It's his crutch, and he can't travel anywhere without it. Which is part of the reason his minions are in a panic about a debate with Rush. Especially if that debate were to happen on radio. If you recall in the aftermath of the debates that Obama participated in, much of the commentary about him dealt with the optics, how "poised" he appeared, how "calm," how "unflappable." Less commented upon were the substance of his remarks, which revealed significant gaps in his knowledge. Were he to debate Rush in a setting without a friendly moderator, and without the optics to serve as a distraction for the audience, were he not able to indulge in his little pacing mechanisms, {such as hand gestures and head tilting}, were the listening audience only able to focus on what Obama was actually saying, what he was actually intending, ---------------------------------- if that were the case Rush would blow the good ship Obama right out of the water. Which is why Obama's minions insist that any debate occur on a stage, {which would allow visual comparisons between the two men, the President lean, Rush overweight}.

That interview he gave with al Arabiya was so bad it was mortifying. He displayed such a woeful grasp of the present situation, he revealed so dramatic an ignorance about our history with those in the Mideast, that his performance was an absolute stunner.

And now we have his classless exchange of gifts with the Prime Minister of The United Kingdom. Just compare the thoughtful gifts presented by Her Majesty's first minister to the first black President of The United States, to those presented by the Obamas. It's absolutely embarrassing. It's almost as if he's DELIBERATELY snubbing the oldest and most importantant relationship we've had, which also happens to be the most meaningful relationship between two peoples and states in human history.

But he's the Ivy Leaguer, he's the "classy one," he's supposedly the "elegant one." I can't believe Secretary of State Clinton knew anything about what the Obama were intending to present. She must have been out of the loop on that one. It has to be one of the most utterly classless things I've ever heard of.

Does he rely on the teleprompter when he works the room at his various summits (like the health care one today, where he responded at length to unscripted comments elicited from a wide variety of folks, including Republicans)?

Had George W. Bush relied so much on the teleprompter, it would have been BIG news, and it would have been taken universally by mainstream-media types as indicative of low intelligence and lack of integrity. And they would not have hesitated to say so.

I remember when Clinton's TelePrompter failed during the State of the Union. Say what you want about the man, but he didn't miss a step and continued the speech perfectly.

At the time, the media fawned over how this demonstrated Clinton's towering intellect and preparation. And yet now, when Obama seemingly can't say a word without, we hear almost nothing.

I'm starting to think there just aren't any consistent standards in the media!

An unscripted exchange between our two Presidential choices: here.



Given this choice . . . Look - here's a President very conscious of how stupid Bush looked and sounded when he spoke. If people are so vicious in their attacks of political "gaffes", I'm not really sure how to blame anyone other than the American viewers.



If someone comes up to me and asks me to explain to them a comparative historical analysis of the evolution of catrographic methodology throughout Western Europe (a topic I know a lot about), I'd spit out something quasi-understandable, but mostly probably incoherent. It takes a great deal of preparation to adequately argue a particular position (which is why so many academicians stick to their script at conferences). Sure - some people are great at off-the-cuff remarks. But when he is constantly bombarded with tough questions, I don't know that we can brush off Obama's stumbling as some sort of defect or some reflection of his inability to answer them. None of you know brilliant academicians who are terrible during their conference Q&A sessions or when they are asked to provide some sort of unscripted narrative?

Matt, I fault him not for "gaffes," which are like sin, and which besets us all. No. What I'm referring to are gaps of knowledge, gaps of logic, and in regard to the exchange of gifts with Her Majesty's first minister, a gap of class, a lack of decorum, a want for ordinary human decency and civility. His behavior during this visit with the Prime Minister of The United Kingdom has been nothing less than appalling. So much so that it has given birth to scandal. All of the talk shows in Britain have mentioned little else. For they've discerned within his classlessness, a deliberate snub, a purposed rebuke. They don't understand it. They were so eager to express their regard for this man, and yet all they encountered was a blase disregard, a discernable coldness, a barely concealed aversion.

A Catholic knows that one should never be rude, ----------------------------------------------- except intentionally. I have no idea what passes at Columbia, but I do know that it wouldn't have passed muster at Villanova. That's for damn sure.

His behavior has been inexplicable, and cannot be rationalized away. He has demonstrated greater solicitude towards enemies of the West, towards those that are our unfriends. Only a man utterly ignorant of the great events that have transpired between our two peoples could have ever, EVER considered so calculated an affront.

I'll worry about Obama and his speaking when gold or silver starts coming out of his mouth, mabye the new wpa will pay people to listen to politicans all day. The guy is doing enough evil to keep this site going till hell freezes over. Why not discuss what really matters, the guys statist actions.

Did you really just express a fear of slighting the british. Mandrake, in the name of the continental congress get that belt up here, the red coats are coming. God save the black survailance camerea...i mean the Queen.

What did the Obamas give the queeen?

Not a "fear of," that's a mischaracterization.

Carl, as for the Queen, he's not presented her with anything, as yet. For he's not met her. The gifts exchanged were the typical courtiesies that obtain between rulers. The practice goes back to antiquity, and even the pagans of yore would have found the behavior of Obama utterly inexplicable.

The Prime Minister is blind in one eye, and has significant visual degradation in the one remaining. Yet the Obamas gave him as their only gift a set of DVDs, which aren't even high-def, and to compound insult to injury, aren't capable of viewing in England! And this is after his clod-like, ungracious return of a bust that was presented by Her Majesty's government to the American people. The bust wasn't a gift to President Bush, or to the Bush administration, but was presented to the American people.

Jules Crittendon got the options right, when she noted that his behavior smacks of either "wickedness, childishness or dim-wittedness." Take your pick.

Any American who knows a thing or two about the history of American arms would have to be appalled, absolutely appalled at Obama's deliberate insult.

Dan is horrified that someone didn't curtsey. Big deal. This website lambasted the French people as surrender-monkeys for years with glee. Your outrage about gifts couldn't be more misplaced.

Nonsense Ren. Caricature doesn't erase the sad fact that the Obama administration, which was supposedly to end the era of oafish and clumsy diplomacy, either went out of their way to be deliberately insulting, or were too damn dim-witted to know any better.

And as for the French, ---------- don't insult the British by mentioning them in the same breath as the French!

God forbid the president of the United States has more important things to worry about than what present he gets for the British Prime Minister.

Oh yea, he's just a whirlwind of activity, and the reason he acted like a clod was just that he was so damn busy. Busy keeping the markets up, busy pursuing our enemies in the war on jihadism, busy laying out his agenda, busy staffing his administration. But that's not what he's been up to. Rather he's been busy watching basketball games, busy with his Wednesday night soirees at The White House, busy meeting with George Clooney, busy posing for this magazine cover and that magazine lay out.

Oh yea, how would he EVER find the time to give a thought to the most important relationship between two countries in human history.

Of course that's assuming our busy President is the guy doing the gift procuring. Perhaps it's comforting for you imagining Obama not having the time to swing by Tiffany's or some such tony store. But here's a little heads-up for you, COMPETENT administrations have staffers handle this kind of thing, and in COMPETENT administrations, the principles don't give this more than 2 minutes time, because they either approve of what the staffer suggested they procure, or tell him to go back and hit the drawing boards.

Stop trying to get around it. There are NO rationalizations available for what he and his wife did. NO excuse cuts it. And the one leaked in the media and trotted out by his die-hard groupies is even more damning than the original classlessness.

"The gifts exchanged were the typical courtiesies that obtain between rulers."

I was not aware that the United States of America had rulers. I may be arguing semantics here, but I think it is rather important. Why should this nation embrace the past culture of ruler gift giving when we rebeled against that sort of thing. Mabye it is just my scottish blood, but to hell with the limies and their tyranical police state and Rothschild backed royal despots. If being their ally means our cities end up like London with over a million survailance camera's then good riddence. Question, if the global carbon tax goes to the British Rothschild controlled central banks then are not right back where we started only a little dumber and fatter for the trouble?

No, it's semantics. Did I suggest emulating their culture of suveilance?

And you misconstrue our Revolution if you take it as a rebellion against the claims of ordinary civility. Washington and the founders weren't trying to overthrow a decent, seemly decorum.

It's usually the Left that's keen to "break on through to the other side." It's usually the Left that will dispense with the pleasantries, the claims of humanity and decency.