Louis Farrakhan: Obama Is the Hope of the World

Nation of Islam founder Louis Farrakhan is now singing the praises of Barack Obama:

In his first major public address since a cancer crisis, Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan said Sunday that presidential candidate Barack Obama is the "hope of the entire world" that the U.S. will change for the better.

"This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better," he said. "This young man is capturing audiences of black and brown and red and yellow. If you look at Barack Obama's audiences and look at the effect of his words, those people are being transformed."

Obama isn't happy with the endorsement:

Said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton: "Sen. Obama has been clear in his objections to Minister Farrakhan's past pronouncements and has not solicited the minister's support."


One problem with Farrakhan:

Farrakhan has drawn attention for calling Judaism a "gutter religion" and suggesting crack cocaine might have been a CIA plot to enslave blacks.

< Gallup Daily Tracking: Where's the Momentum? | Hillary to Supporters: She'll Ratchet Up the Experience Argument >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Manna from heaven. Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:59:37 AM EST
    Reverend Farrakhan.

    Sorry (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by muffie on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:32:35 AM EST
    but I find this post offensive.  Candidates do not have any control over who endorses them; the most they can do is disavow any association.  What's the point here?  That people who hate Jews love Obama?  I don't get it.

    OTOH, If you want to write about ties between Obama's minister and Farrakhan, I think that's within bounds, and likely to be a general election problem for him.  Although it makes me personally uncomfortable, it's probably worth dragging into the open.

    Wait, what? (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:02:09 AM EST

    What[s so offensive about this?  It's no more offensive than reporting that Ann Coulter endorses Clinton.  No one controls who endorses who, and it's just too bad for Obama & his supporters that a racist anti-Semite like Farrakhan is singing Obama's praises, but what fault of that is TL's?

    So what's the implication? (none / 0) (#15)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:36:20 AM EST
    Why is this news? Unless there's some clear links between Farrakhan and Obama then I'm not sure why this story is comment-worthy.

    I think its news... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:06:04 AM EST
    ...because I didn't know it. I wish Farrakhan had kept his mouth shut but knowing that he did prepares me for the stupid smears that will likely ensue. BTW, I think the story makes it clear that there isn't a link between Obama and Farrakhan, but maybe that's because I know there isn't.

    Why don't you ask Jeralyn or BTD about that. (none / 0) (#22)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:09:30 AM EST
    Because I'm not in a position to judge what is newsworthy enough to post on this site.  it's their site, they can post whatever they think can be discussed about.  Given the close degrees of separation between Obama and Farrakhan, I'd say that Farrakhan's endorsement and what he says is surely a topic for discussion for this forum.

    Now if someone like Brad Pitt had come out and said that he endorsed Obama, that wouldn't be much of a topic for discussion here.  But that's just me.


    What "close degrees of seperation" (none / 0) (#36)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:12:21 AM EST
    do they have? They have every right to post anything they want here, just as I have every right to wonder why what's posted as news.

    It's one thing to ask whether the right wing will pick this up as an attack (although that starts to border on concern-troll area). It's another to imply that this actually reflects poorly on Obama.


    FYI (none / 0) (#28)
    by tek on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:42:26 AM EST
    That was joke, or are you Obama people too inspired and impassioned to understand jokes anymore?

    Just reporting facts (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by riddlerandy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:17:44 AM EST
    Osama supports a Dem for Pres
    Most drug dealers and other criminals prefer a Dem

    They are just reporting facts, Fox style


    Also, (none / 0) (#44)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:27:57 AM EST
    don't forget Al Qaeda wants a Democrat to be president too.

    Also being reported (none / 0) (#95)
    by standingup on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:13:17 AM EST
    on MSNBC's First Read.  Like it or not this is news.  Not all news will be good news for a candidate but ignoring the potential for this to be used by the Republicans is foolish.  There is a significant effort that has been underway for too long to either associate Obama with muslims or identify him as a muslim.  This is something the Obama campaign needs to put to rest and it's a little more than disturbing they have not done more toward at this point.  

    Obama's minister apparently admires (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:38:12 AM EST
    Farrakhan; Obama has stated that he doesn't and would not attend that church if the minister praised Farrakhan w/i the church.  

    The minister who said "audacity of hope" (1.00 / 0) (#116)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:23:56 PM EST
    first, and Obama has credited him with that -- and much more in shaping his worldview.

    Sean Hannity agrees with (none / 0) (#120)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:29:31 PM EST
    you on this......

    Nonsense, don't try that crap -- as Obama (none / 0) (#126)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:24:43 PM EST
    is the one who said the minister influenced him greatly. Really, MKS, your posts are sometimes insightful but sometimes . . . well, like this one.

    Yup (none / 0) (#12)
    by muffie on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:12:42 AM EST
    that's what I was referring to.

    the minister praised Farrahkan (none / 0) (#24)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:55:18 AM EST
    outside the church.  

    I see that fine line gets finer every day.


    Do you have (none / 0) (#37)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:13:27 AM EST
    any friends that praise people you personally disagree with outside of your normal interactions with them? Are you willing to end your relationship with them because of it?

    If Hillary or McCain (none / 0) (#48)
    by Manuel on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:37:27 AM EST
    had any friends that had been praising someone like David Duke I am sure it would be a big media issue.

    Oh you mean (none / 0) (#50)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:46:12 AM EST
    like the fact that OJ Simpson endorsed Clinton? Why isn't the media reporting on this and questioning whether or not Clinton, in fact, supports black people over Jewish people?

    OJ doesn't have lots of followers (none / 0) (#121)
    by Manuel on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:07:21 PM EST
    as far as I know.

    Quote for your reference (none / 0) (#51)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:47:04 AM EST
    O.J. Simpon, former pro football player. "Her whole life all she's ever done is try to help people...Yeah, she's got my vote." Aug. 3, 2007.

    Farrakhan for OJ (none / 0) (#82)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:43:50 AM EST
    Guess neither of them got a bargain  :-)

    Way too weak from Obama (none / 0) (#113)
    by Foxx on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:04:23 PM EST
    The church's magazine, or was it the church itself, gave Farrakhan an award and enthusiastically praised him. That is "in the church" enough for me.

    As soon as there was ANY praise for Farrakhan Obama should have resigned from the church and made a public statement. Way too weak again on ethical issues. Whatever he does now is too late.

    This minister has been Obama's close spiritual adviser, for many years. Many people will not want, in fact I do not want, a president whose close spiritual adviser is an admirer of Farrakhan. That is repugnant. In addition to his anti-semitism, Farrakhan advocatges the oppression of women.

    I have been saying for some time that the Repubicans are going to make hay with this. Democrats have their heads in the sand.


    You sure got a jump start (none / 0) (#122)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:22:26 PM EST
    on the Republicans making hay on this....But it will toughen up Obama....Edwards and Dean should have toughened up Kerry in 2004 by being the first ones to use that swiftboat stuff.....

    So it is ok with you (none / 0) (#125)
    by Foxx on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:28:27 PM EST
    to have a president whose spiritual adviser is an admirer of Farrakhan?

    And the weathermen too! (none / 0) (#43)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:27:53 AM EST
    I bet on visiting day at prisons some anti-Obama researcher can cruise the prisons to find an endorsement from a murderer or child-molester.

    So be offended (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:59:32 AM EST
    That is your right.

    And let me know when Obama disavows the endorsement.

    Until then, "Hello?????"


    OK (none / 0) (#91)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:05:41 AM EST
    the Obama campaign responded with an unequivocal statement on it from the candidate himself.

    "I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan," Obama said in the statement. "I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree."



    So? (none / 0) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:43:36 AM EST
    That is not a disavowal of the endorsement.

    BS (none / 0) (#106)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:45:10 AM EST
    It is in direct response to the endorsement.

    Try this (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:46:19 AM EST
    "I condemn his messages of hate. I did not seek his endorsement and I disavow it."

    What he has done is straddle the fence.

    Shameful. And if supports Israel, why did the Zig guy go to Syria???


    The only way you'd (3.00 / 2) (#115)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:11:33 PM EST
    be happy with him is if he sang Camptown Races -- in Arabic -- before every public appearence.

    Good One (none / 0) (#117)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:14:36 PM EST
    Nail on the head.

    Facts be facts (none / 0) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:28:44 PM EST
    He hasn't disavowed it.

    And it isn't me who he has to convince. I'd cut my arm off before I'd vote for him no matter what he said. I know what he is, and much he can hurt the country with his nonsensical sayings and actions.

    It is the those Demos who are wavering in the wind trying to figure out who he is.


    This Sort of Thing (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by bob h on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:47:35 AM EST
    is going to cost Obama in the Jewish community.  Some Jewish friends of mine have already mentioned Obama's pastor with concern.

    Not Surprising (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by facta non verba on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:55:53 AM EST
    Obama's minister the Reverend Jeremiah Wright at the Trinity Church and Louis Farrahkan are friends. They took a trip to Libya together back when Qaddafi and Reagan were feuding and the Reverend Wright awarded Farrahkan his annual prize for humanitarian work I think in 2005 or 2006. More disturbing than ancient history is that they both equate Zionism with racism.

    For more on the Reverend Wright visit:

    I think the association with the Reverend Wright is not a big deal. Many Americans won't. And Louis Farrahkan well that does top Ann Coulter's endorsement of Clinton. Because it is heartfelt and Obama contrary to his public position you would think would have distance himself from those like Louis Farrahkan and Rev. Wright who equate Zionism with racism. The 527s will have a field day with this.

    It seems to me the "One" (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Boo Radly on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:58:31 AM EST
    may ironically set racial relations back fifty years. Simply because of the blind adulation of his followers. Not to mention what harm  an inexperienced president could do to our weakened country's leadership role after 8 years of crinimal activity by the present administration. What is it about the man that brings out so many nasty shallow people? What are their values?

    E8 - you made me look over at DK - I am your only recommender. Having brought up three children, I do not try to change people with steel trap minds - it is futile. Started at DK back in 2003 -really had some intelligent posters. A lot have left and it is too hard to put up with the trash posters to enjoy those that are left.

    whoa! (4.00 / 0) (#109)
    by cdo on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:52:06 AM EST
    what happens at this site when the grown ups are away? get a grip!
    1-Farrakhan endorsing Obama IS news. Not huge news, not baby-Jessica-in-a-well news, but it is, in fact, NEWS. There is nothing devious or malicious in making a diary about it.
    2-Obama's campaign said as much as they should about it. For Obama himself to reply would be to give the endorsement more weight than it deserves.
    3- OJ? are you kidding me with that crap?
    4- Eva PERON?! when i read that, i was sputtering so much i had to grab hold of the desk to keep from falling over.

    GET A GRIP! CHILL-AX! as for me im gonna put on some 50-cent and sip some bacardi...peace.

    The Farrakhan connections go farther (none / 0) (#2)
    by diplomatic on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:00:55 AM EST
    Liberal blogs are not talking about this, but the Republicans have a lot of ammunition to work with.

    This may peel off some of the highly-educ. (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:02:19 AM EST
    wine track voters.

    wine track (none / 0) (#5)
    by diplomatic on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:30:09 AM EST
    if I was feeling extra snarky, I'd suggest we call them kool-aid track voters but... oh I am!

    do you have any idea what that is? or (none / 0) (#30)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:43:20 AM EST
    where we might look. i for one am sorry to see this happen. but i wondered all along if the farrakan's and the like who often make very controversial comments would remain out of this. unfortunately obama played into this type of thing happening with the likes of jackson jr, etc.

    Nada at Huff Post on this. However, (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:13:39 AM EST
    there is a link to a Newsday.com story about how HRC, as appointed counsel for an indigent man, zealously defended him against a rape charge, including questioning the credibility of the minor victim.  Horrors.

    I'll Post Something (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:41:22 AM EST
    At Dkos about this.

    See what happens.

    May be banned for it.


    Perhaps. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:45:31 AM EST
    Obama's background on Israel/Palestinian issues is interesting, as he apparently had some sympathy for the plight of Palestians and was somewhat active in the Chicago area on this issue; but recently he assured Jewish press people in a meeting in Miami he supported a strong state of Israel.  Of course there should be some means to do both in a perfect world.

    If the world was perfect (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:57:32 AM EST
    I'd have been an Obama supporter from day 1 and never wavered one iota away from him.

    i should hope so... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:54:29 AM EST
    The Troll Ratings (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:33:07 AM EST
    Have started.

    No control (none / 0) (#17)
    by Arabella Trefoil on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:49:15 AM EST
    This is unfair. When a person is successful, there are folks whose egos are bigger than their common sense. A politician can dissiciate him/herself from an endorsement, but voters remember things like this. There are plenty of showboaters who want to share the spotlight.

    it's now offensive to report facts? (none / 0) (#20)
    by cpinva on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:17:34 AM EST
    what a truly astonishing concept!

    aside from the obvious implications of the endorsement (which jeralyn was at pains to report that sen. obama disavowed), there's the not so obvious:

    the whole "messianic complex" thing going on with sen. obama and his followers, which he has yet to disavow publicly. you'll note that sen. obama's comments merely addressed the source of the endorsement, not the tone of the endorsement itself.

    that speaks volumes about his self-perception.

    Disavow his messianic complex? (none / 0) (#32)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:55:14 AM EST
    Please explain how he should do that.

    Taking the Messianic glow (none / 0) (#40)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:18:09 AM EST
    off his web site might be a good start...

    Tell me your not serious... (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by tsteels2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:34:14 AM EST
    I'm a web designer and we use glows to highlight the subject, picture, etc.  How is a glow "Messianic".

    The silly season is TOO SILLY for my tastes.


    Interesting (none / 0) (#47)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:35:49 AM EST
    I hadn't realized that he was exuding a messianic glow on his website.  How can I tell the difference between a messianic glow and, say, soft colors that wash into the background?

    Maybe he should change it to hard contrasting colors that hurt the eyes?


    seriously? (none / 0) (#59)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:01:18 AM EST
    He has a "messianic glow" on his website?

    You have to be kidding me.

    Seriously... some will find anything possible to attack their "opponent."


    you guys are being told (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by english teacher on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:17:45 AM EST
    that the messianic imagery is turning people off, and what do you do?  attack the messenger.  great job, keep it up.  

    come on. (none / 0) (#66)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:20:11 AM EST
    I am not attacking the messenger.

    I am simply shocked that someone would say that there is a "messianic glow" on Obama's website.

    Further... Theresa is not just the messenger.  She is the one who thinks that there is a "messianic glow."


    okay dude (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by english teacher on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:26:47 AM EST
    she is far from the only one.  you are spinning here.  the guy has a problem with the image thing.  it turns people off.  deny it at your own peril.

    spinning? (none / 0) (#76)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:28:17 AM EST
    What am I spinning?

    I just find it silly that people would think there is a "messianic glow" on this website.


    oops... (none / 0) (#67)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:20:36 AM EST
    ... sorry, I spelled Teresa wrong.

    You really can't see it? (none / 0) (#79)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:30:35 AM EST
    The sunbeams coming off the states he's won, etc.?  It doesn't register at all?

    Come on, please.

    And the web design argument...funny how all the other candidates can design their web sites without the messianic glow.


    Nope. (none / 0) (#81)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:32:55 AM EST
    Still don't see it.  

    I think you are trying way to hard to find something to attack Obama with.  


    it is serious, intentional or not! (none / 0) (#101)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:27:42 AM EST
    the perception by many is the problem. we can argue all day and into the night what the obama campaign's intentions were. (been there done by far too many times) but the fact is that a number of voters wonder about it and guess what the repubs will take it up and really attack him with it.

    so think ahead rather than the knee jerk, no obama didn't mean it or you are in fantasy land reaction.


    Read what was said (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:03:01 AM EST
    Said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton: "Sen. Obama has been clear in his objections to Minister Farrakhan's past pronouncements and has not solicited the minister's support."

    That is not a disavowal of the endorsement.

    Typical parsing.


    "the Hope of the World" (none / 0) (#23)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:40:28 AM EST

    Thats going to be tough to live up to.

    Certainly would be (none / 0) (#25)
    by jammer59 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:56:26 AM EST
    Fortunately, Obama isn't staking that claim.

    Oh really? (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:03:47 AM EST
    That is his whole strategy.

    That is good (none / 0) (#26)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:01:28 AM EST

    Thats good, but if enough people believe it enough and say it enough, BHO has a problem of dealing with false expectations.  Thats true even though he does not make that claim himself.

    Farrakhan? (none / 0) (#27)
    by tek on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:41:09 AM EST
    Don't know if I'd play that endorsement up to much.  Interesting story of 60 minutes last night about the Black Muslims in Oakland. Pretty unsavory group.

    umm... (none / 0) (#29)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:42:41 AM EST
    ... the Obama campaign is NOT playing it up.  At all.

    Did you read the whole post?


    Of course not (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:54:23 AM EST
    Tek is only interested in smearing Obama.  Tek is the target audience for this diary.

    Yes I did read the whole post. (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:04:59 AM EST
    Did you understand what you read?

    The style is the same, (none / 0) (#33)
    by Sunshine on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:00:47 AM EST
    I have always thought that Obama had copied the style of Farrakhan for his speeches...  It is very easy to be taken in by Farrakhan and it is very easy to be taken in by Obama for the same reasons, the style is the same.. You have to get into the depths of Farrakhan's beliefs before you start to disagree with him, the same for Obama...

    And (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:49:51 AM EST
    I always thought Hillary copied Eva Peron, seriously some of you people are going round the bend.

    The XX Factor on Slate - (none / 0) (#72)
    by liminal on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:26:19 AM EST
    - had lengthy posts comparing Clinton to Eva Peron.  There were at least 4-5 posts from the contributes about how Clinton as "copying" Eva Peron's gestures and was "channeling" Eva Peron.

    Now, I agree with you.  I don't think there's any suggestion that Obama is "channeling" Farrakhan's manner.  I think that that suggestion is laughable.  I do not believe that you would read it only any legit news source.  Nevertheless, the fact that a legit news source had 4-5 commentators spend 2 days discussing your "absurd hypothetical" must tell you something about the news coverage.


    Given that Clinton (none / 0) (#55)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:53:16 AM EST
    and Obama have nearly identical positions on the issues, I assume that you're also opposed to Clinton?

    umm... (none / 0) (#60)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:02:12 AM EST
    I have always thought that Obama had copied the style of Farrakhan for his speeches...
    Maybe because both use the style of black preachers in their rhetoric.  It has nothing to do with Farrakhan.

    It's the style, stupid (none / 0) (#69)
    by Sunshine on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:21:25 AM EST
    Louis Farrakhan has a winning style, I can watch one of his speeches and think there is nothing here I disagree with, but if you look in depth there is a lot to disagree with.. With Obama, it is the same but I don't think that he has been vented in depth.. Both know how to deliver the near same speech until you get to the "what else do you believe?" They both have great voices that can give you cold chills but Reba McIntyre can make cold chills down your spine or up your leg as Twitty says when she sings the Stars Spangle Banner but that doesn't mean she should be president and it also means that Obama or Farrakhan shouldn't be president because they know how to deliver a great speech...

    you are right... (none / 0) (#73)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:26:34 AM EST
    ... Obama shouldn't be President just because he gives a good speech.

    He should be President because people want him to be President.  Some of that comes from his ability to inspire (i.e. give good speeches), and some of that comes from his policies.  

    You do know that most progressive organizations rank Obama as more progressive than Clinton, right?


    heh (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:08:27 AM EST
    He should be President because people want him to be President.

    There's getting what you want, and then there's wanting what you get.

    I can name a whole bunch of leaders who destroyed countries because people listened to their speeches and didn't ask questions about their policies.


    And according to Fox and the GOP (none / 0) (#34)
    by riddlerandy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:04:37 AM EST
    Osama bin Laden wants a Dem to win the White House

    Although I think (none / 0) (#35)
    by Lena on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:07:58 AM EST
    that this endorsement could turn lots of people off of Obama, I also wonder whether the endorsement will be covered by the press.

    So I guess this is kind of a test of the theory that Obama's coverage is going to go south once it's him vs. McCain. If this makes it into the national news, I think that his ship is sunk. If not, it would seem that the media intends to keep him above the messy gritty coverage that they tend to give...oh, say Hillary Clinton.

    Oh clearly he's sunk (none / 0) (#38)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:16:04 AM EST
    given that he disavowed Farrakhan's beliefs, said he had nothing to do with Farrakhan, and said that they in no way wanted the endorsement.

    So why should this turn people off Obama hmm? Or is this really a concern-troll post?


    It will turn SOME people off (none / 0) (#45)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:30:15 AM EST
    ...targeted groups by Republican mailers, talk shows, etc.  Obama will be swiftboated on this issue by the usual hysterics and the easily swayed will nod and worry and pass it on.

    Try to remember...propaganda doesn't have to be true...it only has to be plausible.  Any connection which can be demonstrated (such as this public endorsement or his pastor's connections to Farrakhan) will reinforce the rumors and smears.

    That is how it works.


    We're going to get smeared no matter what (4.00 / 0) (#57)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:55:05 AM EST
    Whether it's Clinton, Obama, or St. Gore. Saying we have to veto a candidate for this or that reason, unless it's a really glaring concern, seems like a bad strategy to me.

    What we should do is get someone that handles the attacks well. There are obviously differences of opinion about who can do better, but I think Obama's done a fine job so far with the patriotism question and the is he a muslim smear.


    All he had to do (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:09:32 AM EST
    was issue a strong disavowal.

    He didn't.

    The results speak for themselves.


    Concern troll? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Lena on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:08:26 AM EST
    Actually, I DON'T support Obama, so I'm not pretending to be concerned about his coverage... I truly actually don't care.

    Since HRC's words are twisted, her coverage is misleading, and she tends to be disliked by the press, this all makes me wonder when Obama will come in for the same treatment. His day is coming, I just wonder if it's now or later.

    For the record, I find Farrakhan's endorsement to be pretty irrelevant. But I DO think that if Obama won the primary, the right wing would make a HUGE deal over his "muslim" connections (remember, it doesn't have to be true, as we've seen with HRC).

    So, no, I'm not a conern troll, I'm just idly speculating...


    well ther is disavowing and there is (none / 0) (#102)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:31:12 AM EST
    disavowing. surely you know that! standing in a corner whispering isn't the same as say coming right out at a major speech or debate and saying out loud for the public to hear. putting a disclaimer on a bottle isn't exactly yelling you know.

    I keep getting email from worried democrats (none / 0) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:21:17 AM EST
    about his involvement with and links to the nation of Islam.
    true or not republicans are going to make it an issue.
    now even more so.

    If the connections (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:10:43 AM EST
    exist, do you consider it wrong for the Repubs to
    make it an issue??

    Seriously? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:24:47 AM EST
    This is starting to get sad, seriously to post about this like its news is freeper level stuff, I mean wtf are we going to start reading post about Hillary and Ann Coulter, and then maybe ask ourselves what they have in common (besides union hating thugs I mean -- Mark Penn meet Ann's Dad).

    Why is worthy of a Post? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Heather on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:38:15 AM EST
    Jerylyn I think this stuff is going to come back to haunt you. Big mistake to use GOP tactics against a Dem.

    GOP tactics against a Dem. (none / 0) (#61)
    by carolyn13 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:04:36 AM EST
    Yeah, tell that to Kos and Arianna. Jeralyn is simply reporting this and quoted Obama's rejection of the endorsement.

    One more time (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:14:08 AM EST
    He didn't disavow.

    Said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton: "Sen. Obama has been clear in his objections to Minister Farrakhan's past pronouncements and has not solicited the minister's support."

    Agreed (none / 0) (#99)
    by carolyn13 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:24:58 AM EST
    Rejection is too strong a word for that statement from a staffer.

    how should sen. obama (none / 0) (#54)
    by cpinva on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:50:38 AM EST
    disavow his "messianic complex"? a poster to this thread asks, in response to my comments.

    for starters, he can stop with the nonsensical "we are the people we've been waiting for!" mantra. close to pogo's "we've met the enemy, and he is us!", but lacking the biting and insightful humor. so just stop it!

    he might want to tell his more rabid supporters to quit acting as though he's the second coming, he isn't. the more idiotic they act, the more lunatic fringe his candidacy appears, true or not.

    he can't control what others say or do, but he can not only disavow the messenger, but the message as well. as i noted earlier, he did the former, he conspicuously ignored the latter, with respect to the farrakhan endorsement.

    i'm fairly certain sen. obama isn't possessed of a messianic complex. his failure to publicly disabuse his followers of that notion causes legitimate questions to be raised however.

    these are the things he can do.

    you are being told there is a problem (none / 0) (#70)
    by english teacher on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:23:50 AM EST
    ignore it at your and your candidate's own peril.  just letting you know...

    Come on cp (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:17:17 AM EST
    That is strategy you are asking him to change.

    He has no message because he basically is clueless about the world beyond what he learned in school and  around the tony side of Chicago.

    Hillary's biggest mistake was not immediately pointing that out and demanding he debate the issues. That she didn't just shows how adroitly Obama let the race card play itself.


    gee, it is very simple. glad you asked! (none / 0) (#103)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:34:48 AM EST
    remove the "glow" from his website and posters. and then quietly say there is only one chosen one and he is my savior. duh! in fact it would win him brownie points with many religeous people.

    i had an experience not long ago, i was walking into my complex and heard this yelling. i looked and a young man was walking along with a poster of obama(glow included) yelling obama, obama is the one. that gave me a uneasy reaction i have to tell you.


    What's the fuss.! (none / 0) (#56)
    by joeysky on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:55:03 AM EST
    The man endorse Obama.   He think Obama is the best hope of the world.  That's a darn good words of endorsement.  

    Yes...and? (none / 0) (#58)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:56:06 AM EST
    OJ Simpson, champion of women and great lover of the Jews, thinks Clinton's got the experience to do the job well (see upthread for endorsement quote). What's your point?

    Well, (none / 0) (#63)
    by Lena on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:09:52 AM EST
    for a truly horrible human being, at least he has good taste in candidates!

    Ah, Guilt by Association... (none / 0) (#68)
    by mike in dc on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:21:18 AM EST
    ...will we be taking the grand tour of logical fallacies at Talk Left over the next 8 days?

    Sen. Obama has pretty much condemned and distanced himself from Farrakhan. I don't really know why this was deemed thread-worthy.  Oh, wait, now I remember.  

    Fidel Castro said that Obama and Clinton on the same ticket would be unbeatable.  

    It's not clear to me why we're here playing the same game the Republicans play with our candidates.

    Maybe someone else can up the ante and start a thread discussing the relevance of "Obama dressed up like a Muslim when he visited Kenya" to substantive discussion of progressive policy.

    it was never clear to me (5.00 / 0) (#71)
    by english teacher on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:25:35 AM EST
    why obama didn't come out against the "clintons are racists" meme, but since his campaign was in on it, i guess that explains that.  

    i guess you guys are going to complain when tl starts covering the rezko trial next month, too.


    since he called a halt to it... (none / 0) (#78)
    by mike in dc on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:30:18 AM EST
    ...and a "truce/ceasefire" between the two campaigns, I'm not really sure where you're going with that.  

    Nice way to avoid addressing the point, by the way.

    How is this thread about Farrakhan remotely substantive or productive?

    Considering there's been no meaningful quid pro quo linkage between Rezko and Obama(and even the home sellers came out to say there wasn't, and the Sun-Times hasn't found anything meaningful either), I don't have a problem with a news article on that.


    This is a joke and shows how this website is too (none / 0) (#75)
    by Independence33 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:27:02 AM EST
     It is pathetic how they are shilling for Clinton and are doing everything they can to smear Obama. The fact that this supposed left leaning site is promoting this non-story is ridiculous. NO ONE has control over who likes you or endorses you. I wont get into the petty arguments of who endorsed Clinton because two ignorant wrongs dont make a right. Where is the story about Clintons people circulating a picture around meant to stir up racial and religous bigotry against Obama. I once was a vehement Clinton supporter but this was a pathetic move by a desperate campaign and I will NEVER vote for her now! You can call me a bad democrat or whatever but this shows zero class and makes me sad because I use to stick up for the Clintons and have my whole life. She knows that even if this ignorant stuff is discounted that there are a certain percentage of red-neck idiots out there that will see this picture and believe what it infers. Is this the demographic she is courting. Apparently so.

    Well said. (none / 0) (#80)
    by Meurs on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:30:39 AM EST
    Thought I'd get that in before our posts are deleted.

    Gutless Obama (none / 0) (#83)
    by OxyCon on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:46:20 AM EST
    If Obama has any guts at all, he'll disavow Farrakhan himself, in a very public and unmistakable way, instead of sending some low level staffer out to do it for him.
    But I doubt Obama has the spine to do this, especially considering he doesn't want to lose some of the Black vote.

    What? (none / 0) (#84)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:48:15 AM EST
    When is Hillary going to disavow 50 cent and OJ, they endorsed her, does the fact that she hasn't disavowed them mean she support criminality?

    OJ is not the leader (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:22:57 AM EST
    of a group/community of people.

    these folks aren't the leaders of a large (none / 0) (#118)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:25:35 PM EST
    religeous group. i haven't seen 50cent go to mecca or make a number of controversial statements about politics. sure he is controversial, but not in the same way to average voter. and it is how the typical viewer might see this that is the problem perception!

    so your comparison is poor at best and off base to say the least. trying to change the subject with baseless responses don't you know.


    I cant believe this Clinton campaign (none / 0) (#86)
    by Independence33 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:56:52 AM EST
    Now there is a statement from Maggie Williams saying that Obama defending himself is somehow shameful because he is running away from his heritage. So she wants us to believe that their campaign sent this picture out to some how flatter or promote Obama and he is taking it the wrong way. I would like to know what else they are doing to promote him. How can they get away with this? They know full well that Obama has had to deny his being a muslim because of hate e-mails that have been sent all over the country. When a picture like this is sent out it is meant to cast doubts on the mans christianity and promote this narrative. She rails on about Obama misrepresenting her in mailers that have been out for months without outrage and she has to admit that they are true but were comments made in the past. She is going to have to punish adults who dont buy into her health care plan and this is all the health care mailer is saying. Desperation is beneath you Hillary and Bill. You have done so much for the country and now in my eyes your legacy is ruined.  

    Where is the story Talk Left! (none / 0) (#100)
    by Independence33 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:26:17 AM EST
    Still nothing from this sites administrators about this Clinton smear move. Where is the media bias now? Her people are still saying that this was meant to show that Clinton isnt treated fairly and that if this were a picture of her then it would be all over the media. Are they serious? This is why I cant stand what they have done to the Clinton legacy. If you sent it out than take responsibility for what it is really meant to do. If you have the guts to put it out there than have the guts to own it. I realize that everything that has been done by Obamas campaign hasnt been perfect but anything that has gone out that was personal has been disavowed and explained. There is so much junk that Obama could be bringing up about Clintons personal past but anything that Obama has attacked has been policy driven. Some might be right, some might be wrong but at least it is above the belt and like I said if staff of his put out anything offensive then he has reprimanded them and pulled back from it.(The senator from Punjab is one example). Wake up Talk Left.  

    smear? please show just how the clinton (none / 0) (#104)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:37:13 AM EST
    campaign is smearing. details please.

    It will be interesting (none / 0) (#108)
    by hookfan on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:48:22 AM EST
     to see if this endorsement has any impact on Ohio or Texas. If not, it might show that the repubs can get nothing with it. If it has an impact, well that will be even more interesting. The msm has picked it up (at least the Chicago Tribune, and a few others). Interesting to see how they handle it with follow up or not.

    heh (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:53:09 AM EST
    Obama isn't running against a Repub in TX or OH.

    That's not the point (none / 0) (#114)
    by hookfan on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:06:52 PM EST
     I suspect at least some Democrats in Oh and Tx primaries could be influenced by a msm parade of guilt by association. If it has impact enough to lower Obama vote tally, guess what will happen in the general.
      I hear the cry Obama hasn't been vetted. I'm also aware he was accused in January of having NOI personnell working on his staff for his national senate campaign. One person placed in charge of hiring staffing, another resigned after the charges was I believe in charge of funds. Whether true or not (I don't know), if the media wants to smear--well it will be interesting.

    Farrakhan (none / 0) (#110)
    by chemoelectric on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:52:32 AM EST
    This sort of thing is a little worrisome, but I think Obama can handle it as well as anyone. Notice how he doesn't tend to overcompensate.

    Glenn Greenwald has some excellent observations about Obama's handling of slime and muck.

    He has made two attempts (none / 0) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:56:37 AM EST
    but I think Obama can handle it as well as anyone.

    And he hasn't disavowed the endorsement. I think this shows that he is just another politician.

    Perhaps this shows that we have been waiting for another politician.


    to the obama supporters who are (none / 0) (#119)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:27:16 PM EST
    wailing about how the cruel and unkind fellow democrats are to obama, i say save your outrage and energy for the general election. you'll need all of it plus a whole lot more. it won't be pretty.

    interesting dichotomy (none / 0) (#123)
    by cpinva on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:55:30 PM EST
    between obama and clinton supporters:

    obama supporter: "you said something mean about sen. obama! you hate him! he is the bestest candidate to ever come down the pike! you hate him!"

    clinton supporter: "ok, you made an unsubstantiated assertion about sen. clinton. could you either please provide confirmable evidence to support your allegation, or admit that you made it up?"

    oversimplification? yeah, probably so. however, just in this thread alone, i count several posts that come very close to my exagerrated obama supporter. a little too close actually.

    fact: louis farrakhan, head of the nation of islam, publicly endorsed sen. obama and proclaimed him "the hope of the world".

    fact: sen. obama, through a staff member, disavowed mr. farrakhan's endorsement. weakly perhaps, but he did.

    fact: sen. obama did not disavow "the hope of the world" characterization. he just didn't.

    fact: many, many of sen. obama's more rabid supporters treat him as though he were the savior. sen. obama has not asserted this publicly, but he's done nothing publicly to get those people to chill.

    those are facts. you may not like them, they might make you uncomfortable, but there they are.

    full disclosure: in case you hadn't figured it out yet, i support sen. clinton; i believe she's the most experienced and most capable of withstanding the right-wing smear machine that will assuredly make its presence felt during the GE.

    i do not dislike sen. obama, i happen to like him a lot; he is the democratic party's solid future.

    i speak for no one but myself, but i get the sense that most clinton supporters also like sen. obama, just don't see him as ready this time. just my own gut feeling.

    if obama supporters are so insecure that every criticism of the sen. is deemed an attack, perhaps they need to look inside themselves first, and figure out why they feel that way.

    overall, the democratic primary has been an almost "marques of queensbury" run affair; the occasional blip, but by and large very civilized. a testament to the character of those participating.

    regardless of who the ultimate dem nominee is, it will be dual to the death in the GE.