| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Book on Obama blasted for ''vicious innuendo'' |
| 2008-08-15 |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #21 I think the concern about this book is that it came out August 1st, and this weekend will hit #1 on the New York Times political best sellers list. That's an awful lot of paying readers. Coupled with the fact that even if Candidate Obama wins over half of Senator Clinton's voters, that still isn't enough to win the election in November. Or so I heard on NPR the other day. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-08-15 23:46 |
| #20 From what I saw on the Commentary site (I was there looking for Max boot stuff on stinger missiles) there are a couple of outright errors. Given the amount of effort that's been expended in attempting to bury, whitewash, or ignore Obama's past I'd be rather amazed if the book contained only "... a couple of errors." And with Corsi it goes without saying that there'll be spin ... just as there has been from the Obama camp in their attempts to smear Corsi and deride his book. However, I'll stand by my earlier statement that the Freddoso's book will be a game-changer. The Obama camp will have a very tough time evading the well-documented facts therein. Corsi's work is lightweight in comparison. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2008-08-15 16:41 |
| #19 Two arguments with problems. The first is the argument from authority. X said Y. X is smart. Thus Y must be true. The second is the argument from disauthority. X said Y. X was wrong about Z. Thus X must be wrong about Y. Both arguments are bad. |
| Posted by: mhw 2008-08-15 15:58 |
| #18 and remember what I said - not that you cant make the case that its not vicious. Im sure many can and will try, and good luck to em. But I dont see that CALLING it vicious amounts to contempt for dissent. I can call Michael Moore viciouos (and I believe I have over the years) despite some true factoids, and while some leftie could call ME wrong, I defy him to say I disrespect dissent. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2008-08-15 15:04 |
| #17 should be "doesnt prove it vicious" |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2008-08-15 15:02 |
| #16 Perhaps because, despite the personal shortcomings of the author, the overwhelming majority of the information presented appears to be fact, as mostly confirmed by the Obama's camp's spin and evasion. Im not sure how to quantify information. From what I saw on the Commentary site (I was there looking for Max boot stuff on stinger missiles) there are a couple of outright errors. I would be very surprised if there wasnt also a lot of spin, of a kind that someone sympathetic to Obama would see as vicious. Im sure there are also lots of factoids that taken in isolation are quite true, as there are, IIUC, in left wing hit books as well. Thats the game afterall to take factoids and spin them. And the game on the extremes is to not just spin them, but to spin them viciously. hell, isnt that how they build the "north american union" case as well? Now, of course all of the above does prove its vicious. I will have to go take a look at some places I trust to get a better idea, although for the life of me, Im still more interested in georgia. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2008-08-15 15:01 |
| #15 Like everything else about BHO, (even though he purports to not want to play the "race card"), ANY crittque of his holiness is considered blasphemy. Pure and utter bull droppings. |
| Posted by: WolfDog 2008-08-15 14:54 |
| #14 I cant see why respect for dissent means he SHOULDNT call this book vicious innuendo. Perhaps because, despite the personal shortcomings of the author, the overwhelming majority of the information presented appears to be fact, as mostly confirmed by the Obama's camp's spin and evasion. If they're having this much trouble with Corsi's book one wonders how they'll respond to Feddoso and his far better documented tome. Corsi's book will do damage but Feddoso's is a game-changer. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2008-08-15 14:44 |
| #13 No book is needed for any experienced and savvy observer to see Obama is a remarkably inexperienced, ignorant mediocrity who would be a perfect fit for a low-level Schedule C slot at HHS. President?? Er, not so much. That someone with his nearly unbelievably reckless and politically fatal background (associations, associates, south side sleaze, etc.) could go beyond a local political market, much less become a major party prez candidate, is a truly astonishing and troubling thing. Of course, if the "press" did what was long considered its job, it's doubtful that Obama would have done any better than you'd expect a green and unimpressive marginal figure to do. But just reflect for a second on how reckless and lacking in judgement a politician with lofty ambitions has to be to live much of Obama's life the way he did for a long time. Unless he somehow descried that the "press" would morph almost completely into a tame and panting servant of one party such that one could do whatever one wanted and still rise. A long-time friend who worked for years for a liberal Illinois senator put it perfectly: Obama's behavior and associations were perfect to ensure a long career in a safe city/state seat in an area like the south side. Up to now, though, it would have been a cage, and set a ceiling on any further march up the ladder. As for "vicious innuendo" - compared to the vicious slander and innuendo dumped on Bush - including by public figures, senators, etc. - the Messiah's treatment has been as soft ss a baby's bottom. That Obama is even a candidate is humiliating for the US - at least to anyone with a clue, whcih I understand seems to constitute a small beleagured minority ..... |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2008-08-15 12:45 |
| #12 The one thing I know is this: if Senator Obama wins in November, on January 21st, dissent will no longer be patriotic. maybe not to Obama. Lots of the lefties have been on Obamas case for a while though. anyway, I cant see why respect for dissent means he SHOULDNT call this book vicious innuendo. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2008-08-15 11:48 |
| #11 even Commentary has pointed out several mistakes in the book. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2008-08-15 11:46 |
| #10 Or in Canada and sic the Human Rights Commission on Corsi..... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2008-08-15 11:26 |
| #9 Perhaps an Obama operative will buy Corsi's book in England and then sue. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-08-15 11:08 |
| #8 The 'Fairness Doctrine' will be only the beginning. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2008-08-15 11:05 |
| #7 The one thing I know is this: if Senator Obama wins in November, on January 21st, dissent will no longer be patriotic. Posted by: Steve White 2008-08-15 08:54 Steve, you couldn't be more correct. |
| Posted by: Jolutch Mussolini7800 2008-08-15 10:54 |
| #6 The comment "we don't know who Barack Obama is" could begin to be resolved by a reading of his original birth certificate. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-08-15 09:01 |
| #5 The one thing I know is this: if Senator Obama wins in November, on January 21st, dissent will no longer be patriotic. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-08-15 08:54 |
| #4 Writers have every righ to go with what they know. Obama's evasions set him up for speculation. What else is he concealing? |
| Posted by: McZoid 2008-08-15 06:19 |
| #3 The same as the Swift Boat book; they can't refute the content so they go after the author. If the first book were a lie Kerry would have had Corsi in court in a heartbeat. I don't think this one will be taken to court either. But the Dem's will try to label Corsi as the second son (bastard child even) of Satan. |
| Posted by: tipover 2008-08-15 02:54 |
| #2 For the Bama worshippers, anything less than fulsome, over-the-top praise is "vicious innuendo." Pfeh. |
| Posted by: Spike Speaque2226 2008-08-15 02:53 |
| #1 Corsi is a nut, clearly part of the tinfoil hat crowd but he's raised some valid issues here. Hugh Hewitt's show yesterday contains tons of excellent commentary. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2008-08-15 00:51 |