The State of the Union was best described tonight as the POTUS version of "Groundhog Day" -- same stuff, different day. I must confess that I fell asleep during part of it. But there is one buzz that seems to be surfacing. The exchange, or lack thereof, between Sens. Clinton and Obama.The Associated Press reports:
Rival Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama came within a foot of each other just before President Bush's State of the Union speech Monday night and managed not to acknowledge each other, and certainly not touch.
Clinton, clad in scarlet, crossed the aisle between their seats on the House floor and reached out a hand to greet Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the Democratic icon whose endorsement she had courted only to lose it to Obama.
Kennedy shook her hand while Obama, wearing a dark suit and standing between the two, turned away.
It would appear that the "uniter" is not quite ready to ... well ... unite. Come on Obama, don't be a sore winner. I hate that.
9 comments:
Are you sure you aren't reading too much into it? I mean, after all, Kennedy is wide man, Obama had to step somewhere to give him space to shake her hand. ;)
Hey, Kennedy's not THAT wide! (said the fat acceptance activist) I first saw this reported on MSNBC, so of course I had to go find the pic. Keith Olbermann reported that it was the photographer who said Obama turned away. Guess there was a chill in the air, hey?
BAC
BAC, it just goes to show you that in this pic, Obama really isn't the bigger (hu)man.
Is this the kind of childishness we can expect from him as President?
Actually, in all seriousness, according to commentators at the time, he was talking to Clair McCaskill (D-MO, my Senator and an Obama supporter).
Well, Keith Olbermann was clear to point out that it was the photographer who made the comment about Obama turning away from Clinton. I guess at least to him it seemed deliberate.
BAC
Maybe they're just sick of each other.
I mean they're debating like every other night.
I think I'd turn away if I were Obama too. I, honestly, respect not faking it more than faking it. I don't necessarily think she's faking it, but some of the whole deal with the super delegates and all would have me upset if I were him, more so than she likely is, what with the nomination nearly wrapped regardless of what the primaries decide and with her backstabbing on Florida and Michigan. And Dennis Kucinich was excluded from the Texas ballot for not making to an oath to the DNC, wjile she made one and wants to go against it by counting Mich. and Fla. delegates. That seems like some backstabbing to me. I'll give her this. She's certainly not any less tough than a man. That is apparent and for that I am glad. I don't blame her, becuase it's all the politics as usual that men partake in all the time. I just wish I felt she were more consistent, especially given I'll probably be voting for her in Nov.. (I understand that Obama is about as vague as she in inconsistent. I am still undecided between the two, really.)
Dean - Could be.
Freida - I might be more inclined to agree with you, had Obama not scored such a huge victory in SC. He won, for goodness sake.
I will also say as a former Floridian, I don't support the decision of the DNC to strip Fla (and MI) of their delegates. Haven't Fla voters in particular been disenfranchised enough?
And I'm not so sure it's "backstabbing" as much as being smart enough to think ahead to the general election. Look at the numbers. With no campaigning, the Dems turned out nearly as many voters as the Republicans. Are we seeing a real possibility of turning this red state blue?
If McCain is the Rep candidate, that's a real possibility.
BAC
I very much agree that Florida and Michigan should not have been stripped of their delegates. This points out what I read on another blog that we just need to unify the primary dates or something.
Post a Comment