Barack Obama: Gaffe Central

See my previous entry today about Barack Obama's Memorial Day speech in Las Cruces, New Mexico (35-40 miles from where I type this, alghough I was not there).

But that is not the only problem Obama has had recently (on top of all of his other gaffes).

Part of the news today was how Obama gave another one of those FALSE stories about his family history.  This one was about how one of his recent ancestors had helped liberate Jewish deat camps in Germany (Auschwitz was, I think, the place Obama named).  It turns out that the story was NOT TURE (although the ancestor may have helped liberate a concetration camp that was NOT a Jewsih extermination camp).  Obama had clearly told the original story sto hlelp him witht he Jewish vote, where he is having problmes (as he SHOULD have problems, considering his apparent wilingness to talk to Iran without preconditons, and other such items).

Remeber Hilary Clinton and her embellished Bosnia "sniper" story.  Is Obama's attempt to use FALSE family stories any different.  Of course, it does not receive as much attention, because the mainstream media is FOR Obama.

Now consider whether Hillary Clinton shoudl "drop out" of the race before the convention (we are talking August here, and not June).  WHY should Hillary Clinton not point out that Obama keeps making MISTAKES, and that by August she expects it to be obvious that she is the superior nominee.  She can also, of course, say that recent voting SHOWS that she is the superior nominee.  She expects to CONVINCE people of that by August--even superdelegates who do not currently support her.  Clinton can plausibly ask:  WHY should I not stay in the race until the superdelegates actually VOTE in the convention.  That way, I am giving them an opporunity to do what the RULES say tey are supposed to do:   VOTE for the nominee they consider the party's best nominee AT THE TIME OF THE CONVENTION.

Fox News continues to be part of the problem, and not part of the solution (to the mainstream media problem).  I have again almost quit watching Fox News.  It is pitfiful when they are no better than CNN or the despicable AP.  Fox News says, every time I watch for as much as 30 seconds, that Barack Obama is now only 48 delegates, or whatever, from this race being OVER.

That is a LIE.  It is not only a LIE, but it is a 1984 style BIG LIE.  The nomination race CNNAOT be "over" until the superdelegates actually VOTE (neither Obama nor Clinton can win the nomination with the number of pledged delegates they have won in primaries and caucuses).  What Fox means when it says that the race will be "over" is that the media will declare it "over", even though the superdelegates don't actually vote until August.  That is the same as declaring a primary "over" based on a pre-election POLL.  It is FALSE.  The race is not "over" because Obama has enough PROJECTED votes, based on a POLL of superdelegates (even if they have publicly declared themselves).  It continues to remain absolutely true that superdelegates can VOTE THEIR CONSCIENCE AT THE CONVENTION, and dont' have to vote the way they say they presently intend.  If I were Hillary Clinton, I would say that I have a DUTY to stay in the race until the superdelegates acutually VOTE (officially--any "vote" prior to the convention does not count).  Hillary Clinton could say: 

"I truly believe that I am the best candidate for the Democratic Party  I hope to convince people of that--even superdelegates who have said they do not intend to vote for me.  Further, I think I am doing a SERVICE to the Democratic Party to contine to give people a CHOICE up to the final vote in the convention.  Barack Obama may look very different to people then than he does now.   What is wrong with giving superdelegates a CHOICE at the very time they are supposed to make that CHOIC:  the time of the convention.  At that time, superdelegates hould look at all factors known AT THAT TIME.  If I get out now, theywill not have that option, even if Barack Obama is obviously not the better choice in light of all factors at that time."

I am leaving the above to show you that even when I am writing based on a TV cable report, of which I saw only 30 seconds, I am STILL more accurate than the desicable Associated Press.  Here is the AP lead tonight, featured on AOL (about Barack Obama's great uncle, with the Obama campaign "explanation" coming out only after housrs had passed and a flap was already brewing--Barack Obama having talked about his great uncle helping liberate AUSCHWITZ instead of a "Buchenwald sub-camp").

" The Barack Obama campaign said Tuesday the candidate mistakenly referred to the wrong Nazi death camp when relating the story of a great uncle who helped liberate the camps in World War II."

While a despicable place, and a CONCENTRATION camp, Buchenwald was NOT a true DEATH CAMP for the extirmination of Jews.  Maybe the AP and Barack Obama deserve each other--they seem to have a similar disregard for the difference (political in Obama's case?).  Here is the Wikipedia description:

"Camp prisoners worked primarily as forced labour in local armament factories. Inmates were Jews, political prisoners, homosexuals, Roma people, Jehovah's Witnesses, Sinti, religious prisoners, criminals, and prisoners of war (POWs)"

There is, of course, the question of why Barack Obama deserves that much credit for the efforts of his great uncle (Barack Obama, of course, has not served in the U.S. military).

The commentary under the quoted AP: lead is mine, as posted under the story on AOL.

Question:  How "proud" could Barack Obama have been of his great uncle, and how familiar with Nazis death camps, to mix up Auschwitz and Buchenwald (both pretty famous places--especially Auschwitz). 

I stand by what I have been saying, despite the predictable attemopt by the despicable AP to downplay this gaffe:  Barack Obama is committing gaffes that no other candidate could get away with, and he is doing so REGULARLARLY.   The man is not qualified to be President of the United States (objectively, even apart from the gaffes--the gaffe only emphasizing the point).  Problem: The (probable) opponent is MCCAIN. 

Bob Barr has been named the official Libertarian Party candidate.  I am voting for him.  Yes, I DO think he would make a better President than either Obama or McCain.  However, I would still not vote for him merely on that ground, if either McCain or Obama were merely ACCEPTABLE.  That is because I know that Barr is not going to win.  Therefore, a vote for Barr is basically a protest vote.  Nevertheless, I refuse to vote for either Obama or Mccain.  Neither is acceptable to me, even on a "lesser evil" basis.  You can see this blog archives for the reasons, although I will surely repeat them.

P.S.  A few of you may have noticed that the second part of the above was added to the wrong entry last night (under the entry on the USE of veterans by Obama, among other leftists--all related stuff if you understand what is going on as Obama raised the "post-traumatic stress disorder" matter at the same time he was politically trying to get credit for his family helping end the Holocaust--political stuff all of the way, with no care as to the accuracy of what is being saidl), as I was in a hurry and going to bed.  It is now in the right place.