Friday, May 16, 2008

Not Allowed?

In an interview that has been much quoted of late, Barack Obama said " “Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states, I think, one left to go... Alaska and Hawaii I was not allowed to go to.”
Now, aside from the gaffe about the number of states, which could realistically be a reference to the number of states he has visited during the campaign, (with more than one visit to certain states), rather than a mis-statement of the number of states that there are, this statement contains within it a fine reason not to vote for Mr. Obama.

"I was not allowed to go to. " Think about that. (Aside from the obvious grammatical error.) What position is he running for? The leader of the United States of America. Yet, he allowed his staff to dictate to him whether or not he would campaign in certain states? Who really made that choice? Who has the bottom line in his campaign plan? If he won't accept responsibility for the decision of what states to visit during HIS campaign, what can we expect from him if he gets the office? Who will be telling him what he is allowed to do there?

I understand that, in the past, candidates have considered it too inefficient and expensive to visit Alaska and Hawaii during their campaigns. That is a reasonable demonstration of fiscal restraint and the efficient use of one's resources. This, however has been a year of record breaking campaign fund-raising with Mr. Obama at the top of that heap. If any candidate had the cash to spend on visiting those remote states, it should be him. Even if he didn't favor a trip to Alaska, one might think he would wish to garner the home state sentiments of his birthplace, Hawaii. But he was "not allowed to go".

"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." ~ Psalm 119:105


Terry Morris said...


Having only just now read the actual Obama quote for the first time, it appears to me that he meant to say 47 instead of 57; or, he's visited every state in the continental United States (or the lower forty eight) minus one. Which is precisely the reason I didn't pay any mind to it the first time I heard about the 57 states comment.

As far as the other thing goes, I suppose you're right. He probably should have said something more along the lines of "We determined (or I determined) that Alaska and Hawaii were out of the question because of blah blah blah."

Personally I just think the man is unfit and unqualified to be president. And that should be enough for anyone with common morals and average intelligence. Even if they do think that he actually believes there are more than fifty states. But anyway...


Call Me Mom said...

It seemed to me that it was just a slip on his part. It seems unreasonable to make a big deal out of it when there are so many more relevant and substantive reasons not to vote for him.

Terry Morris said...

You wrote:

"It seems unreasonable to make a big deal out of it when there are so many more relevant and substantive reasons not to vote for him."

Well said. Once I was in a discussion with a friend concerning corporal punishment in which I used the term "capital punishment" instead of corporal punishment. My friend laughingly replied: "I think you mean corporal punishment don't you?" To which I replied: "uh, well, let's hope so!" LOL

I agree, of course. There are plenty of good reasons not to vote for Mr. Obama without trying to make a simple slip of the tongue into one. In fact, that slip of the tongue is probably one of the most appealing thing I've ever read about Obama. At least I now know he's not a god. ;-)