We have sort of a crisis unfolding here right now.

SluggoJD wrote a diary this morning detailing his impressions of the Obama flipping the bird controversy on a frame by frame basis.

What ensured was a bitter food fight with more troll ratings than I've ever seen being passed back and forth. Admittedly Sluggo, true to his name, was kickin it too. I hope that is the reason the diary was pulled and not the content.

Well, the diary went straight to the top of the Recommended List, and there is stayed with a huge fight going on in the comments.

Then it was pulled and all the comments erased from history.

Now Sluggo is back below, and he is angry, about being blocked. I do not think the snarky nature of his post or the rudeness directed at many people in his diary is appropriate, but I do understad the motivation. It will be an interesting question whether this too is pulled, and if so is it for the content or the form of expression.

Are we going to allow discussions of topics on here that are perfectly valid discussions or not?  A detailed video analysis of the suject video is not off limits. Who says it is off limits? Who makes that rule?

I prefer to criticise Obama for the entire speech. I think it was rude of him to brush off his shoulder and his pants. I think the "stick the knife in" gesture was disrespectful. I did not approve of the way he worked the crowd to jeers.

CBS: Obama Brushes Off Clinton Jabs

You might not agree and it is your right to say so, but don't tell me I can even raise the issue.

Obama's speech yesterday in Raleigh NC has been much discussed from one particular aspect, but the thing that struck me was Obama's overall behavior and delivery.

Is this the way a president should behave?

Watch this extended video from CBS of the speech. It is well worth watching the entire clip:

Obama Brushes Off Clinton Jabs

Imagine if he was POTUS and had just come from a rough tussle with the international media about something involving Putin or the Chinese. Would brushing off his shoulders and pretending to stick the knife in go over at all, or would it be viewed as deliberately provocative?

How would people around the world react to those antics from the leader of the most powerful country on the planet? Would wiping off his pantleg be universally interpreted as just having some fun?

Just imagine that someone did this in a work setting. How would it be viewed? In a previous post concerning this speech grego101 writes:

If I made these gestures at a staff meeting I'd be in HR within the hour...Think of it...any of us if we made these gestures in front of a group ...How would they be interpreted?  Would you make these gesture during a sales pitch?  No.

It's a good point. Let's say you have a bad disagreement in a staff meeting one day, then go back out to your department and carry on that way. This is a man who is running for the most powerful position on earth. There is no doubt that he should be able to have some fun, but is this the kind of fun that is constructive, or is this a way of baiting the other side? Isn't this a very provocative manner to adopt? You could say that he's being a fighter, and I guess that would be right, but come back to the image of a president pumping his fist while he disses an adversary.

In what venue is it OK, to use such language and hand jestures? Is this the kind of behavior we expect from a President of the United States?

So, let's vote:

OK. Was it the bird?

Watch the video:

Obama Brushes Off Clinton Jabs

Watch closely around 30-45 seconds. Watch his face. Is he holding back a grin? Listen to the crowd. Freeze it around 38-40 seconds.

Quite honestly what annoys me more than any sophomoric prank is this brushing the lint off his sholders stuff. It is unquestionably and deliberately mean and demeaning--like his opponent is just dandruff.

And then he goes on to wipe her off his pants. What's that all about? And look at the jeering crowd (right at the end 2:00-2:04). What kind of politics is this?

Imagine if Hillary Clinton had done that to him.

Let's hear what you think...

Here's another YouTube from today's earlier diary:

Did Obama give Hillary the Finger Today?

and here's one more from the Baltimore Sun:

Obama fingers a 'gotcha' debate

So here's the vote:

OK let's vote. Was that the most absurd example of the American media ever or what?

I was pumped. I wanted to watch the debate. I got the countdown to the debate. The appointed moment came and I started searching the dial for the most critical debate of the campaign so far.

Nothing.

I searched the channels. ABC... all the cable shows... nothing. NO debate. I went to the cable channels and they were pointedly NOT talking about the debate.

There were teasers.... "We'll discuss the debate once it is done."

This diary is a dissection and analysis of Obama's SF fundraiser comments and his response today. It is somewhat dry and precise. The intent is to contrast the original statement with the subsequent clarification to determine if Obama was actually addressing the controversy or trying to simply deflect it. Further the goal is to bore in on what Obama was really saying to his supporters at the fundraiser.

Here's Obama's remark at the SF fundraiser:

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Here's his clarification from today:

"I didn't say it as well as I should have," he said at Ball State University.

...

There has been a small "political flare-up because I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois, who are bitter," Obama said Saturday morning at a town hall-style meeting at the university. "They are angry. They feel like they have been left behind. They feel like nobody is paying attention to what they're going through."

"So I said, well you know, when you're bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people, they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community. And they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country."

After acknowledging his previous remarks in California could have been better phrased, he added:

"The truth is that these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation, those are important. That's what sustains us. But what is absolutely true is that people don't feel like they are being listened to.

"And so they pray and they count on each other and they count on their families. You know this in your own lives, and what we need is a government that is actually paying attention.

Does this clarification do anything to address the charges of elitism that condescension resulting from his SF fundraiser remarks? Does he answer the substance of the offending comment or does he try to set up a straw man and then knock it down?

Two solid weeks of listening to Obama supporters trumpet LIE, LIE, LIE about Hillary Clinton's Tuzla trip. Here's the typical comment--we've all read hundreds of these by now:

"But no, she says she was not claiming snipers were firing at her".. Oh, I see...she said she was "under sniper fire" ( and yeah, that's what she said), but they weren't firing AT her. It doesn't really matter what she says NOW, does it? She lied. It's on video, it's in transcripts. Get over it.

This continues, even after she admits she misspoke, and even after many of the people on the trip have gone to great lengths to report that there was indeed danger involved in her trip. Even after two of her staff members detail some of these dangers and their recollections from the trip in the New York Times: Straight Shooting From Tuzla, the swiftboat chorus from the Obama supporters and the media continues.

It's now clear nothing will stop this assault. We are going to go on through the rest of the campaign hearing over and over how this embellishment of the facts of that day, which may have been a simple as confusion between the Tuzla landing and subsequent trip to a forward MASH unit, is a huge enormous LIE that proves her character is severely flawed and disqualifies her for the job of president.

So, lets talk about LIES. Not simple exaggerations. Not coloring the truth a little to spice up a story. Let's go to the videotape. Let's talk about staring straight into the camera and LYING.

Obama flatly denies CTV report on NAFTA

Obama has just released all his tax returns form 2000 to the present. I'm sure much will be written about these, but here are a few short highlights.

1040 Income:

2006 -  $983, 826
2005 - $1,655,106
2004 -   $207,647
2003 -   $238,327
2002 -   $259,394
2001 -   $272,759
2000 -   $240,505

The big jumps in 2005 and 2006 are due to business income, presumably from his books.

2006 -   $506,618
2005 - $1,141,495

UPDATE - In responding to comments on this diary, I have come to imagine what it must have taken for Hillary Clinton, the Lirst Lady of the United States to take on this mission. I've added those thoughts in an update below.

Obama supporters have learned a great deal from Karl Rove and the 527's.

In short, when someone has a strength, you target that strength. The weapon you use is ridicule. The tactics you use are cleverly cut video clips that disingenuously "prove" you specious claims. Then you get everyone in the media to repeat the misinformation and get your supporters to shout down anyone who tries to clarify the truth.

In fact one thing that all these Obama slime merchants fail to mention when they site the Washington Post "article" is that it is not an article at all. It is a "fact check" column by a guy named Michael Dobbs who has consistently shilled for Obama in his "fact checking."  

Hillary's Balkan Adventures, Part II

Further his piece now has these "UPDATES," which also somehow never make it into the Obama hit pieces: