Posted on 06/27/2009 10:34:36 PM PDT by pissant
Sure, he can speak and speak well, using a teleprompter as a crutch. He has even learned how to use a new one installed in the podium. But, without a device he is not up to even Bill Clinton's ability.
Bill Clinton has an amazing ability for recall and can at least point to a direction that he would likely posit, when asked about policy or philosophy.
I know this first hand, having listened to a speech he gave 4 years ago. I stood 10 feet from him and was awed by his ability to deliver a speech. The guy is an amazing salesman.
Obama on the other hand is a vacuous hand puppet. I would like to meet his ventriloquist. After two years on the campaign trail one would think he could state clearly his policy, as an adult, and not in contemporaneous manner that shows his adolescent and idealized intellect.
He is backed up by an equally intellectual midget, who dresses like a pinata or in hastily sewn throw aways. That person suddenly, last year, became proud of her country for the first time. Michelle Obama should be under treatment for a protein deficiency that could be robbing her of very necessary oxygen to the brain.
How is that for writing? Just to prove Obama is a fraud, he still does not show up in the Free Republic spell checker. That alone is all the proof one needs. /S
"I also thought I was black," says Ayers only half-jokingly. As proof of his righteousness, Ayers named his first son "Malik" after the newly Islamic Malcolm X and the second son "Zayd" after Zayd Shakur, a Black Panther killed in a shootout that claimed the life of a New Jersey State Trooper.
AYRES' DOOR:
I have read both of the books credited to Obama. The extremely “florid” prose of the first book is not found in the second. Yes, the books were written about a decade apart, but if someone told me they were written by different authors I would have ample evidence to believe it.
"We are a guerrilla organization. We are communist women and men ... deeply affected by the historic events of our time in the struggle against U.S. imperialism."
"Our intention is to disrupt the empire, to incapacitate it, to put pressure on the cracks, to make it hard to carry out its bloody functioning against the people of the world, to join the world struggle, to attack from the inside."
"The only path to the final defeat of imperialism and the building of socialism is revolutionary war."
"Revolutionary war will be complicated and protracted. It includes mass struggle and clandestine struggle, peaceful and violent, political and economic, cultural and military, where all forms are developed in harmony with the armed struggle."
"Without mass struggle there can be no revolution. Without armed struggle there can be no victory."
"We need a revolutionary communist party in order to lead the struggle, give coherence and direction to the fight, seize power and build the new society."
"Our job is to tap the discontent seething in many sectors of the population, to find allies everywhere people are hungry or angry, to mobilize poor and working people against imperialism."
"Socialism is the total opposite of capitalism/imperialism. It is the rejection of empire and white supremacy. Socialism is the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the eradication of the social system based on profit."
To me, in addition to the stylistic differences, the thing that nails it is the references employed by the book’s author. They all relate to things that were relevant to people at least 10-12 years older than Obama - such as Ayers. I actually remember hearing leftist friends in the 1960s and 70s say they wished they were black, because blacks were the “vanguard of the Revolution.”
But even the black power stuff in the books was, by the time of Obama, a little passe and the left had moved on to other things, such as radical feminism and anti-Israel activities.
I grew up in NYC and am about the same age as Ayers, lived near Columbia and heard the SDS rhetoric, and saw it in the school I attended as well (CCNY - prior to open admissions!). Everything in that book is typical of a person of that generation and milieu, and a younger person from a different background would not have written about those things or even cited those particular authors (popular at that time but found only in a few flaky Communist bookstores 15 years later).
They obviously met at Columbia, Ayers found the black persona he had always wanted and Obama found yet another “mentor” who would sculpt the amorphous, sociopathic personality he possesses.
Admitting one has been deceived is probably the hardest admissions there is to make. And liberals know the base traits of human nature and also know that ridicule is their finest weapon to cower people just where they want them. Nobody wants to have their ‘faith’ in whatever ridiculed.
Bookmark
Only Malcom X is missing.
I was thinking of that, too.
If Ayers did write it, it shows a terrible lack of imagination that he has to use a lot of the same material over. Can't he think of some new stuff?
Two things seem important here:
1) The forensic science of authorship and plagiarism determination is now well-established in academia - for obvious reasons - and there is software to aid in this endeavor. Just Google for “authorship plagiarism software” and you’ll see. So it shouldn’t be difficult to run a serious analysis against samples from Ayers’ and Obama’s books to get a clearer fix on authorship. I’d be more apt to believe that than the qualitative comments discussed by Cashill.
2) To discuss “plagiarism” with regard to Obama’s books is off-topic. The issue is whether his book was or wasn’t actually ghostwritten by Ayers. Period. Why? Because (a) Ayers is a self-admitted Marxist who has essentially admitted that he’s a terrorist who went free, and (b) Zer0 has repeatedly asserted that he “barely knew” Ayers.
I think there’s probably some truth to what Cashill is saying, but the case would be better made through a more objective (and hence more believable) software analysis, in order to better establish that Zer0 is both intimate pals with an American domestic terrorist, and that he lied about it to the American people.
bump for afternoon read.
>>> If Ayers did write it, it shows a terrible lack of imagination that he has to use a lot of the same material over. Can’t he think of some new stuff? <<<<
Consider that Ayers is a polemicist, a terrorist, and is obviously obsessive about certain political topics. He’s also mentally ill (as all Marxists and terrorists must be).
So his repetitive and strident rhetoric - and the complete absence of any creative or imaginative spark - are completely understandable and in fact expected from someone of his mental type.
Think of the political manifestos you might have read and of the extremist people who write them (Ted Kacyzinski comes to mind). Are these people ever anything other than dull and strident obsessives, pushing their whackadoodle ideas down the throats of anyone they can collar?
That’s the Ayers/Obama should be read.
BUMP Most everything about Obama (except his birth certificate) was there for anyone to see, did they care to wipe the propagnada from their eyes before the election.
Cashill writes:
Unfortunately, the technology is not currently available to do a fully reliable authorship analysis. As expert in the field Patrick Juola of Duquesne University observed, “The accuracy simply isn't there.” He cautioned that for high stakes issues like this one, “The repercussions of a technical error could be a disaster (in either direction).”
That much said, preliminary QSUM analysis supports an Ayers-Obama link. Systems designer Ed Gold--with twenty years of high-level experience in image and signal processing, pattern recognition, and classifier design and implementation--volunteered to run a QSUM scan on multiple excerpts from both memoirs. “I have completed the analysis,” he wrote me, “and I think you will be pleased with the findings.” In assessing the signature of sample passages from Dreams, he found “a very strong match to all of the Ayers samples that I processed.”
Like Juola, Gold recognized the limitations of the process and of his own resources. He has volunteered to make the raw data available to more established authorship authentication experts, and I will be happy to pass that data along. Gold saw the complementary value, however, in text analysis, as did Juola, who encouraged me “to do what you're already doing . . . good old-fashioned literary detective work.”
bump
This doesn’t surprise me a bit. Everything Obamas
does is based on the “perceived image.”
I can see Ayers casting a baleful gaze upon his computer monitor...
“What were his SAT scores? Probably more like Bush... “
My guess is far lower, given his frequent grammatical mistakes and his lack of knowledge regarding history and economics.
“Harvard Magna Cum Laude?”
Is there any proof of this?
Yaelle wrote: “Seriously, each writer has “chords” and “progressions” as unique as a guitarist. Just as you can pick out your favorite band’s sound even from an unheard piece of music, a writer’s little details do not lie. Bill Ayers and Barack Obama are two distinct people and cannot write that closely alike in the LITTLE things, the unconscious things. It’s not possible.”
..... Very good point. I agree.
Well, there you have it.
Of course the software isn’t perfect, but having that analysis compared to a textual analysis is fairly convincing.
So call me convinced.
It’s Ayers’ book.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.