It all depends on the definition

The LA Times ran a recent commentary on the Ohio debate between Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama. During the debate, Mr. Russert (in his usual way) tried to corner Obama on an issue about how the anti-semetic Louis Farrakhan endorsed Obama and whether Obama accepted an endorsement from a hateful man.

Obama responds: You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments. I think 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.

When Russert pushes the point and asks Obama if he rejects Farrakhan's support, Obama says, "Well, Tim, I can't say to somebody that he can't say that he thinks I'm a good guy."

Senator Clinton decides to attack on the point, saying that "when she was endorsed by a splinter party in New York that 'was under the control of people who were anti-Semitic, anti-Israel. And I made it very clear that I did not want their support. I rejected it. ... And there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting.'"

Obama responds with, "I have to say I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. But if the word 'reject' Sen. Clinton feels is stronger than the word 'denounce,' then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce."

Now, the LA Times gives the point to Hillary for some odd reason, suggesting that "[Obama] needs to check a dictionary on that," meaning the difference between "denounce" and "reject." I'm with Obama on this where I could care less - in normal talk, they are pretty much the same thing. But for the sake of completeness, I looked both up in the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

First, the word "reject":

1 a: to refuse to accept, consider, submit to, take for some purpose, or use b: to refuse to hear, receive, or admit : rebuff, repel c: to refuse as lover or spouse
2obsolete : to cast off
3: throw back, repulse
4: to spew out
5: to subject to immunological rejection

And now, "denounce":

1: to pronounce especially publicly to be blameworthy or evil
2archaic a: proclaim b: to announce threateningly
3: to inform against : accuse
4obsolete : portend
5: to announce formally the termination of (as a treaty)

Personally, to me, the word "denounce" seems even stronger than the word reject, especially the idea of pronouncing something publically to be blameworthy or evil, and to announce threateningly. Much more stronger than to simply refuse to take or consider.

Shame on the LA Times for such sloppy writing. Perhaps their staff of bloggers, writers and editors should be checking the dictionary before they start splitting vocabulary hairs.

It's all very similar to President Clinton's defense on the definition of what the word "is" is while embroiled in his sex scandal. For a campaign that accuses Obama of having all style and no substance (something that I would strongly disagree on), they sure come up with very little to attack their opponent with.