BOOK REVIEW: The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate, by David Freddoso

Search inside the man, not only the book.

This one is for you guys, all of the open minded Barack Obama supporters, swing Clinton supporters, moderate Democrats, Independents, Conservatives not interested in John McCain, and above all undecided voters. This book review is for you. Before I continue with the review, I wish to note two things for all but six days of my life, I have lived within the greater Chicago area. If you wish to check a map, I live in DuPage county that borders just to the West of Cook County (that’s Chicago), and as a person who follows Chicago politics on a regular basis through living here, and pursuing studies in Washington D.C. I have my own feelings about Chicago politics (which I can’t help because I don’t vote for city officials, as I don’t live within the city) and Senator Obama which are more directly related than probably 99.9% of the readers of this review. Why? Because I am one of his constituents. Yes, I know the federal body of government affects everyone, but Obama is the one that’s suppose to “bring home the bacon”.

This book was the first time in a long time that (1) I have finished in a single day and (2) dog eared the pages for fantastic quotes. In fact, I only wished I was so enthusiastic about dog earing pages and collecting quotes for my term papers at school.

As for the book, overall I think it is extremely well done, but from an alternative point of view may fall into some of the same pitfalls as my previous Blackwater review. People complain about facts and go to watchdog sites and others instead of reading and researching for themselves. As I deeply criticized that book, I find this book sometimes in the same cracks. Either (a) trying to pin something that can’t be pinned or (b) going on wild tangent that has nothing to do or loose ties with the bigger picture.

For instance, the whole first chapter, and a good chunk of the second to last chapter are about things that I think have thusfar very loose and unproven relationships. Chapter 1 is all about the Chicago political machine (which if you don’t believe it, come and live here a few years), specifically the Chicago city boards most recent machine movement after the death of Board President John Stroger and the rise of his son Todd. What Freddoso was trying to do was pin Obama’s silence on the corruption inside the city board, and by not endorsing Republican Tony Peraica who many in the city felt would provide reform inside the Chicago city board. Now there is are differences here, should Obama had just started his career, silence is a tool to gain information and standing, but Obama had been in office almost two years when this was happening, and Fredosso is trying to pin it as a political motive to stay quiet. I frequent Capitol Hill a lot, and I know they have bigger meals on their plates there, than the appetizers sitting on the table at the Chicago City Board.

The second thing I have problems with is the Rezko, while the guy is a crook and beyond deep trouble these days I think Freddosso’s arguments are very weak and have yet to be proven as the investigation is still underway, and like many Illinoisans I feel Rezko is a bigger problem to our current *corrupt* governor (which we are on a streak 2 corrupt governors in a row, 1 Republican George Ryan & 1 Democrat Rod Blagojevich).

Other than those two complaints, I think the book is good. I think Freddoso does an excellent job distinguishing the different Obama’s.

• Obama the orator is cotton candy. You might even enjoy watching him speak sometimes, but you know there’s nothing to any of it.
• Obama the author is deeply reflective, if at times short-sighted. He is a committed liberal, but the kind with whom you would really enjoy sipping scotch and having a conversation about almost anything.
• Obama the legislator is the kind of man who looks right through you while you speak. You can tell he is not really paying attention. He thanks you when you are done, and then proceeds to ignore everything you said. He votes with his contributors, his Machine bosses, or the left-wing groups he knows he owes. Which one it is depends on each case on the issue at hand.

The writing and style in this book are fantastic and does expose some creditable faults of Obama’s the media would neglect in a heart beat.

[...] Obama describe[s] how politicians have failed inner-city schools – “we still haven’t fixed them” – which especially harms black children, who make up 47 percent of Chicago’s school population.

“What set me off personally,” says [former Illinois State Senator and Obama Colleague Steve] Rauschenberger, “was to see him tell us that we’ve failed urban school kids. Sure we have, but it wasn’t without his help. He was a defender of the status quo in the city of Chicago for eight years. And as a national rock star, he could be turning his guns back at the educational system in Chicago. He doesn’t.”

More over he discusses Obama’s previous campaign luck and strategies.

This year, Obama cannot win as he has won in the past. He can neither knock of McCain off the ballot [referring to Alice Palmer] nor count on his divorce filings [referring to Jack Ryan, who dug himself a hole to deep that tore himself apart] to destroy his candidacy. But if the press fails to hold Obama to the usual standard, perhaps he can get a free pass that exempts him from debates about issues like abortion, foreign policy, and his level of experience. He minimizes these legitimate issues by deriding them as “old politics” and “politics of division.” Have these really become irrelevant distractions from the issues that really matter to Americans?

Obama’s campaign is trying to prevent the “intelligent dialog that this country needs to have.” It might just work.

Perhaps my three favorite quotes from the book are the following,

Ron Paul and Obama are similar only in that both have passionate supporters. Obama’s supporters, however, are not necessarily passionate about ideas. Perhaps they do liek the idea of “free” health care, but the ins and outs of policy details are not the point, in their minds.

Obama does not present ideas in any fashion comparable to Paul. Not in public anyway – his books and record are much better resources for understanding his ideology, as we shall see. Obama presents not ideas but feelings. He is the candidate of emotivism. Obamian passion is based on the persona that his followers have created for Obama in their own minds. Many don’t know who the man really is. They certainly don’t know about Chicago.

This certainly is true, but not necessarily to the Nth degree as Freddoso is trying to depict. The next on is less in direct substance but made me roll on the floor laughing. It expands the previous idea of the growing emotivism.

More extraordinary than the suggestion that Obama is the first presidential candidate in four decades to work for the common good is the news from singer-songwriter-violinist Lili Haydn, writing in the Huffington Post. She reports (one must wonder who her sources are) that Obama has found his way into America’s bedrooms and is spicing up sex lives across the nation:

“Barack Obama is inspiring us like a desert lover, a Washington Valentino…[C]ouples all over America are making love again and shouting ‘yes we can’ as they climax.”

My last quote before I wrap things up is probably my favorite, as when you even compare it to his speech given at the Democratic Convention in Boston, 2004, is the prime example to help explain this last quote.

Obama’s appeal is of the opposite nature [Freddoso is comparing Obama's rise in popularity, to Reagan's rise in popularity] . Biographer David Mendell cites “his ingenious lack of specificity” as one of the virtues that has “most abetted his career in politics… While talking or writing about a deeply controversial subject, he considers all points of view before cautiously giving his own often risk-averse assessment, an opinion that often appears so universal that people of various viewpoints would consider it their own.” It is for this reason that a Democratic operative has called him “a kind of human Rorschach test.”

Well, now that I’ve given you several quotes, it’s time for you to decide for yourself whether or not you should read this book. Again, Overall I would recommend the book as it is a decent read and goes quick, recapping I did have some disagreements, but for the most part the book is pretty smooth and is very good in separating the three Obama’s, the speaker, the writer, and the legislator. The author does offer a slight conservative bias but for the most part, through an open lens of an open-minded Democrat and/or Independent who knows nothing about Obama might learn something from reading this book.