BO And Frank Marshall Davis, Part II

In last night’s Ramble, I said:

OK, yes, it’s the National Enquirer. Yes, nobody else is covering the story. Yes, there’s a Clintonista running the place.  But given that on three occasions in the last six months by my count, they’ve managed to scoop the MSM with accurate stories that seriously damaged Obama‘s campaign,  you really have to wonder about this. Dan Riehl describes the story this way:

 

.Okay, to summarize – from the time he was a child until he was a young man, I guess, Barack Obama drank whiskey, wrote dirty limericks, read poetry and, um, was counseled by a sexual deviant, child molester, rapist of children? That about cover it? And in his book he said it had a lasting effect on him? .

Well…. actually, I don’t wonder at all. I believe it.  Here’s the thing: Of late the National Enquirer has shown itself to be of greater trustworthiness than has Obama, or the remainder of the MSM.  Look, gang… this is not piling on, nor is it blaming the victim. I don’t recall Obama ever once claiming victim status at the hands of Davis.  I’m not about to blame someone for such misjudgements at age 10.

The question being asked, however, is have those abilities improved since he became an adult.

Over at OTB this morning, I put a little edge on it:

What he did or did not do as a child isn’t the point, as regards the validity of his personal choices. How he labels the incidents NOW, however, is. He says in his book, that he considers Davis a ‘mentor’.He’s confirmed it, as has his campaign. Seems a little obvious to try and toss Davis under the bus with all the rest at this point.

Argue if you will this is merely one more ‘Mentor’ who wasn’t who he thought, but that… along with all the other people who weren’t what he thought they were, of course, still add up to a huge question mark on his ability, to judge such matters today. Given his supposedly superior judgment was the central pillar in his claims of legitimacy on the presidency, this long list of people and situations where his vaunted judgment failed him seems a legitimate point of discussion.

Now of course we have the usual suspects out there, claiming that this story is all garbage and trying to take it off the table. Of course it should be noted that these same folks raised no objection whatever to the large number of fables that came out about Sarah Palin.

I also note DavidL showing up over there and wading in with essentialy the same concepts as I.