Obama's Controversial Gesture Towards Clinton: A Political Analysis

[_Mayday_]

I haven't been following this very closely, but whenever I see it they're just taking cheap digs at each other, wether this is due to the media hyping it up I do not know.

 

[TVP45]

Let's see. Last week oil went to $116.00. Copper passed $4.00. Several airplanes announced they were bankrupt. There were several large suicide bombings in Iraq. We discovered Iran had added several thousand centrifuges. Rand announced that 31% of our military has suffered mental illness or TBJ. And we decide the leader of our country based on...flipping the bird?

 

[russ_watters]

Are you serious? Do you actually think someone who is running for president would risk his entire campaign by flipping his opponent off?

Not to be sexist, but there's a strange pattern in this thread.

You're being sexist. I hadn't posted, but I agree with "them" on this one. Of course, I'm a republican, so my opinions about democratic candidates don't really count...

Seriously, though - why do you think McCain has gained so much ground in the national polls over these guys?

[edit] I didn't watch the video, so I don't really know if he did or didn't - I'm proceeding on the assumption he did for the sake of the argument (whether it is ok to be petty and immature).

 

[Art]

It bodes well for Obama's campaign if this is the best his critics can come up with then it shows what a strong candidate he is. Once Obama has the nomination McCain will begin to get the media attention too and given a choice between someone who might have flipped the finger to his somewhat bitter and twisted opponent and someone who doesn't even grasp the most elemental facts of the opposing forces in Iraq I suspect most people with even half a brain will vote for Obama which based on the last election and discounting election fraud might be enough to give him a narrow win

 

[phoenixy]

... And we decide the leader of our country based on...flipping the bird?

It is even better because no one actually flipped the bird. This is modern American politic at its finest absurdity.. Hey but if the GOP keep repeating this lie, it could become the new truthiest talking point.

Bonus pic: thumbs up!
http://stevenberg.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/bush-finger.jpg

 

[Astronuc]

Undecided

It's possible that some folks see him 'flipping' and others do not. Also, it appears to me that under the gun, Obama was feeling a little flustered and scratched his cheek in a way that appears to some to be 'flipping' the finger. I'm not sure, although I tend to agree with Gokul.

I've been told by a teacher that kids to something like that in school.


I understand that Obama scratches his cheek periodically during public addresses, or perhaps debates, which are rather contentious. In other words, what he did is a habit, but the way he did it is controversial and subject to misinterpretation. On the other hand, maybe he did 'flip the finger'. * undecided *


McCain is enjoying the lack of scrutiny at the moment, while Clinton seems to try to trash her opponent. I do think it unfortuate that Obama is responding to Clinton rather than taking the high road. During the debates, they don't need to be talking about the media and the attacks, but rather they need to be addressing the issues, such as the Iraq War and the war on terror (financed off-budget), energy policy, education, health care, taxation and the excessive federal debt, social security (based on government IOU - but they've don't spent it), national security, foreign relations.

So much for the General Welfare and Domestic Tranquility.

 

[cristo]

I'm undecided too; it does look quite accidental, but he sniggers afterwards, but then is this due to his comment or his action?

Either way, I don't think it really matters whether it's intentional or not: the fact is that he is running to be voted to run for the president of the US. If the reaction of the country is as split as it is in this thread, then it will affect things. In fact, anything that happens in the next year is going to affect his campaign, whether it's intentional or not!

 

[BobG]

When he did all of those...stooped to negative campaign tactics, whined, and played the race card, plus flipping off his opponent. And, I have YET to hear from him what he actually plans to do as part of this "change" thing. He talks a big game, but I haven't seen any substance to back it up...no change there, just more of the same (worse, the few things I've heard him "promise" have been phrased in a way that have not promised anything...you could take it any way you wanted...clearly that's his strategy). At least I've heard some specifics from Hillary on what she plans to do and HOW she plans to do it. Still, they've all stooped to the same old dirty campaign tricks that I'm sick and tired of. Frankly, I'm disappointed in the whole bunch of them. I just wish we could get a decent candidate to step up to the plate for a change, but they all got washed out early because apparently the backstabbing and bickering pulls in the campaign dollars...this is a presidential campaign, not the Jerry Springer Show.

Ironically, Jerry Springer started out in politics. He resigned from the city council when a raid of a massage parlor showed that he paid for a prostitute by check. The way he handled the scandal helped him win back his city council seat the next year. In fact, he used the canceled check in his later campaign for governor of Ohio (along with the slogan that Springer wasn't afraid of the truth, even when it hurts), but it surprisingly failed to win the nomination for him.

 

[Astronuc]

I'm undecided too; it does look quite accidental, but he sniggers afterwards, but then is this due to his comment or his action?

The sniggering makes one wonder - certainly. Was he sniggering because he did flip, or didn't flip but then realized the audience might think he did, or was he sniggering because of the audience.

In any event, non-substantive debates are turning into a media circus and that is unbecoming with repsect to such a serious matter, which is the process of electing the next president of the US.


Either way, I share the disappointment of which several have expressed it herein.

 

[russ_watters]

I do think it unfortuate that Obama is responding to Clinton rather than taking the high road. During the debates, they don't need to be talking about the media and the attacks, but rather they need to be addressing the issues, such as the Iraq War and the war on terror (financed off-budget), energy policy, education, health care, taxation and the excessive federal debt, social security (based on government IOU - but they've don't spent it), national security, foreign relations.

I haven't watched much of the debates, but certainly in the last one, the moderators fanned the flames by focusing for so long on the gaffes instead of the issues. Of course, that could just be because the candidates themselves are saying more about each other than about the issues.

 

[W3pcq]

Don't you guys recall McCain yelling F#$% Y&% to a person while in congress. Also threatening reporters. Who do we really need to worry about as far a foreign relations? Assult the wrong leader and you could have a war on your hands.

 

[W3pcq]

In my opinion, the reason Obama wants to run a respectful campaign is because he is afraid that he is too easy a target for negative spins. This way whenever he gets attacked, he can call it a game and say it's childish, and that he wouldn't stoop to that level. Hilary might be playing those cards too if she wasn't so desperate. McCain might be playing those cards too because there many ways to spin him negatively as well.

 

[Werg22]

People should watch the entire video:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FlR9DNfqGD4"

I think this makes the flipping off hypothesis highly implausible.

I just amazed at the absurdity of the situation.

 

[drankin]

People should watch the entire video:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FlR9DNfqGD4"

I think this makes the flipping off hypothesis highly implausible.

I just amazed at the absurdity of the situation.

I've just watched it for the fourth time. I assume they have a big screen display in front of him somewhere and if you watch the black man behind him to his right, you see him begin to smile a moment right after Obaman did the "scratch/flip". Nowhere do you see him scratch his face with his middle finger as a course of habit in any other footage. Because of the topic and the appropriate moment one could make such a gesture for effect, I think he really did flip the bird. It isn't "implausible". It fits his dialog perfectly. He did it in such a way to allow deniability. He's no idiot, immature maybe, but not an idiot.

My grandfather loves it I'm sure. The middle finger is our family symbol thanks to him. He greets everyone with it.

Sure, we all reserve the right to flip someone off. It's perfectly human, but not necessarily the kind of display people want in their president. Call it mature restraint.

 

[Astronuc]

Sure, we all reserve the right to flip someone off. It's perfectly human, but not necessarily the kind of display people want in their president. Call it mature restraint.

Not all people flip off someone else, even when angry or upset. It would never occur to me to do that.

 

[W3pcq]

I guess we have three types of candidates one that will think f you and smile, one that will be sly and gesture it but deny it, and one that will flat out say it in your face.

 

[drankin]

I guess we have three types of candidates one that will think f you and smile, one that will be sly and gesture it but deny it, and one that will flat out say it in your face.

Wouldn't you respect someone more saying it to your face rather than being sly or giving you a loaded grin? I know I would.

 

[W3pcq]

I hate loaded grins!

 

[W3pcq]

You can't go around yelling F you to everyone you disagree with and expect to get elected though.

 

[drankin]

You can't go around yelling F you to everyone you disagree with and expect to get elected though.

Of course, and no one actually goes around doing that to "everyone".

 

[lisab]

I had to watch the clip twice to even see it. It's a big stretch to me, but it looks like something Fox News would play over and over and over again.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The sniggering makes one wonder - certainly. Was he sniggering because he did flip, or didn't flip but then realized the audience might think he did, or was he sniggering because of the audience.

The flow seemed perfectly natural to me. He made the comment about Hillary being in her element, the crowd reacted, Obama reacted.

But this is I think the most important point: There is no way to be sure, and there is every reason to think this was nothing but a scratch [to me there is very little doubt], but the problem is that people are willing to assume that this is something based on virtually nothing.

How can anyone logically justify the assumption that this was anything but a scratch? There is virtually NO evidence of this, and what we do have becomes completely subjective. This is logic?

This is the sort of nonsense that gave us Bush, and Iraq! Wise up people!

 

[TVP45]

Would it be OK to merge this thread with the "horoscopes" thread and then we could compare the candidates that way? It might be less speculative than basing an election on a hand gesture that somebody thinks they saw on YouTube.

 

[Astronuc]

People should watch the entire video:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FlR9DNfqGD4"

This is a longer piece from a speaking engagment in Raleigh, NC, so Clinton is not even present. It would make no sense to flip someone who is not present, so after seeing that, I'd have to conclude he simply scratched his cheek.


Now Obama mentions that it was 45 minutes into the debate before they spoke about any issues. I would have hoped he would have tried to redirect the debate to talk about issues - but the ne probably felt compelled to address the attacks on him. I didn't watch the debate directly.


As for McCain, although I've heard some substantive discussion, I've heard much more empty platitudes.


I'd like to know why members of the Bush administration are making it more difficult for veterans (from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars) to get the treatment and benefits to which they are entitled. Such obstruction is unconscionable.

 

[Gokul43201]

Russ, this post makes very little sense to me.

Seriously, though - why do you think McCain has gained so much ground in the national polls over these guys?

[edit] I didn't watch the video, so I don't really know if he did or didn't - I'm proceeding on the assumption he did for the sake of the argument (whether it is ok to be petty and immature).

McCain has gained so much ground because RNC operatives have gone door to door, bribing voters.

[edit] I don't really know if they did or didn't - I'm proceeding on the assumption they did for the sake of the argument.

I can't believe this thread has gone this far, and almost entirely on gross speculation!

 

[drankin]

Note that, if he did mean to raise that finger for what it means, he did it in a way that is deniable. So even if he meant it, we can't say he did and it would be wrong to assume. I read it to mean yes I'm saying "F-you Hillary" but shame on anyone that would see it that way. Sly.

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't believe there's either the room or the provision for large screen displays in the Kerr Scott Building.

 

[drankin]

I don't believe there's either the room or the provision for large screen displays in the Kerr Scott Building.

Are you serious? They could put dozens of screens in this place.

??

http://www.ncstatefair.org/facilities/SCOTT.HTM

 

[Gokul43201]

I've just watched it for the fourth time. I assume they have a big screen display in front of him somewhere and if you watch the black man behind him to his right, you see him begin to smile a moment right after Obaman did the "scratch/flip".

Your entire argument here is predicate upon the completely unfounded assumption that there is a big screen display somewhere. Does it not at all occur to you that the person in the back was responding to the comment and not to some thing he saw on a possible display? Heck, your argument only works against you if it turns out that there was no big screen display in the room.

Nowhere do you see him scratch his face with his middle finger as a course of habit in any other footage.

You've watched all footage of Obama speeches ever made? I've seen a lot of speeches and I know I've seen him scratch himself many times, but I wasn't paying attention to which fingers he used. In just this 4 minute clip, you see him scratch his face with 3 different fingers!

PS: Proof that there was NO big screen display in the room: Barack Obama Raleigh 360

This is now getting pretty pathetic. Can we quit with the speculation already?

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, this post makes very little sense to me.

McCain has gained so much ground because RNC operatives have gone door to door, bribing voters.

[edit] I don't really know if they did or didn't - I'm proceeding on the assumption they did for the sake of the argument.

I can't believe this thread has gone this far, and almost entirely on gross speculation!

Yes, clearly you missed my point completely. It's not that hard:

A logical argument starts with a premise and then has a logical conclusion/argument based on the premise. Two parts. The first couple of pages of the thread were concerned with the argument, and there was disagreement over it. I weighed-in on that. And in this case, whether he did or he didn't, these two are certainly running a negative campaign. I was commenting on that. You are concerned with whether Obama flipped Clinton off. I'm concerned over whether it would be ok if he did. I think that question is much more interesting than if he actually did.

You've never stipulated to a premise just to examine the logical argument that follows from it? Here's one we see all the time in here: Soviet communism didn't work very well. See the two parts and where people could build an argument about either part? People will argue the Soviets didn't have communism - I would argue that by whatever name you call it, it didn't work. Another obvious one: Bill Clinton should be impeached for getting a BJ from Monica Lewinski in the Oval Office. Did he? Didn't he? By now we're pretty sure he did, but at the time I found it very interesting that people sill wanted him to be President even if they stipulated to the premise that he did.

Now, with your little thought experiment about McCain - if I responded that I'd vote for him anyway, wouldn't you find that interesting? People here are getting wrapped-up in the pettyness - becoming part of it. But despite all the he-said/she-said BS, people would still vote for one of these two even if they think they are being petty little children. I find it very interesting (and disturbing) that Democrats are ok with having a petty little child as President.

 

[Gokul43201]

Yes, clearly you missed my point completely. It's not that hard:

A logical argument starts with a premise and then has a logical conclusion/argument based on the premise. Two parts. The first couple of pages of the thread were concerned with the argument, and there was disagreement over it. I weighed-in on that.

The first 2 pages of the thread as well as the next two, were concerned with whether or not Obama flipped Hillary the finger. I see only one or two posts in the first 50 that address the more general topic you refer to.

And in this case, whether he did or he didn't, these two are certainly running a negative campaign. I was commenting on that.

To put Obama's campaining style in the same category as Clinton's suggests either that you are a Clinton supporter (which I know you are not), or that you haven't been following them closely enough (which is likely, since you aren't voting for either).

The difference is night and day.

You are concerned with whether Obama flipped Clinton off. I'm concerned over whether it would be ok if he did. I think that question is much more interesting than if he actually did.

I think I would have understood which point you were addressing if you had made an argument for why it might be okay.

Now, with your little thought experiment about McCain - if I responded that I'd vote for him anyway, wouldn't you find that interesting? People here are getting wrapped-up in the pettyness - becoming part of it. But despite all the he-said/she-said BS, people would still vote for one of these two even if they think they are being petty little children. I find it very interesting (and disturbing) that Democrats are ok with having a petty little child as President.

This is an example of you making an assumption (that some people voting Dem think Obama & Clinton are being petty little children) and then going on to make a broad conclusion about a group of people (registered Dems or people voting for a Dem this year) that are not bound by the constraints of your assumption.

If I was voting for Obama, it would not be despite my thinking he was a petty little child, it would be because I think he isn't.

But to address the point of voting for little children, one could easily argue that it might simply be the better of two choices. And, Russ, as someone who voted twice for a brainless goof, it should hardly be surprising to you that a lack of good alternatives might drive some people to vote for petty children, particularly if they see it as being in their economic interest.

 

[drankin]

Your entire argument here is predicate upon the completely unfounded assumption that there is a big screen display somewhere. Does it not at all occur to you that the person in the back was responding to the comment and not to some thing he saw on a possible display? Heck, your argument only works against you if it turns out that there was no big screen display in the room.

For one, I did not predicate ANY argument. For crying out loud read my post again. You are as guilty as reading into something as you are accusing me. I said "assuming" there is a display in front of Obama, which there usually is a display in front of a political speaker.

You've watched all footage of Obama speeches ever made? I've seen a lot of speeches and I know I've seen him scratch himself many times, but I wasn't paying attention to which fingers he used. In just this 4 minute clip, you see him scratch his face with 3 different fingers!

No, but if he did use his middle finger in other speeches, I'm sure we'd have heard about it.

PS: Proof that there was NO big screen display in the room: Barack Obama Raleigh 360

There IS A DISPLAY in that room even on your youtube link! And your link is NOT PROOF as it is at the BACK of the room about 50yards away from the freakin stage! Cmon! Give me a 360 on the stage before you start calling "PROOF"! It doesn't even matter to me whether the man behind him saw it or not, doesn't change my mind. It would just reaffirm my suspicion if he dd.

 

[Gokul43201]

Fine. You're entitled to your superstition. I've seen Obama scratch his face dozens of times now, and only a few days back saw a clip where he scratched his forehead with his middle finger. And it didn't make the news because it didn't look like he was flipping the bird.

 

[Evo]

Fine. You're entitled to your superstition. I've seen Obama scratch his face dozens of times now, and only a few days back saw a clip where he scratched his forehead with his middle finger. And it didn't make the news because it didn't look like he was flipping the bird.

One thing is for sure, he's going to have to stop that habit. We can't have our President scratching himself with his middle finger all of the time. I'm surprised his personal advisors hadn't made him stop that already. That's their job.

 

[Cyrus]

Wow, 5 pages on something so trivial. Even if the man gave hillary the middle finger and said 'f her', I wouldn't care.