As an Obama supporter, I'm glad that he has to deal with this for the first time now rather than in the general election. And I believe Obama can do better than, "I don't always agree with Rev. Wright." That's why I support him. If he can't, I'll probably have to find another candidate.

To my fellow Obama supporters, if you don't agree with me on principle, agree with me on practicality grounds. Obama will be eaten alive in the general election if the best he can do is, "I don't always agree with Rev. Wright."

As much as I hate to say it, I pretty much agree with David Bernstein on this one.

Cohen says this: "history tells us that anti-Semitism is not to be trifled with. It is a botulism of the mind." He also points out correctly that Farrakhan should be condemned for "denigrating the Holocaust." Cohen also obviously believes in the principle of guilt by association.

All the major GOP candidates have set up shop in the Power Line Forum. It turns out that several of the regulars there have posted multiple comments promoting Holocaust denial, including statements like this:

And this Holocaust crap - geeeeeeeeeeez people, get over it

I realize that it's often not fair to blame a forum operator for what commenters say, but in this instance the administrators are aware of the situation, and they did nothing. More details here.

What does it say about the GOP that their candidates have found a happy home at a site which knowingly hosts Holocaust denial? I thought "anti-Semitism is not to be trifled with?"

IOKIYAR.

Obama must be pretty clean if the people who are afraid of him can't come up with anything better than this. I think that's the net meaning of this story, and I think a lot of other people will react the same way. In other words, it's a kind of reverse endorsement. The kind of person who takes this story seriously was never going to vote D anyway.

The story would have traction if Obama himself radiated signs of bigotry. But he doesn't.

And what exactly is a "spiritual mentor?"

The guy he credits in his autobiography for converting him and turning his life around.

Was "pastor of his church" not a strong enough link to suit your purposes?

"Pastor of my church" could be a guy who took over last week and who I don't much like, and is objectively a much weaker link than "personal confessor for the last twenty years, close confidant, and the man who saved me from a life on the streets."

There have been other times in American history when the electorate has been concerned about a churchman having the President's ear. I never much liked Billy Graham, but I like Jeremiah Wright a lot less, and the notion of him in the vicinity of the White House bothers me a lot more.

Of course, having Huckabee in the White House would be even worse....

Did Richard Cohen, Professor Bernstein and their ilk ever comment on the current occupant of the White House receiving spiritual counsel from the likes of Ted Haggard?

Jukeboxgrad:

I realize that it's often not fair to blame a forum operator for what commenters say, but in this instance the administrators are aware of the situation, and they did nothing.

Come back and tell us about it when Powerline honors the antisemites with a prominent article saying they "truly epitomize greatness."

We can all play "six degrees of separation" and it's pretty meaningless if you don't consider the strength of the links. In this case, the link from Wright to Farakhan is self-chosen, strong, and explicitly ideological; and the link from the "at worst racist and at best extremely unwise" Wright to Obama is even stronger - "He changed my life."

That's quite a bit stronger than "posts on Powerline's blog without being kicked off" and "Accepts free publicity on Powerline's front page."

Bob Jones University, which had a ban on interracial dating based purportedly on its leaders' interpretation of Christian scripture. (I say purportedly because after all the bad publicity that attended Bush's visit, the policy was dropped).

I don't know for sure (happy to hear if someone has evidence/experience to the contrary), and I doubt they claim that any objection on scripture, but I will wager that interracial dating isn't exactly welcomed and encouraged at Trinity United Church of Christ.

One point I haven't seen answered yet is this: how did Farrakhan get chosen for this award issued by a newsmagazine of Trinity United Church of Christ?

The United Church of Christ is known as an early adopter of democracy in church governance (1630). But in a number of churches--and I don't know what happens in TUCC--this means both that the congregation votes, and that the church is governed in essentially the same manner as a corporation. (In Virginia, some of oldest precedent on corporate governance comes from schizmatic church debates). So, the Committee on Nominations--which choses the nominees to the various church councils--has great power. It's hard, not to mention divisive, to fight the status quo nominations.

So, I haven't been able to find out what entity within TUCC chose to give an award to Farrakhan, or what process was used to select the people who chose to praise Farrakhan. But given church governance structure, it is possible for them to reflect a radical wing within the church, or the majority of the church (as Farrakhan does have his followers). Neither of these is proof that the pastor of TUCC would have chosen Farrakhan as the awardee (on the other hand, maybe he was the behind the scenes pro-Farrakhan agitator). If the pastor privately disagreed with the choice of Farrakhan, this might be logrolling. He could have agreed to publicly not reveal a division between TUCC and Trinity Newsmagazine, in exchange for some other compromise elsewhere within the church.

I think it's most likely that the Rev. Wright is himself sympathetic to Farrakhan and a supporter of Farrakhan on at least some grounds, and that Wright is personally sufficiently untroubled by Farrakhan's anti-Jewish prejudice that Wright doesn't rock the boat. It's bad that Wright is not upset about anti-Jewish racism. Wright is focused on the struggle African-Americans, and anti-Jewish racism is orthagonal to that concern.

I completely agree that Obama should state the obvious: that he disagrees with Farrakhan's odious views. And I agree with those who point out that Obama, in his actions and words, does not appear at all to be anti-Semetic.

But given that controlling a church that is governed by its congregation under rules of corporate governance is like herding cats, I think that questions of what's going on and what Obama thinks ought to precede guilt by association.

I think that questions of what's going on and what Obama thinks ought to precede guilt by association.

If Obama wants the question of "what he thinks" to "precede guilt by association" all he has to do is open his mouth and tell us.

ralph: "That's quite a bit stronger than 'posts on Powerline's blog without being kicked off' "

I have never claimed that anyone should be "kicked off," or that any messages should have been deleted. But there is no excuse for an administrator to be silent, if the situation is brought to their attention.

"We can all play 'six degrees of separation' "

Indeed, and in this instance some anti-Obama folks have decided to play that game. Therefore they should not be surprised that the game can also be played in reverse.

By Cohen's standards, what Hinderaker did is wrong, and it's wrong for the GOP candidates to share a site that knowingly hosts Holocaust denial.

""they [the Jews] are the greatest controllers of black minds, black intelligence.""

No doubt Farrakhan is an anti-semite, but this seams like an odd choice of quotes to condemn. Clearly ignorant, but it doesnt seem too disparaging to me.

The Democrats have been playing the race and ethnicity card for about thirty years now. It's pure Schadenfreude to see the party about to be blown sky high by the explosives they've been toying with these past three decades. It will be interesting to see how the Dems attempt to extricate themselves from their self-created Zugzwang.

(Notice that I'm being nice by ignoring the ignoble history of the party whose origins are based on racism and support of slavery and most of whose history has involved explicit support for Jim Crow and the Klan.)

jukeboxgrad (mail):
All the major GOP candidates have set up shop in the Power Line Forum. It turns out that several of the regulars there have posted multiple comments promoting Holocaust denial, including statements like this:

And this Holocaust crap - geeeeeeeeeeez people, get over it

I waded through all the posts there until I found the cooment by rocketman and read it and his other posts in the thread. I do not read it as Holocaust denial. Rather, I read it as against obsession with the Holocaust, an event that happened 70 years ago.

And in any case, this is one commenter espousing one point of view. By analogy, because JF Thomas comments on VC posts regularly and his comments are usually not deleted, we would have to assume that Eugene Volokh associates with gun grabbing socialists.

I could thank you for ruining my breakfast. You are imputing to Obama the sentiments of a different person - granted it is a person who is his admitted "spiritual advisor." Nevertheless, your tone clearly condemns Obama without mentioning any statements by him concerning this matter.

Cohen's article does mention something you neglected to:

Instead, as Obama's top campaign aide, David Axelrod, points out, Obama often has said that he and his minister sometimes disagree. Farrakhan, Axelrod told me, is one of those instances.

It's true that a political aide is likely attempting to spin what may become bad press. But here where nothing about Obama's campaign or in his past suggest that he supports Farrakhan directly, or would ever support Farrakhan's thoughts on race and stance on violence. There is simply no reason to think that the aide was being anything less than honest.

Furthermore there is a qualitative difference between having as your "spiritual advisor" a man who admires a third person who you may or may not admire, and agreeing to speak at an institution that actively promotes segregation.

You have two glaring logical flaws here: 1) imputing to Obama the opinions of his "spiritual advisor" (who is in turn admiring certain aspects of a man who is polarizing and racist); and 2) Equating personal support of a racist institution with accepting the advice of a religious figure who admires a racist (although nothing in anything you have provided indicates that Rev. Wright admired Farrakhan's racism).

When you couple this with the willful omission of the Obama campaign's counter-argument, you reveal your commitment to "fair and balanced" discussion of issues.

Obama's close ties to Rev. Wright and Trinity United raise two related issues. First, as I noted yesterday, Obama campaigns as a "uniter." Yet his spiritual mentor, and longtime pastor of his church, is an ardent admirer of Louis Farrakhan.

Yea, the minute we start talking about someone's close ties to someone who then has close ties to someone objectionable a whole lot of candidates are going to be in a fix.

These "arguments" seem fairly tenuous and if applied with equal rigor to other candidates would leave one without many choices.

First, Obama undoubtedly got a lot of political capital in his early political career by associating with a large, Afrocentric church led by an influential minister in Chicago. You take political credit, you also get the blame.

Second, fine to note, as Cohen does, that Obama shows no signs of exhibiting personal bigotry. But if I were a member of a church that was honoring Farrakhan for his commitment to truth, I'd at the very least send an email about it to the pastor, and if I were someone as influential as Obama, I'd have a sit-down with the leadership about it. Failure to address my concerns would lead to resignation. I understand Obama's been rather busy lately, but it's not too late to say something about it.

No no, Professor Bernstein has a good point, Obama must be antisemitic because his "spiritual mentor" thinks highly of a person that is antisemitic. Of course, Obama's top campaign aid says in the article that Obama doesn't agree with the Rev. with regard to Farrakhan, but why should we believe him?

This church calls itself "unashamedly Black". Would any candidate as a member of an "unashamedly White" church be running for president?

Responses like this make me think the Farrakhan thing is a red herring and the real attack line here is that Obama has the gall to attend a black church. How dare he do such a thing! He should attend a white church like white people do!

Besides the fact that Louis Farrakhan is an anit-semite he has also preached some very bizzare things about UFO's. From a speech in Chicago in 1996:

The final thing is the destruction. The Honorable Elijah Muhammad told us of a giant Motherplane that is made like the universe, spheres within spheres. White people call them unidentified flying objects (UFOs). Ezekial, in the Old Testament, saw a wheel that looked like a cloud by day but a pillar of fire by night. The Hon. Elijah Muhammad said that that wheel was built on the island of Nippon, which is now called Japan, by some of the original scientists. It took 15 billion dollars in gold at that time to build it. It is made of the toughest steel. America does not yet know the composition of the steel used to make an instrument like it. It is a circular plane, and the Bible says that it never makes turns. Because of its circular nature it can stop and travel in all directions at speeds of thousands of miles per hour. He said there are 1,500 small wheels in this mother wheel which is a half mile by a half mile. This Mother Wheel is like a small human built planet. Each one of these small planes carry three bombs.

The Honorable Elijah Muhammad said these planes were used to set up mountains on the earth. The Qur'an says it like this: We have raised mountains on the earth lest it convulse with you. How do you raise a mountain, and what is the purpose of a mountain? Have you ever tried to balance a tire? You use weights to keep the tire balanced. That's how the earth is balanced, with mountain ranges. The Honorable Elijah Muhammad said that we have a type of bomb that, when it strikes the earth a drill on it is timed to go into the earth and explode at the height that you wish the mountain to be. If you wish to take the mountain up a mile, you time the drill to go a mile in and then explode. The bombs these planes have are timed to go one mile down and bring up a mountain one mile high, but it will destroy everything within a 50 square mile radius. The white man writes in his above top secret memos o the UFOs. He sees them around his military installation like they are spying.

That Mother Wheel is a dreadful looking thing. White folks are making movies now to make these planes look like fiction, but it is based on something real. The Honorable Elijah Muhammad said that Mother Plane is so powerful that with sound reverberating in he atmosphere, just with a sound, she can crumble buildings. And the final act of destruction will be that Allah will make a wall out of the atmosphere over and around North America. You will see it, but you won't be able to penetrate it. He said Allah (God) will cut a shortage in gravity and a fire will start from 13-layers up and burn down, burning the atmosphere. When it gets to the earth, it will burn everything. It will burn for 310 years and take 690 years to cool off.

The Nation of Islam preaches some bizarre things including that the white race was created by the evil big headed scientist Yakub over the course of 600 years on the island of Patmos to oppress the black man for 6000 years. I have no idea why any Christian organization would chose to honor Farrakhan for proclaiming the truth.

I've never had much interest in the condemnation game, in which candidates are judged for their suitability for office by their ability to say the right words about associates who say the wrong words. It's not that I don't think Obama's connection to Kevin Bacon Louis Farrakhan is probative of his views on racial equality. On the contrary: it tells us at least something about Obama's tolerance for bigotry and racial demagoguery. Rather, I object to the part of the condemnation game where Obama can make everything right by rebuking the associate for his bigotry. Obama condemns, the press applauds, and everyone moves on to something else. It shouldn't be that simple.

Obama should not have been unaware of Wright's admiration for Farrakhan, nor should he have been ignorant of his church's theology. There is no excuse for Obama not to have disassociated himself from Wright and his church, or at least voiced any disagreement he might have had. If Obama comes out tomorrow with a condemnation, it will be plain that he's doing so only because the public outcry began to jeopardize his political viability. No intelligent person should fall for that.

I never call on any politician to fire offensive subordinates or to dissassociate themselves from offensive friends and allies. If they're not smart enough to do that on their own, they're either bigoted themselves or too dumb and tone-deaf for office. When John Edwards hired that foul-mouthed, anti-Christian blogger Amanda Marcotte, Christians demanded that she be fired. I was as offended as anyone, but I didn't demand that Edwards fire her, for the simple reason that firing her in response to demands from Christians would not convince me that there was no room for anti-Christian bigotry in the Edwards campaign. If I demanded that she be fired and Edwards fired her, Edwards could say "look, I did what you wanted, now be quiet." I'm not giving him that opportunity.

Second, fine to note, as Cohen does, that Obama shows no signs of exhibiting personal bigotry. But if I were a member of a church that was honoring Farrakhan for his commitment to truth, I'd at the very least send an email about it to the pastor, and if I were someone as influential as Obama, I'd have a sit-down with the leadership about it. Failure to address my concerns would lead to resignation. I understand Obama's been rather busy lately, but it's not too late to say something about it.

Of course, you don't know what Obama has said or done behind closed doors. You want him to make a public stink, notwithstanding that that's not what most people do when they disagree with decisions made within their congregation.

Temp Guest: Schadenfreude and Zugzwang, eh? It must all be part of the same Weltanschauung.

Besides the fact that Louis Farrakhan is an anit-semite he has also preached some very bizzare things about UFO's

Does he have any connections with the Kucinich campaign?

If Obama makes it into the general election he will be hit hard on the issue of his sympathies for the Muslim point of view. If he can't distance himself from Farrakhan and Farrakhan's supporters, it will destroy his national political viability.

I love election season, when people get so attached to their candidate of choice that they lose any objectivity about that candidate, and try to pillory anyone who raises a question about that candidate.

For those who argue that I'm implicitly accusing Obama of being a Muslim, or explicitly an anti-Semite, you've either got a fertile imagination, or you're intentionally trying to avoid the issue of whether Obama's associations are consistent with his message by distorting what I wrote.

jukebox:
Obama must be pretty clean if the people who are afraid of him can't come up with anything better than this.

And "the people who are afraid of him" will never come up with anything that will stick precicely b/c he's black. Any attack on him must be motivated by racial animus; ergo, the attackers are racist. Obama never has to lead with the race card; all he has to do is respond with it.

It was fine for Gore's people to discuss Bush's drug and alcohol use in 2000, but god forbid anyone (even another black man, Bob Johnson) do that to Obama.

Tyrone Slothrop: Of course, you don't know what Obama has said or done behind closed doors. You want him to make a public stink, notwithstanding that that's not what most people do when they disagree with decisions made within their congregation.

Most people are not running for President of the United States.

Finally, it strikes me as completely fair to raise this issue, at least given the current accepted role of religion in politics in the U.S., and the widespread importance placed on tolerance.

And there's the problem. For some reason, we seem compelled to pay attention to religious leaders (whether they are political figures like Farrakhan or "spiritual advisors" like Wright) simply because they are self-professed religious leaders.

Let's face it, we wouldn't give these crackpots the time of day if they were merely wandering the streets spouting this garbage. But add "Rev." or "Nation of Islam" to the title, however, and you get instant credibility and media attention.

I say we reject the "current accepted role of religion in politics" in the U.S.

Or, if we're really going to talk about the religious views of candidates, let's get down to the nitty gritty: do they really believe the crazy stuff in their sacred texts?

attend a white church like white people do-does that mean, in the poster's opinion, all black churches are run by racists and race baiters? surely, if your spiritual adviser and reverend is a supporter of a jew hating lunatic, it might come back to haunt you. people might even raise it as an issue.

Most people are not running for President of the United States.

It's unclear to me why running for President should change one's relationship with one's church.

Let's face it, we wouldn't give these crackpots the time of day if they were merely wandering the streets spouting this garbage.
My problem is that Obama hangs with people who do give crackpots not just the the time of day, but awards for being an all-around great guy.

The guy Obama chose for a "personal spiritual advisor" seems to have judgement problems - is Obama going to be any better picking an Attorney General? I don't want another Janet Reno.

And I don't want elect another idiot who'll look Vladimir Putin in the eye, "see his soul" and decide he's a great guy.

A big part of the President's job is judging people's character, and another big part is holding the people around you responsible when they screw up. We've had seven years of a guy who was average at the first and terrible at the second. If Obama wants to replace him he must demonstrate that he's better at both.

"Whites" do not share the history and cultural indicia to the same extent that African-Americans do.

Neither do African-Americans, either; compare the backgrounds of Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, and, oh, I don't know, maybe Obama himself if you need an example.

Or, if we're really going to talk about the religious views of candidates, let's get down to the nitty gritty: do they really believe the crazy stuff in their sacred texts?

The Republicans were asked this question in an early debate. I believe the question was phrased as "do you believe that every word of the Bible is true?" I recall it being a show-of-hands question, which I don't think is particularly fair, but your question has been asked.

AK:

In many ways, I'm inclined to agree with your point on candor. My main point (perhaps not well articulated) is that Obama, by virtue of being black, has the power to turn any criticism into a racial issue ("Why woul you ask about [insert issue here]? Is it because he's a black man?")

It's the same boy-who-cried-wolf mentality that motivates the likes of Sharpton and Jackson. Any issue that remotely touches the black community, and is then referenced by a white person, must be turned into a divisive wedge issue that plays upon white guilt(Jena 6, Imus, the Tiger Woods lynching comment on ESPN).

Sadly, like the boy who cried wolf, people may begin to ignore these voices when a serious issue actually does come up. If we can't separate the serious from the asinine (and hold both blacks and whites to the same standard), then forget about progress on the race issue.

I love election season, when people get so attached to their candidate of choice that they lose any objectivity about that candidate, and try to pillory anyone who raises a question about that candidate.

If you have a question about Obama, you're not asking it. Neither is Richard Cohen, who writes: "I don't for a moment think that Obama shares Wright's views on Farrakhan." The point of the exercise is to try to pressure Obama to disown Wright and Farrakhan.

when confronted with this "connection" Obama disavowed it.

No, Obama's campaign manager says he thinks Obama would disavow it. Not quite the same.

Let's say that Mitt Romney identified a "spiritual advisor" on the par of Rev. Wright, who converted him to being a religious Mormon. This spiritual advisor led a very successful church, to which Romney belongs, with all sorts of wonderful youth and other programs. The church also recently gave an award to a leader of one of the polygamous, heretical Mormon churches that believes that men have the right and duty to beat their wives for disobedience. The "spiritual advisor" praised this individual as someone with a "helpful," "honest," "eyeopening" , etc. perspective on relations between the sexes. Think this isn't going to be an issue.

There are positive and normative questions here. Is it going to be an issue? Most likely. In the current situation, I suspect that Obama is doing his level best to keep it from becoming an issue by indicating mildly that he doesn't agree with Wright on all issues (read: Farrakhan), but by saying it in a sufficiently low-key way that the disavowal doesn't become an issue. If all you're talking about is press management and what becomes an issue, then you should realize that there's no upside for Obama here. If he were perceived as beholden to the sort of people who like Farrakhan, then he could use this to move to the middle a la Bill Clinton's Sistah Souljah moment. But that's not where his support is coming from, and he doesn't gain anything by reminding white voters that he's black or distancing himself from (some) blacks.

But you're not just talking about the positive question of what will be an issue. You are making an effort to make it an issue, while remaining coy about what you're doing.

At the same time, you're not working very hard to explain why this saga tells us much about Obama, because it doesn't. Obama's message is the polar opposite of Farrakhan's. If you wanted to rebuke Farrakhan, you would support Obama. In a United States that can elect Obama President, what currency does Farrakhan's message still have?

To make an analogy, if Hillary's church made Bob Phelps "Man of the Year" people would demand she quit or at least issue a strong condemnation. But Obama's supporters are very quick to dismiss this -- is it the target of the hate or their tollerance for it?

obama doesn't have much of a track record of anything. he was a legislative non-entity in Illinois. he hasn't done much nationally either. if you want to know about where he stands, you have to look to his associations. Tony Rezcko, Emil Jones, Rev. Wright. These are the people that have been there. he gets dirty money from some, he takes his marching orders from others and spiritual advice from the last.

A few comments, if I may...

Over the course of many years, Richard Cohen has repeatedly and very commendably called out Farrakhan and his bigotry, along with those who would focus only on the "good" in Farrakhan, whatever that may be. (As an aside, let it be noted that Malcolm X's family earnestly believed that Farrakhan was implicated in Malcolm's assassination.) It is ridiculous to suggest now that Cohen is anyone's cat's-paw in this latest Farrakhan business, really out "to raise questions about whether Obama is a crypto-Muslim."

Those who saw George W's appearance at Bob Jones U as a gesture to the bigots in South Carolina and elsewhere had good reason to see it as such. Those who saw Reagan's '84 campaign kickoff in Philadelphia, MS, where Schwerner, Goodman and Chaney were so cruelly murdered by Klan types, as another reach out to bigots had very good reason to see that too as such. When those seeking to defend Obama's failure to distance himself from his church's celebration of Farrakhan cite Bush's appearance at Bob Jones U, they are not only doing the tu quoque thing, they are also implicitly accepting a likeness between Bush at Bob Jones U and Obama having as his spiritual mentor someone who admires Farrakhan. That is a defense?

I personally think that Ron Paul is more closely linked to racism through those newsletters than Obama through his church. But that said, I don't recall that those who are saying now in defense of Obama that he has not espoused anything like what Farrakhan espouses have said in the course of other recent threads that Paul shouldn't be taken to task for the hateful stuff in the newsletters because he never openly espoused those things as a candidate or officeholder.

And jukeboxgrad, why isn't it "Sister Souljah" time for Obama, as Ralph Phelan puts it? I think it would be a most opportune time for it, as it was for Bill back in '92. At the moment, Obama and his camp are all over Hillary for her remark that you needed an LBJ in the White House for Martin Luther King's goals to become a reality. That might be seen as playing the race card, so why not play another race card in the most excellent of ways, denouncing racism no matter the source, calling out Farrakhan in particular.

Rusty - The difference is Farrakhan is a bigot and a philanthropist... Phelps is just a bigot. If one honors Phelps it could only be because he is a bigot, whereas honoring Farrakhan could be for two reasons, either because he is a bigot, or because he is a philanthropist. I think the evidence points towards the latter. I of course question the wisdom of the award, since it clearly sends a mixed message, and Farrakhan is a creep, but I haven't seen any reason to assume that the church agrees with Farrakhan's black supremacy views. And until I do, I don't see why Obama has to break off ties to his church and his pastor, something that would be obviously very painful for any individual.

This is a test for Obama. If he truly thinks that opposing racism and anti-Semitism in all forms is important, he'll denounce this award to Farrakhan loudly and clearly.

If he doesn't he's a hypocrite trying to have it both ways.

Public_Defender,

To my fellow Obama supporters, if you don't agree with me on principle, agree with me on practicality grounds. Obama will be eaten alive in the general election if the best he can do is, "I don't always agree with Rev. Wright."

Voters in the general election are not as stupid as you think.

That is actually an excellent defense. "I do not always agree with Rev. Wright."

Many people have also been in the position of agreeing with a pastor of a Church they attend on an issue or two.

That doesn't mean they abandon all the social networks they have built with others in the church.

Oh wait. Is David Bernstein going to condemn everyone in the congregation? They must all be bad people to go to this church.

Give me a break. This is a stupid and pathetic smear campaign. David Bernstein is the one who should be ashamed of himself. I would expect this from a crass political operative, but not a supposedly intelligent law professor.

Hey, but maybe I am giving Bernstein too much credit. This is a guy who defends Lochner.

If you have a question about Obama, you're not asking it. Neither is Richard Cohen, who writes: "I don't for a moment think that Obama shares Wright's views on Farrakhan." The point of the exercise is to try to pressure Obama to disown Wright and Farrakhan.

No, the point is just to get Obama to talk about Farrakhan so clips of him doing so can be replayed endlessly by all the usual suspects. Even a clip of Obama saying nothing more than "I have never met Farrakhan" will be sufficient for that purpose.

From a NYT profile of Obama:

Twenty years ago at Trinity, Mr. Obama, then a community organizer in poor Chicago neighborhoods, found the African-American community he had sought all his life, along with professional credibility as a community organizer and an education in how to inspire followers. He had sampled various faiths but adopted none until he met Mr. Wright, a dynamic pastor who preached Afrocentric theology, dabbled in radical politics and delivered music-and-profanity-spiked sermons.

The above concerns me.

But this:

Few of those at Mr. Wright’s tribute in March knew of the pressures that Mr. Obama’s presidential run was placing on the relationship between the pastor and his star congregant. Mr. Wright’s assertions of widespread white racism and his scorching remarks about American government have drawn criticism, and prompted the senator to cancel his delivery of the invocation when he formally announced his candidacy in February.

reassures me a bit, but not completely.

It is hard to imagine, though, how Mr. Obama can truly distance himself from Mr. Wright. The Christianity that Mr. Obama adopted at Trinity has infused not only his life, but also his campaign. He began his presidential announcement with the phrase “Giving all praise and honor to God,” a salutation common in the black church. He titled his second book, “The Audacity of Hope,” after one of Mr. Wright’s sermons, and often talks about biblical underdogs, the mutual interests of religious and secular America, and the centrality of faith in public life....

It is difficult to tell whether Mr. Obama’s religious and political beliefs are fused or simply run parallel.

And given Wright's undeniable influence and undeniable whackitude, Obama will have to show convincingly that it's the latter if he wants to be President.

Seems appropriate.

I don't think it will matter in the primary. Not many people in the Democratic primary get all that upset by these things. By the general, it may be forgotten.

Seeing you try to attack someone because he didn't turn his back on his "spiritual advisor," who apparently has done a lot of good for him in his personal life, merely because he also has some objectionable views that are unrelated to the good he did.

When your "spiritual advisor" is a wing-nut, people rightly start to wonder about you.

Neurodoc- I don't see your point- could you explain it.

I'd also point out that I've yet to see any clear evidence Wright is prejudiced, as I've explained his regard for Farrakhan shows a lack of judgment, but it's a stretch to presume it shows prejudice. Has the Rev. actually made any statements that directly show he is bigoted? And how does running for President change the equation? People running for President can't have friends and mentors who make ill considered statements or acts? Obama has already said he disagrees with Wright on this, he also has to burn the bridge too? And did I miss the memo where Barrack said he was putting Wright on his cabinet when he gets elected?

"It is ridiculous to suggest now that Cohen is anyone's cat's-paw in this latest Farrakhan business, really out 'to raise questions about whether Obama is a crypto-Muslim.'"

The story connects Obama to Farrakhan. Reasonable people can disagree over how strong that connection that is and, therefore, how fair it is to make the connection. But the connection to Farrakhan is the central point of the story.

In connecting Obama to Farrakhan, the story connects Obama to (a) racist and anti-semitic views inconsistent with Obama's image as a "uniter"; and (b) the Nation of Islam.

For all I know, Cohen didn't give a moment of thought to the fact that Farrakhan is the leader of the "Nation of Islam." It may have had nothing to do with his particular motivations in writing the story and it may say nothing of the significance he, in particular, attaches to the Farrakhan association. Nevertheless, you can't write a story connecting Obama to Farrakhan without ipso facto connecting Obama to "Islam."

lugo: "His wife, on the other hand, clearly does [radiate signs of bigotry]"

I hadn't noticed. Could you be more specific?

kevin: "I waded through all the posts there until I found the cooment by rocketman and read it and his other posts in the thread. I do not read it as Holocaust denial."

You didn't look around very carefully, because you seem to have missed this:

the articles on the Treblinka concentration camp did bring up some discomforting questions. According to the article, and many provided links, the claim is made that no forensic evidence exists of the burial of the burned remains of 800,000 people at the Treblinka site. … highly accurate surveys involving ground- searching sonar of the entire Treblinka site have revealed zero human remains. From watching CSI, we all know that if 800,000 cremated bodies were buried somewhere, there would be tons of bone, ash, and teeth buried there today.

Let us know if you're claiming those words amount to something other than Holocaust denial.

"this is one commenter espousing one point of view"

You didn't look around very carefully, because there were multiple commenters espousing this point of view. And that's not the key point. The key point is that Hinderaker was notified, and he responded by sitting on his hands.

"By analogy, because JF Thomas comments on VC posts regularly and his comments are usually not deleted"

I have said nothing anywhere to suggest that any comments should have been deleted. If JF Thomas (or anyone else) posted Holocaust denial here, and an adminstrator was informed about that, I would expect the reaction to be something other than silence.

"we would have to assume that Eugene Volokh associates with gun grabbing socialists"

I'm not sure what a 'gun-grabbing socialist' is. If you've seen comments on VC that are equivalent in offensiveness to Holocaust denial, I'd be interested in seeing them.

So is innocence by association supplanting guilt by association?!?!? I don't think guilt is inherent in this personally chosen and committed to association, but it is a personally chosen association nonetheless. More here at M.P., excerpt:

Such fawning is hardly surprising given that Dr Wright himself — who in his sermons and interviews has equated Zionism with racism and Israel with apartheid South Africa, who said on the Sunday after 9/11 that the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies, and who suggested four years later that 9/11 was retribution for America’s racism ( views from which Obama has distanced himself) – appears to enjoy a close relationship with Farrakhan. In the Trumpet feature article, Wright raves:

Minister Farrakhan will be remembered as one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African American religious experience...His integrity and honesty have secured him a place in history as one of the nation’s most powerful critics. His love for Africa and African American people has made him an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose.

And in this story on NewsMax, Ronald Kessler reports:

Just before Obama’s nationally televised campaign kickoff rally last Feb. 10, the candidate disinvited Wright from giving the public invocation. Wright explained: ‘When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli’ to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, ‘a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.’

Considering the fact that the very mention of George W Bush’s belief in God is enough to give Democrats an aneurysm, and that Republican candidates Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are currently being dismissed as religious nutjobs, isn’t the Democrat (and media) silence over Obama’s choice of a black power church which is more akin to a cult, and the obnoxious views of the pastor who he says brought him into Christianity in the first place, more than a little remarkable?

temp: "The Democrats have been playing the race and ethnicity card for about thirty years now."

Right, like when a famous Democrat chose to launch his campaign in Neshoba County, of all places.

To those of you who keep accusing Obama's supporters of (God forbid!) "playing the race card":

I love this argument. Other people make racist attacks on Obama. Obama (or his supporters) respond by pointing out that these are racist attacks

Bill Clinton says Obama's foriegn policy claims, or perhaps his entire campaign, is "fairy tale." Obama's supporters claim it's a "racist attack." Huh?

Oratory and charisma are Obama's strong points. Hillary Clinton points out that all of MLK's oratory and JFK's charisma weren't enough to get civil rights legislation passed, you need an ass-kicker like her or LBJ to actually get stuff through Congress. "You're no LBJ" is a reasonable response [as is 'So what was Eisenhower, chopped liver?'], but racist? Huh?

Hillary Clinton cries in NH because her campaign looks like it's going down the tubes, and she gets accused of racism for not crying about Katrina victims. Why should she, when Katrina wasn't about her? Call her a narcissist, but racist? Huh?

Obama's supporters didn't just play the race card, they bluffed with it and had their bluff called.

tl: "Any attack on him must be motivated by racial animus"

Attacks on him which have a racial component, like this one, are going to be naturally seen as "motivated by racial animus." When you have a credible attack that doesn't have a racial component, let us know what it is.

"It was fine for Gore's people to discuss Bush's drug and alcohol use in 2000"

I didn't realize that Obama had a DUI arrest on his record. One that he apparently tried to hide for a long time. As far as I'm concerned, getting high at home is very, very different than piloting a car drunk. YMMV.

I also didn't realize that Obama chose to associate himself with a political party that takes a relatively hawkish attitude regarding drug use. It's not the getting high, it's the hypocrisy.

david: "Think this isn't going to be an issue."

It's a fair analogy. If Romney's own history showed no sign of wife-beating, and if he had already said that he had some important disagreements with his spiritual advisor, then that should be enough to address it.

When the ad ran that said this …

A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.

… it wasn't Huck's minister, or a friend of Huck's minister, who put his name on the ad. It was Huck himself. Big difference.

neuro: "why isn't it 'Sister Souljah' time for Obama"

Because the statement that was already issued is sufficient.

When your "spiritual advisor" is a wing-nut, people rightly start to wonder about you.

A person who has some objectionable views may also have some real insight on other issues.

That is pretty damn obvious. People are often complicated creatures. Look at the slave-holding Thomas Jefferson. He had a lot of good insights, while also living an excessively extravagant life that made it impossible for him to free his slaves upon his death.

One need not reject a person in their totality merely because they have an objectionable point of view on a particular issue.

Even look at Farakhan. The man probably has done some good in his life. If Rev. Wright is praising him for that good, this may be an unwise move, because of the controversies surrounding him.

But, assume I believe Rev. Wright is making a mistake. That does not mean Rev. Wright is a bad person. That does not mean that every member of Rev. Wright's congregation is a bad person. That does not mean that there are not people who do not owe personal loyalty to Rev. Wright for the good that he has done in his life.

Give me a break. This is all self-evident.

These nothing more than smears by people, like David Bernstein, who do not agree with Barack Obama's politics and are looking to gain political advantage by crass and unintelligent attacks.

Its not going to work.

michael: "I didn't say they weren't paying attention"

Right. You just pointed approvingly to a Kristol article which seemed to ridicule the idea that such a thing was even remotely possible. I think I detect some backpedaling.

It's interesting that this doesn't cause problems for the GOP candidates who love them some bigoted preachers.

It's also interesting that Father Michael Pfleger, a white Catholic leader in Chicago, says Farrakhan has been his friend for years and that he's not the man the media says he is.

Perhaps there's more to the story than meets the eye. If one cared to look that is.

All that stuff is mostly not going to be very interesting except to people who would never vote for a black guy anyway.
Half of that stuff had nothing to do with race, just general "Blame America First"ism. It's gonna bother a lot of nonracists who also aren't far leftists.

Hillary's far-left connections are far in her past, and her Senate record indicates she's gotten over them. Obama's are still current. That will be a problem in a general election.

All that stuff is mostly not going to be very interesting except to people who would never vote for a black guy anyway. And the voters who would never vote for a black guy are already concentrated in the GOP.

All that stuff is mostly not going to be very interesting to people who give blacks a free pass on bigotry. And the voters who give blacks a free pass on bigotry make up nearly 100% of the Democratic party. So none of this matters at all.

Obama must be antisemitic because his "spiritual mentor" thinks highly of a person that is antisemitic.

Oh please.

The issue is who a candidate identifies as his important political supporters. Successful politicians cheerfully, and enthusiastically, tell off people they consider unimportant. They keep their mouths shut about unpopular aspects of people and institutions only when they believe they need to do so to get elected.

And who provides the core base for a candidate has important consequences when the candidate wins. Presidents appoint a lot of people to positions with real power. And they tend, for fairly obvious reasons, to appoint people from groups and organizations they believe they were important to their election effort.

Turn a blind eye to Bush's unwillingness to say anything bad about Bob Jones University? Don't be surprised when anti-science zealots get appointed to the Smithsonian, the NSF and NASA. Ignore Obama's willingness to quietly turn a blind eye to anti-semitism among his core supporters? Don't be surprised when anti-semites turn up at the State Department and the Treasury.

The candidate's personal views are almost irrelevant compared to what he is willing to SAY about those views.

Having one of your campaign staffers issue a statement is not the same as saying it yourself. It's a cover. A way to have your cake and it eat too by not having any film clips of yourself saying "I don't support Afro-centrism or the spewings of Farrakhan".

The major media is afraid to ask Obama this directly on camera or in a debate. Afraid they will be called racist for merely asking a question. They haven't been afraid to ask 'guilt by association' questions of white candidates.

I'm thinking specifically of Russert asking Romney about his churches banning blacks from being bishops in the LDS ( which was 30 years ago) just a few weeks ago on MTP. And really disgustingly, Katie Couric asked Schwarzenegger about his father being a Nazi? That was her first question when he announced for the recall election.

It's such a double standard.

Free passes for blacks on bigotry? Is there a website where you sign up? Happy New Year to all of you!
Best,
Ben

When JFK was first running for President, those unfamiliar with Catholic doctrine regarding Papal infallability (no, he's not infallible every time he opens his mouth) had understandable concerns about where JFK's ultimate loyalties would lie. He addressed those concerns and won the Presidency (and promptly green-lighted the ridiculous Bay of Pigs debacle, sent the first combat troops to Vietnam, and almost started a nuclear war before Oswald shot him in the head and we got to have a grownup in charge.)

Similar questions about Obama's loyalties will have to be acknowledged and addressed:
http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html

Commitment to the Black Community. The highest level of achievement for any Black person must be a contribution of strength and continuity of the Black Community.

...

Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions.

...

Pledge Allegiance to All Black Leadership Who Espouse and Embrace the Black Value System.

...

Personal Commitment to Embracement of the Black Value System. To measure the worth and validity of all activity in terms of positive contributions to the general welfare of the Black Community and the Advancement of Black People towards freedom.

Is this Obama's personal creed?
If so, as President, is he going to give his white constituents the same consideration he gives his black ones?

If this has already been posted, my apologies, but I didn't see it doing a quick scan of the above comments.

Here's Obama's statement in response to Cohen's op-ed, courtesy of TPM:

"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."

I think Bernstein ought to update his post with this response. Does Bernstein think this is satisfactory? Or does Obama have to leave his church and publicly shun his pastor in order to remove all doubts that he is not anti-semitic?

I'm thinking specifically of Russert asking Romney about his churches banning blacks from being bishops in the LDS ( which was 30 years ago) just a few weeks ago on MTP. And really disgustingly, Katie Couric asked Schwarzenegger about his father being a Nazi? That was her first question when he announced for the recall election.

It's such a double standard.

So, is the solution to acknowledge that it is pretty ridiculous to condemn modern day Mormons for the beliefs of the LDS church 30 years ago and pretty ridiculous to condemn Schwarzenegger for the beliefs of his father?

I mean, it nearly sounds as if you don't care at all whether such attacks are principled or unprincipled, but are just upset when people object when they are made by people on your side.

I for one do not think that questioning Romney about the policies of the Mormon church 30 years ago is particularly valid, nor is bringing up the Nazi beliefs of Schwarzenegger's father, absent some indicia that these candidates actually hold similar views.

But, at the end of the day, Katie Couric aside, Schwarzenegger was elected governor of California. And Mormonism aside, Romney was elected governor of Massachusetts.

People are smart enough to see through these ridiculous sorts of attacks, as long as a candidate nips them in the bud.

That does not mean that the people making them should not be condemned.

In the case of Couric and Russert, they are not originating the smear, but rather just doing their job, providing a forum for the candidate to say the obvious (i.e. they reject the views in question). But David Bernstein and others like him who start these sorts of smears, should be condemned.

I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders

From the article:

Wright is quoted as saying "His depth on analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye opening."
and then:
"“Minister Farrakhan is probably one of the most misunderstood
and mis-defined leaders of our day,” says Pfleger. “When you don’t
want to deal with someone’s truth, you try to destroy their character
or redefine them…That’s what the media has sought to do with
Minister Farrakhan. His truth causes America to face its racism and
its hypocrisy.”"

Rehabilitation of ex-offenders is not mentioned at all.
Either Obama didn't read the article, or he's lying.

As I suspected, he's trying to have it both ways - he wants to be the candidate of black nationalists to his black audience while pretending he isn't to his white audience. We'll see if the MSM lets him get away with it.

Does Bernstein think this is satisfactory? Or does Obama have to leave his church and publicly shun his pastor in order to remove all doubts that he is not anti-semitic?
It does not satisfy me.
He doesn't have to shun his pastor, but he does have to publicly, unambiguously disagree with him about Farakhan's analysis of "the racial ills of this nation."
If he doesn not do so, I will assume that either he agrees or that he so needs the support of those who agree that he is unwilling to cross them in public.

He needs to demonstrate that he is willing and able to say "no" to black nationalists if he wants to lead this country.

Meanwhile the front running Republican has appeared on Imus, since his return from his forced vacation. No calls to denounce, disavow, condemn or distance.

Has there been anyone other than Don Imus who has climbed such a large penitential mountain over such a small racial molehill? It wouldn't be possible for Imus to do more to distance himself from his remark. I don't see why every guest needs to gild the lilly.

Here's that "small racial molehill". Realistically, considering the over under on stupid comments to good done in the world, I'm not sure if Imus or Farrakhan gets seats closest to the fire in Hell. I do know that the conservatives and libertarians making hay over this are very quick to dismiss Imus' comments while pouring over every utterance that Farrakhan's ever said. If Obama is a potentially a racist, or a 'racebaiter', or 'playing the race card' for not repudiating an associate who admires someone who says stupid things, how does McCain get a free pass to hang out with the speaker of stupid thing himself?

Both are far more ridiculous than condemning Obama for what his chosen "spiritual advisor" said a few months ago.

This is an excellent point. It is clear that Obama had no control over this, and that the spiritual advisor relationship was formed long before this.

So, are we supposed to choose our spiritual advisors based not only what they have done before the are put into that position, but based on speculation about what they might say later on?

Obama is not responsible for all of the choices made Rev. Wright, especially not for those made by him long after their relationship has been established.

I am sure that this will come up during the election. Obama will say that he does not agree with Farrakhan's more radical points of view. That will be the end of the matter.

Much ado about nothing.

It is clear that Obama had no control over this, and that the spiritual advisor relationship was formed long before this.

See above, and pay attention. Wright was a radical and a black nationalist before Obama met him. Wright went with Farakhan on a visit to Cuba and Lybia back in 1984. This is completely in character for Wright. This is and always has been the true face of the man Obama so admires.

What does that say about Obama's judgement?

K Parker,

Not quite: he needs to go on and explicitly say, ".. and THIS is one of those times--Farrakhan is a divisive racist and I completely disavow the slightest connection to any of his views." Indeed, if he had done something like that already, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? [Later: it turns out Obama just has, though at this point only on TPM. It's actually a pretty strong denial, and certainly satisfies my main objections.]

What a nice dog and pony show.

Anyone with a brain already knew that Obama didn't agree with Farrakhan. People like David Bernstein should be condemned for playing these retarded and intellectually dishonest games.

But, in the end, these games do not matter, as long as the candidate nips them in the bud, as Obama has:

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.

*yawn*

Yeah, anyone with a brain already knew that. But, a smear is a smear, and must be nipped in the bud.

Like I said, much ado about nothing.

The only significance of this is it shows how pathetic those who make these smears are. David Bernstein should be ashamed of himself.

Just to be clear, this is a quote from Barack Obama, demolishing these scurrilous and irresponsible charges which are designed to suggest that he is anti-Semetic or agrees with the decision to honor Farrakhan:

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.

These smears should not have been brought up in the first place.

I can tell you that this is going like wild fire through the Jewish community. They are not happy about it. Not happy at all. At one time - before Civil Rights got big - the Jewish community was the number one supporter of the black struggle against racism. Look up the early history of the NAACP.

This is going to hurt the Dems. Bad in terms of votes. Very badly in terms of money.

And that explains why people like Richard Cohen and David Bernstein are so aggressively pimping the story, regardless of how ridiculous it is.

farrakhan put the gangbangers into slightly nicer suits and bowties. they are still thugs, just in the service of Farrakhan.

jukeboxgrad (mail):
kevin: "I waded through all the posts there until I found the cooment by rocketman and read it and his other posts in the thread. I do not read it as Holocaust denial."

You didn't look around very carefully, because you seem to have missed this ...

I went and read through that post as well and again, I found your charge of holocaust denial underwhelming. For one thing, it isn't written by rocketman, but by someone else. Secondly, you seem to selectively quote people. The post ends with this (which you didn't mention):

So I’ll be the one to ask it here, on a site dedicated to free speech and honest debate. Is it wrong
to look for forensic evidence of events in history?

And if so, could someone please point out which historical events are OK to scrutinize and
which are not?

This seems to me to be a reasonable question. I fully accept and believe that the Holocaust occurred and millions of Jews were murdered in it, but I refuse to say that any historical event is categorically beyond being questioned. You seem to be demanding that no one ever question anything about the Holocaust. That attitude itself is nearly religious in nature.

Anyway, I have little interest in wading through any more out-of-context quotes that you can provide. You seem to be an ardent defender of Barack Obama. Good for you. You also seem to be obsessed with the Holocaust and those who question or deny it. Hint: This election is occurring in 2008. The present day views of a presidential candidate's preacher are of more consequence than what happened 70 years ago.

Ralph Phelan &K Parker- So you attack me for saying the award could be given to Farrakhan for his philanthropy? Why is that? Churchs typically give awards for philanthropy, while bigotry tends to go far less rewarded. There's no evidence that the church has given it to Farrakhan for his bigotry, no evidence really why it was given except for ambigious statements about a committment to "truth, education, and leadership."

Please note I'm not trying to be an apogist for the church, the decision to give him an award is clearly a poor one, to put it mildly. But you're making very fast conclusions to assume that a church gave an award to Farrakhan based on his bigotry. You're argument that the Church supports bigotry is; Farrakhan says bigoted statements, and the award was to Farrakhan, so they must be bigots! Anyone who has taken an LSAT would know that this is not a fair analysis.

well, if given for philanthropy, wouldn't it mention his philanthropic bona fides? what sort of a philanthropist is Farrakhan, anyway? are they giving him an award based on his bigotry? I don't know. they are choosing to honor him, for whatever reason, and are ignoring his bigotry/race hatred. further, the honors blurb seems to accentuate the race baiting facet of Farrakhan-maybe they are honoring him for his bigotry.

Actually SI, the syllogism goes more like this:

(1) The Trumpet Newmagazine, an obscure news magazine that no one has ever heard of, gives an obscure award that no one has ever heard of to Farrakhan.

(2) The Trumpet Newsmagazine isn't even edited by Rev. Wright, it is edited by his daughter.

(3) Based on this, we know that Rev. Wright may agree with the decision to give the award to Farrakhan. Or he may not.

(4) Mr. Obama has had Rev. Wright as a long-term spiritual advisor long before the decision to award Farrakhan was made by Rev. Wrights daughter.

Therefore,

(5) A cloud of suspicion hangs over Barack Obama's head.

Still waiting for the "Obama must denounce Farrakhan's anti-semetism!" posters above to react to the fact that Obama actually did denounce Farrakhan's anti-semitism.

BTW I'm not saying that blacks are all haters. Just that Obama has risen on the backs of the haters.

I find it interesting that both the economist and TPM are doing the "Article written by Rev. Wright's daughter" thing while both neglecting to mention the direct quote from Rev. Wright himself praising Farakhan's analysis of race in America.

I guess I know what the Obama campaign's talking point is. Oh well, at least TPM is practicing truth in advertising with its name.

michael: "do you regard coherence or continuity of thought important in the least when it comes to partisan issues?"

Yes. Therefore I'm waiting patiently and hoping you will show some ("coherence or continuity of thought").

ak: "All that stuff is mostly not going to be very interesting to people who give blacks a free pass on bigotry. And the voters who give blacks a free pass on bigotry make up nearly 100% of the Democratic party. So none of this matters at all."

If you're trying to say the most Dems can understand the difference between black pride and black bigotry, then I agree completely.

kevin: "For one thing, it isn't written by rocketman, but by someone else."

I guess you're finally paying attention to what I've been saying all along: there was more than one person promoting Holocaust denial.

"I found your charge of holocaust denial underwhelming"

The thread called "Jew Watch" speaks for itself. And there's more than that, as I have shown.

"Is it wrong to look for forensic evidence of events in history?"

It is indeed wrong to pretend that something that's already been proven needs to be proven again. And that was exactly the point of the thread: that the Holocaust is unproven.

"I refuse to say that any historical event is categorically beyond being questioned"

Then I suppose you have no problem if someone claims to be unconvinced that Arabs flew planes into WTC.

"You also seem to be obsessed with the Holocaust and those who question or deny it."

If you think Holocaust denial is OK, it would be better if you said that plainly. Because that seems to be your point.

juke,

Did Obama embrace Sharpton?

Did Obama denounce Sharpton? And say the arm over the shoulder was a mistake?

BTW Wright, his wife, and Obama have UChicago connections. I'm an alum. Is the University buying peace in the hood?

Jews are not comfortable with Obama period.

I check in with my mom (88) at least weekly. She pretty well represents the Jewish grapevine, the Jewish feminist grapevine (not radical - just she will not be discriminated against. Not by society in general or her orthodox rabbi. She created a mini scandal at my father's funeral by refusing to be seated with the women). She has no 'net, TV almost exclusively.

She hates Hillary and is not fond of Obama. Edwards is her man.

If Hillary gets the nod she might vote for her for President. If Obama gets the nod - no chance she will vote for him.