A third person has suddenly appeared in the contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton – Minister Louis Farrakhan. Though Farrakhan hasn’t shared the stage with the two Democratic candidates, he has become the litmus test for Obama and any African-Americans seeking public office.

Before addressing the presidential flap over Farrakhan, it should be noted that Obama isn’t the only Black office seeker being pressured to repudiate the Nation of Islam leader. In Indianapolis, Andre Carson is seeking the congressional seat held by his deceased grandmother, Julia Carson. A special election will be held March 11 to the fill the vacancy.

Farrakhan delivered a eulogy at Rep. Carson’s funeral last December and though Andre Carson had nothing to do with funeral plans, he is being criticized for Farrakhan‘s presence. Not only was Carson uninvolved in planning his grandmother’s funeral, the candidate says he has never been a member of the Nation of Islam and is, in fact, a Sunni Muslim.

In Minnesota, Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to serve in Congress, is facing criticism because he spoke favorably of the Nation of Islam as a college student. He denounced the Nation of Islam during his successful 2006 campaign, but he is still being dogged by his past affiliation.

Former Rep. Cynthia McKinney was defeated in Georgia and is trying to revive her political career by running for president on the Green Party ticket. McKinney claimed that she was targeted for defeat in 2006 by major Jewish organizations after Farrakhan campaigned on her behalf.

Of course, Jesse Jackson’s 1984 presidential campaign became sidetracked until he repudiated Farrakhan, one of his earliest and strongest backers, in a Manchester, N.H. synagogue. And Kweisi Mfume, then serving as chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, was forced to back away from a proposed covenant between the CBC and Farrakhan.

As Obama would later learn, even when Minister Farrakhan is denounced in the strongest possible terms, that still will not satisfy verocious critics.

On the eve of the Million Man March in 1995, President Clinton, speaking in Austin, Texas, said: “One million men are right to be standing up for personal responsibility. But 1 million men do not make right one man’s message of malice and division,” a reference to Farrakhan, organizer of the march.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole of Kansas blasted Clinton for not being even stronger in his criticism of Farrakhan.

“I am shocked and dismayed that President Clinton did not find the moral courage to denounce Louis Farrakhan by name in his speech today in Texas,” Dole said. “Farrakhan is a racist and anti-Semite, unhinged by hate. He has no place in American public life, and all who would lead must say so.”
NBC’s Tim Russert raised the Farrakhan issue at the debate last week, asking Obama: “Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?”

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.

RUSSERT: Do you reject his support?

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.) … 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.

Hillary Clinton tried to draw a distinction between how she and Obama handled reprehensible, unsolicited support.

CLINTON: .. I'm just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject it. And there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting… I just think, we've got to be even stronger…

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.

As the above exchange illustrates, even when one has strongly and consistently denounced and rejected Farrakhan, opponents still try to link the two with political Velcro.

It’s time to now “denounce and reject” those who repeatedly seek to use the Farrakhan stick to pummel Blacks seeking public office.