Blog entries tagged: Debates
Obama on his pastor
With all the controversy over last night’s debate exchange about the connections between Louis Farrakhan and Barack Obama’s pastor, it’s worth reviewing what the candidate had to say about the topic during a meeting in Cleveland on Sunday with Jewish leaders. From the transcript provided by the Obama campaign:
I am member of the Unity Church of Christ, Trinity United Church of Christ been there for 20 years. And although this is an improvement because you don’t think I am Muslim, which is the other… [laughter] You know so, slowly we are progressing here. It is a very conventional African American Church. If you go to, if you were there at the church you would be hearing gospel music and people preaching about Jesus. It is a very conventional in that sense. It is true that my Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who will be retiring this month, is somebody who on occasion can say controversial things. Most of them by the way are controversial directed at the African American Community and calling on them start reading books and turn off the T.V. set and engage in self help. And he is very active in prison ministries and so forth.
It is also true that he comes out of the 60s he is an older man. That is where he cut his teeth. That he has historically been interested in the African roots of the African American experience. He was very active in the South Africa divestment movement and you will recall that there was a tension that arose between the African American and the Jewish communities During that period when we were dealing with apartheid in South Africa, because Israel and South Africa had a relationship at that time. And that cause - that was a source of tension. So there have been a couple of occasions where he made comments with relation, rooted in that. Not necessariary ones that I share. But that is the context within which he has made those comments. He does not have a close relationship with Louis Farrakhan.
Louis Farrakhan is a resident of Chicago and as a consequence he has been active in a range of community activities, particularly around ex-offenders and dealing with them. I have been a consistent, before I go any further, a consistent denunciator of Louis Farrakhan, nobody challenges that. And what is true is that, recently this is probably, I guess last year. An award was given to Farrakhan for his work on behave of ex-offenders completely unrelated to his controversial statements. And I believe that was a mistake and showed a lack of sensitivity to Jewish community and I said so. But I have never heard an anti-Semitic made inside of our church. I have never heard anything that would suggest anti-Semitism on part of the Pastor. He is like an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don’t agree with. And I suspect there are some of the people in this room who have heard relatives say some things that they don’t agree with. Including, on occasion directed at African Americans that maybe a possibility that’s just - I am not suggesting that’s definitive.
So the point I make is this that I understand the concerns and the sensitivities and one of my goals constantly in my public career has been to try to bridge what was a historically powerful bond between the African American and Jewish communities that has been frayed in recent years. For a whole variety of reasons. I think that I have served as an effective bridge and that’s the reason I have overwhelming support among the Jewish community that knows me best, which is the Jewish community in Chicago. And I think that anybody who has friends among the Jewish community in Chicago should check out those credentials. But I do appreciate the opportunity to clarify those concerns. And as I said that last point I would make is that you know my Pastor is going to be retiring over the next month. So my general view, and the reason that I raise this, this is always a sensitive point, what you don’t want to do is distance yourself or kick somebody away, because you are now running for President and you are worried about perceptions, particularly when someone is basically winding down their life and their career. Okay, yes.
2 Comments |
Share This
| 
Barack Obama,
debates,
Ohio,
Presidential Race
Share this article!
Clinton’s big Pa. backer reached out to Farrakhan
During Tuesday’s debate in Ohio Hillary Clinton argued that Barack Obama had not gone far enough in speaking out against Louis Farrakhan. After the debate her pollster, Mark Penn, was in the spin room arguing that Obama may have rejected and denounced Farrakhan, but he failed to criticize his pastor’s praise of the Nation of Islam leader.
Well, if this race makes it to Pennsylvania, it will be interesting to find out what Clinton has to say on the issue of Farrakhan to her most important backer in the state, Governor Ed Rendell.
Then the mayor of Philadelphia, Rendell not only made a controversial decision to share the stage with Farrakhan in an effort to diffuse racial tensions in the city, but then praised the NOI for its emphasis on family values and self-sufficiency (this, after ripping what he described as ”so-called Jewish leaders” for criticizing the decision to give Farrakhan a platform).
Along similar lines, undoubtedly Jewish Republicans are taking notes on how to take aim at Obama over the Farrakhan question. They may want to check their back files – they’ll find this 2000 ad attacking Joe Lieberman (now McCain’s most prominent Jewish supporter) for saying he’d meet with Farrakhan.
11 Comments |
Share This
|
Barack Obama,
debates,
hillary clinton,
Joe Lieberman,
Presidential Race
Share this article!
The Farrakhan moment: Reactions I
Here’s a running list of media reactions to the exchange about Louis Farrakhan during Tuesday night’s debate.
Andrew Sullivan (THE DAILY DISH):
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.
Byron York (NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE):
At that point it became clear that Obama simply would not say that he rejected Farrakhan’s support, preferring instead to refer to, but not repeat, previous statements. It’s a common technique for a politician who doesn’t want to say something to say that he has said it before without actually saying what he says he said. Here in Cleveland on Tuesday night, Obama seemed to be heading in that direction until Russert pressed a bit more, bringing up Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s long-time pastor, whose magazine last year said that Farrakhan “truly epitomized greatness.” And then Hillary Clinton — who must have enjoyed seeing her opponent take a rare turn on the hot seat — added, “There’s a difference between denouncing and rejecting…I have no doubt that everything Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we’ve got to be even stronger.”
At that moment, Obama was in trouble. If he continued to repeat his I-have-denounced-Minister-Farrakhan’s-anti-Semitic-statements position, he would clearly seem to be avoiding a larger critique of Farrakhan. So he rather nimbly suggested that it was all a matter of semantics, and if Sen. Clinton liked, he would reject as well as denounce. “Tim, I have to say I don’t see a difference between denouncing and rejecting,” Obama said. “If the word ‘reject’ Sen. Clinton feels is stronger than the word ‘denounce,’ then I’m happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.”
The concession got Obama out of trouble. But it didn’t stop the talk in the spin room after the debate. Was Obama initially trying to nuance his way through the question? “Sen. Clinton was pleased that he came back later and…not only denounced it but rejected support,” said top Clinton aide Mark Penn. But Penn continued: “I think you have to listen to the answers. He did not reject what his minister said about Farrakhan. If you listen to the answers, he only responded to Farrakhan, and he never responded to the fact that his minister, if I have it right, said that Farrakhan was a person of greatness. So if you listen very carefully, I do not think he in fact rejected or denounced his minister praising Farrakhan — he only did that to Farrakhan.”
Noah Scheiber (THE NEW REPUBLIC):
About two-thirds of the way through the debate, Barack Obama took a question about Louis Farrakhan’s support for his campaign. He gave a sufficient, if not quite stellar answer–saying he’d repeatedly denounced Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic statements, that he’d long been a supporter of Israel, etc. At that point Hillary asked to weigh in. Her voice softened a bit, and she began: “I just want to add something here, because I faced a similar situation when I ran for the Senate in 2000.” I was sure she was going to invoke the firestorm she ignited after watching Suha Arafat deliver an anti-Israel tirade. Something like: “I stirred up a controversy by failing to condemn anti-Semitism, even though that’s how I felt, so I understand how sensitive the issue can be. But I also know Senator Obama is a good friend of the Jewish people.”
Instead, Hillary went with an anecdote whose point was to demonstrate her own vigilance on the issue. She lectured Obama about how it’s not sufficient to denounce anti-Semites; you have to actively reject their support. It was a sanctimonious turn, and Obama defused it with typical good humor. “I have to say I don’t see a difference between denouncing and rejecting,” he said. “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.”
Josh Marshall (TALKINGPOINTSMEMO.COM):
I discussed this in the live debate blog. But I think it’s worth going back and watching Russert’s run of shame here. I would say it was borderline to bring up the issue of Farrakhan at all. But perhaps since it’s getting some media play you bring it up just for the record, for Obama to address.
That’s not what Russert did. He launches into it, gets into a parsing issue over word choices, then tries to find reasons to read into the record some of Farrakhan’s vilest quotes after Obama has just said he denounces all of them. Then he launches into a bizarre series of logical fallacies that had Obama needing to assure Jews that he didn’t believe that Farrakhan “epitomizes greatness”.
As a Jew and perhaps more importantly simply as a sentient being I found it disgusting. It was a nationwide, televised, MSM version of one of those noxious Obama smear emails.
Greg Sargent (THE NEW REPUBLIC):
This wasn’t an easy call, given what we’ve heard thus far (a question about Drudge, a gratuitous reference to Tim Russert’s blue collar background, etc.).
But the inane question of the night award goes to this Russert inanity, which we just heard moments ago:
“Do you accept the support of Louis Farrahkan?”
Taylor Marsh (HUFFINGTON POST):
As a Scots-Irish broad, I saw Obama’s tepid response to Farrakhan, and was appalled. Emails from Jewish friends confirmed that I wasn’t alone. That Obama had to be led to this reality is proof of his ruffle no feathers at any cost mentality. It has nothing to do with him believing in our ‘special relationship’ with Israel, or insinuating anything remotely anti-semitic. It’s about moral courage and the conciliatory reflex he has to extend grace to people who haven’t earned and don’t deserve it. People like Louis Farrakhan.
If anyone had any doubt that Hillary’s campaign is trying to score points against Obama in the Jewish community - today she gave us the proof, publicly. … What was she trying to say – that Obama is somewhat anti-Semitic? Let’s assume she was just thinking that Obama was playing politics and is trying not to offend Farrakhan’s supporters while he denounces his views.
In any case, in this exchange Obama got the upper hand. …
Obama, talking about Farrakhan - and about anti-Semitism among African-Americans, which he also denounced in his speech on Martin Luther King Day – touched a sensitive nerve when he was talking about one possibility that’s inherent to his candidacy: he has the chance to restore the alliance between blacks and Jews.
This will not necessarily get Obama the votes of every Jewish liberal in this country. But it is also one promise that no American liberal Jew can simply ignore.
62 Comments |
Share This
|
Barack Obama,
debates,
hillary clinton,
Presidential Race
Share this article!
TNR Blog: Obama wins Farrakhan moment
Noah Scheiber of The New Republic gives Barack Obama the win in the Farrakhan exchange:
About two-thirds of the way through the debate, Barack Obama took a question about Louis Farrakhan’s support for his campaign. He gave a sufficient, if not quite stellar answer–saying he’d repeatedly denounced Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic statements, that he’d long been a supporter of Israel, etc. At that point Hillary asked to weigh in. Her voice softened a bit, and she began: “I just want to add something here, because I faced a similar situation when I ran for the Senate in 2000.” I was sure she was going to invoke the firestorm she ignited after watching Suha Arafat deliver an anti-Israel tirade. Something like: “I stirred up a controversy by failing to condemn anti-Semitism, even though that’s how I felt, so I understand how sensitive the issue can be. But I also know Senator Obama is a good friend of the Jewish people.”
Instead, Hillary went with an anecdote whose point was to demonstrate her own vigilance on the issue. She lectured Obama about how it’s not sufficient to denounce anti-Semites; you have to actively reject their support. It was a sanctimonious turn, and Obama defused it with typical good humor. “I have to say I don’t see a difference between denouncing and rejecting,” he said. “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.”
0 Comments |
Share This
|
Barack Obama,
debates,
hillary clinton,
Presidential Race
Share this article!
‘Blowing’ the Farrakhan moment
Writing on the Huffington Post, Taylor Marsh argues that Barack Obama blew his “Sister Souljah” moment.
As a Scots-Irish broad, I saw Obama’s tepid response to Farrakhan, and was appalled. Emails from Jewish friends confirmed that I wasn’t alone. That Obama had to be led to this reality is proof of his ruffle no feathers at any cost mentality. It has nothing to do with him believing in our ‘special relationship’ with Israel, or insinuating anything remotely anti-semitic. It’s about moral courage and the conciliatory reflex he has to extend grace to people who haven’t earned and don’t deserve it. People like Louis Farrakhan.
0 Comments |
Share This
|
Barack Obama,
debates,
Presidential Race
Share this article!
Slamming Russert
Over at talkingpointsmemo.com, Josh Marshall and Greg Sargent slammed NBC’s Tim Russert over his handling of the Farrakhan issue.
0 Comments |
Share This
|
Barack Obama,
debates,
Presidential Race
Share this article!
Debate Moment: Denouncing and rejecting Louis Farrakhan
The most Jewish moment in any debate during this campaign came Tuesday night, in an exchange over Louis Farrakhan’s recent comments praising Barack Obama.
10 Comments |
Share This
|
Barack Obama,
debates,
Featured,
hillary clinton
Share this article!
CNN needs its own mikveh
I think last night’s Democratic debate marked some sort of important milestone in American cultural history – and, no, it wasn’t the sight of a woman and an African American battling for the nomination. That’s old news.
The real story last night was the two CNN moderators – one is a convert to Judaism (Campbell Brown) and the other (John King) is in the process of becoming a Member of the Tribe. (Next, someone will write in to tell us that Univision’s Jorge Ramos is a marrano.)
For those keeping score, Brown replaced Paula Zahn, who never converted, but is married to a Jewish man and raising the children as Jews.
What on earth is Wolf Blitzer putting in the water cooler over there?
0 Comments |
Share This
|
debates
Share this article!
Debate Moment: Huckabee defends, explains faith
0 Comments |
Share This
|
debates,
Presidential Race
Share this article!
Debate Moment: McCain says he never said he didn’t know economics (Lieberman backs him up, the recor
Questioned by Tim Russert in last night’s debate about his admission that he doesn’t know much about economics, McCain denied it. “Actually, I don’t know where you got that quote from,” McCain said. “I’m very well versed in economics. I was there at the Reagan revolution.”
In his recent interview with JTA, Joe Lieberman also denied McCain had said he didn’t know economics. “I’ve never heard him say what you said,” Lieberman said. “As a matter of fact I’ve been with him the last couple of days, Michigan and South Carolina, where he’s talked about the economic challenge and offered some ideas to deal with it.”
Fact check. At least three newspapers have quoted McCain acknowledging he needs to learn more about economics. Here’s one, from the Wall Street Journal: “I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.”
0 Comments |
Share This
|
debates,
Presidential Race
Share this article!
