"I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting" - Barack Obama
Barack Obama was being totally honest. He doesn't...
Here's the difference. Courtesy of Merriam.
Denounce - to pronounce especially publicly to be blameworthy or evil
Reject - to refuse to accept, consider, submit to, take for some purpose, or use
If you were President, it could be the difference between just condemning the actions of a nation or moving aggressively and cutting off trade or diplomatic ties with that nation. And that is a considerable difference. But it's only words... so who cares?!
Follow Martin Lewis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheMartinLewis
The desperation coming from these myriad attacks on Obama is palpable and foetid! We've got one that compares the two candidates to a highschool romance (very mature. did you know there's a war on?). We've got one saying the only reason anyone supports Obama is that he's young and male. We've got another one insulting his supporters' intelligence, claiming we're naieve. We've got the usual whining "the media is unfair to Hillary! SNL - the comedy show - proves it. Waaaah".
We've got yet another one saying words don't matter, and eloquent people (Bush - in that example) can still be fools. And now this one - the "parsing" attack that says words DO matter.
Yet not one on anything nearing substance.
I'm still waiting for one of you to tell me exactly WHAT in Hillary's 35 years (!) of vaunted experience she has actually accomplished for ME? Other than voting for the Iraq war. Other than voting for an Iran war. Other than FAILING miserably on healthcare. Other than trying to make flagburning a crime.
Still waiting.
Martin, visited your bio. Your national lineage provides you with a rich history in the use and power of words, how they can be massaged or stroked in treaties to serve an Empire, or, as in this brief polemic, to pick at nits, when the entire body politic is infested with fleas.
Perhaps we could ask Hillary to define "it" or "sexual relations" as she has learned from a master of parsing words as grand as any of your forebears. posted 02/27/2008 at 14:41:53
=============MARTIN RESPONDS===========
As I wrote in one of my many responses to a confused reader - he did finally concede the point. And he then rejected Farrakhan. And I salute him for doing so. But he only did it after the difference was explained to him by Clinton.
=============================
Race to see who can reject the most endorsements.
========MARTIN RESPONDS===============
Alas you are wrong. Taken verbatim from the debate. As can be checked...
===============================
Perhaps we could ask Hillary to define "it" or "sexual relations" as she has learned from a master of parsing words as grand as any of your forebears.
Now get ready because the people who support the clown who is going to bring us all together are going to rip you to pieces.
Yes, Words Matter. And not just when Obama says they matter.
Obama supporters who think that words matter only when they're spoken by Clinton, are in for a rude surprise when the GOP gets their hands on Mr. and Mrs. Obama.
There are still some of us left who can spot a waffle a mile away. Whether that waffle involves tax returns, campaign finance, or rabid anti-semite racists.
Thank you Martin, but I fear you are only burying your pearls of reason in the slop of this pigsty of a campaign.
===========MARTIN RESPONDS=============
I thought words matter. I didn't know they only matter when you say they matter...
===================================
Your decision to compare Farrakhan to a nation is pretty weak. Care to comment on that?
============MARTIN RESPONDS============
Since the fact that this issue is about precision of language - whether about a person or a nation - appears to elude you (words matter you see) the simple answer to your question is: "No"
================================
=============MARTIN RESPONDS==============
Yup. Every time a Democrat loses a Presidential election. (Which with the exception of Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 is quite often). And worse still when there is a failed single-term Democratic presidency. I recall when a decent well-intentioned Democratic President lost at the 1978 mid-terms and then his 1980 re-election. We then had to count angels for 12 long years till Bill Clinton was elected... And even after we inevitably paid the GOP revenge price at the 1994 mid-terms he fought back to win the 1996 election.
================================
Bill also represented everything that is wrong with DLC politics for 8 long years. The list of Bill Clinton's misdeeds is legion, both personal and political.
I am quite certain that Barack would not even couch a diplomatic effort in those terms but, should it become necessary, he would understand the difference before "condemning the actions of a nation or moving aggressively and cutting off trade or diplomatic ties with that nation."
In the midst of a live debate, the difference is largely semantic, so the comparison falls flat.
never made.
Also, does anyone notice that Barack is not particularly eloquent at debates....could it be because he has no words of others (plagiarized or not) or somply written for him.
Obama was caught seriously waffling on several important issues to us all... progressives SHOULD demand more from him, people. Starting now, before he backs himself into any more corners that he can't get out of and we'll all be stuck with.
Meanwhile, what WILL it take for you all learn that allowing the media and our opponents to overtly select our candidates is a two-edged sword?
Where's the media pushback on Obama's childish and petty attack on Clinton last night with his incredible assertion that his camp doesn't "whine"?! This days after they started a massive whining smear campaign on Clinton because now they're offended by the DRUDGE report, for God's sake! Have we progressives sunk so low that we'll allow the media to use Drudge as a primary source without challenge? How discouraging, folks.