Comments: 43 Score: [-] 222 [+].
< 1 2 3 >
Posted: 6 months ago by 2manyusernames:
If your wife is campaigning for you than she is fair game.
Other political spouses are and have always been fair game.
Should Obama be elected, his wife will probably do quite a bit of travelling, quite a bit of meetings with various heads of states. She will represent the US so she is fair game.
Heck it isn't that unusual for a person looking to get a job as a CEO to have his wife looked at by the selection committee.
If he gets his knickers in an uproar about people questioning if the woman who will represent the US loves and is proud of her country, than I can imagine how upset he'd be if they were harping on something trivial like her looks, dress, or if someone called her "sweetie" :-)
Score: [-] 81 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by unzercharlie:
Breaking News: Obama defends his wife against sensationalist media attention, internet outraged!
fair game
fair game
fair game
Every time an Obama story hits, we can always count on 2many for the 'double standard' argument.
He's defending her because this issue, like Rev. Wright, has been brought up time and time again, and explained every time. Whether or not the explanation is good enough for you is for you and everyone else in the country to decide, but the answer isn't going to change, so stop asking about meaningless s**t and move on.
Score: [-] 24 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by clscott645:
« 2manyusernames : If your wife is campaigning for you than she is fair game.
Other political spouses are and have always been fair game.
Should Obama be elected, his wife will probably do quite a bit of travelling, quite a bit of meetings with various heads of states. She will represent the US so she is fair game.
Heck it isn't that unusual for a person looking to get a job as a CEO to have his wife looked at by the selection committee.
If he gets his knickers in an uproar about people questioning if the woman who will represent the US loves and is proud of her country, than I can imagine how upset he'd be if they were harping on something trivial like her looks, dress, or if someone called her "sweetie" :-) While I agree that a "Mrs. Campaign" may be fair game and that she should have thick skin because politics can be quite ruthless, I see no problem with a husband defending his wife.
Politics really make me ill and it is a shame that they are this way and that parties will stoop so low as to attack someone's wife instead of the person that is running for election.
It is all so unintelligent to me.
Score: [-] 164 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by coldbladed:
I'm all for vetting the candidate and his wife but the Obama campaign has already addressed that issue. Don't bring up the same inflammatory stories just to try and sound hard hitting because he's not going to change his stance or reveal more information just because you asked. So instead your question becomes a point of contention and an annoyance.
The reporters that get the good stories and scoop all the rest are the ones who can get close to the candidates and earn their respect. That way when they get a one on one interview they can set themselves up for some hard hitting questions without being a pest.
Score: [-] 157 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by 2longdogs:
But its OK to make a big deal out of McCains wife's tax returns?
Score: [-] 69 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by 2manyusernames:
« coldbladed : I'm all for vetting the candidate and his wife but the Obama campaign has already addressed that issue. Don't bring up the same inflammatory stories just to try and sound hard hitting because he's not going to change his stance or reveal more information just because you asked. So instead your question becomes a point of contention and an annoyance. On that issue I would agree. If that was the reason Obama gave, I would say that is logical.
However his thin-skinned reaction to this and other reports is something else. I am not talking about a man becoming MachoMan and defending his wife. That is a given.
I am talking about his insistence that his wife be considered sacrosanct. That no negative report about her be allowed. That is where I disagree.
« coldbladed
The reporters that get the good stories and scoop all the rest are the ones who can get close to the candidates and earn their respect. That way when they get a one on one interview they can set themselves up for some hard hitting questions without being a pest. And there in lies part of the problem. How do the reporters get the candidates to respect them? It certainly isn't by making hard-hitting reports (not that this story is one) but politics is filled with many stories about the media holding back on stories so as not to offend the candidate or office holder.
Those "hard-hitting" questions can't be too hard-hitting without risking losing access. As I mentioned candidates on both parties have been guilty of this sort of manipulation.
Score: [-] 46 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by vexingmodstwo:
Obama's getting really good at playing victim... He needs to grow a pair.
Score: [-] 108 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by coldbladed:
I think you can have hard hitting stories about a candidate that, if done in a respectful way, can still garner respect. Too often reporters dig up some dirt and want to make it into a scandal so a scandal it becomes.
In short, candidates aren't offended by hard hitting stories but rather by sensationalism.
Score: [-] 72 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by unzercharlie:
« 2manyusernames:And there in lies part of the problem. How do the reporters get the candidates to respect them? Maybe by educating themselves before they go to interview a candidate so it's not a complete waste of their time and yours. The only reason anyone gives a s**t about flag pins, or what Michelle said is because some reporter thought they had a juicy headline. Why is this so hard to understand?
Score: [-] 15 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by PulsisX:
Maybe if they painted her silver and dangled her from a rearview mirror and drove around all night with Parliment blaring Dr. Funkentein she could be a big enough distraction that even the people fighting in the war would forget they were in a war.
So she has been embarrassed by some of the things this country has done. Maybe she should have just come out and called Bush a high functioning mental retard or started referring to the reporters as the white reporters. All of which would have little to nothing to do with any policy her husband would make in the future.
Except when he pardons Manson and brings down some Helter Skelter on your ass.
Score: [-] 60 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by clscott645:
« PulsisX : Maybe if they painted her silver and dangled her from a rearview mirror and drove around all night with Parliment blaring Dr. Funkentein she could be a big enough distraction that even the people fighting in the war would forget they were in a war.
So she has been embarrassed by some of the things this country has done. Maybe she should have just come out and called Bush a high functioning mental retard or started referring to the reporters as the white reporters. All of which would have little to nothing to do with any policy her husband would make in the future.
Except when he pardons Manson and brings down some Helter Skelter on your ass. This just made my day.
I needed the laugh.
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by DerAlt:
« unzercharlie : Maybe by educating themselves before they go to interview a candidate so it's not a complete waste of their time and yours. The only reason anyone gives a s**t about flag pins, or what Michelle said is because some reporter thought they had a juicy headline. Why is this so hard to understand? That's right on target.
Just another BS story that distracts from the issues voters should be considering.
This is the kind of crap that belongs in the supermarket tabloids.
Score: [-] 126 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by unzercharlie:
« DerAlt:This is the kind of crap that belongs in the supermarket tabloids. Or perhaps Fox News, where the tabloid journalists graduate to.
Score: [-] -4 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by 2manyusernames:
« DerAlt : That's right on target.
Just another BS story that distracts from the issues voters should be considering.
This is the kind of crap that belongs in the supermarket tabloids. But you are missing the point. It isn't just this one particular issue about her being proud of America for the first time in her life.
He is insisting, well actually he is warning the republicans they must not touch his wife or kids at all in any way.
His kids are of course off limits as they are not campaigning for him nor will they have any duties as FirstFamily.
His wife is another thing altogether. Do you think that the spouses of presidential candidates should be held sacred, untouchable? Even when that spouse is actively campaigning for the candidate? Even when that spouse will have duties as First Lady?
Other spouses have been talked about. Heck they even attacked McCain on his wife's father and the source of some of their wealth. Even going so far as to label McCain "married to the mob".
Score: [-] 10 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by unzercharlie:
« 2manyusernames:But you are missing the point. It isn't just this one particular issue about her being proud of America for the first time in her life.
He is insisting, well actually he is warning the republicans they must not touch his wife or kids at all in any way. Please tell me where in the article you see this. You're just as bad as the sensationalist media turning a sentence into a paragraph and making it much more controversial than it should ever be. I don't think we're the ones missing the point. The point thats being made here has no backing. I'm certain that anyone in the public eye knows they will be subject to attacks including Michelle Obama.
Score: [-] -46 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by vexingmodstwo:
« unzercharlie : Please tell me where in the article you see this. You're just as bad as the sensationalist media turning a sentence into a paragraph and making it much more controversial than it should ever be. I don't think we're the ones missing the point. The point thats being made here has no backing. I'm certain that anyone in the public eye knows they will be subject to attacks including Michelle Obama. 'Obama said in the ABC interview, adding: "These folks should lay off my wife."'
Score: [-] 39 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by 2manyusernames:
« unzercharlie : Please tell me where in the article you see this. You're just as bad as the sensationalist media turning a sentence into a paragraph and making it much more controversial than it should ever be. I don't think we're the ones missing the point. The point thats being made here has no backing. I'm certain that anyone in the public eye knows they will be subject to attacks including Michelle Obama. And you're problem is you can not take criticism of his Holiness Obama, so you feel the need to lash out personally attacking whoever has the audacity to do anything but express their love for Obama.
Obama said. "If they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family."
That is a warning. That is him saying that Michelle Obama is to be considered sacred, that no attack on her will be acceptable. Period. Not on this one issue.
As I stated above, if it was on just the one issue, if he said that that attack has been answered than I'd agree with him.
He is saying that NO attack on her is allowed. Period.
My argument on this is based on facts and quotes.
Yours is based on nothing but personal insults, and your undying love for Obama.
Quite a sad thing. Really.
I also got a kick out of your attack on Fox. Lord knows that a certain number love to attack Fox even though studies have shown and even Hillary's campaign have called Fox the most balanced.
Score: [-] -4 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by unzercharlie:
« vexingmodstwo : 'Obama said in the ABC interview, adding: "These folks should lay off my wife."' Sigh...
Exactly. That's it. That's all he said.
Score: [-] -40 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by unzercharlie:
« 2manyusernames:And you're problem is you can not take criticism of his Holiness Obama, so you feel the need to lash out personally attacking whoever has the audacity to do anything but express their love for Obama. My are problem is not that I can't see him criticized at all, I just can't stand to see s**t get blown out of proportion and that's exactly what you're doing.
That is him saying that Michelle Obama is to be considered sacred, that no attack on her will be acceptable. Period. Not on this one issue.
"That is him saying..." is where it turns into your interpretation of whatever he actually said.
As I stated above, if it was on just the one issue, if he said that that attack has been answered than I'd agree with him.
He is saying that NO attack on her is allowed. Period.
Yeah I'm pretty sure that's not what he said, but I guess I can go read it again.
Edit: Oh my bad, I didn't realize you were editing your post to include a few more shots at me.
My argument is based on a thing called REASON. I don't care who you're talking about, I'm talking about you and the media, not who you're attacking. I think I'm just going to stop reading your posts, you're obviously not reading mine.
Score: [-] -26 [+].
Posted: 6 months ago by 2manyusernames:
« unzercharlie : My are problem is not that I can't see him criticized at all, I just can't stand to see s**t get blown out of proportion and that's exactly what you're doing.
"That is him saying..." is where it turns into your interpretation of whatever he actually said.
Yeah I'm pretty sure that's not what he said, but I guess I can go read it again. I really don't see it as blowing out of proportion. I made it a simple story. I didn't say don't vote for the man because of this. That would be asinine. I simply said that he was being silly not expecting his wife to be fair game.
That is all. How am I blowing it out of proportion?
I defended Obama here when certain things were blown out of proportion such as the silliness with the tribal garb he wore when in Africa. Even the constant attacks on him on Wright I denounced once he responded to them.
Read just the quote:
Obama said. "If they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family."
No interpretation is needed. The words are pretty straight forward. I do believe that means that Michelle is not to be attacked in this campaign.
I also don't think that such a demand means he is any less capable of being the president.
the "attacks" against you came only after attacks against me. My so-called attack against you was nothing more than the note that your defense of Obama in this one statement does not seem to be based on the facts. It seems to be based on a knee-jerk reaction that any negative comment on Obama is Evil and Unfair.
Perhaps that is because there has certainly been enough attacks on Obama that were uncalled for or were kept in the news way way longer than they should.
Score: [-] 33 [+].
< 1 2 3 >