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.
Right now, we'll just leave this video for Ticket readers to view and judge for themselves. It's Sen. Barack Obama, according to the caption on YouTube posted just minutes ago, speaking to a friendly crowd in Raleigh, N.C., today.
He's talking critically about his opponent, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, and the kind of distasteful gotcha politics that occur in Washington. And he says, "That's all right. Sen. Clinton looked in her element."
Watch the video right then. 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.
(UPDATE: A new item has been posted on the Obama campaign's reaction to this issue, calling it "absurd and untrue.")
-- Andrew Malcolm
To get notices on each new Ticket item sent to your cellphone, go here and register. We've got tomorrow's vote and then, immediately, construction of a new White House administration



THIS IS WHY YOU DID NOT WIN THE PULITZER PRIZE......YOU WOULD BE BETTER OFF WORKING FOR THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER
Posted by: ME | April 17, 2008 at 07:27 PM
You should be ashamed.
Posted by: susan | April 17, 2008 at 07:29 PM
amen Mike; let's hope he gives the figer for all of us. If he needs a few extra he can count on me...
Posted by: Jess | April 17, 2008 at 07:32 PM
This is blog post is of shockingly low quality. I chuckle when newspaper hacks whine about bloggers not being "professional" and then come up with garbage like this.
I have just as much evidence that you, Andrew Malcolm, were sniffing your finger as you dreamed up this mindless, ludicrous, vacuous, worthless drivel. Because it smells like something curious, that's for certain.
Posted by: Jake Mallik | April 17, 2008 at 07:33 PM
This type of "reporting" is emblematic of everything wrong with the mass media's role in "informing" our democracy. When will newsgathering operations see that the trivial horse-race style of covering politics results in leaders getting elected to who can perform in front of cameras but who lack ingenuity or wisdom. The mass media's ability to provide the context of our national debate is alarming, especially since we are all preoccupied with b.s. like reverand wright, "bitterness", and now "the finger" rather than the two million people who will lose their homes, the endless war in Iraq, and irreversible warming of our planet. The only finger i would like to give is to The Times
Posted by: Joshua Kagan | April 17, 2008 at 07:34 PM
Umm...You are playing the same political games Obama is trying to avoid.
Posted by: Travis | April 17, 2008 at 07:35 PM
No one should be basing their vote on what happened in the video, but Obama clearly gave the finger in a sly manner. It was actually pretty smooth. So smooth, in fact, that anyone who points out that he did it is being criticized for grasping at straws. Very well done.
Posted by: Nate | April 17, 2008 at 07:36 PM
This could be the most brainless and idiotic piece I've read in the Times during the entire primary season. Andrew Malcolm should think about retiring to Palm Springs. He's clearly gone batty. Isn't this just the sort of dumbness Obama was talking about in that speech? Grow up, Times. Your readers are not teenagers giggling and pointing.
What do I think, Mr. Malcolm? I think you're an idiot.
Posted by: Gary | April 17, 2008 at 07:38 PM
The only thing his single finger represents is your IQ....you're an idiot!
Posted by: independent voter 15 | April 17, 2008 at 07:40 PM
I smell media desperation. Yesterday it was his patriotism, today it is his finger? I mean, why don't we wait till he farts, and then we can lynch him! Geeze!
Posted by: catherine | April 17, 2008 at 07:40 PM
It took me a while, but i just go the joke..
you arent serious.
you do make a good point though about how crazed this has all gotten
to the other commenters; he;s just joking, right
Posted by: Steve | April 17, 2008 at 07:43 PM
This story represents just another Washington lightweight reporter. If you've ever dealt with news people like I have, they're just after the quick one liner. They want the headline, not the real story. Whether or not Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton can handle the presidency is not as important to these news gatherers as is a quick soundbite. Major issues of the day which require a complex mind to analyze are not half as sexy as flag pins, mild associations with acquaitances, and other irrelevant garbage. These are not the issues that define how a leader will perform. They are irrelevant small minded junk that fits the small mind of the reporters who ask them. last night's debate gave us 50 minutes of crap. Timethat could have been spent on Trade, china policy, global warming, and things that really matter. When issues werea addressed, no one bothered to question Hillary Clinton on her astounding pronouncements on the middle east and her beligerant attitude toward Iran. But these reporters were on top of the slips of the tongue that both candidates had made. Great reporting? I think not! Did I just give you the finger? I'm not telling.
Posted by: Jaybrams | April 17, 2008 at 07:43 PM
He thinks he is so sly, another nail in his coffin. How does he think he can get away with that?
Posted by: Chipo1965 | April 17, 2008 at 07:43 PM
Are we living in 20th century Russia?
Does Obama have to prove that he didn't beat his wife?
Whatever one's intepretation is, there are too many interpretation one can make about too many things. This is really crazy. Is this because of this man's race? I can't take it anymore. The press has gone crazy!
Posted by: Catherine Mc | April 17, 2008 at 07:46 PM
I am outraged. It is OBVIOUS he gave her an obscene gesture. He does it once, immediately after saying her name, the crowd reacts, and as they continue whooping it up, he can't help himself and smirks and laughs too.
What was the crowd responding to? What was he laughing about? It is very apparent and disgusting.
I'm sure the organized Obama supporters will be out in full force raging and denying this VERY OBVIOUS act.
Posted by: Lisa Marquise | April 17, 2008 at 07:46 PM
Andrew, can you see what I'm doing with my finger?
Posted by: Giovanni Pazzo | April 17, 2008 at 07:48 PM
What I see is Senator Obama Scratching his face with his middle finger, I believe he is smirking somewhat because he got his digs into senator Clinton And got a rise out of the audiences. What bothers me the most is that if you read body language WHEN A PERSON LIES blood races into there face, and the Liar will usually scratch or tug a part of there face. Obviously blood rushing into someones face is easier to detect on light skin.
So He most likely was lying, if not about Hillary Then at least about how he is hypcritically talking about politics in Washington Being dirty, then simultaneously doing the same mud slinging.
This man is a grade a Scumbag.
Posted by: Erica | April 17, 2008 at 07:48 PM
This is a joke, right? Please tell me that this is some sort of satire of the triviality of the ABC debate. If so, kudos to you. If not, please stop wasting what little credibility the LA Times has left with this complete nonsense you senile old fart.
Posted by: Sick and Tired | April 17, 2008 at 07:48 PM
Snobama is being revealed for his true colors, a sicko,and the proof is in the people that support him.
More fuel for the republicans to keep the White House, thanks, Snobama and you dummies that follow him like lemmings over a cliff.
Posted by: Anee | April 17, 2008 at 07:55 PM
Did your brain just fall out of your head? Did some teenagers take over your account and post this to your blog? This is a new low. You've dragged a great paper down into a pile of manure. (Manure of your own making, I might add.) Anyone that thinks Obama is giving anyone the finger in this video is off their rocker. And you, sir, are clearly off yours.
Posted by: Mindtrain | April 17, 2008 at 07:56 PM
The Obamabots just don't get it, no one uses their middle finger to scratch their cheek. Index finger? Yes. Using the middle finger is awkward and unnatural.
The Obamaites would find some excuse to try and justify Barack's actions if it turns out that Obama is just another crooked Chicago politician.
Posted by: jj12345 | April 17, 2008 at 07:57 PM
I have only one suggestion for this reporter: you need help.
Posted by: Ernie of New York | April 17, 2008 at 07:58 PM
More disturbing than thge perceived slight to Senator Clinton, is that Senator Obama shows all the tell tale signs of being a liar. Here are a few:
Pay special attention to their eyes. People tend to look towards their left (that's your right) when they are remembering something that actually happened; and look towards their right when they're making things up. Liars also blink more often.
Sweating. People sweat more when they are not telling the truth.
A person who lies may touch and scratch their face, especially the nose.
A liar will feel uncomfortable when answering your questions, and will often turn his/her head or body away.
If you change the subject of your conversation quickly, an honest person will try to return to the previous subject of conversation, while a liar will suddenly become more relaxed and will welcome the change.
I don't think he was flipping Hillary off while he was thrashing her, I think he was lying and he knew it.
Much more disturbing.
Posted by: Erica | April 17, 2008 at 08:00 PM
The reaction from the crowd and his smile indicate he really was giving her the finger!
Posted by: Lynn | April 17, 2008 at 08:03 PM
Mr. Malcolm, LA Times editors:
You must think posting to this blog is one big joke. The reporting here, particularly from you, Mr. Malcolm is often trivial and asinine no matter who or what you are reporting about.
I read the New York Times political blog and they are mostly getting it right. Then i come back to my local paper in LA, and this is what we get? The LA Times does not get it.
I come back because i believe this paper has something worthy to contribute and a healthy perspective along with other major papers in the US.
I do believe the staff are honestly trying to save the Times from becoming just another local paper, but posting this it obviously shows just how utterly clueless you are to how best to leverage the internet and the opportunity to show the talent the LA Times has.
If it wasn't clear before, it is hereby official, you are now part of the problem of why an informed national debate, such as can happen in a national election, is almost impossible to have. You are hurting America with this kind of trivialization. I dare you to post this. Shame on you!
Posted by: amigo2 | April 17, 2008 at 08:07 PM