Chicago Sun-Times on Obama's Book: 'What's Real, What's Not'

January 16, 2007 3:09 PM

Rhonda Schwartz Reports:

Obama_book_nr The Chicago Sun-Times columnist who got the scoop on Barack Obama's presidential announcement today is the same reporter who earlier raised serious questions about the facts in Obama's much-praised autobiography that was the No. 1 bestseller in the country.

Lynn Sweet, the savvy Chicago political columnist who's been tracking Obama's rise, called into question Obama's use of composite characters and made-up names in his highly praised autobiography.

Her 2004 column on the subject was headlined "Obama's Book: What's Real, What's Not."

"I was dismayed," wrote Sweet, "at what I found when I read Dreams from My Father. Composite characters. Changed names...Except for public figures and his family, it is impossible to know who is real and who is not."

"Colorful characters populate the Chicago chapters: Smitty the barber, LaTisha, the part-time manicurist, Angela, Ruby, Mrs. Turner and one Rafiq al Shabazz. Who they really are, or if they are composites, you would not know from reading the book."

Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage.

As Sweet noted in her article, in the introduction of the book, Obama does disclose to his readers the use of composite characters "for the sake of compression" and also says that other than his family and public figures, other characters' "names have been changed to protect their privacy."

In one example, Obama writes at length about his first boss "Marty Kaufman," recalling dozens of detailed conversations in direct quotes and mentioning his name more than 40 times.

Sweet questioned Obama about Kaufman's true identity and the other composites in the book in an interview just prior to the 2004 Chicago Democratic Convention. Obama said that while he couldn't remember all the real names, he said "Marty Kaufman" was really "Gerald Kellman," his first boss at the Calumet Community Religious Conference in Chicago.

Sweet tracked down Kellman who had no complaints about his portrayal in the book. "I think Barack was very accurate not only about myself but other people that I knew," Kellman told the reporter.

"That's reassuring," wrote Sweet, "but most readers do not have the ability to call around to try to sort out the fictional characters from real people."

Obama's response? "'I say in the book it is my remembrances of what happened,' Obama told me [Sweet]. I don't set it out as reportage...read the book for what it is worth.

'You reconstruct your memory for what happened. It is not reportage. It is not appearing in the New York Times or the Sun-Times. I say that explicitly in the book.'"

When reached by ABC News today, a spokesman for Sen. Obama first tried to find out if the Chicago Sun-Times story was being "pitched" to ABC by a rival campaign, and after being told that was not the case, the spokesman declined to comment for the record. "It was a non-story then, and it's a non-story now. Let the book speak for itself,"  he said.

To Blotter Homepage

January 16, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (107)

User Comments

Obama admits to using cocaine. Was that a composite drug or does he have a actual history of drug dependency?

Posted by: XYZ | Jan 16, 2007 3:36:30 PM

I would have apprecieated this information if it was posted or raised at the time the book hit the NY TIMES list or before. Now that he may run you make this known. Smearing is not welcome by anyone of character..you are not one of those!Smear, dumping finding all of the dirt before one runs is why we have dumb Bush! NO ONE CHECKED him why??? because daddy was with the CIA and hid all of the dirt????!!!!!!

Posted by: C. Cunningham | Jan 16, 2007 3:41:28 PM

If this is a non-news story, as it appears to be, why do you feel compelled to try to make it a story? In such circumstances, it is irresponsible to cast aspersions as you have done, without any clear purpose for having done so.

Posted by: Ken Schory | Jan 16, 2007 3:42:51 PM

Irresponsible reporting. To flash top headlines that strongly imply Obama of lying in his autobiography; yet, by the reporters own account, no one has shown that there are any blatant lies or mistatements in the book. Furthermore, composite characters are frequently used and to make it sound so scandulous is also irresponsible. Perhaps Clinton should have gone with composite characters .. would have spared us the 900+ pages.

Posted by: Bill D. | Jan 16, 2007 3:45:51 PM

Obama is a stooge. No way a black man carries the south at all especially on a ticket with Hilarity Clinton.

Posted by: John | Jan 16, 2007 3:58:43 PM

I have no idea whether I'll support Obama or not but this type of "reporting" is why I get turned off from politics. Obama discloses the composites and name change; the reporter proved it out in one case. Move on. I believe these type of stories are planted - over and over and over again - to create doubt even when the facts don't warrant it. Whoever believes that our media is unbiased is living in denial.

Posted by: Lynne | Jan 16, 2007 4:03:06 PM

I agree with the Barack campaign that this is a non-story. His book admits, unlike James Frey's, for instance, that his recollections are "composites" and include name changes. Moreover, the revelation by Sweet that Gerald Kellman, to whom some 40 quotes were attributed, validates the accuracy of his portrayal, there is left nothing but cynical conjecture on her part. He does not portray the book as 100% full, unabridged fact, and the media should not distort it as such so as to create controversy and a story. If the media have issues with Barack's positions as a potential presidential candidate, they should devote their reporting resources to highlighting those and avoid trying to Frey-itize everyone who henceforth does anything that can be considered a memoir, even when the memoir is upfront and honest about its contents!

Posted by: bob d | Jan 16, 2007 4:08:16 PM

Having someone with integrity and intelligence in the White House is exactly what this country so desperately needs, and Obama posseses both. I am in awe at how quickly people will jump to try to destroy his image and credibility. I am sick and tired of the negative campaigning. How about we focus on what a person stands for, as opposed to trying to dig up every little facet of their past to use against them?

Posted by: Aaron | Jan 16, 2007 4:08:39 PM

Sounds like James Frey, who was run out of town by literary critics and Oprah as I recall. I was one of the few who thought that whole thing was stupid, consdering, not only was Frey's book wonderful, it got people to read a book. Maybe that is Obama's thought too at least they are reading something :)

Posted by: patrice | Jan 16, 2007 4:12:46 PM

ABC puts this on the front page like there's something terrible. In truth the story shows there's nothing worth even mentioning. Shortly before elections, ABC became quite anti-Democrat though they were previously the opposite. Is there a new editor or something?

Posted by: Mark | Jan 16, 2007 4:12:51 PM

I find it difficult to believe that a professional journalist cannot grasp the concept of a "constructed reality" and clings to the belief that life consists only of verifiable objective facts. The only texts that may be said to be immune from multiple interpretations are sentences in some formal logical calculus; and even there, where the text is "logically closed," we can never assess its validity against any "objective view of the real world." It sounds to me as if Ms. Sweet needs to take some lessons in how to read before she writes any more book reports!

Posted by: Stephen Smoliar | Jan 16, 2007 4:16:49 PM

Grasping for straws...

Posted by: undergroundman | Jan 16, 2007 4:17:18 PM

What the? What is the purpose of this story. You folks are pathetic.

You let Bush and Company bankrupt the country because you are too afraid of them.

Go to hell

Posted by: Steve | Jan 16, 2007 4:18:17 PM

With all of the criminal malfeasence going on in the White House and Bush administration, ABC chooses to immediately report "discrepancies" in Barack Obama's book.

How about "discrepancies" in bogus WMD intelligence? What about illegal searches, seizures, and detentions? Failure to follow due process of law? The ludicrous actions of a self-styled "decider" who believes he is a "unitary executive" and above any law he chooses to ignore with a "signing statement"? Surely "discrepancies" in military advice against Bush's arrogant and hopeless troop "surge" in Iraq could be investigated and reported?

No, for all of the actions by the current "leader" of our country that treat the US Constitution as toilet paper, ABC News sits mute. You are just another Republican lickspittle, no better and no more objective than the jokers at the Faux Snooze channel. Peter Jennings must be turning over in his grave.

Posted by: Andre Ferrer | Jan 16, 2007 4:24:12 PM

C. cunningham. You guys kill me. You will stop at nothing to get your hate Bush agenda out there. Quite a stretch on this one tho' or will you still find a way to blame Bush for Obama's book?

Posted by: patrice | Jan 16, 2007 4:25:13 PM

If you pay attention, many of the articles do not match the title. I think it is sleazy, regardless of subject matter, when the title of an article is as misleading as it is in this one. Many people don't bother to read the article, but retain the impression left by the title. Reporters think/know it is a clever way to get more people to read the article. However, I have seen that happen several times in relation to George W. Bush, and no one seems to mind.

Posted by: Ricky Sims | Jan 16, 2007 4:31:29 PM

Is Brian Ross a real journalist? Most of the stuff in 'The Blotter' is 2nd or 3rd rate rumor hoping to be news.

Posted by: Jimmy | Jan 16, 2007 4:34:24 PM

ABC, you should be ashamed of yourselves! What are you doing? The headline on this article is ridiculous and reeks of the sensationalized crap that the media continues to be guilty of propagating. Is there *nothing* else you can drum up for your top 5 headlines? Give me a break! Why don't you cover the story about the criminals (drug dealers, etc) that Bush pardoned for Christmas!?! Oh, right, Bush and his deeds are old news, I get it....

Posted by: Dawn | Jan 16, 2007 4:37:19 PM

Many people of Obama's age tried one drug or another, as did most of the people of my generation, the sixties. If drug or substance experimentation precluded someones candidacy for leadership, we would have to disregard the presidency of many. My bet is Sweet is a conservative.

Posted by: Craig Bush | Jan 16, 2007 4:37:39 PM

Stretching Baby...You're Stretching...You're Trying To Make Wine Outta Water...Relax...Until He Really Gives You Fodder...Then Be Dismayed and Proceed To Pounce...Until Then...B EZ!

Peace

Posted by: Bernie Brogden | Jan 16, 2007 4:45:05 PM

This is off track reporting. He admitted using composite characters. Nothing hidden, nothing untoward, just a book about a pol coming of age. There is no nobility in attacking a person for doing right, just to do it. There are so many bad pols taking bribes from lobbyists, not doing their jobs and just plain lying to the people, why arem't Lynn Sweet and Brian Ross going after them?

Posted by: Charlie | Jan 16, 2007 4:55:03 PM

you know, I normally find a lot of the partisan drudgery of the comments sections on these reports to be rather repulsively distorted.

however, I must agree with the consensus here. It feels as though this was put on the main page to sell another page of ads (fortunately, firefox + adblock takes care of that). this really isn't news, and the angle of the headline is forced.

you guys DO do good reporting. but this is rehashed, and non-newsworthy.

Please remove this from the top five stories on the mainpage.

Posted by: jason p | Jan 16, 2007 4:56:22 PM

Why is this taking up space for something truly investigative? By forming a committee, he certainly opens himself up for investigation...unfortunately, this is not investigative. It's a two year old "non-story" from Chicago's junior paper.

Posted by: michael | Jan 16, 2007 4:59:48 PM

I think you're just looking to be the first to report on something negative about Obama after his decision to run. Kudos. However, could you at least write more hard core propaganda. Shame on you.

It's weak. It's partisan. It's bad media coverage. I had no idea ABC was, dare I say, racist?

Posted by: Austin | Jan 16, 2007 5:06:31 PM

Obama admits to using cocaine. Enough said, he is not worthy of the Presidency. If he used cocaine he probably used and abused other drugs as well. What kind of message does that send to our kids?

Posted by: Mark | Jan 16, 2007 5:08:14 PM

Obama or Osama I really dont know much about this guy. All I know he has done drugs in the past. I am from the South and the only person the South would vote for is John Edwards.

Posted by: Jared | Jan 16, 2007 5:18:14 PM

so the Swift-boating of Obama has already begun... wow, that was fast. It will be fascinating to watch the Pepublican slime machine clank into action and inevitably play race as a wedge issue.

Posted by: Paul | Jan 16, 2007 5:19:02 PM

Sweet complained about not being able to verify? Yet she did? Then she complains that the average reader couldn't? So what's different about that? The average reader has no way to verify any book's veracity, so what, exactly, is she complaining about? Having to do her job?
As for the rehashing of this "story": it died a painful yet well-deserved death once, so just leave it burried, please. It's stinking up the place!

Posted by: Jerry | Jan 16, 2007 5:19:10 PM

Oh Rhonda. Did the National Enquirer turn down your job application again? Perhaps they thought you lacked journalistic integrity. Wherever did they get that idea?

Posted by: Mickey | Jan 16, 2007 5:22:57 PM

Hollywood. Once again Hollywood. Oops excuse me, HOLLYWEIRD!!! This guy's a prime example of how stupid Americans have become. Integrity??? Intelligence???He is all face, all smoke & mirrors, and has yet to show any substance. LOOKS GOOD. WAKE up kiddies...His book uses "composite characters". Yea RIGHT. That used to be called fiction. But hey!, That's what the NY Times does RIGHT? And CBS. Whether he did drugs or not doesn't matter. I am sure he "didn't inhale".

We do not need more Hollywood ____. America is in a real fight for its future, we do not need more PAAARTYing in the oval office. What's it going to take kids? A BIG 911 (aka like a nuke in "24") for you to pull your heads out??? We need leaders of substance, not another fast talking snake oil salesman who gets U.S. citizens massacred by the thousands. But he LOOKS great in a swim suit!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If we are going Hollyweird, at least nominate someone like Tom Cruise. At least he has been in uniform a couple of times & had his butt planted in a war machine.

Posted by: CP | Jan 16, 2007 5:26:08 PM

I'll be interested to see if ABC news puts out a hit-piece on every candidate to announce his or her presidential aspirations. I'd venture to say that ABC won't do a hit piece on Hillary, McCain or anyone else for that matter right out of the gates.

But an African-American announces his intentions, and - presto! - suddenly a hit piece appears the very same day.

Shame on you ABC. I hope you're proud.

Posted by: MichaelD | Jan 16, 2007 5:27:52 PM

Umm....Mark, Dubya also used cocaine, whether he admits it or not.

Posted by: Admin | Jan 16, 2007 5:28:20 PM

To you who said Obama using cocaine is a bad example for our kids. What about our current administration? Bush wouldn't even admit to it and he got 8 years in office running our country into the ground!!! At least Obama has the grace and fortitude to admit his transgressions well ahead of time and learn from them.

As for this article, I think it's a desperate attempt from a news agency to find something wrong with Obama. Grasping at straws is right. Take it off the main page, ABC...

Posted by: Amy | Jan 16, 2007 5:28:31 PM

If this is the worst thing you can say about Obama he should definitely be our leader.

Posted by: Nate | Jan 16, 2007 5:37:29 PM

It appears that Brian Ross has nothing of significance to really investigate...so, let's "investigate" trivialities.

Posted by: sue | Jan 16, 2007 5:39:48 PM

There is more integrity in one keystroke of Obama's little finger than there is in this whole slanted report. Shame on you ABC...and I thought the media was liberal! What a joke, either way. Leave the smearing to Fox News. Peter Jennings would agree.

Posted by: April | Jan 16, 2007 5:40:13 PM

Here we go again. A news organization nit-picking to try to scrounge up some dirt to talk about. Obama is a human being. Anyone that winds up in office without some smattering of dirt on them is the one you´ve got to worry about, and not a guy like Obama. He´s man enough to admit he´s tried coke. What more do you want?

Posted by: George N. | Jan 16, 2007 5:42:04 PM

I am not a fan of Obama. Don't care to read his book. The Blotter indeed. It just sucks up anything.

Posted by: Bob | Jan 16, 2007 5:43:26 PM

Hey CP: Have you actually read either of his books? If you had, you wouldn't be preaching "lack of substance" and "smoke and mirrors".

He might be glitzy and look good in a swimsuit, but he's not just a pretty face. Read more about what he stands for before you fly off like that...

Posted by: Amy | Jan 16, 2007 5:46:44 PM

Uh, ABC 'anti-democrat'!? This story has a headline to grab attention. That's what headlines do. Its exposé actually reads like a puff piece for Obama. It showcases proof that Obama tells the truth about Kaufman/Kellman. It explains at great length the concept of composite characters (in old days they were called fictional characters). The article is designed to 'educate' republicans, yet it riles the dems.

Posted by: marc | Jan 16, 2007 5:50:39 PM

I live in San Francisco, and EVERYBODY here does drugs. So why not the people we vote for?

I wanna live in a drug-free america, and maybe Osama-Obama can give it to me.

I want my drugs for Free!

Has anybody even asked if he is for/against drug legalization?

Posted by: JelloB | Jan 16, 2007 5:50:41 PM

Does anybody know what Obama stands for on any subject? I have been researching & have found nothing. Why is that. Don't you think the real issue should be what he stands for?

Posted by: Rhonda | Jan 16, 2007 5:53:50 PM

Here it comes .... all the dirt!!! Why didn't the dirt come out on Bush before he sent us into this nightmare!!! I think our country needs some one that is not a "war lord" someone that knows how to sit down and resolve problems. It is almost like having a bully running our country. Forget about what the people of the United States want, it just what Bush wants, "by any means necessary" and "what ever expense"!

Posted by: Fran | Jan 16, 2007 5:59:45 PM

Once again ABC shows how disgusting and fake their reporters are. Please change your name to either Drudge or Fox and be done with the pretense that you report real news.

Posted by: Cat | Jan 16, 2007 6:07:36 PM

Brian, wake me up when you having something worthwhile to report.

Posted by: zzzzzzz | Jan 16, 2007 6:09:28 PM

wow, you did a great job uncovering the dirt on this awful man. oh my god, what a scandal. nobody's gonna vote for this guy now. good job ABC. your journalistic integrity is impeccable.

Posted by: amber | Jan 16, 2007 6:10:16 PM

I liked and defended abcnews up until this article was posted. I'm done with this site! I can't believe you guys posted this as if it is "Important Information."

Posted by: Jamal(composite) | Jan 16, 2007 6:14:24 PM

How dare he commit such a terrible moral crime to protect peoples privacy!! This is just a hint of the smearing and lies the GOP will be doing. How does it feel Sweet, to sell your integity?

Posted by: Jay Spaan Sr. | Jan 16, 2007 6:17:50 PM

In this day and age it doesn't matter who you are or what you are trying to do to better the world. The fact is, you could be a saint, you could be the best person in the world, and there would still be critics. Because of this, there are always going to be people who do not take the time to research the story/information by reading the books or articles and dismantling the facts for themselves, there are always going to be people who follow the opinions of others rather than forming opinions of their own.

I also agree with the other comments that state that there are many people in our country who are tired of this kind of reporting and name bashing. What does it serve to do? Honestly? I mean we all have a point to make but isn't it made more effectively when we speak wisely and with facts of importance.

Of course things will heat up for Obama now that he has made this announcement. But for a minute I imagine that the interest in Obama comes from many of us that want to see the glimmer of hope. The hope of something bigger for our country and its countrymen and women. A movement towards a united country where we all help one another, one where our jobs aren't sent overseas, where our troops aren't being killed daily, and our kids are still learning arts in school rather than taking tests every moment of the day. Yes I'm hopeful and some would fault me for that but it serves me much better than being dismayed and miserable.

Posted by: KK | Jan 16, 2007 6:18:27 PM

Don't see the point to this article. Barack seems to have made it pretty clear--can't someone at ABC cover a real story? What about genocide or something! There has to be a lot of genocide stories out there that are just being ignored. STOP GENOCIDE!

Posted by: Jdrsh | Jan 16, 2007 6:23:24 PM

Obama's method seems to me: he disclosed, and he's clearly with the angels protecting the privacy of living persons who aren't necessarily public figures.

In the one case that this report tracked down, the real person behind one of Obama's characters validated the accuracy of the accounts. Good to hear.

The ABC headline led me to believe they'd uncovered deliberate fabrication with the intent to manipulate public opinion. That doesn't seem to be the case.

I think the headline should be revised.

Posted by: kit | Jan 16, 2007 6:27:10 PM

Another weak smear attempt ... its sad to see ABC trying to develop an issue where none exists.

Posted by: Joe in Cary NC | Jan 16, 2007 6:39:30 PM

Okay, that was useless. Now, how about covering Bush's admission-non-admission of lies or the trial of the scapegoat Scooter Libby?

Posted by: Mitiori | Jan 16, 2007 6:55:22 PM

This is stupid.... what a non-event - headlines don't match the text - this is a perfect example of one of the problems with media of the modern day. Perspective and context are much more important than hype for educating readers and fullfilling the media's obligations.

Posted by: Brian T | Jan 16, 2007 6:58:55 PM

Garbage article founded on nothing, totally unworthy of ABC news. C'mon now. You waited all of half a day to start the mud slinging?

Read a book. It'd do you good.

Posted by: DW | Jan 16, 2007 7:04:01 PM

the focus should be on what he is trying to relay to the reader. i find it hard pressed to believe a person who reveals his past mistakes a likely candidate for lies and hypocrisy.what does it say about a man willing to put his mistakes out there, while protecting others privacy? i consider that a person who will protect americans of their civil rights.a man who will admit to mistakes in office (should there be any)and someone willing to make changes not based on his own self-serving attitude.without taking away our constitutional rights.

Posted by: robin | Jan 16, 2007 7:11:48 PM

ABC this seems sensationalized - why make this a front page story? Now I know why I often fear the current US media sources - if you have a story run it, but you don't, so please don't participate in a smear campain.

Please take this off immediately, it is shameful for your news organization.

Posted by: Amy Neil | Jan 16, 2007 7:12:08 PM

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Obama mother white!!? I have problem Obama calling himself an African American if both is parents were black. However, to me when he calls himself an African American that is like the denying is mother's side of the family that happens to be white. It is just as wrong for someone to say they are white when they come from a mixed race. Please acknowledge your mother's and father's side of the family.

Posted by: Laurie | Jan 16, 2007 7:17:17 PM

This is absolute crap. "Dreams of My Father" was written a decade before Barack Obama decided to venture into politics. So some characters are composites...so what? Obama sets the record straight about that at the very beginning of the book. This Blotter report makes it sound like Obama is being deliberately deceptive about his past, which is absolutely not true. This is the biggest load of BS I've seen from ABC in a long time. Shame on you!

Posted by: Melissa Niksic | Jan 16, 2007 7:34:25 PM

Pathetic enough attempt at a story to keep me away from abc news.

Posted by: liz | Jan 16, 2007 7:38:46 PM

THIS SHOULD NOT BE ON THE FRONT PAGE OF ABCNEWS.COM. NOT A NEWS STORY!!!

Posted by: Melissa | Jan 16, 2007 7:46:04 PM

THIS is what passes for news? A book that claims to use ficticious names and composite characters actually does so? From Reader's Digest to True Crime novels, almost every factual book about real people changes the names to protect the privacy of those involved. Not only that, this reporter apparently only checked up on one of the individuals described in the book, and that individual believed himself to be portrayed acurately. There is absolutely nothing scandalous, or even newsworthy here.
This years-old story shouldn't even be on the current news, much less be on your top 5 list. SHAME ON YOU.

I also noticed the poll entitled "Obama smokes: would you vote for a candidate that puffs?" What is the point, people? Why mention Obama specifically? Is smoking really a huge political issue? Is it as important as stem cell research or the war?

Put some real news up, please, and stop trying to sling mud at Obama.

Posted by: Jen | Jan 16, 2007 8:02:26 PM

I'd echo some of the other commenters who said this is a non-story. Like it or not, Obama straightforwardly says at the beginning of his book that some characters are "composites." The one person who you quote -- Kellman -- stated that the portrayal offered of himself is accurate. Your headline is not.

Posted by: Rob | Jan 16, 2007 8:19:55 PM

One more thing: On the front-page tease to this story, you say that the book is his "political biography." Actually, it was published in 1994, before he ran for office. Correction?

Posted by: Rob | Jan 16, 2007 8:21:44 PM

I know that it's been said already, but I thought that I should also chime in by saying that the placement and timing of this article is terrible, ABC. As important as it is to see the other side of the story, after reading this article, all I can think is "Is that the best they can do against Obama?"

Honestly, if this is all that the American people can come up with in the name of mudslinging, then I say we make this man president ASAP.

ABC, I lost a little faith last night with the jabs at FOX about the 24 episode, but now this? I've been coming to you for honest, unbiased REPORTING. This nonsense is extremely disappointing.

Posted by: Mike | Jan 16, 2007 8:25:42 PM

Noticed ADMINS remark! nice to see we have a UN-Bias ADMIN , and would also like know here where you found this FACT about G.W.Bush or if it is just your BIAS OPINION? Fact #1 OBAMA USED COCAINE...........You can excuse his Blunder in admitting it but FACT IS FACT... Wheres yours about BUSH ?????? LIBS hate FACTS it get in the way of their Agenda...w3hich is full of Lies and Distortions..Anyone that can justify "Murdering" a unborn child has no MORAL ability to even decern fact from fiction its all the same as long as it SERVES their Agenda....

Posted by: Phillip | Jan 16, 2007 8:28:18 PM

This article speaks more about ABC than about OBAMA. ABCs motives was to destroy Obama's political career before he has a chance to become the occupant of the White House. In essence ABC is doing to Obama what was done to Emmit Till in 1954. ABC just applied a 21st century noose.

Posted by: carolyn winfrey-holcomb | Jan 16, 2007 8:32:48 PM

This is a smear piece with a misleading title. It's unbelievable that ABC/Disney would promote this on their front page. Obama's staff is exactly right to ask who is paying you to run this. Who?

Posted by: Andrew | Jan 16, 2007 8:35:10 PM

Can you imagine ABC wrighting a story like this about any Republican. George Bush was getting DUI's 10 years before he ran for president. Cut Obama some slack.

Posted by: Greg | Jan 16, 2007 8:39:39 PM

I am sure Ms. Sweet is allowed only to report in the manner in which she was instructed. She is no more than a hack, puppetted by her editor who is in turn puppetted by the White House. I stopped watching your news programming a few years ago because of what I saw as several cases of intentional distortions of the truth. It is my shame to bear, for actually having expectations of something news worthy from you.

Posted by: Maiesha L Stovall | Jan 16, 2007 8:57:55 PM

I am troubled enough by this article and its obvious bios that I am concidering finding my news from other sources. It is shamefull journalism that smears with a Headline that leaves the reader with a false impression and is not even able to include information in the article that justifies such a headline. It shows me how afraid certain segments of our population are of a man of character who can lead this country back into greatness. Editors at ABC please show some profesionalism. I have not yet decided who I will vote for for the next president but anyone who allready is getting flack from the establishment deserves a second look.

Posted by: Eric Ahern | Jan 16, 2007 9:05:15 PM

This is the dumbest nonstory I have ever read. Obama was honest about the composite characters in his book. There is nothing here that hasn't been widely reported. The corporate media seems to be desperate in its effort to malign Obama. Really grasping. It is pitiful to observe. It must be even more painful to be a participant in the smear.

Posted by: vicki | Jan 16, 2007 9:27:02 PM

i have no idea what all the fuss is about.

on the last page, top paragraph of the original introduction of the book (p. xvii); Obama clearly stated that names are changed for privacy, some people are composites, some events are not chronological & some stories are from a oral history of his family.

It's a book about Obama's memories, not a power point perpetuation of his life. In "Dream's of my Father" Obama deals with the complex issues of family & self identity. & how he comes about understand both.

If the word are exact quoits of what a person said or just an accurate representation really doesn't matter. What matters is that is the book an honest representation of his personal journey.

I read the book. I would have to say it seemed to me, that Obama was very honest & open with his experiences & feeling on his very personal journey. I think it's refreshing to see a politician to candid about good & bad in his life & himself.

Posted by: malin | Jan 16, 2007 9:52:49 PM

Let's see......wouldn't take much of the South for Obama or Hillary to win. And, given, this is based upon when the GOP could actually sell themselves as decent:

California
Oregon
Washington
New Mexico
Florida
Illinois
Michigan
Wisconsin
Pennsylvania
New York
Washington DC
Deleware
Maryland
Connecticut
New Hampshire
Vermont
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
West Virgina
Iowa
Florida
Hawaii

286 Electoral Votes.

Posted by: Chiquita | Jan 17, 2007 1:26:51 AM

it's interesting to see how far the media and overdriven journalist will go for the sake of ratings.Go ahead spin the public with your so called "news" afterall that's seems to be the job of the media today.

Posted by: lola | Jan 17, 2007 4:07:43 AM

I love that the only attacks people have against Obama are:

1) He used Cocaine.

2) He used composite characters in an Autobiography(was he the first to do so? No. Will he be the last? No.)

3) His name rhymes with Osama. Oh no...I thought our country was beyond that?

Here's wishing Sen. Obama good luck...as a former Nader voter(in 2004 no less), I can see with 100% honesty that I would vote for Obama over any canidate in 2008.

Posted by: Steven T. | Jan 17, 2007 6:38:17 AM

What BS reporting!! I thought ABC was above this... guess not. Very sad.

"not another fast talking snake oil salesman who gets U.S. citizens massacred by the thousands." Are you talking about Bush and our 3000 troops?

I am white, from the south, and I like what this man stands for - I don't care if he is purple.

Posted by: JT | Jan 17, 2007 6:47:47 AM

I'm not a Democrat but I object to this kind of attempt to smear a politician's name.
It makes everyone involved look bad.
Can't we rise above this kind of thing?
Let Mr. Obama's fortunes rise or fall based on what he has to offer the country, please.

Posted by: doug | Jan 17, 2007 6:59:18 AM

Actually it's a pretty good book. Definitely written by someone who was not running for president. I don't fault Sweet or ABC for reporting on it--you have to expect this kind scrutiny but as far as I can tell the criticism is that Obama did what he said he did. Let's assume he is not a snake oil salesman for a minute--the more digging the better, because if Obama is the genuine article then every time a report digs and finds nothing more to object to than a self-acknowledged literary device, Obama comes out even cleaner. So far he has bought some property, done cocaine, and worn a swimsuit--i.e. he is a real person, not a figment of our imagination, not a composite character. I don't think ABC is desperate, I don't think Republicans would be wise to trivialize Obama, they may discover (too late) that everyday real Americans would have one of their own in the White House than another bluebood who is out of touch with the every day.

Also I would like to echo the Senator's call for a more generous minded political debate--the acrimony is beneath us all, especially now at a time home and abroad, when we have our work cut out for us.

Posted by: JC | Jan 17, 2007 9:27:39 AM

The first time I saw Barack Obama was when he spoke at the Democratic National Convention. I was very impressed with how articulate he was. His demeanor was extremely polished and found him to be very charismatic. I looked at my husband and said with great sincerity, "he is going to be our next president." His reaction was, he is a junior senator and doesn't have the experience. That's true, but he definity has come a long way. I like his vision and I truly wish him well.

Posted by: Ilona | Jan 17, 2007 1:11:11 PM

This is what's going around the internet that EVERYONE should be aware of:

"Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black Muslim from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white atheist from Wichita, Kansas. Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii.

When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a radical Muslim from Indonesia. When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia. Obama attended a Muslim school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school.

Posted by: Betty | Jan 17, 2007 1:20:41 PM

continued .... "Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, “He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school.”

Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son's education. Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Osama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta. Wahabism is the radical teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world.

Since it is politically expedient to be a Christian when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background.

Let us all remain alert concerning Obama’s expected presidential candidacy."

Posted by: Betty | Jan 17, 2007 1:54:53 PM

Great smearing Betty. He moved back to Hawaii at age 10 to live with his Grandparents and has been a long serving member of the UCC. He also has worked very closely with Churches before getting into politics. Him previously having Muslim beliefs(well, being raised muslim for a short time) is a non-issue.

Posted by: Steven T | Jan 17, 2007 2:32:34 PM

Oh noes, Betty! The internets say that?! Someone clean those tubes! The truth is trying to get through!