Obama and Louis Farrakhan

The Clinton campaign's alleged circulation of a photo showing Barack Obama in Somali dress may have backfired rather spectacularly but it seems an unintended blow may have landed more effectively. The Democratic frontrunner has struggled to repair the damage to his campaign not from an attack, but from an expression of support - from the controversial head of the Nation of Islam and oft-alleged anti-semite, Louis Farrakhan.

Obama had already been forced to decry Farrakhan's views once, after the Washington Post reported in January that a magazine published by the Trinity United Church of Christ - of which the Democratic candidate is a member - had named him in its annual awards.

But after Farrakhan lauded Obama as the "hope for the entire world" on Sunday, the Illinois senator was cornered at Tuesday night's Ohio debate by Hillary Clinton, who demanded he again "denounce" the black leader's views. He did so, and, after Clinton continued to criticise him for not explicitly "rejecting" Farrakhan's support, said he both "denounced and rejected" him. (It is interesting to note that despite Clinton's apparent dedication to semantics she later chose to neither reject or denounce a Hispanic backer in Texas who said that “Obama’s problem is he happens to be black.")

In fairness, Clinton should not have to reject the support of every individual whose views she does not espouse. Neither should any other presidential candidate. Amongst the millions of voters lining up behind each prospective president are bound to be some whose opinions are abhorrent to many. Many South Carolina Republican voters, for example, support the display of the Confederate flag - viewed by many as a symbol of racism and oppression - at the state's capitol building. To my knowledge, John McCain has not been asked to denounce this yet. And he shouldn't be.

A better question might be why McCain has yet to comment on a statement from the Tennessee Republican Party released Monday entitled "Anti-semites for Obama." Prominently displaying the "dressed" photo and spelling out Obama's middle name Hussein, it claimed Obama would be a menace to Israel. “On the contrary, supporters of Israel should view a possible Obama administration with extreme caution, as America’s ally is being put in the cross-hairs by the anti-Jewish left,” Bill Hobbs, the party's communications director was quoted as saying. 

McCain did however on Tuesday castigate a right-wing radio presenter who, when introducing him at a Ohio rally, repeatedly used the "Hussein" moniker and insinuated that Obama had a secret past which would soon be exposed. After the "dressed" photo debacle, he is keenly aware that such attacks, smacking of xenophobia-fuelled paranoia, could well prove a devastating own goal.

Comments

[John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada]

I am actually starting to feel sorry for Clinton.

Maybe, that's her last-ditch strategy, to make people sorry for her?

This kind of rhetoric is pretty close to the gutter.

In a place as big and sloppy in its speech as America, if you apologized for, or denounced, every goofy statement by someone somewhere, that's all you'd be doing all day.

How can anyone blame a man like Farrakhan for looking at Obama as a hope for the world? That statement is actually true.

As anyone who has heard Farrakhan knows, besides being badly twisted by his own version of prejudice, he is clearly a very bright man.

Clinton recently claimed in an interview that she foresaw the campaign coming down to a struggle in Texas.

Well, first she had unparalleled experience, then she had remarkable leadership ability, now she is gifted with seeing the future.

Well, the Greek legend of Cassandra told us she received the gift of seeing into the future accurately but also the curse of never being believed by anyone.

Ms. Clinton, precisely, I'm sorry to say.

[Owen]

Well to be fair, the Republicans have always traded on xenophobia-fuelled paranoia in the past.. Why stop now?

[Franc]

Obama appears to have connections with Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. Obama has close connections to Jesse "hymie town" Jackson. Farrakhan and Jackson are known anti-semites and bigots. If a white Republican candidate had connections to comparable people like Farrakhan and Jackson, he would be out of the election race before the end of the day. Obama belongs to a church where the pastor preaches bigotry. Obama is getting a free pass and Hannah Strange apparently has a dual standard.

[San Ying]

Their body language tells all. To me Clinton's peachy, plastic complexion without a hair out of place even when crying (btw, I never saw a tear slide down the satiny cheek)is artifice and insincerity personified. Obama's smile is like a mischievous schoolboy's. He appears to be having lots of fun.

[schnozzo]

What's wrong with Farrakhans views? If we all shared them this country would be on a path to recovery rather than on the road to destruction like it is!!! Read the Talmud you stupid Gentile Goys!

[mikdee]

her e is another fool that needs to keep his MF mouth shut

[Ryan]

Apparently, Mr. Farrakhan does not know where to place his apostrophe. Is it Saviours' Day (many saviors) or Saviour's Day (one)? The mistake went so far that it even got coyrighted.

[Mark]

It's a little more personal than that. Obama's spiritual mentor, Dr. Jeremiah Wright is a friend of Farrakhan's. It was Dr. Wright's church (of which Obama is a member) that gave Farrakhan the award. One would wonder why it is that Obama's spiritual mentor is giving and anti-semite awards. Further, Farrakhan's vitriol extends to whites (potential humans), Koreans, Vietnamese and others (bloodsuckers) as well as homosexuals.

I don't know that I would have written a book that takes a quote from Dr. Wright, who once along with Farrakhan met with Qadaffi of Libya. It all seems a little strange. If this were a white candidate, I do believe that it would be fair game for the media to go after that person if he/she attended a church whose pastor had a friendship with a neo-nazi or somebody that hated blacks, gays, etc. Progressives would be disgusted with it all. In the case of Obama, it's "no biggie".

[dara]

Barack Obama repudiated the views of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan that were discussed in Richard Cohen’s Washington Post column. Cohen’s criticism regarding Obama’s ties to the Church and the Pastor that gave an award to Farrakhan were reaching a large audience that included potential Democrat voters who might be swayed to withdraw support from Obama. This statement by Obama is a political maneuver that should be given little credence. Obama is very actively involved in his church; he knew of this award long before Richard Cohen publicized its grant to Farrakhan. Furthermore, Pastor Wright has had a long relationship and alliance with Louis Farrakhan. Obama did not object to these ties between Pastor Wright and Farrakhan before; nor has Obama rejected the anti-Israel diatribes of Wright. Regardless, Obama adheres to a church and a minister that have long espoused positions inimical to the American-Israel relationship, let alone the trumpeting of black values and racial exclusiveness. This follows a pattern for Obama: he shows extreme loyalty to a church and pastor whose controversial views eventually become publicized. Then Obama “disappears” the Minister and Obama’s campaign (not Obama himself) issues a statement that Obama does not agree with everything that Wright espouses. He solicits and gains support from the controversial George Soros, a man whose anti-Israel passions and allegations regarding America’s Jewish community and Congress are well-known. When these ties become publicized, Obama’s campaign (not Obama himself) issues a statement that Obama does not agree with Soros on this topic. When Obama articulates anti-Israel positions in off-the cuff remarks, his campaign (not Obama himself-stop me if you have heard this before) issues clarifications that attempt to explain away the plain English import of Obama’s (the supreme orator) expressed views. In other words, Obama only disavows when it is politically opportune to do so. He seems to have never objected to these views before they become publicized and create a political firestorm because they belie his image of peace, compassion, unity. Obama is not a profile in courage and his disavowals are political pabulum.

[Harvey Osteele]

maybe someone hasn't done the spade work as hilly previously noted.
i could just cry.
so, which is the racist party owen.
i say both.

adios,
Harvey
Lancaster, Mexifornia
dial 1 for english
i approve the above comment?

[GLM]

WHY IS OFFENSIVE ABOUT: Barack HUSSEIN Obama NAME?

THATS HIS NAME ISN'T IT?

WHAT IS HE HIDING? THAT CONSIDERS TO BE OFFENSIVE.

THERE IS SO MUCH ABOUT HIM, THAT NO BODY WANTS TO SEE IT.

BEFORE YOU FALL IN HIS TRAP. INVESTIGATE HIM TO THE END.

[KATYA]

WHAT IS ABOUT THIS NAME: Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

IS IT HIS NAME OR NOT?

MEDIA AND REPORTERS CALL MS. CLINTON BY HER FULL NAMAE: Hillary Rodham Clinton. DOES SHE MAKE COMPLAIN ABOUT IT?

THEN WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL ABOUT Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

NO BODY ASK THIS QUESTION, BECAUSE YOU ARE SO BUSY HONORING WORSHIP TO HIM.

[Edith Waziri]

I am wondering why is Obama afraid of being called Barack Hussein Obama,even if he is a christian, but that is his really name.He should be open that some of his family members are muslims , including his late father.
Even me I am a christian, but I am not afraid to be called Edith waziri because my father was a Muslim.
What is he hiding??? Even Barack is a muslim name is he going to deny it?
Muslims are also people he is fighting for can he deny that too?
I dont understand the American politics and Religion.

[Martin]

You have written about Obama renouncing and rejecting Farrakhan, whose support Obama did not seek. Now please write about McCain, who has sought the support of someone far worse, the biggest anti-Catholic bigot in the evangelical community, John Hagee. Will McCain renounce and reject him?

[Martin]

"Many South Carolina Republican voters, for example, support the display of the Confederate flag - viewed by many as a symbol of racism and oppression - at the state's capitol building. To my knowledge, John McCain has not been asked to denounce this yet. And he shouldn't be."

I disagree vehmently. The Confederate Flag is more than a symbol of racism and oprression--it stands for the dissolution of our union and is a sign of treason!

[Pope Benedict]

The big deal is that if his name was Barack Henry Obama, no one would keep repeating the middle name. Repeating it is a way of claiming he's actually muslim and somehow related to Saddam Hussein, and therefore is not fit to be president.

I am a Roman Catholic who, along with many other Catholics, does not agree with the views of my parish priest regarding a woman's right to an abortion. Yet I remain a faithful member of my church because the things we do agree on - like the holy trinity -are much deeper.

[Michael]

Like it or not, race is an issue in this debate. Only trouble is, the media doesn't know what to do about it. They don't want to admit that black people are going to vote for Obama because he is black, not for any accomplishments he might have, (are there any?) and in many cases they will find that their views would be totally different than his.
The entire contest reveals how divided we really are, racism is just under the surface of our society. As long as we live in relatively quiet times there is peace, but when there is some percieved wrong, rioting can and will break out. We have seen examples of that in our not so distant past. One thing is also sure, there is much more of that to come.