TPMCafe
« A Letter to Jay Solomon and Siobhan Gorman | Home | Ice Skates on Sale in Hell »

Playing With Fire: Smearing Obama Among Jews

user-pic

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.

 

 


209 Comments

| Leave a comment

check "excused", you may mean "accused"

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.

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.

It would be great if *someone* who knows how would ask the questions. /wink wink, nudge nudge. 

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.

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....

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.

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

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.

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.

So in other words, you have no thoughtful response to what he wrote.

The thoughtful response to propaganda from a propagandist, is to call it for what it is.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

user-pic

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.

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.

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

user-pic

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.

DAVAI LIVES!

Rating of 0.1 as of right now. I don't think I've ever seen anyone that low before with 10 rankings.

Little Trollie Daniel want a cracker?

(Sorry, I know, but c'mon...)

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

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.

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."

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

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?

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.

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

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...

Taking a stand against bigoty occuring in his own church and discussing substantive issues are not mutually exclusive.

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.

^ ^

 

Both hands raised!

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.

That was sheer genius. Could I suggest a separate post?

That was sheer genius. Could I suggest a separate post?

user-pic

Invective and accusation are unbecoming of you Daniel. Take a deep breath and offer your thoughts with some reason and calm.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

user-pic

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?

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...

For abusive name calling without content. Daniel's name calling coupled with logical points is far preferable.

user-pic

Let's just end the name calling altogether. There's nothing productive about it.

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.

Herzl gets uprated for giving us his viewpoint as an Israeli.

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.

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.

 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. 

"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!!!

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

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.

Buchanan: "Da Jews did it!"

DanielGree "No they didn't, MJ Rosenberg did it!"

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

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

"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!

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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

In a word, yes. Many far right synagogues have done just that. I don't say anything, because it's not remotely newsworthy.

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.

Not off hand, but I do know some websites. Google 'Kahane temple award' and this pops up:
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:

“Here lies the saint, Dr. Baruch Kappel Goldstein, blessed be the memory of the righteous and holy man, may the Lord avenge his blood, who devoted his soul to the Jews, Jewish religion and Jewish land. His hands are innocent and his heart is pure. He was killed as a martyr of God on the 14th of Adar, Purim, in the year 5754 (1994).”
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?

Goldstein: The logical extension of the settlement mentality.

Meier Kahane: the Jewish Farrakhan...except Farrakhan didn't actually kill or bomb anybody!

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?

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!

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.

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?

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.

Just imagine if Huckabee or Mitt or McCain attended a meeting hosted by the Council of Conservative Citizens.

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.

"...guilt/regret/refusal-to-confront-his-own-wrongness (is there a single word for that?) about his support for the Iraq War..."

Yes: neocon. 

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.

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/

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.

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.

{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.

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.

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.

"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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The problem is the smear, not the charges!!!!!!!!

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.

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.

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.

"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?

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.

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.

"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?

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.

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/

Perhaps. Of course, it's equally possible her campaign is going from one clusterf**k to another, too. 

Makes me positively nostalgic. 

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?

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...

but the fact that he uses a wheelchair is completely irrelevant.
Sorry to disagree, but in the specific case of Charles Krauthammer it is relevant... It forms a huge part of his grotesque, "Doctor Strangelove" personae, its venom, its rage, its love of violence.

http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/

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.

Well it wasn't 'Young Frankenstein'--his resemblance is more like John Podhoretz;>

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.

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

. You would think Krauty would be able to diagnose his own paranoid delusions.

It's possible that he wasn't a very good psychiatrist.

From The Economist:

Mr Obama’s problem, as the candidate of unity and change, is that spats over seemingly innocuous racial remarks remind white voters of the type of divisive politics more usually found on college campuses.(...) It will be unfortunate for the Democrats if television reports from Michigan focus on outraged blacks wondering why they cannot vote for Mr Obama.
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/

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.

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.

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").

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.

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.

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...

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.]