Michele Obama's Big Mouth

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.

I figure Michelle Obama has some influence on Barack Obama's refining of his takes on things, but I expect that is in the realm of presentation. He has advisors up the kazoo. He and she are not the same person, and I'd be very surprised if he is not clear on that.


I'll acknowledge that can be a worry with some couples, but I don't see it going on.

parados wrote:

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.

What is downright stupid is to take what I have written and turn it into a declaration that we should judge every spouse of a politician as if she was running for office.

We have seen in the past dynastic families in American politics. Up until now they have tended to involve the male lines of a family, and certainly this has been the case with the presidency. Hillary Clinton in this election has set a precedent that we can expect to be repeated.

It makes sense to consider the spouses of candidates if they demonstrate any potential for seeking elected office, in one's estimation of the candidate. It also makes sense to consider any other family member with actual or potential political aspirations.

As has been demonstrated time and time again, the election of one member of a family opens the door for the election of other members - including spouses. As a result it has always made sense to consider the possibility that electing one member of a family might pave the way for the political career of others. By no means should it be the only consideration, nor even one of the most important, but despite the fact that almost no one actually thinks about, I would argue they should.

eh?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

parados wrote:

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.

What is downright stupid is to take what I have written and turn it into a declaration that we should judge every spouse of a politician as if she was running for office.

Oh. so we shouldn't judge spouses as if they are running for office.

Quote:

We have seen in the past dynastic families in American politics. Up until now they have tended to involve the male lines of a family, and certainly this has been the case with the presidency. Hillary Clinton in this election has set a precedent that we can expect to be repeated.

It makes sense to consider the spouses of candidates if they demonstrate any potential for seeking elected office, in one's estimation of the candidate. It also makes sense to consider any other family member with actual or potential political aspirations.

And you have evidence of a dynasty in Obama's family? No, I don't think you do. You are blowing smoke that when shown to be smoke you try to blow more smoke.

Quote:

As has been demonstrated time and time again, the election of one member of a family opens the door for the election of other members - including spouses. As a result it has always made sense to consider the possibility that electing one member of a family might pave the way for the political career of others. By no means should it be the only consideration, nor even one of the most important, but despite the fact that almost no one actually thinks about, I would argue they should.

I see, so we SHOULD judge them as if they are running for office. Would you make up your mind already? It's always painful to watch you argue with yourself.

I'll look at it in the morning. And, wow yourself.

I'm famous for word play, however poorly worked out. Sorry you don't like kazoo instead of wazoo. Perhaps you can think of a third word..

After losing Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and his mojo, and getting whipsawed around by Hillary and his own chuckleheaded coterie of advisers, he will now have to come to grips with something he has always skittered away from: You can't be elected president unless you prove you're tough.

Hillary's undeniably tough, as even admiring conservatives admit. The Wall Street Journal op-ed page dubbed her Ma Barker, saying she had tapped into the angst of blue-collar women who know they have to ignore their "moping" men and "suck it up and hold the house together."

Ma Clinton knows where Obambi's soft spots are; she knows he likes being petted on his pedestal, that he's unnerved by her, and that he can never fully accept how shameless she is. What could be more shameless than suggesting to Democrats that John McCain would make a better commander in chief than Obama?

The Obama campaign seems naïve when it keeps reacting with hurt feelings and play-by-the-rules protestations to the Clinton modus vivendi of grabbing the slightest slip and ripping it open. Hillary's kneecapper Howard Wolfson compares the goo-goo Obama campaign to Ken Starr with a straight face.

The superdelegates are watching to see if Obama can stiffen his backbone. After seeing their candidates lose races they should have won in 2000 and 2004 because they flinched at Republican political waterboarding, Democrats do not want to watch the bully swipe their lollipop a third time.

I so hope my access works tomorrow, Hack.

You light up my life...

RH

ossobuco wrote:

I'll look at it in the morning. And, wow yourself.

I'm famous for word play, however poorly worked out. Sorry you don't like kazoo instead of wazoo. Perhaps you can think of a third word..

Apparently, common English now accepts "kazoo" as "the buttocks or anus" and so your usage was academically acceptible.

On the other hand, "wazoo" has no accepted definition other than "the buttocks or anus."

So corruption of a perfectly defined term can lead to accepted usage, but no pride should be taken in its employment.

There is no need for a third choice. "Kazoo" is ambiguous; "wazoo" is not.

If it has not already arrived, at some point I expect the corrupted use of "literally" to be accepted by Websters. At that point you may feel ratified by asserting that Obama has numerous advisors, literally, up his kazoo.

ossobuco wrote:

I'll look at it in the morning. And, wow yourself.

I'm famous for word play, however poorly worked out. Sorry you don't like kazoo instead of wazoo. Perhaps you can think of a third word..

Apparently, common English now accepts "kazoo" as "the buttocks or anus" and so your usage was academically acceptible.

On the other hand, "wazoo" has no accepted definition other than "the buttocks or anus."

So corruption of a perfectly defined term can lead to accepted usage, but no pride should be taken in its employment.

There is no need for a third choice. "Kazoo" is ambiguous; "wazoo" is not.

If it has not already arrived, at some point I expect the corrupted use of "literally" to be accepted by Websters. At that point you may feel ratified by asserting that Obama has numerous advisors, literally, up his kazoo.