Obama Shows Off Lessons in New Math
Oh that wacky Obama!
Barack Obama, caught up in the fervor of a campaign speech Tuesday, drastically overstated the Kansas tornadoes death toll, saying 10,000 had died.
The death toll was 12.
“In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died—an entire town destroyed,” the Democratic presidential candidate said in a speech to 500 people packed into a sweltering Richmond art studio for a fundraiser.
Obama is never one to let facts get in the way of rhetoric.
Maybe the reporter has it wrong and the real story is that he said “10” had died, ...., in a speech to “500,000” people packed into a sweltering Richmond art studio for a fundraiser.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 09, 2007 at 0705 hrs
Obama’s human! Stop the presses!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 09, 2007 at 0734 hrs
Hey, if the libs can jump all over Bush for every verbal misstep, why can’t we rib Obama for foibles?
Posted by Owen on May 09, 2007 at 0746 hrs
What’s interesting about this, is that he was using the deathtoll figure apparently in the context that there was no governmental help available because many resources were in Iraq…...
You’d think he would have mentally caught himself since he was using the figure for such a key point…...
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 09, 2007 at 0751 hrs
“If the libs can jump all over Bush…”
You can rib Obama for his foibles as long as you’ve never told a “lib” that he/she shouldn’t rib President Bush for his, or criticized him/her for doing so. Actually, I guess you can say whatever you want, but you’d be a hypocrite if you’ve knocked libs for what you’re doing here.
Have you ever told a “lib” that they shouldn’t rib President Bush for his foibles? Ever criticized a “lib” for ribbing President Bush about his foibles?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 09, 2007 at 0803 hrs
Not that I recall, but I wouldn’t put it past me
Posted by Owen on May 09, 2007 at 0806 hrs
Maybe the reporter who quoted Obama uses the same hearing aids that Tommy Thompson does. Or….maybe Obama was just an idiot. If he’s on tape saying it, then let the criticism rip, he deserves it. Liberals can still take comfort in the fact that he’s several thousand (let’s say, 10,000) stupid gaffes behind George W’s total.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 09, 2007 at 0833 hrs
The Kansas Governor’s quickly backpedaling on that claim. Turns out 88% of the Kansas Guard’s good to go in the Sunflower State for recovery efforts.
Guess she has herself to blame for her problems.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 09, 2007 at 0926 hrs
This is classic gotcha-ism. So the man misspoke, big deal.
And before you ask, no, I don’t make an issue out of similar Republican gaffes.
Let’s be honest, here. If Mitt Romney had said this, none of the conservative blogs would blink an eye. So what’s going on here is that he’s being targeted for misspeaking based solely on your dislike of his politics.
So here’s my suggestion: we discuss his politics instead of his misspeaking.
Posted by scott on May 09, 2007 at 1120 hrs
As usaul the eagerness to make Democrats look bad runs ahead of the actual story.
From the AP:
As the Illinois senator concluded his remarks a few minutes later, he appeared to realize his gaffe.
“There are going to be times when I get tired,” he said. “There are going to be times when I get weary. There are going to be times when I make mistakes.”
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said later that the senator meant to say “at least 10,” instead of 10,000.
That, as Paul Harvey would say, “it the rest of the story.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 09, 2007 at 1129 hrs
You’re late, kr! The retraction itself has already been condemned by our favorite conservative bloggers!
Posted by scott on May 09, 2007 at 1136 hrs
At least I’m your favorite.
Posted by phel on May 09, 2007 at 1144 hrs
Quite
Posted by scott on May 09, 2007 at 1147 hrs
Forgive me for expanding this topic a little bit, but I’ve reach “Obama overload” and need to sound-off about it.
I am still at a loss as to why any Democrats bother with this guy. The only possible reason I can see is that he is somewhat charismatic, and is generally considered to be an attractive person. But if that’s all the Democrats are looking for in a candidate, how do you expect to fix all these problems you think the country is suffering?
Seriously - what original thought or concept has Obama ever muttered? He is full of all sorts of platitudes and speaks them in a way the feigns some sort of seep insight or intellect. But really, when you read the words themselves, he is saying nothing of substance.
Someone tell me, from a policy standpoint, what would be different about Obama, Clinton, Edwards, or Biden if any one of them was in the White House?
Here is what would happen if any one of them were elected: Taxes on the middle class would go up, and far-left activist judges would be chosen for every vacancy on the Federal bench.
The rest of what these folks would do might vary is some small aspects depending on who donated to their campaigns. Cronies chosen to set policy at one bureaucracy over another would be based on those pre-election favors. But overall, there would be no discernible difference between any of them - even Jesus H. Obama himself!
The only Democratic candidate who stands out so far has been Richardson. He at least claims that he would not raise taxes. And on illegal immigration, Richardson understands that border protection is the first and most important aspect of dealing with it.
Now before kr and the rest accuse me of being pro-GOP, I’ll respond now: I’m not. Not one of the existing GOP candidates will get my vote. And it is extremely unlikely that I’ll change my mind on that in the next 17 months.
So, don’t make this about the GOP. It’s about the Democrats and trying to figure out why on earth people are so fascinated with Obama. Besides looks and oratory skills, what sets him apart from the other candidates?
Posted by David on May 09, 2007 at 1229 hrs
I’d say it’s 10% that he’s saying the right things, even if they are none too specific at this juncture; 80% style, personal history and charisma; and 10% that he’s black, and thus is assumed to have a sensitivity to liberals’ various concerns for minorities.
If you don’t “get” that 80% part, that’s okay. It’s really idiosyncratic, I think. One man’s “style” is another man’s “OMG not him!” Witness the “likability” of G. W. Bush. His personality isn’t likable to me, never has been. Turned me off big-time, even when he was just candidate Bush.
Posted by scott on May 09, 2007 at 1427 hrs
Obama misspoke? That’s good news for democratic supporters, since Bushies like guys who frequently mis-speak.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 09, 2007 at 1427 hrs
p-o-t-a-t-o-e
Posted by slburri on May 09, 2007 at 1607 hrs
Potatoe is not a good comparison. That’s how Quayle thought it was spelled. So unless you are suggesting Obama really thought 10,000 people died…bad comparison.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 09, 2007 at 2030 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134051
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 10:25 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 104
Total anonymous users: 2
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 11:46 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).