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.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
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 some one'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 some one's take on Michelle Obama's comments are immaterial because they are merely an expression of opinion.
.
A lot of us choose mates who are in many ways opposite ourselves, though we must of course share some core values. So, you cant tell very much about Barack from looking at his wife. I care that he picked a interesting, smart, and caring person for his wife and that tells me something about Barack, but that is as far as that goes.
Sure, the wife will counsel the president, so will countless others. The person we elect will be responsible for what he/she chooses to do while in office, not those who they take advise from. If you don't trust the person you are looking at to make good choices while in office, if you think that you need to evaluate what their spouse will advise, if you think he will take the advise of his wife over the advise of all of the professionals in the field that he has available on any given subject, then keep looking. This candidate is not the one for you.
At one point we looked at spouses to see if we thought that would do a good job of carrying out the duties of First Lady, but the First Ladies now do pretty much what ever they want to do, or not much of anything at all, and most people don't care anymore. I am sure Laura Bush has a staff and does something with her time, but I have never heard of any of it being consequential
hawkeye10 wrote:
I am sure Laura Bush has a staff and does something with her time, but I have never heard of any of it being consequential
Then perhaps you should educate yourself? Laura Bush has been very active in many different circles of importance.
She helped organize "Helping America's Youth". She has been an advocate for women's health issues and is the ambassador for "The Heart Truth" campaign. Not to mention her work in Breast Cancer awareness. She has also been helping the women of Afghanistan. Not sure what all is going on there, but she's helping them to get the education that has been denied them for years and years. She's heavy into making sure our children have accessible to them, books that might inspire their life. She has traveled a lot to the Gulf Coast to check on the rebuilding after Katrina. I don't believe any of that has been for "show". I believe her heart is genuine. Women and children have benefited greatly by having her as the First Lady..... as well as others.
I think those are all consequential. She is very low profile, by nature, though. Perhaps that is why you think she has done nothing significant. ( Or could it be that a lot of her stuff has been geared towards women, and that makes it inconsequential to you?) Just wondering.
She's done a lot of good things as first lady IMO.
Mrs.Bush is a great lady.
JustBrooke wrote:
I think those are all consequential. She is very low profile, by nature, though. Perhaps that is why you think she has done nothing significant. ( Or could it be that a lot of her stuff has been geared towards women, and that makes it inconsequential to you?) Just wondering.
She's done a lot of good things as first lady IMO.
She has been low profile in large part because the Bush's hate entertaining and doing the social stuff that Presidents usually do. I have no doubt that Laura Bush is a fine person with good intents, and it might be that I don't pay enough attention to what she does to know that she does worthwhile things with her time. However, I suspect that 7+ years into an administration if the First Lady was making any difference that someone somewhere would be singing her praises. I don't hear any of that in the public space.
Quote:Obama had not been hit hard until this campaign; he sailed through his Senate race. Without Hillary, he never would have learned to be a good debater. He never would have understood how to robustly answer distorted and personal attacks. He never would have been warned about how harmful an unplugged spouse can be. He never would have realized how a luminous speech can be effective damage control
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/opinion/02dowd.html?hp
Anybody heard much from Michelle these last few weeks? No? I guess Barrack finally figured it out.
hawkeye10 wrote:Quote:Obama had not been hit hard until this campaign; he sailed through his Senate race. Without Hillary, he never would have learned to be a good debater. He never would have understood how to robustly answer distorted and personal attacks. He never would have been warned about how harmful an unplugged spouse can be. He never would have realized how a luminous speech can be effective damage control
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/opinion/02dowd.html?hp
Anybody heard much from Michelle these last few weeks? No? I guess Barrack finally figured it out.
Michelle is probably learning how to keep her mouth shut.
Miller wrote:hawkeye10 wrote:Quote:Obama had not been hit hard until this campaign; he sailed through his Senate race. Without Hillary, he never would have learned to be a good debater. He never would have understood how to robustly answer distorted and personal attacks. He never would have been warned about how harmful an unplugged spouse can be. He never would have realized how a luminous speech can be effective damage control
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/opinion/02dowd.html?hp
Anybody heard much from Michelle these last few weeks? No? I guess Barrack finally figured it out.
Michelle is probably learning how to keep her mouth shut.
Now if only you could. Are you still claiming to be a Hillary supporter?
