Hamilton, Madison, and Jay

This blog is devoted to a variety of topics including politics, current events, legal issues, and we even take the time to have some occasional fun. After all, blogging is about having a little fun, right?

Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Friday, August 15, 2008

Pushing Back Against The "Push-Back"

The Obama campaign is not happy. Jerome Corsi has penned a book -- The Obama Nation" that has his supporters hopping mad. Thomas and I have read his book and while it was interesting it was not nearly as enlightening as David Freddoso's book "The Case Against Barack Obama." The difference here is that his campaign has pulled out the long knives for Mr. Corsi, and we feel it is a tactical mistake. In going after Mr. Corsi they have given him a level of credence that John Kerry refused to give to Mr. Corsi and Mr. O'Neill after the published "Unfit for Command" in 2004.

The "Push-Back" piece they have released is here. A good deal of it is wrapped in vague non-defenses, and the 41 page piece ends with an attempt to smear Mr. Corsi with things that are not even related to his book. May I offer a hint to the Obama campaign? Stick to the point of your contention, and do not wade off into a smear campaign. It does not make you look good.

Why am I bringing this up? Because last night we printed out the 41 page piece to examine their defense of Senator Obama against Mr. Corsi. We have found a few points that, while not outright lies on their part, they are certainly spinning and obfuscating.

Point #1 --

LIE: “Sol Stern, a contributing editor of Chicago’s City Journal, has observed that while Ayers today ‘is widely regarded as a member in good standing of the city’s civic establishment, not an unrepentant domestic terrorist,’ the impression of Ayers’s good citizenship is incorrect.” [p 140]


Members of the establishment? In a post entitled "The Friends of Barack Obama Part II," the guys at Power Line assembled a series of mp3 files of William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn -- from their radical days in the 1970s and at the 2007 SDS reunion -- and their statements DO NOT reflect any sort of mainstream establishment thought. In 2007 Ms. Dohrn equated living in America with "living in the belly of the beast" and "in the heart of the monster." Neither one is repentant for their actions with the Weather Underground, and they remain radical to this day.

Point #2 --

LIE: “Instead of stepping aside in deference to Palmer, Obama decided to fight her for the nomination.” [p 146]


The problem with this statement is that Senator Obama played dirty politics when it came down to the Illinois State Senate seat that Ms. Palmer had. This is backed up by the research carried out by David Freddoso and by David Mendell in his book "Obama: From Promise to Power" which even his spporters claim is the definitive biography on Senator Obama. In fact, Mr. Freddoso uses Mr. Mendell's book as a primer for a few things he cites in his own work, and when it came to the fight between him and Alice Palmer Mr. Mendell even confesses that Senator Obama's campaign deployed a strategy to get names removed from Ms. Palmer's petition drive.

Point #3 --

LIE: “Besides, Obama had to know who Ayers is and what he stands for, especially with Ayers making this splash on 9/11.” [p 147]


Here Senator Obama's supporters do not address the central point made by Mr. Corsi. Namely that Senator Obama had to know who Mr. Ayers was. The comments made by Mr. Ayers in his September 11, 2001 interview with the New York Times is a moot point as the interview was conducted prior to that day. But the point is that Senator Obama had to know about William Ayers past. The name sticks out, and if one is running for a political position, it would stand to reason that his campaign staff knows how to use Google, and could check up on close associates; especially the sort that could sully a campaign. William Ayers is just one such individual. At the very least, Senator Obama had to have been told that "your new friend is a former domestic terrorist."

Point #4 --

LIE: “But when Chicago Sun-Times reporters finally confronted Obama on Friday, March 14, 2008, for an extended interview in the newspaper offices, the senator changed his tune.” [p 154]


For this one, one would have to suspend disbelief. The only questions being asked of Senator Obama at the time referred to his relationship with Mr. Rezko, and nothing more. Thomas addressed this back on March 4th, and even included the point that he had been confronted by reporters in Texas. Thomas writes:

On Monday, Sun-Times reporters ventured to Texas to ask these questions. Obama cut the presser short, and stormed off angrily proclaiming that "I just answered eight questions." But he didn't. He still hasn't.

He repeatedly refused to answer any specific questions about his business dealings with Tony Rezko, and was evasive, at times, when it came to questions regarding their relationship. In fact the quotes and evidence the campaign produces shows him as being "human," "capable of mistakes," and being "boneheaded" in the relationship he had with Tony Rezko. But these are hardly the upfront answers that people wanted.

Point #5 --

LIE: “As fully expected, the Obama campaign continued to maintain Obama had never met Auchi, saying in effect that Levine had committed perjury.” [p 173]


This one is interesting because they claim Mr. Auchi does not remember meeting with either Michelle or Barack. Up to this point the argument made has been that Senator Obama DOES NOT recall meeting Nadhmi Auchi. His supporters have turned the tables, but it matters not because they did, in fact meet. Via RezkoWatch on April 16, 2008:

Dem presidential contender Barack Obama's handlers may be telling the press Obama has NO "recollection" of a 2004 party at influence peddler Tony Rezko's Wilmette house, but a top Sneed source claims Obama not only gave Rezko's guest of honor, Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi, a big welcome . . . but he made a few toasts!

There are related items in connection with the Rezko/Auchi party here and here. Sort of difficult to dissuade this point when there are witnesses that place them at the same party, with Senator Obama making toasts to him, unless their contention -- based on how they word their defense -- is that Senator Obama did not impress Mr. Auchi enough for him to remember the young senator.

Point #6 --

LIE: “He has been endorsed by Hamas and had to fire a Middle Eastern advisor who had been privately meeting with Hamas.” [p 257]


John Hinderaker @ Power Line reported on the Hamas endorsement back on April 16th:

On Sunday, Aaron Klein and John Batchelor interviewed Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Prime Minister of Hamas, on WABC radio. The interview produced a scoop which, for some reason, has not been widely publicized: Hamas has endorsed Barack Obama for President. Yousef said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election." Why? "He has a vision to change America." Maybe Yousef has some insight into what Obama means by all these vague references to "change."

For those who will not believe their eyes, you can believe your ears. Mr. Hinderacker also inserted the mp3 file of the interview. While it can be argued that this is not an "official" endorsement because Mr. Yousef did not say "Hamas endorses Barack Obama," it cannot be construed any other way. It is clear who they wish to see win the election.

* * * * *

The problem with the "push-back" is that it is long on speculation, and provide little that cannot be refuted. Above are six points that we noticed last night, and each one of them I have just disassembled right here. I have provided links to the real "Reality" that his supporters, in their rush to smear an author, either overlooked or hoped no one would find. Our thanks to Hugh Hewitt for pointing this piece of pap they assembled to our attention so at least some of the record can truly be set straight.


UPDATE: Readers have e-mailed wanting to know why I did not refute ALL of the points. There are two reasons behind this. Brevity, for one, was the primary reason. This piece put out by the Obama campaign is 41 pages long. No one would want to read through a complete refutation of it. Second, these six points were the ones that jumped out at us last night. So, no, it is not that we could not refute the piece in its entirety, but for the sheer fact we would rather not bore our readers we will not do that.

And yes, now that Blogger's spell check feature is up again (it was not working whn I posted this) I have corrected the three errors that I obviously skimmed over in the proof-read. TY for pointing those out.


Blogger David M said...

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 08/18/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

August 18, 2008 at 11:13 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home