What? No deep navel gazing on the meaning of the words and if they are an insult? Of course not, that is only reserved for deflecting question about substantive matters on Obama's fitness to be president.

How many people name their dogs "Pope?"

Commenter #7 to Farrell's post nailed it. The reference was intentional.

Of course not, that is only reserved for deflecting question about substantive matters on Obama's fitness to be president.

I don't see how the "boy" controversy was in any way deflecting questions from any substantive matters.

Michael,

Try re-reading the statement substituing the word man for boy and see if you can't then see a substantive question that was raised about Obama. Let me help.

Congressman Geoff Davis, took the criticisms of Mr. Obama a few steps further, likening the change slogan to the pitch of a “snake oil salesman.” He then relayed to the audience that he had taken party in a “highly classified, national security simulation” with Obama.

“I’m going to tell you something: That MAN’s finger does not need to be on the button,” Mr. Davis said. “He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country.”

Now maybe you don't see the relevance, but the idea that Obama would freeze in indecision when faced with a simulation related to a nuclear threat to this country would seem to me to be a substantive issue.

Now maybe you don't see the relevance, but the idea that Obama would freeze in indecision when faced with a simulation related to a nuclear threat to this country would seem to me to be a substantive issue.

Only if Obama was a part of the simulation, which I gather he was not.
I mean, I just ran a highly secretive simulation that shows that George Bush would have surrendered to Al Qaeda if they attack NYC, does that make it a substantive matter?

Until we know _why_ the simulation shows Obama freezing (and presumable other candidates not freezing), the whole simulation is worse than useless.