I love conspiracy theories, and have been fascinated by those who promulgate them ever since I wrote a play about one such strain — Holocaust denial — back in the 90s. When you write a play, you literally must speak for the characters, and you try to fit yourself into their heads. Why would somebody believe in an elaborate, counter-intuitive, highly improbable international conspiracy to — in this example — fake the mountain of evidence for the Holocaust, rather than just accept reality? Because reality is intolerable. It is intolerable to some that their heroes, the Germans, committed industrialized mass murder. It is intolerable to others that their hero, JFK, was murdered by a solitary nutbag who happened to be a very good shot. It’s intolerable to still others that all life descended from a single origin via natural selection. So, all these (otherwise very different) people devote a tremendous amount of time and energy explaining away the existing evidence and inventing (more or less) counter-evidence. Because all that work and time and energy is a blessing; it frees them from the prison of the real world.
In the real world, Barack Obama seems like he’s going to be elected President. This, as unlikely as it might have seemed as little as two years ago, is easily explained: the Republicans have done a poor job running the country, have a very unpopular incumbent President, and our nation likes to switch parties about every 8 to 12 years. Plus, Obama is a charismatic politician who’s run a very competent campaign.
Nonetheless, this reality is intolerable to some, and they have created an alternative narrative. In this narrative, Obama is “a Marxisant radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters.” Once elected, presumably, will reveal himself to be the monster that he is, in the manner of Kang and Kodos in that classic 1996 Treehouse of Horror episode of The Simpsons.
If you want to take a look at their reasoning, I recommend the work of Stanley Kurtz over at the National Review. But what I’m most interested in is the unstated but necessary conditions for all this to be true:
1) That Barack Obama is, and has been at least from his college days, a conscienceless, hermetic liar, who refused to reveal his true agenda and thoughts to anyone other than his co-conspirators; not to his casual friends, students, colleagues, employers, clients and constituents, and that his two books on his life and political beliefs are nothing but a pack of lies, possibly ghostwritten by others. Further, that Obama never acted in any significant way to advance that Marxist/radical agenda in any of his prior jobs or offices, presumably because if he had done so (by, say, putting forward a radical Marxist bill in the Illinois State Senate, where he served for 12 years,) he would have blown his cover, and ruined his chance to become President, which has always been his goal, and from which office he will finally enact his true agenda;
2) and/or that those of his friends/colleagues/co-conspirators to whom he did reveal his true agenda, (William Ayers, et al) have also maintained absolute perfect silence/mendacity on the topic, forever, as no one who actually knows Obama has ever said, “You know, once he’s got a couple of drinks in him, he starts going on about Che and finishing the Revolution;”
3) and/or all the sensible, centrist, often bipartisan things Obama did do (eg. the bill to tape interrogations in Illinois) the hundreds of thousands of dollars he he helped hand out via the Annenberg Challenge to things like literacy programs, et. al, were all mere cover for his true, as of yet unenacted agenda;
4) and/or all the national newspapers and news channels that have scoured every aspect of Obama’s life, from his childhood in Indonesia to his career as a law professor to his wife’s honor’s thesis at Princeton, and who have revealed absolutely no evidence of anything but Obama being an extremely intelligent, perhaps overly cautious and eager-to-please good-government liberal, have either themselves been duped or, more likely, are in on the scam.
They never say it explicitly, but in order for their theory to be correct, the Obama conspiracy theorists have to believe that some or all of things are true. Do they? I’d love to know.
I recently reunited with an old friend who I haven’t seen in some years, who, the intervening time, had become a 9/11 Truther. In short, she believes that 9/11 was an inside job, engineered by the Bush Administration, in order to enact their agenda. And I said to her: why in the world would they bother?
UPDATE — Thanks to some links around the internet — thanks, Mr. Kottke! — this little post has drawn more than the usual dribs and drabs of comment. Already up into the 20s! Woo-hoo!
I decided not to argue with any of the commenters — that way madness lies — but I did want to take issue with this meme, expressed succinctly by James L, below: “Obama has faced no scrutiny by any mainstream news source. None.”
As a friend used to say, that’s just crazy talk. I live in Chicago, and have for ten years. His career here and then his rise to national prominence was extensively covered in the local papers, both of which lean right editorially. Since his appearance on the national stage four years ago, he’s been covered, exhaustively, by the national papers and news networks. Some examples: last year, Obama sat down with the Chicago Tribune to discuss, in detail, his associations with felonious fundraiser Tony Rezko. (Go here, then click on the Multimedia presentation about the Obama Rezko connection.) The New York Times has been running a series of profiles, under the heading, The Long Run, over the past two years. You can find an archive here, including in depth stories about his mother, his career in community organizing, and yes, a front page story on his drug use, which another commenter says has never been examined. Other major newspapers, including the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, also conveniently collect all their extensive Obama coverage on a single web-page, for your perusal. I invite you to peruse them.
Perhaps, to some minds, these aren’t mainstream news organizations, which raises the question: then what is? And also: what among these voluminous articles, based on actual reporting, is factually incorrect? (And I mean facts, not implied judgments.) Most likely, the commenters below would respond that these stories are not incorrect, per se, but incomplete, as they don’t report on, again, his radical Marxist/socialist/Afro-centric/terroristic/Anti-American activities and beliefs. And that’s true, they don’t. And logically, there are two, and only two, reasons as to why they would not report those things:
A) There is, in fact, no evidence for any of those accusations, or
B) All of these news organizations — the LA and NY Times, The Tribune and Sun Times, the Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal (news pages), everybody from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, to the Miami Herald, from the San Diego Union to the Portland Press Herald — every single one — the same newspapers that were happy to dig up and print any dirt they could find on Democratic Presidents and Governors and candidates in the past – are in on the scam.
At this point, with the gallons of ink spilled and trillions of pixels expended on covering Obama, those are the only two options left. Which do you choose?
FURTHER UPDATE: Andy McCarthy, at the National Review, has written what must be the Ur-document, the founding text, of the Obama Conspiracy Movement. It’s got everything: copious quotes from the man himself, lots of connections and links and names and explanations and ipso factos and QEDs. I recommend it to anyone who wants to understand this line of thinking.
Very well stated, Peter!
I’ve never understood some of the theories out there. There can be some pretty impressive evidence presented, but like you, I always end up asking why would they bother…
Peter, you left out the most important influence: his radical West-hating Muslim upbringing. Never mind that his mother was a devout agnostic. Never mind his salt-of-the-earth Midwestern grandparents. Never mind that he managed to fool his in-laws, his wife, his children, and his fellow parishioners. Never mind that he never shows up for Mosque Clean-up Day, doesn’t fast during Ramadan, and allows his wife (if indeed she is his wife) out in public with her head uncovered. Never mind all that. I read it on the interwebs, so it must be true.
I’ll take your word for it about the Stanley Kurtz column–I won’t dignify it by increasing their hit count.
Peter responds: this particular strain of Obama-conspiracy mongering does not maintain that he is a secret Muslim. That’s a whole other school… sort of like the “JFK was killed by the Mafia” school vs. the more mainstream “JFK was killed by LBJ and the mil/industrial complex” school.
The power grid will fail and planes will fall out of the skies on the stroke of midnight Jan. 1, 2000! Oops, guess I got that one wrong too.
William Falk, editor of the news magazine The Week, nailed conspiracy theories on the head in his letter in the Oct. 10th edition. It’s a short read over there on theweek(dot)com. Highly recommended.
I don’t really need any conspiracy theories. Barack Obama’s self-styled, unabashed socialism is enough for me. Republican failures? It’s interesting that congress, who pass the laws and have had oversight responsibility for Fannie/Freddie are getting a free pass on responsibility for the mortgage market fiasco.
For reasons that will become obvious when you read it, this reminds me of the funniest article ever written for Slate — their “Plot Holes” column on the film “Along Came A Spider.”
http://www.slate.com/id/105518/
One more thing–to answer your specific question…I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I certainly do have concerns about some of the Obama “associations” that you mention, and I almost certainly have political opinions which contrast starkly with yours, so I feel I am probably the type of person you are thinking of when you say “Do they? I’d like to know.”
The answer I have for you is that it can’t be answered, as you frame it. I don’t accept your premises. You are essentially committing the logical error of begging the question. You basically say “these silly ‘conspiracy theories’ can’t be true, because if so there would have to have been one hell of a conspiracy.”
And some of what you suggest as nothing short of ridiculous, such as “all the national newspapers and news channels that have scoured every aspect of Obama’s life…have revealed absolutely no evidence of anything but Obama being an extremely intelligent, perhaps overly cautious and eager-to-please good-government liberal…are in on the scam” ain’t exactly ridiculous, at all. For years I have maintained a safe distance between myself and kooky, far-right wailing about “the liberal media” but in this election the degree to which selective, biased reporting and out and out shilling for Obama has been shoved down our throats is absolutely unconscionable. Do I consider this part of a “conspiracy?” Not at all. Lousy, unprincipled, unethical journalism? You bet.
The only conspiracy I see is the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Fox “News” et al spouting the same talking points in unison. Lousy, unprincipled, unethical journalism? You betcha!
People take sides. They also see bias when other opinions don’t mesh with their own. Me included.
Well Tim you’d have a point, except for the fact that Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin are “commentators,” as opposed to the thousands of newsdesk editors who report the “facts” in a selective, biased manner. Fox News leans right for sure, but they are one voice drowning in a leftward leaning sea. To suggest that everything is hunky dory, fair and balanced, and it’s just our own slanted perceptions is a biiiiiiig stretch.
Ted Turner ruined TV news when he started worrying about ratings. The newspapers are dying and are desperate, and I suppose will do anything. Proof? How about the NY Times “reporter” who admitted to simply making things up?
“facts” in a selective, biased manner… That’s a bit of a stretch too. Actually it’s an opinion not a “fact”. But it’s a fact if you believe there is a left wing cabal running the “media”, except Fox of course.
There will always be the Jason Blair and Janet Cooke’s of the world. Proof? That doesn’t “prove” anything. The NYT didn’t encourage Mr. Blair to lie because “newspapers are dying and are desperate”. The case for grabbing ratings doesn’t wash either as Fox News wins that argument (and ratings).
The media is just following its audience. Right into oblivion. (I work for a paper. The Fear is palpable).
The Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly types are indeed “commentators” as JP says, yet they get away with “reporting” what they say is the truth. The NY Times has “columnists”, yet the “Right” reads Rich, Dowd, Friedman and Krugman (never mind Kristol or Brooks) and see the “liberal” media in action.
Perhaps the favorable press that Obama has gotten is because of the truth. Maybe that’s the reason some of the “Right” have endorsed him, like Christopher Buckley and Colin Powell. Maybe, just maybe it’s not a “liberal bias” after all. Maybe it’s good reporting.
I wonder if the last 8 years might explain JP’s “leftward leaning sea”? (Kinda like Hillary’s “vast right wing conspiracy”… The “Right” had a field day with that one.) Can anyone out there imagine why there might be a leftward leaning sea? Or is it just one big conspiracy?
> “Never mind that his mother was a devout agnostic. Never mind his salt-of-the-earth Midwestern grandparents. Never mind that he managed to fool his in-laws, his wife, his children, and his fellow parishioners. Never mind that he never shows up for Mosque Clean-up Day, doesn’t fast during Ramadan, and allows his wife (if indeed she is his wife) out in public with her head uncovered.”
Blah blah blah HIS MIDDLE NAME IS HUSSEIN PEOPLE WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED TO KNOW
Can you call my mom? While you’re at it, maybe you can explain to her that Hillary didn’t have people killed.
Also, if you catch on her one of the days Obama is a socialist or a Marxist (rather than a fascist), could you try and find out how come it was a horrible shame and crime that health care programs wouldn’t pay for all of my grandmother’s late-stage needs and it was only through the blessing of the lord and my dad’s money that we were able to care for her, but if any one else who happens to be not rich needs a little insulin they’re dragging down the rich?
Also, damn crafty of Obama to keep talking about hard work and how things won’t be easy – even his supporters don’t know he’s planning to give them hand-outs!
I think the idea of Occam’s Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) probably applies best here – the simplest explanation often is the best.
A lot of this stuff seems to be over-dramatizing a basic fact: under our system (the worst except for all the others that have been tried), everyone has a right to political representation. The rich have as much right as the poor to be represented in government, in congress, in the political process. The Republican party has been doing that job for decades (maybe longer?). The Democrats, at least since FDR, have been struggling to take the opposite tack and represent the poor, the lower middle class, the Rest of Us.
The present election shows this fact as clearly as it has been seen in 76 years. Every comparison of the prescriptions offered by McCain and Obama reveals that the tax rates/health insurance coverage/mortgage bailouts/whatever offered by the Democrats would favor those earning less than $250,000 per year, the Republican proposals those earning more.
There is good reason to argue that the folks in the higher-earnings group are those who create jobs, stimulate the economy, provide the financing for government services helping the poor, and more. However, this time around, it is beginning to look like more than half of us might vote for the party which directly represents the less-affluent rather than the party which represents those who claim to be supporting said less-affluent with their taxes and charity.
As a solid member of the more-affluent, a former “progressive Republican,” a supporter of Mac Mathias, I say this time around it is different. My old party has been stolen by the Neocons, enchanted by the Religious Right (which is neither), enlisted in the wrong cause. Today those in the higher-earnings group are the ones who have corrupted the markets, stolen the system, raped the economy. I have already assured, by my absentee ballot recently submitted, than Barack Obama will get at least one vote in the Great State of Texas. I hope he and his fellow liberals serve as long as their spiritual fathers, FDR and HST.
Alberto
Perhaps this conspiracy is easy to swallow for those who have been swallowing the “they hate our freedoms” argument for years.
It has always burned me that Bush’s best explanation for 9/11 is that some random people from the other side of the world decided to hop on a plane and SUICIDE THEMSELVES over and above all human instinct, reason and decency for *no reason whatsoever*. We’re totally innocent, and they’re just a bunch of crazies who killed themselves for nothing. It’s dehumanization. They’re not *really* human, you see. They don’t really want to live, love their families, or need to earn a living like us. They just fanatically HATE OUR FREEDOMS. It makes no sense.
I’m not saying they were right in doing that, mind you. Simply that in their own heads they must have had a reason beyond “hating American freedom” — and I would appreciate it if our head of state would just tell us what it is. Bin Laden has been saying it for years, but I’d like to have heard Bush admit that he actually knew what was being communicated to us on that day and give his “answer” for it.
Great post. Love it.
Blah, blah, blah, my middle name is Patrick. I guess that makes me an IRA terrorist… “PEOPLE WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED TO KNOW”
Yikes!
Not to get all 9/11 here, but,umm, why exactly did that third building at the WTC fall down, again? The conspiracy theorists have one thing going for them in that case — the published truth doesn’t make any sense at all.
If any one of these types of conspiracies were true, involving amazing discipline and perfect execution of their plans. Not only would I want such competent people to lead us, but there would be absolutely no hope of stopping them.
The issue gets especially hilarious when you consider 9-11. Bush has failed at everything he’s done in life except perhaps quitting his drinking and even that, in hindsight, was a mistake. But, he was able to carry out this amazing conspiracy involving 1000′s of people, perfect timing, perfect coverups etc. Nutters! They’re everywhere these days.
Karan – have you seen Hanlon’s razor? – Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
That’s the one for me that effectively scuppers most conspiracy theories.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor)
“And/or all the national newspapers and news channels that have scoured every aspect of Obama’s life”
If this were true, wouldn’t the media be demanding Obama release:
1) his medical records
2) ANY records from his days in college/law school
3) ANY papers or articles he wrote during his days in college/law school
4) Tried to talk to anyone who may have done drugs with him or associated with him during his self-admitted drug years
And it goes on and on. There HAS been no scouring. That is the problem. If Obama were the Republican candidate, there would have been reveal after reveal…and I do seem to recall this WAS done with President Bush. The story about cocaine use that was never proven. The discovery of some 30-year-old DUI conviction.
There *has* been no digging at all. In fact, the only digging I’ve seen comes from bloggers. The most recent of which being the reveal that Obama wrote a short book review about a book Ayers wrote. The claim that he barely knew the guy gets weaker and weaker, yet the press continues to give him a pass on this association. If he lied about ‘barely knowing the guy’ without batting an eye, then, yes, I can believe that he has kept many, many secrets from the public.
And it disturbs me that no one seems to care. And not one reporter (beyond FoxNews) even attempts to give its readers a glimpse into who Obama really is.
This is a screed of self-delusion, willful blindness and dissemblance.
Obama has faced no scrutiny by any mainstream news source. None.
It is beyond laughable– it is mendacious– to suggest otherwise. Do you think that the unwashed have no eyes of their own, Mr Sagal?
Obama’s links to Ayers, Franklin, Wright, Farrakhan, Raines, Pfleger et. al are all explained away, brushed off. What if we substituted David Duke for Ayers? Then what would you say?
If he were white with the same qualifications, you would be treating him *worse* than Sarah Palin. He is the embodiment of the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Your willingness to cover for this stealth socialist says as much about you as it does about him– perhaps more.
Nothing you say has any credibility, because you are just another latte-sipping socialist leftie, and I can prove that’s what you are because of the things you say, which I can discount and ignore without examination because they obviously have no credibility, because you are just another latte-sipping socialist leftie.
“Obama has faced no scrutiny by any mainstream news source. None.” Peter, there is your conspiracy.
I love the Ayers stuff. Both Obama and Ayers served on the The Woods Foundation Board and Annenberg Boards that were full of “country first” Republicans. Do we get to tar those republicans with the same brush as well? And the Ayers children went to the same schools as the Obama children… except that the Ayres children are grown now.
“What if we substituted David Duke for Ayers?” Huh? OK, what if substituted Adolf Hitler for Charles Keating? Stupid, isn’t it.
“Obama wrote a short book review about a book Ayers wrote.”
I’ve written many book reviews, some short, some long. And had all of them published. And have not met a single one of the authors of the books I reviewed. So how, exactly, does writing a review of someone’s book put the reviewer in bed with the book’s author?
“Mr. Obama, when did you stop beating your wife?”
p.s. I would like to see more media attention given to McCain’s connections with G. Gordon Liddy, another famous washed-up domestic terrorist who once asked Richard Nixon, “How many people do you need me to kill?”
Sure, all of these conditions would have to be true in order to prove that Obama is a socialist/Marxist/Communist/whatever by any reasonable definition. But the wackos (hello wackos!) are trying to do something else: much simpler just to re-define “socialist” as “someone who believes the top marginal tax rate should be 39% instead of 35%.”
“Obama wrote a short book review about a book Ayers wrote.”
“I’ve written many book reviews, some short, some long. And had all of them published. And have not met a single one of the authors of the books I reviewed. So how, exactly, does writing a review of someone’s book put the reviewer in bed with the book’s author?”
Perhaps the book review itself does not show any close association. HOWEVER, it does discount Obama’s claim that he didn’t even know this guy’s past and that he was ‘just a guy in my neighborhood.’ Right. Just some random neighbor.
And the bloggers have also revealed that Obama WAS a member of the New Party, looks to have shared a very small office with Ayers, and it goes on and on.
But I do go back to the mystery behind his health records and his school records. Typically, the right and the left are touting that their guy is ‘smarter’ than the other guy. They use his grade in school or papers he might have written or any little scrap of anything to prove more intelligence than the other candidate. That has NEVER happened in this election at all.
And why is it that 400 students who went to the same college as Obama at the same time he was there don’t remember him at all? There is no moment of recognition that he was some kind of great scholar or memorable figure on campus. Wouldn’t he have one friend or ONE person who remembered at least the name “Obama”?
There is WAY too much unknown here on which the media is oddly silent. It does not sit well with me at all.
If 9/11 was an inside job, then the following must be true: 9/11 is the Bush administration equivalent of putting a man on the moon.
“Are you kidding me? We can pull off 9/11 but we can’t plant a few WMD’s in the Iraqi desert?”
“You can’t be serious! We can pull off 9/11 but we can’t coordinate hurricane relief?”
“Typical. We can keep 9/11 quiet but this Valerie Plame thing blows up in our face.”
Ad infinitum.
Academics (like David Zarefsky up at Northwestern) who write about conspiracy theories in US history will tell you that conspiracy arguments are “self-sealing.” That is to say, any evidence that is marshaled to disprove the existence of the conspiracy argument can be re-read as evidence of the work of clever conspirators. Evidence, for or against the conspiracy becomes useless since it can all “prove” the existence of the conspiracy, even when it seems to disprove the conspiracy.
So, we get KG above saying something like, “Obama is supposed to be smart, but no one ever saw him at college! Ha! Conspiracy!” Now, it is a matter of public record that Obama got into Harvard Law School, not known as a place that accepts people who blew off four years of college. Further, he was the editor of the HARVARD LAW REVIEW which places him as the top (or near top) student in the Law School. How do we explain this? Well, we have two options: 1) Obama is a pretty sharp guy with an excellent academic record. 2) Harvard was in on the whole Muslim/socialist/terrorist agenda. And KG apparently thinks that 2) is the more reasonable option–evidence that seemingly disproves the conspiracy is actually proof of the conspiracy. How does one argue with that?
The upshot of this curious state of affairs is that the argument turns on the question of who has to shoulder the burden of proof? Conspiracy theorists put the burden of proof on those who deny the existence of the conspiracy while never trying to prove the actual existence of the conspiracy. Thus they ask questions and imply that these questions prove the conspiracy exists. Any evidence marshaled against them is simply explained away because they do not accept their burden of proof.
Since Joe the Plumber burst onto the scene, we have had almost constant media attacks against him. “He’s not even a plumber! He isn’t even named Joe!” It goes on. He is named Joe. Having a plumbing license isn’t a requisite for calling yourself a plumber, is it? If you plumb all day, but didn’t get a license, are you a non-licensed plumber? We have had press conferences outside Sam/Joe’s house. We had media trucks parked there. He’s been featured on The View. He’s been on headlines every day in multiple places since the second debate.
Why? Because he exposed a bit of Obama’s ideology that is potentially harmful to his candidacy. I don’t know which way the USA leans as a whole, but I’m fairly certain that running on a platform of Huey Long “Share the Wealth” is about as close to a suicide pact that any candidate could run in the US. We want our share of freebies, yes, but Americans don’t believe in spread the wealth. So the press has begun a smear campaign.
Where are the articles cheering him? When democrats trot out some downtrodden, poor soul who has a beef with their lot in life–a Katrina victim, maybe, or someone who lost their job and can’t afford their prescriptions–the press is there, sympathetic, reporting on all the good the government should do for this person, and all the failings of government in “allowing it to happen.” Yet here is a guy who simply asked a presidential candidate “why do you want to punish my success?” And he is a villian. He is a guy who wants the American Dream, an ordinary guy struggling to pay his bills. Yet because he dares challenge the liberal notion that we should “spread the wealth around” he becomes a villian in the press.
Bill Ayers has a past history of terrorist activity. I realize he is now a college professor. But he does have a connection with Barack Obama.
Have we seen press conferences being convened outside Ayers home? Where are the satellite trucks? Where are the probing questions on Oprah and The View?
There are other examples. Where is the scrutiny of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and other members of the senate banking committee, and Frank Raines, for their role in the housing bubble and collapse? There is plenty of CSPAN footage in the blogosphere demonstrating their objection to Republican (!!!) calls for increased regulation of fannie and freddie. But that’s not important. We have the largest economic crisis in 80 years on our hands, and it isn’t important to really scrutinize the government’s role. The actual government committees charged with overseeing these government organizations, they don’t require scrutiny. They don’t need to be villified.
It’s easier to just blame “the Bush Administration” and “republican policies.” After all, we’ve got an election to win.
KG wrote: “But I do go back to the mystery behind his health records and his school records. Typically, the right and the left are touting that their guy is ’smarter’ than the other guy. They use his grade in school or papers he might have written or any little scrap of anything to prove more intelligence than the other candidate. That has NEVER happened in this election at all.”
KG, what are you smoking, and where can I get some? I graduated from law school in 1997, and from the day that I took the LSAT and they took my thumbprint and several forms of ID including my passport, to the day I graduated, there was never a time when I could have skated through. I didn’t go to Harvard–maybe they do things differently there–but all of our exams were coded with a number, not with our names. The professor grading the exam had no idea who wrote which exam. Getting onto law review is strictly a matter of grades, nothing else. Once on law review, being elected editor is a matter of writing skill, legal skill, and organizational skill. In order to be a licensed attorney, in most states you not only have to graduate from law school *and* pass the bar exam, you also have o fill out a 40 or 50 page application and pass an extensive background check.
To suggest that we don’t know anything about Obama is ludicrous.
Very clever — by publishing the reasons the conspiracy could not be pulled off, you’ve revealed yourself to be part of the conspiracy by denying its existence. It’s the classic long con — you’re probably in line to be Secretary of Blogging if Obama gets elected.
@33
fardels bear: “Academics (like David Zarefsky up at Northwestern) who write about conspiracy theories in US history will tell you that conspiracy arguments are “self-sealing.” That is to say, any evidence that is marshaled to disprove the existence of the conspiracy argument can be re-read as evidence of the work of clever conspirators.”
Oh I get it now, conspiracy theories are religions.
Could you just force Carl Castle and the other What Do You Know regulars to make comments here as well? I read the whole piece in your voice, and it just needs a few more deadpan one-liners at the end from a panel riffing on each other to really drive the point home.
I never said he didn’t attend law school or college, what I am saying is that there are no records…grades, papers, or otherwise to show what kind of scholar he was. If the right is accusing you of being a socialist, if you are very left-wing in your views, my theory is that any paper or classes he took would prove these very left-wing socialist views. WHY don’t we get to read any of this information? Even Michelle Obama’s past has been sealed up tightly.
Meanwhile, we find out every scrap of info about Sarah Palin. Down to the smallest detail.
I also find the health records troubling. Why doesn’t he release them? Anyone want to explain that one?
I am not a nutjob conspiracy theorist. What I am is someone who finds it VERY odd that we know hardly anything about Barack Obama beyond the fact he went to law school, worked as a community organizer, took every challenger against him to court to get them off the ballot when he ran for state senator, and now he’s a presidential candidate. That’s a pretty thin resume for someone who is running for the highest office in the land.
All of you should be wondering WHY. Why don’t we get to find out about these things? If it were all on the up-and-up, he’d be disclosing just as much as McCain. But he’s not. There’s no reason to hide these facts UNLESS there is a reason to….and we should all be worried about what those reasons are.
KG wrote: “All of you should be wondering WHY. Why don’t we get to find out about these things? If it were all on the up-and-up, he’d be disclosing just as much as McCain. But he’s not. There’s no reason to hide these facts UNLESS there is a reason to….and we should all be worried about what those reasons are.”
{yawn} You are fortunate indeed if this is all you have to worry about. They are false worries, planted in your head by robo-calls and the right-wing echo chamber. Me, I’m worried about Wall Street spending that $1T to buy up smaller banks and pay out year-end bonuses and stockholder dividends and golden parachutes–everything, in short, except that for which the money was –we THOUGHT– intended, namely to loan out.
KG, you are asking questions like a creationist looking for intermediate forms in the fossil record.
C- “Hah! there are no fossils showing the intermediate forms between fossil A and fossil C! Evolution is a crock!”
E- “Hey look, fossil B…”
C- “Hah! there are no fossils showing the intermediate forms between fossil A and fossil B! Evolution is a crock!”
lather, rinse, repeat,
btw, whose health records? last person I heard was refusing to release the health records while running for president was McCain. though admittedly I don’t own a TV and probably missed that report.
KG, you’re an idiot. Much of what you claim you deserve to know is knowable (hint: teh Google) or for good reason protected by privacy laws.
JP, if Fox News is the only rational news organization out there, and there are all these “facts” that we haven’t had revealed to us, why haven’t the “reporters” at Fox actually dug them up yet? The guy has been running for president for nearly two years now.
I never said he didn’t attend law school or college, what I am saying is that there are no records…grades, papers, or otherwise to show what kind of scholar he was.
For KG and others blathering on about Obama’s health records, why don’t you expect the same scrutiny for McCain’s records? McCain, having had skin cancer four times and being of advanced age, almost certainly has medical records of more interest to the average voter. And yet, he has not released his medical records either.
He did at one point allow a select small group of reporters to review his medical records, giving them mere minutes per page, no ability to copy them or review them at a later date, and certainly not enough time to really read and understand them.
That disingenuous display is, to me, far more indicative of intentionally hiding sensitive information than anything Obama has done regarding his own health records.
Get over it, people.
oops, sorry my response wasn’t attached to my post.
please link to the records of bush’s grades, papers or otherwise to show what kind of scholar McCain was, or Bush, or Cheney. Furthermore, where are McCain’s medical records? Perhaps someone could attempt to review something Obama wrote for the Harvard Law Review and report all those records are closed. The right has had a over a year to dig something up on Obama, what’s there problem? Are they lazy? Is McCain’s campaign completely inept?
Maybe they have done some digging, and just can’t find anything. Perhaps a few McCain supporters could get together and hire a private investigator to vet Obama? One would think they did this already, no?
Task someone to fishing, and when you can’t find any fish blame the fisherman or the bait. Over and over and over. Or simply accept there are no fish in that pond, or you would have caught them by now.
@KG: “there are no records…grades, papers, or otherwise to show what kind of scholar he was”
Umm…
How do you think you get admitted to the bar? (hint: a tough exam)
How do you think you get to graduate magna cum laude from Harvard Law? (hint: grades)
How do you think you get in to Harvard Law? (hint: not by saying “I M BlAK”)
How do you think you transfer from Occidental to Columbia U? (hint: ambition and grades)
“Meanwhile, we find out every scrap of info about Sarah Palin.”
Err.. so you are proposing that journalists ought to dig up Obama’s academic coursework and compare it to Sarah Palin’s and John McCain’s? And you think this would show your candidates in a favorable light?
You are exhibiting *exactly* the ‘nutjobbiness’ that the blog post so clearly dismantles. Sen. Obama has had plenty of opportunity to implement his “hidden” “socialism”, as a community organizer, as a civil rights lawyer, as a state senator, and as a US Senator.
But if you want to keep going on about college essays, here’s a thought experiment: dream up the most ‘damaging’ and ‘revealing’ possible essay authored by a young Barack Obama. (Recall that college papers tend to be exploration and criticism of existing theory, rather than personal manifestos, or plans for world domination.) OK, now–how ought the college writings of a sitting U.S. Senator running as a major-party candidate to weigh in the balance of consideration in choosing who to vote for.
I think most people would decide (scratch that–have decided) that they have a great respect for Senator Obama’s public service, and a great confidence in the sincerity of his wish to work to improve the country. Your dislike for his policies, or perhaps even for him personally, is your complete prerogative, but it doesn’t make your arguments about secret college essays any more worthy.
Wait a minute — Peter Sagal has a blog?! How cool! I’m glad you got linked to DailyKos so I can read something good when I’m supposed to be working and can manage to get myself to stop trolling polls.
Thanks for blogging! I love your radio show so much.
“I also find the health records troubling. Why doesn’t he release them? Anyone want to explain that one?”
Of for christ’s sake, step outside the echo chamber. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10686.html) Obama has released his physician’s summary of his health, and it shows that, unremarkably, his health is excellent for a man of his age. Sarah Palin is refusing to release any health records whatsoever, and McCain gave reporters three hours to review thousands of pages of his very complex medical history. Biden has also been candid. Its a wash, and hardly troubling (except for Palin).
And this foolishness about him being an unknown in college: come on! Again, step outside the rightwing echo chamber (or read a broader range of blogs and media). He was well-known and regarded by his fellow students, especially for his centrism, evenhandedness, and consensus-building tendencies. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/us/politics/28obama.html?pagewanted=print). There are numerous other articles that reflect his impact on his fellow students. And it is exceedingly uncommon for politicians (or anyone for that matter) to reveal their college/professional school essays (and, in fact, it is illegal for the school or former professors to reveal them, since they remain the student’s intellectual property). Has Sarah Plain released her essays from her college years? I can’t wait to see what goes into a degree in sports journalism. How about McCain’s near-bottom-of-the-class academic output from Annapolis?
This is all so bizarre, reality ignoring stuff. It seems like very strange rationalization of a simple dislike for Obama. You know, its OK to dislike him, and to vote for McCain. Go for it! But don’t make crap up. Its intellectually dishonest.
KG, as I’m reading your posts I can’t help but admire your strong, sober reasoning. You are on to something here. Could it be that Obama is The Ironman? Could it?
KG, I’ve heard one of Obama’s law school professors interviewed at least twice on the radio. Both times he adamantly asserted that Obama was the best student he’d ever taught. Think about that. What’s is the probability that this Harvard professor is an islamist plant? Let’s call it one in five. So I am 80% confident that Obama is legitimately brilliant.
But wait, what about his time as a law professor at that hot bed of liberalism, the University of Chicago? The place that offered him tenure, one of the most prestigious universities in the country? What are the odds that the college administration is in reality a sleeper cell? I’d say a conservative estimate is that one in three colleges in the US are run by jihadists (small “c” conservative. Capital “C” Conservative estimates are closer to two out of three).
Let’s tally the numbers…
KG, I believe there is only a 6.7% chance that what you’re saying makes any sense.
Very good post. The sheer absurdity involved here is truly of the mock-Tertullian “Credo quia absurdum” variety. I will ruminate further at OpenLeft this weekend.
I think the root explanation, “Because reality is intolerable,” is more a poetic truth–almost certainly true of some prime proponents of virtually any conspiracy–than a full-blown explanation. It seems a pretty poor fit for most leftish “9/11 Truthers”, for example. There’s an element of it, I’d argue, but not in the same sort of straight-forward way as Holocaust denial or young Earth creationism. Ditto with JFK. There’s quite a bit more complexity involved with that one, though the explanation certainly DOES fit some folks like a glove.
The comments are amusing, particularly the one displacing Palin’s invisibility at college onto Obama.
http://davies.lohudblogs.com/2008/10/22/redistributing-wealth/
Corrections:
1. Obama did not write a book review of an Ayers book. He told a reporter he was reading an Ayers book and found it good.
2. Suggesting that Obama has somehow covered up writings from his college years is ludicrous. First of all, who keeps undergraduate papers? You turn them in, you get a grade, you lose them, you drink. As for his years at Harvard, Obama was the president of the Law Review, you can read the journal as published under his tenure to see that he did not limit publication to articles with a radical agenda. His intelligence seems beyond question.
3. Joe the Plumber got press because the right made an issue of him and he went on a bunch of TV shows, eventually having to admit he was wrong about his take on Obama’s tax policy.
4. Barack Obama released a physical, which seems enough to me. Healthy people don’t normally have extensive health records. (The press, however, has failed to mention that McCain has released only a handful of his award commendations in lieu of his extensive military record.)
There is a snobby, elitist tinge to everything about Obama. He’s so smooth and eloquent, and obviously “brilliant.” As opposed to people who drop the “g” from the ends of words, or chew on their “r’s”, or say “nook-ya-ler.”
George Bush is intelligent, very intelligent. So is John McCain, so is Sarah Pailin. So is Barack Obama. What difference does it make? You can be reeallly intelligent and totally useless as a leader or decision maker. You can be less intelligent, and a clumsy speaker, but a better leader. You can be too intelligent, too contemplative, I’m guessing…not saying Obama would be either, but the point is intelligence isn’t any guarantee or even a predictor of anything.
The ability to lead and govern does not correlate directly or proportionally with intelligence, certainly within the range of normal intelligence of people.
But it does correlate nicely with people who are into style, and appearance. A suave, handsome man with a smoky voice and smooth oratorial style is so much nicer to accept, if that’s what you are focused on, than an older man with a funny arm and a squeaky voice.
I am sure we can find many historical examples of great orators who were evil men, or incompetent, and plenty of the obverse as well–heroic, effective leaders who lacked the hollywood persona that people seem to be so entranced with in the democratic party. Who are the only candidates the party has really embraced in the last 30 years? Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton has to be by any objective measure far more proven and capable as a leader than Barack Obama, and by and large she embodies the same liberal ideologies that Obama does. Yet the democratic party snubbed her for Obama. I’m pretty sure the Hollywood thingie had plenty to do with that.
I’m a republican, and a conservative, and I’d much, much rather have Hillary Clinton as president that Barack Obama.
But who is better qualified to lead? Obama, because he served part of one term in the senate and can give good speeches? Or McCain, because of a lifetime of experience as a senator, a military man, a leader?
And then of course there is the whole issue of ideology. You can say what you want, to me very little else matters when someone opens the kimono like Obama did with his statement (paraphrasing) “we want to spread the wealth around a little, it’s good for everybody.”
We can nitpick how capitalistic we really are in the US, and can argue all we want about tax policy, foreign policy, etc., but the spirit of the US is not that of any brand of socialism. From Stalinist communism down to “benign” forms, whether it be Huey Long or the scandinavian welfare states, it just is not the American spirit, the American culture, the American persona.
I think Obama’s ideas are wrong intellectually, wrong philosophically, and wrong practically. He is a bad choice for president, and all the fawning over his “intelligence” from elite-sounding people cannot move me an inch from my position.
For those confused by my above post, here is the Cliff Notes version:
Next time we have a national election for the best alumni Law Review editor, or someone to represent us in an SAT-taking contest, you can count on my vote for Barack over Bush or McCain or Palin.
For president, I want the guy who a) has his philosophy of government in order, and b) who actually has some experience and knows how to lead and govern.
JP,your responding to responses to KG, who, like a 9-11 truther, posed a bunch of imponderables like “why does know one remember ever taking a class with him” without getting at what the answer might be (eg: Why is the tail wing configuration of that airliner different than the one pictured here? Could it be a military jet with a new paint job???). KG seemed to be attempting to cast doubt on Obama’s college credentials without exerting the mental effort (exhausting, i know) to follow through with anything concrete. All he has is a smokey haze of fear and suspicion.
As far as wealth and its distribution goes, our personal wealth depends to some extent on the wealth of our neighbors. There’s a limit to how unevenly you can distribute the pie. Take a prosperous middle class enclave of a given net worth, and imagine piling nine tenths of each family’s wealth into one special family, (that is, convert 20,000 station wagons into a Boeing Business Jet (a plaything of the rich), and so on), I argue that there would be less total wealth there, even though the assets have just been reconfigured. It’s a rather clownish hypothetical, I know, but we live in clownish times. Massive wealth inequalities are the hallmarks of stagnant, even dying economies. We need a few more station wagons, or hell, a few more buses, and a little less BBJ’s for the rich and toll roads for the rest.
Argh. Know=no…sigh.
Aneece, you cannot be serious that we have a “stagnant, dying” economy. The economy for most of the last 20 years has been on fire. Is there any class of people in the US today that doesn’t have an equal or better standard of living than in prior generations?
Arguments on “the gap between rich and poor” are logically flawed. It is not a zero-sum game; it is possible for the gap between rich and poor to increase, while the standard of all levels still rises. Trying to make the rich poor will not make the poor rich.
Both candidates promise not to raise taxes on the middle and lower class. Obama plans to raise taxes on the rich, and McCain doesn’t. Obama plans to increase taxes on businesses (vide infra), McCain does not. How does this help the middle class? Taxing businesses at a higher rate, any size business, hurts the employees of that business. And there are lots more middle and lower class people working in business than these wealthy people that the democrats love to villify. Increasing taxes on the rich in and of itself doesn’t help the middle class. At least not economically. Maybe it placates someone’s sense of class-envy-fueled justice, and it gives the government more money to hand out. It doesn’t help the middle class to tax the rich more.
And of course, where are the questions about Obama’s tax plan? Has there been any real scrutiny as to whether he can actually accomplish what he says he will? The rebates he plans to give to those who pay little or no federal income taxes will be rebates based on the FICA payroll tax – social security. How will Obama make up the loss to FICA? He will increase the FICA tax on others. Is he telling us who? Just the rich? Maybe some in the middle class? Has anyone asked him this? Could it be there will be no income tax increase on anyone under 250k, but perhaps there will be an increase in the payroll tax, on some of them. Has anyone asked?
Here’s another question. Obama has said he will repeal the Bush tax cuts. So are Obama’s promises of tax “cuts” based on current rates, or what rates would revert back to when the Bush tax cuts expire? Has anyone asked?
Obama is given a free pass on his “$250,000″ number for business taxes, and his assertion that “99%” of small businesses don’t make 250k. Is he talking receipts? Net? Has anyone asked? Has anyone scrutinized or even asked what his source is for claiming that 99% of small businesses make less than 250?
The democrats say they are for the little guy. They aren’t. They’ll say what they think you want to hear to get your vote, but their policies are not helpful to the little guy. Look what they did to the housing market. Carter administration’s community reinvestment act…rules on lending changed under Clinton to force banks to relax lending requirements…resistance on the part of democrats to reign in Fannie and Freddie…
JP… I think I got you the first time. I am not confused. I don’t need the Cliff’s Notes. Save those for the junior high school crowd.
Ronny Reagan called it “trickle down”, but he meant spread the wealth. He just didn’t say it that way lest the wealthy get their panties in a bunch. (The rich got their money first.)
As far as McCain as “a senator, a military man, a leader?” Yes he is a senator. So is Obama. He was a military man who, bless his heart, after being shot down, spent 6 years in a POW camp – which qualifies him… How exactly? He is a leader who voted with G. W. Bush 90%. (How’s that working out?)
You have presented your case. Fine. I respect your choice. Vote the way you feel. Just don’t throw in that condescending claptrap about “all the fawning over his “intelligence” from elite-sounding people”… I love the way the “right” throws that word “elite” around. You seem to be trying to brand a particular kind of “American spirit, the American culture, the American persona.” Sorry, but it’s what “We the People” decide it’s going to be going forward. This is NOT your great-great-grandfathers country any more. It’s not about socialism. It’s about freedom and fairness… for all.
And I respect your choice, Tim. But I can’t let it go that you try to lump Reagan “trickle down” with spread the wealth.
The rich “get their money first?” Please. Everyone, rich and poor, _earns_ money. The only people “getting” money are the government, who take it, and then give it out. A lower tax rate on businesses or wealthy people or anyone else, is not the government “giving” something to the citizens. It’s the citizens’ money to begin with; they earned it, freely.
Nobody has a right to anyone else’s life. You’d agree with that, right? Well, the right to life has to include the right to work, because you can’t live without productive work. You must work to obtain food and shelter, whether it be as a hunter-gatherer or the sultan of Brunei. Someone, somewhere must work to produce what you need to live.
When you start to talk about the “right” of the government to spread the wealth around, you are talking about the government abridging one person’s right to life in order to give something to another person. “Freedom and fairness for all” means guaranteeing everyone’s right to live and work productively. It does not mean the right to have the same amount of income as your neighbor, or the same access to a college education, or the same access to healthcare. It is in the best interests of a government to create a society in which all of these things are as affordable and accessible as possible, but extending them the designation of “rights” violates the most fundamental right, the right to life itself.
Socialism is one of the most vile, detestable concepts, philosophically, that man has ever created. To call Ronald Reagan a socialist just leaves me speechless.
In this election, there is one candidate who is unapologetically socialist.
Madness? But no!
JP, thanks for making my point… “The only people “getting” money are the government, who take it, and then give it out…” $700 Billion to the banks. (they get theirs first, by the way)
“Socialism is one of the most vile, detestable concepts, philosophically, that man has ever created.”
And the bankers say, “AMEN!” Maybe some of that moolah will trickle down to the middle class.
As for your statement… “Freedom and fairness for all” means guaranteeing everyone’s right to live and work productively. It does not mean the right to have the same amount of income as your neighbor, or the same access to a college education, or the same access to healthcare. It is in the best interests of a government to create a society in which all of these things are as affordable and accessible as possible, but extending them the designation of “rights” violates the most fundamental right, the right to life itself.”
You’re on your own on this one. Sounds like something Rush Limbaugh might have said. I love the, “same access to a college education, or the same access to healthcare..” part. That’s classic! Same? Define “same”. White? Rich?…
“Access” as defined by what you can afford. If a Harvard education costs $50k/year, not everyone in the economy will be able to afford it, not everyone will have “access” to it. Nobody has a “right” to the “same” Harvard education, or a Ramapo Community College education, for that matter. You have the right to go get whatever education you can afford, using your own resources; your “resources” of course include what you may be able to borrow or earn through charitable grants.
This is people working in a free system. It is philosophically different from what Obama and many Democrats have said they’ve wanted for years: for the government to guarantee a college education (or healthcare or a home) as a “right” for citizens.
It ain’t Rush Limbaugh I’m quoting. It’s closer to Ayn Rand.
How typical to call me a racist. When did I write anything even implying anything about race?
Why don’t you define ‘white’ and ‘rich’ for me?
Who ever said the bank bailout wasn’t socialistic? Did I? But your whole concept of what they did is off base. It wasn’t a cash swap to “rich bankers.” The government did not raise taxes on the population and then send rebate checks to CEOs of banks and Wall stree firms. The idea, according to the Treasury secretary, who allegedly is some sort of guru on the great depression, is that you inject capital into the markets so that lending will resume. The lending is necessary to allow businesses and individuals to get access to funds and keep the economy moving. Banks employ far more middle class people than they do rich people, Tim. Isn’t keeping the bank afloat helping everyone who works for the bank?
“Isn’t keeping the bank afloat helping everyone who works for the bank?” Sure. Why not. Spread the wealth any way you see fit.
For anyone who still believes our media is not biased toward candidate Obama:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=1
C’mon JP… you chided me about “commentators” in #8 of this thread. Why do we need to read an opinion piece by Michael Malone? Shall I start quoting Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, et al, chapter and verse?
Tim, the point of posting the piece is not the same as what I was talking about in #8. The point in #8 was that you can’t compare an AP wire piece with a Rush Limbaugh opinion; they aren’t the same thing. One is supposed to be biased, the other should never be.
If you assume the press is biased, which most people do, you can’t expect any “objective” news story of their bias; it’s a non-sequitur.
The point of that piece is – and I think it’s powerful – is that a media insider is confessing that the degree of leftwing bias in this election apalls him. He is indicting the entire media enterprise, and he gives a pretty convincing explanation for it, too.
“If you assume the press is biased, which most people do, you can’t expect any “objective” news story of their bias; it’s a non-sequitur.” If you want our opinion you’ll give it to us?… “If you assume…” Who are “most” people? Where do you get your facts?
If Michael Malone is a “media insider”, so am I. Careful there…
The only people who whine about the Biased Media are the ones who think they are running second.
“…he gives a pretty convincing explanation for it, too.” I think not. Sounds like he’s got an axe to grind. Trust me.
But then again… Where were we all without the song stylings of Michael Malone? That great American.
JP: “George Bush is intelligent, very intelligent.”
JP, I can’t believe you really wrote that with a straight face… you failed to ask your own skeptic questions; “Where are the term papers and essays to prove this supposed intelligence? Why haven’t they been released? What is GWB trying to hide?”
Wow this thread is still alive. I reread my posts, Joe, and I don’t see where I asked “where are the term papers…etc.” I never said anything about Obama’s law school records was being supressed, that was someone else–at least I don’t think I did. If you find it, tell me which comment it’s in, and I’ll comment on what I was trying to say.
But I did make the statement about Bush with a straight face, and I can’t believe you disagree, with a straight face.
There is no agreement on a definition of intelligence, but if you think it’s possible for someone who does not have a sharp, active, highly capable intellect to graduate from an Ivy League school, manage the demands of being a state governor and a president, be successful in business, etc. then you have a pretty warped definition of intelligence.
I agree he is a lousy speaker, and says some pretty silly things. Oratorial skill is not proof of a lack of intelligence. Is Joe Biden an “idiot” because he asked a paraplegic man to “stand up”?
The point was that Obama’s so called intelligence was not a reason to vote for him. Intelligence can be an asset to a leader; to someone who is a poor leader, all the intelligence in the world will not save him or her. The fawning over Obama’s intelligence, to me, smacks of a voter sentiment bent on retribution for the 2000 election. There is talk that this election has become a referendum on Obama. I think a significant portion of this election is an angry attempt at retribution for 2000, and an expression of hatred toward Bush…having nothing to do with either candidate.