Obama’s Sixth Sense, Clinton’s RFK Jr. Remark

While the news media is concerned over which concentration camp Obama’s Uncle liberated, I’m more concerned with the inarticulate ramblings he uttered during his Memorial Day speech. The man clearly doesn’t understand what Memorial Day is for or who we’re honoring.

This, directly from the transcript on his website, is what he was supposedly going to say:

“On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes, our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.”

This is what the Harvard-educated, articulate, intelligent Democratic candidate actually said:

“On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes—and I see many of them in the audience here today—our sense of patriotism is particularly strong”

Don’t believe me? Watch the video:

Is this really somebody we want to representing our country? He had a prepared speech for God’s sake and he couldn’t stick to it. Instead, he ad-libbed this line about seeing some of our “fallen heroes” in the audience with him.

At first, I though it must be a slip of the tongue, however after reviewing the clip and the transcript, all he had to do was read it off a cue card. He gaffed when actually trying to think for himself and add his own pizazz, his own flair. Unfortunately he sounded like Cole Sear.

I really think somebody needs to school him on what Memorial Day stands for. Let’s hope someone gives him a little lesson before July 4th. If he screws that up, he’s got Labor Day to work on. Just some practice reading the teleprompter and not adding his own ingenious insights will do.

First it was his stance against flag pins. Then there was an issue with not putting his hand over his heart while saying the pledge of allegiance. Now he doesn’t even know what Memorial Day stands for. Did they not teach him anything at Harvard? But wait, I guess patriotism and the history of America is not really in the oppressive liberal orthodoxy lesson plans of our institutions of “higher learning.”

It just astonishes me that people are convinced he’s the candidate to beat.

Now, switching gears, Hillary Clinton made a comment last week that she was staying in the race due to the possibility of anything, and I mean anything happening before June. In this case, she mentioned the possibility of assassination by bringing up Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The Obama campaign and the media created a firestorm over the issue which I thought was rather trumped up and over the top.

Video in case you missed it:

Keep in the mind, the last two Presidents shot were both white men, plus Bobby Kennedy who was a candidate, so don’t even begin playing the race card on the issue. Plus, we shouldn’t forget who has a history of deploying race on almost every issue in this campaign:

One more reason to hate the oil companies, black men stand a greater chance of getting shot while pumping gas, at least according to Michelle Obama. Furthermore, by the same logic, white people must be immune from gunfire at gas stations, which should sit well with the victims of the 2002 Washington, DC sniper attacks.

This whole issue is blown out of proportion, every presidential candidate, and public figure for that matter, stands the risk of being attacked in some form by some wacko. Of course it’s scary, but to not mention it would be politically correct, which is nonsense. Does John McCain or Hillary Clinton fair a greater chance of not being targeted? I highly doubt it. What about our current President Bush, a bunch of liberal kooks seem to really hate him, I’d be more concerned for his life.

In the end, it’s just easier to play the race card on the issue for more sympathy votes despite the fact that it’s a historical reference.

  • Dem ’08

    **CONTENT REMOVED BY MICHAEL**

    This content was removed because it directed inflammatory language at an individual participating on the website. Please keep your comments tied to content.

  • Grey

    Wow… that was a very… objectively… written article.

    Obama has misspoke his fair share of times, true. Still, to assume that misspeaking somehow correlates to stupidity is to label just about every politician an idiot. Which most of us do anyways, but that’s beside the point. Even in light of that, to assault Obama on the basis of his speaking ability and somehow claim that he’s inferior to the other two candidates for that reason seems pretty biased to me. At the very least, with his uncle/concentration camp, sweetie remark, this, “cling to guns and religion”, and whatever phrase you might want to roast him about, he stands at least on level with McCain and his 100 years remark (which is frighteningly not a misspeak really) and Hillary with her daring Bosnia trip.

    And with the RFK thing, I think you’re completely missing the point by addressing the race card being played and how every candidate has an equal likelihood of being an assassination. That was never the issue. Insinuating the possibility of assassination as a reason for staying in the race is flat out wrong, especially when Barack Obama’s received a variety of death threats as it stands. I’m not saying she’s hoping for it, but giving that as a reason for staying in doesn’t exactly seem like she’s adverse to the idea.

  • Grey, this article is an op/ed commentary piece from our resident conservative commentator. As such, it’s not going to be objective since it’s more toward opinion.

    You can check out the entire commentary section here.

  • Jimmy Ray

    Funny, not a single person ever defends Bush by saying “to assume that misspeaking somehow correlates to stupidity is to label just about every politician an idiot”. The media calls Bush a moron for his speech, yet Obama is forgiven, time and time again, as making simple mistakes. Had Bush said the same thing Obama did, the media and liberal blogs would be the first to label him mentally challenged.

    No bias there.

    Dem ’08 I noticed you didn’t bother repudiating the article, you just called the author names. I have to ask where I can read the site on which you publish commentaries?

  • S. Cameroon

    What a stupid article again.To who was Obama talking to?Where was he?And when or on what Occasion?In memory of who?Only spiritual patriots will still see those who die to give peace to the living.Even though dead the peace they died for still lives my dear friend.This is not on Havard certificate but on your reasoning capabilities Boy.Reason well before answering me.Where did you go to school?Your teachers must be ashamed.
    My friend I have never been to university and I dress womens hair here in Senegal and I am from southern Cameroonian.I am not one of Clintons not-completed-college supporters Ok.

  • Grey

    Cool, sorry, didn’t understand the way things work around here.

    And Jimmy, personally I don’t get hung up on Bush’s “strategery” and whatnot. I think that his handling of issues and utter lack of fiscal responsibility are what makes him a poor president. As to whether or not the media would roast Bush for misspeaking like Obama, I guess it’s a matter of opinion. Personally, if Obama ever used the word “strategery” or messed up elementary proverbs, the media would have a field day with him.

    Then again, this kind of speculation is utterly moot.

  • CG: a bit off the subject, but hoping to get your reactions to the recent bit on Pastor Hagee. This clip from the Daily Show (yesterday) was a bit offensive for my tastes– i really deplore other people’s condescensions toward different religious practices. But it did cast Hagee’s Church and practices in a certain light that makes him, if anything, not-main-stream.

  • Babs

    Great commentary, CG. How many times does Obama get to “gaffe” himself before people finally say, ok, there’s something fundamentally wrong here.

    Is S. Camaroon seriously suggesting that Obama could see dead soldiers when he was saying this???

    Dem 08, didn’t you support Hillary as I recall? CG didn’t call you a fool for that.

  • S. Cameroon

    Babs
    Tell me then that Americans are but fools celebrating in memory of DEAD Men.Yes dead men tell no tales.Its doesn’t mean they do not exist in our memories.Do you see more with your mind or eyes?If because they are dead and cannot exist even in our memories,then why celebrate in Memory of them?We should just forget about those bulk of dead things.The only things that do not exist for me are what we do not think of or know about.So as far as we have thought ot something it exist and we can percieve them even in the mind.

  • Babs

    S. Cameroon, get your head out of the clouds, Buddy. Americans are not fools, and I don’t know of a single Obama supporter who believes Obama can see ghosts in a crowd. And if he did, he’d be the fool to say so. Well, he did say so, didn’t he? *LOL* Never mind.

  • Theadore

    This article is a serious smear on a website which has been my first port of call for the entire election cycle. Childish writing, Double Standards (a republican telling us how to speak in public?), and Silly Logic, this ranks alongside the “Obama is a closet Muslim” nonsense. Say what you like about Senator Obama’s education, I bet the author of this article didn’t go to Harvard.

  • Theadore, this article is an op/ed commentary piece from our resident conservative commentator. As such, it’s not going to be objective since it’s more toward opinion.

    You can check out the entire commentary section here. Go check out Michael’s articles for a left-of-center discussion of the issues.

  • Theadore

    Nate, Thanks for explaining – that restores my faith in the site!

  • Dem ’08, I noticed you’re up to the same old crap, name calling instead of actually arguing the merits.

    People, we really need to elevate the argument above calling me a “loser” and using other personal insults. In fact, by doing so you have proven to me the level of intelligence held by the average liberal. No response to the substance, just name calling of the author. It’s getting laughable.

    Grey, you think McCain and Clinton haven’t received a similar amount of death threats? You think Bush doesn’t receive more death threats everyday than Obama? Please, Obama is nothing special in that regard, it’s just that everyone plays the race card when they talk about it.

    Theadore, my point is that the media pretends Obama is infallible and an amazing orator. That’s nonsense unless he’s reading off a card. We see what happens when he tries to speak on his own and add to the speech. Plus, do we all have to have gone to the same alma mater as the candidate to criticize them? Bush went to Harvard as well but that probably doesn’t stop you from criticizing him. Did you go to Yale? Bush went there too so unless you attended either, apply your rules to yourself and don’t attack him.

    ——

    I’m not going to look past the fact that Obama clearly doesn’t know what Memorial Day stands for when we have men and women who’ve died for us to enjoy our “picnics.” Beyond that we have people fighting for our freedom to sit here in this discussion. It goes well beyond the fact that he’s a bumbling fool. I just want to put it out there that I realize I will never convince any of these liberals that Obama is the weaker candidate than Hillary Clinton, however, they’re not going to silence or dissuade me from speaking my piece.

    I’m certainly not going to back down to someone who’s best argument is calling me a “loser,” I hope that’s not how Dem ’08 deals with everyday life, he’s in need of an anger management class to deal with some of these issues. If words make you that angry to begin calling people names instead of forming articulate arguments, you need some guidance.

    Sorry for not adding to the euphoria and the the “tingle up your leg” that Obama provides many of you liberals.

  • Babs

    I agaree, CG, some of the more liberal posters here are more bullies than liberals. You remember the loudmouthed kid on the playground that pushed and called you stupid, but when you – instead of tucking your tail and slinking off – got in their face, they backed down because they were all talk with nothing to back it up. I’ve watched Obama pull this bully ploy on any number of occasions, but when he’s confronted with his idiocy he stutters, bends his words in every direction, and backs off with his self rightous indignation for armor – going back to the safety of his fans who will swoon and faint and never question a word he says. And I think we’re seeing the early stages of Obama trying to bully McCain with his “Bush” rhetoric, and how fast he’s learning McCain don’t do bullies. Like him or not, McCain cuts to the core of Obama’s rhetoric, and makes him look like the “fool” as often as not.

    And that’s my opinion.

  • Babs

    Well, CG, you outed the ghost gaffe first, but the WSJ took up the mantal and ran with it.

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

  • nzpudding

    I think it would be fair to say that every politician talks out of their backside now and again, or mis-quotes something. Going on what past Presidents have said, this gaffe is minor to what we can expect from him in the future.

  • Stalin

    nz

    When dealing with a rogue dictator who will soon have nuclear weapons, there is no such thing as a minor gaffe:

    “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.”

  • nzpudding

    How rogue IS the dictator? and how close IS he from having a nuclear weapon?

    Kim Jong Il of North Korea, is very rogue and DOES have nuclear weapons. Pakistan has loads of nuclear weapons and Islamic fundamentalists are running around free and easy.

    Don’t fear those that don’t have, fear those that have.

  • Stalin

    nz:

    You’re joking right? Here are some quotes by Ak;a;ldksgaq;djad:

    Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury.”

    “Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations.”

    “The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.”

    “If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled. As it has lost its raison d’ tre, Israel will be annihilated.”

    “Israel is a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed.”

    “Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm.”
    Relations with West

    “[There is] no significant need for the United States.”

    You’re right, he’s a benevolent dictator…come on. Your quote is very naive. That is a reactionary policy and is very dangerous. It’s like saying, “lets not worry about that drunk driver speeding down the winding road until he actually hits someone.”

  • nzpudding

    Ahmadinejad is a bit of a nutjob, but he hasn’t said anything new that most other Middle East countries haven’t said about Israel in recent times. He’s saying them to garner support in that region because he knows America is Israel’s biggest ally and America isn’t too favourable over there at the moment.

    My comments aren’t naive at all. An immediate problem like Pakistan and N.Korea should be taken care of now, rather than a maybe/potential problem in years to come.

  • Stalin

    nz:

    We have a fundamental difference of opinion here. I am in favor of proactive security and it seems that you prefer retroactive. If I’m wrong, please correct me. You said, “Don’t fear those that don’t have, fear those that have.” I take that to mean, fear those that have nukes, not those who don’t. I see your point about NK and Pakistan, but can you not see my point about Iran? If left alone, the world will have to deal with another dictator with nuclear weapons…one that what’s to remove Israel from the planet…

  • This issue with Iran really has a simple fix without us even placing boats on the round. Just blow up the launch pads and nuclear facilities and don’t forget the freak dictator. Problem solved. I have just been waiting on Israel to the job, but understandably there skittish.

  • nzpudding

    Stalin:

    I’m not saying forget about Iran because clearly we can’t, but if we become paranoid about a country that doesn’t even have nukes, then we could be missing the problem from a country that has nukes.

    CG:

    Isreal can’t sort Iran out because if they do then that opens up a giant can of nuclear whoop-ass in that region. But I think surgically removing Ahmadinejad from society would be a good idea. Americans should have done that to Saddam instead of invading the country, a strategically placed rocket right up his arse would have done the trick.

  • Babs

    Didn’t I hear at one time the CIA offered Saddam’s head to Clinton on a silver platter and he said no thanks? I hope if someone offers the next president Ahmadinejad’s head, he’ll take it.