posted
If you haven't heard, the LA Times apparently has some video of Obama and some Death-to-Israel Palestinian professor. Presumably it would be damaging to Obama, the McCain campaign is demanding the Times release the video, and the Times is refusing.
I was thinking: if this video serves to make Obama look bad but doesn't reveal anything that many people already suspect about the man (i.e., just another example of him trying to be all things to all people in an effort to further his political career, no news there) then shouldn't they just release the video?
Because the fact that they admit such a video exists only serves to let everyone's imagination run wild, and if it's not that bad then surely people will imagine it must be worse than than it actually is.
For my part, I figure that if the Times is aware of this fact (as they must be,) then they must be weighing that against the actual harm the video itself would cause and are choosing the less damaging option. This would imply that the video is actually worse than the average person is likely to imagine.
Then again, they could be telling the truth that they cannot release the video because the conditions under which they acquired it restrict them from doing so, regardless of the harm it does Obama. But somehow I doubt they are placing their journalistic integrity above getting Obama elected. I mean, why start now?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Presumably it would be damaging to Obama, the McCain campaign is demanding the Times release the video, and the Times is refusing."
If it's the same guy they've been harping on since yesterday, he was given something like a million dollars by McCain in the past few years.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Verdict: Misleading. While Khalidi eight years ago hosted a political fund-raiser for Obama, the two men strongly disagree over the Israeli-Palestinian issue and there's no evidence of a continuing political relationship.
Also, why are you encouraging someone to break their word? They promised not to release the tape as a condition of receiving it. Outside the legal limits of that promise - say, a legal subpoena - they should honor their word.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If it's the same guy they've been harping on since yesterday, he was given something like a million dollars by McCain in the past few years.
It is the same guy, and the International Republican Institute with McCain as the chairman gave almost $500,000 dollars to him.
Of course you ain't gonna hear Rush or Hannity talk about that. I think money shows a lot more support then a toast.
quote: That same year, Khalidi helped found the Center for Palestine Research and Studies, self-described as “an independent academic research and policy analysis institution” created to meet “the need for active Palestinian scholarship on issues related to Palestine.” (Its archived Web site is HERE.)
Khalidi was on the board of trustees through 1999.
According to tax returns, the McCain-chaired IRI funded the organization Khalidi founded and served on to the tune of $448,873 in 1998 (click HERE to see the tax return)* as first reported by Seth Couter Walls at HuffPo.
The IRI continued to give money to the CPRS after Khalidi left the group as well.
No you weren't. The LosAngelesTimes is owned by SamZell, a heavy contributor to Israel and to Republicans. If there were anything disturbing on the video, he would have ordered it's release.
QED : Continuing the spread of a malicious rumor is more useful to the McCain campaign than airing the video.
posted
Senator Obama should be commended for being the kind of person who does not judge others for having views contrary to his own. He has no problem socializing and associating with people who hold drastically differing beliefs. Perhaps he enjoys associating with others who have very different beliefs as do some intellectuals who embrace differences and relish debating difficult issues without making it personal.
The CNN article cited by Javert reports that Obama and Khalidi's families became friends and dinner companions. Even though Obama proclaims to be a staunch supporter of Israel, he has no compunction being friends and associating with someone who is an activist for Palestinian causes and a critic of Israel. This doesn't mean that Obama really doesn't support Israel, it just means that Obama can see past a person's beliefs and views and associate with those that hold very different beliefs and views.
So it was with Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Obama was Wright's friend and member of his congregation for many years, even when Wright publicly espoused views that some consider racist. This doesn't mean that Obama shared Wright's racist views. It just means that he was able to look past Wright's views and refrain from judging Wright unfairly for views that, although Obama deemed them wrong, nevertheless were excusable under the circumstances.
So it was with William Ayers. Obama was capable of associating with Ayers, not because Obama shared Ayers's beliefs, but because he wasn't about to judge Ayers for his past behavior and beliefs.
All of this merely is evidence of Obama's equanimity, open mindedness, and refusal to be judgmental. This means, for example, that staunch supporters of the Palestinians and critics of Israel will feel comfortable talking with Obama. They will feel that Obama will listen to them - without judging them. Perhaps, too, by giving everyone a fair shake, the rest of the world will stop hating America for being so judgmental.
Shouldn't Obama be praised for these qualities? Shouldn't the accusations of guilt by association cease already?
Shouldn't everyone just stop doubting anything and everything Obama says? He says he is a supporter of Israel. So let's take him at his word and stop accusing him of misleading those whose votes he seeks to win.
If we have learned anything from Obama over the past year, we should learn from his example the value of not being judgmental. And in following Obama's example, should we not just stop judging Obama?
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Also, why are you encouraging someone to break their word? They promised not to release the tape as a condition of receiving it. Outside the legal limits of that promise - say, a legal subpoena - they should honor their word.
There you go again, Dag. Jumping in with your knee-jerk defenses of... Obama.
Slippery defender of anti-American liberals! (shakes fist angrily)
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: "I was thinking..."
No you weren't.
I don't see the point of making such a nasty remark. How about I point out your incorrect use of the contraction "it's" in your following paragraph. What are you, an idiot? You don't know the difference between "it's" and "its?"
quote: The LosAngelesTimes is owned by SamZell, a heavy contributor to Israel and to Republicans. If there were anything disturbing on the video, he would have ordered it's release.
QED : Continuing the spread of a malicious rumor is more useful to the McCain campaign than airing the video.
So my post makes sense in light of what you're saying, because if Sam Zell is actually pulling for McCain (in spite of what their editorial page says) then that would explain everything.
Dag, presumably the video is damaging to Obama because the McCain camp and Fox News think the Times should release the video to the public.
Was I expressing any form of support for what is (or isn't) happening? I wish the media would place their journalistic integrity over political considerations, and I'd like to think that the Times' explanation is the truth. I just doubt it. Media objectivity has been out the window for a good long while now.
[edit] Ok, I reread my first post and I see what you mean. It does look like I was supporting the release of the video. So, let me correct myself and say that I don't think they should release the video, and not only because keeping it hidden helps McCain.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"While Khalidi eight years ago hosted a political fund-raiser for Obama...."
I believe the banquet were Obama spoke to honor Khalidi was in 2003.
Someone noticed that the LA Times mentioned in its article that it had received a recording of the event. So it has just now been brought to the attention of everyone that the Times has this recording.
The Times (known, of course, for its strict adherence to journalistic ethics where reporting on Obama is concerned) has piously claimed it promised not to release the recording. This is not a matter of the press protecting its sources, this is a matter of the press refusing to provide documentation it has already stated that it has. I do not care who recorded the video. I just want to see the video. This was a public event, so the public has a right to see it.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's ridiculous. The event was public, so you had a right to see it. When it happened.
The recording of the event is private property, and you have no right to see it if the owners choose not to show it to you.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's true, we don't have a right to see it, but we do have a right to make whatever assumptions as to the reasons why it is being withheld. And Lambert is also correct; if it is a recording of a public event, then there could not possibly be any sort of expectation of secrecy between the Times and the event organizers or whomever.
"Oh, but we promised!" No you didn't. Why would you do that? And even if some photographer made such a stupid promise, why would the paper be expected to keep that promise? What's gonna happen? The next time someone holds a public event, the Times won't be invited to show up?
The Times is playing politics here, pure and simple. But for which side...?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who, it appears, was going off what Ron wrote.
Ron, why do you think it was a public event?
And, honestly, where did we get the idea that we can't have friends and associates without agreeing with them on everything?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh yeah, that's true. OK, so I'm going by what Ron said. It's just that you said it with such authority that I thought you were both speaking from a position of common knowledge.
km, where did you get the idea that any of us have the idea that we can't have friends and associates without agreeing with them on everything?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, presumably the video is damaging to Obama because the McCain camp and Fox News think the Times should release the video to the public.
If they know what's on it, they should tell us. If they don't, then how is their opinion that the video should be released evidence of its effects?
quote:The Times (known, of course, for its strict adherence to journalistic ethics where reporting on Obama is concerned) has piously claimed it promised not to release the recording.
If they didn't make the promise, then they would deserve condemnation. If they made the promise, then they're not "piously claiming" anything; they're being honorable. If you have evidence of the former, I'd love to hear it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, shoot. It looks like it all hinges on whether this was a public or private event. If only there were some way to find out... some tool, that might allow one to search out information... perhaps in a manner using digital information that is easily accessible to anyone, anywhere...
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is an excerpt from an LA Times article about the "celebration" of Khalidi:
quote:It was a celebration of Palestinian culture -- a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.
A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.
His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."
The story was written by Peter Wallsten, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer. If a reporter representing the LA Times was present, the event could hardly be construed to be private.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, shoot. It looks like it all hinges on whether this was a public or private event. If only there were some way to find out... some tool, that might allow one to search out information... perhaps in a manner using digital information that is easily accessible to anyone, anywhere...
I would suggest that the one making the accusation might take the initiative to do that.
Of course, you've misstated the issue. Whether the event was public or private doesn't matter to whether the Times made a promise or not.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The real question is whether the promise the Times said it made five years ago to someone who recorded what was obviously a public event, should have any weight. Note this is not a matter of keeping a source confidential. It is a matter of making public documentation that it is in the public's interest to know.
Perhaps the Times might consider providing a written transcript of what was said, especially by Obama. Or are they afraid to do even that, lest it reveal something too embarassing for Obama in the upcoming election?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The real question is whether the promise the Times said it made five years ago to someone who recorded what was obviously a public event, should have any weight.
I wouldn't care to transact business with anyone for whom that is a "real question."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Here is an excerpt from an LA Times article about the "celebration" of Khalidi:
quote:It was a celebration of Palestinian culture -- a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.
A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.
His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."
The story was written by Peter Wallsten, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer. If a reporter representing the LA Times was present, the event could hardly be construed to be private.
That doesn't say that the reporter was present (he could have talked to people who were) and, even if he were present, that does not make it a public event. We hold many events at the university that are not open to the public yet still have press coverage.
If the LA Times wanted to suppress the story, why would they have published the story?
And, again, why do we care? What, exactly, is wrong with associating with and even befriending people who disagree with you? I think that the ability to listen to opposing viewpoints without demonizing the people who hold those views is a strength in a president.
quote:The Verdict: Misleading. While Khalidi eight years ago hosted a political fund-raiser for Obama, the two men strongly disagree over the Israeli-Palestinian issue and there's no evidence of a continuing political relationship.
posted
I hope everyone has noted that in this thread I never passed judgment on anything Obama did. My criticism is of the LA Times, and the media in general. If any of you still think they're just doing a bang-up job, then you need to spend some time doing origami or wilderness survival training or something, because you've lost your grip on reality and need something to bring you back to Earth.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh, I do not think your sense that they don't care about integrity and are in the bag for Obama is convincing evidence that in this case the LA Times is lying about the reasons for keeping the video private.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think so either, for what it's worth. The fact that they don't care about journalistic integrity is just a reason for me to be skeptical when they use the Journalistic Integrity Argument to excuse their protectionism.
You know, because they don't have any integrity. Ok, I know it's circular, but I'm still right. The media lie more than politicians, and that's saying something.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the media, at least the major news outlets, have only a passing fancy with trying to get a particular candidate elected. If that wasn't true, they'd call a spade a spade and stop trying to give everyone equal coverage when they don't deserve it.
I think if there's any other reason than their promise not to, they aren't showing this because it's not a big deal, and the hype they get in the form of attention from NOT showing it gets them more attention than actually showing it would. Some of them probably care and actively try to get a candidate elected, and I don't necessarily have a problem with that, depending on their reasons. Journalistic independence isn't nearly as old as some of you might think.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it ever really existed in the first place, Lyrhawn. I do think they have more than just a "passing fancy" with getting Obama elected. But your second paragraph definitely has the ring of truth to it.
posted
I believe that all people are biased, how you are biased can color where you get your news. MSNBC is fairly liberal, CNN is just barely liberal, while Fox is extremely conservative. There is not many news outlets that are not biased at all. But MSNBC covers republican events as well as democratic ones, while having commentators from opposite sides of the political spectrum. The news stations do color how they see an event, based on their biases.
posted
The impression I got from the articles I read is NOT that the Times had a videographer at the event 5 years ago and that they were allowed to tape in return for the promise, as Ron says, but rather that during the research for this article they came across someone who had a tape that was made at the event who agreed to let them view it as part of their research on the condition that they did not make it public. Either way, I think they should stick with their promise unless faced with a subpoena. But I do think the two interpretations are very different -- in one case, it would be their own tape, and in the other it would be someone else's intellectual property that they were allowed to use with preconditions, and if they were to go back on those preconditions no source would have any reason to trust them again.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: 00:11:56 - Khalidi dips a chip in some onion dip. It breaks in two. Khalidi says to Obama, "Heh heh. It's like this chip is Palestine and the onion dip is Israel and the weak-kneed Americans who defend her." 00:12:05 - Camera holds on Obama. His face is uncertain. Like he is unsure whether to laugh, applaud, walk away, or admonish Khalidi. 00:12:20 - A small smile appears on Obama's lips.
posted
Enigmatic... I read your name as Lyrhawn, then I thought wtf is enigmatics signature doing there?....
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
For some clarity on this matter, let's go to the LA Times.
quote:The Times on Tuesday issued a statement about its decision not to post the tape.
"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."
Jamie Gold, the newspaper's readers' representative, said in a statement: "More than six months ago the Los Angeles Times published a detailed account of the events shown on the videotape. The Times is not suppressing anything. Just the opposite -- the L.A. Times brought the matter to light."
posted
This is just like the "secret Muslim" thing. The real question is not "why won't they release this video," or even "what is the nature of Obama's relationship with Rashid Khalidi?"
The real question is: why is this even an issue?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would really like to read an explanation of just what someone who is seriously perturbed by Obama actually thinks will happen in his four-year term as Presidency. What is it that you seriously think has a good chance of happening that should generally be feared?
I know what my concerns were about Bush's second term, back in 2004. I was worried we would lose more civil liberties as time went on under him, that the economy would worsen (I didn't expect this much, but I was worried about the lack of healthcare access and such impacting individuals on a growing scale), that we would still be in Iraq, and that our military would not have its needs taken care of while still fighting that war (both those in the field and those they left at home).
I was also worried we'd openly attack yet another country, but we haven't. The rest came pretty much true, and I think I was correct to be worried about it.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Why is it "presumably" damaging to Obama?
Also, why are you encouraging someone to break their word? They promised not to release the tape as a condition of receiving it. Outside the legal limits of that promise - say, a legal subpoena - they should honor their word.
Well, the way he phrased it, I think he's been learning a little something from the rhetoric getting thrown around in this election season. As someone pointed out, it's no longer: "How often do you beat your wife," but instead: "As a wife beater, how do you feel about the issues?"
In his scenario, the fact that the times made a promise not to release the tape, regardless of any other detail, is immaterial. It must be damaging, because it will not be seen. The part where the times and Obama is damned either way apparently inspires no sympathy. I don't really know if this is a "republican" way of thinking, but it seems to fall under the "you should only worry if you have nothing to hide" argument that I have heard from some conservatives. That's a strangely anti-conservative position, so I'm always, always perplexed when I run across it.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or how about this real questions: Why would Republicans expect any part of the media to compromise themselves to do John McCain a favor when the Republican Party has spent the last year dragging the media through the mud as much as politically possible?
Republicans should take a lesson from basketball coaches: If you work the refs a little bit, you might be able to get some calls. But if you work the refs too much, the refs either start ignoring you or throw you out of the gym.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
PS: I wasn't afraid of a GWB presidency in 2000, for what it's worth. He wasn't my candidate, but I wasn't afraid of it.
Similarly, I'm not afraid of a McCain presidency. I think the country would be worse off than under Obama, but I don't think he'd steer the ship into a downward spiral. I think we'll be better off in two years, even under McCain rather than my candidate, than we are now under GWB.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would really like to read an explanation of just what someone who is seriously perturbed by Obama actually thinks will happen in his four-year term as Presidency. What is it that you seriously think has a good chance of happening that should generally be feared?
The only thing I actually fear about an Obama presidency is his judicial appointments.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does the fact that he is himself a lawyer not cut any ice for you? What about his appointments could be potentially damaging, to your mind?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While it is commendable to not judge people and to show respect for others beliefs it is a different matter entirely to continue a relationship with someone over many years with which you have fundamental belief differences. Look at your close friends - those you spend the most time with tend to be those you have the most in common with...
That said...
Is it too late to throw them both out and start over Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
