David Freddoso's The Case Against Barack Obama. (Worth buying is my highest accolade, by the way. Or perhaps I should say, worth paying for, as that would allow for contributions, as well as purchases.)
If every voter read this book, Obama would lose next Tuesday, by a very large margin.
The central argument in the book is straightforward:
Obama's ethnic pedigree understandably attracts much interest and fascination. But it is far less interesting than his unusual political pedigree. He is the product of a marriage between two of the least attractive parts of Democratic politics—the hard-core radicalism of the 1960s era and Chicago's Machine politics. (pp. x-xi)
The first part of that political pedigree has gotten far more attention from conservatives than the second. But the second may be just as important to understanding Obama. It explains why, as an elected official, Obama never worked for reform in Chicago — a corrupt city in great need of reform. He planned all along to use the Daley machine, not fight it. He talks about about hope and change, but he wants to take us back to the bad old days of the big city machines.
And that part of his pedigree tells us how seriously to take his promises. A machine politician makes whatever promises he thinks he needs to make to win elections — but does not think of those promises as pledges. For the machine to continue, it must win almost all elections, and so a typical machine politician will say (and sometimes do) whatever is necessary to win elections.
That part also explains why he has been so tolerant of corrupt individuals and extremists. A machine politician will put together a coalition from the available groups, without much worrying about whether all those groups are fit for polite society. For instance, at one time, one ward in Chicago was widely believed to be controlled by organized crime — which bothered the Daley machine not at all. Machine politicians have many faults but they are not, on the whole, "judgmental".
And that part may help explain his wife. Her father, whom she admires greatly, was a part of the Daley machine, a precinct captain, I believe. So it should not surprise us to find Obama working with Daley's son, and supporting most of his candidates — including some that everyone knows are corrupt.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(When I read a popular book on politics, I almost always find mistakes. So far, I have found no mistakes in The Case Against Barack Obama, and I have studied the book closely, even checking some of the footnotes.
Incidentally, one of the things I like about the book is that Freddoso rejects some of the sillier rumors about Obama, for instance, that he was sworn into office on a Koran.)
Posted by Jim Miller at October 28, 2008 06:11 AM | Email This"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly-only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Sounds mighty close to what O-blah-blah has been spewing, doesn't it?
When you talk like Karl Marx...folks might just think you have a Marxist philosophy.
The LEFTIST PINHEADED KLOWNS squeal 'racism" and "name-calling" whenever someone calls O-blah-blah what he is...a Socialist/Marixst.
On November 5th, we'll have the President we deserve whether that is an American Hero who's actually fought for this country or an American zero who's associations and attitudes run 180 degrees counter to the very principles this nation was founded on.
Posted by: Rick D. on October 28, 2008 06:55 AMIt is obvious he cares nothing about the principles this country was founded on. He only cares about power.
Posted by: Vince on October 28, 2008 07:40 AMFor a counterpoint, here is review of Freddosos's book that highlights some of its mistakes, which are I will agree a lot more subtle than the work of Corsi, who blatantly took an unreliable source (Andy Martin) as gospel and fabricated what Barack had written in his first book (where what Corsi stated was in direct opposition to what was written).
For an example of a mistake in Freddosos's book, one can point to the discussion on Blair Hull. The Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendell, in his book on Obama, contradicts what Freddosos writes. Mendell points out that it was the Hynes campaign, not Obama's, that tried to smear Hull. Freddosos, who quotes extensively from Mendell as a source, leaves out this fact, because it doesn't fit his thesis that Barack is a scary, black man.
I don't ask you to like Obama, just put on a skeptical reporter's hat. Look at who they source. Look at the source's work. Are the source's credible. Look for bias in the writing and how does it come out. Does the author do a good job of scrutinizing their own bias to make sure they are not coloring their work?
I will compare two works to give you an example of what I am talking about.
By most accounts, John Grisham's "An Innocent Man" is a good book that outlines the true story of Ron Williamson, who was wrongly convicted for a crime he didn't commit. However, in reading the responses, such as the DA in the case, one can see that Grisham's anti-Death Penalty bias did bias the book. Grisham took literary license with the timeline of events and placed some conclusions that weren't known until after-the fact up front. In this case, the facts weren't necessarily changed, but the reader was led to believe certain facts were known before they could have been known. This made the story better reading and supported Grisham's bias, but it also wasn't the literal truth of how things unfolded.
Contrast this for a moment, with Lee Strobel's "Case for Christ." Yes, Strobel when he actually writes the book had reached a conclusion, but his initial search was to prove the direct opposite of the conclusion reached in the book. Strobel uses his investigative reporting skills to address all counter-arguments that could be raised.
My point is the books like Freddosos's and more so Corsi, are put out as literal facts, but true intent is to promote an agenda. They are persuasion books. I haven't read Mendell's book, but from what I have heard about him, it does appear to be more of an honest assessment, instead of a persuasion piece.
Posted by: tc on October 28, 2008 07:45 AMYET can you show me during his entire time, has he ever pushed for a tax break!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 28, 2008 08:00 AMBut I must correct you on one point. Nowhere in the book does Freddoso say, or even imply in any way, that Obama is a "scary, black man". Instead Freddoso says, quite explicitly, that he views Obama as an ordinary politician with bad ideas, no more scary than his ally, Mayor Daley.
(One interesting speculation: Freddoso notes that by disqualifying Alice Palmer in the Illinois senate race, Obama knocked out a black woman who might have challenged Daley later.)
By the way, tc, am I right to assume that you have not read the Freddoso book? Or even glanced through it?
Posted by: Jim Miller on October 28, 2008 08:28 AMSkeptical reporter's hat? Where is the media doing that with Obama? They are very "good" about investigating anything about Republicans or their supporters, but they seem to have an extreme aversion to doing any in-depth investigation and reporting on Obama or his main backers.
65% positive news reporting on Obama since the convention vs. 36% positive news reporting for McCain in the same time frame?
Look for bias in the writing and how does it come out.
Indeed.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 28, 2008 08:57 AMIronic that you'd say this about Obama, when McCain is trying to put together a coalition rannging from "agents of intolerance" to Hillary Clinton supporters. This has nothing to do with political machines; it's just practical and effective politics.
Posted by: Bruce on October 28, 2008 09:16 AMDo you think objective reporting always means equally postive and negative reports about both sides?
Posted by: Bruce on October 28, 2008 09:25 AMDon't you think the press should go after the 'spread the wealth' comment in relation to his associations with the radicals Alinsky, Ayres, etc? Oh, and his own comments caught on tape from '01?
Come on Bruce. Even you can do better.
Posted by: swatter on October 28, 2008 09:50 AMSo Bruce, you're in effect saying that lies and incompetence of McCain/Palin are a given and should be (and have been) reported, but that Obama/Biden only speak truth from a position of considerable competence and therefore there is nothing to report.
Right.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on October 28, 2008 10:20 AMOrdering it online, but I am sure it will tell me what I already know about our new supreme socialist leader.
Posted by: DJ on October 28, 2008 11:34 AMOf course, I also have two or three Computer books, plus a couple of psychology books (like Emotional and Social Intelligence books) to also read.
Posted by: tc on October 28, 2008 11:54 AMGreat stuff. You make a wonderful useful idiot.
Posted by: ewaggin on October 28, 2008 01:01 PM"Citations in Freddoso's anti-Obama book rife with misinformation
Summary: The first few pages of David Freddoso's book, The Case Against Barack Obama, are marked by false and misleading assertions about Sen. Barack Obama, accompanied by dubious citations. A Media Matters review of the endnotes reveals that the rest of the book is little different from these first few pages, as throughout the book, Freddoso misrepresents or distorts his sources and even makes assertions that are actually refuted by sources he cites."
Factual discrepancies and misrepresentations are chronicled in detail on their website: http://mediamatters.org/items/200808050011
Posted by: SD on October 28, 2008 01:05 PMIncidentally, judging by what you have quoted, the Media Matters reviewer did not read the entire book. In fact, according to your quote -- which I have not checked -- the reviewer read just "the first few pages", and some of the endnotes.)
Posted by: Jim Miller on October 28, 2008 02:21 PMThe book wasn't written to convert me, it was written to reinforce the pre-existing views of the opposition. Does it matter then if the book is entirely truthful?
Posted by: SD on October 28, 2008 02:58 PMOn the other hand, the book "Obama Nation" by Jerome Korsi is not that credible - it is hit and miss. Korsi comes across as a conspiracy theorist and I would not recommend his book.
Posted by: KS on October 28, 2008 09:22 PM