Did Obama Weasel on Farrakhan?

Did he dissociate himself with sufficient force from the racist minister, or did he find a way to evade the challenge?  If so, the way he did it was very subtle.  Clinton almost nailed him, but didn't.  Althouse does.

It's almost pointless to ask whether you agree, because the answers are going to sort along right-left lines.  But Elyas has convinced me to make the title of this post less prosecutorial.  I don't think Obama has sinister beliefs or motivations.  But he has some past associations that will be used to hurt him unless he is forceful and unequivocal enough in repudiating them.  Was he?  If you support him, instead of looking at him through lenient eyes, try looking at him critically, the way his enemies are going to look at him.  It's the only way you have a chance to protect him.

And now Althouse also nails McCain for accepting Hagee's endorsement.  Good -- consistent.
 

Comments

[Elyas]

Wow, Amba. Really? Her main argument hinges on an innocently placed "of." Denouncing AND rejecting Farrakhan weren't enough? Let's face it. There's absolutely NOTHING Obama could have said to please some people on the Farrakhan issue.

Once again, your criticism of Obama has absolutely nothing to do with substantive policy issues. As an Obama supporter, I would love to encounter some genuine criticism of his policies, because I think he needs it and his supporters need it to avoid the "hero worship" that so bothers you. I thought I could find that here, but perhaps I should look elsewhere.

[amba]

Elyas, it's a practical problem. If he doesn't dissociate himself decisively and unambiguously from the likes of Farrakhan, he's going to get slaughtered by the Republicans. I don't want to see him get dragged down by vestigial loyalty to or simply past proximity to bad people.

The politics of personal destruction is alive and well, and to change the subject to the substantive is to appear to be avoiding the issue. Right-wingers will ask: Where are Obama's primary loyalties? And they will do whatever they can to cast doubt about that into the voter's mind. What's he going to do about that? If he doesn't lay those nagging suspicions to rest, it doesn't matter what his policies are because he won't get a chance to enact them.

He could say something like, "I share Trinity Church's emphasis on the work ethic, family values, education and achievement. In that department I think they're doing some of the best work around. To the extent that they fall prey to the human temptation to use the negative "us against them" emotions of resentment and blame to spur the positive ones, I deplore that in my church and everywhere else it goes on. I think it's time for all of us to stop using that cheap tactic and I am working to influence my church to stop. It certainly has no place in a Christian church, since Christianity teaches that hate can never be overcome by hate, only by love."

[Elyas]

In your comment you almost claim to be defending Obama from the politics of personal destruction by highlighting this area of weakness, but the original post borders on actually engaging in the politics of personal destruction on your part. If your intent was to address the practical problem, it certainly wasn't conveyed that way.

I still think it is a stretch to claim he is dodging the issue when he denounced Farrakhan, and when that wasn't enough, added a rejection just to be on the safe side.

Question: What do you think of McCain accepting the endorsement of a pastor who wants to pre-emptively attack Iran to bring about the Biblical armageddon? Should McCain go to the same great lengths to distance himself?

With all this time spent denouncing and rejecting unsolicited endorsements from loony supporters, when do we talk about the actual issues?

[amba]

Once again: it's not the endorsement per se, it's the previous connection. Obama is going to have to deal with that head on.

Frankly, when I watched the debate I thought he sufficiently dissociated himself from Farrakhan. Then others, like Althouse, pointed out that he had subtly avoided doing so, saying that he had already dissociated himself in the past from things Farrakhan had said. None of this would have any relevance if Obama did not belong to a church whose pastor, and Obama's spiritual mentor, gave Farrakhan a life achievement award. That is what raises the questions. The church's website promotes having one's primary loyalty be to a transnational black community. Race before country. No one suspected of possibly holding such views is going to get elected president of the United States.

[amba]

For the record, I do not believe Obama holds those views. I believe he fears looking like a sellout to people who do. But he's going to have to make up his mind. It's the Huckabee problem. Huckabee made up his mind the other way. Obama hasn't quite made up his.

[Elyas]

I understand the perception some might have, but your headline for the post wasn't as objective as you are being in the comments.

And again, I think Althouse was stretching. He spoke in the past tense because he specifically mentioned that this issue had come up in the past (they both are from Chicago and had encountered each other before) and he wanted to emphasized that he had already denounced Farrakhan. Imagine he has spoke in the present tense. The Althouses of the world would have said, "Sure, he denounces him now that he's running for president, but what about in the past? He's weaseling." And I still fail to see how you have the impression that he's trying not to look like a sellout when he both denounced and rejected him.

I pose the McCain question again. It's a different type of radical supporter, but it's still a problem of looking like a sellout versus appealing to the mainstream. Do you hold him to the same standard?

Sorry for being so confrontational, but a lot of your posts lately seem to be bordering on the politics of personal destruction.

[Spud]

I pose the McCain question again. It's a different type of radical supporter, but it's still a problem of looking like a sellout versus appealing to the mainstream. Do you hold him to the same standard?

Elyas

John Hagee, founder and senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas made numerous controversial statements about, homosexuality, Islam, Catholicism, and women, endorsed Sen. John McCain for president. Following Hagee's endorsement, McCain said, "All I can tell you is I'm very proud to have pastor Hagee's support."

Will that endorsement of McCain propel the media to devote coverage to them comparable to its coverage of the Farrakhan issue?

Here is a sample of Hagee's views.

"All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment. And I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans."

I think I'd take Farrakhan over Hagee.

[Spud]

Right-wingers will ask: Where are Obama's primary loyalties?

It galls me that the right wingers would even ask that question.

"Loyalties" defined by the right wingers?

I won't let the Rush Limbaugh's of the world define what loyalty is to me.

[Spud]

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League said this of Hagee. It's amusing.

“Hagee is far more powerful than Farrakhan is today. . . . Hagee is a major player. There’s no end to his money. He has an empire down there.”

[amba]

Which probably explained why McCain accepted his endorsement with pride, while Obama rejected and denounced Farrakhan?

Spud -- why do you have to choose, even hypothetically, between these two despicable men? How about rejecting them both? That's partisanship for you -- "Your evil is eviller than my evil!"

By the time this campaign is over, though, that's what it'll be down to -- which candidate, after all the seamy revelations, we're less disgusted by. And Obama will win because he's fresher -- he hasn't been a politician for as many years.

[Spud]

Amba- If you mean me personally, I'm not choosing between these two men. I just wanted to point out the other side of the coin.

God, I hope we get to hear more than steamy revelations. I really don't want to go through an National Enquirer style campaign.

[Elyas]

Thanks for the update to the title. ;) I appreciate your willingness to debate with an open mind. That's why your blog is one of the few I comment on.

I agree with you that supporters should try to view him more critically and there are a lot of areas where he deserves criticism, but I still don't think this was one of them.

I also don't think those personal smear tactics will be as effective as in the past. Kerry and Gore essentially let Karl Rove set the tone of the debate and were forced to play his game, and start the game on defense. Obama was able to play on his own terms against Clinton (he made the election about change, he took the high road, for the most part, which diffused her negative attacks, etc.), and I think he'll have similar success against McCain. He has all of the political intangibles that Kerry and Gore lacked. It won't be easy, but this will be a very different election than the last two.

[huxley]

Obama has the intangibles all right, but that's all he has. When it comes to experience and accomplishments, he's got next to nothing when going for the Big Chair.

Obama is not JFK and MLK rolled into one. Beyond a rich speaking style, I don't think he's all that special. He's a young kid who has danced pretty fast and fancy to get as far as he has. I don't think he can keep it up for another eight months. I don't think he'll have satisfying answers to the hard questions he's going to get.

Once the Obamamania deflates and the party is over, I suspect Democrats are going to have a heckuva hangover and will be wondering how they decided Obama was the one.

[amba]

Time will tell, Huxley. So far, he seems to have become more confident and better at moving back and forth between inspirational mode and policy wonk mode. But, fortunately, there will be lots of time for vetting (and lots of motivation).

Funny that he gives the impression of being a "young kid." He does! How old are you? Obama will be 47 in August.

[amba]

Time will tell, Huxley. So far, he seems to have become more confident and better at moving back and forth between inspirational mode and policy wonk mode. But, fortunately, there will be lots of time for vetting (and lots of motivation).

Funny that he gives the impression of being a "young kid." He does! How old are you? Obama will be 47 in August.