Obama Overstates Kennedys' Role In Helping His Father

Manipulation of the masses. Knowing he could tell a small lie and gather up the reamaining Camelot romanticists who yearn for the olden days of happiness.

Ok, here is the sad truth. Parents lie about how they met and what not. You have to understand this fact. Most people don't tell their kid, hey I met your mom at a bar and that is that. Most people make stories of how they met seem bigger than what they are. Their kids believe them. In this situation, Obama took his parent's story as fact and did not question it. OBAMA WAS NOT THERE WHEN HIS PARENTS MET AND HAS NO FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE EVENT.

In contrast, Hillary Clinton had first hand knowledge of the Bosnia situation. Chelsea had first hand knowledge of the Bosnia situation. They chose to lie. I can not tell you how insulted I was this morning when Howard Wolfson attempted to try to compare the Bosnia story to this story about Obama and attack Obama's credibility. This attempt by HW was right after the host held him to his previous defense of Hillary's lie about Bosnia. OF course, Howard now said he was not defending Hillary's lies and he and Hillary were telling the truth.

It's stories like these that just make obama look better. While trying to explain that he was wrong, they explain his uniqueness and endear him to the public. So much for being a muslum. Thanks

A Wolfson plant, he's a little racal fpr HRC..................................Go obama

...except these were all events that took place before he was born, and did not directly involve him. Not to mention, airlifts may well have been conducted in secret or on an ad-hoc basis a year earlier than a formal program would have been announced or publicized.

Please put this in the context of someone else "misremembering" direct experiences a scant 12 years earlier -- you know, in the course of this extremely valuable professional experience we keep hearing about.

Here is the link to the speech.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHEtlOEm_LI

I would suggest that you posters do a fact check on You Tube, you can see both speeches for yourself. This story is a stretch.

This is such a NON story..

I am not voting for Obama's father...

Boy they are really digging arent they

Barack Obama needed to appeal to the white liberal elite establishment of the democratic party and what better way to do this than to flasely link his father's departure from Kenya to John F Kennedy rather than to Jackie Robinson, Harry Belafonte, Sidney Poitier and the other African Americans who actually funded his father's 1959 departure. Yes, as the myth goes, it was the great white liberal warrior Kennedy who reached into the dark continent and saved a black man for himself, thereby easing the "white man's burden" that every educated white liberal believes he is harnessed with. Giving credit to these great black men wouldn't have served Obama's fairytale narrative and he didn't want to be "darkened" so early on in the race.
But this is nothing new for Obama who knows when to accentuate his "white half" and down play his "black half" and vice versa for political gain. We all witnessed when he stood before this nation and threw his typical white grandmother under the bus because it served his narrative. But long before that, as we now know, he slighted these great black Americans because telling the truth about their contribution to his Kenyan father's fate didn't fit well within the fairytale he that was crafting for America about being the end product of white liberal kindness.

What a big f'n LIAR Obama is. Is this what we can expect from an unknown asteroid aiming at planet earth? Yes, Obamaddicts are starting to remind me of that scene in "Independence Day" when the "joyfully ecstatic" were blown off their LA rooftop by the aliens. So all those who say Clinton is the bigger liar does this make Obama's lies more acceptable? Either one is behaving like true politicians. Obama just hasn't been a national figure long enough to figure him out. It's time to start looking at where they differ on policy more than how they sell themselves as our mouthpiece.

This is supposed to be akin to dodging bullets, am I missing something or is something missing me?

It's not a hit piece. It simply talks about how there is more at work behind the scenes than most are aware of. Yes, Obamites have been researched and marketed to just like any other portion of the electorate. The bigger picture I am referring to is that much has been made by the MSM about Obama's "story book" life. It adds to the narrative that Obama would be hard pressed to try and tamp down on. i.e.-He'd be out of a catchy punchline in Selma if he actually worked off of facts instead of the more romantic version of events. You can argue that the issues are not comparable, but IMO, they are, specifically when Obama is deliberately using them to the advantage of his campaign. I'd say it's fair game on either side.

This is certainly NOTHING compared to Hilliary's HUGE whoppers, which hit at the cornerstone of her campainge. I don't think Obama's cornerstone is that his Dad came to America from Africa paid for by Americans, not the Kennedys. This is probably what his gandmom told him - who knows. But this is innocent and does not rise to the LIES of HILLARY CLINTON! Nice try, but no cigar - oops. Can't mention the cigar stuff.

Too bad Hillary isn't black, she could have gotten a kid glove from the Post,

PS If you're like me, there are all kinds of things in your family history that you were told by your parents or grandparents--or *thought* you were told by your family about its history--that turned out to be embellished or exaggerated. That's far different than being 50 years old, in the moment, and making up sniper fire that never happened, denying a greeting ceremony that did, and all the lies--in virtually every detail--that Clinton was guilty of. Only a brainwashed Clintonista could fail to be able to tell the difference.

This is the same Washington Post--newspaper of record for the Washington political establishment--that recently titled an article "Both Obama and Clinton Exaggerate," juxtaposing Hillary's Bosnia whopper with Barack appearing on a dias as a champion of the immigration compromise bill at a single press conference a year ago, as if there were some equivalence between the two. Anyone who has bought into Hillary's crying over how the media is against her should bear in mind that there are establishment outlets--like CNN and the Washington Post--that are clearly slanted in her favor.

Once again, here is the problem with these Washington Post stories. Hillary made Bosnia a central plank in her proof that she had the experience to "answer that 3 AM call." She repeated the story over and over again, reiterated it even when it started to get challenged, right up until the bloody end. Raise your hand if you've ever heard Barack Obama tout his involvement in the immigration bill a year ago as a reason why he should be elected president or indeed, as proof of anything. Raise your hand if you've ever heard him suggest that the fact--or non-fact--that a Kennedy-era program was responsible for his father coming here somehow related to his qualifications to be president (the way that, for example, the Bill Clinton Boys State photo shaking hands with Kennedy was an icon for his '92 campaign).