The best place to start is a great post by Ron on Liberal Values:
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2717There have been two different smears that I am aware of: one are the nasty e-mails and the other is a very unfortunate column by Richard Cohen. In Ron's above post, he includes a great letter written by Jewish groups (like the anti-defamation league and Simon Wiesenthal, etc.) condemning the e-mail smears. One does tend to think it is also against Cohen's column, although not explicitly. Ron's post also has links to Cohen's column, the fact that the smears are being translated into Hebrew, and Carpetbagger's summary of it.
More links here:
http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/richard-cohen-bad-for-the-jews/"Richard Cohen: Bad for the Jews" (this is a great post with links to even more posts condemning the column.
Ah, and it seems the Cohen smear came from NewsMax (link deadened. Just add in
http://www):
newsmax.com/kessler/obama_wright_farrakhan/2008/01/14/64332.html
Here is a good diary from a Kossak who is Jewish and offended by ... Cohen:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/15/133217/817/46/437282Even right wing blogger, Captain Ed, isn't buying this story. I will deaden the link, but this will come in useful if you are dealing with Republicans to show it is a smear:
captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016641.php
Normally, I would not go out of my way to defend Obama, but this is a rather unusual tactic for his opponents -- even if sincere, as I believe Cohen to be. One could argue that Obama needs to explain the view of his church on its more ethnocentric doctrines, especially given the inclusiveness Obama preaches and by all accounts lives. His membership in that congregation is his decision, and perhaps it has some significance for voters, although it certainly sidles up to a red line that respects religious diversity. It's quite another to demand that Obama answer for the decisions of his minister, who has nothing to do with Obama's campaign or his policy formulation.
Had Obama published a newsletter that praised and feted Farrakhan, that would be different. Farrakhan has a noxious history of anti-Semitism, as Cohen documents in small part. If Obama ran the church that published the newsletter that awarded Farrakhan, it would also be a legitimate issue to cover in the campaign. However, Obama merely attends the church; he does not make those decisions, and one would suspect that he'd be a lot smarter than Wright about it if he did. Obama should not have to answer for either Farrakhan or Wright, and implying that he has some responsibility to do so attempts to assign guilt by second-hand association.
Consider the eruptions that came from Hillary's camp over the last couple of weeks. Billy Shaheen explicitly suggested that Barack Obama may have dealt drugs without any evidence supporting that allegation. BET chief Robert Johnson alluded to Obama's admitted drug use as a teenager to suggest something similar. Both of them had direct ties to Hillary's campaign, which made Hillary responsible for their behavior. Not only does Farrakhan have no ties to Obama, but Obama isn't putting Wright out on the campaign trail as Hillary did with Johnson.
This seems intended to paint Obama as anti-Semitic as a way to push back against the repeated Hillary fumbles on her civil-rights rhetoric and attacks on Obama. If so, this is very, very thin gruel. By the way, is Cohen a Hillary supporter? I'm not going to believe this comes from Hillary based on a right wing blog. Anyone know?
Everyone, please add to this thread. I don't have the original e-mail smear. Someone needs to add that. Also, please deaden links to right wing/questionable sources. No need for them to find our group.