| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Obama claims he has been to "57" states. |
Topic: Obama claims he has been to "57" states.
| Author | Message |
| Latin1 | Posted – 5/10/2008 9:14:45 PM | show profile Barack Obama claims he has been to 57 states. The News Media grilled Hillary and McCain over their gaffes, but Obama states he has been to '57' states campgaining? |
| Metro Writer | Posted – 5/11/2008 1:14:56 AM | show profile He's the media's darling. When he claimed that his parents met at a rally when he was 4 years old, that wasn't a problem. When she spoke about the conditions she and Chelsea were in when they went to Bosnia, that's lying and exaggerating,and that's bad. If his camp claims he has the black vote, that's fine. If Hillary's camp says she has the white vote, that's racist. If his camp says something negative about Hillary, that's OK. If she says anything critical about him, she's being nasty. If he doesn't pull out of the race, that's because he has the right to be the next President. If she doesn't pull out of the race, then she's splitting the Dumbocratic party. It finally dawned on me that the criticism of Hillary's not packing up her bags and going away like a good girl is a way of preparing an excuse on why John McSame may beat Obama. It certainly can't be Obama's fault for not being able to articulate how he's going to bring about hope and change. It has to be her. It bothers me that Americans live for the rags to riches stories, the idea that anyone can become successful. So there's Obama, who had his path already paved for him by people such as the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, et. al. Then there are the Clintons who, like Martha Stewart, another lightning rod for obsessive hatred, came from ordinary backgrounds and became successful on their own merits, with their own hard work. The old green-eyed monster keeps rearing its ugly head. |
| Eric Cartman | Posted – 5/12/2008 10:21:30 AM | show profile When Dan Quayle makes a mistake in spelling the NYTimes mentions it 37 different times.The AP mention it 27 different times. How many times have the NYTimes mention Obama's "57 states"???? Zero!!! |
| JackieRo | Posted – 5/12/2008 11:35:21 AM | show profile No one wants to go out on a limb and call him on his mistake, because they would be slandered for being "racist" or whatever. At my old job, we had drafted attacks for people we suspect would knock Obama for whatever mistake, and it was all spun to make the person pointing out his mistake appear to be a racist. The race is more so about race and gender than it will ever be about who is best for the country. |
| Gedarov | Posted – 5/12/2008 12:46:06 PM | show profile its not mentioned because its NOTHING he meant to say 47, which makes sense, as he goes on to talk about how he couldnt go to hawaii or alaska and had 1 state still left to visit (that makes 50!) i'm sure most people attributed this wording flub to lack of sleep and long hours on the campaign trail |
| TVchick | Posted – 5/12/2008 5:20:30 PM | show profile okay, give the guy a break. He's exhausted! He's probably sleeping 4 hours a night, if that. I imagine I would say worse things if I were running around campaigning like mad. |
| Latin1 | Posted – 5/12/2008 7:25:17 PM | show profile For several weeks.... For several weeks the media was going on and on about Hillary's gaffes and McCain's Shite-Sunni remarks. They were honest mistakes, but the news media went to town for weeks on thiers gaffes, why not Obama's? |
| Gedarov | Posted – 5/13/2008 12:35:12 PM | show profile im pretty sure outright lies (the bosnian snipers from hilary) and culturally insensitive remarks (mccains shite/sunni comments) aren't in the same ballpark as a number flub. |
| anovelfate | Posted – 5/14/2008 11:51:44 AM | show profile geda, you and others have selective memory and excuse'itis. Obama, "Typical white person's response" A culturally sensitive remark, a remark that certainly is not racist, that's not how it was meant, Obama is above the political fray..... As I have said before Obama is a politician, but oh how Obama and his supporters love to cast their stones. |
| cori | Posted – 5/14/2008 2:45:45 PM | show profile Metro Writer I loved your post. Agree with it 100% I just cannot believe so many smart people are being hoodwinked by this candidate who claims to be a different type of politician. Everything he does and says is so crafted. People are so desperate to be rid of Bush. It's sad. I just hope Hillary prevails. |
| Gedarov | Posted – 5/14/2008 3:17:52 PM | show profile i'm not arguing that obama hasn't had his share of mistakes just like clinton and mccain (like the one you mention), i'm simply arguing that this particular instance (the # of states flub, that the original post addresses) was nothing worthy of media coverage. |
| GrOoVaL!c!OuS | Posted – 5/14/2008 5:36:47 PM | show profile Obama saying "57" instead of "47" is a perfect example of misspeaking. If he was to tell this story over and over and over again and keep saying "57," that would indicate a larger issue. But clearly this was an honest mistake. This was, of course, not the case with Hillary Clinton's telling and constant retelling of her Bosnia landing. Hill getting the story wrong once would've been misspeaking. But she told that story over and over again over the course of many months. If you wanna talk about the media unfairly criticizing Clinton, then find a better clip to use. This ain't it. Also, I'm shocked that no one's responded to this comment: < Implying that Barack Obama had no merit on his own and somehow rode the coattails of MLK and Rosa Parks while the Clintons pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps is absurd. Bill, Hill and Barack are all supremely intelligent, smart, ambitious, driven, accomplished and, at the end of the day, upstanding people. Trying to compare their sob stories is just a silly to me in the first place. But if you're gonna do it, at least be sensible about it. |
| GrOoVaL!c!OuS | Posted – 5/14/2008 5:38:40 PM | show profile The comment I was responding to at the end of my previous post didn't show up. Here's the comment I wanted to address: "So there's Obama, who had his path already paved for him by people such as the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, et. al. Then there are the Clintons who, like Martha Stewart, another lightning rod for obsessive hatred, came from ordinary backgrounds and became successful on their own merits, with their own hard work. The old green-eyed monster keeps rearing its ugly head." |
| Stanley_Milgram | Posted – 5/14/2008 6:18:23 PM | show profile the reason no one responded to the comment, Groove, is that doing so would imply that common sense gets you anywhere and those who've been on this board a while know that that simply isn't the case. The posters feel that the media should have covered Barack's 57 states because it implies one of these things: 1) Barack Obama, the candidate, does not know that the USA only has 50 states 2) Barack Obama, the candidate, knows that the USA has only 50 states but because of a clinically manic penchant for hyperbole, has overlooked this fact. or very likely... 3) Barack Obama, the candidate, in complicity with Rupert Murdoch, George Soros, Al Gore, etc etc, has been, with premeditation, trying to hoodwink an ignorant public as to the scale of his campaigning, and the media has been derelict in its duties to a) inform the public that the USA only has 50 states and that b) Barack Obama (tc) has untruthfully claimed to have campaigned in 57 of them. |
| anovelfate | Posted – 5/14/2008 7:11:42 PM | show profile Groov: You obviously responded to what you found offensive, while not responding to any other comments. I am equally shocked that metro's comments were your object of focus. The simple truth is Mr. Obama is the beyond the least qualified candidate for president in modern history. He simply has no qualifications to run this country with the exception of the support of swooning supporters and unabashed media adoration. |
| writermum | Posted – 5/14/2008 11:40:24 PM | show profile novel: Wasn't bill clinton 46, obama's age, when he was elected to the presidency? He had the executive experience that all of the current candidates lack, but did his years in public service exceed that of Obama? I think you are a Clinton - not McCain - supporter and that you are comparing her vast experience in her years in the Senate to what you consider Mr. Obama's irrelevant public service when saying he's the least experienced candidate in decades. Is this correct? |
| anovelfate | Posted – 5/15/2008 12:50:50 AM | show profile writer: Are you stalking me? |
| anovelfate | Posted – 5/15/2008 1:06:21 AM | show profile Clinton's experience being compared to Obama, or is that Obama's experience being compared to Clinton. Either way that's laughable. Why do you dislike McCain? Maybe you are a right wing conservative and he's just not "Wright" enough for you. |
| GrOoVaL!c!OuS | Posted – 5/15/2008 1:16:09 AM | show profile anovelfate. I responded to the original post and to a response that everyone else seemed to overlook. Not sure how that could be perceived as wrong or insufficient. Let me be clear: I'm not endorsing a candidate here. Seems pretty fruitless to me b/c of all the bickering that's been going on lately in these threads. But if I feel that someone has been unfairly represented and no one else seems to notice, I want to point that out. Barack flubbed a number. It was an honest mistake, and it's silly to compare it to McCain and Clinton gaffes. End of story. That's all I'm saying. As for Barack being the least qualified candidate in modern history, I think that's debatable. Some politicians with the longest terms in government are complete idiots. What I do feel pretty certain of is that McCain, Obama, and Clinton are all sufficiently savvy and smart and would reach "across the aisle" if elected. So for me it comes down to policy issues and who I like the best personally. |
| Gedarov | Posted – 5/15/2008 10:53:14 AM | show profile RE: GrOoVaL!c!OuS your last post pretty much sums up my feelings. everyone's seeing red these days, it seems. |
| PluckyPane | Posted – 5/15/2008 11:36:07 AM | show profile writermum, the difference with obama and bill clinton is, clinton was a governor of a state. that, in my opinion, gives more experience than being in the senate. clinton at least had the responsiblity of passing a balanced budget as governor every year, which would be an important skill for the next president to have. i have no argument for hillary clinton, except that her foreign connections are extensive in comparison to obama. she could easily fall into the presidency and have a connection with foreign heads of state, which obama would not have. and before anyone jumps on me about how gwb was a governor and see how far we got, it's like comparing apples to uh can openers. gwb is not a self-made man. clinton was. gwb could fail and everyone would clean it up, plus he was still given the presidency. clinton's mistakes are on him. |
| anovelfate | Posted – 5/15/2008 11:40:02 AM | show profile Groov: "Also, I?m shocked that no one?s responded to this comment:" When you make a blanket statement that indicts posters who neither agreed nor disagreed, I perceive that as wrong hence my response. Furthermore, metro's comments are those that are filtered through an interpretative framework. Your interpretative framework took offense as you seemed to believe those comments imply Obama's lack of merit without deeper appreciation of metro's point of view. It might have been wiser for the sake of discussion if you had asked metro for clarification as other interpretative frameworks may have filtered those comments very differently indeed. For example: Rags to riches, very hard for average European descended Americans to achieve which is very contrary to reality and the all encompassing myth of "white privilege". Keep in mind this is peddled by what I am learning to be a great many people in "privileged" positions. In previous comments I have referred to it as scapegoating which I believe to be very dangerous and divisive. The comments about "path being paved", well, it's very hard to dispute that standards were lowered and scholarships were granted based solely on minority status. That's not to say someone was incapable, but it is to say that a "minority" privilege was given. This is factual. Let me add that some universities are now lowering the standards for male applicants as they want to maintain a coed campus. Again these are the facts. I agree with you, there are no real discussions on the candidates on this board. I wish there were; it might actually be fun as opposed to malevolent barbs. I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Obama as a qualified presidential candidate by modern historical standards; so, yes this is a topic of debate but I don't see how you can make a case for your assertion. I did not comment directly on the 57 state topic. It struck me as an exaggeration for effect and not that Obama doesn?t know how many states there are in the union (unless he is including foreign countries in the mix). As far as the media bias against Clinton, ?Salon editor who attended a media event where Obama was present "the media exhibits blinded love for Obama (paraphrased)" ... ?The downside though is that they hate, hate Hillary Clinton? Her comments when on CNN. I do agree with JackieRo when she stated this is more about race and gender than about who is good for the country. |
| anovelfate | Posted – 5/15/2008 11:59:50 AM | show profile Plucky, where have you been? From my experience of your responses, well thought and stated. |
| notprivileged | Posted – 5/15/2008 12:13:00 PM | show profile What is interesting is that Obama was and is privileged, went to private schools, and came from a background of an educated family. He did not come from the same background as most american blacks who climbed up and out of poverty and suffered the troubles in this country. He has no clue. He was raised in very easy and comfy circumstances. He is pandering to people of color and he is a phony characterization of what the african americans in this country worked towards. His father was not an african american. He has never lived a life of many americans and yet that is how he portrays himself and that he knows his people. They are not his people. He is painting a picture of himself that is false. When he went to Africa he called them "my people". True. The african americans in this country are not his people. You have to walk the talk not talk the walk. FURTHERMORE...NO MAN CALLS ME SWEETIE AND GETS AWAY WITH IT. I THOUGHT WE HAD MOVED FORWARD, BUT I GUESS I WAS WRONG. NO WAY DO I WANT ANY MAN IN OFFICE WHO SPEAKS THAT WAY TO WOMEN......HOW CONDESCENDING CAN OBAMA BE? ASK THE FEMALE REPORTER FROM MICHIGAN WHOM HE CALLED SWEETIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT AN ARROGANT ASS! HE IS A MF'N FRAUD! THIS IS AN INCREDIBLE INSULT TO ALL WOMEN!!!!!!!!!!!! WAKE UP LADIES !!!!! |
| anovelfate | Posted – 5/15/2008 1:21:15 PM | show profile I typed a thought incorrectly; Rags to riches, very hard for average European descended Americans to achieve which is very contrary to reality and the all encompassing myth of "white privilege". correction: Rags to riches, very hard for average European descended Americans which is reality and very contrary to the all encompassing myth of "white privilege". |
