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.

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.

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.

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 $$$.