Spring Break
Candidates Must Reject Divisive Endorsements
Ryan Rattanni
Issue date: 4/17/08 Section: Commentary
Endorsements are certainly an important part of the political process. Big endorsements often translate into more votes and a much-needed boost in fundraising. The right endorsement at the right time can be enough to rebound a struggling campaign or even catapult a candidate into the lead. However, there is always a great deal of uncertainty, both from within the campaign and among the voters, regarding how to interpret unwanted endorsements. These endorsements could prove awfully troublesome for a candidate if left unaddressed, causing unwanted negative attention all the way up to the general election in November.
With the Democratic race for the nomination as tight as it is, endorsements have reached an unprecedented level of importance. Obama has received several influential endorsements from Gov. Bill Richardson and Sens. John Kerry, Chris Dodd and Ted Kennedy. By contrast, Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer as well as Rep. John Murtha have all pledged their support for Clinton. Each of these endorsements has their pros and cons, but in reality, big-time endorsements by national level politicians help much more often than they hurt a candidate.
Nonetheless, not all endorsements are beneficial. Controversial endorsements cause nothing but headaches for the campaign staff, resulting in a campaign-wide shift into damage control. These unwanted endorsements could range anywhere from support from a thoughtless celebrity to backing from a controversial figure that has been critical of the United States. Unfortunately, it is a common practice for campaigns to try to play down these endorsements rather than explicitly rejecting them.
Recently, the leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, declared his support for Obama. For those unfamiliar with Farrakhan, he has been known for his often racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic comments. Some of his memorable remarks include, "The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man," and ,"The white man is our mortal enemy, we cannot accept him."
With the Democratic race for the nomination as tight as it is, endorsements have reached an unprecedented level of importance. Obama has received several influential endorsements from Gov. Bill Richardson and Sens. John Kerry, Chris Dodd and Ted Kennedy. By contrast, Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer as well as Rep. John Murtha have all pledged their support for Clinton. Each of these endorsements has their pros and cons, but in reality, big-time endorsements by national level politicians help much more often than they hurt a candidate.
Nonetheless, not all endorsements are beneficial. Controversial endorsements cause nothing but headaches for the campaign staff, resulting in a campaign-wide shift into damage control. These unwanted endorsements could range anywhere from support from a thoughtless celebrity to backing from a controversial figure that has been critical of the United States. Unfortunately, it is a common practice for campaigns to try to play down these endorsements rather than explicitly rejecting them.
Recently, the leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, declared his support for Obama. For those unfamiliar with Farrakhan, he has been known for his often racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic comments. Some of his memorable remarks include, "The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man," and ,"The white man is our mortal enemy, we cannot accept him."
Be the first to comment on this story