Flipping off Hillary, Silly petitions, Chelsea's tight Pants, and Obama's Weather Underground Connection

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

Posted April 18, 2008 | 12:33 PM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.


Whoever called the presidential campaign grind, the silly season got it wrong. It's worse. It's the farcical season. Let's look at some of the latest things on the campaign trail that got some tongues wagging. First there's the cheek scratch. Midway through a speech in Raleigh, North Carolina, Obama paused to scratch his cheek. A mistake, with cameras whirling away, and reporters hanging on his every facial tic, an itch was simply not permissible. Obama should have let it pass. He didn't. He made the second mistake. He scratched it with not his thumb, or index finger, but his right middle finger.

Unfortunately, the middle finger scratch came at the instant he was laying some leather to Hillary. No Ouija Board needed to predict the rest. The itch, the scratch, the middle finger and the Hillary knock in the world of minutiae punditry added up to one thing. Obama flipped her off. You Tube ran it incessantly, and respected pundits, jumped into the fray quickly. Obama committed the ultimate in a crude, no-class vulgarity. Mercifully, Team Obama, had the good grace, and sense, not to bother dignifying this inanity. No matter two days later, the blog tongues were still wagging furiously did he or didn't he on it.

Then there is the silly petition floating around lambasting ABC newsmen Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos for dumping on Obama. The petition demands that ABC moderators stick to the issues and stop the bashing by asking trivial and meaningless questions. The problem is that these types of questions have been routinely tossed at candidates in debates since there have been presidential debates, and there has been no mass slam of the networks or the moderators for asking them. The difference this time is that they asked them of Obama, and to his rabid supporters the rough and tumble, hardball stuff is verboten with him. When Obama took umbrage at the tone that did it. The fans were off to the petitions. But the questions whether inane, and trivial, the job of moderators is to make candidates squirm, wiggle, and sweat on issues from the mundane to the substantive. Politics American style has been reduced to candidate allure, posturing, and puffery. Candidates know that and feed into and encourage it. That's their way of ducking and dodging, and tap dancing around tough questions on tough issues. Obama's retort was that questions about his past had nothing to do with the big ticket issues that Americans care about--social security, health care, the Iraq war, housing foreclosures, stratospheric gas prices, and solutions to them.

He's right. But Obama didn't raise a peep of protest when Clinton was badgered for the thousandth time about her misstatement on sniper attack in Bosnia on her trip---TWELVE YEARS AGO. As the old saw goes it's all a matter of whose ox is being gored. Or as the other Clinton, Bill, aptly put it "I didn't hear her whining when he said she was untruthful in Iowa, or called her the senator from Punjab. And you know they said some pretty rough things about me too. But you know, this is a contact sport. If you don't want to play, keep your uniform off."

Speaking of the past, in the litany of unfair items that Team Obama screamed about getting reamed on was his association with former Weather Underground terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and William Ayers. They worked with him on a foundation, hosted a fund raiser for him, and had a few meetings with him over the years. The inference is that Obama is a closet radical. That's a slander and Obama pretty much said so with his retort that the two are respected academics, and pillars of the community in Chicago, and besides he was 8 years old when the WU was in its thankfully brief rampage heyday. The problem with this is that as left field (pun intended) as the questioning about BO and the underground is, as Clinton correctly said better to deal it with it now than get distracted by it when the GOP hit squads spew it over every website in creation in the fall if he gets the nomination.
Finally there's Chelsea Clinton. Hillary's daughter, columnists have spent more time fixated on her looks and attire then her poise, articulation, and command of the issues. Here's an erudite sampling "Her hair is long and highlighted blond. Her black flared jeans are tight, and her gray blazer nips at her small waist. She has a boyfriend, her own apartment and a terrier named Soren. (After the philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard.)"

The parade of inanities, hype, sensationalism, irrelavancies, gossip, and just plain silliness that masquerades as issues and informed political discussion has been appaling. But it shouldn't surpise even if American politics hadn't long ago sunk to gutter sniping, the two decade dumb down of political discourse would have guaranteed that Chelsea's tight jeans, a cheek scratch, a casual association with former aging terrorists and a hurt feelings petition would top the political charts.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House (Middle Passage Press, February 2008).

 
 

Comments
23
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:

Bill Clinton: "... this is a contact sport. If you don't want to play, keep your uniform off." And that just about sums it up for the Clintons. Politics is their sport, and they play to win irrespective of ethics, beliefs, or sense of right or wrong. So if what's good for their party is not good for the Clintons, they're at the ready to dump their party like a sack of horse manure,. Such is the story of the past several weeks of their campaign.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:03 PM on 04/20/2008

You're surprised the media drag down political discourse? That's their job. Their owners want an ignorant public. And they always attack our best leaders. They did a number on the Clintons in the 90s. In 2000, when Gore used a figure of speach about his work on internet law, they called him a liar throughout the campaign. And for the past 6 months, they did a second smear job on the Clintons. This one was dumber than ever, and I was startled by how quickly the Obama crowd fell for it. It's sad that so many people don't know the difference between rational discourse and empty sneers, policy debate and shallow rhetoric.
After months of listening to the Obama Nation throw mud at the most skilled, accomplished, and knowledgeable democrats of our time, I'm glad it's coming to an end. The polls have spoken, and as always, the public are doing what the media want. Adult conversation has been removed from the public square, yet again, and we're looking at four years of high flown, meaningless rhetoric. Goody.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:32 PM on 04/18/2008

A few seconds earlier, he scratched his cheek with his pinkie finger. He touches his face constantly. Puh-leaze. This is ridiculous.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:40 PM on 04/18/2008

This was definitely your best most balanced column since becoming a Clinton shill. It should be noted that Obama's attacks have been based on the trivial nature of the questions, and not the fact that they were mostly targeted at him. It is not true that he has been singling out "bitter" questions while exclusing "Tuzla" questions. And the criticism of ABC was not that they dared ask questions like this, but that they asked primarily questions like this. Quantity does make a difference. Obama is right to mock the fact that in the first 45 minutes of a 2 hour debate (and presumably the first half gets the biggest viewership) not a single substantive question was asked (including Tuzla).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:16 PM on 04/18/2008

"best most balanced column since becoming a Clinton shill" is right. Hutchinson puts Obama in a bubble, since Hillary does no wrong, how come Obama is making these retorts? And talking back.

Of course Hutchinson didn't notice that Obama did not twist the knife after every Hillary tabloid question-- or that Hillary did twist the knife after every Obama tabloid question. Did Hutchison not count how many tabloid questions were asked of Obama versus Clinton in the last four debates?

Maybe Hutchinson might sit down and rest those weary legs. Carrying so much water can be taxing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:38 AM on 04/21/2008

Isn"t that the kettle calling the pot burnt?

If McCain or Hillary haven"t twisted Obama's words for political purposes, or cried foul for being attacked, then I must be dumb, and I don't appreciate being condescended too. It"s about the facts, not the manipulation of someone"s words, and the fact is that Clinton and McCain both have records that are impotent at best and completely corrupt most often. What we know about Hillary and John is that they play the press and the public well mostly because they will say whatever the public wants to hear no matter how dishonest, But I asked myself what do I know about Obama? I didn"t support him in the beginning. Obama"s voting record is only slightly left of Hillary"s, and Hillary"s voting record is only midway left of McCain"s even though Hillary"s is way to the right of center and Obama"s is just about center, McCain And Hillary"s position on anything is questionable sense it flip-flops whenever their actions don"t sit well with the voters, as well as being driven only by power. Other then that my decision was set in stone when both Hillary and McCain decided to use a kind of political correctness that reminded me of the rhetoric that we the voting public lack patriotism because we question the war, our government, or our president? All assumptions I find patently insulting. So future President Obama, you were not my first choice but now you are my only choice.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:16 PM on 04/18/2008

Earl, you almost wrote a sober and fair post. It is entirely possible to be the Hillary loyalist that you are and do that.

But why should Obama protest the moderators going after Hillary for the thousandth time on her Bosnia fantasy when she was a party to the "gotcha" shenagans by the Entertainment Tonight "journalists", Gibson and Stephanpoulos?

I am an American loyaltist, but I am far from being a slavish sycophant of its politicians. Syco got it so right in his post here: "You do know we are free right?" [sic]

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:57 PM on 04/18/2008

I was just referencing what spike lee wrote.
It amazes me that people would rather keep the bad then risk failing at the good

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:25 PM on 04/18/2008

I'm not a big Spike Lee fan, but that's a great quote.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:40 AM on 04/21/2008




The fact that you refer to Barack supporters as "rabid" shows bias on your part, and the objectiveness to acknowledge that his base might comprise both those who have joined the herd, and others who simply thinks he's a better candidate than Hillary.

So you seem to see no shades of gray, its clear, in many of your posts. There may be some rabid supporters in the Obama camp, but so too the Clinton camp, although those in the Clinton camp might see themselves as rational, clear thinking, open minded individuals who simply have weighed all the positives and negatives and come to a rational choice for their candidate.

You won't give any in the Obama camp that same courtesy. Your opinion is therefore rendered suspect, for I personally know many well balanced, clear thinking individuals who aren't rabid supporters of Barack Obama, but have come to the conclusion no one else in the race represents a change from the way things have been run in government.

Fair and balanced, I suppose when you're behind in the race become the first two casualties when you decide to declare a Pyrrhic war.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:54 PM on 04/18/2008

Say What? Was there anything said here?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:41 PM on 04/18/2008

If it the "scratch" was just a coincidence, why did the audience go wild when he did it? The proof is in the audience's reaction, more visible in this clip than in the first one:

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/obama_fingers_a_gotcha_debate.html

His finger goes up at 1:24 and immediately the audience reacts, laughing and clapping, clearly reacting to the finger (he's not speaking at that point). In fact, ten seconds later at 1:34 we see a woman who had missed it told by her friend what had happened and she has a good laugh too.

I think it's clear that his audience took it to mean F-U, Hillary. Isn't that a pretty good indication it happened?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:11 PM on 04/18/2008

At least Obama didn't pick at a zit while on tv.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:10 PM on 04/18/2008

Hillary's "misstatement" was an outright lie. On four seperate occasions, starting in December 07, she has perpretrated this fraud of her Tuzla adventure, by reading from prepared notes! I am sure that she would still be regaling us with this "misstatement" if the CBS video wasn't discovered. She has made too many "misstatements" concerning NAFTA, her votes and approval of the Iraq War, the Irish Peace agrrement, et al!
As for the debate, I regret that The League of Women Voters no longer presents them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:07 PM on 04/18/2008

You do know that we are free right?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:58 PM on 04/18/2008

"He made the second mistake. He scratched it with not his thumb, or index finger, but his right middle finger."

NOPE - he scratched his cheek with middle and index fingers - clearly visible if you pause the video in the right spot. Unless you're looking for yet another irrelevancy to generate faux outrage over...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:56 PM on 04/18/2008

Earl another great post. Suddenly Obama doesn't want to debate anymore he had rather deliver prepared speeches which he is good at but you have to be able to take a punch if you expect to be president. When he speaks without the prepared speech you get what he did in San Francisco when he tried to explain why working class people get religion or turn to guns.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:37 PM on 04/18/2008

"Suddenly Obama doesn't want to debate anymore"
Now that's just plain silly - They've already had 21 debates. There are no policy positions left to hash out. Hillary and her clan are clamoring for more debates so they can engineer additional freakshows like this last debaucle. And In a setting of her choosing and with a moderator of her liking, you'd like the debate would focus on the areas that her campaign felt were important. This was, after all HER debate... (Her choosing, her people behind the rostrum) and what did we get from team Clinton?? Pablum about flag pins and Wright...

And Brother Hutchinson, to say Hillary simply mispoke about sniper fire is disingenous. Her campaign was "based" on her experience. Part of that experince was her "front line" trip to Tuzla. And it turns out she made it up!!! There were no snipers. She was not on he front line (and I'm a vet so please don't get all "oh but it was still kinda dangerous" on me). And she told this lie multiple times to different audiences.

If I put something on MY resume that wasn't true and applied for a position, my lie would cost me the position. I wouldn't be able to explain it away by saying "oh I was sleepy" so I "accidently" claimed to have had prior experience... I've always liked you as a writer, but this kind of dishonesty changes my opinon of you... Don't go out like Colin Powell at the

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:20 PM on 04/18/2008

It wasn't Clinton who said no more debates.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:59 PM on 04/18/2008

Earl, you claim that "The problem is that these types of questions [trivial] have been routinely tossed at candidates in debates since there have been presidential debates..."

Wrong.

This has been happening only since the League of Women Voters stopped sponsoring and moderating these debates.

You're forgiven. Only old geezers like me remember those halcyon days. In their infinite wisdom, in 1988 the two political parties decided the questions the League moderators were asking were too tough for their tender-minded candidates, booted the League, and created an astro-turf outfit called the "Commission on Presidential Debates" which specializes is hard-hitting questions such as, "What's your favorite color?"

Things have been going downhill ever since.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:18 PM on 04/18/2008

Aw darn, Mr. Hutchinson...

I was hoping I'd come to this article and you'd point out how ridiculous and disastrously self-destructive -all- these things are.. Not just feed the flames about Obama while cradling Hillary to your breast.

I wish you'd take a moment to realize how ridiculous this is..

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:09 PM on 04/18/2008

Why hasn't anyone, except Obama, mentioned that Bill Clinton, while President, pardoned two Weathermen? What do you suppose Bill got out of that?

Your comments are great and appropriate, I just had to throw that in!!!!!!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:59 PM on 04/18/2008

The MSM won't touch the Bill pardon. Even when Hillary made her extra dig at the debate. Hutchinson runs the other way fast on this, as well. So very typical.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:44 AM on 04/21/2008
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in

 
 

Related Tags
 

 Site  Web ask.com