Barack and Louie the Bean Pie Man

I think Sullivan read it wrong. If anything Clinton looked like she was nitpicking over this word or that word. He said he denounced it. She said he should reject it. Obama said, ok I concede the point, I denounce and reject it.

Understand both (1) the point Sullivan made as well as (2) the applause from the National Review.

Re: Sullivan's point, I think he's right that McCain would have exhibited more "heat" in his denunciation of a Duke than Obama did tonight with his rejection of Farrakhan's praise of him. This is one instance where Obama's coolness did not serve him well. It may be unfair to Obama to say this, but he didn't APPEAR to be sensitive to how Americans of all stripes feel about Farrakhan. His response seemed to be not much more than lawyerly words coming out of his mouth.

By contrast, you really get a sense that McCain would feel genuine outrage were he in the same situation. You can see this even today in the way McCain repudiated a local Ohio radio talk-show host who introduced McCain at a rally. In his intro, the talk-radio guy repeatedly stated Obama's middle name and hinted that Obama would coddle enemies of this country. I was impressed that McCain took personal responsibility for this (even though he had no control over what happened and had not even pre-approved the talk-radio guy's appearance). He vowed that it wouldn't happen again.

Re: the applause from NR, it has more to do with the way Clinton overeached on this matter and made it seem at the end of the discussion more like a semantic quibble ("denounce" vs. "reject"). Tt was so poorly handled by her that it elicited laughter from the audience (as I recall) AT Clinton.

Okay, this is going to be subtle but hear me out: I think both Sullivan and Obama's boosters are right. After all the sturm und drang over semantics, Obama did avoid rejecting Farrakhan's support outright, which is what Hillary tried to point out.

Here is Obama's initial response to Russert's questioning him about Farrakhan's support:

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. You know, I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements. And I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments.

RUSSERT: The problem some voters may have is, as you know, the Reverend Farrakhan called Judaism “gutter religion.”

OBAMA: Tim, I think — I am very familiar with his record, as are the American people. That’s why I have consistently denounced it. This is not something new. This is something that — I live in Chicago. He lives in Chicago. I’ve been very clear, in terms of me believing that what he has said is reprehensible and inappropriate. And I have consistently distanced myself from him.

Hillary picked up on the subtle evasion whereby Obama seemed to be only denouncing Farrakhan's anti-Semitic statements but not rejecting his support outright.

After drawing a comparison to her rejection of the Independence Party's support in her senatorial race because she believed they were anti-Semitic, Russert asks:

RUSSERT: Are you suggesting Senator Obama is not standing on principle?

CLINTON: No. I’m just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject it. And there’s a difference between denouncing and rejecting. And I think when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory — I have no doubt that everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we’ve got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far reaching.

And here is where Obama very adroitly evades Hillary's trap. Picture him with a grin and a twinkle as he answers.

OBAMA: Tim, I have to say I don’t see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There’s no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word “reject” Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word “denounce,” then I’m happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.

CLINTON: Good. Good. Excellent.

The reason why this was a brilliant evasion was that after all of Hillary's attempts to nail him on the issue, Obama never actually said that he rejects Farrakhan's support -- just that he denounces (and, presumably, rejects) Farrakhan's anti-Semitic statements. I think Farrakhan's organization will ultimately be pleased (or, at least, okay) with this careful parsing by Obama.

And the brilliant part of it is that the audience never really noticed Obama's sleight of hand, and instead Obama, with a grin, made Hillary look like a carping fool. Because the audience was laughing at Obama's (literally) response, Hillary threw in the towel instead of following up with, "So, you reject and denounce Farrakhan's support. We're clear on that. Right?"

Yeah, from that transcript Cato provided, I can't see why the huge flap over Obama's response.

If the transcript above is accurate, he didn't reject anything but Farrakhan's anti-Semitic statements. After that, he stuck with the method Bill Clinton perfected, of insisting that you've already denied or rejected things.

It's kind of fun to see that tactic used by the Clintons' opponent, after Bill used it so well to dodge his own scandals. It's smart politicking. If you keep denying something, you stay on the defensive. If you insist that you've already consistently denied something, it puts your questioner on the defense, because why is he badgering you about something you've already dealt with repeatedly?

Here's what I don't get. Sullivan: "I have not believed that Obama has an ounce of sympathy for a creep like Farrakhan."

Why not? Why is the default position that Obama couldn't have such sympathies? This is where the "cultishness" comes in for me. People like Sullivan give him the benefit of the doubt until he proves them wrong, because they want so badly for him to be perfect.

In Obama's own words, he's struggled with his racial identity all his life and worked to become a more authentic member of "black" society. He says that's why he joined the church he did; that he wasn't much of a believer, so he chose a church that would help him connect with the part of his heritage he identifies with.

Given all that, is it so unlikely that Obama would have some sympathies for a guy like Farrakhan, who has a fair amount of support in the community Obama wants to connect with? That doesn't have to mean he agrees with Farrakhan on everything, or even most things, but I'd be surprised if he didn't have at least one single "ounce of sympathy" for him.

Say a candidate were born half-Irish and raised in other countries where he encountered few Irish people, and had to learn what it meant to be "real" Irish from books and TV. When he got old enough, he travelled to Ireland to try to connect to his heritage, and wrote a book about his angst. He cut his brother out of his life after the brother said he preferred London to Dublin. He joined a Catholic parish that was known to provide support to the IRA.

Would anyone just assume this candidate had no IRA sympathies? If, when asked about it, he said that he rejects their bombing tactics, would that be enough, or would he be pushed to reject them completely? Would anyone believe him if he did?

For those who are sarcasm-challenged: a controversial leader of an organization with which other groups and organizations have valid disagreements has exercised his constitutional rights of free speech, free association and franchise to make public comments about a candidate for public office.

That. Is. It.

I've decided that I was hypocritical in my post on the open primary issue. I've decided that the only moral stance in a state that permits open primaries is that if one wished to vote for a candidate, one should either be registered in that candidate's party, or be registered independent or unaffiliated. Taking advantage of an open primary to rig the election in the opposition party in favor of your preferred candidate, regardless of its legality, is immoral.

I would say there is a double-standard in play here- when Huckabee was asked if he would accept the support of Log Cabin Gay Repubs, he said sure- even if he disagreed with them on important matters, if someone wanted to support him, go for it, it doesn't mean he is going to change his politics or beliefs because of it.

To evangelical christians an openly gay organization would be anathema on the level of a Farrakhan- so where's the beef?

If Pat Robertson--who has said as many hateful, intolerant, and stupid things as Farrakhan...

I don't recall Robertson or any of his media outlets calling Hitler a "great man."

http://www.cnn.com/US/9510/megamarch/10-17/notebook/index.html

"The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man," Farrakhan said in a speech last year.

"I don't know how much more strongly Obama could disavow him."

Agreed.

Instead of claiming that he's already consistently denounced him, he could actually, you know, denounce him.

It's not like that language formulation--turning "do you reject" into "I have consistently rejected"--is a natural way to talk, but he carefully does it several times in this one interview. That's partly just smart politics; like I said before, it's a way of taking the offensive and making the questioner look like he's picking on you.

But if you haven't actually consistently done whatever it is you claim you consistently did, then it looks more like you're trying to fool people into thinking you've said something you didn't say. In this case, getting mainstream folks to believe he wants nothing to do with Farrakhan, while letting Farrakhan supporters read between the lines and think he's secretly one of them. Smart, if he can pull it off.

Thank you, Watcher. That was very well said indeed.

Spengler on Obama.

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?