About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Ignoring Obama's repeated denunciations of Farrakhan during debate, NY Times quoted him only as saying, "I obviously can't censor him. ... It is not support that I sought"

February 27, 2008 2:35 pm ET
image

SUMMARY: After reporting that, at the Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama "was asked whether he would reject the support of Louis Farrakhan," The New York Times' Patrick Healy and Jeff Zeleny purported to convey Obama's response, but left out Obama's repeated denunciation of Farrakhan's comments, writing only: " 'I obviously can't censor him,' Mr. Obama said. 'It is not support that I sought.' "

131 Comments

In a February 27 New York Times article about the previous evening's Democratic presidential debate, Patrick Healy and Jeff Zeleny reported that, Sen. Barack Obama "was asked whether he would reject the support of Louis Farrakhan, the longtime leader of the Nation of Islam." But in purporting to convey Obama's response, Healy and Zeleny wrote only: " 'I obviously can't censor him,' Mr. Obama said. 'It is not support that I sought,' " ignoring Obama's repeated denunciation of Farrakhan's comments.

Indeed, Obama's immediate response to moderator and NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert's question, "Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?" was to assert: "You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments. I think they are unacceptable and reprehensible." Moreover, the portion of Obama's response that the Times quoted came two lines after Obama's denunciation of Farrakhan's past statements, and was later followed by Obama saying: "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." Obama went on to say, "I am very familiar with his record, as are the American people. That's why I have consistently denounced it," later adding that he "would reject and denounce" Farrakhan's support.

From Healy and Zeleny's February 27 article in The New York Times:

As the debate drew to a close, Mr. Obama was asked whether he would reject the support of Louis Farrakhan, the longtime leader of the Nation of Islam, who announced last weekend that he would back Mr. Obama's presidential bid.

"I obviously can't censor him," Mr. Obama said. "It is not support that I sought."

From the February 26 MSNBC Democratic primary debate:

RUSSERT: Senator Obama, one of the things in a campaign is that you have to react to unexpected developments. 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?

OBAMA: 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: Do you reject his support?

OBAMA: Well, Tim, you know, I can't say to somebody that he can't say that he thinks I'm a good guy. [laughter] You know, I -- you know, I -- 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: The problem some voters may have is, as you know, Reverend Farrakhan called Judaism "gutter religion."

OBAMA: Tim, I think -- I am very familiar with his record, as are the American people. That's why I have consistently denounced it. This is not something new. This is something that -- I live in Chicago. He lives in Chicago. I've been very clear in terms of me believing that what he has said is reprehensible and inappropriate. And I have consistently distanced myself from him.

RUSSERT: The title of one of your books, Audacity of Hope, you acknowledge you got from a sermon from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the head of the Trinity United Church. He said that Louis Farrakhan "epitomizes greatness." He said that he went to Libya in 1984 with Louis Farrakhan to visit with Moammar Gadhafi and that, when your political opponents found out about that, quote, "your Jewish support would dry up quicker than a snowball in Hell."

What do you do to assure Jewish-Americans that, whether it's Farrakhan's support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness?

OBAMA: Tim, I have some of the strongest support from the Jewish community in my hometown of Chicago and in this presidential campaign. And the reason is because I have been a stalwart friend of Israel's. I think they are one of our most important allies in the region, and I think that their security is sacrosanct, and that the United States is in a special relationship with them, as is true with my relationship with the Jewish community.

And the reason that I have such strong support is because they know that not only would I not tolerate anti-Semitism in any form, but also because of the fact that what I want to do is rebuild what I consider to be a historic relationship between the African-American community and the Jewish community.

You know, I would not be sitting here were it not for a whole host of Jewish Americans who supported the civil rights movement and helped to ensure that justice was served in the South. And that coalition has frayed over time around a whole host of issues, and part of my task in this process is making sure that those lines of communication and understanding are reopened.

But, you know, the reason that I have such strong support in the Jewish community and have historically -- it was true in my U.S. Senate campaign, and it's true in this presidency -- is because the people who know me best know that I consistently have not only befriended the Jewish community, not only have I been strong on Israel, but, more importantly, I've been willing to speak out even when it is not comfortable.

When I was -- just the last point I would make -- when I was giving -- had the honor of giving a sermon at Ebenezer Baptist Church in conjunction with Martin Luther King's birthday in front of a large African-American audience, I specifically spoke out against anti-Semitism within the African-American community. And that's what gives people confidence that I will continue to do that when I'm president of the United States.

WILLIAMS: Senator --

CLINTON: I just want to add something here, because I faced a similar situation when I ran for the Senate in 2000 in New York. And in New York, there are more than the two parties, Democratic and Republican. And one of the parties at that time, the Independence Party, 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. I said that it would not be anything I would be comfortable with. And it looked as though I might pay a price for that. But I would not be associated with people who said such inflammatory and untrue charges against either Israel or Jewish people in our country.

And, you know, I was willing to take that stand, and, you know, fortunately the people of New York supported me and I won. But at the time, I thought it was more important to stand on principle and to reject the kind of conditions that went with support like that.

RUSSERT: Are you suggesting Senator Obama is not standing on principle?

CLINTON: No. I'm just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject it. And there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting. And I think when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory -- I have no doubt that everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we've got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far-reaching.

OBAMA: 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.

CLINTON: Good. Good. Excellent.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by tommy (February 27, 2008 2:41 pm ET)
         

      Well Obama certainly turned this to his favor last night, he rightly conceded the point, and both denounced and rejected Farrakhan's support.

      But I wonder when the thread topic will come here also from the debate last night, how "uncritically", MMFA's favorite word, both Russert and Williams were when Hillary lied about Obama wanting to bomb Pakistan.  I mean there have been several threads about McCain or other conservatives when they said this, will the same criticism of Hillary be forthcoming?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (February 27, 2008 2:45 pm ET)
           
        I hope they do have a thread about it. I find Hillary repeating this lie unsuprising.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by lostlogic (February 27, 2008 2:48 pm ET)
             
          Come on Solon you know what the purpose of this site is.  Are you surprised that they don't have a thread about Obama saying his opponent doesn't want to negotiate. Come on this is a democratic primary these are opponents in the primary they are not the MEDIA.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (February 27, 2008 3:15 pm ET)
               
            True, however tommy makes a valid point. MMFA often points out when moderators or hosts uncritically allow a falsehood to sail by. I didnt see it but it sounds like what happened here. There IS a difference between a debate and an interview but I think it would be legitimate.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by lostlogic (February 27, 2008 3:19 pm ET)
                 
              Solon how can you say they let Clinton's comment stand when they allowed the very person himself to refute it...Obama was then allowed to respond to her comments...this is how debates work...do you really think the moderators should be injecting their own take on who is spinning and exagerating more?
              Report Abuse
          • Author by tex (February 27, 2008 4:52 pm ET)
               

            LOSTLOGIC:

            The MISINFORMATION in the MEDIA is carried on by employees/pudits IN the Media and all the paid rightwing shills they can crowd into a screen shot.

            It is this unbalanced, unchallenged MISINFORMATION, in the MEDIA, that is MMFA's mission, to expose and correct.

            The Democratic candidates have a DEBATE, where one can respond to the other IMMEDIATELY, and TOMMY thinks THIS should be the topic of the exposure of Media misinformation? He can't be serious ... Obama was right there to explain what he really said and really meant. The audience could judge who won that "debate point."

            In the MEDIA, especially on the talking head shows and AM radio, there is rarely ANY opposition voice to present alternative views and supporting evidence. (Rightwing media will occasionally put in a supposed voice "from the left", but they choose folks as ineffectual as Alan Colmes to be the liberal's champions ... thanks a lot!)

            The pundits make their claims, and they stand as unopposed "TRUTH" to the audience, consumers of "NEWS" ... except sometimes those pundits are made to correct themselves grudgingly, due to pressure from MMFA and other watchdog sites.

            TOMMY, do you REALLY see no difference between a mission to correct MEDIA misinformation, and acting as a fact-checker in a DEBATE with both parties PRESENT? 

             

            Report Abuse
        • Author by pete592 (February 27, 2008 3:18 pm ET)
             

          Forwarding the conservative agenda is clearly stipulated in MMFA's definition of 'conservative misinformation'. 

          Does Tim and Brian's "uncriticalness" of Hillary constitute forwarding the conservative agenda?

          When Hillary used it, she was certainly forwarding her own agenda, but is her agenda conservative? 

          Tommy definitely has a point but I'm not sure which agenda was being forwarded, Hillary's or that of conservatives. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by tommy (February 27, 2008 3:24 pm ET)
               

            When a lie is left alone against the likely Democratic nominee for president, wouldn't you think that the media watchdog site monitoring such things would highlight it?  

            Of course they would, unless that lie is uttered by a fellow Democrat, or most notably Hillary Clinton.  This isn't hard to understand. 

            Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (February 27, 2008 3:27 pm ET)
               

            Ah, I just read Lostlogic's point and read the transcript to confirm.  This was the part of the debate I missed while chasing the kids around the house.

            Obama was allowed to respond and set the record straight. 

            Tommy does not have a point after all. 

            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (February 27, 2008 3:37 pm ET)
                 

              Of course Obama was allowed to respond, where did I say otherwise? And since when does that stop MMFA?  Many times there are panelists or pundits on when some lie is left unchallenged and it is put up here anyway, why is this any different just because it's a debate? Why should that matter to MMFA.

              Double standard hypocrisy, you won't admit it, but I wouldn't expect you too.   

              Report Abuse
              • Author by pete592 (February 27, 2008 3:56 pm ET)
                   

                An interview is one sided, a debate is not.  They are not even close to being the same so there is no double standard.

                Your contention is that the lie was "left unchallenged." 

                Since Obama was allowed to respond, the lie was not "left unchallenged." 

                If the moderators had not allowed Obama to respond to the lie, then your point would be valid. 

                If this was an interview of Hillary Clinton without Obama present and able to defend himself, your point would be valid.

                Neither is true. 

                Report Abuse
                • Author by tommy (February 27, 2008 4:00 pm ET)
                     

                  Alright Pete, I can see your point, and Lost's and Solon's, and the others.  The debate format is different than an interview, I will give you that.  I apologize for jumping down MMFA's throat on this one, it was uncalled for.

                  While I concede your point as being valid, I am still very disappointed that Hillary stooped to lying about Obama's position on Pakistan - and just when I thought she was ready to exit the race with some class, she pulls this.

                  I still say she deserves to lose.

                  Thanks for pointing out my error here. 

                  Report Abuse
      • Author by lostlogic (February 27, 2008 2:46 pm ET)
           
        Tommy, I think you are very well aware what MMFA mission statement says so I won't repeat it but the same way MMFA won't point out when Obama misrepresents his democratic opponents words/positions they won't do it when Clinton does it.  Do you really miss this distinction between MMFA's purpose and what you ask here...or are you just arguing for arguments sake? 
        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (February 27, 2008 2:48 pm ET)
             

          Nice try Lost, to excuse Hillary's lie, but I am talking about MMFA calling out the media for uncritically letting this lie stand.  Look at the dozens of other threads criticizing McCain for the exact same statement.

          You are better than this. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by lostlogic (February 27, 2008 2:49 pm ET)
               
            Excuse me when did a democratic candidate running in a primary become the MEDIA.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (February 27, 2008 2:52 pm ET)
                 

              Lost, Look at past threads where MMFA criticizes the media for letting this lie stand?  Please explain to me how Russert or Williams' uncritical eye is any different?  It is not, and you know it.

              But I am a little surprised that you excuse such a lie as this in the first place.  I guess supporting Hillary so blindly has made these types of falsehoods of hers standard fare.  How sad. 

              Report Abuse
              • Author by lostlogic (February 27, 2008 3:01 pm ET)
                   
                I would refer you back to my numerous statements on this issue.  I have always had a problem with the statement Obama made on this subject. And I have explained why.  Do I fault MCCain or Clinton for taking his comments of a non-discriptive "take action" into the action being bombing...yeah it is taking liberties by putting your own interpretation on what actions he was referring to but I find it no different then the same thing they all do...mischaracterising MCCain on the 100 year thing, Mischaracterising Clinton about negotiating, Mischaracterising Obama on Pakistan comments.  By mischaracterising I mean they interpreted the comments in a light most unfavorable and into snappy rhetoric...and an argument can be made that it was not an accurate statement.  But again I don't think MMFA needs to call Clinton out on it because she is not the media.  I also think the fact that the moderators allowed Obama to correct the record and explain himself what he meant...which since he sited the fact that we did in fact bomb an area of Pakistan to get terrorists and how that shows he was correct sort of is him saying the action he was refering to was indeeed BOMBING..negates the idea thast this was the moderators attemting to push conservative misinformation.  For the record my problem with Obama was not the policy but how he expressed himself with what in my opinion was a diplomatic lead foot.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by tommy (February 27, 2008 3:04 pm ET)
                     

                  Lost, I am not talking about calling out Hillary on her lie, I am specifically talking about calling out those in the media that "unciritically" let it stand, which MMFA does all the time when their uncritical eye is on a conservative.  Don't be disingenuous. 

                  I know you are smart enough to see that. 

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by lostlogic (February 27, 2008 3:06 pm ET)
                       
                    Tommy read my post...I did address the issue of the moderators.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by pete592 (February 27, 2008 3:34 pm ET)
                         
                      You're right.  Tim and Brian didn't have to be critical when the target of the smear was sitting right there ready and willing to defend himself.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by tommy (February 27, 2008 3:46 pm ET)
                           

                        The way many of you look away and excuse MMFA's cherry picking, and even worse the way an outright lie told by one of your leading Democrats has you unfazed is pathetic.

                        So the next time a pundit comes on here and lies, let's see how "meh" you are about that?  Amazing. 

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by solon (February 27, 2008 3:50 pm ET)
                             
                          I am unfazed by Hillary doing this because it is what I would expect from Hillary. Never been a fan. SHE however is NOT the media. The guys who WERE the media allowed Obama to set the record straight. Exactly as it should have been handled in the debate format. You can rant and rave without addressing the issue another ten or twenty posts but ya got nothin.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by tommy (February 27, 2008 4:03 pm ET)
                               
                            See my post to Pete earlier, you're right, I apologize.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by solon (February 27, 2008 4:11 pm ET)
                                 
                              Very classy. Bill O'Rielly could take lessons from you on how to say he was wrong. Good for you.
                              Report Abuse
                        • Author by pete592 (February 27, 2008 4:03 pm ET)
                             
                          Now you want to divert again and make our feelings about Hillary the issue.  So far, I'm on the record as having called what Hillary said a 'smear' and a 'lie'.  Yet you call me unfazed.
                          Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (February 27, 2008 3:18 pm ET)
                     
                  Ah, thats what I get for commenting on a debate I didnt see. If the moderators allowed Obama to correct the record then it was already handled correctly in the debate format and there would be no need for a thread. THAT is the difference between the debate and interview format.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by lostlogic (February 27, 2008 3:20 pm ET)
                       
                    That's what I get for repsonding to a post before reading all the posts...sorry Solon...ignore my earlier response above (-:
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by solon (February 27, 2008 3:32 pm ET)
                         
                      No appology necessary. I was commenting on something without knowing the gist of it. You knew more about it than me and corrected me. That is the way it ought to be.
                      Report Abuse
          • Author by lostlogic (February 27, 2008 2:51 pm ET)
               
            BTW I have been very consistant on this I did not have a problem with  MCCAin on this.  Again it is pretty common to summerize your opponents positions in a light most unfavorible.  MCCain does it, Clinton does it, and Obama does it.  They are not the media.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by lostlogic (February 27, 2008 2:51 pm ET)
               
            BTW I have been very consistant on this I did not have a problem with  MCCAin on this.  Again it is pretty common to summerize your opponents positions in a light most unfavorible.  MCCain does it, Clinton does it, and Obama does it.  They are not the media.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (February 27, 2008 2:54 pm ET)
                 

              So you agree with them that Obama wants to bomb Pakistan?  Perhaps you'd better read what he said again.  '

              Hillary deserves to lose playing dirty with facts such as this.  If I hear anymore whining from her supporters about roughly she has been treated by the media, I am going to throw up.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by lostlogic (February 27, 2008 3:05 pm ET)
                   

                Once again yes I think that was exactly what he was saying...I also think that is exactly the current policy...and I also think both Clinton and MCCain support that policy...my argument with Obama on this is a diplomatic one.  BTW I think it is exagerated rhetoric to say bomb Pakistan it would be more accursate to say bomb targets in Pakistan...but that is a semantic argument...if you are bombing you are bombing.

                Report Abuse
          • Author by wzwriter (February 27, 2008 3:01 pm ET)
               

            Nice try Lost, to excuse Hillary's lie, but I am talking about MMFA calling out the media for uncritically letting this lie stand.  Look at the dozens of other threads criticizing McCain for the exact same statement.

            You are better than this. 

            You're missing the point completely, Tommy.  MMFA's mission is to point out misinformation in the media - not misinformation stated by political candidates.  But when the media includes that information in their reports without providing corrections or letting their readers/viewers/listeners know they've passed on misinformation, THAT'S when MMFA calls them on it.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (February 27, 2008 3:06 pm ET)
                 

              Gimme a break.  Do you want me to show you dozens of threads where MMFA criticizes the media for uncritically letting a lie stand?

              Of course MMFA is not going to criticize any candidate, however they do criticize the media for enabling or letting falsehoods stand. 

              Report Abuse
              • Author by lostlogic (February 27, 2008 3:08 pm ET)
                   
                Geez they didn't let the lie stand they let Obama answer it himself...you can't get any more direct then letting it come straight from the horses mouth.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by tommy (February 27, 2008 3:14 pm ET)
                     

                  Fine, so next time MMFA posts a thread slamming someone in the media for uncritically letting a blatant falsehood stand, it will be entirely dependent on the guests and how equipped they are to respond to it.

                  How ridiculous.  

                  If you are so anxious for Hillary to get the nomination that you could care less if she lies to get it, then that says alot about why we need Obama even more.   

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by lostlogic (February 27, 2008 3:18 pm ET)
                       

                    Yeah I am sooo evil I support Clinton.  You know that doesn't really make a good argument when you don't bother to address the substance of what I am saying but just keep saying...but....but...you like Clinton...your bad...wha..wha...wha.  Let me try again...it wasn;t the media that made the claim it was the candidate...the moderators then allowed the other candidate to respond therefore they did not let misinformation just hang out there.

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (February 27, 2008 3:35 pm ET)
                       
                    No its not ridiculous. Not even close the debate format is NOT the interview format. Show us the thread where a host allowed another guest to correct the lie and STILL got called on it and you will have a point. Until then you have no point.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by wzwriter (February 27, 2008 3:45 pm ET)
                         

                      Until then you have no point.

                      Actually, Tommy DOES have a point.  But his hat covers it very well....  :-)

                      Report Abuse
            • Author by lostlogic (February 27, 2008 3:07 pm ET)
                 
              Exactly WZ and the fact the moderators let Obama respond indicates they did not pass the information on without a rebuttal to it.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by anotheramerican (February 27, 2008 3:12 pm ET)
                 

              wz,

              It seems to me that many here resort to the "mission statement" cover whenever it is pointed out how hypocritical MMFA has acted in it's selective outrage of misinformation.

              Time and time again it is pointed out that many of the threads started have nothing to do with their "mission statement" and are simply thinly veiled talking points attacking conservatives and/or Republicans.

              Nothing personal, but using the 'mission statement' defense reminds me of good ol' Bill speculating on the meaning of "is". 

              Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (February 27, 2008 3:21 pm ET)
                   
                Time and time again you THINK you pointed something out. Time and time again ya got nothin. MMFA is NOT hypocritical for doing exactly what MRC and AIM do that is cover only one side of the issue. The mission statement isnt COVER its what MMFA is about. Media not big picture politics. We dont care if you like it or not.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by anotheramerican (February 27, 2008 3:26 pm ET)
                     

                  Solon,

                  Do you work for MMFA?  

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (February 27, 2008 3:36 pm ET)
                       
                    No. Do YOU work for Rush Limbuagh?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by anotheramerican (February 27, 2008 3:53 pm ET)
                         

                      I'm flattered by your response to my post. Your "we don't care" made me think you were sitting around a room with MMFA buddies trying to outdo each other.

                      No matter.

                      ps. As a side note, I do not work for Rush. But thanks for the compliment. :-)  

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by solon (February 27, 2008 4:15 pm ET)
                           
                        I use the 'Royal' we. As for you thinking it was a compliment all I can do is shudder.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by wzwriter (February 28, 2008 9:06 am ET)
                             

                          I use the 'Royal' we. As for you thinking it was a compliment all I can do is shudder.

                          You and me both.  it's truly scary that anyone would consider it a compliment to be assiciated with that cigar-smoking, lying, pill-popping, serial-marrying, thrice-divorced, deeply-closeted gay man.

                          And Limbaugh STILL has not told the story behind his arrest in Pittsburgh in the company of a male prostitute in the Early '70s, when he was working under the pseudonym "Jeff Christie".

                          Report Abuse
              • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (February 27, 2008 4:26 pm ET)
                   

                Time and time again it is pointed out that many of the threads started have nothing to do with their "mission statement" and are simply thinly veiled talking points attacking conservatives and/or Republicans. (Anotheramerican)

                Since most MMFA items are transcripts, audio and video of conservative media people, I'd agree with your describing them as "thinly veiled talking points", except for the ones that aren't disguised at all.

                I'm not sure how you think that has nothing to do with the mission statement, and I wouldn't say the items are "attacking" so much as "exposing". Unless those attacks are self-inflicted.

                Sorry if I've misunderstood your post, I'm just not sure what you're saying has been pointed out.

                Report Abuse
    • Author by Sueelldd (February 27, 2008 2:43 pm ET)
         
      I thought Russert last night was horrible and unfair. He is the poster boy for how political and hateful MSNBC and NBC News has become.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (February 27, 2008 2:46 pm ET)
           
        I thought that the poster boy was Olberman? I'm getting confused again.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by dbeden4153 (February 27, 2008 3:08 pm ET)
             
          no no no, It's Matthews...or maybe Shuster...but what about Scarbrough?  And don't forget Tucker...oh, and Abrams.  My, the list of terrible, horrible, no good disgusting people sure is getting pretty long
          Report Abuse
          • Author by jeter2 (February 27, 2008 3:35 pm ET)
               
            Abrams is the only one of the crew that has not made an a#s of himself [yet]
            Report Abuse
        • Author by Sueelldd (February 27, 2008 3:21 pm ET)
             
          You are very confused, did you watch the debate last night or are you playing games?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by BillJ-MN (February 27, 2008 2:53 pm ET)
         
      I was a little disappointed in Clinton in last night's debate trying to force the Farrakhan issue with Obama.  She cited a time she rejected an endorsement in an earlier election campaign and then scolded Obama for not "rejecting" the Farrakhan endorsement.  She stated that his "denunciation" of Farrakhan didn't meet the standard of "rejection."  It struck me as being very petty on Clinton's part.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by tommy (February 27, 2008 2:55 pm ET)
           

        I agree. It's one thing for Hillary to focus on her experience, and issues, and health care, and the rest......but when she stoops to this level, and outright lies about Obama when he is sitting right there, it is beyond the pale.

        She deserves to lose. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by anotheramerican (February 27, 2008 3:07 pm ET)
             

          I disagree. I thought Hillary made a good point and I am not a Hillary fan.

          Would McCain or any of the other Republicans accept David Duke's endorsement or would they immediately reject it and denounce it?  

          I thought Obama looked pretty weak in his arguing his position. Conceding this point was the only avenue left open to him. But he had to be backed into a corner on national TV to do so.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by tommy (February 27, 2008 3:11 pm ET)
               

            What point?  Obama is not responsible for those that endorse him, he denounced it and rejected it, essentially the same thing in the world of meaningless endorsements anyway.  What would you have him do, publicly flog Farrakhan and say "leave me alone"?

            Hillary was grasping at straws with this and it showed.  Obama didn't waste time arguing the semantics of these two words, thankfully.  It is irrelevant to anything important, Farrakhan's endorsement of anything, who cares? 

            Report Abuse
            • Author by dbeden4153 (February 27, 2008 3:17 pm ET)
                 

              I agree Tommy, this whole guilt-by-association stuff they're trying to pull by linking Obama to Farrakhan is really petty and just reeks of desperation.

              On a side note, I heard through the grapevine that Russert isn't exactly an objective observer.  Apparently back in 2000, at some function where both Presidential candidates attended, Russert went up to meet both of them, shook Gore's hand, and went on to shake Bush's hand.  While Russert thought Gore wasn't looking, apparently he and a few people caught him showing Bush the underside of his lapel, which had a Bush campaign button on it.

              Just something I heard, if anyone can substantiate the claim, please do.  I can't seem to find it anymore. 

              Report Abuse
              • Author by jeter2 (February 27, 2008 3:27 pm ET)
                   

                this whole guilt-by-association stuff they're trying to pull by linking Obama to Farrakhan is really petty and just reeks of desperation.

                You mean like some here like to say that Coulter, Hannity & Rush represent all Conservatives? ;-)

                Report Abuse
                • Author by tommy (February 27, 2008 3:39 pm ET)
                     
                  Point, Jeter! Snap!
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (February 27, 2008 4:07 pm ET)
                       

                    "You mean like some here like to say that Coulter, Hannity & Rush represent all Conservatives?"

                    Who said that, Jeter? Not to diminish your "snap" at all. ;0)

                    Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (February 27, 2008 3:41 pm ET)
                     
                  That is what it would be like. I always reject that.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by dbeden4153 (February 27, 2008 4:10 pm ET)
                       

                    As do I.  I have seen a tremendous diversity of opinion on both the left and the right, and there is good in both sides.

                    And I don't think Coulter represents anyone but Coulter.  She's a shameless harpy who only says what she says to sell books.  That, in my opinion, is the very definition of selling your soul. 

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by dbeden4153 (February 27, 2008 4:13 pm ET)
                         

                      However, I will have to say that Rush Limbaugh either does, or did at one time, represent the right wing of the Republican Party.  I mean, he was made an honorary congressman...

                      I'm not saying he represented all conservatives, btw. 

                      Report Abuse
                • Author by MoonbatYouBet (February 27, 2008 5:17 pm ET)
                     

                  this whole guilt-by-association stuff they're trying to pull by linking Obama to Farrakhan is really petty and just reeks of desperation.

                  You mean like some here like to say that Coulter, Hannity & Rush represent all Conservatives? ;-)

                   When Farrakhan is invited to speak before major Democratic functions, used as a fundraiser and/or publicity flack for a Democratic Persidential campaign or made an honorary member of a Democratically controlled Congress as Coulter, Hannity & Rush have been, you might have a point.  But the thing is that Farrakhan has not been embraced by the Democratic Party or by liberals in even a tenth of the way that the flaming airbags of the right have.  You've got nothing here.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by jeter2 (February 27, 2008 5:33 pm ET)
                       

                    Moonbat,

                    Missing the point I see.

                    The trio I mentioned do not speak for all Conservatives, just as Farrakhan does not speak for all African-Americans. Guilt-by-association.

                    Now isn't that simple? No one said this was a Republican/Conservative vs Liberal/Democratic comparison.

                    Get it yet?

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by MoonbatYouBet (February 28, 2008 12:57 pm ET)
                         

                      I still think you're stretching things a bit, but taken out of the ridiculous conservative/liberal framing we all get trapped in your example is slightly closer to being on point.  It might be more fair to say that holding up Hannity as an example of what white people believe is similar to what is being done with Obama and Farrakhan.

                      Coulter is on her way to becoming as marginalized as Farrakhan is now but it's coming far too late.  Hannity and Rush still enoy a very strong amount of support in the conservative world and nobody is asking the Republican candidates to distance themselves from them in the same way they are asking Obama to denounce radical minority leaders or Hillary to reject feminist extremists.  The only reason McCain is doing these sorts of things voluntarily is because he can't win without a strong centrist appeal.

                      Report Abuse
            • Author by BillJ-MN (February 27, 2008 3:21 pm ET)
                 

              I did like Williams' ad lib after the exchange.  After Obama brushed it aside by saying he both denounced and rejected there was audience applause.  Williams responded "Rare audience outburst on the agreement over rejecting and renouncing."

              Report Abuse
            • Author by anotheramerican (February 27, 2008 3:22 pm ET)
                 

              Tommy,

              I guess the point is the different playing field those on the left get to play on.  Had a Republican gotten an endorsement by a racist, the press would have been all over it and they would have had to immediately denounce and reject the endorsement.  But because he's a lefty, Obama gets a pass and can deflect a legitimate criticism by saying it is semantics? 

              Maybe it is his style as I only recently started watching him in debates but his very soft "denunciation" stood out to me that he really didn't have much of a problem with Farahkkan. I thought his conceding the point stood out like a beacon. He was simply too milquetoast. 

              Had it been a Republican candidate's tepid denounciation under pressure and it would have been headline news.  

              Report Abuse
              • Author by BillJ-MN (February 27, 2008 3:29 pm ET)
                   
                You must have been watching a different debate.  I saw Obama strongly deouncing and rejecting Farrakhan's endorsement.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (February 27, 2008 3:38 pm ET)
                   
                What are you talking about? GOP candidates show fealty to Bob Jones University all the time and the press acts like its de riguer. You really live in your own little world dont you?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by wzwriter (February 28, 2008 9:09 am ET)
                     

                  You really live in your own little world dont you?

                  I thought he lived in his parents' basement....  :-)

                  Report Abuse
              • Author by jeter2 (February 27, 2008 3:46 pm ET)
                   

                AA,

                While I agree the media would be all over a Republican, how do you see Obama not being pressed on this?

                Russert was quite thorough in his questioning on this topic. Obama did not get a pass.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by anotheramerican (February 27, 2008 3:57 pm ET)
                     

                  Jeter,

                  My point was about the media's non-reaction to Farrakhan's endorsement before Russert asked the question.  I thought Russert did an okay job but did not hold Obama's feet to the fire. As someone else pointed out the reference to Obama's racist minister got lost in the exchange with Hillary. 

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by jeter2 (February 27, 2008 4:17 pm ET)
                       

                    Grrrrr I keep trying to reply to AA here & MMFA keeps telling me to knock off the profanity. Only thing is, there isn't any in my post!! Heck you could read it in church!!

                    I've seen others complain about this too. Come on MMFA, please fix this problem.

                    AA, I'll keep trying to answer your post...

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by worrierking (February 27, 2008 4:37 pm ET)
                         
                      Last week I was prevented from posting and accused of using profanity and the closest to profanity was my use of the name of the guy who made the "Sweating to the Oldies" exercise videos.

                      In fact I tried to use his name in this post and it was blocked. The only thing I changed to get this past the censor was to delete his name.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (February 27, 2008 4:48 pm ET)
                           
                        Dick Simmons?
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by worrierking (February 27, 2008 4:51 pm ET)
                             
                          How did you get that by?

                          I used Richard, not Dick.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (February 27, 2008 6:20 pm ET)
                               
                            Maybe they put the profanity filter in backward, and you didn't have enough profanity in your post. I put a fuel filter in backward once, it can really mess you up.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by worrierking (February 28, 2008 7:02 am ET)
                                 
                              I'll have to try adding more profanity.

                              I wonder if it's possible to mention a Simmons Beautyrest Mattress?
                              Report Abuse
                  • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (February 27, 2008 4:30 pm ET)
                       

                    My point was about the media's non-reaction to Farrakhan's endorsement before Russert asked the question.

                    AA, the reason for the media and Obama's non-reaction to Farrakhan is because he's not relevant. He's a sick old man who has never had the great appeal some portray him to have. He's no MLK or Malcolm X and has little if no influence or power in the African American communities.

                    Report Abuse
          • Author by BillJ-MN (February 27, 2008 3:14 pm ET)
               

            It probably never occurred to Obama that his denunciation of Farrakhan could be viewed as anything other than a rejection of the endorsement.  It's not as though Obama didn't denounce Farrakhan until he was called on it.  He's been critical of Farrakhan for years.

            Did anyone actually think "Obama is denouncing Farrakhan but he didn't use the word 'reject' so he must be accepting the endorsement."  Is anyone that stupid?

            Clinton was pushing a distinction without a difference.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (February 27, 2008 4:45 pm ET)
                 

              Did anyone actually think "Obama is denouncing Farrakhan but he didn't use the word 'reject' so he must be accepting the endorsement."  Is anyone that stupid?- BillJ-MN

              Did you read all of the comments, Bill? ;0)

              Report Abuse
          • Author by lostlogic (February 27, 2008 3:28 pm ET)
               
            I agree it would have been better to just answer the rejection question the moderator posed instead of quibbeling.  I actually think the more important issue is the Pastor...I find it disengenuous to say you denounce those views that are controversial about his pastor and yet still embrace the Pastor...I just don't think you can have it both ways.  I think the difference with Farakhan is there appears to be no actual relationship between those two so it is much easier to answer.  I noticed he didn't take a stand to reject his pastor for sharing the same views he denounces in Farakhan.  I think this could be a problem for him down the road if the media runs with it because he clearly has an ongoing relationship with the pastor.  I think Obama should distance himself from this pastor too.  I don't think Obama shares their views there is nothing to suggest he does and he has clearly said he doesn't agree with them on these issues.  But I think the apperance of still having a relationship with one can give some pause.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by anotheramerican (February 27, 2008 3:48 pm ET)
                 

              Lost,

              I may have missed it, but I did not see in the news anywhere after hearing that Farrakhan endorsed Obama that he rejected it.  

              A google news search does not show anything before last night's debate.

              It was only when pressed by Clinton and Russert did Obama give his limp wristed denunciation. 

              When you add that to his relationship with a racist pastor, his wife's 'proud' moment, it starts to gel that Barak may not be the all-american boy-next-door image he's been cultivating. 

              Report Abuse
              • Author by jeter2 (February 27, 2008 3:59 pm ET)
                   
                I don't know AA, say David Duke endorsed McCain, I wouldn't expect him [McCain] to call a news conference or send out a memo to the press denouncing or rejecting the endorsement. I figure he'd wait until the media asked about it.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by anotheramerican (February 27, 2008 4:13 pm ET)
                     

                  The difference being the media would have pressed McCain about two seconds after Duke endorsed McCain asking for a comment. It looks like it took over 24 hours for Russert to bring it up. 

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by jeter2 (February 27, 2008 4:21 pm ET)
                       

                    The difference being the media would have pressed McCain about two seconds after Duke endorsed McCain asking for a comment.

                    Very true. It's those pesky double standards that the Libs are always complaining they are the only victims of ;-)

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by dbeden4153 (February 27, 2008 4:47 pm ET)
                       

                    "The difference being the media would have pressed McCain about two seconds after Duke endorsed McCain asking for a comment. It looks like it took over 24 hours for Russert to bring it up."

                    That's a ridiculous assertion.  A whole 24 hours you say?  Well that tears it, Obama must be getting a free pass in the media.

                    I mean, a whole 24 hours until it was brought up, it's almost as if Obama didn't talk to the media in that 24 hours... 

                    Report Abuse
              • Author by lostlogic (February 27, 2008 5:30 pm ET)
                   
                AA, I read an article that came out right after Farakhan did it and yes Obama was on the record denouncing the views so I don't think that is an issue.  I also think Obama is exactly the proud patriotic American he appears to be.  I don't think Micheele Obama picked the right words to get her point across about the issue of political engagement being the issue she was proud of not the Country in general...she explained and clarified let it go.  I have heard Obama speak on the issue of his country, I have seen how he has worked for his country so I have no doubt about his love of country or what this country and its people mean to him.  I do not like his Pastors views the same way I do not like Farakhans and I do think it would be better for Obama to distance himself from both as he has done with Farakhan but that is more a preference on my part because I truly believe he does not agree with their views...I just wish in the issue of his pastor his words matched his actions the way I would prefer to see...but that is just my opinion and take.  By the way my issues with the pastor has nothing to do with the tenets of the church but rather his support of Farakhan and those controversial issues...not the nonsense of people claiming it is a speratist church...that I think is bonk.
                Report Abuse
      • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (February 27, 2008 3:07 pm ET)
           

        She stated that his "denunciation" of Farrakhan didn't meet the standard of "rejection."  It struck me as being very petty on Clinton's part.

        That must be part of the "kitchen sink", unfortunately it was really petty.

        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.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by lostlogic (February 27, 2008 3:12 pm ET)
           
        The one thing I would say is if it was petty why did Obama refuse to use the words reject when the moderator asked more then once if he would reject...Obama chose to not give a direct answer to the moderator and instead chose to say denounce and that he can't tell someone what to do.  Then he tried to make light of there being no difference if there was no difference then why quibble with the moderator over the word to begin with.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (February 27, 2008 3:21 pm ET)
             

          It's so interesting the way these Hillary supporters post on this site every time a media person opens their mouth and some falsehood or lie spills out, they are all over them - yet when Hillary herself tells a blatant lie about Obama wanting to bomb Pakistan, it's excused and rationalized and brushed under the rug like it's no big deal.

          Well, when a politician, those who make our laws and work for us, tell lies, it's a far bigger deal than some dumb talk show host.  

          One drives you nuts, the other doesn't bother you? How pitiful. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (February 27, 2008 3:24 pm ET)
               

            Tommy,

            You seem to forget that is exactly what Obama was implying. Did he not in the debate mention the drone bombing of Al Queda's #3 man in Pakistan as a similar position to his own?  I think you are making too big a deal out of this supposed lie.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by commonsenseliberal (February 27, 2008 4:42 pm ET)
                 
              When are you and Tommy going to quit derailing threads? It's getting old - really.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by wzwriter (February 28, 2008 9:12 am ET)
                   

                When are you and Tommy going to quit derailing threads? It's getting old - really.

                They're using a standard ploy of the right - when you have nothing to back up your argument, derail the thread....

                Report Abuse
                • Author by anotheramerican (February 28, 2008 11:37 am ET)
                     

                  Apparently you do not understand what is a "thread". By definition it cannot be derailed otherwise complaining about it would also be derailing it and you would be guilty of your own complaint.  Get it? :-) 

                  Thanks for the fun interlude. :-)

                  Report Abuse
          • Author by lostlogic (February 27, 2008 3:34 pm ET)
               
            Gee Tommy of the only argument that matters is she is an icky Clinton supporter.  Please show where I have done what you are accusing me of.  I have come out and gone on the record as saying I don't see it if I don't see it no matter who they are talking about.  I have also come out in defense of those I don't support when I don't agree with MMFA and other posters take on it.  I don't agree with you I have stated my reasons...you have not challenged a single one of those reasons but instead resort to nana boo boo you are a evil Clinton supporter.  I actually think we should be critical of all politicians.  I have explained my view if you disagre fine but perhaps you can actually address my actual view and explain what it is I am so blinded on.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (February 27, 2008 3:42 pm ET)
               
            Is Hillary part of the media? Why no she isnt. Therefore YOU. HAVE. NO. POINT.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by dbeden4153 (February 27, 2008 3:23 pm ET)
             
          That's being entirely petty, to quibble over the definitions of reject and denounce in the first place, which the moderators sought to bring out of him.  Obama was right to denounce him, and that's all he needed to do.  Would it make you feel differently about him if he agreed to reject him as well?  Why not repudiate, rebuke, vilify, excoriate and proscribe Farrakhan too?  Would that change your opinion on the subject?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by lostlogic (February 27, 2008 3:48 pm ET)
               
            I am fine with Obama's first respnse actually..to me that is all he really needed to do to repudiate comments someone made that he apparently has no association with.  As i said I think Obama opened himself up to the distinction by quibbiling with Russert.  I don't blaim Clinton for scoring a point off it in a debate much the same way I don't fault Obama for scoring points the same way.  My real issue is the Pastor...he can't simply repudiate his views while remaining a member of his congregation...in my opinion.  The pastor plays a roll in his life according to Obama and that is the real problem.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by dbeden4153 (February 27, 2008 4:28 pm ET)
                 

              "My real issue is the Pastor...he can't simply repudiate his views while remaining a member of his congregation...in my opinion.  The pastor plays a roll in his life according to Obama and that is the real problem."

              Why can't he?  Does Obama follow his pastor blindly? Can he not take his sermons and/or advice to heart while critically analyzing them and forming his own opinions on the matter?

              Report Abuse
              • Author by lostlogic (February 27, 2008 5:17 pm ET)
                   
                Dbeden, I want to be clear this is my opinion.  I do think it gives a person pause because of the roll of a religious leader to his congregation.  For example there was a surrogate of Obama's that made a sexist comment about Clinton and Obama denounced the comments...I think that was enough to disagree with the person's comments and there was no need to stop all association with that person due to just an imprudent comment.  The difference here is a Pastor has a different roll...you belong to his congregation and you look to him for guidance and by being a member of his congregation you give support to his views by your very support of the pastor's leadership. By being a member of this congregation you do give the impression you follow its beliefs.  I am not discounting an argument can be made for why it doesn't but I think it does give a person pause and I think he should disengage himself from this particular Pastors congregation.  I don't think Obama supports these views he has said he does not and there is nothing to show he is not being sincere but his association does raise an issue.  By the way it is not enough of an issue for me not to vote for him but it does show poor judgement in my opinion and it may cause others who put more weight into this type of thing to not vote for him.  At the end of the day I do want a democrat in the White House and I think this could be something that loses him votes if the media were to make a story out of it...I don't want that to happen.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by wzwriter (February 28, 2008 9:14 am ET)
                     
                  Since that pastor is either about to retire of recently retired, the point is moot. 
                  Report Abuse
        • Author by BillJ-MN (February 27, 2008 3:27 pm ET)
             

          The one thing I would say is if it was petty why did Obama refuse to use the words reject when the moderator asked more then once if he would reject

          You mean like the point in the debate when Obama stated:

          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.

          I didn't see any point in the debate that Obama refused to use the word "reject."  Perhaps you could point it out to me in the transcript.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by anotheramerican (February 27, 2008 3:34 pm ET)
               

            Bill,

            I am not arguing the point you made, but I think it is clear that to be happy to concede a point about rejecting and denouncing is not the same thing as really denouncing.   

            If it is, that's the weakest denouncement I have ever heard.  

            Report Abuse
            • Author by BillJ-MN (February 27, 2008 3:54 pm ET)
                 

              Within that phrase he stated that he did reject and denounce.  It wasn't an aside about definitions, it was a statement of his position.

              As far as weakness goes, it's not as though that was his only denouncement.  He has been denouncing Farrakhan for years for his views.  He offered strong denouncements within the debate itself.  He stated "I've been very clear, in terms of me believing that what he has said is reprehensible and inappropriate. And I have consistently distanced myself from him."

              Looks like a pretty strong denunciation to me.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by anotheramerican (February 27, 2008 4:07 pm ET)
                   

                Bill,

                I understand the words he used, but from my vantage point, there was no forcefulness or emotion behind those words. Reading the words comes across completely different than actually watching Obama reluctantly, (albeit happily,) concede the point. I felt it was obvious his body language and voice inflection did not match his words.

                 

                 

                Report Abuse
                • Author by BillJ-MN (February 27, 2008 4:12 pm ET)
                     
                  I think by that point he wasn't reacting so much to any opinion of Farrakhan as he was bemused by Clinton's obsessing over a word.  My perception is that that was the source of his emotion at the time.  Should he have maintained a constant level of outraged indignation for the full time the topic was Farrakhan?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by anotheramerican (February 27, 2008 4:19 pm ET)
                       

                    Bill wrote: Should he have maintained a constant level of outraged indignation for the full time the topic was Farrakhan?

                    Bill,

                    It looked to me like Barak never exhibited any outraged indignation at all during that segment. I didn't see any emotion at all when he was explaining his position. There was a disconnect the whole time between what he said and the way he said it. 

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by BillJ-MN (February 27, 2008 4:29 pm ET)
                         

                      No, I don't think outraged indignation was called for at all, must less all the way through.  I wouldn't have seen it as an issue requiring an extra degree of passion.  He treated the Farrakhan issue as inconsequential because he saw it that way.

                      I don't think he handled the original questioning any differently than he did any of the questions up to that point.  It was controlled, thoughtful and intelligent throughout.  You were seeing an offhandedness that I wasn't.

                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by Preston (February 27, 2008 4:45 pm ET)
                         

                      But, AnotherAmerican, if Obama did expressed "outrage" then people like you would say he's having a "Howard Dean moment." He's damned if he do, damned if he don't, it seems.

                      For heaven sakes, what do expect from Obama? To leap on top of the table, fire streaming from his nostrils and scream loudly to the camera, "I REJECT Louis Farrakhan and his views!" Obama stated that he rejects Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism, that he honors the historical relationship between Jews and Blacks during the Civil Rights Movement, that he's pro-Israel. What more do you want?

                      I think what the Right finds upsetting is HOW Obama responds to opposition. Newt Gingrich warned Republicans that if they attack Obama thorough this route it's going to backfire because Obama’s way of handling attacks is unique: like Ronald Reagan he tends come off carefree, sardonic and because of that, unscathed, while the attacker is deemed desperate and petty. The question by Russert was dumb in the first place because he has denounced -- oops, excuse me, REJECTED -- Farrakhan a while back. He has explained his church and its self-help theology before. What is so frightening about black unity?

                      Is all this questioning about Obama's church has to do with the fact that there are many white people afraid that if he becomes president he's going to somehow seek retribution for past injustices such as Slavery and Jim Crow? This what it's all about, isn't it? Even the most moderate, non-threatening black man can't escape the stereotypes of black savagery. D.W. Griffith’s "A Birth of A Nation" was more prophetic than I thought.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (February 27, 2008 4:56 pm ET)
                           

                        "For heaven sakes, what do expect from Obama? To leap on top of the table, fire streaming from his nostrils and scream loudly to the camera, "I REJECT Louis Farrakhan and his views!" (Preston)

                        Ha! That's what I've been trying to figure out, Obama is questioned about what is really a non-issue; Does he denounce somebody who has nothing to do with him, and for whom he has expressed his disapproval in the past? Why should he, any more than anybody else, be pressured to do tricks for the camera?

                        But then again, AA was interpreting body language, and Obama wasn't meeting the expected hysteria level that a couch-fainter might imagine the situation called for. Too funny.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by Preston (February 27, 2008 5:28 pm ET)
                             

                          But then again, AA was interpreting body language, and Obama wasn't meeting the expected hysteria level that a couch-fainter might imagine the situation called for. Too funny.

                          Too funny, indeed! I should expect such remarks from AA, because repeatedly he has proven to be unreasonable with his black-and-white sort of thinking. No wonder he sounds identical to Sean Hannity.

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (February 27, 2008 7:24 pm ET)
                               

                            He may be watching a little bit too much BilldO'Reilly, too.Seems sort of conditioned towards emotion over reason, not to mention the "body language interpretation". ;0)

                             

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by anotheramerican (February 28, 2008 11:59 am ET)
                                 

                              Hey guys, I appreciate your attempts at understanding me. However, rather than misinterpret my motivations, why not just talk about the ideas? I think you mistakenly mischaracterize the point I was making.

                              Preston, no I didn't think Obama needed to shout or become enraged. You are creating a straw man with that argument.  I simply pictured in my mind immediately after he gave his 'denounciation', what if someone else had used the same body language and the same monotone. If they had, I doubt it would have passed muster. I saw what I believe to be a disconnect. In my humble opinion, in this instance, his voice inflection and his body language did not match his words. 

                              Of course everyone is free to interpret Obama's answer in their own way. Obama's 'happily conceding' comment, was, in my opinion, out of sync with the subject of rebuking and disavowing Farrakhan and the criticism Clinton leveled toward him.  

                              Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (February 27, 2008 8:51 pm ET)
                     
                  So then he DID denounce and reject Farrakhan but not with enough passion and zeal to satisfy you? Are you kidding me?
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by lostlogic (February 27, 2008 3:38 pm ET)
               
            If you read through the transcript look where the moderator addresses the actual question he more then once tried to get Obama to say reject but Obama would not and instead gave his answer about controling what people say and said he does dinounce his views.  If the moderator hadn't made a point to try and get him to say reject then I would agree with you it is a petty distinction but it was Obama who originally introduced the distinction.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by BillJ-MN (February 27, 2008 4:00 pm ET)
                 

              Ok, re-reading the early part of the transcript I can see where he didn't happen to use the term "reject."  From the video it appears to me he was trying to give a more substantial answer and it possibly didn't occur to him that his use of the word "reject" was required to make his position clear.  He didn't hesitate a short time later when the use of the word was brought up again.

              I just couldn't see it as a weak rejection of Farrakhan or any dancing around the question.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by IRONY 101 (February 27, 2008 4:21 pm ET)
                 

              When the moderator attempted to get Obama to say reject and Obama stuck to denounce my impression was this. Obama is a great speaker who chooses his words precisely. One rule of thumb in the political arena is to always answer a question with the words you choose, and not necessarily the questioner's words. My impression was that Obama was being disciplined by following that rule. As soon as Hillary began speaking I saw exactly where she was going with reject and you could see a bemused look on Obama's face. It wasn't a big deal to him and he handled it well.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by lostlogic (February 27, 2008 5:45 pm ET)
                   
                Bill and Irony, neither of you are wrong in how you saw it because that is how you saw it.  I was asked to point out what I was referring to I did...that is what made me see it the way I did.  I think people saw it both ways...I would imagine their biases pro and con has an impact onhow they view it too to a certain extent.  I think Russert laid a trap for Obama and I think Obama fell into it...it just would have been smarter to when pressed by Russert use the very line he used on Clinton to mock the idea that there was adistinction...again I think it was his actions that gave the distinction by not debunking the moderator when he tried to make it.  I think Clinton just capitalized on Obama's mistake.  Again I hope everyone has gotten my position clear...I was fine with his original denunciation and Russert was silly to pursue it...unfortunatley Obama fell into it and that it all I am pointing out.
                Report Abuse
      • Author by jawill11 (February 27, 2008 3:27 pm ET)
           
        I totally agree that Clinton looked terrible with her interjection, but before it even got to that, I thought Russert was making an ass of himself by hammering a dead point going on and on with no substance when Obama clearly and thoroughly stated his position and his actions in his initial response.  I know I don't have the temperment to be President becuase I would have screamed at him, "didn't I just answer that 5 seconds ago?  Were you even listening to me?" 
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (February 27, 2008 3:44 pm ET)
             

          I feel the same way, Jawill. Obama seemed to be onlly amused that the distinction was being made.What some here saw as a wimpy response was simply a rational answer, and then an explanation, forced by those trying to create an artificial difference between "reject" and "denounce".

          I got a good laugh out of it, actually. Obama sort of got in a funny, as he laughingly "conceded" the imaginary difference, and Hillary said "Good!" or something like that, as if she was claiming a victory in the matter.

          I may have to add on a denunciation register to my Jingometer.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by IRONY 101 (February 27, 2008 4:08 pm ET)
               

            Jingometer?

            USA! USA! USA!...   ;>)

            Report Abuse
          • Author by worrierking (February 27, 2008 4:43 pm ET)
               
            I need some clarification.

            Is our company putting out the Jingometer or is this one of your side projects?

            I have no problem if it's a side project. I wish you well.

            My question is how do you pronounce the word?

            Is the emphasis on the "O" as in Jing-O meter? Or is it pronounced Jingometer as in thermometer?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (February 27, 2008 5:01 pm ET)
                 
              I think jing-AHM-et-er is a bit more subtle and rolls off the tongue. This will be produced completely under the auspices of the North American Star-Spangled Adult Diapers, Jingometers and Hate Horse Tack and Feed Corporation.
              Report Abuse
    • Author by jeter2 (February 27, 2008 2:56 pm ET)
         

      Hey it's the NY Times, what do ya expect? Of course I'm sure everyone here was concerned about their half-baked article on McCain too. Yeah right ;-)

      Sorry I just can't conjure up any outrage on this one.

      But it's nice to know the NY Times is fair & balanced when it comes to their sloppy reporting.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Lynn (February 27, 2008 5:51 pm ET)
           
        Just for the record Jeter. I thought the article was ridiculous and MSNBC breaking into their regularly scheduled show to announce it even more so. I thought John McCain had been shot or something. I don't understand why the Times went with and emphasized an assumed sexy twist to the story. I'm not one of those people that react to those sexy sensationalistic stories anyway unless it's about one of those holier than thou hypocrites that keep getting caught doing things they sanctimoniously condemn others for; then I kind of guiltily enjoy that. Gee I guess that’s bad of me huh? I do however think there was a story there worth exploring and that's John McCain’s relationship with lobbyists period. He didn't appear to be doing anything illegal or immoral just kind of contrary to his trademark lets get the pork out of DC stance, and lobbyist are a good chunk of that pork. I’m still ticked off about that credit card thing.   

         

        Report Abuse
    • Author by pbeat (February 28, 2008 3:02 am ET)
         
      de·nounce  1. To condemn openly as being evil or reprehensible.re·ject  1. To refuse to accept, submit to, believe, or make use of.Now you know why Obama was laughing when Clinton suggested that he should use the "stronger" term reject instead of denounce. She is a fool and takes any positon that will gain voters' attention. I particulary was disgusted by her comment during the Israeli Lebanon conflict  that Israel had a right to defend themselves and kill hundreds of innocent Lebonese children and women  with bombs and destroy a whole town in retaliation for Hebolah holding 2 Israeli soldiers. Real classy. Her supporters are militant and would refuse to support Obama if he were the candidate. Shows you how un Democratic the are. I believe Obama supporters would still want to elect a Democrat in 08 but Hill supporters would prefer McCain to their "enemy" Obama.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.