ADL leader says Obama has settled Farrakhan issue

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"The head of the Anti-Defamation League says it's time to pack away the Farrakhan fears when it comes to Barack Obama.

"He was very clear," said Abraham Foxman, the ADL's national director, describing the response of the Illinois senator who was asked in a debate Tuesday about the public praise he received over the weekend from the Nation of Islam leader.

"He distanced himself and condemned it and rejected it," Foxman said. "What more do we want? On that issue we should move on."

The Farrakhan question arose as Obama has sought to aggressively deflect falsehoods and distortions disseminated on the Internet describing the Democratic presidential contender as everything from a secret Muslim to being surrounded by anti-Israel advisers."

more

[Ravy]

1. I am glad Clinton called him on it so he could rethink and revise his position.

The press knocks it off as trite, and the moderators chided her a bit on it, but to say you reject is important.

I can't say she did it out of magnamimous reasons, she may have thought he would refuse to reject it.. but had she not brought it up this could have been a big deal that could have hurt is if he was nominated. And all, unnecessarily.

I think this is a message that Clinton has been trying to say, but not been successful in connecting with it. In general, Obama does not seem to understand the "messages" that words and actions can convey. For instance, a Presidental visit is a *big deal* to foreign dignitaries, as it tends to bolster their own positions within their own political systems. Saying that the President should meet directly with heads of state that are not friendly to us, without preconditons, can have a lot of negative adverse affects to the US by elevating these leaders to a position on the world stage that they may not have had without it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. LOL

Of course Obama denounced Farrakhan weeks ago, but now he's changed his opinion thanks to Clinton.

:crazy:

[Ravy]

7. He "rejected" it at her urging in the debate. Notice how the ADL mentioned that?

You don't think it is important, but it is.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. No, it's a dumb semantic argument.

Obama rejected Farrakhan a long time ago.

[Ravy]

10. Yet he refused to say that in the debate. Curious. nt

[Occam Bandage]

11. Refused? He did it pretty willingly, and made Clinton look like an idiot in the process.

[Scurrilous]

14. "He sees the Matrix!"

http://www.comedycentral.com/

:rofl:

[Occam Bandage]

20. He really does, though. He understands the implications and meanings of words on a very

powerful level. Traditional attacks don't work on him; he can turn around virtually any verbal sledgehammer you try to use on him. He's the best natural politician I've ever seen, and it's obviously frustrating Sen. Clinton to no end.

[Ravy]

19. Not when Russert asked him to. He did so when Clinton asked him a second time. nt

[Occam Bandage]

21. Yeah, he did. Or are you still going to claim

that "denounce" and "reject" are totally different things when no offer of material assistance has been offered? It made Hillary look like a buffoon.

[Ravy]

23. They have totally different meanings. Check out a dictionary sometime.

It is okay if you don't understand the difference, I get that. I do, and I think that is important for our President to understand the difference as well.

[Occam Bandage]

26. Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton's campaign, the voting electorate

is not comprised solely of pedants, autistics, and persons with right-hemisphere brain damage. Obama understands the meanings of words on not only the basic level Hillary Clinton does, but on a level that encompasses the functional meanings of the words and the messages they convey to the public as well. That is why he won that exchange, and that is why he is going to be the nominee.

[Ravy]

28. Well, he apparently didn't understand the difference in these words.

And yes, it is a shame more people don't understand why.

[Occam Bandage]

29. Or, rather, he did,

and as such was able to convincingly win the exchange. You seem to be implying that he blundered into winning it, or that Sen. Clinton willingly made herself look like a buffoon to help him. Neither of those are realistic in the face that Obama always wins verbal exchanges, and always effortlessly defuses rhetorical blasts. He knew what exactly he was saying and exactly what Hillary Clinton was saying.

[Ravy]

30. He said he didn't see the difference. I take him at his word on that. nt

[femmedem]

25. When Russert first asked if he accepted his support

the first word Obama said was, "No." It was clear as clear could be.

[Ravy]

27. Obviously not to Russert, because he then asked if he rejected his support,

and Obama did not.

I am simply saying I am glad he did. I agree that Hillary looked silly and took a hit for doing it, but it was the right thing for him to say, ultimately.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. You didn't even watch the debate, did you?

:rofl:

[Ravy]

18. Sure I did. Russert asked him if he would reject and he did not.

Clinton told him it was important to do so, then he did.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. Yeah, right.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

17. its Silly Season in Politics again - its to muffle the voice of outspoken leaders

and the former President of the Harvard Law Review passified Sen Clinton
by using her grammaticaly incorrect verb "reject", even though it was not appropriate.

Its all bullshit, I guess Obama will have to "reject and denounce", like wash and rinse,
constanlty for any of the thousands of people who aren't allowed to compliment him in public.

Its all bullshit to try to muffle out spoken black leaders to prevent them from garnering more
support for Obama.

[Occam Bandage]

5. "Obama does not seem to understand the "messages" that words and actions can convey."

This is an argument I have not yet heard against Obama. Obama does not understand that words can carry messages, and that those messages can be powerful? That would, if I am not mistaken, be the entire fucking point of his campaign.

Your business about meeting with unfriendly heads of state is bunk. Isolating despots does not weaken them; rather, it has without fail strengthened their hold over power as they become the sole source of political movement in their country, and as the world community has given them little to lose. From China to Libya to the Soviet Union, diplomatic engagement has led to loosening of dictatorships. From Iran to North Korea to Cuba to Iraq, sustained diplomatic neglect has led to consolidation and entrenchment of dictatorships.


"Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate." - JFK

[Ravy]

9. I have to disagree.

Obama uses his words to inspire, but as president, an imprecise choice of words can have bad consequences.

If Obama says he will reject NAFTA rather than denounce NAFTA, it means two entirely different things, even though Obama said in the debate he doesn't see the difference between rejecting and denouncing.

[Occam Bandage]

15. I have not yet seen

an instance of inarticulate word choice from Obama. His denounce/reject exchange was perfectly played. I don't know if he was baiting her or not, but she got snickered at and he got applause and cheers.

Your NAFTA business is a poor analogy, since--as he made very clear--there was nothing substantial involved in Farrakhan's statement of support. Had he offered assistance, denouncing and rejecting would have been different. As it stood, he made Hillary look petty and foolish; that was an exchange between a person who thought they understood the political meanings of words, and a person who understood the meanings of words in a much deeper, much more situationally recognizant, much sharper manner.

[Ravy]

24. Well, the ADL message in the OP points out that he "condemned" AND "rejected"

So they seem to think there is a difference. I am glad he said it, even though it was forced.

It might have been a very different message from the ADL today if it had been left with him refusing to reject the support, based on Russert's question.

I am not pro-Hillary. I consider them about equal, in fact. But, she was right on this instance and I am glad he acquiesced.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

13. Obama is supposed to get advice on message from Sen Clinton

:rofl:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

16. Obama "rejected and denounced" the incorrect grammer of "rejecting" that which was not offered

Obama denounced the "anti semitic" views of Farrakhan.

He ca't really reject the speech Farrakhan made saying in effect that Obama is a good guy,
because the speech was not an endorsement and it was just that - a speech.

I guess Obama, being a former professor, even President of Harvard Law Review no less,
just has a better understanding of the english language.

But he rejected and denounced the splitting of hairs here.

[oasis]

32. "incorrect grammer"

:rofl:

[SeaLyons]

31. It's Curious

to me that Obama attends a church that praises Farrakhan in the first place. He was very soft in renouncing him until Clinton called him on it. She did him a favor.

[Cha]

3. Thanks ADL for giving Obama

a clean bill of health. Now, has hilary rejected bill cunningham's endorsement or whatever the word is?

[TexasObserver]

4. When the ADL says Obama is find on the issue, he's fine on the issue.

[Scurrilous]

6. To Denounce and Reject (Why the Farrakhan litmus test must go)

<snip>

"It was the fall of 1985 when Min. Louis Farrakhan burst onto the New York City political scene. I was a journalism student at Columbia University at the time and, truth be told, I was woefully naive and politically uninformed. I had only a vague idea of who Farrakhan was until he gave a controversial Madison Square Garden speech to 25,000 people.

His arrival would prove to be one of my earliest lessons in the hypocrisy of the media and of the white political establishment. One after another prominent black political leaders were sought out by reporters and asked if they would publicly denounce, condemn, or repudiate Farrakhan. White political leaders called on black leaders who did not respond to promptly do so, and harshly criticized those who refused. It was all very surreal, and even as an inexperienced political watcher and budding student journalist, I knew there was something very wrong with this picture.

Bullying black leaders to represent the entire black race and to speak and think as one, while also treating every loud-mouthed, controversial black leader as if they represent the opinions, political views and personal aspirations of every black American, seemed to me to be a journalistic and political double-standard that was rarely, if ever, applied to white leaders and politicians.

Tuesday night's debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama took me back two decades. NBC newsman Tim Russert pointedly quizzed Obama about Farrakhan's recent speech in which he sang the Illinois Senator's praises. (Contrary to some reports, Farrakhan stopped short of endorsing him.) Still, Russert nudged Obama not only to denounce Farrakhan but to outright reject his support. It made me wonder when black people are going to stop being called to account for the deeds and words of other blacks.

First a word about Farrakhan. Yes, his history of anti-Semitism -- and make no mistake about it, that's what it is -- is ugly, hateful, and counterproductive. If Farrakhan were a white man who said about black Baptists what he said about Jewish people, many of us would call for his head. But would we ask every prominent white politician to stand up and publicly repudiate and reject him? Recent history indicates we would not. How many white politicians would even feel any compunction to actually do so?

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."

more

[blogslut]

34. bingo

Why isn't Hillary Clinton denouncing and rejecting the statements of white people like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter? They expressed support for her.

Farrakhan says something so Tim Russert holds up a hoop and tells Barack Obama to jump through it.

I hated that question and Tim Russert was an ass for asking it.

[jody]

33. Apparently BO was given advanced word that ADL's views on Farrakhan would be Internet active.

Farrakhan In His Own Words

For nearly 30 years, Louis Farrakhan has marked himself a notable figure on the extremist scene by making hateful statements targeting Jews, whites and homosexuals.

Farrakhan’s bigoted and anti-Semitic rhetoric has included statements calling whites “blue eyed devils” and Jews “bloodsuckers” that controlled the slave trade, the government, the media and various Black individuals and organizations. In 2006, he blamed Jews and Israel for the war in Iraq, for controlling Hollywood and for promoting what he considers immorality during his February Saviours' Day address in Chicago.

In a 2007 interview with Arabic-language television news network Al Jazeera, Farrakhan accused Jews of anti-Semitism, charging that “The real anti-Semites are those who came out of Europe and settled in Palestine, and now they call themselves the true Jews, when in fact, they converted to Judaism.”

ADL then summarizes many of Farrakhan’s statements supporting their allegation.

[From The Left]

35. Shhhhhhhhhhhhh, won't satisfy Hillary's supporters

[cooolandrew]

36. Farrakhan is an american citizen why can't he endorse whoever he wants really petty.

[cooolandrew]

37. People may find lots of people objectionable in society they still ahve right to their opinion.