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.

 

 


Comments (209)

check "excused", you may mean "accused"

avatar

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.

avatar

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

avatar

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.

avatar

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.

avatar

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

avatar

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.

avatar

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.

avatar

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

avatar

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.

avatar

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.

avatar

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.

avatar

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.

avatar

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.

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.

avatar

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

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.

avatar

Little Trollie Daniel want a cracker?

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

avatar

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

avatar

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.

avatar

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."

avatar

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?

avatar

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.

avatar

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...

avatar

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

avatar

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.

avatar

^ ^

 

Both hands raised!

avatar

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.

avatar

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

avatar

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

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

avatar

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.

avatar

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.

avatar

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

avatar

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.

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...

avatar

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

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.

avatar

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.

avatar

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. 

avatar

"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!!!

avatar

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

avatar

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

avatar

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

avatar

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.

avatar

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.

avatar

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

avatar

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

avatar

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.

avatar

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.

avatar

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."

avatar

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.

avatar

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.

avatar

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.

avatar

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.

avatar

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?

avatar

Goldstein: The logical extension of the settlement mentality.

avatar

Meier Kahane: the Jewish Farrakhan...except