Obama flips Hillary the bird
The transformative Hope & Change™ agent in action:
More coverage and longer clips at No Quarter, Corrente, and Riverdaughter.
It’s increasingly clear that for a significant number of people, a vote for Obama is a vote for misogyny. If you despise accomplished women like Hillary Clinton, if you long to smack them down and shut them up, if the very sight and sound of a powerful woman makes you want to “punch her in the face” or flip her the bird — then Obama’s your man. And the great thing is that you can pretend you’re just supporting your candidate.
38 Responses to “Obama flips Hillary the bird”
-
simply wondered says:
and let’s not forget the ‘take her behind the barn’ quote from the ‘take out the garbage’ video clip.
actually there is quite a bit of garbage she could take out…April 18th, 2008 at 7:26 am EST -
Gayle says:
The brush off the shoulder thing was so childish it had me shaking my head.
He tanked in the debate and then he has the audacity to pretend he’s too good for the process so he’ll just brush it off?
No, you can’t just brush it off! You’re a terrible candidate, Barack. You lack experience, you lack maturity. It all showed through during that debate.
That’s why he has his minions out there screaming at ABC. Deflection the only tactic Obama can use, which is why he uses it so often.
-
Apostate says:
Appalling. What strikes me the most is that his audience was so quick to catch it — meaning, this is the sort of insidery insult and gesture they’ve come to watch for and expect from Obama.
If the audience hadn’t cheered and clapped, I wouldn’t have noticed the finger. I just came away from a bunch of Obamabots ridiculing people who were point this out — they’re denying he gave the finger to his opponent.
-
AM says:
There has to be a price to pay for all the woman-dismissing that’s gone on, whether Obama gets the nomination or not. I’m not going to vote for anyone who has supported him, nor will I vote for him if he’s the nominee. His team thinks they can get the Clinton supporters votes cuz after all, we want the Dems to win, right? Like abused wives whose husbands beat them up on Saturday night and come back on Sunday with flowers and candy and vows that they love her, and won’t do it again. Wrong. There has to be a price to pay or this stuff won’t stop.
-
Apostate says:
AM, although I tend to agree with you, the price we ALL end up paying might be McCain.
I’m very glad I’m a non-citizen and won’t have to make the difficult choice between voting for Obama and letting McCain win by abstaining.
-
ratherdashing says:
Short clip, but that looked real to me.
-
BPinIllinois says:
ABC was right to ask the questions it did during the debate. We’ve had the policy questions, and Obama just listened to everything Clinton said and rephrased her words. Most of America didn’t know anything about Obama except what he had said in his book and what his advertisers have said about him to package him. Now people are hearing the truth and guess what - he is an empty suit.
The Democratic Party is in trouble; thanks to the four horsemen of its apocalypse: Kennedy, Kerry, Dean and Oprah. For left-leaning independents, this is very frustrating. Our country needs Clinton NOW. In this PA debate, it was obvious that while Clinton provided detailed and substantive proposals, Obama spent most of his time describing the problems that we already know. He provided little insight on the solutions to these problems, because he hasn’t a clue (just as Bush hasn’t).
Independent voters probably will turn to McCain if Obama is nominated. I know I will. Take a look. [ivotemccainifobamaisnominated.blogspot.com]
-
Bruce says:
Independent voters probably will turn to McCain if Obama is nominated. I know I will. Take a look.
Really? We’d really be better off with McCain than Obama? If you say so. I thought the country was being run into the ground by Bush. Don’t think anything is going to change with McCain. Neither Obama nor Clinton was my favorite Dem, but that’s who we are stuck with, so I’ll vote for whoever ultimately gets the nomination because it will still be much much much better than having another Bush in the White House for four more years. But if you don’t care about who is going to get to appoint one or two supreme court judges in the next few years and you don’t care about getting some halfway meaningful legislation passed in Congress and you don’t care about trying to find a way out of Iraq, then by all means, vote for McCain.
“Vote McCain. Because we like things just the way they are!”
-
Jill says:
Any woman who considers voting for McCain over Obama needs a serious reality check. McCain ranks a big fat ZERO on the NARAL rating chart. Obama, of course, your purported enemy scores 100 - year after year after year. The Clinton campaign’s lies about this caused Chicago’s NOW director to withdraw her support. Remember that?
Oh, and about your “controversy” - if you had bothered to check out the video from the other angle, it’s pretty clear his index finger is extended as well. See for yourself: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/355941. But once again, we’ve been distracted from the actual campaign by the sideshow that seems to be the focus of your blog - Jeremiah Wright? Farrakhan? Really? I used to respect this space - now it’s just another FOX News. I reject and denounce you; of course that would be renounce. -
Violet says:
Obama, of course, your purported enemy scores 100 - year after year after year.
Obama supported John Roberts and was only dissuaded from voting to confirm because it might look bad on his record when he ran for President. He had no problem whatsoever with Roberts’s extreme anti-feminist views. Indeed, he thinks that’s a mere ideological bagatelle that shouldn’t stand in the way of being appointed to the Supreme Court. He even compliments anti-choicers for their morality.
Any woman who thinks Obama will go to bat for women’s rights or can even be counted on to appoint a pro-woman justice to the Supreme Court is kidding herself.
Oh, and about your “controversy” - if you had bothered to check out the video from the other angle, it’s pretty clear his index finger is extended as well.
If you’d bothered to check out the videos from other speeches delivered that day/week, you’d know that the middle-finger salute was part of the speech every time and invariably evoked roars of approval from the audience. But I suppose it’s possible that Obama’s face itched at exactly the same point in the speech every time.
I used to respect this space - now it’s just another FOX News.
“This space” stands for what it always has, which is feminism and progressive values. It’s the Obamabots who have abandoned both of those things and turned into freepers.
-
simply wondered says:
jill - you reject, renounce and denounce this space? how does one do that exactly?
any chance i could borrow the high horse once you’re done with it.
i take it you have actually seen fox news…oh and vi - stop bullying the nice obama man. poor bloke must be beside himself.
-
konstantconsumer says:
wow. does anyone on here honestly believe that he was trying to give Clinton the bird? honestly?
-
Jill says:
Violet,
I’m sorry. Do you mean this:
“The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts’ record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General’s Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.I want to take Judge Roberts at his word that he doesn’t like bullies and he sees the law and the Court as a means of evening the playing field between the strong and the weak. But given the gravity of the position to which he will undoubtedly ascend and the gravity of the decisions in which he will undoubtedly participate during his tenure on the Court, I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting.
The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts’ nomination. I do so with considerable reticence. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that this reticence on my part proves unjustified and that Judge Roberts will show himself to not only be an outstanding legal thinker but also someone who upholds the Court’s historic role as a check on the majoritarian impulses of the executive branch and the legislative branch. I hope that he will recognize who the weak are and who the strong are in our society. I hope that his jurisprudence is one that stands up to the bullies of all ideological stripes.”
Oh wait! I provided an actual citation on your blog and didn’t speculate on intention or feed off rumors. Sorry to disturb your cultural script.
Oh, and Obama’s feelings about my right to choose?
“A woman’s ability to decide how many children to have and when, without interference from the government, is one of the most fundamental rights we possess. It is not just an issue of choice, but equality and opportunity for all women.“I have consistently advocated for reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. I oppose any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case. ”
Oh, darn. Another citation.
-
Violet says:
Sorry, I did you the courtesy of assuming that you’d actually investigated Obama’s positions. God knows why I made that mistake, since I’ve yet to meet an Obama supporter who actually knows what the guy is about.
Here are a couple of links to get you started:
Do feminists for Obama understand what the hell this guy is about?
One week on the campaign trail with Napoleon Obama
It’s Time to Get Obama-Skeptical
Though in fact I disagree with Kate that Hillary isn’t a progressive either. Hillary, unlike Obama, is solid on women’s rights, Social Security, health care, the environment, and the economy, where Obama likes to cite Republican talking points.
-
calling all toasters says:
Certainly Obama must have been giving her the finger:
(1) He’s a man
(2) He’s trying to shut her up
(3) He encourages his supporters to “punch her in the face”
Case closed.
Why have no criminal charges been made? -
Violet says:
You’re on the wrong blog.
-
calling all toasters says:
It seems so. Thanks for publishing the comment anyway.
-
cay says:
Obama’s supporters are cheering the fact that he said that Hillary is “in her element”. He is using two fingers to scratch his face. He has done this often. Jesus people! Get real. There are pictures that show he is scratching his face if you choose to not be so myopic and vapid.
-
Violet says:
I don’t think “vapid” is the term to describe people who prefer the candidate of substance to Mr. Hopey McChange.
-
jnb says:
I’m a feminist who voted for Obama, and my only reaction to this is, you must be joking. The man scratched his face. I’ve done this a thousand times the same way w/o intending to give anyone the finger.
-
Catherine says:
“Candidate of substance”? More like “candidate with a record of miserable failure” or “candidate who could have been more right-wing than Rush Limbaugh if it wasn’t for her stance on health care”
Wasn’t she called the “pro-business” candidate by the Wall Street Journal?
-
Violet says:
If you’re an Obama supporter, you owe it to yourself to investigate the guy and see what he really says, not what you think he says. And ditto for Hillary.
Hillary and Obama are very similar except where Obama goes to the right of Hillary, as with women’s rights, health care, Social Security (hey, why not privatize it?), and the environment.
Do some research. Do yourself a favor.
-
Catherine says:
@
All very vague there Violet. How is she more left-wing than Barack Obama on those issues? Plus, I know Barack Obama isn’t exactly Karl Marx but Jesus, he says he supports Fatah when Hilary says she supports the West Bank Barrier. Disgusting, really.Plus, as an Irish citizen affected by the Troubles I’m deeply offended by her exaggerations of her involvement in the peace process. She was very condescending as well, you know, describing how she brought the Catholics and Protestants together. She hadn’t a CLUE what she was talking about. The issue was getting Ian Paisley to the table, not the long-term problem of Catholic-Protestant integration.
-
Red Queen says:
Catherine- how about a few quotes from the unity pony’s own mouth-
“Women should have some control over their own bodies.”
Then there is the whole changing his mind about parental notification thing.
Then there is tort reform- he’s for it!
Then there is corporate deregulation- he’s for it!
Then there is capital gains tax- he thinks Reagan had it right.
And the whole universal healthcare that isn’t actually universal thing.
Let’s see Hillary now-
Reproductive rights, check.
Parental notification, check (and as a former teenager who would have had to have very evil foster parents approve my abortion if that law had been in place- I abhor with every fiber of my being the idea of parental notification)Tort reform- no and check
Capital gains- raise them and check
Taxing the upper class at a progressive rate- check
Actual universal healthcare- she literally wrote the book on it.
While your comments about foreign issues *may* have some merit in being explored, Hillary actually has foreign policy experience. Barak’s experience is limited to his time on the European affairs senate committee- where he did a piss poor job.
-
Violet says:
Catherine, I would be happy to go fetch you a bunch of links, truly, because I’m happy to share with people the real facts about Hillary versus Obama. Tonight though I’m too busy making calls to NC and IN for the campaign to spend a lot of time on this. So for now I’m going to point you to the articles I linked to in comment #14 above, particularly the last one, which has a lot of links within it to other articles. You could also review everything I’ve written here under the Hillary category tag, since several times I’ve blogged about Obama’s rightwingish positions.
Hillary didn’t exaggerate her involvement in the Irish peace. She was instrumental in bringing women to the process, as Ahern confirmed. See this link:
-
cay says:
Economists schmanomists. How can you support a candidate who has emulated the failed (successful) tactics of Rove, Inc.? It’s incredibly cynical. I hope we don’t get what we deserve (i.e. the Thatcher-like Hillary or the paranoid McSame).
-
Violet says:
How can you support a candidate who has emulated the failed (successful) tactics of Rove, Inc.?
We don’t. We support Hillary.
-
Catherine says:
Excuse me, neither I don’t see any confirmation by Bertie Ahern that she was vital to the process there nor do I see how she was “instrumental”. She was a help indeed, but certainly not “instrumental”, as in without her there would not have been a peace process. It would have gone one without her. Plus, I distinctly remember David Trimble, a good man and a peacemaker, saying her claims were “a wee bit silly”. Then, of course, one of her staff insulted Trimble because he didn’t serve their agenda. It made my blood boil to be frank, that loathsome maggot mocking a great man like Trimble.
And, of course, the Bosnia incident.
And, by the way, who’s going to be cutting the tax on gas? McCain and Hilary. After years of Bush with not enough investment in alternate fuel, we have Hilary cutting corners and not getting down to serious investment in alternate fuels. She’s a bloody genius, isn’t she?
-
Catherine says:
I’ll never forgive Hill and Bill for what they did to Ricky Ray Rector, to be honest. And their Third Way Democratic Leadership pseudoleftist economic policies.
Oh no, apparently Rodham (very feminist the way she uses her darling hubby’s surname, isn’t it?) called voters from Indiana “white niggers”. One of her advisors is calling conspiracy.
This should be fun. Break out the popcorn, let’s see her squirm!
-
Shane says:
Sorry to leap in (I’ve been reading the blog for a while and thought this would be a good time to start commenting) but she’s surely more of a bloody genius than you’re being. Clinton’s version of the gas tax holiday isn’t the same as McCain’s and isn’t MEANT to be her whole energy policy, no matter how it gets distorted in the media: its a stopgap measure to be put in as a prelude to more long term solutions, ones that mysteriously involve less ethanol and liquid coal than ‘radical’ hero Obama proposes, who incidentally has the brilliant solution of making attack ads that inaccurately quote economists. Besides, the windfall profit tax could actually help some people in need ($30 is a lot for some people), which is another crazy notion I know.
I don’t even know where you get the idea that Clinton is the one who said the ‘white nigger’ line. Its a fabrication of a fabrication. The video was crudely doctored anyway:
Seriously, who believes that a line like that would just happen to be overlooked for 15 years and just happen to surface before a primary in that state? Besides the OFB.
-
Violet says:
And with that, Catherine, you’re banned. Gave you the benefit of the doubt, but by god you’re a nasty troll, aren’t you? Lie about Trimble, lie about Bosnia, lie about the gas tax, lie about everything. Even stooping to the grotesque “white n—-s” lie, one of the ugliest and most ridiculous hoaxes I’ve ever seen.
God, I hope Hillary gets elected and saves us from Obamabots like you. You lot are even more vicious and dishonest than the Bush gang.
-
Violet says:
By the way, Shane, hello! I was so disgusted with Catherine’s peddling of the Kantor hoax that I forgot to say hi. Hi!
-
Alan says:
To be honest, she did sound like a troll but the Trimble thing was right, I believe. As far as I know, he did say her claims were a “wee bit silly” and a staff member was fired for giving him a bit of trouble over it. I could be wrong though, I’m open to correction.
To be honest, either candidate is preferable to McCain, and that’s the important thing. I’m out of the country so I can’t vote anyway :)
-
Violet says:
Yes, Trimble said that, but Trimble himself was lying. He held up the peace process for years and resented the Clintons’ stance. His comment about Hillary was pure bullshit, which is why every OTHER Irish leader involved spoke up to affirm that Hillary played a major role:
-
simply wondered says:
right: ireland!
it’s a bit harsh to push trimble as the stumbling block to peace (tho i know you didn’t over-simplify it to that degree, vi) and i am surprised to hear just how central hillary was to the process. that’s a new one to me. think what you like about trimble (and sadly my knee-jerk is that as a unionist he’s a bloody tory in a silly hat and therefore dodgy) but he was one of the keystones of an agreement. as was gerry adams - who also gives me the feckn willies if truth be told. i suspect that these (and others) who may between them be unworthy to lick hilary’s proverbials were rather more important to the process than hill. the problem with any foreign policy claim is that in the wake of her exaggerated claims about the ‘under fire’ bit while doing good work in europe is that they are automatically suspect.
i would so like to hear that the sniper fire thing was an obama fabrication, if it was. -
Violet says:
I don’t think Hillary or anyone on her behalf as ever claimed that she was more central to the process than the Irish leaders themselves. The claim is simply that Hillary assisted the process by bringing together the women’s groups, which she did. She wasn’t just a First Lady along for tea parties.
The sniper thing is a clear case of mis-remembering. The plane was landing under sniper fire, and in other landings in Bosnia that same week, the pilot had to change the flight plan to land because of heavy fire. So it got confabulated in her mind. Why is that sinister? It was a dozen years ago and Hillary has made countless trips. It’s normal to confabulate memories.
If I had to recall the details of my arrival at my parents’ house a month ago, I wouldn’t get it right.
-
simply wondered says:
i’d remember whether some bugger was shooting at me. sadly i put it down to a politician exaggerating a bit and getting caught. but i’m a sad old cynic. still think on balance i’d have her over obaman - the ‘on balance’ is because i really have very little info on it, not a ‘i’ve weighed it up and it’s close’ kind of on balance.
so an ignorant not ver committal comment from someone who doesn’t have a vote - well up there with the chocolate fireplace in the usefulness stakes. -
Violet says:
I’d remember whether some bugger was shooting at me.
I bet you’d remember it wrong. Seriously.
My eyes were opened on the vagaries of memory when I did some research into the subject. We all think we remember things correctly, particularly important or dramatic things, and we tend to assume that someone is lying if she retails a version of events that, on investigation, doesn’t match the facts.
But the thing is, human memory is extraordinarily faulty. We mis-remember almost everything, confabulate memories, add in details. The research on that is amazing, and when I have a chance I’ll look up some citations and do a post on it.
The reason that politicians get called out on this stuff is because they’re the only ones whose memories are being examined in the light of independent records. So it looks like they’re liars. But really, if we were all subject to that kind of scrutiny, we’d all look like a bunch of liars.
