Text size +

Obama admits to regrets Lite

Posted by James F. Smith February 27, 2008 01:17 PM

By Peter S. Canellos, Globe Staff

In last night's debate, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were asked if there were any "words or votes you'd like to take back." Clinton described, in gut-wrenching detail, her regrets over her Iraq War vote. When it was his turn, Obama noted that all senators had implicitly allowed the federal courts to intervene in the Terri Schiavo feeding tube case, and he wished he had spoken up against it. With a quivering air of self-castigation, Obama explained that the episode taught him the dangers of inaction.

Fair enough: Clinton chose to discuss a vote that has made some people hate her and imperiled her presidential campaign; Obama referred to a non-action in which he was only as culpable as every one of his colleagues.

But hasn't Obama been congratulating himself on the campaign trail for offering blunt, self-revealing answers to those kinds of questions, while his colleagues opt for what he calls the Washington "okey doke" response of admitting something that gives offense to no one?

Obama constantly tells of being asked in a debate to name his worst quality. He said he was "bad with paper," unable to keep track of memos and correspondence. Then, he says, "one of my opponents" -- John Edwards -- "said he was worked too hard to fight poverty, and another of my opponents" -- Clinton -- said she was "too impatient" in seeking change.

"And I thought, wait a minute, can I have my answer back? I thought we were supposed to reveal our worst quality?" The anecdote gets a strong response on the trail, with Obama presenting himself as a political naif still unschooled in Washington-style obfuscation.

But it's always seemed a bit too cute. After all, Obama has been struggling much of his adulthood to kick a smoking habit. Isn't that worse than being "bad with paper?" But, of course, some voters might actually object to having a smoker for president in these health-conscious times.

They're also objecting -- lots of them -- to having a president who voted to authorize the Iraq war. That's why Clinton's decision to bring it up again, after having discussed it earlier in the debate, was a little curious. And Obama's decision to flay himself for not standing up to all his colleagues? Revealing, perhaps, but also certain not to offend anyone at this late date.

Okey doke.

33 comments so far...
  1. You call this "political intelligence?"

    Posted by Elizabeth February 27, 08 02:17 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. Barack Obama has had the kitchen sink thrown at him, throwing out his middle name in a negative way, accompanied by a picture of Obama dressed in Somali garb, at the same time being endorsed by Farrakhan -- it's called "Got-Cha" politics, which is the worst kind of politics which only tends to divide and incite fear, it's called divide and conquer and/or "Swift Boating", which in reality is an assisination of character insinuating that Barack is a Muslin, even though it is false. I hope we Americans will not allow Camp Clinton and the Republicans to Swift-boat Barack like the Republicans did Kerry, turning a war hero into a deserter.

    However, Obama can be of use to America by addressing the need of some to sow divisions and exploit our differences, instead of building on that which unites us, and "The world can use him too, with his reach to the Muslim nations and his middle name making it impossible for the US to walk away from one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in history. A restructuring of this overall policy is due after the demolition of the World Trade Towers. Some people think it's cool to be cynical. They deride those who show overt respect, admiration, and optimism. Those who still believe they can make a difference. Those who know they have power. This campaign has proven that cruelty is no longer desired as political style in the United States. The people now have a choice. A choice between magnifying the negatives or using the positives. I will say this. Obama has the potential to be one of the greats, but only if the people participate in molding his leadership. That's the task at hand. He, himself, invites others to recognize his faults not letting them interfere with the work. You can see how the people's support has molded him already in his quick evolution from weak debating events to the beautiful, strong, elegant, debate he delivered last night.." From: Blogger, J.M., Raging Universe.

    We cannot afford to continue to alienate our allies and friends in the Middle East by insinuating that to have the name Hussein means that you are evil, a terrorist, or are to be feared. Do we really want to Convey that? We have to remember, it was not Sadam Hussein who bombed us on 911, though some would have you to think that. And, there are many good and decent people with the name Hussein in the Middle East, some of which have been our allies such as King Jordan Hussein. To continue to ridicule and fear the name Hussein, will only continue to incite hatred and hostility, with the result of no end of wars in sight. America the world is watching and we must decide as a nation what we are going to do.

    Hillary Clinton, a consummate actress, represents the old-time party politics, the politics of distort, smear, tear and division. She likes to Fight while Barack likes to Unite. Through this whole campaign, Camp Clinton has been Denounced for being Karl-Rove Republican like which she now tries to throw off on Camp Obama. We all know who has engaged in a destructive, divisive and negative campaign. After 20 debates, and over 4 years, Tim Russert finally got her to come close to apologizing about her 35-year experience Yes vote for the Iraq war. Mature individuals apologize and take responsibility for their mistakes. Mature individuals after losing a primary, apologizes to their winning opponent. America is only as strong and good as her leaders and politicians. America, it is about the Past (fighting, distortion and division and getting nothing really accomplished) or the Future (uniting, goodwill and truth and breaking new ground), that is our Choice!

    Posted by Angellight February 27, 08 02:18 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. It sounds like the most bizarre right-wing conspiracy tale, but apparently he really does. Not with foreign terrorists- with former domestic terrorists.

    Apparently Obama is at least casual friends with with William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. If you're younger than 40, these names may mean nothing to you. Ayers and Dohrn were members of The Weathermen. A hard left group that accidentally bombed a townhouse in Greenwich Village in NYC and who very intentionally bombed the Pentagon and other government buildings.

    Apparently, Barack Obama began his political career at a fundraiser at the home of Dohrn and Ayers. They're not close allies, but they are described as "friends".

    MSNBC said today "Ever-so-slowly, Obama's run-ins with a couple of notorious '60s radicals is starting to seep into the MSM... the visit by Obama to their home-part of a campaign courtship-reflects more extensive interaction than has previously reported.”

    If there is ANY additional corroboration to any Ayers-Dorhn relationship with Obama , Obama is finished.

    Posted by vicki andrews February 27, 08 02:27 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. JEALOUS!

    Posted by LYNNLEE February 27, 08 02:32 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. This article makes no sense. How comparable is this case with "I am too passionate about bring change" or "I care too much for the poor people"! What Obama said is a situtaion that many of us often find ourselves in - "Inaction." Obama's answer is genuine and solid.

    Posted by Jen February 27, 08 02:34 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. Okey doke -- this is a serious political commentary? Yes, indeed, the silly season has begun.

    Posted by Judith February 27, 08 02:34 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. Obama is definatley weak on foreign policy

    TYLER, Texas (AP) — Republican John McCain mocked Democrat Barack Obama on Wednesday for saying he would take action as president "if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq."

    "When you examine that statement, it's pretty remarkable," McCain told a crowd here.

    "I have some news. Al-Qaida is in Iraq. It's called 'al-Qaida in Iraq,'" McCain said, drawing laughter at Obama's expense.

    Posted by john hederman February 27, 08 02:56 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. My opinion is that Bostonians feel like they "paid their due" by electing Patrick. The Obama = Patrick is ridiculous. Read the guy's policies and learn about his record first.
    You can say he does not have experience and all that. But relative to who? Clinton?Give me a break. The lady is responsible for all the good things of the 90s, but NAFTA, no she opposed it behind closed door.
    I will not be surprised if Boston democrats vote McCain. I hear Obama haters on talk radio everyday. They never say his name without including his middle name and we all know what the intent of that is. I have no idea what McCain middle was until I googled it this morning.

    Posted by Justin February 27, 08 03:31 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. The Jr. Senator from Illinois has gotten better at memorizing the advice he gets from his foreign policy advisors--that's how he comes off- like something he's memorized. Glad that Hillary brought out the Saturday Night Spoof of the previous debate on CNN--because it's true: She gets the first question on the topic--he gets a chance to listen to her question and then tweak it a little and make it his own...
    It's like she's the teacher and he's the student.
    I hope that voters in Ohio, Texas, Vermont, and Rhode Island wake up from their 'Obama" Fever because come sobering November--the mood of the country will shift and experience will be key once again--it's not easy to run against a war hero who was a POW and is a moderate Republican with backing by Joe Liberman...

    Posted by Evelyn, Austin Texas February 27, 08 03:34 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. Peter, your opinions in this article are full of assumptions, half-truths, and therefore unwarranted conclusions. I don't know why you bothered writing it. You're so biased you've appeared to have lost your ability to think clearly. Or did you even bother to think? If this is the kind of "journalism" you're offering I'll look elsewhere.

    Posted by J February 27, 08 03:37 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. Youre worried about people from a radical group of the 1960s? You do know Obama is 46 right? That means he must have been "conspiring" with these radicals at the ripe age of what, 8?

    Posted by D February 27, 08 03:44 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. Obama is just too precious for my taste!!!

    Posted by Lily28 February 27, 08 04:03 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. It was a question about "words or votes you'd like to take back."

    I think they both covered it well. Maybe you're being a tad too criical about this. It was a vote Obama wanted back. Hillary's vote seeming like a bigger mistake (to you) doesn't make Obama's regret less real or sincere.

    Posted by max February 27, 08 04:32 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. I though Obama stumbled on the Farakan issue. It caught him by surprise. He practically disowned his pastor's friendship with Farakan. Obama has no shame attempting to make his job in a small non profit community program that dealt with drug addicts. How come he never talks about his cocaine days? He is a consummate lawyer toying with his opponent. A master at words, enjoying his adulation by a young crowd of voters who lost Britney and now have a new Rock Star. He is one slippery character. Hillary is a survivor who has endured much and like most women hides in her heart what really hurst and does whatever to keep going. She is tried in the worst of battles and should become President. Nothing will faze her. Michele Obama needs more time to learn about the goodness of America. Apparently, in her formative years from age 18 to 46 she hasn't learned one good thing about this country that makes her proud????????They keep saying they are going to take us in a new direction,,,,,,left or extreme left?

    Posted by Proud of America February 27, 08 05:32 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. Mr. Canellos,

    if there were a set of words you could take back, would it be the "political news" piece you scribed above? This is a seriously weak piece of writing.

    True Obama's vote to take back, wasn't as large as Hillary's, but then again he never voted for the war. If you had found a comparable vote that he failed to mention, you might be onto something here, but if the best you can do is his closet smoking habit, it might be better to leave the words off the page.

    Posted by V February 27, 08 05:38 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. I agree with Evelyn, Every time Hillary answers a question, Obama tweaks it or agrees with it or shifts it around to make it look like he knows whats going on, I believe wholeheartedly that Hillary is the person we need to run this country, Obama is a little to shifty for me and yes experience does matter, quite a bit. Something that Obama does not possess or have

    Posted by Gary February 27, 08 06:00 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. What are you talking about? Seriously, you need to consult someone who knows how the Senate works before posting something so flawed. Please review and correct.

    For the record:

    ANY SINGLE SENATOR COULD HAVE PARLIAMENTARILY BLOCKED THE TERRY SCHIAVO VOTE, as Obama explained at the debate last night. It was an example of inaction, in that he didn't do anything to block it, BUT HE COULD HAVE BLOCKED IT, AS COULD ANY OTHER SENATOR.

    I thought it was a great example, an important issue that the Senate royally fudged.

    Posted by bob February 27, 08 06:06 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. This article is so trite. It's amazing how hard people will work to try to tear down Obama. People hate to realize there are some really good, honest people out there. One of the best things about Obama is that he's smarter than all the candidates so far. What he doesn't know, he's willing to learn. Besides being so bright himself, he knows how to surround himself with other bright, capable people. Hillary apparently doesn't have this knowledge. How is she supposed to run the nation when she can't even run her campaign? How is going to get good legistation passed when she's always spoiling for a fight?

    It just so happens that Obama has both the insight and the leadership to make some real, positive changes. Maybe some people are too scared to let go of the nasty politics as usual. Time to let go of that irrational fear.

    Posted by Cynthia McMurray February 27, 08 06:11 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. I think Americans are wise enough to have an Anglo-Saxon as a commander-of-chief than otherwise. It takes several generations to produce a real American like McCain.

    Obama will win the nomination but not presidency. I am ready to bet with anyone who disagrees.

    Posted by papken hartunian February 27, 08 08:08 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. I got a good laugh from comment #2, wherein Angelight says "I hope we Americans will not allow Camp Clinton and the Republicans to Swift-boat Barack . . . "

    The unconsciously ironic juxtaposition of the Good People ("uniting, goodwill and truth and breaking new ground") with a good old fashioned smear of Hillary (since when did you start relying upon the Drudge Report as a credible source for that picture?) was an eloquent example of why some of us are leery of holier than thou campaigns.

    Posted by kei-o-lei February 27, 08 08:09 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. I am being sincere when I ask someone in the press to provide information on Obama’s spiritual advisor in the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago as well as Obama’s relationship with Farrakhan. I also want to know about Obama’s spiritual advisor’s relationship with Farrakhan and if Obama’s spiritual advisor hold racist views or anti-jewish attitudes.

    I never knew about Obama’s church and his spiritual advisor until it was brought up in the MSNBC Ohio debate. I need to have information so that I can make a decision on who to vote for. This is an important issue.

    I don’t know why the press didn’t inform us this before - all of a sudden it is brought up in a last minute debate. I need more information to sort this stuff out. Please make sure that the press do their jobs and get this information to us. I don’t care if the news is good or bad - I just want to have the research done so I can make a decision on who I will support.

    Posted by Carl February 27, 08 08:18 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. So I guess this is an example of the press trying to prove that they're tough on Obama........WEAK

    Posted by W February 27, 08 08:48 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. Thank you Evelyn from Austin, TX, I couldn't agree more. Why none of the commentators on TV could come up with that is beyond me.

    Thank you also to Proud of America.

    I hope voters come to their senses next week!

    Posted by Jen from Boston February 27, 08 09:20 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. Holy cannoli.

    After having spent the last 14 years living in Georgia, the Carolinas, and Florida, I'd forgotten just how profoundly embedded the New England version of racism is. I lived in the Boston area from '89-'93, and I well recall the biggest news cycle after my arrival being the Charles Stuart murder story -- not so much the murder, but the way Boston police, press, and politicians all chomped directly down on and greedily swallowed his fabricated black-man-did-it! alibi, then proceeded to roust and condemn every non-white male they could get their hands on until Stuart relieved the pressure with his confessional suicide.

    Today, despite Patrick having been elected governor -- or maybe because of it -- not even Senators Kennedy's and Kerry's endorsements seem to have been able to overcome the notion of the Mass. Dem electorate -- witness the primary vote results -- or the press -- witness this editorial -- that "those people" just can't be trusted.

    Okey doke, indeed.

    Posted by Mitch in FtLaud, FL February 27, 08 09:38 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. Change is good, and to that end, I plan to research Ed O'Reilly, Jim Ogonowski and any other challenger to John Kerry this November. I'd like to see Theresa Murray or Jim McGovern get into the race. Kerry has advocated for change in his endorsement of Sen. Obama despite the win given to Clinton by MA voters in the Feb. primary. Like John Lewis, he could reverse his decision.
    At the debate last night, Clinton was asked the first three questions, not just one and if she had not pointed that out, the reporters would have ignored it. She brought up the Saturday Night Live skit suggesting the media was easy on Obama, and I'm glad she did, because I missed SNL and can't trust the media to relay the scene.

    Posted by Mary S. Burke February 27, 08 09:54 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. Having struggled myself with both of Obama's "worst qualities" - smoking and being "bad with paper" - I have to say that the latter is actually worse. As horrible as it is for one's long-term health, and as un-PC as this is to say, being a smoker actually doesn't interfere with one's ability to get work done. If anything, it helps. Being "bad with paper," on the other hand, can really be a pain in the @ss when you're a person who has to keep up with a lot of details.

    For all his laid-back manner, Obama strikes me as something of a perfectionist. He's got a lot of drive, and big vision. I understand the smoking, and the paper thing, as they relate to his personality type - he's constantly pushing forward, and it's not always easy (or appealing) to keep up with the mundane details of the paperwork. But his well-managed campaign reveals that he also realizes the importance of "dotting the i's and crossing the t's," or "being good with paper." From that perspective, I can see why he would prioritize the "fault" that he did.

    All this aside, I agree with the other poster who feel that this entire piece is a hit-job, and a completely irrelevant assessment of Senator Obama. He was the only candidate who even attempted to answer the question with any self-reflexivity or honesty. I personally find his candor refreshing, and I look forward to having a thoughtful, intelligent, and moral human being as our next President.

    Posted by libelian February 27, 08 09:55 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. Obama is weak! And he's a dangerous choice. His followers are as he suggests... bordering on DELUSIONAL! They will see no faults in him. I support Hillary and I admit that she, like any human being, has negatives. I'm concerned about what happens after the last vote is cast, the hoopla of the swearing in is over and the next president walks into the Oval Office to get down to business. Deval was inspiring but his performance so far has been pretty lackluster. I'll take Hillary's resume and leadership style any day over Obambi.

    Posted by Brian February 27, 08 10:09 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. i will never vote for someone who smokes. i knew that he does smoke, but that's the end of it.

    i think hillary probably smokes too, but i'm not sure. this is why i voted for edwards.

    barack, baby, get on the patch. you don't have to quit the patch, just do it . for christ's sake, if you have children in your life you should not smoke at all, the second hand smoke kills too. esp. if you are black, it will only increased your raised chances for high blood pressure and heart disease.

    qui

    Posted by kenshin February 27, 08 10:25 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. Interesting that Obama and his supporters say that mentioned Obama's full name, Barack Hussein Obama, is playing dirty politics.

    I don't get it. Is he ashamed of his full and/or middle name? If so, why?

    And why was showing a photo of him in Somali African dress also a dirty trick?

    Is he trying to deny his roots?

    Posted by David 2007 February 27, 08 10:29 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. P.S. Obama never voted for the war because he wasn't there when the vote took place. The enemy must be salivating. All they have tio do is wait and if Obama is the winner, they sit back, the troops will be removed, they do the Cambodian thing, slaughter all those who worked with America and they will be back in business. Obama said he supported Israel etc. With America out of the mid east, Israel stands alone. Doesn't he get it? Dangerous indeed, neophyte commander in chief? Hmmmmmmmm

    Posted by Proud of America February 28, 08 01:47 AM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. James F. Smith.

    While it might be possible to make a theory about Obama's being less than sincere (I don't believe it, but an argument could be made for it), your article lacks anything other than throwing paranoia and cynicism into the air.

    If you think Obama's answer to the 'vote you wish you could take back' was calculated, than you should have at the very least found an alternative vote Barack should have mentioned instead.

    And contrary to what I think are your beliefs, not alot of people would cite smoking as their greatest weakness. Seriously, being bad with paper is far more relevant a weakness as a presidency than the tendency to light one up (though you must remember than Obama quit smoking the day he announced his candidacy, a condition his wife gave him).

    Posted by Lord Falcon February 28, 08 02:07 AM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. Not sure how McCain voted on the Terri Schiavo issue, but my first guess when I heard Obabma's regret was that he might be setting a booby-trap for his opponenet in the general election. Supporting Congressional intervention might get you a handful of the holier-than-thou vote, but would certainly lose you the common-sense vote.

    Posted by A. Potvin February 28, 08 10:25 AM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. it is so obvious that the clintons are pigs for politicians. raised privileged yet lack half the class that obama- coming from a broken home- has. hillary claims she does not have the same views as bill. meanwhile, she is using a lot of the same pple bill used on her team. give me a break. they inject gossip i know this for a fact bc i was working for one of her advisors BRIEFLY. it's all bullshit on their end trust me. i wanted this woman to represent me until i got to know how the clinton machine worked up close and personal and it is revolting and ruthless.

    Posted by joy April 18, 08 09:50 AM
    Reply | Report this post
add your comment
Required
Required (will not be published)

This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.

About political intelligence Field reports from Boston Globe reporters and editors covering the 2008 presidential campaign and the national maneuvering of Bay State politicians.

Send your comments to masspolitics@globe.com

archives

browse this blog

by category