News Obama's Controversial Gesture Towards Clinton: A Political Analysis

[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.

 

[Astronuc]

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.

Right on, Evo!

 

[seycyrus]

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

What I find interesting is that people injecting the idea this commotion is being caused by the republicans or by a certain news channel.

Give me a break.

I watch *both* the evil and the holy news channel (I'll let you decide which is which), as well as the slath of Sunday morning news hour things. This is the first place I've seen this issue discussed.

 

[BobG]

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.

Actually, that idea isn't any funnier than reminding him not to scratch his butt in public, not to scratch his crotch in public, not to look at the ceiling while trying to remember what he wants to say next, not to keep filling in the silent gaps in speeches with something like "um" or "okay", not to keep mispronouncing "nucular", etc.

 

[pinestone]

If the US presidency depended on intelligence, ability, compassion and truth we would have an empty chair.

 

[NeoDevin]

If the US presidency depended on intelligence, ability, compassion and truth we would have an empty chair.

No, but you'd probably have to have a foreigner in office.

 

[drankin]

No, but you'd probably have to have a foreigner in office.

Do you have a specific foreign nationality in mind, or was this just an insult towards Americans?

 

[NeoDevin]

Do you have a specific foreign nationality in mind, or was this just an insult towards Americans?

We can go with Canada, since that's where I'm from. But I was just poking a bit of fun at Americans.

 

[drankin]

Be nice. You know how it goes, one can make fun of his own sibling but if someone else does you take offence.

 

[NeoDevin]

Now now, if someone makes fun of my brother or sister, I join in.