The AP reports:
Barack Obama, caught up in the fervor of a campaign speech Tuesday, drastically overstated the Kansas tornadoes death toll, saying 10,000 had died. The death toll was 12.
“In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed,” the Democratic presidential candidate said in a speech to 500 people packed into a sweltering Richmond art studio for a fundraiser....
As he concluded his remarks a few minutes later, he appeared to realize his gaffe.
“There are going to be times when I get tired,” he said. “There are going to be times when I get weary. There are going to be times when I make mistakes.”
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said later that the senator meant to say “at least 10,” instead of 10,000....
This doesn't seem to me like a simple slip of the tongue, as when you mean to say one thing but accidentally say another (e.g., "at most 10" instead of "at least 10"). The "thousand" must have been deliberate at the time, though surely not thought through — a ten-thousand-death natural disaster would, to my knowledge, be unprecedented in recent American history; if one thought about it even for a moment, one would realize that the number must be wrong.
But the tiredness explanation nonetheless strikes me as perfectly reasonable. Campaigning for President is, by all accounts, an immensely tiring task — basically nonstop work morning to night, traveling, constantly talking, making political decisions, worrying. I suspect nearly all of us, laboring under that kind of schedule, would make errors of one sort or another in what we say. Just think about the slip-ups you sometimes make after any long spell of intense work. Seems to me we ought to cut the man (and all his fellow candidates) some slack on this score.
For a different view, see Don Surber. Thanks to InstaPundit for the pointer.
UPDATE: OK, this is just zany. I post (1) defending Obama against charges that he made some telling gaffe, and (2) trying to use this one incident to urge more broadly that everyone cut people more slack on slip-ups they make in the middle of an extremely hectic schedule. I do so after others, both in the mainstream media and in blogs, note the story, and after some use the story as an argument against Obama. (Just check out the links that I give and you'll see.)
But I guess you can't please some people: "Why would you possibly post on this?" "Complete non-event .... Will we see more of this sort of thing from Prof. Volokh as the election approaches?" "the media vultures who want to make stories out trivial events I agree. Too bad this website joins the flock." Apparently even noting that there is this criticism of Obama out there and defending him against the criticism is somehow beyond the pale.
It's going to be a long, unpleasant election season.
Related Posts (on one page):
I'm not looking forward to nineteen more months of this.
Chill.
I have seen this statement elsewhere and in a host of different issues. I still do not get it. By Bobble's own comment, is it not fair to say that Bobble's insinuation regarding those talking about this story says more about Bobble than about those talking about this story? By that token, the follow up commenter can then say that my questioning of Bobble's insinuation says more about me than Bobble's insinuation. And we can arguably go about this ad infinitim. Because of this, I fail to see how this is a valid argument against the original person who comments on the story.
Bobble or others, can you give me an example where a person cannot say that a comment says more about the commenter than about the thing in which they are commenting? Perhaps that will assuage my confusion.
"In France, for instance, I'm told that marriage is now frequently contracted in seven-year terms where either party may move on when their term is up. How shallow and how different from the Europe of the past."
That can't even be charitably described as a gaffe. It's an outright falsehood. Ignorance or deception?
Please tell us Professor.
As much as I dislike her, I've come to the conclusion that I would rather have Hillary as president than Obama.
I don't want 19 more months of this.
The far more important aspect of the story is the Kansas Gov. trying to make this an Bush issue regarding a supposed drawndown/weakening of the National Guard. The furious backtracking has already begun on that front.
In my view, the story itself – Obama’s gaffe -- is not worth commenting on because it’s not an issue. Therefore, people who are commenting on the substance of Obama’s comment likely have an axe to grind. In other words, their comments say something -- they have an axe to grind -- whereas the story itself says nothing.
My comment wasn’t about Obama’s comment, but the meta-issue of people commenting. There’s no contradiction in doing that unless you think (and I think this is wrong) commenting on a non-issue story says nothing about the person making the comment.
To give you an example, if somebody comments on a story about the Democrats trying to end the Iraqi war, the story itself says something -- it’s something worth commenting on. The fact that somebody comments (as opposed to what they comment) on it doesn’t tell us a whole lot about the person because it’s an interesting story that people will likely comment on.
I mean geez, people, for those of you (e.g., Spartacus) who are trying to make this into something, I don't know what to say to you. You must have first hand experience with doing something similar and I doubt you had sinister motives. If this was something Obama did a lot, then I'd understand the speculation. But how Obama thought purposefully exaggerating the deaths by such a huge number would be helpful to him is beyond me. If he said “100,” then at least I could understand speculation that he was exaggerating on purpose. But why would he say a number one thousand times larger than the real number on purpose?
Was that a story? Was Dan Quayle in mispelling "potato" in a classroom?
Frankly, the media plays this kind of "gotcha" game all the time. It says nothing about Obama (I will give him the benefit of the doubt) and everything about the media vultures who want to make stories out trivial events.
This may be one of the most ridiculous things I've heard on a Volokh comment board. You might as well say that Obama was implying that the laws of mathematics are fraudulent and one is equal to one-thousand.
Since when does one incident equal a "tendency"?
How is it even possible to accidentally imply something? Or to have an "accidental" intention?
I agree. Too bad this website joins the flock.
Meanwhile, no post on the recently released memo from the AG delegating termination authority to his COS and the White House liasion, both 30 something non-entities who were taking orders directly from ?
Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill...
Well, it is indeed a falsehood or "outright falsehood" if you prefer. But I don't see why that is inconsistent with "gaffe". The key point -- in both cases -- is that it was surely not a deliberate deception.
To me, the big difference is in the handling: Obama's folks just straightforwardly said he made a mistake whereas Romney's folks tried to muddy the waters and gave an incoherent defense of an indefensible statement.
I guess another difference is that Romney presumably was genuinely confused about marriage laws in France -- rather than a momentary confusion or misspeaking as in Obama's case -- but that doesn't seem particularly germane to me. Neither was lying, as neither sought to deceive.
Mitt Romney is so dead-dog worn out that he imagines that marriages in France only last for 7 years.
And we have months and months to go.
Martin Ammorgam: Why would you possibly post on this?
AF: Complete non-event, better suited to Instapundit than volokh.com. Will we see more of this sort of thing from Prof. Volokh as the election approaches?
Martin Ammorgan again: Meanwhile, no post on the recently released memo from the AG delegating termination authority to his COS and the White House liasion, both 30 something non-entities who were taking orders directly from ?
Geepers, guess Professor Volokh owes you guys a refund, huh?
To be fair, isn't EV's point that Obama's gaffe is meaningless and unimportant? I've seen a few criticisms of him for posting this, but it seems like he's making the right point - that this is no big deal.
The route to the White House is so exhausting, so all-consuming, and so full of puerile non-issues like this, that I have to wonder about the sort of person who would choose this course.
In addition, I'm VERY concerned about the presidency in the coming decades. We of Gen-X are famously Slackers. What's going to happen in 2024 when NO ONE seeks the presidency? The Boomers need to amend the Constitution to deal with this contingency. Because Lord knows my buddies and I aren't gonna get around to it; There are too many good shows on cable.
It does encourage "sticking with substance" but when the post itself is so insubstantial, it's hard not to stray.
Clearly, this is not the most important post ever. But it makes a useful point about the meta-story: that people are making a big deal out of nonsense like this and they shouldn't. If nobody replies to people who hype trivia, then the trivia will have undue weight. Not talking about it doesn't really work. (Go browse Bob Somerby's archives at The Daily Howler if you want to see more on this.)
You're quite the piece of work. It would seem to me that the issue has already been blown out of proportion, irrespecitve of any contribution to it by E.V. When he does post, and takes a position you ostensibly appear to be in agreement with, and yet you criticize him for commenting.
Got a bur in your saddle, or something?
And, likewise, this gaffe is evidence that Barack Obama is not very bright or articulate.
Thanks, Bobbie. Now I know that the gaffe IS actually meaningful.
Sure Professor Volokh is defending Obama. Congrats. Like you can actually post on this and NOT defend him? (Apparently, there's link to an alternate viewpoint, but why any sane person would go read that indictment is beyond me).
But I too often find the choice of posts odd. Why certain articles are held up as illogical or wrong, while worse ones seem to be ignored. Why this post on Obama's error (and then defending him) and nothing on Romney's nuttier claim about seven-year French marriages. Maybe it is the reliance on Instapundit.
But, hey, it's EV's site, he calls the shots.
Probably because at the same time Obama was claiming there were 10,000 dead, the governor of Kansas was trying to exploit the same issue to bash Bush over using the National Guard in Iraq. And before that at the Democrat debate, Obama and the rest of his cohorts were still trying to blame Bush because the Democrat governor of Louisiana didn’t let the feds come in early enough and the Democrat city government of New Orleans didn’t fully evacuate their city.
It’s relevant because while it probably was a gaffe (although one wonders how many “gaffes” the MSM would find if they didn’t treat Obama with kid gloves and Slate started an “Obamaisms” column), Obama and the other wannabes do have a track record of making these sorts of bizarre accusations.
So you think that this one instance of flubbing a line equates the the hundreds if not thousands of inane flubs by the shrub?
What are you smokin' boy?
Did I say "equates"? No, I didn't. I said that this provides evidence that Barack Obama "not very bright or articulate", to use Bobbie's words.
If misstatements by "shrub" provide such evidence with regard to him, then Obama's gaffe should be treated no differently.
So, when you post about a non-issue that makes a D look bad, it again appears a bit suspicious. And although you do provide him an excuse (exhaustion), you clearly state "This doesn't seem to me like a simple slip of the tongue, as when you mean to say one thing but accidentally say another (e.g., "at most 10" instead of "at least 10"). The "thousand" must have been deliberate at the time, though surely not thought through."
So, on one hand you say it's a mistake, but on the other, you say it was deliberate. Deliberate means he was trying to deceive people regarding a statistic that's easily verifiable, in a calculating way. If that's your position, fine. But you can't have it both ways.
Sure, the same what that when someone gets struck by lightning while peeing in a cornfield is evidence that peeing in cornfields is a very dangerous thing to do.
Thorley Winston, assuming you're right that Obama has "a track record of making these sorts of bizarre accusations," what does this gaffe have to do with that?
Professor, why are you always complaining? Don't you think it is a blessing that we still get to vote at all? And do you only think in terms of "pleasure?"
Just joking.
EV is absolutely correct and that the error was a simple mistake and should be ignored. I think the real story lies in what Obama did about it. Obama realized his mistake, admitted it and corrected himself. His staff then also gave a plausible and realistic reason for the mistake. who wouldn't be tired in obama's position?
Contrast this with how the Bush Administration and Romney (for those who brought up that example) handle their mistakes. They both tried to deflect the blame, give unsatisfactory, and at times obviously wrong, excuses and in general try to weasel out of it.
Which person would you rather have as a president?
Of course this is the kind of coverage we can expect during the campaign. This is exactly the kind of coverage we've been getting for most of the cable news era (at least) and with a ridiculously long campaign season there's simply more chances for gaffes to occur.
The fact is that many political types try to jump on every little mistake made by their opponents as evidence that said opponents are horrible candidates. This is unfortunate, but it's human nature (and it works to some degree).
Except that the Lancet study followed standard, scientifically accepted protocols, so your comment doesn't make any sense.
Seems to me that how a candidate acts when tired is extremely important. Will they be worn out through their first year in office? How will they respond to a major global conflict while tired. We are electing the decider in chief, who has to be sharp even when worn out. Sure, this isn't that big of a deal but I think it has a place in the discussion.
A misstatement isn't that important. Getting worn out and how this affects judgment, decisions, and statements certainly is important. And hopefully this is a great lesson for Obama to balance his campaign with appropriate rest. I am very interested to know how all the candidates think and act when they are exhausted.
Every person here knows, without a doubt, that if Bush had gotten the number wrong (even to say 100 instead of 10) the same people crucifying you would be the loudest voices against Bush as incompetent and out of touch.
The hard left has decided that its problem is that it's been too fair to conservatives in its rhetoric. Seriously. They worry about being too fair.
This is of course reminiscent of the famous psychological experiment where volunteers would take turns shocking each other. Each volunteer controlled how much of a shock the other would get. Each underestimated the amount of pain he was inflicting on the other guy, so even though he was trying to match the other guy's shock, he ended up escalating.
These radical (and mostly very young) leftists are unable to see how unfair their extremist rhetoric is. They react to any criticism, no matter how fair or moderate or measured, as a vicious, underhanded attack. They are like wind up toys. Perfectly predictable.
If Republicans hold the Oval Office, we will see rioting, just like in France.
I just hope they don't start murdering police officers again. That's what happened the last time the left went off its rocker.
Are you serious or is that intentional parody? President Bush misspeaks and gets things wrong all the time. Various people find it amusing or charming or irritating or embarrassing or whatever, but I think by now everyone is well aware that this is a routine feature of his presidency.
Of course Bush's false statements haven't all been inadvertent. Perhaps the most notable was his April 2004 claim in prepared comments that the government did not wiretap without "getting a court order before we do
so".
It's the pot calling the kettle crazy.
Uh....no they didnt. Skipped peer review also. Possibly why it is ignored.
That is false. The Lancet is one of the top medical journals in the world and all articles -- including this one -- are peer reviewed. It is true that that study had expedited peer review (i.e. the referees had tighter deadlines than usual) and one can surmise that it was expedited to get the study out before the US elections. But nonetheless it did go through the peer review process of a top journal. There is a lively debate on the study, perhaps the best place to look is Deltoid.
Can anyone on the Left explain that to me? Lots of towns in Kansas with a pop of 10?
It isn't beyond the pale. But it is partisan spin of a sophisticated sort. The trick is to appear reasonable by not actually endorsing a ridiculous partisan attack, but to legitimize the attack by treating it as something on which reasonable minds can differ.
This is a skillful and valid form of spin, but it's clearly spin. Usually volokh.com is a true spin-free zone, to coin a phrase. Consider it a sign of respect that your commenters expect more from you.
And how does any of that contradict what I wrote? It doesn't.
The same people who condemn EV for seizing on a non-issue would be the loudest denouncers of President Bush if he made a similar mistake. It's that simple.
That ad was more ingenious than this, because it actually goaded out-of-state Democrats into doing the Republicans' work for them by making a big deal out of the ad (also, it was racist). Here, we have the more commonplace situation where a candidate's political opponents try to make an issue out of a non-issue. The way you do it is through a good cop/bad cop spin routine: shills like Shurber insist it's a big deal, while seemingly more sober folks like Instapundit (and now, perhaps, Professor Volokh?) stroke their chins and say they don't personally find it to be a big deal but they can see how some people would. Voila!
Do they offer prizes here? Maybe the opportunity to guest blog for not less than 3000 words to end the shameful, shameful "silence on this site following the US atty firing debacle".
I certainly wouldn't be surprised if his wife said something so wrong and believed it. She does seem just a little out of touch (e.g. "My husband, being black, could die going to get some gas.")
Extended semi-impromptu speaking is different from the way we speak in a daily basis. An experienced speaker, isn't thinking about what he or she says they are saying it, they are thinking about what they're going to be saying 15 to 30 seconds in the future. Such a mistake could easily be overlooked.
It's also possible that he recognized the mistake, didn't think there was any harm in failing to immediatley correct such an obvious mistake, and opted to correct his statement a couple minutes later when it wouldn't interrupt the momentum of his speech.
Actually, Obama did quickly realize his mistake as indicated in the original post:
He didn't correct his mistake. He made a vague statement that "sometimes" he will get tired and make mistakes. Was this one of those times? His "correction" leaves that up in the air. His statement could ahve been merely the result of a staffer informing him he made a gaffe.
Badger,
Yes, all of what you suggest is completely possible, as I said it's the more likely scenario. If he decided that the "momentum" of his speech was too great to correct an error of that magnitude, well, that's a stupid call. But we all make mistakes speaking (and writing) and we all make stupid calls. I'm not going to say that makes Obama a horrible person. I will say that the event is a reasonable data point against Obama's candidacy and his fitness to serve.