Reject vs Denounce: The power of words

During the debate last night, it was obvious that the moderators were focused (almost obsessively) on getting their questions answered.

All by itself, that made the entire event much different from previous debates, and at the general level, they should be commended for it. It’s been frustrating in the extreme to hear candidates wander off on tangents, and never get called back to the initial point. Furthermore, I felt that the debate format, and most of the questions (yes, even the silly ones), were an improvement over prior events.

There was, however, an exchange that bothered me — not because the question itself was asked, but because the moderator evidently didn’t understand the answer. In a debate, I see that as a real problem:

[Russert]: 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?

SEN. 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 was not satisfied, and came back around with four more questions on the subject — and in the process, he started dropping some of the more heinous Farrakhan comments into the record. That was, in my opinion, both unnecessary and inflammatory.

In the context of a debate, though, there’s an argument to be made for Russert’s tenacity with the original question. Staying on topic and requiring direct answers is A Good Thing. Unfortunately, he absolutely would not let go of his question without hearing a response keyed to the word he’d fixed in his mind: “accept”, or its antonym, “reject”.

This morning, the blogosphere’s all abuzz about the Farrakhan exchange — and while there are people who understood the meanings of these words, I’m shocked at how many people apparently don’t.

So here, in the interests of edification, is “denounce“:

1. speak out against;

2. to accuse or condemn or openly or formally or brand as disgraceful

or,

1: to pronounce especially publicly to be blameworthy or evil

Denounce is an extremely strong word, and it carries with it much deeper levels of meaning than the simple word “reject“:

1.to refuse to have, take, recognize, etc.

3.to refuse to accept (someone or something); rebuff:

or,

1 a: to refuse to accept, consider, submit to, take for some purpose, or use

Obama answered the question much more forcefully than was required… and although Hillary Clinton followed Russert into this pit, she had a valid reason for doing so. She, unlike the moderators, had a stake in the debate. Russert’s foolishness gave her an opening, and she understandably tried to take it.

Tim Russert has no such excuse, and his refusal inability to process the information exposed him as either illiterate on these basic vocabulary words, or as a cheap hack trying to score points in his own right.

In either case, he embarrassed himself.