Do you think Barack Obama will ever be linked to a sex scandal someday?

What you haven’t seen his sex tape yet LOL!

I’m sure a good number of presidents, if not most, have had mistresses. Hell, FDR’s lived in the White House. That said, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if Obama does have an affair.

I also wouldn’t give a rat’s ass. Just because the guy is president doesn’t mean I need to know or care about what he decides to put his dick into.

Have you seen Michelle’s “guns”?!

She would kick his…

It would be a bad idea on his part because he represents mainly all minorities in a big way. If he does then the next president would be female.

@cprevite, his? Or the woman’s?

I very much doubt it. I would be surprised & disappointed if he did. Besides, why would he want to sleep with someone else when he has the beautiful Michelle by his side? Now Clinton? I can see why he strayed!!!

He has been. Google “Larry Sinclair”.

@Mr_M—She would kick HIS. I think that’s how she rolls.

Also, to answer the question: I think an Obama sex scandal would be one of the very few political scandals that could actually surprise me anymore. Seriously, I go all girly and shit when I see those two look at each other. They’re so damn cute.

I doubt it. I think that we, the public, are attached to the Obamas as a couple in a way that we haven’t been interested in other presidents in recent memory. A lot has been said about their partnership and marriage. It seems like they’ve got a really great, solid one, but even if they don’t, I think President Obama is smarter than to throw away all his goodwill for something ridiculous, ie, sex.

Remember John F. Kennedy and Camelot?

Ever is a long time, but I would think that he is going to be pretty busy for the next few years.

@Mr_M: No. I’m too young.

No, really, I can read about it, but since I didn’t live it I really can’t imagine what it felt like—that was one of the first things I learned about JFK.

i think he’s probably, secretly a big butt freak, like LL.

I doubt it, too. He and Michelle seem to have a wonderful relationship, and I think he’s very devoted to his daughters, who would also be hurt by an affair. Besides, right now, I think he’s too focused on the mountains of problems facing this country and the world.

Is it beyond the realm of possibility? Heck, no, he’s a human being. Would I be disappointed in him? Yes, but it wouldn’t detract a bit from my support for him as President.

@tabbycat simple and eloquent, much lurve.

He’s human, so I imagine it’s possible. But I also see him as a man with a lot of character – much moreso than I ever imagined in Kennedy or Clinton. But I could be wrong, it’s happened four times before.

I think his odds of staying loyal are pretty good though – Michelle seems like the kind of woman who could keep him plenty occupied and thinking only of her. sizzle sizzle sizzle

@Mr_M – Funny how you wondered if Michelle would kick the woman’s patootey up and down the street. I rarely ever blame “the other woman”. It’s the husband’s butt that needs some serious boot prints if he strays from his own marriage vows. No need to set us women up to hate eachother. Men! Humph! ;)

Personally, I think he WILL. We may not find out about it until after his presidency, but I think he WILL be linked to a sex scandal someday (a believable one).

Even if he did I wouldn’t lose resect for him, and I would bang his wife

honestly though, his marriage and his personal life has absolutely nothing to do with his presidency and it’s really no one’s business but his and his family’s. For all I’m interested he could move into the playboy mansion, as long as he get’s the job done and helps fix our country, his personal life is just that, personal.

Not every man cheats on his wife no matter how much charm he has. There are still a lot of one woman men out there.

No, I don’t…not a credible one anyway…though I’m sure someone will try to link him to one, actual evidence be damned.

I think Barack Obama will eventually be linked to a sex scandal involving arctic foxes.

I say this with exactly as much evidence as other people in this thread have speculated on his future infidelity.

I think he knows he would disappoint an enormous number of people if he were to engage in such behavior, and he’d taint his place in history. Such thoughts can’t be far away in his mind.

Plus, not for nothing, I also think that he loves his wife and daughters very much. While I’m sure the idea of getting his swerve on might be tempting, especially with the high-caliber women who probably throw themselves at him on a daily basis, his love for his family would lead him back, to paraphrase an awful 80s pop song.

Highly unlikely. Have you read his book ‘The Audacity of Hope?’ Barack Obama is not Bill Clinton.

With photoshop you can create any sex scandal you want!

A new biography of the first prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago, Eric Eustace Williams, has just been published. From the reports so far, it confirms something that I have long suspected: successful prime ministers and politicians generally, are not nice people. So if Mr. Obama is manipulative, devious and vindictive, that will not surprise me. If he is also magnanimous, brilliant, broad-minded, and far-seeing, that will be no more than one would expect. From the little I have seen and heard, he has a good relationship with his wife and daughters, and I doubt he would allow any extramarital affairs to affect that.

We can only hope so.

During the Lewinsky scandal, what astonished us in the Caribbean was the importance that Americans (judging from the Press) attached to the affair. How did infidelity affect his performance as President? Not at all, as far as we could see. It was not as if she were an enemy agent and he used to give her state secrets in exchange for sex (compare the Profumo Affair). The naivete of many Americans was quite astonishing. To repeat: politicians, especially successful ones, are not nice. They may be worthy of respect (think of John McCain), they may even be admirable (think of John Kennedy); but never, never forget what are the characteristics of successful leaders: a capacity for hard work; the ability to process enormous quantities of information, both written and spoken; a gift for interacting with different people at most times and in most places; and above all, a talent for sustained vindictiveness. This last quality is just a way of saying that they never forget an injury or slight (one of the techniques of survival).

Ask and you shall receive:

Obama linked to Sex Scandal

@fireside Anything to sell newspapers. Not that the story is untrue: it’s just silly. And besides, the News of the World? Puhleeze!

@bea2345 – oh, i thought that was a legitimate news source :P

@fireside , it is somewhat like the National Enquirer.

Even if it were true, the scandal is not about President Obama.

OK, my 2 cents. The question was if he would ever be linked to a sex scandal, this story qualifies, he was linked to a scandal, though it doesn’t involve him personally. Second, re the legitimacy of the news source, doesn’t matter, because the story, in almost the same form, was picked up by Reuters, UPI and other respectable news agencies…even Huffington Post which is probably Obama’s greatest journalistic ally carried the story. I believe it’s probably true.

However, there were two main differences between the tabloid version and the official press version as I saw it. One is that the legitimate press included something the tabloid conveniently left out, that Obama hadn’t spoken to his 1/2 brother in over 20 years. Then there was one rather sensationalistic aspect to the tabloid story that didn’t make the cut in the legitimate press, it states the stewardess asked Samson what Barack was like as a teenager, to which he gave a predictable response. I’m not sure if that part happened, first and foremost because if I remember right from his first book, Obama didn’t meet that branch of the family until into his 20s. The other thing the tabloid did was it played up the sensationalistic aspects of the charges…it went into greater details about the assault and included the seemingly “important” info that one of the girls who was in the group of girls he allegedly assaulted was 13. Now it doesn’t say the age of the girl he allegedly assaulted, and even the regular press doesn’t seem to acknowledge that there has been no trial much less a conviction, nor do we even know the nature of the assault (by the various degrees in this country, which isn’t even what we’re talking about, sexual assault could be anything from rape to telling an off color joke in mixed company…actually knew someone who was arrested for this). So what exactly was he accused of doing? We don’t even know, not even from the legitimate news sources.

So, I think this points out that if the press is going to jump all over a story about the half brother of a President, whom the President has I believe met only once or twice, was accused in a different country of trying to do something which may or may not constitute the American definition of sexual assault, which may or may not have involved someone who would meet the American definition of a minor, then yes, this is probably only the first of MANY sex scandals Obama will be “linked” to. But I don’t suspect he’ll cheat on Michelle if that’s what you really want to know, I just don’t see seeds of that in his personality.

Did you even READ the DETAILS of my question?

It seems like his answer covered the details, as well as addressing the question as stated:

“But I don’t suspect he’ll cheat on Michelle if that’s what you really want to know, I just don’t see seeds of that in his personality.”

And you think your response surprises me because…..?

@Mr_M – I read your question and responded to it simply originally with “no, I don’t.” My latest quip was more in regards to the tabloid story an its relevance. No need to get pissy.

I think I understand. The part of your answer where you’re clearly wrong, well, that wasn’t the focus of your response after all. The focus was on the part that was right. I LIKE that!

You make some incredibly odd assumptions and assertions. Why think that I was trying to surprise you with my post?

Don’t ask questions if you can’t respect the responses of other people.
Both dale and I disagreed with your presumption that he would have an affair because he is popular, then we went on to discuss a sex scandal he was linked to.

You’re acting like the kid in the playground who takes his ball and goes home when people don’t play by his rules.

I get so confused when people I like don’t play nice.

My friend, I’m still here. And, while we’re on the subject, you’re acting like the kid in the playground who dreams about being a bully except that he doesn’t intimidate anyone – they just laugh.

stop it!

lol, ok man. sorry if you think i’m trying to be a bully. have fun playing with your ball.

Being the President affords any man the opportunity for a lot of side action, that is a fact.

Most men (and women), given the opportunity to do so with little risk of getting caught could theoretically find themselves in a position where they would cheat, scientists agree there is no such thing as monogamy in the animal kingdom ANYWHERE…even animals who supposedly “mate for life” get a little side action.

There are some people who simply would not do it, they are the minority, but they do exist.

Having said all that, just because a person has the opportunity (which Obama will) doesn’t mean he will act on it, it has to be the RIGHT opportunity. For that minority I mentioned in my last sentence, there simply IS no RIGHT opportunity.

I believe that the majority of people do not cheat, though a lot do, some who would cheat given any opportunity never get that opportunity, some who would cheat for the right opportunity get opportunities but never the right ones, and the ones for whom there is no opportunity….none of these people cheat, ever, and I think those three groups of people combined are the majority of people (maybe not a vast overwhelming majority, but it is the majority).

I have never met Obama, I do not have any way of knowing exactly what the makeup of his personality is, but I can say, he’s clearly happy in his marriage and is not looking to cheat…so I don’t believe having the opportunity is going to be enough in and of itself to make him cheat. As for whether he’s in the small category of people who simply wouldn’t do it, or the larger category of people who in general wouldn’t, but would if the RIGHT opportunity came along (and I think there are probably more people in this category than any other, certainly more than would like to admit), I wouldn’t care to speculate, but I’d say that based on what I’ve observed, it seems to me he’s more likely than not to be in one of those two categories. And I believe the more satisfied a person seems to be with his lot in life (his family, his career, his spouse), which he has a lot of reason to be happy in these areas, the fewer “RIGHT” opportunities exist. In other words, I think a person who’s unhappy with their spouse might expand his or her definition of the “RIGHT” opportunity a bit more than they would if everything was great.

Furthermore, I also think there are character issues at play here. There’s the type of person who is defeatist, who has troubles with his spouse, and cheating becomes a more palatable option. But then there are conciliatory people, who if they spot trouble in any area of their lives, will work tirelessly to fix it. In other words, some people tend to have self-destructive personalities, with self-defeating ways of dealing with adversity, they are not the types to remain cool under pressure or to look for the best way out…only the easiest way out of their present unhappiness. From my point of view, Obama is in his professional life, a person who does not shy away from a challenge, no matter how great it might be…he works to resolve it, he compromises, and he does not seem to seek out the easy path to gratification. I have a hard time seeing that he would be any different in any area of his life, and the idea of cheating to me doesn’t seem to fit his MO.

I could be wrong, I certainly wouldn’t have the hubris to tell someone who disagreed with me that they were “clearly wrong”, that would be infantile and egotistical, but I just don’t think opportunity to cheat equals will cheat, I think it’s more complex than that.

Interesting answer.

When you say “The question was if he would ever be linked to a sex scandal, this story qualifies, he was linked to a scandal, though it doesn’t involve him personally.” you ARE clearly wrong. It has nothing to do with any “disagreement”. Read the details of my question again. What is infantile is not being willing to admit it.

[Mod says] Flame off people!

OK, without the flame, explain where I was wrong, please. I answered your first question, not your second question, which I had answered already and answered again. Please let me know how I’m wrong, without the name calling, and preferably without the “I’m right, everyone else is wrong” attitude you have been espousing.

Er, dude, YOU started with the name calling!!! LOL!!!!!

Arguing about who started it doesn’t answer my question, it just makes you look childish. That’s not name calling, that’s a fact, and another fact is it’s not worth my time to go back through this thread and point out the several instances where you were combative and insulting before I said a damn thing. My point is, you haven’t answered my question. If I’m wrong about something, I don’t see it. Again, I’ll reiterate since my one quip was (rightfully) modded (I can’t comment on your quip as I didn’t see it, but I’m not at all surprised that you responded in kind…usually I find that when people demonstrate that they are more interested in pointing fingers about who started it than they are about clarifying their very strong accusations, one can expect them to sink to pretty much any imaginable level, but I digress):

I originally posted an answer that addressed your question and the question within the details of your question, which are two questions (there are after all two question marks). When someone else posted a link to a story which seemed to get you very bothered for reasons several of us seem to have a hard time understanding, I interjected with what I thought was helpful to clarify some questions which had arisen within the context of the discussion about said article. In that I essentially said that the article does answer the primary question, all I was ever saying. You have stated that I am 100% wrong without question in your mind. However, I have yet to discern why. Just because you say it’s so doesn’t make it so, I’m afraid.

I will now put this in terms that anyone should be able to understand. When I say that this story does answer the primary question you asked, which was “Do you think Barack Obama will ever be linked to a sex scandal someday?”, that is a factual statement. I NEVER said it answers your second question, which was, “Do you think he will have an affair?”, I in fact said specifically that I was not addressing that, when you said, “Did you even READ the DETAILS of my question?” which was extremely condescending, snarky, and yes infantile….that’s not name calling, that is a term that I was using appropriately and intentionally. Again, was not addressing the details in your question or, sub question therein, never said I was. So you just using my own words to throw back at me, saying I’m being infantile because I’m wrong and won’t admit it is not informative or constructive in any way, and in my opinion it makes my subsequent quips justified.

So, please, enlighten me, how was I wrong? And please, without the attitutde this time. Thank you. And if it makes you feel better to be able to say you “won”, go ahead, I don’t care.

I didn’t read whatever you just wrote because I’m not interested. I’m sure it’s my loss but I’ll get over it. Besides, I forgot to bring a shovel again.

Dude, you’re only looking for a fight. As much as I’d love to indulge you, I have to go water my plants. Give it a rest. That would be prudent.

If you’d read it, you’d see I’m not looking for a fight, I’m looking for an explanation…it’s easy to take the so called moral high road if you refuse to face the question. I’ll let your last quip speak for itself, I’m done too unless and until you actually answer my question.

.