Obama Does the Right Thing, others Should Take heed

W

Wildalaska

Moderator
Ol Barack put Farrakhan in his place...


Obama Denounces Farrakhan Endorsement

Susan Davis reports on the Democratic presidential debate.

Sen. Barack Obama denounced the recent support for his candidacy expressed Sunday by controversial minister and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

“I have been very clear in my denunciation” of Farrakhan’s history of anti-Semitic remarks, Obama said at the Democratic debate in Cleveland, “I did not solicit his support.” Obama said he “can not censor” individual endorsements but said there is no affiliation with his campaign and Farrakhan. “I can’t say to somebody that he can’t say that he thinks I’m a good guy,” Obama said, citing his support among Jewish Americans and stating that he would make it a priority to soothe historically tense ties between the African-American and Jewish communities in the nation. “I have some of the strongest support from the Jewish community in my hometown of Chicago and in this campaign,” he said, describing himself as a “stalwart” on supporting Israel.

Sen. Hillary Clinton suggested Obama’s comments weren’t good enough, citing her own record of rejecting controversial support in her 2000 Senate bid. “There’s a difference between denouncing and rejecting,” she countered, “And I made it very clear that I did not want their support, I rejected it,” she said, “I would not be associated with people” that make such comments.

Obama quickly responded. “I’m happy to concede the point and I would reject and denounce,” he said. “Good, good,” replied Clinton.


http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/02/26/obama-denounces-farrakhan-endorsement/?mod=googlenews_wsj

WildgoodjobbarackAlaska TM
 
It's smart on his part... it would be very easy for the "vast right wing conspiracy" to paint him into a corner if he courted all the race pimps like Farrakhan, Sharpton and Jackson.
 
Well, Obama's major card to play is that he represents "a new kind of politics." In order to make that work he has to repudiate and denounce the extreme nutjobs. As long as that card works, he doesn't need that support to get votes. However, if his image of being a new kind of politician fades (and I think it eventually will, but it may not fade enough to make a difference), he'll be scrapping for any support he can get, like many other politicians.

Thus far, he has been running on his charisma and image, and he is doing a fantastic job of keeping that clean.
 
It's a mark of good judgement and leadership ability. Hard to admit given I don't want him to become President, but true just the same.

Among those Democrats I would like to see lose thier political influence, (Clinton, Farrakhan, Sharpton, Jackson), Obama seems to be handing them many of them thier hats and showing them to the door. It would be nice if he could politically dispose of Reid and Pelossi while he's cleaning house.
 
Why should he denounce or reject? What is he some kind of islamophobe? Shouldn't he be tolerant, embrace others with different point of view, engage the marginalized, etc.? Oh ya, he's got to watch out for those right-wingers, they're dangerous.
 
Where does Obama stand on the right of Jewish Americans to carry concealed handguns to protect themselves and thier own from loonies like (Calypso Gene) Farrakhan?
 
Where does Obama stand on the right of Jewish Americans to carry concealed handguns to protect themselves and thier own from loonies like (Calypso Gene) Farrakhan?
Click to expand...

LOL..isnt that a dichotomy...Obama rejects rascism and antisemitsm yet would deptive us of our "rights" to own firearms.....

Other candidates fail to reject, nay even probably embrace rascsim and antisemitsm, yet believe in the "right" to keep and bear arms.

isnt politics wonderful?;)

WildineedlunchAlaska TM
 
I watched the debate last night, and Obama did not denounce nor reject Farrakhan. He denounced and rejected anti-jewish remarks that Farrakhan had made. He did not go so far as to say he did not want Farrakhan to vote for him. I thought it was an outstanding response to the allegations of Clinton, however, and certainly better than most politicians would have done.

It also made Hillary look very Clintonian as she attempted to split hairs between the meanings of "denounce" and "reject". I thought she might next try to tell us what the meaning of the word "is" is.

I wish we had a young, energetic, well-spoken, charismatic conservative running on the Republican side. Instead we have McCain.
 
I thought it was an outstanding response to the allegations of Clinton
Click to expand...
I thought it was a bit too ambiguous. If the American Nazi Party endorsed you (NO, I'm not picking on Ron Paul)I think it would be better to come out with a more substantive rejection than mincing words. Seems like he has a lot of passion for Bush, why not for Farrakhan?
 
I'm enjoying this so much..my dad is 84 and an old-school dyed in the wool Democrat. We're also Jewish. And this time around, Obama vs. McCain, it's the republican that's more pro-Israel. a LOT more! Dad is having fits...
 
They misquoted him a little there, cutting out some words without ellipses. What he actually said to her was much more dismissive, in a gentle way, at least as I remember the audio. It was more like:

(Hillary says he should reject Farrakhan)
(He says he's already rejected Farrakhan's racist statements)
"Well, there's a difference between "denouncing" something and "rejecting" and I think you have a responsibility blah blah blah." Hillary Clinton reminding people that she's desperate.
"Well, Hillary, if you feel "reject" is a stronger word than "denounce," I'm happy to concede the point and I would reject and denounce."

The moderators and the audience can be heard chuckling and people are clapping before she manages to mumble "Well, good! Good!" as if she's chastising him for taking so long to come around.

He made her look like she was centered on unimportant issues of semantics, like she was hounding him past the point of sense, like she was desperate, and like he, the winner, was looking down on her with benevolent pity.
And she made it work for him.

This guy is SLICK. There should be a post here from years ago about a hearing in the Illinois legislature--it was a gun bill in committee, and Obama was on the committee. I was amazed at his slickness even as I half-bought it myself. He seemed so earnest, so determined to find a way to be fair to everyone involved, and so completely uninformed about anything he was expected to decide that day.

Not much has changed.
 
Quote:
Why should he denounce or reject? What is he some kind of islamophobe? Shouldn't he be tolerant, embrace others with different point of view, engage the marginalized, etc.?
Click to expand...

I agree with this.
Click to expand...

Really?
Maybe he has discerned a pattern of conduct by Lous Eugene Walcott Farrakhan that would raise some concerns. Maybe even BHO would concede that all points of view are not equivalent.
 
Seeing as how it's timed with this picture of him circulating the news
080225obamant.jpg

He did the smart thing for his campaign. Whether or not he truly denounces what Farrakhan stands for I could not say , but like most politicians, he's doing what it takes to get elected and he's smart enough to know that allying himself with a guy like Farrakhan is political suicide.
 
Really?
Maybe he has discerned a pattern of conduct by Lous Eugene Walcott Farrakhan that would raise some concerns. Maybe even BHO would concede that all points of view are not equivalent.
Click to expand...

They’re not equivalent in the sense that I agree with some and disagree with others. But, my opinions have changed over the years on some issues, and probably will again.

What I resent is that the sense of who is “good” and who is “bad” is overly influenced by the liberalMedia. I feel like the candidates are making these big public rejections of the “bad” groups because the liberalMedia has indoctrinated the public to believe certain groups are bad.

For instance, if either Obama or Clinton accepted a donation from the NRA, the media would be all over them, because the media is striving hard to portray the NRA as a “bad” group. I see the NRA as an exceptionally good group, dedicated to upholding RKBA and, by the quality of its members, what I consider to be the American way of life.

There’s a double standard in the media regarding racism. If a radio sportscaster made disparaging remarks on the air about blacks or Jews he would get fired, but I frequently hear them make disparaging remarks to rednecks or hillbillies or people they don’t identify with. To me, that’s just another form of racism (more accurately, I suppose, ethnicism, but effectively the same thing). The Left preaches tolerance as a virtue until it involves “those other people”, at which time intolerance becomes righteous.
 
Klinton really looked terrible with her whining during the debate. It's tragic that our two major parties can't come up with better candidates. The truth is that America's best and brightest are out being Americans (read: capitalists) and don't have time for the kind of b.s. that a politician has to do to get elected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top