THE OBAMA SCANDAL
President Obama can be credited with keeping his word, as given during the 2008 election campaign, about killingOsama Bin Laden and about his healthcare plan .But he could not keep his word to the American people about another much-promised “change.” He has failed to recover the economy, failed to reduce unemployment. He has taken measures to do so, but has simply failed to bring about the desired results. One might even say that he has "misguided" the American people on these counts.
But a larger question that I wish to ask is this: did he acquire the presidency itself in 2008 by misguiding the American people? Such is the claim of Indian author Inder Dan Ratnu, who believes that president Obama did indeed do so, and that he can prove it. Ratnu claims that Mr Obama lifted his Hillary-defeating,/presidency-winning “ideas” or “points” from his book entitled First Lady President without his authorization after Ratnu sent a copy of the book to then-Senator Obama in April 2007 as a gift from its author.
Author Inder Dan Ratnu accuses president Obama of having deceived the American people through a misrepresentation of the credentials of Hillary Clinton back in 2008, taking a cue from a specific chapter of his book through the deception of telling a half-truth and concealing the remaining half. Chapter 9 of the book, entitled “Democractic Convention and Beverly Hilton’s Nomination Acceptance Speech” (page 130 of the Indian edition that was sent to Obama) included two speeches: one by senator Charak Sudama of Illinois, an African American man (who was picked up as the vice presidential running mate by the female presidential candidate impressed by this very speech in the story) which was based upon an anti–war theme. And just following this was the nomination acceptance speech of the female candidate Beverly Hilton, which was based upon the theme of "change."
The author claims that Obama used the basic premises of both of these speeches, which ultimately tilted the balance in his favor and made the decisive difference in defeating Hillary, who otherwise was a sure bet to emerge victorious in the primaries and the general election. Obama proved himself anti-war and Hillary pro-war, just as Sudama did Hilton and her ultimate Republican rival, Nigel Robinson .Obama did so by quoting his own speech of 2002 and citing Hillary’s vote of 2003 in the US senate on the Iraq war resolution. This altered the very dynamics of the entire election, turning them upside-down and making Obama instead of Hillary the president. It must be recalled that Hillary ran neck-and-neck with Obama until the very end, despite the reverses she suffered in Iowa and other states. Ultimately, she conceded only for the sake of party unity, and to save the presidency for the Democrats.The author claims that it was Iowa that turned the tables. Obama was trailing Hillary in all opinion polls before the Iowa primary, and the turning point in Iowa took place simply because of the deceitful references to his own speech and Hillary’s vote. He did not tell the American people that Hillary had spoken as much against the war as he did, and that he actually was not even a member of the US senate at the time of the resolution, and hence could not have voted one way or the other. This amounts to a deliberate effort to misinform and mislead the American people.
On the surface, this all might appear to be simply an attempt by the author to promote his book: but an in-depth examination and analysis of the available evidence suggests that there could be some substance to the story. Twenty-five points posted on the book's website (http://www.firstladypresident.net/evidence.htm) along with the explanations he has placed at the link (http://www.firstladypresident.net/explanations.htm) is indicative of a concrete proof which suggests that his claims could not and should not be lightly dismissed as simply a figment of his imagination or a publicity stunt.
Ratnu claims that he has far more concrete and better circumstantial evidence against president Obama concerning these allegations than the president had about Osama Bin Laden’s location while ordering the mission to kill him in the recent past. Ratnu further claims that this story of Obama misguiding the American people in 2008 WILL have consequences for the 2012 presidential election – unfortunately this time against the president - -precisely the same way as Obama’s speech in 2002 and Hillary’s vote in 2003 had in the 2008 election.
Granted, this story is extremely difficult to believe in the absence of a direct admission from the president. But common sense begs the question: why would the president admit it for obvious reasons, even if it were true? Given the evidence that the author has presented and the further explanations he offers, perhaps it is as difficult for the president to disprove the author as it is for the author to prove his contentions. Furthermore, it is as unappealing to any mind that Obama -- even if the author’s contentions were true -- could admit it, as is the hypothesis that he could have used the points contained in the book. Therefore , the author deserves the benefit of the doubt, and the story needs to be investigated thoroughly by reporters. Because if it turns out to be a true story, it will constitute an unimaginable, indeed unprecedented, story in US presidential election history.
If proven correct, this story could well constitute the first ever "scandal" of the Obama presidency, as predicted some time back by professor Brendal Nyhan of the University of Michigan. But the author appears to possess great confidence in the US media. He contends that the president is likely to deny it initially, precisely as happened in the earlier two presidential scandal cases. But strong circumstantial evidence coupled withrelentless media pursuit, he maintains, will force the president eventually to admit to the scandal, as occurred with the Watergate and Lewinsky scandals, costing him the re-election.