Commenter “Parker” asks a question I often see:
Does it matter who wrote Obama’s books? Even if Obama was not the author and it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt would the MSM care? Would the MSM cover such a story? Would the legions of Obama worshippers care? Its Obama’s association with people like Ayers, Dohrn, Wright, Pfleger, etc. that matters because that is what formed his socialist ideology and fuels his narcissistic personality. Ayers, etc. (and the MSM) are what psychologists term ‘enablers’.
…In the end I don’t care who wrote Obama’s books, I want him out of the oval office come January 20, 2012.
So, would people care? My answer is that it depends on how strong and incontrovertible the proof is, and who the people are.
Anything less than a smoking gun would, just as Parker says, convince no one who is not already convinced that Obama is a poseur and an incompetent anyway, and therefore does not matter. But if extraordinarily strong evidence were to surface, it would cast waves of doubt through at least some people, the more naive ones who had truly believed in him as an intelligent and righteous man. Some of these people still exist, and some of them are independent swing voters, and so they matter quite a bit.
Trust is supported by a foundation that can come down all at once, like the proverbial house of cards. And although other political figures have certainly been shown to have had their books gostwritten—some have been up-front about this fact, while some have hidden it—no previous political figure’s ghostwritten book (at least to my knowledge) has had two characteristics that would be true of Obama’s: (a) the book is not incidental to their reputation, but instead is an important part of the evidence for their qualification for office; and (b) the ghostwriter is both an avowed terrorist and a person the politician has claimed to barely know.
In Obama’s case, each thing matters (at least, theoretically) more than usual, due to the suspicions already floating around that he is not all that qualified or experienced, and that he “palled around” with terrorists such as Ayers. He already has spent so much time denying those things that proof of them would be likely to hit quite a few people and cause a shockwave.
Once that sort of doubt is introduced about who Obama really is, and once his ability to lie with a straight face is fully perceived, there comes an almost inevitable speculation on just how many people were covering up for Obama and who these helpers and groomers might have been. If what was heretofore seen as a fringe element on the right (we could call them the “bookers” rather than the “birthers”) were to be proven correct, it opens the door to all sorts of other doubts about the information coming from the left and the MSM, and can cause a cascade of change.
How many people would actually have such an experience? I don’t know. I’ve written a great deal about the process of political change, and it’s my contention that only some people are capable of really taking in the information that would allow them to acknowledge they’ve been duped and/or mistaken, and to accept the need to revise their thinking. But real proof that Ayers wrote Dreams would be exactly the sort of catalyst that could spark such change in what I believe would be a significant number of people.
[NOTE: Although I've speculated here on "what if," I don't think definitive proof of this sort will ever be forthcoming.]