Man, it must be frustrating to debate Obama. Makes me sympathize with Walter Mondale. You lay a clever trap, he doesn't walk into your trap, and suddenly you look like a jerk for laying traps.

The debate moderators couldn't stand the health care discussion -- even though it is the one thing these two candidates really differ on.  Who the hell cares about Louis freaking Farrakhan?  Tim Russert and the other dolt are just appalling.  I think I've watched my last debate till we face-off against McCain.

Neil

And, wow, what a great smile!

Got it backwards Mike, though the pull quote gets it right. Obama said "denounce" when Russert asked him if he would "reject" Farrakhan. Clinton called him on it, but Obama nailed her with his response (quoted above). Despite his winning reply, Obama really did seem to be hedging a little in his initial answer. There was nothing petty or parsing about Clinton's reply, she simply challenged him the same way that Russert had. It's not HRC's fault that Obama nailed the redirect.

Obama is light years ahead of where he was in the debates of 2007. These last few debates (starting with the one in LA) remind me of that scene in Happy Gilmore when Adam Sandler's character finally hits a long putt after sucking at it for so long, then turns to his opponent and says, "Happy learned how to putt. Uh-oh..." Looks like Barack has learned how to putt.

Maybe Larry David is writing Obama's one-liners. That sounded like a Seinfeld script.

Dead on, Michael. And your comment that  Obama "conveys a certain bemused remove from the bizarre conventions of traditional insider politics" is the most succinct description of his appeal I've read thus far. (It certainly what does it for me.)

actually, if you look at what obama did on Farrakhan, at first he denounced specifically his anti-semitic remarks but not his support; he demurred from russert's pressing him to reject the support, saying that farrakhan was free to do what he wanted. obama was also mild on his minister's calling farrakhan a great man. that is the parsing that clinton was picking up on, though she didn't do it very clearly.

The best part of that exchange was that Hillary was taking credit as being brave for coming out against anti-semitism............. in New York

I must say that, skipping about the blogosphere just now, I notice a lot of the usual complaints about Tim Russert.  I think, though, that on this occasion, Russert did alright.  After the sixteen minute health care arguement, in which Clinton refused to surrendur the microphone to either the moderators or Obama, Russert had to cut off Clinton several times in order to move things along, and probably came across as a bit aggressive, but needed to reassert control over HRC's efforts to control the floor.

Chris Matthews, however, remains irredeemable.

Rhubarbs,

Yeah. It's got to be hard to debate and run against him. Obama's campaign is based as much on his policy proposals as it is his temperament. This temperament theme frees him to concede points other candidates would feel the need to dispute: he doesn't have to argue he has best answer on every question because he's offering a larger reason for his candidacy. Not only this an effective debate tactic, but does double duty in reinforcing his argument that he can bring people together.

It's freaking brilliant. And better yet, it appears to be genuine.  

I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder but pc, I think you nailed it. I thought he looked evasive and hedging on Farrakhan, thought Hillary nicely cornered him into what he hates most---taking a firm position contrary to someone of influence---and then looked glib in trying to have it both ways. In short, all the qualities that make some queasy about whether he's got the intestinal fortitude for the fights that should lay ahead.

Ok, blast away Obama fans.

Actually, I half agree with pccostello.  Russert tried to pin Obama down on his minister's connection to Farrakhan, and Obama didn't want to go there.  That and the business on public financing were Obama's weakest moments.

And by the way, what the heck was that opening deal with Obama quickly accepting Hillary's denial on the "Obama of Arabia" photo squabble and saying let's set that aside. Hmmm. Politicians who get all noble and suddenly abandon something that seemingly was working so nicely for them make me very suspicious that they've learned something that makes them want to forget the whole thing and pronto. Hmmm.

He both rejected AND denounced Farrakhan. Schrek, in what way, shape or form is this "hedging"?

Now if you want to talk about evasive, let's examine Hillary's answer about her tax returns...

schrek -- no blasting. But I didn't see Obama's original response as "hedging." I saw it as "restrained," and I liked that. I've always been put off by the whole media-driven game of ambushing a candidate with what boils down to the following absurd charge: "Someone you know or who supports you once said X; doesn't that mean you must also believe X?" It's like, he denounced the guy. What more do we want? Should we expect our candidates to seek out those whose support they don't want and beat them to death? Pistols at twenty paces? Should Obama have offered to burn Farrakhan in effigy right there on the stage? It's such an insulting-to-one's-intelligence game, with no bearing on reality, that I can't fault a candidate for not playing along as enthusiastically as the Tim Russerts of the world would prefer.

"Hmmm. Politicians who get all noble and suddenly abandon something that seemingly was working so nicely for them make me very suspicious that they've learned something that makes them want to forget the whole thing and pronto. Hmmm."

Hmmm . . . whereas politicians who abandon something after it has worked so well for them but before it becomes a dead horse strike me as perceptive and politically nimble, unlike the tone-deaf politicians who ham-handedly give their opponents an opportunity to appear noble and gracious.

I see Sean Wilentz has just posted an entire article rehearsing this line.  I guess this whole argument is about to go nuclear.  Sigh.

On the "denounce"/"reject" thing: denounce is a stronger word. It means to condemn. Reject simply means to not accept an offer. So, I thought it made Hilary look a bit illiterate and peevish.

I did wonder why Barack didn't respond to the question of his minister. He has done before. There is an article Tuesday's NY Sun with many quotes of him speaking to a Jewish group and he talks about his minister. He basically says that he doesn't agree with everything that his minister says and does. And that the man is about to retire so he doesn't feel the need to attack him, either.

I thought his response to the Farakhan question exemplified how he gets people to work together. He can say, "I disagree with you completely on that. Now, let's keep talking." Rather than, "I disagree with you completely, therefore I render you persona non grata." It's the difference between fighting and resolving. We've had enough of the cowboy/fighter approach. We're looking for someone who can keep people connected to their humanity so their motivated to find ways to co-exist more peacefully.

In looking at the clip a second time, Obama said, "there was no offer of help for me to reject," which I think has the virtue of being accurate.  In New York party politics if, say, there were Farrakhanist party, and by receiving that party's endorsement, your name appears on the party's slate, that's a concrete benefit that you can and should reject.  If some asshole X just says, "I'm voting for Hillary" or "I'm voting for McCain," all you can effectively do is say "I denounce X."

On the renounce/reject issue and specifically to Rhubarbs' question of "What more do we want?" - Spencer Ackerman has set that precedent.  "You seal the deal by declaring your anti-jihadist bona fides by shouting, "I'll skull-fuck Zarqawi's corpse!" to a stone-faced gathering of unamused editors."

www.snarksmith.com/.../spencer_ackerman_never_to_work.html

That is what we want... no, demand.  Skull-fucking is the only real proof of sufficient rigor.  Spencer knew.

I think the comments of adamvaught and asnevitt hit the nail on the head about the different styles of the candidates (and their supporters).

Obama supporters see it as a strength that Obama does not need to get in the last word or "slam" his opponent on every point.  Clinton supporters see that as a weakness in Obama--as proof that he's afraid to "take a stand" in the face of opposition for fear of being "unpopular."  But that's not why Obama doesn't  try to grind people's faces in the dirty.  Obama doesn't slam his opponents because he genuinely believes that  given that we (republicans, democrats, atheists, christians, black, white, latino, asian) are all citizens of one nation, the only way "we" can really win is if we treat all points of view respectfully.  Clinton supporters seem to see Obama's unwillingness to "reject" opposing points of view as "unworthy" as a negative--a harbinger of a candidate too weak to do anything but slide down a slippery slope and "compromise" on the most important principles.  For Obama, respect IS the most important principle.  Obama thinks you can disagree respectfully, which still means you can completely disagree, just that you can do it respectfully.  Clinton supporters believe that the only way to win is to try fight to try to knock out the other side.  

Given what a large and diverse country the United States is, and how diverse and outspoken its citizens, it is hard for me to see things Clinton's way.  I admire that Obama respects that all of these people are Americans worthy of respect, even if we don't agree with them.  What I have been so outraged at for the last 7 years of the Bush administration is the total lack of respect for anyone (including a majority of the population he leads) whose views are/have become different from his.  It's not that I expected Bush to enact policies that I agree with; but I sure as heck don't expect to feel like an alien in my own country.  By the same token, there are a lot of republicans who are voting for Obama--not because they are ignorant of his progressive record or expect him to side with them and enact their agenda, but because they trust that he fundamentally values fair process and respects their points of view.  A person can be a fighter without being pugnacious.  A person can have tenacity without being a bully.  And a non-antagonistic activist (like MLK or Gandhi) can bring about real change in the world without having to alienate those who disagree.

Hedge or not, why is this even an issue? Guilt by association is part of why American politics sucks so hard.

In other news, the Third Reich supported building highways. This means that anyone who builds highways is a Nazi. Every highway builder should explicitly denounce, no, reject Nazism less they be considered anti-semitic.

fong, have you been reading Jonah Goldberg?

And, since this is an election season, I need to say right now that I recently had a brief chat with Peter Beinart, who sometimes videoblogs with Goldberg, and lest anyone believe that constitutes a second-hand endorsement of Goldberg, I denounce all efforts to equate liberals with Hitler. And on the off chance that Beinart happened to mention to Goldberg that he'd chatted briefly with some guy about Goldberg, and Goldberg happened to form any kind of positive thought about the "some guy" in the story, and if that "some guy" just happened to be me, I reject any positive thoughts Goldberg may have about me. I don't want or need support of any kind from Goldberg or anybody who believes liberals like me are actually fascists.

denounce, renounce, pronounce, pounce blah blah -

Coupla lawyers, alright.

To try and be clearer, I thought Obama was hedging until Clinton essentially forced him to take action ("reject") as opposed to relying on mere words ("denounce"). I thought it was a nice encapsulating moment of what I view as Obama's chief weakness as a candidate and, Lord knows, as a chief executive. But, ok, that's me, and  I am a Clinton supporter.

But let me ask you this. In Obam's world it would be ok to ""denounce" PAC contributions but refuse to "reject" them because there's no difference? Seems to me he likes to talk a lot about how he "rejects" such contributions so apparently the word has meaning to him.

Look, Obama has faced some queasiness in sectors of the Jewish community and he's trying to address them. Good. But he also obviously has a substantial base in the African-American community sectors of which likely view Minister Farrakhan less negatively than others. So how Obama handles the differing views is important and I see him trying to have it both ways as (in my view) has been his modus operandi in Illinois, in the U.S. Senate and in the campaign. He calls it conciliatory, others call it vaciliating and idecisive. (I mean, is there any coherence at all to his position on guns and the Second Amendment?)

In the end I accept it's largely viewpoint folks, but I do believe it's an interesting subject of debate and not mere wordplay.  

And wow, Sean Wilentz today...."paging Cass Sunstein! Pagng Professor Sunstein! Code blue, code blue!"

haeryung  well said

good lord schrek, pacs? apples and oranges. How can anyone denounce a pac contribution and accept it without looking like a fool? And rejecting it is by its nature renunciation.

look, if you have a debate with someone, and they gave a semi-satisfactory answer, and you called them on it, and then said, you know you are right, I will phrase it your way, do you mean to tell me you would get upset? It completely disarmed her, and if she were a quick thinker would have turned to him with a big smile and say "glad you see it my way, now how about mandates..."

Obama has people skills, Hillary doesn't.

schrek, yeah, funny Wilentz did have a major coronary there didn't he. His blood pressure must be through the roof. Paging Dr. Sunstein is right, somebody has to give Wilentz a tranq.

good one.

Although I disagree with his/her psychological analysis of Clinton supporters vs. Obama supporters, I agree with haeryung's point, I think.  To me, the idea that Obama might "denounce" Farahkan (meaning denounce his anti-semitic ideas) but not "reject" him (meaning refuse to acknowledge him as a legitimate, or at least actual, voice in American society) is the essence of the kind of inclusive politics I'd like to imagine Obama might be capable of.  

The fact that he can do this sort of thing points to the word authenticity which has gotten a little play here and there over the past couple of weeks but really is quite appropriate here.

If he was simply a canned teleprompter of scripted spin then this sort of thing would have bludgeoned him right into the stump by now. It takes a tremendous amount of awareness to remain centered and take the energy that is directed toward you in the form of aggression and constantly work to neutralize it without getting sucked into the American dream of pummeling your counterpart into the canvas.  The same sort of awareness that makes it possible  for Obama to be a listener and a uniter. The same thing that, from the perspective of the many who can not imagine this as a way of being, looks and sounds hollow.

Ultimately, it is the absence of ego. If not the absence, then a minimization of it. This is the complete opposite of the American persona for what seems to me like one third of the people in this country.

The one aspect of this art that he has yet to master is the one in which, when that aggression does not end, and the time comes to inactivate it because it keeps on coming, you can demonstrate that the act of inactivation is not an act of aggression in and of itself.

Far too few people are noticing the similarities between the tactics being used in this campaign and the tactics that are being used by the current administration. The constant attempts to cloak aggression as defense and defense as aggression. The constant effort to tell you what  you should be thinking rather than inviting you to think for yourself.

Unless something dramatic happens in the next couple of weeks, there should be plenty of that to come as the clock ticks toward November. So, if you are an Obama supporter, you should be happy to see the Clinton machine continue to recycle a good chunk of cash back into the economy as they keep providing opportunities for honing these important skills.

Abrenuntio!

Reminds me of the movie about my life:

"For forty years...no public man whom Kane himself did not support or denounce - often support....then denounce" (cue picture of Hitler),