Top of the Ticket

Political commentary from Andrew Malcolm

« Previous Post | Top of the Ticket Home | Next Post »

Obama's Farrakhan answer gives Clinton an opening

When you've debated as often as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have, it's hard to find fresh material to spar over. But -- who knew? -- Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan provided such fodder Tuesday night. And the result may have been some crucial points scored by Clinton in their face-off in Ohio.

Obama said he denounced and rejected support from Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan

At the least, Obama appeared to dance around how far he should distance himself from the unsolicited backing he received over the weekend from Farrakhan until Clinton cornered him. At that point, he both denounced AND rejected that support.

Obama had been asked a straightforward question by moderator Tim Russert: Did he accept Farrakhan's support.

The following exchange occurred:

Obama: "You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments. I think they are unacceptable and reprehensible. 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.

Russert: "Do you reject his support?"

Obama: "Well, Tim, I can't say to somebody that he can't say that he thinks I'm a good guy."

True enough, but probably ...

not the answer most Jewish Americans wanted to hear. As a result, Obama risked creating the perception for some that he might be somewhat reluctant to completely throw overboard a controversial leader who is not without some stroke within the black community (witness the 1995 Million Man March).

Clinton clearly saw it that way, and sought to put Obama on the spot. She interjected that, during her initial Senate run in 2000, she was endorsed by a splinter party in New York that "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. ... And there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting."

Obama responded: "I have to say I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting."

He needs to check a dictionary on that.

Then he decided to yield the point: "But if the word 'reject' Sen. Clinton feels is stronger than the word 'denounce,' then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce."

He could have saved himself some potential grief if he had been less circular arriving at that point.

-- Don Frederick

Comments () | Archives (212)

The comments to this entry are closed.

How embarrassing to watch two presidential candidates fighting each other over who will be most subservient to the Jews and Israel. Last I checked, Israel was a FOREIGN country. Jews are 1.7 % of the U.S. population, yet everyone is supposed to fall all over themselves declaring their subservience. Just once, I would like to see an American presidential candidate stand up to the Jews and Israel and tell them that Israel will have to stop being a parasite off the U.S. and fight their own damn battles.

You Obama supporters are somthing else we just got some proven dirt on your candidate and you guys cant accept it READ Carefully Obama: "You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments. So he Denounced his comments not him All he had to say is I Reject Farrakhan's support and he couldnt do it.

This was yet another example of how Clinton wants to distract attention from the real issues at hand and paint a villain out of Obama. She has completely been consumed in desperation and flip-flopping on her tone, messages, and attacks. It's time that we move on and she drops out.

As a Clinton supporter, I completely agree with Obama's "so called" circular arriving. What he said to respond to Tim was perfect. There was no mistake or wrong in it. He was absolutely correct. Hillary's point for difference between reject and denounce is just a political score.

It is very unfortunate to see Obama being pulled down with his reasonable response to Farrakhan's comment, while lots and lots of his wrong/mis-statements about Hillary are left to stay. I am with Obama on his "denounce."

How much more do American people want this woman to explain herself?
It is clear that no matter how hard she tried they will never see reason with her. Whatever she says or do will always be critisized. This is not to say they expect a higher standard from her but because some, to my mind are not comfortable with her. These are the reason why I think Obama keeps maintaining his momentum and not because of his own overall merit.

I cringed when I head that Louis F. endorsed Mr. Obama. The young Senator's answer works for me. Which candidate is more anti anit semitic than the other has value only to reveal what little else there is to find newsworthy when these two "debate". I am really looking forward to February 5.

reject => when you ask for some thing and get the offer you don't like, you reject. You reject the job that does not fit your expectation.

denounce => when some one say some thing about you, you don't like it, you denounce.

Be fair, Obama said " ... 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.", therefore he denounce. Hillary has poor English (or pretended) pushing for "reject" in an attempt to divide and create a hard feeling between the two. She is for herself only, not for unifying America.

I have no problem understand Obama, and English is my second language.

The true Hillary, multi-personality, showed last night at the debate. American do not want a multi-personality president. I am an independent and voted to stop the Clintons at the primary and will vote for the best candidate in November

But another example of how Obama supporters will support their candidate no matter what, but not only support him, but bring down Hillary as much as possible. Trust me, Obama supporters will then use McCain as a punching bag in much the say way. Obama supporters need an enemy to raise their praise for Mr. Obama. It has been the most childish and politically ignorant approach I have ever seen.

WeC that was a GREAT answer. For those that did not have an opportunity to read it here is a reprint

You cannot bring a nation together if you have a strong opinion and go about denouncing or rejecting people for their belief.

You can denounce and reject their words and action; and probably disassociate yourself with their activities. But you practice inclusion when you are so ready to turn your back against them.

The problem America has today with our enemies is that we made them our enemies; not the other way around.

Hasn't there been enough said that we need to be more tolerant and look at bring moderate Muslim back to the table?

The most effective way to eliminate an enemy is to make them your friend, not try to annihilate them.

Clinton's foreign policies; very much like Bush's policies is to adopt a superior mentality that they should bow before us or die.

I prefer Obama's inclusive theory to talk to them without pre-conditions and then try to work our way from there.

Posted by: WeC | February 26, 2008 at 09:00 PM

Remember the time when Rev. Jessie Jackson was asked the question about Min. Farrakhan supporting him...this question was handle with better insite by Mr. Obama / focusing on those minds controling these debate questions / for the electorial college 'machine'...the art to disagree to agree is the beginning of unity and progress, which the USA will need to compete with the international enemy of our enemy...the art of making friends and...the divide and conquer attempt used against Rev. Jessie Jackson was a weak & old Willie Lynch trick which has no power to effect intellegent supporters of Obama...know your history!!!

if you think Hillary was the only one who looked bad on that exchange then you don't get it. What Obama was trying to do is say " I know Farrakhan is a bad guy and I don't approve of what he represents (denounce) but I will not reject the votes he can facilitate for me." If in fact some of the the audience was approving of Obama's last response they can consider themselves fools.

Why do we allow Corporate Owned Media pundits to manipulate our elections and "choose" our nominees??

Why aren't the debates moderated by someone other than the Corporate Owned Media???

The media networks and their Insurance corporate sponsors DO NOT want all Americans to have affordable health care!

Who has affordable health care? Tim Russert, Brian Williams, Hannity, O'Liely, etc. - all the media pundits who oppose health care for ALL.

Denounce – verb (used with object)

1. To condemn or censure openly or publicly: to denounce a politician as morally corrupt.
2. To condemn openly as being evil or reprehensible. See Synonyms at criticize.
3. To accuse formally.

Reject – verb (used with object)

1. to refuse to have, take, recognize, etc.: to reject the offer of a better job.
2. to refuse to grant (a request, demand, etc.).
3. to refuse to accept (someone or something); rebuff: The other children rejected him. The publisher rejected the author's latest novel.
4. to discard as useless or unsatisfactory:

Barack Obama:

“You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments,” Obama said. “I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. 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.”

“I’m happy to concede the point and I would reject and denounce,”

Obama can't "bring the country together"!! He can't even bring Senate Dems together. Even the Dem senators who have endorsed him - vote with Republicans - not Obama!!

People wake up!! Obama is an empty suit - nothing more than a con.

I think the writer who wrote this article is the one that really needs to check a dictionary. Please look below for the meanings, seems to me denounce is a more appropriate word. Next time if your gong to write an article like this one , why you layout the facts on the meanings of the actual words before making a case against Obama! That should be journalism 101, seems like you might of missed that in your school days.

de·nounce /dɪˈnaʊns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-nouns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -nounced, -nounc·ing.
1. to condemn or censure openly or publicly: to denounce a politician as morally corrupt.

re·ject /v. rɪˈdʒɛkt; n. ˈridʒɛkt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[v. ri-jekt; n. ree-jekt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
1. to refuse to have, take, recognize, etc.: to reject the offer of a better job.

Theres alot of rumblings about Obama employing some members of the Nation of Islam on his campaign.
I wonder if there are any reporters looking into this story, which will definitely torpedo Obama's campaign.
Better now, then in the general election.

And I thought this was America and people were allowed their own thoughts.

Why is this even an issue? If Michael Jackson threw his support behind Obama would he need to "Reject" it or otherwise Obama is a child molestor? If OJ Simpson threw his support to Obama, unless rejected Obama would be a liar and a murderer?

So because some religious zealot threw his support behind Obama now Obama is a religious zealot. Seriously people... use your own friggin heads and don't be blinded by the smoke & mirrors Clinton's last ditch effort is trying to fool you with.

My favorite part of the debate is when Obama laughingly responds to HRC claims that he did not strongly reject Farrakhan endorsement.
He clearly did and very eloquently to.

Mrs Clinton looked very picky at words , and that is not the point, the meaning is what matters. She is always trying to remark differences but in terms of words, silly. BTW She looked pretty silly by pointing out that she was asked always first. That doesn't match with some one who claims to be ready on day one. VOTA por OBAMA , Vote Obama.

"Denounce": to condemn or censure openly or publicly
"Reject": to refuse to accept


For those of you who didn't understand his meaning....YOUR CRAZY!! Senator Obama has already made it very clear that as a leader of this country he intends to communicate with even our enemies abroad.....aswell as controversial figures here in the U.S. If Farrakhan wants to support Obama in this campaign then who cares!!!!! I may not agree with Farrakhans views but he lives in this country as well.....and I don't think it should matter if Obama chooses to "Denounce" him or "Reject" him. I also think that everyone needs to go back and read Farrakhans statements............he doesn't necessarily endorse Obama, but simply speaks kind words about his ability to unite all races and religous creed in this country and perhaps around the world.

We as a nation need to "DENOUNCE" and "REJECT" the Clintons! Period.

obama is given yet another pass.

How outlandish that Senator Obama is being raked over the coals as some kind of anti-anybody? Clearly, he is not a hater but rather a lover of all humanity. During last night's debate his repudiation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-semitism was clear and specific.

Do you think Hillary really believes Obama is an anti-semetic or was she was simply pandering to fears of certain voters by cleverly attempting to paint Obama into a certain corner? When endorsements by the racist John Burkes Society and the KKK were made for Reagan's presidency how did the Great Communicator respond? Regan said nothing.

We can choose not to give this non-matter utterly any further attention -- or be taken for a ride once again.

yeah, whaterver. shame on you the media and the public for portraying Obama as the king and Hillary as the shrew. As a woman I am totally turned off by how this campaign turned out to be. There has been so much gender discrimination nationwide in the media and how the public spoke about Hillary compared to how people spoke about Obama.
this makes me believe that America is still not ready for a woman president and shows how still women are viewed as shrews and not worthy.
I am totally turned off by how badly the media together with the public portrayed Hillary in the last few months. shame on you for not being fair and equal towards the genders. this happens all the time in daily life, women are viewed as shrews and mean, and unqualified, and men as capable and totally qualified to do the work. of course with the help of the media Obama is going to win. and who works in the media?? the majority of men work in the media and obviously they will write all these articles how they see the world and men aout there still see the world as men totally capable of doing the job and women as being as unfit and mean, and angry.

Hillary Clinton is a Methodist. The United Methodist Church has called for "divestment" in companies that do substantial business in the West Bank. Earlier this month, the Methodist Church released a "Israel/Palestine Mission Study," in which Jews are called "monsters." Why is no one asking Hillary to "reject" and "renounce" the public pronouncements of her church and clergy?

If you don't believe me, check out what the ADL has to say about it:

Seriously. This is an absolute joke.

IF we are seriously looking for someone who can bring the country together, then that means that on some level we have to recognize that--IN A FREE COUNTRY--there are people who will have views we fundamentally disagree with, find ugly or disgusting, and yet we still have to recognize that we cannot prevent them from having those views.

We also cannot prevent them from LIKING us.

So, what do you do? Say "I reject you for liking me." Come on. Let's get real. And be practical about this.

He condemned Farrakhan outright, clearly, and specifically. He did not waiver on that. But since nothing was offered to Obama, then there is nothing to reject.

I suggest Don, the author of this piece, read the dictionary definitions again and actually understand what was going on here. I'm not sure how much clearer Obama could have been that we would get trapped in some stupid semantic argument about which word Obama used. Denounce is clearly the stronger form of rejection... as it not only implies "go away", but it also explicitly means "I don't like you."

Personally, I would rather be rejected than denounced. Obama did both.

Lacivious Liberals (who have a moral compass only when and if it meets their political needs):

Do me a favor, inject race into EVERYTHING, play the race card and vote for Hillary. Get it over with.

I mean, the guy is black = he's anti-semite. What more do you need to know, right?

Pull the trigger. Be the racists you know you are....

All this stuff is crazy His views were renounced and rejected end of story. Too bad you do not like how it was done or how it was said. The truth is on the issues that really matter Clinton was a no show and to top it off if she had to do it over again she would not have voted for the war. Well guess what in life there are no Do Over and we certainly can't bring our dead soldiers back to life.
All this crazy talk is why we are having the problems we have with this country worried about what people do and say and disregard the issue. IT'S TIME FOR A CHANGE WE NEED A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. And Obama is the only one willing to try to unite the country because he understands a house divided will not stand.

Obama uses better English than Tim and Hillary.
Denounce is a mush proper word to use in this situation. Look up both words in all the dictionaries out there and decide for yourself.
This interview shows how well Obama handled the situation against a cheap shot made by Hillary that only shows her desperation.

God bless America and us all!

I have to say that if the worst that people can say about Obama is that he should have used "reject" vs "denounce" then he could be the best president we've ever had. What a sad state of affairs when we debate something like this instead of the bigger picture ideas.

It seems as though there is nothing he could have done to satisfy some of you. He denounced him - that is very strong. For the former Obama supporter, would you have preferred that he act as unbalanced as Hillary has over the past few days?

Yawn. Wake me up when this petty debate on semantics is over.

Zzz. Zzz.

Interesting article. I have to assume that the reporter isn't as familiar with the proper application of words as he is with the emotive meaning often attached to them.

farakan did us all a favor,like they say it takes one to know one,thank you farakan,goodbye invisible man

This is absolutely ridiculous! Obama was correct. He did not solicit Farakahan's support, and contrary to what reporters might be printing and saying, Farakahan did not 'endorse' Obama, he mentioned at one of his rallys what he thought about Obama and so the American media decided to extract this and make it news, make it 'newsworthy', and it isn't. But the other fact is that Hillary Clinton just wanted to stir something up too because she stated here that the anti-Israel people in 2006 'ENDORSED' her and so she rejected that endorsement. Well, Don Frederick, there is a difference here. Got a dictionary? These people actually ENDORSED Senator Clinton and Farakahn merely made a statement about Obama WITH NO ENDORSEMENT. So for Russert or Clinton or anyone to ask if he 'rejects' him was uncalled for in this case because he had already used strong words against this man -- Obama used the words 'unacceptable' , 'reprehensible' and 'denounce'. All those were enough, and did not warrant butting in from Hillary Clinton, because it would have been just like anybody speaking to anybody about anybody which is what Farakahan did, WITH NO ENDORSEMENT. I think Russert went too far with this, just like the media was doing prior to the debate about this, and of course, you, Don Frederick gave Clinton too much credit here where it didn't need to be any involvement from her. However, I give loads of credit to Senator Obama, who even though was again being crucified on this issue and unjustifiably so, took the high road and used crybaby Clinton's word, 'reject' along with his own, 'denouce'. But folks in the future, keep your head close to what's happening. "Endorse' is different much different than someone merely commenting about someone. And so, I am sure that had Farakahn gone to 'endorse' Senator Obama that Senator Obama would have indeed 'rejected' his endorsement, because you see, you cannot 'denounce' an endorsement you either have to 'accept' it or 'reject' it. So I believe Tim Russert owes Obama an apology for using the word "support" where Farakahn did not say he supports Obama, he was just throwing out nice words about him, and I believe Senator Clinton owes Obama an apology because there was nothing to 'reject' since there was no endorsement and he had already said Farakahns views were 'unacceptable', 'reprehensible' and 'denounced'. Enough is enough!!! Obama '08!!!!

Farrakhan is not an anti-Semite any more than he is anti-Black or anti-Muslim or anti-Christian. It is absolutely AMAZING that this 24-year-old quote made its way into this debate. Is the press THAT desparate for a story against Obama?

And because this news is older than many Obama voters, for the record (which has been around for quite some time):

The exact 1984 quote was this: "...America and England and the nations backed Israel's existence. Therefore when you aid and abet someone in a criminal conspiracy, you are a part of that criminal conspiracy. So America and England and the nations are criminals in the sight of almighty God. Now, that nation of Israel, never has had any peace in forty years and she will never have any peace because there can never be any peace structured on injustice, thievery, lying and deceit and using the name of God to shield your dirty religion under His holy and righteous name."

Is Farrakhan saying there should be no state of Israel? No. He has repeatedly said that only the injustice toward the Palestinians need be removed, with a Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel. Farrakhan has struck up an association with a group of fundamentalist rabbis from Brooklyn. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which has led the charge against the Nation of Islam over the last two decades, has actually criticized Farrakhan for meeting with these rabbis as if he can only be considered "pro-Semitic" if he is accepted by the right kind of Jews.

There are truly some SICK people in this world. Why would Senator Obama---knowing the beliefs of Farrakan--would support such? Knowing how much Senator Obama loves his children---why would he teach hate against the children's grandparents. Again, there are SICK people in this world.

why would you want to be President If only half of your country agreed with you?

I must chime in. This story is RIDICULOUS! Senator Clinton's argument isn't even correct.

Reject means to refuse to have, take, or recognize

Denounce means to condemn or censure openly or publicly

You tell me which is more severe not taking something or condemning it. I can't even believe people are trying to make a story out of this.

Obama is very wishy-washy which is what made me realize he can't lead our nation in times of crisis. In times of peace, he probably wouldn't do too much harm.

This is not the politics of fear, this is reality.

If he is such a uniter that he's afraid to piss off very divisive figures, in the end he's divisive.

"It seems as though there is nothing he could have done to satisfy some of you. He denounced him - that is very strong. "

That's the reality of the presidency - there will be some groups he won't satisfy. No matter who holds the office, that's the reality.

How comfortable will Mr. Uniter be with this reality? That's what voters are waiting to see.

It was a "Yes" or "No" question & BHO AVOIDED a STRAIGHT answer but HRC forced him into a corner & he capitulated.

All of this denouncing and rejecting is kind of a silly political game that has become fashionable lately. TIME magazine had a great article on it awhile ago, entitled "Getting Outraged Over MoveOn." Here's a quote:
"The constant calls for political candidates to prove their bona fides by condemning or denouncing something somebody else said or to renounce a person's support or to return her tainted money are a tiresome new tic in American politics."

I give Obama full credit for pointing out the absurdity of this game, and doing so rather politely. Further evidence that he can offer something beyond the usual knee-jerk political gamesmanship.

Many Jews call Mr. Farrakhan an anti-Semite, but that ole anti-Semitism charge is tired, over used, exaggerated and un-American to the point of ridicule! This is AMERICA - HOME OF THE BRAVE AND LAND OF THE FREE. When Jews came to America, they came to a country with cherished Constitutional First Amendment freedoms for which many brave people, including mine, and the Obamas, excluding Jews, fought, sacrificed and died. Any insidious ingrate that is too fragile for our First Amendment freedoms should find another country - Bon Voyage!

Obviously, Our African American population is far greater in number than our Jewish population so I hardly think it matters if Jews are offended by Obama if indeed they are. The 2% minority population of Jews couldn't even help elect Lieberman as vice president so they are less relevant!

Wow.....seems someone struck a chord!!!!

(Wow is right! Do you think?)

I am not suggesting that Obama follows the teachings of the Nation of Islam, but his Minister thinks highly of Farrakhan.

I am worried that if Obama becomes our nominee, the Republicans will use their "swift boating" tactics against him and we will have to wait another 4 years for our shot at the Presidency.

I found this interesting information on Wikipedia...

Passed down via written lessons from 1930-1934 from W. Fard Muhammad to his student, Elijah Muhammad, referred to and titled, The Supreme Wisdom the Nation of Islam continues to teach its followers that the present world society is segmented into three distinct categories. They teach that from a general perspective, 85% of the world's people of all races and faiths are the deaf, dumb and blind masses of the people who are easily led in the wrong direction and hard to lead in the right direction. These 85% of the masses are said to be manipulated by 10% of the people who are referred to as the rich slave-makers of the masses of the people. Those 10% rich slave-makers are said to manipulate the 85% masses of the people through ignorance, the skillful use of religious doctrine and the mass media.

The third group referred to as the 5% poor righteous teachers are the people of the world who know the truth of the manipulation of the 85% masses of the people by the 10% and that 5% righteous teachers are at constant struggle and war with 10% to reach and free the minds of the masses of the people. [5]

It was a simple question. Do you accept Farrakhan's support? That was the question. Yes, he denouned Farrakhan's comments, but Obama did not denounce his support. So, he was asked the question, clearly, again. And again he failed to answer.

So looking up the definition of denounce and reject is not the point. If he said from the start, I denounce Farrakhan's support(not just his comments!!) Tim Russert would have moved on to the next question. Many fail to recognize that he never answered the initial question.

Before Clinton spoke, it seemed as if Obama denounced Farrakhan's comments, but was willing to take his support. In fact he never clarified his position. He just stated he felt the words denounce and reject are the same. He managed to dance out of the question.

As Barack said, there was no formal offer of support from Farrakhan, so what, exactly, was he rejecting?

Tim Russert introduced the LIE that Farrakhan offered his support, when, in fact, all he did was ENDORSE Barack.

Maybe some of these people bitching about the mastery of the dictionary need to check themsleves, because Obama displayed perfect understanding of the words he used.

This article is guilty of grossly misrepresenting what transpired in the debate to the point of blatant partisanship and dishonesty. Obama denounced it as clear as anyone possibly could. He couldn't have been clearer. The reason everyone laughed as I did, was that Hilary was grasping at straws to try and grab some of the Jewish vote he has wrapped up and trying to ridiculously state he had been unclear in his response. Much like this article is being ridiculous. The audience laughed and I can't help but laugh at this article. Perhaps as a presumed journalist you should check your dictionary and learn the vocabulary you claim to comprehend.

Webster Dictionary
a: to refuse to accept, consider, submit to, take for some purpose, or use
1: to pronounce especially publicly to be blameworthy or evil

I believe the important question is always the one that is not being asked. For me, this is, why is Farrakhan waxing lyrical about Obama, given that it is not likely to be helpful to his campaign? This hardly seems the actions of a man showing his 'support'. Sure, Farrakhan has his followers in the AA community, but Obama is having no difficulty in shoring up support their, thus there can be no rational reason for Farrakhan to offer his unsolicited tributes. He is no doubt an intelligent man, and therefore must be aware that his words can only mean discomfort for Obama at the least, so again, given that understanding, why would he take this action? There is a disconnect here that no one is addressing.

McCain vs Obama

From the Democratic Party..."Nearly 24 years after voting against creating a holiday honoring Martin Luther King, John McCain is spending today at the inauguration of Alabama Governor Bob Riley who is a member of an organization that has been criticized for excluding African Americans. The "Grand Master" of the Grand Lodge of Alabama admits he knows of no African American members among the groups 30,000 plus membership. [AP, 9/30/2006] McCain's push to cozy up to far right extremists is not surprising, given his contradictions in the past. In the 2000 presidential campaign, McCain reversed himself on the confederate flag first calling it "a symbol of racism and slavery" but then pandering the very next day by calling it a "symbol of heritage." In past efforts to pander to a far right base that doesn’t trust him, McCain campaigned in Alabama for George Wallace Jr., a popular speaker at a white supremacist hate group, continues to employ a strategist who denounced the creation of a Federal holiday honoring Dr. King as "vicious" and "profane," and even hired the man responsible for the racist ads against Harold Ford in the Senate race in Tennessee in 2006. [New York Times, 4/20/00, San Diego Union Tribune, 1/18/00; Associated Press, 11/17/05, Southern Poverty Law Center, Intelligence Report, Summer 2005; AP, 6/6/05; New York Times, 10/27/06; New York Times, 10/26/06; Union Leader, 12/8/06]"

1983: McCain Voted Against Creating Martin Luther King Holiday.

McCain Flip Flopped On The Confederate Flag, First Calling It Offensive And Then Calling It A Symbol Of Heritage.

McCain Endorsed George Wallace Jr., Called Him A "Committed Conservative Reformer," Despite Speeches to Hate Group (CCC).

Racist Ad Against Harold Ford Approved By Terry Nelson, Senior McCain Strategist.

Richard Quinn, McCain's South Carolina Spokesman, Criticized the MLK Holiday as "Vitriolic and Profane.

Now, what's all the fuss about OBAMA?

« | 1 2 3 4 5 | »


Recommended on Facebook


In Case You Missed It...

About the Columnist
A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Andrew Malcolm has served on the L.A. Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four. Read more.
President Obama
Republican Politics
Democratic Politics



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: