Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Jeremiah Wright: The Type Of Change Obama Believes In


kevvyd said...

What exactly is your point? Given the nature of the media cycle, Obama had to respond immediately with something as the story broke, or it would grow uncontrollably. He bought himself a couple of days to prepare a proper response to a pretty big challenge to his campaign. What would you have him do?

Besides, in the Olbermann interview he also went on to explain that while he wasn't in the church the day Wright made the statements that were released on Youtube, he knew that Wright had challenging political views that he disagreed with. However, he went on, Wright was like a family member to him (which he reiterated in his speech yesterday) and, while he disagreed with some of his views, he was not going to distance himself from the man.

His message on Olbermann, from which you picked only the bits that reinforced your own innuendo, was actually not all that inconsistant with his speech yesterday. It was not as well formulated, but that is the difference between doing an interview and writing a speech.

Unfortunatly, in your amateurish video attempt at editorial, you have simply repeated the mistakes that news media make all the time and have listened only to the bits that you want to hear.

Scott Tribe said...

You're surprised Kevvy? Scott is an unapologetic Clinton supporter and Obama basher.

kevvyd said...

Actually Scott, I wasn't aware of this blog until I saw it on Progblog this morning. The bias is pretty obvious, as it no doubt is in the bit I wrote yesterday. I have no problem with bias, in fact it's pretty much a given, but it's the open misrepresentation of the facts that I noticed most.

Bias I can deal with, this is pretty much lying.

By the way, I hadn't thrown myself behind either of the candidates before yesterday. I feel that the Wright issue was Obama's first real test, and if he handles challenges by taking them on directly like this, then I'm all for him.

ScottRoss - let me know when Hillary releases her tax records - I'm just dying to see! That she hasn't already has spoken volumes to me about how she handles challenges. Volumes!

Anonymous said...

Yeah, no offense Scott, but your anti-Obama bias is just as bad as the pro-Obama bias found in the other blogs. Perhaps this is your way of lashing out from getting caught in the Gerard Kennedy hype and feeling burned in the end. You’ve gone from one extreme to the other.


Anonymous said...

Kevvy: Barack Obama only says he disagreed with the comments as illustrated on YouTube. Its from the YouTube clips of Wright that Obama says he disdagrees with those political statements. Obama never says he disagreed with the mans ideology.

Also, if you're alluding to that Obama never distanced himself from Wright, how would you explain his removal from the spiritual committee?

I'm all up for criticism, but how about providing a little bit evidence. It's sort of weird that you can accuse someone of something without any shred of evidence.

And as for people saying I'm bias against Obama, show how I am. Scott Tribe can go around calling me bias, but he has yet to supply one argument to support it.

I watched his speech, I've watched probably more Obama then most people. I did not lie, and if you suggest that again please provide some evidence.

kevvyd said...

Anyone who makes off-message, overtly incendiary statements is not going to be welcome long in anyone's campaign, but Obama stressed his respect for Wright, though not for all of his views. The fact of the matter is, the message he presented in the Olbermann interview does not differ greatly from that in his speech.

I don't know about other statements that Wright had made which you refer to in your comment. Obama *did* say in his interview that Wright had a frequently "social" message to his preaching, which I suspect implies a political agenda of some sort, but I don't actually know what it is. I don't believe Wright's "ideology" is at issue here, or Obama's views of it, just the statements from Youtube, so this really is a straw man.

(By the way, I have always found it interesting that the term "ideology" is so often applied to the politics of someone with whom the speaker disagrees.)

As for the misrepresentation of fact and bias in your video, it really goes to the heart of your argument. If I might summarize, the central theme seems to be that Obama's reaction to the Wright videos changed between his interview on Olbermann and a few days later. This would be barely relevant if it were true, but I will grant you that it is an absolutely critical issue of utmost importance and not just an opportunity to stroke your own ego with a few hits on your blog.

I will grant you some differences - first, in the Olbermann interview it appears that Obama is seated, and on March 18 he is clearly standing behind a couple of microphones. In both cases there is a flag present, however over his left shoulder in the March 15 interview, where a flag *should* be is actually a desk lamp of some kind.

The other differences, though every bit as critical as this seated-vs-standing waffling, do not rise to the level of "noticeable conflict" as you claim. They are minor, minor enough that his statements on the 18th can most accurately be described as a refined version of those presented in the Olbermann interview. A less clever observer might suggest that the difference in presentation might have more to do with the medium - an unscripted interview vs a prepared (might we suppose, rehearsed?) speech, but that would not make for a very interesting blog post, would it? So instead, you have to create an issue and have presented a couple of out-of-context, in fact, unrelated, clips to bolster your "thesis".

Clip 1: March 18 - ...Did he make controvesial statements while I sat in the church? Yes... (Context - this is about general statements made by Wright.)

Clip 2: March 15 - ...I did not here such incendiary language... (Context - this is in referrence to the specific "God damn America" statement.)

Clever trick! By laying these two statements end to end without context, you have made it appear that Obama has changed his story where he hasn't. You have implied that he is answering the same question in two different ways. Instead, he was answering two *different* questions, with, wait for it... two different answers! Wow, a living, thinking human being who actually addresses questions asked him - how novel! I suppose this isn't exactly lying, because you haven't actually said "Obama answered the same question two ways", rather you let the viewer come to that conclusion by not giving them them (me) all of the information. No, it's not exactly lying, so forgive me. In pleasant company it would be considered misrepresentation, but I'm not really that pleasant. It's bullshit.

There are other examples, but because you chose to present your argument in video form (to see your pretty face on the internet, I suppose), it's frankly too much of a pain in my ass to pick apart. Suffice it to say, I'm entirely unconvinced.

Anonymous said...

Kevvy: Social views does not imply political views. Religious morals are social views, not politics. So your statement of: "Obama *did* say in his interview that Wright had a frequently "social" message to his preaching, which I suspect implies a political agenda of some sort, but I don't actually know what it is." Is wrong.

I used the term ideology, not because I disagree with Wright, which I do, but because ideology is what I was referring to. I don't know of any negative connotations associated with the word "Ideology."

Now you not being respectful, and I'd ask what is the point of you saying this: "I will grant you that it is an absolutely critical issue of utmost importance and not just an opportunity to stroke your own ego with a few hits on your blog." You are calling me arrogant and dishonest, this is discouraging to any argument. I suggest you be more civil.

Now you quote: "I did not here such incendiary language..." (Context - this is in referrence to the specific "God damn America" statement.) No it was not. First by the very statement of incendiary language, there is nothing specific about it. He does say one statement , he says the "language." Second if you watch the clip, Obama said that statement not specifying or in response to "God Damn America."

I am all for honest debate, but in your comments I can see you like to swear and attempt to make fun of me. This is a warning. If you persist I will delete your comments. I would wish you'd respond without degrading myself and any respect you'd wish people to give to you.