Video shows Obama during National Anthem

Not sure what is worse, the singing or the display. What's your opinion, did he do anything wrong?

There was a thread about this. I concluded he knew what he was doing.

Thanks, I tried searching but couldn't find it posted previously.

Why? Because he didn't cover his heart? And this upsets you why? The Star Spangled Banner is a song. It's our National Anthem. It's not a heart-covering event. An oath is an event worth covering your heart.
The Pledge of Allegience? You cover your heart. It's an oath.
The National Anthem? Ya sing along, louder than the guy next to ya. Ya flub that last bar, worse than the guy next to ya.
Ya don't have to cover your heart or salute.

Laters,
Cuhail

It appears to me that they are facing a singer. Where is the flag? Either way, he is still standing in 'respectful attention' off camera, while the other candidates ham for photo-ops with their hands over their hearts.

Protocol
When the song is performed in public, the US National Anthem Code, adopted in 1942, specifies the etiquette rules for playing and responding to the song. The audience members are expected to face the American flag if one is displayed, and stand in an attitude of respectful attention.[7] If the flag is not present, the audience faces the direction of the music and still stands in a respectful attention.[8]
People in uniform, including military personnel, fire service and law enforcement officers, are expected to salute or "present arms" during the national anthem from the first note and hold the salute until the last note is played. People not in military or other uniforms are expected to remove their hats and place their right hands over their hearts.[8]

from en.wikipedia.org...

Perhaps the OP is thinking it is required?

I am not for Obama, but this is reaching.
DocMoreau

[edit spelling]

[edit on 8/1/2008 by DocMoreau]

reply to post by DocMoreau


Nope, no confusion here. Came across a debate on another site pertaining to this issue and wanted to get some opinions from here. As mentioned in my post I think the singing was worse and can't understand why folks try to make the song their own instead of just singing it the way it was written.

reply to post by spyder207


That is an interesting question. Why artists 'try' to make the song their own.
It appears that the phenomena started in 1968. I find it interesting that Feliciano's version started the 'controversy', but Hendrix's version has become iconic.
DocMoreau

From the same Star Spangled Banner Wikipedia page

Modern history
The first "pop" performance of the anthem heard by mainstream America was by Puerto Rican singer and guitarist Jose Feliciano. He shocked the crowd at Tiger Stadium in Detroit and the rest of America when he strummed a slow, bluesy rendition of the national anthem before Game Five of the 1968 World Series between Detroit and St. Louis. This rendition started contemporary "Star-Spangled Banner" controversies. The response from many in Vietnam-era America was generally negative, given that 1968 was a tumultuous year for the United States. Despite the controversy, Feliciano's performance opened the door for the countless interpretations of the "Star-Spangled Banner" we hear today.[4]
In fact, many "interpretative" versions of the anthem are held in high regard by modern critics[citation needed], such as Marvin Gaye's funk-influenced performance at the 1983 NBA All-Star Game, and Whitney Houston's soulful, spine-chilling rendition before Super Bowl XXV in 1991, which when released as a single charted at number 20 in 1991 and number 6 in 2001—the only time the anthem has been on the Billboard Hot 100. Another famous instrumental interpretation is Jimi Hendrix's version which was a setlist staple from autumn 1968 until his death in September 1970. Incorporating sonic effects to emphasize the "rockets' red glare", "machine guns", "bombs bursting in air", it became a late-1960s emblem.

reply to post by Cuhail


Why he should cover his heart, it is US code, LAW! He is running to become a presidential candidate!

So lets give no respect to our anthem....

What is this country coming to... no respect anymore
this should be something everyone does in respect for there country, not the gov. but the country... the people.... our founders... your family!

Title 36 Subtitle I chapter 3 section 301 states all present except those in uniform should stand at attention with there right hand over there heart

US Title 36 National anthem


this is the truth, think about it!

Originally posted by spyder207
Thanks, I tried searching but couldn't find it posted previously.

I believe the thread is entitled "And you thought no lapel was bad..."

I never knew myself until I read these posts that covering your heart is expected; I thought that was only required for the pledge of allegiance. ncbrian, it's not a law, it's just a code. I guess he'll be more politically savvy the next time he's in that situation, but I don't think he was making any statement of disloyalty or disrespect of the country. He stood at respectful attention. This is much ado about nothing.

[edit on 10-1-2008 by Sestias]

[edit on 10-1-2008 by Sestias]

reply to post by spyder207

When you take an oath, you are supposed to put your hand on something sacred, such as a Holy Bible. Or your heart. Placing your hand over your heart is making a pledge on your life. You pledge your life to the flag, and the republic for which it stands.

When you hear the national anthem, you are supposed to stand, and remove your hat. It is a sign of respect, such as at a funeral or a wedding. You stand for the same reason you stand and clap for something you really respect, i.e. give a special "standing" ovation.

This is what I was taught in High School, and it is what I do today.

I actually think placing your hand over your heart cheapens the whole "oath" process in a small (and what difference does it really make?) sort of way. Obviously so – people now think that hearing a piece of music is equivalent to making a sacred oath!

Wikipedia, and US Title 36 aside – I think the above info is true. Go ahead and arrest me.

reply to post by Sestias


Sestias, I believe you need to read a little more, US code is in fact law.

Just because there is no penalty for not abiding by the code, does not mean it is not a law.

Certain titles of the [United States] Code have been enacted into positive law, and pursuant to section 204 of title 1 of the Code, the text of those titles is legal evidence of the law contained in those titles. The other titles of the Code are prima facie evidence of the laws contained in those titles. The following titles of the Code have been enacted into positive law: 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 46, and 49.

en.wikipedia.org...

The truth and only the truth.

Obama Bin Cocky.
Image is everything.
Sure they don't have to cover their hearts, but come on people, even if the singing really stunk to high heaven, you still have to show a little love and a little respect, if at least for the great country you want to be the leader of.

There is a reason why they call it politics, you have to kiss a little arse sometimes and Obama didn't even pucker.

Expect Hillary to run with this.

Ah cover your heart or not,

This guy comes out of nowhere being called a uniter?
I thought it odd his name is Obama...did u say Osama??? Oh no Obama!!!
WTF!!
You heard all the comotion about the mormon guy, why nothing about this muslim PoS? This guy is so fake..they should have just picked another white guy because he's not even black. just like his buddy Oprah.

You people sure do support him though, or are we just seeing the wealth of the american muslims here? I am not racist btw. I am not part of any group I am an individual.

Originally posted by Mailman
Ah cover your heart or not,

This guy comes out of nowhere being called a uniter?

you know, he's actually been around for a while. he even gave a quite impressive speech at the 04 convention.

I thought it odd his name is Obama...did u say Osama??? Oh no Obama!!!

wow, he has a name that isn't "Bill" or "Ron" or "Mike" so we must make fun of it!
yes, let's equivocate people based on names
we're invading iran now, it's just a difference of a letter so we might as well!

You heard all the comotion about the mormon guy, why nothing about this muslim PoS?

first of all... no religious test should be required to be president. it's right there in the constitution, look it up.
second... ad hom attack at the end
third... there isn't any evidence that obama is a muslim.

This guy is so fake..they should have just picked another white guy because
he's not even black. just like his buddy Oprah.

so much for martin luther king jr's dream of people being based on the content of their character...

You people sure do support him though, or are we just seeing the wealth of the american muslims here?

he
isn't
a
muslim
and would it matter if he was?

Gee, what a surprise.
If he can't follow the correct protocol, why even ask for votes?.

Oh hell, I was really thinking about voting for this guy simply because he has no baggage and because this country needs another Jimmy Carter.

No modern day Carter this time, I guess our next Ronald will have to be delayed another 4 extra years as well.

This is just stupid.

(Yeah, one line post because that's all that I can muster up to say about this)