The problem is that once Farrakhan made those crazy anti-Semitic statements, no matter what good he does, people furiously insist he is just plain 'bad'.

I also am aware that Farrakhan has done much to help in the black community. Should we condemn those good things as well?

"As a community organizer in Chicago, I am sure that Obama is even more aware than I am about the positive effects of what Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam has done. That I believe is the reason for Obama's measured response, which was done without criticizing the person, but instead criticizing the hateful things Farrakhan has said."

So last night HRC, foolishly I think, makes hay out of what she implied was a weak denuniciation of Minister Farrakhan. She is then criticized and ridiculed for suggesting that Senator Obama wasn't strong enough in his denunciation. As an HRC supporter, she pissed me off when she did that and I was actually embarassed.

But then I read your post and you actually assert that Obama, rightfully so in your view, gave a "measured" response about the anti-semitic and vile Farrakhan. And you defend this by saying that Farrakhan has done great things for the African American community. And Mussolini, they said, made the trains run on time and I understand that Stalin commissioned a green park or two.

I will assume that Senator Obama disagrees with you. Thank G-d I believe my assumption is correct.

Do you realize that Louis Farrakhan, speaking for the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, declared that Malcolm X deserved to die? Effectively, Farrakhan sentenced Malcolm to death -- a sentence that was quickly carried out by Nation of Islam fanatics. So you can find a few good things to say about the man who, in addition to preaching hatred, ordered the assassination of Malcolm X? Last night, Senator Obama did what he should have done the moment Farrakhan opened his hateful mouth. He rejected Farrakhan's endorsement. Let it go.

One of the hugest ironies here is that several years ago Farrakhan appeared on Russert's show and Russert sat there like a silent Sam and did not challenge or refute or even attempt to dispute many of the outrageous statements Farrakhan was making.

ondioline, I felt the same way: Hillary could have gotten 4000000 points if she'd just said 'you know tim, what the hell kinda question is that?' Instead, she just acted like a jerk.

As for the original post, I think it's a fair thing to bring up. Humans are complex and asking people to paint their opinions of them in single color broad strokes is bordering on childish. I "mostly like" lots of people. I "mostly don't like" lots of people. Isn't that honest enough? Doesn't everyone feel the same about lots of people?

I’m guessing, correct me if I’m wrong, that most TPM readers denounce and reject the practice of owning humans. I’m also guessing we’re all aware that our founding fathers didn’t really feel the same way about the subject. Does the fact that they did something far worse than talking like an ignorant hateful asshole about a whole group of people bring us to the point of needing to denounce and reject all that they did?

Why not?

If we’re going to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I’d like to signup to help rewrite the constitution.

Can I make a point here please? Barack from the age of 10 years old grow up with his (white grandparents) so when did they become racist? Everyone is so lame the stories that people come up with are amazing,almost funny.

to frog leg
Thanks for what you said. Pretty much my sentiments also. I actually think Obama said enough and have no problem with his answer during the debate. I'm less comfortable with his continuing view of Wright, who thinks Farrakhan is great, as his spiritual advisor. Also not so comfortable with how Obama handled the McClurkin (homophobic gospel singer showcased at an Obama campaign event) incident.
That said, I am still an Obama supporter. Many of the people supporting McCain are just as bad as Farrakhan, and McCain won't denounce them (other than that irritating talk show guy the other night. Let's see McCain disassociate himself from Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Coulter!).
So with Obama, we're talking about someone who's very much on the right side of the issue -- I view his not being perfect on this as exactly that, he's not perfect. But he's pretty damn good.

It's just the old Christian mantra in practice: "Love the sinner, hate the sin."

And that's why this essay gains no traction with me - that is exactly what a lot of ignorant people say when hating on teh gayz. Is the answer to WWJD really to "hate" whatever isn't in vogue? Sigh...

Your thesis - that Farrakhan is multidimensional - is weak; nothing there but a lot of "so what?" EVERYBODY is multidimensional, and tagging the nexus of good Farrakhan has done as exclusively black is to further marginalize your own argument - and gives traction to the idea that outside of majority black communities he's been seen as nothing except a divisive figure who represents hate. Please realize it's not likely to win a lot of people over to your way of thinking on Farrakhan.

In my personal experience with Farrakhan (in which I heard him speak), he actively preached hate and divisiveness on campus, and it's terribly sad that this is what is considered a fitting role model for ANYONE. Ditto the David Dukes and Tom Tancredos of the world, the James Dobsons and the Paul Camerons.

Enough racial divisiveness already, especially that cloaked in a "can't we all get along?" robe!

I supported Obama from the beginning- I still support him strongly.

This is a B.S. post.

I don't think we have to make a case for anyone who preaches hatred. PERIOD.

I'll be HONEST- It bothered me that he was NOT categorical, right away- but I don’t doubt his strong convictions and beliefs.

But what bothered me the most were two other things:

1) The kind of GOTCHA politics- this guilt by innuendo politics- I STRONGLY believe Obama symbolically and by his own personal emphasis can reduce tensions between blacks and other ethinic groups in this country- which is priceless. So this entire focus on innuendo politics is disgusting.
2) I was intrinsically repulsed by the way Senator Clinton tried to use it as politcal wedge- trying to score political points. It was the taste on Clinton politics in SC. I’m from New York and I know how Clintons repeatedly have thrown Jews, blacks and gays under the bus- talking proudly about principle and ignoring when it really mattered.

This entire narrative of questions on his patriotism, the ethinic photo leaks, the Farrakhan question, sinisterly touting his middle name- it signals something about our nation.

We have many white politicians who openly accept endorsements of James Dobsons and Jerry Fallwells of the world. While this black politician stuttered, walking a thin line, in rejecting the endorsement- he somehow becomes a "frog."

Why do we with ease accept Bill Clinton or a George W Bush as an American and why do we question a black man named Barack Hussein Obama if he’s less of an American?

That’s what disgusts me the most.

By the way, privilledged white men who get their stories of racism and semitism from their library bookshelves should shut the f*** up.

It's the hypocrisy that I object to. Hillary Clinton broke into the exchange between Russert and Obama to talk about her experience with the Independent Party in New York during her first campaign for Senate. She sought the party's endorsement but ultimately rejected it because the party was also considering endorsing Pat Buchanan's run for President.

Pat Buchanan was persona non grata in Clinton's opinion because of his anti-semitism. So, there she sat last night trying to hold Obama's feet to the fire about Farrakhan and all the while, Pat Buchanan waited in the wings at the MSNBC pundit's table. If you are a white anti-semite, you get a national television platform to express your views. If you are a black anti-semite you get 'denounced AND rejected'.

It just gets harder and harder for me to take Hillary Clinton seriously.

Frog leg, I don't know if I agree with you or not, but this was a courageous post and a question worth asking, so I commend you.

That I believe is the reason for Obama's measured response, which was done without criticizing the person, but instead criticizing the hateful things Farrakhan has said.

And the way I saw that section of the debate, Hillary caught that measured quality, and she disagreed, and said she was of the opinion that it was important to strongly disassociate. And then he tried to backtrack a bit, didn't stand that ground.

It's nice to see someone admitting here that the first response by Obama was a measured response. This is what Andrew Sullivan noted, too, and he's a big Obama supporter and Clinton hater.

I think both Obama and Hillary's approach have validity. But I didn't think Obama adjusting his message after she spoke was very attractive of him. Either you are into using the moral outrage thing or you are a more measured person. A measured person trying to sell that he really does have moral outrage too rings a little false. You really can't blame much on doing this with Farrakhan, because it's a bigger problem for him than her, as the whole question of his pastor is going to be raised again and again in the general election.

Frog Leg,
I agree with Genghis that your post was courageous, and I applaud you for having the depth to weigh in on Farrakhan by proffering another aspect of the man's life.
Your opening the topic nudges folks a little bit toward the usually unwelcome realization that good and evil can and does co-exist within the same person........ that nudge will receive blowback from folks who cannot yet grasp that their sense of their own 'goodness' often depends upon ignoring or downplaying their own episodes of hatefulness.
Farrakhan is an extreme case of that duality within one individual; but that duality is the most common trait in all humans I have known.
I believe that it is that inner individual duality which precedes and fuels the divisiveness among identified societal sub-groups. In short very few own up to their own failings......it is a much easier path to hold oneself and one's identified group as 'good' by focusing on the 'badness' of another person or group.
And it may be centuries before humanity as a whole grows up enough to solve that equation in a way that could decrease conflict among individuals, groups and nations.