BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Farrakhan

Shockingly enough, while Hillary was demanding that Barack Obama "denounce and reject" the unsolicited support of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, her husband was an avid supporter of a Farrakhan-led initiatives like the "Million More March".

In a May 2005 interview with the black weekly newspaper the New York Amsterdam News, the former president said that he supported the efforts of Louis Farrakhan and the Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to organize a Million More March in the nation's capital that fall.

...

"Jesse [Jackson], and Mr. [Louis] Farrakhan and Rev. [Al] Sharpton probably have internal domestic political differences," Clinton is quoted as saying, "but they've agreed on this, and I think it's a good thing."

Clinton said: "I like the idea of a march, but I think it would also be good at the march for them to say, 'We want to call your attention to this problem, and here's something else you can do. And that it's fine to be concerned about [homeland] security, but we also have to keep trying to make America strong and better here at home."

Post-White House Clinton found no fault with Farrakhan's leadership. There was no mention of Farrakhan's "malice and division" during the interview.

There was also no mention of a Farrakhan speech given that year, on Feb. 26, in which he reportedly told a Chicago audience: "Listen, Jewish people don't have no hands that are free of the blood of us [blacks]. They owned slave ships. They bought us and sold us. They raped and robbed us."

No matter. Bill Clinton, sitting with the Amsterdam News and enjoying his first full day in the office since his second operation, was good to go with Farrakhan's leadership of the Million More March -- a fact he was willing to share with . . . a black audience.

If the Hillary campaign put BHO through the ringer over unsolicited support from Farrakhan, what will they say to this new revelation that her husband avidly supports NOI-led initiatives? Stay tuned...

link added: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702825_2.html?hpid=opinionsbox1



Display:


Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

link?


by American1989 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:42:59 AM EST

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

URL added above - I'm pretty unfamiliar with Scoop so if someone could tell me how to linkify that, I'd appreciate it :)

When will Hillary denounce and reject her husband's support of Farrakhan? The clock is ticking...


by amiches on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:50:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

WOW! There is a big difference from commenting on a speech and attending a church every week who awards Farrakhan.


by bradydundee on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:18:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

church-state (none / 0)

I think it's a mistake to go after someone for the opinions of their church or minister.

Or are you prepared to go after every Catholic politician because their church is against choice and against stem cell research?


by mainelib on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:48:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

Really? So, in your opinion, receiving unsolicited support from a divisive hatemonger is worse than actually supporting the hatemonger?

When will you denounce Bill Clinton's support of Louis Farrakhan?


by amiches on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:53:59 AM EST

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

 What color is the sky in your world. Seriously.


Wisdom Is The Reward For Listening Over A Lifetime
by gunner on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:58:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

The color where "vetting" is a good thing for the Democratic Party. Right now, I'm "vetting" the Clintons' support for the hatemonger Louis Farrakhan.

When will you denounce and reject their support of this hateful creature?


by amiches on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:04:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)


 This hateful creature has done more for this party and this country than Bo could only imagine in his dreams. If Hillary says she will bring the troops home, you can take it to the bank, unlike your guy who was against the war before he was for it.
Wisdom Is The Reward For Listening Over A Lifetime
by gunner on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:29:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

This post is poetry in motion.  He was against the war before he was for it.  Flip Flop


by bradydundee on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:32:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

Yep, changing the subject seems to be the tactic du jour for the Hillary campaign.

Do you agree or disagree with the Clintons' support of Louis Farrakhan?


by amiches on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:34:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

Hillary does not support anybody that calls the white race as the scum of the earth, Now which one of BO`s policies on Iraq do you support and do you agree with him in regards to keeping blackwater there.


Wisdom Is The Reward For Listening Over A Lifetime
by gunner on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:49:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

Well, according to the quote I just posted, you'd be wrong.


by amiches on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:04:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (1.00 / 1)


 You really seem to have a racial problem of your own.I wish I could help you. Maybe a good 12 step program might help. Just take it one day at a time. Good luck with that.
Wisdom Is The Reward For Listening Over A Lifetime
by gunner on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:28:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

Louis Farrakhan endorsed Obama.  Right?????
Not Hillary right?????
by bradydundee on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:52:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

In your world, unsolicited support from a hatemonger is worse than supporting the hatemonger. Interesting moral calculus you must have.


by amiches on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:05:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

 Very interesting way of looking at things. Now was Tony Rezko support unsolicited or not.


Wisdom Is The Reward For Listening Over A Lifetime
by gunner on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:49:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

Try and keep your head in the game. Do you support Louis Farrakhan, like Bill and Hillary Clinton do, or do you reject and denounce him?


by amiches on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:04:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

 Listen you arrogant lout.I can understand your support of BO but DO NOT try and tell anyone and I mean ANYONE that you understand hate until you have had your college education fucked over so they can send your ass to NAM, and then upon returning, get spit on and your dog hung from a tree while your daughter was ridiculed at school for having a daddy who was a baby killer. Hillary is also a product of those times and well understands it, so quit showing your obvious ignorance and piss off.


Wisdom Is The Reward For Listening Over A Lifetime
by gunner on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:22:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

Amen brother.  Well said


by bradydundee on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:26:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

Nope, we're not talking about Vietnam, either. I'm sorry you and your family got treated that way, but I'm not sure what relevance that experience has to this discussion.

We are, however, discussing Louis Farrakhan, and the Clintons' support of him. Do you denounce and reject that support, or do you encourage it? It's a pretty simple question.


by amiches on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:01:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

Along with being a mental midget, now you are unable to read ,PISS OFF.


Wisdom Is The Reward For Listening Over A Lifetime
by gunner on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:04:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

I read well enough to understand that you tried to change the subject three times and failed. I think the American public will be very interested to know just how hypocritical the Clinton camp has been in regards to Farrakhan - "reject and denounce" him from one side of their mouths, praise him with the other.


by amiches on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:12:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

People like you thought you had something by blaming NAFT on Clinton. She contacted Canada too whine whine NOT! Didn't happen just your guy.  Your grasping at straws.  Besides since when does the WaPo always tell the truth.


by bradydundee on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:34:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

Attempt number 4 to change the subject, with an accusation of media bias on the side. It's becoming downright Republican in here.


by amiches on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:40:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

at least I don't have my head in the clouds


by bradydundee on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:53:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are comparing apples (none / 0)

and oranges here. Bill Clinton was asked about Farakhan in the context of a march that he was organinzing with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. a march that might actually do some good for some people, in spite of the disgusting behavior of one of it's organizers. A march that did not benefit Bill Clinton in any way. Barack Obama is being asked how he feels about being supported by this man, endorsed by him, and in the minds of many, associated with him. That support benefits no one but Obama. As far as I know, Farakhan never endorsed either Hillary or Bill Clinton. If he had, the apples to apples question would be whether they renounced that support. When John Hagee endorsed John McCain, the left blogosphere was all abuzz. It seems that many on the blogs, especially the big orange one, automatically branded John McCain with sharing the most repugnant beliefs of John Hagee. But they are bending over backwards and doing handstands trying to gloss over Obama being endorsed by someone just as disgusting. And before you start squealing about Obama both renouncing and rejecting him, can you please explain to me why Obama seems to hold him in such esteem. He would have us believe that he wants nothing to do with Louis Farakhan or his venomous positions, but he continues to address him with the utmost respect. It's "Minister Farakhan" to Mr. Obama, even though everyone else says Louis Farakhan, or just plain old Farakhan, like he isn't worthy of being called by his self-proclaimed title.


by georgiapeach on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 08:44:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are comparing apples (none / 0)

Well, of course, the main difference that you're omitting is that McCain sought out and welcomed John Hagee's support, while Obama did not seek out Louis Farrakhan's and rejected it when he received it.

And yes, God forbid a man be addressed with his formal title. This race-baiting shit has got to stop.


by amiches on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:31:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

No, Hillary endorsed Farrakhan.


by Drummond on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:48:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

Good heavens get a life or have a nap.  While your digging for stories on Hillary it's very strange how you never run across anything bad but the "special one" Obama


by bradydundee on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:51:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

You're joking, right?


by Drummond on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:50:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WaPo Investigates not Clinton ties (none / 0)

Here is the link it is Colbert King Op Ed not an investigation by the Washington Post.
The columnist stretches as best he can to paint Bill Clinton with the same brush that has obviously hit Obama.
But Clearly Farrakhan has endorsed Obama; Farrakhan hangs out with Obama's minister and visits Libya with him. Bill Clinton's offense he didn't tee off on Farrakhan working with Jesse Jackson on the million man march in a singular interview. Whew that's a horrible offense, Next time he should point out some of Jesse Jackson's suspect connection I guess since no one every calls him a racist.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702825. html


by coolofthenight on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:57:03 AM EST

Re: WaPo Investigates not Clinton ties (none / 0)

See, all the things you mentioned are what's called "guilt by association". Because Obama knows someone who supports some things Farrakhan does, he's guilty, in your world.

The Clintons themselves, on the other hand, affirmatively and actively supported Farrakhan initiatives, and did so publicly. This is not guilt by association, it's just plain guilt.

For me, this brings up significant concerns as to their judgment. If the Clintons aren't willing to forcefully denounce divisive figures like Farrakhan, who else might they not be willing to denounce? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Hugo Chavez? Dimitri Medvedev?  


by amiches on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:09:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WaPo Investigates not Clinton ties (none / 0)

When did the Clintons "support Farrakhan initiatives"?


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:00:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WaPo Investigates not Clinton ties (none / 0)

Based on your post  the only sensible thing to do would  be to conduct and Obama Clinton denounce off instead of a debate. Then they can denounce
everyone by name that could possible be offensive to somone. The person with the longest list  wins.

Seriously you missed the point this diary had a sensation Bullshit headline for a poorly written op ed piece about  something that Bill Clinton  didn't say about Farrkhan. Thats what started this moronic thread.


by coolofthenight on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:24:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

Unfortunately, the more vetting Billary gets, the worse she looks.

If you look at her website, you'll note that she takes credit for helping to get the Family and Medical Leave Act passed. If you look at the facts, something her supporters hate being confused by, you'll note that the bill, Chris Dodd's, was passed before Bill took office.

The only part Bill had in the PMLA's passage was promising to sign it during the election of 1992 and then signing it after he took office.

Hillary's part it it? Um, how much credit do you get for being married to the guy who signed it?


by vermontprog on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:00:36 PM EST

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

At least she did got bills passed.  They didn't die in the senate


by bradydundee on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:21:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

If you look at her website, you'll note that she takes credit for helping to get the Family and Medical Leave Act passed. f you look at the facts, something her supporters hate being confused by, you'll note that the bill, Chris Dodd's, was passed before Bill took office.

Why don't you give me the exact quote as well as a link to that, because I can't find what you are talking about. Now I do know that Hillary wrote the legislation, which has not yet been passed, that would extend the Family and Medical Leave Act to cover service members and their families. Perhaps that's what she was referring to, but without knowing what you talking about, I can't tell.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:54:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bad news for Obama (none / 0)

Agreed. I don't think bringing up this guy does anything but hurt Obama.  He should HOPE that Farrakan's name stays out of the press no matter the reason.  It will just remind people of the debate flap. Sad, but true....


by easyE on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:02:48 PM EST

The author really stretched the truth (none / 0)

Quotes like these:

Where was Hillary Clinton when her husband made nice with Louis Farrakhan?
 - By Colbert I. King

show that the author is clearly an Obama partisan and has no intention of conveying things objectively. He made several stretches of the truth.


by HillaryKnight08 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:09:27 PM EST

Re: The author really stretched the truth (none / 0)

Can you answer the question he posed? Was Hillary rejecting and denouncing Farrakhan, then? Was she doing it in private, like we're supposed to believe she advocated for Rwandan intervention, or against NAFTA? Can she prove that she disagreed with her husband's characterization of the Farrakhan initiative as a good thing?

A lot of questions have yet to be answered about this, and I have significant concerns about their ability to forcefully denounce the hatemongers of the world.


by amiches on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:12:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The author really stretched the truth (none / 0)

I don't know how to answer the question, but I do know this: The author of the article clearly took the "get even" approach which clearly stripped all credibility from it.


by HillaryKnight08 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:16:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The author really stretched the truth (none / 0)

Ah, only authors bashing Obama count. Like only states that vote for Hillary count. I think I get it now.


by marcotom on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:27:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The author really stretched the truth (none / 0)

Yes and where was Obama win Reverand Wright  made nice to Farrakhan?


by coolofthenight on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:26:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (2.00 / 1)

This is not "BREAKING" and this is not an actual piece of journalism. This is opinion. Talk about misleading diaries.


by American1989 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:12:04 PM EST

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

Some folks can't tell the difference


by bradydundee on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:21:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

I agree big mistake. You know this name calling works both ways. It was my mother who said sweep your own door step before you sweep someone else's


by bradydundee on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:19:52 PM EST

This is not BREAKING (none / 0)

I actually thought this was serious...


by HillaryKnight08 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 12:32:25 PM EST

This is a stretch (none / 0)

So basically Bill Clinton is guilty of not being a jerk?

So when Barack Obama talks about working with Dick Lugar and nuclear non prolif, does he have an obligation to say "by the way, I think Lugar is kind of a douchebag" Um no.

Moreover, its not like this was an endorsement, or even a Farakhan project. It was something he was something Farakhan was working on with Jackson and Sharpton in which Clinton said, this specific thing is okay.

This is some pretty bad grasping. And considering the story involves more ties back to Obama than Clinton, Jackson and Sharpton, and Obama is fighting the viral smears, I'm pretty sure this has a great chance of hurting Obama than Clinton.


by world dictator on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:00:29 PM EST

Ties?????? (none / 0)

Because he supported the Million Man March he has "ties to Farrakhan?"  Guess I must have ties to Farrakhan, too.  And so does just about every progressive I know.


by Trickster on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:17:17 PM EST

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton (none / 0)

Note the URL:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702825_ 2.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Obama rule #8285878: When is an opinion NOT an opinion!  When an Obama supporter links to it.


by Sensible on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:25:23 PM EST

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton (none / 0)

The part where the author drew conclusions is the opinion. Are you saying that his quote of Bill Clinton in 2005 is inaccurate?

Do you, or do you not, reject and denounce Bill Clinton's support of Louis Farrakhan?


by amiches on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:40:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton (none / 0)

LOL. And we heard that Obama is lying to American people about Iraq now, after NAFTA.

You cant just tell people what they want to hear!!

Oh my Messiah, that's all you do and koolaid drinkers fall for it.

Samantha Power is a truthful person as per Obama supporters and she said Obama is hoodwinking common people.


by Sandeep on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 01:41:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

Why is Clinton lying about her role in negotiating treaties, opening borders, and getting the Family and Medical Leave Act passed?


by mainelib on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 02:46:42 PM EST

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton (none / 0)

I don't understand. What's the problem here?

In a May 2005 interview with the black weekly newspaper the New York Amsterdam News, the former president said that he supported the efforts of Louis Farrakhan and the Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to organize a Million More March in the nation's capital that fall.

Clinton supported something Sharpton, Jackson, and Farrakhan were all trying to organize. All three of them. There's a difference between acknowledging that a nasty person is doing one good thing and believing that said nasty person has good ideas about other things. What are you getting at? Are you also criticizing Sharpton and Jackson for this?

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:05:35 PM EST

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton (none / 0)

Because, according to the Hill-fans here, one must forcefully denounce and reject Farrakhan at every turn, even if it's in the context of good stuff he did (such as his drug rehab programs, for which he was honored by Obama's church).

Clearly, the Clintons themselves (and not someone they are merely associated with) are praising a positive thing done by Farrakhan...where's the denunciation and the rejection?

I've got a theory: to a black audience (the NYAN is a black paper), the Clintons have no problem praising Farrakhan, but when they need to win a white audience (Ohio), they press their black opponent to disavow him completely, even when that opponent had never himself been associated with Farrakhan.


by amiches on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:18:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton (none / 0)

Personally, I thought Obama's denunciation of Farrakhan's hateful views was quite enough. I thought the "denounce and reject" thing in the debate was an embarrassing moment for everyone concerned. But that's just me.
Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:24:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton (none / 0)

I'm glad we can agree on that. But a lot of people around here feel the need to continue making hay on Farrakhan Outrage so I think turnabout is fair play.


by amiches on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 03:41:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton (none / 0)

More guilt by association - Obama knows Rezko, Rezko maybe did something with the NOI, ergo Obama is guilty.

Stop trying to change the subject - do you agree with the Clintons stated support of Louis Farrakhan, or do you denounce and reject it?


by amiches on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 04:17:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BREAKING: WaPo Investigates Clinton ties to Fa (none / 0)

Grasping at straws?


by Actright on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 06:57:12 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.