marite

dke:

Running for office entails a lot more absences from home than being in office. So if and when Obama is president, I'd expect him to be in D.C. a lot more often than he has been this past year.

kluge

Let's recap. Spideygirl said:
I responded with a quote of MO's comments, which demonstrate that she was making entirely routine candidates-wife type comments about adjusting their schedules while Barack was campaigning to make sure their daughters are tucked inat night by mom. Didn't say Hillary "can't keep her house in order." Wasn't talking about philandering husbands. Just talking about valuing family and making adjustments to honor parental obligations to their kids - "running your household." Ooh - big time political mudslinging, right? But Spideygirl isn't about to let boring old reality get in the way of a good hissing match, so she bravely soldiers on:
Actually, the only footage that has been shown was that of a single sentence, taken completely out of context. I've seen it. Actually, it does. Seeing the full context of MO's comments makes it clear what she was talking about and removes the ambiguity injected into them by people desperately seeking controversy where none existed by taking a part of a sentence out of context and stridently insisting it was a secret, code-word "swipe." In fact, the "swipe" was nothing but a slow news day media creation. You've been played by the media like a big, fat, trout. You even adopted the misquote "keep her house in order." I'm sorry, but that's just laughable. All you've seen is the same, one-sentence clip that I've seen. Everything you've read into it is your own projection. And you have no idea what the "many people who saw her speak" that day at the fairgrounds in Iowa thought, because no one has ever even claimed to have reported on that. (Not surprising, since it was a totally phony controversy, manufactured after the fact.) Which "people?" Do you have a source for this claim? I find no support for it anywhere.

People: have your opinions - that's fine. But try not to completely lose your grip on reality as you're being spun by the bloggers and the mass media. Check stuff out. And don't try so hard to pound the square peg of reality into the round hole of your preconceptions, as Spideygirl has done here. Want to hate on Michelle Obama? Have at it. But check your facts and don't rely on media spin and fantasy projections. Google is your friend.

poetsheart

So Michele Obama's rather exhaustive preamble to the conclusion that: "We're in this race for not just our children, but all of our children."---is actually a slam against Hillary Clinton, is actually a smear job, conveyed entirely with "body language and tone" (My God, what a talented woman!) against Hillary's inability to control her philandering husband....

I see.....

dke

Marite, so you think that running for Senator in Illinois would take up more time away from family than being President? I'm not too sure about that. Maybe physically he'll be in DC but his time is going to be taken up with alot more than Michelle and the kids, IMHO.

ejr1

MO is her H's own worst enemy in this campaign, just as Hillary's H was her own worst enemy in this campaign. Obama has come out and said that he doesn't think it is fair to go after the families of the candidates. I guess he wasn't thinking about Chelsea, however, just his family? I don't understand why it is not appropriate to analyze her words when Obama sends her out as his ambassador on the campaign trail. She purports to speak for him, so she is fair game. After hearing the Rev. Wright sermons, and comparing her statements to those, I believe she was in the pew (alone, apparently) and bought into his statements. That is something I want to know about the future President and how he and his family believe. If he married her, he has to repsect her opinions, especially since his staff is vetting her. So, by extension, I now must balance how much if attributable solely to her, and how much to him. I need that information in order to make an informed decision before I cast my vote. I still don't know who will receive my vote, and I am very frustrated because, quite frankly, I am not very happy with any of the candidates.

kluge

"Fair" game is one thing, but ascribing ludicrous "secret" meanings to routine comments about life on the campaign trail is anything but "fair" play. That's not "analyzing", it's "fabricating." There is actually no rational reason to form this opinion. Seriously. The fact that you have done so speaks to your predisposition to believe some things, but nothing about the actual beliefs (or church presence) of Michelle Obama.
I actually doubt that. Your ability to project beliefs onto the Obamas based on nothing but media spin and blog bile suggests that you're more interested in finding excuses for the preconceptions you have about them than about finding out what they really believe.

And just when was it that Obama "went after" Chelsea Clinton? Or was that just a random shot, based on nothing?

spideygirl

Northstarmom: "I did not interpret her meaning to refer to the Clintons. I thought she was referring to how the Obamas have been planning their life to take care of their kids' needs while also campaigning."

Then you are not a part of the reaction described by others who were there. Not surprising, since you are obviously a fan.

Frankly, I think it is demeaning to Michelle Obama for her husband to come out in her defense. Beyond the fact that it is ridiculous because she does wax political, this is a woman who can take care of herself.

LaxAttack09

I like how it's "crazy" to think that the MO comment was directed towards Clinton yet 100% OK to think that the Bush comment was directed towards Obama.

Neither of them mentioned names but anybody who isn't a partisan hack (which may be a stretch for some on this board) realizes the goal of both comments.

spideygirl

KLUGE: "Actually, it does. Seeing the full context of MO's comments makes it clear"

It makes nothing clear in terms of supporting your weak argument. MANY, MANY people saw the clip. Many saw clearly that it was a slight against Clinton.

Choose otherwise according to your bias toward the candidate of your choice, if you wish, but it just goes to show you that you can't fool all of the people, all of the time.

spideygirl

Michelle Obama, preamble or not, did a ready, aim, fire at the Achilles Heel of Hillary Clinton. Perfectly executed.

This is not a disorganized, impulsive woman who would not have understood that it would be taken exactly as it was. Direct hit.

spideygirl

LAXATTACK: " like how it's "crazy" to think that the MO comment was directed towards Clinton yet 100% OK to think that the Bush comment was directed towards Obama."

So good it should be repeated.

I am confident as well that the Bush comment was also aimed directly at Obama. Direct hit.

Let's get real about how politics works. I think we should think critically, whether it is the candidate we favor or not.

I don't think it benefits our country when voters act like lemmings.

poetsheart

Oh, so you "had to have been there", huh, Spidey? Well, since you were---Uh, I mean, know someone who knew someone who read it in a blog---why don't you prove that Michele Obama's words were a slam against Hillary Clinton? Anything objective and rational will do---an actual video link---you, know---so we can all witness this irrefutable "body language and tone of speech" would be a good start. That we should "take your word for it" against the actual words that came out of Michele Obama's mouth is just not gonna cut it.

kluge

Who described that reaction, Spideygirl? This is the second time you've claimed to report how the people in Atlantic, Iowa, responded to Michelle Obama's comments. I've found a clip of her comments including the "take care of your own house" remark. I don't see any such "response." Nor is there any suggestion of that in any of the contemporary reports. In short - somebody just made that up. Probably not you, but you might do well to go back and try to figure out who sold that factoid to you. Anyway, here's Michelle Obama: Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com Oooh! Obama values family! Barack and Michelle put their children first! They even schedule their campaign activities around their children! Obviously code-speak for "Hillary can't keep her man happy" (or whatever the "secret" message is that you read into it.) The contemporary report from CNN is interesting as well: CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Michelle Obama « - Blogs from CNN.com (*The actual phrase used in that paper was "it could be interpreted as a swipe at the Clintons.")

So if Michelle Obama ever says anything positive about her family, about her husband, about her husband and her kids, it's a partisan "swipe" at someone? She can't say anything positive about her and her husband's family values?

Well, see? We agree on something! (Of course, lemmings don't actually act that way, that's another media driven myth, but that's another story...)

bz2010

One of the most amazing phenomena I have witnessed on this forum is the un-objectivity displayed by certain candidates' supporters.

I guess it's true everywhere, but it really seems like many posters are so in the corner of their particular candidate that they just excuse the comments & actions, histories, record (or lack thereof) and countless other deficiencies or undesireable attributes of the candidate, spouse, surrogates, etc.

It leads one to believe that the candidates must capture the attention & support of voters early on in the campaign. Does anyone EVER switch sides? Perhaps it has become more apparent during this election cycle given that the two dems have stayed in the race so long.

It's amazing how much people are willing to overlook in their own candidate and how much they find objectionable in "the other guy/gal".

---
And MY "partisan" comment is: I really hope the Obama supporters take off their rose-colored glasses before the GE. The guy has NO experience and has not even clearly defined what he stands for (except that wearing a flag lapel pin isn't "true patriotism" then guess what, he starts wearing one after that!).

I'm a conservative, but I try to consider all the cadidates objectively - as if I'm interviewing an applicant for hiring. McCain is just flat-out most qualified. Are people so blinded by partisanship that they can't see that?

Hindoo

More qualified at what? Keeping us in an unjust war for 100 years? Stacking the Supreme Court with right-wing idealogues?