Posted by Mike Dorning at 12:15 PM
How's this for new math?
Caught up in a riff excoriating the Bush Administration for the toll that deployments of National Guard units to Iraq has taken on disaster preparedness, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama Tuesday night dramatically overstated the losses from the Kansas tornadoes, claiming that 10,000 people had died.
Actually, 12 people died.
“Just in case you missed it, this week, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed,” the Illinois senator said at a campaign fundraiser in Richmond, Va.
The explanation for Obama's slip-up may lie in a comment he made a few minutes later.
“There are going to be times when I get tired,” he said, repeating a line he often includes in campaign speeches. “There are going to be times when I get weary. There are going to be times when I make mistakes.”
The Obama campaign said that the candidate actually meant use the figure "at least 10" deaths in referring to the disaster in Greensburg, Kan.
He went on to cite comments by Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, that the state's intial response to the tornadoes had been hampered because of National Guard equipment shortages due to deployments in Iraq.
Asked today if Obama is getting enough rest, campaign spokesman Bill Burton responded simply, "Yes."
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Do like Republicans when they get caught lying, say "I misspoke"
Posted by: Paul | May 9, 2007 12:30 PM
Did any American soldiers or Iraqi civilians die as a result of this verbal gaffe? "Last throes", "we'll be greeted as liberators", "we won't be fighting house to house in Bagdad", "Mission Accomplished", "The Iraqi oil will pay for the war", "a few dead enders", "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Posted by: jethro | May 9, 2007 12:30 PM
Countdown to Bruce von Bot and little "JD"
4....3....2......1...DING DING DING!
Posted by: John E | May 9, 2007 12:38 PM
just a simple gaffe... before any righty's get all up in arms, demanding that this means Obama's unfit to be president, let's not forget that just yesterday President Bush nearly said in a speach that Queen Elizabeth last visited the US in 1776 (or something similar... I don't have the exact quote). Everyone misspeaks every now and then (and that's misspeak in a literal sense, not the new-age definition of misspeak, meaning "to lie").
Posted by: david k | May 9, 2007 2:04 PM
No Republicans who support Bush have ANY STANDING WHATSOEVER to criticize an obvious gaffe by the junior Senator from Illinois. We will have had a President of the United States for 8 years who could barely give Homer Simpson a run for his money (its pronounced n-u-c-u-l-a-r, yes, nucular). Clearly, uttering cogent and coherent sentences and speaking beyond cliches and non-sequiters IS NOT a necessary qualification for being president, otherwise the current White House occupant would have had no shot whatsoever.
Posted by: Bryan | May 9, 2007 3:00 PM
No Republicans who support Bush have ANY STANDING WHATSOEVER to criticize an obvious gaffe by the junior Senator from Illinois. We will have had a President of the United States for 8 years who could barely give Homer Simpson a run for his money (its pronounced n-u-c-u-l-a-r, yes, nucular). Clearly, uttering cogent and coherent sentences and speaking beyond cliches and non-sequiters IS NOT a necessary qualification for being president, otherwise the current White House occupant would have had no shot whatsoever.
Posted by: Bryan | May 9, 2007 3:00 PM
Suggestion to "Bryan": before you tin-foil fringies call anyone else stupid, would you first learn how to use the computer so you only post your drivel once? A 5 year old can figure it out--why can't you?
Obama's "gaffe" was much worse than the instantly-corrected remark Bush made. No wonder the fringies demand that Obama's latest moronism not be criticized.
Posted by: Bruce | May 9, 2007 4:38 PM
Bruce,
How so? why isnt Obama's remark instantly correctable? I don't understand. Please explain.
Posted by: anon | May 9, 2007 7:54 PM
Suggestion to Bruce: Calm down just a little as you don't really know why Bryan's comment got posted twice. It might have been his fault or it might have been a glitch somewhere along the way. Point being you don't 'know' the facts here just as you didn't 'know' the facts this morning when you blamed the Democratic Gov. of Wis. for a law that was passed & signed by his Republican predecessor.
Posted by: jj | May 9, 2007 8:00 PM
That's a good one, Bruce, you sure shot me down with your ultra-sharp intellect. You pontificate here regularly enough to know that posting is extremely unreliable.
As for President Bush, he's an inarticulate mangler of the English language. Period. I was under the impression that even his supporters acknowledged that, as I thought they liked it as it made him "folksy" and the kind of guy one would like to have a beer with. Are you denying this?
P.S. I didn't mention yesterday's gaffe-of-the-day by our President, you did. I'll take the occasional gaffe from Senator Obama over the consistent cliches, non-sequiters and other non-sense that this President spews on a daily basis. And honestly, if the threat from N-U-C-L-E-A-R devices is the greatest threat to this country, shouldn't the POTUS be able to pronounce a simple phonetic word instead of transposing letters within the word like a dyslexic?
Posted by: Bryan | May 10, 2007 10:23 AM
Ten thousand instead of 12? At least Obama was closer than most politicians in their "political-speak" exaggerations.
Posted by: Shanika | May 14, 2007 12:09 PM