Obama’s Naked Mama
Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, nude. With pictures. Is there nothing this woman didn’t get up to?
Ladies and gentleman of Girl on the Right:
25 Comments - Join in the conversation below »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Well, you have to be a pretty dumb broad to go concubining for a couple of muslim polygamists.
Comment by BillyHW — October 23, 2008 @ 12:32 am
I didn’t actually think that you could sink any lower than the “daughter fucking” post, but you just did.
An unattributed photo, unsourced, posted on a virulently anti left site? And you swallow that as real?
Or are you actually so vile that you understand what bullshit you’re posting, but you don’t care?
I withdraw any comment I ever made on my site, this site, or in our personal correspondence, about suspecting you have a residual streak of decency somewhere inside. Nope.
Comment by balbulican — October 23, 2008 @ 9:19 am
Well, I’m not quite so upset with you as Mr. Babulican is, but I do agree that the linked post was (hopefully) merlot-fueled (but certainly) a sophomoric navel-gazing tripe of a brand I would expect to find in a campus newsrag.
Except not many campus newsrags would allow something like that to be published. Unless it was Senator McCain’s mother or Governor Palin’s daughter or something.
This was pointless, and should just be allowed to die quietly, unpraised and unlamented.
Comment by John of Argghhh! — October 23, 2008 @ 11:41 am
Dangit. I like that passage up there. But I can’t use it, because linking to that post would just generate more undeserved traffic for that post.
Damn you womyn!
Comment by John of Argghhh! — October 23, 2008 @ 11:42 am
Oh my, Balb - you’re uptight today. The media rape of Palin’s daughter is all done in the spirit of getting the facts to the people, but any attack on the credentials of The One & Co is blasphemy? Pfft, as the goats say.
Seriously, you think any kid of mine could run for office and not have my joyful past brought out to a crowd of millions? I linked to it for that very reason - this is politics. It sucks, but that’s life. You were most correct when you said to me that blogging was becoming a bit much for you.
RG
Comment by RightGirl — October 23, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
[munches popcorn]
Comment by John of Argghhh! — October 23, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
I want popcorn.
Comment by Stacy — October 23, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
Here. [passes bowl]
Comment by John of Argghhh! — October 23, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
Thanks John!!
Comment by Stacy — October 23, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
It’s not microwaved, is it?
Comment by balbulican — October 23, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
Jezuz Balb, you’re such a snob!
RG
Comment by Right Girl — October 23, 2008 @ 7:41 pm
I am surprised. It does look like her. Didn’t Frank Davis sell porn stories to make extra cash? Maybe he sold these photos of young Anne Dunham to make extra money also back then? Davis said he and his white wife had a three way with a young teen named Anne. So it must have been Anne Dunham, Obama’s mom.
Comment by who knew — October 24, 2008 @ 3:58 am
Babulican - only the finest oil-popped fresh-from-the-popper movie-style popcorn touches these lips!
Unless Wendy popped some and put some hot sauce on it.
Comment by John of Argghhh! — October 24, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
Damn I hate when a prissy moralizer has a meltdown then thinks it trough and later passes the popcorn bowl with the evil one!
Comment by WL Mackenzie Redux — October 24, 2008 @ 7:59 pm
Snerk. Prissy moralizer. BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Heeheehee.
Mac, yer too funny.
But yes, it’s *still* tacky and pointless… DU-worthy even.
Comment by John of Argghhh! — October 24, 2008 @ 8:17 pm
“But yes, it’s *still* tacky and pointless… DU-worthy even.”
Cummon John, modern western culture is defined by “tacky and pointless”…just like the phony moralism amoral partisans and ideologues haul around as a handy weapon to condemn their opposition with.
It’s impossible to find someone these days worthy of throwing the first stone.
Comment by WL Mackenzie Redux — October 25, 2008 @ 9:58 am
Popcorn holds no bias or grudge. Popcorn is the great uniter. Popcorn is a solid foundation for salt, cheese, caramel, cinnamon and even caustic hot sauce. Popcorn, my friends, forces us to pick our teeth in unison.
Vote change, vote popcorn.
Comment by Stacy — October 25, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
So just to make sure I’ve got your key points correctly, before taking off the drysuit and heading for the decontamination bay:
- there is nothing in a campaign that is so vile you won’t excuse its use if you think it will further your candidate.
- that’s because it’s a tacky and pointless world, probably because of the goddamned progressives, and you’re entitled to be just as vile as them.
- to suggest that some tactic (let’s say, posting nude pictures, unsourced and unattributed, that purport to be of a candidates mother) is going too far represents “prissy moralizing”. (Johh, did you actually find that phrase amusing? Seemed a little rudimentary to me.)
- popcorn is the great leveler.
I understand and agree with .25 of those assertions - just want to make sure I’m doing justice to your moral position on the others.
Comment by balbulican — October 26, 2008 @ 7:52 am
This may surprise you (or not, as you’ve been around here a while) but I actually have no feeling whatsoever about the pictures or my posting of them. While I do believe I am perfectly entitled to be as tacky as I please (and boy, does it ever upset y’all when those tables get turned), I really have nothing invested in these pictures.
The closest thing I have to actual interest is: Obama - moral and spiritual leader of our time - was the product of a very UNpolitical home, much like Jack Kennedy. However, once again we are seeing that no matter how icky the sins of the parent, if you throw enough money and mob at the problem, the Democrats can overcome it.
Somehow that doesn’t apply to Republicans - maybe they just don’t know the right mobsters.
I do NOT agree that popcorn is the great unifier, because I’m selfish when it comes to my popcorn, so you can get your own. Stay away from mine or you’ll lose a finger.
RG
Comment by Right Girl — October 26, 2008 @ 11:16 am
“I actually have no feeling whatsoever about the pictures or my posting of them.”
I know. That’s part of what I find disturbing.
“I do believe I am perfectly entitled to be as tacky as I please.”
Of course you are. You’re free to do anything not forbidden by law, and even more if you’re willing to take the consequences. I’m not suggesting that you shouldn’t be allowed to post what you did. I’m suggesting that to do so was bit more than “tacky” - it approached vile. But it’s your blog - of course you can be vile, and I’ll defend your right to do it. But I can still deplore what you post.
“Does it ever upset y’all when those tables get turned”.
If I understand what you’re saying here, “y’all” means “that big amorphous collection of bad guys that I lump under some collective descriptor like ‘lefties’ or ‘moonbats’ or something”.
But you’re not talking to “the left” here. You’re talking to me, an individual who makes decisions about what to write and post, and applies my own criteria to those decisions. You seem to be suggesting that your decision to post unattributed, unverified pictures which some hostile blogger claims are nude shots of Obama’s mother is somehow “turning the tables” on me? Bullshit. Sorry, but here comes a bit more prissy moralizing: I haven’t, and won’t, every sink that low.
Comment by balbulican — October 26, 2008 @ 11:33 am
Actually Balb, here’s the deal.
RG doesn’t hold anything against BO’s mother for taking the pictures. Nor do I, or many of the other conservative women we know. We, uh, sometimes take pictures for our beloved as well.
That being said, here is the issue. What if these were pictures of Palin’s mother, or some other well known Republican’s mother? What do you think the media would do? Immediately pounce on it looking for blood. There is a double standard here. You have to be able to admit that at least.
I thought they were lovely pictures. Tasteful. And kudos to her for getting some shots taken before her body was affected by childbearing and aging.
The culprit in this situation is whoever released them. They were most likely looking for $$$.
Comment by Stacy — October 26, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
Coupla points, Stacy.
A virulently anti Obama site publishes a picture that it claims is a nude shot of Obama’s mom. No evidence, no attribution originally, and none to date. It’s played a couple of ways on the propaganda sites, one of the cleverer messages being - hey, we sophisticates have no problem, we just thought you should know…in essence, your response to me.
As we both know, that’s pretty much bullshit. Read RG’s initial post, the comments section of Right Pundits that she sources, and her own response to me. There’s a certain elegance to your adoption of the role of jaded sophisticates laughing at an amusing lapse, but without judgement. Unfortunately, you can’t play it that way, AND explain, as Wendy did, that it’s all permissible because The Bad Guys Woulda Done It.
Play to the peanut gallery if you want. But the intent of this posting, and those who started the nonsense, was damage. It’s hard for me to conceive of a person stupid enough to swallow it, but a scan of the Right Pundits comments showed me just how credulous - and worse - some of your folks are. Read them if you haven’t.
Sorry about the prissy moralizing.
Comment by balbulican — October 26, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
Heh. Actually there were plenty Conservatives upset with them for posting it. Personally, I would have preferred it to not be posted. Wendy is inciting discussion. A discussion which inevitably leads to the path we’re on right now. A path that once again, shows the blatant hypocrisy of the left and the media. Again, had this been a Republican, it would be everywhere. Like when those political scandals occur, they always crucify the Republican, and sweep the Dem under the rug. What has been done to the Palin family is pretty representative of this. Cindy McCain on the front page of the NYT and her past drug problem? BO’s admitted cocaine use; you know, the guy who is actually running for the POTUS? Nothing.
Comment by Stacy The Republican — October 26, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
“Wendy is inciting discussion.”
Stacy, please. Wendy is spreading a slur. Her goal wasn’t to “incite” discussion - it was to give legs to a crappy slab’o’sleaze.
“A path that once again, shows the blatant hypocrisy of the left and the media.”
There are two implications in that statement I’m afraid I’m not getting. As I keep repeating, we have a piece of old erotica, unsourced, unverified, unidentified, posted on a series of anti-Obama sites. The “media” story here that you think should be getting exposure is what, exactly? “Gullible Republicans Swallow Nude Photo Hoax Without Any Corroboration”?
As noted earlier, I am not “the left”. I’m a blogger, disgusted with another blogger, and that’s the level I’m talking. I realize that this kind of discussion is more often conducted at the Grand, Bullshit Generalities level, but just this once, it might be worth examining what really happens: an individual (not a party, or an entire end of the political spectrum) makes a decision to post something.
One more point that the defenders of this post have been skating around. It seems to be complete bullshit. I agree, reluctantly, that a person’s past is going to get raked up. Obama’s cocaine use and Palin’s troopergate are fair ball. What’s reprehensible is the deliberate manufacture and promulgation of a lie - not by the innocent fools like Sentinel, but by folks smart enough to recognize a lie and spread it anyway.
Anyway, I appreciate your civility.
Comment by balbulican — October 26, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
“An unattributed photo, unsourced, posted on a virulently anti left site? And you swallow that as real?”
Good points, but if you blow up the photographs and compare them to other known early pictures of Stanley Ann Dunham, their features appear identical. It’s either the same woman or her twin. They have the same eyebrows, noses, lips, smiles, cheeks and chins, and the woman is the right age. Also, for these photographs to have been faked in Photoshop or a similar program, as some jackass claimed on another blog, the faker would have needed three candid photos of Obama’s mom or a woman who looked just like her (yes, there are three nude photos of her). That’s highly unlikely. The photos don’t appear to be doctored in any way.
Comment by Scott Vines — January 27, 2009 @ 3:59 am