Barack Obama Regrets Kids on TV and Much More.
Barack Obama says that he got “carried away in the moment” for allowing Access Hollywood reporter Maria Menounos to interview his young daughters (ages 10 and 7) on television. The program is usually known for reports on Hollywood sleaze, adulterer celebrities, and other decadence rather than presidential candidates. He now says that he had poor judgment with his children and regrets the decision.
Many analysts are questioning Obama’s veracity for this apology (see here and here), because the event was planned for days. He did not find himself suddenly in front of the cameras, but carefully planned the interview just like all campaigns do. Then he apologized immediately before anyone complained which also felt orchestrated.
Nobody knows for sure why Obama did it so let us give him the benefit of the doubt. Barack Obama simply made a mistake. It seems to me the real campaign issue is that Obama is suddenly admitting to a lot of poor judgments.
Luke Boggs has done a good job of chronicling several of Obama’s recent regrets over at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. He makes the interesting point that there over 1,000,000 search engine results for “Obama regrets.”
We all know the big ones.
Obama first expressed regret for Jeremiah Wright’s controversial comments, and then expressed regrets for his 20-year affiliation with the church.
Earlier in the campaign Obama regretted calling rural Americans “bitter” for “clinging to guns and religion.” Those controversial comments came in progressive San Francisco when Obama thought he was out of the camera’’s eye.
At the same time, Obama said that he regretted intervening to save Teri Schiavo, the brain-dead woman in Florida who captured the public attention in 2005. In a case of remarkable political theater (and I think an extraordinarily embarrassing moment in our history) an emergency session of Congress was held on the woman’s behalf. Obama voted for Congress to override the constitutional processes in the State of Florida.
Still earlier he regretted saying that the lives of American military were “wasted” away in Iraq. This inflammatory comment was apparently part of Obama’s ultimately successful strategy of attacking Hillary Clinton from her left flank.
The biggest regret is that Obama was closely tied to Tony Rezko, the felon who was convicted for money laundering, political bribery, and organized crime in Chicago. Obama later “regretted” his association when it was discovered. He had purchased property in a below-market loan on the same day Rezko purchased the vacant lot next door. Neighbors report that Obama fenced in both properties when he had only purchased one, the details of which are still entangling. When the arrangement was discovered by local reporters, Obama paid Rezko for a part of the property he was using. He still lives there and his gardener may still be mowing two lawns. Obama regrets the Rezko deal, which was inarguably poor judgment since Rezko was already indicted.
The many Obama regrets are giving voters reason to pause. He has made judgment the cornerstone of his campaign rather than experience for obvious reasons. He successfully banked that anti-war voters in his party would value his singular vote against the Iraq War before he voted to fund it. That is all the “judgment” he needed and it worked.
But can judgment on only one issue be enough to predict good judgment in the Oval Office, while Obama regrets all of the other things? It is hard to say at this point in the campaign but admitting poor judgment on so many issues will be used against him before the election runs its course.
Obama Regrets Interview









July 10th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
I think most folks would compare this lapse of judgement with the lapse in judgement that would lead one to believe that invading Iraq was a good idea and conclude that the latter was a far greater lapse.
July 10th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Then why did Obama vote to fund the war?
July 10th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
No Bob, most would not. Simply because one has nothing to do with the other.
———————————————–
This is what I had to say about this yesterday when I saw this and his response to it;
“This last video on some hollywood gossip show had Obama and his kids all cute talking about handshakes and ice cream.
And then later Obama said he regreted it and the whole thing snuck up on him (crept up on him, something like that)
Oh yea ! right ! the camera man and the mic on your lapel just snuck up on you.
He said it was a mistake. No ! It was a planted effort. It was full of intention to make himself look as if hes capable of admitting to a mistake.
Its all no more a mistake than Jesse jacksons remark.
I’ll bet money he knew the mic was on. How could ne not ?
And if he was really worried about anyone hearing it all he had to do was put his hand over it. I see everyone do it all the time as a precaution
Nuff of these stupid games already, they make me sick.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Hey, it’s got to be rough being Obama’s daughters. You’ve got to wonder how they actually feel about politics. Actually, the same could go for Hamza bin Laden, fledgling poet and Osama’s youngest son…
http://www.236.com/news/2008/07/09/if_they_imd_hamza_bin_laden_an_1_7620.php
July 11th, 2008 at 6:10 am
The biggest regret is that Obama was closely tied to Tony Rezko, the felon who was convicted for money laundering, political bribery, and organized crime in Chicago.
In 2003 Tony Rezko co-chaired a fund raiser that brought in almost $4 million for the Bush reelection campaign.
I don’t believe Bush ever returned the money or expressed any regrets, I could be wrong.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:25 am
So what Bob ?
Rezko wasnt indicted untill 2006, and then found guilty.
On Obama senate campaign he raise 14 million for Obama, has Obama returned that money ?
The house deal went down in 2005,
After it had been reported in 2006 that Rezko was under federal investigation for influence-peddling, Obama still did business with him.
Try again.
———————————————–
As carefully planned and scripted as everything is in campaigns today I doubt Obama seriously came to regret this.
Its all about selling the image of man whos humble enough to admit he made a mistake.
Would be nice if it were an honest mistake.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:28 am
[...] Obama Regrets Poor Judgment after Judgment Barack Obama says that he got “carried away in the moment� for allowing Access Hollywood reporter Maria Menounos to interview his young daughters (ages 10 and 7) on television. The program is usually known for reports on Hollywood sleaze, adulterer celebrities, and other decadence rather than presidential candidates. He now says that he had poor judgment with his children and regrets the decision. [...]
July 11th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Apparently, the writer of this has no regrets at all in life…perhaps they should run for president so we will have perfection in the White House…..since we all know how effective perfect people can be.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
This post isn’t about “the writer.” Do you have anything to say about “the topic”?
July 13th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Well just like the Bush family knew kenneth Lay from Enron and Houston doesn’t mean they were taking payolla. He was a socially active and very ingratiating figure so anyone in politics would cross paths with him sooner or later. Obama has known a few unsavory types too, but it seems before they were indighted or a public nusiance. At the time all he knew is they were politically important so being an ambitious politician he crossed paths with them and apparently didn’t always exercise the best judgement and really was only doing what most politicans do, but rather than get worse with it, he seems to move beyond the bad people as it becomes evident. Lots of real estate developers have checkered pasts which aren’t always immediately known and very high profiles and make a lot of donations. I would rather a leader have some dealings with these kind of people and learn from it as one day they will be dealing with some very unsavory leaders of foriegn countrys. Leaders from even our allies, say Italy and Israel often have checkered business pasts, and certainly people like Putin and Ahminaddjad do. A lilly white and pure politician wouldn’t really know how to stand up to and negotiate with psycopaths. I think Obama has passed the clean enough to elect test, now other personality characteristics will be vetted, the current one flip flopping. But like Schwarzenegger said today flip flopping is much maligned and really a sign of maturing and changing a position as one learns more about it. How can we expect any politican to have fixed opinions on every little and big thing. Nobody is that kind of genius. What is more important is that they have the ability to quickly learn and grasp the keys to a problem and then bring the necessary people together to agree to solve it. A president presides over a group, but the group has to finally agree to an action plan. In amrica we seem to think our presidents are kings with unlimited power over every little facet of our lives which is unrealistic and frankly fantasy land thinking. To demonize obama as some nefarious crook isn’t fair, but he is a politician on an ultra fast trajectory up. A better question would be, why are we raising him up to our next president so fast? What does tht say about us?
July 13th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Brian, use paragraph breaks please.
I don’t think you are following the Resko scandal. Obama accepted a free piece of property from a person who was already under indictment for political bribery. That is a bigger problem that “poor judgement.”
July 13th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
I noticed that people dont read the threads and end up repeating what someone just said or dont get the facts and continue with their assertions/claims/accusations.
Drives me nuts.
Wheres Pysnoir /
I need counseling.
Hey McCain ?
You’re not getting all moonbat are you ?
I noticed you critisized Brians lack of paragraph breaks.
But yea, it does take the wind out of you.
July 13th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Sirs: I write block statements applying thought into each but expect the reader to have to work at it to secure the thought which is being provided. Anything one does not work for is not valued, therefore, by working for it you will value it all the more. This is precisely how one secures a thoughrough education on the world we inhabit rather than osmosing pre-chewed tib bids in bite size portions.
July 13th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Yea Brian, expectations will always get the best of you.
Work at it ? Valued ?
Oh, so theres some great lesson to be learned by adapting to your typographical skills ?
Puleeese.
The thought being provided is a lot more digestible and understood if you just put it out there like everyone else does.
Just write like everyone else and you’ll find more will read it with more patience which will acheive the result if greater understanding and better absorpotion.
It may be how you think one secures a thoughrough education on the world we inhabit.
Even an idiot like myself can plainly tell that the way you type is just wrong.
I’ve seen people try to justify weirdness before but jeez, at least claim it as artistic license instead that contrived reason you just tried to pass off on us.
July 13th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Sir:I doubt you are an idiot and doubtlessly you would find ample reasons to disagree. But I do come at a price. It is not a fault. It remains your opportunity. There is an old farmers saying about not looking a gift horse in the mouth. If you seek to simply control and dominate everything a newcomer brings I cannot be a party to that. That is your own personality in the works. A fresh perspective I offer, and a fresh effort is a proper approach on the part of the one seeking something fresh. In time you will see the wisdom of my words. Regarding everyone else, as a conservative I seek to rise above mediocrity and come in as a new life form with independent non-programmed words by the media and vested interests.. i.e. independence.
July 13th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Sorry to pop yer bubble dude but you aint all that.
The last wisdom you tried to pawn off on us was that the only real power a president has is to wage wars.
There have been many presidents who have used their power and influence to achieve many great things for us and the rest of the world without waging war.
A gifted horse ?
Dude, you need to get over yourself.
July 13th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
I can see that the mammal has taken you over with the territorial imperative. Interesting how you resort to using “us” rather than simply stating your opinion. So you claim the voice of all the other bloggers, when in fact probably only a few of you even know each other, less be like minded on your points of view. Now you are resorting to the colloqueil and surfer slang. I think you are the one stuck on your territorial imperative, but if you are so great, what do you bring to the table except negative criticism, demands of power and control. None of which even remotely resembles fresh insights. And yes the only real power a persident has is to launch a nation into a war. Nothing so profoundly affects a nation, its familys, its people as being put into a war. All the rest is a mix of consensus and competition between the executive and the congress, often poorly arbitrated by the judiciary(the Bush Gore Florida vote). If you can’t see that, that’s fine by me as its only “your” opinion, which I can clearly see is totally contaminated by the mammalian territorial imperative. Its more right versus left competition out of which comes nothing in a country that in theory at least protects the monority right to its point of view too.
July 14th, 2008 at 6:49 am
The “us” is in referal to post you placed on another thread. I assume the post was not only directed at me ?
Your thinking is flawed if you cant see that in no way was I speaking for anyone but myself, but you choose to accuse me of being a voice for everyone.
Basically said dude, you got it wrong.
I never said I was that great. As a matter of fact I called myself an idiot.
But like I said before but I’ll say it again in more descript terms.
What you bring to the table is arrogance and narcissism with the opinion that your writings are somehoe the channel to the light we all must see.
I was writing in a casual sense on purpose just to make contrast.
I’m not gonna get all liberal here and go after your literaray skills any further other than to say that you seem to think your form contains some evolutionary way of communicating that we should all take advantage of when really yousay nothing I havent heard before either.
Saying that the only real power a president has is to launch a nation into a war is not only ridiculous , it is awfully wrong.
Really, I’m sure you’ve studied more history than I, but even I can come up with some decent examples of presidents using their power for more than war.
It has nothing to do with right/left.
Its just common sense and knowledge that many presidents have also used their power to avert war, create peace and save many lives in many ways.
Its about as accurate as saying the only things that soldiers do is kill.
Yea, you use all your big words and think your writing is so great when all you really did was blow it by not understanding that your previous post on the other thread I’m sure was meant for all readers(us)and then you make the claim that I am speaking for everyone.
And then you still maintain this ridiculous opinion that the only real power president has is to wage wars.
That may be your opnion but history and fact dictate otherwise.
July 15th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
The channel to the light I am not. I am directly bringing the light right to you for free with no advertising. If anything its more primordial than evolutionary, but it is direct as these electrons can make it go. These electrons are all much bigger and more significant than me, its just you chose to follow the territorial imperative while I choose the electronic way of direct transfer of illuminative information. So now you are going to say Bush not only started a war but sabotaged our economy by not doing his job. That is interesting as a president can start a war by fiat, but he can also wreak an economy by sitting on his hands. That is called malfeasance of office. Current events yet unfolding do point to the second part, as an action of inaction of the president in addition to starting wars. Now suddenly the bush administration wants to play a very public catchup, once again, way after the damage has been done, the indelible signature of this administration. I hope the history books give him ample mention.
July 15th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
“The channel to the light I am not. I am directly bringing the light right to you for free with no advertising.”
You bring no light, get over yourself.
” its just you chose to follow the territorial imperative while I choose the electronic way of direct transfer of illuminative information.”
All the illumination does is transfer your own imperative, which aside from all your grandiose literature is nothing I havent heard before.
“So now you are going to say Bush not only started a war but sabotaged our economy by not doing his job. That is interesting as a president can start a war by fiat, but he can also wreak an economy by sitting on his hands.’
You have quite an imagination and maybe a crystal ball.
Yes, there is passive agression which could be viewed as a direct and intentional deriliction of duty.
Or in the case with the war a premeditated/pre emptive action.
Regardless, I never said any such thing.
You are entitle to your opnion, but really, concept is everything in ones own mind.
The bottom line is this.
History and fact dictate that a president has power that enables him to do more than wage wars.
And you were incredibly wrong to say that the only power a president has is to wage war.
All this other crap that you would like to discuss is just a reflection of an incredibly egotistic self centerd man who seems to think that his writing is the product of some literary messiah.
Do you ever pass a mirror without looking at yourself ?
July 15th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
obviouosly you are simply using me as an imago to fight your own demons. Grow up and carry your own baggage. We don’t handle baggage here.
And yes once again the presidents only real power is to wage a war and in this case a war of choice. Remember this isn’t world war 11 where all sorts of influences and foriegn powers were knocking on the white house door to start a war with iraq. It was launched by the temporary tennents. I am surprised they even took the time to try and sell it to the nation and dworld which seemed like an afterthought, just to cover all their bases, but insincere for sure. We all knew that, but just stayed mum. Congress the keeper of our purse was the perfect enabler for reasons that still fairly obscure unless we just look at it as purely cynically political. Yes you are right: bush has a lot of passive aggression which he takes out on people. An awfully lot.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
“obviouosly you are simply using me as an imago to fight your own demons. Grow up and carry your own baggage. We don’t handle baggage here.”
“We?”
A while back you yourself made the assumption that I spoke for everyone because I said “us” when simply it was because your post was for everyone to read.
Now you speak for…who ?
Do you have a mouse in your pocket ?
Or are you on the staff at Right Pundits ?
I have no demons.
I cast them all away 15 years ago when I sobered up.
Calling you a demon would be flattery that would only explode that humongous ego of yours.
I carry my own fairly well, thank you.
Seeing as how you have not been able to enlighten me on any of your perspectives with nothing more than speculative opinions.
I wont even dignify the absurd by pointing out the numerous occasions in history where presidents have used their power to do more than start wars.
The statement of yours in a nutshell is completely asinine. Period.
The only reason ( I believe) that the war was not sold was because the real reasons were not digestible by the general public. Hearts and minds ? My ass !
We went there to set up shop and keep an eye on a clusterf*ck of dysfunctional sexually repressed religious zealots who want nothing more than to kill all things western and destabilize the modern world.
We are constructing the largest embassy ever in history for one reason and one reason only, and it aint oil. Its all part of a long term strategy to end the constant bickering and bubbling going on in this huge cauldron of threat to the US and the world.
I’m not crazy about Bush. He has some policy I don’t agree with, but he’s a decent man whom I believe has done well considering the plate he was handed.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
well opinons are held, but speaking of dysfunctional, we have it here at home as well. We could pioneer new energy technologies and conservational efficiencys, patent them, and sell them and the expertise world wide. The foward thinking Governour of Montana has said as much. Then we wouldn’t need to militarize and occupy that wonderful region half a world away from our core empire. I would vote for a cardigan sweater over fighting more destructive wars. 150 years from now the middle east will have no more oil, and we are more likely to still have some. I don’t agree on the plate bush was handed because if you research his many appointments you will find many flawed characters in there. I can’t say the choice of rumsfeld or rice has done this nation well. They chose loyalty over capability time and time again from Brownie to many lower level Iraqi hands. Perhaps the one smart thing Cheney did was to enlist the help of the likes of Blackwater merceneries to be a force multiplier and out of public view or accountability. Horrible as that is, it probably was one of the more competent things they did. The Clinton administration completely wasted its second term and we the nation lost four years. George tennet was a disaster. Yes, it is a humongous embassy. Scary in its humongousness! At our tax dollars expense. Again the oil barrons want to fight the war this way. I don’t. Today on Marketplace they played Jimmy Carter’s speech during the first oil crisis and he was so absolutely right. He even shouted “It is Real!” and shortly after that the forces that be all went after him and shoved him out of public office. In nearly Fourty years our energy policy was never developed beyond a strategic petroleum reserve. Carter trained as a nuclear submarine engineer and understood science and technology fairly well. Carter wanted to sign into law a mandate to make cars get 48 miles to the gallon Then as they had the technology to do it then. Instead under the Bush watch we pumped out suv after suv with tax breaks for buyers of them that were considerable. Now the very auto manufacturers are on the verge of extinction. Carter actually proposed leadership. Bush blithely mentioned switchgrass in passing. I think we all should wake up and see the truth that a persident can really only launch wars, otherwise they better keep quiet or get out of the way of the big boys, big corporations, special interests.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Carter was an idiot. Is.
He was solely responsible for ushering in bio fuels to likes of which our food market is in shambles.
As a matter of fact Reagan had to cancel many of the contracted subsidies being handed out by the Carter administration because they were illegal.
In his energy speech he said the “known reserves” would run out in 10 years.
What he failed to tell the country was that there were many that had not been explored yet and consequently he set in motion what was the worst economy we had seen since the great depression.
I’m tired of typing out the same answers all the time, so here, from my own blog.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html
“World consumption of oil is still going up. If it were possible to keep it rising during the 1970s and 1980s by 5 percent a year as it has in the past, we could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.”
Let me give you a perfect example of how these scare tactics effect us at home and the market abroad.
You say “what do we have to loose by starting preventative measures against global warming today?�
In 1978 Jimmy Carter scared the shit out of everyone by saying that all sources of oil would dry up by the year 1990 and that we had to start implementing by using celluloid based renewable fuels. In those days it was called “gasohol�
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html
“When OPEC restricted oil production again in 1978–and the Carter administration tightened oil and gasoline rationing, creating artificial panic–Andreas arrived at the White House with a salvation scheme. Why not increase subsidies for ethanol? According to Frank Greven, who is working on a book on Andreas and ADM, “During the 1978 Persian Gulf oil crisis, he convinced Carter that using ADM’s ethanol as a lead-free octane booster in gasoline would promote energy independence and cleaner air.�(39) As part of its grandiose solution to the energy crisis–which the president proclaimed to be the moral equivalent of war–the Carter administration drove through Congress a plan to exempt gasoline with 10 percent ethanol from the 4-cents-a-gallon federal fuel excise tax.
Even with the extremely generous federal tax credits for ethanol use, the alternative fuel still did not take off. Politicians decided that massively subsidizing ethanol’s use was not sufficient; they must also massively subsidize its production.�
——————————————————————
Today we see the result of premature and pre-emptive over reactions to a problem that was not researched well enough in advance to its introduction.
Those results being astronomical food cost for everyone in the world and throwing the world food market completely out of balance.
All in the name of environmentalist in the 70s and 80s who were pushing the ethanol card as some kind of earth friendly fuel.
Most of today’s environmentalist have backed away from supporting ethanol due to the fact that it is no more friendly to our atmosphere than ordinary fossil fuels.
With that mistake in mind and no way out of the contracted subsidies that corn farmers are guaranteed for years the focus has switched to energy independence as a justification for this offshoot bitch of the 70’s environmental movement.
People are starving. And the average middle class American that has to buy groceries is now paying an average extra of 200.00 a month.
And ethanol is doing absolutely nothing to bring down the cost of a gallon of gas.
The difference adds up to well more than 3500.00 a year.
“On the eve of the 1980 election, the Carter administration announced a deluge of loans to companies to build processing plants to make ethanol. On October 9, 1980, Secretary of Agriculture Bob Bergland announced $341 million in new loans to finance construction of gasohol plants.(41) On January 27, 1981, the new Reagan administration rescinded all the loans after its inspector general discovered that the Carter administration had violated official procedures and federal law in awarding many of the grants.
Carter is an idiot.
His foreign policies are partly responsible for the mess we have today.
In the true sense of insanity he just revisited the middle east trying to employ the same techniques which failed him 40 years ago.
Anyone who thinks Carter is worth what you think is really not worthy of any honest dialogue. Especially when you fail to be honest by not mentioning the ridiculous intentions of environmentalists in the 70s and 80s that were a primary influence on Carters decisions.
And still, history and common fact dictate that your assertion that presidents can only launch wars is still asinine.
Besides that, you’re boring already.
I’ve dealt with arguments like yours many times before and have chalked guys like you up to being nothing more than pseudo conspiracy theorists that employ that mindset mostly fed by biased suspicion and deal with little fact.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Test