Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Your Democratic Presidential Nominees


That One Guy said...

Just a question... do you view these two examples as equally divergent?

Just wondering.

Cameron said...

I'm still rolling Rev. Wright's comments around in my head a little, but Hillary's video is pretty much par for the course.

That One Guy said...

I know it... if she gets the nomination, we are in for the same old same old... lies and self aggrandizement... if the Wright comments had come from Obama's mouth, I would place more weight on them.

As for these two examples, I place the Clinton one as more egregious... but that's just me...


Cameron said...

"if the Wright comments had come from Obama's mouth, I would place more weight on them."

I'll assume then that you disagree with them, and that they are egregious enough to give you pause.

So what is the impact for you of Obama's long term relationship with this man and the nature of the Rev's beliefs? Is there any?

Salt H2O said...

this is SOOO Clinton! Bill's memories of what happened during the clinton years is also very comedic.

That One Guy said...

Well, whether I do or don't disagree with them, I just don't know that they MATTER all that much to me. When you pare off the rhetoric and inflammation, one wonders what is left when it's all boiled down... not too much really. Certainly not enough - in m y book anyway - to have it reflect poorly on Obama's words or his campaign in general.

I guess the point is that I think Obama did a good job of disarming the bomb (of being tied to a controversial religious underscore), better than Romney ever thought of being able to do, and I just don't think it's a matter that holds much water for me.

The fact that Hillary was caught flat-out LYING is way more troubling to me.

At the end of the day, this isn't apples-to-apples for me. But it may be for some, I suppose.

Tom Scharbach said...

I suppose that it is more like to be seen as "apples to apples" by folks who come from religious traditions where the political views of denomination leaders tend to become conflated with theology, and political adherence is expected of individuals who adhere to the religion.

Obama's religious tradition -- the United Church of Christ, which is the successor to the Congregationalists -- does not and never has.

Obama has made his owns views, which are at odds with Reverend Wright's to say the least, known in several clear and articulate statements, and it is time, I think, to put the matter to rest.

Not that the hard core right wing will, of course, allow the matter to be put to rest. Reverend Wright is going to get more or less constant play from folks like Cameron until November.

Ashlee said...

Just so you know Cam...I noticed you copied my Widget. And I'm at #3 right off the bat here. No cheating had to take place for this to happen. Because I actually show some love {when I know what the crap you are talking about}. That's right...

Cameron said...

"folks like Cameron"

You mean "consistently articulate, reasonable and reasoned" that you called me a couple of days ago? Or now that there might be an inkling of Obama criticism on my blog I can be thrown under the bus?

Preaching political views from the pulpit is exactly what Rev Wright does. It would be pretty hard for his religious tradition to not conflate his political views with his theology.

Obama has done a good job in defusing this controversy. All I have remarked on it was that it was still rolling around in my head. For all that you might want it to go away, you'll excuse me if I persist in thinking about it, and possibly even writing about it.

Tom Scharbach said...

Cameron: "Obama has done a good job in defusing this controversy. All I have remarked on it was that it was still rolling around in my head."

Your post did no such thing, Cameron. You posted the two videos, without any "remark" or comment at all. You just used the video to tag Obama with the baggage.

Worse, by giving the two videos equal play, you seem to be suggesting, as That One Guy pointed out, that the Wright tag to Obama was the equivalent, somehow, of Hillary's flat-ass lying.

If and when you actually write something about the Wright remarks, Obama's statement on race, and Obama's other responses, we'll see if what you write is "articulate, reasonable and reasoned".

Right now, your "articulate, reasonable and reasoned" score is zero, and your "dirty pool" score is 100, as far as I am concerned.

Cameron said...

I posted the two videos for discussion. I gave no commentary in the post. TOG asked some pertinent questions and we started a discussion.

You ignored that discussion, which included my not-yet-completed views on Wright and Obama, and went straight to attack mode.

I find it remarkable that all my reasonableness is so easily thrown out the window by posting a video of an abc news story about Barack Obama. Hands off the sacred cow I guess.

J. Doug said...

I find the comments interesting that you got jumped on so easily by Tom Scharbach. I have to agree that he points out that you could interpret that you wanted to commingle the two and give it a negative light because the reports portray them negatively. You have to give him that. Scared cow or not.
I am interested then in your unstated views of Obama. What are they?

Tom Scharbach said...

Cameron: "I find it remarkable that all my reasonableness is so easily thrown out the window by posting a video of an abc news story about Barack Obama. Hands off the sacred cow I guess."

It is not a question of "hands off" but instead a question of fair play, Cameron.

Reverend Wright's remarks have been, and continue to be, used to suggest that Senator Obama views on race in America are in line with Reverend Wright's views, that the two conflate.

As anyone who has followed this story with the least attention must know, the two do not.

In two books and thousands of public statements, including a statement on race made in response to the Wright controversy, Senator Obama has made his own views clear, and his own views are not even close to the statements made by Reverend Wright's statements.

So if you wanted to provoke a discussion about Senator Obama's views on race, why then (a) did you post the video, which predates Senator Obama's statements in response and focuses, not on Senator Obama but on Reverend Wright, (b) commingle the Wright video with the Clinton video, suggesting [what?] by treating the two as equivalent, (c) not make a single comment or observation about Senator Obama's views when posting the video?

Why, if your intention was to discuss Senator Obama's views on race, have you not yet made any statements of your own views about Senator Obama or his views on race, even in the comments to your post?

Maybe you are as pure as Lot's wife in your motives, but you certainly chose an odd way to demonstrate your intention to initiate an "articulate, reasonable and reasoned" discussion of Senator Obama's views on race. What is "articulate" or "reasoned" about a discussion without words or reasoning?

And what is "reasonable" about suggesting conflation of Reverend Wright's view and Senator Obama's views a week after Senator Obama has made is own views clear, in detail, in response?

Your post was a boner, to be blunt.

Here's why:

You remember, of course, the flap over Governor Romney's religious views.

Let's say that the flap developed differently, more along the lines of the Reverend Wright controversy.

Let's say that someone posted a recitation of the most extreme and offensive LDS statements about Christians on You Tube, tied Governor Romney to those views with guilt by association, and the story broke into the mainstream media.

Let's say that Governor Romney had written two thoughtful books about his own views on Mormon-Christian relations, which spoke for themselves and did not reflect the views on the You Tube video, and then, in response to the flap developed, made a long thoughtful speech addressing the issues and questions raised.

Let's say that Senator Romney's statement repudiated the extreme statements on the video, and made clear that he had a different view, but did not repudiate the LDS or the overall good the men making the statements had done in their lives.

So far, I think that I'm posing a hypothetical that is very close, if not identical, to the controversy over Reverend Wright's views and Senator Obama's supposed quilt by association.

And, now, let's say that Senator Romney's political opponents kept the blogosphere alive with the You Tube video, posting it over and over again without taking into account Senator Romney's views or statements on the matter?

Would that be "reasonable" in your view? Would that be fair play in your view?

Just turn the table a bit and look at it from your own perspective, and think about it for a minute.

I went off on you, no question. For that, in light of your explanation of your intentions, I apologize.

But mark my words, Cameron: The post itself, and the fact that you have yet to make any comment about Senator Obama's views other than to note that "Obama has done a good job in defusing this controversy" (a political note, but not a comment about anything substantive in terms of your views about Senator Obama or Senator Obama's views about race), doesn't cut it on the "articulate, reasonable and reasoned" standard, at least in my view, if your intention was to have a discussion about Senator Obama and race.

But, nonetheless, in light of my history of reading your blog over the last year or so, I stand by my view that this post is the exception, not the rule. You usually are "articulate, reasonable and reasoned".

So, as Doug asked, "I am interested then in your unstated views of Obama. What are they?"

Indeed, what are they? Specifically:

(1) What are your views about Senator Obama's statement on race in America?

(2) Do you think, as your conflation of the two videos might suggest, that Senator Obama is lying about his views on race, as Senator Clinton lied about her experiences in Bosnia?

(3) Do you think that African-Americans are angry about race, and do you think that they have reason to be angry or not? And if you think they are angry, with or without reason, what do you think are the proper boundaries of African-American expression of that anger?

I'd suggest those as starting points for a discussion. But it is your blog, so start where you want to start.

Cameron said...

Your hypothetical is fitting, in that it actually did happen in real life, and I did the exact same thing then with a video that I did in this post.

I posted a video of Larry O'Donnell's rant on this blog - without any commentary, without any critique. I just posted it and waited for comments. I got some, even one from you. You commented that Larry was out of line, and then continued with a well thought out critique of Mitt's Faith in America speech.

It would have been nice if you had been consistent and done the same with this post.

The two videos on this post are the major current stories concerning the Democratic nominees. I posted them and waited for comments. I got a few. I started to have a really nice conversation with That One Guy about Obama and Rev Wright and what it all meant. That is, until you came along and derailed any chance of a decent discussion on the topic. So thanks.

I realize there are those out there that will use Rev Wright's rhetoric to damage Obama, without any thought to what it all actually means. But if you've been reading this blog for a year as you say you have, and have come to the conclusion that I am generally reasonable and articulate, then you should have known that I am not one of those people. I like discussion. I blog to not only share my opinion, but to hear others'. I don't always have time to write the long drawn out opus that I like to do, so I frequently post a video or link that I find interesting or stimulating and let the conversation go where it may.

I didn't post hit pieces on either candidate. I posted news clips that seemed to be good starting off points. I hoped to be able to further my thought processing in regards to Rev Wright and Obama with a discussion here. But that's long past.

I've been reading and thinking about Obama's speech on race, as well as his comments regarding Rev Wright. Perhaps I'll be able to write down my thoughts and post them here. Hopefully they'll be satisfactory to you.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I think I have to go with Tom Scharbach on this one, Cameron. The fact that you titled the post "Your Democratic Presidential Nominees", and posted a video of Rev. Wright seems to suggest that his views and Obama's are the same, which Obama explicitly denies. Even if he did not distance himself from them, I hardly find the Rev. Wright's views horrible or outlandish.