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.
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?
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:
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.
Please recommend this incredibly well sourced and important diary before it falls off the list. This is one diary that should go to the top of the rec list.
It demonstrates a pattern that is undeniable.
In the words of the author of the diary:
Vetting our two Democratic presidential candidates has definitely been a mixed bag. On one hand, Hillary Clinton's life and political history has been in the news and reported online for many years. Barack Obama is another deal. He has essentially gotten a free ride in the national media, only being questioned seriously when the news was so shocking that the mainstream media had no choice but to report it.
So I went hunting, and was often surprised at what I found. It amounts to a pattern that I find dismaying. There are a lot of links here, documenting sources for my conclusions, and there is a lot to read.
Here is my list, in no particular order. See if you agree with me, and answer the questions for yourself... did he really not know, or is it just that he didn't mind?
Please go check it out, and if you agree with me. Please recommend!
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."
UPDATE - I've been asked to post the numbers that are the basis for this diary. They are posted in the UPDATE below
This race is certainly not over. In spite of the orchestrated calls from the Obama camp for Clinton to drop out, she still has a very good chance of securing the nomination, and there is no way she is going to throw in the towel now.
Clinton is ahead by a 60/40 margin now in Pennsylvania. She is ahead by a 67/33 margin in West Virginia. The other upcoming states of Indiana, Kentucky and Puerto Rico are excellent for her demographically. In North Carolina she has pulled even.
Based on an analysis of the remaining states she can severely cut into Obama's pledged delegate lead. Florida and Michigan will continue to be a factor. If it seems that denying their fair represention changes the outcome, and their delegations are stripped in Denver, this in itself can and should be a factor for the superdelegates to correct. In the end, a reletively small number of superdelegates can decide this nomination for Clinton and there is no reason to think they would not if they are convinced she is better suited to beat John McCain.