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

[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.