Posted by Pedro_the _Lion at 5/19/08 3:27 p.m.

Pretty scary that he had no clue about Hanford. We should be prepared for this type of naiveté on the part of Obama, given his lack of experience.

Posted by RationalThought at 5/19/08 3:49 p.m.

Pedro,

Are you an expert on every bit of minutae in all 50 states?

I didn't think so.

Yes, his campaign's staffers should have informed him by handing him a memo to read on his way to Pendleton - but that doesn't make him stupid or uninformed.

We're wrapping up 8 years of uninformed stupidity in our president, so kudos to you for keeping vigilant, making sure our next president is smart - like editor of the Harvard Law Review smart. Sound like anyone running for the office?

Posted by unregistered user at 5/19/08 3:52 p.m.

I think the blogger's comment that Obama's answer suggests Obama has "never even heard of one of the nation's worst environmental disaster sites" is unsupported. Whether Obama meant that he was unfamiliar with any aspect of the Hanford Site or just its financial situation (which was the specific question, after all) is unclear from the text. Still, it's obviously an issue on which he'll need to get up to speed.

Posted by bigx01 at 5/19/08 3:59 p.m.

Have any of you actually read what he wants to do?

he wants to tax the country into prosperity. that means if you've worked hard enough and gotten to the point where you have a comfortable living, he will tax you to pay for everyone else. sound familiar? hugo chaves is doing just that in venezuela.

if obama gets elected we will become a second rate country with a third rate economy.

be prepared to liquidate your assets and move them to the tax haven countries like switzerland, cayman islands, or cyprus.

and just like joe kennedy in the 30's obama will ALWAYS try and appease an aggressor. history has show again and again, that appeasement always makes the aggressor more aggressive.

just remember if you don't think you pay enough taxes then vote for osama bama

Posted by Jon Organ at 5/19/08 4:11 p.m.

"...appeasement always makes the aggressor more aggressive." (bigx01)

Well, it's true that we've coddled Saudi Arabia since 2001, and they still won't lower the price of oil. Sort of a passive-aggressive response to George Bush's efforts at appeasement, I suppose?

However, if appeasement is equated with diplomacy, and the assertion is that diplomacy always makes the aggressor more aggressive, then we should not have negotiated with North Korea regarding their nuclear weapons, we should have just attacked them. Same with China in the 1970's, and the USSR in the 1980's. At some point, however, we'll have too many wars on too many fronts to sustain, and then diplomacy will make a comeback, or America will be conquered.

Posted by Oh_For_Pete's_Sake at 5/19/08 4:30 p.m.

The key here is "he promised to look into it immediately". As in corporate politics, if you don't know the answer, it's better to admit it and go find the answer than to make it up as you go along. As opposed to media positioning by your handlers then having them do damage control later (right Mr. Rove?).

Funny how the Repubs can't impune Obama's character, so they're going after his experience.

Last time I looked none of the candidates have held a significant executive office.

OFPS

Posted by nullbull at 5/19/08 4:34 p.m.

Wow... lots of off topic posts.

First, the implication that Obama "claims that he's got experience on Nuke issues" and therefore should know about Hanford is ridiculous. He worked on INTERNATIONAL NON-PROLIFERATION of NUCLEAR WEAPONS. That is not in the same zip code as NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL nor ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP. Read about the Lugar-Obama non-proliferation law first before you put such a silly implication in a blog/article.

Second, regardless of the silly-factor, it bugs me that Obama knew literally nothing about Hanford. It's disappointing, and I've been for Obama ever since I moved back home (here) from Chicago, where he was my Senator. If he follows through on his promise to answer the question and get educated, I forgive him. But mostly, I fault his management of his staff and the staff itself. Honestly, even the most experienced politician NOT from the Western states where nuclear disposal issues are more charged, would likely have nothing more than a cheap talking point on this subject. But, that's why the staff is there, and Obama should be on top of his people to provide him with relevant information, and ALL the relevant information. Bad execution, bad management on this one particular point (Hanford).

Posted by nullbull at 5/19/08 4:38 p.m.

Posted by bigx01 at 5/19/08 3:59 p.m.

....

Wow... bigx01 gets the highest mindless-parrot-of-talking-point-per-sentence efficiency award. Congrats. Try again when you actually have a thought of your own. Or just keep letting RushHannityOReilly do your thinking for you.

Posted by jungleal at 5/19/08 5:04 p.m.

Obama should send his 'handlers/staff' and his bowling coach and Rev. Wright to Hanford on a fact finding mission. BHO = No Gravitas!!

Posted by bigx01 at 5/19/08 5:29 p.m.

sticks and stones nullbull sticks and stones.

there really shouldn't be anyone who doesn't know what hanford is to america, but once again those who don't learn about history will eventually repeat it.

way to go osama bama, you an joe kennedy are pillars of the country.

and for those dip's who try to point things out about china and russia, need to remember MAD that's why you can sit down and negotiate with them. except we really don't negotiate with china.

and jon organ. high oil price are the best thing we could have. just imagine what we would be driving today if the price of oil was $120 a bbl 30 years ago. there would be 60 mpg cars on the road. currently only europe has cars that exceed 60 mpg.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/19/08 5:58 p.m.

I just wish that the Democrats could one day find a candidate to offer up who evinced the same levels of deep experience, impressive thoughfulness, and helpful communication skills as shown by, say, the GOP's George W. Bush or Dan Quayle.

2+2=5 / Vote GOP

Posted by bigx01 at 5/19/08 6:08 p.m.

and how many of you know that we had an ethanol plant here in western washington that used a waste byproduct to brew 30,000 gallons of 190-200 proof alcohol each day.

time for most of you to go back to school and learn about history

Posted by MVH at 5/19/08 8:08 p.m.

Well, since Obama allowed his fourth largest campaign contributor -- Exelon Corporation, the nuclear energy giant -- to write his Senate legislation for him, I'd say he knows something about nuclear issues. Unfortunately, he's on the wrong side of the equation.

Posted by veritas rex at 5/20/08 11:54 a.m.

As things heat up, this Obama gaffe will just be hiccup.

Iran is no big threat

We need to negotiate with Iran. From his website:

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.

Iraq is bad, so we must leave, but if it's really bad, then he'll reserve the right to go back in

And, after we pull out, we will leave a terrorist response unit there, just in case.

Oh, but there is no Al Qaeda in Iraq, despite the group Al qaeda in Iraq

He'll repeal NAFTA. Wait, no he won't.

He wants a JFK foreign policy? 2 weeks after Kennedy's face to face with Khrushchev the Berlin wall went up. One year later, Khrushchev puts missiles into Cuba. Obama is a horrible student of history. It was Kennedy's initial passivism from the Bay of Pigs (he was a bit weakened) that led to the boldness of Khrushchev, which put the world on the brink of armadeddon.

I guess that's what Obama is striving to emulate: weak passivism with no big foreign policy stick. Get ready to be walked over, America.

Face it, when this guy comes to actual issues, he is an empty cauldron. Sure, he is a great cheerleader. The kind that has their back to the game and relies on the crowd to tell him what is going on.

Clueless.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/20/08 3:50 p.m.

osama bama

start calling him what he is. osama bama will make america a second rate power with a third world economy.

you cannot tax yourself into prosperity, which is what osama bama wants to do, but you can tax yourself into poverty.

Posted by unregistered user at 5/20/08 4:48 p.m.

so, what's Hanford?

Oh my god, we still dont know much except that were so shocked that he doesnt know.