Obamagaffe

<p>Whoops…did I really say that??? ;)</p>

<p>Senator Obama’s flubs of speech are getting noticed:</p>

<p>*[color=green]For months, Barack Obama has had the image of an incandescent, golden-tongued Wundercandidate. That image may be fraying now.</p>

<p>As smart and credentialed as he is, Sen. Obama is often an indifferent speaker without a teleprompter. He has large gaps in his knowledge base, and is just as likely to dig in and embrace a policy misstatement as abandon it. ABC reporter Jake Tapper calls him “a one-man gaffe machine.”</p>

<p>Take the Auschwitz flub, where Mr. Obama erroneously claimed last weekend in New Mexico that his uncle helped liberate the Nazi concentration camp. Reporters noted Mr. Obama’s revised claim, that it was his great uncle who helped liberate Buchenwald. They largely downplayed the error. Yet in another, earlier gaffe back in 2002, Mr. Obama claimed his grandfather knew U.S. troops who liberated Auschwitz and Treblinka – even though only Russian troops entered those concentration camps.</p>

<p>That hardly disqualifies Mr. Obama from being president. But you can bet that if Hillary Clinton had done the same thing it would have been the focus of much more attention, especially after her Bosnia sniper-fire fib. That’s because gaffes are often blown up or downplayed based on whether or not they further a story line the media has attached to a politician.</p>

<p>When John McCain claimed, while on a trip to Iraq in March, that Sunni (as opposed to Shiite) militants in Iraq are being supported by Iran, coverage of the alleged blunder tracked Democratic attacks on his age and stamina. (In fact, Iran may well be supplying both Sunni and Shiite militants.) Dan Quayle, tagged with a reputation as a dumb blond male, never lived down his misspelling of “potatoe.”</p>

<p>Mr. Obama, a former editor of the Harvard Law Review, has largely been given a pass for his gaffes. Many are trivial, such as his suggestion this month that America has 57 states, and his bizarre statement in a Memorial Day speech in New Mexico that America’s “fallen heroes” were present and listening to him in the audience.</p>

<p>Some gaffes involve mangling his family history. Last year in Selma, Ala., for example, he said that his birth was inspired by events there which took place four years after he was born. While this gaffe can be chalked up to fatigue or cloudy memory, others are more substantive – such as his denial last April that it was his handwriting on a questionnaire in which, as a state senate candidate, he favored a ban on handguns. His campaign now contends that, even if it was his handwriting, this doesn’t prove he read the full questionnaire.</p>

<p>Mr. Obama told a Portland, Ore., crowd this month that Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us,” saying that “tiny countries” with small defense budgets aren’t much to worry about. But Iran has almost one-fourth the population of the U.S. and is well on its way to developing nuclear weapons. The next day Mr. Obama had to reverse himself and declare he had “made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”</p>

<p>Last week in Orlando, Fla., he said he would meet with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Ch</p>

<p>people dislike Clinton so much are willing to take anyone that isn’t her. I hope people know what they’re are getting when they put Obama up on that pedestal. Me, I’d rather drive the clunker whose faults and idiocyncrasies (sp?) I know about, than go for the new shiny thing that looks good</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>who would that be?</p>

<p>I wouldn’t. I know her flaws and I know I can’t trust her. So far, he has not shown me that he is untrusworthy. An occasional verbabl gaffe can be tolerated. Knowing I can’t believe a word that comes out of her mouth can’t.</p>

<p>I don’t get a lot of these “gaffes”.</p>

<p>I come from a big family. I know (now, knew, mostly) my great-uncles really well. I called them my “uncles”. And one of those uncles helped liberate Auschwitz, too, except of course he didn’t. “Auschwitz” sort of stands in for “concentration camps”; it’s the only name lots of people know, even if they were there.</p>

<p>I don’t think a President has to be able to distinguish between Auschwitz and Buchenwald. I do think a President has to be able to distinguish between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.</p>

<p>57 states? Hard to believe Obama said that. Dead heroes listening? Bad poetry or banal mysticism, but pretty mainstream.</p>

<p>Meeting with horrid dictators? That’s a policy difference, not a gaffe. How hard is it to reconcile a policy of regional isolation and a willingness to meet with Chavez prior to invoking it?</p>

<p>That leaves Iran as a tiny country with a small defense budget (but a laaaarge nuclear-power-for-peaceful-uses-of-course budget). That was dumb. </p>

<p>And the anti-handgun questionnaire? That’s just lying. He’s a politician, after all.</p>

<p>Ah, a reliable article from the Wall Street Journal editorial staff…Gee, I wonder what their bias is? It is so loudly proclaimed from the mountaintops.</p>

<p>Consfusing Buchenwald vs. Auschwitz in a story about his uncle that is essentially true is a far different thing from claiming that a certain someone was nearly under fire on a tarmac in the Balkans when she arrived there.</p>

<p>Or Senator McCain’s confusing multiple times Shi’ite and Sunni muslims. This column rather hilariously dismisses that as not a big deal. This is the one thing – Iraq – that McCain is claiming to have a superior understanding of. He can’t get that right? It’s scary. It’s scarily George W. Bush-esque. And I actually like McCain. I just don’t think he’d be a good president.</p>

<p>Great rationalizations JHS.</p>

<p>Everybody can commit some gaffes. Unless Obama or McCain walk on water, I expect them to. But there are gaffes that are consequential and gaffes that are insignificant.</p>

<p>Confusing Buchenwald and Auschwitz is inconsequential. Confusing Sunnis and Shiites is not. Buchenwald and Auschwitz are in the past. Sunnis and Shiites are very much in the present and what they do is important to the US as a whole and to our troops in particular–whose levels McCain is not exactly sure of, apparently.</p>

<p>It bugs me he does not know much about WWII, even though that period still significantly affects our world today. He’s running for Commander-in-Chief, not Chief Liberal, after all. (Maybe he can get a refund from Harvard? ;))</p>

<p>The double standard exhibited wherein Senator Obama’s foibles tend to be overlooked while Senator McCain’s and even Senator Clinton’s are magnified is substantial.</p>

<p>I remember the media magnifying the Reverend Wright controversy as well as the flag pin/not raising his hand/Michelle Obama remarks.</p>

<p>In all, its been pretty balanced, with maybe a slight bias toward Obama - nothing to cry over.</p>

<p>I don’t think knowing who liberated Buchenwald vs. who liberated Auschwitz is a good test of knowledge about WWII. On the other hand, knowing the difference between Shiites and Sunnis is crucial for someone who is going to inherit the war that was started by GWB.</p>

<p>Well, McCain at least has been to Iraq about once every six months for some years while Obama has been there once, I think.</p>

<p>McCain is more credible on Iraq than Obama.</p>

<p>While GWB certainly pushed towards war, he was supported by most all members of Congress. </p>

<p>Ain’t nobody skating on the responsibility for this war.</p>

<p>Why do you think that going to Iraq every six months but not knowing the difference between Sunnis and Shiites or whether the current level of troops is the same as the pre-surge level or not makes McCain more credible on Iraq?</p>

<p>What does the fact that the majority of Congress supported the war have to do with whether Obama is credible or not? I don’t follow your logic.</p>

<p>You’ve got to love a world in which John Fund is a defender of Hillary Clinton.</p>

<p>I barely tolerated W’s gaffes when he had a teleprompter(state of union addresses) and a script and practiced sessions and professional writers and career civil servants and political functionaries and speech therapists and his wife unwavering encouragement. </p>

<p>if o’bama or hilary or john have 10x the gaffes, we would still be far ahead over the W, who we once gave very high approval rating. How many times have we called on our children when we meant the cat or dog? Saturday will be W’s weekly radio address-- I challenge anyone to understand his speech without reading the transcript.</p>

<p>McCain critics use this one example repeatedly to try and minimize Obama’s many errors of speech and fact. McCain may be sclerotic and damaged from age and mileage but what is Obama’s excuse? (This is not a request for ponderous posts on the Black Experience ;)) </p>

<p>First of all, it is entirely possible and even quite likely that Iran does indeed specifically support Sunnis, Shiites and al-Qaeda in their efforts to destabilize, and thus neutralize, Iraq. I see Iran’s goals as more nationalistic than religious. </p>

<p>Secondly, Iran almost certainly is supporting both religious/tribal groups and the terrorist elements by accident, when their munitions and training are transmitted beyond their control, which I suspect happens quickly.</p>

<p>McCain is much more credible on Iraq, Afghanistan, Viet Nam, national security, POWs, passage of federal legislation, cooperation across the Senate aisle, campaign finance reform, war fighting and a host of other subjects due to accomplishments, experience, sweat equity and simply spending more time on task.</p>

<p>My Congress statement was only to correct the record in pinning all responsibility for the war on Bush. That’s just not true.</p>

<p>You keep saying that McCain is more credible, but you have not given proof of this assertion. Going to Iraq is not proof of his understanding of the situation or his grasp of the necessary strategy.</p>

<p>As for Obama’s many gaffes, please list them.</p>

<p>So far, I have “57 states” (I’m absolutely certain that the ex-president of the Harvard Law Review and adjunct professor of Constitutional Law at Chicago knows that there are 50 states)
I have Buchenwald vs. Auschwitz.</p>

<p>More please?</p>

<p>Your statement about Congress… is irrelevant. Obama did not support the war going in. That gives him a lot more credibility in my eyes than to Clinton or McCain.</p>

<p>Marite, you can add to the “many errors of fact” in the WSJ

Except that’s not what Obama said. [snopes.com:</a> Say What, Barack?](<a href=“http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/saywhat.asp]snopes.com:”>Say What, Barack? | Snopes.com) Kind of sad that you have to double-check the Wall Street Journal on an Urban Legends site, eh?</p>

<p>This whole topic is as dumb as they come.</p>

<p>One can understand World War II perfectly well without understanding the geographical differences between Auschwitz and Buchenwald. I don’t believe Obama said there were 57 states. (It’s conceivable, however, that there are 57 primaries, counting DC, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Western Samoa, and Lord knows where else.) Nothing else alleged against him is a mistake of ignorance, as opposed to an objection to what he is saying.</p>

<p>McCain’s Sunni/Shiite confusion was a real gaffe, but that’s all it was: a gaffe. I don’t plan to vote for McCain, but that doesn’t mean I think for a minute that he doesn’t know the difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, and Iran’s position vis a vis each. Yes, McCain has credibility on Iraq. I believe that he is substantively wrong, but I don’t think he is substantively wrong because he is ignorant, stupid, or confused about basic facts.</p>

<p>Gaffes became a substantive issue with Bush, because there have just been so many of them, and cumulatively they show the frighteningly limited scope of his understanding. There isn’t anything like that with McCain or Obama, and there isn’t going to be. (Well, absent dementia . . . .)</p>

<p>Agree with JHS, esp. on sniper fire vs. something that happened
a grandfather or great-grandfather.</p>

<p>But how are we getting around Resko buying a strip of backyard for him?</p>