Obama, Farrakhan, and how Hillary Clinton took the opening and then squandered it.
What happened in the debate last night when Tim Russert confronted Barack Obama about Louis Farrakhan? In real time, I thought that Obama failed to denounce Farrakhan and that Hillary Clinton caught it and confronted him. It was the single most impressive thing I've seen Hillary Clinton do in the debates. But then Obama managed to cloud things up and make her point seem silly, and she backed down.
Now, let's look at the transcript:
That implies, I think, that people should worry less about what second-rate leaders like Farrakhan and Wright have been doing in the past and think more hopefully about what a first-rate leader like him can do in the future. In this view, garishly severing ties to Farrakhan and Wright is either beside the point or counterproductive. Let those 2 characters operate at a distance, helping Obama achieve power, and, at that point, Obama will get everything right and then he can transform everyone and root out all traces of anti-Semitism.
***
Video:
ADDED: What others are saying. Andrew Sullivan, live-blogging:
Don Frederick at the LA Times: "He could have saved himself some potential grief if he had been less circular arriving at that point" (of equating "reject" and "denounce"). Oh, Don, don't you see? It's all about the circular. It only worked because of the circularity. I mean, it's the circularity that made you think it was only circular!
Sticking with the MSM blogs, here's Katharine Q. Seelye for the NYT:
Marc Ambinder:
MORE: Noam Scheiber brings up an incident from Hillary's 2000 Senate campaign relating to Suha Arafat: "I was sure she was going to invoke the firestorm she ignited after watching Suha Arafat deliver an anti-Israel tirade." Here's a 2000 NYT article that gives background on the Suha Arafat incident:
Now, let's look at the transcript:
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Obama, one of the things in a campaign is that you have to react to unexpected developments.Russert challenges Obama to show what he's made of. Farrakhan offers his support: Do you have the courage to say no, I don't want your support, I reject it?
On Sunday, the headline in your hometown paper, Chicago Tribune: "Louis Farrakhan Backs Obama for President at Nation of Islam Convention in Chicago." Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?
SEN. OBAMA: You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible.Obama makes 2 significant rhetorical moves: 1. He reverts to the use of the past tense and 2. He refers to not to Farrakhan, the man, but to some of the things that Farrahkan has said in the past. This distances him from the question asked and leaves room for him to accept the support of the man.
I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can't censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we're not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.Clearly, this is a failure to reject Farrakhan. It's extremely clever, but don't be fooled by the cleverness, which was hard to catch in real time. He's creating the space for Farrakhan to operate separately, bringing him support. Farrahkan didn't coordinate with the campaign in any way. Fine. That wasn't the question. Farrakhan has said some good things about Obama, and Obama doesn't want to say I don't accept support from this man. He talks about the nonissue of censoring him. Of course, Obama can't make Farrakhan stop, but he can do what Russert asked him to do: Say that he rejects the support.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you reject his support?Russert sees what is happening and asks the perfect follow-up.
SEN. OBAMA: Well, Tim, you know, I can't say to somebody that he can't say that he thinks I'm a good guy. (Laughter.) You know, I -- you know, I -- I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements, and I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments."Of him" here matters. This is the one place where there is a reference to the man — though perhaps only the man and his comments — the man if he continues to come attached to the kind of statements he's made in the past. And there is still a failure to say that he rejects the support. And he's still speaking in the past tense. He still won't say "I denounce Farrakhan" or "I reject his support." He must want the support for the good it can do him. That's understandable, but it is an opening for Hillary Clinton.
MR. RUSSERT: The problem some voters may have is, as you know, Reverend Farrakhan called Judaism "gutter religion."Obama neatly packages the issue into the statements and the denunciations of the past.
OBAMA: Tim, I think -- I am very familiar with his record, as are the American people. That's why I have consistently denounced it.
This is not something new. This is something that -- I live in Chicago. He lives in Chicago. I've been very clear, in terms of me believing that what he has said is reprehensible and inappropriate. And I have consistently distanced myself from him.
RUSSERT: The title of one of your books, "Audacity of Hope," you acknowledge you got from a sermon from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the head of the Trinity United Church. He said that Louis Farrakhan "epitomizes greatness."Russert opens the matter back up with details and with the figure of Jeremiah Wright, from whom Obama has not distanced himself.
He said that he went to Libya in 1984 with Louis Farrakhan to visit with Moammar Gadhafi and that, when your political opponents found out about that, quote, "your Jewish support would dry up quicker than a snowball in Hell."
RUSSERT: What do you do to assure Jewish-Americans that, whether it's Farrakhan's support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness?
OBAMA: Tim, I have some of the strongest support from the Jewish community in my hometown of Chicago and in this presidential campaign. And the reason is because I have been a stalwart friend of Israel's. I think they are one of our most important allies in the region, and I think that their security is sacrosanct, and that the United States is in a special relationship with them, as is true with my relationship with the Jewish community.This too is a clever set of rhetorical moves. How can he reassure Jews? 1. Jews already support him. 2. Jews were historically great benefactors of black people. (I love Jews.) 3. He has the capacity to rebuild the connections between Jews and African-Americans. (Jews should love me.)
And the reason that I have such strong support is because they know that not only would I not tolerate anti-Semitism in any form, but also because of the fact that what I want to do is rebuild what I consider to be a historic relationship between the African-American community and the Jewish community.
That implies, I think, that people should worry less about what second-rate leaders like Farrakhan and Wright have been doing in the past and think more hopefully about what a first-rate leader like him can do in the future. In this view, garishly severing ties to Farrakhan and Wright is either beside the point or counterproductive. Let those 2 characters operate at a distance, helping Obama achieve power, and, at that point, Obama will get everything right and then he can transform everyone and root out all traces of anti-Semitism.
[OBAMA:] You know, I would not be sitting here were it not for a whole host of Jewish Americans, who supported the civil rights movement and helped to ensure that justice was served in the South. And that coalition has frayed over time around a whole host of issues, and part of my task in this process is making sure that those lines of communication and understanding are reopened.These 3 paragraphs filibuster the same point. Please forget the nasty things Tim Russert said so long ago.
But, you know, the reason that I have such strong support in the Jewish community and have historically -- it was true in my U.S. Senate campaign and it's true in this presidency -- is because the people who know me best know that I consistently have not only befriended the Jewish community, not only have I been strong on Israel, but, more importantly, I've been willing to speak out even when it is not comfortable.
When I was -- just last point I would make -- when I was giving -- had the honor of giving a sermon at Ebenezer Baptist Church in conjunction with Martin Luther King's birthday in front of a large African-American audience, I specifically spoke out against anti-Semitism within the African-American community. And that's what gives people confidence that I will continue to do that when I'm president of the United States.
WILLIAMS: Senator...Great! She saw what just happened. She made the exact point that needed to be made. And she had a personal example of courage, doing precise thing that Russert invited Obama to do. Perfect.
CLINTON: I just want to add something here, because I faced a similar situation when I ran for the Senate in 2000 in New York. And in New York, there are more than the two parties, Democratic and Republican. And one of the parties at that time, the Independence Patty, was under the control of people who were anti-Semitic, anti-Israel. And I made it very clear that I did not want their support. I rejected it. I said that it would not be anything I would be comfortable with. And it looked as though I might pay a price for that. But I would not be associated with people who said such inflammatory and untrue charges against either Israel or Jewish people in our country.
And, you know, I was willing to take that stand, and, you know, fortunately the people of New York supported me and I won. But at the time, I thought it was more important to stand on principle and to reject the kind of conditions that went with support like that.Perfect.
RUSSERT: Are you suggesting Senator Obama is not standing on principle?In other words: Please, Hillary, explain, for those out there who might not have noticed what you said you did and which Obama just wriggled out of doing.
CLINTON: No. I'm just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject it. And there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting.Make it clear! Don't let this look like a Clintonesque word game. This isn't "what the meaning of is is." There is a real difference. Say what it is so your best point isn't lost!
And I think when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory -- I have no doubt that everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we've got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far reaching.From her best moment to her worst! She melted into near gibberish. Why? What was she afraid of? Did she lose her grip on the subject? "Sort of, you know"? "I just think"? The filler words pop up everywhere. Bland praise seeps in: Obama is "absolutely sincere." And the distinction she just made between him and her becomes a lame wish to become "even stronger." So then, he's already strong, so what are you quibbling about? What a lost opportunity!
OBAMA: Tim, I have to say I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting.He doesn't miss the opportunities. He just drove in the knife, yet it sounded lighthearted and funny.
There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it.Huh? Clinton should be preparing her attack based on this nonsense. You can reject help that isn't formally offered!
But if the word "reject" Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word "denounce," then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.This is the part everyone notices. It's hilarious. We love him. And she now seems ridiculous. Come back up for air, Hillary! Fight it! He gave you an opening! Point out where he failed.
CLINTON: Good. Good. Excellent.Astounding! Hillary Clinton does not have the instinct for blood. She either gave up or she lacks the chops to keep up with him.
(APPLAUSE)Ah, see? They like you when you concede to him. Hopeless.
WILLIAMS: Rare audience outburst on the agreement over rejecting and renouncing.And the "moderator" Brian Williams scores a victory for Obama.
We're going to take advantage of this opportunity to take the second of our limited breaks. We'll be back live from Cleveland right after this.The referee stops the fight.
***
Video:
ADDED: What others are saying. Andrew Sullivan, live-blogging:
Does Obama understand that saying he has consistently denounced him is not the same as simply saying, "I denounce him"? A weak response - reminiscent of Dukakis. (By the way, why is it somehow only a question for Jewish Americans that Farrakhan is a fascist hate-monger? It's a question for all Americans.) Obama's Farrakhan response suggests to me he is reluctant to attack a black demagogue. Maybe he wants to avoid a racial melee. But he has one. He needs to get real on this. Weak, weak, weak. Clinton sees an opening and pounces. She wins this round. He is forced to adjust. His worst moment in any debate since this campaign started. I'm astounded he couldn't be more forceful. His inability to say by himself, unprompted, that Farrakhan's support repels him and he rejects it outright really unsettles me.Josh Marshall (referring to this segment of the debate as "Russert's run of shame"):
I have not believed that Obama has an ounce of sympathy for a creep like Farrakhan. But Obama has now made me doubt this. If David Duke called John McCain a good man, would McCain hesitate to say he'd rather Duke opposed him? If this is how Obama wants to tackle this emotive issue, he needs to get real.
I would say it was borderline to bring up the issue of Farrakhan at all. But perhaps since it's getting some media play you bring it up just for the record, for Obama to address.Wow, I thought Andrew Sullivan was the one who was blinded by love for Obama. What an interesting comparison between Andrew "why is it somehow only a question for Jewish Americans" Sullivan and Josh "as a Jew" Marshall!
That's not what Russert did. He launches into it, gets into a parsing issue over word choices, then tries to find reasons to read into the record some of Farrakhan's vilest quotes after Obama has just said he denounces all of them. Then he launches into a bizarre series of logical fallacies that had Obama needing to assure Jews that he didn't believe that Farrakhan "epitomizes greatness".
As a Jew and perhaps more importantly simply as a sentient being I found it disgusting. It was a nationwide, televised, MSM version of one of those noxious Obama smear emails.
Don Frederick at the LA Times: "He could have saved himself some potential grief if he had been less circular arriving at that point" (of equating "reject" and "denounce"). Oh, Don, don't you see? It's all about the circular. It only worked because of the circularity. I mean, it's the circularity that made you think it was only circular!
Sticking with the MSM blogs, here's Katharine Q. Seelye for the NYT:
One of the more revealing bits — and a new subject to these debates — was over Minister Louis Farrakhan’s endorsement of Mr. Obama.Yes, isn't it nice that they're both good? He's better though. And she was, you know, right.
Asked if he rejected that support, Mr. Obama joked that he couldn’t really say that to someone who “thinks I’m a good guy,” but added, “I have been very clear in my denunciations of him.” Mrs. Clinton then said she had rejected the support of an anti-semitic party in New York and that it had been “important to stand on principle.” “There’s a difference between denouncing and rejecting,” she said. Whereupon Mr. Obama said he didn’t see a big difference but, “I’m happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.”
The exchange showed both of them in a strong light — she spotted an opening, portrayed her own heroics and pushed him to her side, while he showed flexibility and good judgment in quickly agreeing with her and defusing the issue.
Marc Ambinder:
[T]here were was his weird language about the endorsement by Louis Farrakhan. There are some things you just don’t do in American politics: calling Farrakhan “minister Farrakhan” is one of them. He’s been declared persona non grata by everyone in the mainstream of our politics. It seemed to take badgering by Clinton for Obama to reject it explicitly (although he did not embrace it and had distanced himself from it before). I don't think Obama's at fault here... I think the circumstances conspired against him... but it just didn't sound right...Circumstances conspired against him? What's that supposed to mean? Didn't sound right? It wasn't right!
MORE: Noam Scheiber brings up an incident from Hillary's 2000 Senate campaign relating to Suha Arafat: "I was sure she was going to invoke the firestorm she ignited after watching Suha Arafat deliver an anti-Israel tirade." Here's a 2000 NYT article that gives background on the Suha Arafat incident:
On [a trip to the West Bank in 1999], Mrs. Clinton was photographed kissing the wife of Yasir Arafat, after Mrs. Arafat, speaking in Arabic, accused the Israeli government of employing toxic gas against Palestinian women and children. Mrs. Clinton condemned Mrs. Arafat hours later, after receiving, she said, an official translation of her remarks.So what's Scheiber's point?
She lectured Obama about how it's not sufficient to denounce anti-Semites; you have to actively reject their support. It was a sanctimonious turn, and Obama defused it with typical good humor.Taylor Marsh says "Obama Blows his 'Sister Soujah' Moment":
As a Scots-Irish broad, I saw Obama's tepid response to Farrakhan, and was appalled. Emails from Jewish friends confirmed that I wasn't alone. That Obama had to be led to this reality is proof of his ruffle no feathers at any cost mentality. It has nothing to do with him believing in our "special relationship" with Israel, or insinuating anything remotely anti-semitic. It's about moral courage and the conciliatory reflex he has to extend grace to people who haven't earned and don't deserve it. People like Louis Farrakhan.
Labels: anti-Semitism, debate, Hillary, Islam, Israel, Jeremiah Wright, Josh Marshall, Obama, racial politics, rhetoric, Tim Russert
Stumble It! Facebook DiggIt! Del.icio.us
posted by Ann Althouse at 7:34 AM
166 Comments:
Excellent post. Outstanding.
Good analysis.
But should Presidential Candidates have to denounce the support of every skeevy little gasbag who holds to bizarre positions? If Obama is the Democratic nominee, and some Right-Wing paramilitary White 'R' Great group leader endorses McCain, and gives him money, can't we respect the intelligence of the American People enough for them to distinguish between the beliefs of a Candidate and the weirdo beliefs of some of the candidate's supporters. A campaign to denounce renounce and condemn? It seems like a race to the bottom to me.
I think that Russert either embarassed himself last night or in a very cleverly designed method of questioning Obama, actually tried to trip up Clinton; knowing she has rhetorical weaknesses.
What is lost ia all of this is a little perspective. Barack Obama has worked and lived in a neighborhood that is populated by a large number of Jewish people. Further, there are large numbers who also work in the area.
He has a large jewish constituency in Chicago and it has carried over to other places.
As to Farrakhan, in Chicago he is known as Calypso Louie. He is not taken seriously by anyone here, including Blacks; except for his small congregation of Black Muslims. He is somewhat irrelevant.
The real problem Obama has to watch out for is if people like Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters, or other overtly racist or anti-semitic national public figures back him. People who have a record of action and words, versus Farrakhan, who just gives a speech.
Obama disgusted me in this debate, mostly for stuff like this.
Excellent analysis.
I thought Hillary made a strong point (perhaps a little stronger than you give her credit for--it seemed so in real time, anyhow), but she didn't move in for the kill (and what a sweet kill it would have been).
The white woman has to be very careful when discussing what black people say, or what black people might be perceived as saying. Too funny.
This is why I keep coming back here Ann. Nicely done.
But should Presidential Candidates have to denounce the support of every skeevy little gasbag who holds to bizarre positions?
Nope. But if your campaign's touchstone is "uniting the country", then its telling how you respond to divisive people who support you.
Kinda like how going John Kerry's miltary service was fair because he made it a central point of his campaign.
Obama has a history of association with black supremists and separatists. He needs to denounce and reject that.
MM, I guess the short version is:
since Obama is marketing himself as a healer/uniter, we deserve to know if he's capabale of recognizing the disease.
Jews may dislike Farrakhan, but not as much as we love an argument about nothing. And really, a slightly bigger red flag goes up when we heard:
SEN. CLINTON: We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far reaching.
I think McCain is also running as a uniter -- I appreciated his castigation of someone going off on BHO before McCain took the stage somewhere. If the campaign devolves into both candidates routinely saying I renounce the support of X because of Y it's going to be a long and tedious summer.
None of them are standing in principle. They're calculating what's best to say.
It's a chess game played with soap opera memes.
Hillary's queen is in danger, is all.
The link to debating contest formats overwhelms the ability to listen.
``This is all crap,'' it shouts, if you listen.
Where there's room for value is in words that capture something perfectly. That doesn't happen often.
Told you so. Obama and Michelle attend a racist and anti semitic church that also advocates Black Separatism. The media has been frantically trying to cover it up like a cat covering scat in the litter box.
The Muslim upbringing of Obama has also been the poop in the box.
His former Roman Catholic and Muslim teachers, along with two people who were identified by Obama's grade-school teacher as childhood friends, say Obama was registered by his family as a Muslim at both schools he attended. That registration meant that during the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class.
The childhood friends say Obama sometimes went to Friday prayers at the local mosque. "We prayed but not really seriously, just following actions done by older people in the mosque. But as kids, we loved to meet our friends and went to the mosque together and played," said Zulfin Adi. … Obama's younger sister, Maya Soetoro, said in a statement released by the campaign that the family attended the mosque only "for big communal events," not every Friday.
If I were registered as a Catholic by my parents, went to Catechism once a week for several years on Saturday for a several hours a week, and attended Christmas and Easter Mass and other significant religious holidays and sometimes went to Mass on other occasions......wouldn't you say I was raised as a Catholic? So....how-come, we can't say the same for Barak Obama as a Muslim.
Given this history and his refusal to distance himself from his and his wife's radical church and from the well known anti semite Farrakhan, shouldn't we be just the least tiniest bit curious or concerned about the poop in the litter box?
When we walk blindly often we walk into a wall and injure ourselves. I suggest we open our eyes and try to see clearly instead of being blinded by political correctness and overcompensation for the racism of previous generations.
Dust Bunny, when you talk about the "racism of previous generations," are you aware that you're talking about yourself?
Danny: Yes. I am quite aware of the racism of the generation of my parents and mine own. I was carefully taught by my parents to NOT be racist and grew up in a very ethnically mixed environment in California.
At one time we lived briefly in the deep south and I still remember segregation as a small child.
A short story to illustrate how "I" was raised: We had just arrived in some little town in Mississippi where my parents had a job opportunity. My brother an I (about age 7 and 5)were thirsty from the long ride in the car. Stopping at a park we spied a water fountain and raced to get a drink. A woman stopped us and said forcefully "Don't drink out of that. That's the colored fountain" and made us drink from another one. We were surprised but obedient and after she left went back to turn on the "colored" fountain and were very very disappointed that the water was just regular clear water. We were hoping for red or blue or some other color.
So, your assumption that all "white" people of any certain age are racist shows your own bigotry.
Has Hillary renounced the support of those who vote for her because she's white? They have to be out there, especially in the homeland of Marge Schott. Has she appeared on television and said, "Now I know some of you are ignorant, disgusting bigots. Please, don't vote for me on that basis. Only vote for me because you think I'm the better candidate."
Danny--
DustBunny is linking to Daniel Pipes. Is he a racist?
If you dislike Pipes, you'll really loathe Spengler....
"America has the great misfortune to have encountered Obama at the peak of his powers at its worst moment of vulnerability in a generation. With malice aforethought, he has sought out their sore point."
Read the Spengler piece, also, for his look at Obama's mother...
Also, the Slate video explaining that the West Wing's presidential candidate was based on Obama! (Plus, apparently L.A. Law's Blair Underwood, too...) All that, plus, David Alexrod's 4-year odyssey videoing "virtually everything" Obama "has done in public" as recounted in the NYT Mag. It is all too, too bizarre...
MM,
"every skeevy little gasbag"
Well, I'd be satisfied with qualifying that as "every ... gasbag that has the prominence of Farrakhan*"; sure!
I mean, is there a single person here who can even name one "Right-Wing paramilitary White 'R' Great group leader"? And if that miracle were to happen, would any of the rest of us recognize the name? I feel very confident the answers are Almost Certainly Not, and Not A Chance.
--------------------------------
*Yes, I know it's totally undeserved prominence, but nevertheless it's real.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Barack Obama is running with the persona -- uniter of the country across partisan divides -- that John McCain actually is and has been.
And we'll see that play out over the next eight months.
Dust Bunny Queen:
"I was carefully taught by my parents to NOT be racist and grew up in a very ethnically mixed environment"
Are you doubtful that this is also true of Barack Obama?
DustBunny is linking to Daniel Pipes. Is he a racist?
Daniel Pipes is highly critical of Islam (with good reason). Just for those who aren't aware, Islam is a religion not a race. It is not exclusive to a specific ethnic group.
Then again crying racism is the last refuge of those who have no credible argument.
silly notion that Obama should denounce every single person and group that supports him. The poster uses hzer rhetorical lawyerly skills as a way of dumping on a candidate--surprise!--she would not ever vote for...Why bother? Look at the gujy you will support and ask aboutg McCain supporters!
Again, Obama denounced Farrakhan personally in reply to Richard Cohen's smear piece in the Washington Post. That denunciation was sent to TPM.
As for the part about Obama "only talking about the past," that seems fairly silly and over-parsing to me. The past is all that has happened. The present is all there is. Obama is siting right there in the moment saying he has consistently denounced the guy and his horrible statements AND THEN THROWS IN WHAT HE PLANS TO DO ABOUT JEWISH-BLACK RELATIONS IN THE FUTURE. Perhaps there is more than past, present, and future in the Universe, but if not, it appears Hillary Clinton was just cosmically wrong.
As for not using the word "reject" or the present tense, the concern of the question is not "Do you reject his support right now?" -- that's just Russert's news-making phrasing. The concern is "What will you do in office?" (That's why Russert bridged the questioning to Israel policy.) Obama's answer is not filibustering or skirting the issue; it's a direct answer: you can expect the same behavior in the future that you have seen from me in the past. I denounced him then, I'll denounce him in the future, and I'll work to bridge division as I have done before this campaign and in this campaign.
Hillary didn't expose anything; Josh Marshall is correct. She is a disgusting, opportunistic piece of filth.
By the way, denounce means: To condemn openly as being evil or reprehensible.
Denunciation is far more severe than rejection. You reject a girl when you turn her down for a date; that doesn't mean you openly declare her to be a force of evil.
Hillary was so off-base on this it's no wonder she flunked the D.C. bar.
Question for any New Yawkers who might remember - on balance, did Hillary's rejection of that party really entail a measurable political risk? Hard to imagine that it would be very risky compared to not rejecting them.
Are you doubtful that this is also true of Barack Obama?
How do we know, since we are "forbidden" to enquire about it?
But, then again, as my Mother always said, people will judge you by your friends. I suggest if Obama wants to be judged differently he more than just denounce his new buddy Farrakhan. Another Mom, saying..... actions speak louder than words.
Mothers...the wisdom of the ages.
Great Analysis by Althouse.
That said, this whole issue is simply Russert at his worst. There is no evidence that Obama supports Farakhan or is anti-semeitic.
Further, every Presidential candidate is supported by weirdos, extremists, and bigots. No candidate is responsible for his supporters. And this game of whether you denounced them sufficiently is simply a waste of time.
Just more MSM moronic emphasis on meaningless side-issues and pandering.
Finally, I'd love intelligent people of both right and left to stop this kind of attack - but thats impossible since our leftist friends will defend Obama today and attack McCain tomorrow for being supported by (fill-in name of obscure Nazi, bigot or crazy religious zealot).
former law student said...
"Has Hillary renounced the support of those who vote for her because she's white? "
How is that analogous?
She clearly rejected the offered support of a group that explicitly hates Jews and is anti-Israel. Obama had the opportunity to do the same thing regarding Farrakhan but he failed to do it.
She clearly rejected the offered support of a group that explicitly hates Jews and is anti-Israel. Obama had the opportunity to do the same thing regarding Farrakhan but he failed to do it.
Farrakhan hasn't offered his support.
Jim Hu,
I'm a New Yorker that remembers her "denunciation and rejection." It cost her nothing, and took no courage on her part.
As I said on my blog, this came across as silly parsing of words - Clintonism at its worst. Obama was laughing at Hillary, and he got the audience to laugh too.
William F. Buckley has passed away at the age of 82.
He was the epitome of what a politcal pundit and opinion maker should be. Unlike the pundits today on both sides, he never spewed hatred, only facts. He used intelligence, research, and logic instead of emotion to get his points across. He was also a true gentleman in every sense of the word.
I think you totally missed the point of that exchange.
The old politics is the kind of gotcha that expects a black man running for office to carefully distance himself from every black man you don't approve of. And since the black community is full of scary characters like Farrakhan who nevertheless are going to be excited as hell to see a black man running for president, you get to keep the black man busy all summer long apologizing for every unsavory thing in black America.
And Obama looked at that game and said, "Hey, whatever, lady. I denounce, renounce, reject, eject, whatever magic verb you think matters. But I think your whole game is stupid." And since the whole audience was sitting there thinking, "What stupid games our politicians have to play," he wins and she looks like out of touch and unpleasant.
You got something real, and there are a few things about the church Obama actually attends that are kind of worrisome, bring it up. But the headline "Scary Black Man Praises Nice Black Man" does not disqualify Nice Black Man from office.
Daniel Pipes says he's not a racist, and really, who would know better than him?
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3144
Daniel Pipes complains: "My talks at university campuses sometimes occasion protests featuring Leftists and Islamists who call me names. A favorite of theirs is 'racist'. This year, for example, a 'Stand up to Racism Rally' anticipated my talk at the Rochester Institute of Technology, I was accused of racism against Muslim immigrants at Dartmouth College, and pamphlets at the University of Toronto charged me with 'anti-Muslim racism'."
And it's not just Daniel who is traduced in this way: "When U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo raised the idea of bombing Islamic holy sites as a form of deterrence, a Nation of Islam leader in Denver, Gerald Muhammad, deemed his comments racist."
Pipes has the answer to these slanders. "Islam being a religion with followers of every race and pigmentation, where might race enter the picture?" he demands.
New York Sun, 22 November 2005
Any American with a brain in his head should instantly reject Obama as a presidential contender on the basis of his failure to reject Farrakhan's support.
What if it were McCain failing to reject David Duke's support? McCain would be dead. So then why not Obama? I think we all know the reason.
Any American with a brain in his head should instantly reject Obama as a presidential contender on the basis of his failure to reject Farrakhan's support.
If McCain tries this kind of racist crap in the general, he's going down in flames.
It seems like a missed moment. The difference between denouncing and rejecting--that's the difference between words and deeds she's been trying to draw. Denouncing is standing apart while saying he's bad. Rejecting is actively turning his back on him.
She clearly rejected the offered support of a group that explicitly hates Jews and is anti-Israel.
Hillary solicited the Independence Party to select her as their party candidate for Senator, then withdrew when the IP refused to remove Pat Buchanan as their Presidential candidate. In contrast, Obama never asked for Farrakhan's support. If she knew the IP was anti-Semitic, why did she want to run under their imprimatur in the first place?
http://ipny.org/photos1.html
Isn't the real point that Obama CONTINUES to attend a church whose pastor idealizes Farrakahn?
There's no past tense in denounce here. It's ongoing support.
What an interesting and well-researched post! And that's coming from a guy with an inability to listen to either one of them for longer than ten seconds, check that, five seconds.
... Reverend Farrakhan called Judaism "gutter religion."
↑ Exactly backwards. Plus, Muslims don't rightly call their hate mongering leaders Reverend or Minister.
I love the attempt to separate Obama from prominate black racists that support him. Obama belongs to a racist church, yet because he claims he disagrees with the pastor, he is given a pass, simply because the racists are black.
Sorry, not buying it. This dishonesty opens the door to question anything else he is claming.
I would have nothing to do with any white seperatist church, much less be a member or be married to a member of such. His continues membership in such shows what he considers acceptable in a religion: anti-white/Jewish racism.
If this were a white Republican, you lefties would be screaming this from the rooftops.
"How do we know, since we are "forbidden" to enquire about it?"
That's a pressing, yet-to-be-asked question? Whether Barack Obama's white mother taught him that racism is wrong? Actually, I'm assuming that's not quite what you meant. But, I mean, really... we're here talking about an instance of him being questioned on the topic.
"But, then again, as my Mother always said, people will judge you by your friends. I suggest if Obama wants to be judged differently he more than just denounce his new buddy Farrakhan. Another Mom, saying..... actions speak louder than words."
Farrakhan is Barack Obama's buddy? I have not seen evidence of this myself. What was it David Brooks wrote in defense of McCain?... Something like, "it is the gospel of the mediocre man to fault someone for failing in part when striving for greatness." I don't like the term mediocre man, because it's personal and insulting, and I'm not addressing that part to anyone. But it drives home the point. It made me look at myself, too. I do it.
:)
"Mothers...the wisdom of the ages."
I agree. The rest seems like hysteria, though.
Obama denounced Farrakhan last night in a reasonable, firm, measured way. This has generally proven to be the best way to address objectionable behavior. (I can't be sure, but I'd like to think most of the folks here would agree with me there.) Of course, because of the nature of Farrakhan, and the nature of politics, many people see Obama's response as woefully inadequate. I'm struggling to give much validity to his doubters on this one, though.
I think escalation of negative rhetoric, and the expectation that everyone follow suit, is a problem. This is one reason why I am inclined to support Barack Obama.
Oh my god. Not only did Hillary seek the Independence Party endorsement, it was the New York affiliate of Ross Perot's Reform Party.
Everyone who thinks Ross Perot's an anti-Semite, raise your hands.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805EED61439F933A05757C0A9669C8B63
Denouncing is standing apart while saying he's bad. Rejecting is actively turning his back on him.
I didn't realize Farrakhan was a Klingon. In any event, how do you turn your back on someone you have always condemned, has never offered you support, and whom you never accepted support from?
Ann why are you under the impression that Obama is under some obligation to prove that he doesn't welcome the support of Farrakhan?
Marshall's right, and you're a whacko.
Let me get this straight, MB, it's racist to come to the conclusion that Obama is not a viable candidate because he can't bring himself to reject Farrakhan's support? Have you any idea of the pue hatred of whites and Jews that Farrakhan spews? And Obama can't, just can't seem to bring himself to reject that worm. And to call Obama on that is racist?! Why, he's just too magically magical to touch, isn't he?
I'm going to make the obvious observation that Obama and McCain's supporters, whose views/thoughts I might find objectionable, are nevertheless Americans -- even though they may decry that idea -- and they deserve to support whomever they wish to.
I reject the notion that because person A supports candidate B that candidate B supports the notions of person A. It's not like the Objectionables have a lot of candidates among whom to choose to support. To put it more concretely -- could Louis Farrakhan have any influence on his constituency if he backed McCain?
And I agree with ben's 10:06 comments wholeheartedly.
But should Presidential Candidates have to denounce the support of every skeevy little gasbag who holds to bizarre positions?
This nails it in showing how modern politics and commentary has sinked to the idiotic level of constantly demanding that folks respond to what someone else has said, rather than substantive talk about real issues.
Every fricking day we are forced to endure the spectacle of candidates and/or others being pressured to respond and comment and condemn some "outrageous" thing that someone else has said.
"Can you believe what X has said?? What is your response?? Do you repudiate it?? Repudiate it!! Repudiate it!! Repudiate it NOW!!!!! Why haven't you rejected it already??" and on and on and on. It is idiotic. Enough already.
That said, this whole issue is simply Russert at his worst.
Someone reasonable has hacked rcocean's account!
And Obama can't, just can't seem to bring himself to reject that worm.
Well, what do you mean by reject?
Obama has never accepted him; he's always denounced him.
Your position is nonsense.
I imagine your nonsensical animus must have some explanation.
Great analysis. The American people will catch on, especially when the real campaign begins.
Both of them missed their Sista Souljah moment, Obama for strategic reasons and Hillary because she choked.
More background on Obama: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JB26Aa01.html
The reason Hillary descended into near gibberish on the follow-up and missed her "opportunity" to really cut Obama is because her initial point wasn't strong at all. MadisonMan, former law student, and Fred make the point very well above: why should a candidate have to reject support from unsavory characters, so long as it's understood that the support isn't mutual? People tried to tar Ron Paul with this same brush.
I thought it was interesting that Russert followed up with a real softball when it came to Obama's pastor, Rev. Wright. He didn't suggest like he did with respect to Farrakhan that Obama should denounce or reject Wright, but merely asked what Obama would do to "assure Jewish-Americans" that he was on their side.
Personally, I'm casting my vote for Cthulhu ("Why Vote for the Lesser Evil?"), but if I were voting for the lesser evil I think it clearly would be Obama, over both Hillary and McCain. Obama's policies suck almost as bad as theirs, but in terms of both charisma and character he appears to far exceed both of them. He, relative to both of them, appears to be a real family man. I actually met Obama when he was a state senator in Springfield. The local pro-life lady activist I was walking around the state capitol with actually spoke highly of him to me as we approached him in the hallway. The oddity of her doing so is presumably why I remember the brief encounter years later, and not because I was particularly impressed by him then. I do worry a little about his charisma, in light of what the Book of Revelations prophesies regarding the qualities of the anti-christ.
Superb. I'm not sure that Obama is trying to preserve support from Farrakhan and his crowd, as he has simply conditioned himself to be agreeable.
It reminds me of an unintentionally comic passage in Geraldine Ferraro's remarkably disingenuous op-ed on superdelegates from a few days ago. Here it is:
In 1984 I headed the party’s platform committee. We produced the longest platform in Democratic history, a document that stated the party’s principles in broad terms that neither the most liberal nor the most conservative elected officials would denounce.
That is Obama's strategy in a nutshell. The longest platform in the broadest terms, with the fewest upsetting specifics.
Many here want to dismiss the exchange over Farrakhan as a "silly parsing of words." That fails for a reason Obama noted, and for the many additional reasons that Ann details.
As part of his long semi-response to the questions, Obama took credit for "sp[eaking] out against anti-Semitism within the African-American community" during a recent appearance at a Baptist church. Good for him if he did that. But the reality of "anti-Semitism within the African-American community" is precisely why it is important for leaders such as Obama to be clear and direct in rejecting Farrakhan as the pre-eminent avatar of that view. It's just not something about which equivocation, windy speechifying or other forms of obfuscation will do. But that's what Obama delivered. The entire episode was a sad exercise in slip-sliding away, even if he did it with a certain skill.
For the same reason, complaints that "you can't expect politicians to go around denouncing every nut who supports them" fall flat. Farrakhan is just any old nut; anti-Semitism in the African-American community is, as Obama notes, a problem that keeps getting stoked by charaltans like Farrakhan for their own reasons.
The concern here is not whether Obama himself harbors anti-Semitic views. No one is suggesting any such thing. But he is seeking our highest office. On matters of deep principle, presidents have to be clear, even if it means rejecting root and branch someone who says nice things about you but stands as the embodiment of an evil that continues to fester. This response, I thought, was especially disappointing: "He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can't censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we're not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan." Linking Farrakhan with the idea of "bringing the country together" in a single sentence is astonishing.
It's also an issue about which Obama needs to be careful. One of the things that Nader said when he announced his latest bid was that Obama had been a supporter of the Palestinian cause before launching his political career, and changed positions only when he entered Chicago politics. Nader was, not surprisingly, lamenting Obama's abandonment of the Palestinian cause; the essence of his charge was opportunism and hypocrisy. Whether Nader's facts or his charge against Obama are true, I don't know. But I suspect we will be hearing more about all of this, and not only from Nader.
I think Sen Obama's fans assume that Farrakan has no influence on Obama and Obama is taking advantage of Farrakan.
The only way we'll really know is if we elect Obama as Prez.
How convenient
So Althouse, are you still going to vote for this guy?
I couldn't help but think of Emily Dickinson's lines:
Tell all the Truth but tell it slant---
Success in Cirrcuit lies
This exchange certainly doesn't do anything to mitigate the concern that some people have that Obama isn't merely liberal, but is, in fact, too close by half to the point at which the lunatic left meets the nativist nuthatch right. Next we'll be hearing that Pat Buchanan backs Obama, and Obama won't come right out and say that he rejects that support without prodding from someone.
Just to be clear, my comment above about Obama maybe being the anti-christ was meant to be a joke. The joke might have been lost because the rest of the comment reveals that I am in fact more or less socially-conservative, though I'm not an evangelical by any means.
"How do we know, since we are "forbidden" to enquire about it?"
That's a pressing, yet-to-be-asked question? Whether Barack Obama's white mother taught him that racism is wrong? Actually, I'm assuming that's not quite what you meant. But, I mean, really... we're here talking about an instance of him being questioned on the topic
No, Jeremy, I mean that we seem to be hit in the face with accusations of racism whenever we try to question Obama's core beliefs, his history, basic biographical facts and his associations today with some shall we say unsavory views.
The pressing question is: What does Obama really believe in and how will these beliefs affect his ability to deal with the sensitive issues of the Middle East (Israel and Muslim terrorism), race issues in the US (Black anti-semitism and the increasing racial wars between black and Mexican gangs in cities in California) terrorism issues in the US ( open borders policy and illegal immigration
These are just a few of the ...oh...somewhat important issues that are a blank slate because the press is giving him a free pass and anyone who dares to question is immediately accused of being a racist.
If the child was raised as a Muslim and by parents who were anti-American leftists, don't you think this just might have some influence on the man. Aren't you just the least bit curious about who this man is who may actually be the next President of the United States?
If it all turns out to be just fluff and rumours don't you think we have the right to know? If it isn't fluff, I sure has HELL want to know.
Interesting post and excellent analysis.
As I read Hillary's comments, I was reminded of something I learned in my gender psych class--that women are more likely to use "hedge" words (I think, sort of, etc.) instead of being assertive. For all her rhetoric and role as the "feminist candidate", it seems like Hillary has still been socialized for meekness.
If she won't be assertive in a debate against a fellow Democrat, how can we trust her to be assertive against any opposition--Republican or international--she'll inevitably face as President?
Obama and blacks in general need to be confronted with the likes of Farrakahn and his ilk.
Do you denounce and distance yourself from racist organizations like the NOI or do you tap dance around the issue because some element of these groups do "good works"?
If Obama cannot bring himself to stick a fork into Uncle Louie, he's not worthy of my vote.
Both of these candidates it seems will remain "gray" to get elected.
Just please everyone.
Stand for everything & Stand for nothing....
This makes me sick....
Once again, Hillary's rather German approach to anti-Semitism:
SEN. CLINTON: We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far reaching.
Obama will receive the support of many, many African American ministers who preach that gay sex is a sin, who do not support gay marriage and who reject the notion that gay rights is on a civil rights par with Black civil rights. Should he preemptively "denounce" all of them or should he make his positions known (which I believe he has) and accept whatever support they give?
I never read "long" posts...but this one was great.
I think the US relationship with Israel is creepy and hurtful to both nations...but anti-Semitism is an easy and obvious thing to reject. I am (was) an Obama supporter, but both he and Hillary looked like idiots. I wish I could feel good about my candidate.
What's worse...voting for a bad candidate simply because he's from your party, or not voting at all...
Astounding! Hillary Clinton does not have the instinct for blood. She either gave up or she lacks the chops to keep up with him.
Since at least 1992 Hillary has lived in a bubble. She has been protected by corps of yes-people and pampered by a loving press. She has virtually no experience in actually exchanging ideas in real time with anyone other than sycophants.
It's no wonder that she goes into 'Nurse Ratchet, victim' mode so quickly. She has never been required to think on her feet.
What's worse...voting for a bad candidate simply because he's from your party, or not voting at all...
LOL...welcome to my world, and I'm a Republican (this year anyway).
I consider Russert's question to be gutter politics. It's particularly used, in my experience, in the North. "Denounce So-And-So." What on earth does this have to do with anything? It's just an effort to AVOID dealing with issues. Worse, it's an effort to have political leaders attack individual citizens in order to divide the electorate along class/ethnic/racial/religious lines.
It's worse coming from a journalist. I expect this type of gutter politics from the politicians in Manhattan and Boston, where I've lived, but Russert doesn't have to play this game. He chooses to. He could have taken the same time and asked Obama about policies, his votes as a legislator, or about his potential cabinet/court nominations. But Russert didn't. He asked Obama to "distance himself" from Farrakhan. Russert's implication is that Obama is close to Farrakhan. It's a question that is logically akin to "when did you stop beating your wife, Mr. Obama?"
Even worse, this line of questioning plays into the "Jews can't trust blacks" fear that, in my experience, is so prevalent in the North. Obama is trying to fight this sort of prejudice, which is very prevalent in the Democratic Party (and I'm a Democrat). Russert's question is designed to prey upon the fears that still linger from the 60's & 70's.
This type of gutter politics harms our democracy by focusing voters' attention on personalities (and extreme ones at that) and clan-ties, not on policies or shared citizenship. Russert, and NBC, can do better, but they lack the judgment and class to stick to the issues.
A victory for Obama will be a defeat for this type of fearmongering, gutter politics within the Party, for which I am grateful.
This post has been removed by the author.
Personally, I'm casting my vote for Cthulhu ("Why Vote for the Lesser Evil?")
Well I'm going one better
Fans of Babylon 5 will know what I am talking about.
Yes, Dust Bunny, I am curious. I've been taking a good look. Some things about him raise questions. I haven't seen any of them pan out. Most of the things folks point out as potentially dangerous, I actually end up seeing as positives, after taking my careful look. Some will see this as evidence of my failing, weakness, gullibility, or whatever. So it goes, I know.
Of course these are extremely serious issues. Noting your alarmed tone, and phrases like "anti-American leftist," leads me to think you take them even more seriously. I just hope you'll keep a level head.
Take care.
I think the US relationship with Israel is creepy and hurtful to both nations
Creepy? Hurtful? Please, do tell.
(gets popcorn)
But the reality of "anti-Semitism within the African-American community" is precisely why it is important for leaders such as Obama to be clear and direct in rejecting Farrakhan as the pre-eminent avatar of that view.
Farrakhan isn't pre-eminent at anything but being a boogeyman. He runs a newsletter -- the Final Call -- which has a distribution of 20,000. There are tens of millions of African-Americans in this country.
I share your unease with Obama's courteous rejection of Farakhan. I understand that black people have sufficient reason to be distrustful, even hostile to white people. What is the appropriate level of distrust? I do not know, but clearly Farakhan goes way too far. Rascism is part of the DNA of America, and most white Americans are willing to admit that historically we are in the wrong. I think adaptability is also part of our DNA. At one time our morality led us to believe that racial purity was the great good. Now we genuflect at the altar of diversity and tolerance. Change is the only constant in American life. I think it is fair to say that Americans have done more to overcome their racial prejdudices than. say, Kikiyus have done to overcome their tribal prejudices against Luos. Black nationalists should look at what America does right and what Africa does wrong.
Hoosier Daddy, may I have some of that popcorn? I'm waiting for the inevitable comment by Cedarford; it's a thread pitting two of his enemies- "rich Jews" and "po' angry blacks"- against each other. I think he'll side with Obama because, after all, there's nothing worse than those "rich Jewish gentiles".