During the Democratic debate on February 26th, Sen. Obama was peppered with questions regarding the recent endorsement his campaign received from Louis Farrakhan, President of the Nation of Islam.
Obama’s reply was succinct: “I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments. … I did not solicit this support. … I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought.”
Seeing an opportunity to pounce, Sen. Clinton interjected herself into the conversation, insisting that there is a difference between denouncing someone and rejecting their endorsement. She wasn’t going to be content until Obama rejected Farrakhan’s endorsement, which eventually he did.
It will be interesting to see if Clinton holds herself to the same standard regarding the endorsement she has received from New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, who was recently implicated in a federal prostitution ring investigation. Spitzer is a powerful player and a rising star in the Democratic party, and a close ally of Sen. Clinton’s in New York. Oh, and did I mention that he’s also a superdelegate?
Given how tenacious she was in insisting that Obama reject Farrakhan’s endorsement – an unsolicited endorsement from someone with no connection to his campaign – Clitnon should likewise reject Spitzer’s pledge of support.
So far she has declined to comment on the issue.
If Spitzer resigns, which seems likely, the Democratic National Committee has said that he would not be replaced as a superdelegate. So it’s likely that Clinton will lose his superdelegate vote anyway. But if she wants to the do the right thing, she should officially distance her campaign from the fallen governor – effective immediately.
Unless, of course, all that stuff about Farrakhan was just for show.