Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Obama's Farrakhan Dilemma

By Earl Ofari Hutchinson, New America Media. Posted February 27, 2008.


Obama can't denounce the Nation of Islam leader without alienating many black voters.
Hutchinson

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also by Earl Ofari Hutchinson

Pretrial Lock Up
Thousands of prisoners languish in jail for months, even years, before they are tried.
May 2, 2008

Verdict in Bell Shooting Is No Big Surprise
Nailing cops for bad shootings has always been virtually impossible. The Bell case was no exception.
Apr 25, 2008

Gender Is Hillary Clinton's Achilles Heel
No one would dare make a blatantly racist comment about Obama. Yet sexist remarks are constantly spewed at Hillary Clinton.
Apr 17, 2008

More stories by Earl Ofari Hutchinson

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Here's what a spokesperson for Democratic Presidential contender Barack Obama said when he got wind of former Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan's virtual endorsement of Obama's White House bid, "Senator Obama has been clear in his objections to Minister Farrakhan's past pronouncements and has not solicited the minister's support." Farrakhan made the glowing tout of Obama at the NOI's annual Savior's Day confab in Chicago. Obama's denunciation of Farrakhan was blunt and pointed. But he did not reject Farrakhan's implied endorsement.

Even after Hillary Clinton publicly demanded that he forcefully reject Farrakhan's endorsement, Obama waffled. He weakly said after more Clinton cajoling that he rejected the endorsement. He still did not mention Farrakhan by name. A candidate shouldn't need to be prodded by his opponent to emphatically reject the endorsement of a controversial, and in the case of Farrakhan, much vilified figure. Obama, of course, does not endorse Farrakhan's views, politics, or his organization, and he has made that clear on more than one occasion.

Yet his failure to flatly say he does not want his endorsement is no surprise. Farrakhan may be a controversial and much vilified figure but he is not a fringe figure within black communities. He is still cheered and admired by thousands of blacks. They are also voters too and most have embraced Obama with almost messianic zeal. This zeal has been a driving force in powering Obama's surge past Clinton. Many blacks are exhilarated by the prospect that a black man will sit in the Oval office. In other words, Obama is a racial fantasy come true for many blacks.

Few blacks publicly demand that he assume the role of a black leader. They have made no demand that he tell what he'll do to boost civil rights protections, fight the HIV/AIDS plague, or take strong positions on the other pressing social issues. It's just as well they haven't since his image is that of the new generation African-American elected official who thinks and speaks as a unifier and consensus builder, not a racial crusader.

However, many blacks quietly expect or at least hope that if he's elected it will be more than a historic first for blacks. They hope that he will be a vigorous proponent of civil rights and social programs. As long as that hope is there their impassioned zeal for him will be there too. If Obama denounces Farrakhan too strongly that would raise the eyebrows of the thousands of blacks who admire Farrakhan and his organization.

But, if Obama doesn't blast Farrakhan as an anti-white hate monger that could raise questioning eyebrows with many white voters. He can't afford that. He's far exceeded the predictions of many who questioned whether whites would vote for an African-American for president. They have and he has even done what was thought to be even more implausible and that's net considerable backing from white males. They have been rock solid backers of GOP presidents going back to Ronald Reagan. Obama got their support with his open-ended message of change and unity. Farrakhan, then, is the absolute last thing that Obama needs now that he's on a roll with so many diverse voters.

Obama isn't the first politician to face the Farrakhan dilemma. It got Jesse Jackson into momentary hot water during his presidential bid in 1984. Jackson rashly agreed to let the NOI briefly handle some of his security. That drew howls that Jackson was in bed with the Farrakhan. Jackson backpedaled fast and dropped the NOI as part of his security. That didn't stop the loud grumbles that Jackson as a presidential candidate was too cozy with Farrakhan. But Jackson did not denounce Farrakhan. He stayed mute in part out of his stubborn insistence that no one should tell him who could support him, and in bigger part with an eye on the black vote.

Obama is closing in on a place in history. If he wins the March 4 Texas and Ohio primaries, his fierce nomination battle with Clinton will be virtually over. The movement will be irresistible among Democrats to nominate him and that will evaporate the Democrat's worst fear, namely a fractured convention, split between the two warring Obama and Clinton factions. A divided party would be a lethal blow to the Democrat's chances to take back the White House.

But Obama also knows that he doesn't just need black votes. Any Democratic presidential contender will get the majority of black votes. That was the case with Democratic presidential contenders Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. Both still lost. He needs blacks to turn his drive to the White House into a crusade. They must make a spirited and massive rush to the polls. Farrakhan can help ensure that some of that spirit and some of those numbers are there. Obama can't publicly applaud him for doing that. But he can't totally reject him either. That's Obama's Farrakhan dilemma.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: louis farrakhan, nation of islam, election 2008, obama, clinton

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming book is The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House (Middle Passage Press, February 2008).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Doesn't speak well for those black voters who are offended since most all jews denounced meir kahane
Posted by: yellow on Feb 27, 2008 6:01 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Obama Phenomenon also flies in the face of Farrakhan's hateful racist mythologies. An entire nation of people, more than two thirds of which are of white European descent, are poised to elect a black man as president in a country where blacks are less than 14% of the national population. It's time to leave Farrakhan behind and move ahead. Obama is a symbol of the ability of America to transcend the racial divide that fed Farakhan's corrupt agenda of hatred.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Easy choice
Posted by: carbon-based on Feb 27, 2008 6:05 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A good analysis of Obama’s dilemma .

... but Obama is vying for the President of the United States, not the black portion of the United States- and he seems well aware of that. Farrakhan needs to be rejected by name, just as any white candidate needs to reject by name a KKK endorsement. There is no difference here. If there are black voters that could be swayed by Obama's rejection of Farrakhan then they need to be lost - they are racist!

I am for Obama and I often vote conservative but I have to say, any hint of a black agenda and he's lost my vote, and I suspect the vote of quite a few other white males!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: asy choice Posted by: yellow
» RE: asy choice Posted by: desidid
» RE: asy choice Posted by: yellow
Stop worrying already...
Posted by: Gungneir on Feb 27, 2008 7:26 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama will handle this one the way he's handled everything else: with understated grace and delicate diplomacy. Hillary bringing this up at the debate knocked him off his stride, sure. But the continuing secret of his success is that when the unexpected happens, he doesn't panic. By panic, I mean that he doesn't go into hyperspin mode, fall for the bait in the trap, or box himself into a corner. As my Sensei always tells my class, you don't fight the other guy's fight.

Obama hasn't gotten as far as he has just to play it dumb at this stage. How he'll handle the Farrakhan matter, I don't know and don't envy him for the responsibility. But he is not about to ruin his unity message with any dissonant notes of this order.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FARRAKHAN
Posted by: master09 on Feb 27, 2008 8:07 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have always like to here Mr Farrakhan speak but I would thought with all of his wisdom he would have been smart enough to stay on the sideline out of site out of mind;.Ego can be a very terrible thing;"JUST STAY OUT OF IT PLEASE" Mr.Obama do not need your endosment

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ha
Posted by: g50 on Feb 28, 2008 5:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your view on this exchange is...squirrelly. Obama in fact practically set Clinton up, she blindly obliged, and then he closed off the entire idiotic issue with a joke. You may want to check out what the Republican adversaries have to say on this. I think one of the responses was "have you ever seen a politician so adroitly kill an issue?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sad but true
Posted by: Drclaw on Feb 28, 2008 5:37 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
..that left-leaning talking heads are often as stupid and vacuous as those on the right. Once again, EOH takes a peripheral issue that few seem to care about and creates a mountain out of a mole hill with bloviating text that illustrates only their poor command of the issues and the state of the citizenry. Perhaps he missed it, but I think Obama's response to the (equally stupid) line of questioning from Russe_T (seen better brains in a potato) was a conclusive repudiation. It also seems to me that the fairly broad support of Obama from whites, independents, young old etc. indicates they are not willing to be divided by a few hate-momgers like F and the those like EOH and Russert that (unintentionally or not), abet them.

The best thing Alternet could do would be to ditch EOH. I have never seen anything resembling thoughtful analysis from him, as opposed to taking a narrow segment of ideology (e.g., the racist white or left) and projecting it onto all else. Lazy lazy lazy. I recall an equally laughable column about how poor Barry Bonds was the victim of racism, revealed by negative press and congressional investigation and this would NEVER happen to a white ball player. I am sure Roger Clemens is happy to hear this-and where is Earl to own up to his stupidity? Like many "analysts"-he is a file-and-forget type that neither admits, nor learns from, his (considerable) mistakes.

Nothing to see here folks-move on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: sad but true Posted by: g50
Not Being American, my Grasp of American Politics is Shaky
Posted by: Bab5nutz on Feb 28, 2008 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Didn't Louis Farrakin make some rather racist comments about Jews a few years back?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
No Conundrom
Posted by: bettina9292 on Feb 28, 2008 9:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No conundrum here. Obama needs minority and majority support. Alike other minority fractional groups that will or can endorse him to get publicity for their own groups-he can privately listen and keep them content with an open ear, but not publicly endorse them back. This too will pass. Centrist African Americans and liberal whites who want Obama in office--just want him to be elected! Forget about the KKK comparison. Most liberals get the Nation of Islam protocols, there are some positive values to their philosophies (remember Malcom X?) . Jews have been geographically battling with them over Brooklyn for years. Al Sharpten wants to get in on this too-for sure! What would happen if radical Orthodox Hasidim Jews threw in publicizes support for Hillary? I can see her mouth tightening from here!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No Conundrom Posted by: desidid
» RE: No Conundrom Posted by: yellow
Another non-issue
Posted by: Kym525 on Feb 28, 2008 11:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really wish to whatever deity out there in the ether that people would stop assuming blacks are this monolithic entity who march in lock-step with every so-called "leader" who gives themselves the name. It's insulting at worst and typically racist at best. I find it ironic that I encounter such myopic thinking in a forum that's supposedly liberal.

Most blacks think that Farrakhan is just another loud-mouthed demogogue who may have had a few good ideas but spoiled them with his "white man as devil and jews as robbers" rhetoric. He's pretty much poisoned anything of relevance by grandstanding. He's done, let sleeping dogs lie.

This is yet another non-issue created by bigots looking to scare the living crap out of those seeking change--be they whatever colour or creed. The idea that some whites might be willing to turn the page on racism doesn't sit well with the old guard. Sort of like bringing up Obama's middle name: Hussein. Wow, scary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Another non-issue Posted by: desidid
» RE: Another non-issue Posted by: yellow
huh?
Posted by: sg on Feb 28, 2008 4:54 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who gives a shit who Farrakhan endorses? This whole discussion is ridiculous. African Americans are THE most Christian saturated ethnic group in America. Something like 90 percent of black folk are nominally affiliated Christians. To make an issue about the religious leader of a group that represents less than 1 percent of black population is beyond absurd.

I mean, there are white supremacists involved in the anti-immigration "movement." So does that mean, anyone calling for immigration reform is down with the KKK? Hell no and anyone who suggests such a thing is immediately dimissed as an idiot.

But let one famous black person make a stupid or racist comment and everyone DEMANDS that ALL black leaders denounce them.

Does ANYONE ask all white leaders to come out and do a dog and pony morality show whenever someone like Don Imus or Rush Limbaugh makes yet another racist comment? Nope. And why not? Because only a racist or an idiot thinks like that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: huh? Posted by: yellow
» RE: huh? Posted by: desidid
» RE: huh? Posted by: yellow
Too important an election for this
Posted by: talkville on Feb 29, 2008 2:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've seen no evidence that B Obama solicited the endorsement or approval of Farrakhan. This, hopefully, will be seen for what it is: a false 'dilemma'; as evidenced by the forceful push by Mrs Clinton for rejection and disapproval ( a kind of 'pushing into the corner'), this is a very recognizable and HARD politics triangulating effort by the forces of the Clinton camp (not without racialist overtones of its own!). It is meant to 'divide to conquer' -- the move is from the RIGHT.

The voters, of whatever background or ethnicity, are fortunately showing a lot more sense in recognizing these moves for what they are and not falling for it or at least show no signs of falling for it (although commentaries so far are showing some disturbing propensities to do so).

Obama's campaign has not shown itself to be, nor does it now, some kind of 'agenda' for black issues -- if anything, it is the more inclusivist campaign between the two and continues to be so.

No conscientious citizen should become distracted by what at bottom are the unfortunately plentiful supplies of so-called dichotomies and dilemmas which need no great analysis to be seen as eminently FALSE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

McCain and the RepubliKKKans
Posted by: deapp on Mar 3, 2008 7:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Again, if Obama has to publicly denounce Farrakhan, who has no power to harm Jew, Black or White ( there are Black Jews) and he is considered by orthodox Islam as a harmless cult leader then John McCain has to denounce a whole cesspool of hateful remarks and associations. McCain's evil remarks about Vietnamese people (GOOKS and HE WILL ALWAYS HATE THEM) Bob Jones Racist University endorsement of McCain. Here are some more sick behaviors by McCain......."Nearly 24 years after voting against creating a holiday honoring Martin Luther King, John McCain is spending today at the inauguration of Alabama Governor Bob Riley who is a member of an organization that has been criticized for excluding African Americans. The "Grand Master" of the Grand Lodge of Alabama admits he knows of no African American members among the groups 30,000 plus membership. [AP, 9/30/2006] McCain's push to cozy up to racist far right extremists is not surprising, given his contradictions in the past. In the 2000 presidential campaign, McCain reversed himself on the confederate flag first calling it "a symbol of racism and slavery" but then pandering the very next day by calling it a "symbol of heritage." In past efforts to pander to a far right base that doesn’t trust him, McCain campaigned in Alabama for George Wallace Jr., a popular speaker at a white supremacist hate group, continues to employ a strategist who denounced the creation of a Federal holiday honoring Dr. King as "vicious" and "profane," and even hired the man responsible for the racist ads against Harold Ford in the Senate race in Tennessee in 2006. [New York Times, 4/20/00, San Diego Union Tribune, 1/18/00; Associated Press, 11/17/05, Southern Poverty Law Center, Intelligence Report, Summer 2005; AP, 6/6/05; New York Times, 10/27/06; New York Times, 10/26/06; Union Leader, 12/8/06]"

1983: McCain Voted Against Creating Martin Luther King Holiday.

McCain Flip Flopped On The Confederate Flag, First Calling It Offensive And Then Calling It A Symbol Of Heritage.

McCain Endorsed George Wallace Jr., Called Him A "Committed Conservative Reformer," Despite Speeches to Hate Group (CCC).

Racist Ad Against Harold Ford Approved By Terry Nelson, Senior McCain Strategist.

Richard Quinn, McCain's South Carolina Spokesman, Criticized the MLK Holiday as "Vitriolic and Profane.

Dang,TRUTH HURTS......Now, what's all the fuss about OBAMA?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]