Obama Snubs Hillary at SOTU

It's the talk of the town:

  • Chicago Tribune

  • Obama stood icily staring at Clinton during this, then turned his back and stepped a few feet away. Kennedy may've wanted to make peace with Clinton but Obama clearly wanted no part of that.

    The sense in the press gallery was that Obama didn't cover himself in glory. Someone even used the word "childish." (Not this writer.) Judging by how much conversation there was about this brush off in the press gallery, Americans will be hearing a lot more about this tomorrow and in coming days.

  • Associated Press
    Clinton, clad in scarlet, crossed the aisle between their seats on the House floor and reached out a hand to greet Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the Democratic icon whose endorsement she had courted only to lose it to Obama. Kennedy shook her hand while Obama, wearing a dark suit and standing between the two, turned away.
The unity candidate unmasked.

< Hillary and Obama Respond to SOTU | Rudy Hints at Dropping Out of Presidential Race >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It was a big deal to the press gallery (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:30:48 AM EST
    They interpreted it the same way. See the Chicago Tribune article linked above. They saw the same thing. The AP got close-ups. It is what it is.

    well, as with all reporting, (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by along on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:47:49 AM EST
    it is what someone says it is. (Not to mention the fact that still photographs are not reality, they are 1/250th of a second of reality.) And the CNN reporter I linked to below gave the encounter some more context and saw it slightly differently, attributing the frosty behavior to both Senators.

    Two other interesting accounts from the Post's Trail blog support that view, reporting that it was a day-long affair.

    First, Clinton and Obama avoided each other this afternoon on the Senate floor. Or perhaps she was the one doing the avoiding:

    For most of this lovefest, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton remained out of view, having stepped into the cloakroom during the first vote.

    I don't know, there's no way to interpret that with any certainty.

    Then, as all the Senators gathered in the chamber at 8:20, to head over to the House:

    the leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination did not come near each other, much less address the other.

    Also, another nugget: in the afternoon, when Senator Clinton was in the cloak room, she

    ran into [Senator] Kennedy, and the two exchanged greetings, according to people familiar with the conversation.

    So she had said hello to Kennedy earlier. To me it then seems a bit odd that she would come over and do the same thing again.

    With that kind of context for the full day, it's clear to me that this behavior--and I fully agree that it was sophomoric and petty--was ably practiced by both politicians.


    I just assumed (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Kathy on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 07:44:57 AM EST
    this was overblown ala the "testy" exchange, but he actually turned away while they were shaking hands?  Holy crap.  I guess he no longer thinks she's "likable enough" anymore.  Just proves to me what his attitude toward competitors is--as well as the cut of Clinton, which I have always liked.

    "Childish" really sums it up for me.  You learn in politics to take punches like this.  Well, unless you're the republican president of the US, then you just kind of do whatever you want and screw the rest of 'em.


    Eyewitness Testimony (none / 0) (#162)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:09:28 AM EST
    At work. Or a split second that everyone saw. Guilty.



    yes read wrong (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:40:53 AM EST

    Thanks for acknowledging that (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:50:06 AM EST
    Your first comment, with the misread, resulted in several comments correcting you. I've deleted both your misimpression and the responses.

    thanks (none / 0) (#99)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:08:10 AM EST
    there's another report at CNN (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by along on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:00:02 AM EST

    While members of Congress were still greeting one another, Clinton crossed the aisle to speak with Democratic Rep. Jim Langvin of Rhode Island, a Clinton supporter. He was seated in front of Obama.

    While Clinton was bent over talking to Langvin, who has been in a wheelchair since age 16, the senator sitting next to Barack Obama watched Clinton intently. It was Sen. Ted Kennedy, who had made a splash by endorsing Obama earlier in the day.

    So Clinton was talking for more than a few moments with Langvin, leaning in, directly in front of Obama, and apparently not acknowledging him.

    Then she looks up, and Kennedy extends his hand, across Obama, and greets Clinton. It's obviously awkward, and clear Obama doesn't want to engage, but I also think he was simply moving out of the way.

    well... (none / 0) (#153)
    by Kathy on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 07:47:56 AM EST
    he DID turn his back on her.  And okay about the cloakroom meeting with Kennedy earlier, but Kennedy reached out his hand, and they all knew cameras were there.  Really bad form of Obama.  I mean, TONS of photographers and the press were staring at them and ready to judge their every move, and he turns.  

    Speaks more to being a bad politician than anything else.


    Obama worship (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:14:04 AM EST
    is hard to watch...No objectivity...If he had pulled out a gun and shot her, you would say, well he must have had a good reason...You have lost all  reasoning....so I won't try to debate you...it is a waste...

    We Have Had (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:18:41 AM EST
    A big dose of Obama worship here over the last few weeks and it is revolting, like a drug crazed frenzy.

    The Clinton worship is just as revolting, just in case you have not noticed.


    Naw... (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:20:04 AM EST
    it's a rather charming "tea party".

    Ha (none / 0) (#116)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:23:14 AM EST
    Not You Too (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Oliver Willis on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:16:09 AM EST
    Oh, sweet lord Jeralyn. Please don't tell me you've decided to dunk your head into the same Kool-Aid as Taylor Marsh? You're better than this kind of bull. You guys sound almost as bad as the right-wing blogs now.

    I have no idea what happened (none / 0) (#148)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 07:10:55 AM EST
    But I certainly do not appreciate you coming to this blog to insult Jeralyn, Oliver.

    Talk about classless.


    It Was Needed (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Oliver Willis on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:26:09 AM EST
    I've had good communications with Jeralyn for years, always enjoyed her writing. But when it comes to the subject of Sen. Clinton vs. Sen. Obama it has begun to sound like Fox News-directed b.s. from some of the liberal blogs. Like this one.

    More insults (none / 0) (#180)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:39:05 AM EST
    I thought better of you Oliver.

    Truly classless.

    Jeralyn would NEVER write this about you. NEVER.

    IT is one thing to attack someone like me. I dish it so I should take it. But not Jeralyn. Really wrong of you.


    Chill, Oliver (none / 0) (#186)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 04:07:35 PM EST
    I'm entitled to my opinion. It is my blog. That's why we have blogs, isn't it?

    If you bothered to read my posts about Obama you would see that I repeatedly say all three Democrats are pretty much the same on issues -- none of them match my position on the issues I blog about.

    I happen to be one of the few who value experience over change. I don't think Obama has the experience to be a successful President. I trust Hillary and Edwards more than Obama -- the devil you know kind of thing. I have also said I will support Obama if he's nominated.

    Now stop with the insults. Future ones will be deleted.


    Not good to come here and lob insults. (none / 0) (#163)
    by Geekesque on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:30:19 AM EST

    1.  This is straight out of the Clinton campaign's talking points (those emails are hardly a secret);

    2.  We bash the Village for its obsession on the trivial, and then we get blogs pushing this kind of nonsense;

    3.  Of course the DC media types want to turn this into a petty squabble.  So, of course they're going to take an awkward situation and turn it into some giant symbolic moment.

    again (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by Kathy on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:43:05 AM EST
    I have to say: you cannot have it both ways.  You cannot say the Clinton Machine controls the press, the media, the minds of little babies in their mother's wombs, and THEN say that they are racist, out of control, reviled, etc.

    If they truly controlled the media, then we would not hear one bad thing about them ever.


    Also, before we talked about (none / 0) (#168)
    by Geekesque on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:47:30 AM EST
    why Obama supporters avoid Talkleft in general.

    Posts like this are the reason why.


    HRC's "likeable" so why NOT shake hands? (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by lambert on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:40:36 AM EST
    It's only polite, after all.

    That opinion of mine concerning Obama (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Nowonmai on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:59:05 AM EST
    is slipping even more. That was extremely childish of him. I would have expected that from Temper Tantrum Shrub, but not a supposedly forward looking presidential candidate.

    I really cannot help (none / 0) (#133)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:09:51 AM EST
    but be reminded of Bush more and more in his campaign...Kinda the spoiled and pouting kid when things don't go his way...I hate thinking this way, because I want to be able to support both of them if we have a joint ticket...but I am having trouble with how he is coming across lately...I even read a blog recently comparing his campaign tactics to Bush's...I dont remember the name of it...Geez now that will nag my brain all night lol......

    Was it this article (none / 0) (#135)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:17:32 AM EST
    Excellent demo of linking. And an (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:21:10 AM EST
    interesting, scary piece.

    Yes Stellaaa and thanks (none / 0) (#140)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:35:38 AM EST
    so very much, that was driving me nuts...and Oculus you are correct, it is a very scary article and I wish more people could see this....

    On his advisors and team (none / 0) (#136)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:20:29 AM EST
    Thanks for the Atlantinc and Harper's articles they really have lots of info. Axelrod, is disturbing.

    It is what it is. (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by jsmooth995 on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:54:50 AM EST
    And what it is, is completely and utterly irrelevant. Come on, people, seriously. We're electing a president here.

    Another petulant child in the White House (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 07:41:18 AM EST
    is irrelevant?  Not true.

    Somebody's cranky (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by mexboy on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 04:14:18 AM EST
    let me congratulate you on your ability to contrast and compare, I should also add your acrobatic ability to juxtapose dissimilar incidents in order not to face the fact that your candidate acted like a total jerk yesterday.

    I'm going to help you out a little bit by breaking things down for you, although it will probably be much too threatening for that pedestal you've placed Obama on, and therefore I suspect you will find ways to defend him, the facts be dammed.

    Clinton being affected by a question from another woman about how she gets up every day and continues to be beautiful and graceful, everyday, despite the pressures (paraphrasing here) and Hilary answering from the heart and connecting to another human being is quite different than Obama disconnecting from hilary and giving her the cold shoulder, because he can't handle the fight she's putting him through.

    No Hilary won't cry when being attacked by other world leaders. SHE WILL FIGHT BACK, as she has demonstrated with Barack. She will also not be a jerk to them, as she has also demonstrated time and again by being gracious to Obama when he wins....him on the other hand...well, I'll save you the work of inventing another reason why he is perfect.

    It must be said (none / 0) (#157)
    by Kathy on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:02:08 AM EST
    Kenya has told him to stop calling.  His unity stuff hasn't worked very well there, either.

    More and more, he just seems to me to be a "with us or against us" kind of guy.  We have one of those already.

    And, yet, he would still be better than any republican, and I will still vote for him if he gets the nomination.  Better to tread water than keep sinking down the drain.


    Interesting (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by chrisvee on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 06:07:41 AM EST
    I think we all know that it doesn't matter what really happened -- it's the perception in the press of what happened.  And this doesn't seem to me to be the type of story that the campaigns can fact-check.  Since it's more about social graces and social behaviors, it looks almost silly to address it publicly on their parts.  It's a little easier to deal with the misinformation that Hillary didn't congratulate Obama after SC than with something like this.

    The print accounts seem guaranteed to generate a bad day of press for Obama.  However, I notice that GMA spun it a different way -- that Hillary didn't reach out to Obama (although they showed both photos and frankly, I think the optics of two serious-faced men clearly discussing a smiling Hillary doesn't come off too well, either).  GMA also pointed out that Bush made a point of shaking Obama's hand.  Does that help or hurt?  In my book, it hurts. He's a universal pariah at this point.  

    The next phase of the meme may be that Obama snubbed Hillary but not Bush.

    Objectivity (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 07:46:35 AM EST
    In the last few years I have turned more and more to the web for information and news because of all the spin meisters in the MSM. Unfortunately it seems we are becoming the very thing we rightly criticized the MSM about. Rather than the perception of the snub, we should be focusing on their positions. Both have had all the national media attention they could ask for. Obama was able to have Kennedy's endorsement carried on all the news channels. I didn't her either of them make any impassioned speech regarding the FISA bill. I think everyone is too quick to label Obama the "progressive" candidate. His record doesn't bear that out. He voted in favor of the Patriot Act, he's continually funded the war, he isn't opposed to school vouchers, and I haven't heard him speak out against executive power or even where he stands on torture and renditions. A Russ Feingold he isn't. I think rather than the he said, she said dialogue that the web and MSM is obcessed with, we should be demanding clear answers to the issues that are pertinent. A smile and an assurance of hope doesn't cut it with me. I heard that same song in 1999 from another "outsider" who was going to bring a fresh approach to Washington. (We all know what a disaster that was). I want to know where they stand and how they're going to get us there.

    I'm not condoning Hilary either, but she hasn't been annointed the liberal heir to the throne. The Clinton's have alway skated down the middle. Obama has, and I still am looking to see why?

    great points (5.00 / 0) (#187)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 04:13:12 PM EST
    Read my post on his crime record and you'll see he's no progressive there either. I have no idea how he's gotten that progressive label.

    Wow, the Clinton campaign is really pushing this (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Geekesque on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:08:02 AM EST

    They talked to each other outside chambers.  Then, when she reached to say hi to Ted, he gave them their space.

    This post does nothing to raise the level of discourse, to say the least.

    if the Clinton campaign (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Kathy on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:40:04 AM EST
    could control the media and spin as well as you say, we would be talking about her nomination right now instead of all this crap (and frankly, it is kind'a crap).

    Come on, give us a day to gloat, at least.  It's such a revelation to finally see an article in the national media that actually says something negative about Obama.

    I'm sure it'll all change tomorrow, but today, just for today...we have this...


    I am niot gloating (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:30:00 AM EST
    personally.  This guy went out of his way to be seen doing something really rude - has he started to believe his own press?  Very bad idea - let your guard down at your own peril.

    It just fits with so much else BO has done (none / 0) (#176)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:09:14 AM EST
    and got away with in the media.  But not with those of us watching -- "you're likeable enough, Hillary," not giving a concession speech after Nevada, not ever naming her or other candidates in concession or victory speeches, body language in debates, etc., etc.  Vs. her constant graciousness to him and others in concession speeches and in other times.

    If it was an isolated instance, it would be judged differently.

    Most politicians have sizeable egos; they need them.  But wise politicians hide their arrogance.  He does not do so -- and by his asking to be judged not on experience but on judgment, he asked for this.


    Explaining yet again (5.00 / 0) (#177)
    by pylon on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:18:59 AM EST
    Seems to me whether or not Obama snubbed HRC, it is yet another example of him having to explain something.  If he has to spend too much time explaining himself to avoid misinterpetation, it doesn't help his candidacy in the general.

    I think it means nothing. (4.66 / 3) (#41)
    by along on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:24:02 AM EST
    they were on the Senate floor today for several hours, and reports are that neither of them sought to interact with the other.

    Plus, I haven't seen any tape of this, but this significant part of the Tribune description makes it sound like Obama was caught in the middle, and was facing Clinton for a few moments during her moment with Kennedy, and she didn't acknowledge him:

    As Clinton approached, Kennedy made sure to make eye contact and indicated he wanted to shake her hand. Clinton leaned towards Kennedy over a row of seats and Kennedy leaned in towards her. They shook hands.

    Obama stood icily staring at Clinton during this, then turned his back and stepped a few feet away.

    In that kind of awkward situation, I'm not sure I wouldn't have done the same thing.

    that's what I thought too (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by byteb on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:45:59 AM EST
    she was freezing him out and he wasn't having it and turned away.

    all in all, it sounds like one of those bad (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by byteb on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:50:48 AM EST
    suburban cocktail parties.

    That's More Plausible (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:06:39 AM EST
    They are opponents. There is no indication that Hillary was trying to be cordial to Obama. That is the only way he could have snubbed her. Up close human cues are near impossible to record. It is more plausible that Hillary was giving him an icy stare. And he reacted. It is as just as plausible a story that she set him up as the story that he snubbed her.

    I find it surprising that all of a sudden many here find the press credible. Must be because they are doling out what people want to hear. The MSM is interested in creating sensationalism. This story is smoke and mirrors based on little evidence (as usual) created to sell "news" and I am surprised that there are so many buyers.


    anyone wondering (none / 0) (#154)
    by Kathy on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 07:49:45 AM EST
    Why Kennedy summoned her over in the first place?  He knew he was standing by Obama.  They are all politicians. They all know where the cameras and reporters are.  What was Kennedy hoping to accomplish?

    I dont know that he (none / 0) (#169)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:08:09 AM EST
    "summoned" her...but she looked pleased to be acknowledged.  I think he was trying to make up publically for being seen as dissing her earlier in the day.  It was wise of him.

    Please assure us you would not (none / 0) (#132)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:07:43 AM EST
    have "stood icily staring at Clinton."  Tepidly maybe, but surely never icily.

    I can assure you (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by along on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:23:38 AM EST
    no, I would not have looked at the senator 'icily'. :)

    I meant that feeling the awkwardness, I might have stepped back from being in the middle.

    But I should also note that the press gaggle was almost definitely watching this from a significant distance, and I believe from above. I am not convinced of their ability to accurately assess the eye-level interaction of our frosty competitors.


    You may be correct, as the leaky (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:25:39 AM EST
    photographer was talking about being in the gallery.  "Frosty competitors."  Very good.

    Then you would be (none / 0) (#171)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:21:36 AM EST
    silly.  This wasnt a coctail party - this was a televised SOTU at the end of the day when Kennedy endorsesd him and dissed the Clintons (tho he denies it now).  The adult professional thing to do would be to smile at her and extend his hand.  If the big baby couldnt extend his hand first then he could wait for her to do so and then shake hers.  You could all then spin it as what a gracious person he is. How desperate HRC is for his good will...blah blah.

    This is the guy who is going to sit down and negotiate with Iran and he cant even face HRC?


    I dunno. (4.50 / 2) (#22)
    by Ben Masel on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:11:35 AM EST
    Could be he was trying to give Clinton and Kennedy some relatively private space to talk.

    Good One (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:12:35 AM EST
    Heh (none / 0) (#26)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:14:11 AM EST
    Like I said (3.75 / 4) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:43:42 PM EST

    A picture speaks a thousand words.... (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by athyrio on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:51:29 PM EST
    very childish and immature...

    as opposed to... (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Tano on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:01:23 AM EST
    a group of grownups sitting around psychoanalyzing politicians on the basis of how a reporter describes how they moved when one was shaking a third person's hand???

    Good thing there isnt anything important going on in the world!


    As I said in the previous thread, Obama (none / 0) (#12)
    by byteb on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:03:08 AM EST
    needs to learn the duplicitous rules of etiquette that operates in politics: act happy and pleasant to the one who repudiated you hours before.

    He should have gone to her (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:04:45 AM EST
    that is class.  First she is senior in the Senate and older.  But ego.  

    All politicians have huge egos. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by byteb on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:17:33 AM EST
    All Presidential candidates have tremendously huge egos...so yeah, Obama has an ego. Hillary has an ego. They all have oversized egos.

    But this has nothing to do with class or manners, it has to do with political smarts: acting strong and positive and unfazed no matter how hard you were worked over a minute or an hour ago. Hillary, dressed in Nancy Reagan power red,  showed great political smarts by being so chipper and all aglow with good will and reaching out and shaking hands. Do I think it's all an act? You bet. I give her great credit for a job well done. Do I wish Obama had played the game as well? Absolutely. He has to learn to hide the anger and play the game..the game of politics.


    Act (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:19:44 AM EST
    Yes it's an act but we expect people in leadership positions to  know the act and the rules of the act.

    Yes. He does need to learn this lesson fast. (none / 0) (#42)
    by byteb on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:24:58 AM EST
    I agree with you about this..you're spot on.

    Act (none / 0) (#179)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:22:01 AM EST
    yes, of course.

    Isnt this the guy who wants to negotiate with our "enemies"?  Hmm.


    and btw, I'm sincere in giving her credit. (none / 0) (#37)
    by byteb on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:22:13 AM EST
    I'm just too cynical to attribute it to manners or class. I think it's playing the game well. I'm sure her campaign will use the photo to flame fans..and they should.

    Or fan flames (none / 0) (#120)
    by echinopsia on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:29:47 AM EST
    either way.Ggood on her.

    Don't you dare call him a punk (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by sammiemorris on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:05:28 AM EST
    Obama would never do something like that.
    Obama doesn't just speak the truth, he knows it.
    according to Michelle Obama.

    And you know what, I'm not going to let any facts or any other politician bamboozle me or hoodwink me into believing otherwise. I'm telling Ray Ray and Pookie up the block too.

    Because you know Senator Clinton never cried for Katrina. Those tears melted the granite state, but "as we move on to South Carolina, where 45% of the electorate is black, we have to ask where those tears were during Katrina."

    Oh wait.. South Carolina already happened.

    Oprah asked.. is he the one.. "Yes South Carolina, I do believe he is the one."

    Well. gosh darn it, if Oprah says it, then he must be "the one."

    For a candidate that knows the truth and doesn't just speak it, I know in my heart that when he turns his back, its actually a gesture of humility.

    You are so confused.. CONTRIBUTE TO THE OBAMATHON  NOW!!!!


    Of course Obama's The One! (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by lambert on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:36:04 AM EST
    Obama sightings over the past few days:

    1. Obama saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Nominee, in whom I am well-pleased." (Matthew 3:13)

    2. Obama fed 5000 screaming fans from a single bag of Cheetohs.

    3. Obama cured a ham.

    oh great (none / 0) (#155)
    by Kathy on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 07:52:05 AM EST
    now I am craving the yummy combination of ham and cheetos.  Thanks a freakin' lot.

    Re-education camps? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:20:28 AM EST
    Instead of contribution can I go to camp?  

    Marvelous snark (none / 0) (#39)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:23:26 AM EST
    I'm gonna remember that line about humilitas. . . .

    Is this snark? (none / 0) (#43)
    by miriam on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:26:03 AM EST
    These days it's getting hard to tell.

    Gotta say, you penetrated my Kool Aid (none / 0) (#50)
    by byteb on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:28:49 AM EST
    Obama addled brain...and made me smile. I felt like I was over at Dkos in an Obama diary. Good job. :)

    poor choice of words (none / 0) (#182)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:56:14 PM EST
    per M-W Punk:

    1 archaic : prostitute

    2[probably partly from 3punk] : nonsense foolishness

    3 a: a young inexperienced person : beginner novice; especially : a young man b: a usually petty gangster, hoodlum, or ruffian c slang : a young man used as a homosexual partner especially in a prison

    4 a: punk rock b: a punk rock musician c: one who affects punk styles

    I hope you are ignorant, and don't understand the origins of that word.  

    If not I'm truly sickened.


    Huffington Poast (3.00 / 2) (#46)
    by NaNaBear on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:27:14 AM EST
    has pictures of Obama and Clintin greeting one another before he got out of the way so she could reach Kennedy.

    just looked (none / 0) (#54)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:31:13 AM EST
    it is the same picture as linked in this blog

    link (none / 0) (#56)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:33:12 AM EST
    they had greeted each other already here

    What? (none / 0) (#60)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:35:04 AM EST
    Are you on drugs too? That is the same picture in this post. She is greeting Kennedy.

    read (none / 0) (#62)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:36:33 AM EST
    the article
    i never said that it was a different pic, thats no my comment.  i don't know where they found that pic.


    if you have some i could use em, after this junk


    BS (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:47:16 AM EST
    I read the article. It does not say what you claim.

    what are you guys (none / 0) (#65)
    by along on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:36:53 AM EST
    talking about? that's the same picture, and the same AP story excerpted here, which says the did not acknowledge each other.

    ohh i'm confused (none / 0) (#69)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:40:09 AM EST
    read that wrong, Kennedy reached out his hand to Clinton, she accepted.  so its a little different.

    Picture (none / 0) (#83)
    by NaNaBear on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:53:51 AM EST
    is shown on Obama's response

    I didn't copy and paste this correctly. You can find it on his response


    He is (none / 0) (#104)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:12:04 AM EST
    shaking another womans hand.  Is this what you are talking about?

    ahh, no they didn't. and that is not (none / 0) (#100)
    by hellothere on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:09:21 AM EST
    what the article says.

    Ohh but the issues (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jgarza on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:45:08 PM EST
    are so important.  riiiight

    actually classy behavior is (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:49:13 PM EST
    important also. it tells a great deal about the man or woman. and obama fails badly!

    right someone (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:17:58 AM EST
    took a picture from 200 feet away.  you don't even know what happened.  But I guess after today you will take what you can get

    well... (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by Kathy on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 07:57:43 AM EST
    I don't know where you're getting the 200 feet from.  I grant that the  press pool (not to be confused with the cess pool) was above them, but I have been in that balcony (tour arranged by my beloved congressman, John Lewis) and you can see what is going on below.  Plus, if you are looking through a camera lens, you can see the pimples on their faces.  Or his.  

    I think we are missing the larger picture here, which is: it doesn't matter what happened.  What matters is that the press actually reported something slightly negative about Obama!  hee hee!


    class is easy to see and so is rude. (none / 0) (#36)
    by hellothere on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:21:53 AM EST
    denial also is!

    right not shaking (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:26:41 AM EST
    Hillary's hand makes you unfit to be president, means you are a terrible person?  How dare any one not fawn over queen Hillary.  
    Seriously is your rational for Hillary so weak, that this is all you can claim against Obama?  He didn't shake her hand, can't be elected.

    Oh come on. (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by echinopsia on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:59:39 AM EST
    This is MUCH more than refusing a simple handshake.

    On the day when an old friend, ally and colleague - whose dead brother's former Senate seat she holds - endorsed her opponent, she went out of her way to greet him with a smile and shake his hand. She would have shaken Obama's hand and congratulated him, too. In public, in front of the entire country.

    Obama, who was got the endorsement and ought to be feeling pretty magnanimous, turns his back on her and snubs her. In public, in front of the entire country.

    And he's supposed to be the great uniter, the one who is supposed to be able to get everybody to play nice together.

    Seriously, you think the ONLY thing this demonstrates is a refusal to "fawn over Queen Hillary'?


    Actually, no (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Tano on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:05:45 AM EST
    "This is MUCH more than refusing a simple handshake."

    First off, it is much less than that. Did she offer her hand to Obama? No. So he did not refuse it.

    In fact, she leaned right past him to shake Ted's hand, he merely moved away after a few moments.

    God, this is so retarded.


    Retarded indeed.... (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by dutchfox on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 06:01:45 AM EST
    137 comments as of 6:56 a.m. EST. But I guess it gives the armchair psychoanalysts on here something to do, right? Ridiculous, really. Meanwhile, ORB has produced more research on violent deaths in Iraq: over 1 million!

    he didn't (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:05:59 AM EST
    refuse to shake her hand, she didn't try and shake his or Teddy's.  Teddy reached out to shake her hand.  Seriously grow up.

    and you know all this because (none / 0) (#102)
    by hellothere on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:11:01 AM EST
    obama called you on your cell to tell you or you are supposing. i vote on suppposition. now, we are going by what the photographer who took the picture said.

    the sequence of (none / 0) (#107)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:15:21 AM EST
    events is documented here

    Clinton, clad in scarlet, crossed the aisle between their seats on the House floor. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the Democratic icon who had endorsed Obama earlier in the day over Clinton, reached out his hand when she came close.

    She took it; they shook. Meanwhile, Obama, dressed in a dark suit, had turned away.

    The rivals then retreated to their seats, only the aisle and four senators between them.

    jgarza, i have read the accounts also. (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by hellothere on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:22:20 AM EST
    what you quoted doesn't say obama didn't snub clinton. give it up!

    hellothere (5.00 / 3) (#173)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:26:17 AM EST
    you are right, of course.  He turned away while she was shaking Teddy's hand (of course Teddy would come first before Obama) and he turned hile they were shaking hands so he didnt have to deal with her.    

    i am disappointed in obama for (none / 0) (#175)
    by hellothere on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:43:47 AM EST
    his behavior.

    it is pretty suprising (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:19:23 AM EST
    for someone his age - he is not a kid.

    i too am very surprised. (none / 0) (#184)
    by hellothere on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:50:54 PM EST
    common sense would indicate courtesy at least in public in front of the voters.

    you will believe what you want to believe (none / 0) (#127)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:43:06 AM EST
    So what is the use?

    You, on the other hand (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by echinopsia on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:17:20 AM EST
    have the franchise on the TRUTH.

    Sorry, not buying it.


    Oh, I see (none / 0) (#115)
    by echinopsia on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:23:01 AM EST
    She didn't try to shake Obama's hand because he turned his back on her.

    What was she supposed to do, stand there and wait for him to deign to turn around?

    He saw her coming. He should have offered to shake hands.


    Well, unity isn't for just anyone (none / 0) (#125)
    by lambert on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:37:28 AM EST
    Let's be reasonable, here, people.

    geez, you know it is more than that. (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by hellothere on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:07:01 AM EST
    please don't try naive! obama is acting like a real jerk. thanks but no thanks, we have a jerk as president right now.

    obama wants to elected because he unifies, blah, blah, blah. his actions make what he says a lie. "i can't hear what you are saying for what you are doing."


    Since When (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by BDB on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:54:33 PM EST
    has the media cared about issues?  You think all the glowing press Obama has gotten the last two days has been because of his stand on issues?

    This was a dumb thing to do.  Do I think it means Obama will be a bad president or have bad policies?  No.  But I think it means there's a chance that the next couple of days are spent on the press chattering about how Obama snubbed Hillary.  That's bad for Obama - it makes him seem small and petty.  

    It's also bad for Democrats by making it seem like there is some sort of horrible rift.  Now, maybe there is, but damn it, they aren't supposed to show it.  They're supposed to shake hands and be good Democrats whether they want to or not.  Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton clearly understood that.  Is it to much to expect someone who wants to represent the party as its presidential nominee to understand that?


    Unfortunately (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by miriam on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:22:45 AM EST
    I think Obama is petty.  He exhibited the same petulant behavior after the Nevada caucus when he lit out without congratulating Hillary and without even thanking his workers there.  Not attractive and not the characteristic of a leader or a "uniter."  

    right after (2.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:28:17 AM EST
    her no existent concession speech in SC.

    You buy the MSNBC line? You must have (5.00 / 8) (#57)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:33:46 AM EST
    had to go to bed early and missed the egg on the faces of Scarborough, et al., when their network and the others cut to . . . tah dah, Clinton's concession speech.  And as ever, it was extremely gracious.

    Of course, neither you nor your media feeders noted that the concession speech that was never given was the one after the Nevada caucus -- the one never given by Obama.

    Also note that, whether victory or concession speech, he doesn't note the other candidates -- but Clinton always does, by name, and even down to Dodd, Biden, Kucinich, etc., in Iowa.  But above all, then and every time, she talks about her wins as victories for all Dems, for the party.

    You never hear that from Obama -- because he talks as if he's running a third-party campaign.  He just is not in it for the Dems.


    Untrue (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:34:13 AM EST
    She congratulated Obama both by phone and in her speech.  

    As you may recall, Obama failed to congratulate Hillary at all on her Nevada win - no speech, no call, no nothing.  He hopped a plane and then declared himself the winner because the delegate count disempowered democratic voters.  Nice.


    Not cool (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by mexboy on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:51:14 AM EST
    If Obama were to become president is this how he would treat world leaders when they criticize him??

    He is showing his true colors and I don't like it one bit. Hilary should keep putting pressure on him because PRESSURE REVEALS CHARACTER, and I'm not liking what I see from him.

    It is petty, childish and immature and it shows Obama's lack of diplomacy to put it delicately.


    But you don't even know (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:17:02 AM EST
    what he did.  She wasn't trying to shake his hand.  Give me a break.  

    I'm Basing It Off Reported Accounts (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:23:40 AM EST
    They could be wrong, but right now I've got two of them.  

    And, honestly, even if it wasn't a deliberate snub, I find it hard to believe a politician as talented as Obama didn't know that everyone would be watching him when Hillary approached to see his reaction.  His reaction was to turn his back to her?  (And he clearly saw her, the photo taken right before has him and Kennedy watching her.)  I don't care if Jesus was tapping him on the shoulder, you don't turn your back on your rival when everyone is watching, it makes you look small and petty.  You wait until after the cameras are off.  Obama is smart enough to know that.


    read the account (none / 0) (#117)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:24:16 AM EST
    Obama stood icily staring at Clinton during this, then turned his back and stepped a few feet away

    He looked at her, she didn't acknowledge him and he turned away.


    Pressure? The guy is running for prez (none / 0) (#84)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:54:16 AM EST
    If he can't handle the pressure of the campaign, how the h*ll will he handle the pressure of being president.

    Personally, I think he's being just what I've always thought he was...a Bush.


    They are inches apart on issues. (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by echinopsia on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:19:22 AM EST
    They are lightyears apart when it comes to character and class.



    The uniter... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:50:02 PM EST
    this coming from (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:14:46 AM EST
    someone who just called Obama a punk.  tell me about class again?

    Photographs Lie (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:50:48 PM EST
    Because they only tell a tiny bit of the story. In the hands of a good photographer, or editor, photographs can get trees to move.

    I would not come to any judgement about Obama based on that photo.

    In the article (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by athyrio on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:53:28 PM EST
    the photographer describes what transpired....what else do you need squeaky...this man has "issues"....just like in Nevada he never did call Hillary to congratulate her and he never made a concession speech...

    There are also two photos (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by BDB on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:57:21 PM EST
    If you click on the AP link, there's a photo of Obama with Kennedy looking at Clinton (the first photo taken) and then the "snub."

    Also, read the Chicago Tribune write up that Jeralyn linked, it's fairly brutal.


    Actually (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:28:45 AM EST
    You have it reversed. The first photo, according to AP is the "snub" and the second on is Obama talking to Kennedy.

    Why assume that Obama turned away because of Clinton? Because a photographer says it's so. If that is all s/he has got than I call BS.

    It is Obvious to me that Obama is facing someone else who is cropped out of the picture. It is a frenzy.

    I can't believe that people at a legal defense site would come to such a pat conclusion based on nothing but hearsay and two photographs that only gain meaning by an editors caption.



    I can't believe (4.00 / 1) (#108)
    by echinopsia on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:15:38 AM EST
    the lengths people will go to excuse, deny, and try to rationalize this just because they don't want to accept the truth.

    "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"


    It now is reported (none / 0) (#64)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:36:39 AM EST
    -- including Obama's own hometown paper, the Trib -- as well as by others there as a snub seen and discussed right away by the media there.

    MSNBC also said the photojournalist is a respected professional who reported it as Obama turning away.


    yes, it is being reported (none / 0) (#101)
    by along on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:10:16 AM EST
    all around the world that it is a "snub." based on the one account, but that doesn't mean that the one account is true, or the last word on an event that many people saw. check out another reporter's description of it at CNN. From this account, it's obvious that it was awkward and frosty in that aisle, but it's not SO obvious that it was all because of Obama.

    We all know to be skeptical of media and how photos can not tell the entire story. I think we should all exercise some of that skepticism when the evidence is not complete.


    As written here several times ... (none / 0) (#158)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:07:23 AM EST
    yes.  But this is based on several reports from several reporters and the photographer, they were watching before the photo as well, etc. . . .

    Check out Huffington Post (none / 0) (#131)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:01:35 AM EST
    for when each candidate stood and/or applauded during SOTU and when Hillary snuck a sideways glance at Obama before she reacted.  

    oculus (none / 0) (#159)
    by Kathy on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:09:14 AM EST
    I hardly think she needed a sideways glance at Obama to let her know to clap.  And how do we know she was looking at him directly?

    Listen, I'm open to both interpretations of this picture: either he snubbed her, or it was an awkward moment.  Beyond that, I think it was bad politics on his part not to shake her freaking hand.  I wanna know why Kennedy motioned her over.  Maybe he thought he'd make peace, but Obama turned away.  And how folks know where her eyes were pointed is beyond me.

    I think the larger point here is twofold: 1. the press has finally said something bad about him and 2. (speaking for myself) I've proven yet again that I believe what the media says when I want to believe it.

    I am such a tool.


    But the press was (none / 0) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:01:17 AM EST
    all over Hillary for leaving SC, and even though she congratulated him they did not report it.  

    The Photo (none / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:02:08 AM EST
    Makes Hillary look better than Obama because his back is turned.
    She was not reaching out to Obama, but because she is facing in his direction she looks more open.

    Of course the implication is that he turned his back on Hillary. There is no reason for me to believe that is what happened. Notice that we do not see who Obama is facing. It is equally plausible that he is turning to shake hands of a supporter. Had the camera snapped a moment earlier Hillary's back could have been turned to Obama, and the caption Hillary gives cold shoulder to Obama.

    This is false. They are opponents.


    Witnesses (none / 0) (#15)
    by DaveOinSF on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:05:22 AM EST
    Red the links.  As Hillary reached across to Sen Kennedy, Obama, who was next to Ted, turned his back.

    Did you read the Tribune article? (none / 0) (#19)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:06:29 AM EST
    Because the reporter specifically states that the press saw Obama turn his back on Hillary.  

    Look, I don't think this is earth shattering or anything, but so far there doesn't appear to be any dispute about what happened.  The AP and the Tribune agree.  Maybe another story will emerge to explain What Obama Really Meant.  But until then, I'm going with the reported account.


    Awesome (none / 0) (#106)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:14:08 AM EST
    What was the # on the rule again? (none / 0) (#118)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:26:50 AM EST
    squeaky (none / 0) (#20)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:07:45 AM EST
    it is what it is....I am sorry that you dont believe it but I do because the photographer described the entire thing leading up to it...plus it goes along with alot of his other peevish behavior...if you dont chose to believe it, thats fine...your choice...

    Have YOu (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:45:48 AM EST
    Ever been behind a camera at an event like this. The photographer is looking through a lens and not seeing everything. All these photographers have motor drives on their cameras and can take 20 pictures in a very short interval.

    Why is the photographer describing what we do not see with his or her mouth, rather than showing a series of pictures that tell more of the story. Why is he or she editing out the pictures of who Obama is facing.

    I am not saying that Obama did not snub Hillary, what I am saying is that there is nothing here to make me believe that is so.

    Super thin case.


    Sometimes (none / 0) (#16)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:05:27 AM EST
    But imagine the reverse...YIKES.  

    comment responding to this deleted (none / 0) (#74)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:45:48 AM EST
    for cursing and foul language.

    Can I post something (none / 0) (#13)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:03:13 AM EST
    I read somewhere else about the press and the whole Clinton hate chorus?  I thought it was brilliant.  

    you can link to it (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:05:39 AM EST
    using the link button at the top of the comment box and quote a short part of it, recommending people go read the rest. Long urls skew the site so make sure you use the link button.

    It was from Alternet, a comment (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:12:52 AM EST
    he media have many of you jumping through hoops. They teach you to say almost in a chant "Me Hate Hillary. Me Hate Bill". In the article about Hill dumping Bill, Carl Bernstein is used as though he has something relevant to say. He wrote a scathing book about Hillary and he is everywhere these days (even in this article)trying to promote his book via Hillary and Bill bashing. What a gossip hack--trying to make a buck off of character assassination. And Chris Matthews? You remember him? He's also a chief barking hound in all this. Okay, let's see what's going on. The media for some reason hate HILLARY and BILL. I can't figure it out unless they're trying to keep a Republican in the White House. So, in order to try to sink the two of them, the Media have taken a page from the Edward Bernays handbook. You remember Edward, don't you? He invented modern media propaganda methods in the 1920s and his biggest fan of whom he was quite proud was none other than Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda. Edward's recipe for doing someone in reads: How to turn a respected entity into a fearsome eneny: plant negatives about the person in all media outlets; once you have your public repeating those perjoratives, then begin issuing distortions, half-truths, overstatements and misquotes about your target. This is how you energize the puppies out there to do your hoop jumping. You have plugged into their unconscious fears, suspicions and innate love of negative gossip. You have at this point succeeded in turning the respected person into a "threat". Then over and over use the "threat" to justify an outright attack. Before you know it, you have the common person out there jumping up and down repeating your attacks. They become extremely energized with HATE and before you know it, they'll be just so many clones of you and what you have told them. Remember, it all started with them telling you Hillary is "cold, I don't trust her, she's self-serving, etc." Then you find yourself saying those very same things and sometimes you add your own charm and wit to embellish your hate, all the while bhelieving you are doing your own thinking. The media these days have via this method managed to make Hillary and Bill not just a THREAT but a DOUBLE THREAT in the eyes and ears of the great sea of the gullible out there. So LIKE GOOD PAVLOVIAN DOGS, YOU START JUMPING THRUGH HOOPS FOR YOUR MEDIA MASTERS. Unbelievable. A nation of sheep? You got it because you asked for it! Either reclaim your brains and cut out the hoop jumping or keep it up and see where it lands us as a country. Just read most of the comments at the end of this article and you'll see what I'm talking about. Oh, by the way, it also works in reverse. Take an unknown person, apply positives (magnificent speaker, a uniter, new face, change) and then you use positive quotes, positive images and positive half-truths and before you know it, the puppies out there are barking in unison. Thanks, Edward Bernays.

    thanks so much! i saw (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by hellothere on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:26:05 AM EST
    the movie A FACE IN THE CROWD THE OTHER NIGHT. it brings to mind crowd and media manipulation.

    Link inept (none / 0) (#25)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:13:49 AM EST
    second try... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:49:25 AM EST
    Congrats, you did it! (none / 0) (#92)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:05:28 AM EST
    Wasn't that easy? Thanks for doing that. It's important to give the gift of traffic.

    then don't reprint others works (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:29:21 AM EST
    we give attribution and links. Otherwise you are just taking their work. Linking is very easy using the link button.

    great article Stellaa!! (none / 0) (#31)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:18:25 AM EST
    this article is interesting about the (none / 0) (#90)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:01:45 AM EST
    Fascinating (none / 0) (#111)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:17:42 AM EST
    article. Do you think they are keeping him from making the "reagan' comment when he improvises? Axelrod, I think is a budding ___________ fill in the blank. He is the puppet master.

    Embedded journalits? (none / 0) (#129)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:46:58 AM EST
    I Never Thought (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:09:47 AM EST
    I would ever say this in a million years, but I am starting to miss the Obamamaniacs, here. The Hillary lovefest is starting to get to me, and I favor her over Obama.

    To decide something about how gracious Hillary is and how rude Obama is from this photograph is beyond naive.

    squeaky, i think so many of us (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by hellothere on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:29:55 AM EST
    including you have grown weary of the media spin for obama so maybe when this picture came through showing another side, we sorta piled on.

    tomorrow is another day!


    I have a feeling (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:06:17 AM EST
    they'll be back.

    No Doubt (none / 0) (#103)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:11:47 AM EST
    And I will be eating my words.

    Well (none / 0) (#123)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:35:01 AM EST
    you just got confused by some Hillary worshipers as being an Obama worshiper.

    It's Politics (none / 0) (#33)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:19:24 AM EST
    Look at folks laughing at Shays kissing Bush.  His opponent has made a YouTube video of it.

    The worst thing coming out of this is a continuance of the presses' obsession about the Democratic party being "ripped apart."  Obama said some of the right things tonight to counter this, but it won't matter now.  His momentary peevishness is going to lead to hours and hours of the pundits wondering - I'm sure for the good of the country - about the state of the Democratic party.  For that reason alone I could smack Obama.


    Read Krugman's Piece (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:32:20 AM EST
    For perspective. Ripped apart? nonsense. This is child's play compared to 1992.



    Oh, I Know That (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:36:34 AM EST
    This Democratic primary has been child's play.  There hasn't even been any negative tv ads yet.  It makes the Obama folks' whining all the more lame, IMO.

    But the media has decided that the party is being ripped apart and this is just going to fuel that.  Facts mean nothing to them.  History means nothing to them.  The only thing that matters is talking crap about the democratic party.  


    the media today with (none / 0) (#110)
    by hellothere on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:17:26 AM EST
    the likes of brittany or any other "star" they pile on. it is just sad! i wouldn't run for office. i wouldn't want the hassle.

    yes (none / 0) (#59)
    by athyrio on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:34:45 AM EST
    that was linked several times today it is a good article and I remember it well...

    Ha. Here's what I was thinking: (none / 0) (#121)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:31:41 AM EST
    if BTD were on board, this thread wouldn't be happening in quite the same way it is.

    Different perspective (none / 0) (#77)
    by Jgarza on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:47:30 AM EST
    photo 4 is from a different angle and it has a different context. here

    yes, it makes it seem like (none / 0) (#82)
    by byteb on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 12:53:41 AM EST
    much ado about nothing, in fact.

    actually... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:00:47 AM EST
    He sees her coming, she shakes Ted's hand, he knows what the situation is, he turns around clapping instead of looking straight on? While flipping channels today on O"Riley they had some woman counting Hillary eye blinks per second and analyzing her body language from Sundays Face the Nation . From my amateur body language analysis, he could not look her in the eye after the little "passing of the torch" charade.

    Obama still looks angry (none / 0) (#87)
    by mexboy on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:00:25 AM EST
    He appears to be in the middle of a tantrum fit. At least that's how I get when I'm peed off.

    Picture (none / 0) (#91)
    by NaNaBear on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:03:15 AM EST
    in his repsonse shows both of them shaking hands.

    The real Obama (none / 0) (#122)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:33:09 AM EST
    Obama unmasked. And he isn't pretty.

    OT California (none / 0) (#141)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 02:37:35 AM EST
    Ok, here we have in California a uniter. He was going to bring everyone together to give us a health plan. Well, it's complicated wether it was the right plan or not, but so much for working together. Arnold (uniter) and Legislature : SF Chronicle What do you need for change: control of the legislature and a strong competent executive.

    Amen Stellaaa, Amen (none / 0) (#188)
    by BluestBlue on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 05:04:05 PM EST
    For a uniter, the "Govenator" sure alienated all the Dems. Not to mention wasted huge amounts of money on a special election no one wanted, but he knew better and forced it down the voters throats since the Dems rejected it when he tried to force the ideas on them.

    Well the voters rejected the measures too. What a waste of money we don't have in California!

    We don't need a "uniter" to work with the Republicans. The only way to get rid of the partisanship raised to these extreme levels by Republicans from Newt on down to Bush, is to stand your ground on DEMOCRATIC principles and ideas as Hillary has done.

    The only way they will "unite" with you is if you capitulate on every point. They only respect strength.

    I don't want a return of Reagan or the Republican ideas of the past. I want to keep the gains we made in the battles of the 60's and 70's. If Obama doesn't recognize the value of those battles that tells me more than I need to know about him.

    Civil Rights, Women's Rights, Human Rights. Need I say more?

    Sorry, a little hot under the collar with all the bad behavior I've seen from him



    Just a Touch of Immaturity (none / 0) (#147)
    by bob h on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 06:20:53 AM EST
    about young Obama?

    I am in the position of having all these respected figures like Bradley, Kennedy, et. al. telling me Obama is the real deal, but I do not see it with my own eyes

    More Excuses (none / 0) (#149)
    by xjt on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 07:15:30 AM EST
    The Obamabots will find another way to excuse him: "What Obama really meant when he looked at her that way was..." It's getting very old. Those two photos, the one where he's standing with Kennedy and a smirking McCaskill and he looks like he wants to ice Hillary, along with the photo where he gives her his back, tell it all. It is not irrelevant. Time and again I am told that this man has "remarkable political talents," that he's "brilliant and wise." What I see is an ambitious young man who is being propped up by an adoring media, someone who can be petulant and arrogant and has a sense of entitlement. It's all right there in front of us tonight, like a big red flag being waved in our faces.

    His actions totally contradict his "unity" theme. The two photos make him look like a big phony. And that is very relevant. I think this photo will hurt him because it cannot be spun, much as his supporters are trying. I find it incredible that he thought he could get away with this kind of schoolyard behavior in a roomful of cameras and reporters. Perhaps all of this unwarranted adulation has gone to his head and he resents the fact that Hillary is in his way. Why should anyone stand in the way of J.F.K's modern heir--especially a sixty year old woman?

    Once again the MSNBC coverage of him this evening was fawning and indulgent. Unlike others who have posted here, I do not believe that the media's phony crush on Obama is a reason to support him.
    I think choosing a president based on how he is treated by the media is irresponsible, reckless, shameful, and gives them a power they do not deserve.

    exactly the word that came to my mind (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:10:19 AM EST
    when I saw this last night on a news site - Petulant.

    Exactly what I don't need (none / 0) (#183)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 01:17:26 PM EST
    Another little doted upon spoiled brat emperor!

    hey you! (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Judith on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 06:27:31 PM EST
    havent seen you. Hope the little ones are well.

    Bad manners. Before and after a boxing match the contenders touch gloves.  It is to show it isnt personal before and after they go at it.  Obama is a poor sportsman and needs to be groomed a tad more...like 8 years worth.


    My husband is home ;) (none / 0) (#190)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 01:06:56 PM EST
    Spending less time on the net.  Now my man has gone and "suspended" himself from the race!

    Spoiled? Pouting? are we talking about Bill? (none / 0) (#160)
    by tjproudamerican on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 08:20:33 AM EST
    I think it is odd how many adjectives that people use to describe someone they do not like, especially when used by progressives and liberals, which we all are presumably, fit Bill Clinton.

    On HuffPost Tracy Ellis has the reason we liberals and progressives liked Bill Clinton: he won.

    Ellis does not tell all the reasons we disliked him, which for me started with:

    1. "welfare reform" (which punished poor people without any measure to create jobs that paid a living wage, which would be a minimum of 25-30 thousand a year), and included

    2. his declaration that "The Era of Big Government is over" which cannot be true if we have Social Security and the Pentagon, much less the Post Office and Congress and The Supreme Court, but sounded true to people who love corporations running untrammeled.

    I do not believe Hillary will be different than Bill. I have no idea who or what Obama will be.

    I do know that after the first run of the Clinton's, there is no good reason to believe in them. They will be better on the Supreme Court and other Judges than Bush. They will be better at Federal Agencies than Bush.

    Beyond that, they will be slightly Neo-Con in Foreign Policy and timid elsewhere. Vote Hillary for 8 more years of timid centrists politics, wrapped up in the drama of a bad marraige between an uptight woman whom most people dislike vaguely when they see her speak and a man who can and does and will seduce everybody because he is a dogg's dogg, good old boy's good old boy.

    God help us!

    And the Republicans have only nuts, religious nuts, former facist mayor nuts, old nuts, and Stepford Husband's.

    Do other countries accept immigrants?

    OK, wait ... (none / 0) (#164)
    by echinopsia on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 09:38:49 AM EST
    You're using Obama's bad behavior last night as a pretext to critique Bill Clinton's presidency?

    Reminds me of the early days of the Bush presidency. No matter what he was criticized for, the answer was, "Bill got a BJ!"


    Hilary Fatigue (none / 0) (#181)
    by tjproudamerican on Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 11:59:51 AM EST
    No, I am not using Obama's bad behavior to critique Bill Clinton's Presidency. I don't think Obama snubbed Hillary, as the Huffington Post photo shows.

    I am using Hillary Clinton's candidacy to critique Bill Clinton's presidency. I voted for him and her twice. She will win the nomination. Her lies about Obama are not even necessary.

    I saw that and had a Saul of Tarsus moment about the Clinton's:

    1. how often they disappointed me (Welfare Reform, Clinton's abominable behavior towards Monica Lewinsky, Hillary's Rush-To-War, prove she has Big Ones Vote to authorize the Moron-in-Chief, The W Himself, to get himself a war); and

    2. how often I made excuses for them because "at least they win." They are better than most Republicans. After that, what are they?

    From my 16 years of holding my nose for them, I received exactly What? Ruth Bader Ginsberg Stephen Breyer, two excellent SCOTUS Justices.

    And an endless carnival of policy "maneuverings" and retreats, and an endless carnival of lies about their personal lives (It turns out, that despite the dress, Clinton did not have sex with that woman, and Hillary lost her Billing Records, did not fir the Travel Office Staff, etc.) that we all, that I personally defended them against time and again because the Right Wing Noise Machine is evil.

    The Right Wing Noise Machine is evil:  that doesn't make the Clinton's good.

    If any Clinton person reads this post, they will accuse me of being an Obamanaut or being a sucker for tithe media's biased narrative. I am neither.

    Yes,  I am sick of Hillary and Bill Clinton.

    Yes, I think that she will make McGovern seem like a popular presidential candidate. Her negatives are firmly established even among those of us who reluctantly voted for her.

    And she adds to them often, just to teach Obama a lesson. It is her turn now. Bill is sick, because the Constitution only allows * years per Clinton, and now with Hillary, A Star Is Born.