Denounce v. Reject

Posted: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:21 PM by Domenico Montanaro

From NBC/NJ's Aswini Anburajan
For the word-o-philes out there, Obama wins with the word denounce which is more applicable to use when you find someone's positions distasteful

re·ject -a verb used as an object...
1. to refuse to have, take, recognize, etc.: to reject the offer of a better job.
2. to refuse to grant (a request, demand, etc.).

de·nounce -verb (used with object), -nounced, -nounc·ing. 1. to condemn or censure openly or publicly: to denounce a politician as morally corrupt.

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

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Actually, look up denounce. One of its synonyms is reject. Thanks for playing.

Mark Hahn, Palatine, Illinois (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:27 PM)

Bravo.

Lee Giabenelli, Phoenix, Arizona (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:28 PM)

David, Senator Obama renounced Farrakhan over the weekend; here's a transcript:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/26/obamas_ohio_grilling.html

Don Babets, Amherst, MA (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:28 PM)

that's fine and you're right if you're talking about renouncing Farrakhan's positions. but that wasn't the question.

the question was whether he would reject Farrakhan's support. as a journalist, i would want him to answer the question and Clinton spoke up and finally forced him to.

Ivan, Washington, D.C. (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:31 PM)

I respectfully disagree. He denounced Farrakhan's anti-semitism, not Farrakhan himself. In this context, it would be more correct to reject Farrakhan's endorsement, especially if you aren't going to denounce the man himself.

Dee, Lexington, KY (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:31 PM)

Clinton was arguing that Obama shouldn't just denounce the statements of Farrakahn and accept the endorsement, but rather reject his support altogether and words altogether.

I say Clinton wins that battle.

Chris, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:31 PM)

Point to Obama! Hillary should know better than to debate semantics with the President of the Harvard Law Review!

Roland Stone, New Orleans, LA (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:32 PM)

Nice try.

Fail.

Jackie Spenser (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:32 PM)

You guys are kidding me right?! BTW... he "denouced" only LF's anti-semitism... she was asking him if he'd "reject" his "support".

I think he answered it nicely in the end.

Kevin, Austin (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:32 PM)

Did I hear it wrong? Obama said he denounced Farrakhan's views, but he clearly didn't reject his support saying he can support whomever he wants or something to that effect. Clinton made it clear that she would and has rejected the support of those whose views she denounces.

kevin h cortland, NY (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:34 PM)

I thought the question was whether he would "reject" his support. He then went on instead to say that he denounced Farrakhan's rhetoric and beliefs, skirting the issue as to whether he would reject his support. Two different things.

Litza, Chicago, IL (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:35 PM)

I think Hillary lost big on that question. He denounced the endorsement. Hillary shouldn't have jumped on that it was a question for him. She seems to desperate to try to get him to make a mistake so she can go in for the win.

Joe Des Moines Iowa (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:35 PM)

You people are whacked.

Cathy Boyd (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:36 PM)

Thanks for the word definitions - Obama said what he meant - denounce! But they both work.

Carla, Aurora, Colo (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:39 PM)

Is this not a free country? I thought free speech was a major point in our Democracy. Clinton made the comment that we needed to stop people like Farrakhan from making comments such as comments he's made. How about denouncing his opinion, but supporting his right to say it?

Sean, Indianapolis (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:44 PM)

I think the point here is Obama was dancing around the question and his words were tangled as usual.

Ruthetta, Somerset, KY (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:46 PM)

Clearly he said what he meant - as he meant to avoid answering the question.

L.S., Schaumburg IL (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:46 PM)

The Commentator is Missing the POINT: Obama was trying to "denounce" the support, while not denouncing the vote or votes which Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam will bring to his campaign. This is the distinction that Clinton was making.

Clinton was stating: When this happened to me, I completely rejected any influence, support or otherwise inclusion of these types of individuals. Even when it could be detrimental to her.

THAT was the point. And Obama was obviously trying to hedge his bets on giving lip service to his denouncement, while still encouraging the anti-Semites to support him with their votes.

Clinton was saying, Dear Anti-Semites, No Thank You. Vote for someone else.

Nathan, Charlotte, NC (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:46 PM)

Tim Russert asked Obama if he would "reject" Farrakhan's support. Obama said no. He then goes on to say denounce and reject mean the same thing. So when Tim Russert asked that question, why didn't Obama say, er, "YES"?

Chip, New York, NY (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:46 PM)

Many of you already said it, but with a masters in journalism, I need to pile on... Obama denounced Farrakhan's belief's, but did not reject his support. The distinction is worlds apart. MSNBC you need to pull the win for Obama on the word-o-phile contest. Shame on MSNBC!

Emily, Quincy, MA (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:48 PM)

shame shame shame on Obama for dissing, not only his fellow Chicagoan but one of the last and greatest leaders to the black, brown, red and poor white Why haven’t Obama talked about his campaign aid, Julius X Green, whom is an registered member of The Nation Of Islam. Julius Green who is an graduate of Alabama A&M University. Who have been working with Obama for over 9 years. Why haven't Obama mention how he was an keynote speaker at Farrakhan's Million Man March. Why haven't Obama spoke about using The F.O.I Security to secure him before he was an senator. I rather see his wife as president, then himself. At least she speak straight words, regardless of whom or what!!!!!

The Bodyguard Chicago, IL (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:53 PM)

(1) Obama's play on the words "denounce" or "reject" was semantic sophistry in my view; clever but not substantive. (2) I wanted Tim Russert to shift the Farakhan question into that of pressing Obama for an explanatory statement of his position vis-a-vis that of his pastor, who has unabashedly demonstrated support and praise for Farakhan. So far it seems to me, this tact, which is essential to discovering what Obama is about, has been circumvented in the debates and by the media.

Robert Klyce, Memphis, Tennessee (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:53 PM)

Again folks, for all the people in the cheap seats,
Obama denounces-he says
Clinton refuses-she acts
I am going with someone who takes action instead of just saying so.

Chris, AR (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:53 PM)

You Americans are pathetic...arguing about "rejecting" and "denouncing"...How will that change your country...? Focus on the essentials...You were spending your time arguing about the silly things when Bush won the election..And the Putin's guy, what difference that will make to know his name now or in 3 months since you are not yet President...It's too late here in FRANCE, I am going to get a little sleep...Bonne nuit mes amis des Etats Unis d'Amerique...

Francis, Paris, France (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 10:58 PM)

I guess you guys have had enough of the Clinton support on your blogs-classy. Or maybe you are just busy like Obama was when he was campaigning instead of protecting the US.

Chris, AR (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:02 PM)

How do you reject something that has not been offered to you? Clinton was just being picky, as usual

John James, Gainesville Florida (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:03 PM)

I wished that Hillary would examine her own words, like she done to Sen. Obama tonight. Tonight did not make you a fighter. And other Countries in the World, would prove that fact to Hillary.

JJ Greensboro NC (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:03 PM)

I'm just curious what it means to reject the support of a singular individual who is not at all affiliated with your campaign. If the person in question has not offered to help then what does "I reject your support" even mean? No you can't say good things about me? Denouncing (or rejecting) his ideas and views seems sufficient to me.

Anderson, Savoy, IL (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:05 PM)

Rightly or wrongly, this will come back to haunt Obama if he is the nominee. Falsely accused of being a Muslim, he doesn't do the unifying thing and say this should not actually be a slur; he instead runs to the embrace of the church he has belonged to for 20 years, which is run by a man who may be anti-Semitic. "I'm not a Muslim, my spiritual leader is a Jew-hating Christian"??? (No wonder he draws Republican support!) Prediction: Jeremiah Wright will be the Willie Horton of the 2008 election.

Chip, New York NY (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:10 PM)

To get into this argument of semantics is silly. Whoever "wins" this particular point of whether denounce or reject is better or nailing down what exactly they are denouncing or rejecting is irrelevant. What matters to most, or at least most of those people who are even entertaining this absurd argument, is that Hillary, for raising the point, came across as picky, desperate, and just plain sad. Obama got the point across that LF is his own man and can do whatever he wants and Obama is not antisemitic, nor is he accepting his support nor indebted to him for it.

Let's use our comprehension skills from elementary school to figure out what people mean instead of wasting our time with this nonsense nitpicking. This election is too important for this.

Jason, Washington DC (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:32 PM)

It may be too obvious to even mention, but...

I guess it depends on what your definition of "is," is.

Duncan, Portland, Maine (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:32 PM)

denounce and reject FTW

Dade Murphy, Haxor, NY (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:33 PM)

At this point, Hillary would Greatly take saddam hussein's Endorsement, even castro's. Next question?

Rick,ky (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:34 PM)

Does it ever occur to any of us the difference between nonsense and foolishness?

Bill Johnson, Anaconda, Montana (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:36 PM)

Did every forget his churches support and inappriate opinons from his church and pastor for anti-semitism and support of Farrakhan. He played the jewish card and went around answering it. Just partialy denounced Farrakhan.

Robert Black, Bellmawr, New Jersey (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:51 PM)

Robert Black, Bellmawr, New Jersey (Sent Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:52 PM)

In all seriousness, you people who are inanely arguing about this reject v denounce distinction should get a hobby, get a date, go to a nice restaurant and may be catch some sun (if you can). The lack of variety in your activities is starting to show.

adam (Sent Wednesday, February 27, 2008 12:28 AM)

He said he thought denounce and reject are the same thing, which they're not. I think Sen. Clinton jumped in on the point because she had a similar situation and wanted to make the point that she rejected the group's endorsement. She basically persuaded him to concede that this it was important to take a stance (for once, please, Sen. Obama, you can't reach across the aisle on this one)...and he did. He said he conceded the point.

Bonnie, Raleigh, NC (Sent Wednesday, February 27, 2008 1:16 AM)

Do you really expect the candidates to reject the support of everyone with a repugnant view? That's 3/4 of America! Remember we are trying to bring people together for the common good, not be divisive.

nuanced (Sent Wednesday, February 27, 2008 1:21 AM)

For someone who is paraded as the ' inspirational speaker' the semantics do matter.
Rejecting the support of a divisive personality like Farrakan is absolutely necessary for somone trying to unify the country much less someone running for the presidency.

Literally millions of people denounce the views of people like Farrakhan -- That's not unique -- What was needed from Obama was a clear response to the endorsement by Farrakan- Obama clearly waffled and did not have a clear answer on this. He needed to reject the support or endorsement by Farrakan and had to be coached to do that by Clinton.

This is his lack of experience -- right here between making good speeches and taking the right action

Liz, Newark, CA (Sent Wednesday, February 27, 2008 1:37 AM)

Liz, Newark, CA (Sent Wednesday, February 27, 2008 1:44 AM)

Hmmm... Wonder why obama are supported by the educated voters. these types of attacks only works with the less educated voters that do have the brain power. Just remember Clinton stated that educated and the upper class people don't have need a president. the fact of the matter is Sen. Obama has became a option to people that wants something different in president. Lets be truthful Hillary is trying to denounce change and hope to combat Obama. However thats playing to republican party. If Hillary some how wins because she has more Washington experience, then McCain will be the next president because he has more experience that both of them.

melvin, Roselle, NJ (Sent Wednesday, February 27, 2008 2:05 AM)

Hillary's comments remind me of her husband's statement of not having "sex" with that woman. With Hillary in the White House, we can look forward to 4 more years of attempted "word smithing" by another Clinton.

David, NYC (Sent Wednesday, February 27, 2008 2:17 AM)

Hilary was amazing in this question.

Yes he said denounce, but i would not take it that literally. When Tim Russet asked him the second time if he rejects his support, he did not say yes or no!!! That is why Hilary fought back to make it clear that he should have said a confident "I REJECT" his support. It looked like he was coming up with words to say that right things, not to lose any votes.

As a Jewish vote, Obama's lack of confidence in that answer has made me switch to Clinton.

Kevin (Sent Wednesday, February 27, 2008 7:06 AM)

Hillary's rejection of the Independence Party Line (New York State has ballot lines, and the Independence line then was 3rd on the ballot) is different than denouncing Farrakhan, who did not have a party line to give. This is why he denounced and she rejected.

Andrew A Beveridge, B ronxville, NY (Sent Wednesday, February 27, 2008 7:10 AM)

Nice job by Senator Obama. He's been pretty clear on the issue of Farrakhan all along. In last night's debate, Senator Clinton played the game of semantics and as a result came across as wonkish. Nobody likes the smartest kid in the class and she'd have done better by not playing word games.

Pete, Albany, NY (Sent Wednesday, February 27, 2008 8:50 AM)

OBAMA ONLY RENOUNCED AND DENOUNCED FARRAKHAN TO GAIN MORE VOTES!!! IAM SURE OBAMA MADE A CALL TO FARRAKHAN AFTER THE DEBATE... THIS TOPIC IS VERY SCARY!!!

VERN BALTIMORE MARYLAND (Sent Wednesday, February 27, 2008 9:00 AM)

Minha,

But there was not "ENDORSEMENT". Farrakan had some nice words regarding B.O. Farrakan knows better not to endorse any candidate because the President of the U.S. cannot be against the jewish community....Please!

Minha, Miami, FL (Sent Wednesday, February 27, 2008 9:04 AM)

Sen. Obama doesn't have to reject Farrakhan's "support" because Sen. Obama hasn't RECEIVED any "support" from him. Farrakhan only "gave" Sen. Obama an "ENDORSEMENT". GEEZ!!!
Get it right people! When looking at Sen. Obama's coalition of supporters and message on inclusiveness of everyone, do you really think that he is excluding the Jewish people??? You people are really having a "can't see the forest for the trees" moment.

KJ, Dallas, TX (Sent Wednesday, February 27, 2008 9:14 AM)

My Obama supporting friends don't see the great favor Clinton did for Barach when she insisted he be very clear in his meaning. The Right will look to any opportunity to imply a connection between Farrakhan and Obama. Barach did leave some wiggle room with his first statement but fixed it with the follow up.

Clinton knew what she was doing. If Hillary was the sly dog so many make her out to be she would have waitied until after the debate and planted a seed of doubt as to why he was not more specific.

campdog (Sent Wednesday, February 27, 2008 9:32 AM)

Next >>

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=705999