You are sooo gonna get suspended for this post.

perhaps she is all those things yes but she is also tough and has successfully parried the haters for 16 years. She is complicated and is hardly the cartoon figure that bedevils the fevered peretzian mind.

Your all consuming animus towards the Clintons blinds you to this fact. Yes, we share a strong support for Obama but unlike you, I do not need to demonize opponents.  Hillary is not my first choice but she is a solid second and given the choice between McCain and Hillary, she gets my vote, and that of those of us who do not inhabit the manichaean land of enemies that seems to be your home...

Thejauntyboulevardier,

Unfortunately, you represent minority of Obama supporters, majority of his supporters  are intolerant  pathological Clinton haters like  Marty or Andrew Sullivan

Jacob, you're an idiot.  There are virtually no Obama supporters who hate Clinton, let alone are "intolerant pathological Clinton haters."  True, many Obama supporters, including me, have been turned off and disappointed by some of the Clinton campaign's tactics over the past few months, but this neither makes us intolerant nor pathological, and 95% of Obama's supporters will vote for HRC in November if she wins.

Don't group the rest of us in with Marty.  That's ridiculous.

I'm another very recent Obama supporter, after supporting Hillary for over a year and supporting Bill very strongly starting two years before he was elected. Her strong debate performance last week reminded me of why I had supportered her. But: Like many, I have been turned off in just the last few weeks by the Clintons' racially-divisive tactics and by Hillary and her campaign's self-promoting parsing and sense of entitlement. The previous sentence highlights the problem: This has become about the Clintons, not about just presidential candidate Hillary. I would love to have a woman president, but please: Someone who has less baggage, doesn't have the wiff of co-presidency, and who is running themselves, not as a family dynasty. And if Hillary is the nominee, I will proudly vote for her and donate to her campaign again. But for now....

Consider this and forgive me for the space this occupies here:

"ADL Chief To Obama: ‘Confront Your Pastor’ On Minister Farrakhan

by Larry Cohler-Esses

Published on: Jan 16, 2008

The leader of the Anti-Defamation League called presidential candidate Barack Obama’s spiritual mentor and pastor a "black racist" Tuesday and called upon the Illinois Democrat to "confront his minister" on his embrace of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

ADL National Director Abraham Foxman issued his call after an ADL press release put out earlier the same day "welcomed" an Obama statement unambiguously condemning "anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan." The Obama statement distanced the senator from a decision by his church’s magazine to honor Farrakhan with an award named for his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

[On Wednesday morning, as The Jewish Week went to press, Foxman left a voice mail message amending his remarks, saying, Rev. Wright "embraces, awards and celebrates a black racist. I think [calling him] racist is going a little bit too far."]

In the November/December issue of the Trinity United Church of Christ’s Trumpet Magazine, published just prior to the award ceremony, Rev. Wright — who Obama credits with bringing him to Christianity, presiding over his wedding ceremony, baptizing his daughter and dedicating his Chicago home — states: "When Minister Farrakhan speaks, Black America listens. Everybody may not agree with him, but they listen. ... His depth on analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye opening. He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest.

"Minister Farrakhan will be remembered as one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African American religious experience," Rev. Wright declares.

According to ADL, as recently as Nov. 7, in a speech at his Chicago mosque one month prior to the Chicago church’s awards ceremony, Minister Farrakhan sermonized, "Do you know some of these satanic Jews have taken over BET [Black Entertainment Television network]? ... Everything that we built, they have. The mind of Satan now is running the record industry, movie industry and television. And they make us look like we’re the murder[er]s; we look like we’re the gangsters, but we’re punk stuff."

On Tuesday, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote about the award given by the magazine, which is published and edited by Rev. Wright’s daughters. "It’s important to state right off that nothing in Obama’s record suggests he harbors anti-Semitic views or agrees with Wright when it comes to Farrakhan," Cohen stressed. He noted that Obama’s top campaign strategist, David Axelrod, had told him this was one of any number of cases in which he and his minister "disagree."

"Fine," wrote Cohen. "[But] the Obama camp takes the view that its candidate, now that he has been told about the award, is under no obligation to speak out on the Farrakhan matter. ... He could be the next American president. Where is his sense of outrage?"

Cohen’s column came one day after Newsmax.com, a right-wing Web site, published a detailed story on the issue by Ronald Kessler, a former Washington Post investigative reporter.

Obama’s statement, released Tuesday afternoon, declared, "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."

The ADL’s press release, put out soon after, welcomed Obama’s "condemnation of the anti-Semitic rhetoric of Louis Farrakhan, and his making clear that he did not agree with his church’s decision. ... Issues of racism and anti-Semitism must be beyond the bounds of politics. When someone close to a political figure shows sympathy and support for an individual who makes his name espousing bigotry, that political figure needs to distance himself from that decision. Senator Obama has done just that."

But in an interview with The Jewish Week, Foxman said this must be just a first step. "He’s distanced himself from his pastor’s decision to honor Farrakhan. He has not distanced himself from his pastor. I think that’s the next step. One can now expect from Sen. Obama that he confront his minister."

Ultimately, said Foxman, if Obama is unable to influence Wright to alter his stands, "I think he has an obligation to leave."

The Obama campaign did not respond to repeated efforts to obtain a response to Foxman’s remarks. A message left with the spokesperson for Rev. Wright’s church also went unanswered.

Early last year, Rev. Wright announced plans to retire from the pulpit this May. It could not be learned what status, if any, he will retain at the church, which he founded in 1972, on the city’s far South Side. The church bulletin currently lists Rev. Wright’s successor as "pastor" above the name of Rev. Wright, who is titled "senior pastor."

The church, which began with a handful of members, is now a powerhouse on the South Side, boasting members prominent in business, arts and culture. The Trumpet, which it sponsors, now has national distribution. Others the magazine honored with awards at Chicago’s Hyatt last November included jazz singer Nancy Wilson, Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.). The church itself, at 8,500 members, is now the largest within the United Church of Christ denomination.

In addition to his lauding of Rev. Farrakhan, Rev. Wright’s stands include strong criticism of Israel and Zionism — in stark contrast to Obama. Since his 2004 arrival in the Senate, Obama has strongly backed Israel on issues ranging from its bombing of Lebanon during the war of summer 2006, which killed hundreds of civilians, to its right to be free of U.S. pressure in negotiating with its enemies. The neoconservative New York Sun, among others, has praised Obama for his strong support of the Jewish state and sharply rebutted critics who charge otherwise. Lee Rosenberg, national treasurer of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Washington-based pro-Israel lobby, is a member of Obama’s finance committee and a longtime supporter, as is billionaire Jewish philanthropist and pro-Israel stalwart Lester Crowne of Chicago.

According to a New York Times profile last April, Rev. Wright has said that Zionism has an element of "white racism." Kessler, the Newsmax journalist, quotes Wright saying, "The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism."

Kessler, who did not interview Rev. Wright, gives no source for the quote. The United Church of Christ denomination came out in support of disinvesting in companies that do business in Israel in 2005. But its leaders withdrew that resolution last year and passed one calling for further study of the issue.

The Times profile of Rev. Wright also notes that on the Sunday after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, he sermonized that the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later, The Times reported, Rev. Wright wrote that the attacks proved "people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West went on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns."

Asked about this, Obama told The Times, "The violence of 9/11 was inexcusable and without justification." He said he was not there for Rev. Wright’s sermon after the attacks but ventured, "It sounds like he was trying to be provocative."

"What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice," Obama told the Chicago Tribune in January 2007, when Wright announced his retirement plans. "He’s much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible and that I’m not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that’s involved in national politics."

In his interview with The Jewish Week, Foxman appeared to allude to charges of racism that have been made against Rev. Wright and his church, based on false assertions that the church excludes whites as part of a self-styled Afro-centric focus and emphasis on "black liberation theology." A Newsweek fact-check of this charge last week found that the church has welcomed non-blacks to its services frequently. The report termed Rev. Wright "a fiery advocate for blacks and liberal causes, and a fierce critic of anti-black discrimination." But, it said, "we see no evidence that he preaches hatred or discrimination against whites."

"I would say he is a black racist," Foxman said of Rev. Wright. "Certainly he has very strong anti-Israel views. But I don’t think Obama sought out the church because of that."

The Times profile last April reported that ADL "says it has no evidence of any anti-Semitism by Mr. Wright." Asked about this, Foxman replied that anti-Semitism is not synonymous with racism.

"He’s for Africa for Africans," said Foxman. "But nothing I’ve seen would make me call him an anti-Semite."

Foxman recalled that in 1995, he publicly walked out on the synagogue of which he was a member for more than 20 years. Its spiritual leader, he concluded, was preaching extremist hatred against Israel’s leadership, whose promotion of the Oslo peace process the rabbi opposed. Unlike Rev. Wright and Obama, Rabbi Steven Pruzansky and Foxman had no long and close relationship with each other. Rabbi Pruzansky had only assumed the pulpit of Congregation B’nai Yeshurun in Teaneck, N.J., one year earlier. Foxman’s long presence there, however, meant many strong ties to other members of his spiritual community.

"I don’t want to compare myself to Obama," said Foxman. "I left my synagogue. But I didn’t leave it immediately. I tried to have my rabbi change his views. I went to fellow congregants to see if they could have an impact on him. Only at a point in time where that didn’t happen, I resigned.

"I think the next step for Obama is to challenge his minister on these views," he said. "He may change his minister’s view, in which case, very good. If not, I think he has an obligation to leave."

achester99 said:

"Jacob, you're an idiot."

Thank you for your kind words.

"There are virtually no Obama supporters who hate Clinton, let alone are "intolerant pathological Clinton haters."."

Maybe, I don't know. However, most of Obama supporters in the media and blogs are "intolerant pathological Clinton haters. just like Marthy.

What is with this Clinton hate?  I don't hate her; I think she's a poor second choice (Edwards would have been a good second choice) as the Democratic candidate.  I really fear she'll lose to McCain, and damage the Democrats shot at longer term popular support because she is so polarizing outside the party core.  All I need to know about Clinton vs. Obama is summed up by the fact that very many of my smart Republican friends support Obama, none of them would even consider voting for Clinton.

But I can get behind most of Clinton's policy positions, and I'll get her behind her as the candidate if she prevails in the primaries/caucuses.   Until then, I'll give my time and money and support to Obama, because I think he's the better candidate, but not because I "hate" Clinton.

Obama is also polarizing outside the party core. Notice how few whites voted for him LA.

BTW, "polarizing" is a code word for hate.

achester, I hate Clinton, and I am not ashamed to admit it. I hate her because I believe she will throw a gimme election to the Republicans, or if she somehow manages to eke out a win will be a terrible President. I also hate the Clintonistas like Mark Penn or Wolfson, these people are loathsome say anything do anything assholes who Hillary has chosen in her inner circle. And the reason why I think she will be a terrible President is economics. We are in a recession and simply can't afford to make all of her rhetoric a reality, so she will compromise with Wall street and the Insurance Companies and pretend her reforms will help the average person, or she will draw a line in the sand and accomplish nothing. All of her accomplishments will be attributed to Bill and her mistakes will be her own. As the "experience" candidate, she will have no room for error. In short, I hate her because I love America. If the economy were on the upswing I could see risking it, but not when it is on the downswing.

OK, as to "hate" if she loses the nomination I will love her as Senator, which she is good at.

jacob, absolutely, both Obama and Clinton are risks. Will America elect a one term black Senator over a 100 term war hero? (who, incidently is hated within his own party). I don't think many people truly hate Obama though, or they hate him like the Yankees hate the Red Sox. Personally, what is there to hate about him or his family? But boy are there a ton of things to hate about the Clintons personally. Bill getting 131 million off the backs of Kazakh slave miners truly sickens me. as expresidents, Harry Truman is to Bill Clinton as Mother Theresa is to crack whore.

"In short, I hate her because I love America"

No, you hate her because you are an hater, and all your reasons are just excuses.

We need to defeat hate, by electing Clinton.

jacob, good lord, you are an idiot. my reasons are excuses? what the hell does that mean? can you at least debate my points? in fact you are the hater for the exact reason that you seek to deprive people of feeling any emotion about America. That your sole justification to elect Hillary is as a taunt to any who disagree with you. No, if you defeat hate, you also defeat love, and you defeat God, America, and apple pie too. See, I can talk like an idiot too.

Stick to the issues. Hillary is wrong about Health care mandates, she is wrong about freezing interest rates, she is wrong about many issues (and she is right about a few, just wrong about more than she is right)

and Jacob, how is it that you think the lives of Kazakh miners are worthless? Bill sold them out so that one of his cronies could make billions of dollars giving Bill 131 million as his cut. Damn right I hate that, as I hate all injustice. Why do you choose to ignore that issue? I hate Dick Cheney, so I guess we should elect him too? Honestly, that line we need to defeat hate by electing Clinton has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever read here, and I read most of TD's posts.

I believe Hillary will be a terrible president, disagree with it all you want, but that is what I believe, and if I love America it is my duty to vote for whom I believe to be the best candidate. I respect the opinions of people who believe Hillary is the best candidate, as I respected all the people who voted for George Bush, I think they made the wrong choice, and I think history bears me out on it, but at least they voted out of their own conviction of what is right about America. If you are voting for Hillary only because other people hate her, then you truly are a mindless jackass.

Sure, let''s stick to the issues. She is right about Health care mandates, she is wrong about freezing interest rates.  

I just realized Jacob, that what you wrote was meant as a satire of a blind Clinton supporter, very good, for a second you had me going, but then I realized that not even the dumbest Clintonista could be that lame as to come up with that.

We need to defeat hate, by electing Clinton

That is brilliant, both meaningless and insulting at the same time.

Mandates are wrong because she doesn't say what her mechanism for enforcement will be. If they are unenforceable, it is meaningless, if mandates are then they will punish young people who, due to life circumstances or even stupidity, can afford insurance but don't buy it. The real issue is the millions of people who want insurance but can't afford it and whose jobs don't provide it. Let us address this first, why give Republicans an issue with which to defeat the Democrats. Mandates are a distraction from the real goal, making insurance affordable and portable for all, illegal immigrants and Permanent residents included.

By the way, Hillary's plan is only for American citizens, illegal and PR's are ineligible for any subsidies (so much for Universal) and it is these two groups who make up the majority of people who don't have insurance in America. Hillary's plan will leave at least 15 million uninsured. I admit, so does Obama's, but his idea of addressing costs first seems to me to be the best way to go. Hillary sending out the Health care police to hunt down a few free riding young people as a solution seems to be a vast waste of resources, and a critical public relations bust.

Obama’s plan  mandates health care for children. His plan  is only for American citizens, illegal are ineligible for any subsidies.  Mandates  for children area also  wrong because he doesn't say what his  mechanism for enforcement will be.

You can’t make health insurance so cheap that it will makes financial sense for a healthy family with 100K income  to buy insurance,if they have an option to buy  insurance when somebody in a family gets seriously sick. So, if you remove pre-existent conditions requirements, many healthy people would make rational decision to  drop insurance and start vicious cycle of rising insurance costs. Obama suggestion that he would punish people when they get seriously ill and apply for insurance is  really foolish.

If Democrats reject mandates in this elections, we’ll not going to get a meaningful health care reform for another four years.

blackton, I want to raise a paw in defense of crack whores. They aren't evil, they never did anything bad to miners. Maybe minors, as in their children, but I still see them more as victims than perps. Bill Clinton is all perp.

Speaking of minors, I think mandates for children - and yes, punitive enforcement if necessary - is justified because children are helpless, and truly dependent upon parents. This is the same principle behind mandates of child support, which, however flawed in execution, are still better than nothing for lots of kids.

On the other hand, adults have every incentive to insure themselves unless they can't afford it - and this is very unlike car insurance, where there's a hit-&-run option. So punishing them fiscally for not insuring their health is just insult to injury and doesn't help. And, if you do make insurance affordable, unnecessary at best.

Psantillana,

Your argument is so ridiculous that I see no point to continue discussions with Obama supporters. You’ll defend Obama and repeat this talking points, no matter how foolish they are:

We need mandate for children because parents have no incentives to provide health care for their children, but we don’t need mandates for parents because parents  have every incentive to insure themselves.  

No, adults have  no incentive to insure themselves  or their children as long as they stay healthy.

Basman:  I actually quit our membership in ADL when Foxman once again stuck his fucking face into business had no business being in.   This is the man who told New England Jews that they had no right to recognize the Armenian genocide.  This is the man who wrote to Clinton on Marc Rich's behalf when the pardons started happening.  

Which is actually the crux of it.  Clinton pardoned Rich, a huge Israel supporter.  Never mind that Rich broke the law.  And then fled the country because God forbid he should have to be treated equally under the law.  Foxman owes the Clinton time.  Don't be naive.  And since Clinton loves to keep running tit-for-tat favors, believe me he's expecting something in return.  

Younger Jews who don't see a Holocaust around every corner are growing extremely disenchanted with the ADL.  They have crossed the line too many times.  Obama has spoken out against Farrakhan, but Foxman and the like want signed loyalty oaths.  And they want to swing the election toward Hillary because, at bottom, they just don't trust black people.  Lovely, lovely, lovely.  

So you can quote Cohen all you like.  But realize you'll only drive some of us further even further away.  Foxman is box office poison.

Ok, I'm a moron - stipulated!

But I don't think these healthy people not insuring themselves are the problem. And even when I was 20something I wanted insurance because so much of what you go to the doctor for is maintenance - gynecologist, etc. I wanted all that. Everyone I knew did.

And look, I disagree with Obama on a couple of things - you shouldn't just assume I'm repeating talking points I don't actually believe. That's very insulting and not a way to debate anything ever.

Look, how many people buy extended car warranties today?

How many people would buy extended warranties in advance if they could buy them when their car need a major repare?

Maybe healthy people not insuring themselves are not the major problem today, but it would be under Obama plan. Overall economists assume that over long period of time people make rational decisions.  Obama plan is based on the hope  that  in this case economics will be prove wrong.

I know, yes we can, yes we can invent a perpetual motion device if we elect Obama

Molly:

I reread the article I pasted. It’s pretty even handed. And I think, respectfully, you miss the central point  emerging from it and are, kind of, here, all over the place. That point has nothing to do with Foxman, Bill Clinton, Marc Rich, Armenian genocide, your affiliations,  your hatred of Foxman, who owes whom political favours, Wright’s views on Israel, Richard Cohen, or Hillary Clinton for that matter.

It has to do with Obama straight up.

Interestingly, you say that I can quote Cohen all I like. The quote from him is small and is embedded in the guts of this long, rather disinterested, journalistic account, which is primarily a species of good reporting and does not, as I read it, take particular editorial sides. But with a particular factual foundation in place, Richard Cohen whose politics as between Hillary and Obama I do not know,  says it all:

"Fine," wrote Cohen. "[But] the Obama camp takes the view that its candidate, now that he has been told about the award, is under no obligation to speak out on the Farrakhan matter. ... He could be the next American president. Where is his sense of outrage?"

So you tell me Molly what am I missing? Farrakhan is an out an out wingnut, and an evil and  dangerous one at that, a demagogue and a virulent anti-semite with, for small, his talk  of Satanic Jews and what not. Obama’s pastor, spiritual advisor, spiritual confidante, lauds Farrakhan—as a giant of the twentieth and twenty first century African American religious experience no less (which I suppose includes his talk about satanic Jews).

And in relation to this, Obama makes distinctions between not  getting political advice but, rather, getting spiritual advice from a Farrakhan enthusiast.

Cohen’s remarks, as reported in the piece are fair and his judgments seem mature. He credits Obama with what he has associated himself with and with what he has disassociated himself from. But, as Cohen suggests and I argue, the man who may be president of the United States cannot be associated in an intimate and relatively encompassing spiritual relationship with a man who publicly, and enthusiastically for that matter,  praises Farrakhan.

Plain and simple!

You're right.  I was essentially arguing against Foxman and Cohen.  Obama has, however, spoken out against black people's anti-semitism and homophobia.  Not nearly enough in my opinion, but he's in a bind.  And you know it.  He has not himself, however, in any way embraced Farrakhan and his ilk.  And I doubt he will.  He is not pandering to blacks, but asking them to go beyond identity politics.  He's also come out in support of Israel.  Now, if I were a Clintonite, I'm sure his non-disavowal of the F-man would bother me a lot more than it does.  So do I think he should cut off ties with his church?  Ideally yes.  But it's not worth tsuris it would cause.  

Then again, it bothers me far more that Bill takes money from very undemocratic, despotic middle-Eastern countries..  Nobody's clean.  But this isn't enough to turn me.  If Obama met with Farrakhan, well, then, I'd be over in Hillary's camp in a shot.  And lest we forget, Hillary embraced Suha.  She spoke of Palestinian independence, but without any refutation of their terrorist tactics.  And at a time when she was in no position, as an unelected citizen, to do so.

We could go tit for tat all night.  But in the end, life is a series of rationalizations.  And I've just explained mine.

I'm with Molly even though I think Obama's Jewish supporters are in for an unpleasant non-surprise when he becomes President and shockingly actually follows the advice of his anti-Israel foreign policy advisors.  The ADL has flown off the rails -- when Foxman opposes Congress recognizing  the genocide which Hitler himself cited as a model for the Holocaust, the moral compass has completely disintigrated.  

Personally I thought Cohen's column was fair, but Obama's response was admirable in going a bit farther than he needed to (and as anyone who has read me knows, I'm not his biggest fan).  Reading between the lines he all but said "look, I know he's being kooky, but I love the old guy -- just ignore him and he'll be retiring soon enough."    Btw, I think Hillary Clinton is a Methodist, but nobody is asking her about that church's divestment from Israel drive.  

This is all too over the top for me.  I defended Abe Foxman in these blogs over the Armenian genocide contretemps in Boston, but I am not going to insist that the friends, of the friends, of the friends by pure as Foxman does.  You don't have to go too many degrees of separation to connect Hillary Clinton to all sorts of loathsome types.

Meanwhile, where does the meme come from that Hillary is a "good senator?"  I'm a local Democratic leader in New York.  Chuck Schumer helped us whenever we asked for help.  Hillary has always stiffed us.  I don't know anything she has done in the senate other than support the Republicans on key issues and co-sponsor with the Rs a lot of noxious right-wing legislation.  Her "good senator" rep consists largely of keeping her mouth shut and not rocking the boat with the Republican poohbahs who were afraid she might use her celebrity to hurt them.  Nothing of the kind happened.

I think she has been a lousy senator from New York.  A good senator from Idaho perhaps, but not New York.

Let me just say these few things:

If I notionally supported Obama--I'm a Canadian--or if I notionally support him if he gets the nod, his relatiionship with Wright would bother me a fair amount, but would not dissaude me , I don't  think,  from supporting him.

That said, he should disassociate himself from Wright and he is fair game for criticism if he does not. I'm not sure Coehn is arguing anything more than that.

As for Hillary being a good Senator, I understand she is, but I can tell you authoritatively she has done nothing for Toronto.

Ask not what Toronto can do for you, ask what you can do for Toronto.

Psantillana and jacob (two threads running at the same time, interesting). There is a thing called SCHIP, childrens health insurance program where all children are covered. I have absolutely no problem with mandating insurance for all children, I just think it should be a Federal program financed by taxes, the same as schools. If not, if you can afford insurance for your children but don't buy it, then you are not fit to be a parent. As to Mandates for adults, IIRC Mass. has mandates but only 7% of those who are mandated to buy insurance actually do, the rest are mostly young, single people some who have said they would rather pay a fine of $1,000 then pay for a $6,000 policy. In addition Mass. has also issued a ton of waivers to young people who have shown they can't afford it due to normal bills (college loans, new car payments, single persons rent) etc. but Mass. is also not willing to subsidize these people. So the only place in America that has mandates has shown to be a sham. This in one of the most progressive states in the nation.

But hey, facts and experience don't matter. Mandates don't work. 93% non compliance does not work.

Also, all of the conditions you say would apply with Obama's plan, already is in existence but virtually no one making 100,000 who is healthy and has a family doesn't buy insurance. No one is that stupid now, why would they become that stupid then? Honestly, do you think someone is going to risk it, having to fill out forms and buying it in the midst of tragedy?  We have no plan of UHC, no federal requirements, now but of the 47 million people who don't have insurance nearly half are illegals and PRs. most of the rest are low income people who's jobs don't provide insurance and who can't afford it, the remainder are young people just starting out. Look at the statistics some time instead of asserting things that just aren't true.

basman, as a Catholic I can't defend everything the Church does, should I leave the church because of what my parish priest says or does? Do I have to publicly stand up and condemn his each and every action? If that were the case I would be doing nothing but talking about the actions of the church. The nonsense any minister or priest does outside of the church does not alter the sacredness of church attendance. Nor does the actions or words of a priest outside of church invalidate the rite of communion.

I understand your concerns, and it makes sense politically for Obama to renounce what his Minister says outside the province of the faith, but is he under obligation to renounce his ties to his church because of it?

Blackton you are, with respect, misstating the argument.

If a person is going to be a leader of his nation, he is, as Cohen notes, the leader of all the people.

If his spiritual advisor has ties to/supports/ is allied to/vigorously praises the likes of a Farrakhan, he need not renounce his faith nor leave his "church" in your sense of giving up Catholicism, but he needs, I argue, to disassociate from that advisor, and if it comes to it, leave the physical church where that reverend reverends.

In my view, to those precisely defined disassociations, there are no partial measures and no acceptable distinction between political advice and personal/spiritual advice.. No public figure can be seen to have any proximate association with a neo nazi. or with a spiritual leader who praises Bin Laden (or dare I say Hitler). By what stretch of argument does Obama get off the hook with a fairly proximate relationship with a  Farrakhan enthusiaist and the  rhetoric of Satanic Jews. As Cohen rightly asks, "Where is his sense of outrage?"

If he does not so disassociate himself, I do believe I could still notionally support him, but he will be hobbling himself substantively and politically.

basman, I agree with disassociate himself from the jackass reverends comments, and I suppose the problem for me is apples to oranges, I won't leave my Parish church just because the priest is a jackass, my faith goes much beyond that so I suppose I am considering it too much as a Catholic would. To be honest, I don't know enough to make a judgment about it. Is there another UCC church within his home area? What ties does he have with other parishoners? are there other ministers whose services he attends?

The United Church of Christ is not officially anti-Semitic, it is a faith based on the acceptance of Jesus Christ as savior. His loyalty is to his faith and his church, not to the reverend. Even Catholics are free to disagree with the Pope on non theological areas, such as Capital punishment (But not abortion).

I don't think it is Obama's fault that he is stuck with a minister who is an idiot. Catholics have been stuck with more idiot clergy than I can shake a stick at.

And you are missing one important point of Christianity, one never disassociates oneself from anybody (in theory). His obligation is to dissuade the Reverend of his ways, not to abandon him. Normally it is the other way around, but the idea is the same. You reach out to sinners to reform them. In fact, I am as obligated to pray for Osama Bin Laden (so that he might see the error of his ways, accept Christ, accept his earthly punishment and find eternal reward) as I am for his victims. This is pretty standard stuff.

Blackton: it's kind of simple for me, regardless of missing one important point of theology, Obama ought not truck with anti-Semites and he ought not truck with anti-Semite fellow travellers. The rest , to me, is noise.

basman, fair enough. I have absolutely no problem if you won't vote for him based on this (not that you are going to vote for anyone, being that you are an admitted Canadian, I must say I find it quite courageous of you to admit as much, jk) Politically you are right, and I doubt anyone would say anything to him if he registered in a Washingon, DC area UCC church and save himself the hassle of that asshole dragging him down.

I am also pretty disgusted how Bill sought out advice from Jesse Jackson. To some degree almost all politicians truck with all sorts of nasty types. Even Harry Truman was known as the Senator from Prendergast (a corrupt Missouri Poll, Harry was about the only one to go to his funeral, for the reasons I listed above)

blackton what you said here is spot-on and it applies EXACTLY to the Donnie McClurkin situation:

"And you are missing one important point of Christianity, one never disassociates oneself from anybody (in theory). His obligation is to dissuade the Reverend of his ways, not to abandon him. Normally it is the other way around, but the idea is the same. You reach out to sinners to reform them. In fact, I am as obligated to pray for Osama Bin Laden (so that he might see the error of his ways, accept Christ, accept his earthly punishment and find eternal reward) as I am for his victims. This is pretty standard stuff. "

Also I'll add that people are not all one thing. Obama really admires Wright, for a lot of non-F-khan reasons, obviously. The phrase "Audacity of Hope" came from a sermon of Wright's - I think the very sermon that tipped Obama into joining the church - becoming a Christian, in fact.

Basman, you say it's "kind of simple" for you - purge all impure associates/friends/family members, end of story. All else - such as what it means to purge someone you love, what it means to exile people from discourse or consideration completely, because they do not agree with you 100 percent on a particular issue - is noise. This does not reflect well upon you.

Blackton, about the mandate for kids, which is the only place we even maybe disagree, I'm thinking I agree about just providing it federally. Dean did that for six-and-under in Vermont [not federally but state-ly, of course] and had the only balanced state budget in the country. It might be more cost effective, and it would at least guarantee the kids get covered.

You can punish deadbeats all you want, but having represented child-support deadbeats, I know it's not that effective - blood from a stone and all. And sometimes a crazy stone who is in and out of jail on other stuff, and would rather flee the jurisdiction than bite the bullet and do the right thing. I wonder how much money is spent on child support enforcement, and if that money is equal to or greater than the money these kids are missing out on. Someone less lazy than I am should find out and report back. Maybe my perspective is skewed.

I also agree with you completely on "the same as schools" but don't think schools is the right example, because school funds come from property taxes, mostly, and that is what accounts for the crazy discrepancy in rich people "public" schools and poor people "public" schools. I would not like to see such a discrepancy in kids' public health care.

blackton.

Obama plan is Mass plan - mandates. Clinton plan is Mass.

Based on what you are saying they are both being dishonest by claimimg that their plan will provide universal healh plan.

"Also, all of the conditions you say would apply with Obama's plan, already is in existence but virtually no one making 100,000 who is healthy and has a family doesn't buy insurance"

Not true, today if you get sick, you can't buy individual  insurance anymore.

This is only one reason why would healthy people buy expensive insurance.

How Obama is going to adress pre-existent conditions ?

jacob, absolutely both are lying. Imagine that. I don't care about that, I care about the nuts and bolts of each plan and which is more likely to pass. If Hillary had no mandates and Obama did, you can be damn sure I would be against Obama on this issue. Both have pay for play, that is no insurance company can exclude anyone and still offer insurance. Japan has the same, they have mandates, but the mandates is every company has to take everyone who applies. That is how it should be. If you must know, I am in total favor of the US adopting the Japanese style of health care, it offers true Universal Health Care, but is not single payer. I have no idea why we have to reinvent the wheel.

Let me also be clear about something, in many ways this is a win win win for me, in that I genuinely like Obama and McCain, but am supportive of much of Hillary's agenda. I might disagree with Mandates, but that is only because I am not sure it will pass with them, if she got it her health care plan passed overnight I will turn into a Hillary fan. I think Mandates have some flaws, but for the price of something closer to UHC I will gladly take them. Both Obama and Hillary are vastly preferable to McCain on this issue. The only reason I support McCain is National Security (which is a big Goddamn reason let me tell you)

psantillana: good points, no disagreement, I am just faulty with my reasoning sometimes. I thought the same thing about schools as I wrote it but lacked a better alternative.

"Basman, you say it's "kind of simple" for you - purge all impure associates/friends/family members, end of story. All else - such as what it means to purge someone you love, what it means to exile people from discourse or consideration completely, because they do not agree with you 100 percent on a particular issue - is noise. This does not reflect well upon you. "

psantillana: regardless of how anything refletcs on me, where did I say what you say I said? I don't care, obviously, who anyone associates with in his or her private life. The President of the United States, well, that is of a different order of magnitude. And it is not a question of impurity. It is not a question of purging "...all impure associates/friends/family members, end of story." It is a question of virulent racism in the form of Farrakhan. So you have to distinguish between impurity--after all we are *fallen*--and outright racism. And if Wright, as it seems to be the case, is a black racist virtually harbouring notions of the White devil, and if, as it seems to be the case, he is a fellow traveller after Farrakhan, Obama can try to heal Wright all he wants if that is Christian, doctrinal mandate, but he he is ripe, as I said, for principled and tactical  criticism (?evisceration?) on his clinging to such a man as a preeminent spritual advisor.

Blackton:

1. I beseech thee don't ever repeat that I am a Canadian, although we are govened by the charismatic Stephen Harper--and, go Leafs go;

2. Just to repeat my own position: if Obama gets the nod, if I were an American, I would not let his not distancing himself from Wright be, I don't think, a reason not to vote for him:-- too many double negatives there-- ie I'd still vote for him.  But as I say that no- distancing opens up a whole host of problems for him, with which latter point I read you to agree.

blackton,

I guess we in a violent agreement with exception that I like Clinton and McCain and you like Obama and McCain.

Given that, we can guess who is going to be the next president. Too bad for healh care reform.

basman, you make a distinction between a public person repudiating a person and a private person doing so, based upon - actually I don't know what the distinction is based on. I'm not pretending not to know, I swear - I don't know. Now, Obama has repuidated the racism of Farrakhan, the "teachings" of Farrakhan, and as a public figure I would expect him to do so [as a public figure I'd support, that is, of course]. And if he went to a church of Farrakhan's then he'd have LOTS of explaining to do, absolutely, but what we have here is you saying he has to leave his church because the pastor of that church associates with Farrakhan. And the level of that association I don't know. And evidently Obama disagrees with his pastor on this. Is Wright actually preaching the racist stuff at his church? The church you want Obama to leave? Is the racist stuff even the part Wright and Farrakhan see eye to eye on, or is it - maybe - bean pie recipes? or the idea of black self-reliance?

I'm taking a long time to say this: The question to me - the only question - is whether Obama is a racist, or somehow promoting a racist agenda. I do not, from the facts I've seen, believe that to be the case. The associations between people - these are useful to examine only to the extent that they are or might be evidence of racism. Beyond that I cannot see what concern it is of yours. Or mine. Asking someone to leave his church is a serious thing. Asking him to publicly renounce a man he admires deeply is a serious thing, and just because Obama is a public person does not make it any less so. I would want to see evidence of something along the lines of Wright actually preaching racism in order to justify that.

I would think much much much less of Obama if he repudiated this man - assuming Wright is not actually a racist and does not preach racism - just because of something like the appearance of impropriety, to appease people who don't know Wright. You give back campaign contributions for those kind of reasons - you don't cut off your friends.

psantillana: your comments are thoughtful and interesting and I want to reply. Just have to do it at the end of my work day or later, but will aim to do it before the rooster next crows or before I turn into a pumpkin, whichever is first.

The bottom line folks:  Obama is going to have to deal with this problem.  It's going to get worse in the general, especially because he'll be fighting McCain, who is a known friend to Israel.  Obama will have to make harder choices than he's making.  His three-point policy on Israel will not be enough.  As I wrote in my (published!) letter to Andrew Sullivan, Jews, especially older Jews, are leery of the black population precisely because of Farrakhan's and his.  Right now, he's not doing a good enough job.  Boldly repudiating Farrakhan (not his minister) out loud is the only acceptable answer.  This is not going to turn away blacks, and in fact would be a righteous--not just tactically so--thing.  It's time the black community were told some hold truths regarding this hate-monger.

In the end, I agree with everything Basman says.  But it's still not enough to change my mind.  

Psantallina: I find it hard to understand your failing to grasp the distinction between what public actors do publicly and what actors do privately, whether or not they are officials. In fact so hard do I find it—because it seems so elementary to me as to be a trite observation—that I do not know where to begin in dealing with it. If one is in office, one acts in accord with the ethical imperatives that flow from such office holding, regardless of personal predelictions, and no one more so than your president. Perhaps the best –though more benign—example lies in Prince Hal’s discarding of Falstaff at the end of Henry 1Vth part 11. The intemperance of the tavern gives way, by an absolute and moving disassociation, to the sobriety and necessary temperateness of public office.

Some of your more particular points depend on what the facts actually are. That is why I framed what I said about Wright in my short comment to you in the form of “if it is case that…”

The issue seems not necessarily constituted by what Wright is preaching—and rest assured it has nothing to do with bean pie recipes. But if we can stipulate for the sake of argument that the charge against Wright that he is a Black racist is true, and if we can stipulate for the sake of argument that Wright is a Farrakhan enthusiast, then yes indeed, I vehemently argue, Obama must distance himself from Wright, however he chooses to do that. A Black racist is no less than pernicious than a White racist and what ever you would expect of a White candidate whose spiritual advisor was a White racist, you must, on my stipulations, expect from Obama. A Black racist who then also is a fellow traveler after Farrakhan, himself so vile and poisonous a figure on the American scene-- how could any Presidential candidate/President consort with such a man, wrap himself up spiritually in such a man?

Here one of the differences between public and private comes to the fore. If Obama, anyone, as a private actor wants to associate himself with someone pernicious, that is none of my business. If your President wants to, that is entirely your business because, among other reasons, he/she represents you, and because, among other reasons, he/she is the symbolic embodiment of all your citizenry.

I have not the slightest doubt that Obama is not a racist: but surely that is not “the only question” and never has been. He cannot surround himself with racists or anti-Semitic fellow travelers. To do so is to repudiate White Americans and Jews and every American who rejects racism of any stripe and who rejects anti-Semitism in particular.

In private life, one may or may not cut off his/her friends. It all depends and that is a matter of concern essentially as between the cutter and the cutee. In public life, like in the law, where there cannot be even the appearance of impropriety let alone racist impropriety, if what I have stipulated about Wright is the case, which I understand is the case, but would be happy to be shown otherwise and then amend my argument, accordingly, what the right thing for Obam to do about Wright is clear and not susceptible of partial measures or hair splitting distinctions.

Horrors, basman, I think we might agree.

But let me make sure: If Wright's a racist [you don't need to go into the white/black racism arguments with me - I'm on board], then Obama has to distance himself publicly. Check.

What we might still disagree on is:

1. whether Wright's a racist, which might come from our differing views on what kind of evidence is necessary to convict him. Again, I'd want to know much more about the nature of his association with Farrakhan, as well as the content of his [Wright's] sermons. The fact that Wright might agree with F on some things - such as black self-sufficiency I'm guessing - doesn't alone hit the bell for me. Wright is a preacher and a leader in the black community, and - this might be the nub of our different philosophies - in that context you have to recognize the appeal that Farrakhan has, and you have to try and understand it. No matter how evil you think it is - you dismiss it outright at your peril, and at your community's peril. It's like with gangs - ok, gangs are bad, but why are youngsters attracted to them? Because they lack role models, they lack a place in this world, they lack strong family - role models, a place in the world, family - these are good things. If gangs provide even a half-assed version of this to people who need it, you have to acknowledge it [ok, not if you want to demonize everyone and not address the problem at all, but a) you shouldn't, and b) Wright certainly can't and shouldn't].

And acknowledging it does not mean endorsement. That is the exact crux of the "negotiate with our enemies" freak-out that H tried to pull on O at the Youtube debate and after - as though by talking to Chavez without extracting some precondition pound of flesh Obama would be, you know, letting the terrorists win. And lefty dems jerk the very same knee when Obama talks about working with Repubs, like because he's not grandstanding like Edwards/Krugman cranked up to 11, he's caving, handing them the store. When the actual evidence of his record - particularly when compared with H's - is the exact opposite. He has a lot of solid wins on his record - not hollow victories - precisely through treating his opponents with respect.  

And I also believe that Wright - due to his position - has a lot more leeway to be hobnobbing with Farrakhan than Obama would, despite my fervent talk-to-your-enemies slant, for very valid political reasons. And notice that I am - for the sake of arg - assuming that Wright's not a racist, and that on the topic of racial supremacy, white devils etc., he and F are on clear opposite sides. That this IS talking to your enemies, and not your friends, on that score.

2. what the proper and sufficient level of disassociation would be, in the event that Wright is in fact down with the NOI program re white devils. Obama doesn' t face this problem with Farrakhan himself, because he doesn't go to that church, or remotely hobnob with the guy at all. But if Wright is even Farrakhan Lite, what does Obama do? You say it's "clear and not susceptible of partial measures or hair splitting distinctions." But what does that mean? Does he point at Wright and scream, like the end of the 1979 Invasion of the Body Snatchers? To me, there are degrees of repudiatiation, varying methods, and what you do and how you do it varies from case to case. Which is a super annoying position to have, particularly when, as in here, I don't really have all the facts in front of me.

What I think Obama has to do, clearly and with no partial measures, is to make sure the public knows where he stands on issues, and for his words and actions to conform to where he stands. If a certain level or quality of association - be it saying "hi" in the hallway to, eating lunch with, or belonging to the church of - someone who stands elsewhere on an issue - be it Chavez or Putin or McCain or Farrakhan - calls into question where Obama stands, then he has the obligation to clarify in detail, to whatever extent necessary. Certain combos of association/person are per se indefensible, but if you believe in talking with your enemies then you actually CAN'T be "pure" in the sense of refusing all association. The purity is in you, your integrity, your faithfulness to your principles in word and deed. You have an obligation as a pubic person - is this the distinction you make? - to make sure your words and deeds, if pure, don't misrepresent you to the public, but that's it. I don't want my leaders living in fear of false appearances, when that fear would prevent them from doing something valuable.

And thank you for talking to me, your enemy!

p

good points p and b.

P:

I would identify one area of disagreement between us as being how to think about Farrakhan. I’m all for human complexity; I’m all for allowing for a diversity of views; and I’m all for trying to understand Farrakhan as a phenomenon. And I understand trying to understand his appeal and trying to garner something useful from the dynamics of it, but not in any way that accommodates him or gives him public recognition. But I differ form you in my thinking we must draw certain lines and that crossing certain lines forfeits official toleration. Racism is such a line and Farrakhan has more than crossed it.

You cannot demonize the devil very easily. But one need not launch incantatory rhetoric against Farrakhan to take him on and to attempt to counter act his spreading of absurdity generally and Black racism and anti-Semitism in communities comprising his constituencies. There ought to be a time and place when Obama gets very vigorous in his denunciation of Farrakhan (if he has not yet done so), a denunciation that transcends press utterances and so on.

Negotiating with your enemies, granting them good faith in their arguments, that is all fine. But Weiseltier’s recent diarist piece, to my mind, show the limits of that. And Farrakhan can be a case in point for those limits. There are times and places for good faith negotiation and there are times and places where they are a waste of time and serve the counter purpose of legitmating one’s opponent. Good faith negotiations presuppose, I think, accepted boundaries of thought forming common ground: otherwise rational discussion does not stand a chance. There is are differences in the good faith negotiation model between negotiations amongst nations where the pursuit of interest generally trumps moral and ethical considerations, and negotiations amongst individuals when the central themes may be racism and anti-Semitism. How would one constitute such discussions with a David Duke or a Farrakhan? My own view is that for a high official to engage in such discussions with someone of that ilk is counter productive, the costs outweighing the benefits. And there must be better ways , in the cas of Farrakhan, to address problems of inner city dysfunction.

If Wright is Farrakhan light, Ithen Wright accommodaties  Black racism and anti-Semitism. While there are degrees of repudiation, and while the exact form of how to disassociate from Wright, can be mooted, there is no way Obama, given his public prominence and real possible ascendance to the presidency, can do anything less, in my view,  than functionally break with Wright for among the reasons I have already argued.

Anyway, I’ll stop here because I have the sense of starting to repeat myself.

Of course we are not enemies; and having gone back and forth with you some has been enjoyable.

Itzik

Thanks basman. I think we do mostly agree about this. I don't think O should sit at some table with F and hash out "why racism is bad" - F is beyond the pale, and that's not debatable anymore. Also, F isn't the leader of a country, so it's not even necessary on any level.

But I do think it's ok for Wright to do such a thing, since they traffick in the same market, like it or not. The question is - and it's unanswered for me - how similar are W and F? If W admires F for some things and firmly disagrees with the racism part, I think that's ok for W, and it might draw some of the aforementioned market toward him and away from F [hey we can be self-sufficient without demonizing others!].

So I don't know - yet - that W actually IS F- Lite, any more than I'm a Catholic because the Pope and I are both anti-death penalty, but if he is, then it would be a problem for me that O belongs to his church. And yeah, part of me thinks that there is no way W could be racist - or O wouldn't belong to that church. Some things are deal killers.

Ciao for now,

Phoebe

Hey Phoebe, talk to you again some time.

Itzik