I touched a nerve:
That was a shitty, cheap shot. Obama writes in his intro that he uses composite characters, and then does. An "investigative journalist" investigates and finds a character actually lives up to his description. But others might not because she didn’t investigate them? And readers may not investigate?
This is your "scandal"? This makes him like James Frey who had more holes than cheese? This is a hack job smear, and today you’re a hack enabler.
I didn’t use the word "scandal." When a candidate for the president gets serious, questions like this are raised. His autobiography is a non-non-fiction "memoir," based on his own recollections, not on empirical truth. This new genre of non-non-fiction that isn’t fiction is a strange hybrid that deserves scrutiny, and the book is now likely to get that scrutiny. I understand why a writer cannot recall everything in his past. But I fail to understand why a writer has to change the name of an individual in his past from "Marty Kaufman" to "Gerald Kellman," especially when that person confirms the accounts of verbatim conversations. It suggests that the autobiography was written to create an image not to tell a true story. It’s not fraudulent in the James Frey way. But it is odd. If Obama gets touchy about this, he’s got a lot to learn. Not everyone is a fan either:
Why on earth do you like Obama? Not that there is much to hate about him, but do you truly like him as a presidential candidate? How is he even remotely qualified? Aside from his Monday-quarterback judgement of the war in Iraq (as he wasn’t there to make the mistake of voting for it in the Senate in 2002), what can be said for him in exact terms? He’s a powerful speaker? This is the problem we confronted with Robert Kennedy (or even his older brother – but to a lesser extent).
Has Obama said one word about global strategy that isn’t in reaction to the beliefs of others? Like Kennedy he’s quite skilled at pointing out what is wrong with the world, but that’s only the first step towards solving it, and the rest are all uphill. All I know is what Obama does not like, what he doesn’t believe in. I can’t simply assume that the rest is what he does believe in. Not that I think Obama is another Bush, but let us for just once demand an intellectual showing from our presidential candidates. We have 300,000,000 people in this country. Surely there are men and women better suited for the position of president than the stooges we’ve been offered. Isn’t it about time to change the presidential search paradigm a bit? Isn’t it time that we ask Obama to step up and exhibit his Weltanschauung? The early allegiance I’m seeing for Obama, Edwards, Giuliani makes me worried that we haven’t learned our lessons. None of them are actually qualified for the Oval Office, so we should really make them earn it!
Agreed. The sole reason I have for liking Obama is his multi-racial, multi-cultural heritage which I think is a great advantage in today’s global climate; and his extremely impressive speeches, particularly on religion and politics. I need to know more. Much more. We all do.
The Dish 