hawkeye10 wrote:...it might me that the point does not matter because Hillary is the candidate not him.....
Is this another rational argument or fact of yours?
So far, Obama has more delegates than Hillary, and CNN has this to
report today from Wyoming.
Quote:With 57 percent of precincts reporting, Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton 58 to 41 percent.....
Cal wrote-
Quote:Oy spendius. I'm no missionary and have not the time and patience to explain to you an equal relationship between man and women, especially when you haven't got any experience in it.
That's an ass backwards non-sequitur. Your premiss is not only a bald assertion, a sure sign of the wobbles, but quite untrue as well.
Some of us have heard of the Sorceress Sidonia if you haven't. She had the power to bend men's mind to her will.
Leads to ruin I'm afraid. Did you not Major in history or did you only do the cleaned up stuff?
hawkeye10 wrote:CalamityJane wrote:There is plenty of more statements like these coming from you, hawkeye, they prove that you're meaning of marriage and teamwork is quite different from the norm.
Not a whole lot of people run for the office of President, that is what is far from the norm. I stand by everything I said, my statements support my position about what she is called to do but says nothing about a woman's roll in marriage. It speaks to a spouses roll in a presidential campaign.
Yes, Michelle is Barack's wife, and as his wife, she has a role to play in the Nomination campaign. I'm sure they discussed it before and during the campaign to date, and in fact, have likely been advised by their strategists who likely pore over media reports and opinion polls.
According to you, however, you are naively contending that Michelle is so self-absorbed that she is willing to risk her husband's political future by doing and saying whatever she wants, ignoring polls, media and politico's opinions, her husband and his strategists. Now, sit and think for a moment. Is that what you are truly suggesting? If so, what is your proof?
hawkeye10 wrote:I am in part a provocateur
Hardly. You flatter yourself inaccurately. You are a sexist pig, trying in vain to divorce yourself from the indefensibly sexist crap you've posted. You are still betraying yourself despite yourself. Watch:
hawkeye10 wrote:If you should decide that you are capable of anything more than being a cheer leader for male bashing you know where to find me.
A cheerleader for male bashing? How so? How does bashing one sexist pig (you) constitute being a cheerleader for male bashing? No. Sorry. It doesn't. My position that you are wrong
and that men have no right to superimpose their will over that of their wives is indicative of a belief that men and women are completely equal in respect to their inherent right to their own self determination. Only a sexist pig could interpret such a position as taking something away from men
let alone cheerleading for male bashing. That you are unable or unwilling to recognize the inherent flaw in your own position is a product of your own shortcoming. Hawkeye bashing is a simple matter of calling a spade a spade. Real men don't think like you do, so Hawkeye-bashing most certainly doesn't constitute male bashing.
hawkeye10 wrote:
Yes, it is my opinion, backed with arguments and examples. I don't know what Barack asked of his wife, I don't know who's idea it was for her to fill up the public space with her personality, what I have said is that it is a mistake, and hurts him. It could be that neither one agrees, it may be that barack knows it but can not or will not get her to knock it off.
It might be that this year will prove my wrong, it might me that the point does not matter because Hillary is the candidate not him. I am arguing a position, which people have said that they disagree with, but which no one has made any case against. So I stick to my position.
http://polstate.com/?p=5273
Quote:March 4, 2008
2008: Barack Obama talks about expectations of today
In a meeting with the press earlier today on his campaign plane, Barack Obama spoke to about the snapshot of the race, today:
...
Q: Is there one defining moment that brought this campaign to where it is right now?
OBAMA: It was when Michelle started campaigning more actively. That turned it all around.
That enough of an argument against the case you are making against Michelle's tone? Is it enough for you that he is okay with and thankful for it?
Bill-
It's like a see-saw. When one end goes down it stays down and it's on its way as we speak. We are straining to hold it back.
Here's another argument against your assertion:
http://www.etonline.com/news/2008/02/59045/index.html
Quote:As the clock ticks toward Election Day in Ohio and Texas, BARACK OBAMA takes time out of his hectic schedule to talk to our JANN CARL about the people who keep him grounded during this crucial time in his life.
"If I ever get puffed up, she punctures me, knocks me down a peg," he says of his wife MICHELLE. "[She] asks me about stuff I was supposed to do around the house that hasn't gotten done. And my girls do that. Because whether I've had a good day or a bad day, if I'm talking to them and they tell me something exciting about a field trip they took or a play they're in, it reminds me of what's important."
Barack says that his 9-year-old is a chatterbox while the 6-year-old is a comedian. "They're better than TV," he says of his girls. "You just sit there and they can just amuse you all day long. And they're still at that age where they actually think you know what you're talking about. I'm sure that will fade very soon!"
He says so far his daughters have been pretty well protected from the spotlight, but have learned that him running for president takes some adjusting. So he and Michelle have made a deal with them. "After the campaign -- win or lose -- they will get a dog," he says. "Sometimes I worry that they're rooting for me to lose so that they can get their dog quicker!"
You can even hear it from his own mouth by watching the video at that link.
spendius wrote:Cal wrote-
Quote:Oy spendius. I'm no missionary and have not the time and patience to explain to you an equal relationship between man and women, especially when you haven't got any experience in it.
That's an ass backwards non-sequitur. Your premiss is not only a bald assertion, a sure sign of the wobbles, but quite untrue as well.
Some of us have heard of the Sorceress Sidonia if you haven't. She had the power to bend men's mind to her will.
Leads to ruin I'm afraid. Did you not Major in history or did you only do the cleaned up stuff?
What has this got to do with Michelle Obama? Are you comparing me
to Sidonia von Bork? No, I haven killed anyone (yet).
spendius wrote:Bill-
It's like a see-saw. When one end goes down it stays down and it's on its way as we speak. We are straining to hold it back.
Spendious; I believe you truly are a provocateur... so I take your silliness in jest (as opposed to the disdain I have for Hawkeye). But you're just as wrong.
On the macro of your comment; I view it more as getting closer to a true equilibrium. If I thought you were serious; I'd pity you.
With a former First Lady making a highly credible effort to reoccupy the White House, and, this time, the Oval Office as well, it makes sense for American voters to take a good look at the wives of the current male candidates. If Hillary is any example, voting her husband into the office will be providing Michelle with "the experience" she may (with profound irony) rely upon when she makes her own run for the presidency.
This is but one reason to take seriously her public comments and published opinions.
Another, is that spouses are, in one way or the other, a reflection of each other.
If someone's spouse enjoys setting fire to stray cats, public expressions of love, and support would, correctly, reflect that person's attitude about torturing animals.
Before some of our more hysterical posters fly off the handle, obviously Michelle is not someone who enjoys setting fire to stray cats. I am using exaggeration to make a point.
Of course one's reaction to her words and deeds are essentially one's opinion expressed. So what? One's vote for a candidate is one's opinion expressed.
That's what candidates count on, and none more than Obama.
It is ridiculous to suggest that someone's take on Michelle Obama's comments are immaterial because they are merely an expression of opinion.
It seems clear that Obama loves and respects his wife -- good for him. It also seems clear that he is hoping that his being married to her will help people form a favorable opinion of him.(It's naïve to think that Michelle has not in some way factored into Obama's strategy for running against a woman).To the extent that it works he succeeds; to the extent that it doesn't, it's at best disingenuous to cry foul. (Which, to his credit, he, unlike his supporters, doesn't seem to be doing --- but them maybe he's counting on his supporters to scream in protest.
It's hard to imagine that many people will not vote for Obama because a belief that he can't "control" his wife, simply because there is nothing at all to suggest that he is trying to do so. Instead it is much more reasonable for people to craft their opinion, in part, on what she is saying and doing since it seems clear that if he doesn't endorse it, he at least is OK with it.
She, and her comments, are not off limits.
BTW---It's hardly a truly feminist position to insult John McCain's wife because she chooses not to insert her opinions into the public debate or because she is attractive and younger than her husband. When you self-professed feminists what to decry hypocrisy, look to yourselves.
The same garbage was thrown out here about Fred Thompson's wife. Anyone who took the time to check Mrs Thompson out beyond her looks and cleavage would have found she is an intelligent, educated and articulate individual That she happens to be "hot" makes Thompson all the more lucky.
It is laughably ironic when a so-called feminist choses to judge a sister simply by her looks.
Bill wrote-
Quote:Spendious; I believe you truly are a provocateur...
To the extent that I am I am merely trying to get some arguments from Cal rather than this sort of thing-
Quote:I'm no missionary and have not the time and patience to explain to you an equal relationship between man and women, especially when you haven't got any experience in it.
Not only does it not mean anything but it suggests that there are no arguments and those sort of blurtings, which maybe you take seriously, are offered in lieu.
Just remember that all our best schools are dedicated to removing the baleful influence of the hand that rocks the cradle. They do rugby rather than deportment and eloqution. Latin and Greek rather than Media studies and pie making.
You must have seen St Trinians.
But you may pity me or otherwise at your convenience. I pity myself. Being at the mercy of forces I am unable to resist is pitiful.
Butrflynet wrote:
Q: Is there one defining moment that brought this campaign to where it is right now?
OBAMA: It was when Michelle started campaigning more actively. That turned it all around.
That enough of an argument against the case you are making against Michelle's tone? Is it enough for you that he is okay with and thankful for it?
No, because I have agreed that michelle can help him, and have not said that she has not. I also have said that Michelle being so outspoken will not hurt him against Hillary because Bill has been even worse. It is also true that Hillary can not throw Michelle under the bus because you women like to stick together and there would be an emotional response against Hillary if the did that to Michelle. I have said that McCain will use everything Michelle is now saying against Obama, which will come later. His own wife putting him down and publicly running over his personality with her own when so many already question if Obama has the balls to do the job of President will come in very handy for McCain. Michells words will reinforce a perception of Obama as weak that is already fairly strong.
Read all of the stuff that has come out in the last few days about Obama being willing or not to go balls to wall with Hillary now that she has demanded it. Almost everyone agrees that if he will not do it he will lose, and there is no clear sign that he is willing and able to do it. Hillary has challenged Obama's manhood, and he needs to step up. What Barack is getting from Hillary is nothing compared to what he will get from McCain.
I want Obama to win, he does not belong to just Michelle, my hopes and dreams for our nation for the moment ride with Barack. If she screws this campaign up I am going to be pissed, and it will not matter to me what Barack agreed to or why he did.
Bill-
Who do you think will make the best First Spouse?
Mame wrote:According to you, however, you are naively contending that Michelle is so self-absorbed that she is willing to risk her husband's political future by doing and saying whatever she wants, ignoring polls, media and politico's opinions, her husband and his strategists. Now, sit and think for a moment. Is that what you are truly suggesting? If so, what is your proof?
I am suggesting that the tone of her mom's comments are correct, that Michelle will not stay quiet for anyone for any reason. It is a character flaw. Yes, it is self absorption, though there is zero chance that she sees it that way.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:With a former First Lady making a highly credible effort to reoccupy the White House, and, this time, the Oval Office as well, it makes sense for American voters to take a good look at the wives of the current male candidates. If Hillary is any example, voting her husband into the office will be providing Michelle with "the experience" she may (with profound irony) rely upon when she makes her own run for the presidency.
So we should judge every spouse of a politician as if she was running for office. That is downright stupid to even suggest such a thing. Spouses aren't running for the office.
Quote:
This is but one reason to take seriously her public comments and published opinions.
Another, is that spouses are, in one way or the other, a reflection of each other.
If someone's spouse enjoys setting fire to stray cats, public expressions of love, and support would, correctly, reflect that person's attitude about torturing animals.
Before some of our more hysterical posters fly off the handle, obviously Michelle is not someone who enjoys setting fire to stray cats. I am using exaggeration to make a point.
No need to go hysterical about the exaggeration. The concept is silly. Yes, husband and wife may share some ideas but that doesn't mean they do. To use another silly exaggeration. If a man likes sleeping with women does that mean his wife also likes doing that? Public expressions of love and support really show nothing about attitude for personal foibles of one's spouse. No one is perfect and loving someone doesn't mean you love everything they do.
Finn,
I didn't notice anyone complaining that Michelle was criticized for being outspoken. I certainly have no issue with that. Like many, however, I do
disagree with the criticism. For that matter; I see nothing unreasonable about Hawkeye's belief that political spouses should tow the line, though I find it more than a bit presumptuous and frankly naïve (as he subsequently admitted; he can't
know anything). Neither Obama nor his staff need agree with everything she says for her to be an asset. IMHO, she is a very likeable figure in her candor and if I were advising Barack; I wouldn't advise his asking her to limit her discourse to canned PR friendly phoniness. It is only my opinion, of course, but I think a sincere 95% PR friendly Michelle is far more valuable than a Stepford wife would be
unless she has some ingenious ability to present a manufactured self as genuine, without losing a lick of her candid charm. That's a pretty tall order for most people (Bill Clinton being a notable exception).
I haven't heard her say anything ill-advised enough to offset the positives (by my reckoning) she brings to the table. People will all, of course, judge her differently, but that goes without say.
spendius wrote:Bill-
Who do you think will make the best First Spouse?
I haven't given it much thought, as it is hardly a primary concern. I have no cause to believe either of the potential First Lady's would do a bad job... though I don't think Bill could avoid stepping on his dick...
hawkeye10 wrote:Butrflynet wrote:
Q: Is there one defining moment that brought this campaign to where it is right now?
OBAMA: It was when Michelle started campaigning more actively. That turned it all around.
That enough of an argument against the case you are making against Michelle's tone? Is it enough for you that he is okay with and thankful for it?
No, because I have agreed that michelle can help him, and have not said that she has not. I also have said that Michelle being so outspoken will not hurt him against Hillary because Bill has been even worse. It is also true that Hillary can not throw Michelle under the bus because you women like to stick together and there would be an emotional response against Hillary if the did that to Michelle. I have said that McCain will use everything Michelle is now saying against Obama, which will come later. His own wife putting him down and publicly running over his personality with her own when so many already question if Obama has the balls to do the job of President will come in very handy for McCain. Michells words will reinforce a perception of Obama as weak that is already fairly strong.
Read all of the stuff that has come out in the last few days about Obama being willing or not to go balls to wall with Hillary now that she has demanded it. Almost everyone agrees that if he will not do it he will lose, and there is no clear sign that he is willing and able to do it. Hillary has challenged Obama's manhood, and he needs to step up. What Barack is getting from Hillary is nothing compared to what he will get from McCain.
I want Obama to win, he does not belong to just Michelle, my hopes and dreams for our nation for the moment ride with Barack. If she screws this campaign up I am going to be pissed, and it will not matter to me what Barack agreed to or why he did.
Publicly running over his personality with her own? When was that?
I think the "failure to secure the bread" comment may be at the heart of this.
I agree a political spouse should watch out about going wading in a pond at two in the morning, nekkid or semi, drunk, alone or with another... (that's a oblique reference for some oldies). A political spouse contradicting policy points? of course they may, but preferably not on Sunday morning news. Talking about failure to secure the bread from going stale? That's fondness talking.
ossobuco wrote:I think the "failure to secure the bread" comment may be at the heart of this.
I agree a political spouse should watch out about going wading in a pond at two in the morning, nekkid or semi, drunk, alone or with another... (that's a oblique reference for some oldies). A political spouse contradicting policy points? of course they may, but preferably not on Sunday morning news. Talking about failure to secure the bread from going stale? That's fondness talking.
Maybe you should cease and desist trying to guess at the motives of the other people in the debate, and concentrate on arguing your point of view. Your guesses often aren't very good, and they serve no purpose. My objections are clearly stated, go with that.
Bill wrote-
Quote:spendius wrote:
Bill-
Who do you think will make the best First Spouse?
I haven't given it much thought, as it is hardly a primary concern. I have no cause to believe either of the potential First Lady's would do a bad job... though I don't think Bill could avoid stepping on his dick...
Is that a disease endemic in the US. I had noticed signs of it here. They say we are only a year or two behind.
Perhaps that's why the French restrict US movie showings on their TV
Fancy being afraid of stepping on your dick.
Wimps eh?
hawkeye10 wrote:ossobuco wrote:I think the "failure to secure the bread" comment may be at the heart of this.
I agree a political spouse should watch out about going wading in a pond at two in the morning, nekkid or semi, drunk, alone or with another... (that's a oblique reference for some oldies). A political spouse contradicting policy points? of course they may, but preferably not on Sunday morning news. Talking about failure to secure the bread from going stale? That's fondness talking.
Maybe you should cease and desist trying to guess at the motives of the other people in the debate, and concentrate on arguing your point of view. Your guesses often aren't very good, and they serve no purpose. My objections are clearly stated, go with that.
They are? Could you pinpoint that again? This seems to be a thread about nothing at all.
Arguing my point of view? I need to prove the negative that you're point of view doesn't have beef to interest me? No.
