will be completely useless. I complained consistently to the Times (alleged) reader's representative during the horror of the 2004 Presidential election, my specific problem being the articles that Jodi Wilgoren was writing at the time about John Kerry, i.e., he's like a hamster, he's a millionaire, he has a (very tall) male assistant who is actually with him ALL THE TIME! They even shared a single BATHROOM once during an overtime campaign stay at some B&B. I loathed that woman and made an extra effort to express my outrage and it did absolutely no good. I got some very nice email responses from the ombudsman's assistant, but it seemed that the actual ombudsman hated... people in general...the readers specifically( which he detailed in a final column AFTER the election)...and writing any ombudman columns, essentially his job as a whole, so I have yet to develope any respect respect for the "paper(s) of record" ombudshumans.
January 15, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
She gets the mail. She reads the mail. Sometimes she answers the mail. Sometimes she writes about the mail she receives.
This is your conduit. It has an impact. It makes sense to use it. It may have less impact than you would like, but it's the conduit you have.
It made a difference to the Times Public Editor that he received 700 or so emails about Bill Kristol, one of which was positive.
I know for sure that Lil Debbie was perplexed by the Froomkin Flap. Writing them polite, well-reasoned notes gets them nervous, if nothing else. It's scary that nice people capable of clear reasoning read some of the stuff they publish and notice that it's meaningless tripe.
Persistence does matter in instances like this.
January 15, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stay logical: this is between Obama and the church he picked to attend -- not between Obama and all Christian churches.
Dan K. reports Obama's response which is almost perfect. What I don't understand is why all his supporters got so bent out of shape about a relatively simple question. Obama came through with flying colors.
Obama is running for President. The content of his character matters. All the debates about the character of Cohen, MJ and Daniel G, while interesting, are more or less beside the point.
While Cohen raised a legitimate question now that it has been answered he needs to give equal publicity to Obama's response or stand convicted of a transparent attempt to cause enmity.
While I
January 15, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I regret to say you are mistaken. I went to the Church website. There one the Church's website is the Trumpet. Unfortunately one can't read the entire article without subscribing but it is there and clearly the Church and the Magazine are inseparable
From the Trumpet:
“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.”
Obama is a candidate for president. You don't think he should be asked about the actions of his church?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 15, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you should be forced to apologize to your neocon friends and the Jewish community at large for associating yourself with a website that allows an anti-semite like MJ Rosenberg to spew his venomous hatred.
I going to see to it that the ADL takes out an advertisement in the NYT asking for you to repudiate TPMCafe and the anti-semites who are there.
You truly are a ridiculous, petty individual.
January 15, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Illogical: Daniel is here combatting what he sees as anti-Semitism and would have no objection if that were what Obama were doing in his church as MJ did in his shul.
January 15, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hitler is dead. So it would be okay if a church gave him an award? That's the logic MJ offered.
Refusing to require Obama's church to accept moral responsibility for the award given to Farrakahn in the church's magazine is ridiculous.
The question is what will be Obama's response? A simple "I recognize that Louis Farrakahn is deeply flawed man who has done many good things for the black community and is deeply but I deeply regret that my church gave him this award named after my Pastor because it implies an endorsement of
Farrakhan's bigotry against the Jews which I deplore."
January 15, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's more or less what Obama actually said today. Here's his statement:
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 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
maybe Obama should hire a team of private investigators to investigate everything that everyone with whom he comes into contact with on a regular basis - from the pastor of his church, to his drinking buddies, to the store where he does his grocery shopping, hell let's extend it to the friends and associates of his children too - says and does, so that Sen. Obama can distance himself from any person who might have ever said anything stupid in a momentary lapse of judgement, which some fucking prig with a ginormous stick up his ass could construe as being even remotely racist, anti-semitic, or otherwise offensive to the oh-so-tender sensibilities of somebody, somewhere in this vast country of ours.
In fact, I think every presidential candidate should be required to do this in order to satisfy the impossibly pure standards of the Politically Correct Gestapo, whether it be the Jewish branch or the Black branch or the fundamentalist Christian branch. Because of course, none of us have any friends or acquaintances whatsoever who might have once said or done something stupid, and if you do and you don't disown that person immediately upon finding out about it, you're a goddamned racist/anti-semite as well.
Jesus christ, I don't know why anyone would bother to run for political office, having to put up with this kind of ridiculous bullshit.
January 15, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Point of personal privilege (since implicit in MJ's introduction is that I was accusing him of making things up in his prior post):
I never stated that MJ was making things up and neither did I call him a liar; I did challenge his journalistic standards because the allegations were incredibly nebulous at best and I thought his original title was unjustifiably provocative and I stand by that. I wish I had approached it in a different way but shit happens and I accept the consequences. This is MJ's gig, and the last thing I would ever want to do is stand in the way of good faith discourse.
For the record, I read Richard Cohen's column this morning after Josh Marshall flagged it and I was disgusted with the "guilt by association" essence of Cohen's thesis. I, too, have heard people in some of the synagogues I have attended and I have been ashamed at times of things I have heard.
Finally, for the record, the Goodman family and my wife's family are cousins. I know some of her family well and I had the privilege of meeting her once at my in-laws' home and I was in awe of her no less than I remain in awe of the legacy of her son. I have no doubt that Mrs. Goodman (may she rest in peace) would be disheartened by Cohen's column and by any organized effort in any segment of the Jewish community to associate Barack Obama with antisemitism.
January 15, 2008 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you know of synagogues who have given awards to and praised racists? Would you continue to attend? Would you say noting?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
January 15, 2008 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
In a word, yes. Many far right synagogues have done just that. I don't say anything, because it's not remotely newsworthy.
January 15, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
What about what MJ said about the visiting rabbi at his own synagogue? Did you forget about the post already?
I've read posts where you have expressed what seemed to me like racism toward Arabs, so this all seems rather like the pot calling the kettle black.
January 15, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not off hand, but I do know some websites. Google 'Kahane temple award' and this pops up:
Goldstein was the worst kind of racist murdering scum and yet he is venerated at this particularly notorious settlement. Unless you can show me that the Temple at Kiryat Arba has denounced Goldstein then I suggest your question has been answered. 'Would you say nothing?" Bueller? Bueller? Gree?http://kahane.blogspot.com/2007/04/proud-winner-of-thinker-blogger-award.html
Google 'baruch goldstein award' and this pops up
http://haemtza.blogspot.com/2006/10/in-memory-of-mass-murderer.html
Which notes (granted with a certain level of disapproval) that Goldstein's grave at Kiryat Arba makes this statement:
January 15, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Goldstein: The logical extension of the settlement mentality.
January 15, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meier Kahane: the Jewish Farrakhan...except Farrakhan didn't actually kill or bomb anybody!
January 15, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree that Cohen is trying to stir up animosities between Jews and African-Americans, and that that is wrong and destructive.
But I think calling out Obama for his connection to a pastor who expresses such open admiration for someone like Farrakhan, who is clearly a rabid racist in his own right, is hardly unfair.
Look, MJ, I realize that you don't feel personally responsible for the behavior of Rabbi Hater. But you are not running for President, right? Don't you think that the President of the United States has to be far more careful about how close his connection is to out-and-out racists than does the random citizen? 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 you make out the difference?
While, again, I agree that Cohen likely has his own ugly reasons to press this issue, the very real problem for Obama doesn't go away.
At bare minimum, it does seem to me that Obama has a very real obligation to explain himself on this issue. Why does he feel comfortable with attending regularly a church where such open admiration for a racist is expressed?
January 15, 2008 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
You've missed your calling. You and Mr. Cohen should both be in the NBA, because your leaping ability is unparalleled! Cohen only bests you because he's able to leap almost all the way to Obama giving Farrakhan the award himself at a gala banquet! You made it as far as his church openly admiring a racist, though, and that is still a pretty admirable leap!
January 15, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
January 15, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ondioline : trolled for simple name calling. If it is a 'leap' to go from an Obama's church an award to a racist to his church openingly admiring a racist what information would it take to convince you that Obama's church was admiring Louis Farrakahn?
January 15, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
AJM, I've made a note of your rating practices around this site. To have you rating something I've written as "trolling" is a badge of honor. Maybe I'll never sink low enough to write for the Post, but I know I have a lofty place in literary history now.
January 15, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just imagine if Huckabee or Mitt or McCain attended a meeting hosted by the Council of Conservative Citizens.
January 15, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cohen has been having some kind of slow-motion intellectual breakdown ever since the 2000 election and its aftermath, when he argued that Al Gore should concede because Tom Delay was mean. He more-or-less apologized for that with one of his "visit from Grampa's ghost" columns, but his guilt/regret/refusal-to-confront-his-own-wrongness (is there a single word for that?) about his support for the Iraq War seems to have driven him beyond his own confused Broderism. He seems to randomly attack those who were right about Iraq, and just "teh Left" in general, in an effort to drag them down to his level, to mitigate his own culpability. This sometimes leads him into sad, strange territory, his "I'm funnier than Stephen Colbert" column perhaps being the best example.
January 15, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...guilt/regret/refusal-to-confront-his-own-wrongness (is there a single word for that?) about his support for the Iraq War..."
Yes: neocon.
January 15, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well this issue was bound to make its way out of the right wing blogs into the mainstream media eventually, and I'm sure the Obama campaign has been prepared to deal with it for a long time. Let's see how he handles it.
I think at some point Obama needs to make a blunt major speech on the broad themes of interracial, inter-religious and inter-ethnic suspicion and bigotry in America, and the need to get beyond them. There are a thousand fault lines separating blacks and whites in the country. Thus no matter what Obama says or does, he is not going to be black enough for some black voters, and he is going to be too black for some white voters. If people are really committed to moving forward to a more unified country, they are going to have to dig down and make an effort.
January 15, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
This all comes about because until now American "identity" politics was always played with surrogates: WASP men wearing masks.
Thus Bill Clinton was "America's first black president". The whatever WASP whose turn it was to woo latinos, would eat tacos and say "juntos podemos" with an atrocious accent etc, etc. Candidates would attempt to show that they were "sensitive" to the feminist agenda and so on. Absolutely de rigueur for all white, male and protestant presidentiables was a photo at Yad Vashem sporting a yomulka. This came with the turf liking kissing babies.
The problems start when the Democrats decided to use "originals" instead of the traditional "ballo in maschera". The whole charade begins to fall apart.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
January 15, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you ban Daniel Greenbaum from this forum, there will be virtually nobody left to disagree with Mr. Rosenberg. That said, I think Richard Cohen would have been much wiser and more thoughtful to examine whether having Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, as one of his foreign policy advisors during this campaign is likely to lead a President Obama to make decisons that would be inimical to Israel's security and thereby damaging to U.S. strategic interests.
The real association between Sen. Obama and Dr. Brzezinski is much more relevant to evaluating Obama's candidacy than the fanciful association between Obama and his pastor's daughter, absent any evidence that Obama encouraged or applauded the daughter's dumb and hateful actions.
January 15, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
One thing I do find interesting is that in MJ's previous post on this topic, he reprinted an email he received that essentially calls Obama "a Jew hating [bigot]" and specifically mentions the Farrakhan issue.
The January 10th e-mail purports to be from one Sid Dinerstein and, since it talks about Obama's Florida campaign staff, I believe that it probably is from the Dinerstein who is the chairmain of the Palm Beach GOP.
I doubt Cohen was himself out doing oppo research on Obama's church. The timing on the e-mail and Cohen's column at least raises the suspicion that Cohen wrote his January 15th column based on a GOP slime e-mail.
January 15, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
{Would prefer to do this by email b/c it's OT, but Mr. Rosenberg does not accept emails.}
I agree with your post, but was this really necessary:
"sitting in his wheelchair in the aisle"?
In a post about inappropriate prejudices, you manage to slip in one of your own. Dr. Krauthammer is wrong - as quoted by you and elsewhere - not to mention out of line to shout out his views in a place of worship, but the fact that he uses a wheelchair is completely irrelevant. Wish you hadn't felt the need to include that.
January 15, 2008 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. I put it in there because it made the scene more dramatic. He was smack in the aisle.
I'll take it out. Thanks.
January 15, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cohen, like many of the senior punditry of the media is a complete idiot. He's sloppy at best with facts and as he has grown rich and fat feeding at the trough of the Post he has become just another old, rich, out of touch, white guy who carps and complains about all kinds of things he knows little or nothing about.
His opinions should be ignored, but his column's influence cannot be ignored.
The Post should be flooded with complaints over his guilt by association smearing of Obama. The issue here has nothing to do with Obama or his church and the details of the idiotic accusations should not even be mentioned. The issue is Cohen and his use of the rank politics of smearing a major candidate with lies and innuendo. Such an abuse of his position of influence with the public and opinion makers is a breach of trust with them and should be considered a very serious ethical breach. This kind of smear should be a firing offense in journalism EVEN, and perhaps especially, for columnists.
If those who object to this kind of smear fall into the trap of trying to "prove" Cohen wrong, then nothing will change even though they succeed in "proving" the facts are otherwise. The issue is that Cohen is smearing Obama which is intolerable, stay focused on that and the side of decency has at least a chance of having an impact and perhaps preventing even more of this tripe in the coming months.
I should add that in this particular case it is Obama. It could be any of our candidates and it's just as unacceptable against any of our candidates whether for President or otherwise. This right wing crap has got to be put to a halt! The only way to do so is to put pressure on the corporations that employ hacks like Cohen and tell them that this unprofessional garbage has got to cease.
January 15, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The issue here has nothing to do with Obama or his church"
Are you kidding? If you want to argue that it has nothing to do with Obama, then fine. I would disagree, but there's certainly an argument that can be made. But to say it has nothing to do with his church is just willfully ignoring the facts. The award, which recognizes the Man of the Year, was given by the church's publication, bears the name of the church's pastor, and is on the front page of the church's website. At what point does it rise to the level of having something to do with the church?
January 15, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if you need a road map here it is:
The purpose of the smear is to tarnish Obama in the eyes of voters, especially Jewish voters. That is what is objectionable to those of us who find guilt by association cowardly, unethical and dishonest. So, no, I'm not kidding: the issue is Cohen's smear and not Obama and not Obama's church.
The purpose of the smear is to get people gabbing about how awful it is that Obama has not disassociated himself from this awful church and preacher thus sullying Obama's reputation. Thus, to spend any time discussing the merits of this meritless point is to do exactly as the smear's authors wish. I refuse to do as they wish because the issue is the smear and nothing with regard to the content of it.
Get it now?
The only way to put an end to this kind of smear is to counter it by smacking down the person responsible for the smear and not trying to disprove it. This is a political tactic and it needs to be met with an effective political response. That's the point I'm making.
There's almost no church, synagogue or any other religious organization that doesn't believe, say or do something others find objectionable. This sort of trivial bullshit which has absolutely nothing to do with anything with respect to how well Obama can do the job of President is a distraction at best. Anyone who peddles this kind of crap is a smear artist who deserves to lose his/her job.
Huckabee belongs to a denomination that thinks only people who have "accepted" Jesus in a particular way are going to "heaven" and the leader of his group once said that "God does not hear the prayer of a Jew". Romney's church believes that they can "save" people who have long been dead by using some odd process that utilizes genealogical records and that has a virulently racist past. Giuliani professes to belong to a church that discriminates against women and has coddled and harbored child molesters among the clergy and who are virulently anti-gay. With respect to their candidacies, like the smear against Obama, about all these points I say: who cares? Is every candidate responsible for everything the religious sect they belong to is responsible for? No. Obviously not.
The problem here is not Obama's church nor his preacher. The problem is Cohen smearing Obama.
January 15, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you need to add to the analysis that the purpose of these kinds of questions is not just to damage Obama in the eyes of Jewish voters or white voters, but to damage him in the eyes of black voters. It was entirely predictable that Obama would have to respond to the Cohen column by clearly separating himself from Farrakhan, and condemning the latter's antsemitism. But there are some black voters who admire Farrakhan, and so Obama might just have lost some of them. He also probably just lost some white voters who are hearing about his minister's connection with Farrakhan for the first time.
On the other hand, he might just have gained some white voters who are thinking that they wish more black leaders would condemn Farrakhan, and admire Obama's willingness to stand up and do that despite the fact that he might lose some black votes. And similarly, he might just have gained some black voters who themselves don't like Farrakhan's act but are sometimes afraid to say so, and are glad that their most prominent leader just did that.
This stuff is going to continue to come. There are some fairly large racial fissures in this country, and Obama is heroically trying to straddle them. His opponents are going to continue to try to widen them, or at least remind people that they are there, and remind them what side they are standing on.
I hope Democrats don't fall into the old reactive, complaining pattern that characterized the swift boat response. There is no referee in politics. You don't win by calling fouls and saying "you can't say that!" or "that was mean!" or "that was wrong!" Once something is said, it's said - and you have to respond.
January 15, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do have to disprove the essence of the charge. Attacking Cohen doesn't kill the story. I tried to make that point on the last MJ post about this very same smear. I expected it to go straight to the national media and Obama would have to answer. Obama did respond with his usual flair and political intelligence. He denounced Farrakhan and any form of bigotry in a simple straightforward statement.
That said, I still wonder what these he said-she said partisan flurries here at TPM and across the media are doing to the political dialog. The media, of course, is getting its dream contest, a battle of the minorities: black man vs. white woman. The campaigns are falling into the media trap of identity politics with the help of frenzied blogs and it will hurt the Democrats in the end. I understand why the campaigns try to take advantage of these invented issues (and Clinton is not playing race politics just as Obama and Edwards are not playing gender politics). I think it is dangerous for them top do that though.
When the African-American or the Woman (or the Southerner) wins the nomination, the supporters of the loser will not rally behind. I doubt the Republicans can overcome the low esteem America holds them in and prevent whichever Dem is nominated from taking the WH, but even if they can’t the party will be divided, weakening the president and diminishing any mandate to change things.
January 15, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
No you don't.
All you have to do is point out that the issue is the smear. If you depart from this you lose. Until Obama adjusts and focuses on the smear he will have to continue answering the same smears until the cows come home! He may have impressed you with his answer but it isn't going to stop the rumor and smearing that is going on and being aided and abetted by the corporate media as well as all those who prolong the "debate" by talking about the particulars of the smear instead of how the smear needs to be stopped. Obama did it again tonight in the debate, defending himself by saying "I'm a Christian", etc... it's the wrong response to the wrong problem. The problem is the smear, not the charges!!!!!!!!
I mean no offense to you at all, but this is the simplest lesson in the world and it is the essential lesson Democrats never seem to learn on a quadrennial basis until it is too late. Then, by the time the next Presidential election comes around they've all forgotten it again as is evidenced by what has been happening the past 12-14 hours since Cohen's smear started having it's effect(much to the ongoing delight of the right wing and their Republican fellow travelers).
Can we just for once have all the smart people quit being so damned interested in being the smartest person in the room and instead be interested in winning? Just once? Please?
I know McArthur is not a favorite of many who visit this site, and he's not really a favorite of mine. Nonetheless, he was a pretty good General and military commander. It's sometimes valuable to remember one thing McArthur said which is hard to refute. He said:
"There is no substitute for victory."
Democrats need to keep this in mind as we continue through 2008.
January 15, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more exclamation point would have convinced me :) I say it's the media, not the smear!!! What the dems seem to forget between elections is that the right has a lock on the press in this country and they have to fight their opponents and the media at the same time. I understand your point, Oleeb, but if there are facts, twisted or not, that are the basis of a smear; they have to be shot down.
Fact is Rev. Wright honored Farrakhan and Wright is Obama’s spiritual advisor. I missed the debates and don’t know what Obama said. While his short statement today won’t stop all attacks, it does neutralize them in the mainstream press. Can you see the NYT (or a candidate) bringing this up again after Obama’s public rejection of Farrakhan’s bigotry? It would look like the foolish mudslinging it is if they tried to float it again.
The swiftboaters spread lies that were credible to some because they came from Kerry’s fellow soldiers. Kerry’s camp ignored it for too long because it was just a smear. Then they complained long and hard that it was just a smear when they should have been proving their case, over and over again if necessary, that the media was spreading bald-faced lies. Dan Rather can attest to what is an effective response and his was not even a baseless report. I admit I’m not the most politically savvy but I think the appropriate response is a short take down of the basis of the attack and then moving on to real issues. It is the media that is the enemy in these smears, and they will not hear that they are partial and part of the problem. They have to be shamed into telling the truth in these stories.
January 15, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, really---they don't need to be shot down. What needs to be done is to make the smear the issue.
Kerry shot them down over and over. Look what happened. The problem for him was the smear, not the charges. Just like now. He did what you recommend. He lost.
The media plays a role, but the issue is the smear and that's how it must be played in the media or else we lose. Remember how when Kerry talked quite reasonably about Cheney's daughter how Cheney and his wife came back howling about how he was a rotten man for doing such a despicable thing? Uh huh. They used the same tactic for different purposes, but it worked. They charged smear where there was none and they screamed it so loud and often and they played the outrage so well that if you hadn't seen what Kerry said you might have thought he called her a muff divin dike on prime time tv.
In this, as in all the other cases where we lose after being shamelessly smeared by the GOP it's because our side is so smart it cannot ignore the charges and instead must "shoot them down" first. The moment you do that, you lose. Game over. Better luck next time.
If someone asks "when did you stop beating your wife?" you don't deny it. The only way you can effectively deal with that is to say "You son of a bitch, I'll not allow anyone to talk of my wife like that" and then punch him hard in the face. Deny it and you're sunk because the headline still reads "Candidate denies he beat his wife". Pulverize the son of a bitch and the story is something along the lines of Republican candidate gets broken nose when trying to imply Democrat beats his wife. This may not be the perfect metaphor, but I'm sur you understand my point. I know this all sounds really simplistic and basic, but it is very simple and basic stuff. The Republicans are great on the fundamental dynamics of this stuff and our side just isn't. Our side thinks it is an invitation to debate. It isn't. It's an all out fight, a kicking, gouging, scratching, choking fight to the finish. If you don't show up understanding the game for what it is or the nature of the opponent, it makes it kinda hard to win.
January 15, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with all you say, especially about it being a knockdown fight. But if someone says, “Your wife is bruised from head to toe, when did you stop beating her?” You’d better release that video of her falling down the stairs before you call the attack a smear and hen ignore it. Maybe it is a lose-lose situation if the media can’t be disgraced into printing the truth. What Kerry never did was say, “Last night 60 Minutes ran an outrageous story full of blatant lies and they need to correct the record. It is reported in my military commendations on such and such a date…” Attack the press when it repeats lies. If he did try to challenge the fabrications, he waited too late and did it too weakly.
It's not a mild-mannered debate, but if the candidate screams too loudly, he'll be tagged as angry. And rarely are these smears totally made up as swift boat was. Right out of the gate this time, Edwards was being painted as elitist because he has money and gets expensive haircuts. And he does have money and gets expensive haircuts. Unfortunately, I only saw responses that it was just a smear in the traditional media and so they ran with it. I saw a lot of good refutations in blogs that pointed out why his haircut cost so much,most candidates were rich and getting expensive haircuts, Laura Bush gets $700 haircuts, etc. And that’s a silly story about haircuts! I take your point about feeding the beast but I think Obama was right to address how he feels about Farrakhan so that he can’t be tied to him in the future.
January 16, 2008 6:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It's an all out fight, a kicking, gouging, scratching, choking fight to the finish. If you don't show up understanding the game for what it is or the nature of the opponent, it makes it kinda hard to win."
Now that you put it this way--and this is the correct way to put it--Hillary probably should be our candidate. Based on her performance thus far, and my sense of the campaigns, she is is more willing to do this, and knows how to do it better, than Obama. Edwards might be okay at it too. Though I actually think Hillary gets it better, as does Bill. Who has had to fight down in the mud more often than they have?
January 17, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it is NOT that the right has a "lock" on the press.
The are simply there to be manipulated, and you have to be willing and able to manipulate them better, so that your story displaces the other side's story.
I agree with you and Oleeb that the facts have to be presented and the smear called for what it is...
But fundamentally, you've got to get the public to change channel.
January 17, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I want to win, and I see your point.
But I think you're off a bit.
I agree that "disproving" the smear doesn't make it go away.
BUT, attacking it as a smear doesn't make it go away either. Here's why: Smears are like juicy rumors. They're saucy; fun to retell. And they confirm people's INHERENT fears and prejudices. In a sense, people WANT them to be true, so they keep passing them on, and maybe even embellishing them.
The only way to counter a smear is to get folks to CHANGE THE SUBJECT. To forget about the story in place of a bigger and better one. Your sort of displace it in the public dialogue, so that the news moves on, sort of like the way it does when Britney dominates the news for a while only to be displaced by Paris who is then displaced by LinLo.
The reason Republicans are so effective with this tool is that they're willing to use the smear and Dems, for the most part, haven't been. I don't think we want to go there, necessarily, unless there's real dirt to keep alive (see Rudy). But we have to use the same mechanism of communication to displace smears against us and keep negative news about Republicans alive.
January 17, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Get it now?"
Thanks for the condescension, but no I don't. "Smear" seems to be the kneejerk response to many criticisms of Obama. Cohen made it clear that he was not accusing Obama of being anti-Semitic, or even being sympathetic to Farrakhan. But this characterization of the column as holding Obama to a standard that others are not held to is specious. Romney has been held to account for the policies, past and presnt, of the Mormon Church. Huckabee's history as a minister is often brought up. I see many critical references to Bush belonging to Skull and Bones, for crying out loud.
The title of Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope," was taken from one of Rev. Wright's sermons, so it's disingenuous to portray his relationship with the church as someplace he drops into on Sundays. In addition, Obama invited Wright to deliver the invocation at his Senatorial inauguration, then disinvited him the night before because of Wright's writings. Obama apparently felt that he needed to disassociate himself then, but now it's out of bounds to even ask him what he thinks about the award to Farrakhan?
And since when are we supposed to presume that the church one attends has nothing to do with one's beliefs? It's fine to say that we don't have to subscribe to every position put forth by our church. Why is it offensive to ask which of those positions we're talking about?
January 15, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You clearly don't understand this smear is a strategic attack and a strategic counter is required to defeat it.
For the record, I'm not for Obama, though I'll vote for him if nominated, and the same response is called for whether it is a smear of Obama or Clinton or Edwards. A smear is a smear and it's dirty, dishonest, cowardly and unethical. That's the issue. The Republicans understand this very, very well and have exploited Democrats who think just as you do over and over and over.
If you think otherwise, that's your right, but you will be beaten at the polls. So, ya wanna win or be right smart guy? Ya can't have both. Just ask Kerry or Dukakis, etc... I want to win and so I'm going to do what it takes to win.
The Republicans hope and pray and frankly are counting on you and other Democrats to want to be "smart" and "right". It has paid off for them handsomely many times. So go ahead and take yer pick.
January 15, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is playing this thing smarter than most people think. What she has done is to temporarily lose some black support that, if she is the candidate, Bill will retrieve for her. In return she has caused ultra-sensitive black people to rally to Obama in such a way as to make him seem much more black than he has up till now wished to appear. Hillary knows that nothing makes white people, especially the liberal type, more nervous than easily offended black people. They live in terror of causing offense. This will cause white people to vote for Hillary. I think we'll see this cynical tactic pay off for her on super Tuesday.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
January 15, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps. Of course, it's equally possible her campaign is going from one clusterf**k to another, too.
Makes me positively nostalgic.
January 15, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
David, I have to disagree with you here. I really think (think, not believe) that this is coming from the Atwater-Rove wing of the Republicans party.
It is so pitifully easy to get liberals stirred up that all it takes is a word here or there to get them busy tearing each other up. Then they get to stand back, watch and profit from the uproar.
I wish that Sens. Clinton, Edwards, and some awfully important issues to deal with rather than the past.
And, finally, does the timing of this column have anything to do with Pres. Bush's repudiation of the NIE - taking our eyes off the ball?
January 15, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
David, regarding "ultra-sensitive black people," from the frequency of your posts in these parts, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you've been following the back and forth on all of this since Iowa...
Why would liberal whites be nervous about "easily offended black people?" And why would liberal whites automatically perceive the reaction to the Clintonistas tactics as only offensive to the "ultra-sensitive" and thus, a reason to vote for HRC?
I think it overstates the case to claim that the impact of this is on the Clinton campaign is only resonating with "ultra-sensitive black people" and the liberal whites who are afraid of them. The inelegance of the LBJ/MLK remarks, regardless of her intentions, is something that is going to resonate with the vast majority of the black community, regardless of how sensitive they are or how politically aware they are at this stage in the contest, and probably a large number of liberals as well. That's part of the reason why I don't think it was calculated (or if so, it was poorly calculated). MLK was by no means perfect, but I think most educated people realize the profound impact that he had on modern society. LBJ is not held in nearly as high esteem, to put it mildly...
January 15, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
January 15, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the picture of Krauthammer we get in our paper he looks like one of the Frankensteins
depicted in recent films, but I just can't think of which recent film it is.
January 15, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well it wasn't 'Young Frankenstein'--his resemblance is more like John Podhoretz;>
January 15, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just called a friend and he asked me if I was referring to "Big Marv" in Sin City.
I know who he means, maybe its him I'm thinking of.
Regardless of who Krautheimer reminds me of, he does look like death warmed over.
January 15, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Notice that the Hammer of the Krauts was trained in psychiatry yet, according to Matt Yglesias, sees Hitlers everywhere. You would think Krauty would be able to diagnose his own paranoid delusions.
Here is the link:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/03/hitler_everywhere.php
January 15, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
. You would think Krauty would be able to diagnose his own paranoid delusions.
It's possible that he wasn't a very good psychiatrist.
January 15, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
From The Economist:
This what I mean by Hillary making Obama seem to be blacker than he has heretofore wished to. Hillary may be unlikeable, but she is plenty smart.http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
January 15, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am aware of a significant strain of anti-semitism in the local Black community where I live, and many of the same people have similar views towards Hispanics. I'd say that the percentages probably are close to the numbers of Whites with the same attitudes.
But I find the professional right-wing "Jews" to whom anti-Semitism is both the greatest sin any man can commit and also the most powerful weapon in their arsenal to bludgeon others into doing what they demand are one of the groups that I personally find disgusting, much like other Racists but less controlled by societal opprobrium. I was aware that Krauthammer is one of them. I was not aware that Richard Cohen is. Now I know.
If I felt these were the only people who speak for Israel, I would actively work to stop all American support of Israel as a nation. Krauthammer and people like him belong in an institution, not handed all the money and weapons they can throw around and then ignored as they conduct atrocities like the cluster bombs they laid over southern Lebanon on other human beings.
I am happy to see M.J. write to give me a reason to support Israel. Krauthammer, Cohen, Greenbaum and the similarly motivated Neocons simply disgust me. (I wonder if they could be Muslim extremist plants to discredit the Jews? It's working.) At least Farrakhan has some redeeming features.
January 15, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not long ago, a fellow on Capitol Hill told me that I was an "anti anti-semitism machine."
He said that whenever he gets disgusted by the neocons and other rabid Israel "supporters" and by things Israel does, he thinks about the stuff I write about the good aspects of Israel and it stops him from walking away from Israel altogether.
The rightwing supporters of Israel, the neocons and their camp followers, do more damage to Israel than any other group I can think of.
Fortunately, they are not MOST Israel supporters, they are just the loudest and they are single-issue people. Single-issue folks always have disproportionate clout. Those of us who care about a myriad of issues can never hope to have the influence that zealots have.
Anyway, thanks.
January 15, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The rightwing supporters of Israel, the neocons and their camp followers, do more damage to Israel than any other group I can think of.
That's really something, that the anti-Semitists might not be worse than Semitists (distinguished from "Semites").
January 15, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
No two people agree on everything, or else one of them isn't thinking.
That said, I find your candor and willingness to ask tough questions refreshing.
Calling someone a bigot is a form of pre-emptive economic sanction, and where a person has said something that could be taken more than one way, concluding that they are a bigot without finding out how it is meant can amount to financial or job security sabotage.
January 17, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please don't flame me....but....some pundit was going to raise this issue eventually. I agree wholeheartedly with the argument that MJ is making. Still, if Obama is the nominee, it might be better if he gets practice now defending/finessing/defusing questions about his religious affiliations, rather than in the general against the Rethugs.
C'mon, this is America. Look at Al Smith, JFK, Mitt Romney. Raising questions (or lobbing smears) about candidates' religions is gonna happen. I don't like it, and I am not trying to sound defeatist, but it's going to happen. This is not an Obama-specific event.
January 15, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except that this is not alone. Recently there have been many incidents where the media or members of the HRC campaign have referenced Obama's race or affiliations or alleged affiliations. And I'm not talking about the "fairy tale" or MLK comments.
It seems odd that HRC went on Meet the Press the other day and was trying to paint Barack as someone people don't know anything about, and then Richard Cohen is echoing the same sentiment in his column.
If this was isolated, I would agree with you, but this is coming after a week of an onslaught of attacks against Obama which center on his race and religion...
January 15, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has dealt well with the race-based attacks, and getting them out of the way in the Democratic nomination process will make it easier for all of us Democrats get him elected if he is the nominee. We will have resolved the Democratic Party response in advance and will have no problem responding as a Party.
The Republicans have no real issues to run on. Racism is necessary to them. They WILL use it on Obama if he is the nominee, just as they WILL use Hillary's residual negatives from 16 years of right-wing attacks if she is the nominee, or they WILL use Coulter's attack on Edward's career as a tort attorney or his masculinity. And the sun will come up in the morning. Plan on it.
The Democratic nomination process needs to both select a candidate for President and at the same time inoculate that candidate from the worst attacks the right-wing slime will use. The Republicans don't need Hillary or Edwards to bring up new issues to use against Obama. They already have them in the can waiting to go. It is irrelevant whether his competitors or their surrogates bring up those issues. They already exist. The only question is when they are brought up and how they are dealt with. The Democratic problem is to prevent those issues from being effective when the Republican slimemeisters start using them. Bringing those issues up now and resolving them will make the Democratic response much more convincing in the general election when The Republican slime use them against the candidate.
Not everything can be headed off, of course, but we know what most of the attacks on our candidates will probably be. (Edward's vulnerabilities are predicted by Ann Coulter's slime attacks.) We need to not only select our candidate for President, but at the same time make sure that he or she can be elected.
That's what's happening right now. So don't panic.
Ignore the political Press for the most part. The only thing that matters is the total volume. The apparent issue is irrelevant. The majority of them are not adequately educated to recognize the dynamic of preparing the voters for an issue in advance, and the ones who do understand it won't report it because damping down a big issue simply doesn't attract readers/viewers. They'll all report the conflict, not the reason why the conflict is unimportant. That's what attracts viewers/reader to the advertisement that pay for their reporting. That's the nature of the beast. The only reason why the total volume is significant is that the Press creates and amplifies issues to attract viewers/readers and sell advertisements, not that the issue itself really matters. But that is short-term. The [political Press has to sell advertisements every day from now until the day of the election. The candidates only have to get the voters to vote for them on the actual day of the election. So let the Press scream and yell daily, but make sure the voters get the right message on the day they vote.
The current "Innoculation" process does exactly that. Let the Press scream and yell today about the dangers of getting cowpox today as long as the candidate avoids having smallpox on election day. [It's a little more complex when the process also selects from a field of highly qualified candidates, but the theory still applies.]
Whatever - it is working well right now.
[Disclosure. I am an Edwards supporter in the primaries, but if either Obama or Hillary is nominated I will totally support them and vote for them. There is no competent Republican running. Every Democrat is so totally superior to each and every Republican as to make the entire election a process of determiing difference between the idiots who vote Republican from the serious and intelligent voters who reject them all.]
January 16, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Better that Obama has to deal with the problem in the relatively friendly Democratic Party. Maybe it will give him some immunity in the general election if he can say "It's already been raised and dealt with."
Sort of like getting cowpox gives immunity to smallpox.
I think some of the problem here is that so many of us have gotten used to the idea that the evil Republican conservatives are the bad guys and we're the good guys so that this kind of issue simply wouldn't come up in the Democratic primaries. The lesson is that Democrats and Republicans have much the same impulses and competitive drives. The difference is how our party deals with this behavior when it surfaces, not that this behavior can't happen here.
So far we have racism, antisemitism (with its extremist reaction) and gender bias all surfacing in the last week or so, and the primaries have only started. We've also seen both the Obama and the Clinton camp take strong efforts together to stop the nastiness, and last night's Charlie Rose show was an hour long effort to eliminate the expressions of racism.
When these thing arise in the general election, and they will, the reaction of the Republican candidates is going to be - "I don't control those people. Nothing I can do. Sorry." They reward the people who practice lies, slander, spreading hatred and who conduct dirty tricks. Sununu, for example, is still Senator, even is it took someone going to jail toget him there and another $3 million from the RNC to keep another operative free (I wonder what he had on Rove.)
As Democrats we don't offer superhuman politicians who never go off the rails to win office. We offer a party that deals with such extremist behavior - identify it quickly, minimize it and try to make it unrewarding to conduct.
I'm waiting to see how the issue of the Obama people setting up caucus sites in Nevada where primarily Obama people can attend without disrupting their work while not doing the same for likely Clinton voters. [I hate it that Edwards isn't even discussed. He IS our strongest candidate for the general election.] But this thing in Nevada is just hardball politics, not in the same league as running a campaign that appeals to racists (into which I think I will fold the right-wing Jewish anti-Obama smears) or gender-biased individuals.
January 15, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rick B,
I think this is a fantastic post and I would just point out two things:
1) It's sad that running for President as a Democrat in 2008 is being compared to getting cowpox, but it seems like an accurate assessment!
2) Don't get lost and miss the details of the Nevada caucuses...
The unions in Nevada (not Obama or his people) requested polling sites on the Vegas Strip in April or May of last year so that folks on the strip would not be disenfranchised. The plan was put together, submitted to, and approved by the Democratic National Committee; it existed, unopposed, until two days after the Culinary Workers Union unexpectedly endorsed Obama, at which point it was challenged as unlawful and unfair by the Teacher's Union and supporters of Senator Clinton. In other words, before Iowa, when Senator Clinton had a commanding lead in most national polls among Democrats and the Culinary Workers Union endorsement was all-but-assumed, nobody had a problem with enabling folks who work on the Strip to be able to vote. As soon as the union representing them backed another candidate, it became problematic. Senator Clinton compounded that by indicating that she "didn't know" what should happen in the case...
January 15, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting about Nevada, but it doesn't change my view that it was a bit of a screwup that created an unequal playing field, then brought forth some hard but to-be-expected last minute tactics. I don't see any dirty tricks here, more just a lack of foresight.
I'd bet that the early approvals were quite perfunctory, since it was not going to be a significant contest - until suddenly it was, and the Culinary Union that was getting the benefit the educational workers wasn't getting announced their endorsement of Obama. And since a caucus is the opposite of a secret ballot, the union is going to have a lot of ability to pressure the caucus-goers.
Suddenly, given the new conditions, the teacher's union and Hillary supporters realized that the preplanned sites were highly disadvantageous for Hillary, and realized that they needed to take quick action. A lawsuit at that point is perfectly rational, and so is the response of a bunch of PR on how the lawsuit amounted to an effort at voter suppression. Everyone is shooting from the hip and trying to either change a situation that they didn't expect, or prevent a surprise advantage from being taken away, one side in the Court and the other in public opinion.
It's a perfectly rational situation. Only now does the difference between Republicans and Democrats come into play - how the issue is resolved. Republicans would try to maneuver into a strong power position and cram their side down the other side's throat.
My bet is that the actual resolution will be a lot less nasty because it is Democrats. There is going to be some serious discussions and last minute deals. Maybe some changes, and maybe not.
And the next time the teachers unions are going to think a little further into the future than they did this time, and their leadership will become a bit more effective. In the long run I'd expect that it is going to be easier for a whole lot more democrats to caucus in the future, not just a few on the strip. Or maybe the whole process of caucusing will be changed to something more open and transparent. Caucuses are designed by the political operators in order for them to keep control of the party machinery. This contretemps is going to make a lot of the rank-and-file realize they have been had over the years. Whether that awareness last beyond about 10 seconds is another issue.
In any case, this is simply not the kind of dirty politics the Republicans revel in.
January 15, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
M.J., thank you for the post. What has happened in recent weeks has left me reeling. I agree that this is almost certainly not the Clinton's doing, but it would help a whole lot if they would say that Cohen is way, way over the line --not a 'racist' line, but a 'stupid' line. I fear that a Clinton rejoinder is not likely.
The cumulative effect of what has happened within the Democratic party the past couple of weeks may well be McCain as President in a low turnout election and a thousand years in Iraq. I hope with all my heart that I am wrong.
global citizen
January 15, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
An organization will always reflect the attitudes of its leaders. When I used to conduct military field exercises I could speak to the commander before the exercise and write about half of what the after action report was going to look like just from my conversations with him, and I was primarily looking for technical managerial successes, failures and training needed. I was rarely surprised.
American has been run for nearly a decade now by leaders who got their jobs in large part through hate and they are trying to keep it through hate. Hate (and its cousin, anger) is one of the attitudes that expands in a group when the leaders demonstrate it.
I am unsurprised to find that various expressions of hate and anger are now a lot more common in public than they were in the 90's. The only surprise remaining is where some of those expressions come from.
January 15, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your comment: "An organization will always reflect the attitudes of its leaders."
Of course, the rub is that most politicians, particularly my fellow Roman Catholics, are never judged by the Church's positions on domestic/foreign policy. Considering our history with of being accused of disloyalty ("Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion"), any attempt to require us now to denounce the Pope would be very poorly received indeed.
January 15, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
As an Episcopalian I have often found that the biggest difference between the American Catholics and Episcopalians (at the level of the laity) is that Episcopalians will admit that they ignore the Pope and the Catholics for the most part just do it silently. Something about the Pope's silliness about the birth control pill.
Although the five Catholics on the Supreme Court make me suspect that the Catholic Church is demonstrating my earlier proposition a bit more than I really like in American Judges. Authoritarianism IS one of the characteristics I have learned to associate with Catholics.
Of course, I was previously discussing how the organization works, not how each individual within the organization acts.
January 15, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get your point. I just think the people who think that Obama is going to go after his supporters to appease people who are not his supporters is delusional. Why should Obama waste a single minute appeasing people who aren't going to vote for him anyway?
January 16, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
GC, I fear the same thing. If McCain makes a one-term pledge, I think he can win. And a thousand years is about right, from his point of view.
January 15, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. And we will still leave in disgrace in year 3003. Of course, we will be a wholly owned subsidiary of the UAE by then.
January 16, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to reiterate some points I made about Farrakhan in the last post:
Furthermore, I hope that you are aware that Farrakhan and his group, the Nation of Islam are considered apostates by 'real' Muslims, as they consider their founder, W.D. Fard to be the last incarnation of God, amongst other beliefs that are unique to this organization. The reality is that they are to mainstream Islam as the Jamaican Rastafarians are to Zionism.
I couldn't care less if Obama denounces Farrakhan or not, and frankly, this is old news to America. Regardless, it has nothing to do with mainstream Islam.
The funny thing about this post is the unhinged Mr. Greenbaum--the poor fellow must really be suffering from a bad case of Podhoretz Syndrome--Nazis, Blacks and antisemites everywhere he looks!
Also, where is Zionista, I wonder? I do hope that she has the good grace to show up and eat some kosher crow.
January 15, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
leftAhead,
What for? The difference I see between "The Hate Campaign Against Obama in the Jewish Community" and this piece, where we now have a published author on a particular smear, seems significant to me.
January 15, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, when MJ posted his piece last week, you don't think that he was simply ahead of the curve on this, and had information that you didn't have? Don't you think your strenuous defense looks a bit silly in retrospect?
Probably not, but only because you are more interested in rooting for the 'home team' than anything else here, so you'll probably just continue on, ignoring the egg on your face. Too bad the rest of us can see it.
January 15, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do I read your assertion correctly, that The Jews were really behind the "Dinerstein" spam all along? Because, as I remember, it was supposed to be MJ's explanation that he was implying no such thing.
You will please remember the point of my essential argument, namely the implication that the fictional Obama/Islam connection originated and is disseminated from within the Jewish community is ripe for the picking by those who would use such implications to advance an antisemitic narrative (ie, the almighty Israel Lobby will smear Obama's campaign to death, yada yada yada), like those comments you accused me of "cherry-picking."
So, what exactly is it that I have to "eat some kosher crow" about now anyway?
January 15, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do I read your assertion correctly, that The Jews were really behind the "Dinerstein" spam all along?
No, that is your overheated antisemite meter--in fact, I was the one mentioning that the email header was probably spoofed.
Again, you are mischaracterizing the nature of the post, as most of us correctly read it as an attack *on* Jews, and some of us acknowledged that such an attack could possibly be perpetrated by a Jew or Jewish group.
Now, today, we have Richard Cohen's column, front and center in the WaPo, smearing Obama. So, who is really advancing the antisemitic narrative?
January 15, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then what are you claiming that MJ was "ahead of the curve" about, and what am I supposed to be eating "some kosher crow" for, leftAhead? I am not "mischaracterizing the nature of the post" (assuming you mean "Obama Hate Campaign in Jewish Community"); rather I was quite clear about my concern that the implication would be exploited, and supported it with examples from the comments (your "cherry-picking" accusation again).
Try to resist the impulse to make this about personalities, leftAhead, and speak to an issue.
January 15, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zionista, you said:
If it were so easy to reconcile, leftAhead, then how is it that right here in this discussion it's often enough been a short reach to conclude that Jews are responsbile for the smear?
and
My "beef," once again, is that the way it has been reported here compounds the demagogery in the way the Jewish community -- any segment of the Jewish community -- is presumed directly responsible for it.
To my eyes, you were complaining that Jews were being unfairly singled out. So, I will probably be excoriated by simply noting that the WaPo column was not written by E.J. Dionne or Eugene Robinson.
Also, you are forgetting your 'f-bomb' assertion about how this wasn't really happening, since you never heard of it. There's some more crow right there.
I could, and have, agreed with you on some issues in the past, but (pun intended), you've bitten off more than you can chew here;>
January 15, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I regret the f-bomb, leftAhead. But in the comment where it occured I had only said that I didn't know "what the fuck" MJ was talking about, not that it never happened (talk about mischaracterizing). By MJ's own standard, as a Jew and a Democratic PC I should have received such an email and I hadn't -- a simple statement of fact, albeit impatiently and profanely delivered. Meanwhile, I stand by my statements that you had excerpted above, and the comments I had posted as part of that discussion still support my arguments. Further, Cohen reproduced the one element of the "Dinerstein" spam -- the Trumpet award to Farrakhan -- which had already been reported by NewsMax and the Council of Conservative Citizens website (hardly a Jewish source) which I had linked to elsewhere in that discussion.
January 15, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The tone of your 'simple statement of fact' was that MJ's assertion was way off base, and by extension, irresponsible.
So if I understand your argument du jour correctly, the 'demagogues' here were wrong to speculate...correctly as it turns out. And MJ was wrong...because his post predated Cohen's column by a couple of days.
Now, are you trying to tell me that Cohen's Jewish identity is irrelevant, a non-factor, or otherwise something that we can't discuss, lest we descend into demagoguery?
Your last sentence seems to imply that Cohen, a self-described 'liberal' is getting his column ideas from right-wing quasi-news websites. Possible, perhaps, but highly unlikely.
January 15, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cohen's Jewish identity is not irrelevant.
The question is, in WHAT WAY is it relevant?
Is he representative, or a "tool" of, Jewish wingnuts?
Is he a Jew a bit too sensitive about Farrakhan who, admittedly, was an anti-Semite and made comments Jews SHOULD have been sensitive about?
Is he a tool of the Clinton campaign and trying to sink Obama with 1000 little cuts and innuendos?
In other words, what CONCLUSIONS do you draw from the fact that he is a Jew and has written this column?
As you know, there is a long and inglorious tradition of Jews being accused of membership in cabals with power beyond their numbers.
Given that, it's natural for "sensitive" Jews to ask for proof and remain skeptical until such is proffered, as it has been now.
All demagogues can claim SOME command of the impartial truth. That doesn't obviate the need for skepticism...or proof...when claims are made. The problem isn't so much in "speculating" as in speculating without the proof presented.
It's also important to keep clear about what, exactly, is being claimed. Was it "the" Jewish community perpetrating? Was it a small segment of said community (which is quite diverse)? Was it a few people? Was it one person, like Cohen, who is Jewish?
January 15, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, Peter--I am clearly not on Zionista's wavelength, and it is the 'all/some' and 'cabal' issues that are preoccupying her mind. I am glad that you have acknowledged that Cohen is, in fact, Jewish, and that said, I am not sure what conclusion to draw. Most likely, I think, is that Cohen is probably acting as a Beltway insider, who relies on his network to maintain his sinecure at the WaPo. Some political operative, who may or may not be Jewish slipped him this 'story,' knowing full well, as others have noted here, how African-Americans and Jews have been played off each other successfully in the past.
Cohen's column is just one piece of it, and the smear campaign seems to be going on several levels. I think the Jewish community is the target, since white people (Farrakhan's other target) stopped caring about him long ago. Finally, I do think it is possible that a group with Jewish connections could be involved in perpetrating it. There is where we go to the slippery slope, as it's impossible to determine now, and maybe ever. However, my point all along has not been to been that this is certainly a possibility, which set off alarm bells for some monolithic thinkers. Cui bono? That's the question, and it certainly goes far beyond the Jewish community.
January 16, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
leftAhead,
"Du jour"? I continue to stand by the same argument initiated in our discussion of MJ's post from last week, and continue to back it up with examples. Meanwhile, myself and others are accused of lying and inconsistency in a virtual evidence-free zone. I look forward to many more proud moments in public discourse.
January 16, 2008 6:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Bruce Levine and Zionista both owe TPM an apology. They jumped all over MJR for giving us the news on the smear campaign five days before
it became a big news story. All the yelling about MJ's original title, and he was right about that too. It clearly is a campaign within the Jewish community which is why all the major mainstream Jewish leaders have now repudiated. I hope we'll be spared this crazy defensiveness in the future. This is not a site of a particular ethnic group or faith community.Writers should not have to worry that reporting the facts will offend defenders of the (any) faith. The guardians really should move to Israel where our newspapers say anything they damn well please about Israel, Jews, not Jews and anything else.Maybe Zionista can go censor Maariv or Haaretz. OR TRY TO. NObody can censor Israelis. TPM is a free community and, with the exception, of blatant clear race or ethnic baiting, anything goes. I don't like the obscenity though.
January 16, 2008 6:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Herzl,
Show us exactly where you find the joint condemnation proving, or even suggesting, that the spam campaign originates within the Jewish community. Here it is...
Herzl (cont'd),
Where do I attempt to censor anyone? Example(s), please?
Noted.
January 16, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice use of the blockquote to deflect your feigned ignorance--your argument du jour, is your howler attempt to suggest that Cohen, a columnist for the Washington Post, somehow plucks his story ideas off of third-rate right wing pseudo news sites, and that he is just another 'John Doe' concerned about the eeevil Farrakhan.
Whatever. Obviously, you stay on the offensive so your mind can stay full of pride in outrage. I've made my point, and it's clear that more people here agree with my version than yours. In the end, we ride with the camps we are in, so i'm comfortable with them, and leave you to yours.
Please say 'hi' to your boyfriend, Davai, for me, and I'll see you when the Keith Weissman trial begins!
January 16, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zionista.
The "Israeli Lobby", if you are referring to the people actually involved in organizations at work in influencing the levers of power in our government, are not so stupid as to openly attack Obama. To do so would be shooting themselves in their metaphorical feet. TPMCafe AIPAC activist Emett18's post on this thread is illustrative of their focus; Obama's FP advisors:
"I think Richard Cohen would have been much wiser and more thoughtful to examine whether having Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, as one of his foreign policy advisors during this campaign is likely to lead a President Obama to make decisons that would be inimical to Israel's security and thereby damaging to U.S. strategic interests. "
It's hardly a secret that Hillary Clinton (and Guliani )are favored by a majority of Jews; a recent *AJC survey put the support @ 53%. As Obama picks up more and more support of influential members of the Jewish Community, I'm not surprised that old fucks like Cohen would take up the Clinton supporters' battle as in his concluding paragraph, he reiterated a discredited Clinton talking point about Obama's "present" votes in the Illinois senate.
This Farrahkan stuff is the least of much more insanely vile crap being dessiminated by the most dangerous elements of the Jewish community. They are in league with my own "community", the American goyim who would love Jews and Israelis unto their deaths and turn OUR country into their own gigantic gulag of christ-obedient worshippers who will righteously punish the heretics for their apostasy here on earth and joyously wield our terrible swift swords against Islamofascists everywhere.
( A recent example of the shared agenda of these folks is the joining together of 3 Xtian US congresscritters and members of Shas to form a committee in the Knesset aimed at outlawing abortion here and in Israel. Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs) is another one who shares her stuff with her Xtian "Zionist" fellow travelers)
I consider both groups my implacable enemies and care not which "Book" they claim to follow or to what tribe they pledge allegiance.
*http://www.forward.com/articles/12257/
January 15, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It's hardly a secret that Hillary Clinton (and Guliani )are favored by a majority of Jews; a recent *AJC survey put the support @ 53%."
That's an interesting figure.
I wonder how accurately it reflects the WHOLE Jewish community as opposed to those the AJC surveyed, assuming their methods are valid.
I have my strong doubts about Guliani in particular, as most Jews are Dems, the most solidly Democratic group in the country.
But maybe you meant Republican Jews. (Are they really Jews?)
January 15, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
peter.
For those without access to The Forward, I'll quote some relevent portions of the article:
"Clinton garnered a “favorable” rating from 53% of all respondents to the survey, which was conducted by the American Jewish Committee. The senator’s onetime rival and fellow New Yorker, former Republican mayor Rudy Giuliani, was viewed favorably by 40% of the survey’s participants — a result far higher than the 15% who considered themselves members of the GOP, and slightly better than those posted overall by Democrats Barack Obama and John Edwards.
The poll, which surveyed 1,000 self-identified American Jews between November 6 and November 25, presents the Jewish community as being somewhat out of step with the broader American electorate. When compared with a major national poll that was also released this week, the AJCommittee survey shows Jewish Americans to be less likely than the general public to support Illinois Senator Barack Obama but more likely to back Giuliani and former North Carolina senator Edwards."
snip]
"Among Jewish Democrats, Clinton won a favorable rating from 70%, compared with 48% for Edwards and 45% for Obama. In comparison, Clinton was rated as favorable by 68% of Democrats nationwide, versus 36% for Edwards and 54% for Obama, according to a poll released Tuesday by The New York Times and CBS News.
Giuliani scored a favorable rating from three-quarters of Jewish Republicans — a score that far exceeds the favorable rating he won from 41% of Republicans nationally in the Times/CBS poll.
Given the high proportion of Democrats in the AJCommittee’s survey sample — 58% — Giuliani’s overall favorability rating of 40% suggests he could win votes from a significant number of Jewish voters should he advance to the general election."
snip]
"Overall, the results show a clear advantage for Clinton and Giuliani among Jewish voters. At the same time, other candidates continue to draw from larger pools of currently undecided voters. For example, whereas less than 20% of Jewish Americans said they were currently unable to form an opinion about Clinton, slightly more than 35% have yet to make up their minds about Obama and Edwards.
When asked to pick their most important campaign issue from a list of options, 23% of those surveyed named the economy and jobs, followed by health care (19%), the war in Iraq (16%), terrorism and national security (14%), support for Israel (6%), immigration (6%) and the energy crisis (6%).
The AJCommittee’s Annual Survey of American Jewish Opinion has been conducted on a yearly basis since 1997. Performed by Synovate, the poll drew from a sample that was broadly representative of the American Jewish community by a variety of measures, including place of residence, religious affiliation and attitudes toward Israel".
http://www.forward.com/articles/12257/
January 15, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The poll, which surveyed 1,000 self-identified American Jews between November 6 and November 25, presents the Jewish community as being somewhat out of step with the broader American electorate."
I guess you could find 1,000 American Jews to say something like this, but it's hardly valid to say, as a consequence, that these 1,000 "present[s] the broader Jewish community." Strikes me as a strange conclusion to draw.
For example...
I think it's incredible to contemplate 40% of the Jewish community, by which I mean ALL Jews in America, voting for Giuliani...or any Republican, for that matter...even in a match-up with Obama. Obviously, only a real contest would tell for sure, but such a result would contradict all known Jewish voting patterns since...when?...FDR?
The statement that the Jewish community is more likely to support Guiliani AND Edwards makes little sense to me...as these two are as much polar opposites as Guiliani and Obama.
I do believe that 41% of Republican Jews support Guiliani--lot of New Yorkers in that total, I'm sure-- but that's 41% of the 15% of Jews who are GOPers.
Methodologically, I wonder how a poll that polls only Jews can produce a reliable comparison between Jews and "the broader American electorate" unless the broader American electorate is also being surveyed by the same poll, which apparently it was not. I'm not a pollster, but that strikes me as a breezy and unreliable conclusion.
If 70% Jewish Dems prefer Clinton...and 68% of Dems nationwide prefer Clinton...that doesn't seem too far off--just a 2% percent difference between Jews and all other Dems. Where's the story there?
As to the undecideds, again, you'd have to survey both Jewish undecideds and non-Jewish undecideds in the same poll to reliably compare the two--I believe.
So, in sum, I'm highly skeptical of the "clear advantage" for Guiliani among Jews, except Republican Jews. And since only 6% of the group of 1000 rated Israel as their top issue...and 23% rated the economy and jobs as the most important issue followed by health care...I can only assume that the Jewish Dems in this group believed that Hillary was better on these issues. These are traditional Jewish concerns.
What's the story there?
To be honest, and I'm an Obama supporter, it's unclear whether Obama can deliver on these issues better than Hillary. Or vice versa. I think it's point on which reasonable people can disagree, given the facts about both of them thus far in their careers.
January 16, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moreover, in your original post, you seem to conflate the Israel Lobby with the American Jewish community by starting with the former and then jumping to the AJC poll which purports to present the views of the broad American Jewish community.
I don't get that. I'm sorry.
That's like saying that Cheney and his friends represent the views of a majority of American Christians or lapsed Christians. Makes no sense.
January 16, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
peter.
Sorry for your confusion. I don't conflate the Jewish Community with the Israeli lobby.
I don't know if any of your questions about the AJC poll can be answered, but here's a link to their results:
http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=846741&ct=3152877
January 16, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for clarifying.
It was easy to draw that conclusion from your post.
January 20, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Easy? Only if you really stretch............
January 20, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, then what WAS the point of this topic sentence in the third paragraph?
"It's hardly a secret that Hillary Clinton (and Guliani )are favored by a majority of Jews; a recent *AJC survey put the support @ 53%."
How does this have anything to do with the Israel Lobby--your topic sentence in the first paragraph?
Seems to me your jumping from the Israel Lobby to a majority of Jews. Somehow.
January 20, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Peter, for some reason, you are insisting on taking one sentence out of the context of my entire post and trying to isolate it in order to make what point?
Does it disturb you as an Obama supporter to find that Hillary is favored among Jews as surveyed by the AJC?
The Israeli Lobby is concerned about Obama's potential to stray off the reservation when it comes to US FP in the ME. AIPAC guy Emet18 has also mentioned his unacceptable FP advisors in earlier posts.
Shmuel Rosner linked to a story in The Forward about a leaked internal AJC memo that focuses on what concerns they have about Obama and they have nothing to do with his pastor:
"A confidential memo questioning Senator Barack Obama’s potential approach to Middle East policy was circulated earlier this month among staffers at a major American Jewish organization.
In one section, the memo said that Obama’s approach to Iran’s nuclear program “raises questions,” while another portion suggested that Obama expected more from Israel than the Palestinians in resolving the conflict between the two."
snip
"The memo comes to light less than three weeks before February 5, when the vast majority of the country’s Jewish Democrats will vote in primary elections, including ones in New York, New Jersey and California.
As that date approaches, Obama has found himself at the center of a public debate about his personal associations, background and commitment to Israel. Earlier this week, the Chicago lawmaker responded to revived concerns about links between Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and his pastor in Chicago, even as a number of Jewish senators and major Jewish organizations — including the American Jewish Committee — publicly denounced an email campaign spreading false accusations that he is secretly a Muslim. The editorial page of the staunchly conservative New York Sun newspaper recently defended the senator’s commitment to Israel.
However, the memo circulated at the American Jewish Committee betrays a quiet unease about Obama’s potential Middle East strategy that still lingers in some pockets of the Jewish community.
Feuer, the AJCommittee’s counsel for special projects, includes a number of statements Obama has made in support of Israel and against a nuclear Iran, but she questions Obama’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and emphasis on diplomatic engagement.
Obama “appears to believe the Israelis bear the burden of taking the risky steps for peace, and that the violence Israel has received in return does not shift that burden,” Feuer writes.
She added that Obama’s approach to the Palestinian government “contrasts with the three conditions that the international community has laid down for the resumption of aid,” including acting to stop terrorism and accepting the right of Israel to exist.
The memo also expresses concern about Obama’s potential approach to dealing with Iran, in the wake of a new National Intelligence Estimate, released in November 2007, which judged that the country had halted its alleged nuclear weapons program in 2003.
“The Senator’s interpretation of the NIE raises questions,” wrote Feuer, without elaborating further. She went on to list a half-dozen statements the Illinois lawmaker has made in support of renewed diplomacy with Iran, and note that “he also calls for negotiating with other rogue states, notably Syria.”
Under a section titled “Of Further Note,” Feuer takes note of Obama’s presence at a fundraiser headlined by the late Edward Said in 1998, and public suggestions by Ali Abunimah, a Chicago-based Palestinian activist, that Obama was more openly critical of the America’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before his first run for Senate."
snip]
"In a statement issued in response to questions from the Forward, the AJCommittee said that the memo “was an internal document prepared by a staffer of AJC’s Washington office the day after the Iowa caucuses.”
“We regret the fact it has been circulated, as it was for AJC purposes only,” the statement said. “Its only intention, however expressed by the writer, was to try and help the agency better understand the winners’ positions on certain public policy issues concerning the agency.”
In the letter sent to the Obama campaign on Sunday, the president and executive director of the AJCommittee wrote that they “regret any inaccuracies that the memorandum, prepared from open sources on a tight deadline immediately after the caucuses – and never intended for publication – might have contained.”
“We would welcome further information from your campaign that would allow us to correct any errors you and your campaign might have discovered in this staff document,” the letter from Richard Sideman and David Harris said.
The Obama campaign did not respond to a request for comment."
http://www.forward.com/articles/12508/
Shmuel Rosner's ongoing poll of Israeli experts also reflects their unease about how Obama would approach foreign policy in the ME. Obama keeps coming up dead last in favorablility.
As an Obama supporter, I hope their fears are fully realized.
January 21, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Does it disturb you as an Obama supporter to find that Hillary is favored among Jews as surveyed by the AJC?"
Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other here.
My point was that the AJC's conclusions, which you seemed to echo or accept, were highly dubious on their face and didn't seem to say all that much about "the Jewish community" even if you accepted them at face value. For example, the difference between Jewish support for Obama and non-Jewish support for Obama (vis a vis Clinton) according to the AJC survey was only 2 percent--not all that much. And non Jews include blacks, one can only assume.
The palaver about 40% of Jews supporting Guiliani was ridiculous. In fact, tpm's current headline has him running second or third in New York. Maybe they meant 40% of the 15% of Jews who are GOPers, but that's not what I read in your original post.
So, yes, I'd prefer that every Jew supported Obama. He's my guy. I am disappointed that a segment of the Jewish establishment is calling into question Obama on all the points mentioned in your snips...or has anything to do with spreading lies or smears about Obama.
But I have to tell you, as an aside, I just read a "report" on Obama by Human Events. Should he become our candidate...well, he ain't seen nothing yet in terms of smears and lies.
So, at bottom, I don't accept the AJC survey's conclusions as valid or reliable or reflective of "the Jewish community," as AJC wishes they were and as you appeared to accept in your post. My suspicion is that we have a biased sample here and poorly argued conclusions--so I was surprised that you gave them credence.
I guess your point is or was that: 1) the Israel Lobby and its associates are spreading lies about Obama to the Jewish community and, 2) now Jews are trending strongly toward Hillary.
Even if I were to accept the AJC survey, I reject that cause and effect. Jews have lots of reasons to support Hillary that have nothing to do with the Lobby's obsession with Israel, as even this survey (tilted though it may be) makes clear. As I recall, Israel and terrorism were pretty far down on the list of chief concerns of those surveyed. So the linkage here seems pretty weak.
Other peoples also have lots of reasons to support Hillary over Obama. So if I'm going to be disappointed in Jewish Hillary supporters, I need to be disappointed in her gentile supporters as well. Maybe more so. On their own, Jews can't elect the village dog catcher. We're only 3% of the vote. Even our money doesn't count for much here because Obama has buckets of money, too.
January 21, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your response, Peter. I think we are getting somewhere.
As for my acceptance of AJC's conclusions, it's due to the fact that in the articles I've read on the issues, there is no one arguing that they aren't accurate or disputing their validity. The AJC data is seen as credible, AFAIK.
Some analysis pieces have attempted to explain the same (or similiar) discrepancies you have noted. They disagree.
You speculate:
"I guess your point is or was that: 1) the Israel Lobby and its associates are spreading lies about Obama to the Jewish community and, 2) now Jews are trending strongly toward Hillary."
1] To me the "Israel Lobby" is represented by organizations addressing what they see as Israeli interests. I mentioned Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs in the broader sense that she is a member of the Jewish Community responsible for pushing hate stuff about Obama and don't think that crazed harridan is a part of the Lobby, btw.
2] I don't see that Jews are trending strongly toward Hillary, now; the more consevative possibly excepted. I actually think/guess/hope/sense/? that more Jews are trending Obama's way of late; Israeli Jews included.
"But I have to tell you, as an aside, I just read a "report" on Obama by Human Events. Should he become our candidate...well, he ain't seen nothing yet in terms of smears and lies."
Do they have the linkage stuff re Kenya? That's the worst stuff I've run across and wonder if the Obama campaign is monitoring that narrative. They sure as hell should be.
January 22, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your note, Lally.
I sort of skimmed the report. I got it through a per-click ad, which was a come-on to subscribe to HE. It was a collection of "articles" by the likes of Coulter and Malkin and a number of folks I didn't recognize.
I didn't see much on Kenya except some snark here and there. But it was late and didn't want to read in detail before beddie bye.
But of course, Obama can expect all this and worse should he become the candidate. On tpm's home page, Josh has reprinted some reader comments in which they talk about how best to handle these attacks.
It's a good discussion, and I commend it to you, if you haven't read it already. I think the best combo is a calm, reasonable, and likeable candidate (unthreatening and appealing to a broad swath of the American public) backed by a junkyard organization with long knives.
So far, I think Obama is doing his part; not sure, quite, about his organization. In part, I think that's because Obama has instructed his people to sort of act like him. But Hillary's attacks are wising him up, I think and hope. That's why I think these battles, as nasty as they can be, are to the good, as long as we don't turn off the electorate to the Dems altogether and come to some grand and positive consensus.
Obama's biggest weakness in terms of campaigning is his difficulty with the 30-second answer. He's better in long format and much better on the stump. He also looks a bit callow. So standing next to a McCain or a Romney, voters may worry about entrusting the country to him at this critical moment.
As one of the readers said, however, Hillary's OBVIOUS glee at throwing elbows is a turnoff to independents, in particular. It all needs to be sub rosa.
January 22, 2008 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact is that MJ reported on a hate campaign against Obama within the Jewish community. Zionista, Bruce and a few others basically said MJ was lying.
Then news of the hate campaign was in YNET and now everyone concedes that it is a campaign within the Jewish community to discredit Obama.
That is why it is suggested that you eat crow or whatever bird it is.
January 15, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Herzl,
Example(s), please?
January 15, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
How did you manage to get a rating of 1 for this post?
I mean, you did say "please".
Addendum:
I can see nothing offensive in your post and that's why the low rating ( 1 ) puzzles me.
January 17, 2008 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, JohnW1141. I got your point right away, and I'm as bewildered as you are.
I have been told in other discussion threads that a screenname with any form of the noun "Zionist" will be provacative, and I suppose it burdens the dynamics with a certain amount of predictability. Another possibility is that some folks just don't like it when someone farts in their circle jerk.
Anyway, it's time to retire the Zionista brand. I will remain a part of the Cafe community, but it's time for a change.
January 17, 2008 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
When I looked at my post it occured to me it was ambiguous, that's why I added the addendum.
January 17, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Zionista.
Somehow, I managed to miss your blog, "Zionista brand" until just now. Oh well, better late than never. Will be looking for you under your new nic and am glad you'll remain a part of TPMCafe.
For several reasons, I don't use the ratings system. But if I did, I would award the following a high five for making me smile:
"Another possibility is that some folks just don't like it when someone farts in their circle jerk."
That's a classic.
January 17, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
This does seem like "more of the same" for any Dem candidate. Edwards was attacked for the size of his house for God's sake! Hillary Clinton has been accused of murder, and tipping poorly. Obama's church as been brought up before, and will be again. His campaign ought to have a response at hand.
This is also part of a long pattern of making every black politician responsible for the comments of every other black person. Russert famously asked Obama about comments made by Harry Belafonte! If Farrakhan says "boo," every black person in the media headlights has to disavow it. White politicians suffer no such burden for the comments of their "brethren."
January 15, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Abe Foxman would be very proud of Richard Cohen today
(and Daniel Greenbaum too)
By the way, has Cohen yet disavowed sexual harassment in the workplace? Because there is a much, much stronger connection between the two than there is between Obama and Farrakhan.
January 15, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
Abe Foxman isn't with Greenbaum on this one
He signed the letter denouncing Greenbaum's smears
January 15, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I fear that a Clinton rejoinder is not likely."
So Obama is under no obligation to repudiate his church's publication, but Hillary is obligated to repudiate Cohen, with whom she has no relationship?
I don't get the knee jerk refusal to defend Obama here. I have no respect for Cohen, but I'm not sure why we can't even dicuss whether Obama should address this issue without being accused of fostering race war. As much as some commenters may try to create degrees of separation, (it wasn't Obama, it wasn't his church, it wasn't his minister) the fact is, unless I read this wrong, the publication is the primary organ for Obama's chursh. Who actrually edits it is irrelevant. I've seen Obama supporters demand that Hillary "repudiate" all sorts of comments from people either closely or tenuously associated with her. Why is a statement from Obama's church something that we can't even suggest he might want to address?
I've seen criticisms of Romney for not repudiating the teachings and actions of his church, either now or in the past. Catholic politicians have been called to account for their church's stance on abortion. Why is it that Obama has no obligation to even address the issue? I'm not saying he's guilty by association, but I have yet to see a coherent argument that removes him from any obligation, just a lot of accusations about nefarious motives for anyone who brings it up.
And is there a chance that anyone can criticize Obama without someone accusing the Clintons? Do you really think they're the only people in America who oppose him?
January 15, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I also don't think it is out of line to ask Obama to address the issue of Trumpet's support of Farrakhan, although I think Cohen's piece is a bit shabby and filled with needless insinuations. In fact, Obama has already responded to this 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.
There we go. Direct and unambiguous. No problems.
January 15, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
But facts don't matter....
January 15, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is seen to be enduring the American white liberal's great nightmare: to have, inadvertently, with the best will in the world, said something that has offended an African-American's sensitivity. Of course, Hillary is subtly introducing a subliminal theme here.
Imagine:
Obama gets elected president, but he turns out, like so many have been, to be a perfectly awful president. This happens sometimes.
The question:
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
January 15, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that Obama has disavowed any of OJ Simpson's words or actions yet. Richard Cohen, I have your next column!
Guess Obama will have to tweak this quote from a while back: What, did Farrakhan say something?
January 15, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. Exactly. That's about a relevant.
January 15, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! What an absolutely non-column from Richard Cohen. I didn't even know Farrakhan was even relevant anymore. I haven't heard about him in years.
I can't stand Farrakhan but I am not sure what this has to do with anything. Obama did not say anything positive about Farrakhan nor did he endorse the award. He happens to be a member of the church and while I like my church fine I am sure there are things they do and support with which I do not agree. It's true with any institution.
Can we stick to what's important - the actions and policies of the candidate.
January 15, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
Since Camp Obama whenever I tell my "Obama story", the sort of ugly xenophobic bigotry of the US War Party always gets a mention
Just this sort of filth
January 15, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Food for thought: I read Cohen's article (and I'm a lesser man for it). I just read the Newsmax article upon which Cohen's article seems to be based (my IQ just dropped 5 additional points). I've read every comment on this thread. We're talking about an article in which a man is being criticized for his relationship with a Christian church, and as of 3:05 pm on January 15th, this comment:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2008/jan/15/playing_with_fire_smearing_obama_among_jews#comment-329180
is the only place you'll find a reference to Jesus.
January 15, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just read the Newsmax article upon which Cohen's article seems to be based...
Cohen's been at it for a long time:
January 15, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.)
Larry Epke
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!" - Franklin Roosevelt
January 15, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't remember Mike Huckabee being taken to task for not distancing himself from the Southern Baptists who declared women should
give sex on demand to ole hubby whenever he gets the urge.
January 15, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
George was raised as an Episcopalian. Poppy is an Episcopalian.
When he "found Jesus", went clean and sober, was "born again", Little George became a Methodist
We are delighted to be rid of him
January 15, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I gotta hand it to you MJ, no one rabble rouses better than you. :-)
(I use "rabble rouses" humorously)
The column you wrote before this one had the denizens at each other's throats and the subject was Hillary.
Now you have them going after one another with sticks and stones and the subject is Obama :-)
I wonder what would happen if you penned a column on Edwards, or one of the Republicans.
January 15, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think anybody around here cares what any of us say about Republicans.
As for Edwards, I have nothing negative to say about him.
In fact, I really like him.
January 15, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
Who pitched filth to Cohen?
Motive and Opportunity
The Hard Right of the Israel Lobby and/or the Clinton Campaign
Daniel Greenbaum!
January 15, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
An excellent take on this at http://crookedtimber.org/2008/01/15/six-degrees-of-louis-farrakhan/. Short version: If Obama is supposed to disavow Farrakhan, why is Cohen not calling on Clinton to disavow Billy Graham, whose anti-Semitic comments to Nixon were actually caught on tape? Or is it because all Black politicians must pass the "disavow Farrakhan" test before they can be trusted?
January 15, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
sully18
good point.
January 15, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
sully18
"Daniel Greenbaum trolls every post of MJ's on TPM Cafe. Ignore him and his incoherent criticism."
Thank you,ohiomiester, for this warning.I was just about to lay into Mr Greenbaum,but now I think I feel sorry for him.His post as Cohen`s article is much ado about not much.
I`m feeling that there is a multitude of hate going on in both parties.Religion is getting too much play.Religion is more about dogma than it is about people.We need to get a Hindu involved in order to help these people cleanse their "hate chakra."
January 15, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looking over at the Newsmax article about this I found this statement:
So I get to wondering why we don't see a similar statement about Pat Robertson, like:
If Obama is going to be called out for his relationship to a minister who says nice things about Farrakhan, why aren't all GOP candidates being called out for their relationship with and support of Pat Robertson? Hate filled extremists are hate filled extremists no matter what their color or creed, right?
January 15, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. The double standard for Republicans as opposed to Democrats in the media is so entrenched that they think it’s invisible. The WH recently lost a fight to keep the WH visitor logs secret (national security, you know) because they didn’t want the numerous visits by the likes of Robertson to be public information. They should know that it doesn’t matter. The media will not question relationships with extremists if they are on the right.
January 15, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you suggesting that no columnist has ever criticized a Republican candidate for being associated with Pat Robertson? The Democrats have been running against Robertson and Falwell for years (with good reason, btw.)
January 15, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen
We shall overcome the Avigdor Liebermans and Daniel Greenbaums
Prominent Jewish Leaders Fight Back on Obama Smears
January 15, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh huh, no kidding:
AIPAC Policy Forum Remarks
Friday, March 2, 2007
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama
By the way, your continued mischaracterization of Daniel Greenbaum's point of view has made you lose all credibility with me. It's like he's your anti-Christ or something, very childish. He liked Obama, said so on this very site, just like many AIPAC folks undoubtedly do. It's really no wonder he got quite vitriolic at times, it's no fun continually being made a strawman over months and months by a small mob of the likes of you. That you can make out no shades of grey in the opinions of the vast majority who support Israel in this country speaks of political cluelessness, living in an unreal space. Continue believing that personally attacking someone like Greenbaum will get you somewhere at your own risk. I'm looking forward to the inevitable: Obama will soon say something that will have you attempting to smear him along with the other loonies.
January 16, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we're going to hold people accountable for the opinions and associations of people in their various congregations, I'd have to say that association with Farrahkan has done this country a lot less damage than association with the religious zealots who have us quagmired in Iraq.
January 15, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
mkolb makes a very good point above that this could be an attack that is orchestrated by Republicans to so poison the Democratic electorate that some will stay home or vote 3rd party in the general. Certainly, if Obama loses and his supporters see this as being caused by a charge of antisemitism, especially with all of the left wing zionists firmly in Hillary's camp, then we could see some really pissed off Obama supporters. I do not think that Bill Clinton can wave his magic wand and undue the damage.
Richard Cohen might consider himself a liberal, but many of his kind are willing to sink the whole ship if they perceive a threat to Israel. The charge of black antisemitism has certainly been a factor that has been used by the right in the past to split Jewish and black democratic voters.
Having said that let me defend Danial Green. He is not a troll. He may be paranoid, overly emotional and easily provoked into irrational arguments but he definitely represents a sizable group of Jews who part of the political landscape with influence on national events. He is a good reminder of what we are up against. His statements, unlike the newly departed troll, are not designed to deflect arguments, but serve to inflame them at their core.
January 15, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is the following so very different from Richard Cohen bringing up Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. and his award to Farrakhan? Obama was asked to disavow McClurkin based on McClurkin's bigotry, he did not do it sufficiently even though he stated he did not agree with his views, and he lost cscs' vote on that litmus test. 23 of 26 people recommend the following blog entry on this website. No one was outraged about what Obama was being asked to do in the included quote by John Aravois.
from cscs's Blog on TPMCafe
How Obama Lost Me, and the Presidency
Oct 26, 2007
It was not enough for cscs that Barack Obama publicly stated he disagrees with McClurkin's views, he says so in a comment on the thread where he quotes Obama's statementl:
Still, this was not enough to change his opinion about the wrongness of Obama being on a tour with McClurkin to address McClurkin fans. Why is it different to want to know that Farrakhan has been lauded by Obama's church and to hear Obama speak to that and decide whether it's a litmus test for you?
It's just that so many people want it both ways. You can only ask things about the candidates' personal beliefs if the topic is a big deal to you. If it's something that doesn't bother you, it's a no-no to bring it up because it will scare this or that identity group, and of course each identity group thinks the other one is so dumb as to not be able to investigate the story and judge the candidate's answer for themselves.
Seems to me that MJ is awfully convinced of the inability of some Jewish voters to make sense of this story for themselves, that they are too stupid and must be protected from information, they will fall for "smears."
January 15, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
and Rick B said in response:
January 15, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
by the way, in response to the above
2On October 26, 2007 - 5:06pm DanielGree said:
Excellant and interesting post.
Obama is a mainstream Democrat without all that much experience. His future is quite bright. An interesting thing that was apparent from the early posts about Obama was the assumptions made about his policy views simply because he was Black. He isn't Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton, and this is one reason why he might very well be the first Black President, just not in a year and a third.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
Was Rated 4.8333 by 6 users
January 15, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
artappriaser.
"Seems to me that MJ is awfully convinced of the inability of some Jewish voters to make sense of this story for themselves, that they are too stupid and must be protected from information, they will fall for "smears."
You might be interested in seeing one example of the smears in action and hopefully gain some insights as to why MJ and others from the Jewish community have moved to expose and counter them. The larger context of this article is the relationship between the Jewish and African American communities:
"At first glance, there seemed to be few surprises at a packed Sunday morning lecture sponsored by the Jewish studies department at South Carolina’s College of Charleston. The attendees circulated amid trays of bagels and lox and, when asked about the upcoming presidential primaries in their state, rattled off the usual list of concerns: the Iraq War, terrorism, support for Israel, health care. An informal poll found the most support for Senator Hillary Clinton, with Senators John McCain and Barack Obama close behind.
"At least one person, however, had taken sharp notice of unfounded rumors about Obama that have spread in the Jewish community in recent weeks through e-mails and word-of-mouth.
“I really think I’m likely pro-Hillary, because I hear Obama has too many ties to the Muslims,” said Anne Hellman, a Charleston resident who is in her 60s. “I don’t like the fact that — as I’ve been told — he’s actually a Muslim and I haven’t had a chance to prove or disprove it.”
The fact that even one person gave credence to the dubious charge points to the unease about Obama’s candidacy that has quietly permeated some pockets of the Jewish community for months, and burst forth into the news coverage this week, as national Jewish leaders spoke out against the unsubstantiated allegations. But it also may point to a broader, related phenomenon: the increasingly distant relationship between the African-American and Jewish communities — a gap that has particular resonance in Southern communities like this one. While blacks and Jews in northern urban areas have historically rubbed shoulders as two powerful minority groups, the South’s much smaller Jewish communities have long grappled with how to balance outreach to African Americans with concerns about fitting in with white Christians."
http://www.forward.com/articles/12501/
January 16, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to remind everyone that many "seculars" were once frightened by Obama, but most of them seem to have gotten over it. I remember on that and other related threads, I kept asking "did you read the actual speech" rather than relying on what a blogger said about it. And many seemed to become less frightened the more they learned.
MJ, why would Jewish people getting inflammatory emails or reading Richard Cohen be different? Are you telling us that they are just too dumb to learn more about it? If the rumors get tribally reinforced among certain groups, it's really the responsibility of the politician to watch for that, and if he wants those votes, dispel their concerns.
Of course, being an Obama supporter, maybe you feel that it is your duty to do that, but mho, you're not going about that the right way with the "j'accuse" outrage stuff. Matter of fact, if I remember correctly, it didn't work out that well for Emile Zola either in accomplishing his goals.
January 15, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The smear aren't just with the jewish community. Here in North Carolina I got this email a couple of days ago.
January 16, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 17, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
More on Rev Wright:
"Trinity United Church of Christ occupies a tan brick building on West 95th Street across railroad tracks from a public housing project. Since becoming pastor in 1972, Wright grew its membership from a few dozen to more than 8,500. He wore African dashikis, planted a "Free South Africa" sign on the church lawn, and demanded tolerance of gays and lesbians, a maverick stance for a black church.
The church sprouted more than 70 ministries, from AIDS counseling and African cultural exchange to a "manhood" program providing father figures to children of single mothers. Oprah Winfrey and the singer Mavis Staples have worshiped there, as have people on welfare.
While other black megachurch leaders like Creflo Dollar and T.D. Jakes were preaching prosperity gospel, the idea that God rewards the faithful with financial success, Wright asked worshipers to endorse a "Black Value System." One of its precepts is a disavowal of "middleclassness," a selfish pursuit of money and status without giving back to the larger black community.
Wright also preached black liberation theology, an outgrowth of the civil rights era that sees the Bible, particularly the exodus from Egyptian slavery, as a parable of the struggle for black freedom."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0716/p01s01-uspo.htm
Abe Foxman says:
"In his interview with The Jewish Week, Foxman appeared to allude to charges of racism that have been made against Rev. Wright and his church, based on false assertions that the church excludes whites as part of a self-styled Afro-centric focus and emphasis on "black liberation theology." A Newsweek fact-check of this charge last week found that the church has welcomed non-blacks to its services frequently. The report termed Rev. Wright "a fiery advocate for blacks and liberal causes, and a fierce critic of anti-black discrimination." But, it said, "we see no evidence that he preaches hatred or discrimination against whites."
"I would say he is a black racist," Foxman said of Rev. Wright. "Certainly he has very strong anti-Israel views. But I don’t think Obama sought out the church because of that."
The Times profile last April reported that ADL "says it has no evidence of any anti-Semitism by Mr. Wright." Asked about this, Foxman replied that anti-Semitism is not synonymous with racism.
"He’s for Africa for Africans," said Foxman. "But nothing I’ve seen would make me call him an anti-Semite."
http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c37_a2220/News/National.html
January 17, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Safe to say, I guess, that Wright is probably a mixed bag.
Sort of like Foxman...and the rest of us.
January 18, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Busted!
January 18, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ...I think "the problem" is this.
And I say this as an Obama supporter and financial backer...
And having listened to many of the debates...
On the substance, there isn't that much difference between the three candidates. Sure Hillary made some bad votes. Give him time, and Obama will make some bad moves, too.
There are differences in style and tactics. Obama tries to stay above the fray and keep it inspirational. He is post-partisan. At least on the surface. Clinton is a street fighter and likes to throw elbows. Edwards is the populist rabble rouser.
But if you listen to the debates closely, you see them ALL STRUGGLING to make sure the differences between them--such as they are--come through. They'll appear to agree on XYZ...and then they'll circle around to make sure the listener knows they don't all agree...that one is pink, one is red, and one is rose...boy aren't those differences important!
So it's tough. And that's why these extracurricular points get used. Race. Gender. The candidates then have to pull back so they don't damage themselves or their opponent too badly and thereby give the Republicans a leg up.
Problem is, this sort of debating and campaigning (where everyone agrees) isn't very useful when the general rolls around and you're facing folks who really do disagree AND who have no compunction about throwing whatever dirt will stick.
January 18, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I can call MJ Rosenberg a coward and a disingenuous liar.
Try writing MJ at his IPF with any less than approving of his extreme Left, Anti-Israel views, and you will not only be allowed access through to the "prince" - but his webmaster might kindly inform you that your message could be forwarded to the FBI.
Rosenberg applauds the Rob Malleys and Clifton Swishers of the world. He also puts in a good word for guys like Obama who not only stand by anti-Semites but also hires them. Everything that he begs or demands Israel should do has been done. The result: Genocidal Bombings, Kidnapping Boys, Forced Jews from their Homes, (which MJ applauded - I wonder what he'd think if the US Marines came to his house and dragged his fat bleep out?), and more concessions while Sderot burns. Negotiating with the Palys has proven futile.
What should be done? Ask Yonitheblogger. Total Victory and an expulsion of any and all Palestinian Muslims who support either Fatah and Hamas. Jordan is their homeland, and I'm sure Mubarak can find room for them in the Sinai. No more land for pieces - and no more lies by MJ Rosenberg. Period.
April 20, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Krauthammer started bellowing at the rabbi for not recognizing pure evil. It totally disrupted the service, although it was one of the few not boring moments I have experienced in a house of worship).jimmy
August 1, 2010 6:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the larger sense, Richard Cohen's totally unwarranted and massively unfair attack on Obama is patently ridiculous. Cohen could have asked Obama about his views or checked out Obama's policy positions and speeches. Cheap Auto Insurance
August 2, 2010 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
It turns out he is alive but seriously ill and inactive. He is not exactly a threat to anybo bag factory.
August 29, 2010 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
nity being inundated with anti-Obama fear-mongering, some people at TPM expressed doubt. I was even excused of making it up. bag manufacturers
August 29, 2010 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink