Rhetoric

Latest news on rhetoric

Obama Answers Your Science Questions

Barack Obama's responses to ScienceDebate2008's questionnaire balance lofty rhetoric with policy-wonk detail -- not only on energy issues, which are a central part of his platform, but relatively esoteric issues as science education, bioterror and genetic privacy.

Obama targets McCain in speech before 80,000

Barack Obama adds policy to soaring rhetoric as he accepts Democratic nomination

Media continue to repeat plagiarism accusation without noting that Biden had previously credited Kinnock

Media outlets continue to report that Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) was accused in 1987 of plagiarizing then-British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock without noting that while Biden did paraphrase from a Kinnock speech without attribution on at least two occasions in August 1987, he had reportedly credited Kinnock when previously using the same language. For instance, in an August 24 article, Washington Post staff writer Anne E. Kornblut reported that Sen. Barack Obama's selection of Biden as his vice-presidential running mate "does not come without risks. Accusations that he plagiarized then-British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock helped sink his presidential campaign in 1987." On its August 24 op-ed page, the Post also published an assessment of Biden by Rutgers University professor David Greenberg in which Greenberg stated of the Kinnock incident, "Biden stole autobiographical material, in effect making false claims about his own life." Biden did not attribute portions of a Kinnock speech that he paraphrased during an August 23, 1987, Democratic presidential primary debate, and during an August 26, 1987, interview for the National Education Association. But the Post itself reported in a September 13, 1987, article that "Biden and reporters covering his campaign said that in speeches before and after that debate the senator has given Kinnock credit for the same passionate rhetoric, which he has used repeatedly in recent weeks." Specifically, the Post reported that "John Quinlan, a reporter for the Sioux City Journal, said his notes showed Biden said he was quoting Kinnock when he used the same passage in a speech Aug. 14. Stories in The [New York] Times, The Boston Globe and other newspapers also said Biden had used the rhetoric and credited Kinnock for it." In addition to Kornblut's Post article, the following articles and editorial noted that Biden was accused of plagiarizing Kinnock without noting that Biden had credited him previously: An August 24 Dallas Morning News article compiled by John Riley from wire and Internet reports An August 24 Des Moines Register article by Thomas Beaumont An August 23 Chicago Tribune editorial An August 23 McClatchy Newspapers article by David Lightman and Margaret Talev An August 23 article on National Public Radio's website by correspondent Jennifer Ludden By contrast, a separate August 24 Washington Post article by staff writers Eli Saslow and Amy Goldstein stated that "The New York Times reported that during a debate, Biden had plagiarized a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock. Biden had used Kinnock's words in speeches before, always crediting him, but this time he didn't." Similarly, in an August 24 Chicago Tribune article, correspondents Mike Dorning and James Oliphant wrote that Biden's "campaign imploded after he quoted from a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock without crediting him, leading to charges of plagiarism (even though he had credited Kinnock in other speeches)." As Media Matters for America has documented, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and the Associated Press also reported on the Kinnock allegations without noting that Biden had previously credited Kinnock, according to reports at the time.

Media outlets reported allegations Biden plagiarized Kinnock, but not that he had previously credited him

In an August 23 article on Sen. Barack Obama's selection of Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) as his vice-presidential running mate, the Los Angeles Times reported that "when he ran for president in 1988, Biden was accused of plagiarism when he did not credit Neil Kinnock, then leader of the British Labor Party, for much of his stump speech." Similarly, in an August 23 article, The New York Times reported that Biden "was forced to quit the 1988 presidential race in the face of accusations that he had plagiarized part of a speech from Neil Kinnock," and in an August 23 article, the Associated Press reported that Biden's 1988 run for president "ended badly" after he "was caught lifting lines from a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock." But those articles did not note that while Biden did not attribute portions of a Kinnock speech he paraphrased during an August 23, 1987, Democratic presidential primary debate, and during an August 26, 1987, interview for the National Education Association, Biden reportedly had credited Kinnock. According to a September 13, 1987, Washington Post article, "Biden and reporters covering his campaign said that in speeches before and after that debate the senator has given Kinnock credit for the same passionate rhetoric, which he has used repeatedly in recent weeks." Specifically, the Post reported that "John Quinlan, a reporter for the Sioux City Journal, said his notes showed Biden said he was quoting Kinnock when he used the same passage in a speech Aug. 14. Stories in The [New York] Times, The Boston Globe and other newspapers also said Biden had used the rhetoric and credited Kinnock for it." In contrast with the August 23 Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and AP articles, an August 23 Chicago Tribune article reported: Twenty years ago, Biden was, in a sense, the Obama of his time, a young turk of a politician with a gift for soaring, transcendental rhetoric. But his first bid for the presidency imploded in 1988 when he was accused of plagiarizing a speech by British politician Neil Kinnock that described the candidate's working-class roots. Biden was forced from the race after the campaign of eventual nominee Michael Dukakis circulated a videotape with Biden failing to give credit to Kinnock for a speech he gave in Iowa. Biden, however, had credited Kinnock with the remarks in his other speeches, leaving many of his supporters at the time -- and long after -- feeling like Biden was pushed from the stage unfairly. From the September 13, 1987, Washington Post article, by staff writer Eleanor Randolph (retrieved from the Nexis news database): Campaign aides to Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) reacted angrily yesterday to a report that a fellow Democratic contender for the presidential nomination had given at least one journalist a videotape suggesting that Biden plagiarized a campaign speech of British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock. Biden himself said he wasn't angry, adding that his rivals may be "a little worried there's some movement" toward him in the race for the Democratic nomination. The tape, which yesterday's Des Moines Register described as the first example of an "attack video" launched by a political rival, showed an excerpt of a widely discussed Kinnock commercial from last summer's British general election and then an excerpt from an Aug. 23 debate in Iowa in which Biden borrowed the British leader's words. Biden did appear to drop his own family something of a notch downward on the economic and social scale to appear more like Kinnock. But Biden and reporters covering his campaign said that in speeches before and after that debate the senator has given Kinnock credit for the same passionate rhetoric, which he has used repeatedly in recent weeks -- and in a speech Friday night in Philadelphia. "I've been using it all over," Biden said in a telephone interview. He acknowledged failing to credit Kinnock Aug. 23 but said many members of that Iowa audience had heard the same words, fully credited to the Briton, in other campaign appearances. [...] The Kinnock commercial, which was part of a Labor Party broadcast that many British viewers saw as an American-style advertisement, showed the Welshman saying at one point: "Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? ... Was it because our predecessors were thick? ... Was it because they were weak, those people who could work eight hours underground [as coal miners] and come up and play football, weak? ... It was because there was no platform upon which they could stand." Biden, in the Aug. 23 debate said: "Why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go to a university? ... Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? Is it because I'm the first Biden in ... generations to get a college and a graduate degree that I was smarter than the rest? ... Was it that they didn't work hard, my ancestors who worked in the coal mines of Northeast Pennsylvania and would come up after 12 hours and play football for four hours? ... It's because they didn't have a platform upon which to stand." Biden aides said yesterday that Biden began using the Kinnock rhetoric in August and had credited Kinnock on virtually every other occasion when he used it. John Quinlan, a reporter for the Sioux City Journal, said his notes showed Biden said he was quoting Kinnock when he used the same passage in a speech Aug. 14. Stories in The Times, The Boston Globe and other newspapers also said Biden had used the rhetoric and credited Kinnock for it.

Bush Calls Georgia-Russia Peace Deal "A Hopeful Step" (AHN)

(AHN) - After more than a week of hawkish rhetoric against Russia, President George W. Bush issued his first positive statement over the weekend on the former Soviet Republic's conflict with Georgia. - Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:22:12 GMT

Police seize War on Terror board game because its ski-mask "could be used in a criminal act"

Police in Kent, UK arrested some climate protestors and confiscated their "criminal" equipment, including a satirical boardgame about the war on terror. The police claim that the ski mask that came with the game could be used in a criminal act. "Surely no member of the public is going to believe that a board game could be used as a weapon?" War on Terror, similar to games like Risk, revolves around creating empires that compete and wage war. But there is a twist - players can poke fun at the rhetoric of world leaders like George Bush and Tony Blair... In their cardboard version of realpolitik George Bush's "Axis of Evil" is reduced to a spinner in the middle of the board, which determines which player is designated a terrorist state. That person then has to wear a balaclava (included in the box set) with the word "Evil" stitched on to it. War On Terror board game seized by police (via Schneier)...

Massachusetts: MIT students deserve 'no First Amendment protection'

The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority ratchets up the rhetoric against three MIT students who are the subject of a court-imposed restraining order that a federal judge has declined to modify.

Ignoring numerous speeches and statements, Hannity claims to "never hear" Obama discuss "how great this country is"

On the August 7 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, while discussing Sen. Barack Obama's comments during a campaign event the previous day, co-host Sean Hannity asserted: "I never hear the inspiring -- where is the inspiring rhetoric about how great this country is? I never hear him talk about that." In fact, Obama has regularly talked about "how great this country is" in his speeches and writing, including in stating that his personal background is "a story that could only happen in the United States of America," describing America as "a magical place" that has "shone as a beacon of freedom and opportunity," and commenting on "the fundamental decency of the American people." Hannity's false suggestion that Obama "never" discusses "how great this country is" occurred just days after he made several other false generalizations concerning Obama -- that no "prominent Republican" has "said that [Obama] is not patriotic, or that he's got a funny name," and that "Obama can't point to a single instance in which ... Sean Hannity or talk radio" has "made an issue of Obama's race." Obama has frequently praised this country: In his July 24 speech in Berlin, Germany, Obama said: "But I also know how much I love America. I know that for more than two centuries, we have strived -- at great cost and great sacrifice -- to form a more perfect union; to seek, with other nations, a more hopeful world." While discussing energy in Dayton, Ohio, on July 11, Obama said: In the last century, during the days that followed the attack on Pearl Harbor, the American people were asked, almost overnight, to transform a peacetime economy that was still climbing out of the depths of the great depression into an arsenal of democracy that could wage war across three continents. And many doubted whether this could be achieved in time, or even at all. And Franklin Roosevelt's own advisers told him that his goals for wartime production were unrealistic and impossible to meet. But FDR simply waved them off, saying, "Believe me, the production people can do it if they really try." That was FDR's attitude: Don't tell me we can't do it. Yes, we can. Today, the challenges we face from our energy dependence are great. Meeting it will take time, and it won't be easy, but if we're willing to work at it, and invest in it, and sacrifice for it; if we're willing to summon the same spirit of optimism and possibility that has defined this country's greatest progress, then I believe that we, too, can do it if we really try. In a January 3 speech in Iowa, Obama said: "Hope -- hope is what led me here today -- with a father from Kenya, a mother from Kansas, and a story that could only happen in the United States of America. Hope is the bedrock of this nation -- the belief that our destiny will not be written for us, but by us, by all those men and women who are not content to settle for the world as it is, who have the courage to remake the world as it should be." In a December 5, 2007, speech, Obama characterized Americans as heirs to "the legacy of a band of unlikely patriots who overthrew the tyranny of a King." In his July 27, 2004, keynote address to the Democratic National Convention, Obama stated: But my grandfather had larger dreams for his son. Through hard work and perseverance, my father got a scholarship to study in a magical place: America, which shone as a beacon of freedom and opportunity to so many who had come before. [...] In the end, that is God's greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation; a belief in things not seen; a belief that there are better days ahead. I believe that we can give our middle class relief and provide working families with a road to opportunity. I believe we can provide jobs to the jobless, homes to the homeless, and reclaim young people in cities across America from violence and despair. I believe that ... as we stand on the crossroads of history, we can make the right choices, and meet the challenges that face us. On Page 8 of his book, The Audacity of Hope (Crown, 2005), Obama writes: This book grows directly out of those conversations on the campaign trail. Not only did my encounters with voters confirm the fundamental decency of the American people, they also reminded me that at the core of the American experience are a set of ideals that continue to stir our collective conscience; a common set of values that bind us together despite our differences; a running thread of hope that makes our improbable experiment in democracy work. These values and ideals find expression not just in the marble slabs of monuments or in the recitation of history books. They remain alive in the hears and minds of most Americans -- and can inspire us to pride, duty, and sacrifice. Obama concludes the book as follows: And in that place [the National Mall in Washington, D.C.], I think about America and those who built it. This nation's founders, who somehow rose above petty ambitions and narrow calculations to imagine a nation unfurling across a continent. And those like Lincoln and King, who ultimately laid down their lives in the service of perfecting an imperfect union. And all the faceless, nameless men and women, slaves and soldiers and tailors and butchers, constructing lives for themselves and their children and grandchildren, brick by brick, rail by rail, calloused hand by calloused hand, to fill in the landscape of our collective dreams. It is that process I wish to be a part of. My heart is filled with love for this country. [Pages 361-362] Media Matters has previously documented examples of media figures falsely claiming that Obama "dodg[es] the word and concept of patriotism" or that his focus on patriotism is new. From the August 7 edition of Hannity & Colmes: COLMES: Do you think he hates America? Does Obama hate America? HANNITY: "G-d America." COLMES: Does Obama hate America? HANNITY: William Ayers, who bombed the Pentagon. HUCKABEE: I don't think Obama hates America, but I think Obama's -- HANNITY: He said it's France. HUCKABEE: -- got to clarify -- he's got to clarify that what he loves about America is the fact that he has broken a lot of barriers to be the nominee. And it's really hard -- HANNITY: All right. I want to -- HUCKABEE: -- for me or anyone else to say, "Boy, America has really been really tough on Barack Obama." I think America's been pretty darn good to Barack Obama, and he ought to acknowledge that. HANNITY: But he doesn't say it. And that's the point. This comment to this young girl, "Oh, America is no longer what it could be -- what it once was," first of all contradicts what his wife said that she'd never been proud of her country, and America is a downright mean country, so, obviously, the Obamas are having a little conflict within their own family about what -- the state of the country. It -- I never hear the inspiring -- where is the inspiring rhetoric about how great this country is? I never hear him talk about that. HUCKABEE: I think one of the reasons this race is tightening up is because Barack Obama is not the same candidate that he was during the primary when he would read the prompter and he would give glowing speeches of where we're going to do great things. He's now telling a 7-year-old that this isn't all that great a country, and you don't tell 7-year-olds that. HANNITY: I want to talk about the prompter versus his extemporaneous speaking. It seems he gets away from the prompter, he's in trouble. HUCKABEE: He's very good scripted, and he struggles when he's having to be extemporaneous. And I think that's one of the reasons that he has not been willing to go to the town hall format with John McCain. You know what? I'm not sure that I blame him because John McCain handles that format beautifully. HANNITY: And he doesn't speak as well on the prompter. It's just the opposite. HUCKABEE: No, he's not a prompter guy.

NRO's Kirsanow and Hanson falsely claimed Obama has not given his views on reparations

In recent days, National Review Online contributors Peter Kirsanow and Victor Davis Hanson have each falsely asserted that Sen. Barack Obama has not further explained what he meant when he stated at the UNITY '08 Convention on July 27: "I've consistently believed, when it comes -- whether it's Native American issues, whether it's African-American issues and reparations, that the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just to offer words, but offer deeds." In separate posts on the NRO blog The Corner, Kirsanow and Hanson speculated about whether the remark in question amounted to an endorsement by Obama of "cash" payments as reparations for slavery, without reporting what Obama said in full at the UNITY Convention about his position on reparations. As Media Matters for America has documented, when CNN correspondent Suzanne Malveaux asked Obama moments after his initial remark whether he supported "offering reparations to various groups," Obama replied: "I have said in the past, and I'll repeat again, that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed. And I think that strategies that invest in lifting people out of the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, but that have broad applicability and allow us to build coalitions to actually get these things done, that, I think, is the best strategy." Indeed, as Media Matters documented, Obama has made similar comments "in the past" when asked about the issue of reparations. In an August 5 NRO post, Kirsanow wrote: "Members of the press haven't asked Sen. Obama to explain what he means by saying that the U.S. government should offer deeds regarding reparations." He then asserted: A charitable guess is that Sen. Obama wants more money to be spent on improving education, health care, alleviating poverty, etc. That is, more government programs. But that's the point -- it's just a guess. Many people think of reparations in terms of cash pay-outs, and not insubstantial ones at that. For example, the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations has estimated the total value of reparations to blacks at $8 trillion. Others have put the annual price tag at $100 billion. What's Sen. Obama's price tag for the "deeds" the U.S. government should offer? What form should the deeds take? Do they include cash transfers? In a July 30 NRO post, Hanson wrote: "If the press insists on hinging on every word of Obama, can't they at least ask for clarifications and details about his sweeping proclamations?" After quoting Obama's initial reference to reparations during his July 27 remarks at the UNITY Convention, Hanson added: Again more details: Does this mean an expansion of affirmative action, more of WWII taught as mostly Rosie the Riveter, Hiroshima, and the Japanese internment, or cash grants for past sins? Does the explicit reference to reparations mean they are here at last -- which were on the front burner pre-9/11? Anyone in any government-supported university the last thirty years knows that admission policies, graduate and professional school recruitment, assigned readings, curriculum, minority hiring and promotion, and university polices do not "just offer words, but offer deeds". Neither Kirsanow nor Hanson mentioned that Obama said that "the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed." After Media Matters documented that Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal.com editor James Taranto falsely suggested on July 30 that Obama's initial reference to reparations at the UNITY '08 Convention "seem[ed] to be something of an endorsement of the idea of 'reparations for slavery,' which is usually taken to mean cash payments," Taranto wrote on August 1: "Contrary to our speculation in a Wednesday item, it appears that Barack Obama is not a reparationist. DemocracyNow.org has a transcript of Obama's question-and-answer session with minority journalists, which provides some context for the comment we highlighted." From Obama's July 27 question-and-answer session at the UNITY '08 Convention: BULL: Senator, I am Brian Bull from Wisconsin Public Radio and the Native American Journalists Association. Last February, the Australian prime minister apologized for the past treatment of its indigenous people. Last month, the Canadian prime minister also issued an apology for its treatment of its indigenous population. Would your administration issue an apology to Native Americans for the atrocities they've endured for the past 500 years? OBAMA: You know, I personally would want to see our tragic history or the tragic elements of our history acknowledged. And I think that there's no doubt that when it comes to our treatment of Native Americans, as well as other persons of color in this country, that we've got some, some very sad and difficult things to account for. What an official apology would look like, how it would be shaped, that's something that I would want to consult with Native Americans tribes and councils to talk about. And because obviously, as sovereign nations, they also have a whole host of other issues that they're concerned about and that they've prioritized. One of the things that I said to tribal leaders is, I want to set up a annual meeting with them and make sure that a whole range of these issues are addressed. But I've consistently believed, when it comes -- whether it's Native American issues, whether it's African-American issues and reparations, that the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just to offer words, but offer deeds. And when you look at the situation on tribal lands, the fact that by every socioeconomic indicator Native Americans are doing worse than any other population on health, on education, on substance abuse -- their housing situations are deplorable, unemployment is skyrocketing -- you know, I have to confess that I'm more concerned about delivering a better life and creating a better relationship with the Native American peoples than anything else. And that's what I want to engage tribal leaders in making sure happens. MALVEAUX: When it comes to reparations, would you take it a step further, in terms of apologizing for slavery or offering reparations to various groups? OBAMA: You know, I have said in the past, and I'll repeat again, that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed. And I think that strategies that invest in lifting people out of the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, but that have broad applicability and allow us to build coalitions to actually get these things done, that, I think, is the best strategy. You know, the fact is, is that dealing with some of the, some of the legacy of discrimination is going to cost billions of dollars. And we're not going to be able to have that kind of resource allocation, unless all Americans feel that they are invested in making this stuff happen. And so, you know, I'm much more interested in talking about how do we get every child to learn, how do we get every person health care, how do we make sure that everybody has a job, how do we make sure that every senior citizen can retire with dignity and respect. And if we have a program, for example, of universal health care, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because they're disproportionately uninsured. If we've got an agenda that says every child in America should get -- should be able to go to college, regardless of income, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because it's oftentimes our children who can't afford to go to college. From Kirsanow's August 5 post: Sen. Obama's comments earlier last week concerning reparations were swamped by the attention devoted to the "dollar bill" controversy. Nonetheless, the comments deserve at least as much scrutiny. Speaking to a crowd of minority journalists at the Unity '08 conference, Obama responded to a question about reparations as follows: I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds. Members of the press haven't asked Sen. Obama to explain what he means by saying that the U.S. government should offer deeds regarding reparations. A charitable guess is that Sen. Obama wants more money to be spent on improving education, health care, alleviating poverty, etc. That is, more government programs. But that's the point -- it's just a guess. Many people think of reparations in terms of cash pay-outs, and not insubstantial ones at that. For example, the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations has estimated the total value of reparations to blacks at $8 trillion. Others have put the annual price tag at $100 billion. What's Sen. Obama's price tag for the "deeds" the U.S. government should offer? What form should the deeds take? Do they include cash transfers? From Hanson's July 30 post: If the press insists on hinging on every word of Obama, can't they at least ask for clarifications and details about his sweeping proclamations? Most are still waiting for the particulars of his idea to create a shadow Pentagon of civilian aid and civil support workers funded to the same tune of $500 billion a year. That seems a big deal that the electorate should ponder? How would it function? Where would the funding come from? What would be the relationship with the Pentagon? And now what does the following mean from Obama: I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged. I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds. Again more details: Does this mean an expansion of affirmative action, more of WWII taught as mostly Rosie the Riveter, Hiroshima, and the Japanese internment, or cash grants for past sins? Does the explicit reference to reparations mean they are here at last -- which were on the front burner pre-9/11? Anyone in any government-supported university the last thirty years knows that admission policies, graduate and professional school recruitment, assigned readings, curriculum, minority hiring and promotion, and university polices do not "just offer words, but offer deeds". It would seem that the Obamas' own careers, in retrospect, have been helped a lot by "deeds" rather the mere rhetoric of the government. Two themes seem to reoccur: one, sweeping rhetorical promises that either are not or cannot be backed by detailed proposals; two, a certain sort of resentment that after trillions of dollars invested in affirmative action, war on poverty programs, and government assistance targeted to the poor and minorities they can be summed up with a mere "not just offer words."

Citations in Freddoso's anti-Obama book rife with misinformation

The jacket cover for conservative author David Freddoso's The Case Against Barack Obama (Regnery) describes the book as "[s]ober, fair, and thoroughly researched -- and all the more powerful and provocative because of it." As Media Matters for America documented, however, just the first few pages of Freddoso's book are marked by false and misleading assertions about Sen. Barack Obama, accompanied by dubious citations. A review of the endnotes in The Case Against Barack Obama reveals that the rest of the book is little different from these first few pages, as throughout the book, Freddoso misrepresents or distorts his sources and even makes assertions that are actually refuted by sources he cites. 1. On pages 30-31 of his book, Freddoso cites page 124 of Chicago journalist David Mendell's book Obama: From Promise to Power (Amistad, August 2007) in characterizing a piece of ethics legislation Obama passed in 1998 as "relatively harmless," and claiming that the bill merely made Obama "look like a reformer." In fact, Mendell wrote something very different from what Freddoso claims. He did not in any way characterize the bill as "harmless," but instead noted that pushing the bill through the state Senate "was a tough assignment for a new lawmaker, since he was essentially sponsoring legislation that would strip away long-held privileges and perks from his colleagues," and that Obama received opposition from his colleagues regarding the ethics legislation. Mendell further wrote that Obama "worked the issue deliberately and delicately," and that upon its passage, the bill "essentially lifted Illinois, a state with a deep history of illicit, pay-to-play politics, into the modern world when it came to ethics restrictions." Freddoso writes: As [Illinois state Sen. Emil] Jones's political godson, and even long before the conversation about the United States Senate, Obama had the privilege of stealing important bills. Other senators had a name for this practice: "bill-jacking." 17 Mendell records that as early as 1998, Jones had already done such favors at the prompting of Obama's liberal friends. Abner Mikva, a former congressman and federal judge, had recommended to Jones that he give Obama a popular piece of legislation barring political fundraising on state property and barring lobbyists and contractors from giving gifts to legislators. The bill had enough loopholes to be relatively harmless, but it was a step in the direction of reform. Jones gave it to Obama. Obama proposed it. It passed, 52-4.18 The "Friends and Family" man, the old ward-heeler, was even capable of making Obama look like a reformer. From pages 123-124 of Obama: Legislatively, Obama managed to pass a decent number of laws for a first-term lawmaker in the minority party. His first major legislative accomplishment was shepherding a piece of campaign finance reform in May 1998. The measure prohibited lawmakers from soliciting campaign funds while on state property and from accepting gifts from state contractors, lobbyists or other interests. The senate's Democratic leader, Emil Jones Jr., a veteran African-American legislator from the South Side, offered Obama the opportunity to push through the bill because it seemed like a good fit for the do-good persona projected by Obama. Obama was also recommended to Jones by two esteemed Chicago liberals who had taken a liking to him: former U.S. senator Paul Simon and former congressman and federal judge Abner Mikva. Working on the bill was an eye-opening experience for the freshman senator. It was a tough assignment for a new lawmaker, since he was essentially sponsoring legislation that would strip away long-held privileges and perks from his colleagues. In one private session, a close colleague angrily denounced the bill, saying that it impinged on lawmakers' inherent rights. But Obama worked the issue deliberately and delicately, and the measure passed the senate by an overwhelming 52-4 vote. "This sets the standard for us, and communicates to a public that is increasingly cynical about Springfield and the General Assembly that we in fact are willing to do the right thing," Obama told reporters immediately after the bill's passage. The bill was not a watershed event anywhere but Illinois. It essentially lifted Illinois, a state with a deep history of illicit, pay-to-play politics, into the modern world when it came to ethics restrictions. The bill gave Obama a legislative success, but his public criticism of Springfield's old-school politics did not sit well with some of his colleagues, who already considered the Ivy League lawyer overly pious. Indeed, Freddoso goes on to undermine his dismissive treatment of the legislation, describing it as a "real accomplishment" later in the book. From pages 93-94 of The Case Against Barack Obama: Obama's reform record is not a complete wash. His most notable accomplishment in Washington was the bill he co-sponsored with Republican senator Tom Coburn, the conservative junior senator from Oklahoma. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 -- also known as "Google for Government" -- helped expose to the sunlight the congressional practice of "earmarking," in which members of Congress direct federal spending to parochial projects -- swimming pools, bridges to nowhere -- that often have no national importance or congressional authorization.63 Coburn and Obama's bill, approved over the objection of some of Capitol Hill's worst porkers, really was a small victory for open government and bipartisanship. This was a real accomplishment for Obama in the name of reform -- the second such accomplishment of his career after the Illinois ethics law. 2. On page 61, Freddoso claims that "[o]nlookers faint at his [Obama's] speeches with alarming frequency compared to other campaigns," citing a February 18 item called "The Monday Morning Presidential Briefing," by Boston Herald police bureau chief Jessica Van Sack. But while Van Sack did address fainting at Obama rallies, she made no comparison to other campaigns, as Freddoso claims. Freddoso writes: There is undoubtedly a religious component to "Obamania." The Reverend Jesse Jackson, himself a former presidential candidate, commented that Obama is running a "theological campaign" -- that "[a]t some point, he took off his arms and grew wings." At the University of Texas, crowds sang "Obama-leluja" at his approach.4 Onlookers faint at his speeches with alarming frequency compared to other campaigns. From Van Sack's item, which included this graph under the subhead, "Hot Video of the Week": Attending a Barack Obama rally anytime soon? Don't forget the smelling salts. Obama's enthusiastic young followers are dropping like worshippers at a televangelist mega-sermon, as the video of a string of recent crowd-fainting incidents shows. 3. Freddoso writes on page 83 that Obama "takes all the teeth" out his idea of a "merit-pay program" for teachers by "promising" that "the measure of 'merit' " will be determined "by some yet undiscovered measure to be chosen by teachers' unions." Freddoso's source for this claim is a July 5, 2007, Philadelphia Inquirer article on Obama's speech that day to the National Education Association. The article, however, does not say that Obama's merit pay measure will be "chosen by teachers' unions." Rather, the article reported what Obama said in his speech -- that he will work with teachers unions to develop a system. From page 83 of The Case Against Barack Obama: Obama has acquired an undeserved reputation for reform in education because he offers mild rhetoric about a merit-pay program for teachers. But he takes all of the teeth out of the idea by promising his allies that the measure of "merit" will not be determined by student achievement -- "arbitrary tests" -- but by some yet undiscovered measure to be chosen by teachers' unions.15 Obama's merit pay also comes only in exchange for six-figure teacher salaries. From the July 5, 2007, Philadelphia Inquirer article: Illinois Sen. Barack Obama today endorsed the idea of merit pay for teachers before an audience hostile to the idea, the giant National Education Association, but he softened the blow by telling the union's national assembly that he would not use "arbitrary tests" to link pay to performance. "I think there should be ways for us to work with the NEA, with teachers' unions, to figure out a way to measure success," Obama told a crowd of about 9,000 at the Pennsylvania Convention Center. "I want to work with teachers. I'm not going to do it too you, I'm going to do it with you." 4. On page 88, Freddoso writes that "Obama explained that if he took public financing, it might be hard to compete with the outside '527 groups' who will mercilessly smear him," and quotes a June 20 Washington Post article asserting: "No conservative 527 groups have materialized." As Media Matters noted at the time, the Post article ignored the actions of conservative groups, such as the Vets for Freedom political action committee, which had already launched two Internet ads attacking Obama over the Iraq war. Other outside groups such as Freedom's Watch and the National Campaign Fund PAC had also released ads attacking Obama. From page 88 of The Case Against Barack Obama: Obama explained that if he took public financing, it might be hard to compete with the outside "527 groups" who will mercilessly smear him. Of [Sen. John] McCain, he said: "[W]e've already seen that he's not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations." "No conservative 527 groups have materialized," the Washington Post noted.35 But what if they do? And the groups more favorable to Obama -- MoveOn.org and the labor unions, for example -- might lack the resources to compete with those conservative groups, should they materialize. It should be noted that in 2004, the pro-Democrat 527s outspent the pro-Republican 527s $282 million to $111 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.36 As of mid-year 2008, the Democratic 527s had slightly outraised their GOP counterparts, but then when you throw in the labor unions and pro-choice groups, Obama's 527 army is already better funded than McCain's. 5. On page 116, Freddoso addresses Obama's "present" votes in the Illinois state Senate, citing a December 20, 2007, New York Times article in claiming that "other Illinois senators say" Obama's 130 "present" votes was an "unusually high" number. In fact, the Times article does not quote any Illinois state senators commenting on the frequency of Obama's "present" votes, nor does it report that other Illinois senators considered the frequency of Obama's "present" votes to be "unusually high." Indeed, while neither the Times nor Freddoso provided substantiation for his claim that Obama had an "unusually high" number of "present" votes, PolitiFact.com quoted Christopher Mooney, a political scientist at the University of Illinois-Springfield, saying of Obama's "present" votes: "Everyone I've spoken to who's familiar with this, including lobbyists and people who are engaged in opposition research, say the number of times he voted present on a proportional basis was probably a little less than average." Freddoso writes: If Obama cast many controversial votes in Springfield, he also avoided many controversial votes. An interesting aspect of his career in the state Senate was his habit of voting "present" on controversial legislation instead of voting "yea" or "nay." He did this about 130 times over his eight-year career there, which other Illinois senators say is unusually high.56 As Nathan Gonzales of the Rothenberg Political Report noted, "We aren't talking about a 'present' vote on whether to name a state office building after a deceased state official, but rather about votes that reflect an officeholder's core values." 6. On pages 174-175, Freddoso claims that Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) was one of the Democrats who was "against Obama on this point" -- a reference to the debate over whether a U.S. president should be willing to meet with leaders of North Korea, Iran, and other countries without preconditions. As evidence, Freddoso quotes from Biden's May 18, 2008, appearance on ABC's This Week: "This is a fellow who I think shorthanded an answer that in fact was the wrong answer." However, the full context of Biden's quote shows that he actually said that he and Obama agreed, saying that Obama's recent statements on the issue "mirrored the statements the rest of us have been talking about." Freddoso writes: For Clinton, there had to be some preconditions -- how else could such a meeting be in the interest of the United States? There had to [sic] an upside. You don't have to take as hard a line as President Bush, she was arguing, but you can't just have a beer with Kim Jong II after he launched seven missiles in provocation during the summer of 2006.12 He must first show some cooperation -- some substantial sign of good faith -- as a precondition. That is how diplomacy works in the real world. In the months that followed, Democrats ranging from moderate to liberal generally sided with Clinton and against Obama on this point. Former congressman Harold Ford of Tennessee, another young, black superstar in the Democratic Party and chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, was one of the moderates. "I'll concede you cannot meet with foreign leaders -- with terrorists rather -- without some conditions. 13 "This is a fellow who I think shorthanded an answer that in fact was the wrong answer," said Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, the liberal chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. From the May 18 broadcast of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (host): So, he's developed that -- BIDEN: I think he has. STEPHANOPOULOS: -- what he needs to know in the nine months on the campaign trail. BIDEN: I think he's focused on -- what we're talking about here is that he has repeatedly, since then, said he would not negotiate unconditionally -- meaning him sitting down alone, right off the bat, with these leaders. He's talked about his secretary of state, his secretary of defense. As a matter of fact, the statements he's using have mirrored the statements the rest of us have been talking about. This is a fellow who I think shorthanded an answer that, in fact, was the wrong answer, in my view, saying I would, within the first year. It implied he'd personally sit down with anybody who wanted to sit down with him. That's not what he meant. That's not what he has said since then for the last year, or thereabouts. And so, I think that he's fully capable of understanding what's going -- and put this in context, the policy that Bush has pursued and McCain will continue, has been an abject failure. We are weaker in the Middle East. We are weaker around the world. Terrorism is stronger than it ever was. Iran is closer to a bomb. Just by any measure -- any measure -- what has their policy wrought? A disaster. It's been an absolute disaster. 7. On page 215, Freddoso cites a June 13, 2007 (wrongly identified in the endnotes as a June 13, 2008, article), Chicago Sun-Times article in claiming that a spokesman for Obama and a lawyer for convicted Chicago businessman Antoin Rezko "say it is simply a coincidence" that Obama wrote letters in support of Cottage View Terrace, one of Rezko's housing projects. In fact, the Sun-Times quoted Obama spokesman Bill Burton stating that Obama supported Cottage View Terrace "because it was going to help people in his district," and Rezko's attorney saying simply that "Mr. Rezko never spoke with, nor sought a letter from, Senator Obama in connection with that project." Freddoso writes: In June, Chicago Sun-Times reporter Tim Novak reported that Obama "wrote letters to city and state officials supporting his political patron Tony Rezko's successful bid to get more than $14 million from taxpayers to build apartments for senior citizens."10 The project, Cottage View Terrace, includes ninety-seven apartments. It is a few blocks outside of Obama's state Senate district. The deal for which Obama helped Rezko get this money also included Obama's old law-firm boss, Allison Davis. He is also a major Obama fundraiser and a developer who has built or renovated 1,500 apartment units in Chicago.11 From the $14.6 million in state funds that Obama requested, the two men would already be expected to profit through their housing business. But Davis and Rezko were also to collect $855,000 of it in "development fees." Obama's spokesman and Rezko's lawyer say it is simply a coincidence that the senator wrote these letters to help two longtime friends, Davis and Rezko, get millions of dollars. From the June 13, 2007, Chicago Sun-Times article: On Tuesday, Bill Burton, press secretary for Obama's presidential campaign, said the letters Obama wrote in support of the development weren't intended as a favor to Rezko or Davis. "This wasn't done as a favor for anyone," Burton said in a written statement. "It was done in the interests of the people in the community who have benefited from the project. "I don't know that anyone specifically asked him to write this letter nine years ago," the statement said. "There was a consensus in the community about the positive impact the project would make and Obama supported it because it was going to help people in his district. ... They had a wellness clinic and adult day-care services, as well as a series of social services for residents. It's a successful project. It's meant a lot to the community, and he's proud to have supported it.'' The development, called the Cottage View Terrace apartments, opened five years ago at 4801 S. Cottage Grove, providing 97 apartments for low-income senior citizens. Asked about the Obama letters, Rezko's attorney, Joseph Duffy, said Tuesday, "Mr. Rezko never spoke with, nor sought a letter from, Senator Obama in connection with that project." 8. In addition, as Media Matters documented, in the introduction to The Case Against Barack Obama, Freddoso writes that, in challenging the eligibility of signatures his opponents collected to get their names on the ballot of the 1996 Illinois state Senate Democratic primary for the 13th district, Obama threw "all of his opponents off the ballot on a technicality." On page 2, however, Freddoso undermines his own claim by quoting a 1996 Chicago Weekend report that some of incumbent Sen. Alice Palmer's signatures were disqualified because the voters who signed lived outside the 13th district -- something more than a mere "technicality." On page 3, Freddoso reproduces a portion of an April 3, 2007, Chicago Tribune article in which one of Obama's opponents in 1996, Gha-Is Askia, referring to Obama's challenge of the signatures, is quoted as saying: "He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?" That same article, however, also reported that Askia "now suspects" some of the signatures his campaign collected were forged -- a fact Freddoso did not mention, which undermines his "technicality" allegation. On page 5 of The Case Against Barack Obama, Freddoso cites page 109 of Mendell's Obama, in writing that Palmer "was considered the early favorite in this contest," and "collected nearly 1,600 petition signatures in just ten days and submitted them ahead of the December 18 deadline." However, Mendell also wrote on pages 109-110 that "Palmer realized that Obama had called her hand, and she acknowledged that she had not properly acquired the necessary number of signatures" -- another fact Freddoso omitted. From page 3 of The Case Against Barack Obama: One of them was Gha-is Askia. He never had much of a chance of winning anyway, but he had gathered 1,899 signatures, and Team Obama took the time to challenge them as well.6 Askia spoke to the Chicago Tribune in 2007 about it: "Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?" Askia said. "He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?" From the April 3 Tribune article: Leafing through scrapbooks in his South Shore apartment, Askia, a perennially unsuccessful candidate, acknowledges that he paid Democratic Party precinct workers $5 a sheet for some of the petitions, and now suspects they used a classic Chicago ruse of passing the papers among themselves to forge the signatures. "They round-tabled me," Askia said. From page 5 of The Case Against Barack Obama (Mendell citations in bold): As an incumbent with the backing of the new congressman, Jesse Jackson Jr., Palmer was considered the early favorite in this contest.14 She went out and collected nearly 1,600 petition signatures in just ten days and submitted them ahead of the December 18 deadline.15 She would still need to defeat Obama and two other Democratic challengers, but as an incumbent with the backing of the popular new congressman, Palmer was the early favorite. Until Obama kept her from running, that is. From page 109-110 of Mendell's Obama: So a volunteer for Obama challenged the legality of her petitions, as well as the legality of petitions from several other candidates in the race. As an elections board hearing on the petitions neared, Palmer realized that Obama had called her hand, and she acknowledged that she had not properly acquired the necessary number of signatures. Many of the voters had printed their names, rather than signing them as the law required. 9. On page xii of the introduction to The Case Against Barack Obama, Freddoso claims that Obama's "liberal supporters ... support military strikes within the territory of an American ally without that nation's permission" because "Obama apparently made a slip of the tongue in August of last year and advocated such incursions into Pakistan." Freddoso's source for this was an August 1, 2007, Reuters article on Obama's speech that day at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C., in which Obama said: OBAMA: I understand that [Pakistani] President [Pervez] Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will. As Media Matters noted, however, Obama's comments were not a "slip of the tongue"; they were included in his prepared remarks and were among excerpts the Obama campaign emailed to reporters prior to the actual speech. The Reuters article Freddoso cites does not characterize Obama's remarks as a "slip of the tongue," nor does it suggest that they were in any way inadvertent.