Obama adds his wife to the long list of things we are not supposed to discuss. : RSS 2.0

Obama adds his wife to the long list of things we are not supposed to discuss. : RSS 2.0http://www.plime.com/politics/en-usplime.com2008, plime.com.Plime/1http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rssObama adds his wife to the long list of things we are not supposed to discuss. : RSS 2.0http://www.plime.com/images/logo.gifhttp://www.plime.com/politics/<![CDATA[Obama adds his wife to the long list of things we are not supposed to discuss.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/politics

comments (43)

edit history (0)

< 1 2 3 >

<![CDATA[DerAlt @ 5/21/2008 2:22:29 PM]]>« 2manyusernames : Why or WHY do you keep CHANGING the subject.

"We really need to agree to disagree" may be the answer but first we need to AGREE on what we disagree on.

The only reason it is an "issue" here, is because you keep on changing the issue. That is incredibly frustrating when I say "apple" is wrong and you say I am incorrect that "orange" is too right.

Yes, I know very well how she meant that statement. I said that I knew what she meant. I said I didn't think she was unamerican. Why do you keep changing what I said??

I am not talking about that statement, Obama was not talking about that statement. Only you are stuck on that one statement.

As I said, as you asked for proof, and as I showed you proof, his demand was that she never be made into an issue period. Not on that one issue.

I do see that statement should be dropped. I am not talking about that. I am really surprised you refuse to see that or apparently to even read my comments.

My stance once again, is that the PUBLIC aspects of his CAMPAIGNING wife are open for discussion. Each statement to be looked on individually.

I am being neutral here. I am not commenting on his ability or inability to be president.I am defending Michelle on that ONE PARTICULAR statement. Your support of him seems to be blinding you to what I said which once again, is that his wife is open to questioning during the campaign, but not the same question over and over and over again.

That is the problem. You keep say we disagree but you and I are talking about two things.

My view is that the proud to be an american comment should be dropped. Do we agree there? yes or no?

My other view is that although Michelle's "proud to be an american" statement should be dropped that doesn't mean that nothing she says or does should be considered as sacrosanct from being questioned or attacked. Do we agree there yes or no?

My last view is that Obama's direct quote:

means that his wife and family should not be turned into an issue at any time during the campaign (and not that michelle should be left alone on one particular incident). Do we agree there yes or no?

Please show me which of those 3 views you disagree on.I'm not going to keep this going.
The essence of the article is that Obama wants all the groups, medial political, what have you, to get some class and stick to the issues. I'm not changing the subject, that IS the subject. That's the thrust of the entire article and of course he specifically means any unfair, spun garbage. You may interpret his words any way you like but I feel you are insinuating issues that are not there.

"Obama said his wife "loves this country. For them to try to distort or to play snippets of her remarks in ways that are unflattering to her is, I think, just low class. I think that most of the American people would think that as well."

He is being very clear about speaking of unfair, distorted, or out of context remarks from his wife and family. He is absolutely not saying that all discussions are off limits.

We have commented on this article way beyond it's importance. I think most of the first commenters have it right. We've used more words than the original piece. I don't mean to be disrespectful but I've really had it with this discussion, we apparently are not going to agree.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q44http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q44politics <![CDATA[2manyusernames @ 5/21/2008 12:52:20 PM]]>« DerAlt : Tempest in a teapot. Just not a worthy issue. Actually we are creating more of an issue out of this that it actually deserves.

You very well know haw she meant that statement.

I don't see any Republicans talking about investigating McCains ties to John Hagee. Hagee is a racist, homophobe idiot whose support McCain actually sought!

Instead they're focusing on a statement from a Democratic contenders wife. I'm really surprised you don't clearly see that.

You profess to be neutral in all of this, this stance somewhat belies that position.

I don't have that problem, I'm a supporter.

Did you have a problem with the press non-reporting Reagans alzheimers issues?

We really need to agree to disagree.Why or WHY do you keep CHANGING the subject.

"We really need to agree to disagree" may be the answer but first we need to AGREE on what we disagree on.

The only reason it is an "issue" here, is because you keep on changing the issue. That is incredibly frustrating when I say "apple" is wrong and you say I am incorrect that "orange" is too right.

Yes, I know very well how she meant that statement. I said that I knew what she meant. I said I didn't think she was unamerican. Why do you keep changing what I said??

I am not talking about that statement, Obama was not talking about that statement. Only you are stuck on that one statement.

As I said, as you asked for proof, and as I showed you proof, his demand was that she never be made into an issue period. Not on that one issue.

I do see that statement should be dropped. I am not talking about that. I am really surprised you refuse to see that or apparently to even read my comments.

My stance once again, is that the PUBLIC aspects of his CAMPAIGNING wife are open for discussion. Each statement to be looked on individually.

I am being neutral here. I am not commenting on his ability or inability to be president.I am defending Michelle on that ONE PARTICULAR statement. Your support of him seems to be blinding you to what I said which once again, is that his wife is open to questioning during the campaign, but not the same question over and over and over again.

That is the problem. You keep say we disagree but you and I are talking about two things.

My view is that the proud to be an american comment should be dropped. Do we agree there? yes or no?

My other view is that although Michelle's "proud to be an american" statement should be dropped that doesn't mean that nothing she says or does should be considered as sacrosanct from being questioned or attacked. Do we agree there yes or no?

My last view is that Obama's direct quote:

"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."

means that his wife and family should not be turned into an issue at any time during the campaign (and not that michelle should be left alone on one particular incident). Do we agree there yes or no?

Please show me which of those 3 views you disagree on.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q43http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q43politics <![CDATA[DerAlt @ 5/21/2008 12:30:44 PM]]>« 2manyusernames : 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.Tempest in a teapot. Just not a worthy issue. Actually we are creating more of an issue out of this that it actually deserves.

You very well know haw she meant that statement.

I don't see any Republicans talking about investigating McCains ties to John Hagee. Hagee is a racist, homophobe idiot whose support McCain actually sought!

Instead they're focusing on a statement from a Democratic contenders wife. I'm really surprised you don't clearly see that.

You profess to be neutral in all of this, this stance somewhat belies that position.

I don't have that problem, I'm a supporter.

Did you have a problem with the press non-reporting Reagans alzheimers issues?

We really need to agree to disagree.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q42http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q42politics <![CDATA[2manyusernames @ 5/21/2008 12:11:25 PM]]>« DerAlt : Where the devil does it say all that in this article?
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.

« DerAlt :
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.

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.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q41http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q41politics <![CDATA[DerAlt @ 5/21/2008 10:57:18 AM]]>« 2manyusernames : 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.Where the devil does it say all that in this article?

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.

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.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q40http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q40politics <![CDATA[2manyusernames @ 5/21/2008 10:06:57 AM]]>« DerAlt : 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.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.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q39http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q39politics <![CDATA[DerAlt @ 5/20/2008 4:09:35 PM]]>« hmtksteve : 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. :-)]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q38http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q38politics <![CDATA[hmtksteve @ 5/20/2008 12:59:19 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q37http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q37politics <![CDATA[DerAlt @ 5/19/2008 9:13:40 PM]]>« 2manyusernames: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?

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.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.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q36http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q36politics <![CDATA[lemon711 @ 5/19/2008 8:56:14 PM]]>
Who ever said politics is imbued with class? ;)

Par for the course.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q35http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q35politics <![CDATA[unzercharlie @ 5/19/2008 8:36:07 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q34http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q34politics <![CDATA[dork @ 5/19/2008 8:08:15 PM]]>« Mershaullk : 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.

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]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q33http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q33politics <![CDATA[hmtksteve @ 5/19/2008 7:29:45 PM]]>
If he does not want his wife to be fair game in the media than he needs to remove her from his campaign.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q32http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q32politics <![CDATA[2manyusernames @ 5/19/2008 5:33:27 PM]]>« DerAlt :
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.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.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q31http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q31politics <![CDATA[2longdogs @ 5/19/2008 4:26:27 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q30http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q30politics <![CDATA[Mershaullk @ 5/19/2008 4:23:48 PM]]>
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.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q29http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q29politics <![CDATA[2manyusernames @ 5/19/2008 4:15:53 PM]]>« DerAlt : 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?

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.

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" :-)

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.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q28http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q28politics <![CDATA[DerAlt @ 5/19/2008 4:10:05 PM]]>« 2manyusernames: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.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q27http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q27politics <![CDATA[2manyusernames @ 5/19/2008 4:03:15 PM]]>« DerAlt : 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'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.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q26http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q26politics <![CDATA[unzercharlie @ 5/19/2008 3:55:59 PM]]>« vexingmodstwo : 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.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q25http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q25politics <![CDATA[vexingmodstwo @ 5/19/2008 3:54:00 PM]]>
99% of the media blows. They're clearly not doing what they are supposed to be charged with.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q24http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q24politics <![CDATA[DerAlt @ 5/19/2008 3:45:37 PM]]>« 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.

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".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.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q23http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q23politics <![CDATA[vexingmodstwo @ 5/19/2008 3:15:11 PM]]>
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.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q22http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q22politics <![CDATA[2manyusernames @ 5/19/2008 3:04:43 PM]]>« 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.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q21http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q21politics <![CDATA[unzercharlie @ 5/19/2008 2:59:24 PM]]>« 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.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q20http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q20politics <![CDATA[unzercharlie @ 5/19/2008 2:54:41 PM]]>« 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.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q19http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q19politics <![CDATA[2manyusernames @ 5/19/2008 2:54:06 PM]]>« 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.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q18http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q18politics <![CDATA[vexingmodstwo @ 5/19/2008 2:53:20 PM]]>« 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."']]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q17http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q17politics <![CDATA[unzercharlie @ 5/19/2008 2:45:17 PM]]>« 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.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q16http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q16politics <![CDATA[2manyusernames @ 5/19/2008 2:29:35 PM]]>« 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".]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q15http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q15politics <![CDATA[unzercharlie @ 5/19/2008 2:19:28 PM]]>« DerAlt:This is the kind of crap that belongs in the supermarket tabloids.Or perhaps Fox News, where the tabloid journalists graduate to.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q14http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q14politics <![CDATA[DerAlt @ 5/19/2008 2:16:50 PM]]>« 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.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q13http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q13politics <![CDATA[clscott645 @ 5/19/2008 2:16:04 PM]]>« 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.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q12http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q12politics <![CDATA[PulsisX @ 5/19/2008 1:50:42 PM]]>
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.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q11http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q11politics <![CDATA[unzercharlie @ 5/19/2008 1:49:22 PM]]>« 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?]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q10http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q10politics <![CDATA[coldbladed @ 5/19/2008 1:45:15 PM]]>
In short, candidates aren't offended by hard hitting stories but rather by sensationalism.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q9http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q9politics <![CDATA[vexingmodstwo @ 5/19/2008 1:44:25 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q8http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q8politics <![CDATA[2manyusernames @ 5/19/2008 1:42:27 PM]]>« 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.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q7http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q7politics <![CDATA[2longdogs @ 5/19/2008 1:38:07 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q6http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q6politics <![CDATA[coldbladed @ 5/19/2008 1:36:51 PM]]>
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.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q5http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q5politics <![CDATA[clscott645 @ 5/19/2008 1:30:29 PM]]>« 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.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q4http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q4politics <![CDATA[unzercharlie @ 5/19/2008 1:05:46 PM]]>
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.]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q3http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q3politics <![CDATA[2manyusernames @ 5/19/2008 1:04:42 PM]]>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" :-)]]>http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q2http://www.plime.com/politics/l/62360/1/rss2_0.rss#q2politics