Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« My Dream of Being a National C... | City and Police Guild Back in ... »

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Denounce or Reject? Pt. 2

posted by on March 12 at 14:51 PM

Now, this is funny.

Listen to Wolfson on Clinton and Ferraro:

Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman, replied that the campaign was “completely unaware” of Mrs. Ferraro’s remarks before she made them. “We did not in any way encourage them,” he said. He noted that when Mrs. Clinton responded to a question about the comments, she “made clear she disagreed with them and she rejected them.”

But didn’t Clinton make a big deal out of the meaning of the word “reject” when Obama simply “denounced” Louis Farrakhan.

“Reject,” as a NYT op/ed which defended Clinton’s position on the squabble, means to throw back, return. So, in practical political terms, it means to fire.

But Clinton did not fire Ferraro or ask her to step down:

She told CNN she had not been asked by the campaign to step aside but decided on her own it was the best move.

On a conference call this afternoon with Clinton officials, Andrea Mitchell of NBC News asked why Mrs. Clinton had not been more emphatic in objecting to Ms. Ferraro’s comments. She also asked if there hadn’t been a pattern by the Clinton campaign of exploiting such remarks after they had been made.

Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman, replied that the campaign was “completely unaware” of Mrs. Ferraro’s remarks before she made them. “We did not in any way encourage them,” he said. He noted that when Mrs. Clinton responded to a question about the comments, she “made clear she disagreed with them and she rejected them.”

RSS icon Comments

1

I think it is shameful that Senator Clinton did not both denounce and reject the support of Ms Ferraro.

But she'll still make a great US Supreme Court Justice.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 12, 2008 2:54 PM
2

*masturbatory hand gesture*

Posted by Greg | March 12, 2008 2:56 PM
3

As we all know, rejections don't count without denouncements. Can't have it both ways, madam. What was that about the lack of available free rides?

Posted by Beguine | March 12, 2008 3:00 PM
4

"Denounce" vs "reject" is an silly semantic point to bring up in a debate, but, since she did, I'm going to point out that denounce is actually the stronger verb. "Denounce" is to express strong disapproval, where "reject" is just to refuse to recognize.

Posted by Henrietta | March 12, 2008 3:00 PM
5

Dumbass Dems are still fighting. Keep it up!

Posted by Go McCain! | March 12, 2008 3:04 PM
6

Just use "piss on" instead.

Posted by tsm | March 12, 2008 3:05 PM
7

So will Geraldine be hosting an old-timey Pennsyltucky cross burning just in time for the primary?


Free hooded robes for all!

Posted by Original Andrew | March 12, 2008 3:06 PM
8

Its so disconcerning to see two women I used to view as amazing role models crumble before my very eyes. I know they are only human, but to see the negativity, race-baiting, and attempting to change the rules coming from these two really does sadden me.

Posted by AmyK | March 12, 2008 3:09 PM
9

Are there any remaining prominent 1970s/80s feminists with embarrassingly outdated racial sentiments that they'd like to get out of their system? Because the Clinton campaign could end any day now, and your window of opportunity is disappearing.

Posted by tsm | March 12, 2008 3:11 PM
10

HRC and her campaign's insidious machinations have managed to drain all of the hope and excitement out of this election.

Posted by bing | March 12, 2008 3:13 PM
11

what an absolute embarassment for the democratic party. when the dust finally settles, i wonder how many clinton supporters will have sacrificed their integrity in an attempt to salvage hillary's candidacy. bill is pretty much damaged goods. now ferraro. any others i'm forgetting?

there's nothing funny about it. it's really, really sad.

Posted by brandon | March 12, 2008 3:29 PM
12

@8 - i know, it is kind of sad, actually.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 12, 2008 3:47 PM
13

I came up with a crackpot theory the other day that the Clintons are secret republican agents out to destroy the dems. I mean there was his presidency with NAFTA and DOMA and no mpg standards. Then there was the day Gore gave up his supreme court fight after a conversation with Bill. And now this spiral of a campaign trying to discredit Obama and divide the democratic party. But then I saw the conservative hate reel for McCain on Colbert. Now I don't know who is the secret agent for the other party.

Posted by Henrietta | March 12, 2008 3:49 PM
14

@2 - This is officially the most honest and accurate Slog comment ever. Kudos, sir.

Posted by Morgan | March 12, 2008 4:13 PM
15

Why does the fact that he bothered to say the campaign was:

“completely unaware” of Mrs. Ferraro’s remarks before she made them. “We did not in any way encourage them,”

makes me absolutely 100% sure that this was a deliberate Clinton campaign ploy?

Posted by Mr Me | March 12, 2008 5:38 PM
16

mr me, watch the frontline linked to in my name.

Posted by some dude | March 12, 2008 8:27 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).