Having noted that Barack Obama has given some evasive answers to questions about alleged influence peddler and Obama donor Tony Rezko, it is worth noting that Obama also has given evasive answers when questioned about Louis Farrakhan’s support of his campaign and about his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Adam Freedman, writing in the New York Times, revisits the answers Obama gave at last week’s presidential debate in Ohio, focusing on the linguistics of the exchange. After explaining why Obama was wrong in suggesting that there was no difference between “rejecting” and “denouncing,†Freedman observes:
In the debate, Mr. Obama focused on “denouncing,†apparently to suggest that his public condemnation of Mr. Farrakhan ought to resolve any doubt about where he stands.
But in this context, “reject†implies an even more thorough rebuke, which is perhaps why Mr. Obama initially resisted the word. Reject derives from the Latin reicere, “to throw back.†To reject something means to refuse to receive, accept or even recognize it. You hurl it back, literally or metaphorically. By emphasizing the need to “reject†Mr. Farrakhan, Mrs. Clinton was disputing Mr. Obama’s statement that he could not stop the controversial minister from saying that “he thinks I’m a good guy.â€Â
As so often happens in politics, the quarrel between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton came down to a matter of direct objects. Both “reject†and “denounce†are transitive verbs  they act upon a direct object  but the candidates weren’t talking about the same objects. The object of Mr. Obama’s denunciation was Mr. Farrakhan’s opinions, particularly his anti-Semitic comments, whereas Mrs. Clinton was urging her opponent to reject the minister’s support. The thrust of Mrs. Clinton’s challenge was that her opponent was merely highlighting a particular disagreement with Mr. Farrakhan, while still accepting his  and his organization’s  backing.
And Obama was allowed to confuse the issue by leaving the direct object ambiguous at the debate.
Byron York made a similar point in a different way, also noting Obama’s attempt to simply rely on his prior statement on Farrakhan:
At that point it became clear that Obama simply would not say that he rejected Farrakhan’s support, preferring instead to refer to, but not repeat, previous statements. It’s a common technique for a politician who doesn’t want to say something to say that he has said it before without actually saying what he says he said.
York’s hypothesis is validated by a close look at Obama’s prior statement regarding Farrakhan, and Wright’s decision to honor Farrakhan:
I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree.
This statement is so carefully lawyered as to earn the description of Clintonesque. The first clue is the lack of parallelism. He decries racism and anti-Semitism in every form, but condemns only Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic statements, thus raisng the question of why he does not condemn Farrakhan’s racist statements. There are any number of people, generally of the Left, some black, who believe that blacks cannot be racist (see, e.g., the discussions here, here and here). AFAIK, Obama has not been asked his opinion on that question, but it would explain the non-parallel structure of his statement.
The statement is also notable insofar as it does not reject Farrakhan’s support.
The statement is further notable in that Obama purportedly assumes that the Rev. Wright’s magazine was giving Farrakhan an award for on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders. Of course, anyone with internet access can view the Trumpeteer Awards Gala video honoring Farrakhan to discover that the endorsement is a broad lifetime achievement award, calling him “misunderstood.”  The video also has some interesting quotes about Farrakhan by Rev. Wright. Thus, Obama’s statement exhibits — at the very least — a willful blindness necessary to preserve plausible deniability.
Whether the nutroots’ attempted mau mauing of Tim Russert for asking a question on the subject at the Ohio debate will cause the press to drop the issue remains to be seen.
…and just to get it out of the way:
HAGEE!!!
TU COQUE!!!
i think they will drop it.
an i dont think it matters.
blacks will still vote for O whether it is reject or denounce.
OTOH mccain cant denounce or reject hagee. mccain needs those theocon votes.
they are 1/3 of the republican party.
and theocons are not voting for mccain now.
they are voting for huckabee.
mccain cant denounce or reject hagee. mccain needs those theocon votes.
they are 1/3 of the republican party.
nishi, why are you spamming the comments?
How many times do you have to say it to make it be true?
Do you really imagine that anyone doesn’t know your distorted view on this?
One hundred percent of the Republican party is against Obama’s socialisty hopeychangeyness is really the more important poll result I think. Obama is unitely like that, nishi. You should have more faith in him.
Thanks for demonstrating how little you know about politics. Do you really think this is an issue that has to do with blacks supporting O?
Incidentally, I don’t mind nishi (wrongly) droning on about theocons, mostly because I have a post in the works about which candidate in this contest is the more theocratic. And it ain’t McCain.
nishi:
there is no such thing as a theocon. really there is not. you are fixated and i noticed how you simply changed the subject from the fascist farrakhan to some guy most americans have never heard of and could care less about.
now for something more interesting neo-neocon has a link to a video sure to give us visions of huey long and elmer gantry and jim jones and burning compounds in waco and other mindless drooling chanting cult followers and their crazed messianic leaders.
McCain needs only 100 more delegates. We know he’s the titular nominee, and Huckholio won’t be the VP under any circumstances.
Nor Romney, I hope.
“How many times do you have to say it to make it be true?”
Beat me to it. I next expect nishi to stand up and scream that “To Serve Man” is a cookbook.
Karl:
That video might help with the whole theocratic thing. I disliked Kerry, I am not a Hillary fan…but neither of them creeped me out the way Obama does. And it is not just Obama, it is his fan club.
Grats, nishi, you have achieved Typing Telephone Pole status.
Terrye,
My upcoming post will definitely have some video. But I’m not sure when it will be ready, as I want to have things nailed down just so.
Actus’ pedantic self-righteousness isn’t that easily topped. I think you’ve gone soft in his absence. :P
i guess im still shocked that u all are so accepting of hagee.
i cant believe it.
hagee just doesnt seem to inspire incredulous revulsion from alla u.
like he does in me.
Chicago has far and away the highest sales taxes in the country but also they won’t let Wal-Mart open a store. That’s Obamanomics.
i thot….i maybe belonged here because you are all pretty intelligent.
guess im wrong.
oh link
Ric called him, I can’t remember, but it was derogativey, and I called him a big Jesusy Baby Huey.
Hate Hagee?
Who’s Hagee, anyways? Nobody important, that’s for sure.
Now Farrakhan I easily recognize…
There is certainly such a thing as a Republican theo-con. They aren’t hard to find, since Huckabee’s partly a product of the phenomenon. It’s also not a coincidence that he attracts the same sort of blind adulation as Obama.
#16
You’re dense.
But at least Hick doesn’t speak in obonics. Hah I just wanted to say that, really.
im still shocked that u all are so accepting of hagee.
i cant believe it.
Who (here) is accepting of Hagee? No one. They are not rejecting McCain because of Hagee’s endorsement. Rejecting McCain, perhaps, for other reasons. But not because of Hagee.
I thought “you” were supposed to be so smart.
#
Comment by nishizonoshinji on 3/2 @ 5:58 pm #
hagee just doesnt seem to inspire incredulous revulsion from alla u.
like he does in me.
Greetings from a Christian Zionist American(in that order *wink*)
I see our resident nazi oppps Muslim has a hard time here.
Nish Nish Nish, did you know that the prophet mohammed *spit* was a murder, rapist, thief, liar and a phediphile (sp). Tiss true. How do I know, oh I read the koran, hadith and sira.
She is smart. Hagee is a conundrum for real. It’s just not fair cause he’s the sort of thing that actually does count for substance in a campaign which is not grounded in issues. He can’t be easily elided, so his magnified import is really incontestable.
But the troof is, Obama is largely an unknown. McCain is all too well known. That’s what should contextualize the relative import of Wright and Hagee.
I think “televangelist” covers it. who here would take one seriously? though, please, anyone correct me if I’m wrong.
Yay! Maggie I think shows how Hagee is easily elided after all. That’s really quite sharp. Posts with Hagee and Televangelist in the title, please. I think Texas Televangelist sounds even better.
It amazes me the patience with which people here continue to entertain the repetitively deluded. It is a typing telephone pole with a pleasant personality — nothing more.
nishi, I agree that you’re way too smart for us. Run along, now.
I’ve recently come to the same conclusion. It’s unfortunate IMO, but my time on the tubes is not unlimited.
I was responding to 31, BTW.
i thot….i maybe belonged here because you are all pretty intelligent.
Fine. Then respond to our arguments in a reasonable manner, instead of just spambotting the same comments.
Actually, my first comment covered it. Whatever one thinks of Hagee — and I am on record as not a fan — it is tu coque.
nishi likes to think she is smart and superior, but the question could then be thrown back as to why she doesn’t care about Farrakhan, the Weathermen, etc. There is no consistency from her on this, only a naked political agenda.
naked is good. I’m naked right now, under my clothing.
I love my new bathrobe. Hey! Here is a picture of Obama eating an ice cream cone!
On Texas ‘Toasted’ Hagee, Televangelist to Nishi, who is pole-sitting for Obama
Everybody’s favorite Typing Telephone Pole poster now, Nishi.
Sorry, Nishi, but Hagee can’t hold a candle to Obama’s twin towers of love and bondyness, Farrakahn and Lewis. You can stop trying to drum up those nonexistent negatives …
In Senator Obama, he has to be ambiguous and imprecise or he ends up annoying blacks. The Democrat lives and dies by the special interest group, like someone keeping fifteen plates spinning above a mine field: they fall, you lose.
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick, did nishi get The Job of defending The Obama on this site? Can anyone say anything critical about Obama with nishi blathering on and on and on and on* in defense of her man?
* and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on…
oh good lord
another creepy Obama youtube religious tent revival thingy from will.i.am[.a.cult.follower]
The watermark, Dipdive. Speaks volumes about the participants.
I’m beginning to wonder about that 666 visualization, incidentally.
Geez, Darleen.
Just geez.
“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.”
Reminds me of the Blue Oyster Cult song “I Am The One You Warned Me Of.”
We’re all doomed.
i thot….i maybe belonged here because you are all pretty intelligent.
guess im wrong.
You thought you might learn something? I guess we were all wrong.
“It amazes me the patience with which people here continue to entertain the repetitively deluded. It is a typing telephone pole with a pleasant personality  nothing more.”
I have yet to see the pleasant personality. Continuously iterating your fears and beliefs and then stating that they are positions held by many but not providing any proofs, constantly threadjacking, assigning to others beliefs and positions that they have denied taking and then doing it again – I do not think these are the actions of any sort of pleasant person. Superficially civil, but not pleasant.
I consider personality to be the superficial aspect of a person’s behavior, the face he or she puts on before others. Clearly the typing telephone pole in question has an underlying, unpleasant character that is betrayed by what little substance it allows us — mostly by accident — to see.
Ah. We had a failure in definition. I took personality to be the actual person, not the superficial mask that is put on for the world.