Why should Barack Obama, or any other politician, have to DENOUNCE or REJECT any of their supporters?

It's so that people realize that the politician doesn't support or endorse the person supporting them. Obama did very well denouncing and rejecting Louis Farrakhan, and Hillary sould do the same for Coulter. Most people know Obama and Clinton both are not anti-semitic, but some people just want reassurance. I would've still voted for Obama either way. I know he doesn't support Farrakhan, he doen't have to reject and denounce him to tell me that. It doesn't bother me what people wanted him to do so though.

They should not have to apologize for the behavior of all supporters, but they should address the reason they have such supporters and should completely disassociate themselves from support that does not align with their own ideals. However it is not necessary when the differences are so obvious, such as comedians and Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter gives her "support" to Clinton because she is angry that the republican nominee is not the usual extreme conservative. She claims Clinton is more conservative than McCain. This is an exageration and she is being intentionally controversial to get more attention.

Farrakhan's support was not requested, but it is appropriate for Obama to denounce this support. The real problem for Obama should be that his minister and spiritual advisor publicly praises Farrakhan. This relationship does not mean they have exactly the same beliefs, but this was Obama's choice and the differences in their beliefs should be scrutinized.

I would give Hillary credit for getting half way to a valid point, but I don't think even she understands the difference between reject and denounce. To denounce is to say you reject, while rejecting is how you will behave. If you denounce someone and they do not feel rejected, then they may not believe what you say is an accurate indication of what you will do.

When Obama denounces support, he was apparently not believable since they continue to support him. In contrast, when McCain denounces support, they attack him. And Hillary still struggles to make the point that Obama is all talk and no substance. I'd rather see a debate between the puppetmasters.

Apparently you didn't get the joke of ann coulter supporting Hillary. But yes of course A candidate should denounce a sociopath nutcase such as farrakhan or coulter.

My biggest disappointment from John McCain was when he waffled on his correct statement that people such as jerry falwell are/were agents of intolerance.

If some of these hate mongers who have a public platform insist on endorsing a candidate,(And there are a lot, and they'll all do it for that T.V. time) Then we need to know how that candidate feels about that persons support, although it should be obvious

No maybe in some clown's mind. But to be sure there are people willing to vote or not based on a candidates race alone. However Malcolm X broke away from the Nation of Islam to speak of personal responsibility, gaining economic independence and financial power ultimately transforming that into political power. Something that went totally against Farrakhan and Elijah Mohamed. In that respect he was like Martin Luther King Jr. and ultimately a threat. Imagine if blacks had gained economic and political power over the last 40 years. I always believed Martin Luther took us to a certain point of freedom and Malcolm X would have us gain economic power. While economic power didn't necessarily die with Malcolm X the process has slowed significantly in the time since. The selfish of Elijah and Farrakhan as well as fear of black economic and political power is what led to the death of Malcolm X. A black President would be a pretty powerful symbol of what can be achieved. Maybe not economic as Malcolm X envisioned but certainly political. That I'm sure has some hardliners running scared. Look what happened after MLK, JFK, RFK, Medgar Evers and Malcolm X. Progress did slow considerably. A day like this had to have happened eventually. It shouldn't have taken 40 years. In that respect it could be construed as a race game.

yes they should. And to clarify I think there is a difference between denounce and reject. I could denounce cigarettes as a nasty unhealthy habit and still be a smoker. Or denounce extra marital affairs and still be involved in one. I think it is important and necessary for candidates (and I could be convinced that only presidential candidates need to do this) to denounce and reject divisive groups that tend to fracture our society. So in all fairness Obama should denounce and reject Farrakahn AND Clinton should denounce and reject Coulter. And by the way as intelligent as Coulter is she is queen of the specious argument which just goes to show the devil can quote scripture and verse for her own purposes.

Wait, wait, wait... Ann Coulter supports Hillary Clinton?...

To make other ppl feel better.

It's not about what is relevant.

Denouncing/rejecting an endorsement from anyone doesn't stop them from telling ppl they endorse u, so therefore it doesn't change anything.

It really isn't anyone's fault when a goof ball endorses them. I ignore that. I worry more that Kennedy and Kerry endorsed him. That tells me something is wrong with the guy.

That was a ridiculous attempt to paint him as an anti semite by hillary. Insulting, but what do you expect.

u gonna get the support of idiots no matter what..especially when they realize there are only two people running..can't help that..so i wont blame either obama or hillary for that!