Obama's Farrakhan answer gives Clinton an opening

When you've debated as often as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have, it's hard to find fresh material to spar over. But -- who knew? -- Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan provided such fodder Tuesday night. And the result may have been some crucial points scored by Clinton in their face-off in Ohio.

At the least, Obama appeared to dance around how far he should distance himself from the unsolicited backing he received over the weekend from Farrakhan until Clinton cornered him. At that point, he both denounced AND rejected that support.

Obama had been asked a straightforward question by moderator Tim Russert: Did he accept Farrakhan's support.

The following exchange occurred:

Obama: "You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments. I think 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, I can't say to somebody that he can't say that he thinks I'm a good guy."

True enough, but probably ...

not the answer most Jewish Americans wanted to hear. As a result, Obama risked creating the perception for some that he might be somewhat reluctant to completely throw overboard a controversial leader who is not without some stroke within the black community (witness the 1995 Million Man March).

Clinton clearly saw it that way, and sought to put Obama on the spot. She interjected that, during her initial Senate run in 2000, she was endorsed by a splinter party in New York that "was under the control of people who were anti-Semitic, anti-Israel. And I made it very clear that I did not want their support. I rejected it. ... And there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting."

Obama responded: "I have to say I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting."

He needs to check a dictionary on that.

Then he decided to yield the point: "But if the word 'reject' Sen. Clinton feels is stronger than the word 'denounce,' then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce."

He could have saved himself some potential grief if he had been less circular arriving at that point.

-- Don Frederick

Comments

[HMMMM]

He only rejected when he saw himself over a cliff. I don't understand why he was applauded for his ambivalence.

[LX]

Obama's point, which you seem to have left out, was that Farrakhan didn't offer him any assistance in any fashion, and so there was nothing to reject. he renounced the man's views, but he didn't use the word "reject" because nothing was offered. He was very clear and accurate in his response, rather than simply catering to what a particular audience wanted to hear.

i applaud him for that.

[A (former?) Obama Supporter]

Obama's Farrakhan denunciation was definitely a hedge. It may be true that Obama can't tell Farrakhan "that he can't say that he thinks I'm a good guy," but he CAN say that FARRAKHAN is not a good guy. It may be true that he did not "solicit" that support--but he could have also said (and did not say) that he did not welcome that support, that he did not appreciate that support, or that he is embarrassed by that support... something like what Hillary said.

[Steve]

This is a RIDICULOUS point!! Barack made it clear from the beginning that he had no interest in Farrakhan's support but Clinton had to start splitting hairs like the desperate candidate she is! Personally, I think denouncing someone is much stronger than just rejecting their support. But I guess we shouldn't be surprised with this coming from someone who's husband tried to defend himself by arguing the meaning of the word "is"....

[Marc]

Mazal Tov to Senator Clinton for taking a stand against hatred. Obama needs to follow her lead and reject Farrakhahn and others in his life, including his Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who embrace hatred. Wright and Trinity Church, Obama's church, refer to Farrakhan as the epitome of greatness!? How can the President of the United States belong to a church that endorses this hate!? Obama, it is time to reject. Way to go Senator Clinton!

[Ikram]

This is so ridiculous. Hillary is scrambling to say anything to derail him. If this is the best she has, her hopes are gone. Democrats should rejoice.

[Avery]

Seriously! Mr. Obama has done alot to help people in general and he has a very close relationship w/ the jewish communities in chicago & I'm sure in other areas. I hope this doesn't become blown out of perportion because he answered the questions pretty well. People can't control others in this regard...if Mr. Farakahn likes Obama then great but that instantly doesn't put a bad mark against Mr. Obama....what if the Putin put a video on youtube talking how he and mrs. Clinon are the best of friends?...what then is she a bad person?...maybe not the best of comparisons but I think the point has been made.

[shan]

you should be applauded for your services to the nation.

im being entirely sarcastic.

what 'potential grief' are you talking about? the type that talking heads in the media generate? people dont care about non-issues.

[Deborah]

Bill Clinton must have submitted the Farrakhan question. He's itching to make race a factor.
Obama did denounce Farrakhan but Hillary wanted to enter another word, reject. To denounce or reject is the same thing. This woman is never satisfied. I had to chuckle at her complaint that she's getting asked questions first. That remark about Barack needing a pillow showed that all 3 Hillaries showed up at the debate tonight. Obama 2008!

[WeC]

You cannot bring a nation together if you have a strong opinion and go about denouncing or rejecting people for their belief.

You can denounce and reject their words and action; and probably disassociate yourself with their activities. But you practice inclusion when you are so ready to turn your back against them.

The problem America has today with our enemies is that we made them our enemies; not the other way around.

Hasn't there been enough said that we need to be more tolerant and look at bring moderate Muslim back to the table?

The most effective way to eliminate an enemy is to make them your friend, not try to annihilate them.

Clinton's foreign policies; very much like Bush's policies is to adopt a superior mentality that they should bow before us or die.

I prefer Obama's inclusive theory to talk to them without pre-conditions and then try to work our way from there.

[John, from Las Vegas, NV]

Wow, what a pack of hypocrites. He just went through exactly why he doesn't think the issue was of importance, explaining how and, more importantly, WHY he wants to rebuild the bridge between African- and Jewish-Americans, and you are all ready to pounce on him between the difference of "denounce" and "reject".

Hillary has a litany of race-baiting supporters, from hubby Bill to Ed Rendell, and various angry, divisive types in between. She doesn't seem to find a need to "denounce" or "reject" any of those incidents, and she's on stage when most of these occur. Instead she can go on stage damn near in blackface and mock Obama and his supporters.

This doesn't get scrutinized at all other than being in bad taste.

I believe that when Obama wants to bring all Americans together, he means it. He hasn't shown anything to the contrary. Too bad some folks are so used to divisive politics they can't see past their own hangups.

It was a silly and absurd question, and until Clinton and Russert teamed up to hang a anti-Semite sign on Obama, something anyone with any sense of dignity would have known better than to push.

[Rugba]

Anyone who watched the debate know that Hillary looked ridiculous. Hillary supporters are starting to sound a lot like the crazy Bush supporters who think he's been doing a great job.

Sorry, guys. Wake up and see that she's unstable . . . unprofessional . . . and most of all . . . unpresidential.

[Kelvin]

Oh Please!!! it was clear Obama was dancing around the answer as to not eliante possible votors of the nationa of islam. "I cant stop that he thinks Im a nice guy" answer was juvenile. Hillary caught him the the little dance and thus then...when he was obviously spotted on this...he then denounced and rejected. Not that same

[Dr. Dave]

Obama is too arrogant to apologize for ANYTHING. His double speak is the way he handles ALL questions and debate. As a lawyer, he learned this craft well by scoring points and deftly deflecting criticism with circular logic and language.

Ultimately there's no way Obama will openly, loudly and clearly reject Louis Frakkhan despite the fact that Farkkhan is a devisive racist, and hate monger.

[Yiannis]

Here's teh dictionary, this is nonsense

Reject:
to refuse to have, take, recognize, etc.: to reject the offer of a better job.

Demoumce"
to condemn or censure openly or publicly: to denounce a politician as morally corrupt.

[groan]

He was applauded because it was a stupid point, a farce of a non-issue. An awkwardly interjected verbal swipe over semantics by petty candidate.

But then again, I suppose I can't be surprised. It's hard to escape the reality that the internet is just an aristocracy of schmucks.

[Ermon]

You miss the point. Senator Obama had to explain the difference between "rejecting" and "denouncing" to Senator Clinton. As Senator Obama explained and your article failed for whatever reason to point out to the reader is the following. Louis Farrakhan never offered him anything therefore there was nothing for him to "reject". As such, Obama denounced the Minister Farrakhan's comments. This is far more effective when you think about it. As we all know Hillary did not. Once again it's about "judgment".

Nevertheless, he denounced and rejected Louis Farrakhan. Come on Don, that is very far from "circular." Aren't you really just concerned that the Black guy just didn't respond in the way that you wanted him too. So ask yourself, how racist is that? Senator Obama can reject and denounce and you can claim a segment of our population can find a problem with the way he rejects and denounces anti semitic statements. You argument is weak at best and devoid context. God Bless America!

[Anish]

I think you, good sir, need to find a dictionary.

You denounce a person.

If no actual help is offered, which none was, then there is nothing to reject.

Learn some English, and stop trying to push your biased interpretation of Obama's comment on people who actually know how to use English.

[Greg from Md.]

Being endorsed by an organazation is totally different than an individual saying that he supports someone. If the Nation of Islam endorse Obama it would be a fair comparison. But for a candidate to say to someone "I don't what you to like me" is silly. The Splinter Party wanted to campaign for Hillary in New York. That's totally different than a person giving a candidate a compliment. Hillary was desperate and rehearsed with a comment that had no parallel to the question put to Obama. Put the whole story in blog next time. The story of this debate was Hillary's desperation.

[Turkeys]

This is all you come up with? I think his comment about reject and denounce was saying, you're really splitting hairs now cause nothing else is left

[Brad]

If the dems keep this head of the pin nitpicking up, get ready for the oldest president in history--

[Truth Hurts]

And the Jewish nation doesn't promote hate?

[chris]

The question here is if Senator Clinton would have fought the point 2 months ago... I doubt it. It really does make her look unpresidential and desperate. The point is that Obama carried the jewish vote by high margins in Illinois and there is no reason to believe he wouldn't do the same in the national election against McCain.

Just by seeing the looks on her face through the debate, and the silly pillow remark, show us how far she has fallen. I think most voters a few months ago would be totally shocked to see her in such a state. The facts are that while she was buying donuts, Obama was organizing the 11 win sweep he would achieve after super Tuesday. Her campaign has been poorly run and, quite frankly, only they seem to be the ones who believe she is still the rightful heir to the democratic nomination. She had the name, connections, money and --for the lack of a better word-- power. She played poorly and as much as Obama is winning this nomation, she is losing it.

[Maritza]

I think Obama's answer was fine.

He both REJECTS and DENOUNCES.

End of story.

[jeannemarie]

Well, i completely reject and denouce HRC. Her campaign has been one of the most if not the most tasteless displays of reputation-smearing tactics ever seen. My respect for Sen. Obama has quadrupled after tonight's debate. He demonstrated calmness and coolness under fire. Sen. Obama (hopefully soon to be president-elect Obama) has tirelessly campaigned under duress with courage, grace and restraint. He has demonstrated over and over again he is by far the more qualified candidate. It will be an honor to vote for him in the general election.

[Kane]

There is a clear difference between 'denounce' and 'reject', and Obama was trying to get out of the question. He should have come out and said he would reject any support from Farrakhan, but he didn't and he tried to use his famed rhetoric to no avail. I already had very little trust for Obama, and now I have zero. He is a world-class manipulator.

[Ron Greene]

As an Obama supporter - I will admit that on this point - Hillary was right. Words matter and she is correct that there is a distinction. She made him take a firm stand and the only thing that annoys me about him is he is a bit wishy-washy. So - point to Hillary. Big point. Still like Barack though.

[PulSamsara]

Wow... nice spin - bur Obama walked away with it.

Sorry - everybody likes to feel good ... but no dice.

[Chris]

Oh please. You're insulting the intelligence of voters around the nation with this garbage. Then again I see some morons above me buying into it.

[claude]

I just checked the dictionary for synonyms of denouce and one of the words is reject. Perhaps Hillary should check her vocabulary very well.

[Joseph]

I think Russert's attempt at bringing this whole Farrakhan issue up is a mistake. This will only continue to make America divide. If anyone wants unity, come together and build a better world regardless of race or religion, not hate and divide.

[John, from Las Vegas, NV]

Put down the Clinton kool-aid long enough to grab a dictionary.

From Merriam-Webster (look it up yourself if interested):

denounce

Main Entry:
de·nounce Listen to the pronunciation of denounce
Pronunciation:
di-ˈnau̇n(t)s, dē-
Function:
transitive verb
Inflected Form(s):
de·nounced; de·nounc·ing
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French denuncier to proclaim, from Latin denuntiare, from de- + nuntiare to report — more at announce
Date:
13th century

1: to pronounce especially publicly to be blameworthy or evil
2 archaic a: proclaim b: to announce threateningly
3: to inform against : accuse
4 obsolete : portend
5: to announce formally the termination of (as a treaty)

And now, Hillary Clinton's idea of strong language:

reject

Main Entry:
1re·ject Listen to the pronunciation of 1reject
Pronunciation:
ri-ˈjekt
Function:
transitive verb
Etymology:
Middle English, from Latin rejectus, past participle of reicere, from re- + jacere to throw — more at jet
Date:
15th century

1 a: to refuse to accept, consider, submit to, take for some purpose, or use
b: to refuse to hear, receive, or admit : rebuff, repel
c: to refuse as lover or spouse
2 obsolete : to cast off
3: throw back, repulse
4: to spew out
5: to subject to immunological rejection

Personally, denounce sounds a whole lot worse than reject.

Think Hillary wants to edit the New Testament and make sure Peter "rejects" Christ three times instead of "denying"? Just throwing that out there.

[Jeremy]

You have got to be kidding me. You are splitting hairs so finely. Obama did not ask for and did not want Farrakhan's endorsement. Clinton jumped on a chance to make herself look good on a total non-issue and a chance to make Obama look like an anti-Semite. I mean is that what her point was? Wow. To give that point to Clinton is pretty low.

[Kwesi Wilson]

Obama's response was strong and accurate. He is not responsible for what others say about him unless asks them to act as his surrogates. What the voters seek is for the candidates to focus on issues that affectsAmericans and not these cheap shots.

[Julie in Burbank]

Obama DENOUNCED the guy soon as he opened his mouth. Hillary sounded dumb trying to split hairs between denounce and reject because he'd already answered the question. She looked desperate as she has been lately. Very disappointing but I'm happy to vote for Obama. Much better suited.

[MikeinCO]

I watched this debate closely and was amazed at how Clinton seemed so desparate and grasping. Obama kept his head and gave a fine response to the Farrakhan question. It was Clinton who sounded bizarre when, seeing him in the limelight for his statements in support of the Jews and Israel, tried to steal some of it by recalling her own tribulations with anti-semites during her senate campaign. It sounded completely lame and, again, desperate. And now here we are giving HER the credit and questioning Obama's integrity. GIVE ME A BREAK!

[Shami]

Nonsense. What opening? Both candidates voicing the same opinion on this. The next opening must be Hillary complaining about Republican attack machine endorsing Obama instead of attacking.

[Sunny]

Laughable, LA Times, stirring up controversy where there is none.

Let's hope this debate is the last between these two--I'm not certain how much longer the media can drain the pasta on the Obama vs Clinton wars.

[JJ]

I READ THE TRANSCRIPT AND NOW I FIND IT INTERESTING THAT A PRO HILLARY NEWSPAPER SAYS THAT SHE "SCORE SOME POINTS"....BS: PEOPLE STOP READING STUPID REVIEWS AND WATCH THE MOVIE FOR YOURSELVES!

[mona]

The story of little red riding hood comes to mind with Obama's answer to this question when he refers to he is not going to denounce anyone who thinks he is a "good guy."
"My what nice eyes you have Obama....oh...oh...what nice teeth you have Obama..." Hehehe their you have it folks, the possible nominee for the democratic party can't reject someone who says he is a "good guy." Obama are you sure you really shouldn't be a contestant on the "bachelor?"

It also speaks to the fact that Obama doesn't have an original thought and can easily be influenced when he doesn't know what to say.

[jeannemarie]

Well, i completely reject and denouce HRC. Her campaign has been one of the most if not the most tasteless displays of reputation-smearing tactics ever seen. My respect for Sen. Obama has quadrupled after tonight's debate. He demonstrated calmness and coolness under fire. Sen. Obama (hopefully soon to be president-elect Obama) has tirelessly campaigned under duress with courage, grace and restraint. He has demonstrated over and over again he is by far the more qualified candidate. It will be an honor to vote for him in the general election.

[John]

You know, Barack really does not like to talk about much. He's barely said a peep about his positions outside a televised debate. He never does Q&A with his audiences. He whips them into a frency with absurd campaign slogans and goes home. So, the Farrakhan comment rubs me the wrong way from this guy. How hard is it to ourtight reject anything to do with Farrakhan? Why dance around it, it makes no sense. How hard would it be to give an immediate answer if Hitler threw support your way. This guy is getting such a free pass on the most empty campaign in history I don't even know what to say anymore.

[Jason]

definition reject: to refuse to accept or acknowledge.
definition denounce: stigmatize: to accuse or condemn or openly or formally or brand as disgraceful.

Based on the definitions above it seems like denouncing a a stronger rebuke than simply rejecting someone. It is one thing to refuse someones support. Its a much stronger gesture to speak against and condemn then in light of their offer of support.

I like both of them and frankly will support either in the general. However, I don't think Clinton scored any points on that issue.

[Jerome]

I think we should be encouraged that Farrakhan has taken a liking to someone who is part of the mainstream, and who denounces/rejects his own anti-semitic comments. Isn't that an opening to putting an end to it?

Instead of perpetuating conflict, why can't we seek ways to diffuse it?

I think that we would all be better of if the legacy Farrakhan leaves behind is not that of an unapologetic anti-Semite.

[Ray Welnicki]

This is absurd. Denounce means "to condemn or censure" and is a lot stronger than "reject" which means "to refuse an offer". I can easily refuse someone's offer to help me without denouncing them.

[Andrew Smyth]

Obama's first answer was perfectly proper. There is a lot to denounce about Farrakhan and the nation of Islam.
But there is also a lot a Black person should not want to denounce, such as pride in their ancestry and an agenda that Blacks rely on self help, reduce crime, reduce drug pushing, and get the best education possible.
Obama did the best he could with that question---because it was a trap to get him to denounce all of Farrakhan's teachings (when only some of Farrakhan's teachings should be denounced) and to cause him to lose Black votes.

[Cissy H.]

I don't think Obama is the one who needs to consult a dictionary. Denounce has a much more negative connotation than reject does. If you reject me, it might sting a little, but if you denounce me? Then you're not only rejecting me but repudiating what I stand for. I think Obama had it right the first time.

[Jason]

definition reject: to refuse to accept or acknowledge.
definition denounce: stigmatize: to accuse or condemn or openly or formally or brand as disgraceful.

Based on the definitions above it seems like denouncing a a stronger rebuke than simply rejecting someone. It is one thing to refuse someones support. Its a much stronger gesture to speak against and condemn then in light of their offer of support.

I like both of them and frankly will support either in the general. However, I don't think Clinton scored any points on that issue.

[Dain Estes]

Silly, Silly, Silly--------------- How far does anyone have to go to say he isn't thrilled about someone's support. How can anyone get out of Obama's statement that he likes the idea of Farahkan's support. He can denounce or reject it. If the debate between these two words matter to you, you are an idiot. This was the stupidest thing about the debate tonight and there is a story on it. If anyone thinks that Obama's response was anti-semitic (as the story implies), they are idiots. Don Fredrick is a lousy journalist. If you like Don Fredrick's political commentary I denounce you, or reject you, whatever you perfer, as an intelligent human being.--

vote for Don Fredrick to stop writing articles.

[Kevin]

There's a pattern; Obama's willingness to embrace President Ahmadinejad after the Iranian president vowed to blow Israel "off the map." Hedging on criticism of Louis Farrakhan. His willingness to give al Qaeda the victory in Iraq.

[John Cheek]

Oxford American Writers Thesaurus, 1st Edition:

denounce

verb

1 the Pope denounced abortion
condemn, criticize, attack, censure, decry, revile, vilify, discredit, damn, REJECT; proscribe; malign, rail against, run down, slur; informal knock, slam, hit out at, lay into; formal castigate.

[KayTee]

I agree with LX. Obama is careful with words. We "reject" things that are offered to us when we do not want them. We "denounce" people, actions, words that we find objectionable. What was Obama being offered? What was Russert asking him to reject?

[Sailor in the Wind]

-

So what's next on the slime agenda?

Barack is having sex with a black woman?

Hugo Chavez is providing the Obama family with free winter heating oil?

The only card left is the Joker.

~

[Marc Polonsky]

As a Jewish American, I care deeply about this issue. I want to make two points.
1. Obama did not simply parse the word “reject” in his response to Russert; he also affirmed his support for Israel and gave numerous examples of his public rebukes of anti-semitism, but MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY, he invoked historic Jewish-African American alliances, such as the civil rights struggle. This in my view is healthy and unifying political speech.
Clinton, by contrast, highlighted the question of whether Obama was anti-anti-Semitic enough. She implied in her story that she was stronger than Obama in opposing anti-Semitism. That was the extent of her response; it was entirely self-serving; not a smidgeon of public value in it.
2. I don’t think Clinton’s analogy was apt. Who has heard of the “Independence Party”? What resonance or influence could such an organization have had with any significant voting bloc in the state of New York, in the 2000 Senate race? I don’t think Clinton did anything so “courageous” in rejecting their support. On the other hand, Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam have a very mixed and colorful, problematic and occasionally ambiguous symbolic role in African American life. It is a much less clearcut proposition for Obama to categorically denounce everything about Farrakhan and what he represents in this country. I despise the man myself, but I can’t deny the power of an event like the Million Man March. So I do think Obama is required to be a bit more careful vis-a-vis Farrakhan than Clinton had to be vis-a-vis the Independence Party of New York, whoever the heck they are.

[Marks]

The only grief Obama will receive is from reporters on this topic.

Move from it quickly! Farrakhan doesn't rate getting a headline.

Putting Obama's name in the same sentence is a slam.

He's now Obama's Farrakhan, problem.

Nice rant, Obama's answer didn't serve your purpose, he wasn't defending Jewish American's feelings? Are you serious? Jewish Americans shouldn't get Farrakhan a thought to ruin their day.

Obama doesn't have own any opinion about Farrakhan to reject. He's not responsible for that guy in any way.

I just read the whole transcript and that point in their conversation wasn't worth spending time on. They had more substantive topics in their discussion.

[Jesse_wi]

Don Frederick is clearly a Hillary supporter and also delusional. I watched the very same debate and saw a different view from what is posted in this article. Even the crowd applauded at Barack's response.

And to all those whom continue to belittle Barack by calling by the name "osama", you should be ashamed of yourselves. This is America and your actions are very Un-American.

[Jonathan]

This is an embarassing column. Perhaps you should check a dictionary. "Denouncing" someone's views is clearly stronger than mearly "rejecting" them, and there was no specific support offered by Farrakhan for Obama to reject. So he spoke with intelligence and proper English, Clinton replied with silly "gotcha!" politics, and look who you feel for.

[Mike Hunter]

Oh, please - he's a Harvard Grad. He KNOWS there is a difference between "DENOUNCE" and "REJECT"... He only changed his tune when he was called on it. Unfortunately, Obama is being given a free ride, that is until he gets the nomination, then the gloves will come off and the sh*# will hit the fan - then everyone will see they've purchased a ball of fluff. Hopefully people will realize this deception sooner than later and Clinton will win... otherwise the republicans may well pull it off again... and if you doubt that... who ever thought Bush would win a second term...

[Aron]

In a speech at Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church, where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.served as pastor, Barack Obama talked about the existence of institutional racism, the sensationalizing of race "by the media" and the creeping of race as an issue into the presidential campaign.

But Obama's speech will likely be remembered for his calling on the black community to do its part to fight homophobia, anti-Semitism and xenophobia.
"the scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community," and "for too long, some of us have seen the immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity."

[David TX]

Merriam-Webster dictionary says:

Denounce = to pronounce especially publicly to be blameworthy or evil.

Reject = to refuse to accept, consider, submit to, take for some purpose, or use.

There could be two reasons for not seeing a difference between the two words:
1. Lack of proficiency in English language. This, I doubt is the reason.
2. Obama probably didn't care much for Farakkan's support, and Obama might have been thinking of why he doesn't care about it. That is, Farakkan's anti-civilized behavior. So, denounciation was more important and came up first in the process.

But it is a shame that Clinton couldn't pronounce the name of the Russian president. If she is elected president... meeting between Hillary and Medvedev...

Hillary: Good Morning president Whatever. How are you?

You fill in the rest.

[john]

As a Jewish American, I resent the author's presumption that Obama's answer was "probably not the answer most Jewish Americans wanted to hear." This is nonsense. Obama's answer was sensible and appropriate. Clinton was splitting hairs to try to win points with a few organizational leaders, but it certainly didn't persuade me that there is a meaningful difference between them.

[Rob]

The bigger issue in my opinion is that if your pastor shares some of Farakahn's views and in fact honored him a year ago, is that a church or spiritual leader you would seek counsel from? Not saying that Obama is anti-Semitic but perhaps another example of exercising bad judgment.

[Nate W]

It's interesting that I can't find anything on the internet indicating Obama's denouncement of Farrakhan before last month -- though the Trinity United Church of Christ, which awarded its lifetime achievement award to Farrakhan gave it to him last November.

It appears he didn't see a need to distance himself from Farrakhan until recently -- and still hasn't denounced his association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright -- his black nationalist pastor, who is close to Farrakhan, and to whom Obama has much closer entanglements.

[Evelyn, Austin Texas]

On this and many issues the Jr. Senator of Illinois is not held to the same standard of examination as is Senator Hillary Clinton. It is as if the moderators are afraid of going after him because he is the first African American running for President yet feel no such intimidation of going after the more Senior Senator from New York--though she is the first woman to ever run for President of the United States.

[Mike]

Since when is it anti-semitic to be anti-Israel? We need a lot more 'anti-semites' in America.

[hillsangles]

I think it's tme to reject the 'Obama' notion..
and his magic potion....

:) hill 08

[john]

If "reject" is a stronger word that "DENOUNCE", then I'll concede the point."

Hillary failed.

[Bystander]

I find it amusing how the demo's are arguing over things such as this. It's amazing to me. It's entertaining to watch them drag up each others dirt. It would be more interesting if the repub's were doing it but members of their own team? It's more splintered than the repubs side.

[David]

Dictionary:

Reject = to refuse to accept (someone or something); rebuff.

Denounce = To condemn openly as being evil or reprehensible.

[Steven Wilson]

Now if Hillary Clinton gets endorsed by the Ku Klux Klan......and doesn't slam the endorsement......you can just about bet Barack Obama will be slapping her around in the press too.

Farrakhan is a straight up rascist. Obama needs to grow some between his legs and say so. The KKK are a bunch of rascists as well as Farrakhan. Farrakhans sheet is just another color with a different torch.

[Dave]

Guys,

I think it is indicative of by how far Obama won the debate that this is the exchange featured in criticism of Obama.

If Tim Russert in the question highlighted that the Obama campaign had already denounced the remark (as Obama mentioned) did everything they can to distance themselves from it than there would be no reason for this question.

What should Obama do, go on a 5 minute rant on how bad Farakhan is, the guy answered the question in the first few words. Should he instead of giving the most truthful AND strongest answer that he denounces the support, should he have opted for the one that is neither but the most politically correct saying "reject."

He answered the question appopriately, his job is not to spent the whole debate talking about what he doesn't like about Farakhan. You guys are basically saying if he gave the more popular, less honest, less strong answer of just using the incorrect word that would mean he would be more truthful of his feelings towards Farakhan and against anti-semitism?

The real question should be why this question was asked when Obama has denounced Farakhan's views publicaclly for 13 years now, has no association with him and rejecting the possibility Farkahan would be at any of his events or being parrt of his campaign, and renounced the endorsement? He should of just been asked his thoughts on it.

One last point. Please take a chance to look through those short interviews New York Times does with a dozen random voters in each of these states....please look at what % of the women that vote for Hillary stress their main reason as how important it is we have a women's president, seniors saying how important it is to have a women's president before they die and she is their last chance and the whole excitement of having a woman president. This movement existed before Hillary announced she would run publicaly or had any platform of idea or any opponents arise...and by the way Women make up close to 60% of Democratic voters....

Now the women that knowing nothing about her platform or opponents would vote for her because it is important to have a woman's president are not giving an "equal opportunity" to this opponent a black male that they would have to under equal opportunity laws at any company in america.

I don't think a single woman that is voting for Hillary because they feel they must be loyal to women, and create the unintended consequence of a black male opponent being overlooked are better than Farakhan feeling Obama is superior because of his race.

I am Jewish, but look at anti-semitism equal to discrimination of any group. I look at a woman that is biased against a male candidate the same as a white person that is biased against a black candidate, or biased against a Jewish person.

If the LA Times and those reading this are serious about improving race relations, religion relations, ending discrimination we can't support or publish pieces like this that are all about bickering and trying to pull straws here.

I as a strong Obama supporter feel Hillary's campaign is morally corrupt...I saw this first hand volunteering in Nevada and seeing all the violations Hillary's supporters had at caucus locations, and in Hillary's campaign. I saw this in her approach to Florida, Michigan, Superdelegates, lying saying she won (the most delegates) Super Tuesday when it was clear by then she didn't. I also thing Obama is an amazing candidate..Nonetheless when I get upset about Hillary's tactics I don't post on blogs that by doing some dirty politics towards Obama this shows she is racist towards black people by denying a black candidate an equal chance. I think this would be the same regardless of who she is running against.

Lets talk about real race issues in this country, not fabricate them. I think every single person in the audience at Cleveland State University was satisfied with Obama's response...maybe some people can be confused when it is quoted in print, broken up but to those that saw it they saw otherwise. By the laughter at Obama's response, they were laughing at the ridiculousness of the question Hillary asked him, and this isn't mentioned in the article.

And by Obama renouncing this immediately he didn't beat around the bush like Hillary's answers or worry that if he answered trutfully he would have now this enemy that is the #2 figure in black america, and leader of a major religion. He reounced it, explained his personal reason he didn't like Farakhan, that was it...it wouldn't have been appropriate to turn this into a 5 minute rant on Farakhan.

If you really think that his response alienates the jews (the group you seem concerned about here) ask the heads of major jewish groups if they were somehow upset he didn't say reject right away.

Do you guys realize if he just said "Yes, I reject this endorsement" this whole issue would go away and he would be taking less of a strong position than what he did by renouncing it, and explaining his reasoning why. What would you guys be writing then?

Look, Obama just did much better...to not seem biased your paper doesn't need to fabricate negative stories about Obama's performance to have an equal number as Hillarys.

[Joseph]

"He needs to check a dictionary on that."

Or maybe Don Frederick needs to. In the context of Farrakhan's statement praising Obama, what's the difference between refusing to accept it or dissaproving of it (reject) and speaking out against it (denounce)? Answer: no significant difference. In fact, if anything, denouncing someone arguably goes further than merely not accepting them. If Mr. Frederick thinks otherwise, I'd appreciate a post from him explaining it to the rest of us.

[tom]

an opening?? we all watched the debate..he denounced lewie..give me a break..how much israeli ass kissing does a canidate have to do in this race..to become president of the..UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

[r. b. slade]

You say "witness the 1995 Million Man March" to show the importance of Farrakhan. The United States Park Police officially estimated the crowd size at 400,000, so if you are going to use it as a reference, call it what it was "The 400,000 Man March".

[Go Vegetarian!]

If Obama has indeed "rejected" anti-Semitic, anti-Israel types, and if he is not all talk and if he believes that his actions speak louder than words, one would assume that he will no longer be attending a church that "In December 2007, the Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) bestowed its highest social achievement award upon Louis Farrakhan, the head of the Nation of Islam." Right? Or is the difference between talk and action the same as the difference between "renouncing" and "rejecting"?

[jeannemarie]

Well, I completely reject and denouce HRC. Her campaign has been one of the most if not the most tasteless displays of reputation-smearing tactics ever seen. My respect for Sen. Obama has quadrupled after tonight's debate. He demonstrated calmness and coolness under fire. Sen. Obama (hopefully soon to be president-elect Obama) has tirelessly campaigned under duress with courage, grace and restraint. He has demonstrated over and over again he is by far the more qualified candidate. It will be an honor to vote for him in the general election.

[Jon]

Bravo Steve! Indeed, Obama's last name *is* quite similar to the word Osama! Somebody needs to notify the American people pronto. Just imagine what other words his name might look like that brilliant minds like Steve's haven't even thought of yet! How insidious...

[Amjad Khan]

Mr. Frederick has got it all wrong. He needs to read the dictionary again:

http://miscablogger.blogspot.com/2008/02/denounce-v-reject.html

[Jon]

Sorry Steve..I suppose that would be Pat with the mind blowing insights...

[jeff richards]

Obama's personal minister is where he will run into trouble, I think. I don't have bigots as friends.

[binary star]

You guys obviously didn't get enough to talk about from this debate. This is really the best you can do? An argument of semantics? Let's hope we don't have to read various interpretations of this all day tomorrow.

[Laylah]

I've been quite disturbed since I heard about Farrakan's endorsement on Sunday. It's strange that I only saw reference to it once, when CNN ran a very short clip about it. I've been wondering why there hasn't been more about it in the press.
I would have been a lot more comfortable had Obama given a more direct response right off the bat, during the first minute,. I hoped that he would be a lot harsher on "the Black Hitler." Beating around the bush was not the best way to denounce/ reject him.
I'm an Obama supporter, but I've been a Jew a lot longer.

[John]

No doubt about it, the Jeremiah Wright connection makes this newsworthy. Bush's evangelical meetings have shown Americans the influence religious figures can play in an administration. Barack, by his own admission, is close to Mr. Wright, who has shown great admiration for Farakhan. When you consider Nader's comments on MTP regarding Sen. Obama's "flip flop" on the Israel-Palestine conflict, it's not a stretch to in some capacity, rightly or wrongly, question his support of Israel.

Now all that being said, I'm just calling it like I see it and explaining the conclusion voters are likely to reach. What I hope comes of this is the realization by Americans that it is possible to criticize Israel without automatically being labeled as anti-semetic. Some of the most vocal critics of US/Israeli policy are Jews, but this hot button issue with very far reaching consequences in the ME is treated with kid gloves.

[Manny]

Excellent point to corner him Hilary. That's why I admire you. Obsma is obvisly tryng to gain votes. No matter how hateful peole is. We need you in the white house Hillary!

[Ismail Saadiq]

I think this shows what Obama really is? He is closer to such fanatics, and God forbid if he becomes President, we are going to dance to their tunes. These hate mongers have no place in our democracy. If Obama cannot differentiate between rejection and denunciation than he must go back to law school. I am scared even to think of him being our President.

[Mike H]

I think that if you rejected every candidate who was endorsed by someone disagreeable, you'd have nobody left to vote for.

[Adr]

I think some people need to learn how to use a dictionary. In fact, denounce is a stronger statement than reject. Denounce means condemn something publicly as veil or evil.
http://www.answers.com/topic/denounce

While reject simply means that you simply do not accept an offer, not necessarily because it is veil or evil, but maybe just because you have no need for it.
http://www.answers.com/topic/reject

That was the point of the comment Obama made that he can't reject something since nothing was offered, but he will denounce Farrakhan's statements. It was a nice lesson in linguistics there from Obama, obviously completely lost on Clinton. And to think that her husband so eloquently argued about the meaning of "is"...

[oiilii mio]

we will not find the map of " Islael" if "Hussien Obama" win...

[TK]

I thought there were some legitimate things to call into question in Obama's performance -- but I thought he handled the Farrakhan issue well enough. Clinton seemed determined to play a somewhat childish appearing game of doubles and Obama finally relented. He seems to get somewhat exasperated with childishness. But he's going to have to get used to that as leader of the Free World.

[booya]

Americans are not to bet rusted to elect officials for their government. LOOK AT GWB!!!! He ran on a platform of family and change. He was and still is completley inexperienced in foreign policy, look what he has done. So you want to put another inexperienced buffoon in office because Hillary seems to tough? Get real America, the decisions you make affect therest of the world too. Hillary should be President and Obama her running mate. She would have the experience, and he could be their to guide her to change..... common sense, which your people seem to lack.

[Rodrigo]

This post is silly and indicative of the extreme childishness of contemporary US politics. People don't care about issues anymore... We prefer a dumbed-down back & forth about issues that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the major issues facing America today.

[Rodrigo]

This post is silly and indicative of the extreme childishness of contemporary US politics. People don't care about issues anymore... We prefer a dumbed-down back & forth about issues that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the major issues facing America today.

[David]

Farrakhan has been a victim of white racism in his life. He has never advocated for anyone to do harm to whites and Jews. In fact, this country is anti-Jewish! After World War II, America rejected 500,000 European Jews (victims of the holocaust) because of anti-semitism. They would not let them in this country; consequently, the US and Great Britain set up the Balfour Agreement that stole Palestine (Israel) from the Palestinians. Furthermore, rich and influential White Americans are the true anti-semites when you consider how they stole the election from Gore/ Liebermann. Just think, they could not stand to have a Jew one heartbeat away from the presidency. In conclusion, white America and the media apparatus should shut their mouths when it comes to racism. Let us not forget the despicable plight of the Native Americans in this country. I believe these acts of outright murder and subjugation put whites in no moral position to condemn anyone.

[JohnQ]

And the LA Times will of course immediately "reject and denounce" Farrakhan and associates for any support through unsolicited purchasing of their newspapers. etc, etc.

What a load of drivel. Actively stirring up religious intolerance and hatred like this reveals desperation by Clinton (and this site). If Farrakhan is racist, why get down in that gutter with him?

[NinaK]

Mr. Obama was confident, calm, clear, concise, and to the point! He certainly exemplified those traits we want in our President. On foreign relations, I think Mr. Obama won big time!! Talking about being against the Iraq War when he was running for U.S. Senator and how he made the right call; then when asked about "bombing" Pakistan; he reminded us all that he had stated that if Bin Laden and terrorists were hiding in Pakistan, he would take action with or without the Pakistan leaders OK. (My words, but same thing). He had gotten a lot of criticism for making that statement, especially from Hillary. He also reminded us that Mr. Bush had done just that and had gotten the #3 Alquida by using a drone. I thought his reply was absolutely priceless. Hillary seemed to be surprised!!

Hillary tends to "hog" debate time. She never answers the questions directly, she runs around in circles and talking about how she'll "fight" everything and everybody and goes off in tangents. Somebody, quick, please get her some boxing gloves and a helmet!!

Just looked at a poll, in which you can vote, on Newsday, Subject: "Who Will Win the Democrat Nomination:

Mr. Obama: 21,572 responses for a 68.5% vote!!

Hillary: 9,891 responses for a 31.5% vote

TOTAL VOTES: 31,463

[Rocky]

Why not ask AIPAC what they think of Obama?

"Almost unanimously, American Jewish leaders say Obama's voting record and public pronouncements paint him squarely as an Israel supporter. "Senators Clinton, Obama, McCain and Governor Huckabee have demonstrated their support for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship," AIPAC president Howard Friedman wrote to Newsweek. (AIPAC says all three senators have strong congressional voting records on issues important to the U.S.-Israel relationship.) "

[Olga]

Dear LA Times! I love your fair commentary on the debate. You are quickly becoming a more trusted source of news for me than the NYT. Thank you for respecting Hillary, believing in her, and not mindlessly becoming an Obama follower.

[NinaK]

Mr. Obama was confident, calm, clear, concise, and to the point! He certainly exemplified those traits we want in our President. On foreign relations, I think Mr. Obama won big time!! Talking about being against the Iraq War when he was running for U.S. Senator and how he made the right call; then when asked about "bombing" Pakistan; he reminded us all that he had stated that if Bin Laden and terrorists were hiding in Pakistan, he would take action with or without the Pakistan leaders OK. (My words, but same thing). He had gotten a lot of criticism for making that statement, especially from Hillary. He also reminded us that Mr. Bush had done just that and had gotten the #3 Alquida by using a drone. I thought his reply was absolutely priceless. Hillary seemed to be surprised!!

Hillary tends to "hog" debate time. She never answers the questions directly, she runs around in circles and talking about how she'll "fight" everything and everybody and goes off in tangents. Somebody, quick, please get her some boxing gloves and a helmet!!

Just looked at a poll, in which you can vote, on Newsday, Subject: "Who Will Win the Democrat Nomination:

Mr. Obama: 21,572 responses for a 68.5% vote!!

Hillary: 9,891 responses for a 31.5% vote

TOTAL VOTES: 31,463

[captbilly]

Does anyone really care about this garbage? I bet Clinton, McCain and Obama have supporters who are registered sex offenders, rapists, drug dealers, etc. Should they make a point of saying that they don't want such support?

Much more importantly this country has much bigger issues to deal with than the New York Times endorsing McCain or Ferricon endorsing Obama. Perhaps it would be inappropriate to take their money, though in both cases none was offered, but to go out of their way to say they reject the support, that's just stupid.

Why does the news media want so badly to create controversy where none really exists? Let's see why would the news media want to create... a contoversy... where none exists.....

[Sprezzatura]

And Hillary kissed Suha Arafat, also a Jew hater.

[Minna]

I thought Obama was clear, unlike Hillary who remains evasive on releasing her financial and White House records.

[Prabhata]

Obama was ambivalent about Farrakhan's endorsement for the simple fact that he has the votes from 70 to 90 percent of the African American voters. To denounce and reject Farrkhan might alienate some of those voters, but he cannot have it both ways. Farrakhan is a divisive figure, and Obama is after the same group of people that Bush reached in 2000 with his campaign as a 'uniter not a divider".

[Skeeteraye]

I think that it is without merit for you to say that Senator Obama tried to hedge his response to Russert about Minister Farrakhan support for him. Senator Obama was understood by those of us that were watching the debate, knew exactly, what he was saying. As an American I find it mighty objectionable to attempt to tie a man or woman to comments of others. It is very strange that "I" have never heard any of these journalists demand that other Jewish leaders denounce another Jewish leader, why is that! I don't recall reading anywhere that there were any Jews being asked to denounce Michael Richards for his bigoted tirade against American Blacks.

SKEETERAYE

[Goon]

if we're going to call out Barack Obama because his pastor may not like Jewish people, does that mean we get to ask Clinton's pastor what they think of homosexuality?

have we been reduced to judging people by their spiritual advisor, whose views on such matters have nothing to do with whatever passages from the Bi(b)le they read that week?

[Matt]

I posted this on another blog and I'll post it here...If any Clinton or McCain supporters don't consider that Obama is also white, born and raised American then they represent some sort of deep-seated racism.

[Ed]

Interestingly - denounce is pretty obviously a much stronger condemnation than rejecting someone's support which wasn't asked for in the first place. Look up denounce in the dictionary - it's pretty clearly worse, in particular as it discusses the implication of something denounced being evil. People can try to spin this however they want, but he made it clear that he doesn't support Farrakhan - and there is no evidence otherwise.

[MLE]

Will Hillary publicly denounce and reject the support of those who won't vote for Barack because he is black and/or perceive him to be Muslim?? By the looks of her blog supporters there go 40% of her votes there.

[David Forsythe]

A shallow attempt by LA Times to inject some good into what was a petty display by Clinton. Tonight was the clear separation of a leader from a frustrated loser.

[Bees]

I felt very uncomfortable about Obama's answer to the Farrakhan question. I don't understand why he didn't immediately reject Farrakhan's support outright. Why the waffling and parsing?

[Elise]

Desperate Desperate Desperate Desperate!!!!!

It's clear someone is getting their talking points against Hillary from the media. I hate how one-sided the terminology used to describe the candidates is when used to cover two worthy opponents.

And as Democrats, we should worry about the relationship between Obama and Jeremiah Wright of the Trinity United Church of Christ. Their current newsletter has a glowing article about Farrakhan. My dad sent me an email and I was sure it was an Urban Legend because he sends me ones all the time that are totally false, like Obama's a secret muslim etc. But I'm a researcher for a living and I checked it out and it's all true.

And Obama didn't initially say that he denounced "Farrakhan"...only that he denounced his anti-semetic statements. There is a difference between saying "hey, I don't believe in some of what the guy say's but it's a free country and I'm not going to stop him for endorsing me"...and saying "I reject the support of the obvious racist Farrakhan!"

Clinton did a good job of pointing that out. She had an actual point...and listen folks, I'm liberal as hell and I was worried about some of what I read on Obama's church website...what will middle America think when he's up against McCain in the general election? I fear it won't be pretty. Can we say "Swiftboat" anyone?

[chris vant]

I think BHO actually admires Farrakhan in the same way his Pastor Wright admires him and gave Farrakhan an award as a leader. From an article on the subject...

Obama's spiritual advisor and Pastor of his church, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a man who prayed with Obama just before the Illinois senator announced his run for the presidency, gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness."

[Michelle]

Re: "probably ... not the answer most Jewish Americans wanted to hear."

I am a Jewish American and don't appreciate the author(s?) of this piece writing generalizations about what "most" of us want to hear or not.

I myself feel that there were some coded dynamics in that exchange in the debate. Specifically, I feel that Senator Clinton pushed a point that was far deeper, more complex, and uglier than what might show on the surface.

I feel she used "Jewish Americans" as a shield and stand-in -- as an object for her to hide behind to implicitly (but with plausible deniability) question Senator Obama's loyalties to white people overall.

I feel that what she did was an example of a certain type of white Christian anti-Semitism that is very subtle, pretty powerful -- and to me, very painful.

I feel that Senator Obama handled a very ugly situation gracefully and with dignity in all of his answers on the topic.

I also feel angry and upset that he had to "handle" such ugliness at all. I wish I could extend my apologies to him for what Senator Clinton did in using my people as she did.

For the record, she did not have this Jew's permission to use us as I think she did. As far as I'm concerned, the shame about anti-Semitism in that exchange is squarely on Senator Clinton, for aggressively playing the ugly game that she played and using us that way.

[Chris]

Bottom line: Obama said he didn't like Farrakhan's anti-semitic comments, but danced around and refused to flat out say he did not want the support of Farrakhan and his anti-semitic followers until Hillary put him on the spot. That says something about him.

[Steve]

For those confused over the meaning of these two words consider this example. Perhaps, if Hillary had rejected Bill's help, she'd be doing better. Naturally, she wouldn't want to denounce him. Thats going a bit too far.

[Raoul Butler]

The Question 'Do you support Louis Farrakhan?'

Obama's answer should have been ...

If Louis Farrakhan support is about bringing his politics to the table, No I Don't support him.
But if he endorses my politics then yes I would support him and that would require some changes in his ideas.

[Marks]

I again completely reject title of this post.

Obama's Farrakhan isn't fair! Change the title of this post because its going to linger a long time on this list.

Obama doesn't own anything of Farrakhan to reject and it shouldn't be suggested he has to answer questions about him.

What's the thought, Obama's black, from Chicago and with a Muslim name has to comment on Farrakhan's slanted views. Has to stop Farrakhan from making biased statements.

That's not his role and reporters are framing him to do it.

Reporters go ahead and challenge Farrakhan because you want to. Don't demand that of Obama.

[thereandhere]

Obama's response was excellent. The LA Times "writer" needs to focus on substantive issues, not manufactured tripe. And Tim Russert ought to consider a permanent position with his pal Imus.

[Carl Williams]

Please read the transcript of what Obama said and what the moderator and Clinton response are.

Obama wasn't strong enought to state that he "rejected the *support* of this mad man. Instead, he simply stated that he thought that the *comments* that his mad man made were unacceptable and reprehensible. Obama never stated that HE DID NOT want this mad man support.

The issue that the moderator and then Clinton wanted to hear from Obama was "Does Obama reject the *support* of this mad man". Obama danced around this initially and only when conored Obama then tried to imply that the moderator and Clinton were splitting hairs. THEY WEREN"T.

Clinton made a stronger statement and didn't hedge her bets with her experience. She came out and not only stated that these comments made by this anit-semetic party in NY were wrong but went a step further and stated that SHE DOES NOT WANT the support from these anti-semtics - She rejects their *SUPPORT*.

That is the issue and Obama failed in a MAJOR WAY. Those who don't think that this is important or somehow think that this is splitting hairs really need examine the debate transcript and think harder. This is an extremely important issue.

Now I like both candidates alot but my respect toward Obama's crediability had gone down a notch or two. This is unfortunate but this was an excellent question and the moderator had an excellent follow-up question and then Clinton really conored him on his behavior.

[Miles Long]

Marc Polonsky hit the nail on its head when he wrote of Obama: "he invoked historic Jewish-African American alliances, such as the civil rights struggle. This in my view is healthy and unifying political speech."

As an African-American I too noticed that comment and found it poignant. For decades I have yearned and indeed hoped for a return of the pre-COINTELPRO days when there was a strong link between Jewish and African-American communities.

Having a US president who believes that hope can self-actualize results is the reason why Obama has my vote.

Hopefully there a lot of us Jewish and African-American voters who caught his message.

[D]

Denounce is more condemning than reject.

For instance, if a guy asks a girl out, she can reject him or she can denounce him. Which of these things is worse?

[alex]

This bickering over semantics is ridiculous, and the only party benefiting from this is the Republican Party. The Democrats should find a way to quickly unite efforts instead of doing the dirty work for GOP.

[dfs]

Does anybody remember the Sister Soulja incident when Clinton first ran for President? This ultra-radical rapper endorsed him, he immediately stated that her support was neither wanted nor needed. He was a bit brutal to the old girl, but it was a pivotal moment in his campaign: he used this incident to signal to moderates of both parties that it was okay to vote for him. Sometimes it's necessary for a candidate to make it clear what he/she isn't, as well as what he is. The problem is that neither Barak nor Hillary have done this, they're so busy trying to be all things to all people that nobody is quite sure who they are. Barak had the golden opportunity for a Defining Moment handed him, and he blew it. Rookie mistake.

[lennybruce [at] thru-other-eyes.com]

When two candidates are so close to each other on policy but differ greatly on style, and when one is beginning to lose the battle, the only alternative is to look at everything thru a microscope. And of course looking thru a microscope distorts the reality. So too this debate over Farrakhan. Clearly an anti-semite and he should be denounced for that. But on the other hand, no person is uni-dimensional and Farrakhan has meant a great deal to many African Americans and that can not be ignored. This debate over 'denounce' versus 'reject' is juvenile.

[Don]

"If you are under 13 years of age you may read this message board, but you may not participate."

Apparently, this doesn't prohibit someone under 13 years of age from writing and contributing articles like this one. Did someone actually get paid to write this ad?

This is quite possibly one of the LOWEST and most WORTHLESS articles "related" to the campaign.

[Grant]

I think this new bent on painting Obama as not for but could be touched by some nefarious niche to be chilling in its hidden motivations and blatant playing on people's worst instincts.

One post on this article calls obama osama.......pretty low and disgusting. If that is what the race has come down to, I think Hillary winning the nomination at this point would make many of us walk away from the process in toto sickened at what went in for her to grab her brass ring.........When people indirectly affiliated with Hillary made negative ads did she reject or denounce them, of course not, its all a wink and a nudge.

[Greg Van Curen]

Obama reminds me slick Willy. He is the most racist candidate I have ever seen. He hates white and latino people. He hides it very well. He will divide America and destroy our economy with his far left views. Wake up people and see the truth, he is a selfish, power seeking evil person.

[threedee]

either you accept or reject ..it's that simple

Obama did not initially reject Farrakhan , he denounced the stand Farrakhan took, he did not reject his endorsement

BIG DIFFERENCE

[Jeremy]

I thought Obama handled himself well on this question. I agree with the other comments here that Hillary Clinton is grasping for straws. I am a conservative that has no party. The Republicans (especially McCain) and Democrats are for all intents and purposes equal. They both support big government and with that they support the "nanny state".

That said, if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee I will most certainly vote for McCain. I can't stand her and the things she represents. I am so sick and tired of Clintonian politics that I will do anything in my power to make sure she does not become the next POTUS.

If Obama is the Democratic nominee I would consider voting for him. He is inspirational and he represents the next generation. He represents moving past divisions and trying to unifying us. Reaching across the party divide to help heal the mistakes of the last ten years.

[Arthur]

This "Farrakhan issue" is the perfect example of why Clinton is a DIVIDER while Obama is a UNITER.

Hillary Clinton and her supporters think that she scored a major point by showing how swift she would be in "rejecting" the support of a controversial figure.

The truth is that making enemies, and reinforcing the position of your enemies, is the act of a DIVIDER, while a UNITER understands that one should condemn the crime, but not the criminal.

Louis Farrakhan is CORRECT when he suggests that Obama would be a great leader. Even the most repugnant individuals can be RIGHT some of the time, and Obama is correct in defending Farrakhan's right to support Obama's candidacy, even if Obama does not agree with Farrakhan's philosophies.

Just because a person has WRONG VIEWS, it does not mean that the person is wrong ALL THE TIME. If a "wrong person" happens to be right some of the time, they SHOULD be applauded for being right when they happen to be right.

The Farrakhan question was an ambush, and it was a loaded question, of the same ilk as "Are you still beating your wife?" By saying "no" you are admitting that you beat your wife in the past, even though it may not be true.

By "rejecting" Farrakhan's support, Obama would be implying that Farrakhan is WRONG for supporting him, when fact Farrakhan is RIGHT for supporting Obama.

This is exactly the same tactic Clinton used when Obama praised Reagan for uniting most of the country. Because Reagan is a "wrong person," suggests Clinton, how can he ever be "right"? Ergo, Obama must be "wrong" for suggesting that Reagan ever was "right".

It's the same old divisive politics of yesteryear. I'm SO sick of it. I used to think that if Hillary won the nomination, I'd vote for her in the general election. Now, I'm not so sure. It's a good thing I'll never have to make that decision.

[Gordian Kankiko]

Are the candidates running out of ideas or what? Why dwell on divisive issues? Let the moderators come up with useful questions like, "How do you intend to support Africa when you are president?"

[BL NYC]

Thank you so much for writing this story. Seems like you are the only one not, trying to protect the golden one... This is a VERY important issue people... Not only does this give potential indication of how Mr. Obama feels, it shows how he can not handle issues unless they are verbally rehearsed.
THINK STRAIGHT PEOPLE...

[AmericaRules]

Farrakhan should run for vice president. He couldn't be any worse than Cheney.
Maybe we'll see a photo of him presenting some foreign leader with a bean pie.
That would be classic (monument material) :-D

[Emlyn]

Denounce, reject; nobody CARES. The media makes such a song and dance about a trifling. Is Israel really SO afraid for its future that it'll swing its vote for the president of the United States based on a technicality of language?

You're all obsessed with somehow proving that Barack Obama has ulterior motives in his run for the presidency.

Enough. Go report some news, and stop trying to create it.

[Mark]

How can such a smart man be such a light weight?

[succubus_demon]

Farrakhan will seem like a moderate with Michelle Obama in the White House.
The democrats seem to think a candidate can be elected that is more uncomfortable wearing an American flag pin, than denouncing the support from an avowed anti-semite.

[ChiJim]

And so the Clinton War Machine fires up. This is a crazy point Billary is attempting to make. Obama should have worked in "it depends on what your definiton of "is" is."

[Olden Atwoody]

If the vocal hate mongers actually ever listened to Rev. Farrakhan - completely though some of his speeches - they might be surprised. The Nation of Islam has some fundamental issues that need to be addressed. Their struggle for equality and justice is as important as the struggle of the Jews.

What is unfortunate is the divisiveness between two groups that actually have very much in common.

If Rev. Farrakhan endorses any candidate, and encourages the Black vote, good for him.

No one is 100% wrong all the time. Except maybe Hillary.

[Nomo Stew]

Judging by this exchange, I prefer Obama's vision of how America works. We have differences, and yet we figure out how to work together, as opposed to requiring that everyone share the same PC vision. I still have more confidence in Hillary's ability to start solving the problems the First Idiot has left us, but I get Obama's appeal a bit more now.

[Delaware]

Unlike some whites aka liberal whites I am not scared to be called racist.And it will show how cowardly some whites are by voteing for a man who before running for president,had a history of attacking whites and supporting groups who are out to destroy whites.Obama is a man who speeches are not of his own,the same people that wrote MLK speeches are the same ones writeing Obamas.Remember hope and change are only words so stop being brain washed you zombies.This man is a sick racist and,news like cnn aka communist news network hides these facts.But if lib whites vote for him it also gose to show how sick ill brain washed whites have become by hate groups like the NAACP and their coherts.The statements his church has said about whites like whites being devils and whites deserved 9/11,only gose to show his personality.Oh he was a civil rights activist so what, rights for blacks never has he supported other minorities.Oh he has a white mom so what that dose'nt prove he int racist.My nephew has a white mom but hes racist against whites.Obamas a racist hes a member of a church that pledge allegiance black power and Africa.His church is the exact version of the KKK for blacks a racist black church.Don't give me that change shit and hope shit,they are words only.Obama speeches are brain washing he is running a secret racist black agenda,and giveing speeches like hitler.Yes he can communicate and give good speeches but tell him to write his own and stop haveing the NAACP write them for him.

[Mr Judgment]

Don Frederick,

Give it break. Clinton got pasted for splitting hairs on that. Remember how she got laughed at on his final answer. I think you got several similar reviews in this blog. Maybe you should think before you write.

Overall, did someone say something about the smell of desperation in HRC last night? It's gonna get ugly from here.

Obama is a natural born leader. How handled her vitriol is why he'll do better as president than hrc who wants to mire Washington with her "fighting" nature.

Until almost the end of Clintons response on this Farrakhan non issue, I thought she was agreeing and commiserating with Obama. That she too had been backed in the past by groups she wanted nothing to do with. That she too viewed abhorred anti-Semitism. Instead she parses the definition of words in an attempt to somehow take the high road and score some points. Does it remind anyone about Bill’s previous expeditions with the English language in trying to redefine words? The debate moderator was so surprised by the answer that he had to confirm that indeed Clinton was trying to make political capital on this. I found it hardly to be an opening for Clinton, but rather to be the sounds of her campaign closing.