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

[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.