Replies

In FACT- he alluded to the Constitution twice in the interview. I turned on ABC Nightline last night to hear the full interview- unfortunately I drifted off a bit but heard him discuss constitutional requirments TWICE in the interview. I guess it’s time to go over to ABC and dig up the transcript- it must be online by now.

Something’s up.

Here it is, from the same interview in Mexico City: "The constitution sets qualifications for the president. Then the people decide who they think would be the better president. I think we have 2 choices. I think he should win and I think he will win."

Again with the constitution. The second half of his statement would seem to negate any suspect negative allusions proferred by the first part. But the video tells a different story, to me anyway. He comes out with this very emphatic constitutional reference, using the self-satisfied tone of one who knows he's nailed it... then seems to catch himself, glances down and to the side to pick up another thought to cover the too-revealing comment.

Obviously, this is not an exact science, (and I detest those charlatan body-language experts that conjure meaning out of hay fever or tight underwear, like on O'Reilly's show), but we're now watching him with the advantage of more than 12 years of accumulated pattern. Reading him now is a much easier proposition.

Here's the video: http://www.necn.com/Boston/Politics/Former-Pres-Clinton-speaks-about-Obama/1217931831.html

Insight in to Doctor Krawetz, Computer Security Specialist's mind, and how he get's rebuked.

From http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/210-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis.html#comments

#19.1.1.1 Dr. Neal Krawetz (Homepage) on 2008-08-06 08:10 (Reply)
Hi Don Winkie,
Two responses come to mind.
1. My analysis is not questioning the authentication of the COLB. My analysis is answering the question "has it been modified". (There is a difference between "real" and "authentic".) To this regard, there is no evidence of modification. Moreover, I believe I have debunked a fictional analysis that claims to have shown modification.
2. As far as the political aspect goes, yes and no... Yes: someone must and will (and probably has) validated his eligibility. No: that someone does not need to be you. While we should trust that someone in our government will do the right thing, there are levels upon levels of oversight committees designed to make sure they do the right thing. If you wish to be on the list of presidential eligibility reviewers, then I suggest joining one of the appropriate oversight committees.
[omitted]
[Moderator: Sorry Neal. Please take the political debate to some other forum. The focus here is on image analysis. -Loris Kim]

Presidential candidates are vetted by "appropriate oversight committees". The [omitted] portion we can only guess at, but it would be likely to have involved calling his imagined opponents names and slurs such as "rascist".