I don't think voters agreed with the disproved line guys.  Proved for the corrupt media would be the New York Times hit piece on McCain's affair?

was as "widely disproved" as the Swift Boat book was, because I would love their sales figures!

<insert witty signature here>

Apparently the definition of "widely disproved" is "disliked by Kerry supporters."

"Conservative book clubs that buy in bulk", is that one of the lib talking points now? I recall a resident lib used that TP recently regarding this book. Bulk buyers? May I ask, how lame is that? Are they claiming book clubs are buying up stock just to drive up sales reports? To what end? Might it be that people will eventually read all those books?

I mean, who would buy more books than they can sell/read, unless it was a total narcisist who likes to look at him/herself on the book jacket?

Gee, I hope they didn't pull a hamstring with that stretch.

Unfit for Command was not widely discredited as they say today in their article trying to discredit Dr. Jerome Corsi for his book on Obama.  Very little if anything in the book was discredited.  Dr. Corsi  uses significant numbers of footnotes and has done research on these subjects.  All can be looked up and most if not all are based on public information.

I would defy WaPo to discredit Dr. Corsi's book on Obama.  I would bet of 4 pages of footnotes, they would find no more than 2-3 items that their "fact checkers" could refute if that many.

WaPo should be ashamed to call itself a newspaper for the lies they publish as truths saying something was wrong or discredited when in fact it wasn't.  All opinion, all lies.

It seems to be a common theme, and it apperantly doesnt matter what the context is. The media will pick up the banner of "Widely disproved", or bought in bulk to drive up sales refusing to beleive that people (or trying to explain to us, that people) are not really buying this book.... or to stick with the theme, "Consensus of scientists", "Indisputable Evidence" etc. without ever actually showing us the proof or evidence they just spout that its there and move on.... "The debate is over" apperantly about wether Corsi's book has any factual merit or not as well............

I blogged about this yesterday:

It is really amazing what the media has managed to do:

Unlike Obama, John Kerry had a couple of decades service in the national goverment, much of it as a party leader, to put distance between himself and his very active anti-Vietnam War activism. (Not to say that activism was wrong (or right) - it was just part of Kerry's record and a dated part)

But, in the post-9/11 world with the US engaged in war, Kerry decided to make his record as a soldier in the Vietnam War a major selling point in the campaign ---- which should have automatically made his service in the military and --- his strong and active condemnation of his fellow soldiers after he left Vietnam --- something of active inquiry by "investigative" journalism...

Instead, what the media produced --- was a full-out assault offensive (to play defense for Kerry) against those who dared to investiage the very thing John Kerry's Vietnam War service cheerleading put into play.

That did not do enough to help Kerry win.

But, it has successfully --- created a mechanism to shield all future Dem candidates:

Whenever the media deems something unworthy of coverage because it harms one of those candidates --- they can throw up the "swiftboating" shield.

It is better than a battery of Patriot IIIs...

I'm a third of the way through the Obama book, and it isn't my cup of tea. It is a broadside attack - the type that doesn't really just leave no stone unturned - but picks up any stone large or small and hurls it with full force. That takes away from credibility for me - but --- as Newsbusters wonderfully points out, the media has no problem with such broadsides against the Bush administration - like the frequent positive promotion of any book that follows the "Bush lied, people died" line from the liberals.

Also, though the book isn't the kind of thing I like, it has the same validity as a book as any of those others:

It sources its information as plain as day. And it draws from material any reasonable person doing an investigation would draw from --- much of it from the press itself.

It is basically a detailed examination of Obama's autobiography (a book I haven't read).

Although it is clearly written by a guy looking for any and all dirt on Obama, it does bring out some key items that I am sure the media can't touch: for example, how Obama's attempt to connect his birth to the Kennedy legacy, because his father got a scholarship to come to the US to study and thus met his mom, won't fly historicall - or how an Obama speech connecting his birth to the Civil Rights marches in Salem won't fly either. --- which was reported in the press -- but which this book attempt to put in a legitimate bigger picture context --- the legacy connecting angle and what it might mean about other aspects of the biography.

A good porition of the book likely points out some legitimate problems in the Obama narrative, but much of it, for me, is "I don't really care" or "that isn't very significant" material.

It does have legitimate points - and some of those points are made in a way that the media can't touch.

Others are the type the media might brush aside as innuendo and unproven - but are circumstantially compelling - the best of which so far for me is the arguement:

that all the American investigative media sources he uses that looked critically at claims about his past that Obama had made in his autobiography and in the campaign, sources that look into things like whether or not Obama ever went to an Islamic school in Indonesia (something I don't care about one way or another) , or tracking down some of the key figures in the biography who can verify (or not) central claims in the book) --- all those articles --- the author says - came at a time when Hillary was considered the hands-down favorite to win the nomination --- but dried up once Obama's growing support called that into question.

That sounds like something Newsbusters can research (if they haven't already)....

I'm about half way through the book now -- and it hits its stride when it gets to Obama in high school in Hawaii and onto how he got to Chicago and his work there before becoming a member of the state government...

The media is going to have a hard time "disproving" the bulk of the material - because it is an analysis of possible implications of associations and activities. Most of the factual material is about what mentors Obama associated with did and said:

...if the media can prove the author is making that stuff up - I'll buy them all a round of beer.

If they are going to "disprove" his analysis of the meaning --- they are going to have to do something they refuse to do: dig into the associations and argue a different analysis.

They have shown with the Rev. Wright case (and in fact, looking back, all of these associations the author is bringing up) ---- they would prefer the defensive measure of -- silence.

They got away with a mixture of the two with Wright -- have gotten away with it so far. They let a little evidence out and then told America it didn't matter and wasn't like it looked - let's move on.

And then threw up the wall of silence again.

If this book catches on at all --- if it is able to generate national interest despite their bashing and shallow out-of-hand dismissals ---

--- they are in trouble.

The book still isn't my cup of tea --- but it connects dots. It connects these items that have popped up nationally despite the media's attempt to keep them buried.

The media has gotten away with isolating stories around the norm of a wall of silence. Maybe it will be able to isolate this book the same way.

If not, they don't have much of a defense line beyond that. Given the playing field they are desperate to avoid, that playing field Obama's past, I don't think they stand much of a chance by legitimate means...

(The book would have been better if better editedand the dot connecting had been kept under control and more focused on a couple of central themes - instead of more of a scatter-gun approach)