In general, I've not been amongst those who expressed a lot of offense at every allegedly racially-tinged comments by Sen. Clinton. For example, in this diary I argued against those who were calling her MLK-LBJ remarks racist or an insult to Martin Luther King. In this diary I urged Obama supporters to stay away from making accusations of racism in response to criticisms of Barack.
And let's be clear. I do not think the Hillary Clinton is a racist, and this incident does not change my views on that at all. But I do think that this incident highlights that she is willing to do or say anything to win, including things that are potentially destructive to efforts at healing the divisions that we face in our society along the lines of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
Let me begin by explaining why this issue resonates so strongly with me. I am both black and Jewish. Not just technically (i.e. my mother is Jewish, and my father's African-American), but in my heart of hearts as well. I do not feel half-Jewish and half-black, I feel 100% Jewish and 100% black. So, the conflict between these two communities runs straight through by heart and soul, my family, and my life.
I've also worked on exactly two Presidential campaigns: Barack Obama and Jesse Jackson. It's not that I'm politically apathetic -- I also worked on Jerry Brown's campaign for Mayor of Oakland, I served as an election protection attorney for the Democratic Party in Nevada in 2004, and I've worked with dozens of local organizing campaigns around various sorts of policy issues. But Jesse and Barack have thus far been the only two Presidential candidates who inspired me to work for them.
For those who don't remember, it was the flap between Jesse Jackson and the Jewish community, much of it revolving around...guess who?...a certain Minister Louis Farrakahn, that probably spelled the beginning of the end of Jesse's hopes at ever securing the Democratic nomination. Here's the wikipedia entry about it:
During the 1984 presidential campaign of Jesse Jackson, Jackson referred to New York City as "Hymietown" in a discussion with a black reporter. Though Jackson thought he was speaking off the record, the reporter printed the quote. Jackson was widely criticized for the slur and received death threats, leading Farrakhan to announce, "If you harm this brother, it'll be the last one you ever harm. If you want to defeat him, defeat him at the polls."[23]
In response to Farrakhan's speech, Nathan Pearlmutter, then Chair of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith (ADL) referred to Minister Farrakhan as the new "Black Hitler" and prominent Jewish journalist Nat Hentoff, while a guest on a New York radio talk-show, also characterized the Muslim leader as a "Black Hitler."
In response to the charges of being a "Black Hitler", Farrakhan responded during a March 11, 1984 speech broadcast on a Chicago radio station:
"So I said to the members of the press, 'Why won't you go and look into what we are saying about the threats on Reverend Jackson's life?' Here the Jews don't like Farrakhan and so they call me 'Hitler'. Well that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man. He wasn't great for me as a Black man but he was a great German and he rose Germany up from the ashes of her defeat by the united force of all of Europe and America after the First World War. Yet Hitler took Germany from the ashes and rose her up and made her the greatest fighting machine of the twentieth century, brothers and sisters, and even though Europe and America had deciphered the code that Hitler was using to speak to his chiefs of staff, they still had trouble defeating Hitler even after knowing his plans in advance. Now I'm not proud of Hitler's evil toward Jewish people, but that's a matter of record. He rose Germany up from nothing. Well, in a sense you could say there is a similarity in that we are rising our people up from nothing, but don't compare me with your wicked killers."
Clearly, these words do not make me happy. But that was almost exactly 24 years ago, and many of us would like to think that our nation has progressed quite a bit since those days. I think we have. Many of us who are involved in the Obama campaign are certainly hoping that we have, and one of Obama's campaign themes has been to move past this kind of divisive and polarizing "politics of the past" in to a new era where we come together as a progressive majority to get things done in Washington and elsewhere. But, as evidenced by Bill Clinton's remarks comparing Barack to Jesse Jackson in reference to his victory in the South Carolina primary, the Clinton campaign would appear to prefer 1984 to 2008, if they had to take a pick.
So, here's the statement, as reported in the MSM, that started all of this (I gather that the speech was two hours, but the reports have been limited thus far):
"If you look at Barack Obama's audiences and look at the effect of his words, those people are being transformed from what they were. This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better."
Now I'm not at all naive about the possible negative effect this Farrakhan "endorsement" might have on Obama's campaign. At the same time, for me personally, I'm quite happy about it. I've spent countless hours of my life arguing and debating with people who were influenced by Farrakhan's brand of apolitical black nationalism about the merits of judging every person as an individual and of working together with other like-minded and well-meaning people from all racial backgrounds around a common political agenda of change. To now see that Obama's words may have even "transformed" the old man himself? Well, that's very significant to me.
In any event, however, clearly a lot of other people would not be, so we get the question from Timmeh:
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Obama, one of the things in a campaign is that you have to react to unexpected developments.
On Sunday, the headline in your hometown paper, Chicago Tribune: "Louis Farrakhan Backs Obama for President at Nation of Islam Convention in Chicago." Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?
SEN. OBAMA: You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can't censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we're not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you reject his support?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, Tim, you know, I can't say to somebody that he can't say that he thinks I'm a good guy. (Laughter.) You know, I -- you know, I -- I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements, and I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments.
MR. RUSSERT: The problem some voters may have is, as you know, Reverend Farrakhan called Judaism "gutter religion."
OBAMA: Tim, I think -- I am very familiar with his record, as are the American people. That's why I have consistently denounced it.
This is not something new. This is something that -- I live in Chicago. He lives in Chicago. I've been very clear, in terms of me believing that what he has said is reprehensible and inappropriate. And I have consistently distanced myself from him.
RUSSERT: The title of one of your books, "Audacity of Hope," you acknowledge you got from a sermon from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the head of the Trinity United Church. He said that Louis Farrakhan "epitomizes greatness."
He said that he went to Libya in 1984 with Louis Farrakhan to visit with Moammar Gadhafi and that, when your political opponents found out about that, quote, "your Jewish support would dry up quicker than a snowball in Hell."
RUSSERT: What do you do to assure Jewish-Americans that, whether it's Farrakhan's support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness?
OBAMA: Tim, I have some of the strongest support from the Jewish community in my hometown of Chicago and in this presidential campaign. And the reason is because I have been a stalwart friend of Israel's. I think they are one of our most important allies in the region, and I think that their security is sacrosanct, and that the United States is in a special relationship with them, as is true with my relationship with the Jewish community.
And the reason that I have such strong support is because they know that not only would I not tolerate anti-Semitism in any form, but also because of the fact that what I want to do is rebuild what I consider to be a historic relationship between the African-American community and the Jewish community.
You know, I would not be sitting here were it not for a whole host of Jewish Americans, who supported the civil rights movement and helped to ensure that justice was served in the South. And that coalition has frayed over time around a whole host of issues, and part of my task in this process is making sure that those lines of communication and understanding are reopened.
But, you know, the reason that I have such strong support in the Jewish community and have historically -- it was true in my U.S. Senate campaign and it's true in this presidency -- is because the people who know me best know that I consistently have not only befriended the Jewish community, not only have I been strong on Israel, but, more importantly, I've been willing to speak out even when it is not comfortable.
When I was -- just last point I would make -- when I was giving -- had the honor of giving a sermon at Ebenezer Baptist Church in conjunction with Martin Luther King's birthday in front of a large African-American audience, I specifically spoke out against anti-Semitism within the African-American community. And that's what gives people confidence that I will continue to do that when I'm president of the United States.
Now, at this point, some have pointed out the similarity between this situation and the one faced by Senators Biden and Obama at one of the debates last year before the Iowa primary. Senator Biden was pressed to defend himself against a charge of racial insensitivity because of remarks he had made at various points, and after he did so, Senator Obama stepped in to add his own words vouching for Biden's racial bonafides:
"I have absolutely no doubt about what is in his heart and the commitment he's made to racial equality in this country."
So now it might have been Clinton's turn to rise to the occasion and show the Democratic Party is not going to fall for the divisive "okey-doke" tactics of the past, which maybe we ought to reminder ourselves, did not serve us well in November of 1984 or 198. But here is what she said:
CLINTON: I just want to add something here, because I faced a similar situation when I ran for the Senate in 2000 in New York. And in New York, there are more than the two parties, Democratic and Republican. And one of the parties at that time, the Independence Party, was under the control of people who were anti-Semitic, anti-Israel. And I made it very clear that I did not want their support. I rejected it. I said that it would not be anything I would be comfortable with. And it looked as though I might pay a price for that. But I would not be associated with people who said such inflammatory and untrue charges against either Israel or Jewish people in our country.
And, you know, I was willing to take that stand, and, you know, fortunately the people of New York supported me and I won. But at the time, I thought it was more important to stand on principle and to reject the kind of conditions that went with support like that.
RUSSERT: Are you suggesting Senator Obama is not standing on principle?
CLINTON: No. I'm just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject it. And there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting. And I think when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory -- I have no doubt that everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we've got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far reaching.
Before we even get to the divisive and polarizing nature of what she said, we should first address the ridiculous claim that her rejection of support from the Independence Party was something that "it looked as though" she "might pay a price for:"
- Number of registered members of the Independence Party in New York state: 354,957.
- Number of Jews in New York state: 1,618,320
But even leaving that ridiculous assertion alone for a moment, the real purpose of Clinton's remark was to try to drive a wedge between Obama's black and Jewish supporters. See, Clinton knows that black people have a soft spot for Louis Farrakhan (by the way, it has absolutely nothing to do with Farrakhan's statements about Jewish people or Hitler). Farrakhan was, after all, the convenor of the Million Man March. She also knows that Farrakhan is pure political poison in the Jewish community. So, seeing her opportunity, she pounces, and Obama is forced to not only denounce Farrakhan, but to reject him as well. I won't say too much about the ridiculous semantics of that, except to say that this "distinction without a difference" was just a pretext to allow Clinton to force Obama to make further statements against a popular black leader:
OBAMA: Tim, I have to say I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. 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.
Hillary was not shy about her glee:
CLINTON: Good. Good. Excellent.
For me personally, this little exchange just told me everything I needed to know about Hillary. Blacks and Jews are the two most loyal Democratic constituencies and, when we've worked together, we have been able to make great strides in advancing the cause of freedom, justice and equality in America. The health of this relationship is much bigger than whether or not Hillary or Barack becomes the Democratic nominee for President. So, for Hillary to be willing to throw gasoline on the smoldering fire that is Louis Farrakhan, means to me that she's perfectly willing to sacrifice his incredibly important Democratic/progressive coalition to further her own political interests. That does not bode well for her as President.
There's another thing that bothers me immensely about her statements as well. She says:
We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far reaching.
Coming from a candidate for the President of United States, I find that incredibly disturbing. Does she propose to make it a crime to speak critically of the Jewish community or of Israel?
Finally, however, I must say that I HATE (yes, I'm yelling) this whole politics of denunciation and exclusion. I know it's not a possibility, but in a better world, we would not denounce and exclude Farrakhan. Millions of Americans believe that he has something valuable to add to our national conversation. Of course, we should state very clearly and loudly exactly where we disagree with him, but at the same time, we should be able to engage him and those who follow him into a wider conversation that would lead to greater cross-cultural and inter-religious understanding. I'm not saying that anti-semitism doesn't play a role in Farrakhan's thoughts and feelings; I'm saying that it doesn't reduce such sentiments to denounce and exclude him and his supporters, rather than engage and educate them about the concerns others may have with those sentiments. Do they simply disappear otherwise?
I know many of you here will disagree with me on this. Luckily for you, Obama himself does as well, given his response. And hopefully I've not come off as self-righteous about it. I lost relatives in the Holocaust, I know the horrors that have been unleashed by anti-semitism in our world. But I sincerely believe that we will not rid our world of this scourge by denouncing, rejecting, and censoring those who hold those beliefs, but rather by enagaging, educating and enlightening them. Unfortunately, it's probably too late for that with someone like Farrakhan, based on the history. That's OK, and hopefully we can all just move past it back onto common ground. For Clinton to try to drag us back there, though, I'm just done with her. Just totally done.
Permalink | 76 comments