The Volokh Conspiracy - Not FREE TO CHOOSE . . . what to eat.--

MJ at In the Pines writes about Obama's latest gaffe:

Obama implies the government should control how much you eat...what?! . . .

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Barack Obama set his sights on November's general election Saturday as he campaigned in Oregon, where he hopes to declare victory in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Pitching his message to Oregon's environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to "lead by example" on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

That's pretty scary, isn't it? He implies that the government should have control over what people eat, and suggests that it should be at the bidding of foreign nations?

It doesn't seem strange anymore that he would allow the whole calling a reporter "sweetie" debacle to become a big deal. Anything to take the attention away, eh?

It seems as if Obama is making a verbal gaffe every few days. He's quickly approaching Dan Quayle-George W. territory. If the TV talk shows treated Obama's gaffes the way they treat Republican gaffes, Obama's recent confusion about 57 states and where Kentucky is located would be staples by now (I suspect that as many people know that there aren't 57 states as know how to spell "potato").

As Glenn Reynolds might say: "They said that if Bush were elected president politicians would try to take away our most basic rights — and they were right!"

UPDATE: Some commenters below seem to think that I believed that Obama has plans to restrict food choice. No, he made a gaffe and said something stupid — as we all do from time to time. As with George W. Bush and Dan Quayle, this gaffe may reveal something deeper about the way Obama's mind works — or it may be a simple mistake.

Whether revealing or not, Obama's string of small verbal gaffes in recent weeks would be a comedic drumbeat if a Republican had made them.

2d UPDATE: The sarcastic Tim Blair seems to think it's an example of wooly-headed environmentalism:

After all, Agence France-Press thought Obama's remark so unremarkable they buried it way down at paragraph 13, beneath searing lead pars about "setting his sights on November's general election" and "hoping to declare victory in the race for nomination".

You'd imagine a presidential candidate telling voters to go hungry for Gaia might be worth a mention at a point in the story before readers get bored and head for the nearest drive-through.

It's such a perfect example of environmentalism's religious component that Obama - who sometimes gives the impression that he's running for the office of Jesus - really should have delivered it on Sunday, by which time he was addressing a crowd of 75,000 in Portland.

	[Jim Lindgren, May 19, 2008 at 9:57pm] Trackbacks Not FREE TO CHOOSE . . . what to eat.-- MJ at In the Pines writes about Obama's latest gaffe: Obama implies the government should control how much you eat...what?! . . . WASHINGTON (AFP) — Barack Obama set his sights on November's general election Saturday as he campaigned in Oregon, where he hopes to declare victory in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Pitching his message to Oregon's environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to "lead by example" on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries. "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said. "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added. That's pretty scary, isn't it? He implies that the government should have control over what people eat, and suggests that it should be at the bidding of foreign nations? It doesn't seem strange anymore that he would allow the whole calling a reporter "sweetie" debacle to become a big deal. Anything to take the attention away, eh? It seems as if Obama is making a verbal gaffe every few days. He's quickly approaching Dan Quayle-George W. territory. If the TV talk shows treated Obama's gaffes the way they treat Republican gaffes, Obama's recent confusion about 57 states and where Kentucky is located would be staples by now (I suspect that as many people know that there aren't 57 states as know how to spell "potato"). As Glenn Reynolds might say: "They said that if Bush were elected president politicians would try to take away our most basic rights — and they were right!" UPDATE: Some commenters below seem to think that I believed that Obama has plans to restrict food choice. No, he made a gaffe and said something stupid — as we all do from time to time. As with George W. Bush and Dan Quayle, this gaffe may reveal something deeper about the way Obama's mind works — or it may be a simple mistake. Whether revealing or not, Obama's string of small verbal gaffes in recent weeks would be a comedic drumbeat if a Republican had made them. 2d UPDATE: The sarcastic Tim Blair seems to think it's an example of wooly-headed environmentalism: After all, Agence France-Press thought Obama's remark so unremarkable they buried it way down at paragraph 13, beneath searing lead pars about "setting his sights on November's general election" and "hoping to declare victory in the race for nomination". You'd imagine a presidential candidate telling voters to go hungry for Gaia might be worth a mention at a point in the story before readers get bored and head for the nearest drive-through. It's such a perfect example of environmentalism's religious component that Obama - who sometimes gives the impression that he's running for the office of Jesus - really should have delivered it on Sunday, by which time he was addressing a crowd of 75,000 in Portland.