It really does look like he was wiping his hand on Clinton’s shirt. Who can know for sure, though. Maybe he was just being affectionate.

Hey Krak?

Grow up. This kind of tripe is beneath your usual high standards. I can’t tell you how disappointing this is. You are usually the first person I go to for the facts. This reads like TMZ.

Another qualifier for a pulitzer for mediaite. Stay classy and keep digging!! Woodward & Bernstein would be proud!

So puter and tim – you’re saying he didn’t wipe his hand on Clinton’s shirt right? Just want to make sure I’m clear on your argument.

Krak?

No….it’s clear he did…but for you to infer something nefarious is very “high school”. You know exactly what you were doing. Why else drag out a quote by his mother…..why use the word icky? The fact is that you have no clue why he did it, so instead of going all “star magazine” on us why not ask him or his spokespeople when they are available? It really doesn’t matter now though….this silliness will overwhelm anything they say. Sadly, that is what your industry is becoming. It’s not who gets it correct anymore. It’s who is the loudest…or the most provocative.

Ah this is the George Bush I knew and loved (not). He never wanted to get his “hands” dirty Notice how people on here will go to any length not to talk about the Bushies. How dare you Steve to bring this unclassy stuff up! After seeing this I now understand why he did a “fly over” after Katrina.

Steve,

Given your decision to broach something Bush’s mother said five years ago will only lead readers to believe you have an agenda. And somehow bringing O’Reilly into it pushes the level of the content down to Olbermann-like levels.

To answer your question, Bush actaully wipes his hand twice. Once, when he first gets out of the car/truck he was transported in (first three seconds of the video) on himself before he shakes anyone’s hands. He then does it again with Clinton. The tape jump-cuts from there, so we don’t know Clinton’s reaction nor if Bush stopped shaking anyone’s hand, which he didn’t.

Perhaps there was something originally on it that he just wanted off (likely a little sweat given the heat). But to imply that he’s so far above the Haitian people he’s there to help that he can’t stand to have any of their “icky” stuff on his own hands is both immature and without basis.

I voted for Kerry in 2004, so don’t bother trying to call me a Bush apologist. But one thing you can’t say about him is that he’s pretentious or an elitist when it comes to his relationship with all kinds of people in terms of color or economic status.

The story here is that two former Presidents from different parties got together to help many people in need that most of us have already put in the rearview window. For you to use the opportunity to get in a cheap shot at a former President, popular or not, will be frowned upon by objective minds on here who come to read news about the news, and not to jump into the political cesspool we see all-too-often on the web.

B.S. on your part, Objective. Once you brought in the “I voted for Kerry” statement, you lost me. The story here is that Bush wiped his hand on Clinton’s shirt after shaking hands with some Haitians. Do you go around wiping your hands on other people’s shirts? If you do, I highly doubt you voted for Kerry in 2004.

And for you to imply that that he did it because he had “sweat” on his hands…. how presidential! Class act.

And to top it off Krak tossed in a throw-away line about O’Reilly who — AS WE’VE SEEN MANY TIMES BEFORE ON THIS SITE — has body language experts on his show from time to time. That was not a partisan attack.

Steve is right. No matter how badly you all would like to defend Bush, “the visual looks bad.”

lolpresident

I suspect it was pretty hot down there in Haiti, maybe his hand was sweating and he wanted to avoid shaking someone’s hand with a sweaty palm. If he had wiped his hands on his pants or something the people there might have thought he was being impolite, so he discreetly wiped his hand on Clinton. Those of you who say this is a silly issue are totally correct. Bush was down there, and I admire him for that. He did not have to do that. He should be praised. IMHO.

Steve,
I’m hoping you can help me understand what stories Mediaite decides to run with.

For instance, you think this and Barbra Walters fiirting with a teenager is newsworthy, but now these stories that I’ve sent to you guys:

After 14 months in office 79% of voting Americans believe the economy could collapse.

From Investor Business Daily:
20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

Rasmussen: 49% want states to sue to stop ObamaCare

MSNBC Relays ‘Independent’ E-Mailer Favoring ObamaCare — And Online, He Loves Both Obama and MSNBC

The Real Cost of Healthcare:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html

Public supported National Public Radio (NPR) posted a report on March 17 during its “All Things Considered” radio show that warns its listeners that “patriot groups” are dangerous and are apparently increasingly prone to attacking government officials and facilities. Oddly the two examples it uses to prove its case have no ties whatsoever to any “patriot groups.”

Headlined, “Hostility Against Federal Workers Troubles Officials,” NPR blames “patriot groups” on these attacks and worries that “anti-government hate groups” are on the “upsurge.” And what does NPR use to prove its case? Nothing but the say so the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center and a misconstruction of two recent attacks on government facilities by disturbed individuals.
NPR ominously begins its report with this:

Three attacks on U.S. government employees this year, along with an upsurge in anti-government hate groups, have officials in Washington concerned about the safety of federal workers.

For more, visit link: http://bigjournalism.com/wthuston/2010/03/18/is-patriotism-dangerous-publicly-funded-npr-wants-you-to-think-so/

I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. I look forward to your insights.

PS, I noticed the piece about Maddow being scares of righies, how about a piece on the lefts violence against Ann Coulter. Or perhaps that’s not news either.

Clearly the Bush family is a bunch of racists.

Could have been worse. He could have used his shirt to wipe something else.

Well that negative reaction to Coulter was in Canada, and not all the people who objected to her were “lefties”.

But don’t you think a story is warranted, Valkyrie? There may be some on the right that don’t like her, but there is a clear history of violence against her from the left, such as things being thrown at her while onstage.

btw, I appreciated your first comment. It’s nice that you can make a non-partisan commentary on the situation.

Steve, got another great story for you:

http://www.breitbart.tv/shocking-audio-rep-dingell-says-obamacare-will-eventually-control-the-people

The left’s violence has always been out there. (Like those Black Panthers standing in front of that polling place holding clubs.) But with the exception of Fox News, you’re not going to hear about it. Too politically incorrect and embarrassing.

HUH? Gets right here in Texas–hands get sweaty and need a wipe every once in a while. I watched twice and I guess it’s my computer but there is a slight jump and it doesn’t look to me like he even makes contact with Ol’ Bill. Both of them have been down there several times–why would would he just NOW decide he doesn’t like “cooties”. People with BDS–get over it. O got elected. Move on.

As Adrian Monk used to say: “Wipes!!”

I am with Bush on this one , If someone had a booger on there hand and shook mine the first thing I would look for is a democrat to wipe it off on. lol

Well this video certainly confirms it: Kanye was correct!

I seem to remember this very site lecturing us that when it came to Hatian relief it should not be politicised and anyone stooping to this level should be condemned.

If you’re going to bash Bush, then get Clinton too. He wiped his hand on his own shirt right after.

Some comedians have proved why Bush REALLY wiped his hand on Clinton’s shirt at
http://www.fairshakeofthesaucebottlemate.com

I couldn’t help but notice throughout your presentation of this piece, that you consistently referred to Bill Clinton as “President Clinton,” and to President Bush as simply “George Bush.” May I remind you that President Bush served in the White House just as long (and more recently) than did Bill Clinton and deserves at least the same respect when being referred to by name…

In late 2000 a producer friend of mine from the Letterman show called me in DC to tell to make sure to watch that nights program because they were gonna show a clip from tghe commercial break from the night before when dubya was a guest. The clip was of Bush wiping or cleaning his glasses by reaching out and grabbing the sweater of the Late Shows exec producer. He didnt say a word or acknowledge her in any way. It was mind boggling to watch and try to understand. I later told Harry Shearer (who collects clips from news shows commercial breaks and lead ins – because these moments reveal so much, remember the clip of John edwards and his hair prep?) about this and tried to figure out what the hell that was all about and came up with the only answer possible – that Bush looks upon himself as being so superior – a born Prince to a Kingly Father – that he sees everybody else….as merely “staff”.

Clinton is obviously included in this disdainful view of his fellow man.

What did you EXPECT?

While it is very likely that he is wiping his hand on Clinton’s shirt; why does everybody focus on that? What about the fact that Bush is down in Haiti? Which I can safely say the majority of you would not go down to Haiti. I am not pro Bush but why does everybody focus on the negative aspect?

Here’s another take on this at lifeasahuman.com
Personally, it was a wipe.
http://bit.ly/9bA8FM

A second to the Letterman incident brought up by “ex politicalmedia hack”; Bush also showed characteristically bad judgement in doing this not to any flunky, whose mistreatment Letterman might ignore (though I think not: I think he’s a fundamentally decent womaniser), but rather to Barbara Gaines, the show’s producer at the time.

Personally, I think ‘staff’ is the best he thinks of us; ‘Kleenex’ would be more like it…but given that he believes that all men deserve to be tortured for eternity, and that he won’t be because he’s met the right Person, why should we expect that he would have any respect for us, the chaff of no worth and destined for the Flames.