Steve:

It's obvious that Fox News is trying to deflect attention from the GOP's sex scandals by trying to invent a sex scandal for Obama. A classic transference.

It's not all that odd if you think about it. They're simply "projecting" upon Obama what they themselves are finding out to be far too common amongst their own outfit.

Your mistake, as it always has been since the CB days, is assuming that the jackals actual are endowed with a sense of rationality and common decency.

Abdicate that assumption and things will become clear.

TPM has a clip from Good Morning America where they dissect it. Not that that will stop the GOP message machine from running with it.

http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=2922741&ref=fpblg

and Fox News is treating the picture like a child treats an exciting new toy.

And that, in a nutshell, perfectly captures the mental mindset of the far-right and most of what represents the GOP. Easily distracted, none-too-bright children. It would be embarrassing and sad if it wasn't typical.

I guess I should have clicked on the same video right here in this post. Sorry.

It's not like Obama has a reputation for being a womanizer -- just the opposite is true.

Honey, this is the oldest male right-wing freakout in the book: black men lusting after white women.

Its not enough that, Carter like, Ogabe seems hell bent on destroying America (as would any other good Marxist) but now he, just like Jimmy, "lusts in his heart".

Do you suppose that Michelle, "the most beautiful woman in history" will be as forgiving as Rosalind????

shortstop makes a good point. On Qadaffi, he was "rehabilitated" by Bush in the sense that Bush gave him the "he's an OK guy" thing, despite Qadaffi's history of sponsoring terrorism.

He didn't notice the woman? Gay!

ogling is okay
(sheesh, this guy "t" sure has his haid up his arse)

but so is determining camera angle -- when it aint ogling...

I found this quite amusing this morning on GMA. They showed the entire clip and all (me included) started laughing - watch Sarkozy!

The outrage! The OUTRAGE!!! Such behavior as this following 8 years of a purely dignified president! Where is Bill O'Reilly? Where is Beck?

"In reality, it's obvious Obama wasn't ogling anyone, and the photo just happened to capture a moment out of context."

How exactly does a photo capture a moment "out of context"?

Also, Tapper's defense is lamer than your claim that Obama wasn't ogling the young lady. Tapper claims that Obama "may be" doing this or that, which is a possibility. But it is also clear that one thing he is doing is checking out the young lady's ass (which is understandable since it looks very nice from the angle Obama is looking at from.)

I know, why don't we ask Michelle and she see what she thinks Obama was doing. LOL

damn, shortstop beat me to it. no one who paid attention to the campaign against Harold Ford should find this surprising in the least.

Oops...me too Mike S...I should've watched the clip provided!

The Sarkozy part is hysterical. He CLEARLY was ogling her.

Classic Rovian attack the strength. Obama's family life has been unassailable. Hence, to drive up his negatives you have to attack it. His terrorist coddling, in neocon eyes at least, is old news and has already been developed and exploited as attack material.

M

I know... Remember how we all went crazy when Dubya rubbed his dick all-over Angela Merkel? Backrub, yeah right!

it's because Bush mainstreamed Qadafi - his mainstreaming was then touted by right activists as the domino that fell as a result of the Iraq invasion.

What, Obama's in the picture? Sorry, I got distracted by someone else in the picture.

@Chicounsel

I have a question for you...

Q: What is worse than being a chief executive for your state and seducing a staff member, who happens to be the wife of another staffer, while they and their children are guests in your family's home, then, when the whole thing blows up in your face, getting your mommy and daddy to pay for almost $100,000 in hush money; all while lecturing the American people on the Christian value of a faithful heterosexual marriage?

A: Possibly looking at some woman's ass and being a Democrat.

That about sums it up for you, doesn't it?

I think taking a picture out of contest is good for some laffs, whether it's at the expense of Republican or Democrat. But all of the OMGOMGOMG CLINTON ALL OVER AGAIN talk is just ridiculous.

This is all the wingnuts have left in the bag of sulk...to act like 3rd graders. Really. They have nothing else so they go looking for the most minor, insignificant bullshit 'story' to smear Obama with.

It's so predictably lame, too.

Obama has cleaned their clocks and left them sputtering at the side of the road, and they still don't know what hit them.

Keep it up, wingnuts. You only continue to marginalize your already shrinking, dying party that much further.

*context. Damn "x", being all next to the "s" and stuff.

The video clearly shows that Obama barely even notices the young woman since he was focused on helping the woman behind him step down.

Sarkozy? Dude's ogling like a 15-year-old boy at the Playboy mansion. Obama? Not so much.

If anyone wonders why Republicans are less popular than a raging case of the clap, this idiotic story and their attempts at outrage over it are prime examples.

I guess that's what happens when a party purges anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity and decides to double down on the crazy in its place.

I'd ogle her backside.

Chicounsel: "How exactly does a photo capture a moment "out of context"?"

You must be joking. A single photo is an instantaneous snapshot, showing less than a split-second of action and with no picture of what happened either before or after. And you're actually implying that it is *not* out of context?

You Obama Derangement Syndrome sufferers are pathetic, you really are.

I think I saw him lick his lips!

What do you expect from the TV station that represents Ensign, Sanford, Vitter, Foley, Craig, et. al.?

Wonkery or wankery?

How exactly does a photo capture a moment "out of context"? -chicornsel

There are many ways to take a photo out of context, intentionally or mistakenly. Suffice to say any time something has borders that prevent you from seeing relevant context, it could be taken out of said context.

There is also absolutely no way of determining Obama's line of sight. To me, he looks like he's looking back to grasp the hand of the woman he escorts down the stairs.

But that makes logical sense, and whatever school you conned your law degree from obviously doesn't teach logic.

Well, by comparison, GWB grabbed Misty May Trainor's rear during a volleyball match at the Beijing Olympics. Oddly enough, I don't recall Faux News hyperventilating over that.

-Z

But seriously, I am with Sarkozy. How could you not look?

Wingnuts - Obama is pallin' around with ex-terr'ist Qaddafi - come one, take the bait please.

Or will it undercut your old (false) claim that Bush's war in Iraq forced Libya to become good guys?

Only Myke K knows for sure.

And if he was "noticing" the attractiveness of a young woman near him, what's the big deal? He's married , not dead.

How exactly does a photo capture a moment "out of context"?

So you guys really did nominate a guy who tried to grab his opponent's ass after a debate as your 2008 presidential candidate?

Wow, we dodged an even bigger bullet than I thought.

Ogling? There is many an American lady who would have preferred being ogled instead of pinched by Italian males while in Italy. Pinching was considered to be open season from their Prime Minister down to the local street hawkers.

And if he was "noticing" the attractiveness of a young woman near him, what's the big deal? He's married , not dead.

After having the Ensign and Sanford scandals break in such close proximity, I understand why Republicans would be confused by the notion that a married man can just look, appreciate, and move on without being compelled to tap said ass. My husband and I are going to Hawaii in a few months and I certainly don't expect him to blind himself before we go to the beach. He's not a Republican, so I know he's not going to act on any sudden impulses.

The things I'd do to her if only I had a spare hundred grand or so. Mommy...can I borrow some money? No, I'm not going to use it for whores, you bitch!

Reality will not be televised.

That's one way to ogle. Pretend you're doing something else. Notice he's watching the girl, not the woman he's supposedly helping.

How exactly does a photo capture a moment "out of context"?

The naivity.

Even disregarding all the Photoshopping that has been going on, and NYT's recent withdrawal of photo's that graced their weekend supplement, and myriad other examples.

First thing, the longer the focal length the less the perception of depth. Second, on a 2D representation we make computations based on subliminal assumptions from 3D experience. Colors can be distorted by over or under exposure. Skilful (or lucky) photographers can create a trompe l'oeuil.

Even in 3D with our own eyes, as we know from eyewitnesses, people often see what they want to see or, even more often, what is suggested to them that they saw.

God, is chicounsel actually an attorney? Such complete credulity beggars belief.

And, bottom line, what the f does it matter if all he did was glance?

It's precisely the moronic expectations of some idealistic zen-like isolation in marriage that so disappoints all the sanctimonious, hyporitical moralists.

koreyel, we can't possibly leave Gingrich out of the mix.

How exactly does a photo capture a moment "out of context"?

Let me help Chico ... Step 1: Pull your head out of your ass. Step 2: Look at photo capturing one picture frame. Step 3: Watch multi-second video clip. It's really quite easy you mendacious simpleton.

Chicounsel being purposefully obtuse - who would have guessed!

How exactly does a photo capture a moment "out of context"?

Totally! Hey you ever see those big group pictures, like a family picture, and like, isn't it crazy that there's always someone in the picture asleep?

Steve: "It's odd."

No, it's either contemptibly adolescent or childishly contemptible, and simply needs to be publicly and summarily dismissed as such. Why would you even deign to acknowledge that such sexually-repressed and emotionally-stunted people have an argument?

But let's just suppose, for such an argument's sake, that President Obama was temporarily engaged in a bit of psychosexual fantasy, even if it was merely the momentary personal appreciation of another's voluptuous derriere.

So fucking what?

(A brilliant and witty rejoinder on my part, if I do say so myself, even though it was to my own rhetorical question ...)

Show me the men and women who claim they've never engaged in sexual fantasy, and I'll embarrass you to straight to Hell, first by taking their pulse to see if they're still alive, and then once that's affirmed by calling out such Late-in-the-Day Saints as goddamned sanctimonious and hypocritical liars.

(Gay men are really good at that, you know. Remember, when you want partake in a good catfight, it's always best to call in the professionals ...)

thy peahens whirr: ha!

e henry thripshaw: "Hey you ever see those big group pictures, like a family picture, and like, isn't it crazy that there's always someone in the picture asleep?"

Yes. And if you want to avoid such embarrassments in the future, then you need to please stop requiring our presence at such brain-numbing family affairs, particularly if they're held at your local bowling alley.

It's not newsworthy, even if the photograph is what they say it is. I simply don't care. This is not journalism, it is eighth graders sniggering.

How exactly does a photo capture a moment "out of context"?

The blinding stupidity of this comment has already been addressed by several others. Indeed, its somewhat surprising that it needs to be explained to anyone who has aged past elementary school but here we are.

However, I think there is something slightly more interesting to point out here. All photos, like just about every other type of expression, are out of context in one way or another. They are, among other things, all framed by the photographer to include some elements and exclude some others. Indeed, the whole "magic of Hollywood" is based almost entirely on this simple concept. Frame it properly, and you can make a small man look big and make it look like he's flying.

Now, also just like every other expression, some types of framing can be honest and others dishonest but just as much meaning rides on a photographers perspective as say a writer or painter's perspective.

None of this will not come as a surprise to anyone who has even a passing familiarity with basic photographic technique - an experience that I guess we can assume chicounsel lacks - but we do, too often, trust visual information when we ought to treat it just as skeptically as what we read.

Brent: All very good points. Between doctored pictures and out-of-context framing, photos and other visual images have been shown to be untrustworthy. Heck, it has even been shown that eye-witness testimony is not nearly as trustworthy as we tend to assume it is.

shortstop: "thy peahens whirr: ha!"

What happened to the rest of your haiku?

Yes, he looked, a quick glance, not an blatant ogle like Sarkozy; this is the difference between America and France. I hate to say it, but America likes their leaders a little more gay. "W" always had kind of a gay streak, never saw him take flack for ogling women. France likes their men to be men.

The real issue here is that, once again, the wingnuts want to tell us how to live our lives. As far as any of us knows, this is perfectly OK in the Obama marriage. Every marriage has its own rules; the wingnuts think they own the right to make them for the rest of us.

I know, I know, they will say he is representing our country, not his marriage. Sounds like time for 538 to start digging into the statistical leaning of the country to see if most of us think this is OK. I vote for OK. My guess would be that Americans would think it is OK for regular people, but not THE PRESIDENT. We love our double standards.

As a semi-professional photographer all I can say to Chico is

hahahahahahahahahaha

oh and

hahahahahaha

you moron. The technical details have already been addressed sufficiently - my photos have only the vaguest connection to real life - because that's what people want from me.

Newsflash: Obama jerked off in the bathroom adjacent to the President's Bedroom! Apparently Michelle wasn't even watching!

What was he thinking of? That hot ass in the pink dress that he couldn't keep his eyes off of?

Turn in to any television "news" program to learn more. Much, much, much, much more!!!!

How can a picture be taken out of context? Really? I guess no one has ever seen those pictures that have been passed around the Internet where a woman is pinching a statue's ass in the background, or a person is shown holding the sun in their hand. Then there's the infamous pictures of soldiers in Iraq holding camel spiders that look to be about 3 feet long but really they are only about 6 inches long, but because of the angle, they look huge. Dumbasses.

If you have to do it, you might as well do it right.

It is the coolest site, keep so!

Great site. Keep doing.

Great work, webmaster, nice design!