I found the parts I read of Dreams of my Father (I didn’t finish it) to contain a lot of nonsense, very pretentious and rather vague (among other things).’
& still no examples. No details. Just sweeping generalities.
I’ll be blunt. I don’t believe any of Dreams matches your description. That is because Dreams is a pure work of propaganda, as pure as any of the other three examples I cited.
There is a word for “gibberish” propaganda. That word is “failed”.
But Dreams did not fail. It succeeded spectacularly.
Here were Ayers’ tasks. He had to take an unaccomplished, self-absorbed, self-congratulatory (read: ‘obnoxious’), raised-by-white people political-nobody and make him first and foremost acceptable to the black Chicago constituency that would give Obama his first political win—if he was to have one—and in broader terms make this same narcissist appealing to a wider electorate, should Obama get that far.
It was a Herculean task. Considering what Ayers had to work with, it was a virtually impossible task. Had he at any time veered into “gibberish”, he would have failed.
But Ayers stayed on point. He presented Obama as well as anyone could, & this involved two things. First, lying like a rug 99 percent of the times (at least) that the book depicted Obama in a positive/appealing light. Second, Ayers had to cover Obama’s butt on the manifold issues with The Won’s personal attributes & unacceptable personal history. I.e.: in order for the propaganda to succeed, Ayers had to massage, & then present in the most sympathetic way possible, the WEIRDNESS of Obama’s sketchy, unacceptable history.
A general rule of thumb therefore applies in general to this type of propaganda and to Dreams in particular. Anything that makes Obama look good is almost certainly a lie. Anything that casts him in a negative light is ^certainly^ an effort to smooth over some unsavory or outright unacceptable aspect of Obama’s history/past.
Thus it is possible to say without reservation that the allusions to Stanley Ann’s “murky”, ‘not real’ wedding are true—at least as much of the truth as Ayers deemed it absolutely necessary to divulge.
& that is why it matters. Because both Ayers and Obama knew the truth, and knew it could hurt Obama in a devastating political way. So Ayers had to sympathetically tap dance around the truth, revealing just enough to cover Obama’s fanny in the event of future revelations.
From this is it becomes crystal clear that the ‘murky’ wedding was not ‘real’, and that Michelle absolutely told the truth when she said Stanley Ann was “very young and very single” when she had Obama.
Not that I imagine you followed one word of that, but nevertheless, there it is. I.e.: there is why your unfounded and absolutely false claim that Dreams is “gibberish” matters, and the unquestioned FACT of why Ayers deemed it necessary to include a passage that did not reflect well on Obama’s parents’ marital status.
“& still no examples. No details. Just sweeping generalities.”
Yes. Correct. It was a general impression of the book.
“I’ll be blunt. I don’t believe any of Dreams matches your description.”
Good for you.
“Not that I imagine you followed one word of that, but nevertheless, there it is.”
It was tough going but I got there in the end. I think.
“and the unquestioned FACT of why Ayers deemed it necessary to include a passage that did not reflect well on Obama’s parents’ marital status”
That’s not a FACT. A fact is something that is known or proven to be true. You’re just making an assertion. However much the logic leads you to that conclusion in your own head, someone else could interpret that information differently. For example, it is possible that you are wrong.
Here are some FACTS. They are known and proven to be true:
1. A marriage between Obama and Dunham is listed in the official Hawaii Marriage Index.
2. A reference and date for a marriage in Hawaii in their divorce papers.
3. A judge signing that ‘due proof’ of that marriage being presented to the court
during their divorce proceedings.
Unless you’ve got something new and FACTUAL about their marriage, I’m moving on. You are too emotionally invested in your own peculiar theory about their marriage and the OCD about the word ‘Gibberish’ is disturbing. The important part of allowing lurkers to see the FACTS about the case has been done more than adequately.
I know you’ll want the final word so go for it.
Ayers stepped in and completed an outline structured very much like his own autobiography to satisfy the publishers. Then, Ayers went ahead and did the book, with it must be said, some input from Barry, when he wasn't busy.
Amazingly, for a long period after publication, Obama actually seemed to have no idea of what was in the book! He made application to the Illinois Bar, for example, with statements completely at variance with the book's story. (I believe he was called on it, leading to his "voluntary surrender" of the license ... permanently.)
The book of course is crap, but it is rather well structured and expressed. It has made Obama a millionaire many times over based on public library, school, and government sales. Every USAID Reading Room on the planet has multiple copies, every High School, Grammar School, pre-school, ship at sea, barracks day room, Afghan Veterinary Clinic, Iraqi body shop and whorehouse receives subsidies for its purchase or just out and out delivery.
Whether what's in "Dreams" is true or false, or whether Barry wrote it or not (he didn't), it does remind one of "Mein Kampf" in its aggressive distribution and profit to the presumptive author.