Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device.
You can download and read online Obama Trivia: More than 250 Questions and Answers about Barack Obama and Those Close to Him file PDF Book only if you are registered here.
And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Obama Trivia: More than 250 Questions and Answers about Barack Obama and Those Close to Him book.
Happy reading Obama Trivia: More than 250 Questions and Answers about Barack Obama and Those Close to Him Bookeveryone.
Download file Free Book PDF Obama Trivia: More than 250 Questions and Answers about Barack Obama and Those Close to Him at Complete PDF Library.
This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats.
Here is The CompletePDF Book Library.
It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Obama Trivia: More than 250 Questions and Answers about Barack Obama and Those Close to Him Pocket Guide.
President Barack Obama addressed the importance of hard work in a PREV NEXT And for those of you in kindergarten, or starting middle or high school . I did some things I'm not proud of, and got in more trouble than I should have. . sure you have the education you need to answer these questions.
Table of contents
The excuse is that it has been discussed before but what Mr. Saturn says makes sense, that he is United Church of Christ or Protestant.
Obama's dispute was with Rev. Wright, not the religion. Part of the problem in real life not saying it's here is that some want to defend Obama so much that they think he abandoned the church and want to wipe it out. However, Obama never abandoned his religion or said he changed it. He just had a dispute with Rev. I've removed Obama's speculation on a double-dip recession from the article because it isn't biographically-relevant.
Moreover, there is no indication that such an event would occur quite the opposite, in fact, given the steady growth of the economy. It was originally removed as "trivia" which is not the case , but it definitely isn't significant when compared to any of the other speculations Obama has made over the years. Done, although I'm not as sure as you as to how far this right wing conspiracy delves, so I can't totally rule out brainwashing. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes" 1 he has signed in to law a tax on tanning, as well as buying cigarettes which are bought overwhelmingly by people making less than , 2 These facts should be mentioned, I think, because they have caused some controversy among his opponents, and some supporters alike.
We are not going to add our own analysis of the situation. Wait I'm still confused as to why it shouldn't be included, when all that was going to go in the article were properly sourced facts. Sceptre says, "I'd personally be wary about calling Fox a RS". I rest my case, and obviously JahnTeller sees what I have. FOX makes occassional honest and small mistakes like every news outlet in the history of news. They correct them when they do. MSNBC deliberately lies and deliberately slanders people they disagree with.
They have far and away more in common with where most of the country is at politically. Just look around, Jahn. There's mention of criticism and allegations under about every part of Bush's front page, including from left wing sources. Look at any conservative's bio compared to the liberals. Politicians and commentators both. There is no question there is big time bias here. It needs to be brought to a brighter light, because Wikipedia fronts itself as a neutral site. In terms of immigration policy, a memo that recently surfaced suggests that in-depth discussions have occurred on how to keep many illegal immigrants in the country, which would be at least a temporary alternative to the proposals Democrats in Congress have made to legalize illegal immigrants.
The notion of using these tools have drawn the ire of many people who say that it is circumventing congressional authority in order to grant illegal immigrants amnesty. Everything I wrote about the administration's policy on immigration reform is true, and sourced by a reliable source. Keeping it out is further bias censorship which already seems to be rampant in this article JahnTeller07 talk How in the world is that original research, or synthesis?
Approval ratings were listed previously in his article. This is going back in if I don't get a clear reason it shouldn't. This article needs some unbiased editors or sane people will continue to see it as a joke fan page, not an encyclopedic entry. It's so obvious, it's ridiculous. It doesn't matter what you put here, they will run you around with their own biased logic as to why it isn't "reliable". Check out the "reliable sources" for their "approved" inclusions on Bush's page at the bottom of it.
These steadfast liberal publications are "reliable sources" while FOX News is not, according to these editors. FOX is fine and reliable when it's something against Bush. They are there too. But here for Obama, suddenly they become unreliable. It's clear they will never admit it, so it has to be highlighted publicly. Obviously the only thing that counts as "improving" an article here is a positive entry for a Democrat and a negative for a Republican. Nothing else passes, and any complaints are called "disruptive". Time and time again I have watched legitimate topics and stories from legitimate sources get shot down because a Democrat is in question, while clear left wing sources count as "reliable" when it's a Republican.
It goes on all over Wikipedia.
I agree, Jhan, it's a waste of trying to reason with these "editors". They are clearly biased. They simply put you, me or anybody else who tries for a legitimate edit, through what is obviously a run-around, until we give up. Thus, Obama's and most other Democrats pages stay clean. It's a whitewash, so just do everything you can as I am going to, to shine a far larger light on Wiki.
People should not go into this site thinking they are reading a neutral account. This might as well be Huffington Post. Note - I have reported this matter to WP: Several of you editors were sanctioned by the powers that be at Wikipedia for your dictatorial control of this page and your refusal to work toward consensus or allow dissenting views not only on the page itself but also here in the comments section. Things settled down for a bit, but now that some of the probationary periods have ended, it appears that the same 3 or 4 overtly pro-Obama editors are right back at it, locking down the page such that the Administration could not have produced a more biased article themselves.
I would like to see those 3 or 4 of you go ahead and step back and go work on some other articles for a while and let this page evolve in accordance with the community's dynamicism; if this does not occur, then I think we're just going to have to the take the issue back to the conflict resolution arena and see about forcing you guys to release your iron grip over this page. It's neither scholarly nor encyclopedic to be so inflexible. Tony Blair left office in June before even the first primary had begun for the election. I'm a wikipedia newbie so don't want to change such a significant article myself but thought I should flag this up.
I thought that an example would help, and that "Richard Milhous Nixon" would be handier for this than would the name of any recent president, but am of course open to better suggestions. I remember reading in history books that Warren G. Harding was our first black President. He was only partially black but this information was not bandied about back then for obvious reasons I think the Wiki article on Harding mentions his black ancestry.
Harding even addressed the issue obliquely by saying that some of his ancestors "may have jumped the fence". I think this is notable and the opening statement that Obama is our first black president in the Obama Wiki article should make mention of this, because of its historical significance. How do Wiki editors think this matter should be handled? This is the biggest lie I have ever read on wikipedia. The same article that states Obama is not Muslim also states that he attended Muslim schools in Indonesia.
Second off Snopes is not a recognized source but they dispute your claims otherwise. The biggest problem is the lack of a criticism section. Obama is frequently criticized in the media on all points of his opinions and did attend a radical church led by a racist preacher for over 20 years. The article needs to be revised for fair standards. Do not accuse me of ranting. This article is clearly biased and poorly constructed. The blatant lie that he didn't is obviously a lapse in editing skills. I did not claim he was Muslim in anything I have said and do not like being called out on something I did not claim.
A section is needed to discus the criticisms put forth against him and his rebuttals. I neither claimed he was a radical nor was he a Muslim. There is an obvious bias in this article and changes need to be made. Your only sources Snopes. The fact that he attended muslim schools is not a smear but an acknowledged fact known before he announced his run for president. There is nothing in what I said about fringe, birther, or any other accusation.
Do not accuse me of saying anything I did not say. There obviously needs to be corrections and the addition of of criticism section to discuss he charges labeled against him as there are on many Presidents and Senators entries. The fact that he is president does not discredit him from criticism. You specifically do not have the authority to declare facts.
Talk:Barack Obama - Wikiquote
The fact that Obama attended Muslim schools is not a smear but an acknowledged part of his history. It does not matter whether he received criticism for it due to the fact that he wrote about it before the election is relevant and necessary to mention. There is no claim he is connected to Islam or that he was born outside the United States it simply is a part of his history which needs to be mentioned. Obama has a long and controversial history which needs to be addressed in a criticism section. That is a blatant lie the sources that have been presented both claim that he attended Muslim schools while in Indonesia.
You have not listed one claim that I have made as a smear but instead have gone on a diatribe about birthers, haters of Islam, and hate towards Obama. You have no sources to back up the claim that there is a smear but have instead resorted to blatant lies about Obama and claims that everyone other than you must be mistaken including the Barack Obama himself and Snopes. That is explained in detail in the sources from the FAQ. The fringe conspiracy articles about Obama also cover this. If you want to know more about the reasons why this will not be included in the article, search the talk page archives, read the FAQ, and visit websites that are reliable sources.
I move to close these threads. Dave Dial talk The Q and A section needs to be revised to clearly state and substantiate his own claims and that of snopes. Your own conjectures about American schools and the schools in Indonesia are not based on substantiated fact you can either concede or can find new evidence substantiating your blatant accusations. Barack Obama was educated in a radical Muslim school known as a "madrassa" are not accurate, according to CNN reporting. It also clearly disputes your claim. If you can find any evidence that he did not attend a Muslim school bring it forward otherwise the Q and A still needs to be revised and the article needs to add this information.
You are completely side stepping the issue once more by going on a tirade about fox news and conservatives that smear without offering any evidence to that claim. Page protection requested ar RFPP. Let's archive so e of these forum-ish threads, as they become troll magnets. In this edit , DD2K removed the following passage from this talk page, with the comment "Removing unhelpful commentary":.
In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies. However , she wrote: A new shiny mosque is in the corner of the courtyard. The Muslims learn about Islam, prayer and religious activity," said Hardi Priyono, the vice principal for curriculum. It's always been like that. We are a public school. We have always been a public school. SO, the christian children were studying Christianity. Muslims studied the Koran. Obama said he studied the Koran, hence he has some Muslim heritage and education. There are the sources. It is all fact. Is this "nice enough" for you, or would you just prefer deleting the truth again?
This is part of the man's history and should absolutely be included in the article. It is not "conspiracy" or "fringe theory" when the man himself said he did it. The first thing I notice here is that although part of it is irritated commentary, most of it is right or wrong assertion of fact.
Unlike a lot of junk recently posted here by IPs, I see nothing obviously deleteworthy here. Now, whether or not the young Barry O went to Koran classes is of absolutely no interest to me. A few soporific Bible classes were enough to turn me from agnostic to atheist. But clearly it's of tremendous interest to plenty of people admirers of Glenn Beck and so on in the inscrutable US.
I don't have the Obama's book on me, but I did look at this on barackobama. He once got in trouble for making faces during Koran study classes in his elementary school, but a president is less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics -- and more likely to be aware of their nationalism -- if he once studied the Koran with them.
This does not say anything about the school. It could for all I know or care have been nominally secular or nominally Christian. The question is about "Muslim [ But it seems that there indeed was some; surely a this should be added to the article, or b this should be withheld from the article, with the reason clearly given in A1 that the amount or significance was trivial, or c there should be an intelligent discussion easy on the bold, the all caps and the exclamation points about this here.
Incidentally, Public image of Barack Obama does not deal with his early education. And rightly so, I'd have thought. Come come, Wikidemon, my point was to ask about whether or not Obama studied the Koran, and whether or not he did then how this should be handled. I'm entirely open to the suggestion that it's too trivial to be mentioned in the article, but if so then Q1 might say this. If he did study it and we say he did, then the OS by which he must therefore have been a Muslim is of no more interest to me than it is to you.
Well, other than morbid humor interest. Always fun to read up on Wonkette about what the birthers and so on have been up to. If the IP is here to make personal attacks on other editors, then he has at least largely refrained from doing so in the passage above and anyway you and I are both adults here in the kitchen and can stand some heat. I went back through the history last night and found dozens upon dozens of edits this anon ip and it's socks made over the past year.
All accusing Wikipedia editors of trying to hide the fact that Obama is a "Muslim" and making this same point over and over and over. It's unhelpful and violates any number of guidelines to continue to allow this kind of disruption. And not only allow it, but encourage it. I'm not going to keep discussing these ridiculous accusations anymore.
Barack Obama: The Story
There is a next step in the process if this persists, and I would hope that established editors would circumvent these kinds of obvious disruptions and not encourage them. As I understand it, some people are keen to have the article show that Obama went to Koran classes.
It seems that he did go to Koran classes. I'll assume for now that this is an established fact. It's a fact of no interest to me. I can't see how it's related to his later life; but it's a fact that at least one journalist presents it on Obama's website, no less as a hint that Obama is less likely than many other Americans to be Islamophobic.
Perhaps it would also be of interest to the kind of people televised at "tea parties" carrying misspelled placards. That's their problem, not ours. It could be objected that the relevance of this little fact to the aspects of Obama that are significant to the world is unclear or minuscule, and that it is therefore better avoided. I have quite a lot of sympathy for this argument, but I don't understand how it applies here and not to as one example among many "In , he threw out the ceremonial first pitch at the all star game while wearing a White Sox jacket" -- who cares about ceremonial first pitches or his taste in jackets?
Okay, since we have one legitimate editor who wishes to continue stirring the pot, I'll go through the motions. Reject content proposal - having considered the matter, I do not support any change to the FAQ or mention of this matter in the article. The facts about his school are too insignificant to be in his bio but maybe Early life and career of Barack Obama. As I have said above, the facts, as seen here , about where he went to school have caused understandable confusion because they are from very reliable sources.
It's just a first bash and no doubt could be improved. There is nothing new here whatsoever. These percentages used to be very low but they creep up. It's no longer fringe. The so called birthers should now be listed in the main article, not some obscure 'controversy-conspiracy section', please can we list the issue in couple of phrases, ref to that the CNN poll, edit 'was LIKELY born in Hawaii, but it is not confirmed and subject to intense controversy' ref ref ref.
It is important to see actual data, no side birthers or anti-bitrthers has the info, they accuse the other side of being nuts or clueless but truth is nobody has the infoK1PK, and the controversy growns. What we need is the document revealed either original long form paper or microfilm from vital records of Hawaii, then an unbiased scientific forensic analysis of the document. All other records such as college records would help too but are all hidden. I am a scientitst and I do investigations all the time I know what I am talking about.
I am not certifying ANY document online. I examined the statement of Fukino, it seems strong, but is only words. She could lie which of course would be a gigantic fraud. Fraud has happened in US history. As long as this document is not found asnd proven we cannot close or ignore the issue, rather we must mention it, and in the main article. All while this is transpiring in cahoots with those in the border, all so some kid named Barack Obama could run for President 46 and a half years later. In the 3rd paragraph there are three dates directly above and below each other, this looks a little messy But I suppose the only way around it is reconstructing the paragraph entirely and the sheer number of dates in the lede is pretty awkward looking too.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Feel free to browse through them and estimate the odds of establishing a consensus for inclusion. Someone is full of it. For one thing, if they can't be criticisms, then I think you'll have a tough time explaining why his citizenship is mentioned on a page of its own. So it has its own page, but not because it's a criticism? You haven't thought this through well enough. A criticism is a sincere or plausible opinion voiced about facts.
The birther stuff is somewhere between a fringe conspiracy theory and a political smear. But anyway, even if it were a criticism we don't divide the article into criticism and praise sections, but rather work things into the right article s in due proportion to their biographical importance and relevance. This stuff isn't terribly important or relevant to the overall scope of Obama's life or career, and is best mentioned in other articles about more narrow, related subjects. The subject has been discussed again and again, and has never gained substantial support among legitimate editors for its inclusion.
Wikipedia's page on Criticism simply defines it as "the judgement using analysis and evaluation of the merits and faults of the actions or work of another individual. Criticism by many reliable definitions would simply be negative statements. According to Princeton's definition, for example, a critic can be defined simply as "someone who frequently finds fault or makes harsh and unfair judgments".
Logically then, I'm not sure where you're coming up with this definition of the word. As for whether that merits mention in the article, you are again trying to read into this standards that are inaccurate. Regardless of whether it is fact-based and I have my doubts , supported by 'legitimate editors' I notice you are going to try and disqualify some of the many editors who have in the past brought this up , and regardless of whether it is a fringe theory, it can still be discussed if notable and reliably sourced.
Fringe theories , "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory Subjects receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written.
Logically, Wikipedia consensus should not be all that's needed to make a fringe theory notable, just as it should not be all that's needed to reject notable and well-sourced criticisms. Your argument like your logic above is basically gibberish and just a huge waste of time. Have fun spinning your wheels.
Obama's voting record on live birth abortion: Sourced on Wikipedia Pages: Senator, following which he was appointed head of high-profile pieces of legislation worked on by other Illinois Senators: Your last topic ban on this page was what, three months ago? You were doing so well. Please stop posting walls of text, if you can't make your point succinctly than it probably isn't a point worth making. I know you can't address the points other than to try and distract by focusing on the person rather than the argument, so I'll humor you for now.
One wonders, was there a right answer? I provided too many sources, and got accused of making 'walls of text'. And had I provided no sources, I'd have doubtless been accused of not providing sources. It seems, no matter how much sourcing or facts I provide, I cannot generate any response from critics other than personal attacks about racism or Wikipedia history. Instead of answers, there are inflammatory remarks followed by edit war attempts to prevent said remarks from being removed, and vandalism attacks on the page. What you initially proposed is that we include negative facts about Obama for the sake of including negative facts, which is not criticism at all.
It would fit the Wikipedia concept of a coatrack. Others refer to criticism as negative opinions about the facts of a thing, the oppositve of praise. That is the more serious proposal, covering people's negative opinions about Obama, and that is precisely what is discouraged on Wikipedia and has been rejected time after time. That is normally based in fact, although there is a different sense one wholly unsuitable here for baseless negative assertions - but even those are assertions of opinion.
A factual claim, right or wrong, is not criticism. And what you're referring to is criticism in the sense of critique, something we don't really do for articles about people, but we do in say films, where many have a "critical reception" section. And yes, I am disqualifying many of the accounts from which this was brought this up in the past - they are now banned as fake accounts, and the long-term editors here have been very wary of new accounts making similar proposals.
Anyway, it's very unlikely that the editors would agree now to adding a criticism section, and I'm not sure how productive a protracted discussion would be here. It's heading in the wrong direction as it is. Where are you getting this from? What I actually said was that if criticisms are notable and reliably sourced, then they should be included, and that consensus without a valid objection, such as on the basis of sourcing or notability, should not be enough to prevent the subject's mention.
Obama has been among the least controversial of presidents by any legitimate measure. His policies and actions have been entirely predictable and mainstream. Just because a tiny band of ill-educated racists and a few political opponents regard Obama as controversial, this does not make it so. While there are indeed legitimate criticisms one can make against Obama, they are minor in scope and have attracted little notoriety.
Certainly there is nothing substantive enough to warrant a criticism section. I will no longer be engaging in this conversation. You are guarding this article as if it is yours. Wikipedia is about sharing information, and I plan to share plenty of knowledge on this article. Besides, Wikipedia is not about "sharing information". It's not a social network. There is no need for hatred.
No conservative politician on Wikipedia would be excluded from such standard, and you know it. According to the IL Senate transcripts, which links I just included, Obama's reasons for opposing the bills can be seen as follows, from his words posted verbatim: And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion.
Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it - it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.
The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as - as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality.
Now, as I said before, this probably won't make any difference. I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh Circuit. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I - I won't, as I said, belabor the point. I think it's important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and - and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a - a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital.
We decided not to do that. We're going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I'll be voting Present. Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Not a full term. As Obama stated, "whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term.
Such logic cold-bloodedly places a new requirement beyond delivery outside the womb and capability of surviving as such, that you must have undergone a full 9-month term. I am sure that most can agree this is reprehensible. As Obama stated, "As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother's womb and the doctor continues to think that it's nonviable but there's, let's say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they're not just out limp and dead, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved Because if these children are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they're looked after.
Induced Birth Infants Liability Act. The bill's purpose was reasonable, to ensure at least 2 physicians were accountable for verifying live-born children were not in fact surviving the abortions, to prevent the same "infanticide" that led Congress to declare partial birth abortion illegal. This double-physician standard leads to further physician accountability and better assurance that children who survive abortions are not left to die unattended.
Obama declared that protecting children outside the womb who've survived abortions, or as he called them, "previable fetus[es]" would be unconstitutional simply because it would be an anti-abortion statute. According to his own rather muddled statements, "That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. Health care, economy, space, Supreme Court are major ones. I think his handling of the oil spill is not a disagreement yet. There isn't much birther support, either.
So there is a consensus that there be no oil spill and birther controversy but there is probably or should be consensus that the economy and health care are legimate controversies about Obama. The argument that it's elsewhere at Wikipedia so it belongs here, too, seems particularly obtuse. Some poor kids in Greece can't even get their suggestions on satellite articles. Clumsy attempt at paraphrasing the depression-era humor of my grandparents. A third of the articles Jzyeoshoua notes here are already linked from this bio, half likely linked from those, and a few are really stretches.
I second Wikidemon's proposal, before anybody teas wolf again. The whole point of the FAQs is to preclude this sort of post from turning into a rehashing of the same tired arguments for the 70th time.
See a Problem?
While in the process, I realized I could make the posts more concise, and thus merged them as per the topic on the noticeboards. But just bold didn't seem enough, so I used color as well. I don't mind removing the formatting, it was just a spur of the moment idea done for readability. Vote to close and pretend this never happened. Not only do I vote to close, I vote for the offending edits from Jzyehoshua to be deleted. If not self-reverted, to be taken to the appropriate outlet for a permanent topic ban to be enforced.
Which would include all living persons and anything to do with abortion. Is it because they are just plain confused, and don't know the President's past? Or is it because Obama wasn't really born in U. She did not know, of course, that not being born in the US or on a military base overseas disqualifies one from running for the office of President.
She was clearly not trying to blackmail her grandson. Obama e-mails a newsletter to campaign donors, of which I am one. Once in a while, there is some good information there. Can this be cited in the article? It depends on what the email says, and what statement you're interested in showing. The general answer would be "no" in most cases, because it's probably a political email that represents the position of the presidential administration Obama himself may or may not have even read it, much less written it.
Although it's not a WP: RS question exactly, an email from an organization directly to the public does not really establish whether the matter is worth reporting on. We know it's important enough for them to feel they should put it in an email, but as a WP: WEIGHT matter we can't say without third party sourcing whether it's something important enough for people to need to read about here. Second, we try to avoid controversy sections so it would be best to break this up and distribute it into the article as best fits each situation.
Finally, while your sourcing appears to be solid overall, some of your content appears to be of questionable importance. Nowadays… A passage peppered with commas — which in the past would have indicated painstaking and authoritative editorial attention — smacks simply of no backbone.
People who put in all the commas betray themselves as moral weaklings with empty lives and out-of-date reference books. Wikipedia will never be completely neutral because collectively, editors are biased. Wikipedia aims to reflect reliable, secondary sources, which are always biased when it comes to politics. This might answer your comments, especially on Bush. It isn't the place for airing gripes about Wikipedia and supposedly liberal bias here or in the press.
There are other places for that but in general I have little sympathy. Failure to extensively cover the constant attacks that are the stuff of politics in a biography of a person does not represent a political bias in favor of that person, it is an encyclopedic approach to writing biographies. If there's anything specific to change, please feel free to discuss, but keep in mind that much of this has been extensively discussed already.
You can explore the policies and guidelines for contributing to Wikipedia at WP: Lesson 1, please remember to sign your posts - four tildes. If there's no constructive discussion forthcoming I'll go ahead and close this thread. TALK via [  ].
- University Presses (Essential JSP: Critical Insights into the World of Scholarly Publishing).
- Christmas quiz: 180 great children's quiz questions (and the answers).
- Mata Hari (German Edition).
It's important to note that the issue isn't only which publication something appears in, but exactly what it is, who wrote it, and what it's supposed to stand for. Surely you must be aware that the opinions you voiced here are considerably right of center by American standards, and are a criticism of Wikipedia rather than factual points in nature. In addition to trouble from people who want to "balance" the article towards whatever they feel is the correct pro or anti-Obama bias, we've had a lot of long term, persistent trouble from fake accounts. This is one of the most heavily trafficked and edited articles in the whole encyclopedia, which gives it lots of momentum and makes it hard to make broad changes for any reason.
More specialized articles are a lot easier to write and help improve. If you approach Wikipedia as an ideological battleground rather than a presentation of simple facts, you're just going to end up banking your head into a brick wall. The editors who expressed understanding with your opinion may?
But try to stick to business around here and get along. I hope that helps explain things. That's just crazy talk. And what's this about the Washington Times and New York Post being being considerably right of center. I have trouble following your arguments. Each of these publications is very different and I'm not equating them. This book, however, took me on an incredible journey starting a couple of generations before President Obama's birth in Hawaii.
Maraniss traveled to Kansas, Kenya, Indonesia and Hawaii to interview members of the President's family and people who were friends and acquaintances of his Maraniss introduced the President's family on both his mother's and father's sides and like most families, they are an eclectic and colorful cast of characters.
Maraniss presented a very strong case that Barack Obama became the man he is and indeed the president he is, in many ways, due to his biracial and multi-cultural background. As a huge fan and supporter of President Obama, I thoroughly enjoyed this well- researched and thoughtful book about, not only his life, but also the life of his family and extended family.
Since this biography ended with the President leaving his community organizing job in Chicago to attend Harvard Law school, I am assuming there will be a volume Even if you are not a fan or supporter of Barack Obama and his policies, I think you will find that he has an extraordinary life story. This book was excerpted in Vanity Fair, which focused on his relationships before he went to Harvard Law. But that's only one small part of this epic story of his parents' and grandparents' experiences.
It's a sad story on both sides, which makes the President's incredible success all the more remarkable. I was so touched by the events in this book that I made another donation to his campaign! Aug 13, Toni rated it liked it. This was okay, but disappointing. But he also spends waaaayyyy too long on Obama's genealogy, which beyond maybe his parents I, for one, could care less about. More annoying still was this tick he has of dwelling far too long on the little coincidences, chance encounters, and twists of fate that color all of our lives, Obama being no exception.
As a former history major, I found this sort of chaos theo This was okay, but disappointing. As a former history major, I found this sort of chaos theory of life a uniquely uninteresting lens through which to recount a history, or even a biography. He may be right on various levels, but there are ways to get that idea across without bludgeoning the reader to death with it.
By the fiftieth time that Maraniss returned to harp on the theme recounting said chance encounters, etc. Sep 20, Linda rated it it was amazing. I am about halfway into the book but find it fascinating. It is SO detailed starting with the background of both grandparents on both sides of the family and the family of the 2nd husband his mother married from Indonesia. Despite all the myths, Barack Obama's father was not a Muslim but an atheist. Barack's Barry as a child mother had the strongest influence on shaping his spiritual and ethical grounding.
This is a a very good read and can hardly put it down Finally finished and have so much admiration for Barack Obama, from where he came from and what he made of himself. Dec 28, Catherine Woodman rated it liked it. Well, this book is massive in scope. Maraniss has writtena global, multigenerational saga that spans decades and ends right before Obama goes off to Harvard Law School—but in the end, I am not sure that it culminates in the emergence of a young man who is knowable, recognizable and real.
Recognizable and perhaps more real, but I am not sure how much more knowable he really is at the end of the day. The book goes back to his great grandparents on both sides, and ironically, there are almost more p Well, this book is massive in scope. What we do figure out pretty quickly is that he was not lucky in his parentage. His father was all sorts of things that the son is not.
Obama the senior was brash, arrogant, a heavy drinker, a womanizer, an abuser, and someone who burned out rather quickly when things did not go exactly his way. His father bestowed his talented genes upon the son and high tailed it out of Hawaii. The story with his mother was almost as sad—she did not really focus on her son in many ways. He was not seeking the center of attention. He wanted to solve problems. Their skill sets are entirely different as well—and Clinton is undeniably the better politician but Obama is the guy you would want to discuss the book you just read with.
Obama also seemed like better boyfriend material. By the end of the book, I could see the struggles that Obama faced in his family of origin, and why he might appear to be more withholding and aloof—but otherwise, it left more questions than it answered for me. Oct 11, Jim rated it really liked it Shelves: David Maraniss is one of those people who reminds his readers of what good journalism looks like.
He's also one of the better biographers working today. In this book, Maraniss has produced a solid, informative account of the events that shaped the character of Barack Obama. Overall, this is a critical but positive assessment of Obama's youth. While some of the more irresponsible pundits have combed the book for out-of-context "gotcha" nuggets, anyone who actually reads this book will quickly see David Maraniss is one of those people who reminds his readers of what good journalism looks like.
While some of the more irresponsible pundits have combed the book for out-of-context "gotcha" nuggets, anyone who actually reads this book will quickly see through the b. This means you, Dinesh D'Souza! Maraniss goes back through three generations of Obama's family and carries his story through his subject's formative years, up to the time Obama decides to leave community organizing in Chicago for law school at Harvard.
Anyone wanting an account of the future president's political life will be disappointed, given the scope of the book. This isn't to say there is nothing to interest the political junky. Maraniss examines how Obama's development, his Bildung, impacts on how he has approached the presidency.
Although the narrative feels a little exhaustively detailed at times, but overall it is a fascinating examination of a one man's personal and intellectual development. The portrait that emerges is of an intensely cerebral, well-balanced personality. One fascinating aspect of this book is the way the differences between autobiography and memoir i. Maraniss analyzes and corrects the narrative set out by Obama in his memoir. He shows how memoir, as a genre, is more concerned with subjectively exploring themes within a life, rather than setting forth a factual and objective account relatively ojective, within the unavoidable scope of personal bias.
Apr 20, Corey Preston rated it it was ok. A lot of things to be frustrated with here, including in order of escalating frustration: But the worst offense is Maraniss's decision to write this book through the lens of the here and now. When discussing PBO's excellence in school, for instance, or his somewhat transient period as a NY college student, or his brief education in Indonesia, Maraniss feels the need to address the Donald Trumps of the world who scream that PBO is secretly stupid and lazy and possibly a terrorist.
Juxtaposing what you want to be the definitive story of a president, and an historic one at that, with the paranoid, opportunistic ramblings of a fart in the wind like Donald Trump, elevates that bologna to an historical perch too--which makes this book a weird and short-sighted political rebuttal, rather than a great historical document. Oct 13, Bobbettylou rated it it was amazing. Wow, what a book! Exhaustive, at times exhausting, yet hard-to-put-down. Everything you ever wanted to know about our 44th president from four generations before his birth to his inauguration.
In pages of prose. One wonders and marvels at how Maraniss uncovered and organized all the information. It must have been several years, at least, of unrelenting work to interview the hundreds of people who make up the story, including the main caracter himself in an oval office interview s. All of tha Wow, what a book! All of that is well-documented and much of it is reported verbatum. Same for an equal amount of material from hard-to-reach and highly personal sources such as diaries, personal correspondence and obscure sources in out-of-the-way places in Kenya and Indonesia, not to mention Kansas and Hawaii.
The main disappointment is that the story,published in , ends in , just as Obama is heading off to Harvard Law School. Events since then - Michelle, Illinois legislature, US Senate and presidential race - are mentioned only in a two-page "coda. The past 10 years are too recent and too well-known, if seriously misunderstood. One hopes for the sequal yet to be published, "Barack Obama: The Rest of the Story! First in His Class. Sep 06, Nita rated it liked it. I thought this would be a biography of President Obama, and in a way it was, but it was more a biography of the people instrumental in making him who he is.
This book was a little hard for me to read; I wish I had had the time to really settle into it. It had a lot of pretty dry narrative much of which, I regret to say,I skimmed over interspersed with MUCH more interesting! Actually, the man who becomes our President doesn't become a majo I thought this would be a biography of President Obama, and in a way it was, but it was more a biography of the people instrumental in making him who he is. Actually, the man who becomes our President doesn't become a major figure in the story until fairly late in the book.
This book is largely centered around the parents, grandparents and great-grandparents of Barack Obama, and how their lives helped shape him. Portions of the story take place in Kansas as well as Africa in the s, proceeding to Chicago in the s. We meet Obama's African half-brothers and -sisters, his school chums in Hawaii and on the mainland, and learn interesting pieces of history, Obama's and the world's, along the way. One thing I gleaned from this book: I finally learned exactly what a "community organizer" does, and discovered that President of the United States is just that, but on a macro scale!
I was not prepared for the end of the book, since there was still quite a number of pages to go! These were 38 pages of acknowledgments, notes, bibliography and photo credits, in addition to a comprehensive index. This author did his research. This was an excellent background of President Barack Obama. Sep 02, Stan Lanier rated it it was ok. This was an awful lot of work for less than expected payback. Maraniss certainly can write educated and attractive sentences.
I had some difficulty understanding the conceptuality controlling his narrative. Too often, however, I found myself wondering when would a chapter end, and I had to make a conscious decision to finish the book. In the end, I cannot say that Maraniss offe This was an awful lot of work for less than expected payback.
In the end, I cannot say that Maraniss offered a completely satisfying explanation. The one "aha" moment I took away was that President Obama's caution has little to do with a black man operating in a white society: If this book had been badly written-- I'd never have finished. Dec 21, David Tracey rated it liked it. We may never run out of new books explaining Barrack Obama. Or rather attempting to. This one gets full marks for research, even if too many of the facts end up on the page.
The level of detail may be exhausting for some readers, particularly when delving into the lives of people such as grandparents. The meticulous approach is more welcomed for periods of Obama's life that seem more likely to reveal psychological information, such as his school years in Hawaii. But maybe because it ends before We may never run out of new books explaining Barrack Obama. But maybe because it ends before he gets into Harvard, you may finish this book, as with many other Obama books including David Remnick's The Bridge, still wondering as I did: Jul 26, Jerry rated it liked it Shelves: This is an interesting and fairly even-handed account of the family background and early life of Barack Obama.
It has more about the ancestors than about Barack Obama II. And I was disappointed that the book ends before Obama entered Harvard Law School, thus omitting some of the interesting Chicago political background. It reaches far in h This is an interesting and fairly even-handed account of the family background and early life of Barack Obama. It reaches far in his family history and makes numerous connections along the way foreword.
Both countries came out of colonialism into freedom after a difficult struggle against white European nations. And in both instances, the family mythology, or at least the story as passed down to the American grandson or step-grandson and subsequently passed along by him, was of a grandfather standing up against the colonialists and facing the consequences of his bravery: Hussein Onyango detained and tortured by the British; Martodihardjo killed by the Dutch.
While a lack of records establishing the truth one way or another makes it slightly less certain that the Hussein Onyango story was false, neither the Kenyan account nor the Indonesian one holds up well under scrutiny. His mother barely had any, and lived thousands of miles away. He was now staying in a cramped two-bedroom apartment on the tenth floor of the Punahou Circle Apartments, five blocks from school, with his grandfather, who scraped by selling life insurance, and his grandmother, an underpaid bank officer.
Athletic potential did not get him there either, not this chubby kid who had been away from any American sport except tennis since he was six. He performed well on the ten-dollar Educational Testing Service entrance exam for fifth-graders, but there was nothing in his record to affirm his grandmother's conviction that he was a genius. But Barry made the select cut when more than nine out of ten applicants could not. He got in due to several converging factors, including the persistence of his mother, who was tireless at working the system, even from afar; his own winning performance during interviews with the admissions office; a need-based scholarship program that had begun targeting students of his potential and diverse background; and the influence of two wealthy alumni, Stan Dunham's boss, John S.
Williamson, at the insurance agency, and Madelyn's boss at the Bank of Hawaii, Frank Manaut, who was on the Punahou board of trustees. He was black and white, preppie and Choom Ganger and sunny surfer, basketball lifer and writer and perceptive observer, wholly American and yet the son of an African and intimately familiar with Asia from his years in Indonesia. His ability to connect across racial and cultural lines, evident at Oxy and thereafter, was not merely a superficial art of survival but more authentically rooted in his life and being.
He arrived determined to escape the sun-splashed ease of Hawaii and Los Angeles and affirm his racial identity near the epicenter of American blackness, yet ended up living with white and Pakistani roommates, or alone, making no lasting relationships with African Americans at Columbia or in the city as a whole, spending more time away from school with old friends than on campus with new ones, and entering into successive love affairs with two young white women, Alexandra McNear and Genevieve Cook, the first a former classmate from Oxy, the second an Australian with connections to Indonesia.
The only way to assuage my feelings of isolation are to absorb all the traditions [and all the] classes; make them mine, me theirs. Without a class meant that he was entering his adult life without financial security. Without a structure meant he had grown up lacking a solid family foundation, his father gone from the start, his mother often elsewhere, his grandparents doing the best they could, but all leading to his sense of being a rootless outsider.
Without a tradition was a reference to his lack of religious grounding and his hapa status, white and black, feeling completely at home in neither race. Eventually he could make a few essential choices in terms of how he would live out his personal life, moving inexorably toward the black world. But in a larger sense, in terms of his ambitions beyond family, he did not want to be constricted by narrow choices. The different path he saw for himself was to rise above the divisions of culture and society, politics and economics, and embrace something larger-embrace it all.
Later, when he wrote those few paragraphs about B. As in his telephone conversation with his mother, he expressed a distaste for the corporate world. Among the Pakistani friends, Mahmood was the one to whom Barack had once confided his grand political ambitions in the form of the question of whether he could ever be president of the United States.
Now Mahmood could see Obama slowly but carefully distancing himself from the Pakistanis as a necessary step in establishing his political identity. For years, when Obama was around them he seemed to share their attitudes as sophisticated outsiders who looked at politics from an international perspective.
He was one of them, in that sense. But that is not what he wanted for his future, and to get to where he wanted to go he had to change—not cut off the Pakistanis as friends, but push away enough to establish a clear and separate identity. How did he feel about living and working in the black community for the first time in his life? I asked him, 'Why do you want to do this? Why do you want to organize? You graduated from Columbia. You are an African American when corporations are looking for people like you. Why don't you do something else?
Where does this come from? What place and how deep does it come from? And what I got from him was that the people in the civil rights movement were his heroes. And I also got from him that his mom was a social activist, an academic social activist, but a social activist. There were two reasons for the decision, he said. First, he did not want to end up like his father. Law school would send him on the way toward economic security, something his father never had. And second, he had concluded that community organizers did not have enough power.
Their work was important on the street level, where small victories were hard earned, but to change the conditions that Professor Wilson laid out so clearly would require a power that was wider and stronger. Law school would arm him with more skills, more power to effect social change. It would allow him to engage in a more public life.
Sep 25, Michael rated it really liked it Shelves: Anyone who read his memoir Dreams from My Father, which by t http: How many politicians, after all, provide such searching personal accounts of their lives before attaining national office? The blank screen approach that Obama has embraced works well in a moment dominated by the collapse of Wall Street and the Iraq war, issues for which all possible solutions seem unpalatable; what voters want is to feel that things will change, without too much uncomfortable detail about what will actually happen.
The father who Obama inherited his dreams from was, by all accounts, a monster — an adulterer, an alcoholic, an absent father, and unable to compromise in his professional life. Obama, as has been perhaps overstated, can switch codes in a way that was not always possible for an African-American. But this ability comes not so much from talent, as the luck of his birth and his ability to choose his own fate which was facilitated by his unlikely heritage. Obama is the kind of leader we need, which is why it is a shame that he has decided to remain invisible.
For progressives, all this talk of identity and race in America still leaves the problems of policy. In the end, the politics of Washington and the two parties trump the politics of identity. In his new biography of Obama, Barack Obama: The Story, David Maraniss begins generations before the future 44th President of the United States was born, both in Kenya and Kansas, and ends well before Obama set out on his career as a politician.
In this manner, Maraniss occupies himself with the same period of time Obama himself wrote about in Dreams from My Father, and many of the facts that Obama admittedly compressed are parsed and analyzed with a much longer view. His grandfather, Stanley, appears to be the prototypical mid-century failed writer turned furniture and then insurance salesman. As an exceptional student, Barack Sr. In Hawaii he excels at his studies and the socializing and drinking typical of universities and meets Stanley Ann Dunham in a Russian language course in his second year.
Kenyan culture, during this era, was modernizing but still largely tribal. The same male-centric patterns can be seen on the Dunham side. The blurred lines of Punahou did not please the writer in Obama as much as the stark racial realities of Chicago. Instead of radical liberalism, Obama establishes and develops a rigorous sense of intellectual inquiry at Occidental College in the earlys. But this is also his first extended time on the mainland away from Hawaii and Indonesia.
The complexities of race become acute for him here, especially when he confronts the fact of blackness in mainstream America, where being African-American does not necessarily make you multicultural. It is the angry closed-mindedness of the African-Americans who call Obama out for being multicultural and not black that sends him on his way to figure these things out for himself.
In his self-referential poetic letters, his jazz hangouts and international friends, his summer trip to Pakistan, Obama shows his worldliness, but he tries to skirt this with a revision of his heritage and the discovery of a culture he never knew. He becomes, as all college students become, an insufferable bore. He wants to find a truer love, a more real community, to capture the essence of his city in poetry. Instead of roughing it in grad school on stock profits inherited from his father, a young Obama picks up and moves to Chicago to start a career as a community organizer, something right wing commentators would pick on him for to no end in his presidential campaign.
His role as a community organizer, though, reveals his interest in social justice, which was inherited, from his mother. But his moderation and calm head despite a few Two Cigarette Moments discount the myth of him being an entrenched leftist activist.
- Obama School Speech: Video and Transcription?
- Rise of The Wolf Riders Episode 11: The Council of Ten Thousand (The Hell Fire Series).
- Navigation menu.
- Black Dawn.
- Great Women in Aviation #4 - Jessie Woods - Grand Lady of Wing Walkers.
Maraniss ends his story here, and if we thought everything that came before was complicated, just think of everything left unexplored — Michelle, Jeremiah Wright, law school, a professorship, the Senate, fatherhood, the nomination, the birthers, and all the sticky stuff of the Presidency. Sep 12, Allison rated it it was amazing Shelves: This is a phenomenally well-reported book that explores the lineage and early life of Barack Obama. President Obama himself doesn't appear until Chapter 7 - it begins by alternating between one side of his family then the other, which I found really fascinating, if slower to get through.
Sometimes it does feel like Maraniss is stretching in his analysis of Obama and the family members in his life, but I think he does a good job building how Obama became Obama. It was a personal accomplishment to This is a phenomenally well-reported book that explores the lineage and early life of Barack Obama. It was a personal accomplishment to read this book, as it's quite long as far as my non-fiction reads go, and I'd been intending to read it since I'm glad I finally got around to it, and recommend the book if you're looking to learn more about our former President and get into the Biography genre.
Jul 02, Byron Edgington rated it it was amazing. Cool head; Main thing. This simple aphorism, almost too short to contain any wisdom, goes a long way in explaining the 44th President of the United States. Barack Obama has said so before himself: Obama may have been most comfortable in Hawaii as a hapa, Hawaiian lingo for half white half black. The brilliant but erratic, hopelessly alcoholic Barack Obama senior was more than a biological father; he was a mythic presence, and in that capacity similar to many of the ephemeral demons Barack the younger had to contend with to sort out who he was.
Indeed, one criticism of the book is that, in delineating who the man in the White House is, Maraniss fails to mention the role that being the adult child of an alcoholic parent plays in his behaviors. This is perhaps the best researched book written about a powerful, world-famous, iconic figure who appears to have purposely left few clues. Much of the African narrative, for instance, came from oral recollection, and fact checking had to have been exhausting because of it.
Observing the man in the White House now, and reading The Story, we begin to understand why Obama avoids the rough and tumble of politics: For those still, at this late date, determined to discredit our 44th president there is little to like here. Obama is a Christian, American, qualified and competent to be president. He might know a lot more about the world as it is and about himself than his predecessor, and that is a very good thing. David Maraniss is a journalist who thoroughly researches every word he prints.
He in past has written about Clinton and it is not stretch to assume his loyalties lie with the Democrats. But Maraniss is fair and I've never found a lie in anything Maraniss has ever written. This book sheds light on the formative years of Obama. This book also sheds light on many "misrepresentations" that Obama has written about himself in his "Dreams from my Father" book. Maraniss gives details to make clear what a David Maraniss is a journalist who thoroughly researches every word he prints. Maraniss gives details to make clear what are the facts.
The first about 7 discs dwells his family history in Kenya and in US. A few myths are dispelled here: Someone did remember a mention about "Stanley" giving birth in Hawaii. Stanley was Obama's mothers middle name. Apparently this is not the story that has been told before. Barack senior was a violent man with another wife and 2 kids back in Kenya, so there was no reason he would have taken Stanley Ann back to Kenya to give birth. Obama grew up in Indonesia where his mother worked and did research. His grandfather sought out a Black man for Obama to associate with since there were few Blacks in Obama's childhood experience.