On Memorial Day, at a campaign stop in New Mexico, Senator Obama made a statement, of which I quote one part: "I had a [sic] uncle who was one of the...um...who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps..." click here to listen
He was referring to his mother's side of his family, and a story that had been repeated in his family since the end of WW II. As it turns out, his mother did not have a brother. And, it was the 322nd Rifle Division of the Soviet Red Army that liberated Auschwitz on January 27, 1945, not the U.S. Army.
After being criticized for these errors, the Obama campaign clarified the remarks by saying it was Senator Obama's Great Uncle, not Uncle, who had participated in the liberation of one of the concentration camps at Buchenwald, not Auschwitz.
Buchenwald was liberated on April 11, 1945 by the Sixth Armored Division of the U.S. Third Army, commanded by General George Patton. Prior to the Americans arrival, the Communist prisoners of the camp had taken it over, killing some guards and forcing the remainder of the camp security forces to flee.
I understand the pride that family stories have, as part of each family's oral tradition. They bond generations together. They provide strength and morality upon which to draw during times when the larger community or nation can provide neither.
This is my beef: Stories like this, especially family stories, should be fact-checked several times before being spoken, especially during a political campaign when every candidate's credibility is on the line every day. The Obama staff must have someone who proofreads his speeches. That person must be fired and replaced immediately. If there is nobody on staff with that responsibility, HIRE TWO NOW! Let each speech be checked by one, and double-checked by the other.
And Senator Obama is not blameless in this matter. The buck stops at the top. He should have known the emotional power his statement would have on Memorial Day. He himself should have Googled 'Liberation of Auschwitz'. When the details of the parts are verified, the whole becomes much stronger and more impressive.
President Reagan was fond of the phrase, "Trust, but verify." Senator Obama would be wise to reach across the aisle and incorporate that bit of Republican philosophy into his own.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It seems to me that you would know if you have/had an uncle. I have vague relatives in my family, but have an idea of who they all are. At this level, fact checking is most important, and knowing who your family members are and their alleged deeds....most important.
Thank you, wayne in pa, for your comment. I agree that a person should know if an uncle exists or not. The terms 'uncle' and 'aunt', in some families, are applied to those who are not blood or marriage related. Close friends of the family are sometimes given those titles.
However, most families do not include members who are running for high political office, so the informal usage of aunt or uncle remains at the family level, and not splashed across the nightly news. Remember the TV show, "Dragnet"? Each campaign needs a consultant like Joe Friday, who, after reading a proposed speech, would say, "Just the facts ma'am (or sir)".
It seems like anything is possible, given this year's wacky primary season. Will Obama self-destruct? Will Hillary and Bill loan her campaign many million$ more from their personal fortune? Will McCain be able to convince voters that he's not a George Dubya clone? Tune in for the never-ending drama of USA's #1 soap opera! Season ending episode Tuesday, November 4. Will it be over then? Or will there be another cliff-hanger ending, to be decided by the Supreme Court?
Post a Comment