denounce or reject: there is a difference...

Obama supporters, and I include the MSM in this, are making a big deal out of Tim Russert's question to Senator Obama in Tuesday night's debate about Louis Farrakhan giving his support to the senator. Farrakhan has a long history of making anti-semitic remarks and the question was based on these statements. There also is a long history of resentment and anti-semitism in the African-American community, of which, to his credit, Mr. Obama has pledged to bring that gap to a close.

For anyone who didn't see the debate or doesn't recall it, the question was,

"On Sunday, the headline in your hometown paper, Chicago Tribune: 'Louis Farrakhan backs Obama for president at Nation of Islam convention in Chicago.' Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?

Senator Obama chose to answer that he denounced Minister Farrakhan's anti-semitic remarks.

You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can't censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we're not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.

Russert followed up with

"Do you reject his support?"

Obama continued to parse on the word denounce.

"Well, Tim, you know, I can't say to somebody that he can't say that he thinks I'm a good guy. I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements, and I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments."

Russert persisted on the word reject. Mrs. Clinton shared that when she ran for the Senate from New York, she was approached by a very anti-semitic group that told her that they would throw their support to her as long as she took certain stands. She rejected the group outright.

The final statement by Mr. Obama was

Tim, I have to say I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word "reject" Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word "denounce," then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.

There is a huge difference between denounce and reject and I don't think Obama, if he understood the difference, would have really wanted to go the way he did. He would have been better off to say reject and left it at that.

So, let's look at the import of the differences between the two words and the impact of them on the question and the answers.

reject (rĭ-jěkt') tr.v. re·ject·ed, re·ject·ing, re·jects
1. To refuse to accept, submit to, believe, or make use of.
2. To refuse to consider or grant; deny.
3. To refuse to recognize or give affection to (a person).
4. To discard as defective or useless; throw away.

denounce (dĭ-nouns')
tr.v. de·nounced, de·nounc·ing, de·nounc·es
1. To condemn openly as being evil or reprehensible. See Synonyms at criticize.
2. To accuse formally.
3. To give formal announcement of the ending of (a treaty).

- American Heritage Dictionary

The Catholic church denounced Martin Luther because they believed him reprhensible and evil to question its authority. They rejected his 95 Theses as defective because the theses questioned dogma and belief.

Mr. Obama made a value judgment about Minister Farrakhan. In effect, Obama said that the minister was evil and reprehensible. He would have been better off saying that he refused to accept (rejected) Farrakhan's support. Now, Obama runs the risk of alienating a group of people who support him, and not just Farrakhan followers. The minister is very highly regarded in the African-American community for his service, even if they don't agree with his religious beliefs.

In addition, the exchange has gathered a lot of controversy and Obama supporters are attacking Tim Russert for his tactic and keeping the matter in the media's sights. They are basically saying it was an unfair attack on the Senator.

huh?

People are starting to ask the hard questions of Mr. Obama. It's natural; he's the front-funner; most people believe he is already the Democratic nominee and the next president of the United States. To me (in my opinion that is) this reflects a fervent religiosity in protecting the candidate who they see as their rescuer from the thralldom of the last 40 years.

If Mr. Obama is, in fact, nominated as the Democratic contender, he's going to have to get used to attacks and some that will be vicious. The Republicans are not about to concede the Presidency and they will do anything and everything to make sure they have a man in the White House and (I will say what others don't want to say) a white man.

Whether it's Obama or Clinton, I think we can guarantee that the Republicans are in a lose-lose situation - a black man or a woman.

...shoots the Bible all to hell and their core conservative fundamental beliefs.

...and to make things worse, neither Clinton nor Obama are overtly religious.


we're all going to hell...

oh, wait, not me. i have the get out of hell free card. so, you all are going to hell...