Originally Posted By: whomod
 Originally Posted By: the G-man
Obama Catches Heat Over Farrakhan Support
  • Farrakhan, who has drawn attention for calling Judaism a “gutter religion,” dubbed the Illinois senator the “hope of the entire world” on Sunday.

    Obama was asked during a debate with Hillary Clinton Tuesday night if he would reject that support — but the Illinois senator at first hedged.

    “I can’t say to somebody that he can’t say that he thinks I’m a good guy,” Obama said. “You know, I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements.”

    Clinton then chimed in to say she rejected support from an anti-Israel group during her 2000 Senate run, and that Obama’s denunciation of Farrakhan is not as strong as a rejection.

    Obama relented: “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.”

    He earned the crowd’s applause, but his handling of the question could spell trouble.

    An article in the latest edition of Newsweek reported that Clinton’s surrogates are already floating the word that Obama has a shaky commitment to Israel


Funny.

Because amost all the media outlets are laying praise on Obama and saying that he defused a potentially embarrassing situation cooly and expertly.


 Originally Posted By: the G-man

Even if that is the case, it doesn't contradict what the article said, namely that he "caught heat" for it. It simply means that he allegedly defused it.


The larger question is why Farrakhan is the litmus test for black politicians’ views on race and not the politicians’ own record of comments, actions and legislative votes? Why is it that only after they repudiate Farrakhan are they then deemed not to be closet black militants? Farrakhan does not have the political influence over black people that some white Americans apparently believe. Nor does Rev. Al Sharpton, or Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr., or any of the other prominent black people that the media treat as proxies for all black people. I've repeatedly said this, especially about Jackson and Sharpton. These are just 2 race baiting assholes that the media always trots out as the representatives of black America as if anyone besides the media actually made them that.

Reporters did not run out in droves to ask white politicians to reject Don Imus after he made his remarks about the black female basketball players at Rutgers University. White politicians did not eagerly line up to do so. Nor did they repudiate fellow white politicians who did not. A few, and only a few, said they would no longer go on the Imus show. Tim Russert himself, who appeared often on the Imus show, was not among those who said they would no longer be a guest.

Most black people saw Imus as an irresponsible white man with a powerful microphone, not as the living embodiment of white America. Most black people (and white) know the difference.

I’d suggest a shout out to Tim Russert to ask repeatedly if McCain will disavow his endorsement by John Hagee, as he did to Obama with Farrakhan’s, but since McCain has been courting Hagee for a year, that might be too pointed a question to ask.