By Dan Kennedy • The press, politics, technology, culture and other passions

Rejections and denunciations

Maybe I’m too caught up in the moment, but I thought Clinton really got the worst of it in trying to say Obama didn’t go far enough in “denouncing” Louis Farrakhan’s endorsement — she said he should have “rejected” it, as she had done with a sleazy supporter in New York. Obama laughed a bit, said he didn’t see the difference and added that if it made her feel better he would “reject and denounce.” Oof.

This is their third one-on-one, but the first time I’ve seen such a performance differential between the two of them.

Discover more from Media Nation

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.


Interesting omission


It’s over


  1. Bama-Rama

    Agree’dOriginally I thought she was going to be real classy there and defend Obama. At least thats how it sounded when she set the response up.Then she proceeded to attack him, and my jaw dropped. Did she just do that! I think the expectation that she was going to fight back against the moderator made the attack even more damaging and sleezy.

  2. Anonymous

    I think that denouncing something is stronger that rejecting it. You can reject something without denouncing it. The same thing does work the other way.When you reject something you just basically don’t accept it. When you denounce something you are condemning it.

  3. Anonymous

    I’m still waiting for Obama to “reject and denounce” Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn of the Weather Underground, who helped him get his start. Three people died in a Greenwich Village explosion that exposed a plot to overthrow the U.S. Govt. by violent means. These people actually declared war on the US. Your average centrist voter has a vision of Barack totally at odds with his background. Are we boomers all suffering amnesia? As the twig is bent, so grows the tree.

  4. mike_b1

    You mean his background as a fatherless near-orphan raised by his grandparents while his semi-wackjob mother flew all over the world, who then got himself into not one but two Ivy League schools, including the best law school in the world … who then decided NOT to work on Wall St as a $800/hr lawyer but instead went to inner city Chicago and worked basically for free?That’s some bent twig. What have you done with your life?

  5. anon 9:33

    Mike,A. you avoided the question, his mother is an explanation, not an excuse.B. you’re apparently too young to remember the “Days of Rage”.(Google Bernadine Dohrn). To say that he gets a pass on his associates is insulting to those of us who also grew up in similar circumstances to his and now work in the public sector, (after a similar education, thank you very much). He plans to take the oath of office while accepting the support of people WHO DECLARED WAR on the US. If he can’t find it in him to renounce antisemitism or his violent former associates, what are we to think?

  6. mike_b1

    I fail to see how Obama’s mother explains anything, unless you think that the path to success is to have a single part-time parent. Oh, and to be a minority, too.Further, unless you believe Obama also plans to declare war on the US — and it’s abundantly clear he doesn’t — he doesn’t have to give it a moment’s notice. It’s a red herring. Stop falling for it.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén