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.

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

[Minna]

I thought Obama was clear, unlike Hillary who remains evasive on releasing her financial and White House records.

[Prabhata]

Obama was ambivalent about Farrakhan's endorsement for the simple fact that he has the votes from 70 to 90 percent of the African American voters. To denounce and reject Farrkhan might alienate some of those voters, but he cannot have it both ways. Farrakhan is a divisive figure, and Obama is after the same group of people that Bush reached in 2000 with his campaign as a 'uniter not a divider".

[Skeeteraye]

I think that it is without merit for you to say that Senator Obama tried to hedge his response to Russert about Minister Farrakhan support for him. Senator Obama was understood by those of us that were watching the debate, knew exactly, what he was saying. As an American I find it mighty objectionable to attempt to tie a man or woman to comments of others. It is very strange that "I" have never heard any of these journalists demand that other Jewish leaders denounce another Jewish leader, why is that! I don't recall reading anywhere that there were any Jews being asked to denounce Michael Richards for his bigoted tirade against American Blacks.

SKEETERAYE

[Goon]

if we're going to call out Barack Obama because his pastor may not like Jewish people, does that mean we get to ask Clinton's pastor what they think of homosexuality?

have we been reduced to judging people by their spiritual advisor, whose views on such matters have nothing to do with whatever passages from the Bi(b)le they read that week?

[Matt]

I posted this on another blog and I'll post it here...If any Clinton or McCain supporters don't consider that Obama is also white, born and raised American then they represent some sort of deep-seated racism.

[Ed]

Interestingly - denounce is pretty obviously a much stronger condemnation than rejecting someone's support which wasn't asked for in the first place. Look up denounce in the dictionary - it's pretty clearly worse, in particular as it discusses the implication of something denounced being evil. People can try to spin this however they want, but he made it clear that he doesn't support Farrakhan - and there is no evidence otherwise.

[MLE]

Will Hillary publicly denounce and reject the support of those who won't vote for Barack because he is black and/or perceive him to be Muslim?? By the looks of her blog supporters there go 40% of her votes there.

[David Forsythe]

A shallow attempt by LA Times to inject some good into what was a petty display by Clinton. Tonight was the clear separation of a leader from a frustrated loser.

[Bees]

I felt very uncomfortable about Obama's answer to the Farrakhan question. I don't understand why he didn't immediately reject Farrakhan's support outright. Why the waffling and parsing?

[Elise]

Desperate Desperate Desperate Desperate!!!!!

It's clear someone is getting their talking points against Hillary from the media. I hate how one-sided the terminology used to describe the candidates is when used to cover two worthy opponents.

And as Democrats, we should worry about the relationship between Obama and Jeremiah Wright of the Trinity United Church of Christ. Their current newsletter has a glowing article about Farrakhan. My dad sent me an email and I was sure it was an Urban Legend because he sends me ones all the time that are totally false, like Obama's a secret muslim etc. But I'm a researcher for a living and I checked it out and it's all true.

And Obama didn't initially say that he denounced "Farrakhan"...only that he denounced his anti-semetic statements. There is a difference between saying "hey, I don't believe in some of what the guy say's but it's a free country and I'm not going to stop him for endorsing me"...and saying "I reject the support of the obvious racist Farrakhan!"

Clinton did a good job of pointing that out. She had an actual point...and listen folks, I'm liberal as hell and I was worried about some of what I read on Obama's church website...what will middle America think when he's up against McCain in the general election? I fear it won't be pretty. Can we say "Swiftboat" anyone?

[chris vant]

I think BHO actually admires Farrakhan in the same way his Pastor Wright admires him and gave Farrakhan an award as a leader. From an article on the subject...

Obama's spiritual advisor and Pastor of his church, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a man who prayed with Obama just before the Illinois senator announced his run for the presidency, gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness."

[Michelle]

Re: "probably ... not the answer most Jewish Americans wanted to hear."

I am a Jewish American and don't appreciate the author(s?) of this piece writing generalizations about what "most" of us want to hear or not.

I myself feel that there were some coded dynamics in that exchange in the debate. Specifically, I feel that Senator Clinton pushed a point that was far deeper, more complex, and uglier than what might show on the surface.

I feel she used "Jewish Americans" as a shield and stand-in -- as an object for her to hide behind to implicitly (but with plausible deniability) question Senator Obama's loyalties to white people overall.

I feel that what she did was an example of a certain type of white Christian anti-Semitism that is very subtle, pretty powerful -- and to me, very painful.

I feel that Senator Obama handled a very ugly situation gracefully and with dignity in all of his answers on the topic.

I also feel angry and upset that he had to "handle" such ugliness at all. I wish I could extend my apologies to him for what Senator Clinton did in using my people as she did.

For the record, she did not have this Jew's permission to use us as I think she did. As far as I'm concerned, the shame about anti-Semitism in that exchange is squarely on Senator Clinton, for aggressively playing the ugly game that she played and using us that way.

[Chris]

Bottom line: Obama said he didn't like Farrakhan's anti-semitic comments, but danced around and refused to flat out say he did not want the support of Farrakhan and his anti-semitic followers until Hillary put him on the spot. That says something about him.

[Steve]

For those confused over the meaning of these two words consider this example. Perhaps, if Hillary had rejected Bill's help, she'd be doing better. Naturally, she wouldn't want to denounce him. Thats going a bit too far.

[Raoul Butler]

The Question 'Do you support Louis Farrakhan?'

Obama's answer should have been ...

If Louis Farrakhan support is about bringing his politics to the table, No I Don't support him.
But if he endorses my politics then yes I would support him and that would require some changes in his ideas.

[Marks]

I again completely reject title of this post.

Obama's Farrakhan isn't fair! Change the title of this post because its going to linger a long time on this list.

Obama doesn't own anything of Farrakhan to reject and it shouldn't be suggested he has to answer questions about him.

What's the thought, Obama's black, from Chicago and with a Muslim name has to comment on Farrakhan's slanted views. Has to stop Farrakhan from making biased statements.

That's not his role and reporters are framing him to do it.

Reporters go ahead and challenge Farrakhan because you want to. Don't demand that of Obama.

[thereandhere]

Obama's response was excellent. The LA Times "writer" needs to focus on substantive issues, not manufactured tripe. And Tim Russert ought to consider a permanent position with his pal Imus.

[Carl Williams]

Please read the transcript of what Obama said and what the moderator and Clinton response are.

Obama wasn't strong enought to state that he "rejected the *support* of this mad man. Instead, he simply stated that he thought that the *comments* that his mad man made were unacceptable and reprehensible. Obama never stated that HE DID NOT want this mad man support.

The issue that the moderator and then Clinton wanted to hear from Obama was "Does Obama reject the *support* of this mad man". Obama danced around this initially and only when conored Obama then tried to imply that the moderator and Clinton were splitting hairs. THEY WEREN"T.

Clinton made a stronger statement and didn't hedge her bets with her experience. She came out and not only stated that these comments made by this anit-semetic party in NY were wrong but went a step further and stated that SHE DOES NOT WANT the support from these anti-semtics - She rejects their *SUPPORT*.

That is the issue and Obama failed in a MAJOR WAY. Those who don't think that this is important or somehow think that this is splitting hairs really need examine the debate transcript and think harder. This is an extremely important issue.

Now I like both candidates alot but my respect toward Obama's crediability had gone down a notch or two. This is unfortunate but this was an excellent question and the moderator had an excellent follow-up question and then Clinton really conored him on his behavior.

[Miles Long]

Marc Polonsky hit the nail on its head when he wrote of Obama: "he invoked historic Jewish-African American alliances, such as the civil rights struggle. This in my view is healthy and unifying political speech."

As an African-American I too noticed that comment and found it poignant. For decades I have yearned and indeed hoped for a return of the pre-COINTELPRO days when there was a strong link between Jewish and African-American communities.

Having a US president who believes that hope can self-actualize results is the reason why Obama has my vote.

Hopefully there a lot of us Jewish and African-American voters who caught his message.

[D]

Denounce is more condemning than reject.

For instance, if a guy asks a girl out, she can reject him or she can denounce him. Which of these things is worse?

[alex]

This bickering over semantics is ridiculous, and the only party benefiting from this is the Republican Party. The Democrats should find a way to quickly unite efforts instead of doing the dirty work for GOP.

[dfs]

Does anybody remember the Sister Soulja incident when Clinton first ran for President? This ultra-radical rapper endorsed him, he immediately stated that her support was neither wanted nor needed. He was a bit brutal to the old girl, but it was a pivotal moment in his campaign: he used this incident to signal to moderates of both parties that it was okay to vote for him. Sometimes it's necessary for a candidate to make it clear what he/she isn't, as well as what he is. The problem is that neither Barak nor Hillary have done this, they're so busy trying to be all things to all people that nobody is quite sure who they are. Barak had the golden opportunity for a Defining Moment handed him, and he blew it. Rookie mistake.

[lennybruce]

When two candidates are so close to each other on policy but differ greatly on style, and when one is beginning to lose the battle, the only alternative is to look at everything thru a microscope. And of course looking thru a microscope distorts the reality. So too this debate over Farrakhan. Clearly an anti-semite and he should be denounced for that. But on the other hand, no person is uni-dimensional and Farrakhan has meant a great deal to many African Americans and that can not be ignored. This debate over 'denounce' versus 'reject' is juvenile.

[Don]

"If you are under 13 years of age you may read this message board, but you may not participate."

Apparently, this doesn't prohibit someone under 13 years of age from writing and contributing articles like this one. Did someone actually get paid to write this ad?

This is quite possibly one of the LOWEST and most WORTHLESS articles "related" to the campaign.

[Grant]

I think this new bent on painting Obama as not for but could be touched by some nefarious niche to be chilling in its hidden motivations and blatant playing on people's worst instincts.

One post on this article calls obama osama.......pretty low and disgusting. If that is what the race has come down to, I think Hillary winning the nomination at this point would make many of us walk away from the process in toto sickened at what went in for her to grab her brass ring.........When people indirectly affiliated with Hillary made negative ads did she reject or denounce them, of course not, its all a wink and a nudge.