So the bottom line is Obama likes to play victim and might not be ready for primetime.

As the President of the United States, you're going to get made fun of, mocked, ripped on, called names, have your wife called names and that's just by the media. And it will have nothing to do with how good or bad a job you're doing.

If he's going to constantly respond to these comments and stories, etc. that alone will be a full time job.

He's coming off as a bit of a whiner, if you ask me.

I think you are really overstating the issue here.

A request, at most, is really all that this amounts to, he has no control over what the media will actually do. Neither does McCain.

Unfortunately the media does seem to be delivering what so many of us delight in, and not a real issue in sight. Let's see, if we can't find all that much wrong with the actual candidate, we'll start complaining about his wife. Gah.

I'd like to amend my "Bottom Line" here:

99% of the media blows. They're clearly not doing what they are supposed to be charged with.

Agreed. Just don't point out to anyone that they're being suckered into it.

I'm not overstating it. I was barely stating it.
My point was that it was a request. That it was a request that he has no control over and may or may not be listened to.

My point is that he was silly and thin-skinned to make the request. That is the only thing I was trying to say.

OK, it's not a major deal.
But if your initial statements were as innocent as you belive they were, why would people react to them in the way they did?

He wasn't silly or thin-skinned. He's a presidential candidate that wants to go on record as not letting his wife get blasted in the press. If he didn't then the other segment of press would find he was a wimp.

Isn't that what most of us would do under the circumstances?

I think your original point came on much stronger than you think/wished.

Well actually it was one person. And I think that person misread the article that the request was on one particular issue. And the fact that Obama has had to face a lot of silly crap. Even the legitimate questions are asked over and over again long after they've been answered.

Still if I was much stronger than I thought/wished I apologize.

Don't see which of those statements were too strong. I simply stated that he made the request and laid out reasons why the request was silly and thin-skinned.

One question...

Where the hell is the valid reason that people are getting downvoted? Did I miss something? It seems to me that someone is downvoting people that disagree with them.

Sad to say but I really hope Plime is not going to become like Digg, Reddit,et al.

Would most of us do that? I'm not sure, I don't think so. At least I can't think of a single candidate today or yesteryear who had a campaigning spouse who was requested to be held Sacred and Inviolable from any attacks.

You might be more familiar than I, is there any?

Certainly Hillary nor McCain (who have had their spouses attacked) have insisted that their spouses never be attacked on any issue.

Hillary got upset about the "pimping Chelsea" comment, but even then she didn't say that Chelsea can never be attacked at all - did she? She got upset and defended Chelsea on that one particular issue, that's all.

Any of us would support a member of our family, a friend, business associate etc, if they were wrongly attacked on one particular incident. Hell we certainly defend our spouse even if there was validity to an attack. But we wouldn't warn that that spouse can NEVER be attacked.


Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, etc never "requested" that their campaigning spouses be off limits for perpetuity or during the campaign. Sometimes their spouses were attacked sometimes for stupid reasons, sometimes for valid reasons. Each attack was responded to individually.

This concerns me greatly. If the candidate Obama is interested in silencing his critics what will President Obama do to his critics?

If he does not want his wife to be fair game in the media than he needs to remove her from his campaign.

The two posts with negative karma do disagree with 2many's POVs but they are also personal attacks. I havn't been downvoting but thats what I see. The one post with -6 doesnt seem like an atack to me but -6 is nothing.

All in all I think the downvotes are for the personal attacks, I may be wrong. As for the debating. I'm gonna just stand on the sidelines for this one. =]

Edit to add: 2many, you have a 'reputation' for being contraversial. So if you say something its automatically taken as WOAH

Anyone who views anything I've said as a personal attack needs to examine the thickness of their own skin. The points I've made were valid to this debate.

'low class'

Who ever said politics is imbued with class? ;)

Par for the course.

First I wonder what the "long list" of things is that Obama says we shouldn't discuss? They were not in the article...another source?

It's not at all relevant whether or not any other presidential candidate in history requested that their family not be attacked. It seemed the press had different standards then.

This is a very different world.

The media turned a blind eye to the "private lives" of Presidents like FDR, Eisenhower and Kennedy for example. The media, for better or worse, was a different animal then.

I would absolutely defend my wife and family, I would say whatever I thought was necessary to blunt the cheap media attacks. I'd lose my respect for anyone who wouldn't.

At this point I think you are just not letting it go, you keep persisting that your point of view is correct.

It's just your opinion and it apparently differs from mine. That really should be the end of the story.

Before Hillary, how active was the First Lady in government?

Depends on the first lady I guess.

Eleanor Roosevelt was very active. Jackie Kennedy had celebrity/good will ambassdor staus and Elizabeth Ford opened the Betty Ford substance abuse center. There may have been others but that's a few for starters.

Of couse we shouldn't forget Nancy Regan guiding her husband with astrology. :-)

It is hard to drop it when you keep changing what we are supposedly debating.

You keep making it sound as if he was "defending" his wife from "one particular attack".

Now you are talking about previous administrations dealings with the media on their PRIVATE lives.

(and it wasn't the media he was warning it was the republicans not that makes any difference)

As I said in more than one comment. If that was the case than I would agree with him and you. Yes, anyone would defend their spouse from "cheap media attacks". That is a given. We are in agreement with that. I have stated here more than once and in other threads that the comment about being proud of her country was answered and they should go on with other more substantive issues.

No, what he said was that she was not open for attacks during the campaign. Period. That she was sacrosanct and could not be questioned or attacked on any of her PUBLIC statements. She is campaigning and making public statements. Those statements and actions that are PUBLIC and are part of the campaign should be and are logically open for discussion, attacks, and even open for being turned into an issue should their be merit.

Yes the attacks should not go on and on and on long after they have been answered and explained. That isn't what he was saying though. Again, he was not defending her on one certain action. He was saying that she can not be made an issue in the campaign. Again, I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT IS RIGHT TO DEFEND HER ON THIS ONE STATEMENT.

See, totally different than "defending" her on one attack about her love for America.

Perhaps he misspoke again. Perhaps he meant to say attacks such as this. That would put it in a different light. He hasn't clarified what he said, so I can only assume he meant exactly what he said, that she can not be made an issue at all for any reason.

Where the devil does it say all that in this article?

Sometimes I wonder what your focus is.

I find this very similar to the time tried and tested Republican fear focus: Wow, this is a scarey man! He threatened the entire media establishment of the United States. Not suitable for President!

Do you really think that his wife is un-american because of her honest statement? Do you really believe that she is unfit to become first lady or a threat to this country if she does?

That is the real issue of the discussion, or it should be. Stressing the exact word he used to express his concern over the medias plans for his wife is irrelevant. Do you really believe he can actually control what course the media takes concerning his wife?

Come on, if he was President he couldn't effectively control it...ask George. Although George tefloned by for too many years.

When the hell are the important Presidential issues going to be discussed in the media and this cheap tabloid approach to be left to the sensationalist rags.

As I've quoted numerous times:
"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."

Right there. Explain to me how that statement means that he is defending her on the SOLE issue of being proud of her country? That is stating that his wife and his family are not to be made an issue of. period. Show me how that does not mean that his wife and family can not be turned into an issue in this campaign and I'll concede I was mistaken. Those are his words not my interpretation.

His family is and has been left alone because they are not campaigning. His wife is a different story.


My focus? My focus is that he was silly to expect that the republicans refrain from responding or questioning any PUBLIC statements his wife or family makes. That he can warn and demand that his wife nor family be made into an issue. And once again, as I've stated several times, it was the republican party he demanded to leave his wife alone, not the media.

That is all.

Nothing about his ability or inability to be president.

No, I don't think she is unamerican or unfit to be the first lady. Nor did I ever say that despite your desire to keep pushing it back to that story. I didn't say anything negative towards her. On the contrary I have said here more than once and in numerous other threads that they should drop that particular attack.


My sole point is that her public statements and actions, especially her public statements and actions while campaigning are open to debate, question, and even attacks.

Should those attacks prove baseless such as the "proud to be an american" bit than they should be dropped and if they are not, then Obama, the voters, the media, and all should defend her.

That doesn't mean that she nor his family (if they were to take up campaigning) can NEVER be turned into a issue.