Of course this is not the first time something like this has been done by a potential presidential candidate...



The above is a bit more obvious. :)

Ah, blogs... you want to know what's going to bring heavy regulation to the Internet?

Blogs.

Um, maybe he was grinning and the crowd noises were because he said that Clinton was in her element with the mudslingers in Washington? Maybe it was deliberate, maybe not, but the blogger is an asshat, and I don't even like Obama that much.

/Partisan stupidity pisses me off

This blogger is a farking retard. In fact, he's such a retard that I wouldn't be surprised to see him serve as a moderator for the next ABC presidential debate.

Only elitists flip the bird. Real blue collar folk throw up a fig.

Let's just say for the heck of it that it was intentional. I'm very probama, but I think it probably was. Even so, that is the first time I've seen him take the low road yet. After that shiatpile last night, I can't altogether blame him. He took a real pounding last night and he has a right to be frustrated. I would have preferred he vented in private, but it's very understandable.

Durendal: Um, maybe he was grinning and the crowd noises were because he said that Clinton was in her element with the mudslingers in Washington? Maybe it was deliberate, maybe not, but the blogger is an asshat, and I don't even like Obama that much.

It's the grin at the end that makes me think it was intentional. He seems to me to be grinning at someone who called him on it in the audience. Of course, I was more than 1000 miles away and only saw that video so that is completely my assumption.

Because no person EVER in existence has scratched their face with their middle finger. For the love of FSM, HE IS SCRATCHING HIS CHEEK in a way that most people do it.

What the hell? He's clearly scratching his face. The crowd was cheering when he said Senator Clinton was in her element attacking people over fabricated political controversy. I had to watch the thing twice, thinking I must have missed it, before reading that asinine explanation of how scratching his cheek with his finger during a speech was an elaborate cover up for flipping off Hillary Clinton.

Oh my.

I think it was a case of Obama scratching his cheek and suddenly realized that what the audience was laughing at....

Wow... this manufactured "controversy" is almost as retarded as the manufactured "controversy" brought up during the debate.

The fact that it's been greenlit makes it exactly as retarded.

but...but...Bush....

I wish this would happen accidentally more often. Republicans are as unamerican as you can get. Anything against them is American!

RQB1018: but...but...Bush....

Oh take a hike.

Kozaru: Of course this is not the first time something like this has been done by a potential presidential candidate...



The above is a bit more obvious. :)

That was in his run for Gov. in Texass.

Good thing there's nothing more substantive to talk about.

That would suck.

Seriously?

...Seriously?

/agrees, blogger is a dumbfark

I have to say, it's taken me years to reach the sort of anti-media view that seems to be common here on Fark. Even as recently as a few months ago, I can recall myself thinking, yes, cable news sucks, but at least there are a handful of respectable newspapers left.

The recent coverage of the Democratic primaries has beaten that view out of me.

I guess I'll always have NPR.

And, in response to Malcolm's comment ("We'll no doubt hear much more about this incident in coming days")--I truly, sincerely hope not.

Well, this is clear evidence that he hates this country and is unsuited for the Presidency. He was obviously flipping off all of America.

*rolls eyes*

I met a woman today who was a Democrat and for Hillary because she said, and I quote directly, "Obama scares me".

Something about Muslim something. This was after she asked me who I was supporting (do political work, we aren't endorsing yet, non-partisan non-partisan non-partisan now that we've got that settled, my per-son-al opinion is...).

What I told her, that weirdly seemed to make sense to her, was this:

"They say that because he went to a Muslim school in Indonesia. I'm not sure, but I'd say it's not much more different than attending a Catholic school in Ireland - even if you're not Catholic, that's just the schools that are available in that country."

Try it with your favorite "Obama is a Muslim"-believin' middle-aged Caucasian friends, and see if it works. She got quiet, thought about it, and then said "yeah, that makes sense".

I was amazed. I thought those people were like Teflon (TM) - that if they couldn't absorb any sort of reasoned argument once their position on the matter was set in place.

/not really sure if the "the Muslim school was probably the best / the only option for him in Indonesia" is true
//do know vast majority of Irish schools are still Catholic
///kind of sleep deprived, hope all of that made sense
//everyone else is probably the same or drunk at this hour, so does it matter?

Reminds me of Will Smith's gesture from Men in Black when Tommy Lee Jones tells him he can get a neurolizer when he gets older.

KrispyKringle: I have to say, it's taken me years to reach the sort of anti-media view that seems to be common here on Fark. Even as recently as a few months ago, I can recall myself thinking, yes, cable news sucks, but at least there are a handful of respectable newspapers left.

The recent coverage of the Democratic primaries has beaten that view out of me.

The more you pay attention, the worse you realize everything is.

Ignorance really is bliss.

That waitress did the same thing to George Costanza.

Maybe he realized belated which finger he was scratching his cheek with and smiled because of how he realized it could be interpreted.

Even if it was intentional, so what? He's still a better candidate than Hilary, and from what I hear about last night's debate (he got hit hard?), it seems pretty well-deserved anyways.

Darth_Lukecash: Oh my.

I think it was a case of Obama scratching his cheek and suddenly realized that what the audience was laughing at....

Exactly.

Birdgate? Fingergate? Scratchgate? Itchgate? Flipgate? Ohpleasegodstoptheinsanityandjustfarkingkilleveryondwhogivesashiataboutthisgarba g egate?

oh frack me....

/seriously? seriously?

At least he isn't T.J. Rooney lying his ass off on hardball claiming to be an American. That guy is so far from being an American it's disgusting.

Come on, he had to give Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos SOMETHING to ask him about for an hour and a half straight at the next debate.

...for the love of God.

That's it. I give up. I'm through. Wake me up in 2012. fark you, fark you, fark you, you're cool, I'm out!

And this is why we can't have nice things. I hope that idiot gets fired.

Wait...

I think a Supreme Court Justice would like to give you a friendly Italian greeting.

And, hell, Bush has been quoted by describing a reporter as a "major league asshole".

Why does anyone care about this crap?

I mean, damn, I know I don't watch TV and they repeat crap ad infinum until you're brainwashed and believe, but seriously, who cares?.

I keep thinking I've just been through the looking glass for the past 8 years. Hoping, I guess. Hell, stretch that time period back to Monicagate, too...

/this is when you have a brain aneurysm

Bloggers for papers like this get paid by the hit. This total non-story and the blogger's faux-outrage only exist to drive traffic to his blog and help him pay rent next month.

This pic is going to get the fark worn out of it before the convention.

mcwebe0: It's the grin at the end that makes me think it was intentional. He seems to me to be grinning at someone who called him on it in the audience. Of course, I was more than 1000 miles away and only saw that video so that is completely my assumption.

He was obviously reacting to the crowd calling him on it.

But did he meet Hillary and the debate script at the same level? was he trying to create one of those Life or Time magazine moments for history to remember him by once he gets elected President? he might have been reaching for a defining moment. Kind of like Pierre Trudeau's flipping off the press.

This is one of those political moments that really needs few words.

We'll no doubt hear much more about this incident in coming days.

Right now, we'll just leave this video for Ticket readers to view and judge for themselves.

followed by a long insinuation.

He's always doing that middle finger scratchy face thing.

MBK: ...for the love of God.

That's it. I give up. I'm through. Wake me up in 2012. fark you, fark you, fark you, you're cool, I'm out!

Your a moron. Obama flipped the bird. It's on video. Deal with it.

Why shouldn't he flip her off anyway? It's not like everyone else in America hasn't already done the same thing.

I was pretty much on the fence before, but this seals it. That dude is farking awesome.

eh? nay...

shawn82: I was pretty much on the fence before, but this seals it. That dude is farking awesome.


This is probably the only time I'll ever say it, but I wish I were American so I could vote for Obama.

did i see him dodging sniper fire there too?

Jesus Cristo, he's scratching his gawddamn cheek.
Get the f**k over it, people.

I really dislike Obama, but come on. I see two fingers up, middle and pointer, and unless something has changed recently that's not how you flip the bird.

/Dislike Hillary
//And McCain
///Four more years of suck
//Followed by four more
/ad infinitum

I tried skipping through the 34 second (a bit long, no?) video and didn't see it until I found the still frame further down.

My calling this a steaming pile of dogshiat will doubtless get me labeled a partisan hack, but this is still a steaming pile of dogshiat. AND YET, for all its being a steaming pile of dogshiat and for all the hate we here in Farkistan pile upon the media the truth is it is our own fault. In 9 minutes the link was clicked on 389 times from here on Fark. Millions of people every day tune in to the wasteland of vomit that is this Op-ed garbage and desperate scrabbling for a new angle or scandal or scoop by the bazillion and one media sources all trying to get enough hits/viewers/listeners/ghost wizards (Ghost wizards?) to make a profit and listen to them and make them feel important because I remain convinced that every single journalist (real or pretend) was originally just a schoolyard gossip back when they were a wee lass/lad.

What was the point in here...oh yes, just like Superdeluxe and FarkTV, your best bet is not clicking the link and perhaps adding a few FAIL images or other enjoyable amusements.

Jragghen: The more you pay attention, the worse you realize everything is.

Ignorance really is bliss.

I actually pay quite a bit of attention. I don't watch TV, admittedly, so I don't know how bad cable TV really is, but I read the NY Times and the New Yorker pretty religiously, and listen to NPR quite a lot (so I'm one of those liberals, I suppose).

The difference is the quality of coverage in an election year. In particular--and what makes the poverty of good journalism particularly clear--is the effect of a long, drawn out primary with long stretches of very little actually happening. In those gaps, in between the time when the outcome was most likely decided (since Clinton has very little chance of winning now) and the part when it will, presumably, be finalized, the media are at a loss for what to report.

So they report these gotcha moments. It's not political bias, particularly (though there are obviously individual instances of it, I don't see any real endemic bias), and it's not really malicious. It's simply a desire to find good stories coupled with a lack of understanding about what their job is.

David Brooks had an absolutely idiotic op-ed piece in the Times about how wonderful the 21st debate was (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/opinion/18brooks.html).

He writes, "Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC News are taking a lot of heat for spending so much time asking about Jeremiah Wright and the 'bitter' comments. But the fact is that voters want a president who basically shares their values and life experiences."

The problem with this statement is that it assumes the role of the journalist is that of the readers' surrogate--that journalists who have the opportunity to question politicians should not take advantage of their (presumably) superior knowledge and preparation to ask more insightful, more significant questions than what the man on the street might think of, but should, instead, ask precisely what the man on the street would. After all, to do otherwise would be elitist.

Yet in my journalists, and my politicians, I want someone who will ask and answer questions I would not have known to ask or been able to answer. I don't want a politician who says what I would say; I want one who says what I wish I had thought to say. And I don't want a journalist who, as David Brooks assumes, asks the questions I would ask--I want one who would be cleverer than I am, and ask the things I wouldn't have thought to.

Otherwise, why should I read his crap?

This. Is. An. Outrage.

MY presidential candidate would make a fist and start making insane beatoff motions, spank the podium and spit on the nearest camera lens. Every time her name comes up. Every time.