There was this article in The Washington Times. It relays Obama’s association with Raila Odinga of Kenya.
Initially, Mr. Odinga was not the favored opposition candidate to stand in the 2007 election against President Mwai Kibaki, who was seeking his second term. However, he received a tremendous boost when Sen. Barack Obama arrived in Kenya in August 2006 to campaign on his behalf. Mr. Obama denies that supporting Mr. Odinga was the intention of his trip, but his actions and local media reports tell otherwise.
Mr. Odinga is not your average Ivory Tower Marxist. The group he lead was responsible for some horrific violence. And he made some troubling promises when in his position of power:
About 50 parishioners were locked into the Assemblies of God church before it was set ablaze. They were mostly women and children. Those who tried to flee were hacked to death by machete-wielding members of a mob numbering 2,000.
So, does this new (to me, at least) association matter. I guess first one needs to decide whether they they Mr. Odinga is an odious person or not. If he is, does this association, as chronicled in the article raise a legitimate question about Obama’s judgement. If it does register as “concerning”, does it make his associations with others on the radical left more legitimate an issue.
For those who may think this matters little, why not. Naturally, for the purposes of this discussion we assume the article to be an accurate summation of the facts. They should stand until new information is brought to light. If you have it, great. If not, let’s assume the article to be factual.
There is no association here. This is feeble. Try something else.
magellan01:
For those who may think this matters little, why not. Naturally, for the purposes of this discussion we assume the article to be an accurate summation of the facts. They should stand until new information is brought to light. If you have it, great. If not, let’s assume the article to be factual.
I will have to assume it is not factual.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200810100023?f=s_search
During an appearance on the October 9 broadcast of The Bill Cunningham Show, Jerome Corsi, author of The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality, claimed that he “came out of Kenya” with “documents” proving that Sen. Barack Obama “made a pact with this radical leftist politician [Kenyan Prime Minister Raila] Odinga who is perfectly happy to expand Islamic Sharia law in Kenya and have tribal violence to get power.” Specifically, Corsi said: “Tomorrow, in WorldNetDaily, I’m going to publish Obama’s email listing the contact in his Senate office to work with Odinga. I can prove that Odinga signed this agreement to expand Sharia law, that the Muslims voted for him and I can prove that Obama knew about that agreement.” He later added: “I can show that again Obama continued to work to get Odinga in power even after the tribal violence.” However, the emails to which Corsi referred, posted in an October 10 WorldNetDaily article, “appear not to have been written by a native English speaker,” as Politico’s Ben Smith has noted.
Corsi did not reveal whether he obtained any other “documents” from Kenya besides the emails he mentioned. As Media Matters for America has noted, PolitiFact.com wrote on August 20 that Corsi’s claim that Obama “openly supported” Odinga during his 2006 bid for the presidency of Kenya is “false,” as Politifact “scour[ed] the public record for evidence that Obama supported Odinga” and concluded that “Obama has remained neutral in Kenyan politics.”
And also: Dude! this is the Moonie Washington Times, you have to assume it is not factual or that they are stretching the truth. It is the equivalent of going to the bottom of the barrel for a cite.
The associative property of Obama:
If A has ever been in the same room with B, A=B
QED
Even assuming Obama intended to endorse this man, wouldn’t the relevant question be whether Odinga (and his supporters) were better than the alternative? My (limited) understanding of Kenyan politics is that Kibaki was much worse than Odinga.
From the Economist:
IT SEEMED that Kenya had pulled out of its nosedive into violence earlier this week—until the “big man” complex pulled the country back towards disaster. Now the recalcitrance of its disputed president, Mwai Kibaki, egged on by his bloody-minded backers, threatens to wreck east Africa’s most prosperous economy and increases the chance of a drawn-out civil conflict. Ghana’s president, John Kufuor, who currently chairs the African Union, is still trying to mediate, but so far in vain. Despite a concerted call for peace by Kenya’s leading editors, businessmen and bishops, the prospect of an early compromise looks dim.
Earlier, the opposition leader, Raila Odinga, who claims he was cheated of victory by Mr Kibaki thanks to a false count after the presidential poll on December 27th, told his Orange Democratic Movement supporters to put off planned demonstrations in order to give international mediation a chance to work. Mr Odinga continued to insist that Mr Kibaki was an “illegal” president but his agreement to avoid the possibility of a lethal street clash between the Oranges and security forces was seen as a breakthrough. The next day, however, Mr Kibaki responded with apparent contempt to Mr Odinga’s climbdown by unilaterally appointing 17 cabinet ministers. That was also a slap in the face of foreign diplomats who thought they had a deal with Mr Kibaki not to make any appointments until the business of mediation had run its course.
jayjay
October 15, 2008, 1:16am
6
I see the monkeys are warming up for the grande finale poo fling…three straight weeks of tossing shit at the wall to see what sticks.
choie
October 15, 2008, 1:17am
7
From FactCheck.org , in its debunking of several rumors by Jerome Corsi’s hatchet job of a book, Obama Nation :
A frequent Corsi tactic is to point to some link between Obama and various unsavory persons and to imply that Obama somehow shares in their unsavoriness. He devotes an entire chapter to violent uprisings in Kenya following a disputed presidential election in 2007. The link to Obama? During a visit to Kenya in 2006, Obama and his wife, Michelle, arranged to take an AIDS test to publicly demonstrate the test’s safety. While there, Obama spoke to the assembled crowd. Raila Odinga, one of the two candidates running for president, was on the stage when Obama spoke. Corsi concludes that the event constituted an endorsement of Odinga. He goes on to attribute all the violence in Kenya to an elaborate Odinga plot.
Corsi, however, offers no evidence that Obama actually did endorse Odinga. In fact, MSNBC reported that during that same trip, Obama also met with Mwai Kibaki, who was Odinga’s opponent in that election, as well as with opposition leader Uhuru Kenyatta. And Human Rights Watch reported that both Odinga and Kibaki (or their supporters, anyway) had a hand in the violence that followed the election.
Nice try though. Since you’re so concerned about associations, how about addressing McCain’s actual hiring of a Saddam Hussein regime lobbyist ?
But you’re wrong—there IS an association. Now, you might think that it was casual doesn’t matter, but you’re “move along, there’s nothing to see here” is overly wishful and lame.
GIGObuster:
I will have to assume it is not factual.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200810100023?f=s_search
This from someone who uses media matters as a cite. Okay. You can join Dio in moving along…there’s nothing to see here.:rolleyes:
jayjay
October 15, 2008, 1:21am
10
There is more evidence pointing to John McCain being unduly influenced by Charles Keating than there is to suggest that Barack Obama actually endorsed Odinga.
Nice cop-out. Because that is not what I insinuated at all. Try rereading.
Following the reality based definition, No, there is not an association. And the Media matters cite has cites also: PolitiFact.com is the Saint Petersburg Times check finder, nice try on your part indeed.
No there isn’t. All all. Not even casual. Having once been in the same building with somebody does not constitute an “association.” This garbage is really beneath even bothering to slap down. You guys get more desperate every day.
How about the factcheck.org cite? It’s in Choie’s post. Can’t miss it.
magellan01:
But you’re wrong—there IS an association. Now, you might think that it was casual doesn’t matter, but you’re “move along, there’s nothing to see here” is overly wishful and lame.
The question that comes to my mind is what the threshold of significance for an association? The candidate met the questionable? The candidate spent a few days in conference/debate with the questionable? The candidate has worked closely with people who worked closely with the questionable?
Did you have a standard in mind? What to you would qualify as a trivial Obama association (or a McCain one, for that matter) that would be too meaningless to mention?
choie
October 15, 2008, 1:25am
16
Facts and fact-checking have a known liberal bias.
Wow, someone who can actually read for comprehension and contribute to the OP. Thank you. And you raise a good point. If that is his defense then his association might very well be justified. heavens knows it wouldn’t be the first time someone was supported for being the lesser of two evils. On the other hand, even assuming you’re right, there was the option (further assuming one to be marginally better than the other) of not supporting either candidate. But, as I said, you raise a good and legitimate point.
Obama didn’t endorse Odinga. That’s a made up allegation.
Translation: lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala…
Whatever you say.
Well, if you’re not interested in responding to him, would you be so kind as to respond to me?
