The Fact-Checker, by Michael Dobbs

No, offense, but getting confused about dates when you were 4 years old doesn't seem to rise to me as something worthy of "gross misstatements." Are you just trying to find something you can snag Obama on so you are considered fair and balanced?

Fair enough to point out he made some mistakes about dates, but this is just silly.

3 seems very excessive for being off by 1 year. It implies that this is much closer to the justly deserved 4 that Hillary received for an outright lie.

And will there be an entry for Chelsea's lie about Bush's travels to the Mid East? Thatwould be worth 3 much more then Obabma being off by a year in his recollection.

This is very interesting. How a speech over a year old is being dissected by every detail. No one can argue with the facts, including this fact--why is this a big deal? I've been following the campaign pretty closely and I hadn't even heard of the Obama-Kennedy family connection until now. I don't remember it being used when Teddy and Caroline were endorsing him. I don't see it being so important since it's not been a huge selling point by Obama while Bill Clinton's handshake with JFK was used as a posthumous endorsement. Hillary's Bosnia lies were very recent and blatant. They were also a focal point of establishing her as a world leader. Look how quickly her statements were discredited. Look how long and how much research it took to discredit the Obama's Selma speech.

Hillary got four because she held back from answering for several days. Obama got only three because he immediately replied? You lose one pinocchio by answering even if you answer with another lie.

Oh. He wasn't putting himself in Selma. he was just using Selma as an analogy. Sounds like another lie to me. Should be 5 pinocchios.

Mr. Fact checker,
I would like the facts checked on Obama's explanation of when, where or how, he first heard his pastor's comments His Friday interviews prior to his speech, his speech, and subsequent interviews have confused me. He has told so many different stories, I don't know which to believe. Could you help me out and clear this up?

"No, offense, but getting confused about dates when you were 4 years old doesn't seem to rise to me as something worthy of "gross misstatements."

If he had gotten confused about the dates when he was 4 years old that would be understandable.

Problem is, he was actually 46 years old when he made the mistatements, not 4.

Three Pinocchios for your nitpicks of a speech made over a year ago? And this lame effort made it onto page one?? It's pretty clear that this is nothing more than a sad attempt to be "fair and balanced."

obama is about like jimmy swaggart...only difference is he's put his speaking abilities in political bull crap instead of religious bull crap...

Obama is winning Texas. The final votes have not been taken on the state level, but it seems clear that he will have the majority of delegates. I hope that that story is reported as extensively as was the Clinton "victory" in Texas.

Fascinating that a misstatement about events that supposedly happened before the declarer was even born and which are immediately conceded to be in accurate earn just one Pinnochio less than blatant lies about something that supposedly happened when the declarant was 50 and that said declarant "remembered," as she said in her speech with a laugh.

I think you need to be much clearer about your standards.

I'm an Obama supporter at this point, just to get that out there... that said, 3 Ps for this? I share the concern that this was an attempt at 'fair and balanced'. This statement seems more in the vein of Romney's marching statement, perhaps less so. 3? Boy...

It seems as if the "Fact Checker" is a johnny-come-lately when it comes to actually taking a strong stand on the developments that come under his microscope. I believe he was far too willing to shade down his critiques to the soft "2 pinnochios" for much of this campaign, despite strong evidence that merited a stronger condemnation.

This particular critique of Obama is in my view evidence of a harsher ranking than he has given to many Clinton statements of similar veracity in the past--saving only the Bosnia incident. This is very disappointing from a fairness perspective.

Now that Hillary's bald-faced lie about Bosnia has seemingly shaken the Fact Checker out of his haze of soft criticism, I hope that he's both accurate AND fair in his critiques of all candidates going forward.

To be balanced, will you award Hillary three Pinocchios for claiming she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary? Both stories are comparable and this way you could appear fair by awarding equally excessive ratings to both candidates. Or perhaps you need to adjust your scale to account for relevance and apparent intent. For example, both the Kennedy and Sir Hillary connections were quickly acknowledged as mistakes and neither story is relevant to the candidate's credentials or performance. As such, I don't see the point in taking either of them to task for what sounds like repetition of romanticized tales they heard from their own respective parents.

Ugh. Could there be a stupider, less useful fact check columnist than Michael Dobbs?
I don't see how.

How many ppl remember what they did when they were four?

Obviously, this was a story handed down from his parents or grandmother... and we all know how facts get transformed from person to person.

Let's talk about the issues instead of wasting our time with "gotcha" politics.

If the goal of this was to simply "check facts," the facts would be presented without "Pinnochios," letting the "facts" speak for themselves.

The rating scale makes this very much an editorial comment. Or, perhaps, entertainment.

But it is not "fact checking."

I like to read the "fact checker" to get to the truth of probable distortions. But the fact checker's credibility is on the line when it, itself, distorts the magnitude of a problem, such as is the case here.

Uh, WanD, you and the Obama Zombies ARE MISSING THE POINT: OBAMA WAS AN ADULT, WAS 46 YEARS OLD, RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, AND WAS MAKING A KEYNOTE SPEECH CONNECTING THE KENNEDYS TO HIS FATHER ARRIVING IN AMERICA, AND SUCH FORMED PART OF THE BASIS FOR CAROLINE AND TED KENNEDY'S SUPPORT OF HIM (Caroline being one of thos starry-eyed upper class white women never working a day in hr life, and looking for feel-goods about supporting a black candidate).

IT TURNED OUT, (just like his lies about never having heard any racist rants from Rev. Wright) NOT TO HAVE A GRAIN OF TRUTH TO IT, AND SINCE THE OBAMA CAMP "IMMEDIATELY" CONCEDED IT WAS UNTRUE, DOESN'T THAT TELL YOU SOMETHING? THEY ALREADY KNEW IT WASN'T TRUE, THEY KNEW IT AT THE TIME OF THE SPEECH BUT THEY LET THAT WHOPPING LIAR OBAMA TELL IT HIS WAY FOR EMOTIONAL EFFECT, AND GET AWAY WITH IT, UNTIL THE PRESS CAUGHT UP WITH THEM!

Sheesh! Fact Checker, I'm sorry, but the media, I am CERTAIN, has been told to go easy on Obama because he is the black candidate, and it is just too racially divisive to bring up the truth about him, SINCE THE MACHINE AND MOMENTUM IS GOING IN HIS FAVOR NOW-this is just another of Obama's WHOPPING LIES, JUST LIKE HIS WHOLE LIFE STORY IS A LIE-AND THE MEDIA JUST SHRUGS IT OFF, QUIT UNLIKE WHAT THEY DO TO HRC, WHO IS RIPPED TO SHREDS EVERY FEW MINUTES THE MINUTE SHE EVEN OPENS HER MOUTH TO PROTEST. IT'S DISGUSTING.

But I will promise you this: When it comes time to pull the lever or check the box for President, the pundits and that completely worthless Democratic Party duo of Pelosi/Dean ARE GOING TO GET A BIG SURPRISE, BECAUSE THE DEMS. WILL DESERT THE PARTY IN DROVES IF OBAMA IS THE DEM. CANDIDATE-IN DROVES-IT WILL BE A LANDSLIDE FOR MCCAIN.

The mythical quality of Obama's story expresses Obama's identification with the spirit of Kennedy and the spirit of the civil rights movement. Bush and Obama have at least one thing in common here, incidentally, if they are men of faith who imagine themselves to be great liberators. (Although W's tales so far have been considerably taller and misleading, though Bush to this day would like to believe that his heart was always in the right place even as he lied to us.) Fact checker, like Toto exposing the great Oz, reveals the flawed human behind the curtain once again. This is the stuff of Greek tragedies; "facts" by themeslves don't tell the whole truth.

To paraphrase v.p.Cheney.....

..........SO.............

As I've said several times this race is gender vs. race. Hillary is more qualified and has had her entire background spread before the public by radio, tv and newspapers. You know what she is about--like it or hate it--you know. Now tell me what you really know about Obama other than a white Kansas Mom and a black Keyan Father. How did he get into a big bucks university and where is the money coming from right now to support his race? You can bet it isn't from the large percent of the people who voted for him. They don't have that kind of money. They are average like I am.

Great work. I second Chief's request above to clarify when Mr. Obama first heard of his pastor's remarks.

i can understand the desire to be "fair" to both camps, but i do think the editorial judgment to award three "noses" is wrong. Clinton stated facts that were baldy wrong about something she did as an adult. this is a narrative about a story that is tangential to Obama's main points. in contrast Clinton repeated her story as a basis for her claim that she was experienced. Clinton's is a direct, easily rebutted misstatement of facts that were claimed to directly bolster her campaign claims. Obama's were tangential, fuzzy statements about his father. Simply not in the same category, and you do your rating system a disservice by suggesting the only difference is how quickly someone concedes error.

also, imo, whether either candidate's staff retracts the claim isn't relevant to the original validity. so this seems to be an error in the system.

What a petty story and silly story. Just another example of how easily the Washington Post has been spun by Howard Wolfson and the Clinton campiagn.

How could a father, who braggs on his judgement,bring his young children up in a church, where the pastor, friend and mentor, preaches hate against the Country he wants to be president of, as well hate against his fellow man.
As a true Democrat - he ain't for me.

If this (and something someone else said) is the worst you can dig up, then the general will be a cake walk for Obama.

Where's a real story?

Knowingly lying at age 46 to tie yourself to Kennedy? To a black church?
d

how about 5 noses, because it stinks.

I hope the African Americans' eyes are opened to what Obama was trying to do with that Selma speech. Just like the black Christian preacher from Chicago said--He told that lie to make himself look black to make a connection with and get the African American vote. The speech was a lie, the connection with the Kennedys was a lie--all for the purpose of getting votes.

It appears to me Senator Clinton's error on her trip to Bosnia have received ten times more press coverage than Senator Obama's misreporting on his father's connection with JFK, his knowledge of rev.Wright's remarks as well as his recent admission of receiving quarter million dollars donation from Tony Rezko for his previous campaigns.

The JFK White House was never Camelot to me.
King Arthur didn't have the affair. It was Guinivere and Sir Lancelot, wasn't it? I didn't see any sign of a Sir Galahad or even a Sir Wawain. And where was the Round Table?
Maybe it was the round of prostitutes coming into the White House.
Obama as King Arthur? Michelle as Guinivere?
Who is Lancelot-Jeremiah Wright?

Obama is simply an empty suit. I have yet to hear him talk in specifics about what he will do as President. He speaks in high flown phrases that are really meaningless. I cannot imagine how he will be able to do all those things he has promised just as I cannot imagine how Hilary will do all the that she has promised. I am tired of this election and all the wrangling and the over exposure in the media these days. Will it ever end? I hope we never have another election of this type again.
Liz

You'd think that poliuticians would be smart enough to check their facts and would know better than to think that they can fudge on the facts and believe that it's not gonna come back and bite them on the @#*.

Here's a fact check project for you: I'd like to know how often McCain, Obama, and Clinton are actually attending the churches they claim to be members of... My guess is that's what got Obama in trouble --- he probably seldom ever attends church services. What about Clinton and McCain. When's they last time they've actually been in church?

Who cares? A four year olds memory is often riddled with holes and half truths as NO ONE, not even a Kennedy, could remember exactly how things happened at age 4! Get over yourselves why don't you!

While Obama is and inspiring speaker we know so little about him. How could this man sit in the pews for twenty years with members of his family and not question the words of his religious leader? The answer must be is that he is a political animal; no better than the folks he is running against. For some reason the public like his lies better.

Regarding Obama's claim to have been opposed to the Iraq invasion from the very beginning, if there was no knowledge as to the accuracy of the WMD reports, then Obama's opposition was not based on special knowledge that he had. Most in the government DID at that time believe the reports. Why is Obama claiming to be the first to oppose the invasion when he did not have any information to base his opposition on. Almost ALL patriotic Americans at that time were supporting the invasion, which they believed to be necessary based on the knowledge available at that time.
Has the question been put to Obama as to why he does not wear the flag on his lapel. If he has been asked, what was his answer, and why has his answer not been widely reported in the media.

I think that it bodes well when obama says in his speeches: "they're looking through my kindergarten papers trying to find something on me". this speech was over a year ago and it seems fishy to analyze it now. Why dont you check out mccain's vietnam prisoner of war story. I read that he destroyed four planes by his own ineptness before the fifth was shot down and he was taken prisoner. I would love to see you do some fact checking on those events.

I had respect for your "Fact Checker" until I read this. This is really "second rate".

Weak, very weak. Fact checker needs a tune up.

Obama's recollections of that time were off and they conceded that, but to compare the two incidents to get points for Hillary Clinton is as crazy as her stating that her recollections of the Bosnia event three times.

What she stated three separate times was not a misstatement but a lie, those words have two different definitions, this is not the first time that she has told a lie, but the first that the press has called her on, only because there is footage to actually show the truth, how do you think the Bosnian's feel about her account?

Hillary Clinton's main problem has always been is that she cannot say "I MADE A MISTAKE" when she is caught in a lie and we already have a so called perfect president that cannot state the same, as with the war that so many of our young are dying in.

I'm pretty certain that Hillary "enhanced" the dangers of her trip to Bosnia when she was First Lady. BUT there is no denying that SHE WAS ACTUALLY THERE IN WHAT HAD BEEN AND COULD POSSIBLY YET BE A WAR ZONE! Were any of US there flying in on those primitive military transport/freighters? Was Barack?

And where was Barack? Perhaps he was attending his church of 20 years, listening to his mentor of 20 years, the Wrong Reverent Wright, who was raising Holy Hell with the name of the United States. And when he was there - being a protégé of this unpatriotic preacher - and getting married by, children baptized by, being promoted and proselytized by-- for the intentional purpose of lubricating his political entry into the large black community of Chicago.
So while Mrs. Clinton WAS travelling the globe, fulfilling her duties as an American President's partner. help mate and first lady -- Mr. Obama was training to be a preacher of unpatriotism, ("God Damn America") rampant racism ("white America deserved and caused 9/11") but now he states he was totally unaware of his Wrongful Reverend's rhetoric. Now THAT -- I CAN"T BELIEVE!
While Hillary may have been guilty of self promotion - it seems that Barack is guilty of Self DENIAL. To me a far worse DEFECT for a possible President and Commander in Chief, because ALL POLITICIANS ARE SELF PROMOTORS -- Or they wouldn't be politicians! And need I repeat the old saw; "How can you tell when a politician is lying? When his/her lips are moving."

Thank you for your fact checks. I think that as the election stretches into the Spring, you will find a lot of lies by Barak Obama. Keep up the good work. America needs for you to check all of the facts; by Hillary, by McCain, and Obama. I really want to know about Obama's complete history. I saw somewhere that there is a 5 year blank in the late 80's early 90's. What did he do then?
Nancy

Joseph writes, "Why is Obama claiming to be the first to oppose the invasion when he did not have any information to base his opposition on." He then states, "Almost ALL patriotic Americans at that time were supporting the invasion, which they believed to be necessary based on the knowledge available at that time." I'm not sure how Joseph would know that almost all patriotic Americans supported the invasion. This is one patriotic American who never dupported it and I know of many others who opposed it from the start. Our ooposition had nothing to do with supposed WMD, but with the dangerous new doctirne of pre-emptive strike and because of our belief that attacking Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror. For your information Joseph, a person can be patriotic, support our truths, and still hold our President and government accountable for the wrong the commit. As to Obama not wearing a flag on his lapel - he has been asked - it has been reported. Evidently you weren't listening. By the way - a flag on your lapel is not the definition of patriotism.

It is amazing whatever Obama says is true and no one even Kennedy think he is embellishing a bit much.How many years Obama took to even admit his pastor and he sacrificed his grandmother on the alter.Get real he is as phony as they come.All politicians should answer questions like baseball players had to do in steroid scandal.This kind of lie is politicians steroid.

Wow! This is what Fact Checker is investigating, Obama's claim of something someone told him about his mother and father when he was 4 years old at the time or not even born.

Most people on these blogs have no clue of what and why this Fact Checker is published from over a year ago. What relevance does it have now?

Is this suppose to be some type of attempt by the Washington Post to show fairness in fact checking Obama versus Hillary?

Hillary recounted vividly what should be an unforgettable memory event, which is 'landing in a war zone with sniper fire and running to the cars for shelter and protection'. She straight-out lied. Obama is recounting a romanticized version of events he wasn't even born or around for.

Checking the candidates' statements is a very useful service. The rating gimmick is cute, but the scale is suspect.

Four Ps seems reasonable for misrepresenting or lying about an 11-year-old event that any normal adult would remember clearly. I mean, being shot at by snipers would rank as singularly memorable on my scale; if it's not that memorable on Hillary Clinton's scale, I don't want her answering the White House hotline at any hour, much less 3 a.m. The sin seems aggravated when:
-- it's readily verifiable in recent media accounts,
-- the candidate repeats the recollection despite published accounts to the contrary,
-- then asserts the story again,
-- dismisses contrary evidence,
-- denies wrongdoing,
-- and finally cops only to a misdemeanor ("misspoke") -- and then only after being confronted with video (as if a quick call to anyone else on the trip -- daughter Chelsea, for instance -- wouldn't have refreshed the candidate's memory in an instant).

(Madelaine Albright's dissembling defense of Clinton on CNN -- Hillary's "misstatement" was understandable; after all, she traveled so much over the years it's hard to keep them all straight -- simply doesn't wash: How many of those visits involved sniper fire, after all?)

Four Ps for all of that must be a felony, yes?

Three Ps for a 40-odd-year-old childhood event that must have been recounted to him by his parents seems like overkill to the point of distortion, even in the interest of "fair and balanced" reporting (it's amazing how much "balance" the media concocted at the behest of Clinton campaign hacks; if Ms Clinton were male, pundits would have declared her campaign dead by now, so one could say she has been the greatest beneficiary of media largesse).

By all means take Obama to task if he repeats the erroneous story after the facts have been reported. Meanwhile, ask yourself how often you've gone back to question things your own parents told you (and yes, Obama is running for president, but perhaps the Fact Checker could report how many presidential candidates had their entire life histories vetted for accuracy by third parties?).

Mr. Fact Checker: I read Rev. Wright's entire Speech and while I do not subscribe to his conclusion, "God Damn America", I do find his evidence that America is a racist nation credible.

It is true that the ax of racism swings both ways. There are African American racist just as there are European American racist including the Jews. But what do you say the solution is?

Get it right,, for my information please cite the answer Obama gave to the question of his declining to wear the flag pin and the publications/media outlets when his answer was publicised

This is so typical of the press. Having done excellent work pointing out Hillary's fabrications, it now pleases you to appear "even handed" by doing a specious and ridiculous hatchet job on Obama. One point that needs to be made is that Hillary has a long history of fibbing quite unlike that of Obama or, indeed, most politicians.

I heard recently (from a friend) that Obama is on the record as saying that he is "a messenger from God". Did he really say this in a speech? Where and when? I would be very disturbed to learn that he actually said or believes such a thing. I prefer that all candidates keep their religious beliefs to themselves and their families.

What a shill!
Yes, you gave Senator Clinton 4 noses for lying about the snipers. Then you gave her a free pass for her "I misspoke" cover up.

In this instance, there is a 1-year sequencing issue in an otherwise factual story about something that happened 50 years ago and undoubtedly was passed down word of mouth in both families. To equate this with the sniper fire statement is just plain silly.

There are several misconnects in what Senator Obama states in speeches and what I read in his book "Dreams of my Father."
For instance his statement comparing his grandmother to Rev. Wright that his mother was frightened by two black men who "passed her on the street." The story on pages 88 and 89 in his book is quite different. She had always taken the bus to work because she left earlier than her husband got up. But on this particular day she asked her husband to drive her to work the next morning. An argument ensued and Barack heard it and came from his room to see what it was about. To make a longer story short the two men that morning had not passed her on the street they had stopped her progress and asked her for money. She gave them $l.00 and that didn't satisfy them. She says they were very agressive with her and she was afraid if the bus hadn't come in time they might have hit her in the head. She was afraid they would be there the next morning to get more money and that's why she wanted a ride to work. It wasn't simply that they were "black" and passed her on the street. There are several disconnects like this from his book to his discriptions of his family and his life. Some time ago I heard his New York friend interviewed on TV about the content of his book with regard to disconnects. His friend would say only that he used a lot of poetic license about his activities while in Columbia and in New York? The press doesn't seem to do a lot of checking on the content of his book. I sometimes think most have not read it. Another little disconnect is his stating that his father was an atheist. In his book he tells of his father's beginning to attend Muslim mosques. He is afraid of his middle name. He never uses Hussein. Do we think this will not be vetted by the Republicans. There are many things he needs to clear up before the Republicans get a chance to interpret them for him.

For the person who asked if we know who is funding Sen. Obama's campaign and stated that his supporters could not be because they are average people who do not have "big" money, let me answer the question for you.

Educated Americans who can read know the answer because all campaign finance documents are public information. Obama is raising massive amounts of money from millions of common people who have given an average of $100. Contrast that to Clinton who has raised significantly less and had to loan her campaign $5 million of her own cash, which we cannot say where it came from because she will not release her tax returns. We know Obama could not loan his campaign that kind of money becaue according to 7 years of returns he released, he does not earn enough. Despite this FACT, Clinton presents herself as being able to identify with the common man, when in fact she has never faced the financial problems common people face.

I wonder where all the money is coming from for Sen. OBama's campaign. He he seems to be outspending Sen. Clinton many fold.

He claims to have come from a poverty level, hard working, background. He says he worked his way through college. I would imagine that he must have had a lot of schollarships and grants in his financial aid package in order to pay for Harvard or he would still has some serious school loans balances remaining.

His work background before going into public service is never mentioned.

How does someone as young as he, come so far as quickly as he has, amass the funds and the "friends" as he has, withthout "selling out" to
some "big money interests"?

One hundred million americans who cannot afford to contribute much more than $25. each seems like quite a stretch.

Oprah cannot be the only wealthy figure helping to underwrite hiscampaign.

I am not an Obama basher, I have this same question for anyone else who dedicates their entire adult life to public service (a noble undertaking) but comes from a working class background and never had the opportunity to obtain the level of wealth on their own that it takes to participate at this level.

Clinton and Obama should have both gotten four noses. Both case are obvious attempts to paint a picture of their history that does not exist in the real world.

For you and me it is not such a big deal. For a leader USA federal government to tell such a lie is a big deal.

I am surprised that at "handed down" story would be considered worthy of Pinocchio status of any type! This is a story to inspire others...nothing in it gave Obama a "bigger" footprint. It was an inspiration to hear that that struggle for civil rights reached across the continents. It's difficult to see the magnitude of scoring a "3" Pinocchios. Stories passed rom a father to a son to inspire and uplift! (And he wasn't bragging about himself--imagine that!)

Joseph Iocone wrote "Almost ALL patriotic Americans at that time were supporting the [Iraq] invasion, which they believed to be necessary based on the knowledge available at that time."

WHAT A CROCK! Most of the "patriotic Americans" I know believed in their gut that the rationale for invading Iraq was almost all pretext. While the WMD issue was admittedly blurry, certainly the asserted link between Saddam and 9/11 or between him and Al Quieda was completley bogus. Moreover, the prospects for a post-invasion quagmire of Vietnam proportions was so obvious to anyone with half a brain, and the human costs of starting and getting stuck in a misguided war so obvious to anyone with half a heart... That Obama is the only candidate who at the time aticulated his opposition to the Iraq invasion is for me a hugely important statement -- not only about his judgment, but also about his courage and independance.

Mr. Iocone's statement would have been more accurate if it read "Almost all WASHINGTON D.C. POLITICIANS at that time were supporting the invasion, which they believed to be necessary based on the POLITICAL WINDS blowing at that time."

Paul wrote:

"One point that needs to be made is that Hillary has a long history of fibbing quite unlike that of Obama or, indeed, most politicians."

Wow. What an absolutely unfounded statement, in every way. Proof positive that Obama followers are zonkers-they are people who refuse, absolutely refuse, to see ANYTHING about Obama other than he is the light, and the way, the one to lead them out of their perceived "darkness"- these people are SO UTTERLY DELUDED BY THE OBAMA MACHINE-THEY CANNOT RECOGNIZE THE TRUTH WHEN IT IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR FACES. ASTOUNDING.

Well, one thing we know: George Orwell and Aldous Huxley were on to something when they both talked about the use of propaganda to sway the masses and make them love whoever it was that exploited them in such a way-and Obama is nothing if not exploitative and opportunistic -a liar through and though-he'll do anything and say anything to get elected, and race is on his side to be used for his advantage, certainly not Hillary's. OBAMA IS NOTHING IF NOT A DEMOGOGUE, AN EMPTY SUIT IF EVER THERE WAS ONE; HIS "ACCOMPLISHMENTS" DON'T EVEN BELONG IN THE SAME SENTENCE WITH THOSE OF HILLARY CLINTON'S-HER WHOLE LIFE HAS BEEN DEVOTED TO PUBLIC SERVICE, WHILE OBAMA WAS SMOKING AND SNORTING COCAINE AND SELLING ON THE SIDE, HILLARY WAS A RESPECTED LAWYER ON THE HILL, WORKING FOR CHILD WELFARE REFORMS, THEN WAS VOTED ONE OF THE 100 MOST INFLUENTIAL LAWYERS IN AMERICA-BUT WHAT ABOUT OBAMA? HE WAS DOING NOTHING, ACCOMPLISHING NOTHING, EXCEPT LISTENING TO REV. WRIGHT'S HATE SPEECHES SINCE HE WAS IN HIS MID-20'S, BEING INCULCATED AND HEAVILY INFLUENCED BY A MAN WHOSE THEMES WERE "GOD DAMN AMERICA" AND THE "UNITED STATES OF WHITE AMERICA!"

OH yeah! This choice of qualified Dem. candidate is REAL TOUGH, isn't it?

Mischief! That's in capitals -- I thought the WP was a good newspaper -- looks like you are more interested in the downfall of what was once a great country.You do not seem to realise that whatever you are publishing about either Mrs.Clinton or Mr.Obama is ultimately going to stick for the rest of the world to draw conclusions.High lighting and reporting irrelevent incidents is mere fodder for cattle .A newspaper with mischievious intent should be banned.

I said about Hillary's "first First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt" comment that you can't fault somebody for getting history wrong if they have a source.
Obama got confused about the origins of a plan that predates him. Should he have checked? Yes.
Is it 3 Pinnochio's worth? No.

Please research the Obama campaigns repeated claim that he accepts no funds from lobbyists and bundlers. He has a new ad running in PA in which he repeats that claim. I read in the Washington Post that he is # 1 in totals from lobbyists, special interests and bundlers to date.
I even heard Obama supporter Bill Bradley repeat that claim on Meet the Press.
Since Mr. Obama has made his stand on honesty, openness, transparency would he get 63 million pinnochios?

According to Mr Obama's book..his father left him at age 2. Who is the young man in the photo?

Come on folks! Obama lies and exaggerates and so does Hillary...period. The real story for me is in the ideology each one has and what decisions, on our behalf, will be made because of it. Everything else are all political exaggerations to win favor with voters. But their values, beliefs, experience and actions are the real test for me. Are they just "political exaggerators" or are they "real" liars whom we cannot count on to tell the truth! Both are lacking...and that is sad!

Remember how Hillary was pilloried for misstatements based on childhood memories about being named after Sir Edmund Hillary?

In this case the possibility of Obama making misstatements based on misrepresentations made to him as child or a child's misinterpretation also exist. That being I will not say the adult Obama intentionally misrepresented the facts any more than I held Hillary responsible for a misrepresentation of something she came to believe while she was still a child.

I am also willing to bet many Obama supporters will use the same type argument to defend Obama that they would not accept when it was used to defend Hillary.

Remember what Obama said in his speech, Obama-Zombies: He said he owed HIS VERY EXISTENCE TO THE KENNEDY FAMILY, THAT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN BEING "CONFUSED ABOUT THE DATES'- PARTICULARLY WHEN HE WAS MAKING SOME GRAND DEMOGOGIC KEYNOTE SPEECH, TYING IN THE SELMA PROTEST MARCHES, HIS PARENTS, HIS EXISTENCE AND CONNECTION TO SELMA, AND HIS CONNECTION TO THE KENNEDYS, (stage left: Caroline Kennedy, all misty-eyed with emotion-gag!) Yes, my friends, it was ALL ONE BIG FAT LIE-JUST LIKE HIS BOOK IS BASICALLY ONE BIG FABRICATION-NOT TO MENTION, HIS SO-CALLED "ACCOMPLISHMENTS.".

If that whopper isn't worth 5+ Pinocchios, I don't know WHAT would be, but then, the media refuses to dig too deeply into all the many discrepancies of the demogogue Obama-they'll be called "racist" you know.

this posting by the supposed fact checker - along with a reading of mccain's "gaffe" - is why i seldom read this column.
you give obama 3 pinnochio's for a story that has at least some semblance of truth to it, albeit though it might be exaggerated or spun to fit a particular narrative.
and, it's not that important.
really.
but mccain says something that everyone knows is flat out false, you justify and rationalize his statements, while you still acknowledge that it involves a matter of national security and then only give him 2 pinnochios.
ridiculous!
and your bias is clearly showing.
i have to admit that i do not read your work consistently. for the reasons stated.
however, i have noted, when i've bothered to read the column, that you never give republicans the kind of scrutiny and the number of "pinnochios" despite the fact that the lies they tell have been more egregious and often than the minor issues that have arisen with obama.
can't you be professional?

Three Pinocchios for your nitpicks of a speech made over a year ago? And this lame effort made it onto page one?? It's pretty clear that this is nothing more than a sad attempt to be "fair and balanced."
============================================

Weren't you one of those enjoying Hillary's Bosnia ordeal. You folks get all upset and whiney when Obama gets caught in his lies. We know our candidate has flaws. You Obamanites are too blind to see his. What a shame to be so blind. Don't you know this guy will say or do anything to get elected.
You guys are going to die when Gore gets the nomination?

This is not the first time Obama has been caught in a lie.
All politicians color their history to make an almost "mystical" connection to their ability to lead. While this is understandable, it is Obama who keeps claiming to be the candidaie of "change", to end politics as usual. Yet, he is no different than any other politician, perhaps in some ways worse. As he has managed to convince many voters with his retoric that he is capable of being more then he is. While I will admit I am a Clinton supporter. I will also say that I wanted to believe in Obama, but after researching both candidates, it is Hillary Clinton that will do a better job for this country and the world. It may also be beneificial to Obama supporters to stop treating this campaign like the Super Bowl an be more realistic for the benefit of you fellow Americans.

"I have yet to hear [Obama] talk in specifics about what he will do as President."
Only for those who either can't hear or can't read. Obama's positions and his record are clear to those with functioning senses who trouble themselves beyond their nightly stupefest with Faux News. Unlike micromanaging HRC who comes to us with predigested "solutions" to problems whose parameters will have changed in the next nine months, Obama's positions and actions are deliberate, even-handed, bipartisan, and flexible enough to conform to actual conditions on the ground. Obama only looks like an "empty suit" to those who spent the last eight years thinking that the Emperor is actually wearing clothes.

"High lighting and reporting irrelevent incidents is mere fodder for cattle."

How is it irrelevant when presidential candidates garble their facts, pad their resumes or resort to outright whoppers?

Poring through the details of what the candidates say and do and comparing them to reality is PRECISELY what news organizations should be doing.

And frankly, sometimes what's more telling than the candidates' original misstatments -- anyone can make a mistake -- is how they and their supporters respond when the media point them out. Do they admit the errors and move on, or they defend them and dig deeper?

THAT tells a lot about their character and judgment.

Maia,

you wrote

"It is true that the ax of racism swings both ways. There are African American racist just as there are European American racist including the Jews. But what do you say the solution is?"

As someone who has done extensive research and educational/cultural work on the subject, I can assure you the term 'racism' has a specific meaning. It is defined as: "a system which benefits one race over another". Therefore, while there may be black supremacists, Afro-centrists and black separatists, an African American racist is, by definition, impossible.

So, a good place to start addressing the problem of anger and hatred between the races in this country might be to reform some of the systems such as mortgage lending and Justice which clearly and demonstrably disadvantage African Americans.

Hey, they both are politicians, nothing more. At least Clinton was actually in Bosnia.

Picky, picky, picky. This is just too much. We have a collapsing economy, a billion dollar a month war in Iraq, Iraqi's smuggling oil accross their borders, health care and educational systems broken, maybe beyond repair, banks and mortage industry on the verge of collapse, and all this person can find time to do is research Obama's father? I think Senator Obama's point was he has a connection to the civil rights movement. Most people in that day and time did to some extent, one way or another. If you want to research something why don't you research the lies that got us into all these messes in the first place. Now that would be something helpful. I don't care where Obama's father was in 1960 or any other time. I want to know what Senator Obama is going to do with the help of the people to solve some of these problems when he becomes president. I know he won't be able to solve them all. There sre too many messes. But if he concentrates on them with the help of right thinking people, and cooperation from other countries, he can get it done. Now for the money that he raises, it comes from people like myself. A little becomes much when people do the right thing, at the right time, for the right reasons.

What really kills me is that Obama's people KNEW IT WAS A LIE, OF COURSE THEY DID, OTHERWISE, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE "IMMEDIATELY" FESSED UP TO IT-they would have told the Post and other media outlets that they would need to check and get back to them on it; they didn't have to do that, because they KNEW when he made the speech he was lying! And THIS is the man who embodies the politics of change? The "post-racial" candidate who reeks of racial divisiveness, after listening to racist filthy garbage from his spiritual advisor for 20 plus years and giving 20,000 of his own money to this lunatic?

Obama, ever the opportunist, who just the other day said WITH A STRAIGHT FACE: "I would have left the church if Rev. Wright hadn't resigned." OH I'M SURE YOU WOULD HAVE, OBAMA, AFTER THE REVEAL THAT YOU WERE THIS MAN'S DISCIPLE ALL THESE YEARS! SHEESH, YOU ARE PATHETIC!

I can't get over how this fraud has so UTTERLY pulled the wool over the Dem Party's eyes, (well I understand how he would do that to Pelosi, about whom I have no words to express my utter contempt over her lack of intelligence, management and particularly insight into both national and international issues-no words, well, maybe just this: Nancy, I think you need another face lift, because I've noticed that your face seems to be melting in that way you see on people who have had face lifts after awhile, it's time for a face lift freshening, ya know what I mean? Perhaps you need to take some time off-a long time- and go and attend to that, okay?)

And the Dem. Party leadership can go straight to hell, Dean, Pelosi, Kennedy, that worthless fat loser and traitor Richardson, the zero personality loser with a capital L Kerry-THEY CAN ALL GO TO HELL; THE REAL DEMS. OUT THERE WILL BE VOTING MCCAIN COME NOVEMBER IF THAT FRAUD OBAMA IS ON THE BALLOT.

Boy, I've just been looking through the postings here and one thing is painfully obvious. Clinton supporters love capital letters. Some will capitalize entire paragraphs or even entire postings.

Just a friendly reminder; Louder is not the same as truer. Also, if you wish to be taken seriously as a rational and thoughtful person, perhaps screaming everything you say is not the best strategy ;)

The 3 candidates left standing ,McCain,Clinton and Obama have all stretched the truth to their advatnage.But is it truly an advantage when they get caught by someone who has too much time on their hands.
Does it really matter if McCain was an Ace pilot or he just remembers it that way,or Obama recalls stories of how his Poor African father made it to an Elite school in USA,or if Hilary really played Soccer with a scared black girl in high school or Dodged bullets as she arrived in Bosnia with her young daughter?
I guess it does because we are judged by our words.Words of truth and honor.
This person will represent us around the world. Do we really want a Hot Head who thinks of foreigners in derogative terms.Who in his senile moments may let one slip?
Do we want a President who will do anything to win, including going back on her word on many ocaissions?
Or someone who goes to church regularly and is exposed to hate filled words directed towards a section of his family?

I googled this, and came upon a speech JFK made in 1953 (!).

Here's a snippet of that speach....

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy at Student Convocation, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, February 12, 1953

"As Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Africa, I would like to make the following proposals: First, I propose that we in the United States establish an Educational Development Fund, emphasizing particularly the exchange of students, teachers, and trained personnel --making available our technicians and specialists in a number of fields where they are most needed, while simultaneously opening our college doors to several times as many African students as now come over."

****************
Seems like the idea of having the USA take in African students was on his mind then. Isn't it possible that he was instrumental in pushing the program through while Eisenhower was president? If so, it seems to me that he should have taken some credit for the program (maybe all if Eisenhower didn't care for the idea). Please note the paragraph in red.
In addition, it seems easy to take things out of context and accuse somebody (the guy/gal somebody doesn't want in office) of lying and "if he's lying about this, what ELSE is he lying about. etc. etc." I think this kind of character assassination is rampant today and is fueled by the internet. And because of it, we all need to dig deep for the real truth if we want to know what it is.

Obama is a liar --- he misleads people and distorts the facts all the time. You Kook Aid drinkers need to wake up and smell the coffee on this white-hating racist.

Enough already with the Rev. Wright-Obama thing. The main problem is that white America does not understand, or doesn't want to understand, the black church and its strong connection and leadership role in the black community. The church is much larger than the preacher. It is about family ties, fellowship,and friendship amongst the members. Leaving a church after twenty years is a very monumental thing. When there was no place for black people to go there was the church. Before the YMCA, YWCA, Girls and Boys Club,etc. there was the church. The church was and will always be at the forefront of the civil rights movement. It not only fulfills the spiritual need but it also fulfills the social and civic needs of the black community. I applaud Obama for not allowing the "noise" of white people to turn his back on his church or pastor. The black community and its people have an unbreakable bond that cannot be broken simply because it does not meet the standards of outsiders. To expect Senator Obama to repudiate or disassociate himself from Rev. Wright or Minister Farakhan because their message isn't acceptable to white people is ludicrous.

Remeber Kennedy's famous line "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" It seems the new democratic line, espoused by both candidates is "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you." They are both promising the world to the citizenry but not asking for anything in return, except heir vote of course.

I also agree the rating is not a fact.

Just do the facts and let them speak for themselves.

Cultist go look at your Hillary entries and then the crap you wrote today.

If you see a large disparity then you know you are a cultist.

Also you can't run three stories on the same facts to inflate your ego that is just pathetic.

JEFRO-I THINK YOU'RE NOT BRIGHT ENOUGH OR OLD ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THAT CAPITAL LETTERS DON'T BOTHER ANYONE WHO IS NOT AN ANAL RETENTIVE, LITTLE DELICATE FLOWER, A FOLLOWER TYPE WHO HAS NOTHING TO SAY EXCEPT TO COMMENT ON THE FORM OF THE POSTINGS, YOU KNOW? BUT THAT IS, I'LL GRANT YOU, CONSISTENT WITH OBAMA-ZOMBIES-ALL FORM, NO SUBSTANCE! HA HA HA!

Obama's opposition was not based on special knowledge that he had. Most in the government DID at that time believe the reports. Why is Obama claiming to be the first to oppose the invasion when he did not have any information to base his opposition on. Almost ALL patriotic Americans at that time were supporting the invasion, which they believed to be necessary based on the knowledge available at that time.
Has the question been put to Obama as to why he does not wear the flag on his lapel. If he has been asked, what was his answer, and why has his answer not been widely reported in the media.

Posted by: Joseph Iacone | March 31, 2008 11:19 AM

Most of the people who supported Iraq are the ones that could not find it on an Un-marked or marked map.

Obama just says what people want to here. See five responses to rev Wright.

farfalle44 wrote:

And the Dem. Party leadership can go straight to hell, Dean, Pelosi, Kennedy, that worthless fat loser and traitor Richardson, the zero personality loser with a capital L Kerry-THEY CAN ALL GO TO HELL; THE REAL DEMS. OUT THERE WILL BE VOTING MCCAIN COME NOVEMBER IF THAT FRAUD OBAMA IS ON THE BALLOT.

This person is clearly unhinged. Please listen to Bill Clinton and "chill out". There is a word for someone who is willing to vote for McSame over Obama: Republican.
The vast majority of Obama supporters understand the true stakes in this election and will support Hillary versus a third Bush/Cheney term. If Hillary's supporters place personal loyalty to their candidate above the interests of their party and the nation, perhaps they should consider switching or starting a third party with Holy Joe Lie-berman.

Let's not lie to each other like the politicians do. Actually Obama is a cheap suit! He made a great speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention and capitalized on his instant popularity with the party. Along with Oprah's help and dream of being instrumental in electing the first African American President, we are witnessing his campaign. (Oprah, prior to Obama was a big fan of Hillary Clinton)
What an insult to American people of all colors and religions to try and convince us that he is capable of leading this country. He may one day have the ability, but given the current conditions in our country and the world, I am not ready to
elect someone just because it would be nice to have an African American President. There is to much real pain and suffering in America and around the world to indulge my fellow Americans of color with a president that has no real experience and is untested on so may levels. Support Clinton, we can check on Obama in a few years.

THERE ARE NO WHITE OR BLACK LIES, ONLY WHITE AND BLACK LIARS.

Once upon a time, Americans viewed honesty as a virtue. We could assume that we were being told the truth unless and until the contrary was proven. Over the past five decades we have been so bombarded by perjury, prevarications, lies, and misstatements on all fronts that the opposite is now true. The statements of others, particularly those attributed to politicians, the armed forces, major business enterprises, and some religious leaders are or ought to be presumed false unless and until proven true. Those reponsible for the false statements of the aforesaid family of elites, intermarried as they are, are seldom if ever are held accountable. We, the People, too often condone these violations of law and ethical behavior and generally suffer greatly from our apathy. Exposing lies and liars is a necessary condition to restoring faith in our leaders, secular and spiritual, whoever, whereever and whenever they deviate from the truth.

I'm not an insane Hillary supporter or an insane Obama supporter, but reading these posts I see why the Republicans are loving the Democrats capacity for self-desctruction.

To those who cannot control themselves, you are the ones retarding our first big chance of elevating the political discourse in this country.

As for the Pinocchio author. Your story is worthwhile but you discredit yourself when you nearly conflate Hillary's blatant lie about her own experience and Obama's speech; the person who quoted at 1953 Kennedy speech is right. JFK was involved with African affairs before he became president. Using analogy, such as in the Selma speech, when it is obviously an analogy, is not lying. His statements do not deserve any Pinocchios.

JEFRO-I THINK YOU'RE NOT BRIGHT ENOUGH OR OLD ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THAT CAPITAL LETTERS DON'T BOTHER ANYONE WHO IS NOT AN ANAL RETENTIVE, LITTLE DELICATE FLOWER, A FOLLOWER TYPE WHO HAS NOTHING TO SAY EXCEPT TO COMMENT ON THE FORM OF THE POSTINGS, YOU KNOW? BUT THAT IS, I'LL GRANT YOU, CONSISTENT WITH OBAMA-ZOMBIES-ALL FORM, NO SUBSTANCE! HA HA HA!

Posted by: FARFALLE44 | March 31, 2008 01:40 PM

And here is a perfect example. Again, louder is not truer. If you have anything sane to post, somebody might care. Otherwise, keep capitalizing!

Put down the ice cream 10 year old Obama. He was a chunk

I've long since been tired of the jingoist (ultra-nationalistic) rants by those who belittle Obama for having remained in his church and having not disowned his relationship with his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

Can any real person feign surprise at a black man's anger with the United States? With our long history of genocide against our natives, and a brutal enslavement of our Africans, imported precisely for slavery, the stage was set for a bellicose America that has had more wars and has bombed more people than we'd like to believe. If you don't know about it - read your history!

But even if one knows nothing about history, Obama's understanding Wright's anger can still not be confused with agreement. Obama disagrees with his former pastor, but understands where he's coming from. Understanding is most difficult when one disagrees, but if we are to walk the higher ground, it is vital to show some amount of effort.

TOM,

Excellent digging. I think this proves Obama's statements to be essentially true. You put the fact check on the"Fact Checker".
Bravo!

Obama is often alluding to JFK and RFK and very often MLK. Then actually saying JFK is responsible for his dad being here is much like Mit Romney saying his father walked with MLK or Hillary's bullets over Bosnia. It's not a small accident, something that slipped out during an interview or an impromptu Q&A. It was a speech, a well timed story that was purposely told, specifically to create the "history's idiosyncracies foretell the coming of Obama" thing that is being manufactured from whole cloth (i.e. its being made up). The media and college students want to be in on the crest of a historic moment. Doesn't everyone want to say "I had a significant connection" to one of these icons. Well, this connection is not real, not true. Doesn't Obama write his own speeches? Certainly as he read it he must have been impressed with a new fact or surprised by an unreal fact. So, you would think he would fix up that little fib on the next day or at least before the next year. No he did not and therefore it rises to the level of a lie. It is not an innocent, urban legend. It was not said about him. It was from his own mouth. He will say its silly to point out anything he does wrong or any time he lies, but if we hold him less accountable for his "misstatements" then we are asking for a repeat of Ronald Reagan who sold arms to enemies in order to pay for a war that he was told by congress not to support. We don't want to go there. Telling a lie is not okay because its a good story or because in your "heart of hearts" you did not mean to lie. I am sure the press will give him prime time to make a major speech to clarify, distance, negate and somehow also take credit for the (not really the true) facts. So probably, lying will increases his favorabilty and popularity. Walking with MLK and the bullets stories all got big play...The Situation Room, Olbermann, Larry King, Fox, O'reilly. You can bet dollars to donuts this "Fact Checker" is the only coverage this story gets.

Sorry but this is pure BS. Give me a break. This is overanalyzing his comments. I get the feeling that this (that the Kennedy's helped him get over) was something his father probably used to say. Now he says it without doing a huge amount of fact checking. The nitpicking is getting a bit out of control. and comparing this to Clinton's "miss-statements" even ... at all.. is completely ridiculous. It's not even close.

I would like some facts checked on Obama's 2002 speech being against the war. Wasn't he a lowly state senator at the time. How did it get on the national scene then? He hadn't made his 2004 keynote speech at that time. Did he make the speech to himself? Did he make two speeches, one for and one against? It just doesn't make sense for a lowly unknown state senator getting that much national attention? Where did he get his information for this decision?

Well thank you Jefro3000.

Guess the only thing I had add is to quote Simon & Garfunkel...
"We believe what we want to believe, and disregard the rest."

Everyone keeps referring to Obama as having been "confused" as to dates when he was four years old! What it is all about is self-agrandizement, and the willingness to tell a "fib" that ties yourself into the myth of "Camelot." Hillary did much the same thing when she claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, who did not become famous for climbing Mt. Everest until several years after her birth. In her case, too, it was not a case of "confusion" as to actual dates - it was a willful embelishment!

I'd give him half a Pinocchio. The spirit of the story was true, considering the relationship of his father to the Kenya program (even if it predates). This doesn't seem like an exaggeration or lie like the Clinton/Bosnia thing. Same with the Selma thing.

Also, it's worth asking: How many people even saw/heard this to begin with?

I do think it reflects well on Obama that every time fact-checker tries to do an Obama story, it turns out to be nitpicky, irrelevant nonsense that merely reflect a kind of 'gotcha' politics. But, I suppose that's the price of considering 'balance' as important as truth and relevance.

Let's get real. Obama's misstatements are not intended to deceive audiences purposefully about his credentials or his beliefs. Nor are they attacks on his opponent. Why isn't this column investigating the Clinton campaign's lie that Obama wasn't a law professor at the University of Chicago? According to Politico.com, the University of Chicago begs to differ with the Clintons' misrepresentation, truly an instance of bearing false witness against another.

So.(Cheney word) You Obamanites have lying by degree. If you have a video to dispute a lie, it is a whopper. But a great BSer can lie with words, time and time again, and it is just a little white lie.
You folks should read your own posts to see how childish they appear. Funny.

This is typical of Obama. His two books are riddled with exaggerations and "misstatements."

Anything to make him look or sound good. Same goes with his speeches.

He uses factual "errors" to construct who he is and build a mythology based on a house of cards.

His race speech was plagiarized as well. Everyone seems to think it is ok for Obama to plagiarize, but if it were any other best-selling author, their career would be dead in the water. Why is it ok for Obama to embellish, exaggerate, and plagiarize?

The fact checker has been reporting only about the democrats about 99% of the time.
Why not report on the G.O.P.'s religious
affiliation with Evangelist Francis Schaeffer.According to an article written in the Huffington Post,dated 03-16-08,by his son Frank Schaeffer,his dad's un-american statements calling America Germany
and the president Hitler would make Rev.
Wright's statements pale in comparison.He
was a close friend of the Kemp's,the Ford's
the Reagan's And the first Bush.When he died in 1984 he was hailed by the G.O.P.,
including Billy Graham, as one of America's
great patriots.He wrote a book which sold
over a million copies which document his
statements.I believe the Rev.Wright story
won't be of any use in the general election
as this counter-story would discredit the
ENTIRE G.O.P.'s patriotism platform

Democrat for McCain!

You really need to pull your head out. Do you even care about your party or the nation? If you vote for a third Bush/Cheney term, as Hillary has characterized a McCain Presidency, that makes you one of them. Pretty simple math - a vote for Bush/Cheney/McCain = Republican. See ya in St Paul!

What a joke this phony fact checker is! Is this the best you can come up with? This story has NOTHING to do with Obama's awesome ability to bring this country together for real change, or the fact that he's actually the 1st elected official that we can actually trust. The fact that he was off a year about events happening 40 years ago (after being re-told by his parents) is nothing surprising, and certainly not newsworthy. Shame on you, Washington Post!!!!

I am sure itis difficult for both candidates to be constantly questioned and making speeches. So mistakes will occur.
I had immedicately disregarded Clinton's statement. Snipers are the top of the line shooters, how this untrained military woman could get off a plane and dodge snipers - her ass needs to be in Iraq fighting.
Let's deal with the real issues of this country.

Dude, the idea is not to list every historical minutiae of how his father ended here in the United States, but instead, the aim is to say that there is a connection between my humanity and your humanity. In other words: "My American-ness and your American-ness are linked by this Kennedy/Americam deed." But clearly sentimentality does not persuade you; not as I am. Since you want the whole universe to be strict, historical fact checkers (a bar which most journalists cannot reach even from a bar sttol), if the "Kennedys did not fund the 1959 airlift" which one, which year did they fund? Could Obama be mistaken then? I give you 3 dropped balls for not making that extra effort.

Chief, Kevin: Maybe you should see the entire video for the context in which the comments were made by Rev. Wright, that way you will not be hyperventilating. You need to move on and find another pile of dirt.

Here is a fact checker that I would like to see some news station take on! I would like to see the same kind of inquiry into McCain's Pastor as you all did to Obama's Pastor Rev. Wright! At no time did I ever hear him say that he hated white people or any ethnic group. He did exaggerate the U.S. involvement in genocide of black americans and the connection of 911 and America's history in the world!(IT IS DEBATABLE!) Letting Sean Hannity and Fox News slime Obama is unforgiveable!
Please check this webb Site:

What about McCains' Rev. Rod Parsley. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnKBTJvm4Rc

Coachslife

Wonder why Dobbs will get around to writing about Saint McCain's groaning pinocchio moments? This little piffle gets front page, above the fold treatment?

Meanwhile, McCain vacations on, beneficiary of the (seemingly) lifelong free pass issued him by hacks like Dobbs.

How could a Republican be anywhere near striking distance of either major Dem? Reading this the answer becomes painfully obvious.

Any video?

This is stupid! Factchecker--check the facts over something significant, like a Voting Record. Don't waster our time with something someone said about events that happened when they were a kid or before they were born...

Once again the guy is a liar and people just buy it. He has completely fabricated his life and people buy it. For a guy who is supposed to be smart enough to figure out these facts how is it he missed such an important detail as WHO brought him over.

What is amazing is he didn't get 5 liar points for his whole life story which is a lie. I laugh every time I hear someone gush about it. The guy will lose come November because the Black women in the party made s stupid mistake, they voted like Oprah told them too. So the black vote might go with the democrats but there is not only a huge loss of women voters coming, but there are also a asians, and other ethnic groups that won't vote for the guy. Bill Richardson won't get a large Hispanic vote either.

People like loyalty and the men in the DNC just showed their sexism!

Fact checker - I think your right on. Keep up the good work. Try this perspective:

While walking down the street one day a US senator is tragically hit by a
truck and dies.
His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.
'Welcome to heaven,' says St. Peter. 'Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so
we're not sure what to do with you.'
'No problem, just let me in,' says the man.
'Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is
have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you Can choose where
to spend eternity.'
'Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven,' says the senator.
'I'm sorry, but we have our rules.'
And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down,
down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a
green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse And standing in front of
it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him.
Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake
his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at
the expense of the people.
They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and
champagne.
Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has a good
time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before
he realizes it, it is time to go.
Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises...
The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St Peter
is waiting for him.
'Now it's time to visit heaven.'
So, 24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls
moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good
time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter
returns. 'Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now
choose your eternity.'
The senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: 'Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell.'
So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to
hell.
Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land
covered with waste and garbage.
He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.
The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder.
'I don't understand,' stammers the senator. 'Yesterday I was here and there
was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank
champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland
full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?'
The devil looks at him, smiles and says,

'Yesterday we were campaigning......

Today you voted.'

Well and my GREAT GREAT GREAT GREAT GRANDFATHERS was GENGIS KHAN...so dont mess with china-mongolia..dito

Na dmy great great great great great great great mothers was EVE when we where in the garden, before all the lies strated......

Well OBAMA was born in HAWAII then his parents divorced and he live with his mother and StepDAD in Indonisia ?SO where was this picture taken? Lets hear it from the MOTHER? Where is his father now? Where are his granparents ...and most of ALL WHO PAYED FRO HIS SCHOOLING and the UNIVERSITY, HOW where his grades? Did he have any girlfriend in school? did he father any children before. How often doe he see his father? What is his Father philosophy? What JOB does His father hold? Where does he live? HOW about his Stepfathers where does he live or work?

Looking for ways to "even things out," huh? Reaching back to a March 4, 2007 speech? And highlighting a program Kennedy endorsed in 1953, that his family contributed $100,000 to (yes, after his father got to HI, but certainly it helped to support him during his studies). And unlike Sen. Clinton's fabrication of a precise event, running under sniper fire, Sen. Obama's reference to Selma had to do with the changing times and attitudes that permitted his African father and Kansan mother to even consider marriage. And for this you give 3 pinnocchios? Get outta here! Are you gonna go back and give the 3 or 4 pinocchios Mrs. Clinton deserved for all of her follow up lies about Bosnia (first First Lady in a combat Zone, first important dignitary to visit Bosnia?) because if you're handing out 3 for this rally snippet you better go back and reconsider the pass you've give Hillary.

John Paul wrote- Chief, Kevin: Maybe you should see the entire video for the context in which the comments were made by Rev. Wright, that way you will not be hyperventilating. You need to move on and find another pile of dirt.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You Obamanites amaze me. When Hillary said Dr. King did great things but still needed Johnson to help make his dreams come true. You took that out of context and said it was racist. When Michelle said for the first time in her adult life she was proud of her country, you said that did not mean she was not proud of her country. Now you say God Damn America doesn't mean God Damn America. What I gather from you guys is words don't mean what they mean. Right? Obama is running on words. Hope and Change.
But I should not pay any attention to them, because they don't mean what they mean. Taken out of context? What GD words of his does he actually mean? I'm confused? Please explain? Wright's words, Michelle's words, Hillary's words, Bill's words don't mean what they say and I'm supposed to believe bonehead's Hope and Change. Yeah. Right. BS.

Jim, Obama DID put down the ice cream, he took up cocaine instead!

PS: The picture of Obama with his father is another lie isn't it? Didn't Obama write in his fairy tale autobiography that his father left when he was 2, and he rarely saw him after that? Looks like they're pretty tight in that picture, and Obama sure ain't no two year old! So, Obama, throwing your father AND your grandmother under the bus for political expediency purposes in order to gain votes? Oh, YOU ARE QUITE THE PIECE OF WORK, OBAMA! QUITE!

I think three is a wee bit much, but well, he'll have to live with that, I guess. How about Hillary Clinton's claim about Chelsea ducking into a cafe on 9/11???

Well OBAMA house in chicago value at $ 1,650 000 Dollars and the lot nextdoor that somehow was bought by the other guy(rezko) for $650 000 why was that part of the SALE? How much monies does his wife eran at the hospital? WHO pays for his private plane ?

Wonder how many pinnochio's Obama would get with the story Politico.com has today about "Obama had greater role on liberal Survey". Seems to me after reading politico there wouldn't be enough pinniochio's to be given to Obama on this one.

Maybe if the MSM stuck to vetting the veracity of controversial claims, instead of playing some merely for their sensational ratings, the American people, who so often suffer from historical amnesia, would be better informed voters and more accountable citizens.

Rev. Wright made 3 central claims in the oft-repeated video clips of his now memorable sermon: 1) Blowback from America's foreign policy, both overt and covert, contributed to 9/11; 2) The Gov't had a hand in narco-trafficking in the 1980s; 3) The Gov't invented AIDS to harm black people.

For claims 1 & 2, there's ample credible evidence to support his assertions.

Look no further than: 1) "Charlie Wilson's War"; 2) to the writings of ex-bin Laden CIA analyst Michael F. Scheuer to substantiate the theory that America's involvement with bin Laden's mujahideen in Afghanistan -- to expel the Soviets -- and the U.S. military footprint in Saudi Arabia prior to Sept. 2001 were motivational contributors behind the 9/11 attacks.

About Wright's Gov't drug dealing allegations: Have we already forgotten how the illegal Iran-Contra war under Reagan-Bush was funded in part?

Re: 1) the findings of the Kerry Commission; 2) Lt. Col. Ollie North's notebooks (www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm), and 3) paragraph 623 of CIA inspector General Hinz report.

Finally, on this topic the media is so loathe to cover in full and without self-censorship, there's also the curious memorandum of understanding between Attorney General William French-Smith giving Bill Casey's CIA legal cover regarding facilitating drug trafficking.

Taken together, these incontrovertible facts shed the bright light of fact on Rev. Wright's charge of official Washington facilitating the illicit drug trade to realize their personal policy ambitions.

Regarding Wright's 3rd claim about AIDS being inflicted on blacks? Nope. No proof exists. And justifying Rev. Wright assertions in the context of the despicable Tuskegee experiments stretches the logic of relevance to say the least.

So, on balance, Rev. Wright is batting .667.

On his "GD America" rhetoric? Americans are right to be outraged. Sorry, there's no excuse for that.

However, had Wright said, "GD Washington!" might that have been more palatable? After all, MSNBC airs a nightly segment on one of its shows called: "Why Americans hate Washington?"

All in all, .667 is a better factual batting average than all of Rev. Wrights' critics and detractors in the so-called mainstream press combined. Damn him, perhaps, for confusing anti-American-sounding sentiments with his legal right to denounce bad policies made by provably corrupt officials.

How come the WP hasn't bothered to "fact check" any of Rev. Wright's endlessly replayed and sensationalized comments? It's so easy and the probable record so vast one wonders if they're more interested in selling papers rather than news.

And it raises the sound question: Is there a double-standard at play when a black man makes "inflammatory" accusations and the MSM fails to exercise its due diligence but goes to exhaustive lengths to fact-check Hillary's "Sniper fire" claims and Obama's less controversial comments from a speech here?

When did "inflammatory" become redefined to mean "untrue"? I see no connection between the two? Do ANY of YOU? Are you listening, Tucker Carlson?

What I wanted to say all along: Nothing bad really sticks to Senator Obama. However cynical I have become by reading and writing too much about politics ( http://wordpress.com/tag/europeanview-tpzoo/ ) I am beginning to wonder. Maybe he is not glib after all. Maybe it's just because there is not much bad about him? Could be, he is just that important bit more honest than we expect from a politician.

In reading the comments it has become obvious that anything saint Obama says or does is OK, we can find all sorts of reasons why he "miss-spoke". But when Hillary misspeaks, then she is a liar.

One might say that if Obama is trying to associate himself with the Kennedy's than he should at least get the facts straight. No matter when the event occurred. It did not seem to be difficult for someone to find our the fact of the statement so why could no one on the Obama team do so?

Orwell Rolls in His Grave: YOU ROCK!

The IDEA that people would think that this empty suit is competent to lead the world's only superpower IS PREPOSTEROUS.

Maybe if the MSM stuck to vetting the veracity of controversial claims, instead of playing some merely for their sensational ratings, the American people, who so often suffer from historical amnesia, would be better informed voters and more accountable citizens.

Rev. Wright made 3 central claims in the oft-repeated video clips of his now memorable sermon(s): 1) Blowback from America's foreign policy, both overt and covert, contributed to 9/11; 2) The Gov't had a hand in narco-trafficking in the 1980s; 3) The Gov't invented AIDS to harm black people.

For claims 1 & 2, there's ample credible evidence to support his assertions.

Look no further than: 1) "Charlie Wilson's War"; 2) to the writings of ex-bin Laden CIA analyst Michael F. Scheuer to substantiate the theory that America's involvement with bin Laden's mujahideen in Afghanistan -- to expel the Soviets -- and the U.S. military footprint in Saudi Arabia prior to Sept. 2001 were motivational contributors behind the 9/11 attacks.

Everyone now knows that the U.S. military exited stage left from Saudi Arabia after 9/11, right?

About Wright's Gov't drug dealing allegations: Have we already forgotten how the illegal Iran-Contra war under Reagan-Bush was funded in part?

Re: 1) the findings of the Kerry Commission; 2) Lt. Col. Ollie North's notebooks (www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm), and 3) paragraph 623 of CIA inspector General Hinz' report.

Finally, on this topic the media is so loathe to cover in full and without self-censorship, there's also the curious memorandum of understanding between Attorney General William French-Smith giving Bill Casey's CIA legal cover regarding facilitating drug trafficking.

Taken together, these incontrovertible facts shed a brighter light on Rev. Wright's charge of official Washington facilitating the illicit drug trade to realize their personal policy ambitions.

Regarding Wright's 3rd claim about AIDS being inflicted on blacks? Nope. No proof exists. And justifying Rev. Wright assertions in the context of the despicable Tuskegee experiments stretches the logic of relevance to say the least.

So, on balance, Rev. Wright is batting .667.

On his "GD America" rhetoric? Americans are right to be outraged. Sorry, there's no excuse for that.

However, had Wright said, "GD Washington!" might that have been more palatable? After all, MSNBC airs a nightly segment on one of its "news shows" called: "Why Americans hate Washington?"

All in all, .667 is a better factual batting average than all of Rev. Wrights' critics and detractors in the so-called mainstream pack combined.

Damn him, perhaps, for confusing anti-American-sounding sentiments with his legal right to denounce bad policies made by provably corrupt officials.

How come the WP hasn't bothered to "fact check" any of Rev. Wright's endlessly replayed and sensationalized comments? It's so easy and the provable public record so vast one wonders if they're more interested in selling papers rather than news.

And it raises another sound question: Is there a double-standard at play when