Little Brother is watching you
It seems a person can’t say a word these days without someone recording it or writing about it.
For example, the San Francisco fundraiser at which Obama described the bitter clingers of Pennsylvania was meant to be a very private affair, no press allowed. But merely keeping the press out no longer keeps the media out, because we are all media (or potential media) now.
It used to be that candidates could feel safe from prying eyes and ears at these events. They were among friends. Now even friends can unintentionally betray by having access to internet sources—be they the Huffington Post (in Obama’s case), a blog, or You Tube—that can reach the general public with material that was supposed to be off the record. Loose lips can sink campaign ships, or at least cause them to take on water.
And then there’s the question of whether or not Obama flipped Hillary the bird or merely scratched his cheek in an unusual manner. I think I’ll remain publicly agnostic on the subject for now. But we can watch several versions of the moment on You Tube for ourselves, stop the action at the proper split-second, try to determine exactly where the finger in question was poised, listen to the crowd reaction, and speculate.
It’s probably enough to drive a candidate crazy. Certainly Obama seems to have gone a bit over the edge—and lost at least a smidgen of his considerable mojo, as well.
It’s not the first time candidates have been caught saying or doing things unintended for prime time. George Bush is certainly no stranger to the phenomenon (see also this).
When the off-color remark or tasteless gesture that’s meant to remain between close acquaintances suddenly and accidentally is made public, that’s one thing. But a public speech—even without press officially in attendance—is not a private matter, though a candidate might wish it were so.
To Obama’s true believers, almost nothing he does can be wrong. But to the rest of us, his words and gestures seem especially important because until now we’ve known relatively little about him. And the less previously known about a candidate, the more weight is given each new piece of information that serves to tell us something about what is known as character.
It all reminds me of the old rock song Night Moves and the line
“Working on mysteries without any clues…”
It is debateable whether BHO flipped off HC. However, what I found even more offensive was his attitude a few seconds later when he describe HC “getting her digs in” accompanied by his punching his fist, along with his know-it-all laugh. The whole thing reeked of condescention and arrogance once again. Is this guy immature or what??? Just what we need as a president.
HC is an avowed socialist and probably is desperate for the presidency. I think her tenure would be very bad, but not nearly as bad as what BHO would be.
To me, it seems unmistakable that he did, in fact, mean the gesture to be just what it looked like. His little smirky self-satisfied smile as the crowd laughed afterward, is what convinced me. But so many others disagree with me, even those who aren’t at all disposed to like him, that I realize the video interpretation must be far more subjective and uncertain than it appears to me to be. Quite clearly reasonable people can and do disagree on this one — so I’ll be agnostic too. Mostly. Kinda.
is it just me or is B Hussien Winfrey’s articulation/pronounciation fo words changing.. getting more sloppy.. more informal.
It’s making me sick and disgusted. I dont want to hear someone running for President who is whining and complaining AND doing it in teh voice of Jimmy from Good Times.
A person’s character is shown in clearer detail when that person thinks he is in the shadows and unseen.
“A person’s character is shown in clearer detail when that person thinks he is in the shadows and unseen.”
At the our range we teach a Hunter’s Education class every other month, the first lessing is “Being an Ethical Hunter”. We always ask what an “Ethical Hunter” is and get all sorts of answers. Normally they answer with things like following the law and making sure you behave in front of others.
We always tell them (and yes, I realize it is a relatively famous quote but it is appropriate here) “Ethics is what you do when nobody is looking”. If you are good there then you will only be good in public.
Sadly both Obama and Clinton fail that pretty much as badly as the other, it is debatable which has a better public. With McCain – as much as I also dislike him (I am one that calls him a RINO) – his public persona is also his private one.
The person who recorded the “private speech” in San Francisco was an Obama supporter. IMO she released the speech thinking it was good stuff that people ought to hear. She probably agreed with his take on the people in little towns in Pennsylvania. Little did she realize what a controversy it would start.
Obama’s got to be a bit paranoid now. Especially after the “condescension” flap and Stephanopoulis and Gibson put him under the microscope.
Obama has made a huge, fundamental mistake in his timing.
For most of this campaign — for most of his life — he has been the rebel, the outsider, “stickin’ it to the Man.” And he’s good at that. That’s what a “community organizer”‘s job is. That’s what his mentor Rev. Wright does every Sunday. And that’s what has brought Obama the bulk of his support, from everyone in the Democratic Party who likes to see the Man getting it stuck to.
Trouble is, at some point in a Presidential campaign, the candidate has to become the Man. He has to convince the voters — the non-insane with BDS and America-hatred ones, anyway — that he can lead, and govern, and not wreck the joint. Obama has come up against that hurdle and is having trouble getting over it.
Prediction: he will spend the next 40 years as a perennial third-party candidate.
“Prediction: he will spend the next 40 years as a perennial third-party candidate.”
This is one of the reasons I can’t make up my mind who I am rooting for in the Democratic Primary.
First off, of the two I MUCH prefer Hillary. I think Hillary is only really interested in power and believes none of what she says. As such I expect something of Bill’s two terms – following polls and not really doing much. I do think that she is different from Bill in that Bill was more interested in the trapping of Power (holding dinners, Monica, appearing important) whereas Hillary wants to exercise said power, however I find that she is so poll oriented for said power that there will be little difference. I never thought I would say that I prefer her over someone else – but ah well the Dems keep exceeding my expectations.
For Obama I think he really believes the “bitter” stuff and the Rev Wright stuff. For one thing they were his private life and, as I said above, Ethics is what you do when no one is looking. When no one is looking Hillary is checking what the polls say, Obama is figuring how we are all bitter evil people.
Given that American politics say that you get as many presidential primary bids that you can deal with but only *one* presidential bid I kinda want Obama to get it over with. I MUCH more fear Obama after a few of these and he figures out how to cover for his idiocy than I fear Hillary as president. But then, I also fear a possible Obama win over McCain more than fear Hillary winning.
Were I a gambling man then Obama right now is my best bet – he is least likely to win in his one and only shot. However it is one of the worst times in history for him to be president. If I were to play it safe (as I tend to do ) then Hillary vs McCain is our best bet. However that is a *short* term “play it safe” and I do not find the long term prospects to be clear (for one thing I don’t know if Hillary, because of her supposed slam dunk that wasn’t, gets this only shot and how much Obama will learn from this) what the long term “play it safe” is.
Right now I lean towards Obama. Hillary has this one and only chance – it has been hyped too much to be anything less than a full on Presidential run and you only get one of those. However I think if you give Obama a shot or two at it he will learn to express what people want yet change *nothing* of what he actually believes and will do. Right now I fear Obama loosing more than winning (but since it is based on fear leftists will determine that Obama is the best choice – exactly as I want MWHAAA HAA HAA HAA).
I think Hillary is way more ideologically driven than Bill. However, I believe she doesnt’ want to go through the humiliation she faced in 93 when her task force failed partly because the idea was unsound and partly because of the way she handled it.
I dont think she wants to fail again, so I do believe her idelogy will be restrained by pragmatism.
If a Democrat is going to win in Nov, i hope it would be Hillary. The thing I want more thananything else is for some predictiblity. Bush’s 2nd term is too erratic for me to know how specific situation is going to be handled.
His 1st term was more consistant however the motives were usually unsaid, so that required a lot of mind reading.
I’m sick of mind reading , and trying to come up for a model to explain the 2nd term.
With Clinton in office, we’re going to get the foreign policy team of the 90s. So while that will be a disaster, at least we can hope these people have learned from their past mistake.
If Obama win who the hell knows what kind of team that idiot is going to put into place. I suspect it would be an unmitigated disaster like Carter.
Atlas Shrugs, the blogger, made a great point. The mistakes of an adminstration dont last the 4 / 8 years of that team.. the effects last for decades.
We can’t afford the mistakes that Obama would bring.
However, I really dont think the Dems can win in Nov no matter who the nominee will be (which I think will be Obama)
Intentional or not? Even if not, his reaction to the crowds take on it was unprofessional to say the least, and that should be enough to make people wonder. But it will have zero effect on the believers.
The most troublesome revelation of the true Obama’s beliefs occured when he admitted that the proposed capital gains tax raising will actually diminish state tax revenues, but nevertheless defended the proposal in sake of “fairness”. So the real motivation behind the proposal was not to help the poor, but to punish the rich. This is virulent Marxist, even Leninist credo of social hatred and revenge. So his association with Rev. Wright and Weather Underground types looks now not accidental, but logical.
Presidential candidates should be anaesthetized, weighed and measured, microchipped, and fitted with CritterCams. Hillary should have a floating data transponder attached to her dorsal fin. It’s the only way to keep track of ’em.
he copied will smith and many teenagers who do the same to authority figures for the same reason.
they can get away with it.
in fact, with sociopaths, cameras are not liked because they will literally tell you that what you just saw or heard, isnt what you just saw and heard.