Swiftboating Obama—and swiftboating the swiftboaters who swiftboat…
The NY Times has a dismissive article about the new Corsi book on Obama entitled Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality, which to the chagrin of the Times editors, “is to make its first appearance on The New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction hardcovers this Sunday—at No. 1.”
A bit difficult to ignore, I guess.
And so the Times is trying to discredit it in advance. After all, it’s by some of the same folks who brought you Unfit for Command, that notorious book of outrageous lies about Kerry’s Vietnam service—or so the Times would (and did) have you believe.
I happen to be one of the comparatively few people who actually read the Kerry book from cover to cover (disclaimer: I have not read Obama Nation), and I was very impressed by the case it presented. By the fall 2004 I had become somewhat of a minor expert on the book, the players, and the facts contained therein.
I looked forward to seeing how the media would treat it, and what holes they would poke in the story, because I certainly knew they would try their best. Therefore it was shocking to discover how little meat there was in the subsequent MSM refutations, and how many errors they made—but in order to know that, a person would have to have been very familiar with the book itself, and the MSM was counting on the fact that most people wouldn’t read it but instead would take their word for it that the Swiftvets were a bunch of Republican liars.
And that’s exactly what happened. Most people who only followed the story in the mainstream press believe to this day that the Swiftvets’ allegations were irrefutably disproven. But actually they were not even seriously shaken.
It’s probably the case, however, that enough people were convinced by the charges of the Swiftvets against Kerry that the book managed to tip an already close election in Bush’s favor. The Democrats have been determined ever since then to avoid suffering a repeat of that set of circumstances.
Here’s the Times so far on the new book [with my interpolations in brackets]:
Significant parts of the book, whose subtitle is “Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality,” have already been challenged as misleading or false in the days since its debut on Aug. 1 [Ya think? Is that the best the Times can do? It would be beyond belief if the book had not been challenged].
In its timing, authorship and style of reporting, the book is strikingly reminiscent of the one Mr. Corsi wrote with John O’Neill about Mr. Kerry, “Unfit for Command,” which included various accusations that were ultimately undermined by news reports pointing out the contradictions [they were indeed “undermined” in just such a manner, although it was easy enough to point out the contradictions in the contradictions the press was pointing out—as well as the outright misrepresentations—and the fact that the vast majority of the book’s allegations remained unchallenged and uncontradicted].
And then there’s the following:
Mr. Obama’s campaign has yet to weigh in heavily on Mr. Corsi’s accusations. It appears to face the classic decision between the risk of publicizing the book’s claims by addressing them and the risk of letting them sink into the public debate with no response.
Or perhaps Obama faces another risk the Times fails to mention, which I suspect was part of Kerry’s dilemma as well: some of the book’s claims may be difficult to address because they are true.
Obama confronts a special dilemma that could make this book even more damaging to him than Unfit for Command was to Kerry. Many people still feel they don’t really know him; his record is not only sparse, but his public persona is both contradictory and remarkably blank:
Obama has always been something of an aloof loner. In the Illinois state senate, he remained uncommitted on most issues.
At the University of Chicago Law School, he did not participate in faculty discussions about the school’s future. In the US Senate, he seems to have made few close friends, at least until the vice-presidency became within his gift. He is, says NYT columnist David Brooks, a “sojourner”¦ Obama lives apart”¦ He absorbed things from those diverse places [in which he lived and worked], but was not fully of them.”
As a result, voters “find him hard to place”. He carries “cool” to the point of aloofness. He is seen more as a Chablis-sipping intellectual than someone Joe Sixpack would want to go bowling with.
That’s where books such as Corsi’s come in. They can take the opportunity to fill in the blanks especially effectively in a candidate such as Obama, who is particularly blank to begin with.
Obama himself has written, in The Audacity of Hope, that “I am new enough on the national political screen that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripe project their own views.” In the campaign so far, this blankness seems to have worked largely to his benefit. But Corsi is now taking the opportunity to fill in that screen with some pictures of his own, and they’re not very pretty.
Row, row, row your swiftboat , not-so-gently up the stream…”
I didn’t know The Times was still in business.
I just ordered this book, primarily because I remain as mystified today at the enormous and blind following Barack Obama inspires, as I was when we all witnessed his first primary victory in Iowa.
I have previously expressed here my observations that this cultish clamoring after a man who has virtually no accomplishments or leadership experience, very much reminds me of other historical precedents: the emergence of Hitler and his rise to power based on an ability to assess and articulate words which which would sway crowds with promises they wanted to believe in. Too few were diligent enough to explore his qualifications or the probability of those many promises.
Likewise I have mentioned the parallels in the rise of those such as Castro, whose rise was directly attributable to a people who realized they had put their country in trouble when they supported Batista, the dictator who preceded Castro; so willing were they to listen to the “hope” and “change” which Castro promised. History virtually repeated this with the rise of Chavez in Venezuela, the assassination of the Shah of Iran and the subsequent rise to power of the Mullahs in Iran.
When I ordered the book, I took a bit of time to read a number of reader “reviews” — both good and bad. It was interesting that those who praised the book, were able to refer to substantive subjects in the book; nearly all of the one star (i.e. lowest rating) reviews mentioned nothing whatsoever in the book — only a dismissal of the book based on political sway.
One review I felt to be particularly pithy, for those who might be interested: (Note: I grew up in Miami Beach in the early 60’s and both my education and surrounding environment were significantly influenced by the steady influx of Cubans escaping from Castro. I do believe I grew up with an objective regard, even while observing the irony as I witnessed family after family believing they were in U.S. temporarily, with plans to return home to reclaim land, careers, “normal life” just as soon as all realized what a “really bad man” Castro was, which would surely result in his overthrow. There are those who still believe, and still wait….
The review on the new Obama book (Signed: Andrew J. Rodriguez, Author of “Adios, Havana,” a memoir):
After reading the book I realized it is the kind of writing that people either ferociously agree with its message or hate the author for undermining someone whose qualifications make him worthy of being elected president of the most powerful nation on Earth.
I am not going to agree with either side. All I wish to express as a former Cuban exile, is that Barack Obama and Fidel Castro share many personality traits, ie:
Both were abandoned by their fathers at an early age.
Both are charming, elocuent lawyers that say exactly what people want to hear at the right time and place.
One never led the nation to suspect he was a communist at heart, the other doesnt mention the word socialism when in reality this is exactly what his agenda stands for.
Neither Obama nor Fidel ever held a real job either in government or in private enterprise for they think of themselves as demigods unworthy of soiling their hands when their destiny is much larger than their own realities.
Both were virtually unknown until they began to use the word “change” as their main political motto.
Both have egos as tall as the twin towers, yet they manage to present themselves humbly, one in soiled military fatigues and the other sweating and with an undone tie.
Both have the unique ability to distort truth and lies as if they were the same.
Both have the ability to hypnotize the ignorant and fool the wishful thinker and to divide a nation in classes, (divide and you shall win) In Fidel’s case he divided the rich against the poor, the illiterate against the educated and the black against the white.
In Obama’s case even if by omission, he’s de-facto dividing the races already.
Another resemblance between Obama and Fidel and one that shall never be forgotten is that the American media supported the “Twentieth Century Latin American Liberator” (Time Magazine) with the same degree of irresponsibility devoted to Barack Obama today.
And lastly I’ll use the words of Jorge Santayana to finish my case in point: “Those who can’t remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
And in the words of Sir Winston Churchill: “The inherent vice of Capitalism is the unequal distribution of blessings, the inherent vice of Socialism is the equal distribution of misery.
GOD SAVE AMERICA!
The general media did the exact same thing with the book The Bell Curve too. Still to this day simply by saying that I will be branded a racists who thinks that black people are stupid by people who never read the book at all. The authors went out of their way (even to the point that it became irritating) telling what the statistics meant and did not mean yet it never stopped the detractors from saying the authors claimed ideas that they had *two whole chapters* in the book telling why you can not get that idea from the numbers. It was fairly common for them to claim the authors wrote something that wasn’t even remotely in the book, heck not even implied by anything in the book.
This was also during my own political awaking and, along with things like watching C-Span, why I have never trusted news sources at all. Blogs have made them *significantly* more honest than in the past and we still see a huge amount of lying. It’s a large part of why I was never a liberal too.
I have read the book. It was intended to delve deeply imto Obama’s background. As a result there is much source material listed in the appendix.
The most damning of the source materials, as far as I could tell, were Obama’s two books. Corsi studied them very closely for leads to Obama’s thinking. He details how Obama was drawn to the words of Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, and others of the black separatist movement. From that it seems no wonder that Obama eventually joined Reverend Wright’s separatist Church.
There is a lot of detail about Obama’s associations with Chicago politicians/movers and shakers. The friendship with Rezko seems very troubling as Rezko was and is a corrupt business man with connections to other shady characters. One was an individual who was involved in the Oil for Food scam.
The real estate deal Obama and Rezko pulled off to buy Obama his multi-million dollar home may have been legit, but from the outside it appears to be influence peddling by Rezko.
Many other details expose Obama as a far left thinker with a golden tongue and a desire to right the world’s wrongs.
I recommend the book for anyone who wants details and sources to back up their gut feelings about Obama.
Did Corsi find any cotton candy in there?
I read Corsi on Kerry, during that race, and am now half way thru the current one on B.O. Actually there is little new information from what has been all over the internet for the last six months, but corsi distills and extrapolates on it wonderfully. If there is a problem with the facts as presented, then let them be challenged with demonstrable facts. The dems whine about the allegations, then attempt to obfuscate, and finally slither smugly away satisfied that at least their loyal crowd simply don’t care about, the truth.
Both the choices are turds. The question is which is the better of the two; which candidate would be successful.
Neither Obama nor McCain worked in the private sector. Well, Obama did a little
Obama went to an integrated church with a racist pastor that fought for the US in Vietnam; McCain does go to church.
McCain got into school with his parents help and graduated next to last in his class; while Obama graduated in the top of his class.
Mc Cain had an extra marital affair while his wife was in the hospital(ala Edwards); Obama has been married once.
Obama smoked dope, George Bush snorted Cocaine
Do any of the above facts tell you whether or not the candidate will be successful?
George Bush almost flunked out of school and he was a successful president.
LBJ and JFK cheated on their wives all the time and they were reasonably successful
Clinton inhaled and he was successful.
Harding had associates in the KKK and he was successful
Chaney’s ancestors owned Obama’s ancestors and Chaney is successful
I’m fine with either candidate winning; however neither addresses the underlying issues that plague America.
Crime needs to be address
Jobs needs to be address
Education needs to be address
Lets talk about the real issues, not tabloid issues(he said/she said)
BTW, I am a moderate and have much distain for the lemmings on the right and left.
Our problems with crime are rooted in the permissiveness of the sixties, in the birth of the Left As We Know It.
Our problems with jobs are worsened by government distortions in the marketplace, including labor and environmental laws which were passed at the behest of pressure groups and which together double the cost of construction, and increase the cost of everything else, and also including a tax code which makes it hard to run a business, punishing the productive and rewarding those whose skill are in managing tax liabilities.
Our problems in education arise from control of our schools by the Left, from an emphasis on self-esteem instead of achievement (social promotion, no tracking by ability, teaching envy of success and making pariahs of the successful) to political indoctrination, to gatekeepers who keep more competent and reasonable people out of the system (by requiring degrees granted only by master indoctrinators and by creating a professional bureaucrat class).
Every success we’ve had in dealing with these problems has come from discarding the prescriptions of the Left.
Just remember one thing. Not one of the Swift Boat claims were disproven in any way. In fact Hanoi John filed and dropped a lawsuit when his high priced lawyers determined they had a loser on their hands, and no lawyer likes to openly lose on stupifity.
Corsi’s new book is probably 99-100% accurate.
“…Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality, which to the chagrin of the Times editors, “is to make its first appearance on The New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction hardcovers this Sunday–at No. 1.”
We have to take our enjoyment where we can. 😉
cSimon- I believe you typed that second-to-last quote of yours incorrectly. In actuality, it is:
“Those who can’t remember the past are condemned to vote Republican.”
Just the examination of Obama’s motives and mindset sends the liberal lemmings into a tizzy. They DON’T WANT TO KNOW anything of substance about the man. Thats such a buzzkill man!
I recall having this same affliction when confronted with evidence that my girlfriends in high school were not the angels i reflexively projected them to be.
Some people wise up and grow up. Liberalism thrives off the rejection of taking on such adult responsibility.
Neo, great subject for a post, but missing some meat:
why don’t you mention 2 or 3 specific facts that you think are most important about the Unfit book? For me, Kerry’s lie about being in Cambodia at Christmas was huge.
Also, I almost recall that he spent not a single full day in the hospital for a couple of his Purple Heart injuries.
Have you filed a FoIA request to see Kerry’s partial Form 1080 (?) service record? Has anybody at PajamasMedia?
On Obama, what do YOU think the most important points are?
Obama’s father was from Kenya. His mother is white and was from Kansas. Which ancestors do you think
the Chaney family owned?
Just as people who ignore differences between good and evil inevitably gravitate toward evil, people who hate both the right and left inevitably move to the left.
A view from the so-called Left:
Joe Klein writes on his “Time” blog on 8/13/08: “a group of spurious Bush-backing Vietnam vets tried to claim … that … McCain [had been successfully brainwashed in Vietnam] during the 2000 Republican primary in South Carolina.” He points out that Kerry called them out on this. Do you believe these vets also, Neo? Klein goes on to say, “And it is true, as John Kerry knows, that a more effective response–and a bolder campaign–might have neutralized the Swiftboat assault four years ago. It is also true that Corsi’s book this time is far less effective than his Swiftboat venture, since it doesn’t come equipped with veterans willing to defile their service by telling lies to camera.”
The real title to the book could be: “Obama Nation: It’s Our Turn, That’s Why”. That’s essentially this guy’s platform. By his own admission, he is a mirror – which has its virtues in places like museums and Hollywood or perhaps a therapist’s office. The truth is ‘being inspired’ as a justification for voting for a particular candidate is just as shallow as voting another direction because of a failure to be inspired. It’s our right to do so. The subtext we are living is in fact rooted in a sense of entitlement to the White House, to direct from on high and to – which I think comes quite naturally to Obama & Co – preach. While Jesse is not the centerpiece, his comments in Ebony really drive home the disconnect the so-called defenders of minority rights exhibit with mainstream reality: that some how or another public office and power are to be shared based on a system of quotas versus earned through experience and toil and effort, and, yes, proven results. The very notion that what’s different today is simply that Whites have changed strikes me as utterly racist in and of itself.
ESSENCE.COM: It’s interesting that you describe your platform as inclusive because oftentimes your presidential runs are framed as having been centered on Black people. And now Senator Obama is heralded as being very different from that–
JACKSON: We won Vermont, Alaska and Michigan because we reached out. What’s different today is not that Blacks have changed, but Whites have changed. Whites who once terrorized us and denied us the right to vote are now voting for us. Many Whites are maturing and becoming less insecure in the voting process. But we’ve been reaching out for a long time.
Pingback:The Thunder Run
“Obama Nation: Thank you for giving me whats mine”
Obama’s campaign is like Trudeau Mania that struck Canada in 1968.It has left a terrible legacy.
Here is the Obama Campaign’s detailed response to the book.
I guess I’m one of those people who grew up in a family and Catholic culture where we were taught to value the truth and seek it out. The truth matters more than scoring political points, which is why I don’t have a problem with Corsi’s book. Most of it I already knew from my own reading, and his book is well and thoroughly footnoted. I might quibble with a few things, but overall it appears he went to great pains to make sure that what he cites and describes is supportable.
His work on John Kerry, again, followed the evidence.
The New York Times is not known for putting the truth ahead of partisan politics. Trying to shoot a messenger who is well-researched only makes for double embarrassment for the Grey Lady who is losing so much money and readership that it may not exist in ten years.
The only thing about Corsi’s book that I have issues with are the Muslim themes that seem to provide a background context for Obama. I do not think Obama was ever a serious Muslim. Soetero (his adoptive father) was originally a Communist (just as his biological father was) and only got with Islam after the 1965 overthrow of the Communist regime in Indonesia. And his practice as a Muslim was meant as a survival technique. He eventually took up drinking and wenching, which are no-no’s under Sharia Law.
Obama is ideologically and psychologically more inclined towards Marxism/socialism, not Islam. I also think his dalliance with Christianity is not truly serious. If Black Liberation Theology is a heresy (and it is, by my theological training) then Obama’s latched on to a form of Christianity that simply dovetails with his prior Marxist beliefs.
“Here is the Obama Campaign’s detailed response to the book.”
I read a little bit of that and I only have to wonder if a similar book had been written about Bush and a similar “book” was written in defense of him what the reception would have been?
I don’t know enough to tell what is right and wrong in this case – there is no way too. I note that Carsi has many citations that are accurate in what they say. I note that the defense is mostly “nuh uh” along with a lot of graphics with strong wording. Of the two I will side with Carsi with no real knowledge of what is real – how can I not when one is documented and the other mostly pictures with the accused saying “Not True!”.
If that is the best defense one can come up with them it makes his case stronger. Kerry had the same issue, in both cases there is one well documented case and one that just says “not true”. If they were just both hearsay then there isn’t much one could say. However one side is fairly well supported and the other isn’t.
There is *no* leftist out there that would be swayed if the roles were reversed (in fact they would rant and rave about the general level of crap in the publication and the ability of those that believe that tripe to rationalize their believes) and I can not fathom why they think this would do anything different. Carsi’s book speaks to the anti-Obama people and the moderates, the linked defense only speaks to those that are already in Obama’s camp and no one else and, as such, was a waste of bandwidth and time.
Corsi’s book is going to damage the Republicans, big time. The Democrats are ready for the “swiftboat” routine, and the windmill Corsi is tilting at is going to knock him out of his saddle so hard McCain will feel it.
The Swiftboat Vets’ claims were just “he said, she said” allegations, and if Kerry hadn’t been the star of “Winter Soldier,” they would have had no traction at all. Obama’s being a cipher makes him way too slick to be affected by Corsi’s tactics, and anyone relying on allegations of Islamic sympathies against Obama will find themselves sliding off into the political abyss where the neo-Nazis like to hang out.
Neo:
Thanks for revisiting “Unfit for Command”. I also read it in 2004, cover to cover, and found its case pretty convincing. In particular, I was convinced by the fact that its author, and several of the people quoted extensively therein, were willing to debate the book and its claims at any time, to anyone… while Sen. Kerry avoided such confrontations like the plague.
I’m tempted to read “Obama Nation” as well, but I’m biding my time. Recent allegations of Mr. Corsi as a 9/11 conspiracy theorist give me pause as well.
In re Sen. Obama as a Muslim: as my father-in-law repeatedly points out to anyone who will listen, whether or not we believe Obama on this is beside the point. Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is the son of a Muslim… which, according to sha’aria, makes him a Muslim by birth. In the eyes of millions of Muslims worldwide, therefore, he is a Muslim, no matter what he says.
Add in, if you please, that Islam is notoriously intolerant of Muslims that convert to other religions, particularly if they have the bad taste to proclaim so loudly. In other words, to millions of Muslims worldwide, Obama is an apostate Muslim, and a blasphemer.
What will this mean, if Obama is elected President of the United States? I don’t know. But I don’t imagine it would be anything good.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
“Obama Nation: Thank you for giving me whats mine”
That’s what I was referring to.
Obama being a Muslim or not doesnt’ concern me per se.. I’ll take him at his word..
I oppose him because he’s a Marxist