This story from the Post this morning has me thinking on two levels about recent efforts to debunk the Obama myth.
On one level, I am uncomfortable with the concept of hit jobs on Obama based on his father's character, his mother's taste in men, or on some loony perception of his religion or how he practices it. The article focuses quite a bit on these kinds of attacks in Corsi's book, and to the extent that they are contained therein, it cheapens the work.
On the other hand, taking on the Obama bio is fair game, because Barack himself made it that way. When ALL you have to run on is your story and your voice, you've got to expect that investigative journalists will attempt to reconcile your version of your story with others. Obama's thin resume and unspectacular performance in the Illinois Legislature are fair game, and I know that David Freddoso's book is focusing on these aspects of the Senator in his book.
Laying Obama's scanty record on the table is not a hit job; insulting him because of his father is.
This book is unfortunate...there's plenty of 'ugh' in there that's true e.g. partial birth abortion and that horrifying story about the baby in Illinois. That story really needs to be trumpeted to evangelicals that may be foolhardy enough to consider an Obama vote. But there's also plenty in the book that can be disputed, and that unfortunately invalidates the message and gives Obama and his merry band of Obamabots cover.
ReplyDeleteRight you are, Sally.
ReplyDelete