Obama's war on semantics

Posted: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:17 PM by Domenico Montanaro

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
Obama did a solid job of turning Clinton's criticism on not "rejecting" Farrakhan and instead "denouncing" him. She tried to go in for the attack when it looked like at first she was coming to his defense. But he disarmed it quite well.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Obama's solid job of looking like a victim as usual.

jennifer arroyo grande ca (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:22 PM)

denounce: to condemn or censure openly or publicly
reject: to refuse to have, take, recognize

Yiannis, Baltimore (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:22 PM)

Good Job Obama, it's hard to keep up with her when 90% of her focus is in attacking rather than responding

Ernesto Mantilla, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:23 PM)

Damn, he's good at what he does. Rememberance of 'slick willie'. Sorry, Pres. Clinton.

T Terry (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:23 PM)

I agree!

Shannah L, IL (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:23 PM)

dominico! shut up! stop defending your master

John in la (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:23 PM)

Hillary is much quicker on her feet than Obama

Bill Amero, Youngstown, Ohio (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:23 PM)

Obama's flash of a smile at Hillary's parsing of "rejecting" was a big score for him.

Mike Luoma, Burlington, Vermont (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:24 PM)

he never would have had she not forced the issue.

cc, ny (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:24 PM)

Oh Please. Obama blew that big time. Hillary is sweeping the floor with him and you know it. All the tough policy questions go her way so Obama can coat tail. So sad that it won't matter thanks to you MSM Obama swooners.

Jane, Pasadena, CA (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:24 PM)

Jane, Pasadena, CA (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:25 PM)

Thanks for finally giving Obama credit for something. Hillary has been completely obnoxious all night. You can call it tough, "quick on her feet," or whatever, but all of us sitting here thinks she's a total BITCH!

Janice (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:25 PM)

I don't believe he did. Hillary is exactly correct. There is a difference between the two. He didn't "REJECT" the support because he is afraid of losing those votes, however he "DENOUNCED" the support, meaning that he didn't agree with it but he still wasn't going to reject it. This shows that Obama doesn't stand up for himself and his views. He's more worried about his image.

Chad Morelock, Barberton, Ohio (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:25 PM)

I think you are right Domenico, but the soundbite is already there. You can't give people like Farrakhan credibility by being ambigious about your feelings toward them. This is the same problem Obama has with foreign policy. He is willing to meet with anyone; without preconditions. This provides the legitimacy that dictators need to survive.

Trev (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:25 PM)

Is this an msnbc spin? Obama blew it. This was a lose-lose question for him.

Al Grant (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:25 PM)

Oh, ofcourse. The fact that he had to be told is not the story, but the fact that he used "denounced" instead of "rejected" is the story! How ridiculous is that. When you have to concede on a point shows that you were wrong or blurry to begin with. You really are an Obama hack.

Joan (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:26 PM)

Because Obama has something that Clinton doesn't - class.

T Robinson, Chester, Virginia (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:26 PM)

Joan (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:26 PM)

If I were a Clinton supporter before, I would be changing my support after this debate. I think Obama is the right person for the job. This has been a year long interview and he has come out like a shining star!!!

Ronda Ward, Largo, Maryland (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:26 PM)

I predicted Barack's answer to the question about Russian election. His inexperience shows------reminds me of a freshman student council member following around the senior class president.

Elle, Worcester,MA (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:26 PM)

How about that idiot Tim Russert ask some decent questions. Every question is theoretical- I don't think he can ask a question without an "if clause"

russ, san antonio, texas (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:27 PM)

It means so much more for an African American man to reject Farakhan than for a white woman to denounce him. This is where the politics of race gets real

Sarah E. Middletown, CT (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:27 PM)

Prob would have been simpler for Obama to question why all the fuss about Farrakhan saying he supports him. After all, according to Senator Clinton, they're "just words", aren't they? :P

Patricia Sobers, Bridgetown, Barbados (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:27 PM)

There was nothing to disarm, if wants to be a real leader, its time for him to make real decisions and stand by them. Obama constantly wants to attack Clinton on her decision, he never makes any, is this what we can look forward to in his possible Presidency - INDECISION OR LETS WAIT AND SEE WHAT WILL HAPPEN AND THEN WE CAN CHANGE IT!

Teresa, Myrtle Beach SC (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:27 PM)

I am gratful for the first debate since the last one by MSNBC that has been fair and a level field for both Senator's Obama and Clinton and the anchors of this debate have ask the hard questions and have showed no hint of favoritism or biased inclinations. A superb job by MSNBC!!!

Connie Wilson (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:28 PM)

Just want to point out -- Obama did not say he denounced Farrakan -- he said he denounced what he said in the past about Jewish people. Clinton was saying he should reject Farrakan's endorsement (something Obama said "he couldn't do. How can you reject someone saying he thinks I'm a good guy"). So Obama wasn't listening to Clinton (and of course his answer was so rambling, we lost track).

angie, charlotte, nc (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:28 PM)

Obama was not as strong as he should have been. More pretty words. Why didn't he clearly state that his position? He seemed to be very uncomfortable and unprepared to take the appropriate stance

Catherine South Bend, IN (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:28 PM)

Connie Wilson Quitman, Arkansas (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:28 PM)

BRAVO BARACK!! Time and again Tim Rusurt baited Barack into losing his temper...he instead remained as cool as a commander in chief needs to be! The man has my support even if John Edwards goes "the other way".

Steve Larson Des Moines Iowa former Edwards precinct capt. (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:28 PM)

Obama did fine saying denounce, which dictionary (Websters College 4th) says means "condemn strongly as evil", while it says reject is "to refuse to take". Denounce is thus a stronger renunciation than is reject, so Clinton's argument wanting "reject" was just making noise not substance.

J Brown, South Bend IN (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:29 PM)

This is why Sen Clinton is qualified to be President more so than Obama. She is touch and should be given credit for that. However, it is sad for me to say that this country still judges smart and tough women negatively - and will not support a woman president.

Karen Miller (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:29 PM)

Why didn't he denounce his own minister who is friends with Farrakan and is anti-semitic. He has been going to his church for 20 years. Makes on wonder....

Michelle Rogers, Richmond, VA (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:30 PM)

Reject: refuse to accept or acknowledge
renounce: To give up or abandon formally

There is a difference... people. Small but true....

His church gave Farrakhan many complements.

mike, chicago, Il (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:30 PM)

This debate has ask the questions and inspired converstion that has caused transperancy that has been needed so badly.

Connie Wilson Quitman, Ark (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:31 PM)

There is no doubt...Senator Obama can take the media's best, or worst at fight mongering.

Steve Larson Des Moines Iowa former Edwards precinct capt. (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:32 PM)

I have only been able to watch the last two debates and I have to say if those that I missed were anything like these, I acan say that I really missed out on an outstanding democratic Presidential campaign! And although Sen Clinton may be energetic and enthused, but she still represents old Washington politics while Sen Obama represents a new fresh outlook, he appears young and eager, he is intelligent and inspirational. Sen Obama is the kind of person needed to change the American image in the world.

Kofi Manani, New York (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:40 PM)

Actually, a tactically smooth and complicated maneuver on Obama's part.

He had been prepped.

It was wishy-washy because, although Obama does denounce and reject Farrakhan, he wants the votes of the conservative African-American (yes, check it out) community.

These are the folks whose social and work ethics look Republican, but take a strong stand on Black Values. These are folks who love Farrakhan.

Not easy to thread that needle, but no doubt he saved the votes he wants without losing too much on account of the ambiguity of his remarks. He came out of that grinning like a Cheshire cat.

Notice the big smile at the end?

It screamed "WHEW!"

It was real.

Mark Thieme (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:49 PM)

Obama talks like a lawyer, alot of "hmms and ahhs". Just what we need in the White House. And this from the candidate that says "words matter", apparantly forgot his own campaign slogan.

bill, sf, ca (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:50 PM)

I believe Obama. It's not fair that Clinton made such a big deal of denounce and reject. After all, he was clear about what he thinks about building bridges to the Jewish people, and has many Jewish supporters. A very important point he made: Farrakan didnn't offer any kind of support -- just said he backed him. There was no tangible thing to reject -- so denounce made more sense. Clinton doesn't really get it. He looked far more intelligent than her.

Cynthia McMurray (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:51 PM)

If we shouldn't judge Catholics who follow priests who engage in inappropriate sexual conduct with children; why judge Senator Obama for comments made by his minister?

Sam Weinbergh (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:51 PM)

Enjoyd this debate more than the other because, it finally shows Obama not having any substance....he constantly agreed with Clinton and he has no experience in foreign affairs. It is unfortunate that women will not vote for her, as they say a woman is another woman's worse enemy, She is tough and smart and men cannot accept that...

Louisa (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:01 PM)

If we focus on Farrakhan....Why not focus on Hillary Clinton's KKK connection?

Eloise Graham, Clearwater, FL (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:01 PM)

Really? If there is no difference between "reject" and "denounce" to Barack Obama, why didn't he say, "yes" when Tim Russert asked if he would "reject" Farrakhan's endorsement?

Chip, New York, NY (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:13 PM)

Russert looked downright sweaty and bug-eyed in his zeal to get Clinton. He didn't even do his usual smirky thing when he questioned her.His bias and that of Matthews and Obermann in the post-debate discussion are shameful.

Joan Altabe, Sarasota, FL (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:23 PM)

The reality is Obama did an awesome job- Hillary tried her best to trip him up all through the night. What really messed her up was her onset remark- that set the pace and tone for the whole debate. She tried to use the line form Saturday Night Live, however, by her own admission, she never actually saw it and it showed! It fell totally flat because she didn't know the humorous way to interject the lines. Obama won because Hillary did not score many points with her new topics. He's remained calma nd steadfast while she's all over the place personality and substance wise.

Thom, Dayton, Ohio (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:31 PM)

Seems to me rejecting something or someone outright is a stronger statement than denouncing someone's views. Clinton wins that point.

MK, Akron, OH (Sent Wednesday, February 27, 2008 12:35 AM)

Yes, he denounces him, Farrakhan, just like he has for years. But still, Farrakhan chooses Obama. How can he reject his support. If he could reject it, it still doesn't change the fact that Farrakhan is saying that when he goes to the poll that he is going to vote for Obama. The media who printed it and merely the question being asked by white america who are in charge of the paper and the debate shows who really and actually hates the jews!

Jay, KY (Sent Wednesday, February 27, 2008 2:34 AM)

This is funny. People want Barack Obama to denounce any endorsement he gets from any polarizing black figure in America. This is unfair. If he says he does not agree with or denounces a person, that should be it and if I was BO, I'd leave it at that. It seems people want to mold him into what they want him to be. He laughed because it's a non-issue.

Rainy, Ohio (Sent Wednesday, February 27, 2008 3:27 AM)

Acceptance and denouncement are two mutually exclusive concepts. By denouncing someone you are by default rejecting them as well. The attempt, let alone the desire, to debate the difference in a flaccid attempt to score points is petty and insults the intelligence of every voter.

However since the subject has been broached, to Denounce is to publicly reject someone/something you find to be reprehensible.

Jim, Denver, CO (Sent Wednesday, February 27, 2008 4:52 AM)

You can "reject" an offer of support, but Farrakan hasn't made such an offer. As to an opinion, you can only "denounce" (state your disagreement with) it, and Obama did that with regards to Farrakan's anti-Semitic statements. As to Farrakan's statement that Obama is best-qualified to be president, is Obama supposed to disagree with that?

"Oh, Louis Farrakan thinks I'm a good candidate. I disagree with everything else he says, so I'd better drop out now...."

Crissie Brown, Tampa, FL (Sent Wednesday, February 27, 2008 8:02 AM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=705794