Obama's Farrakhan Dilemma
Here's what a spokesperson for Democratic Presidential contender Barack Obama said when he got wind of former Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan's virtual endorsement of Obama's White House bid: "Senator Obama has been clear in his objections to Minister Farrakhan's past pronouncements and has not solicited the minister's support." Farrakhan made the glowing tout of Obama at the NOI's annual Savior's Day confab in Chicago. Obama's denunciation of Farrakhan was blunt and pointed. But he did not reject Farrakhan's implied endorsement.
Even after Hillary Clinton publicly demanded that he forcefully reject Farrakhan's endorsement, Obama waffled. He weakly said after more Clinton cajoling that he rejected the endorsement. He still did not mention Farrakhan by name. A candidate shouldn't need to be prodded by his opponent to emphatically reject the endorsement of a controversial, and in the case of Farrakhan, much vilified figure. Obama, of course, does not endorse Farrakhan's views, politics, or his organization, and he has made that clear on more than one occasion.
Yet his failure to flatly say he does not want his endorsement is no surprise. Farrakhan may be a controversial and much vilified figure but he is not a fringe figure within black communities. He is still cheered and admired by thousands of blacks. They are also voters too and most have embraced Obama with almost messianic zeal. This zeal has been a driving force in powering Obama's surge past Clinton. Many blacks are exhilarated by the prospect that a black man will sit in the Oval office. In other words, Obama is a racial fantasy come true for many blacks.
Few blacks publicly demand that he assume the role of a black leader. They have made no demand that he tell what he'll do to boost civil rights protections, fight the HIV/AIDS plague, or take strong positions on the other pressing social issues. It's just as well they haven't since his image is that of the new generation African-American elected official who thinks and speaks as a unifier and consensus builder, not a racial crusader.
However, many blacks quietly expect or at least hope that if he's elected it will be more than a historic first for blacks. They hope that he will be a vigorous proponent of civil rights and social programs. As long as that hope is there their impassioned zeal be for him will be there too. If Obama denounces Farrakhan too strongly that would raise the eyebrows of the thousands of blacks who admire Farrakhan and his organization.
But, if Obama doesn't blast Farrakhan as an anti-white hate monger that could raise questioning eyebrows with many white voters. He can't afford that. He's far exceeded the predictions of many who questioned whether whites would vote for an African-American for president. They have and he has even done what was thought to be even more implausible and that's net considerable backing from white males. They have been rock solid backers of GOP presidents going back to Ronald Reagan. Obama got their support with his open-ended message of change and unity. Farrakhan, then, is the absolute last thing that Obama needs now that he's on a roll with so many diverse voters.
Obama isn't the first politician to face the Farrakhan dilemma. It got Jesse Jackson into momentary hot water during his presidential bid in 1984. Jackson rashly agreed to let the NOI briefly handle some of his security. That drew howls that Jackson was in bed with Farrakhan. Jackson backpedaled fast and dropped the NOI as part of his security. That didn't stop the loud grumbles that Jackson as a presidential candidate was too cozy with Farrakhan. But Jackson did not denounce Farrakhan. He stayed mute in part out of his stubborn insistence that no one should tell him who could support him, and in bigger part with an eye on the black vote.
Obama is closing in on a place in history. If he wins the March 4 Texas and Ohio primaries, his fierce nomination battle with Clinton will be virtually over. The movement will be irresistible among Democrats to nominate him and that will evaporate the Democrat's worst fear, namely a fractured convention, split between the two warring Obama and Clinton factions. A divided party would be a lethal blow to the Democrat's chances to take back the White House.
But Obama also knows that he doesn't just need black votes. Any Democratic presidential contender will get the majority of black votes. That was the case with Democratic presidential contenders Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. Both still lost. He needs blacks to turn his drive to the White House into a crusade. They must make a spirited and massive rush to the polls. Farrakhan can help insure that some of that spirit and some of those numbers are there. Obama can't publicly applaud him for doing that. But he can't totally reject him either. That's Obama's Farrakhan dilemma.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House (Middle Passage Press, February 2008). ethnicpresidency.com
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
(Farrakhan may be a controversial and much vilified figure but he is not a fringe figure within black communitie
I ask, "why in the world not?" How many hateful things does Farrakhan have to say for the African American communities to wake up. And see this guy for who he is.
The question Russeert should have asked Obama, "Will you promise today that if you are elected to serve as president, Farrakhan will be banned from your WH. And you will not take phone calls to listen to his advice on anything concerning any and all American policies." That is additional question Russert should have asked Obama.
Just a few of the thousands of controversial statements Louis Farrakhan has said over the years about race:
Farrakhan has said White people are potential humans — they haven't evolved yet" in March 2000.
Farrakhan has said, "black people are the original people of the earth."
Farrakhan stated that there was a 25-foot hole under one of the key levees that failed, and implied that the levee's destruction was a deliberate attempt to wipe out the population of largely black sections within the city.
Farrakhan has referred to Jews, Palestinian Arabs, Koreans, and Vietnamese collectively as "blood suckers"
Farrakhan has said, "Murder and lying comes easy for white people."
Farrakhan is a huge critic of American society. His racist, homo phobic, and antisemitic statements are sickening.
Farrakhan currently resides in Kenwood, an affluent neighborhood on the south side of Chicago. And Obama has met over the years with Farrakhan. He has spoken at Obamas church numerous times over the 20 years that Obama has been a member. Is there nothing that Obama finds outrageous and sickening over his remarks that he can't call Farrakhan and tell him he doesn't want his suppport. And why in the world not???
Now THIS is a person I want to see with influence on a person running for president of the United States. He!! no!
I think you and Obama should get together and see who can denounce Farrakhan the most. Currently, Obama has the lead.
Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill OReilly say the same things about Blacks and other people of color. White people love them. I don't see any major movement to denounce them. In fact, they're syndicated.
To the extent that Savage, Limbaugh and O'Reilly have made racist statements, they are morons. Their indiscretions, however, do not excuse Farrakhan's racism and anti-semitism.
The entirety of American culture was built on such statements about Black people. Most whites still believe these sorts of things about Black people.
As for being the "original people", you cannot dispute that. That's Bio 110. Lots of folk think that the levees were destroyed. You could make that argument on the fact that they were not built to do the job they were supposed to do.
As for Jews, Palestinian Arabs, Koreans and Vietnamese, don't most Americans think the same thing? Why else would Americans have overseen
the deaths of millions of Koreans and Vietnamese? Why did Americans such as Prescott Bush, Henry Ford, and IBM to name a few, help the Nazis?
American are not racist, homophobic, and anti-semitic? Geez, have I been missing something? The lying and murder thing? Nooo....
There was no "endorsement" of Obama by Farrakhan, implied or otherwise. There's nothing to reject.
I don't see how you can take a direct denouncement of Farrakhan and his positions and somehow turn that into waffling.
Lost in all this hubub is that Hillary Clinton's followup anecdote was false: she did, in fact, court the endorsement of the Independence Party - her only caveat was that it not also endorse Pat Buchanan.
Brooklyn - If Obama is guided by Pastor Jeremiah Wright, attends and supports Wright's church (where Louis Farrakhan is an idol) -- to me that is the same thing as supporting Louis Farrakhan.
What was wrong with my post questioning the animus expressed toward Farrakhan?
Sen. Clinton is stoking hate!! I hope women are proud of their hero. Her tactics are evil, and her appetite for power is troubling.
Farakhan is a non issue to everyone but two groups: Hillary and her supporters and the extremist Zionists who are angered by Obama's insistence of being fair and balanced when dealing with Israel and the Middle East and they've manufactured this stupidity and they know how you in the media operate: they just drop quiet whispers of 'anti-semitism' and you all go bullistic and do the dirty work and smearing for them.
Obama dealt with this non-issue succinctly and to my satisfaction aswell as 98% of his base.
Enough already. Stop biting everytime these pro-Israeli groups throw you a bone.
No, Farrakhan is REALLY toxic. If he wasn't, McCain and Clinton wouldn't be making such an issue of it.
Obama can denounce all he wants, but if this is raised as an issue again and again it will turn people off.
Farakhan and his hate is very important to anyone who stands against what he believes.
And I would think that people like you who love Obamas "words" so much and think they matter would find Farakhans words sickening.
Do you believe in Farakhans words? Do you?
Kennedy: 'Do you? Do you?'
What are you working for senator McCarthy? Holy crap.
Farakhan is a non-issue. Period.
This article misses the fact that "denounce" is the correct word to use and that 'reject' is NOT a more stringent word.
I wish the author would have looked up these two words in the dictionary before claiming that Obama waffled. Obama was surprised only because HRC was making a big deal out of NOTHING.
Obama's position was clear and emphatic. He has nothing to do with Farrakhan.
As for him pandering to ANY community, even the African American community, that will NOT happen. And as an African American myself, I do NOT want that from him. All I want is a fair shake.
I hardly believe that he'll become president and forget everything he fought for as a civil rights lawyer and everything he's fighting for now. (even if that did happen shallow political promises would NOT make a difference anyway - just check history).
I respect Mr. Hutchinson but he's thinking of the old HRC style of politics.
Fortunately, he won't get that from Obama!
Completely agree.
Obama is pretty consistent. He just doesn't scapegoat.
All Obama has done is scapegoat. He is never held accoutable for his words or actions.
Example please.
"Obama's denunciation of Farrakhan was blunt and pointed. But he did not reject Farrakhan's implied endorsemen
Apparently, people don't understand the meaning of denounce:
1. To condemn openly as being evil or reprehensible.
2. To accuse formally.
3. To give formal announcement of the ending of.
If someone condemns something, isn't that a rejection of it?
Apparently that's not enough for the likes of Clinton, Russert (why is this guy still on TV?) and the pro-Israel groups who are each trying to make political capital out of the too-much-t
Obama answered the question and now all the above, the Republicans and the useless talking-heads will drive the issue until will all sick of hearing it.
And this is the country we're supposed to be proud of? You can probably guess my thoughts..
Farrakhan has spoken at Obamas church numerous times over the 20 years that Obama has been a member. Is there nothing that Obama finds outrageous and sickening over his remarks that he can't call Farrakhan and tell him he doesn't want his suppport. And why in the world not???
I am so furious right now. In other articles, people are trying to convolute Obama's wording in a negative. Any sentence that starts with "I denounce" is not one in which you are trying to play word games!
I have read articles that say, "he denounced the anti-semetic statements not the endorsemen
Earl - Your Bio link above shows the twenty blog spots you've produced since Super Tuesday - all with the apparent intention to down play the authenticity of U.S. Senator Barack Obama. What's up here? HuffPo doesn't pay you, does someone else?
I am I on the wrong site? I thought everyone that wrote for the Huff. Po. kissed up to Obama 24/7.
Minister Farrakhan's foot soldiers in the Nation of Islam should be of great help to Sen. Obama. You can't have enough people willing to go door to door to turn out the vote. Even if Sen. Obama does not embrace this endorsement, even if he distances himself from it, having more helping hands should be considered a big plus.
Well the NOI hasn't offered Obama anything. But oh man wouldn't you and Hillary Clinton absolutely love it if they did, and he accepted.
Keep dreaming. Maybe the sky will open up, the light will come down, and people will FINALLY start voting for Hillary Clinton.
Good one.
Further, I resent this article. Why is Obama's denunciation cast as a "political" maneuver. He, like myself and others, doesn't like racists. Farahakkan is a racist. Come on the logic is pretty straight forward here.
Then why doesn't Obama call Farrakhan and tell him not to back his campaign??
When Russert asked him last night if he would do it, Obama said no. Why not??
the key to obama's nomination is his unblackness. obama has, so far, been able to transcend the usual democratic party refraction of its various components based upon race, gender, ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation. he talks about americans as a unit(just like mlk was able to reach across race). the farrakhan issue threatens this message. the republicans would love to paint obama as the scary black guy. remember, the republicans only have to win the south and west to win the whole thing.
Why is this a story! Obama DENOUNCED an anti-semite. It is to be expected.
1. Denounce means "to condemn", reject means "to refuse to take"... you tell me which one is more emphatic.
2. Obama has rejected Farrahkan's support for a long time. If you can only like Candidates that appreciate Farrahkan, good luck. But it's not Obama.
This must be a joke. You can't get a more emphatic denunciation (rejection) than the one he gave. I would like to know what others would have liked him to say.
I want to know what drives Barack Obama to belong to a church that recognizes Louis Farakan as Man of the Year for 2007 and has as his trusted spiritual advisor and inspiration for his book a man who is almost as controversial as Louis Farakan in his rhetoric and prejudices, so much so that he has been kept in the shadows for Obama's campaign. Why would someone belong to a church and minister that espouses that philosophy if in fact he rejects it?
Trailrunner,
Barack Obama's association with his church has nothing to do with Louis Farrakhan. Obama's church is a Christian church. He's been attending for 20 years and the award was just given last year. It's not like Senator Obama gave him the award personally. Senator Obama has said repeatedly that he does not agree with his minister on Farrakhan. Exactly how many times does he have to say this?
What election, policy, action has Louis Farrakhan influenced? Louis Farrakhan is not a major political figure and this kind of attention supposes that his influence is larger than it actually is.
The other side is that there are those in the black community who resent Farrakhan because of the role he played in Malcolm X's death.
REFUSE TO TAKE HIS ENDORSEMENT. THIS IS SUCH A SIMPLE QUESTION. IT TPPK OBAMA A LOT OF PUSSHING TO SAY HE REJECTED IT... BUT HE DIDN'T EVEN SAY THE NAME OF FARRAKHAN.
This is the endorsement that could make me vote for McCain. Farrakhan and Sharpton causing votes against Obama This wasn't about race now it is!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
