ON THE BUS BETWEEN HARRISBURG and LANCASTER, Penn. — Cable news was all over Sen. Barack Obama's weekend photo op at an Altoona bowling alley. His excuse for bowling a 37 during the Saturday campaign stop was that it had been three decades since he last engaged in the sport.
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough quipped that higher scores would be found at an 8-year-old's birthday party. He also proposed the Democratic nomination could be settled by a bowl-off between Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson didn't say no to the idea, and joined in to mock his rival's bowling skills.
"It didn't look like Senator Obama brought his A-game to the bowling alley," Wolfson said.
Joking aside, here are some of the best excerpts from the pool report:
[Obama] and [Sen. Bob] Casey changed their dress shoes for bowling shoes — blue and white Velcro for Obama, size 13 1/2, and a more traditional red and blue (with Day-Glo green laces) for Casey....
Bowling first, Casey, taking what Obama had declared to be a practice roll, sent his ball off to the left gutter. "Uh oh! Uh oh!" Obama shouted. "He did that on purpose, so I won't look bad." But Obama had already told the afternoon gaggle that he's not a good bowler, and your pooler has the sad duty to inform you that he was true to his word. He picked up a ball, held it reasonably confidently, approached the lane and … sent it off to the gutter on the right. "We're just warming up," he said.
...
At one point, Nick, an 8-year-old standing nearby, offered to give Obama some pointers. Instead, Obama let Nick roll one ball for him. ("Fist bump!" Obama ordered Nick afterwards.) Other kids started asking to play with them, and he invited them to join in. "We're going to keep on going until we get a strike," Obama said.
...
Most of Obama's shots were more or less down the center of the lane, but he rolled them too slowly to knock down more than six or seven pins at a time. "You notice I'm getting better," he said. At one point, he jokingly asked for a tip from a Secret Service agent.
...
Obama knocked down nine pins with one ball. "Almost!" he shouted. "I almost had it!"
"Let me tell you something," Obama said, turning to the crowd. "My economic plan is better than my bowling." A man standing at the next lane over called out, "It has to be." Laughing, Obama walked over and hugged him. Finally, in the seventh frame, Obama made a spare, cleaning up one pin left standing with his second ball. "Yes I can!" he started chanting, after a couple of admirers at a nearby lane started it. "Yes I can!" He and Casey changed out of their shoes. "Alright, I'm quitting now, that's it, that's it," Obama said. He signed two bowling pins for the alley's owners.
— Mike Madden, Salon.com
— Sasha Issenberg, The Boston Globe
— Christina Bellantoni, national political reporter, The Washington Times
Comments (10)
MSNBC-
OBAMA: ANOTHER SUPER, EXAGGERATION
Washington Post caught Obama in a lie about the Kennedy family role.
Politico reports, �During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than he acknowledges in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion� positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he�s projected during his presidential campaign. The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group�s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his bid for a state Senate. In response to a Politico story, Obama�s answers he never saw questioaire?
Obama's vote sparked a confrontation after he joined Republicans to block Democrats trying to override a veto by GOP Gov. George Ryan of a $2-million allotment for the west Chicago child welfare office. being responsible," said Sen. Rickey Hendon, accusing Obama of voting to close the child welfare office.Obama replied "I understand Sen. Hendon's anger, I was not aware that I had voted no on that piece of legislation.
OBAMA LIES IN PENNSYLVANIA AD
NBC- Aswini Anburajan
GREENBURG, Pa
It's unfortunate that Senator Obama is using false advertising to explain why he can be trusted to do something about energy prices. In his ad, Obama says, I'm Barack Obama, and I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists, and I won't let them block change any more. Obama has been the recipient of more than $220,000 from the oil and gas industry just since as of Feb/08. Two of Obama's campaign bundlers are also CEOs for oil and gas companies, per his campaign Web site? Obama needs to answer to VOTERS about his dealings with one of his largest contributors Exelon, a big nuclear power company that he cut deals behind closed doors protecting them from full disclosure in the nuclear industry. Exxon, Shell, and others are among his biggest donors
Judicial Watch: By Klaus Marre
Obama �intended to leave no paper trail� OBAMA REFUSES to cooperate in releasing 8 years of his state senate records. One main reason REZKO!
The WashigntonPost Fact Checker/ABC
Senator Obama CAUGHT LYING about Kennedy Role in Helping His Father
Contrary to Obama's claims in speeches Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama's father. According to historical records and interviews with participants, the Kennedys were approached for support for the program a year later, July 1960. family responded with a $100,000 donation, which went to pay for a second airlift in September 1960.
Posted by jose | March 31, 2008 9:43 AM
Posting the same thing on every site is not going to make it bigger than BOSNIA!!
Posted by Sheri | March 31, 2008 10:55 AM
A leader beside is and not in front of us- I'm so happy and proud to have Obama represent me.
Posted by Sally | March 31, 2008 11:09 AM
Barack Obama didn't lie about the Kennedy thing. He only got the date wrong. Big deal. The oil ad in Pennsylvania is correct. He does not take money from Oil companies. He gets donations from individuals who work for the oil companies because when you make a donations you have to write were you work. The survey thing happened in 1996. How is he supposed to remember what he did back in 1996. You people are ridiculous. You have nothing on him.
Posted by Rainy | March 31, 2008 1:24 PM
I have noted a number of myths amongst the comments here as to why Hillary should stay in the race. Here are ten enduring, kudzu-like myths, with the debunking they sorely need.
Myth: This race is tied.
No, actually, it's not. Obama has the lead in number of states won, in pledged delegates and in overall delegates. Nothing will happen in the remaining primaries to substantially change that. As to the one thing Hillary does lead in, superdelegates, her quickly shrinking margin is among DNC personnel only. When you look at the elected superdelegates, Congressman, Senators and Governors (i.e. people who actually work with both Obama and Clinton) Obama leads there, too.
Myth: Okay, the popular vote is tied.
There are people who claim that because of the 3% separation, that Obama's lead in the popular vote is a "statistical tie." This is a myth because, when you can actually count things, there's no need of statistics and no such thing as a margin of error. The popular vote is not an estimate based on a sampling, like a poll. Like the general election, there are winners and losers and, so far, Obama is the winner.
Myth: Fine, but what if we count electoral votes? NOW Hillary is ahead!
Not so much. The proportions of electoral votes to population versus delegates to population are pretty comparable. So if you allocated electors proportionally in the same manner that you allocate delegates, Obama is still ahead. If you allocate them on a winner-take-all basis, then that would be the same as allocating the delegates on a winner-take-all basis, so why bring electors into it?
Myth: But if we did do it like the Electoral College, that proves Hillary is more electable than Obama, because of states like California.
This is perhaps the saddest little myth of all. It's ridiculous to suggest that Obama will lose New York and California to McCain because Clinton won them in the primaries. No, come November, those states will join with Obama's Illinois to provide 40% of the electors necessary for him to win.
Myth: Very well, then, Mr. Smarty-Math. But if we counted Michigan and Florida, THEN Hillary would be winning!
Nooo, she wouldn't. The margin would depend on how you allocate the delegates, but Obama would still be ahead. And he'd still be about 100,000 ahead in the popular vote, too, despite not even being on the ballot in Michigan. However, it would enhance Hillary's chances of catching up in the remaining races.
Myth: Ah HA! So Dean is keeping them out just to help Obama! And Obama is keeping them out.
That's two myths, but I'll treat it like one. The only people who can come up with a solution to this problem are the states themselves, to be presented to the Rules and Regulations Committee of the DNC for ratification. It was Rules and Regs, not Howard Dean, who ruled that Florida and Michigan were breaking the rules when they presented their original primary plans. If the two states cannot come up with a plan to reselect delegates, they can try to seat whatever delegates were chosen in the discounted primaries by appealing to the Democratic Convention's Credentialing Committee, which includes many members from Rules and Bylaws.
Myth: If they don't get seated until the convention but a nominee is selected before these poor people get counted then these states are disenfranchised.
There are two ways to debunk this myth: semantically and practically. The first is based on the word "disenfranchised:" these people have not been deprived of their right to vote. Through the actions of their states, their votes don't impact the outcome. Now, you may say that that is specious semantics (Myth: I do say that!) but practically speaking, this is the usual effect of the nominating process, anyway. All of the Republican primaries since McCain clinched the nomination have been meaningless, but those voters are not disenfranchised.
Florida and Michigan tried to become more relevant in the process by breaking the rules. They risked becoming irrelevant instead.
Myth: Well, I say they are disenfranchised, and Hillary Clinton is their champion.
Only when it suits her. Last fall, when the decision was first made to flush 100% of Michigan and Florida delegates, Clinton firmly ratified it. That was because the typical punishment of only 50% representation also kept the candidates from raising money in those states. Figuring that she would wrap up the nomination handily anyway, the clear front-runner agreed with all the other candidates - including Obama - to completely "disenfranchise" those two states.
Myth: Well, never mind 2007. She's doing more now to bring them in.
Not really. Recent stories in the St. Petersburg Times political blog said that 1) the Obama camp has reached out to the Florida Democratic party about a compromise and that 2) the Clinton camp will discuss nothing else but re-votes, which are legally, practically and politically dead.
Myth: Whatever! Hillary can still win! I know she can! She and her 37% positive rating will sweep through the remaining primaries and Michigan and Florida, winning 70% of everything and superdelegates will flock to her banner and Barack Obama will personally nominate her at the Convention and John McCain will give up and George Bush will even quit early so she can take over and... and... and... can I have a glass of water?
Yes, and you should lie down, too.
I agree with Chip Collins!!
Posted by Martha Davidson | March 31, 2008 2:49 PM
If Hillary would like to weaken the Democratic ticket by staying in the contest with the sole purpose of leveraging herself into the VP slot... well that's her right. You go girl ;)
Posted by PulSamsara | March 31, 2008 2:51 PM
I'm an Obama supporter, but people have got to cool it. Hillary is not evil, and neither is Obama. They are both in it to win. The race turned bitter, and both of them played that game (although my *personal* opinion is that Obama participated relunctantly).
The fact is, McCain wants to increase the size of our military, even though our budget is bigger than the next 168 countries combined. Yes, you read that correctly - if you don't believe me, look it up
Hillary or Obama? Yes.
McCain? No.
Posted by Brains | March 31, 2008 3:21 PM
Sorry, Rainy, when Obama tries to use the Kennedy story to his political advantage, it's a lie. Would you say that Bush just "got it wrong" when he said there were WMDs in Iraq? I doubt it.
"How is he supposed to remember what he did back in 1996"
What kind of absurd justification is that for the accusation? That's like saying, "well, how was i supposed to remember that i had an std before i gave it to you?" it's just ridiculous.
Posted by steve | March 31, 2008 4:24 PM
Look at all the fake journalist in the comment section. Get your own blog or become a reporter or activist. Instead your just a leacher in the comment section. But I guess you do have your goals, to make Obama look bad. Good Luck
Posted by mp | March 31, 2008 6:19 PM
What about the "myth" that at least ten states/territories have yet to vote? Or the "myth" that millions of voters have not yet voted?
What about the "myth" that Obama will not get enough pledged delegates to win the nomination either? And that superdelegates get to vote independent of the popular vote, not just ratify the popular vote?
Electoral votes should be counted differently for primary considerations, because they will be counted differently in the general election. Electoral votes is just another factor for superdelegates can consider with respect to electability.
Further, the candidates agreed not to campaign in FL and MI to preserve the role of small states in the primary process. The pledge never included an agreement to discount FL and MI votes. Further, NH, IA, and SC also violated the rules. Why the selective rule application? Either the rules apply to everybody equally, or they shouldn't apply to anyone.
The Obama "compromises" ruled out revotes and would start at equal division of votes, which render the actual voter choices meaningless. There needs to be a way for the actual votes to count, or a revote to determine actual votes. Manipulating vote count is not ok. Sorry, disenfranchisement stands. Obama is not responsible, but he's not exactly standing up for the people either.
NY may be pretty firmly Democratic, but California is a little less certain. They have a Republican governor in his second term. McCain has already been campaigning there for several weeks. He and his team obviously think they can make a contest of it. Finally, California went Republican for Reagan (twice) and Bush, Sr in the 1980-1988 elections. Fact.
Finally, re: electability, what about the myth that Obama can win the general election without the support of low-income laborers, blue-collar workers, Catholics, Hispanics, women, centrists, fiscal conservatives, older voters, long-time Democrats, and swing states OH, PA, AK, and FL?
Or the myth that students, crossover voters, and stronger AA vote (even though Gore/Kerry had 90%+ AA vote and still lost) can totally offset all those losses?
Or that with Obama, there will be no crossover TO McCain the general election, because as unpopular as he is on certain vocal Internet sites, he's still considered a war hero, maverick/moderate, extremely experienced candidate to many? Or that those voters may have more doubts about Obama's experience, patriotism, extreme liberal voting record, and ability to get results in comparison? Also, mocking the intelligence of these people doesn't make Obama any more electable.
Also, as a matter of debunking "myths," mere conclusory statements are not at all persuasive. There's too many factors to consider to make any sweeping conclusions.
Posted by Evie | March 31, 2008 6:26 PM