Obama and Farrakhan Not Really Sitting in a Tree

It seems to me that a lot of the reaction to Richard Cohen's column about how Barack Obama's minister's daughter likes Louis Farrakhan is pretty overstated. I feel like someone like Jeff Weintraub who's taking this issue seriously is being an idiot, but Cohen's just being a mildly cynical columnist who doesn't want Obama to win the election. Lots and lots of our political debate consists of things that aren't incredibly serious, and I've certainly made not-especially-serious criticisms of politicians I don't like in my day.

Meanwhile, it's not as if if Cohen had kept his mouth shut this whole thing was going to go unnoticed and unaddressed for the next ten months. It's political common sense to have your surrogates attack Obama on these grounds and it's common sense for Obama's campaign to have had a perfectly good response up his sleeve.

Comments

Cross-posted from comments at Crooked Timber:

It’s funny how this “you must denounce so-and-so” game never seems to apply to Republicans and the crazies they hang with.

So since Richard Cohen is a good Jewish boy, some advice for him from Deuteronomy:

Do not have two differing weights in your bag—one heavy, one light. Do not have two differing measures in your house—one large, one small. You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you. For the LORD your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | January 15, 2008 4:29 PM

On the merits, the issue is silly. As a political problem, however, Obama will need to take it seriously.

Posted by blah | January 15, 2008 4:32 PM

Exactly. People who support Obama really need to have some faith that he knows how to handle this stuff. He's seen it all before in Illinois. He has an excellent team that evidently does its homework, and many of these pending attacks have been flying out there in the real world for months, just under the MSM radar, so the responses have been prepared. He can handle himself just fine without the hysterical wails of defensive protest every time one comes up, and he probably has some very good ideas on how to turn perceived vulnerabilities into wins, and turn attacks back against the attackers.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 15, 2008 4:39 PM

First of all, the response by Obama seems to be off the cuff and not carefully prepared as Matt tries to give him credit for.

Obama's 'assumption' for an innocent motivation (drug rehabilition, who could be against that?) for the award is belied by the reasons stated in the article for making the award itself.

Perhaps Obama will have something more to say about this later but clearly he was blindsided by this and never saw it coming.

Secondly, in this case rhetoric is not going to be enough. He cannot bullshit his way throught this. He must disassociate himself from the offending church and pick another one that does not give honor to racists. He could throw in an apology for having willfully associated with such an institution while he is at it. Confession is, after all, required before forgiveness is granted.

We cannot have a man in the white house who goes to a place of worship where Farrakahn is publicly an honored icon.

Posted by ken | January 15, 2008 4:42 PM

Don't enable the condemn-o-rama's, Matt! They're wrong. Even if they were applied even handedly (which they're not), they'd be wrong.

Cohen is an ass, and his column should have ended at the point he acknowledged that Obama is not an anti-semite. For, given that, the rest of the story is totally irrelevant.

Posted by David in NY | January 15, 2008 4:43 PM

Oh, and ken is worse than Cohen.

Posted by David in NY | January 15, 2008 4:44 PM

Well, maybe. But it still doesn't excuse the stupid article from Cohen... "While I have no doubts that Obama does not share these sentiments.... I'm still very disappointed with him". WTF.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | January 15, 2008 4:44 PM

_This_ is a "perfectly good response"?

"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."

Where's any mention of Obama's spiritual advisor for the last 21 years, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.?

If anybody is interested in the facts about the Obama-Wright relationship, see:

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/01/trumpet-gala-2007.html

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 15, 2008 4:45 PM

I heard that Hillary's hairdresser's brother is a member of the KKK. Now, I have no reason to think that Hillary supports the clan, but she should really address this. This is my test for Hillary: are you willing to distance yourself from the KKK or not?

Ok, MY, write up a post about how clever I am and how it's not like this issue wasn't going to be addressed in the next 10 months anyway.

Posted by jim | January 15, 2008 4:46 PM

I do think that everyone should take Steve Sailer's comments on racism seriously.

He knows wherefrom he speaks.

Steve, congratulations - you're actually an authority on this topic.

Maybe one day Stormfront or whatever magazine the CCC or Westboro Batptist Church publishes will honor you, as well. Or haven't they already?

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 15, 2008 4:50 PM

Matt,

You let yourself get snookered on an issue I told you months ago was coming down the pike because you haven't read Obama's 1995 autobiography. Read pp. 274-295, which are mostly about Reverend Wright.

Reverend Wright is a loose cannon and he loves attention. That's why instead of lying low until Obama was elected, he put together this big bash at the Hyatt Regency two months before the primaries to give a lifetime achievement award named after himself to his old friend Louis Farrakhan, whom he went to Libya with in 1984 to visit Col. Gadaffi.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 15, 2008 4:50 PM

I don't see what's wrong with labeling sleaze as sleaze.

Posted by Dave C | January 15, 2008 4:51 PM

Apparently it's concern troll day over here. Sailer, the Wright stuff has come up before, it's been discussed, but it's good to know you're here to bring it up.

Wake me up when you start doing the same thing to the other candidates, Dem or Republican. I'll be waiting.

Also, there's been reports in the last week of white church goers getting warm receptions at the church Obama attends. "Pro-black" doesn't mean "anti white" except for in myopic minds.

Posted by Mike P | January 15, 2008 4:52 PM

David in NY,

Obama does not stand a chance to win in the general election as long he remains a member of this church.

And he probably cannot win the parties nomination either. Racism is not something our party takes lightly. And in this case some bullshit rhetoric is not going to be enough. He has to dissasociate himself from the poison of anti-semitism. And he has to do it soon.

He cannot preach racial harmony while tithing to a church that lavishes honor on racists. Does. Not. Compute.

Posted by ken | January 15, 2008 4:54 PM

If a candidate's spiritual advisor and the head of her church was a great admirer of the KKK and her Church's magazine gave an award to the head of the KKK, would it be enough for her to simplydenounce the KKK or would she have to denounce her spiritual advisor completely and explain how she could be associated with such a person for so long?

Posted by Dave | January 15, 2008 4:55 PM

I wonder if Richard Cohen came up with the "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" style of attack politics before or after he fucked Peter Jennings' wife?

Posted by calipygian | January 15, 2008 4:56 PM

Dave asks:

"If a candidate's spiritual advisor and the head of her church was a great admirer of the KKK and her Church's magazine gave an award to the head of the KKK, would it be enough for her to simply denounce the KKK or would she have to denounce her spiritual advisor completely and explain how she could be associated with such a person for so long?"

Well at the least she would have to completely disassociate herself with the church. We could not have sitting president attend or tithe, out of her taxpayer paid salary, to such a church.

Posted by ken | January 15, 2008 5:07 PM

By the way, I'm sure it is just a complete coincidence that this smear came out on the day of a debate. Let's see if the name "Farrakhan" is mentioned in the debate tonight. If so, touchdown Hillary.

Posted by jim | January 15, 2008 5:07 PM

Matt is way off in Karl Rove anti-reality mode here.

Obama has a problem, a big one -- the most important man in his life since his grandfather, Reverend Wright, is a radical racialist.

That hasn't been a political problem for Obama until today, because:

A. Most white people just want to project their fantasies onto Obama rather than pay him the respect of learning who he really is.

B. Anybody who mentions facts about who Obama really is gets denounced as a racist.

But, in the long run, facts are stubborn things.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 15, 2008 5:09 PM

"I know he doesn't ___ sheep, but I want to see the sumbitch deny it!" -- Lyndon Johnson*

*The president it took to get it done.

Posted by David B. | January 15, 2008 5:10 PM

If a Presidential candidate himself spoke at the church of someone who "blames the Holocaust on Jews themselves and states that Nazi persecution of Jews was God's way of driving Jews to Israel, seems to blame Jews for the death of Jesus Christ, holds that Jews cannot get into heaven, calls liberal Jews "poisoned" and "spiritually blind", believes that the preemptive nuclear attack on Iran that he advocates will lead to a Mideast conflict that will kill most Jews in Israel and perhaps also lead to the Nuclear destruction of the East and West coasts of the United States of America," would he have to disclaim that person with something more than saying that they don't agree on everything, or would mainstream journalists just ignore it?

Posted by Matt Weiner | January 15, 2008 5:13 PM

Richard Cohen supports "The Jewish State"s Occupation policy of Racist Slow-Genocide, Home Demolitions, Land Theft, and Murdering Children for "Sport" against the Palestinians. What the hell has Farrakhan ever done to a Jew except annoy one with his rhetoric? Has he ever denied a Jew employment, an apartment, a promotion? American Jews are among the most prosperous (if not the most prosperous) people in the country. The head of Homeland Security (Chertoff) is Jewish, as is the Attorney General (Mukkasey). Perhaps 30-40% of the American Establishment (Media Ownership, Financial Sector, High Governmental Position) is Jewish. A very high percentage of the Ivy League student bodies is Jewish. Yaddee, yahdah, ya....Clearly, Minister Farrakhan isn't having too much of an effect. And yet currently, a viable Presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani's top advisors are Jewish extremists such as Norman Podhoretz, Daniel Pipes, and Michael Ledeen who advocate the Thermonuclear Annihilation of Iran, Syria, Libya, and if necessary Saudi Arabia. It was Jewish neocons such as Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz who were the architects of America's premptive War against Iraq. The scales are a bit lopsided if one were to compare the influence of racist Jews and anti-Semitic blacks. There are so many nationally syndicated columnists of Richard Cohen's hysterical ilk one can't even count, but is there even 1 nationally syndicated African-American columist extant sympathetic to Louis Farrakhan's views? Nada, and there never will be. Besides being a dime a dozen hack- Richard Cohen is a mendacious fool who ought to be tarred and feathered at the Apollo for his falsities.

Posted by Trevor | January 15, 2008 5:13 PM

Facts are especially stubborn to Sailer, refusing as they do to validate his racist world view.

"Who Obama really is," is a decent, honorable, idealistic man, who wants to solve the problems shared by blacks and whites by moving beyond this cynical, zero-sum politics that you see in Hillary's attacks and dreck like Cohen's column. You want to see "bad for the Jews," take a look at Huckabee, Dominionist candidate.

Posted by David B. | January 15, 2008 5:14 PM

Steve Sailor,

Barack Obama is not a racist. But he is full of bullshit rhetoric.

He belongs to a church that honors a racist. He can solve this problem by severing his ties with this church and finding one that does not honor people like Farrakahn.

It is time for him to bring his personal life in line with what he preaches (or at least what we think he preaches). The time for empty rhetoric is over.

Posted by ken | January 15, 2008 5:18 PM

If the former head of the RNC hung out with the Council of Conservative Citizens, ostentatiously refused to ask them to take his picture off their website, and won the governorship of Mississippi, would it be enough for the rest of the party to simply denounce him, or would we think that they should talk him up as a possible Vice-Presidential candidate?

Posted by Matt Weiner | January 15, 2008 5:18 PM

B. Anybody who mentions facts about who Obama really is gets denounced as a racist.

Nope, that's not at all why you get denounced as a racist, Steve.

Let's be fair here.

It's because you write that black people are dumb.

Own your history, dude.

Posted by SoCalJustice | January 15, 2008 5:21 PM

ken and also, presumably, Richard Cohen, understand that Obama's not really an anti-semite. They just want him to condemn other people more vociferously than he has in the past. What Cohen wants is unclear, since he's really a lousy writer on top of being a mush-brain. ken wants Obama to leave the church of the man whom Obama credits with a personal religious awakening. Does ken think Obama should convert to Judaism, as that would kill two birds with one stone?

Bottom line is that for a concern troll, nothing is ever gonna be good enough.

Posted by David B. | January 15, 2008 5:24 PM

David B.,

Your description of Obama may well be true. If so, this would be a good time for him prove it.

Senator Obama, the man, his policies, and the man's charactor are being examined by the public right now.

So far we see a man who can give an uplifting speach calling for unity and an end to partisonship. He needs to prove his words are not just more bullshit.

The church he belongs to has endorsed a very divisive poison by honoring Louis Farrakahn. And apparently the churchs respect for Farrakahn is not new but has been a long standing position of the pastor, a close friend and spritual advisor to Barack Obama.

Barack Obama needs to demonstrate his charactor by seperating himself from this church. It will be difficult perhaps but it must be done. He cannot bullshit his way through this. It will not go away and will kill him in the general election.

Posted by ken | January 15, 2008 5:35 PM

David B.,

You write acknowledge that "facts are stubborn things" in your response to Steve Sailer's comment, and yet you proceed to offer none. Sailer didn't fabricate Obama's close relationship with Reverend Wright, he's just telling you what Obama himself wrote about it. And yet you are so infatuated with Obama (or at least your idea of him) that you willfully ignore what the man has actually said when that becomes politically inconvenient.

Dismissing uncomfortable facts with ad hominem attacks on Sailer may work on this blog, but it won't work on the campaign trail. Time for Obama supporters to put their heads together and come up with a different tack.

Posted by Fred | January 15, 2008 5:35 PM

Fred,

Dave's "attacks" on Sailer weren't ad hominem. Sailer is a racist. I was just reminded of that moments ago when I clicked on his Web site.

Let's get this straight - Obama is a Bad Man because he knows a guy who likes Farrakhan. And yet I just looked at a photograph of John McCain sitting with Jerry Falwell. And a photograph of Rudy 9/11 with Pat Robertson. If SS and ken are so concerned about Obama's degrees of separation from Farrakhan, why aren't they similarly exercised about these GOP candidates and their direct ties to extremist right-wing bigots?

Do I win the 'rhetorical question' prize for the day?

Posted by Woody Bombay | January 15, 2008 5:43 PM

It must be a big relief to Ken and company to discover that Obama does not support anti-Semitism and does not think that Farrakhan should have been honored, etc. What a great process of discovery we're going through!

Posted by Barbar | January 15, 2008 5:46 PM

I don't spend much time talking about individuals' religions, but, in the case of Obama, I appear to be just about the only pundit other than Shelby Steele who has read the Presidential candidate's first autobiography and made a serious effort to understand where Obama is coming from. Pages 274-295 are mostly devoted to Wright and to Obama's decision to attend Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ in the winter of 1987, after several years of Chicago blacks telling the Hawaiian via New York that he needed to join a church if he wanted to be politically effective on the South Side. Obama had met many ministers on the South Side while doing his ethnic organizing, so Obama's decision to attend Wright's radical Afrocentrist church was one made after careful study.

Let me present the key passages from Obama's 1995 memoir. Obama writes of the first Sunday he attended Wright's church in 1987:

"The title of Reverend Wright's sermon that morning was 'The Audacity of Hope.' [Obama used that title for his second book almost 20 years later.] He began with a passage from the Book of Samuel ... As I watched and listened from my seat, I began to hear all the notes from the past three years swirl about me. The courage and fear of Ruby and Will. The race pride and anger of men like Rafiq [a Black Muslim]. The desire to let go, the desire to escape, the desire to give oneself up to a God that could somehow put a floor on despair."

That's a significant indefinite article in front of "God."

"And in that single note -- hope! -- I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. These stories -- of survival, and freedom, and hope -- became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black... And if a part of me continued to feel that this Sunday communion sometimes simplified our condition, that it could sometimes disguise or suppress the very real conflicts among us [Obama is referring to an earlier discussion of class conflicts among blacks within black churches here -- the "us" does not include nonblack human beings, such as, say, his mother, sister, and maternal grandparents] and would fulfill its promise only through action [i.e., politics], I also felt for the first time how that spirit carried within it, nascent, incomplete, the possibility of moving beyond our narrow dreams."

Soon, Obama breaks into tears.

This is eloquent, but, to be crass about it, this strikes me not as a religious conversion but as the moment when Obama finally feels Black Enough.

Like his mentor Rev. Wright, Obama's religion appears to be essentially racial and political rather than universal or spiritual or behavioral, although they appropriate traditional Biblical vocabulary for expressing it. The Old Testament expresses a primarily racial religion as well, so it's better suited to Wright and Obama's wants than the universalist New Testament. Similarly, the Afrikaaners' Dutch Reformed Church found much inspiration in the Old Testament.

In summary, Reverend Wright went with Minister Farrakhan to visit Col. Gadaffi in 1984, three years before Obama decided to join his church out of all the churches he had visited as part of his ethnic organizing. And in November 2007, Reverend Wright gives Minister Farrakhan a lifetime achievement award named after himself. There seems to be a pattern here, one that somebody as astute as Sen. Obama would have noticed long before. The Farrakhan connection is not an anomaly, it's a window into the now-historically important question of who Obama ... well, not into who Obama is (that's a complicated question), but into who he has long wanted to be.

As I wrote last November:

"If Obama gets on the Democratic ticket, the GOP operatives will make the Rev. Wright famous, and fast. If Obama wants to be taken seriously as Presidential or Vice-Presidential timber, he needs to do a public Sister Souljah on his spiritual adviser, and soon."

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 15, 2008 5:49 PM

Woody makes a good point. McCain, who at one time denounced Falwell and the like as "agents of intolerance" changed his tune real quick when it was time to think about running for the White House again. But since the late Falwell, Pat Robertson and others of that ilk are against the dirty hippy liberals and teh gay, it's ok to not hold them to the same standard.

Got it.

Posted by Mike P | January 15, 2008 5:50 PM

So, Matt, I take it you believe my suspicion that the Clinton campaign put Cohen up to this. I wondered if it was that or just that he was an asshole. Probably it's both.

Posted by JackD | January 15, 2008 5:51 PM

You're being a dick, Matt. Please rethink.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | January 15, 2008 5:55 PM

Richard Cohen is a key apparatchik, along with Donna Shalala (she of the UnitedHealth back dating of stock options scandal), Madeline Albright (she of the no-terrorism policy of the Clinton years), and Judith Warner (of the New York Times) who have been tasked to up the ante on the race-baiting, to pivot off race into veiled charges of anti-semitism.
I listened to Hannity today, and curiously, he was foaming at the mouth over Obama's ties to Farrakhan. Surprising? Not if you understand crony capitalism, that Newt Gingrich, Roger Ailes, Charlie Rangel, Richard, Cohen, Vernon Jordan, Mac McLarty, James E. Johnson (another master of back dating stock options) and the rest of of the Washington Insiders aren't going to make room at the table for an idealistic "rookie" like Obama.
Tangential side note: Jeb Bush, Jr., Jeb's youngest, works on the Romney campaign in Florida. Guess we know who the Bush crime family supports. Now back to the Clinton crime family...what role does James E. Johnson play with the Clinton campaign? Oh, forgot, enough of that Abramoff corruption kind of stuff...this campaign's going to be about race.

Posted by fougasseau | January 15, 2008 5:57 PM

Re Trevor

Mr. Trevor is a lying sack of shit.

1. Richard Cohen opposes and has always opposed the Israeli settlements on the West Bank.

2. Richard Cohen is and has always been in favor of a Palestinian State on the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Posted by SLC | January 15, 2008 6:18 PM

"Let's get this straight - Obama is a Bad Man because he knows a guy who likes Farrakhan."

Let me help you out, since you don't seem to get it:

1) The Farrakhan award wasn't a one-off for Wright, it's just one example of his radical left-wing, Afrocentric ideology.

2) Wright has been Obama's spiritual adviser and the most important male role model in his life for two decades.

3) Obama is campaigning as an inclusive, post-racial "uniter".

Numbers 2) and 3) contradict each other.

Posted by Fred | January 15, 2008 6:39 PM

Fred, the 2 of those do not contradict each other because Wright and Obama are not the same person. I have no doubt that Wright's church advocates a maintanence of nurturing of the African-American identity. Nor do I have any doubt that Obama's rhetoric is authentic.

Just as one would not doubt the political sincerity and patriotism of a devout member of a synagogue which advocates a nuturing of a Jewish identity or a member of any religious community with a strong ethnic component.

Posted by Tyro | January 15, 2008 6:44 PM

This is truly hilarious.

Is this a bad time to point out that every candidate running for president (Obama included) also believes that the day will come when roughly half the world's Jews (not to mention a lot of non jews) will die an excruciating death?

Wait, it gets better...

They not only believe that day will come, the gleefully look forward to it!

Really, I'm not kidding!

But hey, they are ardent friends of Israel!

Posted by Davebo | January 15, 2008 6:50 PM

Tyro, If Obama's rhetoric where indeed authentic then this is a chance for him to prove it.

The beef on Obama is that his actions don't match up to his rhetoric.

He has a chance to prove he not just another full of crap preacher. He has a chance to prove that words can engender change. Let the change start with him. He can sever his relationship with a church that endorses anti-semitism.

That would be putting his words into action. Anything less is just more bullshit.

Posted by ken | January 15, 2008 7:03 PM

Barbor,

As long as Obama continues tithing to a church that endorses racism you can be as impressed by his rhetoric as you want, but it is meaningless.

This is chance for him to demonstrate that he does not condone nor will he tolerate racism.

Posted by ken | January 15, 2008 7:13 PM

It's important to note that the video tribute to Farrakhan created by the Wrights went up on Youtube on Nov. 4, 2007. The fact that we didn't hear about it until today suggests either:

A. A vast conspiracy to keep it covered up to trot out just at the right moment 7 days before the Nevada primary (or whatever today is).

B. Or that the media have been doing a terrible job of covering Obama's past because, possibly, they are terrified of being denounced as racists.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 15, 2008 7:22 PM

Correction: This isn't Obama's past, this is Obama's present which the media have been leery to report due to fear of being branded with the R word.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 15, 2008 7:23 PM

"He has a chance to prove he not just another full of crap preacher."

First of all, I've been saying for some time that Obama is simply a slick-talking black guy - which are a dime a dozen. Jesse Jackson is exactly the same. So is Sharpton. So was Martin Luther King.

Second, Obama doesn't have to do anything more than what's he done. He distanced himself from Farrakhan in his statement and renounced any anti-Semitic beliefs - including, by extension, those that MAY be held by members or leaders of his church (and BTW, I've seen no evidence presented of such as yet except this Farrakhan award.)

Third, many black people support Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam and related movements because of their social works - just like many Lebanese support Hizballah because of theirs. Probably most black Muslims in the US do. This doesn't make anybody who supports the Nation of Islam an "anti-Semite".

Farrakhan has an extremist religion viewpoint which, in terms of mythology, is on a par with the crap Scientology teaches. Supposedly this was somewhat cleaned up over time, due to the conflicts between the original founder and his son, and subsequently with Farrakhan. Supposedly also this was all washed under the bridge in 2000 in some sort of reconciliation.

The bottom line: most people aren't going to care about any of this. Obama has distanced himself appropriately from the Nation of Islam. It's going to be a bit hard to produce easily consumed articles going through the convoluted connections between Obama, his church, and Farrakhan. This is a meme that won't fly well except for fanatical anti-Obama types who want to make it a huge issue.

Let's remember that Jews represent 2% of the voting population. And that rich Jews have already pretty much committed to either Giuliani or Clinton. So Obama really isn't going to be hurt by lame charges that he has already refuted of being "anti-Semitic" just because his mentor had connections to Farrakhan.

Look how fast the bit about that child-molesting preacher dropped off the radar.

Besides which, it doesn't matter if Obama were to renounce his mentor. The meme would still be floated because at one time he HADN'T renounced his mentor. So what good does it do to renounce him now? It's too late.

All of this is inconsequential bullshit intended to play the race card against Obama. And that means the corrupt Clintons or equally corrupt Republicans are behind it.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 15, 2008 7:36 PM

Is this a bad time to point out that every candidate running for president (Obama included) also believes that the day will come when roughly half the world's Jews (not to mention a lot of non jews) will die an excruciating death?

This sounds like serious millenarian shit, and I don't think most of the candidates believe it. Except possibly Huckabee; certainly his BFF Hagee likes to talk about it.

I don't think Romney is even supposed to believe that Jews go to Hell forever.

Posted by Matt Weiner | January 15, 2008 7:40 PM

Romney believes that all the Jews (and everyone else) will be baptized to Mormonism after they die and can go to the Mormon version of heaven.

Posted by blah | January 15, 2008 7:58 PM

Look, this is totally ridiculous!

We've already had two threads with almost 200(!) comments on this subject today, and it's all based on one column written by some guy in a newspaper, and YouTube video clip from November.

Let's remember that very, very few voters make up their minds based on what they read in the newspapers, and even fewer read the columns in the Washington Post. So everyone's getting excited over nothing.

After all, what really swings elections tend to be hard-hitting 30 second TV attack ads, often misleading or unfair.

But Karl Rove and his friends would never stoop to putting something like this into such an attack ad, would they?...

Posted by RKU | January 15, 2008 8:10 PM

RSH,

The beef on Obama is that his rhetoric doesn't match up with his actions. So in light of that you are right to say that a mere denounciation of the Reverand Wrights award to Farrakahn will not be enough. If he continues to attend the church and continues to support it through tithing then yes it will make no difference. It will be just another example of his empty rhetoric.

That is why he needs to sever his relationship with the church entirely. He can find another christian church, one that doesn't endorse anti-semitism, to attend easy enough.

Posted by ken | January 15, 2008 8:21 PM

It's much better being Catholic. Farrakhan? Our church harbors child molesters and we don't have to apologize for anything.

Posted by thesheriffisani | January 15, 2008 10:27 PM

I have no idea what Obama's relationship with Wright is or is not. What I do know is that the Obama campaign distance itself from the reverend in the spring of 2007. I assumed it was because of the Afrocentric nature of Trinity Church. The Rev. Wright thought it was because of his trip to Libya with Farrakhan in 1984.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/us/politics/06obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Posted by nothing new here | January 15, 2008 10:28 PM

Fred,

You, ken and SS have yet to tell me why white Republicans are allowed to hobnob with hard-core extremist right-wing bigots - indeed, cowtow to them and seek their endorsements - with nary a peep from alleged concerned citizens like yourselves. And yet Obama has to respond above and beyond the statements he's made, which are perfectly acceptable, and in fact is expected to go further by condemning a relationship that he doesn't have anything remotely to do with.

Posted by Woody Bombay | January 15, 2008 10:42 PM

"The beef on Obama is that his rhetoric doesn't match up with his actions."

According to YOU, that is - and according to those who started the smear. Which makes it clear to me whose side you're on. I agree with the others - you're a concern troll.

I don't agree with your assessment. I don't see any evidence that this smear will last past next week. And I don't think Obama has to do anything more to deal with it than say, "I had nothing to do with it."

It's guilt by association and that's all it is and that's all you have to say to deal with it.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 15, 2008 11:48 PM

Look, Obama is the one who started the "smear" that the Rev. Wright is a hugely important factor in his life by writing most of pages 274-295 of his 1995 autobiography about his relationship with Wright.

And Rev. Wright's organization is the one that posted their effusive tribute to Farrakhan on Youtube last November 4th.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 15, 2008 11:57 PM

1. Richard Cohen opposes and has always opposed the Israeli settlements on the West Bank.

2. Richard Cohen is and has always been in favor of a Palestinian State on the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

SLC

Richard Cohen is and always has been a conditional anti-settlement and pro-Palestinian statehood Zionist. He believe and has stated so ad infinitum that the Palestinians have no right to violently resist the Occupation or the building of illegal settlements on stolen Palestinian land.

In other words, he doesn't believe the Palestinians have any intrinsic human dignity. And, believes that the Palestinians should employ only feeble and non-threatening means to throw off their oppressors. Which means effectively that NOTHING WILL CHANGE. On the other hand, Richard Cohen has never seen fit to criticize the actions of the Warsaw ghetto Jews against the German military.

In other words, he's a mealy-mouthed, duplicitous enemy of Palestinian self-determination. With "friends" like Richard Cohen - do the Palestinians really need enemies?

Posted by Trevor | January 16, 2008 12:04 AM

Steve, that response was just pathetic.

Citing two obvious facts as somehow proving your conclusion is simply not Logic 101.

You haven't provided any evidence that this smear has any credibility or traction that can't be negated by Obama simply saying - as he has - "I had nothing to do with it, and I don't agree with it."

Anything beyond that from Obama and he risks giving the smear credibility and traction.

Once again, why are YOU flogging this?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 16, 2008 12:34 AM

Obama's active churchgoing is a huge part of his image that has made him a viable candidate for President. But that naturally raises questions about exactly what type of church he chooses to go to, just as, say, Mitt Romney's church has been discussed endlessly, even though Romney was born into his, while Obama carefully shopped for the perfect church for himself. Yet, as the commenters on this blog have shown, very few voters have any idea what kind of church Obama has been closely associated with for the last 21 years. Few in the media have been in any hurry to explain the nature of Obama's church and his spiritual mentor because they are afraid of being branded with the Scarlet R.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 16, 2008 3:23 AM

Like I said earlier, I don't think it's really that difficult for Obama to distance himself from Reverend Wright's embrace of Farakkahan. I agree with Richard Steven Hack that being attraced to Farakkahan (which a lot of African-Americans are), while unfortunate, doesn't make one anti-semitic.

Posted by Peter H | January 16, 2008 3:32 AM

Steve Sailer cares because it allows him to pretend that he is not a racist, but rather a ferocious public warrior, defending the common man against the vile depredations of Political Correctness. Every now and then you will catch him saying something reasonable, but don't let that fool you-it's a trick intended to confuse his opponents. The way he has fallen into this tedious orbit around Obama's putatively extremist church shows exactly where his real fixations lie.

Posted by gerontion | January 16, 2008 3:42 AM

right, gerontonion, and you're some kind of disinterested truth seeker? Go fuck yourself. People attacking sailer here are just trying to kill the messenger. Obama gladly goes to a black supremacist church while talking about how he's a uniter. The fact that you cant bring yourself to admit that indicates that you're either a starry eyed idiot or a paid campaign operative.

Posted by blah | January 16, 2008 6:38 AM

It's not a black supremacist church, dumbass. An African-Centered point of view does not equate to viewing Africans as superior.

Posted by Peter H | January 16, 2008 7:41 AM

Yes, I'm a paid campaign operative. No, wait, I'm a starry-eyed idiot. No, wait-you're right-Obama must be a black supremacist, because he goes to a "black supremacist church" where they teach-what? That Jesus was black? That African-Americans are the chosen people? No, wait-I'll bet they teach that Whitey's gotta die. It's gotta be that-if it were a "white supremacist church," they'd be talking about exterminating black folks.
Now, if you look it up: http://www.tucc.org/about.htm, it looks a lot more like the kind of self-help/empowerment claptrap any church would truck in. Sure, the church caters specifically to blacks, but I can't remember that being an instant qualifier for the extremist label "supremacist" that you use. The last time I checked, African-Americans were permitted the right to their own self-determination, in theory during the Civil War, and in practice after the Civil Rights Act. That includes freedom of religion. You can imagine how hard it might be to assimilate into Protestant churches with their lily-white (and historically inaccurate) Christ paintings. Maybe Dr. Wright teaches a theological doctrine that elevates the plight of American blacks to a certain messianic level. What's wrong with that? The Jews think they're the chosen people. Ask any evangelical in America, he'll tell you it's saved Americans who God cares most about. No one bats an eye at this sort of horse shit. But when black people decide maybe they're worth something, that's supremacy. What the fuck ever, Mr. Blah. Your boy Sailer isn't a "messenger." He's a smear artist.

Posted by gerontion | January 16, 2008 7:50 AM

Cohen, Cohen's history, Cohen's motivations, Clinton operatives, and the VRWC's reasons for directing my attention to tucc.org are irrelevant. It's what is to be found at the other end of that url that matters.

I'm sure those who pointed out this issue had ulterior motives for doing so - this is politics after all.

But now that my attention has been drawn to Obama's church, my horrified fascination is purely my own.

And the only conspiracy of ulterior motives that's really pissing me off now is the MSM's deliberate avoidance of this issue up until now.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 16, 2008 8:55 AM

jim,

Are you fucking kidding me?! Every single smear is now a result of Grand Hillary? Good God, this is Cohen--a bastard! This entire week has been raw, insane speculation being considered fact (Next you'll tell me about that "anonymous" source you have).

Obama should strongly distance himself. The GOP will have a field day with this when he's the nominee.

Posted by Davidson | January 16, 2008 9:32 AM

Sure, the church caters specifically to blacks, but I can't remember that being an instant qualifier for the extremist label "supremacist" that you use.

Hey, gerontocrat: Farrakhan is a black supremacist.

And a church headed by Jeremiah A. Wright that gives Farrakhan a Jeremiah A. Wright lifetime achievement award is a black supremacist church.

The Jews think they're the chosen people.

Aaaaand you're an anti-semite. I knew it. Jews deserve Farrakhan's attacks, right? Didn't take long to smoke you out on that one. Let me write your next few posts for you: "JOOZ DID WTC. JOOZ DID SLAVERY".

Posted by blah | January 16, 2008 9:27 PM

On Oct. 5, 2000, the following article appeared on the website of the Media Research Council, (which appears to criticize the media from a right wing perspective) in Media Reality Check, (described, on its masthead as “A Weekly Report of Major News Stories Distorted or Ignored)

Lieberman Respects Farrakhan: No Story?-After Eight Days, Most of the Press Still Missing, Despite Question to Clinton, Fox's Grilling of Daley

On September 27, eight days ago, the first press reports revealed that Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman said he would be willing to meet with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has called Judaism, Lieberman's faith, a "gutter religion."

In an interview with April Ryan of the American Urban Radio Networks, Lieberman said, "Look, Minister Farrakhan said a few things earlier in the campaign that were just not informed. But I have respect for him, and I have respect for the Muslim community generally."

Where's the furor? The story first came on Wednesday from the Philadelphia Inquirer's Jodi Enda and hit the Knight-Ridder national wire. USA Today mentioned it. Ryan questioned President Clinton about it in a briefing aired live on CNN. Clinton seemed surprised: "I didn't understand. What did you say about Joe Lieberman and Louis Farrakhan?" When Ryan explained that "Joe Lieberman told me yesterday" that he would meet with Farrakhan, Clinton only said, "Well, if anybody has got the standing to do it, he certainly does."

That night, Ryan appeared on Fox's O'Reilly Factor. Host Bill O'Reilly asked if she challenged Lieberman on his statement. She said yes: "He said, but it's time for us to come together. And he's trying to win. That's basically what it is. He wants to win an election and the African-American vote is crucial."

Last Thursday, the story was picked up by UPI and the Associated Press in the tenth paragraph of a story on the upcoming "Million Family March." On Friday, the Anti-Defamation League, whose earlier criticism of Lieberman for religious talk on the stump drew all-network coverage, warned Lieberman would be "legitimizing a bigot."

It hit television on Sunday. On NBC's Meet the Press, Tim Russert asked Rick Lazio if he'd meet with Farrakhan. (He said no.) On Fox News Sunday, Tony Snow asked Gore campaign chairman Bill Daley about Lieberman. "Does he do that with the Vice President's blessing?" Daley said no, "Joe makes those decisions on his own. He obviously doesn't have to get approval from Al Gore to have meetings."

On Monday, AP reported its first full story on Lieberman's remarks, based on criticism from RNC Chairman Jim Nicholson. On Tuesday, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote about it, concluding, "It would be hard now for Lieberman to repudiate Farrakhan, but it would be harder still for us to respect someone who will not."

But now, eight days in, let's list who is still missing on this story: The New York Times. The Los Angeles Times. The Washington Post news pages. Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report. CBS. CNN's newscasts. NBC's newscasts. ABC arrived this morning. Are the media being tough on both sides? Can a press corps that celebrated Lieberman's faith now ignore it? -- Tim Graham

http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2000/20001005.asp

Posted by Tom Doyle | January 18, 2008 6:47 AM

"Hey, gerontocrat: Farrakhan is a black supremacist.

And a church headed by Jeremiah A. Wright that gives Farrakhan a Jeremiah A. Wright lifetime achievement award is a black supremacist church."

The logic isn't nearly as ironclad as you make it out to be. Look, I know Farrakhan counts as the devil for a lot of scared whiteys, but to me he isn't any different from Jerry Falwell-they are both religious psychonauts with untenable ideas about the ideal makeup of American society. But if you'll recall, McCain, that maverick, had nothing but good things to say about Falwell before he went to Heaven. While criticisms exist about McCain's honesty, no one seems to think that McCain transformed into an evangelical nutcase. So Dr. Wright gave Farrakhan an award. Big whoop. One can imagine that Farrakhan actually earned that award, without thinking that Dr. Wright himself is a black supremacist. I know, I know, it must hurt your head just thinking about it, but it's really possible.

Posted by gerontion | January 18, 2008 6:58 AM

LIEBERMAN SAYS HE IS OPEN TO MEETING FARRAKHAN
September 26, 2000

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Joseph Lieberman said Tuesday he was willing to meet Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam leader who has been criticized for anti-Semitic remarks and has questioned the Democratic vice presidential nominee's loyalty.

Lieberman [said]..in an interview he respected Farrakhan and was open to meeting with him to promote reconciliation in the United States.

[Lieberman]... came under fire from Farrakhan in August, when ... the controversial black leader ...questioned whether Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, might be more loyal to Israel to the United States.

Asked if he was willing to meet Farrakhan, Lieberman told the radio network: "I am very open to that."

"Minister Farrakhan has said a few things, including earlier in the campaign, that I thought were just not informed but, you know, I have respect for him and I have respect for the Muslim community generally," Lieberman said.

"I'd be open to sitting and talking to Minister Farrakhan. It hasn't sort of come together yet but I look forward to it," he added. "This is a time to try to knit the country together more and to make us, as (Vice President) Al Gore always says, the more perfect union that our founders dreamed of."

Lieberman said he would like to meet before the "Million Family March" Farrakhan is organizing in Washington on Oct. 16, the fifth anniversary of the Million Man March aimed at empowering black men.

Farrakhan has often been criticized for his strident rhetoric, which includes calling whites "devils," referring to Jewish, Arab and Asian businessmen in black communities as "bloodsuckers" and denouncing the pope as "the anti-Christ."

Lieberman said he admired Farrakhan for his efforts to register voters ahead of the Nov. 7 election...Asked if he would like to meet before the "Million Family March," Lieberman said: "I'd like to do that. I think that's a great idea.

"I look at anything that anybody does to get people to register and to vote (as) really at the heart of what the democracy is about," he added. "So I admire what Minister Farrakhan is doing there."

He also said he was not bothered by any criticism he gets for such a meeting, saying his wife Hadassah often jokes about his stubbornness when he decides to do something.

"She says ... Joe listens but he gets stubborn when he decides he wants to do something, he does it," Lieberman said. "That's the way I feel about this. By my nature I'm an optimist and I'm a bridge builder and that's what this is all about."

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/26/campaign.lieberman.farrakhan.reut/index.html

Posted by Tom Doyle | January 18, 2008 8:09 AM

Meeting with Farrakhan in the hopes of talking some sense into him or at least partially neutralizing an enemy is good preparation for Presidential duties, which include meetings with the likes of Putin and Ahmadinejad.

And respecting Farrakhan's personal qualities and the fraction of his program you agree with, which however small is unlikely to be zero, is a far cry from saying as Wright did that "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."

I personally think there's a lot to respect about Farrakhan, which makes it only the more tragic that he chose to use the rhetoric of hate for personal advancement and thereby stain what could have been a truly valuable life's legacy.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 18, 2008 9:25 AM