I somehow got tricked into reading a synopsis and customer reviews of the book “Obama Nation – Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality” by James R. Corsi. If I had seen the subtitle, I might have skipped it. But like a lot of the negative material available on the web about Obama, I find this stuff difficult to ignore. So after reading a couple of reviews that exclaimed how relevent and important this book was, and knowing that the author was famous for a similar book 4 years ago detailing John Kerry’s ‘Swift Boat’ history, I used Amazon’s ‘Search Inside’ to skim the contents and see what some folks found so impressive.

What I found was tripe. I felt compelled to provide my perspective as a user review. What follows is what I wrote -

While the author claims that the material is meticulously documented and footnoted, there is a strange lack of supporting material for the majority of the overwhelmingly negative conclusions. An example is in the chapter discussing Raila Odinga, where the author claims Obama supported Raila Odinga in his divisive Kenyan presidential bid. First, the author tries to make it appear that Obama visited Kenya during the election season, when in fact Obama visited in 2006, and Odinga didn’t declare his candidacy until 2007. Second, I found no footnotes or documentation that showed Obama going on record in support of Odinga – not a single first or second hand account of Obama saying – “I like Raila Odinga”, or “What Kenya needs is someone like Raila Odinga”. What he does show is that Odinga was one of the people on the stage while Obama gave a speech – along with a number of other local dignitaries and politicians. Oh, and also Obama was critical of the Kenyan government for being corrupt and not paying enough attention to the troubles of the underclass – opinions that were not at the time particularly controversial, even commonly accepted.

Another example is the section where the author takes pains to associate Islam with Obama by way of his father. The author uses the following quote from Obama’s paternal uncle – ‘I did not see my brother practice Islam, especially after he returned from his studies in the U.S. I did not consider him to be very religious.’ to support this conclusion: “Listening to Sayid there is little doubt Obama senior was a Muslim by birth and upbringing, even if his devotion as a Muslim remained in doubt.” Most people hearing Sayid’s account would have little doubt Obama’s father was not a practicing Muslim, especially since this is the way Obama describes him consistently. Why is it so important then that he was a Muslim ‘by birth and upbringning’ if he rejected Islam personally?

Anyone who reads this book as a strong indictment of Obama is either already inclined to believe Obama is a closet muslim, marxist fifth column, etc etc, or does not have the intelligence to see through this weak construction of innuendo, half-truths, and misleading and disingenuous logic.

There’s a certain kind of person that finds this kind of crap terribly attractive and convincing. I’m reading Robert Cialdini’s “Influence – Science and Practice” and I’m in chapter three, which talks about how the desire to be consistent in thought and action is a powerful force in determining our actions (and how this is frequently exploited by those with agendas). An example he cites is that at the track people are typically more confident in the horse they bet on than they were immediately before purchasing the ticket. After making the decision, their confidence increases because it is consistent with the choice they’ve made.  In the case of political candidates, I would posit that it is much easier to believe bad things about a candidate that you’ve already decided you don’t like – no matter how unlikely, poorly supported or even ridiculous.

Another example from Cialdini’s book is an episode where he attended a transcendental mediataion seminar with a friend who, after the pitch was over and opened up to audience questions, proceeded to expertly and convincingly dissasemble an refute the core assertions of the presenters arguments for the effectiveness of TM. After the session however he and his colleague (and the presenters) were surprised to see the majority of the audience sign up for the TM classes he had just effectively proven were worthless.  Afterwards in speaking with other audience members who had purchased the TM class they explained – “I was going to go home and think about it, but after hearing your arguments I thought I’d better sign up now – otherwise I’d never try it!”.  Audience members had signed up because they had real problems that they desperately wanted solved.  Understanding that if they had given it serious thought they would not sign up (and therefore continue to struggle with thier problems) they signed up quickly to avoid thinking about it, thus keeping hope alive and feeling that they were taking positive action.  This example makes me think more of perhaps why Obama is so appealing to some than of his unattractiveness to others. Certainly a criticism of him has been that he is ‘all talk’ with little substance. While I don’t believe this is true, I can’t say that part of his appeal (for me) comes from a certain amount of despiration. The kind of despiration that makes miracle cures attractive, regardless of signs they might not work.  What I know is true is that when I hear Obama talk about the problems of our government, our culture, and our nation I hear the problems framed in ways that are consistent with my experience. I hear the problems framed in ways other politicians and leaders haven’t articulated. For me, knowing the answer is great, but barring that the next best thing is understanding the problem.  You can’t solve problems you don’t understand, except accidentally.  Many in our country don’t even seem to recognize that some of the problems exist (e.g. race).  Obama gets it, and my hope is that his perspective will lead to solutions that we haven’t been able to reach, or in many cases even contemplate.