Obama: "Lay Off My Wife."

BPSCG · 19th May 2008, 08:22 AM

A new Obama Rule: Michelle Obama can make speeches, but Republicans may not address what she says.

Quote:

Sen. Barack Obama ripped into a Republican ad today that targets comments made by his wife, Michelle, and called the GOP tactic "low class" and "detestable."

The Illinois senator told "Good Morning America" that he expects hardball tactics from the Republicans if he becomes the Democratic presidential nominee.

Link

She can make public speeches saying, "America is just downright mean," but anyone who says she's wrong is "low class" and "detestable."

Darth Rotor · 19th May 2008, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

A new Obama Rule: Michelle Obama can make speeches, but Republicans may not address what she says.

Link

She can make public speeches saying, "America is just downright mean," but anyone who says she's wrong is "low class" and "detestable."

The Newsweek piece on her depicts a smart lady with a slight chip on her shoulder. Not sure how objective the article is, though its tone was generally positive, even if not a fluff piece.

As soon as she speaks up, she's in the game, and thus a target. Politics is a dirty business.

See also Ross Perot's family in the 1992 election, who didn't even speak up.

DR

fishbob · 19th May 2008, 08:43 AM

Quote:

. . . . Obama praised his wife's patriotism and said that for Republicans "to try to distort or to play snippets of her remarks in ways that are unflattering to her I think is just low class . . . .

I don't think this means what you think it means, Mr. distorto remark snippeter.

ImaginalDisc · 19th May 2008, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

A new Obama Rule: Michelle Obama can make speeches, but Republicans may not address what she says.

Link

She can make public speeches saying, "America is just downright mean," but anyone who says she's wrong is "low class" and "detestable."

His wife is not running for an elected office. Her statements aren't the issue here. Attacking a political candidate because their spouse says something you don't like is low class, mean, and I'll go further. It's juvenile.

Pookster · 19th May 2008, 09:23 AM

I think it's a smart move for Obama to make. While I do believe she is fair game if she's going to make speeches, Obama's objections could put him at an advantage in a political sense. He's framing the Republicans ads in a very clever way. He's standing up strong for his wife and demonizing those "attacking" her ...

Quote:

"...and especially for people who purport to be promoters of family values, who claim that they are protectors of the values and ideals and the decency of the American people to start attacking my wife in a political campaign I think is detestable."

Whether it works or not is yet to be seen, but it's a politically smart way of responding.

Brainster · 19th May 2008, 09:26 AM

When interviewing a candidate for an executive position, companies often request that they meet the spouse as well, as it is understood that the couple will often act as a team, entertaining clients at dinner parties. Michelle Obama will, if her husband is elected, be part of that husband and wife team, the First Couple. Absolutely, she's fair game, and I have no doubt that those wailing the loudest about how unfair this is will be the first to mention Cindy McCain's problem with pain-killers.

Pookster · 19th May 2008, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by Brainster

When interviewing a candidate for an executive position, companies often request that they meet the spouse as well, as it is understood that the couple will often act as a team, entertaining clients at dinner parties. Michelle Obama will, if her husband is elected, be part of that husband and wife team, the First Couple. Absolutely, she's fair game, and I have no doubt that those wailing the loudest about how unfair this is will be the first to mention Cindy McCain's problem with pain-killers.

It's purely a political move by Obama. He's using the family values issue to paint those behind such "attacks" on his wife as hypocrites. I think it's a very clever way of turning the issue.

ImaginalDisc · 19th May 2008, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by Brainster

When interviewing a candidate for an executive position, companies often request that they meet the spouse as well, as it is understood that the couple will often act as a team, entertaining clients at dinner parties. Michelle Obama will, if her husband is elected, be part of that husband and wife team, the First Couple. Absolutely, she's fair game, and I have no doubt that those wailing the loudest about how unfair this is will be the first to mention Cindy McCain's problem with pain-killers.

Firstly, there is a small army of professional diplomats, servers, and staffers whose jobs it is to "entertain" official visitors to the White House. The President's spouse does not have a crucial role unless the President wants them to. Even if your scenario of "don't hire that guy, his wife's stupid" wasn't unethical and possibly illegal, it still doesn't apply to the job of President of the United States.

Secondly, Obama is the one complaining about attacks on his wife here. Has he brought up Cindy McCain's "problem with pain-killers" which I neither knew not gave a damn about until you mentioned it?

BPSCG · 19th May 2008, 09:56 AM

Quote:

"Unless John McCain's idea of being a different kind of Republican means disrespecting the voters by denying them the right to examine the links between his political career and the McCains' business ventures, he should immediately release Cindy McCain's tax returns," said Democratic National Committee spokesman Damien LaVera.

Link.

The Dems had no problem bringing up the fact that Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian, (I guess the Dems think being a lesbian is something to be ashamed of...) so I doubt very much that they would consider anything about Cindy McCain to be off-limits.

chipmunk stew · 19th May 2008, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Link.

The Dems

You often start sentences this way. You should be more specific. In this case, it was John Edwards, if I'm not mistaken.

Originally Posted by BPSCG

had no problem bringing up the fact that Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian,

And got roundly criticized for it, from all sides.

Originally Posted by BPSCG

(I guess the Dems

There he goes again.

Originally Posted by BPSCG

think being a lesbian is something to be ashamed of...) so I doubt very much that they

And again.

Originally Posted by BPSCG

would consider anything about Cindy McCain to be off-limits.

BPSCG · 19th May 2008, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by chipmunk stew

You often start sentences this way. You should be more specific. In this case, it was John Edwards, if I'm not mistaken.

See, I thought it was John Kerry, and even started typing "John Kerry," until I realized I wasn't certain. Not feeling like looking it up, I typed "The Dems," instead.

Sounds like you're not sure it was Edwards, either.

Quote:

And got roundly criticized for it, from all sides.

Even from the Democratic side? Did Howard Dean (or whoever was the DNC chairman at the time) complain?

Quote:

There he goes again.

Quote:

And again.

What, you want me to name individual Democrats from now on? I'm not allowed to speak about Dems in general?

corplinx · 19th May 2008, 10:54 AM

Michelle Obama: fair game
Malia or Natasha Obama: not fair game

Its pretty simple, anyone who gives stump speeches for you is fair game no matter if they're you're spouse, crippled (Cleland), a 911 widow, or a 12 year old kid.

The democratic party has been successful in getting the media to parrot the "oh for shame" message when their stump speakers are predictably criticized. The really shameful thing is pulling this play to begin by picking someone to give a speech based on the utility of being able to criticize anyone who criticizes them. However, Michelle Obama was not picked out in this exploitative way.

WildCat · 19th May 2008, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

Even if your scenario of "don't hire that guy, his wife's stupid" wasn't unethical and possibly illegal, it still doesn't apply to the job of President of the United States.

You think it may be illegal to consider the candidate's spouse when voting?

FM21.105 · 19th May 2008, 11:25 AM

Why even look at her as the presidential candidate's wife? If she's now a public figure giving speeches and saying things that could be considered on the fringe, she is going to be fair game, no matter what.

Darth Rotor · 19th May 2008, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

Firstly, there is a small army of professional diplomats, servers, and staffers whose jobs it is to "entertain" official visitors to the White House. The President's spouse does not have a crucial role unless the President wants them to. Even if your scenario of "don't hire that guy, his wife's stupid" wasn't unethical and possibly illegal, it still doesn't apply to the job of President of the United States.

Recommend you do a little reading on the role of the First Lady since Martha Washington. Your "staffers" and such don't quite fulfill the social and society role the First Ladies adopt, whether you like it or not.

Quote:

Secondly, Obama is the one complaining about attacks on his wife here. Has he brought up Cindy McCain's "problem with pain-killers" which I neither knew not gave a damn about until you mentioned it?

Not yet. If I read Obama correctly, he'll not attack Cindy McCain, whom he's met and doubtless knows from various Senatorial social functions. Obama supporters and campaign mouths, on the other hand, may launch on her if they think it will work.

It's politics, election politics, and the mud flinging season is upon us.

Regarding your assertion that this behavior is juvenile: no need to cry about it, it is what it is. It's an old habit of American politics.

DR

Dr Adequate · 19th May 2008, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

What, you want me to name individual Democrats from now on? I'm not allowed to speak about Dems in general?

The Republicans hang about in restrooms soliciting sex from strangers.

That's why it's so difficult to find a free stall in red states.

A broad brush is one thing, but do we have to resort to paint-rollers?

BPSCG · 19th May 2008, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

The Republicans hang about in restrooms soliciting sex from strangers.

That's why it's so difficult to find a free stall in red states.

A broad brush is one thing, but do we have to resort to paint-rollers?

Okay, I did the google thing, and it turns out it was both John Kerry and John Edwards who brought up Mary Cheney's sexual orientation.

So, how many Democrats do I have to have, and how prominent do they have to be, before you will permit me to speak of Democrats in the plural? Please provide the number.

Dr Adequate · 19th May 2008, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

So, how many Democrats do I have to have, and how prominent do they have to be, before you will permit me to speak of Democrats in the plural? Please provide the number.

Two, obviously. But it will still not entitle you to speak of "the Dems".

Shall I dig out a second Republican lavatory bandit?

joobz · 19th May 2008, 12:27 PM

I'm curious to know why we always attack politicians' wives who are strong and opinionated. Is a passively demure wife still the Ideal that american's hold to?

Pookster · 19th May 2008, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Okay, I did the google thing, and it turns out it was both John Kerry and John Edwards who brought up Mary Cheney's sexual orientation.

So, how many Democrats do I have to have, and how prominent do they have to be, before you will permit me to speak of Democrats in the plural? Please provide the number.

Using the broad brush in situations like this is really just being lazy, IMO. It's many times also an easy way to spread misinformation. Why not just refer to the "Kerry campaign"? That would've worked for me anyways. If it had been the DNC making some official statement regarding Cheney's daughter being a lesbian, then it likely wouldn't be a problem.

Pookster · 19th May 2008, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by joobz

I'm curious to know why we always attack politicians' wives who are strong and opinionated. Is a passively demure wife still the Ideal that american's hold to?

If she's going to be a part of the campaign, then she's fair game. It's a dangerous thing to do though. Many don't like the idea of targeting family members. It's typically a sign of desperation. But, she's made herself quite prominent in the Obama campaign. Obama's statement is just a political counter to turn the issue back on the Republicans using the family values issue they've championed so much. It will be interesting to see how effective it might be.

IchabodPlain · 19th May 2008, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by joobz

I'm curious to know why we always attack politicians' wives who are strong and opinionated. Is a passively demure wife still the Ideal that american's hold to?

I don't think so. In fact, I think the strong and opinionated woman would be the first to speak up and defend herself. Instead, this seems like Barack speaking for her, IMO.

WildCat · 19th May 2008, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by joobz

I'm curious to know why we always attack politicians' wives who are strong and opinionated.

So a candidate is supposed to have a "strong and opinionated" wife who is immune from any criticisms of her opinion?

Quote:

Is a passively demure wife still the Ideal that american's hold to?

Hey, you're the one jumping to the little lady's defense as if she's a helpless flower with the vapors.

joobz · 19th May 2008, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by IchabodPlain

I don't think so. In fact, I think the strong and opinionated woman would be the first to speak up and defend herself. Instead, this seems like Barack speaking for her, IMO.

I agree. I think it fine that Barack Spoke up for her, but I'd rather hear her response.
In the end, I view the family attacks as secondary. Wives aren't the same as the husbands.

joobz · 19th May 2008, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

So a candidate is supposed to have a "strong and opinionated" wife who is immune from any criticisms of her opinion?

That's an interesting interpretation of my question. Do you think that all criticisms are all equally appropriate and with fair justification in the degree of scrutiny?

Originally Posted by WildCat

Hey, you're the one jumping to the little lady's defense as if she's a helpless flower with the vapors.

I'm defending her?? wow, you seem to enjoy making up positions to argue against.

fuelair · 19th May 2008, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Link.

The Dems had no problem bringing up the fact that Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian, (I guess the Dems think being a lesbian is something to be ashamed of...) so I doubt very much that they would consider anything about Cindy McCain to be off-limits.

Actually, I assume that they note republickers have a tendency against gays being able to wed, etc. and feel compelled to note the theoretical hypocrisy (since part of that belief system is that gays could be different, they just are being difficult.)

chipmunk stew · 19th May 2008, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

See, I thought it was John Kerry, and even started typing "John Kerry," until I realized I wasn't certain. Not feeling like looking it up, I typed "The Dems," instead.

It was a campaign tactic, so you could at least limit it to the campaign.

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Sounds like you're not sure it was Edwards, either.

Even from the Democratic side? Did Howard Dean (or whoever was the DNC chairman at the time) complain?

I don't know if the DNC chairman said anything about it, but many Dems considered it a cheapshot that was bound to backfire. And it did.

Originally Posted by BPSCG

What, you want me to name individual Democrats from now on? I'm not allowed to speak about Dems in general?

What is it with you and permission? If it doesn't apply to Dems in general, you'll get called out.

WildCat · 19th May 2008, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by joobz

That's an interesting interpretation of my question. Do you think that all criticisms are all equally appropriate and with fair justification in the degree of scrutiny?

Not what you were saying, was it? You said: "I'm curious to know why we always attack politicians' wives who are strong and opinionated. Is a passively demure wife still the Ideal that american's hold to?"

Now you're asking if all criticisms are equally appropriate? Just where are you going with those goal posts?

Quote:

I'm defending her?? wow, you seem to enjoy making up positions to argue against.

You did say you thought she was being attacked not for what she said, but only for being opinionated, yes? And you accuse me of making up a position to argue against?

WildCat · 19th May 2008, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by fuelair

Actually, I assume that they note republickers have a tendency against gays being able to wed, etc. and feel compelled to note the theoretical hypocrisy (since part of that belief system is that gays could be different, they just are being difficult.)

Which Dem POTUS candidate supports gay marriage again? I must have missed that one, it certainly wasn't Kerry or Edwards.

skeptical · 19th May 2008, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Link.

The Dems had no problem bringing up the fact that Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian, (I guess the Dems think being a lesbian is something to be ashamed of...) so I doubt very much that they would consider anything about Cindy McCain to be off-limits.

FWIW, my recollection is that at least as far as Kerry's comments, Cheney's daughters sexual orientation was brought up in the context of the Republicans "plank" of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. I saw at least one comment about it from Kerry during a debate, and that was the context in which it was mentioned.

I still thought it was not appropriate at the time, but I didn't consider it in any way an attempt by Kerry to bring up the subject as being derogatory towards HER, but only as derogatory about the gay marriage amendment issue and Republican support of it. In fact, I'm quite certain it was not brought up in the debate I saw as "something to be ashamed of", but perhaps there are other references I am not aware of.

As for what is "off limits", my impression is that the only thing either parties shills consider off limits is what might lose them an election. Repub shills are usually simply better at it then Dem shills, at least in terms of the really dirty tactics.

skeptical · 19th May 2008, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Which Dem POTUS candidate supports gay marriage again? I must have missed that one, it certainly wasn't Kerry or Edwards.

I think the difference was that at least some of the Repub's were in favor of an amendment to the Federal constitution to ban gay marriage across the board (Huckabee, Bush, perhaps others), whereas the Dems are content to leave it at the state level where it has always been.

The Painter · 19th May 2008, 02:05 PM

The only thing off limits are the kids. Everyone else, wife, brothers, sisters, mom, dad, aunt, uncle, etc... They are all fair game.

joobz · 19th May 2008, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Not what you were saying, was it? You said: "I'm curious to know why we always attack politicians' wives who are strong and opinionated. Is a passively demure wife still the Ideal that american's hold to?"

Now you're asking if all criticisms are equally appropriate? Just where are you going with those goal posts?

No goalpost shift, simply an observation on the style in which the attacks take. I was considering the way people went after Teresa Hinz-Kerry and Hillary Clinton during Bill's first run.

Originally Posted by WildCat

You did say you thought she was being attacked not for what she said, but only for being opinionated, yes?

I did allude to that, yes, and such a position isn't in defense of her. I never said, "lay off the poor woman." you seem to enjoy misrepresenting arguments. Not a very honest debate tactic.

Originally Posted by WildCat

And you accuse me of making up a position to argue against?

Yes, because you made up a position to argue against. I never said she was beyond criticism.

T.A.M. · 19th May 2008, 02:13 PM

Yah Michelle is fair game. You gotta respect a man sticking up for his wife though...on a personal level.

I appreciate the same from Bill wrt to Hillary. I would respect McCain doing the same if Cindy got flack.

TAM

BPSCG · 19th May 2008, 03:43 PM

Quote:

"I heard that growing up, 'You talk like a white girl,' " Obama told the Tribune on Friday in her first solo interview since her husband announced his candidacy for president in February. "There isn't one black person who doesn't understand that dynamic. That debate is about the pain that we still struggle with in this country, and Barack knows that more than anyone.

"One of the things I hope happens through our involvement in this campaign is that this country and this world sees yet another image of what it means to be black."

Her ability to speak with authority on such tough issues is one reason the campaign thinks she will be a potent weapon in its arsenal.

In modern politics, the marriage partnership is integral to the quest for the presidency, as voters evaluate a candidate in light of the relationship with his or her spouse. Bill Clinton offered himself and his wife as a two-for-one deal, something that came back to haunt them when he put his wife in charge of a health-care initiative that failed. Then there's the George and Laura Bush approach, with her more traditional role.

There's little doubt which of those models the Obamas would follow. "She's tough," Obama, 45, said of his wife after she spoke at the luncheon Monday that launched a new group, Women for Obama. "There's something about her that projects such honesty and strength. It's what makes her such an unbelievable professional, and partner, and mother, and wife."

(...snip...)

...Barack Obama and his campaign are certain she will prove a key asset in his drive for the White House. She has been gearing up her new campaign role, with a new chief of staff, assistant and spokeswoman who have come on board since early March.

Link

Got it? "...the campaign thinks she will be a potent weapon..."

"...she will prove a key asset in his drive for the White House. She has been gearing up her new campaign role..."

But if you challenge her, you're "low class" and "detestable." Them's the Obama Rules.

aerosolben · 19th May 2008, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by skeptical

I still thought it was not appropriate at the time, but I didn't consider it in any way an attempt by Kerry to bring up the subject as being derogatory towards HER, but only as derogatory about the gay marriage amendment issue and Republican support of it.

This is a good point. There is a difference between attacking a family member for their own actions (say, Jeb Bush's daughter), and attacking a politician's actions using a family member as evidence (Cheney's daughter).

Frankly, I think comments about Michelle Obama are fair game if it is relevant to her campaigning for her husband.

BeAChooser · 19th May 2008, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

The Newsweek piece on her depicts a smart lady with a slight chip on her shoulder. Not sure how objective the article is

Slight chip? Perhaps that alone is a measure of Newspeak's objectivity.

But I guess this tactic is going to be par for Obama's campaign. Afterall, we are already told not to discuss Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, and Tony Rezko. Or else.

BeAChooser · 19th May 2008, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

His wife is not running for an elected office.

She's acting like it. Or at least like she'll be a co-president, AKA the Clintons.

BeAChooser · 19th May 2008, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by Pookster

He's framing the Republicans ads in a very clever way.

You mean dishonest way.

moon1969 · 19th May 2008, 04:13 PM

Robert Byrd endorsed Barack Obama. So will David Duke endorse Obama?

19th May 2008, 08:22 AM	#1
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Obama: "Lay Off My Wife." A new Obama Rule: Michelle Obama can make speeches, but Republicans may not address what she says. Quote: Sen. Barack Obama ripped into a Republican ad today that targets comments made by his wife, Michelle, and called the GOP tactic "low class" and "detestable." The Illinois senator told "Good Morning America" that he expects hardball tactics from the Republicans if he becomes the Democratic presidential nominee. Link She can make public speeches saying, "America is just downright mean," but anyone who says she's wrong is "low class" and "detestable."
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

19th May 2008, 08:42 AM	#2
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,257	Originally Posted by BPSCG A new Obama Rule: Michelle Obama can make speeches, but Republicans may not address what she says. Link She can make public speeches saying, "America is just downright mean," but anyone who says she's wrong is "low class" and "detestable." The Newsweek piece on her depicts a smart lady with a slight chip on her shoulder. Not sure how objective the article is, though its tone was generally positive, even if not a fluff piece. As soon as she speaks up, she's in the game, and thus a target. Politics is a dirty business. See also Ross Perot's family in the 1992 election, who didn't even speak up. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

19th May 2008, 08:43 AM	#3
fishbob Seasonally Disaffected Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chilly Undieville Posts: 5,667	Quote: . . . . Obama praised his wife's patriotism and said that for Republicans "to try to distort or to play snippets of her remarks in ways that are unflattering to her I think is just low class . . . . I don't think this means what you think it means, Mr. distorto remark snippeter.
	__________________ When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder "Stupidity - a callow indifference to facts or data" - Stuart Firestein -neuroscientist. I hate bigots.

19th May 2008, 09:01 AM	#4
ImaginalDisc Proactive Untwister of Octagonal Hippopotamus Pants Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Miami, Fl Posts: 10,225	Originally Posted by BPSCG A new Obama Rule: Michelle Obama can make speeches, but Republicans may not address what she says. Link She can make public speeches saying, "America is just downright mean," but anyone who says she's wrong is "low class" and "detestable." His wife is not running for an elected office. Her statements aren't the issue here. Attacking a political candidate because their spouse says something you don't like is low class, mean, and I'll go further. It's juvenile.
	__________________ Definition: 'Love' is making a shot to the knees of a target 120 kilometers away using an Aratech sniper rifle with a tri-light scope. Statement: This definition, I am told, is subject to interpretation. Obviously, love is a matter of odds. Not many meatbags could make such a shot, and fewer would derive love from it. Yet for me, love is knowing your target, putting them in your targeting reticle, and together, achieving a singular purpose, against statistically long odds. *-HK-47*

19th May 2008, 09:26 AM	#6
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,429	When interviewing a candidate for an executive position, companies often request that they meet the spouse as well, as it is understood that the couple will often act as a team, entertaining clients at dinner parties. Michelle Obama will, if her husband is elected, be part of that husband and wife team, the First Couple. Absolutely, she's fair game, and I have no doubt that those wailing the loudest about how unfair this is will be the first to mention Cindy McCain's problem with pain-killers.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

19th May 2008, 09:23 AM	#5
Pookster Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Southeast USA Posts: 1,788	I think it's a smart move for Obama to make. While I do believe she is fair game if she's going to make speeches, Obama's objections could put him at an advantage in a political sense. He's framing the Republicans ads in a very clever way. He's standing up strong for his wife and demonizing those "attacking" her ... Quote: "...and especially for people who purport to be promoters of family values, who claim that they are protectors of the values and ideals and the decency of the American people to start attacking my wife in a political campaign I think is detestable." Whether it works or not is yet to be seen, but it's a politically smart way of responding.

19th May 2008, 09:37 AM	#7
Pookster Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Southeast USA Posts: 1,788	Originally Posted by Brainster When interviewing a candidate for an executive position, companies often request that they meet the spouse as well, as it is understood that the couple will often act as a team, entertaining clients at dinner parties. Michelle Obama will, if her husband is elected, be part of that husband and wife team, the First Couple. Absolutely, she's fair game, and I have no doubt that those wailing the loudest about how unfair this is will be the first to mention Cindy McCain's problem with pain-killers. It's purely a political move by Obama. He's using the family values issue to paint those behind such "attacks" on his wife as hypocrites. I think it's a very clever way of turning the issue.

19th May 2008, 09:40 AM	#8
ImaginalDisc Proactive Untwister of Octagonal Hippopotamus Pants Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Miami, Fl Posts: 10,225	Originally Posted by Brainster When interviewing a candidate for an executive position, companies often request that they meet the spouse as well, as it is understood that the couple will often act as a team, entertaining clients at dinner parties. Michelle Obama will, if her husband is elected, be part of that husband and wife team, the First Couple. Absolutely, she's fair game, and I have no doubt that those wailing the loudest about how unfair this is will be the first to mention Cindy McCain's problem with pain-killers. Firstly, there is a small army of professional diplomats, servers, and staffers whose jobs it is to "entertain" official visitors to the White House. The President's spouse does not have a crucial role unless the President wants them to. Even if your scenario of "don't hire that guy, his wife's stupid" wasn't unethical and possibly illegal, it still doesn't apply to the job of President of the United States. Secondly, Obama is the one complaining about attacks on his wife here. Has he brought up Cindy McCain's "problem with pain-killers" which I neither knew not gave a damn about until you mentioned it?
	__________________ Definition: 'Love' is making a shot to the knees of a target 120 kilometers away using an Aratech sniper rifle with a tri-light scope. Statement: This definition, I am told, is subject to interpretation. Obviously, love is a matter of odds. Not many meatbags could make such a shot, and fewer would derive love from it. Yet for me, love is knowing your target, putting them in your targeting reticle, and together, achieving a singular purpose, against statistically long odds. *-HK-47*

19th May 2008, 09:56 AM	#9
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Quote: "Unless John McCain's idea of being a different kind of Republican means disrespecting the voters by denying them the right to examine the links between his political career and the McCains' business ventures, he should immediately release Cindy McCain's tax returns," said Democratic National Committee spokesman Damien LaVera. Link. The Dems had no problem bringing up the fact that Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian, (I guess the Dems think being a lesbian is something to be ashamed of...) so I doubt very much that they would consider anything about Cindy McCain to be off-limits.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

19th May 2008, 10:12 AM	#10
chipmunk stew The Spikey Mace of Love and Mercy Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: SE PA Posts: 7,465	Originally Posted by BPSCG Link. The Dems You often start sentences this way. You should be more specific. In this case, it was John Edwards, if I'm not mistaken. Originally Posted by BPSCG had no problem bringing up the fact that Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian, And got roundly criticized for it, from all sides. Originally Posted by BPSCG (I guess the Dems There he goes again. Originally Posted by BPSCG think being a lesbian is something to be ashamed of...) so I doubt very much that they And again. Originally Posted by BPSCG would consider anything about Cindy McCain to be off-limits.
	__________________

19th May 2008, 10:37 AM	#11
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by chipmunk stew You often start sentences this way. You should be more specific. In this case, it was John Edwards, if I'm not mistaken. See, I thought it was John Kerry, and even started typing "John Kerry," until I realized I wasn't certain. Not feeling like looking it up, I typed "The Dems," instead. Sounds like you're not sure it was Edwards, either. Quote: And got roundly criticized for it, from all sides. Even from the Democratic side? Did Howard Dean (or whoever was the DNC chairman at the time) complain? Quote: There he goes again. Quote: And again. What, you want me to name individual Democrats from now on? I'm not allowed to speak about Dems in general?
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

19th May 2008, 10:54 AM	#12
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	Michelle Obama: fair game Malia or Natasha Obama: not fair game Its pretty simple, anyone who gives stump speeches for you is fair game no matter if they're you're spouse, crippled (Cleland), a 911 widow, or a 12 year old kid. The democratic party has been successful in getting the media to parrot the "oh for shame" message when their stump speakers are predictably criticized. The really shameful thing is pulling this play to begin by picking someone to give a speech based on the utility of being able to criticize anyone who criticizes them. However, Michelle Obama was not picked out in this exploitative way.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	__________________ In the tradition of "Stop Silvia!" Stop Hal Bidlack: http://skepticalcommunity.com/forums...hp?f=1&t=28671

19th May 2008, 11:25 AM	#13
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,058	Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc Even if your scenario of "don't hire that guy, his wife's stupid" wasn't unethical and possibly illegal, it still doesn't apply to the job of President of the United States. You think it may be illegal to consider the candidate's spouse when voting?

19th May 2008, 11:25 AM	#14
FM21.105 Thinker Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 156	Why even look at her as the presidential candidate's wife? If she's now a public figure giving speeches and saying things that could be considered on the fringe, she is going to be fair game, no matter what.
FM21.105 Thinker Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 156

19th May 2008, 11:34 AM	#15
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,257	Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc Firstly, there is a small army of professional diplomats, servers, and staffers whose jobs it is to "entertain" official visitors to the White House. The President's spouse does not have a crucial role unless the President wants them to. Even if your scenario of "don't hire that guy, his wife's stupid" wasn't unethical and possibly illegal, it still doesn't apply to the job of President of the United States. Recommend you do a little reading on the role of the First Lady since Martha Washington. Your "staffers" and such don't quite fulfill the social and society role the First Ladies adopt, whether you like it or not. Quote: Secondly, Obama is the one complaining about attacks on his wife here. Has he brought up Cindy McCain's "problem with pain-killers" which I neither knew not gave a damn about until you mentioned it? Not yet. If I read Obama correctly, he'll not attack Cindy McCain, whom he's met and doubtless knows from various Senatorial social functions. Obama supporters and campaign mouths, on the other hand, may launch on her if they think it will work. It's politics, election politics, and the mud flinging season is upon us. Regarding your assertion that this behavior is juvenile: no need to cry about it, it is what it is. It's an old habit of American politics. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis Last edited by Darth Rotor; 19th May 2008 at 11:37 AM.

19th May 2008, 12:01 PM	#16
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by BPSCG What, you want me to name individual Democrats from now on? I'm not allowed to speak about Dems in general? The Republicans hang about in restrooms soliciting sex from strangers. That's why it's so difficult to find a free stall in red states. A broad brush is one thing, but do we have to resort to paint-rollers?

19th May 2008, 12:10 PM	#17
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate The Republicans hang about in restrooms soliciting sex from strangers. That's why it's so difficult to find a free stall in red states. A broad brush is one thing, but do we have to resort to paint-rollers? Okay, I did the google thing, and it turns out it was *both* John Kerry *and* John Edwards who brought up Mary Cheney's sexual orientation. So, how many Democrats do I have to have, and how prominent do they have to be, before you will permit me to speak of Democrats in the plural? Please provide the number.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

19th May 2008, 12:22 PM	#18
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by BPSCG So, how many Democrats do I have to have, and how prominent do they have to be, before you will permit me to speak of Democrats in the plural? Please provide the number. Two, obviously. But it will still not entitle you to speak of "the Dems". Shall I dig out a second Republican lavatory bandit?

19th May 2008, 12:27 PM	#19
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,496	I'm curious to know why we always attack politicians' wives who are strong and opinionated. Is a passively demure wife still the Ideal that american's hold to?
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

19th May 2008, 12:29 PM	#20
Pookster Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Southeast USA Posts: 1,788	Originally Posted by BPSCG Okay, I did the google thing, and it turns out it was *both* John Kerry *and* John Edwards who brought up Mary Cheney's sexual orientation. So, how many Democrats do I have to have, and how prominent do they have to be, before you will permit me to speak of Democrats in the plural? Please provide the number. Using the broad brush in situations like this is really just being lazy, IMO. It's many times also an easy way to spread misinformation. Why not just refer to the "Kerry campaign"? That would've worked for me anyways. If it had been the DNC making some official statement regarding Cheney's daughter being a lesbian, then it likely wouldn't be a problem.

19th May 2008, 12:42 PM	#21
Pookster Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Southeast USA Posts: 1,788	Originally Posted by joobz I'm curious to know why we always attack politicians' wives who are strong and opinionated. Is a passively demure wife still the Ideal that american's hold to? If she's going to be a part of the campaign, then she's fair game. It's a dangerous thing to do though. Many don't like the idea of targeting family members. It's typically a sign of desperation. But, she's made herself quite prominent in the Obama campaign. Obama's statement is just a political counter to turn the issue back on the Republicans using the family values issue they've championed so much. It will be interesting to see how effective it might be.

19th May 2008, 12:43 PM	#22
IchabodPlain Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 1,250	Originally Posted by joobz I'm curious to know why we always attack politicians' wives who are strong and opinionated. Is a passively demure wife still the Ideal that american's hold to? I don't think so. In fact, I think the strong and opinionated woman would be the first to speak up and defend herself. Instead, this seems like Barack speaking for her, IMO.
	__________________ ...and with the joy of responsibility comes the burden of obligation. ~ Hank Hill

19th May 2008, 12:44 PM	#23
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,058	Originally Posted by joobz I'm curious to know why we always attack politicians' wives who are strong and opinionated. So a candidate is supposed to have a "strong and opinionated" wife who is immune from any criticisms of her opinion? Quote: Is a passively demure wife still the Ideal that american's hold to? Hey, you're the one jumping to the little lady's defense as if she's a helpless flower with the vapors.

19th May 2008, 12:52 PM	#24
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,496	Originally Posted by IchabodPlain I don't think so. In fact, I think the strong and opinionated woman would be the first to speak up and defend herself. Instead, this seems like Barack speaking for her, IMO. I agree. I think it fine that Barack Spoke up for her, but I'd rather hear her response. In the end, I view the family attacks as secondary. Wives aren't the same as the husbands.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser Last edited by joobz; 19th May 2008 at 12:54 PM.

19th May 2008, 01:13 PM	#25
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,496	Originally Posted by WildCat So a candidate is supposed to have a "strong and opinionated" wife who is immune from any criticisms of her opinion? That's an interesting interpretation of my question. Do you think that all criticisms are all equally appropriate and with fair justification in the degree of scrutiny? Originally Posted by WildCat Hey, you're the one jumping to the little lady's defense as if she's a helpless flower with the vapors. I'm defending her?? wow, you seem to enjoy making up positions to argue against.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser Last edited by joobz; 19th May 2008 at 01:17 PM.

19th May 2008, 01:43 PM	#26
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,947	Originally Posted by BPSCG Link. The Dems had no problem bringing up the fact that Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian, (I guess the Dems think being a lesbian is something to be ashamed of...) so I doubt very much that they would consider anything about Cindy McCain to be off-limits. Actually, I assume that they note republickers have a tendency against gays being able to wed, etc. and feel compelled to note the theoretical hypocrisy (since part of that belief system is that gays could be different, they just are being difficult.)
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,947

19th May 2008, 01:45 PM	#27
chipmunk stew The Spikey Mace of Love and Mercy Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: SE PA Posts: 7,465	Originally Posted by BPSCG See, I thought it was John Kerry, and even started typing "John Kerry," until I realized I wasn't certain. Not feeling like looking it up, I typed "The Dems," instead. It was a campaign tactic, so you could at least limit it to the campaign. Originally Posted by BPSCG Sounds like you're not sure it was Edwards, either. Even from the Democratic side? Did Howard Dean (or whoever was the DNC chairman at the time) complain? I don't know if the DNC chairman said anything about it, but many Dems considered it a cheapshot that was bound to backfire. And it did. Originally Posted by BPSCG What, you want me to name individual Democrats from now on? I'm not allowed to speak about Dems in general? What is it with you and permission? If it doesn't apply to Dems in general, you'll get called out.
	__________________

19th May 2008, 01:46 PM	#28
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,058	Originally Posted by joobz That's an interesting interpretation of my question. Do you think that all criticisms are all equally appropriate and with fair justification in the degree of scrutiny? Not what you were saying, was it? You said: "I'm curious to know why we always attack politicians' wives who are strong and opinionated. Is a passively demure wife still the Ideal that american's hold to?" Now you're asking if all criticisms are equally appropriate? Just where are you going with those goal posts? Quote: I'm defending her?? wow, you seem to enjoy making up positions to argue against. You did say you thought she was being attacked not for what she said, but only for being opinionated, yes? And you accuse me of making up a position to argue against?

19th May 2008, 01:48 PM	#29
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,058	Originally Posted by fuelair Actually, I assume that they note republickers have a tendency against gays being able to wed, etc. and feel compelled to note the theoretical hypocrisy (since part of that belief system is that gays could be different, they just are being difficult.) Which Dem POTUS candidate supports gay marriage again? I must have missed that one, it certainly wasn't Kerry or Edwards.

19th May 2008, 01:49 PM	#30
skeptical Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 957	Originally Posted by BPSCG Link. The Dems had no problem bringing up the fact that Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian, (I guess the Dems think being a lesbian is something to be ashamed of...) so I doubt very much that they would consider anything about Cindy McCain to be off-limits. FWIW, my recollection is that at least as far as Kerry's comments, Cheney's daughters sexual orientation was brought up in the context of the Republicans "plank" of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. I saw at least one comment about it from Kerry during a debate, and that was the context in which it was mentioned. I still thought it was not appropriate at the time, but I didn't consider it in any way an attempt by Kerry to bring up the subject as being derogatory towards HER, but only as derogatory about the gay marriage amendment issue and Republican support of it. In fact, I'm quite certain it was not brought up in the debate I saw as "something to be ashamed of", but perhaps there are other references I am not aware of. As for what is "off limits", my impression is that the only thing either parties shills consider off limits is what might lose them an election. Repub shills are usually simply better at it then Dem shills, at least in terms of the really dirty tactics.
skeptical Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 957	__________________ Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. - Carl Sagan Ignorance and fanaticism is ever busy and needs feeding.- Clarence Darrow, Scopes trial 1925 When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen Roberts

19th May 2008, 01:55 PM	#31
skeptical Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 957	Originally Posted by WildCat Which Dem POTUS candidate supports gay marriage again? I must have missed that one, it certainly wasn't Kerry or Edwards. I think the difference was that at least some of the Repub's were in favor of an amendment to the Federal constitution to ban gay marriage across the board (Huckabee, Bush, perhaps others), whereas the Dems are content to leave it at the state level where it has always been.
skeptical Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 957	__________________ Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. - Carl Sagan Ignorance and fanaticism is ever busy and needs feeding.- Clarence Darrow, Scopes trial 1925 When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen Roberts

19th May 2008, 02:05 PM	#32
The Painter Banned Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: New York Posts: 2,656	The only thing off limits are the kids. Everyone else, wife, brothers, sisters, mom, dad, aunt, uncle, etc... They are all fair game.

19th May 2008, 02:11 PM	#33
joobz Tergiversator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,496	Originally Posted by WildCat Not what you were saying, was it? You said: "I'm curious to know why we always attack politicians' wives who are strong and opinionated. Is a passively demure wife still the Ideal that american's hold to?" Now you're asking if all criticisms are equally appropriate? Just where are you going with those goal posts? No goalpost shift, simply an observation on the style in which the attacks take. I was considering the way people went after Teresa Hinz-Kerry and Hillary Clinton during Bill's first run. Originally Posted by WildCat You did say you thought she was being attacked not for what she said, but only for being opinionated, yes? I did allude to that, yes, and such a position isn't in defense of her. I never said, "lay off the poor woman." you seem to enjoy misrepresenting arguments. Not a very honest debate tactic. Originally Posted by WildCat And you accuse me of making up a position to argue against? Yes, because you made up a position to argue against. I never said she was beyond criticism.
	__________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

19th May 2008, 02:13 PM	#34
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Yah Michelle is fair game. You gotta respect a man sticking up for his wife though...on a personal level. I appreciate the same from Bill wrt to Hillary. I would respect McCain doing the same if Cindy got flack. TAM

19th May 2008, 03:43 PM	#35
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Quote: "I heard that growing up, 'You talk like a white girl,' " Obama told the Tribune on Friday in her first solo interview since her husband announced his candidacy for president in February. "There isn't one black person who doesn't understand that dynamic. That debate is about the pain that we still struggle with in this country, and Barack knows that more than anyone. "One of the things I hope happens through our involvement in this campaign is that this country and this world sees yet another image of what it means to be black." Her ability to speak with authority on such tough issues is one reason the campaign thinks she will be a potent weapon in its arsenal. In modern politics, the marriage partnership is integral to the quest for the presidency, as voters evaluate a candidate in light of the relationship with his or her spouse. Bill Clinton offered himself and his wife as a two-for-one deal, something that came back to haunt them when he put his wife in charge of a health-care initiative that failed. Then there's the George and Laura Bush approach, with her more traditional role. There's little doubt which of those models the Obamas would follow. "She's tough," Obama, 45, said of his wife after she spoke at the luncheon Monday that launched a new group, Women for Obama. "There's something about her that projects such honesty and strength. It's what makes her such an unbelievable professional, and partner, and mother, and wife." (...snip...) ...Barack Obama and his campaign are certain she will prove a key asset in his drive for the White House. She has been gearing up her new campaign role, with a new chief of staff, assistant and spokeswoman who have come on board since early March. Link Got it? *"...the campaign thinks she will be a potent weapon..."* "...she will prove a key asset in his drive for the White House. She has been gearing up her new campaign role..." But if you challenge her, you're "low class" and "detestable." Them's the Obama Rules.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.