Come on, funny as this is it doesn’t really bear debate.

After watching the video it was certainly innocent enough, but still, that photo is hilarious.

It is entirely possible that he was not gazing with a lustful eye at this 16 year old girl but that something else attracted his attention.

While not normally a defender of the president — I’d like to stake out the claim that there is a category of “just looking” which does not involve “gazing with a lustful eye”.

But yes, Donald’s link suggests the picture is just an amusing coincidence. Almost too bad. I thought it gave him an amusingly human touch.

I almost wish it were for real and that it wasn’t a 16 year old girl. Could you imagine the bragging rights of the chick who could say, “yeah, my [please keep the comments Christian] caused an international incident!”

I think, Rick, this may be an area in which a variant of the “those who have money don’t talk about it” principle applies.

what is Miley Cyrus doing at the G8?

Damn! Too bad this post wasn’t one where you can insert your own captions for the featured picture; there are just too many tempting ones to put up (albeit, many of which would admittedly be tendentiously liberal as they would lascivious).

Hey, guys…

I KNOW for a fact that it could happen to anyone because it happened to ME. Damned group photo on prom night, damned photographer had all of the girls kneeling in front of all the guys, damned camera went off, seriously, as my eyes were randomly and instantaneously cast downward so that it looks like… well, you get the idea.

What a bloody mess. I really sympathize with the President on this one.

Have you guys seen the video showing that Sarkozy is actually doing what people thought Obama was doing?

http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=VIDEO-No-Obama-wasn-t-checking-it-out..html&Itemid=127

I think this post, and the comments, tells more about the people viewing the picture, than it does with what Obama actually did (save for Joe who has pointed out what he did wasn’t what people were interpreting the picture as being).

Oh Bah Humbug Henry

I think it shows that (what it appears to be a mostly male comment section currently) that is often lets say critical of Obama wants to have a little bonding with him. It is human which is nice to see

It is sort of like the amusing Bush Vollyball picture.

What’s interesting to note is Henry himself had claimed to be an adept on the subject of Sir Thomas More; too bad he is not so much an expert that he seems wholly ignorant of the saint’s own candid admission about being, every once in awhile, given to such tempting speculations concerning the seductive wiles of the female flesh (which is principally why he did not pursue a ecclesial but instead a secular vocation).

Darwin Catholic,

One need only read More’s intriguing work, Dialogue of Comfort; in fact, you might even decipher just which allegorical character that seems quite in sync with the kind of rather seemingly scrupulous (yet, at heart, devious) persona H. Karlson himself seems wont to assume in his above comments.

Yet, with all due respect to you and my betters; I’ll bow out from remarking any further.

This post is yet again indicative of the Calvinist mindset of you Americans. What would be dismissed as quite natural and merely typical gazing by more enlightened Europeans is scrutinized by the Americanist puritans on this blog for purely partisan purposes.

When former French President François Mitterrand died, his wife and mistress appeared side-by-side at his funeral. That’s how it’s done in predominantly Catholic France. If only you protestant-inspired Americanist Catholics could be as open-minded as European Catholics. But I suppose you’d argue that having mistresses and claiming to be an atheist would make Mitterrand a “bad” Catholic, despite the fact that he was born into a devoutly Catholic family (unlike many of the late-arriving evangelical converts who comment here) and despite the fact that his mother was a remote niece of Pope John XXIII.

But what I find most offensive about this post is the not-so-subtle racist portrayal of the President as the stereotypical over-sexualized black male. Notwithstanding the President’s clearly Adonis-like persona, the racism inherent in this obvious attempt at sexualizing your country’s first black President is nothing new to the neo-con Republican dirty tricksters who brought down Harold Ford, Jr. with similar sleazy tactics.*

* And, since I am the master of tu quoque, and in an attempt to preempt others who might use that technique to refute my argument, please don’t even bring up the subject of Clarence Thomas’ disgusting performance and feigned indignation over his alleged “high-tech lynching”. Since he’s more white than black because of the conservative way he votes (and not to mention a dissident Catholic because of his positivist jurisprudence), any effort to denounce the alleged portrayal of him as an oversexualized black male will only fall on deaf ears.

/parody

This is why I wear dark glasses and carry a blind man’s cane whenever I’m in a public place where I might be photographed. You got to learn from the masters.

Oh Jay that is classic

“you probably tell lewd jokes at your fascist knights of columbus beer bashes, don’t you?”

Inbetween goosesteps, yes.

I think this post, and the comments, tells more about the people viewing the picture, than it does with what Obama actually

It says that the commenters here are human beings with a sense of humor.

You guys are disclosing sworn 4th degree secrets. Hush, hush!

As a catholic, i expect you to update your post with the video that changes your first assumption. If not, you are guilty of smear. What would have christ done ?