With the release of David Maraniss' book "Obama: The Story" and its discussion of Obama's past romantic relationships in particular, it's unsurprising that Jack Cashill has something to say about that.

American Thinker: What Does 'Composite Girl' Tell Us About Obama?

At first, it looks like Cashill is arguing that what Maraniss learned validates his claims that 'Dreams' is fictionalized and that Bill Ayers did that fictionalizing:



Except then midway through, it turns out that's not his primary beef with Maraniss. It's that Maraniss has confirmed TOO MUCH of Obama's account:



So when Ms. Cook says that she doesn't remember something depicted in the book, Cashill says that's proof of his hypothesis. And when Ms. Cook says that she DOES remember events as depicted in the book, Cashill says that's "too convenient" and fits "too neatly," and suggests that people are lying.

Cashill also complains about the quality of writing in Obama's love letters. It seems that Cashill thinks they were too well-written:



So at this point he's basically accusing the White House of faking old love letters, which were given to old girlfriends, who lied about their provenance, and that they did all of this to...discredit Jack Cashill, I guess.

There are letter birthers now?

Cashill's whole gig is based on his assertion that Obama is a poor writer and Ayers is a good writer. But nothing backs him up. His presentation is pathetically lacking in substance.

The calls for the Long Form Diary started about 5 minutes after the article in Vanity Fair first appeared.

I need some crowdsourcing help on something.

Cashill's big thesis is, of course, that Ayers helped Obama write "Dreams From My Father." But he's rather vague on *when*. "Dreams" was published in mid-July 1995. According to most reports, Obama and Ayers first met personally when he began his run for state senate, which was in late June/early July 1995. Far too late for Ayers to have written anything.

They also served on the same Annenberg project board, and the first meeting they both attended was March 1995. Whether they had any personal interaction is unknown, but even March is probably too late for Ayers to have started writing anything.

Christopher Anderson, whose book Cashill trumpets as supporting his account, says that "Dreams" had a September 1994 deadline. He also says (without source) that Michelle encouraged her husband to approach Ayers for help, having known Dohrn at Sidley Austin. He further says that Obama knew other Ayers family members from their time together on the board of the Chicago Public Education Fund.

There are several problems with that account, despite the sourcing issues. Dorhn left Sidley Austin in 1988; Michelle joined in mid-to-late 1988. If they were there at the same time, it wasn't for terribly long (making it an odd relationship to call upon 6 years later). The Chicago Public Education Fund began *after* 1995, not before. And, of course, September 1994 (if we assume that date is accurate) is LONG before it's claimed they first met.

So here's what I haven't been able to figure out. Cashill and others like to claim that Obama and Ayers were "neighbors." But how true is that? Where were Obama and Ayers living in 1994/1995? On the same street? In the same neighborhood? Or just in the same senate district, potentially miles apart?

Both the Obama's and Ayers/Dorhn bought their houses in the Kenwood neighborhood in spring/summer 2005. The Obama's had lived in several places in the Hyde Park area in small condos until they income from the book allowed them to buy the place in Kenwood. The address for Ayers prior to that is on W. Harrison which is not close enough by any stretch to be called neighbors. Since they all had jobs at the U of Chicago, it makes sense they would live within commuting distance of the University.

I still have seen no evidence that they had met before they were on the board together after the book publishing was well underway or completed. But for sure, they were not popping in and out of each other's houses borrowing sugar and ghost writing books.

Jack @ American Thinker: New Obama Bio Does Not Kill 'Birther' Theory

Jack correctly observes that Maraniss' book did not include interviews with hospital staff or others directly involved with Obama's birth, as was claimed by...well...some guy on Amazon.com.

Jack goes on:



I daresay that very few biographies of political figures devote much space to detailing the circumstances of the politician's birth. Heck, Maraniss might spend *more* time on Obama's birth than would otherwise be typical. He mentions the time and place, he names the hospital, he quotes from the birth certificate; what more does Cashill want?



Of course. How his mother made the grueling 2+ mile trip to the hospital. The private details of what took place in the delivery room itself. Who drove the car the next day. Y'know, the normal stuff you expect in a biography.

Loren, I don't even know all those details about my own birth. In fact, if my mother (or father) gave an itinerary for my birth, I would look at her (or him) like s/he needed to get out of the sun. And they're the only ones who probably would know those sorts of details. Given that the President's parents (and grandparents on his mother's side) are deceased it is quite possible no one, not even the President himself, knows the answers to those questions.

We also don't know what everyone was wearing. This Maraniss is a hack.

And what did they have for breakfast? Inquiring minds want to know!

I still see Birthers refer to something Neil Abercrombie once said, about being "here" when Obama was born. Because they then claim Abercrombie was lying because he wasn't literally in the delivery room.

Which, of course, is retarded. He never said he was in the delivery room. My own *dad* wasn't in the delivery room when I was born, in 1978. Why on Earth would anyone think some college friend would be allowed in to witness a birth in 1961? What friend would even want to witness that kind of event?

Breakfast on the morning *before* he was born? Or the hospital breakfast the following morning?

And the goalposts never stop moving!

I have yet to see any evidence that the hospital actually served breakfast on the morning after Barack Obama was born. This is indirect proof that he was not born there. Shirley some hospital staff member would remember what SAD ate that morning! It's not every day that a hospital hosts the birth of a future president, so if breakfast actually were served, somebody would remember.

I know every excruitiating detail of my birth, thanks to my mother's need to be a matyr. With every telling, the labor gets longer though. And since dad was in Vietnam, I really only have her word for it.

But otherwise: who freaking cares.

someone must still have the placenta. you'd think that a witness to such an historic event would be HONORED to tell their story and prove obama's nbc status!!!

[/wintertime]

A Possible Explanation for Obama's Connecticut Social Security Number



I'm not sure that's "preposterous." Hypothetical and unprovable, yes, but not preposterous. Overseas applications have to be sorted through *somewhere* after all.



Yeah, what are the odds that Obama could be the victim of *two* clerical errors in the span of 20 years?



I see. Let's hear it, then.



So mail rerouting is "preposterous." Clerical error is deemed improbable.

But criminal conspiracy for document fraud between a teenager and the Yakuza and/or the longshoreman's union is "a more likely explanation."

I'm glad you brought this up. It's hysterical (both senses of the word).


Gotcha.

A thoroughly criminal enterprise, masquerading as official state business, was in the habit of issuing official SSNs to people who would pay extra but who were otherwise ineligible.

They used numbers 'from' other states (even though the area number is known not to indicate anything necessarily about either the SSN holder or issuing office), and used numbers 'formerly' held by a deceased person (even though survivors would notify the SSA of the death in order to collect survivor benefits), and even though they themselves were not actually official issuers of SSN's, and thus would have no way of inserting the new (fraudulent) holder into the SSA system.

This was a good plan becasue if the fraudulent holders were caught (and a number of historical examples of this are cited -- NOT) LE would be led on a false trail to Connecticut or wherever, never suspecting that Hawaii might have been involved; and the caught suspects never confessed that they got their 'papers' in Hawaii.

And all this was common knowledge to the very people who were allegedly misled by this scheme: Hawaii LE.

Plus... it's all just vile. "We know Obama is illegal because he is from Australia Hawaii, which is entirely peopled with criminals..."

Minor correction: In April 1977, President Obama would have been 15 years old, not 16. Just the right age to embark on a life of crime.

Hey! Does this mean me, JuneBug, Deelite, NP and MikeDunford are all crinimals, too? That is soooo cool! I've always wanted to be bad

I'm ready!
How do you say, "We're going to the mattresses" in Japanese?

What gets me is that, in their world, it's easier to believe that an entire state, from government to business and everything else, is corrupt. More than that, it's corruption from a foreign mob AND unions!!

Wow, racist attitudes and far-right paranoia, all in one

Of course, he can't name the retired officers or present any evidence from them. Wouldn't want to jeopardize an ongoing investigation!

Why would an allegedly Indonesian citizen need a U.S. SS#? I wish these birfers would make up their mind which conspiracy theory they're going to follow.