Didn't get to watch the Obama-Clinton debate tonight, so I'm trying to catch up on how each did by reading the various blogs. I was startled to see this on the blog of Andrew Sullivan, who has been one of the most enthusiastic Obama boosters on the web:
10.09 pm. Farrakhan. Does Obama understand that saying he has consistently denounced him is not the same as simply saying, "I denounce him"? A weak response - reminiscent of Dukakis. (By the way, why is it somehow only a question for Jewish Americans that Farrakhan is a fascist hate-monger? It's a question for all Americans.) Obama's Farrakhan response suggests to me he is reluctant to attack a black demagogue. Maybe he wants to avoid a racial melee. But he has one. He needs to get real on this. Weak, weak, weak. Clinton sees an opening and pounces. She wins this round. He is forced to adjust. His worst moment in any debate since this campaign started. I'm astounded he couldn't be more forceful. His inability to say by himself, unprompted, that Farrakhan's support repels him and he rejects it outright really unsettles me.I have not believed that Obama has an ounce of sympathy for a creep like Farrakhan. But Obama has now made me doubt this. If David Duke called John McCain a good man, would McCain hesitate to say he'd rather Duke opposed him? If this is how Obama wants to tackle this emotive issue, he needs to get real.
Ye who watched this debate moment: Was it really as bad as Andrew says? Maybe Obama doesn't think Farrakhan is all that objectionable. Or maybe he can't understand why this has come up again, given that he criticized Farrakhan not long ago. Or maybe it's more likely that he understands that to denounce Farrakhan is to come close to denouncing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his (Obama's) spiritual mentor, who just loves Louie the Bean Pie Man. Here's the video tribute Obama's church put together when it gave Louie a Lifetime Achievement Award:
I'm telling you, Obama supporters, this kind of thing is going to be a big, big problem for your man this fall unless he does a Sister Souljah to the Rev. Wright. Which isn't going to happen; it would be like patricide.
OTOH: The National Review gang barely mentioned the Obama-Farrakhan moment, and concluded that Barack had performed splendidly. I've no doubt he did. The guy is a terrific politician.
UPDATE: Andrew is getting pummeled by his readers, who say he way overreacted on the Obama-Farrakhan answer. I'll wait to see the YouTube clip tomorrow to judge for myself.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
Thank you, Watcher. That was very well said indeed.
Don't elevate the wrong to the level of "famous" or deserving to be recognized.
Well, we didn't elevate either Farrakhan or Wright. Obama did that. He elevated Wright by using his sermons as inspiration, and Wright brought Farrakhan into the picture by giving him an award and calling him the bee's knees just this past year. The voters deserve to know exactly how much of Wright's programs a potential president like Obama--Wright's parishioner and self-confessed admirer--buys into.
Spengler on Obama.
I read the Spengler piece. Although I don't agree with the entire piece, I think he makes some really valid points, and suspect he may be on to something.
As I recall, Rod, you wrote a rather long column on this very blog about how one of the Orthodox monks who helped bring you and Julie into his (now your) faith turned out to be a child molester.
Yet you said you were still grateful for what he did for you and your wife even as you were disgusted and horrified at what he did to others.
Compared to that, Rev. Wright being a seeming fan of Louis Farrakhan (bringing interfaith dialogue to an unfortunate extreme, I admit) is fairly tame, don't you think?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.