(Diary titled changed from "Barack Obama Hates Jews?" based on comments. Parenthesized former title removed from title based on the suggestion of NeuvoLiberal. Confused enough? Thanks all. -ES)
Richard Cohen went way over the line today. I’m not working for any campaign this season and don’t particularly care if columnists personally favor one candidate or another. They’re human, and I think it would be silly to say that they shouldn’t consider the candidates. But what Richard Cohen has been creeping towards, and went over the line with today, are cheap smears against one candidate. That has absolutely no place in the Washington Post. If Richard Cohen cannot check himself, then it is up to his editors to do it for him, and turn down his columns.
In today’s piece, Cohen pulls the classic guilt-by-association. The minister at Obama’s church has spoken favorably in general in the past about Louis Farrakhan, and according to Cohen, Obama is too chicken to call his minister out on it and take him to task in public. And though Cohen sprinkles his piece with phrases and sentences like, "I don't for a moment think that Obama shares Wright's views on Farrakhan," he makes abundantly clear that Obama’s non-slamming of his preacher is disturbing because his "obligation to speak out is all the greater. He could be the next American president. Where is his sense of outrage?" As in, I don’t think he’s an anti-Semite radical Muslim, but I have to wonder if he’s in bed with anti-Semite radical Muslims.
I call bullshit.
As a Jew, I find almost everything Louis Farrakhan said about my people to be offensive. And if Obama attended a Farrakhan event and nodded and applauded at Farrakhan’s vicious bile, I would find that offensive. But Cohen’s argument is laughable on its face.
First, consider that Obama and his minister have a long history of friendship, way before his minister gave a positive quote about Farrakhan. Obama has been a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ for a couple of decades, which would suggest a long friendship with his pastor. Essentially, Cohen is saying that Obama is wrong to not hang his friend out to dry, in public.
Newsflash: I too have friends I disagree with strongly on many important issues. Some of them even work against the same things I’m working towards. For example, I’m a firm believer in equal LGBT rights, while a couple of my friends are working for groups that lobby against that. Our friendship goes back to when I was in college, and though we seriously disagree on some issues, we’re not about to end our friendship over it. I make it clear to them I think they’re wrong, and we just don’t discuss it after that, because we’re not changing each other’s minds.
More to the point, I find it ridiculous that Cohen would suggest that should I ever run for public office, I would have to call out those friends and forcefully disassociate myself with them and their views. I’d suggest, and would ask everyone to consider, what kind of person I would be, or Barack Obama would be, if we lopped off the heads of our friends, in public, for political gain. No, our records and our own words should stand for themselves. That should be enough.
I don’t think Richard Cohen is that stupid that he believes in the argument he seems to be making. So what I’m left with is that his piece was purely designed to reinforce the slimiest of smears floating around the internet – that Barack Obama is a radical Muslim, he’s warm to those who want to take down America, he hates Jews, or he's some kind of black supremacist.
Cohen’s columns have lately tilted more towards a pro-Hillary view. That’s fine with me. Paul Krugman, as well, has dedicated a lot of ink trying to take down Obama, though on solid issues. Unlike many on here and other blogs, I have no problem with that. That’s part of what being a columnist is about – taking a position. I would no sooner criticize Krugman for being anti-Obama than I would for being anti-George Bush, in his columns. It’s his right, as it’s Richard Cohen’s right.
But today’s piece by Cohen has no place in the paper. At best, it’s a flimsy argument not worth the space in the Daily Pennysaver, let alone the Washington Post. At its worst, it only serves to give the elitist stamp of approval to some of the worst slime-peddling ever to hit your inbox.
I’d urge everyone to send a note to Richard Cohen and to his editors at:
Cohenr@washpost.com
Ombudsman@washpost.com