Wall Street Journal: The Obama Gaffe Machine

[Perry Logan]

Barack Obama: Worst Candidate Ever™?

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."

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.

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.Last week in Orlando, Fla., he said he would meet with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez to discuss, among other issues, Chávez's support of the Marxist FARC guerrillas in Colombia. The next day, in Miami, he insisted any country supporting the FARC should suffer "regional isolation." Obama advisers were left explaining how this circle could be squared.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121210923476431299.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

[madame defarge]

1. Compared to Grampy McNasty...

who doesn't know who our "enemy" is in Iraq -- Sunni or S'hia.

God, I hate the WSJ.

[virtualobserver]

2. I'll be glad when this primary is over

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

3. Wow, Rupert Murdoch's editorial board wrote that?

Shocking! :eyes:

[greguganus]

4. It will all be over soon and we look forward to your support of Obama. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Will you be supporting the "Worst Candidate Ever" in the GE?

[pnorman]

36. Here's one Hillary supporter who apparently won't.

LOL LOL LOL! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

pnorman

[Bolo Boffin]

6. Come in from the war, Hiroo.

The Obama gaffe machine is nothing compared to the smear machine watching his every move. The 2002 mistake shows that this was just a misunderstanding about a piece of family history. We all have this problem.

Also, you neglected to mention that this editorial was written by the wife-beating John Fund. Is there no end to this devil's bargain between some Clinton supporters and the odious Republicans that they once would have mocked and derided?

[PM7nj]

7. Oh! The WSJ Editorial Board! Great Source!

:eyes:

[TahitiNut]

66. Well, it IS a meritorious source on FreeRepublic.

It's the corporatist/conservative mentality. :shrug:

[NYCGirl]

8. Did you skip over THIS part of the article? Or don't you care?

"Over the years, reporters have tagged a long list of conservative public figures, from Barry Goldwater to Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush, as dim and uninformed. The reputation of some of these men has improved over time. But can anyone name a leading liberal figure who has developed a similar media reputation, even though the likes of Al Gore, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have committed substantial gaffes at times? No reporter I've talked to has come up with a solid example.

It's clear some gaffes are considered more newsworthy than others. But it would behoove the media to check their premises when deciding just how much attention to pay to them. The best guideline might be: Show some restraint and judgment, but report them all."


Fund is whining that all those wingnuts were unfairly targeted!

[GoldieAZ49]

9. I really liked the 57 states comment

he doesn't know American history and better than he knows his family history.


He is vaporware.

[CreekDog]

12. he knows constitutional law

you know squat, evidence: your post. :dunce:

[GoldieAZ49]

15. The constitution of the 57 states of America?

:rofl:

claiming to be a 'professor of constitutional law' when he was not? Yeah thats rich! I guess honestly representing yourself is meaningless to you, as it is to Obama.

[CreekDog]

16. it's called misspeaking

have you ever made a mistake? i doubt Obama would have passed the bar and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago not knowing there are 50 states.

you, on the other hand, are not qualified to use the bathroom at the University of Chicago.

[GoldieAZ49]

20. The master of misspeaking

Your personal attacks are as amusing your candidate, you both speak of things you know nothing about!

:rofl:

[hfojvt]

59. if he's the master then the Tsarina must be the mistress

Hillary misspoke about Bosnia 3 times.
She misspoke about when Bill won the nomination (although she hasn't been called on it)
She misspoke about having the most popular votes in the primary (although, again, the Hillary-bashing media has not called her on it).

I am sure there is much more, if the RWNM wanted to compile it, and they certainly would if she was the nominee apparent.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CreekDog]

24. will you vote for the nominee no matter who that is this November?

I will. I make a better Democrat than you unless you agree.

[EFerrari]

25. The school backed him up. There was no misrepresentation. n/t

[unblock]

52. for some reason democrats must be technically accurate 100% of the time

while others are permitted creative license on many fronts.

if you listen to the actual quote, he was talking about how much he'd travelled during the campaign, and obviously meant to refer to the number of distinct voting entities in the contest. so not only the 50 actual "states", but also other entities such as guam, puerto rico, washington d.c., etc.

i suppose you have a better single word for these entities, or would insist that he use a long-winded explanation of all these entities.


as for his being a "professor", it's normal to refer to teachers are universities as "professors" even if the technical titles vary. e.g., "full professors", "assistant professors", "associate professors", "lecturers", etc. are all commonly lumped together and called "professors". it's not a misrepresentation, most people aren't even aware or care about the distinctions in the titles.


it's a bit like calling yourself a "computer programmer" when your actual title is "software engineer" or "computer specialist III".

[rodeodance]

58. ha ha --great ONE!!

[pretzel4gore]

10. the youngster bush is the biggest gaffe in hushtory!

Obama's stuck on a bullshit treadmill, he has to crank out bullshit like the WSJ cranks out lies, smooth as pablum, for the publics' easy swallowing....the trouble REALLY is the criminal pigs running mass media, the rightwing murderers/war crims hiding the past by trying to make Obama's exhausted musing (the poor guy has to say something) 24/7 while the bushytail newsmedia hound him like poodles would hound a treed bear. EVERY NAME on the editorial board of every major newspaper/media outlet needs to be investogated, tried and executed (after their guilt's assessed) for TREASON. The issue isn't Obama...it's criminal triators who destroyed the country by creating junyer bush as prez, and are now using Obama to distract att'n from their own murdering filth....

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[psychmommy]

13. where will you spew this garbage after 6/4/08.

let me know so i know not to go there.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JoFerret]

17. If he is smart he will ask Hillary for help

.

[bunnies]

18. Sniper Fire!!!

That ones my favorite.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MethuenProgressive]

21. Obama's fragile, flawed, and fake.

Dukakis in a cheap suit.

[MethuenProgressive]

23. Selma, I owe JFK, Rezko, Wright, McClurkin, Sweetie, Pooky... all gaffes?

No. Karl Axlerod knows exactly what words he wants his production to put out there.

[EFerrari]

26. I wish this right wing tripe could be pinned so I didn't have to look all over for it.

[LTR]

27. And then there's the Clinton gaffe machine...

“Dr King’s dream began to be realised when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done.”

"Here's a good one. Helen Clark, former prime minister of New Zealand: her opponents have observed that in the event of a nuclear war, the two things that will emerge from the rubble are the cockroaches and Helen Clark."

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on... Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me. There's a pattern emerging here,"

"It is so great to be here, I was so worried I wasn't going to make it. I was pinned down by sniper fire,"

more:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3327898&mesg_id=3329480

And she can't spell, either:

http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5507832,00.jpg

[papapi]

28. What a pleasant day outside. We all know where this one's coming from.....

[otohara]

29. John Fund Wrote This

and I don't give a shit what John Fund thinks.

or Jake Tapper - fuck him too.

[Kool Kitty]

40. John Fund, one of the master misogynists.

Yuck.

[stray cat]

30. McCain the expert on Iraq constantly mangles every fact on Iraq

[Orangepeel]

31. I'm happy John Fund wants us to think he thinks so.

You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel. Good thing you've got the WSJ editorial page to use to wipe your hands.

[Cooley Hurd]

32. Wall-fucking-Street Journal???

Perry, you've made MANY videos criticizing the Republican party, and then you QUOTE them???

Sad...:(

[smoogatz]

33. This post violates DU rules.

"You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website."

Why are you posting attacks from a rightwing editorial against the Democratic nominee?

[palindrome]

38. Sorry, man, he's got a valid point.

There is no attack here. You can make the board 90% Obama for the entire primary, but Clinton can't have a couple fucking posts before you start alerting? Hmm. I may be a liberal, but I'm not in YOUR party, whoever you are. I'm in OUR party.

[Cooley Hurd]

41. Hillary hasn't been a Dem for a LONG time...

:eyes:

[smoogatz]

44. We don't usually quote attacks from freerepublic, Faux News or the WSJ

--also owned by Rupert Murdoch--against Democratic candidates for office. And he doesn't have a valid point. The point is that Obama's family helped to liberate the death camps, Bush's family helped to build them. So Obama got the details wrong: at least he knows who's on what side in Iraq, and how many troops we've got there. And just so you know, the surviving members of Obama's great-uncle's outfit have already told the wingnuts who are making a big deal out of this to go fuck themselves.

[scarletwoman]

49. If you're a liberal, why are you okay with using right wing sources to bash a Democrat?

The OP isn't a pro-Hillary post, it's an anti-Obama post, using one of the most toxic right wing sources in the establishment media, the Wall Street Journal editorial pages.

I don't mind people defending Clinton, but when they repeatedly resort to using fascists and right wingers to tear down Obama, it truly begs the question as to whether they are liberals or Democrats at all.

'Vote for Clinton because right wingers hate Obama!' is hardly a compelling argument to real liberals. In fact, it simply confirms what we don't like about Clinton in the first place: that she and her neoliberal/DLC cronies ARE in fact in bed with the fascists and the right wing.

Peace,
sw

[palindrome]

50. Where were you when BO put out

"Be a democrat for a day"

In New Mexico

[scarletwoman]

53. What the hell are you talking about? At least TRY to make some sense. (nt)

[palindrome]

54. go google it

hypocrisy

[scarletwoman]

56. I will not. If you have a point to make, then make it. Construct an argument. (nt)

[palindrome]

61. I dont have to repost common knowledge

The Obama campaign mailed out plenty of "be a democrat for a day" mailers.

[scarletwoman]

63. You still have not formulated an argument. What does that have to do with citing a WSJ editorial? nt

[MonkeyFunk]

45. He's not the nominee yet

and if people can lie and smear and defame Clinton her every hour of every day, I don't see how it's against the rules to post an op-ed piece from a major national newspaper.

[Cooley Hurd]

47. He is... can you illustrate to me HOW she can win at this point?

:shrug:

[smoogatz]

48. Oh for Christ's sake.

Are you not aware that the WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch? Are you not aware that its editorial board, even before the paper was bought by Newscorp, is and has been to the right of fucking Mussolini? Of course you are, but because you've completely lost your moral and political compass you defend this kind of shit. And tell me, if you would, by what legitimate means, other than praying for his assassination, Hillary plans to snatch the nomination from Obama? He IS the nominee because there's no way Hillary can win.

On edit: Also, if you would, tell me why you think it is that the wingnuts have turned out unanimously in support of Hillary? Any guesses? Hmmmm?

[rodeodance]

57. ha ha . one problem --Obama is NOT the nominee. You look foolish

[smoogatz]

60. Not half as foolish as Hillary "it's all about ME" Clinton and her supporters.

And of course Obama's the nominee: he has been since Hillary failed to win big on super Tuesday. How's she going to win? Stick around and hope somebody shoots him? Hell of a plan.

On edit: do you really think it's a good idea to post editorials from the wingnuts at the WSJ attacking Democrats? Or have you given up thinking altogether?

[rodeodance]

62. and you just showed how foolish you are for calling him the nominee. Grow up!!

[smoogatz]

64. He is the nominee.

Tell me how Hillary wins, rodeo. By gaming the rules? By waiting around for something to "happen" to Obama? She hasn't just lost, she's committed political suicide. Hard to see how she comes back after this.

[smoogatz]

68. Still like your chances, rodeo?

Still think Hillary's going to win?

[nsd]

34. Why post shit like this?

John Fund? Really?

Why not give up the pretense and just quote Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity directly?

[annabanana]

35. WSJ?.. really?

C'mon.. You're better than this.

[AtomicKitten]

37. We'll miss you.

not

[Cooley Hurd]

42. I'll miss his (now hypocritical) videos..

...not.:D:hi:

[AtomicKitten]

51. *

:hi:

[gmudem]

39. The WSJ Editorial Board?

I'm sorry you must have DU confused with some other website that gives a shit about the WSJ editorial board.

[rocktivity]

43. Consider the source...

:eyes:
rocknation

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Well, that deserves a resounding yawn.

[mnhtnbb]

55. We canceled our WSJ subscription after they claimed Gore was attempting coup in FL

in 2000. We all know the coup was by Bushies, facilitated by brother Jeb and Katharine Harris.


After that, who gives a rat's a$$ what the WSJ editorial board has to say?

[Arkana]

65. No surprise that the WSJ would run a hit piece on Obama.

Why are you all surprised?

[smoogatz]

67. Can we lock this piece of shit now?

It's a rightwing attack on the nominee. Lock it, already.

[Cali_Democrat]

69. The Wall Street Journal?

You should use a different source if you want any credibility.