Most of the focus recently has been on the way Fox News pushed the madrassa hoax, but during that January 19th segment of Fox & Friends, one of the hosts, Brian Kilmeade, pushed the idea that Obama had lied about the characters in his memoir, Dreams from My Father.

I remember reading in the introduction that Obama states quite clearly that some of the characters were composites. So, Fox was at it again. But, where did this new attempt to call Obama’s integrity into question come from?

I ended up finding a reference to an article by Lynn Sweet from 2004 in which she seemed rather outraged that Obama had done this. Again, despite the fact that Obama is hiding nothing. Regardless, I knew this would not be the last of this.

Today, I came across an ABC report from January 16th (before the madrassa hoax push on Fox), that discusses the Sweet article.

From Brian Ross’ "The Blotter"…

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."

Wow, that sounds ominous. Except that…

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.

Huh, what a surprise, there’s really no story there.

Most of the commenters on the Ross piece get the absurdity of this…

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

…

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

But, that doesn’t stop others from internalizing the insinuation and saying things like this…

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

Ross closes the article with this graf featuring a blind quote from the Obama camp…

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.

Again, this article appeared before the madrassa hoax took off, but I hope the Obama campaign has learned the correct lessons from that episode. That silence, as a response to erroneous stories, can be seen as an indication that there might be something to hide.

UPDATE: And to prove my point above, here’s Andrew “Cooties” Sullivan’s response, from January 18th, to the Blotter article…

Does he have a James Frey problem? I like Obama, but you’ve got to worry when a campaign dismisses something as a “non-story.” That almost always means it’s a real one.

Of course, if you read the Brian Ross piece, you would know there isn’t a story. But, that doesn’t stop Sullivan from questioning the response from Obama’s camp, regardless.