About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Kurtz shreds Christopher Andersen's claims about "the Obamas' marriage"

September 27, 2009 2:31 pm ET

From the September 27 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Previously:

Hannity, Andersen advance discredited claim that Ayers helped Obama pen his autobiography

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by fairliberal (September 27, 2009 5:11 pm ET)
        20
      Kurtz didn't shred anything, he asked questions and plausible answers were given.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by 1st Republic 14th Star (September 27, 2009 6:27 pm ET)
        16  
        Fail, Fair Liberal.

        Kurtz wants to know how Anderson can have quote marks around one on one conversations between the Obamas when only they were present. Anderson says "they're direct quotes." Kurtz asks how that can be, since only two people were there. Anderson says "well, they've told friends and neighbors and acquaintances." In short, those are hearsay, AT BEST, and most likely totally fabricated. Whatever they are, they ARE NOT direct quotes. In other words, Anderson's answers are not plausible.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by TheDayV (September 28, 2009 9:12 am ET)
          2  
          Regardless, even if they were 'plausible', that doesn't mean they're factual.

          Aside from that, Kurtz put out a solid performance there. I wonder what made him finally dig into a guest.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mjh (September 28, 2009 7:03 pm ET)
            1  
            "Regardless, even if they were 'plausible', that doesn't mean they're factual."


            True -- but don't count on FAILliberal to make that distinction.

            For FAILlib and other wingnuts, as long as it casts the Obamas in some sort of negative light, it MUST have some credibility.


            You know, I continue to marvel at those who purport to "examine" the marriages of the Clintons or the Obamas: people who have been married -- to their ORIGINAL spouses, I might add -- for 34 and 17 years, respectively.

            I'd LOVE to seen an examination of Newt Gingrich's, Rush Limpballs', or Rudy Giuliani's marriage(s) -- though, I suppose, in all three cases, there'd be too many to examine . . .


            Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (September 28, 2009 9:05 am ET)
        2  
        Fairliberal, based upon Andersen's responses, I could write your biography. He knows NOTHING about the inner workings of this marriage. He NEVER talked to the Obamas. Plausible answers??? Not hardly. If this man had written a similar biography of Bill O'Reilly and his wife, using the same methods, you would be SCREAMING.

        Quotation marks around quotes signify actual quotations. Reporting hearsay as accurate, actual quotations is dishonest. He has NO idea if what he wrote was true.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (September 28, 2009 11:59 am ET)
        2  
        BTW, fairliberal, before you use two-bit words, you should know their meaning.

        Plausible, adj.

        1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible
        2. Giving a deceptive impression of truth or reliability.
        3. Disingenuously smooth; fast-talking.

        Nothing in the definition indicates truth, just the appearance of truth, sometimes deceptively.

        This man's "biography" is no more credible than those of the infamous Kitty Kelley. It is based solely on hearsay.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by jjamele2880 (September 27, 2009 6:20 pm ET)
      8  
      Hannity: "I gotta be honest..."

      That must have been incredibly difficult for you, Sean. Way to go.

      And "I gotta be honest, I really enjoyed the book."

      Takes courage- "I gotta lay it on the line here- I liked the book you wrote." Sean Hannity does not back down from the tough confrontations, does he?

      Anderson: "Nobody has ever disputed a single important fact in any of my books..."

      Well, that's not hard if you consider any falsehood "unimportant," is it?

      I should write a book about Christopher Anderson. I'll use unnamed neighbors, classmates, co-workers etc to back up totally fictitious "quotes." And if challenged, I'll call Anderson my mentor and inspiration- "everything I know about writing a book I learned from Mr. Anderson who, by the way, is a Pedophile Communist, according to unnamed people I talked to."
      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (September 27, 2009 10:22 pm ET)
        6  
        Can anyone PROVE that Sean Hannity never confessed to a priest that he harbored impure thoughts about teenage boys?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by captfoster2 (September 27, 2009 6:24 pm ET)
      5  
      I'm just speaking aloud here and to no one in particular...

      Am I to understand that this book written about the Obama marriage... is not flattering?

      What am I missing?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by jjamele2880 (September 27, 2009 6:26 pm ET)
        11  
        You are missing the fact that the book is overloaded with hearsay posing as fact, and that the author doesn't know the difference between "direct quotes" and "what I heard he said from someone else."
        Report Abuse
        • Author by juliajayne1 (September 27, 2009 8:17 pm ET)
          6  
          Yes, sort of like Joe Klein's lack of the use of ellipsis a few years ago. I.e. a good, credible author should know the proper usage of these sorts of things.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by captfoster2 (September 27, 2009 10:23 pm ET)
          6  
          That's what I suspected jjamele2880

          I had to leave earlier and didn't have the time then to really pay full attention to the video clip.

          Watched it in full...

          So now I can say... I'm absolutely shocked that a corporate whore would write such a book for no better reasons than money and name recognition!

          As for Howard Kurtz... I'm not quite ready to assume he's a good guy just yet... but this bumped him up a little.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by the Grey Path (September 27, 2009 7:07 pm ET)
        8  
        What you're missing is the representation that Michelle Obama is overbearing. The Christian Right will have a field day.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by juliajayne1 (September 27, 2009 7:38 pm ET)
          10  
          Nobody, I mean Nobody really knows what goes on in another person's marriage.

          It's little better than gossip/speculation as a result, regardless if the account is "glowing" or not.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by juliajayne1 (September 27, 2009 7:39 pm ET)
            5  
            Sorry Grey Path, I didn't mean to respond to you specifically. ;-) Just making a general comment.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by mjh (September 28, 2009 7:33 pm ET)
        2  
        "Am I to understand that this book written about the Obama marriage... is not flattering?

        What am I missing?"



        "You are missing the fact that the book is overloaded with hearsay posing as fact, and that the author doesn't know the difference between 'direct quotes' and 'what I heard he said from someone else.' "


        "What you're missing is the representation that Michelle Obama is overbearing. The Christian Right will have a field day."


        Absolutely right, jjamele and Grey Path.

        Capt, when Andersen {I'm paraphrasing from the clip here} says things like, "we should be GLAD the Obamas have not subjected the public to the marriage drama that was the Clintons' marriage", its basically both a lefthanded complement of the Obamas, and a backhanded insult to the Clintons.

        Plus, when Anderson (and he mentioned this) brings up things in his book such as Jeremiah Wright, William Ayres, Tony Rezko, and other oft-repeated, already debunked faux issues, it all amounts to nothing more than another smear job on the Obamas -- in the guise of a supposedly "flattering" portrait of their marriage.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by DellDolly (September 27, 2009 7:50 pm ET)
      3 1
      Boy, I didn't realize how sleazy this author was! His work is very suspect after this interview with Kurtz.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by overmars jr. (September 28, 2009 5:17 am ET)
      3  
      Boy, this guy is a piece of work. He doesn't waste any opportunity to paint himself in glowing colors, eh?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Renesme (September 28, 2009 9:27 am ET)
      3  
      This guy is so egotistical and indignant. -How dare you question my writing standards, I have been doing this for 40 years...you should just accept it-. Might as well be what said. I won't waste my time on a book full of heresay quotes.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Renesme (September 28, 2009 11:02 am ET)
        2  
        oops. I meant "hearsay"
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mjh (September 28, 2009 7:36 pm ET)
        1  
        Yeah, I noticed that, too.

        For the right wing, having a large number of viewers for a cable TV station, a large number of listeners of a radio program, and x amount of books written {and on the NYT bestseller list} constitutes automatic credibility.

        Report Abuse