On Hannity & Colmes, another Corsi falsehood about Obama
SUMMARY: On Hannity & Colmes, author Jerome Corsi claimed that in his upcoming book, The Obama Nation, "I do a great deal of analysis of [Sen. Barack Obama's] autobiography." Corsi then asserted, "Obama first presents his father as a great hero, and the truth was, his father was a polygamist and a alcoholic." However, contrary to Corsi's suggestion that Obama did not address these issues in his memoir Dreams From My Father, he discusses his father's alcoholism and polygamy in multiple passages in the book.
On the July 31 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, author Jerome Corsi claimed that in his upcoming book, The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality (Threshold Editions), "I do a great deal of analysis of [Sen. Barack Obama's] autobiography." Corsi then asserted, "Obama first presents his father as a great hero, and the truth was, his father was a polygamist and a alcoholic. He had abandoned the family in Africa when he met Obama's mother in Hawaii. He married Obama's mother without disclosing that he had not divorced this African woman," falsely suggesting that Obama did not address these issues in his memoir Dreams From My Father (Crown, 1995). After making his false suggestion, Corsi asserted, "I'm first criticizing that Obama was not straightforward in how he presented, really, a deception about his father as a goatherd who got his chance to go to, come and study in the United States because of John Kennedy."
Contrary to Corsi's suggestion, on Pages 125-126 (paperback) of Dreams From My Father, Obama recounts a conversation with his mother that addressed his father's polygamy:
She stuck her head out of the kitchen. "I hope you don't feel resentful towards him."
"Why would I?"
"I don't know." She returned to the living room and we sat there for a while, listening to the sounds of traffic below. The teapot whistled, and I stamped my envelope. Then, without any prompting, my mother began to retell an old story, in a distant voice, as if she were telling it to herself.
"It wasn't your father's fault that he left, you know. I divorced him. When the two of us got married, your grandparents weren't happy with the idea. But they said okay -- they probably couldn't have stopped us anyway, and they eventually came around to the idea that it was the right thing to do. Then Barack's father -- your grandfather Hussein -- wrote Gramps this long, nasty letter saying that he didn't approve of the marriage. He didn't want the Obama blood sullied by a white woman, he said. Well, you can imagine how Gramps reacted to that. And then there was a problem with your father's first wife ... he had told me they were separated, but it was a village wedding, so there was no legal document that could show a divorce ..."
Moreover, on Pages 212-217, Obama recounts a discussion with his half sister Auma about their father's alcoholism:
"The Old Man began to drink heavily, and many of the people he knew stopped coming to visit because now it was dangerous to be seen with him. They told him that maybe if he apologized, changed his attitude, he would be all right. But he refused and continued to say whatever was on his mind.
"I understood most of this only when I was older. At the time, I just saw that life at home became very difficult. The Old Man never spoke to Roy or myself except to scold us. He would come home very late, drunk, and I could hear him shouting at Ruth, telling her to cook him food. Ruth became very bitter at how the Old Man had changed. Sometimes, when he wasn't home, she would tell Roy and myself that our father was crazy and that she pitied us for having such a father. I didn't blame her for this -- I probably agreed. But I noticed that, even more than before, she treated us differently from her own two sons. She would say that we were not her children and there was only so much she could do to help us. Roy and I began to feel like we had no one. And when Ruth left the Old Man, that feeling was not so far from the truth.
"She left when I was twelve or thirteen, after the Old Man had had a serious car accident. He had been drinking, I think, and the driver of the other car, a white farmer, was killed. For a long time the Old Man was in the hospital, almost a year, and Roy and I lived basically on our own. When the Old Man finally got out of the hospital, that's when he went to visit you and your mum in Hawaii. He told us that the two of you would be coming back with him and that then we would have a proper family. But you weren't with him when he returned, and Roy and I were left to deal with him by ourselves.
"Because of the accident, the Old Man had now lost his job at the Water Department, and we had no place to live. For a while, we bounced around from relative to relative, but eventually they would put us out because they had their own troubles. Then we found a run-down house in a rough section of town, and we stayed there for several years. That was a terrible time. The Old Man had so little money, he would have to borrow from relatives just for food. This made him more ashamed, I think, and his temper got worse. Despite all our troubles, he would never admit to Roy or myself that anything was wrong. I think that's what hurt the most -- the way he still put on airs about how we were the children of Dr. Obama. We would have empty cupboards, and he would make donations to charities just to keep up appearances! I would argue with him sometimes, but he would just say that I was a foolish young girl and didn't understand.
"It was worse between him and Roy. They would have terrific fights. Finally Roy just left. He just stopped coming home and started living with different people. So I was left alone with the Old Man. Sometimes I would stay up half the night, waiting to hear him come through the door, worrying that something terrible had happened. Then he would stagger in drunk and come into my room and wake me because he wanted company or something to eat."
Further, on Pages 343-344, Obama recounts a discussion in which his half brother Mark called their father "a drunk":
The following week, I called Mark and suggested that we go out to lunch. He seemed a bit hesitant, but eventually agreed to meet me at an Indian restaurant downtown. He was more relaxed than he had been during our first meeting, making a few self-deprecatory jokes, offering his observations about California and academic infighting. As the meal wore on, I asked him how it felt being back for the summer.
"Fine," he said. "It's nice to see my mom and dad, of course. And Joey -- he's really a great kid." Mark cut off a bite of his samosa and put it into his mouth. "As for the rest of Kenya, I don't feel much of an attachment. Just another poor African country."
"You don't ever think about settling here?"
Mark took a sip from his Coke. "No," he said. "I mean, there's not much work for a physicist, is there, in a country where the average person doesn't have a telephone."
I should have stopped then, but something -- the certainty in this brother's voice, maybe, or our rough resemblance, like looking into a foggy mirror -- made me want to push harder. I asked, "Don't you ever feel like you might be losing something?"
Mark put down his knife and fork, and for the first time that afternoon his eyes looked straight into mine.
"I understand what you're getting at," he said flatly. "You think that somehow I'm cut off from my roots, that sort of thing." He wiped his mouth and dropped the napkin onto his plate. "Well, you're right. At a certain point, I made a decision not to think about who my real father was. He was dead to me even when he was still alive. I knew that he was a drunk and showed no concern for his wife or children. That was enough."
From the July 31 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: Walk us through those three phases, from his family, to his radical associations, to his views today.
CORSI: Well, even in his family, I do a great deal of analysis of the autobiography.
HANNITY: That's his father, right there.
CORSI: That's his father, and his father -- you know, Obama first presents his father as a great hero, and the truth was, his father was a polygamist and a alcoholic. He had abandoned the family in Africa when he met Obama's mother in Hawaii. He married Obama's mother without disclosing he had not divorced this African woman.
HANNITY: And by the way, in fairness, you don't, I would never hold it against him --
CORSI: I don't either.
HANNITY: -- the actions of his father, but you are giving it historical perspective.
CORSI: Well, first of all, Obama put the issue on the table in analyzing it and making it the core of his autobiography. And I'm first criticizing that Obama was not straightforward in how he presented, really, a deception about his father as this goatherd who got this chance to go to -- come to study in the United States because of John Kennedy. John Kennedy had nothing to do with his father coming to Hawaii. It was Tom Mboya.
ATTENTION MMFA AND OTHERS:
It's not polygamy. It's "bigamy."
Bad, but not as. Polygamy is plural marriage, actively performed at the same time. Bigamy is running off.
Can't anyone get their facts correct? Even MMFA? Is EVERYONE incompetent?
The term polygamy has all sorts of connotations now that you DON'T want pressed onto Obama.
Well, although my liberal linguist brother-in-law would argue that usage determines the rules of grammar, I'm pretty sure the prescriptive point of view is that "anyone" is always singular. And yes, "his" is antiquated--it should be "his or her."
I'm liberal about everything but grammar, by the way. I certainly didn't mean to impugn my brother-in-law by calling him liberal.
Grammar matters for America.
Actually, you can be a polygamist with just two spouses. A polygamist is a plural marriage practitioner, more than one at the same time, together. Obama's father was just a guy who ran off. He was a bigamist. He wasn't like those Mormons.
Get the point? By using the term polygamist, Corsi is conjuring up extremely derogatory and inaccurate imagery (with an Islamic tinge.) That's why he's doing it. It's MMFA's job to note and correct it, not duplicate it.
Did you intentionally miss that it was Corsi who used that descriptive word, polygamy, and that's why Media Matters also uses it?
Also, polygamy means more than one wife (or spouse) and does not mean that it has to be more than 2 at the same time. Bigamy is restricted but that doesn't mean that polygamy can't describe having 2 wives also.
This is why Democrats lose. It's because they're idiots.
I'll explain. Corsi deliberately used the word "polygamy" because it is far more derogatory than saying O senior was married somewhere else, or was a bigamist. It conjures up highly charged and very recent imagery.
But it's inaccurate. Obama's father was merely a bigamist. He was not a polygamist. You could very well be a polygamist with only two wives, but Obama senior WAS NOT one.
So-- why the hell did MMFA cite O's father as a polygamist, as a statement of FACT, in the lead, boldfaced intro?
It was a mistake. They are doing EXACTLY what their charter commands them to correct: using false, right wing talking points. Somebody at MMFA screwed up royally.
Get it?
"But it's inaccurate. Obama's father was merely a bigamist. He was not a polygamist. You could very well be a polygamist with only two wives, but Obama senior WAS NOT one."
Where are you getting your definitions from? Polygamy means being married to two people at once. Bigamy is primarily a legal term, what all I've seen, defining a criminal act of polygamy. I see no definition that dictates both wives (or husbands) have to live in the same residence, as you said in your other post. In fact, at dictionary.com, under bigamy:
Note: It is not strictly correct to call this offense bigamy: it more properly denominated polygamy, i. e., having a plurality of wives or husbands at once, and in several statutes in the United States the offense is classed under the head of polygamy.
Someone running off and getting married without a proper divorce would be a polygamist, being married to a plurality of people. Can you please make an effort to provide a basis for your point before calling someone who disagrees with you an "idiot"?
No, the point is that Corsi and now MMFA are using misleading, supercharged language to falsely describe Obama's father.
And sorry, polygamy does not describe his actions-- polygamy is plural marriage, actively interinvolved, where the spouses knowingly enter into the arrangement. Bigamy is merely being married to two people at the same time, unlawfully.
Does that mean Obama's mother was a polygamist? It would have to as well by definition-- you can't have one-way polygamy, but you could be married to a bigamist.
Did O describe either parent as a polygamist? Did he use that term himself?
And who cares how some states define bigamy-- they also call late term abortions "partial birth." It's dishonest, and designed to deliberately conjure up equivocal imagery beyond what the situations deserves.
In other words, why in the world would any Dem want to call Obama's father a POLYGAMIST? It's crazy and unwarranted. A misuse of terms that is designed to damage.
I'm just really amazed at how dumb Dems are. Bob Somerby's right-- high profile liberals are dumb these days. Just no match for the craven right.
"And sorry, polygamy does not describe his actions-- polygamy is plural marriage, actively interinvolved, where the spouses knowingly enter into the arrangement."
Again, can you please cite something that shows that "polygamy" is reliant on cohabitation or mutual acquaintance? Thank you in advance.
Also, do you agree that "bigamy" refers to being married to two women at once, specifically?
If not, then I wonder how "bi-" could apply to more than two, since the prefix indicates two. And if so, how would you refer to a man who is married to three women in three different states all at the same time? It can't be "bigamy" because there's more than two wives, and it can't be "polygamy" because there's no Mormon-esque arrangement. Apparently there's just no descriptive label for such a person.
The problem with the standard dictionary definition of "polygamy" is that it doesn't even strike a difference between simple unlawful bigamy and the full-scale practice of polygamy. In fact, there isn't even an alternate definition of the practice itself-- which is clearly used in modern parlance.
But the prescriptive Websters 2nd does clearly strike a difference, by claiming that bigamy is "sometimes" used synonymously with polygamy. It also says that polygamy is generally a plurality-- meaning not just two in their case, but more. That's the inference of this explicit statement.
The descriptive Websters 3rd is behind the times on usage. And look, dictionary definitions are not reliable as to meaning. What if Sean Hannity says, "Bill Clinton molests women." In objection to that statement, are Dems going to run to the dictionary and say, "Well, Sean has a point, because that is what Clinton did do to some women, by definition...."
I hope not. The same with this current equivocal use of the word polygamy. By no stretch of the imagination was Obama's father a polygamist. To allow this kind of thing will doom the Dems.
I don't see the need for this distinction. Whether the women (for our purposes here) know about each other or not, the man knows he's married to more than one woman, and that's the problem. People who establish single-household arrangements are polygamists, but the term is in no way exclusive to that. That was the point of the example I provided, there would not be any hesitation in labeling that person a "polygamist" just because the women didn't know each other. As a hypothetical, what if Obama's father had left left his first wife, then left his second wife and married yet again? Would it be inappropriate to call him a "polygamist" then?
"But the prescriptive Websters 2nd does clearly strike a difference, by claiming that bigamy is "sometimes" used synonymously with polygamy. It also says that polygamy is generally a plurality-- meaning not just two in their case, but more. That's the inference of this explicit statement."
I'd have to see the specific wording, because plurality can certainly mean just two. Also bigamy would "sometimes" be used synonymously if you were talking about two women or if you were talking in legal terms. Most importantly, "not just two" doesn't make any commentary about the nature of the arrangement, so it could match the hypothetical above. So your suggestion that your definition refers to "full-scale practice" needs more support.
"The descriptive Websters 3rd is behind the times on usage. And look, dictionary definitions are not reliable as to meaning. What if Sean Hannity says, "Bill Clinton molests women." In objection to that statement, are Dems going to run to the dictionary and say, "Well, Sean has a point, because that is what Clinton did do to some women, by definition....""
I'm not sure that "polygamist" has quite the overwhelming perception of "harem" that "molest" has for "unwanted or inappropriate sexual activity" as opposed to "unwanted sexual attention".
"I hope not. The same with this current equivocal use of the word polygamy. By no stretch of the imagination was Obama's father a polygamist. To allow this kind of thing will doom the Dems."
So readers of MMfA that think Obama's father was a polygamist are going to swing the election, while they wouldn't have done so if they had known he was simply a bigamist. I know you're talking beyond MMfA and beyond this particular incident, but still that seems rather dramatic. And you really can't say that it's just a question of popular usage and then say "by no stretch of the imagination...". You couldn't even say that about the "molest" example you provided. You could say it was the worst possible spin, that it was only technically accurate, but not that there was no possible way of using the term.
The bottom line is that you have to show how people are "idiots" for not jumping to the conclusion that a polygamist has multiple partners in cohabitation, or not believing that a significant number of people are going to perceive the term that way and have a dramatic shift in attitude resulting from it. If there's some gray area involved here, that leaves room for reasonable opinion that contradicts yours. Do you disagree with that?
A picture can sometimes say it all; about FoxNoise and corporate owned media in general and at the same time be a strong argument for the return of the Fairness Doctrine:
I don't know if this Corsi bozo thinks he is scoring points against Obama by bringing up Obama's father and his past, but it seems to me that any son that had to endure such a father's past, yet managed to make quite a success of himself, both as a candidate for president and a good husband and father.
Oops, might want to 86 this Obama attack strategy, my admiration for Obama went up a few ticks, don't think that was the Hannity/Corsi intention.
Tommy, I'm WITH you 100% on this one.Whenever there's an attempt to smear a person, not for anything bad they've done, but for the bad experiences they've endured, I assume the smearer has had a very sheltered life. I don't know much about Corsi, but Hannity always strikes me as somebody who may have been pampered as a kid.
Even those people who grew up with great families and wonderful parents can remember some period of weirdness (teenage years, anybody ?), and the large number of people who grew up with some sort of dysfunction in their families (most people, I'd guess) are going to see this as a positive.
I've met a handful of people in my life who insisted they had perfect families and childhoods. They were generally complete wrecks in a lot of denial.
I believe that people that are products of difficult childhoods, or broken homes, and overcome such adversity, rise above it, and become decent, productive and contributing members of society are worthy of my admiration. It shows a great strength of character and resolve, for our childhood shapes much of what we are as adults. It takes courage and guts, and an incredible amount of hard work to not only be successful, but not repeat some of the same learned behaviors we were raised with.
Politics and party aside, he deserves respect and understanding for what was obviously a difficult environment for a young boy to be reared in.
What he does not deserve is some slimy headline-grabbing book peddler, and a cheap partisan hacker TV host to trash it all out to make a buck, or score some political points. Shameless.
I think Tommy made an excellent point on this topic as welll.
3 gold stars ***
Multiple liberal posters agreeing with Tommy? It must be raining fire outside right now.
It's also interesting how Corsi fails to note that Obama's father left he and his mother when he was a small child, and he saw his son a handful of times after that.
I'm surprised that Corsi doesn't accuse Obama's mother of having been a crack whore who sold sexual favors in the park for fifty cents a pop.
The man is slime.
MAJOR error by MM:
MM wrote that Corsi suggested "that Obama did not address these issues in his memoir Dreams From My Father."
Meanwhile, Corsi, last night on H&C, said, "Obama put the issue on the table in analyzing it and making it the core of his autobiography."
MM owes its readers a correction!
I'll repeat. Obama's father was NOT a polygamist!!! Everyone, stop using that term and VALIDATING IT! He was a bigamist.
Like MMFA here:
However, contrary to Corsi's suggestion that Obama did not address these issues in his memoir Dreams From My Father, he discusses his father's alcoholism and polygamy in multiple passages in the book.
When did Obama say his father was a POLYGAMIST?
Well, O senior did have multiple wives, but he wasn't a polygamist.
See, the use of "polygamist" was a deliberate smear, designed to conjure up highly derogatory and religiously bigoted imagery.
The F'd up thing is that MMFA used this term THEMSELVES!
It's THEIR job to correct this kind of right wing crap, not promulgate it as a given.
About McCain...hmmm.. you have a point.
CarlileB, I think you are splitting hares.
And besides you, the only one who cares is the hare.
MMfA's point here is that Corsi has claimed that Obama glossed over his father's faults in his autobiography, although Obama did not; as noted, Obama disclosed a lot of sad family problems. I heard Corsi's first interview on Hannity's radio show, and MMfA is correct that Corsi misrepresented Obama's autobio wrt his dad. I did not hear the H&C Corsi interview, but it seems that Corsi was waffling about it later (the same day, I think), mixing false claims with truths. I've observed Weiner doing the same thing. The tactic provides deniability while still getting the lies told.
Why in the world would any Dem want to refer to Obama's father as a polygamist?
Do you guys get it? It's a flagrantly derogatory, supercharged term that does not accurately describe Obama's father's relationship with his mother.
He was a bigamist, not a polygamist-- the latter term is about 1000 times as bad, and also conjures up even more derogatory, Islamic imagery.
Man, Dems are dumb. Just no match for the craven right, who will say absolutely anything, with little rebuttal.
They own the language now, apparently. Have for some years, too, it seems.
I don't think there is a nickle's worth of difference between the two words, based on their dictionary definitions. I disagree that MMfA has made an error in the use of the word polygamist, rather than bigamist, in this article. Have you troubled to look up the definitions for yourself?
In any case, the righties, particularly on Hannity's shows, don't apply subtle shades of meanings when engaging in rhetorical attacks. No, they prefer to clobber their audience with the same big lies, over and over and over. It is the endless repetition, IMO, that gives these lies life. MMfA is doing a great job in watch-dogging the conservative liars and cataloging the lies.
They're not doing a great job if they allow this equivocal mis-definition to stand.
Dictionary definitions are never conclusive, especially the descriptive nature of modern post 1960 publications. In fact, the current definition of polygamy is so limited and generic, it doesn't even define the organized practice itself, as an alternate or supplemental meaning of the word.
The pre 1960 Websters 2nd does at least try to strike a distinction, by defining "bigamy" as "sometimes synonymous" with polygamy. But it does not automatically hold that it is the same thing, as do some people here-- and MMFA!
Don't Dems see that calling Obama's father a polygamist is dooming? That if it isn't stopped and refuted, it's all you're going to be hearing by October?
If Sean Hannity suddenly calls Bill Clinton a "molester," are Dems going to say, "hey he's right-- the dictionary says so!" (?) Why not? That's the definition!
Now that you've looked up the dictionary definitions of "polygamy" and "bigamy", and found them to be synonyms, I will make an additional point that MMfA is clear that the polygamist they refer to is Barack Obama's father:
"Contrary to Corsi's suggestion, on Pages 125-126 (paperback) of Dreams From My Father, Obama recounts a conversation with his mother that addressed his father's polygamy...". This is not equivocal usage.
Because Obama Sr. opted to bigamize more than once (this according to Corsi in the Hannity radio interview I heard), it makes sense for both Corsi and MMfA to use the word "polygamy"; the term "serial bigamy" would have been synonymous but not as concise.
In your comments you've taken a disrespectful, rude and commanding tone, insisting that MMfA pick words according to your personal definitions rather than common definitions, and that we posters also conform to your wrong definition. You've called posters/dems here "stupid", "idiots" and "losers". Those are troll tactics, but I have a hunch you aren't a troll, but rather that this is a hot-button issue for you, that your heart is in the right place, and that your concern is not to let right-wing rhetorical tactics swing the upcoming election. That is the only reason I continue to disect this poor hare with you.
This may be the last time I try to help you, Shoes, as it's usually the same ol' trying to hammer overcooked spaghetti into a brick wall.
Corsi , in saying that Obama put these issues on the table, is referring to Obama writing about his father, specifically as "a hero".
What Corsi doesn't acknowledge is that Obama's account was more warts-&-all than Corsi is trying to portray.
Are you on some sort mission to fail to understand every single item on this site?
"And I'm first criticizing that Obama was not straightforward in how he presented....."
Dex, I believe the crux lies with this statement, because Obama is forthright and straightforward in his autobiography, despite Corsi's claim otherwise.
Simpler, Dex.
Obama discussed his father. Good stuff, bad stuff.
Corsi suggests that there is some dishonesty in discussing the good if there is any bad.
So they admit that Obama acknowledged his father's flaws, but nevertheless he is guilty of hero worship of his dad. Hanity and Coarsi say they would never use Obama's dad to smear him and yet it is mentioned in the context of a liberal poliltics = cult of personality. Why? Because Obama did not sufficiently point out that his dad was a polygamous drunk scoundral?
Ok I understand now: NO MATTER WHAT OBAMA DOES, SAYS, OR IMPLIES, IT IS BAD, PROOF OF LIBERAL EVIL. If Obama does not follow the typical liberal monster role, it is because he is a poll driven political oportunist liberal.
According to this standard of discussing family, Bush should have constantly reminded us of his families (alleged) nazi connections in World War II!
... where in the entire conversation on H&C did Corsi say or even directly imply that Obama did NOT address his father's issues? - Dex
Corsi made this statement: And I'm first criticizing that Obama was not straightforward in how he presented, really, a deception about his father as this goatherd who got this chance to go to -- come to study in the United States because of John Kennedy.
If Corsi was acknowledging that Obama did deal with his father's flaws, where was Obama's deception? If Corsi was saying that Obama did mention those flaws, that means that Obama was not deceptive. In order for Corsi to be correct that Obama was deceptive he had to be saying that Obama hid those flaws. Logically, both can't be true.
That's why I think an evenhanded reading Corsi's words "Obama put the issue on the table" has to come to the conclusion that he was referring to the broad topic of his father. I simply don't see how it could be referring to his father's flaws when put together with the rest of his statements.
(psst: Shoes, please tell me that you don't really believe that - that you're just using it as a technicality to argue for your righty pundit heroes - so that I don't have to do a line-by-line viewer-perspective analysis again. You don't have to let on to anyone else that you're playing games here, but please, for the sake of the children...)
Corsi then asserted, "Obama first presents his father as a great hero, and the truth was, his father was a polygamist and a alcoholic." However, contrary to Corsi's suggestion that Obama did not address these issues in his memoir
I think you are closer to the correct interpretation than MM is - had the highlighted word above been omitted then MM might have a point. And as you noted it is clear in the context of the discussion that he acknowledges Obama laid his fathers addictions and issues "on the table". Do not expect a correction from MM though - they are going to twist every word in this book to discredit it. No negative word, fact, opinion or thought about Obama will go unchallenged here at MM - for in thier minds - he is perfect.
I have to assume that you're just not perceptive enough to understand how that sentence condemns Obama to the ranks of "liar" for your average viewer.
People like Corsi get rich and enjoy stature of a certain legitimacy thanks to people who like you. He at least owes you a thank-you card. Get in touch with him and let him know.
I have to assume that you're just not perceptive enough to understand how that sentence condemns Obama to the ranks of "liar" for your average viewer.
Well you know what happens when you assume. I do not believe he was questioning Obama's truthfulness as much as he may have been questioning his judgement.
My point is that he does not suggest Obama didn't cover it in his(obama's) book. Media Matters does.
"I do not believe he was questioning Obama's truthfulness as much as he may have been questioning his judgement."
Well, there you go - you got off on the wrong foot from the start. Your "belief" (based solely on bias) is that Corsi was making the correct judgement that Obama was describing his father as a "hero". That would all be just fine when limited to an objective opinion of that portion of what Corsi said. However Corsi then goes on - upon the premise of his interpretation or judgement of how Obama was describing his father - to throw in a contrary phrase: "and the TRUTH is..." implying that Obama was not telling the complete truth.
Ergo, your judgement of Corsi's judgement is wrong, leading to your incorrect analysis of MMfAs conclusion.
And the alternate possibility of your "you know what happens when you assume" remark - that I correctly interpret all available data and nail it dead on - is proven to be the case this time.
"Obama first presents his father as a great hero, and the truth was, his father was a polygamist and a alcoholic." However, contrary to Corsi's suggestion that Obama did not address these issues in his memoir
Off on the wrong foot from the start? Go back and reevaluate - you obviously missed something critical to Media Matters faulty reporting.
After further evaluation, I realize how much I underestimated the accuracy of my analysis. And I also realize that half of the standard answer to your "what happens when you assume" cliche is also true. In this case, I humbly cede that it's your half.
Congratulations. Copy and paste this into your e-scrapbook to cheer you up on days when you're feeling a little low.
CORSI: That's his father, and his father -- you know, Obama first presents his father as a great hero, and the truth was, his father was a polygamist and a alcoholic. He had abandoned the family in Africa when he met Obama's mother in Hawaii. He married Obama's mother without disclosing he had not divorced this African woman.
HANNITY: And by the way, in fairness, you don't, I would never hold it against him --CORSI: I don't either. HANNITY: -- the actions of his father, but you are giving it historical perspective.
CORSI: Well, first of all, Obama put the issue on the table in analyzing it and making it the core of his autobiography.
Hubris has rendered you incapable of following the conversation. The "issue" Corsi refers to is the "actions of his father" mentioned by Hannity, in response to those actions described by Corsi above - the negative ones. Media Matters claims Corsi insinuates that Obama did not reveal them in his autobiography, while Corsi clearly notes that Obama "put the issue on the table".
That's the part you missed!
You learned a new word this week! Hubris! That's good! Now be careful not to overuse it before you learn the definition of it. Like above. Not appropriate.
Now down to brass tacks. No matter how obtuse you present yourself to be, I will not go through that whole conversation and interpret it line by line, as I said before, in a viewer-perspective analysis. If you choose to parse it into a meaning that better fits your predetermined conclusion, go for it. Keep running with the perspective and judgment that allowed the Republicans to nominate, then elect, then re-elect Bush and get this country into the condition it's in now.
If you really think that the media's liberal, that capitalism should be unregulated, that gay weddings will undermine the sanctity of marriage, and that Sean Hannity would promote a centrist opinion, then by all means, stand by your judgment and take pride in knowing that you're largely responsible for what this country has become.
Col.: Remember - Faux Noise and the rest of the boys don't get White House talking points. It's pure conincidence that all of sudden the same word is on all their lips - such as "embolden." When did anyone ever hear that word except in the new cliche (if there is such a thing) "embolden the enemy." Because these talking heads lack the native wit to re-write the Karl Rove/RNC Talking Points into their own words (and because they don't have any) they give themselves away each day.
Read the Talking Points yourself and then listen as the very words echo through the ether each day.
PS: As a teenager I worked in an Ohio restaurant and Col. Sanders and his large family came in one day. We thought he was Col. Morton (a local line of frozen food). When his wife explained he was Col. Sanders we weren't the least bit impressed - this was circa 1969 and we'd never heard of him. His wife picked up the check...
"When his wife explained he was Col. Sanders we weren't the least bit impressed"
Some things never change....
:) Just joshin' Colonel (couldn't resist), good weekend to all...
MM wrote that Corsi suggested "that Obama did not address these issues in his memoir Dreams From My Father."
He suggested that while Obama put the issue of his father on the table he was deceptive in what he said about his father.
CORSI: Well, first of all, Obama put the issue on the table in analyzing it and making it the core of his autobiography. And I'm first criticizing that Obama was not straightforward in how he presented, really, a deception about his father as this goatherd who got this chance to go to -- come to study in the United States because of John Kennedy. John Kennedy had nothing to do with his father coming to Hawaii. It was Tom Mboya.
MM owes its readers a correction!
NOT!
Pearlene, the boy needs a frying pan over the head. A hot one if ya got it.
Juliajayne, I'm leaning towards the black cast-iron one, it hold heat the best. :-)
On Hannity & Colmes, another Corsi falsehood about Obama
This means something said by Corsi about Obama was not true.
Mary,
Excellent point, I wish I had thought of it:
There is "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", from the courtroom oath. Corsi is not saying that Obama is lying (not telling the truth), but that Obama did not tell the WHOLE truth at the start.
Kerry learned the hard way that some determined people WILL read all the way through what is written, so each bit of writing should be clear and accurate.
Hope that's clearer for you now. :)
>>However, contrary to Corsi's suggestion that Obama did not address these issues in his memoir Dreams From My Father, he discusses his father's alcoholism and polygamy in multiple passages in the book.
Yeah but he wrote that after the table of contents. You can't expect righty pundits to read that far.
WHEN DID OBAMA EVER REFER TO HIS FATHER AS A POLYGAMIST?
He was a BIGAMIST!!!
Jeeeezz...! Do words ever MEAN ANYTHING any more?
Can someone please cite where Obama used that word?-- because I doubt that he did. So why is everybody USING IT?
The whole point here is that this author is doing even worse than what MMFA is indicating, he's libeling Obama's father with highly charged wingnut derogatory language.
That's the problem.
Not sure if we'll see this anytime soon, but there are 22 republicans who refuse to recess, choosing instead to debate with themselves about drilling for oil to solve our energy problems. Kinda funny, really. I thought I'd provide the names of those "brave" <snort! guffaw!> souls - along with a list of how much money each has received and is getting this cycle from big oil!
Particpants:
Blunt (R-MO) $852,348 this cycle $98,900
Price (R-GA) $23,000
Boehner (R-OH) $135,000
Dent (R-PA) $189,531
Conaway (R-TX) $559,318 this cycle $487,418
Shimkus (R-IL) $725,295 this cycle $31,750
Sali (R-ID) $86,550 this cycle $32,500
Hunter (R-CA) $145,615
Poe (R-TX) $183,553 this cycle $24,200
Shadegg (R-AZ) $472,192 this cycle $22,000
Pence (R-IN) $216,950
Hoekstra (R-MI) $53,095
Culberson (R-TX) $423,261 this cycle 301,961
Walberg (R-MI) $36,000 this cycle $13,050
Westmoreland (R-GA) $18,000
Burgess (R-TX) $87,000 this cycle $53,700
Capito (R-WV) $122,000 this cycle $47,250
McCotter (R-MI) $13,000
Carter (R-TX) $40,000 this cycle $18,550
I can always count on my Congressman, Michael Burgess to do the stupidest thing imaginable. The guy is an idiot. And why are there so many damn gynocologists turned congressman? That may be a loaded question.
And why should I continue to write to this dude? I can always guess what he's going to reply before the letter ever gets here.
bwahahahahahahaha.
The gyno question is certainly a "private" matter. Perhaps we should "inspect" the issue a little more "intimately" in order to further "examine" the "underlying" causes.
And why are there so many damn gynocologists turned congressman?
You do realize you're making this WAY too easy on a Friday, don't you?
I owe you an apology, JJ. I wrote that before I saw Dexter's response.
Carry on...
*snicker* You said "Boehner"...heh heh...
*Ahem* But good research there, Snoop. I've noticed you've been on a tear for information lately.
Not that it's really ever been fair, but are you trying to remove the last remaining shred of challenge from the sport of debating conservatives? Be careful, because if intellectual atrophy sets in for us liberals, we could be looking at another GOP administration in the near future.
A good reason for congressmen pursuing
Gynecology? The lessons ensuing
would they be more aware
Stuck doing repairs
For others indiscriminate screwing?
A transition that would seem more clear
After an OB/GYN career
A move to Fox news
Where the ex-doc could use
His skills with the pap & the smear
A round of applause for the Colonel
for prose that will go on eternal.
No slouch with a phrase,
he draws on his days
with the body politic internal.
McClain really made lots of flack,
Squawking "Obama said I called him black!"
Obama's face on a bill,
Caused McCain to go shrill,
But it seems Obama was right to fight back!
Pretty good link there, Ol' Snoop.
Er, one little thing - ya got scooped.
If time stamps are checked,
on my posts re-direct
you were still outside making poop.
Well darn, just what can I say?
It was poop or a roll in the hay.
But have ya ever tried pushin,
with crap in your cushion,
that can't wait to see light of the day?
Where's my "groan" key? They really need to make these keyboards with a "groan" key.
Maybe a MS MMfA Commenters Keyboard® with the exclusive GROAN!™ key...
As long as its not a bone apart.
It,it,....it's just wong.
[-P
Snoopy, may I add:
In Texas alone, June oil and gas-connected donations to McCain’s Victory ’08 Fund, his hybrid fundraising venture with the RNC and state committees, reached $1,214,100.
Of that total, $881,450, or 73 percent, came after June 15. McCain announced his position in favor of offshore drilling on June 16.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/31/mccain-oil-donations/
Does Corsi have some kind of point to make?
Or is he reviewing and plugging Obama's book?
the BIG point is that Obama is to be smeared and swift boated by sean Hannity and the like. Of corse Coarsi is such a reliable commentator.
By the way, sean Hannity claims he has "the most comprehensive election coverage" and in the next breath referes to the "stop obama express". So lets be clear - comprehensive means that you are openly and systematically against one candidate. Yes its all a joke, a tragic America destroying joke!
May I suggest a frozen margarita on this hot Friday afternoon?
Ahhhh
I think I'll change my Friday wine to a margarita.
Off to bingo
Happy Friday everyone!
Yes for three hours a day of "comprehensive" election coverage hannity smears. Are we not allowed to analyse hannity's daily assault?
The whole point of Sean H's existance is to find whatever mud he can sling at Obama without having the stench reveal to his bloated with misinformation audience that his whole schtick is partisan, ideological propaganda. "Three hours a day of the most comprehensive partisan ideological propaganda" - why if he was honest, that would be his tag.
Are we not allowed to analyse hannity's daily assault?
Of course we are - that's what amuses us.
Well, that and the Colonels limericks.
And Snoopy's pictures.
And everyone's puns.
What did I say earlier this week in another thread......
That this book and the other one about Obama that have been writen by paid for charactor assassins of the rightwing was going to be proved to be nothing but lies, distortions, inuendo, and scare tactics to get the less informed just worried enough about that guy that has such a strange name but would make Abe Lincoln proud!
Only Fox Noise and a few scattered media figures elsewhere will try and propagate this useless book as if it were more than just next months addition to the recycling bin!! Which it is!
Well well well, another knee jerk smear on liberals by a right wing media whore. Lets see, Obama is now guilty of starting a cult of personality. Whats the basis of this - the positive and historic reaction to Obama.
Hannity and his ilk have made liberal a dirty word. LIberals are to be ridiculed, despised and marginalized only. Obama does not fit the playbook. This means that any success Obama has must be sinister.
Lets just forget about all those conservative media darlings we have had to endure in recent history. I am expecting Reagan to be on all our money any day now.
REmember, only liberals, smear, lie, cheat, corrupt to get power.
I forgot to mention my favorite parts of this segment, not in the MM clip, but I caught the show last night.
Hannity, in another demonstration of how out of touch he is with normal humans, seemed to be under the impression that Corsi coined the term "Cult of Personality", looking at Corsi respectfully and saying "you use this term, Cult of personality...", as if it's a completly new idea to Sean.
The other highlight is the two boobs making it clear that "in the interest of fairness", they wouldn't hold Obama's father's actions against Obama, they're just trying to get some historical perspective. I would add "Who the hell swallows this stuff", but that's already been answered in this comment section.
The other highlight is the two boobs making it clear that "in the interest of fairness", they wouldn't hold Obama's father's actions against Obama, they're just trying to get some historical perspective. I would add "Who the hell swallows this stuff", but that's already been answered in this comment section.
Ahem, Colonel, could you please make your points in a respectful manner instead of using all of the loaed sexual implications. Just sayin'. There are ladies present.
Ahem....I'm a very proper lady. Calling me a trollop is very untoward and I won't have my sensibilities assaulted by the likes of you:
The two boobs want us to swallow
Poppycock that rings so hollow
In the interest of fairness
They fling F'in awareness
Of historical context to follow
Yeah, he's trying to update a few stragglers who've been living under rocks for the past - what? 30 years maybe longer?
Let's make it easy for those of you who think MMFA was wrong.
I've read both of Obama's books. No one could possibly finish Dreams From My Father and come away with the impression that Obama portrayed his father in heroic terms. Not honestly, anyway.
BillJ, I'm sorry to have to tell you that there IS no way to make it easy for them. I've gone through point by point with DEMSOL, and got the intellectual equivalent of a blank stare.
Grab a piece of the Colonel's overcooked spaghetti and a hammer and get to pounding. You'll find it much more productive.
DEMS_SOl thinks he won some big prize
He enjoys Corsi's putrid old lies
Oddly tooting his horn
For his brain we do mourn
As it stinks bad enough to draw flies.
CORSI: That's his father, and his father -- you know, Obama first presents his father as a great hero, and the truth was, his father was a polygamist and a alcoholic. He had abandoned the family in Africa when he met Obama's mother in Hawaii. He married Obama's mother without disclosing he had not divorced this African woman.
HANNITY: And by the way, in fairness, you don't, I would never hold it against him --CORSI: I don't either. HANNITY: -- the actions of his father, but you are giving it historical perspective.
CORSI: Well, first of all, Obama put the issue on the table in analyzing it and making it the core of his autobiography.
Corsi refers to is the "actions of his father" mentioned by Hannity, in response to those actions described by Corsi above - the negative ones. Media Matters claims Corsi insinuates that Obama did not reveal them in his autobiography, while Corsi clearly notes that Obama "put the issue on the table".
Don't feel bad Bill - Neon couldn't figure it out either.
Don't feel bad Bill - Neon couldn't figure it out either.DEMS_SOL
Don't forget me, and several others. We couldn't figure out how to dumb it down enough for you either. Lordy knows we tried.
Just a note to keep in mind for future observations of the elusive Conservabrains:
Whenever WE don't get it, it's because it's obvious. We never fail to understand anything because it's complicated, and needs to be explored more in-depth. It's always the obvious stuff that needs explained to us.
Just a curiousity that I've noticed over the years, but would like peer review of my hypothesis to find out if it warrants further study.
Oh come on, it's not that complicated, it's pretty obvious, isn't it?
:)
By golly, Tommy. That nice, succinct and laser-direct little reply...well, my, how you've grown! The humor first, the ideology will soon follow...
When WE don't get it, according to them, it is because we are MORONS, IDIOTS, INCOMPETENTS, LIBERALS, and TRAITORS. That means that we miss the obvious - meaning that while you captured the essence you completely left out the name-calling. See how I worked in the beautiful word "Liberal" pejoratively, almost at the end? That's the usual technique.
In the spirit of peer review, I think you have the general concept down (the ad hominum attack). Your brevity is admirable, but not at the expense of full implementation of dehumanizing adjectives.
DemSol, you've decided for your self and it doesn't seem as though you're going to let reality affect your point of view.
There is no reason to believe that Corsi was referrencing that tiny piece of a phrase from Hannity. To believe he was means that none of the rest of what Corsi said makes sense.
Answer this simple question. If Corsi was conceding that Obama dealt with his father's flaws, what did he mean when he said that Obama was being deceptive about his father? Where did he see deception?
Dems_sol,
This is what you quoted: CORSI: Well, first of all, Obama put the issue on the table in analyzing it and making it the core of his autobiography.
But the full quote is: Well, first of all, Obama put the issue on the table in analyzing it and making it the core of his autobiography. And I'm first criticizing that Obama was not straightforward in how he presented, really, a deception about his father as this goatherd who got this chance to go to -- come to study in the United States because of John Kennedy.
So Corsi first acknowledges that Obama talks about the the flaws of his father (i.e. puts the issue on the table) and then goes on to criticize him for NOT being straightforward about his father's alcoholism and polygamy??? WTF?
Molly Ivins, God bless her memory, never missed a chance in 2004 to refer to the Kerry smear bunch as "the Swift Boat liars." I don't think there's much we can do about Messrs. Hannity, Limbaugh, Savage, Levin (GOD that man is annoying) and others. There are enough poor, pathetic, pitiable, feeble minded listeners to support those shows to keep them on the air.
But if any actual journalist enterprise breathes or prints one word about these books without pointing out fully what reprehensible liars the authors are, we all must write and call multiple times and demand that the record be set straight. These books need to be ignored if at all possible, and turned against the right-wingers if that's not possible
I have not had time to read all the posts however, perhaps redundantly, I must say that maybe we should evaluate all of Hannity's heros (dare I say many of American History's notables) I do not doubt that we would find numerous
"polygamists" and "alcoholics".
And I would say again: just take a look at the characteristics of so many of hannity's favorite pundits... scoundrels, criminals and traitors (yes, I am pretty sure that revealing the name of a secret agent duriing war time has, at least, the appearance of State Treachery)...hmm, what a great judge of character is the Hannity