KCrowley asks in the comment string of the original story whether I think this is the ‘nail in Senator Obama’s coffin’? So, do I think this will be the ‘nail in the coffin’? Short answer: No. Long Answer: Hell, No. Not hardly.

Did it happen? Did he flip off Hillary Clinton?

No Quarter thinks so and has several updates built into their story. The Los Angeles Times ‘Top of the Ticket’ blog. is running the story and the video. The print LAT is also carrying the story. The same story is running with another view of the event on video in The Baltimore Sun. Memorandum has a large run down of the sites that have attacked or commented on the incident. Taylor Marsh jumped on the story very early after being directly contacted by Pamela Leavey. The Chicago Tribune’s blog ‘Swampland’ has the video and story. Even Fox News has front paged the gesture as the story of the day with new video. [Think it might come up again in the general election when talking about the judgment needed in the WH?] According to Google here are 443 related stories in the Media starting US News and World Report.

Of course, after a debate where he had difficult personal questions to answer, he says no more debates are necessary. Of course not. As Taylor Marsh notes,“He simply can’t afford them.” He has shown time and again that he doesn’t do nearly so well when he has to deviate from his ‘script’. [And I guess hard personal, sometimes phony, questions are never part of a general election campaign?]

His verbal supporters, by and large, are fanatic in their nearly religious support of the Obama crusade. They love the fact that he used a juvenile gesture to stick it to the establishment.

I find the entire incident amazing, sad and pitiful. He’s successfully playing to an audience that likes that exact type of gesture and it’s dismissive content. What does that say about how he’ll react in the general election when attacked from all sides at once?

What if he successfully wins the election and has to deal with Congress and foreign leaders? Will this dismissive element play into his presidency?

We have an example of just such dismissive elements in a presidency today. George W. Bush has used this exact tactic time an again with Congress and foreign affairs issues. Do we really want more of the same?

It’s appears that way to me. The timing, the gesture, the sheer passive-aggressiveness of the act, which would fit Obama’s passive-aggressive campaign, couldn’t be simply a habitual gesture. Judge for yourself.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I’ll withhold most of my profane reactions to this classless, deliberate playing to a young audience who have no political history to use as an anchor point for judgment. Barack Obama is an ass. And you can bet Hillary Clinton, in private, will react much, much more strongly. [I hope she keeps Bill away from any cameras for 24 hours, at least, to let him cool off.]

I also hope she demands a public apology and lets him refuse to give her one. He’s played one too many passive-aggressive campaign games.

The Traditional Media won’t ignore this video (the full “looked in her element” video is at Politico and TPM ). It’s red-meat for them.

h/t to vtlover at Mydd.

UPDATE (7.58 pm pst by Pamela Leavey): The Swamp has picked up on this (emphasis mine):

Sen. Barack Obama was on the stump today in Raleigh, N.C., the day after his debate in Philadelphia with Sen. Hillary Clinton. Have a look at his body language when he spoke of the sort of debate it was — a “gotcha” fest — and about Clinton being “in her element.”

“Last night, Sen. Clinton and I had our 21st debate of the year,” Obama said today. “Last night, I think we set a new record, because it took us 45 minutes before we even started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people.

“I don’t blame Washington for this, because that’s just how Washington is,” he said. “They like stirring up controversy. They like playing gotcha games…

.. and I would say Sen. Clinton was in her element.”

And that’s the part of the videotape, courtesy of Fox News, where viewers need to pay some attention to the hand that Obama raised to his face, and the finger with which he scratched it.

And before the “finger” there was the “Snub.”

UPDATE 2 (11.15 pm pst by Pamela Leavey): For the sake of those arguing against the gesture here’s a freeze frame from the CBS video that captures the gesture at a different angle (from what I can see the index finger is bent down in the shot):

UPDATE 3 (11.30 pm pst by Pamela Leavey): From the LA Times Blog Top of the Ticket: Barack Obama makes a one-fingered gesture while speaking of Hillary Clinton

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. [...]

The presidential candidate raises his right hand to seemingly scratch his cheek.

He doesn’t use his whole hand though. Just one finger. Briefly. A couple of strokes.

He pauses. He smiles slyly as the crowd begins to mumble and then he tries, somewhat distracted, to continue his remarks, smiling as the buzz spreads through the crowd.

He’ll no doubt deny it later, but that mischievous smile seems to confirm plenty. And the crowd sure sees something.

Based on the idiotic things happening in the progressive blogsphere, which Pamela Leavey, Jerome Armstrong and Big Tent Democrat have delineated in their posts, I wonder if we aren’t seeing the result of the rapid growth of the liberal blogsphere audience and diarists. I think we see the leaders of a few very popular sites believing that their sites and followers have the magic bullet to win elections.

If they lose the election, ie: if Obama wins the nomination and loses the election (Remember Gore and Kerry), it won’t be the nominee’s fault. It will be the fault of the system, a TV network or some third element. Personal responsibility isn’t part of the landscape as far as I can see.

This crowd is as fanatical as many of the right-wing people they are trying to beat. Only problem is that the fanatical left is less pragmatic and have substantially less election experience than the political and religious Right. This may show up in terms of campaign effectiveness and lead to the disaster of a McCain Presidency with Condi Rice as VP.

I can’t imagine how it came to this idiotic point at a very crucial time for Americans and the World.

Read again the final two paragraphs of Pamela’s post:

Finally, I’ll note in my opinion many of these same “progressive” blogosphere infected with “progressive derangement syndrome” did diddly, yes, diddly to support John Kerry in ‘04. They nit-picked at every little thing he did (I’m talking to you Markos) or didn’t do, often helping to reinforce the negative from the wingnuts. Same story, different candidate.

Anyone who thinks that these holier than thou, so called “gate-crashers” will support Hillary Clinton whole heartedly if she becomes the nominee, can think again. They won’t. They’ll spend the months between the convention and the general election pissing and moaning about why Obama shoulda been the nominee (like they did in ‘04 over Dean) and they will tear down HRC at every opportunity. Mark my words.

If she’s right, and there’s plenty of evidence, there’s an American disaster in the making.

PS: Jerome Armstrong is the Political BlogFather of us all. For him to be directly attacked, as I’ve seen several times, is ridiculous.

In a crucial moment in the campaign Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama with have their first debate in weeks tonight at 8PM EDT on ABC. This is a important debate for HRC coming just prior to the Pennsylvania Primary.

Let’s watch and see what happens. HRC has everything to gain tonight and nothing to lose.

The infamous Gator, the one eyed, lame cowdog that’s afraid of cattle, in action as she obeys a simply ‘Down’ command. [It's a silent video taken with my digital still camera.]

Click here to view the embedded video.

The rolling over and groveling at my feet was her idea. How did a ‘she’ get named Gator? I have no idea. Sadly, Gator is missing in action at the ranch. She was a fine, if silly-assed, dog.

Barack Obama’s support for Joe Liebermann during his election is and was an important indicator of his character, judgment and goals.

HARTFORD, Conn. –U.S. Sen. Barack Obama rallied Connecticut Democrats at their annual dinner Thursday night, throwing his support behind mentor and Senate colleague Joe Lieberman. [2006]

That endorsement, at a Jefferson/Jackson Dinner, two years ago is simply more evidence of Barack Obama’s inability to see the true enemy where they exist.

I’ve never understood why so many don’t see this most obvious of indicator of the true Obama character and judgment and understand the consequences. Barack Obama will try to make peace, try to reach conciliation, with the Republicans and be amazed when they stab him in the back through out his term in office. Barack Obama believes in conciliation.

He doesn’t see that the forces arrayed to change the constitution, bankrupt the government and install the religious right are well-funded, organized and currently keeping a low profile. That doesn’t mean they aren’t active and working. They are smart and more than capable of continuing actions and organizing while staying out of the media eye.

The difference between political compromise and political conciliation are dramatic and have long term consequences.

From Dictionary.com

Conciliation

1. to overcome the distrust or hostility of; placate; win over: to conciliate an angry competitor.

2. to win or gain (goodwill, regard, or favor).

3. to make compatible; reconcile.

Compromise

1. a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.

2. the result of such a settlement.

The results of an attempted overall conciliation could be disastrous.

There are only three paths:
Conciliation: Believing you can make an effective peace with your opposition.
Compromise: Making the most of a situation and getting movement to a goal
Opposition: Standing firm, refusing compromise and readying for attack or defense as the situation demands.

History is replete with examples of conciliation when compromise (or simply NOT compromising and readying for defense/attack) was an alternative.

It’s my firm belief that Barack Obama truly believes that conciliation is possible and desirable. He does not seem to understand the fanaticism of the forces arrayed against a Democratic presidency.

I do not believe he’s a ‘warrior’ that can see the battle before it begins.

Ol’ Joe defied the Democratic voters of Connecticut and is actively guiding, touring and mentoring the Republican Nominee, is simply a perfect example of conciliation in action. While Barack Obama has achieved a personal ‘peace’ and he also enabled and reinforced an enemy.

This is, for me, neither forgettable nor forgivable.

Ol’ Joe is no Democrat. I’m ashamed he was a VP candidate. And conciliation won’t work.

This quote comes a no surprise to me. I wondered what the hell Mark Penn was doing there from the beginning. H/T to Political Wire.

Quote of the Day:

“I have nothing but contempt for Mr. Penn. And for those of us who wanted to see him out from the beginning, it became almost a Rumsfeldian thing. And he is not even fired. He has been demoted. How could this be?”

– Democratic strategist Paul Begala, quoted by the Huffington Post.

Today WaPo published an article detailing the relationship of billionaire bundlers quietly funneling money into the Obama campaign.

While some of these individuals are typical Democratic supporters other are much more controversial.

But those with wealth and power also have played a critical role in creating Obama’s record-breaking fundraising machine, and their generosity has earned them a prominent voice in shaping his campaign. Seventy-nine “bundlers,” five of them billionaires, have tapped their personal networks to raise at least $200,000 each. They have helped the campaign recruit more than 27,000 donors to write checks for $2,300, the maximum allowed. Donors who have given more than $200 account for about half of Obama’s total haul, which stands at nearly $240 million. Obama’s success in assembling bundlers offers another perspective on a campaign that promotes itself as a grass-roots effort. [emphasis mine]

While the senator from Illinois has had unprecedented success generating small donations, many made online, the work of bundlers first signaled the seriousness of his candidacy a year ago [...]

Several on Obama’s list at least appear to have interests in conflict with his platform.

[...]There is the billionaire casino developer who plans to put a slot parlor in Philadelphia; Obama has decried gambling for its steep “moral and social cost.” And there is the director of General Dynamics, the military supplier that has seen profits soar since the onset of the Iraq war and that has benefited from at least one Obama earmark. [...]

Is Barack Obama exactly what he seems or is he a manufactured candidate using old school politics while posing as the ‘fresh’ face?

In reference to the hearings Maureen Dowd got off the Obama train long enough to write an insightful article. Here’s her take on Senator Boxers comment. It’s part of a good analysis.

You know you’re in trouble when Barbara Boxer is the voice of reason.

“Why is it,” she asked, “after all we have given — 4,024 American lives, gone; more than half-a-billion dollars spent; all this for the Iraqi people, but it’s the Iranian president who is greeted with kisses and flowers?”

She warmed to: “He got a red-carpet treatment, and we are losing our sons and daughters every single day for the Iraqis to be free. It is irritating is my point.”

Ambassador Crocker dryly assured the senator from California that he believed that Dick Cheney had also gotten kissed on his visit to Iraq.