A Madrassa, Bob Kerrey? <i>A Madrassa?</i>

Seeing that he recently endorsed HRC, your naivete is touching.

Posted by norbizness | December 17, 2007 8:35 PM

I think we can assume one of 3 things:

1. Bob Kerrey is a moron.
2. Bob Kerrey has been tragically struck with dementia or some other sort of disease.
3. Bob Kerrey is cynically spreading a lie about Obama.

Posted by Democrats Against Hillary | December 17, 2007 8:41 PM

Kerry is doing what all hrc surrogates are doing now. Trying to destroy - not just try to beat - Obama by using innuendo and charged phrases.
I hope hrc finds she will have to pay a very high price for engaging in this kind of behavior towards a fellow democrat.

Posted by vwcat | December 17, 2007 8:42 PM

I worked for Bob Kerrey and he has been my favorite politician since 1988. I have prayed that he would be elected President ever since then. I am shocked to find that today, with his underhanded smear of Obama, that I will never trust anything he says again. I imagine the Clintons purchased his subtle smear for a high price. Karl Rove could have written the same comments. I feel like a naive child who just found out his hero is the opposite of a hero. Maybe I should seek counseling at a cult awareness group. I hope there is a limit to the number of Robert Hansens in the Democratic Party.

Posted by HumbleTruthSeeker | December 17, 2007 8:43 PM

Conspiracy theorists of the world unite! lmao@you. EVERYTHING is a conspiracy. Everything. There are no simple or innocent explanations. Cynical? Naw.

Next...

In Obama's own words:

"When I was six, I attended an Indonesian public school where a bunch of the kids were Muslim, because the country is 90 percent Muslim," the Democratic presidential hopeful told ABC's Chicago affiliate WLS-TV. "The notion that somehow, at the age of 6 or 7, I was being trained for something other than math, science and reading, is ludicrous."

Also:

Obama defended his education at "Sekolah Dasar Negeri 04," which roughly translates as government elementary school No. 4 in Indonesia, where he moved at the age of 6 after his mother married an Indonesian man. After two years at the government elementary school, Obama transferred to a Catholic school.

------------------------------------------------

First of all, the word madrassah means "school". Therefore, Kerrey is technically correct, but he didn't use it in that context. The West mistakenly uses the term to imply Muslim religious school.

Regardless, I think Obama supporters miss the point. Even if it wasn't a madrassa, it's not the kind of thing that is going to play well in a general election. Kerrey is dead wrong (sincere or not). Anything reminding the public of his "Muslim-ness" is a huge negative for Obama, and it would be best for them to not bring more attention to it.

Posted by slick | December 17, 2007 8:55 PM

I posted this on the related thread, but I believe it is important. Please don't call Kerrey a "war hero." Bob Kerrey is a war criminal. This isn't hyperbole. It has been documented by many respected papers, most notably the Village Voice. It just steams me that Kerrey could be called a "hero." Clinton praised him for the "battles he has fought." An obscene statement if I ever heard one. Here is one link:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j042701.html

It is not the only account. Do a search, and look up his Wikipedia entry. There have been protests for this very reason at the New School.

Posted by jcr | December 17, 2007 8:58 PM

This is a critical moment in the campaign and you all in the media need to do a gut check right now. This strategy of the Clintons is predicated on the assumption that the media will pick on this and propogate it because it makes good copy. And they know that while informed voters will not be swayed, the uniformed casual low-infomtion voter may be because they do little to read beyond the superficialities.

You all in the media should ask yourselves whether you wish to be accomplices in this. You have the power to not propgate this crap. You have the power to create narratives that expose the Clintons for the slimeballs they are. I would request that you start with the $10 million they took from Saudi Arabia which you all in the media have been conveniently burying? Do the Saudi's bankroll big media too?

Posted by RKA | December 17, 2007 9:04 PM

Kerry moved to NY to head a college, he hopes to get Hillary's senate seat if she becomes President or some position in DC to reinvent his career. Sad.

Posted by sonya | December 17, 2007 9:08 PM

He's just shilling for Hill -- looking for another senate seat or WH job. The Clintons told him to repeat these falsehoods, even Tweety is calling it slime.

Posted by Mark from NY | December 17, 2007 9:11 PM

Good grief. This coupled with the "probably guilty" post earlier makes you sound greener than a bag of maui wowee. Fact: Bob Kerrey is flacking for the Clintons. You either need to get that through your head or you need to go cover high school volleyball or something.

Posted by Mark s | December 17, 2007 9:20 PM

Anyone who says that Bob Kerrey is just clueless is being as wilfully naive as Bob Kerrey is pretending to be. Of course Kerrey is engaging in paralepsis. He also brought up Obama's Muslim "stuff" yesterday, on same pretext of praising him. Remember?

Kerrey was excoriated for it immediately, and yet he did the same thing again today. Fool me once, shame on you...

Given the legitimate questions concerning Kerrey's character--specifically, his Vietnam war record and his dissembling of it--to give Kerrey the benefit of the doubt in this matter invites the questioning of the questioner. Hint, hint.

Posted by Johnny | December 17, 2007 9:24 PM

Marc,

How is it that political correspondents can be so naive? Senator Clinton's surrogates have been doing this for two weeks now, ever since she started dipping in the polls against Obama. First it was those e-mails about drug use from a "nobody" volunteer captain in Iowa. Then another. And when that story still wasn't derailing campaign coverage the way they'd like it started coming from the mouth of her New Hampshire campaign co-chair a few days later.

Now what do we have? Bob Kerrey, nominates her this morning and decides to place an emphasis on Senator Obama's Muslim father and grandfather (who played virtually no role in his upbringing). This again fails to capture much coverage, so tonight he goes on cable (knowing for certain that he would get a question about his earlier comments) and intruduces this novel concept of a "secular madrassa". There is an obvious pattern here.

Now I know that, contrary to the stereotype, political reporters don't just go around accusing respected former senators and college deans of political hackery, but let's call a spade a spade here. Who praises a candidate's opponent while making their endorsing? How could anyone with Sen. Kerrey's education and foreign policy experience not know that "secular madrassa" is a nonsense term?

Senator Clinton's campaign is imitating Bob Corker's tactics against Harold Ford, where it's not the smears (carefully coated in ambiguity and plausible deniability of course) that do the damage, but the "analysis" and response that follows. Thus, Harold Ford didn't get hurt because the "Bimbo ad" stirred up fears of miscegenation, he got hurt because instead of getting to talk about his merits his campaign, he was buried under queries whether or not he thought Tennesseans were racists. No matter how many times he said he didn't care, the media kept stoking the flames by digging up civil rights activists to call them racist, even if he wouldn't.

Senator Clinton knows this strategy, and she will keep sending surrogates out to do it until she has run out of surrogates to disavow and fire. It seems that Senator Obama's only good strategy for the time being is to publicly praise Sen. Kerrey, be understanding of his "slip-ups", and basically bore the media to death about the whole thing.

Posted by badger | December 17, 2007 9:27 PM

I'm simply in awe of the mendacity of the Clinton campaign. Democrats doing this to other Democrats? She's lost my vote in ANY context, and if I agree at all with her opposing nominee than I will work very hard against her candidacy. This obvious, Rovian racist innuendo - they know EXACTLY what they're doing - honestly just makes me feel a bit sad right now. Maybe that's the point.

Posted by Bill | December 17, 2007 9:34 PM

If Clinton wins the nomination, which I don't think she will, I hope Obama and McCain run on a third ticket. Think they won't get 34%? What will they have to loose, there both done anyway:
1. Obama is out with the Clintons and won't get a second chance (see Kerry, Mondale, Gore, etc.)
2. McCain is too old

Posted by StevenAK | December 17, 2007 9:47 PM

Wait wait ... isn't Kerry's statement here technically true but highly misleading? Isn't "madrasah" Arabic for "school", regardless of its religious affiliation, and the conflation of "madrasah" with "place where people learn to hate Israel and fly planes into the US" a bit of post 9/11 hysteria?

I have to believe that at this point this is just Cosmic Bob freelancing, and not something the Clintons were expecting.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | December 17, 2007 9:49 PM

Marc, your post starts on the right footing but then goes horribly astray. If someone as seemingly respectable as Bob Kerrey (and I emphasize "seemingly") says something this ignorant and indecent, you don't blame the victim, which is what you have just done. You use your position as an influential blogger to write to the Clinton campaign and ask that campaign if it will tell Bob Kerrey that he no longer has authority to speak for them and that it disavows his endorsement. Then, the truth emerges; when there is a price for associating oneself with lies and smears.

Oh, and to the Clintonian parser above who is trying to defend Kerrey on the ground that, technically, a madrassa is just an Arabic word for school: three points; first, the dominant connation in the English speaking world is of religious-indoctrination school; second, Indonesia is not an Arabic country, you ignoramuses, so no secular school there would be called a Madrassa as, in theory, one might be called in the Arabic world; and third, your own examples destroy your case, because Obama repeatedly said he attended a "public" school, not a friggin' "madrassa."

Sorry folks, but I am really starting to believe that Insight was correct to attribute the Madrassa scare story in January of this year to people associated with the Clinton campaign. They've been terrified of what he might do to their plans ever since he electrified the country with his 2004 convention speech.

Posted by RaymondA | December 17, 2007 9:50 PM

You can't be writing this seriously. Stop tip-toeing around the obvious - it's a smear. Come on.

Posted by rikyrah | December 17, 2007 10:10 PM

I agree with rikyrah. I enjoy your work, but please don't give this one the stenography treatment. This is so obviously a coordinated smear, and we'd just appreciate it if you write the hard truth. Bob Kerrey under no circumstances "actually believes that Obama attended a madrassa." None.

Posted by Bill | December 17, 2007 10:15 PM

This is as Hillary would say "right out of the Republican playbook." What a disgrace! Iowans will see this for what it is. Obama will win Iowa and sweep the nomination from there.

Posted by ChrisO | December 17, 2007 10:16 PM

Any time people of color actually speak truth to power those in power will deploy the politics of personal destruction. They were okay with Obama as long he was just a flirtation of the media, but once he became possible at the JJ dinner simply based on his vision of America; and then Oprah joined him and they brought the people and things looked within reach-nothing was sacred. Bill Clinton practically imploded on Charlie Rose, Bob Kerry, Sheehan. Please explain how she was able to do every morning show-again. Fortunately this time Gregory and Cuomo tried to get her to answer some questions. While I had decided not to support her because of her campaign I am now revisiting my perspective on Bill's legacy and that ain't good.

Posted by RealB.G. | December 17, 2007 10:20 PM

I think the key is, was Kerrey asked about the so-called "Madrassa" issue or did he just bring it up voluntarily. If he was asked about it by the reporter (I didn't see the clip) then I think Ambinder is correct to wonder about it. You Obama people have got to stop being so paranoid. First, as many folks have pointed out, Obama will get a loss worse from the Republicans. You're better off having these things come up in the nomination process, so he can be inoculated from these slurs (if they are slurs), and learn how to address them. Secondly, on their face, Kerrey's words are perfectly reasonable, and I suspect he was making a good faith effort to underscore a point Obama himself has made: his overseas childhood in a Muslim country is probably a huge plus in terms of his ability to conduct diplomacy with a huge swathe of nations vital to US interests.

Again, if Kerrey brought the Madrassa meme up without being prompted, you all likely have a point. But if not, I strongly suspect it's just Kerrey being Kerrey.

Posted by Jasper | December 17, 2007 10:23 PM

slick - I disagree, on two points. First, you suggest Obama supporters are missing the point because this school thing will play badly in the general election. Second, you say its bad for Obama if this discussion continues.

Both of your points may be conventional wisdom; not sure, but could be. And I certainly don't claim to be the sharpest knife in the drawer. But I think both are incorrect.

I'll take your second point first. As an Obama supporter, I hope this talk continues through February. I think it shows the real Clinton, at little to no loss for Obama. And seeing as no one else is positioned to run between the two of them, in my view, this increases Obama's chances for getting the nomination.

Now for your first point. All this barrage from Clinton is doing is innoculating Obama against these attacks in the general election.

Sure, some will be swayed next November and really fear Obama is some kind of a Manchurian Muslim. How many of those people would vote for any Democrat? And what impact would these attacks have on independents? Probably repel them from whoever was making the attacks, just like is happening here.

I think this Clinton move is one of the dumber political play I've ever seen. Not the madrassa thing specifically, but the sum total of all of the, as she telegraphed, "fun" stuff. The drug pushing, kindergate, madrassa sum total. But seeing as I'm for the guy who is likely to benefit from the mistake, I'm not mad - just sitting back in amazement.

Posted by Paul | December 17, 2007 10:23 PM

Combine this with Shaheen and it's clear that the smearing of Obama is a coordinated event from the Hillary campaign. Guess she's getting as desperate as Romney these days...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | December 17, 2007 10:27 PM

does Ambiner even read his blog comments?

it would be important to note that Kerrey's "islamic Manchurian candidate" and "madrassa" stuff were made a day after the campaign event in Iowa so it's kind of impossible to think it was an accident.

Posted by Outsider | December 17, 2007 10:30 PM

I hope that the voters of IA & my fellow NH voters can see through Hillary's feigned nice-nice facade, all the while her surrogates - Shaheen, Penn, Kerrey - serve as cold Machiavellian hatchetmen besmirching the politics of hope with the premise of fear. First Republicans Swift Boated Democrats, now we're Swift Boating each other. When Democrats act like Republicans, we all lose. Vote Hope.

Posted by Manchester United | December 17, 2007 10:30 PM

A story break:

End of Dec., 12.27 or 12.28, Gore will endorse Obama. This will get the entire weekend into play.

Now, re: Kerrey, I think he is doing what Shaheen and Clinton have done. This is not new. On Hardball tonight, Chris Matthews said that Clinton was doing his best to hurt Obama. The election, according to Matthews, in IA is not about HRC but about Obama. Make the voters scared of Obama, and HRC has it won.

It is that simple. As I said before, the Clinton machine is the father/mother of all attack machines. No one can beat them. No has, and no one will. The cemetry is full of dead people (Newt, Livingstone, etc.). No one can even bring the scandals (vince foster, monica, norman hsu). Why?

Everyone is scared of the Machine.

Even the Press. Just look around...

Posted by eorse | December 17, 2007 10:33 PM

Well, here is the proof this smear is a coordinated attack that comes from the top. Here is what Hillary told the quad city times today. Notice how she drops in the word "Islamic"

"I think the remarks were very positive,” Clinton said. “I know Bob. He was being very complimentary of Sen. Obama. He was making a point that Sen. Obama makes himself all the time, that because of his upbringing and his heritage he is, in his view, very well suited to communicate with the rest of the world. And he has just said himself that he wants to have a particular outreach to the Islamic world. So I think Sen. Kerrey was being, you know, very generous in what he said.”

http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/12/17/news/local/doc4767217390f67800182126.txt

Never mind that before HIllary made fun of the fact that Obama cites his upbringing in Indonesia as part of his foreign policy experience...now she agrees wirth her surrogate that is is laudible thing. It's laudible, of course, if you get to do a nice little appeal to bigotry by droppic the word islamic in there.

Does anybody any longer beleive that Hillary Clinton has the character to be the leader of the free world? if you do, please tell me why. I'm dying to hear it.

Posted by RKA | December 17, 2007 10:38 PM

Forgive me, but I am in a state of rage about this latest story.

Let's review the bidding. In late January or early February of this year, after Obama indicated he would run by announcing an "exploratory committee," a story appears in a right-wing rag, Insight, that claims that sources in the Hillary campaign are letting reporters know that Obama went to a Madrassa. Many Democrats -- including those like myself who have never loved the Clintons but never hated them either -- thought this was a double smear, one against Obama the second against Hillary.

Fast forward a few months. Obama says he will talk to the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, etc. Howard Wolfson goes on Hardball and says, "Obama wants to talk to a holocaust denier." That was a clear effort to engage in wedge politics, by trying to stop Jews from supporting Obama or contributing to Obama's campaign, despite Obama's brilliant and moving denunciation of Ahmadenijad's hate-spewing venom. Still nowhere as bad as the madrassa slur that Insight attributed to Hillary.

Next thing, in fall, we learn of mysterious chain emails going all around the country saying Obama is a Muslim and was raised Muslim by his allegedly Muslim father and his Muslim stepfather. Then we learn that at least three forwarders of such emails are Hillary volunteers in Iowa. They are duly fired and deemed a few "bad apples." The "official" campaign claims purity; many of us believe the official story, because though we slightly distrust Hillary and her Penn/Wolfson sharks, we don't think they are truly THAT bad.

Then, more recently, Thomas Edsall reports in the HuffPO that Clinton operatives are telling various reporters that they think Obama's youthful drug use is not getting sufficient scrutiny from the media as to how general election voters might react. The next day, a Hillary campaign chair person, Billy Shaheen, by sheer coincidence, tells the Washington Post that the press ought to explore whether Obama has mishandled the matter of his youthful drug use, because by being candid about it, the press might start asking during the general eleciton campaign whether Obama was ever in fact a DRUG DEALER. Oops. Blogs like TPM start emailing Hillary's campaign for a reaction to the criticism of Shaheen. THe campaign waits several hours, but then sees that the comments went over like a lead balloon and that black bloggers were even claiming there was subtle racism in Shaheen's suggestion that drug dealer questions would be posed. So the campaign says "it does not condone" the remarks. As the outrage mounts, they finally fire that jerk the next day.

Next thing we know, the Hillary campaign rolls out the Kerrey endorsement with all the fanfair that had previously accorded the Shaheen endorsement. On the very day the press is talking to Kerrey he pretends he thinks it is a huge plus that Obama's middle name is "Hussein." Hmm, could be an innocent and even naive comment by Bob Kerrey. But then there's an uproar. So the next day does Kerrey say it was a mistake? No, he coins an oxymoronic phrase "secular MADRASSA" that echoes the Insight article and the supposed "bad apple" Iowa staffers who spread the hate email.

She needs to come out tomorrow and say Kerrey no longer can speak for the campaign, and that they do not approve of his tactics, whatever their intentions.

Posted by RaymondA | December 17, 2007 10:40 PM

"I love that his name is Barack Hussein Obama; that he was educated for a while in a secular madrassa. He can speak like no other candidate to a billion Muslims on this earth and say we’re not your enemy unless you make us so."

This is Kerrey on Oct 30th to the Economist:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2007 /10/bob_kerrey_discusses_leadershi.cfm

Posted by Jonas8 | December 17, 2007 10:41 PM

At the rate we're going, I expect the Clinton campaign pretty soon to come out with something like, "I'm happy Obama chose to date and marry a black woman - especially when he could have gone anywhere in this country and had all the white women he wanted, what with that admirable virility of his."

Posted by lampwick | December 17, 2007 10:43 PM

Yeah, lampwick, it's only a matter of time before they start "suggesting" that Obama has a stable of white women in his senate office, and our wonderful media will simply report, "Clinton campaign accuses Barack Obama of sleeping with numerous white woman in the senate chamber - we're currently awaiting a response from the Obama campaign about the accusation that he slept with many, many white woman. How many women we can't be sure of yet, but you can be sure that we'll get it to you first."

Posted by Bill | December 17, 2007 10:48 PM

You have got to be joking.

At best, Kerrey mispoke and meant to say that blogs 'falsely' state that he spent time in a madrassa.

However, given how far Clinton surrogates have gone to smear Obama and the fact that people associated with her campaign have been caught perpetuating this lie, that is a very generous assumption.

To suggest that Kerrey was unaware of this smear was already being emailed around and used to falsely malign Obama is simply foolish. Kerrey and Hillary Clinton owe Barack Obama multiple apologies.

Posted by C Gibson | December 17, 2007 10:49 PM

Raymond, that Insight comment was the first thing I was reminded of, when the Clinton campaign denied the Novak claim that her campaign was offering him "scandalous" information on Obama.

In fact, Clinton not only called Novak a liar but she called Obama irresponsible for falling for a Republican trick.

Novak let it go for a few weeks, and then followed up with another column, naming the Clinton campaign staffers who offered the information, naming other journalists they approached, and describing the information. It was the Leadership PAC thing. I saw that column last week in the Washington Post, and haven't heard any comment from the Clinton campaign on it.

A couple points here.

First, how do you feel about her denial of the Insight claim now?

Second, I'm a little surprised at the recklessness on Clinton's part. Or maybe there's another word for it, I don't know. She called Novak a liar. Did she really think he wasn't going to say more and try to prove his word?

Posted by Paul | December 17, 2007 10:53 PM

RKA -- Great post. But I think you are being too kind to Hillary in a way. She said: "Kerrey was making a point that Sen. Obama makes himself all the time, that because of his upbringing and his heritage he is, in his view, very well suited to communicate with the rest of the world. And he has just said himself that he wants to have a particular outreach to the Islamic world. So I think Sen. Kerrey was being, you know, very generous in what he said.”

Hillary has so little generosity of spirit that she cannot even grant Obama's premise! She is saying that Kerrey agrees with a line that Hillary herself does not agree with.

Separately, someone pointed out on another site that Kerrey used the phrase "secular Madrassa" in late October of this year in a press interview in describing Obama's schooling. This person thought this was proof that there is not an orchestrated plot to bring this up. My view is that, given the Google, and the fact that Hillary's crack research team knows how to use the Google, they were well aware when they chose to throw the spotlight on Kerrey recently that he was spreading this particular misunderstanding.

Also, one thing that's overlooked. Many of you are saying that the claim that the Hillary campaign orchestrated this is a bit paranoid and conspiratorial. You may be right, but the only alternative explanation for the Shaheen "blunder" and now this one, is that the Hillary campaign, which was being promoted by Hillary supporters on this site and others for months as the efficient, experienced behemoth that could stand up to the best the Repubs have to offier in terms of day-to-day message discipline and management, is actually a train wreck with regard to those "trains run on time" virtues.

In other words, if this and the Shaheen thing were NOT orchestrated, then Hillary's campaign is horribly inefficient or poorly managed. That's almost as disqualifying as saying that the campaign is dark and Rovian in its attempt to tear down a good man.

Posted by RaymondA | December 17, 2007 10:58 PM

In other words, if this and the Shaheen thing were NOT orchestrated, then Hillary's campaign is horribly inefficient or poorly managed.

Don't be absurd. Kerrey has endorsed Clinton. He doesn't work for her campaign. He's free to say whatever he wants. How is Hillary's failure to prevent a free human being from speaking his mind "a blunder?"

God, if this is the type of paranoia and thin skin we have to look forward to should Obama prevail, please shoot me know, and then hand the keys to the White House to the Republicans.

Posted by Red Bowl | December 17, 2007 11:10 PM

I have no right to run for the President. I am a humble American. I mis-understood that I am eligible. I therefore apologize.

I thus support the candidacy of Her Majesty, Mrs. Clinton.

I urge my supporters to throw their support towards Her Majesty, Mrs. Clinton, and His Highness, Mr. Clinton.

This is constitutional monarchy after all.

Please forgive me.

Posted by eorse | December 17, 2007 11:10 PM

How did such a naif get a paid job writing about politics?

It's like putting an Amish person on a technology column.

Posted by Jon H | December 17, 2007 11:45 PM

RKA--thanks, good info. But boy, it makes me mad.

Go Obama!

Posted by Johnny | December 17, 2007 11:52 PM

Red Bowl says: "Don't be absurd. Kerrey has endorsed Clinton. He doesn't work for her campaign. He's free to say whatever he wants. How is Hillary's failure to prevent a free human being from speaking his mind "a blunder?"

Three responses, Red Bowl. First, Clinton came to his defense earlier today. Second, quite apart from that, Kerry is not some random endorser. Every campaign chooses certain endorsers and throws a big spotlight on them and puts them on the trail as surrogates. Kerrey is that level of endorser; he's not some random volunteer. Third, Kerrey had made a similar false statement that Obama attended a madrassa in late October to the Economist. If Hillary's crack team of "vetters" and researchers did not catch that one and yet still shone a big proud spotlight on this jackass, it certainly does reflect on her campaign's competence. For Chrissakes, I don't know about your posting history, but many Hillary supporters were making a HUGE deal out of a friggin' singer who Obama's campaign put on stage for an entertainment event, and who was not treated as any kind of surrogate. That person's offense was that he stated that he thought gay people chose to be gay and could change to to heterosexuality. Maybe you were not on that bandwagon, but I must admit that, though I thought that that Obama campaign misstep was hugely overblown, I had to acknowledge it was a misstep.

The Kerrey and Shaheen things are TEN TIMES WORSE, because asinine comments came from people whom Clinton praised repeatedly for their political judgment, not for their singing skills.

Posted by RaymondA | December 17, 2007 11:56 PM

Eorse, is your comment above about a Gore endorsement, a mere wish? Or have you seen any reporting on that matter. IF the latter, how about a link?

Posted by RaymondA | December 17, 2007 11:57 PM

One final post and then I'm done with this obsession with Kerrey.

Lost in the "madrassa" suggestion is a fact about Kerrey I had never realized. His views on race are extremely condescending. He's basically saying that the country can "use" Obama, because his success would turn poor black kids away from the street. This is a variant of the "he is a credit to his race" crap that I thought had died a merciful death in, around, 1975.

The Clintons are as yesterday as Celine Dion's Vegas act.

Posted by RaymondA | December 18, 2007 12:08 AM

Third, Kerrey had made a similar false statement that Obama attended a madrassa in late October to the Economist.

It's not a false statement. Obama did attend a madrassa. He lived in the Islamic country called Indonesia. That's what schools are called there. In fact I think "madrassa" is simply the Arabic word for "school" and so naturally is in wide use throughout the Islamic world.

If Hillary's crack team of "vetters" and researchers did not catch that one and yet still shone a big proud spotlight on this jackass, it certainly does reflect on her campaign's competence.

Again, Kerrey does not work for Hillary Clinton. He's the president of a university. Lots of people have endorsed Hillary Clinton. Her campaign certainly does not possess the ability or responsbility to "vet" the words uttered by every person who has endorsed her.

Question to the Obamites: why are any of you even the slightest bit upset at the supposed slur on the part of Bob Kerrey? Is it because you think such words hurt your candidate? But if that's the case, do you possibly think the GOP is going to refrain from the use of such terminology?

Posted by Red Bowl | December 18, 2007 12:21 AM

slick wrote, 'First of all, the word madrassah means "school". Therefore, Kerrey is technically correct, but he didn't use it in that context. The West mistakenly uses the term to imply Muslim religious school.'

Indonesia is NOT AN ARABIC-SPEAKING COUNTRY. Therefore, Kerrey would only have been technically correct if he'd been speaking in Arabic.

The only reason to use the word "madrassah" was to reference the discredited Insight/Fox/viral email/Clinton suggestion that Obama's secretly Muslim.

Coming right on the heals of the Clinton campaign's similar effort to build a new drug story around Obama, there's no way this was an accident.

Posted by John Z., Mt. Pleasant, IA | December 18, 2007 12:22 AM

Likewise, one final post...

I was wondering why Obama's church trip on Sunday was such a media event. Now I suspect I know why. The Obama campaign may have gotten word that the Clintons were about to roll out the Muslim smear tactic.

What a bunch of weasels. The Clintons are doing to the Democratic party what Jim Jones did to Kool-Aid.

Posted by Johnny | December 18, 2007 12:23 AM

He's basically saying that the country can "use" Obama, because his success would turn poor black kids away from the street. This is a variant of the "he is a credit to his race" crap that I thought had died a merciful death in, around, 1975.

The view that African American kids sometimes suffer from a dearth of role models is hardly new, nor, as far as I can tell, is it incorrect. Surely the country can make use of more strong black role models, especially men. You really need to get a grip, and then a clue.

Posted by Red Bowl | December 18, 2007 12:27 AM

Good point, John Z. Why didn't Kerrey use the Indonesian word for school?

Furthermore, let's not pretend we and Kerrey all don't know the word madrassa has a connotation in this country. Kerrey is no idiot - he knew what he was saying.

Okay, any predictions on the next Clinton slime attack?

Posted by Paul | December 18, 2007 12:34 AM

Indonesia is NOT AN ARABIC-SPEAKING COUNTRY. Therefore, Kerrey would only have been technically correct if he'd been speaking in Arabic.

From WikiPedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrassah:

"...The word madrasah is derived regularly from the triconsonantal root د-ر-س (d-r-s), which relates to "learning" or "teaching," through the wazn (form/stem) (مفعل(ة mafʻal(a), meaning "a place where X is done"; therefore, "madrasah" literally means "a place where learning/teaching is done". The word is also present as a loanword with the same innocuous meaning in many Arabic-influenced languages such as Urdu, Hindi, Persian, Turkish, Kurdish, Indonesian, Malay and Bosnian."

Emphasis mine.

Heck, maybe fans of Obama are correct to be upset at the Kerrey kerfufle, because maybe they're correct that the dissemination of the knowledge that their candidate attended a madrassah will hurt him with primary voters. But if that's the case, why exactly are Democrats who really want to take the White House back not supposed to be concerned about how this knowledge will affect general election voters?

Posted by Red Bowl | December 18, 2007 12:36 AM

Why didn't Kerrey use the Indonesian word for school?

He did. That word is "madrassah."

Posted by Red Bowl | December 18, 2007 12:38 AM

Red Bowl, as I explained above, I for one don't think this will hurt Obama in the general election, should he win nomination. I hope Hillary keeps it up, because it will help to get him there.

Posted by Paul | December 18, 2007 12:41 AM

... if that's the case, do you possibly think the GOP is going to refrain from the use of such terminology

This is the argument I've made repeatedly against an Obama nomination. Whether it's fair, disgusting, a cheap shot, or anything else, this stuff will hurt him in the GE.

Posted by justinb | December 18, 2007 12:58 AM

I just read the Wikipedia article, but also followed other links based on search of "Indonesian for school."

Predominantly I found "bahasa." Anyone here speak Indonesian?

Note the discussion behind the Wikipedia article, where the "editors" seem to wonder if they aren't sacrificing truth for political correctness and frequently, albeit honestly, cite their own ignorance on the subject of arabic languages.

The article also notes that common Western usage of the word madrassa is more than just school - and Kerrey has to realize this campaign season is taking place among people who don't know the particulars of the Indonesian language even as well as Wikipedia editors.

Posted by Paul | December 18, 2007 1:01 AM

how on Earth can you put that post up without noting How he just endorsed Hillary, is it really not obvious that he's doing this on purpose, or maybe you just don't care.

Posted by rich | December 18, 2007 1:13 AM

justinB - I thought the argument for Clinton was that all the dirt on her was known; the Republicans couldn't bring up anything new.

If you're worried about Republicans recycling old dirt, then doesn't Clinton have the larger liability? I mean, do you really think the madrassa thing will cost Obama more votes than the Chinese connections would cause Clinton votes?

I think there's an innoculating effect associated with old dirt. The Republicans could bring up Whitewater, FBI files, Bill's women, Chinese fundraisers, Los Alamos secret computers... and all the rest... and most independents would just roll their eyes.

The same will happen if Republicans try the madrassa or drug pusher attacks on Obama. In fact, its worse because it sounds more silly. Not quite as silly as kindergate, but still pretty silly.

It would be like the difference between Bob Kerrey and John Kerry. If someone tried to discredit Bob's war record, it would just sound old and meanspirited. But the attacks on John's war record seemed new. Plus he didn't answer them well, and he was basing a lot of his credibility on his military service.

Posted by Paul | December 18, 2007 1:16 AM

Red Bowl, you are just revealing your ignorance again. First, as Paul above notes, the Wikipedia entry makes two things clear. First, in the United States -- you know, the country where the election is being held and that Kerrey was addressing -- the connotation for madrassah is a school for religious teaching and indoctrination. Second, the same Wikipedia article that you misleadingly quote from makes it clear that the presence of the Arabic root does not mean that the word "madrasa" is literally the word for a school in Indonesia. For example, the Hebrew variant of the same root is "Midrash." I studied linguistics in college, and you don't even need that level of exposure to know that a root that appears across multiple languages does not result in the same word or set of sounds being used in all those languages. For example, the German and Yiddish words for school are both pronounced "shul." But you would not say that the English word for "school" is "shul," which is Red Bowl's "logic" as to why the Indonesian word for school is "madrassa." It just isn't. But why get sucked into this. Only the English connotation matters. If someone had called Obama a "negro," which was once a respectful term but now is considered unwelcome, he could not defend on the ground that "hey, that's Spanish for 'black.'" In politics, more than in any other area of language, connotations matter hugely.

So give up Red Bowl. A guy who supports your candidate has revealed himself to be, at best, a clueless boob, and at worst a willing player in a very subtle slur campaign masquerading under the thin veneer of an attempt to praise Obama.

In studying Kerrey's words again, the real give away is when Kerrey lets it slip that Obama himself might not see the virtues of the Hussein middle name and the bogus 'madrassa' education in the same way Kerrey does. Well if he doesn't see it that way, Bob, then simply shut up and don't share your theories in a series of interviews scheduled to promote Hillary's candidacy.

Lastly, Red Bowl, many many African Americans have looked at the full set of Kerrey comments over the last two days, and have translated them as of the condescending "credit to his race" variety. I only loosely summarized the comments and probably failed to give the full flavor.

Also, in the past Obama has said that he would regret it greatly if the public patted itself on the back after electing him or someone else as the first black President and said, "Wow. We've solved the race problem." He has said that if he saw any signs that was happening, he would do everything he could to disabuse people of that idea.

Posted by RaymondA | December 18, 2007 1:25 AM

Obama`s people like to point out that Obama lived in a Moslem country Indonesia from 6-10 years old which makes him more wordly. Indonesia is a Muslim country. A madrassa is just a parochial school for Muslims. How can anyone say that Kerrey was smearing Obama. The likihood is that he did attend a madrassa in Indonesia considering where he lived. Has anyone seen his elementary school records that can disprove this statement. So nobody can say for sure that Kerrey was smearing him since the odds are considering where he attended school he did go to a madrassa.

Posted by Reba Shimansky | December 18, 2007 2:26 AM

I have heard the argument that "madrassa" means school in Arabic, and therefore Bob Kerrey was telling the truth. Indeed, he was, but only if the school in question was in an Arabic speaking nation, which Indonesia is not.

In Indonesia, a school is called a "sekolah", and that is the word that should have been used if Bob Kerrey was attempting to be accurate. We do not call schools in Spain "madrassas", and we also would not say that a person who attended school in Spain attended a "secular escuela".

It appears, sadly, that Bob Kerrey is another in a now long line of Hillary Clinton campaign operatives who are set on smearing Obama in any desperate way possible, now by attempting to insinuate that he is a terrorist.

Posted by Ruth | December 18, 2007 4:25 AM

Apparently, school in Indonesia is "sekolah" NOT madrassa.

Below is a link to an online English-Indonesian dictionary. Type in school and see for yourself. Lots of different Indonesian words for "school" in different contexts and no reference to "madrassa" anywhere that I can see.

http://www.sederet.com/translate.php

Posted by BJU | December 18, 2007 4:32 AM

Since when do people throw in random words from other languages and cultures when speaking in English, even if the words have strong connotations of terrorism. That Kerrey guy must just LOVE to be technically correct about these things.

Don't we do that all the time, naturally?

And yes, about Obama being an African-American role model, we have to remember that Obama would especially stand out in this regard because of his long intifada with blackness.

Posted by eli | December 18, 2007 5:10 AM

I see many other people had the same thought I did--check online English-Indonesian dictionaries to see if "madrassa" is used in Indonesian for school (apparent answer: no).

I also believe that the school in question is called "Sekolah Dasar Nasional Menteng 01". Based on those dictionaries, "Sekolah Dasar Nasional" (Menteng is a place name) translates as "School Elementary National", or perhaps "State Elementary School". So it appears to be flat out false that "madrassa" is an Indonesian word for school, or that this Arabic word would otherwise apply to the school Obama attended.

Accordingly, if Kerrey had said something like "secular elementary school", that would plausibly be a case of Kerrey trying to be clear about what sort of school Obama attended in Indonesia. And perhaps even "secular sekolah" would have made sense, if for some reason Kerrey was trying to introduce us to a little bit of the Indonesian language. But as far as Kerrey's chosen phrase "secular madrassa" is concerned, there appears to be no plausible justification for using that term to refer to Obama's elementary school in Indonesia.

Posted by DTM | December 18, 2007 5:25 AM

F Wikipedia! Please! All of you Clinton supporters, starting with the aptly named "slick", who can say, with a straight face, that "madrassa" is not a slur because technically it just means school, blah blah blah, when we ALL know that the word - whatever the bleeding hell it means or whatever Wikipedia says - is insanely inflammatory, and means - to every knob out there - "school where they indoctrinate you to be a suicide bomber",

where was I in this long sentence? OK: you people are a shining example of Clintonian missing-the-woods-for-the-smarty-pants-vein-on-the-leaf-of-the-tree characteristic that so endeared Bill to the nation when he popped out with the observation that whether or not he had committed perjury depended on what the definition of "is" is.

Keep going with that!

Posted by Phoebe | December 18, 2007 5:26 AM

I've been following stories about Obama for the better part of three years (since his 2004 DNC keynote, in fact,) and in the interest of disclosure, I will vote for him. The analogue to what we are seeing, developing as a pattern, from Hill-bots, would be roughly equivalent to a casual mention from an Obama-connected staffer (or at this point, 4-5 of them, plus a conservative columnist tip-off,) framing Hillary as 'probably gay given how little emotion or anger she showed at Bill's philandering.' Even if it wasn't 'meant' to do any harm, those supporting her, and rightfully so, would be instantly indignant. (I mean, hey, I'm liberal I don't have any problem with gay people, I'm just going to conveniently forget that a good portion of the general electorate does, and portray it as a mere oversight on my part...) [and for the record, I genuinely do not harbor any bigotry toward gay people, or muslims.]

Think back to the mosques that were vandalized in this country shortly after 9/11, and the violence against members of the sikh religion in the U.S. who were targeted simply because they wear turbans. There is a gross mistrust of Islam in this country. Mere suggestions, no matter how innocuously they can be interpreted, cannot be construed as mistakes, when they are coming from the mouths of politicians. I remember first hearing the word madrassa on a series of investigative news reports about three (four?) years ago, detailing the indoctrination of young men in Pakistan from an early age into ultra-orthodox (jihadist) views in these schools. And to the point that madrassa merely means 'school' that is true in a narrow context, but given the history of this smear campaign (and it has officially reached the status of a campaign at this point,) it is squarely aimed at lending credence to the story line of Obama's being a 'Mesopotamian' candidate.

The reason it fires up Obama supporters is that it's underhanded, the claims are baseless and it smacks of prejudice and bigotry that we are no longer willing to let pass unchecked. Not from Republicans, not from Democrats, not from anyone! This very well may be 4-5 of Clinton-linked supporters disseminating 'clumsy' accounts of Obama's 'ties' to Islam. But the more it happens, the less likely anyone is to believe that it is coincidence, and as others have mentioned, if it is unintentional, then it displays an utter lack of competency on the part of the Clinton campaign to manage their message (let alone the rest of her run.) If it is not, then it is truly repugnant, and as it continues to be noticed, so too, will a continuing slide in the Clinton campaign's support. Any sentient Democrat should know that even the *appearance* of impropriety is enough to derail voters' notions of electability, not to mention likability. Especially with the issues with 'truthISHness' that the Clinton name has come to stand for. If these are simply mistakes, they are mistakes that Hillary Clinton cannot afford to be making. I am not condemning her out of hand, I remain open, but at the least, unimpressed.

Posted by Craig | December 18, 2007 6:54 AM

Just a few casual questions:

Has the Edwards campaign been involved in a series of similar "mistakes" involving Obama? Have multiple Edwards staffers been caught forwarding "Obama is a Muslim sleeper agent" e-mails? Have prominent Edwards strategists been suggesting Obama is vulnerable to questions about whether he was a cocaine dealer? Has Edwards featured endorsements from people repeatedly and erroneously claiming that Obama attended a madrassa? For that matter, has this same series of incidents afflicted any other campaign recently?

Because it would be quite a coincidence if all that was happening by accident to just one particular campaign.

Posted by DTM | December 18, 2007 7:27 AM

jcr - Please don't call Kerrey a "war hero." Bob Kerrey is a war criminal. This isn't hyperbole. It has been documented by many respected papers, most notably the Village Voice.

Bob Kerry is a Medal of Honor winner. I respect his honor and valor. What exactly have you done for your country, jcr?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Kerrey

Bob Kerrey directed his SEAL team in a firefight to the death with a superior NVA force with one leg blown off and the other, and his arm and face full of grenade shrapnel. He fired on the enemy himself while gravely wounded, taking down many. Then he set up the taking of high-value targets and handled comms for helo evac of his team when they had made a safe LZ. He nearly succumbed to his wounds.

The hard Left has a problem with Kerry's SEAL Team eliminating some enemy civilians on another mission that could have killed them all by giving away their location to armed enemy in the same proximity. It is a hard call. Kerrey's actions saved his men and were allowed under rules of engagement in commanders judgement.

40 Years later, in Afghanistan another SEAL Commander, also given the MOH, made the wrong call. He let 3 Taliban area civilians go. Then over 1 hundred Taliban and AQ were alerted by the free Talibani civilians and killed all the SEALs but one. Then killed all the Special Ops sent in to rescue the SEAL team that had blown their mission. (23 more).

Kerrey's call saved his men. Navy SEAL, Lt. Michael P. Murphy misguided mercy to 3 Taliban won him the MOH, but cost 26 American lives. Kerrey was smarter and a betterofficer to his men and mission than Murphy was.

Such engagements generate lessons taught to special ops people and military lawyers worldwide keen to hang any soldier who kills a civilian, even from necessity.

====================
On Obama and his Indonesian school. It was not like a Pakistani or Wahabbist Madrassah - all Islam, all the time. But it was not a secular school. Obama and his classmates had their butts up in the air twice at designated times praying to Mecca as part of Indonesian Shalat - the accomodation of schools and society to 5X daily times of obligated prayer to Allah. Obama also had lessons in which the Koran was integral to teaching. Young boys and girls were segregated, and school curricula included 1/2 hour to 1 hour of straight Muslim religious study.

If Obama touts his "Muslim experiences" as integral to why he has an edge over campaign opponents without his "keen international insights formed as a boy in a Muslim country - the Kerrey statements detail WHAT that experience entailed. Barack can't have his cake and eat it too. If he considers those years so important, unlike others of us who remember our time overseas in places like Brazil or Germany as a blur - then his multiculti "blessings" have to be comprehensively discussed as also entailing two years of Obama with his ass up and facing Mecca, his elementary school Koranic religious study as well as "learning to play soccer with, and relating well to people different than I."

Posted by Chris Ford | December 18, 2007 7:39 AM

Uh, Chris, did you read the Wikipedia entry you cite? Bob Kerrey left the Senate in 2001 because of revelations in The New York Times Magazine and 60 Minutes II regarding his Vietnam War record. A massacre had occurred, and there were discrepancies between Kerrey's account and the recollections of other soldiers on his team. The controversy concerned Kerrey's role in the massacre. The uproar resulted in Kerrey leaving the Senate.

I realize I'm probably wasting my time correcting someone who has issues with the "hard Left," as you put it. But here's a tip: if you want to attack Obama, you'll be more effective if you drop the Archie Bunker style and replace it with the paralepsis Bob Kerrey style. Just a thought.

Posted by Johnny | December 18, 2007 9:03 AM

>

Do you have a source for the above description of Obama's school? What you say appears contradicted by the following CNN report:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/

"This is a public school. We don't focus on religion," Hardi Priyono, deputy headmaster of the Basuki school, told Vause. "In our daily lives, we try to respect religion, but we don't give preferential treatment."

Vause reported he saw boys and girls dressed in neat school uniforms playing outside the school, while teachers were dressed in Western-style clothes.

"It's not (an) Islamic school. It's general," Winadijanto said. "There is a lot of Christians, Buddhists, also Confucian. ... So that's a mixed school."

Posted by BJU | December 18, 2007 9:39 AM

The most ridiculous part is the assumption made because Indonesia is a predominately Muslim country is that they speak Arabic and would even refer to a school as a madrassa.

Indonesians speak the Indonesian language. The translation for primary school is

Sekolah dasar

So the use of Madrassa to describe Obama's school is not correct, because it was not in an Arabic country.

And people should know that the word "madrassa" in Arabic is the word for SCHOOL. It's the media that has given it the connotatiion radical Islamist training ground.

All children Christian, Muslim, secular, in Arabic countries who attend school, attend a "madrassa."

So, yes. First of of Kerrery gave an incorrect statement, secondly it was an obvious attempt to smear Obama.

The Clintons whole campaign strategy rests on the American people being stupid and easily manipulated.

David Geffen was right when he said they had no qualms about lying to get their way.

Posted by lagnaippe | December 18, 2007 10:15 AM

If people want to get the facts straight about Obama's religion, they should go to www.factcheck.barackobama.com.

Posted by peter | December 18, 2007 11:57 AM

I am surprised this didn't get more play today in the media. One of my concerns is that Clinton playing dirty is seen as "old news."

In that sense, she may have even come into this campaign somewhat innoculated against her own dirty tricks on her opponents. Sure, the drug pusher thing got a little play. But not too much outside of these blogs, if you think about it. And this madrassa thing, hardly none at all.

Posted by Paul | December 18, 2007 1:39 PM

KErrey did not "accidentally" get it wrong. This is part of the cheap smear campaign orchestrated by Hillary and Mark Penn. Shame on them all.

Posted by waka waka | December 18, 2007 2:01 PM

The Clintons attacks should come as no surprise to anyone. This is what they do! The question is, will a fair percentage of the voters fall for it? For those of us who follow these things closely the Clinton strategy seems foolish, desperate and pathetic. But alot of people don't pay as much attention and could be swayed. I have the feeling however that most voters in the early states are not going to be fooled by the Clintons. I use to have a bit of respect for Bill Clinton. That's gone. Time to clear the board and sweep the Clintons into the dust bin of history.

Posted by Bradyp | December 18, 2007 3:06 PM

Hillary Clinton received a degree in modern witchcraft from Wellesley, the school for pagan lesbian America haters, so she is in the best position to negotiate with the radical femifacists with education degrees from Brown who are destroying our country.

Posted by If Goldberg were an Obama surrogate | December 18, 2007 4:12 PM

If the latest poll from Insider Advantage is accurate, the caricaturing of Senator Obama as the drug dealing, muslim manchurian candidate is working and benefitting John Edwards. I'm not surprised; it was leap of faith to believe that a state with a 90+% White population would vote for a Black man, but it would be akin to believing in the virgin birth to believe that they would vote for a Black man who has now been framed by the lense of exaggerated Black male criminality and muslim extremism. Yes, Michelle, it was all just a dream.

Posted by Dawn | December 18, 2007 5:44 PM

If Bob Kerrey actually believes that Obama attended a madrassa, then it stands to reason that many less enlightened voters believe the same, or worse.

I don't understand why you think Bob Kerry "actually believes" Obama attended a madrassa? Because he said it? Do you truly believe that Bob Kerrey has to believe Obama attended a madrassa to say it?

Posted by Kathy | December 18, 2007 8:03 PM

Right now, I cannot imagine ever supporting the Clintons or any of their allies ever again. What are we coming to?

Posted by Mike | December 18, 2007 8:42 PM

Maureen Dowd wrote a spot-on column about the insinuation of inflammatory words into the campaign - read the whole thing (it's hilarious!) but this is the part relevant to this particular discussion:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16dowd.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
clip:
WASHBURN: Can you both please describe the key features of what you consider to be the best education system in the world?

CLINTON: Well, I know that some of my supporters have been spreading gossip that Senator Obama loves the madrassa system for pre-K through terrorist training camp. But there is not a gram of truth in those accusations. We shouldn’t inject intolerance into this race.

A Madrassa, Bob Kerrey? A Madrassa?

Comments (83)