First Lady's: Fair game or not?

[lewpac]

Over at the Michelle Bachman thread, it seems that a comment or two I made about Michelle Obama irritated one of her uber-left followers. Any untoward opinion mentioned toward the First Lady is considered "slimy" and below the belt, shouldn't be done.

What do you think? I'll make my case, but I'd like some feedback on this.

IMO, if you agree, as the spouse of any candidate, to participate publically and alongside your spouse in his efforts toward election, then your words and opinions are open game. No matter who you are, especially the spouse (in most cases the wife), you don't get to "go off" in front of every microphone and in front of thousands and thousands for months and months, but then your "untouchable" and it's "below the belt" behavior to respond or react to such a presentation.

Democrat Presidential Candidates, far more so than Republicans, tend to present their marriages as "power teams" (Clintons, Obama's, Kerry's, Gore's). The old "you get two for the price of one" routine. The Clintons of course were the "poster boys" for this phenomena. And the Obama's followed suit...................It's clear that the camp thought it advantages to Barak to parade Michelle along side him at every turn, and that her words and persona "on stage" would go a long way toward his fortunes for office.

Republican Presidential Candidates tend to take a more traditional approach with regard to the spouse. She's just "the good wife" (or husband in Palin's case), standing by her man. Which, of course, in liberals eyes makes her a dufus and weak.

But some feel that, while the spouse is there almost as a "co-candidate", that she somehow is immune and "teflon" when it comes to any negative response or retort to her presentation. I disagree. I believe that, if you want a "hands off" policy toward the spouse, then don't allow her to help you get elected. Don't allow her to speak at the uber-rally's and conventions and campaign stops.

Also, don't think for a second that if McCain/Palin would've won the election, that his "standard" would be applicable. In fact, I don't recall Palin's old man saying anything of substance during the campaign............and they were going after him like a shark goes to blood in the water. If they were in office now, he'd be under indictment for something or other by now. And McCain's got the business over her money and property too..............

Nah, sorry, but I'm stickin' to my story unless otherwise convinced. Michelle Obama is every bit the "open game" as her husband, because she was "front and center" with him both in appearance and voice, trying to win the office. They propped her up abundantly for the good, so she's subject to "the game" IMO......................

[TheCount]

It's a free country, you can talk about whomever you want.

However this republican "good wife" in the background stuff is nonense.

'Less we forget, Our First Lady of Drifting on ESPN?

tAXhBngJQak

She campaigned for her husband just like Michelle campaign for hers. If the question is whether first ladies should be fair game, then ask that question, don't sleaze it up with all the other rhetoric.

[Doomsday101]

I really think it depends on how active a 1st Lady is on policy. Hilary headed up the Healthcare debate in the Clinton White house and played a very active role thus she was fair game. Michelle Obama on the other hand has certain projects like most 1st Lady but is not shaping or forming policy. I will say she still has to be careful of the statements she makes. All in all I have no issue with her.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I believe that Michelle Obama inserts herself into the fray because of the positions she takes. If she steers clear of these kinds of things, then no, I'd say she is off limits. However, since she does not do this, I think she is fair game.

[WoodysGirl]

I really think it depends on how active a 1st Lady is on policy. Hilary headed up the Healthcare debate in the Clinton White house and played a very active role thus she was fair game. Michelle Obama on the other hand has certain projects like most 1st Lady but is not shaping or forming policy. I will say she still has to be careful of the statements she makes. All in all I have no issue with her.
I think that's a pretty fair perspective.

If she's out stomping for her husband on legislative matters and whatnot, then yep, I think what she says is fair game, similar to when she was on the campaign trail. As a public figure, in general, anything she says is fair game.

So far, coverage of her has been limited to the WH garden, the kiddos, the dog, her clothes, and a few of her pet projects.

Of course, this is all part of the plan..to reshape her image after her initial introduction to the big stage. I can't imagine what folks can pick over now, but if one tries, I'm sure something can be found.

I believe that Michelle Obama inserts herself into the fray because of the positions she takes. If she steers clear of these kinds of things, then no, I'd say she is off limits. However, since she does not do this, I think she is fair game.
I haven't seen her enter the fray, as you say, since before the election. Maybe I've missed the coverage.

[ConcordCowboy]

As much as I hated W...I never went after Laura.

I agree about if she was like Hillary and leading the cause on something like policy changes or whatever...then OK.

But Laura didn't do this...and so far Michelle hasn't either.

[lewpac]

It's a free country, you can talk about whomever you want.

However this republican "good wife" in the background stuff is nonense.

'Less we forget, Our First Lady of Drifting on ESPN?

tAXhBngJQak

She campaigned for her husband just like Michelle campaign for hers. If the question is whether first ladies should be fair game, then ask that question, don't sleaze it up with all the other rhetoric.

"Sleaze it up????""

I assume you're alluding to my differentiating between Democrat and Republican first lady's??

Eleanor Roosevelt. Bea Truman. Jackie Kennedy. Hillary Clinton. Michelle Obama. That's FIVE of the last SIX (excluding Carters wife) Democrat "First Lady's" who were/are ALL LAUDED as "power women", smart, useful, dynamic, important, strong, substantial, participatory, and "needed" for this country in one way, shape form or another.

Name for me ONE Republican First Lady (besides perhaps Mamie Eisenhower) who was considered nothing more than a ditzy, brain dead and useless "stand by your man" and "unmodern" woman! I can't recall any magazine cover with Laura Bush on it. On the other hand, you can't walk through any check-out line in America without 20 magazine covers lauding and celebrating Michelle Obama!

C'mon man....................any reasonable and unbiased arbitor has to concede this point. Democrat First Lady's are ALWAYS propped up and in higher standing amongst the decades-old liberal media establishment. If you dare say ANYTHING less than "glowing" about Michelle Obama, you get what I got on that other thread...............you get called "slime" and "sleazy".

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think that's a pretty fair perspective.

If she's out stomping for her husband on legislative matters and whatnot, then yep, I think what she says is fair game, similar to when she was on the campaign trail. As a public figure, in general, anything she says is fair game.

So far, coverage of her has been limited to the WH garden, the kiddos, the dog, her clothes, and a few of her pet projects.

Of course, this is all part of the plan..to reshape her image after her initial introduction to the big stage. I can't imagine what folks can pick over now, but if one tries, I'm sure something can be found.


I haven't seen her enter the fray, as you say, since before the election. Maybe I've missed the coverage.

Does that mean that because she has not said something since before the election, she is absolved of the positions she took?

Not in my book she's not. I mean, if you look at it objectively, what has she had to really make statement about? Thus far, this Administration has gotten everything they've wanted.

[Bob Sacamano]

**** Michelle Obama

[ConcordCowboy]

**** Michelle Obama

So we'll put you down for she's not fair game?

[sacase]

"Sleaze it up????""

I assume you're alluding to my differentiating between Democrat and Republican first lady's??

Eleanor Roosevelt. Bea Truman. Jackie Kennedy. Hillary Clinton. Michelle Obama. That's FIVE of the last SIX (excluding Carters wife) Democrat "First Lady's" who were/are ALL LAUDED as "power women", smart, useful, dynamic, important, strong, substantial, participatory, and "needed" for this country in one way, shape form or another.

Name for me ONE Republican First Lady (besides perhaps Mamie Eisenhower) who was considered nothing more than a ditzy, brain dead and useless "stand by your man" and "unmodern" woman! I can't recall any magazine cover with Laura Bush on it. On the other hand, you can't walk through any check-out line in America without 20 magazine covers lauding and celebrating Michelle Obama!

C'mon man....................any reasonable and unbiased arbitor has to concede this point. Democrat First Lady's are ALWAYS propped up and in higher standing amongst the decades-old liberal media establishment. If you dare say ANYTHING less than "glowing" about Michelle Obama, you get what I got on that other thread...............you get called "slime" and "sleazy".

Nancy Reagan.

The only thing I can't stand about Michelle Obama, is that they make her out to be some icon of style. I really don't care about what clothes she is wearing.

[Bob Sacamano]

So we'll put you down for she's not fair game?

she does look like a WNBA baller doesn't she? tall, skinny, manly

[sacase]

she does look like a WNBA baller doesn't she?

She is not particularly attractive.

[WoodysGirl]

Does that mean that because she has not said something since before the election, she is absolved of the positions she took?

Not in my book she's not. I mean, if you look at it objectively, what has she had to really make statement about? Thus far, this Administration has gotten everything they've wanted.Not suggesting that, at all.

I was assuming that the OP was inferring to her status as First Lady which is why I focused on current events and if she's done something recent to warrant bashing.

[lewpac]

As much as I hated W...I never went after Laura.

I agree about if she was like Hillary and leading the cause on something like policy changes or whatever...then OK.

But Laura didn't do this...and so far Michelle hasn't either.

That's because Laura never gave anyone anything to "go after". But she was/is an educated woman, successful in her career, and by all accounts a wonderful wife and mother to her children.

So far, "in office", Michelle Obama appears to be similar. And I'm sure she too is a wonderful wife and mother to her children. She seems to be a respectful and caring daughter as well.

But, Laura Bush and Barbara Bush came NO WHERE NEAR the activity of Michelle and Hillary on the campaign trail! Not even close! Michelle Obama was more of a running mate to Barack than Joe Biden would ever be. Her participation and involvement in getting Obama elected was deliberate, calculated, planned and staged in a way to take advantage of what SHE brought to the table. The unspoken "elect Barack AND Michelle" was a big part of the campaign. "Elect John McCain (and Cindy too)" was never on the radar screen in comparison.

[ConcordCowboy]

she does look like a WNBA baller doesn't she? tall, skinny, manly

So you want to **** her but think she looks like a man?

Interesting.

[WoodysGirl]

Nancy Reagan.

The only thing I can't stand about Michelle Obama, is that they make her out to be some icon of style. I really don't care about what clothes she is wearing.
That's traditionally what the media focuses on when it comes to first ladies.

That or some other soft perspective.

It's up to the ladies to direct them towards something more substantive.

[lewpac]

**** Michelle Obama

THAT is why these discussion go into the crapper!

Everyone knows my political bent and I'm the OP! But even I won't go down that road. Don't behave like THEY behave please...................

[WoodysGirl]

she does look like a WNBA baller doesn't she? tall, skinny, manly
No, she's not the greatest beauty, but I think she has a great body...

[BrAinPaiNt]

Not suggesting that, at all.

I was assuming that the OP was inferring to her status as First Lady which is why I focused on current events and if she's done something recent to warrant bashing.

Her last name is Obama...that is enough for some.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Not suggesting that, at all.

I was assuming that the OP was inferring to her status as First Lady which is why I focused on current events and if she's done something recent to warrant bashing.

Lets say it is a subject on which she has made no comment on. Lets say she is bashed for our stance with France. I would have a difficult time subscribing to something like that because I know of know opinion stated.

However, and I must tell you this up front, I will not forget her comments about feeling proud of her Country for the first time, prior to the election. I am of Hispanic decent myself and I view this as a bit of a slap in the face. Should I not be proud of my country because a Hispanic has not been elected to the office of POTUS? I'm not trying to say that this is what you are saying in any way. Just trying to pass on to you my views of this topic.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Her last name is Obama...that is enough for some.


That's probably true but that doesn't mean that she is not deserving of her critics, based on other statements she has made.

[BrAinPaiNt]

That's probably true but that doesn't mean that she is not deserving of her critics, based on other statements she has made.

I have not heard her say much of anything negative since they have moved into the white house.

I have heard people rip on her for things she said when she was in college and for the idea that she was proud of her husband being the parties candidate and running with it because they don't get what she meant.

But mostly it is because she is a dem that gets the goat here...She is in no way shape or for anything close to Hillary...Hillary I can understand...Michelle since they have been in...nah I don't see it.

[lewpac]

I see we're digressing into her style, her clothes, her beauty or lack thereof, comparisons to basketball players, etc..................

Listen, my thing is being called a "slime" and a "sleaze" for bringing her up in a political discussion. And, if she has the chutzpah and nuggets to speak in public about policy or this country's demeanor, or as to why we should vote one way or another (which she did, either on her own, or as instructed in the campaign), then her statements and beliefs of record are open to scrutiny and examination. And, if need be, they can be contended with and should be without someone calling you "slime" for doing so...................

For the record, I think she's attractive enough in a funky kind of way. She carries herself pretty gracefully too.

[Bob Sacamano]

So you want to **** her but think she looks like a man?

Interesting.

not in the literal sense

No, she's not the greatest beauty, but I think she has a great body...

ungainly? I don't think she's good-looking at all, she looks like a chipmunk

[WoodysGirl]

Lets say it is a subject on which she has made no comment on. Lets say she is bashed for our stance with France. I would have a difficult time subscribing to something like that because I know of know opinion stated. At first, I didn't understand what you were trying to say, but I think I get it.

Having an opinion about someone is one thing, but if she's made no stance on the U.S. position with France, how could you bash her on it?

However, and I must tell you this up front, I will not forget her comments about feeling proud of her Country for the first time, prior to the election. I am of Hispanic decent myself and I view this as a bit of a slap in the face. Should I not be proud of my country because a Hispanic has not been elected to the office of POTUS? I'm not trying to say that this is what you are saying in any way. Just trying to pass on to you my views of this topic.
I get why people feel that way, but personally, I think that's the most abused statement she's ever made. She stated her stance poorly, but in no way did I think she was unpatriotic.

I knew what she meant as soon as she said it and I didn't need clarification of that statement to know it.

I'm not as old as her, but I don't know of any instance of my lifetime where there were so many people engaged in the election.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I have not heard her say much of anything negative since they have moved into the white house.

I have heard people rip on her for things she said when she was in college and for the idea that she was proud of her husband being the parties candidate and running with it because they don't get what she meant.

But mostly it is because she is a dem that gets the goat here...She is in no way shape or for anything close to Hillary...Hillary I can understand...Michelle since they have been in...nah I don't see it.

Hillary Clinton, so far as I can remember, didn't really become part of the public eye till later in Bill's Presidency. Lets not say that she is not Hillary. We don't know that to be a fact. Her past history certainly does not support this theory IMO.

[WoodysGirl]

not in the literal sense



ungainly? I don't think she's good-looking at all, she looks like a chipmunk
Well I guess that's an important observation to make...and as good a reason as any to dislike her...

*smh*

[JBond]

RECESSION WEAR: MICHELLE'S TENNIS SHOES COST $540? (http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/fashion/2009/05/01/2009-05-01_first_lady_michelle_obama_kicks_in_own_foot_fea t_for_fashionistas_lanvin.html)

Michelle Obama has taken casual to a haute new level.

While volunteering Wednesday at a D.C. food bank, the First Lady sported her usual J.Crew cardigan, a pair of utilitarian capri pants and, on her feet, a sneaky splurge: trainers that go for $540.

That's right: These sneakers - suede, with grosgrain ribbon laces and metallic pink toe caps - are made by French design house Lanvin, one of fashion's hottest labels. They come in denim and satin versions, and have been a brisk seller all spring.

They're out of stock at posh Meatpacking District boutique Jeffrey, and Barneys New York boasts a limited selection of the sneaks, which are a cult favorite among fashionistas.

It's likely Michelle got hers through Ikram, the Chicago retailer that often outfits her.

"They're shoes," the First Lady's reps sniffed when curious reporters inquired about the fancy footwear.

Michelle has stepped out in Lanvin before while getting down to business. A week ago, she shoveled dirt at a tree planting while wearing the line's chiffon tank.

Dresses and strappy pumps cost upward of $1,500, while tops go for $400 to $1,000.

Other celebrity fans of Lanvin's costly kicks include Ellen DeGeneres and Kanye West, who has blogged about his faves.

As the family's primary dog walker, Michelle clearly requires comfortable footwear.

"I got up at 5:15 in the morning to walk my puppy," she joked Thursday. "That's how my day starts. Even though the kids are supposed to do a lot of the work, I'm still up at 5:15 a.m. taking my dog out."

She'll be trodding on New York's sidewalks Tuesday for the first time as First Lady. Michelle will meet with staff at the U.S. mission to the United Nations. Later, she headlines Time magazine's "100 most influential people" gala.

[WoodysGirl]

Hillary Clinton, so far as I can remember, didn't really become part of the public eye till later in Bill's Presidency. Lets not say that she is not Hillary. We don't know that to be a fact. Her past history certainly does not support this theory IMO.I don't think that's true, ABQ. IIRC, Bill made Hill the lead on health care reform as soon as he got in office...putting her smack dab in the public eye.

[lewpac]

That "I'm proud of my country for the first time in my life" dust-up.....

Listen, she said it. Her college papers confirm that disposition. And, SHE SAT with her hubby during all those Rev. Wright sermons too. SHE GOT MARRIED by the guy, and HER KIDS were babtized by the guy, not just Baracks.

She's part 'n' parcell to everything that he's participated in the last 20 years, including all the anarchist associations.

There's no other way to "interpret" words that she said, and there's no dancing around it. She said what she meant, and meant what she said. But, like her old man, she said it in front of an agreeing audience while it was expedient to do so, not thinking that when the NATIONAL campaign began, it would come up.

That's HIS M.O.!!! He cow-tow'd to the extreme left for two decades to get in position for a national run, and then had to deflect ALL THOSE things to get elected to a national office. She was right there with him, both in word and in deed, side by side along the journey.

BTW, I'm gonna' hit 1,000 on this thread.............I can feel it!!!

[Bob Sacamano]

That "I'm proud of my country for the first time in my life" dust-up.....

Listen, she said it. Her college papers confirm that disposition. And, SHE SAT with her hubby during all those Rev. Wright sermons too. SHE GOT MARRIED by the guy, and HER KIDS were babtized by the guy, not just Baracks.

She's part 'n' parcell to everything that he's participated in the last 20 years, including all the anarchist associations.

There's no other way to "interpret" words that she said, and there's no dancing around it. She said what she meant, and meant what she said. But, like her old man, she said it in front of an agreeing audience while it was expedient to do so, not thinking that when the NATIONAL campaign began, it would come up.

That's HIS M.O.!!! He cow-tow'd to the extreme left for two decades to get in position for a national run, and then had to deflect ALL THOSE things to get elected to a national office. She was right there with him, both in word and in deed, side by side along the journey.

I hope Michelle gets over it whatever that is bugging her about this country, slavery ended 150 years ago, the 60's/Civil Rights movement is over

her and Garafolo, wanna-be activists who missed the movement, and won't let it go

[joseephuss]

I believe that Michelle Obama inserts herself into the fray because of the positions she takes. If she steers clear of these kinds of things, then no, I'd say she is off limits. However, since she does not do this, I think she is fair game.

So if she shared the same position on issues as you then she would not be fair game? That is what it sounds as if you are saying. Or are you saying it doesn't matter what position she takes? If she just takes any position on a topic then she becomes fair game.

[iceberg]

I really think it depends on how active a 1st Lady is on policy. Hilary headed up the Healthcare debate in the Clinton White house and played a very active role thus she was fair game. Michelle Obama on the other hand has certain projects like most 1st Lady but is not shaping or forming policy. I will say she still has to be careful of the statements she makes. All in all I have no issue with her.

agreed. if she jumps in and becomes part of the game, she's fair game. if she doesn't, leave her out of it.

[lewpac]

I hope Michelle gets over it whatever that is bugging her about this country, slavery ended 150 years ago, the 60's/Civil Rights movement is over

her and Garafolo, wanna-be activists who missed the movement, and won't let it go

Along these lines (now follow along here), THAT's the retort I use every time Barack throws out his lame "happened before I was born", "I was only three months old","I inherited EVERYTHING" so "don't blame me" stuff..........

Fine, then quit all the whining and complaining and "victim" stuff about how slavery is effecting modern day African Americans! If Barack's thing about how NOTHING that happened before his life or before his watch can be laid at his feet, then lets apply this new format to EVERYTHING!!!

I never owned a slave. I never pelted anyone with bottles or stopped anyone from using a bathroom or getting on a bus. I never "segregated" anyone from going to school. And, I don't ANYONE else who did either. In fact, there's not any American citizen alive today who EVER owned a slave.
So, in Barack's world, ENOUGH! I don't want to hear it...................lets mover forward onto "hope and change".

[JBond]

In fact, there's not any American citizen alive today who EVER owned a slave.


But many do own, I mean pay pennies on the dollar for, illegal nannies and gardeners.

[ConcordCowboy]

Well I guess that's an important observation to make...and as good a reason as any to dislike her...

*smh*

Actually a better reason than most.

:rolleyes:

[lewpac]

But many do own, I mean pay pennies on the dollar for, illegal nannies and gardeners.

That's not slavery. That's the price you pay for breaking the law and illegally crossing our borders for work. But that's another conversation............

[Doomsday101]

agreed. if she jumps in and becomes part of the game, she's fair game. if she doesn't, leave her out of it.

I have always felt that way about the 1st Lady and the kids of Presidents. I could not stand Jimmy Carter I thought he was the worst President I have ever seen but I have no ill feelings or anything bad to say about Rosalynn Carter or their daughter Amy. Hillary was probably the most active 1st Lady in terms of being involved with Policy since FDR administration with Eleanor Roosevelt. As for Michelle Obama there were statements on the campaign trail I took exception with but that is part of the campaign process. Time will tell if Michelle Obama takes on a more active in a policy role or not

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't think that's true, ABQ. IIRC, Bill made Hill the lead on health care reform as soon as he got in office...putting her smack dab in the public eye.


I don't believe that Hillary really got into the public eye until the country learned that Bill was cheating on her. At that point, people noticed her in a big way. As we got to know her better, we learned why Bill was cheating on her. :laugh2:

Just a joke everybody.

Essentially, she was not in the public eye iMO, until that point. She made no controversial statements that I can remember. It would be very surprising to me if Michelle Obama did not eventually show her opinions. As I said earlier, it's pretty much been smooth sailing for President Obama to this point. Lets see how it goes once things start going the other way a bit. Michelle Obama is fairly left in her views IMO. I don't see that not coming out eventually.

[ABQCOWBOY]

So if she shared the same position on issues as you then she would not be fair game? That is what it sounds as if you are saying. Or are you saying it doesn't matter what position she takes? If she just takes any position on a topic then she becomes fair game.

Well, she doesn't but that's beside the point. The point, and I think you hit it on the head in the second part of your statement, is that if you lend support one way or the other, then you open yourself up to critisizim. That's part of being in the game. As an example of what I am saying. McCain's daughter has recently made statements about the Republican Party and it's base. To me, she is now a target of opportunity and I will not consider it "Out of Bounds" for anybody to critisize her for her opinions. I may not agree with the opinions, or I might, but I will not cry foul because she knowingly put herself in harms way, so to speak. Sarah Palin's daughter, on the other hand, is without question dispicable in so far as the press and people in general making comment about her. She did nothing wrong and in no way that I am aware, asked to be included in the politics of the time. That, to me, was very wrong.

[Doomsday101]

Well, she doesn't but that's beside the point. The point, and I think you hit it on the head in the second part of your statement, is that if you lend support one way or the other, then you open yourself up to critisizim. That's part of being in the game. As an example of what I am saying. McCain's daughter has recently made statements about the Republican Party and it's base. To me, she is now a target of opportunity and I will not consider it "Out of Bounds" for anybody to critisize her for her opinions. I may not agree with the opinions, or I might, but I will not cry foul because she knowingly put herself in harms way, so to speak. Sarah Palin's daughter, on the other hand, is without question dispicable in so far as the press and people in general making comment about her. She did nothing wrong and in no way that I am aware, asked to be included in the politics of the time. That, to me, was very wrong.

I fully agree with you. I do think how the media went after Sarah Palin's daughter was very wrong.

[silverbear]

Over at the Michelle Bachman thread, it seems that a comment or two I made about Michelle Obama irritated one of her uber-left followers. Any untoward opinion mentioned toward the First Lady is considered "slimy" and below the belt, shouldn't be done.

Don't be a wuss, lew, name names... it was me, and I stand by what I said about you...

And for what it's worth, I have no real opinion about Michelle... so I'm neither "uber-left", nor a "follower"... that's just your attempt to marginalize my opinion about what you did... it's my belief that you do this because you know you were wrong...

What do you think? I'll make my case, but I'd like some feedback on this.

My feedback is, did you see anybody in here trash Laura Bush during the Dubya years?? It ain't like there wasn't ammo, from the rumors that she was the dorm's dope dealer in college, to the thing about her killing a friend while she was driving...

But I for one, though I was aware of those things, I kept her out of the political discussion in here... I did that because I would have felt slimy attacking her, she's not a political figure... I would never have attacked Barbara Bush or Nancy Reagan either...

Like I said, I'll give you a pass if you go after Hillary, she chose to enter the political realm... but attacking Michelle Obama, well, sleazy isn't a strong enough word for that, but I'll get an infraction if I tell you what I really think about that, or you for doing it...

But I'll make one exception-- if and when she says something else like "for the first time, I was proud of my country", folks are free to express themselves on things like that... but you just went after her because she's Barack's wife, and you loathe him...

That's garbage, lew...

[silverbear]

As much as I hated W...I never went after Laura.

I agree about if she was like Hillary and leading the cause on something like policy changes or whatever...then OK.

But Laura didn't do this...and so far Michelle hasn't either.

There ya go...

[silverbear]

Does that mean that because she has not said something since before the election, she is absolved of the positions she took?

No, if she says something stupid or inflammatory, of course that's fair game for comment and/or ridicule...

But let's review what lew said:

It's not only a village of idiots, it's an entire country full of them. Just look at it's last two leaders and their first lady's

Yeah, I call that quite slimy... there's no political content there, merely an idiotic ad hominem assault...

[silverbear]

That's because Laura never gave anyone anything to "go after".

Chuckle... there are skeletons in her closet, lew...

Clearly, you have one standard for the wives of Republican presidents, and one for the wives of Democratic presidents...

Wanna bet that I would have caught SERIOUS hell if I'd brought up the rumors about Laura Bush dealing weed in college in here??

I didn't, because they were just rumors, and because I think that First Ladies deserve to be treated with respect... you just hate her husband, so you take it out on her...

I know no that you are utterly lacking in anything resembling class or decency... and you know it too, that's why you started this thread... you wanted some affirmation that you weren't what you know you are, deep down...

Rarely have I been more disgusted with a poster in the Politics Zone than I am with you right now... I now hold you in utter contempt, and that saddens me, because I once thought you were one of the more reasonable posters in here...

[silverbear]

Lets say it is a subject on which she has made no comment on. Lets say she is bashed for our stance with France. I would have a difficult time subscribing to something like that because I know of know opinion stated.

However, and I must tell you this up front, I will not forget her comments about feeling proud of her Country for the first time, prior to the election. I am of Hispanic decent myself and I view this as a bit of a slap in the face.

That bothered me too, and I criticized her for saying that...

She has since explained that she just said that badly... I accept her explanation...

Lew's criticisms had nothing to do with what she has said, it was a generic, ignorant attack...

[silverbear]

I see we're digressing into her style, her clothes, her beauty or lack thereof, comparisons to basketball players, etc..................

Listen, my thing is being called a "slime" and a "sleaze" for bringing her up in a political discussion.

I said what you did was slimy, and it was... if you don't wish to be seen as sleazy or slimy, rather than trying to defend yourself, you should simply apologize for that entirely gratuitous and unjustified attack... and then, you should make an effort to stop saying sleazy, slimy things like that...

You had no call, none at all, of calling her an idiot... she was not part of the discussion to that point, you dragged her into it... and that was completely uncalled for, all you were doing was disgorging your bile onto this forum...

Frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself, not defending yourself... an old-timer would undoubtedly look at you and say "you, sir, are no gentleman"...

What he'd mean, of course, is "that was a sleazy, slimy thing to say"... I'm just not that old school, I didn't pull my punches...

[silverbear]

I knew what she meant as soon as she said it and I didn't need clarification of that statement to know it.

I didn't get it at first, but once she explained herself, I understood... she meant that she was MORE proud of her country than she ever had been in her life, because her husband's nomination suggested we'd made some real progress in the area of race relations...

Even so, I understand if some on the right continue to want to take political advantage of that misguided misstatement... I cannot, however, understand why lew would take the low road he did with that bit of ad hominem...

[silverbear]

Hillary Clinton, so far as I can remember, didn't really become part of the public eye till later in Bill's Presidency.

You're misremembering, ABQ... Hillary was at the forefront of Clinton's failed attempt to reform health care (because she came up with a really LOUSY plan)... that occurred rather early in Slick Willie's first term...

[silverbear]

That "I'm proud of my country for the first time in my life" dust-up.....

Listen, she said it.

And she later explained that it just came out badly, and what she really meant... guess you missed that...

And, SHE SAT with her hubby during all those Rev. Wright sermons too. SHE GOT MARRIED by the guy, and HER KIDS were babtized by the guy, not just Baracks.


Ahhhh, guilt by association...

Did you ever know anybody that went to jail, lew??

If so, does that make you a criminal??

[silverbear]

agreed. if she jumps in and becomes part of the game, she's fair game. if she doesn't, leave her out of it.

Exactamundo... and thus far, she has taken a rather low profile as First Lady...

[Rogah]

Over at the Michelle Bachman thread, it seems that a comment or two I made about Michelle Obama irritated one of her uber-left followers. Any untoward opinion mentioned toward the First Lady is considered "slimy" and below the belt, shouldn't be done.

What do you think? I'll make my case, but I'd like some feedback on this.

IMO, if you agree, as the spouse of any candidate, to participate publically and alongside your spouse in his efforts toward election, then your words and opinions are open game. No matter who you are, especially the spouse (in most cases the wife), you don't get to "go off" in front of every microphone and in front of thousands and thousands for months and months, but then your "untouchable" and it's "below the belt" behavior to respond or react to such a presentation. When it comes to the highest offices in the land, politicians always use their families as campaign props. They go on stage with smiling spouses, children, grandchildren, etc. And then oftentimes those family members go out and campaign on behalf of their guy/gal. But, IMHO, none of that makes them fair game for attacks.
Democrat Presidential Candidates, far more so than Republicans, tend to present their marriages as "power teams" (Clintons, Obama's, Kerry's, Gore's). The old "you get two for the price of one" routine. The Clintons of course were the "poster boys" for this phenomena. And the Obama's followed suit...................It's clear that the camp thought it advantages to Barak to parade Michelle along side him at every turn, and that her words and persona "on stage" would go a long way toward his fortunes for office. I think that what you say is certainly true of the Clintons, but I just don't see any evidence of it with the Obamas. Hillary was placed in charge of a major attempt to influence policy with her health care initiative. She became fair game. But Michelle Obama hasn't done anything beyond what first ladies have traditionally done so, IMHO, she is out of bounds.

[Rogah]

I didn't get it at first, but once she explained herself, I understood...In otherwords you bought the spin hook, line and sucker. :laugh2:
And she later explained that it just came out badly, and what she really meant... guess you missed that... It was a prepared speech, not some off the cuff response to a report's question. And she delivered it twice in one day, repeating that same quote almost exactly word for word. It was only after people got upset at her remarks that the campaign went into full fledged damage control.

Now what was it you were saying earlier in this thread about people in here applying one set of standards to Republicans, and another set to Democrats?

[ConcordCowboy]

That's because Laura never gave anyone anything to "go after". But she was/is an educated woman, successful in her career, and by all accounts a wonderful wife and mother to her children.

So far, "in office", Michelle Obama appears to be similar. And I'm sure she too is a wonderful wife and mother to her children. She seems to be a respectful and caring daughter as well.

But, Laura Bush and Barbara Bush came NO WHERE NEAR the activity of Michelle and Hillary on the campaign trail! Not even close! Michelle Obama was more of a running mate to Barack than Joe Biden would ever be. Her participation and involvement in getting Obama elected was deliberate, calculated, planned and staged in a way to take advantage of what SHE brought to the table. The unspoken "elect Barack AND Michelle" was a big part of the campaign. "Elect John McCain (and Cindy too)" was never on the radar screen in comparison.

That was during the campaign and it happens.

NOW that she's been in the White House she has kept a low profile.

Attack away if you want...I think it's unwarranted at this point.

[lewpac]

And she later explained that it just came out badly, and what she really meant... guess you missed that...




Ahhhh, guilt by association...

Did you ever know anybody that went to jail, lew??

If so, does that make you a criminal??

"Marriage" is now simply "association" when you're trying to run cover for someone...........

Listen, you obviously have no taste for "dissent" now that your guy is in office. The crowd who made a career out of "disagreement" and "first amendment/free speech" and "protest" the last eight years, now suddenly is thin-skinned about such things.

So thin-skinned in fact, that they are resorting to the decades old, tried and true "just call them names and they'll shut up" routine.

SilverBear, you're a groupie/zombie/lemming follower of "The Chosen One", so anything said about the Obama's in less than glowing terms will result in just another tiring expose about "slime and sleaze" from you. You're the poster-boy for unoriginal and predictable "Jeanine Garafalo" talking point bile. Everything that comes out your pie-hole is PMSNBC, rehearsed knee-jerk tape-recordings filtered down from the MoveOn nut-case cult.

The slightest mention or indication that anyone DARE even QUESTION anything Obama, and you pull out the handy NY Times/Bill Maher handbook and recite the gutter-snipe. Think for yourself and come up with something original and thoughtful for a change...............

[ABQCOWBOY]

You're misremembering, ABQ... Hillary was at the forefront of Clinton's failed attempt to reform health care (because she came up with a really LOUSY plan)... that occurred rather early in Slick Willie's first term...

Perhaps Silver but it wasn't in the first 100 days, which is the point of the earlier post. To say that Michelle is not like Hillary may be true but I think it's too early to say that with any amount of certainty. Time will tell how outspoken she may or may not be.

[lewpac]

Earlier, SilverBear not withstanding, I gave Michelle Obama props and respect, and I even expressed my disapproval and contempt for another poster saying "**** Michelle Obama".

So, either Silver can't read (I have my suspicions), or is exactly what I wrote above.................a "follower" with nothing but utter disdain for ANYONE who isn't along for the ride he's chosen. Whatever................

For anyone to dismiss and "poo-poo" the obvious fact that Michelle Obama wasn't packaged and presented and purposefully casted along side Barack for not other reason than to get him elected................you're living in "liberal denial world".

It was the opportunity of a generation for Democrat/lib operatives to seize upon the moment and capture the "first black" thing 24/7. Anybody who refuses to admit that, if Barack Obama and Michelle Obama weren't African American, that there'd be no "Barack Obama" is living in a dream world. If this guy's name was Herb Kawalski, with his qualifications, it would be a joke. That's why all we hear about these two is "historic" this and "historic" that. Historic, historic, historic..................why is his election so "historic"? Think about that SilverBear before you trot out the obligatory play-book "racist" crap that's soon to come.............

And SHE was no small part of the plan. And SHE played it for all it was worth. She was in no way shy or timid in proclaiming LOUDLY and often here view, and how this country just couldn't do without her husband as President. She was at the forefront in convincing us all on WHY he needs to be President too....................

It's not a matter of liking her or not liking her, dissing her or not, respecting her or not respecting her. This thread has to do with "should she be open game or criticized". Not for applying her finger-nail polish the wrong way in 11th grade, not for a job she took when she was 24, not for a clothing choice she made when she was pregnant!

She was very deliberate and circumspect in her views, politics, opinions and stances on the trail. Her words and admonitions had a purpose: to get him elected. Her appearances and speeches were intended to bring about a political result. Therefore, those words and attempts to convince people to come over to HER SIDE are open to scrutiny and disagreement. PERIOD!!!

[Rogah]

Chuckle... there are skeletons in her closet, lew...

Clearly, you have one standard for the wives of Republican presidents, and one for the wives of Democratic presidents...

Wanna bet that I would have caught SERIOUS hell if I'd brought up the rumors about Laura Bush dealing weed in college in here?? Anyone here enjoying Silverbear's lame attempts at taking the moral high road as much as me? He's like (paraphrasing):

"I would never bring up Laura Bush's skeletons even though she has so many. I wouldn't ever bring up allegations she dealt drugs, nor would I ever bring up her car accident that killed a kid. Nope. Not me. Imagine the hell I would take if I told you all she was accused of being a drug dealer? She has so many skeletons, but I am not going to mention any of them, just like I won't be mentioning that automobile accident that took the life of a 17 year old. No, it wouldn't be right to mention that horrible, horrible negligence on her part. A fatal car accident can happen to any drug dealer, right? But it's not my place to discuss such things."

[lewpac]

Anyone here enjoying Silverbear's lame attempts at taking the moral high road as much as me? He's like (paraphrasing):

"I would never bring up Laura Bush's skeletons even though she has so many. I wouldn't ever bring up allegations she dealt drugs, nor would I ever bring up her car accident that killed a kid. Nope. Not me. Imagine the hell I would take if I told you all she was accused of being a drug dealer? She has so many skeletons, but I am not going to mention any of them, just like I won't be mentioning that automobile accident that took the life of a 17 year old. No, it wouldn't be right to mention that horrible, horrible negligence on her part. A fatal car accident can happen to any drug dealer, right? But it's not my place to discuss such things."

Yeah, there's one in every thread................

This from the cult of "tolerance" and "inclusion" and "understanding" and "compassion" and "non-judgment". This also from the coven of "protest" and "free speech" and "descent" and "courage :laugh2::laugh2:" for taking such BRAVE stands as supporting Clinton in adultery and (drum roll please) having the "strength" and "courage" to support Obama!

It takes no courage to go all "Jeanine Garafolo", sit with only lemming and like-minded cult members, and pipe every party line out there. That's not "strength and courage" of speaking ones mind "no matter the consequences". That's surrounding yourself only with people who stay in "lock step" and chatting amongst the captive audience.

There's more "courage" in the little pinky of ANYONE who dares go off the Obama-reservation than there is in all of PSMNBC and MoveON combined.

Typical, liberal, uber-left playbook stuff....................

[silverbear]

In otherwords you bought the spin

Common sense told me that it had the ring of truth... how sad for you that you lack the same guidance system...


It was a prepared speech, not some off the cuff response to a report's question. And she delivered it twice in one day, repeating that same quote almost exactly word for word. It was only after people got upset at her remarks that the campaign went into full fledged damage control.

She simply didn't realize how it was coming off... which means she had some less than intelligent support staff...

[silverbear]

In otherwords you bought the spin

Common sense told me that it had the ring of truth... how sad for you that you lack the same guidance system...


It was a prepared speech, not some off the cuff response to a report's question. And she delivered it twice in one day, repeating that same quote almost exactly word for word. It was only after people got upset at her remarks that the campaign went into full fledged damage control.

She simply didn't realize how it was coming off... which means she had some less than intelligent support staff...

I'd suggest that you just want her to have made an anti-American statement, so you don't want to consider any other possibilities...

I will say that I've read your position in this thread about going after families, and respect it...

[silverbear]

"Marriage" is now simply "association" when you're trying to run cover for someone...........

It figures you'd miss the point... the "association" I refer to is your bring up the Reverend Wrong, and the "anarchists"...

Listen, you obviously have no taste for "dissent" now that your guy is in office.

Trashing "my guy's" family hardly qualifies as "dissent"... it's nothing more than low class BS...

The crowd who made a career out of "disagreement" and "first amendment/free speech" and "protest" the last eight years, now suddenly is thin-skinned about such things.

I have laughed at many of the attacks on Obama, argued that many of them are idiotic, but I have never suggested that it's inappropriate of y'all to go after him...

Stupid, yes; inappropriate, no... this is, after all, America, where everybody gets to speak their mind... I'd kinda like to keep it that way...

But hey, get back to me if you ever see me denying anybody their right to free speech... until then, though, this argument is beyond asinine...

SilverBear, you're a groupie/zombie/lemming follower of "The Chosen One"

Said the mindless, Obama hating Dittohead/droid... and you're gettin' pissed because you've been called out for being low class for going after Michelle Obama... once again, I suggest that your starting this thread is an indication that deep down, you know you crossed the line, and you're trying to get reassurance that you didn't... if you were completely confident that Michelle Obama is fair game, you wouldn't have needed to start this thread...

How very amusing...

[silverbear]

Perhaps Silver but it wasn't in the first 100 days, which is the point of the earlier post. To say that Michelle is not like Hillary may be true but I think it's too early to say that with any amount of certainty. Time will tell how outspoken she may or may not be.

Sigh... pal, you REALLY need to check your facts... the Clinton Health Care Task Force, headed up by Hillary, was created in January 1997... that's well within the first 100 days...

And might I suggest that while you're right about us not knowing yet how activist a role Michelle will take in this administration, to date there has been NO evidence that she plans on taking a Hillary-esque position?? And might I further suggest that until she does, you guys probably shouldn't be trashing her??

If she ever does assume such a role, then you can bash away, and I won't complain... I might argue, but I won't complain...

[MetalHead]

Common sense told me that it had the ring of truth... how sad for you that you lack the same guidance system...




She simply didn't realize how it was coming off... which means she had some less than intelligent support staff...

This country is finished...

[silverbear]

Anyone here enjoying Silverbear's lame attempts at taking the moral high road as much as me? He's like (paraphrasing):

"I would never bring up Laura Bush's skeletons even though she has so many. I wouldn't ever bring up allegations she dealt drugs, nor would I ever bring up her car accident that killed a kid. Nope. Not me. Imagine the hell I would take if I told you all she was accused of being a drug dealer? She has so many skeletons, but I am not going to mention any of them, just like I won't be mentioning that automobile accident that took the life of a 17 year old. No, it wouldn't be right to mention that horrible, horrible negligence on her part. A fatal car accident can happen to any drug dealer, right? But it's not my place to discuss such things."

Did I EVER mention any of them before y'all started this crap??

NOOOOOOO, I did not... and I only mention them now because if I had simply said "nobody ever trashed Laura Bush the way y'all are now", your response would undoubtedly have been "she never gave us any reason to"...

So I was pointing out that she has skeletons in her closet to... but I left her alone, because I think that attacking families is complete garbage...

In fact, I'll bet you never knew about the whispers about her dealing weed in college, did you?? Speculation about that appeared in the Boston Herald, and in at least one book... but again, it WAS just speculation, and I want to stress that in the strongest possible terms...

At the same time, it is not speculation that she ran a stop sign and caused an accident that killed somebody... I didn't even use that horrible accident to attack her...

I attacked Dubya plenty, not once did I ever attack his family... not once... when the Bush twins got caught drinking while still underage, I laughed about it, but pointed out that it was not that uncommon for kids that age...

Nope, trying to paint me as on a moral par with lew just won't work... I would never have mentioned anything about Laura if it wasn't to make a point about how wrong it is to attack politicians' families...

[silverbear]

Typical, liberal, uber-left playbook stuff....................

It's amusing how you consider common DECENCY to be "typical, liberal, uber-left playbook stuff"...

Clearly, it's not part of YOUR playbook...

What a guy... what's next, you gonna trash the Obama kids??

[silverbear]

This country is finished...

No, thank God folks who think like you were removed from power... we'll be just fine, now...

[lewpac]

Whatever she does........
Whatever she says........
Whoever she's standing next to...........
Whoever she talks to............
Whatever gift she stupidly gives................
How she treats her kids..........
Who ever she shakes hands with........


I'm gonna call her on it.......................She's the "Co-Obama" from here on out................''

Just a little taste of your own medicine doctor.................

[Rogah]

Common sense told me that it had the ring of truth... how sad for you that you lack the same guidance system... Well, I am grateful that my "guidance system" is not blinded by ultra partisanship as yours seems to be.

[Rogah]

Sigh... pal, you REALLY need to check your facts... the Clinton Health Care Task Force, headed up by Hillary, was created in January 1997... that's well within the first 100 days... Good gravy, if Sarah Palin had written the above, you would be citing it as proof positive that she is the biggest imbecile on the planet. :laugh2: :laugh1:

[silverbear]

Just a little taste of your own medicine doctor.................

Chuckle... too bad for you that I now know you for what you are... and now that I know that you have zero class, nothing you could say could possibly bother me...

My daddy taught me that trash is trash, and not to be taken seriously... thanks, Dad...

[silverbear]

Well, I am grateful that my "guidance system" is not blinded by ultra partisanship as yours seems to be.

Of course it is... indeed, you're FAR more partisan than I am... you're so partisan that you're now rabidly defending the classless attacks on a President's wife...

I'm quite sure you would have howled in protest if somebody had done that to Laura, or Barbara... but since it's a Democratic President's wife, to you she's fair game...

Can't get much more partisan than willing giving up any pretense at decency because you hate somebody's politics...

[silverbear]

Good gravy, if Sarah Palin had written the above, you would be citing it as proof positive that she is the biggest imbecile on the planet. :laugh2: :laugh1:

Score one for you, it should of course be 93...

In my defense, I'll just note that this is Apple Blossom Festival, and I've spent most of the last two hours battling with some VERY drunk guests... I'm gonna bow out of this forum for tonight, until I can get my wits about me...

Yeah, that was stupid on my part... and yeah, if Palin had said it, it would have been equally stupid...

But I'll bet you if you asked me what newspapers I read, I could quickly rattle off the Washington Post, the Winchester Star and the USA Today... I could also mention the DMN and the FWST, but I only read their sports pages...

Sarah couldn't even come up with the name of her own freakin' hometown paper!!! I only read my local papers occasionally, but they're the Daily News-Record and the Northern Virginia Daily... the Daily News Record is from out of Harrisonburg, the Northern Virginia Daily from Strasburg...

All that said, your original point is valid-- I said a dumb thing...the thing is, unlike lew, when I say a dumb thing, I stand up and admit it... when lew goes lowlife on us, he refuses to admit that he did a classless thing... nope, he tries to DEFEND it, suggest it's justifiable...

[Rogah]

In fact, I'll bet you never knew about the whispers about her dealing weed in college, did you?? Speculation about that appeared in the Boston Herald, and in at least one book... but again, it WAS just speculation, and I want to stress that in the strongest possible terms...

At the same time, it is not speculation that she ran a stop sign and caused an accident that killed somebody... I didn't even use that horrible accident to attack her... Boy, for someone who's "not pointing out" all of Laura Bush's so-called skeletons, you sure do spend an awful lot of time pointing them out.

To answer your question, no I did not know about those drug allegations, probably because there isn't a single shred of evidence whatsoever to support those allegations and they are nothing but ultra partisan blogging.

[Rogah]

Of course it is... indeed, you're FAR more partisan than I am... you're so partisan that you're now rabidly defending the classless attacks on a President's wife... Ignoring the fact that your response here is nothing more than the old I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I maneuver, you really should look into what I was telling you about your reading comprehension.

My first post in this thread was disagreeing with Lewpac where I said "Michelle Obama hasn't done anything beyond what first ladies have traditionally done so, IMHO, she is out of bounds."

But it seems that to you, saying "she is out of bounds" equals "rabidly defending the classless attacks." :rolleyes:

My friend, I am being serious and politely trying to help you. You really need to stop putting words in peoples' mouths and then responding to what you pretend they've said and not what they've actually said.

[Rogah]

Score one for you, it should of course be 93...

In my defense, I'll just note that this is Apple Blossom Festival, and I've spent most of the last two hours battling with some VERY drunk guests... I'm gonna bow out of this forum for tonight, until I can get my wits about me...

Yeah, that was stupid on my part... and yeah, if Palin had said it, it would have been equally stupid... And if Palin had said it, I would make the same assumptions I made when you said it: It was just a misstatement that anyone of us could make at anytime. Intelligent people can have brain farts, I certainly have plenty of my own.
But I'll bet you if you asked me what newspapers I read, I could quickly rattle off the Washington Post, the Winchester Star and the USA Today... I could also mention the DMN and the FWST, but I only read their sports pages...

Sarah couldn't even come up with the name of her own freakin' hometown paper!!! I only read my local papers occasionally, but they're the Daily News-Record and the Northern Virginia Daily... the Daily News Record is from out of Harrisonburg, the Northern Virginia Daily from Strasburg... See my friend, with all due respect, this is where you stray off the reservation. Sarah Palin was asked what media publications she read. She saw this as an ambush question (maybe it was and maybe it wasn't) so she dodged it. She was a deer in the headlights, she handled it very poorly and she would have brought less attention to the whole thing if she had just answered it instead of avoiding it.

But none of that means that she was literally, completely unable to name either local or national media publications or other outlets. She was just terrified of mentioning a publication that would have been portrayed as a right-wing oulet.

[iceberg]

Of course it is... indeed, you're FAR more partisan than I am... you're so partisan that you're now rabidly defending the classless attacks on a President's wife...

I'm quite sure you would have howled in protest if somebody had done that to Laura, or Barbara... but since it's a Democratic President's wife, to you she's fair game...

Can't get much more partisan than willing giving up any pretense at decency because you hate somebody's politics...

sb - you and burm are 2 of the MOST partisan people on this board. you start off threads yelling at "those righties" - you LOOK for these kinds of arguments to stir things up then run around saying it's not you.

you hate "those righties" so you NEVER offer them the same sense of decency. now, what is partisan is that's not it?

[Viper]

During the campaign, as Michelle spoke out, her remarks certainly were fair game. On the other hand, if the children were attacked, it would have disgusted me. Just as it did when Sarah Palin's children were attacked.

As a First Lady, Michelle has taken a traditional role. I have respect for the sacrifices she and other First Lady's' give while performing their duties. I do understand that Michelle will stand up for her man, yet as a First Lady she hasn't jumped into that political arena. If she does decide to venture down that road, the rules change, she is fair game.

I will not attack Obama's family just because Bush's family was attacked or Palin's family was relentlessly crucified by the Dems. I'm tired of the tit for tat both parties display.

[trickblue]

During the campaign, as Michelle spoke out, her remarks certainly were fair game. On the other hand, if the children were attacked, it would have disgusted me. Just as it did when Sarah Palin's children were attacked.

As a First Lady, Michelle has taken a traditional role. I have respect for the sacrifices she and other First Lady's' give while performing their duties. I do understand that Michelle will stand up for her man, yet as a First Lady she hasn't jumped into that political arena. If she does decide to venture down that road, the rules change, she is fair game.

I will not attack Obama's family just because Bush's family was attacked or Palin's family was relentlessly crucified by the Dems. I'm tired of the tit for tat both parties display.

The difference is that the media is still going after Ms. Palin's children... no one blinks an eye...

[TheCount]

The difference is that the media is still going after Ms. Palin's children... no one blinks an eye...

They are? I can't remember the last time I heard about Palin's kids other than her daughter had given birth. Then again, I don't read the tabloids.

[WoodysGirl]

They are? I can't remember the last time I heard about Palin's kids other than her daughter had given birth. Then again, I don't read the tabloids.
I think I saw a headline about Levi (baby daddy) going on Oprah or something. I don't know. I didn't read the article. It doesn't interest me.

[Rogah]

They are? I can't remember the last time I heard about Palin's kids other than her daughter had given birth. Then again, I don't read the tabloids.They still get mentioned every once in a while on the late night talk shows during the monologue, and the father of the child was recently on Larry King.

Personally, I really don't give a darn about the former Vice-Presidential nominee's daughter's ex-boyfriend all that much, but I guess some people out there do.

[trickblue]

They are? I can't remember the last time I heard about Palin's kids other than her daughter had given birth. Then again, I don't read the tabloids.

I've seen quite a few things... and I don't watch E!... I just read alot...

[Viper]

The difference is that the media is still going after Ms. Palin's children... no one blinks an eye...

I couldn't agree more Trick. I'm not them, it's one reason I no longer watch the big three News. NBC and GE are beginning to suffer because of their attitude towards the other half of the country.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Sigh... pal, you REALLY need to check your facts... the Clinton Health Care Task Force, headed up by Hillary, was created in January 1997... that's well within the first 100 days...

And might I suggest that while you're right about us not knowing yet how activist a role Michelle will take in this administration, to date there has been NO evidence that she plans on taking a Hillary-esque position?? And might I further suggest that until she does, you guys probably shouldn't be trashing her??

If she ever does assume such a role, then you can bash away, and I won't complain... I might argue, but I won't complain...

Come on Silver. The issue at hand is not if Hillary was appointed to head the Health Care task force and when. The issue is that the whole Clinton Healthcare thing didn't unravel in the first 100 days for the Clinton Administration. To say that Michelle is not Hillary, again, may or may not be true. The first 100 days has really given no proof one way or the other as she has not been forced to deal with any issues of significance. Now, if/when that happens, we will then see if she is more like Hillary or not. To this point, we don't one way or the other.

As for giving breaks, well, I already have. I didnot like the things she had to say during the campaign. I have said nothing, to this point, against her. However, I will not go so far as to say she is or is not the same person I saw in earlier months. Time will tell and that is as much a break as any person deserves.

[TheCount]

Come on Silver. The issue at hand is not if Hillary was appointed to head the Health Care task force and when. The issue is that the whole Clinton Healthcare thing didn't unravel in the first 100 days for the Clinton Administration. To say that Michelle is not Hillary, again, may or may not be true. The first 100 days has really given no proof one way or the other as she has not been forced to deal with any issues of significance. Now, if/when that happens, we will then see if she is more like Hillary or not. To this point, we don't one way or the other.

As for giving breaks, well, I already have. I didnot like the things she had to say during the campaign. I have said nothing, to this point, against her. However, I will not go so far as to say she is or is not the same person I saw in earlier months. Time will tell and that is as much a break as any person deserves.

Actually you don't have to wait for anything, she is quite literally, not Hillary.

Whatever reputation she creates will be that of Michelle Obama, so I fail to see what the significance of saying she may or may not "Be Hillary", is.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Actually you don't have to wait for anything, she is quite literally, not Hillary.

Whatever reputation she creates will be that of Michelle Obama, so I fail to see what the significance of saying she may or may not "Be Hillary", is.

Thanks for the tip. Don't know how I would ever make it through the day.

I suspect you fail to see because you have not taken the time to read the thread. Now, if you have read the thread and you are still failing to "See", then the problem is all together different. I have no inclination to explain it.

Is this really necessary?

[TheCount]

Thanks for the tip. Don't know how I would ever make it through the day.

I suspect you fail to see because you have not taken the time to read the thread. Now, if you have read the thread and you are still failing to "See", then the problem is all together different. I have no inclination to explain it.

Is this really necessary?

Don't worry, next time I'll wait for your permission to respond to a discussion, just hold your breath. I don't need you to explain anything, notice I didn't ask a question.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Don't worry, next time I'll wait for your permission to respond to a discussion, just hold your breath. I don't need you to explain anything, notice I didn't ask a question.

This is stepping the game up in your opinion?

OK then. Yes, please wait, or better yet, take my original advice and read the thread. Always a good idea.

Thank you

[TheCount]

This is stepping the game up in your opinion?

OK then. Yes, please wait, or better yet, take my original advice and read the thread. Always a good idea.

Thank you

You're rambling like an old man, still holding your breath I hope.

[DIAF]

Maybe they shouldn't be, but every other First Lady that I can remember has become a target, so I guess things won't be any different this time around.

[iceberg]

Maybe they shouldn't be, but every other First Lady that I can remember has become a target, so I guess things won't be any different this time around.

well it really seems anyone who stands up and speaks their mind is the target. joe the plummer asked a simple question and he suddenly was the posterboy for conservatives and the viscious target for the liberals.

it's extreme vs. extreme and the common man in the middle who's #'s dwarf the other two combined get lost in the "say it louder and with more hate, you're more correct" crowd.

these days the only thing it takes to be a target is to speak up.

[TheCount]

well it really seems anyone who stands up and speaks their mind is the target. joe the plummer asked a simple question and he suddenly was the posterboy for conservatives and the viscious target for the liberals.

it's extreme vs. extreme and the common man in the middle who's #'s dwarf the other two combined get lost in the "say it louder and with more hate, you're more correct" crowd.

these days the only thing it takes to be a target is to speak up.

Couldn't have said it better, but guys like Joe The Plumber (on both the conservative and liberal side) are far from being innocent victims. They wanted the spotlight, and they are enjoying their 15.

[iceberg]

Couldn't have said it better, but guys like Joe The Plumber (on both the conservative and liberal side) are far from being innocent victims. They wanted the spotlight, and they are enjoying their 15.

ok - to me *this* is the problem. or at least a heavy contributor.

count, we don't always agree but from my side, there's always been respect. disagreeing with me never takes that away in as much as "how" people disagree. but that's another story.

how do you know joes motives? from what i remember of the video the camera went to him - i didn't see him leapfrog and body surf his way to the front in order to get his 15 minutes going.

he asked a question, spoke up about his concerns, and was nailed for it.

most of us would shut up and go back to our corner. easier than fighting an extreme mob mentality. but he ran with it and got involved. imagine that, getting involved in the policital process is now tantamount to wanting your 15 minutes of fame.

no one said he was an innocent victim. what i am saying is he didn't seem to go into this to launch a new career, but when everything else was taken away from him by a prying media, he took another road and "got involved".

so like i said, all you have to do to get screamed at and become fair game is get involved.

you question his motives, it would seem. and you question his desires in all this, it would seem.

do you know him personally or did someone stand up, say something, and you now tear 'em down cause he did it and you don't like what he said?

that's what i'm seeing in such a quick/glib response from you - he WANTED the fame. he SOUGHT it out. did he?

or is he being exactly what i said happens far too much these days - getting attacked cause he stood up and didn't back down?

joe is the example here - to be sure. he gets used a lot in that regard. but i agree that too often we bash "the other side" for no other reason than it's easier to bash than dare to understand. *all sides do this*. then you have people like me, who while has my side i can gravitate to, i try to come back to the center and understand my ignorance vs. scream to cover it up.

but the quick classification and dismissal of the other side goes a long way in our own personal security, right or wrong.

[TheCount]

ok - to me *this* is the problem. or at least a heavy contributor.

count, we don't always agree but from my side, there's always been respect. disagreeing with me never takes that away in as much as "how" people disagree. but that's another story.

how do you know joes motives? from what i remember of the video the camera went to him - i didn't see him leapfrog and body surf his way to the front in order to get his 15 minutes going.

he asked a question, spoke up about his concerns, and was nailed for it.

most of us would shut up and go back to our corner. easier than fighting an extreme mob mentality. but he ran with it and got involved. imagine that, getting involved in the policital process is now tantamount to wanting your 15 minutes of fame.

no one said he was an innocent victim. what i am saying is he didn't seem to go into this to launch a new career, but when everything else was taken away from him by a prying media, he took another road and "got involved".

so like i said, all you have to do to get screamed at and become fair game is get involved.

you question his motives, it would seem. and you question his desires in all this, it would seem.

do you know him personally or did someone stand up, say something, and you now tear 'em down cause he did it and you don't like what he said?

that's what i'm seeing in such a quick/glib response from you - he WANTED the fame. he SOUGHT it out. did he?

or is he being exactly what i said happens far too much these days - getting attacked cause he stood up and didn't back down?

joe is the example here - to be sure. he gets used a lot in that regard. but i agree that too often we bash "the other side" for no other reason than it's easier to bash than dare to understand. *all sides do this*. then you have people like me, who while has my side i can gravitate to, i try to come back to the center and understand my ignorance vs. scream to cover it up.

but the quick classification and dismissal of the other side goes a long way in our own personal security, right or wrong.

You've inferred a lot from a simple statement, and I can't possibly respond in a satisfying manner to the many points you're raising.

I don't know his motives, but I've seen his actions. Being media shy is certainly not a part of his personality, and he's proven it again and again since the debate where McCain put him right in the eye of the hurricane.

Wanting attention and enjoying it isn't a crime, certainly not in America. It doesn't make him a bad person, it certainly doesn't make him a villain. You're making it seem like the world crucified the guy, and that's not the case.

Joe made several statements that could be deemed controversial, even beyond the scope of someone just trying to get involved, so he invited some of his critics as much as Janeane Garofalo has invited people to criticize her for her own controversial liberal views.

[iceberg]

You've inferred a lot from a simple statement, and I can't possibly respond in a satisfying manner to the many points you're raising.

I don't know his motives, but I've seen his actions. Being media shy is certainly not a part of his personality, and he's proven it again and again since the debate where McCain put him right in the eye of the hurricane.

Wanting attention and enjoying it isn't a crime, certainly not in America. It doesn't make him a bad person, it certainly doesn't make him a villain. You're making it seem like the world crucified the guy, and that's not the case.

Joe made several statements that could be deemed controversial, even beyond the scope of someone just trying to get involved, so he invited some of his critics as much as Janeane Garofalo has invited people to criticize her for her own controversial liberal views.

you seem to infer an awful lot from his motives, right?

all i'm saying is we all seem to be quick to just and scream at people who 'cross our path' vs try to understand their point of view. a lot more work and a lot less "secure" in our own personal feelings.

so he's not media shy. neither is obama. bush. clinton (any of them).

we live in an extreme time and maybe the only way you can be heard these days is to out-extreme the other person.

if trends go as trends do, the next big politician to make it will revert to a "back to basics" campaign and call out the "extreme" mindset and get the middle ground more involved.

all i'm saying is you seemed quick to just joe off what you saw on tv.

isn't that the basis of the problem we're talking about? all you have to do to be a target is stand up and talk?

does seem to be the case.

[TheCount]

you seem to infer an awful lot from his motives, right?

all i'm saying is we all seem to be quick to just and scream at people who 'cross our path' vs try to understand their point of view. a lot more work and a lot less "secure" in our own personal feelings.

so he's not media shy. neither is obama. bush. clinton (any of them).

we live in an extreme time and maybe the only way you can be heard these days is to out-extreme the other person.

if trends go as trends do, the next big politician to make it will revert to a "back to basics" campaign and call out the "extreme" mindset and get the middle ground more involved.

all i'm saying is you seemed quick to just joe off what you saw on tv.

isn't that the basis of the problem we're talking about? all you have to do to be a target is stand up and talk?

does seem to be the case.

I started out saying I don't know his motives, so how am I inferring a lot? I specifically stayed away from saying anything about his motives in my reply.

I don't see a problem in being criticized for stating your opinion, it happens on this forum daily whether we're talking about Romo or Obama. If you stand up and say something that millions of people will hear, expect to hear back from millions of people.

[ABQCOWBOY]

You're rambling like an old man, still holding your breath I hope.

If old means being able to identify your BS for what it is, then I'd hazzerd a guess that you are probably more correct then you know. I am not an unfair person IMO. I will give the same considerations to Michele Obama I give to other politicians. No more, no less, which is more then most on the left gave to FP Bush. Ultimatly, her actions will dictate views on her.

[TheCount]

If old means being able to identify your BS for what it is, then I'd hazzerd a guess that you are probably more correct then you know. I am not an unfair person IMO. I will give the same considerations to Michele Obama I give to other politicians. No more, no less, which is more then most on the left gave to FP Bush. Ultimatly, her actions will dictate views on her.

How on earth is that different from my saying she isn't Hillary and will create her own legacy? That of Michelle Obama?

I don't even know why you got so snarky in the first place.

I don't even know what Bush has to do with anything, I certainly didn't bring him up. Has he become some kind of martyr to the conservatives?

I didn't talk smack about Bush, I never have, so I'll assume that was meant for someone else.

[ABQCOWBOY]

How on earth is that different from my saying she isn't Hillary and will create her own legacy? That of Michelle Obama?

I don't even know why you got so snarky in the first place.

I don't even know what Bush has to do with anything, I certainly didn't bring him up. Has he become some kind of martyr to the conservatives?

I didn't talk smack about Bush, I never have, so I'll assume that was meant for someone else.

I brought him up because I think it's very interesting that you, as a Democrat, expect a certain level of respect, shall we say, paid to Michelle Obama when you never paid that same respect to the former President. That's why I bring it up. However, having said that, I will give her the opportunity to make her own way by her own actions.

I wil also take this opportunity to point out that I did not originally compare Hillary to Michelle Obama. I simply understood the reason for the comparison and tried to speak in context. Apparently, you have problem with this.

This is why I told you to read the thread. Clearly, you elected to ignore that. Now, if you still have a problem with this, suck it up. I have gone out of my way to try and explain it and I have no desire to participate any further in this stupid line of discussion. READ THE THREAD.

I trust this matter is over.

Thanks

[TheCount]

I brought him up because I think it's very interesting that you, as a Democrat, expect a certain level of respect, shall we say, paid to Michelle Obama when you never paid that same respect to the former President. That's why I bring it up. However, having said that, I will give her the opportunity to make her own way by her own actions.

I wil also take this opportunity to point out that I did not originally compare Hillary to Michelle Obama. I simply understood the reason for the comparison and tried to speak in context. Apparently, you have problem with this.

This is why I told you to read the thread. Clearly, you elected to ignore that. Now, if you still have a problem with this, suck it up. I have gone out of my way to try and explain it and I have no desire to participate any further in this stupid line of discussion. READ THE THREAD.

I trust this matter is over.

Thanks

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. I never paid any respect to Bush? You know jack about me if that's what you think, I always showed the guy respect. Please go ahead and pull up the archives of me disrespecting the man. I've challenged people to this again and again because assuming I hated Bush because I don't agree with you seems to be a favorite argument for conservatives, no one has taken me up on it.

It was a simple reply to the idea that "we don't know if Michelle is Hillary", I only quoted you because you were the last one to reply to that particular line of conversation.

You are being way over-sensitive.

[ABQCOWBOY]

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. I never paid any respect to Bush? You know jack about me if that's what you think, I always showed the guy respect. Please go ahead and pull up the archives of me disrespecting the man.

It was a simple reply to the idea that "we don't know if Michelle is Hillary", I only quoted you because you were the last one to reply to that particular line of conversation.

You are being way over-sensitive.

"I only quoted you because you were the last one to reply"

Sounds like an excellent reason to READ THE THREAD.

God Lord.

You know what, your right. You should just ignore my over-sensitivity because, as you clearly stated, I'm rambling like an old man.

:laugh2:



Sounds like a great reason to actually READ THE THREAD.

[TheCount]

"I only quoted you because you were the last one to reply"

Sounds like an excellent reason to READ THE THREAD.

God Lord.

You know what, your right. You should just ignore my over-sensitivity because, as you clearly stated, I'm rambling like an old man.

:laugh2:



Sounds like a great reason to actually READ THE THREAD.

Ignore sounds like a great idea.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Ignore sounds like a great idea.

I agree. Unfortunately, I can't put anybody on ignore. It is the price I pay I suppose.

:laugh2:

[TheCount]

I agree. Unfortunately, I can't put anybody on ignore. It is the price I pay I suppose.

:laugh2:

Apparently you can't ignore a mod either, so I guess we're both screwed.

[WoodysGirl]

Apparently you can't ignore a mod either, so I guess we're both screwed.
I didn't want to tell you that when you first suggested it.

Good luck with your self-discipline.