Yet when you look at the actual record (via the NYT link I posted above) that statements is shown to be at best the result of an incredibly lousy memory or at worst a bald faced lie. This untruth is the entire thesis of this thinly sourced article. Of course this begins to make more sense when you realize that most of it is not even about Obama, it is actually about the AUTHOR of the article himself. This guy is trying like hell to inflate his credentials. I don’t begrudge him that, but doing it by tearing someone else down based on this bold faced dishonesty - yeah that’s a problem.

It defies credibility that an “experienced state house reporter” remained totally unaware of Obama’s accomplishments prior to 2003. One example; Obama is credited by both Democrats and Republicans in the Illinois state legislature with being largely responsible for state Campaign Finance Reform passed in 1998. Newspapers at the time said it was : “the Most Sweeping Good-Government Legislation in Decades.” Obama would have NO difficulty mentioning that, along with the other bills he sponsored and helped shepard through the legislative process prior to 2003.

That said, this journalist struck me as decidedly minor league largely because of his writing style and grotesquely over blown self promotion. He spends a great deal of the article talking about himself , a common error of B or C list reporters. The sheer length of the article is also a clear sign that his reporting is sub par. Considering the amount of actual substantive information included, it should be no more than 1/4 of its current length, and that might even be too long. Writing that rambles on interminably is another obvious sign of a mediocre reporter.

He further exposes his weaknesses as a reporter by documenting a great deal of information that is purely his opinion or is second or third hand gossip. The overall content of the article that is sufficiently sourced to properly be included in a news piece (as opposed piece labeled as opinion), is pathetic.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

However, I’m going to reserve further comment for now, because by days’ end yesterday it was more than clear that the charges about Obama’s call to the Canadian embassy regarding NAFTA were untrue. Since so many of the other charges against BO have, upon further scrutiny, turned out to be inaccurate I want to see what more comes out of this before I bang my head on the table.