Many Democrats are drooling over this bit by Keith Olbermann in which he plays a clip in which a guest on Hannity's show "skewers" him.
I'm sorry, but this is just dumb. The guest, Robert Gibbs, is trying to say that charging guilt by association is inherently wrongheaded by equating a working relationship or friendship with a reporter/interviewee relationship. That's dumb.
I'm not saying that the Obama/Ayers story has legs. It's a dumb smear. But the way to argue against it is not to say "Well as a reporter you interviewed an anti-Semite, so that must make you one too."
Because here's the thing...sometimes guilt by association is a legitimate criticism. If a politician were best friends with a Grand Wizard of the KKK, played golf with him every Sunday and ate dinner at his house every Thursday, that would say something about him, wouldn't it? It is perfectly legitimate to assess someone's judgment and character based on their ties and associations with others.
But a politician necessarily works with a lot of different people in a lot of different contexts. It would be utterly surprising if Obama hadn't worked with seedy people, especially having been a politician in Chicago. The real question is the extent to which he had a relationship with Ayers and either agreed or disavowed his views and actions. And on that count, the link looks pretty flimsy.
But there is a huge qualitative difference between collaborating with someone in some capacity and interviewing them, which makes it a stupid, distracting argument.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Yeah, that was lame. The main point he should have driven home was not that Hannity was guilty for associating with him by interviewing him, it was that he presented him as an expert without mentioning his anti-semitic background. That's bad journalism.
Plus, Hannity wasn't skewered at all, they just sat there yelling at each other. And Hannity actually made some good points. This whole thing makes Olberman look like a hack.
Well, Olberman is a hack! But that is not news.
If I get your argument straight, Derek, the example you gave kind of described Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright. He sat in the pews for 20 years, listening to that bile spill forth, never thinking anything of it. Do I think Obama believes what his preacher believes? Doubtful. But it shows he's no different than the thousands of other political whores working and manipulating people to his advantage. I still am not sure what he REALLY believes, except that he should be president.
Rob, have you listened to the entire sermon that contained the small clip that received so much fame on Fox News and YouTube?
He sat in the pews for 20 years, listening to that bile spill forth, never thinking anything of it.
...and you call Olbermann a hack? You have absolutely no basis for this statement, it's not founded in any reality. You don't know how long or how often any incendiary things were said. You don't know if Obama was present for them. You don't know anything. You're making shit up and screaming at the sky with your unfounded indignation.
When you are actually knowledgeable about the topic, then perhaps you can take another try.
Okay, so I don't know shit. Was Obama not a member of Reverend Wright's church for 20 years? Have you been to a church for more than one week in a row? I know a little about organized religion having hired several pastors over the years and know that each of them have a philosophy that comes out pretty quick. I have difficulty believing that the exalted Rev. Wright got possessed one Sunday and spewed forth that bile and every other Sunday was about Jesus and loving your fellow man. You weren't there either!
I'm sure that you feel good about the explanation the Obama team has fed you and wouldn't even consider that it could be crap.
Before you start telling me how stupid I am understand please that we all have different perspectives and experiences that we draw on. Because mine are different doesn't make them wrong.
You still didn't answer my first question. Did you go and watch a full sermon from Rev Wright or did you just watch the clips that got replayed on TV?
Have you been to a church for more than one week in a row?
I attended church multiple times per week for over 15 years.
You weren't there either!
So in your mind, the fact that neither of us were in the same church at the same time gives you permission to invent "facts" about what happened there? That's interesting.
I'm sure that you feel good about the explanation the Obama team has fed you and wouldn't even consider that it could be crap.
Again, I ask you... have you watched or listened to any of Rev. Wright's sermons in their entirety? I have. When the whole thing hit the news, instead of listening to all of the pundits or the campaigns, I went to the source to listen to the man. I'm interested to know if you are attacking me for being "fed" information while you haven't actually sought your own information. My guess is that you've just listened to the news and pundits... my guess is that you were fed this information, like a child, instead of going and seeking out your own answers, like an adult. I have to guess at the answer because you wouldn't answer my question from before.
Before you start telling me how stupid I am understand please that we all have different perspectives and experiences that we draw on. Because mine are different doesn't make them wrong.
I agree. Just because they are different doesn't make them wrong. What makes them wrong is that you have absolutely no basis or information to back them up. You're disregarding what I have to say because you assume it's based on prejudice. It is not. My disagreement with your statements is based in the lack of foundation of your statements. Go back and read what I wrote.
To horribly paraphrase an idea that Derek has put forward in the past... just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it inherently deserves respect. I can say, "It's my opinion that the world is flat" but I'm not going to give it any respect because it's not founded in reality.
Post a Comment