The Non-Denial Denial
So, the Canadian embassy has just unequivocally denied that anyone from the Obama campaign (or the Clinton campaign, for that matter) had contacted anyone at the Canadian embassy regarding NAFTA.
Open foot, insert mouth.
What I don't understand is the response to Obama's campaign, denying the allegations. Apparently the beef is over the choice of the word "inaccurate".
Let's see what "inaccurate" means (from Dictionary.com -- emphasis added):
As we can see, "inaccurate" means WRONG, ERRONEOUS, INCORRECT, UNTRUE
Just because the main word is "accurate" does not mean there is somehow still truth in what is being denied. I guess the Obama campaign should have said the report was inaccurate and wrong.
Anyone else think this a mite silly?
Open foot, insert mouth.
What I don't understand is the response to Obama's campaign, denying the allegations. Apparently the beef is over the choice of the word "inaccurate".
Let's see what "inaccurate" means (from Dictionary.com -- emphasis added):
in·ac·cu·rate /ɪnˈækyərɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-ak-yer-it] –adjective not accurate; incorrect or untrue.
[Origin: 1730–40; in-3 + accurate]
—Related formsin·ac·cu·rate·ly, adverb in·ac·cu·rate·ness, noun
—Synonyms inexact, loose; erroneous, wrong, faulty.
As we can see, "inaccurate" means WRONG, ERRONEOUS, INCORRECT, UNTRUE
Just because the main word is "accurate" does not mean there is somehow still truth in what is being denied. I guess the Obama campaign should have said the report was inaccurate and wrong.
Anyone else think this a mite silly?
Advertisement
Whoops, there was emphasis there on the synonyms "erroneous" and "wrong" in the definition but it got lost somehow. Sorry.
February 28, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was one of the loudest voices criticizing the denial.
I did so because I want Senator Obama to be the strongest candidate possible, and I feel his absolute refusal to engage in the linguistic deception common to most politicians is his greatest strength so far.
"Inaccurate" indeed means untrue, but is rarely used (in my experience) to signify that an accusation is entirely untrue. It's a weapon of double speak and deception. It's the language of the last eight years of American Government.
The main reason I reject other politicians is that they naturally speak that language, the language of technical truth. The main reason I support Senator Obama is his refusal to do the same.
The statement did not meet that standard for me.
February 28, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it depends on who's saying it. If it comes from someone I trust, then there's no difference between "inaccurate" and "completely untrue". If it comes from a politician, then there is. As I don't know Obama personally, I see him as a politician, so I'm partly in agreement with you.
That said, there's a huge difference between having a politician who says "inaccurate" when he means "completely untrue" (Obama) and a politician who says "inaccurate" when he means "not completely accurate" (Bush). The word itself isn't the problem, it's how it's used.
February 28, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again the media reported without fact checking and a story was proven to be false well after it had been beat into the head of Americans everywhere.
February 28, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I think happened with this response was it was the calculated use of the word. I myself, as an Obama supporter, would love to see the campaign deny allegations in the strongest terms, especially such ridiculously thin ones, but I can understand the strategy behind not wanting people to think there may some truth to the matter if you're trying so fervently to quash the charges.
So perhaps what they were trying to do was offer a denial, but a measured, calm, logical denial of a rather specious allegation, rather than possibly give credence to it by denying it so vehemently.
Then again, such a tactic can backfire if the word does not dismiss the charge completely. Perhaps in this instance, they should have chosen "incorrect"?
Am I making myself understandable at all?
P.S. So I guess both campaigns have talked to the Canadians about NAFTA or something? Just nothing like we thought, apparently.
February 28, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't you watch the debate? Clinton has anointed herself a deputy of the grammar police.
February 28, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink