I love how desperate Drudge is getting to come up with things to criticize Obama on.
In addition to this photo that he has up, he also in the past two days has had two pieces on "ZOMG!! Scandal!! Typos on the Obama press releases and website!"
I like having a President who has more in common with me than not- and taking a glance at an attractive backside would certainly fall firmly in that camp. And could you imagine if there was actually a common sense speech given about marital fidelity, human sex drive, and how utterly normal it is to look sometimes? Well, okay, me neither . . . since being frank about anything sexual is too much for most people to take.
To me it kind of looks like he's looking a bit, but I just have no problem with it. Far more upsetting is the news coverage of it and how either way they're trying to exonerate him or condemn him, as if those were the only two options.
Ok. Didn't the Jezebel editors just post a similar picture the other day? I recall a picture of Robert Pat. "ogling" some young girls leg... the title to that snap judgment was very accusatory/suggestive. How are we so busy defending something here that we perpetrated elsewhere?
@MathGirl: That is the first thing that sprang to mind when I read this; it's a little rich to criticize the Post and TMZ for doing the exact same thing. But unless every post on Jezebel was written by the same person, there are always going to be inconsistencies, I guess. Hell, even if they were written by the same person.
Oh boy. I suppose it's a matter of opinion, for example I don't see any ogling going on here. Others might. But I must say this: if anyone decided to follow me around with a camera all day, and photographed me looking at other people, I'd probably look pervy too. And given my default facial expression, which is similar to the ones you see glaring back at you from the newspaper in the murderers section, I would also look sinister. Which is why I really hate getting my picture taken. I always look like I have just finished killing someone. So to all the OMG THE POTUS IS A SKEEVY PERV!! mongers, yeah, no. He's not. He's normal, which means as a sighted individual, he uses his eyes to navigate pavements and staircases and roads and things. Just like every other human who is not blind.
I'd like to think neither of them was so blatantly objectifying this poor girl, but in general I have always been shocked by new tales of The Secret Lives of Dudes, so I may just be naive.
That said, the public morality thing is highly inconsistent in the United States and really damaging, it seems to me. It's like you guys are in this weird abusively worshipful relationship with the politicians you admire, which in real life is known as "setting yourselves up for a fall." People are people.
I don't know what I think about what it means to govern - I mean, there's a world of difference between Lewinsky-Clinton (in which one was presumably still a functional governor) and Mark Sanford hiking the Argentinian trail without telling anyone where he was going. But obvs the Sanford case proves that, umm, obssessive romantic relationships can affect your ability to govern. So there's that.
@PilgrimSoul: Clinton was president when the Lewinsky thing happened. I always felt that the real issue there was not infidelity per se but abuse of power, as she was an intern and significantly younger than him (if memory serves, she was in her early twenties).
In general I think our issue in the US is having moral standards that are not reflective of the generality of human behavior, but I suppose that's what moral standards are- an attempt to "improve" upon on and otherwise subvert natural inclinations in the interest of the greater good. Why we feel that politicians as a group are somehow better at sticking to those high standards has always been beyond me, but we seem to have the general idea that if someone is really good at one thing- acting, speaking, governing other people, writing, whatever- they must be good at everything, including self-control. Which obviously is not the case.
@PilgrimSoul: Just thought I'd let you know that the Lewinsky-Clinton affair happened when Clinton was the President. Not trying to be nit-picky but I'd hate for you to give this eloquent speech somewhere else and someone try to be all smug about it.
@PilgrimSoul: I should have figured- it would be utterly unlike you to not know that. Sorry 'bout the correcting, hope I didn't seem "all smug about it" as it was not intended that way.
@slowpoke.r: I always felt that the real issue there was not infidelity per se but abuse of power, as she was an intern and significantly younger than him (if memory serves, she was in her early twenties).
Totally -- even though their affair was consensual, she was his employee, which puts the whole thing in a different moral ballpark than mere adultery.
I feel that a political figure's personal issues are their own private business. But here's the thing about cheating while in office: lying to their wives soon turns into lying to their constituents. I think that a bad spouse doesn't always make for a bad politician (see the Clinton and Hitler examples), but being caught in a lie and breaking a vow will certainly result in a loss of respect and trust.
Well, Hitler didn't cheat on his wife because he married her and then they committed suicide. So his options were pretty....limited. Yeah, I'm just that persnickety.
And Sarkozy looks like---in the photo---that he's smirking at Obama looking at the girl . Then it turns out he's checking her out himself.
Even your basic point-and-shoot digital cameras shoot film at thirty frames per second. I've caught lightning flashes that speed, but just barely. It's amazing what one thirtieth of a second can reveal. I got a picture of lighting slicing through a house without doing any damage. I didn't even know it was there till I went through my frames, looking for lightning.
I'm really glad I don't have cameras snapping photos of me every second. Half the time I'm surreptitiously checking out my own boobs to make sure there isn't anything stuck to them or spilled on them (happens more often than you'd think), and I can see the headlines now: "Gangey's breast intentions" "Gangey tit-illates unsuspecting crowd" "Gangey is a boob."
@Bookwrm:Me, too. When you watch the video, he is looking down at the step. The rear end of the woman comes within a wide radius of where his gaze already is -- and does not change at all as the young woman moves up and out of the way. He was waiting for the other young woman to step down because he was politely waiting for her to help her.
I think it's far more telling of those who are reporting this as some sort of event than it is of President Obama. I guess it's sort of good news that they have to distort the truth to even come up with this about him.
Wow, was that photo deceiving. Watching the video you'd never even suggest that Obama was checking out her arse! Amazing what capturing a single second in time can suggest.
Hmm...this makes me wonder: maybe all those hot Clive Owen pics are misrepresented. Maybe after each second-long suave look, he starts twitching and foaming at the mouth!
@CurtCole: When you put it that way, I definitely agree.
However, I can't really argue with this line: Is it so unreasonable to lose at least a little respect for a public figure when he can't keep it in his pants?
No, I don't think it's unreasonable at all.
07/10/09
Can we expect some pics of Biden with dicks MSPaint'd on them? An article asking Palin to "an hero"?
07/10/09
In addition to this photo that he has up, he also in the past two days has had two pieces on "ZOMG!! Scandal!! Typos on the Obama press releases and website!"
Seriously??
07/10/09
To me it kind of looks like he's looking a bit, but I just have no problem with it. Far more upsetting is the news coverage of it and how either way they're trying to exonerate him or condemn him, as if those were the only two options.
07/10/09
07/10/09
07/10/09
07/10/09
"Have you seen our wives?"
Fin
07/10/09
07/10/09
07/10/09
07/10/09
That said, the public morality thing is highly inconsistent in the United States and really damaging, it seems to me. It's like you guys are in this weird abusively worshipful relationship with the politicians you admire, which in real life is known as "setting yourselves up for a fall." People are people.
I don't know what I think about what it means to govern - I mean, there's a world of difference between Lewinsky-Clinton (in which one was presumably still a functional governor) and Mark Sanford hiking the Argentinian trail without telling anyone where he was going. But obvs the Sanford case proves that, umm, obssessive romantic relationships can affect your ability to govern. So there's that.
07/10/09
In general I think our issue in the US is having moral standards that are not reflective of the generality of human behavior, but I suppose that's what moral standards are- an attempt to "improve" upon on and otherwise subvert natural inclinations in the interest of the greater good. Why we feel that politicians as a group are somehow better at sticking to those high standards has always been beyond me, but we seem to have the general idea that if someone is really good at one thing- acting, speaking, governing other people, writing, whatever- they must be good at everything, including self-control. Which obviously is not the case.
07/10/09
07/10/09
07/10/09
And I completely agree about the poor girl.
07/10/09
Totally -- even though their affair was consensual, she was his employee, which puts the whole thing in a different moral ballpark than mere adultery.
07/10/09
07/10/09
And Sarkozy looks like---in the photo---that he's smirking at Obama looking at the girl . Then it turns out he's checking her out himself.
Even your basic point-and-shoot digital cameras shoot film at thirty frames per second. I've caught lightning flashes that speed, but just barely. It's amazing what one thirtieth of a second can reveal. I got a picture of lighting slicing through a house without doing any damage. I didn't even know it was there till I went through my frames, looking for lightning.
07/10/09
07/10/09
07/10/09
07/10/09
07/10/09
07/10/09
I think it's far more telling of those who are reporting this as some sort of event than it is of President Obama. I guess it's sort of good news that they have to distort the truth to even come up with this about him.
07/10/09
Hmm...this makes me wonder: maybe all those hot Clive Owen pics are misrepresented. Maybe after each second-long suave look, he starts twitching and foaming at the mouth!
Nah. That would still be hot.
07/10/09
07/10/09
However, I can't really argue with this line: Is it so unreasonable to lose at least a little respect for a public figure when he can't keep it in his pants?
No, I don't think it's unreasonable at all.