Hillary Clinton fans looking to make racially charged attacks on Barack Obama should really read today's Richard Cohen column for a look at how it's done properly. As Steve Sailer won't hesitate to point out in comments, the Trinity United Church of Christ is a potential font of this sort of thing.
« Dance With the Devil | Main | Time Zone Trouble »
How It's Done
15 Jan 2008 09:57 am
Comments (121)
i am going to require that any journalist who claims that another journalist is doing a hit piece for senator clinton on obama provide a photocopy of second said journalists check signed by hrc. otherwise this tool richard cohen is acting on his own and shame on you MY for even bringing senator clinton into this, unless you are being snarky.
The talented Mrs. Clinton (and her cronies) would gladly destroy the Democratic coalition just so that she can fulfill her destiny.
Wow. His minister's daughter's magazine.
Maybe, someday, after a GOP candidate is forced to condemn the vastly more influential Hagee or Robertson, I'll consider the argument that Democratic candidates should be forced to play Six Degrees of Louis Farrakhan and then condemn him.
Awesome. Much better than the some-sayisms are the I-find-it-troublings, and this one is a doozy.
Just remember: HRC will have to deal with the same type of charges, but backwards and in heels.
The talented Mrs. Clinton (and her cronies) would gladly destroy the Democratic coalition just so that she can fulfill her destiny.
The Clintons already started doing that the first time around. Have we all forgotten the nineties? Congress goes straight to the GOP, unions go even further into the toilet, welfare gets shredded, black men are thrown into prison in record numbers under a law pushed by the White House, but Bill gets his two terms. Bill and Hillary have never been about anyone but themselves.
i am going to require that any journalist who claims that another journalist is doing a hit piece for senator clinton on obama provide a photocopy of second said journalists check signed by hrc.
MY doesn't say that HRC had anything to do with Cohen's column. He may think that -- that's up to him to say -- but he surely doesn't say it in this post.
By the way, please tell us you're not actually an English teacher. I will really be bummed to find out someone with such poor reading skills is educating our kids.
english teacher:
What Glenn said.
English teacher:
Reading comprehension does not appear to be your strong point. Reread MY's post. That is all.
"Congress goes straight to the GOP, unions go even further into the toilet, welfare gets shredded, black men are thrown into prison in record numbers under a law pushed by the White House,"
OK, but doesn't the V-chip kind of balance it out?
I just want to be absolutely certain I understand this: Barack Obama's minister's daughters are editors for a magazine that gave an award to Louis Farrakhan. Obama has repeatedly stated there are places where he and the minister disagree, and he in no way harbors antisemitic views himself. Nevertheless, Obama's failure to denounce this constitutes insufficient hostility to antisemitism, insufficient to a degree such that we can't be sure about his moral fiber. Is that about it?
Last year, Norman Podhoretz retired the Worst Column of the Year award in June, which seemed pretty early to me. Thus it's flat-out impressive that Richard Cohen has managed to retire the 2008 edition of the award by January 15th. Outstanding work, sir! We can all go home now.
WaPo officially took sides today. An anonymous editorial, Race in the Race, is insinuating that BHO "fanned the flames" of the racial/racism debate. No mention of Johnson, Rangel or the other bagmen.
As a guess, I think the HRC campaign is looking to lose SC big, and pin the "Next Jesse Jackson" label on him for Feb 5, attempting to alienate BHO's wine drinker support.
Public servant?
it's flat-out impressive that Richard Cohen has managed to retire the 2008 edition of the award by January 15th.
I'm afraid you're engagin in unwarranted optimism, particularly in an election year.
Sadly, rea is correct, but Cohen has certainly set a high bar early.
That column is absolutely terrible. What a hack.
Farakahn is a an anti-semite racist. That is clear enough.
The church Obama belongs to publishes a magazine. The pastors daughter is editor of the magazine. The magazine gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to Farakahn.
Jeramiah A Wright is the pastor of the church. Obama, by his own admission, is very close to Pastor Wright and considers him his spiritual advisor.
Now isn't it clear that Obama should say something about this? Shouldn't he at least condemn Louis Farakahn and say that the award is a worse than a mistake as it sullies the name of the pastor he admires?
Being silent on this will only harm Obama both in the short run and certainly in long run, as well.
i could just say that "sarchasm" is the space between ironic humor and those that don't get it. but you would have to have read all the way to the end to know what i'm talking about.
Cohen demands a Sistah Souljah moment from all serious candidates. By the way Pat Buchanan is viewed by most Jews as a bona fide, dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semite. Unfortunately Cohen has not been demanding all those Republicans (and his own employers) denounce Buchanan's bigotry.
i could just say that "sarchasm" is the space between ironic humor and those that don't get it. but you would have to have read all the way to the end to know what i'm talking about.
Sorry, only people who know how to capitalize and punctuate (known as "adults" in the popular parlance) are allowed to be ironic here. Even after close scutiny, I'm not sure if your additional "h" in "sarchasm" is a pun on "the space between," or if you just can't spell too good.
That's "scrutiny."
I just want to be absolutely certain I understand this: Barack Obama's minister's daughters are editors for a magazine that gave an award to Louis Farrakhan.
Suggested new term for trying to link people to unpleasant racial views through a chain of "and-he-knows-him-through-her":
Six degrees of sepa-racism.
"too good"?
Are you trying to say 'gooder' but in a too clumsy a way?
Are you trying to say 'gooder' but in a too clumsy a way?
Whoops--I should've written "betterer." Thanks for noticing.
ken:
That's some damned impressive concern trolling.
Keep up the good work.
And yes, Richard Cohen is a tool.
Re della Rovere
Actually, I believe hat Mr. Cohen has denounced Mr. Buchanans' antisemitism in the past.
uh, i'm not getting involved in a flame war over your petty objections to the way i write. please show more respect for MY's blog space. my first post was completely on topic. i can't say i'm sorry you didn't catch the bit about "snark" because that's not my fault. try reading a little more closely and maybe grow up a little. okay, that's flame and i take it back. sorry.
Democratic Socialist Manning Marable, tool of the ADL? insert, saracstic emoticon. “Farrakhan’s conservative social and economic agenda finds parallels with Larouche’s fascist program…”
http://www.freepress.org/Backup/UnixBackup/pubhtml/manning/mmmlater.html
Another Black Leftist on Fascist Farrakhan,
Ebony and ivory fascists - Patrick Buchanan; Louis Farrakhan - Class Notes - Column
Progressive, The, April, 1996 by Adolph Reed, Jr.
Reed doesn't take sheeit from no one either.
Actually, I believe hat Mr. Cohen has denounced Mr. Buchanans' antisemitism in the past
Boy, reading comprehension is really taking a beating in this thread, isn't it? That's not della's point, and you know it.
Now isn't it clear that Obama should say something about this?
No, it's a tenuous way for Cohen to establish guilt by association. Until people stop whining about their favorite victims and start whining about Cohen's favorite victims, he'll continue to write tenuous crap.
But at least, in my opinion, it's honest crap. Cohen really is a whining idiot, and honestly doesn't know any better.
.
For those unclear on the connection here it is:
"Barack Obama is a member of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan."
At the least this award sullies the name of Pastor Wright. At the worst it represents the sentiments of Pastor Wright himself. And I cannot believe Pastor Wright would allow an award in his name to be given to someone he does not approve off.
So the ball in is Obama's court. Common decency demands that he speak out on this and decry the racism of Louis Farrakahn and condem the award to Farrakahn and express his disapointment that Rev Wright allowed this award to be given in his name.
Obama has always been long on rhetoric and short on action. Here is an opportunity for him to demonstrate that he is not just full of bullshit when it comes to his message of unity.
Yglesias, why are you being so rotten and hatefilled in attacking Hillary Clinton? The type of hatred you are showing just makes me more sympathetic to Clinton. What is wrong with you? Stop lying.
How come Huckleberry can infer ad nauseum that Jews are going to burn in hell and Dick Cohen doesn't write a column about it?
Well, I'll admit I'd been a little suspicious that Obama was just an "empty suit" and if elected, he'd just be "captured" by the neocons, exactly like Bush was.
But if he's actually pretty close to that Rev. Wright fellow, maybe I completely misjudged him...
ken, actually the ball isn't in Obama's court, except for those trying to play "gotcha" with his aunt's husband's cousin's former roommate.
Seriously, I think Obama has better things to do that worry about who gave what award to whom in which newsletter.
I second An Outhouse's point. Christian Rightists like Huck have racist and anti-semitic pastors actually advising their camps (see Hagee, LaHaye, etc) and they never get called to denounce them. As for Obama's church, see this article from Martin Marty about it. It has some good context about how the church blends community advocacy and religious practice in largely positive ways:
http://marty-center.uchicago.edu/sightings/archive_2007/0402.shtml
For those unclear on the connection here it is:
"Barack Obama is a member of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan."
Right. Obama's friend's daughter was involved in a magazine giving an award to someone unpleasant. I think we got it, and are disagreeing on how much guilt to ascribe this association. That's a lot of dots to connect.
Ken is absolutely right. Common decency requires that Obama denounce a 25 year old award he had nothing to do with.
Back in '98, Sally Quinn published a story on the Washington Insiders, the Georgetown clique that bumps into each other at the Safeway, that meets over drinks and "works things out".
Sally's List: Rahn Emanuel, Madeline Albright, Donna Shalala (she of the UnitedHealth scandal), John McCain (yes, John, just another insider), Jim Lehrer, Maureen Dowd, David Gergen, Cap Weinberger (yes, Reaganite Cap, but also a Georgetown insider), and Richard Cohen.
Cohen has a been a Clinton insider for over a decade, and he's another surrogate used to race-bait, now using Farrakhan (!) to destroy Obama.
Change? The Clintons represent change? They play A-level corporate cronyism, they have consummate insiders like James E. Johnson (he of the Converse and UnitedHealth back dating of stock options scandal) on their team. Richard Cohen, just another Clintonite playing the game, Lee Atwater-style.
I appreciate the efforts of Obama's defenders but it's no-win for him. Because the Dems say you have to publicly abuse your friends or relations who have unpopular views, now Obama will have to do it.
The simple truth is that Farrakhan is not a dangerous or bad man. Instead you have Obama's defenders trying to build in distance. I understand why they do it, when there are people who assume Farrakhan=Hitler.
Hmmm. I appear to have gotten the dates wrong there. Blast.
what a treacly video the church produced,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXS_YrYp07Q
Trumpet Gala 2007
Matt: what is this for? Why not call or email Cohen and ask him. Why pin it on HRC. Isn't that a bit too easy. Another theory: Cohen set this up Clinton could blamed! No! That is what happens when we sit down and write stuff failing to distinguish good stuff from crap.
Barack has lready said, a while ago, that he does not agree on all things with his church. Why must he be held accountable for the award to LF.
Some people have too mcuh time and make mischief. I hope you are not going down that road. Let us not ascribe motives to our candidates. Instead let us question them about what they plan to do to build a better America after the depredations of GWB.
the Georgetown clique that bumps into each other at the Safeway
They shop at Safeway? The Social Safeway up the street from Georgetown on Wisconsin Ave? That's so low-rent!
I'd have thought they would shop at Dean & Deluca's or, if they have stronger liberal fascist tendencies, Whole Foods.
Anti-semitism is a poison. And unfortunately it is commonplace among black muslims. That is a fact.
Farrakahn is not someone to be admired. It is especially odious that African Amrericans who have benefited from Jewish efforts to enact civil rights and voting rights legislation are willing to embrace him or turn a blind eye to his poison.
If Obama's lofty rhetoric is going to be anything but bullshit he needs to follow up on it by taking action and speaking out against the anti-semitism that is practised by Farrakahn and endorsed by his church's magazine.
Talk is cheap. Doing the right thing requires courage. The ball is in Obama's court.
ken, is there any evidence that Obama has been asked to endorse, participate in, or in any way present this award? Because if not, your faux-indignation really isn't warranted here. You're just trying to stir the pot over something you haven't read and didn't hear of until you were told to get outraged about it.
I didn't hear you getting upset about Obama having an anti-gay preacher speak at an event Obama himself participated in, but you're waxing indignant over something that Obama isn't even remotely connected with.
I think Cohen's argument might have a sliver of merit if Farrakahn were still somebody. He isn't.
The truth is, Obama's opponents want him to display cowardice by pointlessly slamming his own supporters out of fear so it can be used against him. He isn't doing it, and this annoys them.
What did Farrakhan ever say that was anti-semitic?
Ken, you may be wasting your time with the folks on this board. I'll be most agree with the dolt who stated:
"I appreciate the efforts of Obama's defenders but it's no-win for him. Because the Dems say you have to publicly abuse your friends or relations who have unpopular views, now Obama will have to do it.
The simple truth is that Farrakhan is not a dangerous or bad man."
Get it? Farrakhan is not dangerous or bad, he just happens to hate Jews, and how dare that "Cohen" fellow suggest that Obama ought to stand up and say that his "spiritual advisor's" acceptance/promotion of such hate is morally wrong. The "progressive" left - the last, and happiest home of "respectable" anti-Semitism.
I'd have thought they would shop at Dean & Deluca's or, if they have stronger liberal fascist tendencies, Whole Foods.
Posted by Tyro | January 15, 2008 11:49 AM
http://www.nysun.com/article/68954
Review of: Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning
By RON RADOSH (everyone's favorite red-diaper baby neo-con, historian of corporate liberalism when he was on the New Left, see the thread here,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DemocraticLeft/message/28510 )
January 4, 2008 >...Echoing Susan Sontag, who pointed out that fascist ideas "are vivid and moving to many people," Mr. Goldberg ends with a humorous look at the cult of organic foods, vegetarianism, and animal rights, all programs and policies first instituted in Nazi Germany. "We are all fascists now," he concludes. Disagree if you must, but go out and read this brilliant, insightful, and important book.
Mr. Radosh, a contributing editor of The New York Sun, is an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute.
What did Farrakhan ever say that was anti-semitic?
Posted by wellbasically | January 15, 2008 11:56 AM
Ever hear of Google?
You can start here, idiot. http://www.adl.org/special_reports/farrakhan_own_words2/on_jews.asp
"Get it? Farrakhan is not dangerous or bad, he just happens to hate Jews"
Evidence
Folks, this is sad. Obama is turning every criticism into a racial comment. If he can't handle the heat now, how can we expect him to face the GOP slime machine in the fall??
And with Obama's lack of experience, he will be smashed by any of the GOP candidates except maybe Romney...
What did Farrakhan ever say that was anti-semitic?
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/how_its_done_3.php
Posted by wellbasically | January 15, 2008 11:56 AM
Louis Armstrong, "If 'ya gotta ask, you ain't ever gonna know."
Good lord. See
Black Leadership (Chap. 11 "Black Fundamentalism: Louis Farrakhan and the Politics of Conservative Black Nationalism") by Manning Marable.
The Farrakhan Phenomenon: Race, Reaction, and the Paranoid Style in American Politics
by Robert Singh.
In the Name of Elijah Muhammad: Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam
by Mattias Gardell
Gardell also has written about the white Far Right.
by Manning Marable
This follows a somewhat bizarre column by Cohen in which he argues that while all candidates lie, and Obama's misstatement (which seems to be contraversial whether it is a misstatement at all, it was that more blacks are in prison than college) was no more severe than any of the others. The fact that Obama did what everyone else does, but less so, reflects worst on Obama because he is a relative unknown.
DO that once and maybe it is a column written without too much forethought that makes one wonder if other columns will take other candidates to task for their perceived shortcomings. But two such stupid columns certainly begins to look like a pattern.
Farrakhan's crime was to point out the use of religion to defend land theft. That's really it, isn't it?
Ken. stop trolling.
The long knives are out for Obama, now that he has shown he’s a “credible” candidate. And Cohen is doing exactly as one would expect of him, mediocre journalist and propagandist for AIPAC as he has proved himself to be for some time.
But standing behind him are more powerful forces, the big money people who finance the Democratic Party and have serious doubts about Obama’s commitment to fighting on behalf of Israel. It is now time for them to call in their chips and make sure that Obama stands up and be counted for unambiguous support for their cause. The “anti-semitic” charge is one of the most powerful weapons in their armor.
Tyro,
Has Obama more directly endorsed gay bashing than he has anti-semitism?
I guess one could think so. But I think that in both cases he has willfully chosen to identify himself with homophobes and anti-semites. So far it looks like he is unwilling to condemn either.
Perhaps it is Obamas embrace of homophobic bigotry and anti-semitism that makes him so popular among republicans?
Wellbasically,
Is it that you don't think Farrakhan claimed Jews were responsible for slavery, or that you don't see anything wrong with that claim? I don't know which evidence you're asking for. Same goes for Jews being responsible for homosexuality, do you not believe he said it or do you think he was right to say it?
ken, really, I just don't think you're credible here. The ball is not in anyone's "court" because it was never passed anywhere in the first place.
Cohen got pitched a hit piece about an issue that none of us had ever heard of and that did not impact Obama at all, and Cohen bit. Your faux-outrage doesn't obligate Obama to do anything, except, really, continue his campaign.
ken,
Obama talked about gays as part of the American fabric in his famous Red State / Blue State speech in 2004, when the Republicans were pushing homophobia like it was going out of style (which it apparently did right after the election). I don't know if he's ever challenged black America on homophobia, but he challenged Republican homophobia at its peak.
Unfortunately Ken is a lot closer to right than any of his critics are. The Reps will for sure pick up on this in the general, it's actually good for the Democrats that we're seeing how Obama deals with it now.
Wright is to say the least controversial, he espouses a lot of African nationalist stuff that is going to be pretty noxious to most voters when they hear about it. We'd better find out now how Obama handles this connection.
And if Farrakhan's anti-semitism doesn't bug you, maybe his role in the assasination of Malcolm X might.
The broader point here is that Obama -- for all of his talk of inclusion and healing, and for all his MLK-like speeches -- belongs to a kooky, black church that's more Malcolm X than MLK. I don't expect that publicizing this will hurt Obama with his affluent, secular white liberal base, because Yglesians probably don't think Obama believes any of this religious stuff anyway. When a Republican says he's a Christian, secular liberals assume the Republican must believe that humans were riding dinosaurs when the world began 6000 years ago and is thus a loon; but when a Democrat wears his religion on his sleeve (e.g., Clinton bringing his own bible to church every Sunday, Obama preaching in his '04 convention speech, etc.) secular libs just assume that the Democrat is slyly pandering to superstitious blacks and backwoods white Dems.
Farrakhan never said that Judaism is a bad religion, he got in trouble for pointing out that it is used to defend crimes. Maybe we don't like people lecturing us on how to believe (excuse me while I demand that moderate Muslims read the Koran the way I want.)
Farrakhan is a real bastard for his people. His crime was to defend the Palestinians. I suggest it is better to stay in contact with him than to shun him, but I'm a free speech zealot, I was with Imus and Lott, but the Democratic party would rather bludgeon those people into silence. Well here is the petard, boys, hoist away!
When Obama says he can reach out to foreigners, you don't think those foreigners are going to have scary views and associations?
Look, Obama titled his book "The Audacity of Hope" after one of Jeremiah Wright's sermons. There is no way Farrakhan would have received an award in Wright's name without Wright's approval.
That means Obama is either an anti-semite, or is an admitted disciple of an anti-semite -- someone he's close enough to name his book after. If you are Jewish (as I am), you would be a fool to vote for Obama. This is of a piece with "Hillary Clinton: D-Punjab". Obama has a serious racist streak, and it's not just the Jews.
"Farrakhan is a real bastard for his people. His crime was to defend the Palestinians."
This is a lie. The majority of black leaders post-MLK have been pro-Palestinian, and pro-Arab generally, and anti-Israel. That's what Jews deserve for their role in getting blacks Civil Rights -- no good deed goes unpunished. These anti-Israel black leaders aren't all considered Jew-haters. Farrakhan is, for reasons that have nothing to do with the Israel-Palestinian conflict, but rather with his racist agitating against blacks in America.
If Obama had never gotten in and Edwards had emerged as the anti-Hilary candidate then we would all be a lot better off.
Fred, I look forward to hearing you guy rant about how awful it is that the next Russian Orthodox who runs for president belongs to a "kooky, Russian church" and embraces a committment to Russian culture.
I think your statement reflect more of your own provincialism and disconnection from American religious life than liberals'.
aleks,
Sure Obama talks nicely about gays when he gives a speech. Nothing is at stake. But that is exactly the point. Talk is cheap. His bullshit rhetoric is never followed on by action. He stands on a stage with an overt homophobe and acts all kissy face with him.
If he meant what he said he would not willingly associate with bigots for the purpose of garning votes.
Like I said, talk is cheap.
Talk is cheap. Doing the right thing requires courage. The ball is in Obama's court.
Cliche! Cliche! Cliche!
Your "point" is an argument from silence fallacy, so it's no wonder you have to dress it up with a bunch of empty bullshit.
Kindly stop wasting our fucking bandwidth.
Thank you.
.
Unfortunately Ken is a lot closer to right than any of his critics are. The Reps will for sure pick up on this in the general, it's actually good for the Democrats that we're seeing how Obama deals with it now.
So Ken is a reliable first waft of the sewer?
Noted.
.
That means Obama is either an anti-semite, or is an admitted disciple of an anti-semite -- someone he's close enough to name his book after. If you are Jewish (as I am), you would be a fool to vote for Obama.
If, by "Jewish," you mean "easily frightened and intellectually shallow," well OK.
.
Has Obama more directly endorsed gay bashing than he has anti-semitism?
Do you beat your wife harder than you fuck your mother?
The question is just as justified.
.
"These anti-Israel black leaders aren't all considered Jew-haters."
Junior, in fact every one of them has been run through the same wringer Obama is going through now.
Where were you when Hillary was getting thrashed for sitting on the stage with Arafat's wife? Maybe doing the thrashing?
Obama should have switched churches years ago, if he didn't really believe this stuff. He may have joined this "Unashamedly Black" church because he thought it would help him advance in local politics centered on the Chicago black community, and because he thought it might immunize him from suspicions that he was an "Oreo" interloper, considering his Hawaiian prep school background. Now it's too late to credibly distance himself from this church and he will have to deal with questions about his preacher's ideology.
Obama supporters think that any critical examination of Obama is similiar to turning a fire hose on MLK during the civil rights era.
Well boo fucking hoo.
No one has to step to the curb in order allow Obama free passage to the white house.
If you chose a candidate without an honest assesment of strenghts and weaknessness then you are taking a roll of the dice when it comes to the general election.
Besides his race mongering mistake and along with his embrace of anti-semites and homophobes, he wants to raise taxes, privitize social security, deny Americans univeral health insurance, has no coherent plan to deal with the deteriating economy and has no plan to withdraw from Iraq.
Fred, I suspect that most people will consider attacks on a candidate's religion rather unseemly. But go ahead; you do that...
Obama has a serious racist streak, and it's not just the Jews.
If so, this should be fairly demonstrable using Obama's own words or actions, not a weak guilt-by-association charge. Support your claim.
Chaim, you are wrong in your claim that 'most' black leaders are anti-jewish. Most legitimate black leaders are found in elected office both federally and on a state wide bases and enjoy the support of local jewish constituants.
It is the Jesse Jacksons and the Louis Farrakahns that you should condemn, not the Charlie Rangles of the world.
Sure Obama talks nicely about gays when he gives a speech. Nothing is at stake. But that is exactly the point. Talk is cheap. His bullshit rhetoric is never followed on by action. He stands on a stage with an overt homophobe and acts all kissy face with him.
So ... a nationally televised convention speech = nothing at stake. An untelevised campaign rally with equal legislative value to his convention speech = a lot at stake.
Ken, did I get that about right?
Not saying the latter of those is okay, but your paragraph is trying to draw a contrast in a particular way that is just nonsense. Ultimately, it looks to me like his "bullshit" rhetoric in a campaign setting is followed by other "bullshit" rhetoric in a campaign setting. But you're trying to draw some sort of action or policy contrast that just doesn't belong.
If you want to minimize the connection, just mention that the article was written by the minister's daughter. Don't mention that it quoted the minister directly as saying "His [Farakhan's] depth on analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye opening." Also fail to mention that the minister is also the guy who converted Obama and that Obama considers him his "spiritual advisor" and a "confidant".
Not honest, and not wise. There is at the very least a potential problem here - better to face it head on now than in the general election.
Ken once your condemnations start, they will never end. People like you were demanding that MLK condemn and denounce every communist and socialist he ever associated with... once it starts do you really think you can keep it away from Rangel or Hillary for that matter?
A lot of black people associate with outside groups because the mainstream political system didn't provide them with believable answers as to why their condition was what it was. If you took your fingers out of your ears and stopped shouting for a minute you would understand that that is why Farrakhan etc have some following.
A better solution would be for Obama to be able to admit he has listened to such people and while he doesn't agree, he can address their points like this this and this. People like you make that kind of progress impossible. Thanks.
Obama's opponents want him to display cowardice by pointlessly slamming his own supporters out of fear so it can be used against him.
If black nationalists are a significant part of Obama's base, and he is unwilling to say or do anything they don't like, he shouldn't be President.
Yes Ralph, and the only way we'll know for sure that he is willing to say things they don't like is for him to poinlessly slam a stupid award given by someone who's only tangentially related to him in the first place. That'll show 'em, that'll show 'em good!
You dumb clown his whole campaign has been attached by black nationalists fucking hello
A lot of black people associate with outside groups because the mainstream political system didn't provide them with believable answers as to why their condition was what it was.Or at least not with ones they wanted to hear. If you took your fingers out of your ears and stopped shouting for a minute you would understand that that is why Farrakhan etc have some following. However understandable it is that [some] black people believe bizarre conspiracy theories and admire quasi-fascist demagogues like Farakhan, it's still bad craziness and I want it nowhere near the White House.
"only tangentially related"
Lie. Wright converted Obama. Obama calls him his "spiritual advisor" and "confidant." Obama took the title for his political autobiography from a line in one of Wright's sermons.
And no, this Farakhan award is not a one-off. Wirght and Farakhan took a road-trip to Cuba and Lybia together back in 1984.
Obama has been hanging with a radical black nationalist for a long time. Maybe Obama agrees with Wright's politics, maybe he doesn't. But if he doesn't, he'd damn well better make that clear.
jhupp.
Well at the convention speech Obama was not seeking votes, was he? He was not a candidate.
But when he was sharing the stage with a homophobe he was seeking votes, wasn't he?
So yeah, when Obama gives a speech when nothing is at stake and talk is cheap he is all nice and gives an uplifting speech.
Then when votes are at stake he abandons his rhetoric and embraces bigotry in order to get a few more black votes.
That is not a man of principle, in my opinion.
I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree.
BS. See Wright quote above - the artice doesn't mention rehabilitation, it's all about what a wise and insightful man Farakhan is.
Either Obama didn't read the article (which would be sloppy and careless on his part) or, far more likely in my opinion, he's lying and hoping people don't look to closely.
If the Democrats really want a lying spinner for a candidate, they should go with Hillary, who at least is good at it.
Then when votes are at stake he abandons his rhetoric and embraces bigotry in order to get a few more black votes.
Yep. 'Cause we all know what black people are like.
Bigots.
.
Either Obama didn't read the article (which would be sloppy and careless on his part)
Why would this be sloppy and careless? Obama's name isn't on the masthead.
Why would this be sloppy and careless?
Because dumbass is grasping at straws.
.
Well, well, well ...
A lot of denial of reality going on here in the comments.
I've been telling you for many months that Reverend Wright, who is the prime subject of pp. 274-295 in Obama's "Dreams from my Father" and whose sermon "The Audacity of Hope" provides the title of Obama's second book, is going to be a massive headache for his candidacy because he's a loose cannon who craves attention. He went with Farrakhan to see Col. Gadaffi in 1984, but now, last November, he gives Farrakhan his "Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Trumpeter Award" at a big bash at the Chicago Hyatt Regency. Notice a pattern?
You can see the video and learn much more about Wright and Obama here:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/01/trumpet-gala-2007.html
Obama supporters like Matt might think about paying their candidate the respect of reading his 1995 autobiography one of these days.
Obama supporters like Matt might think about paying their candidate the respect of reading his 1995 autobiography one of these days.
Which, if it endorsed the bigotry of Farrakhan, we would already be able to quote it by now.
There's no "denial" involved in laughing off some lame attempt at guilt by association, any more than opposing the invasion of Iraq in 2003 made us "objectively pro-Saddam."
Same right-wing idiots, same right-wing tactics.
.
"Same right-wing idiots, same right-wing tactics."
Don't smear. Most of the right-wing isn't willing to be as openly racist as Steve Sailer.
I don't see where I accused even Sailer of racism, Petey.
.
Ralph,
I agree with you that the Obama statement seems weak. His 'assumption' of the motivation for his spiritual advisor and close friend to heap honor and praise on Luis Farrakahn does not have the ring of truth.
If he wants his actions to match his rhetoric he should pick a new church to attend.
There is no shortage of christian churches that do not honor racists for him to chose from.
The person whom Obama fans should be mad at is Obama's spiritual advisor for the last 21 years, the minister who married Barack and Michelle Obama, Reverend Wright. He chose to sabotage Obama's campaign by giving a lifetime achievement award named after himself to Farrakhan two months before the primaries began.
Why? First, he loves the spotlight. Second, Obama dumped him at the last moment last winter from giving the invocation at Obama's nationally televised campaign kickoff in Springfield.
He told the NYT:
"When [Obama's] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli" to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Mr. Wright recalled, "with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell." [March 6, 2007, NYT, "Disinvitation by Obama Is Criticized" By Jodi Kantor]
Then he published a long open letter denouncing the NYT for, in effect, quoting him accurately.
Then, Wright and his daughter put together a huge production to honor Farrakhan in November.
Reverend Wright has a track record, and if Obama is on the national ticket, Wright is likely to keep pulling stunts to attract attention to himself all the way until Election Day. Who is he going to give his next Lifetime Achievement award to next Nov. 2? Gadaffi?
If Obama wants to be viable as a candidate, he needs to Sister Souljah his spiritual mentor and fast.
It's time for Obama supporters to stop disrespecting the man by projecting onto him their fantasies about what they would like him to be.
In reality, he's a very interesting individual who in the 1990s went to great pains to expose who he is to the world, but almost nobody who has gotten so excited about him has bothered to read his autobiography, Dreams From My Father!
Reverend Wright is a hugely important figure in Obama's life. He's the closest thing to the surrogate father that Obama has desperately craved since his real father abandoned him when he was two.
Like him or not, you have to give Steve Sailer props for being way ahead of the curve on this. It's not the first time.
Maybe Obama agrees with Wright's politics, maybe he doesn't. But if he doesn't, he'd damn well better make that clear.
I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan.
BS. ... he's lying and hoping people don't look to closely
You asked for a denunciation of Farakhan's views on race and anti-semitism, and you got one. It's a statement that is as direct as it is unequivocal in its meaning. It's more time than I personally think he needed to spend on the topic of someone else's opinion about someone else, but hey, you got what you asked for.
We can move on right? Wrong, apparently.
Now he needs to be more deeply informed or involved in this award business, so that he can speak to the particular motivations of one person's action towards another.
That goalpost was around here somewhere.
Hmmm. Looks like Obama has answered his critics, which means that it's also time for his dishonest detractors to pretend they didn't notice.
Or maybe Ken can tell him which church he must attend?
.
"That goalpost was around here somewhere."
Yeah, it was when I said:
Maybe Obama agrees with Wright's politics, maybe he doesn't. But if he doesn't, he'd damn well better make that clear.
Yeah, it was when I said: ...
Right on cue!
Wright was supposed to be significant because, through him, Obama had endorsed Farrakhan ... or something. The idiots weren't clear (then again, they couldn't afford to be).
Now that Obama has dismissed Farrakhan in no uncertain terms, Wright is still supposed to be a problem?
Uh, no. The "problem" was supposed to be Obama = Wright = Farrakhan. Now that A has said "I am not C," that argument from identity has fallen almost as flat as the Bush administration. So saying "A = B" when A is not-C is just ...
... well, just as stupid as it ever was.
.
Yeah, it was when I said:
Maybe Obama agrees with Wright's politics, maybe he doesn't. But if he doesn't, he'd damn well better make that clear.
Are there non-racial aspects of Wright's politics that you had in mind for Obama to address? I thought you meant Wright's presenting Farakhan with an award, which makes him (Wright) complicit with or condoning of Farakhan's racism, thereby also making Obama potentially condoning of same.
I thought this because that was what the above post was referring to. What were the other parts of Wright's politics that you were concerned with?
So, will we now go back to talking about Obama's madrassa?
Or is it time to try the "haircut" thingy on him?
How about the "intern" thingy? That one's always fun!
.
I'd add that...
I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree.
...rather directly addresses the action that the magazine of Wright's church has taken in presenting the award. He denounced the racism, and disagrees with the giving of the award by his Church's magazine, not just Farakhan's views more generally.
Wright was supposed to be significant because, through him, Obama had endorsed Farrakhan ...
Wright is significant because he's the kind of guy who thinks endorsing Farakhan is a good idea. And the kind of guy who thinks Farakhans views on race are deep and insightful. And the kind of guy who thinks going on a road-trip to Cuba and Lybia with Farakhan was a real good idea. And the kind of guy who thinks everything wrong in the black community is due to "racism." And that everything he disagrees with in American foreign policy is due to "racism." And is a self described "radical" and preacher of "black liberation theology."
And he isn't just Obama's minister in the sense of being the guy who happened to be assigned to Obama's church - he's the guy who converted Obama, who Obama calls his "spiritual advisor."
Barack is very personally close to a far-left black nationalist. Wright has a lot of beliefs that most voters don't share. The voters deserve to know if Obama shares them.
Wright is significant because he's the kind of guy who thinks endorsing Farakhan is a good idea.
And Obama is the guy who disagrees.
You're done.
.
You'll notice that Obama didn't say anything against his own "spiritual" advisor, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. That's the key.
Giving a lifetime achievement award named after himself to Farrakhan last November is a just another symptom of the Reverend Wright's worldview. That worldview is of importance because Reverend Wright has been the most important male figure in the Presidential candidate's life since his grandfather. He has been Obama's "spiritual" advisor since early 1987.
You need to stop fantasizing about Obama as your imaginary hip black friend and pay him the respect of finding out who he is. If you can't be bothered to read Obama's 442 page autobiography, try Shelby Steele's much shorter analysis of it, "A Bound Man."
Steve Sailer's 4:15 comment is perceptive -- this was deliberate by Wright.
Yes, Wright stabbed Obama in the back, quite possibly intentionally as payback for dumping him at the last moment from
Here's Wright's daughter's announcement of the line-up for the big bash at the Chicago Hyatt Regency last 11/2/07.
"This year’s socially conscious giants, who allow us to see more clearly what it means to be educated, nurtured and empowered are: Educate - Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick ~ Torch, Tony Wafford ~ Lifeline, Cliff Kelley ~ Community; Nurture - Nancy Wilson ~ Sounds of the Struggle; Empower - Congresswoman Maxine Waters ~ Civil Rights, Father Michael Pfleger ~ Empowerment, Dr. Iva Carruthers ~ Social Justice. The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan is the recipient of this year’s Lifetime Achievement “Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Trumpeter” Award."
So, Farrakhan was the climax of the evening.
By the way ...
"This year the gala is sponsored by US Cellular, Nielsen Advertising, TV One, Abbott, Ready Source, All Printing and Graphics, McDonald’s, FloWater, WVON and more."
http://www.trumpetmag.com/publisher.cfm
Sorry about clicking "post" before I completed the sentence.
This is speculative, but the following makes some sense if you've been studying the cast of characters:
Reverend Wright's amour propre was wounded by Obama dumping him at the last moment from giving the invocation at Obama's nationally televised campaign kickoff last winter in Springfield. He soon after boasted to the NYT about how his trip with Farrakhan to Libya in 1984 was going to eventually cost Obama Jewish support.
But, the whole story pretty much got shoved down the memory hole as too hot to handle in these sensitive times. So, Wright posted on the web a long open letter to the NYT denouncing the NYT for writing about him.
That didn't make much of a ripple either, so then the Wrights went back to the Farrakhan well again by giving him their grand prize at a big bash. The media wouldn't touch that either for two months, but eventually it came out and Wright is getting the attention he feels he deserves.
If this story gets buried again, Wright is going to keep pulling stunts like this until he turns himself into the Willie Horton of 2008, and his name goes down in history associated with the story about how white racism kept the Democrats from winning in 2008.
Wright doesn't want Obama to win -- that would disprove his whole world view that whites will never give a black man an even break. He wants Obama to go down in flames to prove he was right, and he wants to be the torch.
Nobody gives a shit about this.
Jews are 2% of the electorate and the rich ones are already committed to Giuliani or Clinton. Obama couldn't care less about the Jewish vote unless somehow they become a "swing" vote.
Blacks like Farrakhan, for the most part. So Obama can't afford to distance himself TOO much from his minister or Farrakhan. Requiring him to do so is threatening his black support - and that is the motivation for requiring him to do so.
The only part of this smear campaign that is a problem for Obama is its impact on WHITE, non-Jewish voters who might think he's some sort of "Malcolm X" politician.
By distancing himself from this specific act on the part of his church, and conducting himself appropriately, he should easily negate that meme, which is only going to be bought into by people who don't like a black politician in the first place. I've considered him a "slick black politician" from day one, but it's not because he's black that I have a problem, but because he's "slick", which I associate with shallowness and deception.
It's a tempest in a teapot and a very cheesy smear and it's not going to be relevant past next week.
Steve, correct me if I'm wrong, but is your motivation in flogging this crap (along with Ken) based on some notion that because Obama is black this sort of crap is going to be part of his Presidency because "that's what blacks are about"?
I don't see Obama being affected AT ALL by this business. And no matter what Wright's motivations are (and for all I know you could be completely right about that) or what he does, he really can't derail Obama as long as Obama just keeps saying, "I had and have nothing to do with any of this and don't agree with it."
This business Ken keeps flogging about how Obama has to "renounce" all this and sever all connections with his church is in his imagination - and his own motivations.
MJ Rosenberg makes the point over at TPM on this issue that he had a "hating Rabbi" spout a bunch of anti-Muslim crap at his synagogue. He bailed. But he saw no need to "renounce" anything since it was clear that he didn't support it. He doesn't see Obama having any need to "renounce" his mentor over this issue, either.
A person can get tarred and feathered with an unjust association. If you deny it, some people will believe you and some people won't. What isn't good is to start wearing sackcloth and ashes over it. That's when everybody will start believing it.
Especially when it's clearly a case of "guilt by association." As I said before, the only people who are going to believe this are people who want to believe it.
Which is why I'm asking you what YOUR motivations are in flogging this. Somehow I suspect it's not about helping the Dems win the 2008 elections.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Jews are 2% of the electorate and the rich ones are already committed to Giuliani or Clinton. Obama couldn't care less about the Jewish vote unless somehow they become a "swing" vote.
Obama has plenty of support from the "rich ones," Richard.
You and Don W can start your opposition research now.
Set your google "David Geffen" (along with his pals Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg) and start from there.
So the Hollywood set is for Obama. So what? The people that AIPAC prefer to deal with are for Clinton and Giuliani - and I suspect they have more money.
It's that simple. Obama is not as well liked by AIPAC as Clinton and Giuliani. That should be obvious.
Try this article for who's who in Jewish billionaires - and what they support:
Did `Mega' Bucks Help Sharon Steal Israeli Elections?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1113.htm
Another list of that group I found includes:
"Mega does not release a membership list, but among those who are or have been members are some of America's wealthiest and most prominent Jews: Charles and Edward Bronfman, Leslie Wexner, Michael Steinhardt, Howard "Bud" Meyerhoff, Leonard Abramson, Lester Crown, Marvin Lender, and John Goldman. Charles Schusterman, Laurence Tisch, and Max Fisher (all now deceased), were early members of Mega. At the time of the May 1998 meeting, Steven Spielberg was reportedly considering membership."
One of their programs is described thus:
"Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) - formerly called Emet and occasionally called "Truth," a controversial "think tank" intended to provide education about terrorism and to better communicate Israeli perspective to the American public. One project brought 52 undergraduates, 19 professors and a journalist to Israel to see, first hand, the effects of terrorists. Another organized a conference for Iraqi women in conjunction with the U.S. Agency for International Development."
While this "Mega" group is known mostly for its philanthropies, I'd say it probably has a significant political agenda as well. And that agenda is probably not as well served by Obama as by Clinton or Giuliani.
Obama's dealt with his Farakhan problem, but he's still got his Wright problem.
The Wright problem looks to me like a hit below the waterline.
The image of Obama I had received was of the post-racial candidate, the upper-class kid with a Kerry-like upbringing and no connection at all to ghetto culture or the traditional civil-rights establishment and who therefore wasn't considered "authentically black" enough, the guy who could be a president for all Americans and just happened to be dark, the first black Democrat candidate for President who wasn't a racial huckster joke like Jackson or Sharpton.
Now it turns out that for the past twenty years he's been part of a church that emphasizes african-american solidarity, and his personal "spiritual adviser"/confidant/surrogate father is a radical black separatist preacher whose political and social beliefs sound just like Jackson's and Sharpton's.
Aside from the Ivy education and the nicer suits, how exactly is Obama an improvement?
So the Hollywood set is for Obama. So what?
I don't have a problem with it. You're the one who said the "rich" "jews" support Hillary and Rudy - and I was just pointing out that's not exactly true.
People should be careful about generalizations. Not that it matters much in your particular case, Richard.
But Obama has significant Jewish support. I'm sure that makes you like him less, but c'est la vie.
Comments closed January 29, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Yup. Mention Farrakahn many times, his anti-semitism, etc. , establish some link, say several times that he doesn't suspect Obama of believing any such thing, but still, and why hasn't he denounced it? Why doesn't he provide a running commentary of everything his Church and Pastor say? Isn't that irresponsible?
Posted by David | January 15, 2008 10:04 AM