<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure there are such things, but this isn’t one of them. I’m having a grand time hangin’ with my friends here.</p>
<p>Me too! It’s a blessed relief to jabber about something so inconsequential (and funny) as hair. :D</p>
<p>^^Yeah, I know. And believe me, I favor allowing room for a little fun in any serious undertaking. But some people, on both sides, are SERIOUS in their debates and criticisms of the First Ladies. Attacking the first lady candidate instead of the presidential candidate is a stupid and irrelevant way to debate national politics. But it goes on all the time. And some people will actually vote against a candidate because they don’t like some frivolous thing about his wife - John Kerry is the classic example.</p>
<p>^^ When the wife is a surrogate for the campaign and makes substantive speeches, she is fair game, by choice.</p>
<p>I agree with you, courer. It amazes me how many people cast their votes on inconsequential things related to a candidate or the candidate’s family. I guess the bottom line is that there are a lot of really stupid people in this country.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>If the issues are truly “substantive” then they have a proper place in the debate. But the common tactic is when a potential first lady makes a “substantive” speech or coment is to respond by attacking her for failing to be demure, for her off-putting manner, her outspoken-ness, her hair, her clothes, her wealth, her profession, her drinking problem, her make-up, her marital problems - anything except the real issues. And then excuse the whole disgraceful thing with “Well, she made herself the issue by making a campaign speech…”</p>
<p>
I agree, but I think you’re getting waaaay too worked up for the context of this thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re absolutely right. And children should also be off limits.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but she should only be taken to task on the content of her speeches. So far this campaign season, I’ve heard plenty of ridiculous nonsense about the candidates’ wives. (Including at least one snarky comment from yours truly.) … Michelle Obama was ripped for a “radical” senior thesis she wrote 23 YEARS ago–as if she couldn’t possibly have changed and grown up since those days. Cindy McCain has been portrayed as a trophy wife and embezzler/addict. I even referred to her as a “Stepford Wife” some time back, for which I apologize profusely. (Newsweek’s recent article on Cindy M. was enlightening to me.) … So let’s get back to the hair discussion. And the fact that both of these women are bright, interesting, and too darned beautiful!</p>
<p>[I am envious of * her * hair](<a href=“http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1030-04.htm”>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1030-04.htm</a>)</p>
<p>But not the tongue stud.
;)</p>
<p>I really like her husband, too.</p>
<p>swatparent: “What has she done since her thesis at Princeton? I realize being a mother is important. How has she otherwise contributed to society, besides her hairstyle, which to me seems totally irrelevant?”</p>
<p>She went to Harvard Law School, became a lawyer at a prestigious firm (you know, the kind that most CC kids would salivate over and think was the pinnacle of success!) and most recently held a corporate position in community relations at the University of Chicago. She has certainly used her Princeton / Harvard pedigree well.</p>
<p>Here’s an excerpt from Wikipedia on Michele Obama. I find her pretty impressive. Wish I had even half of her resume!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Does the Wiki article include these interesting facts about Michelle & her husbamd?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not a bad salary for a “part-time” employee. Where can I sign up?</p>
<p>"As Byron noted, “In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that Mrs. Obama’s compensation at the University of Chicago Hospital, where she is a vice president for community affairs, jumped from $121,910 in 2004, just before her husband was elected to the Senate, to $316,962 in 2005, just after he took office.” </p>
<p>So what are you suggesting here? The U of Chicago is a private institution. They can pay their employees what they like.</p>
<p>Re: #73 & #74</p>
<p>Michele Obama’s salary went up after she was promoted from exec. director for community affairs to VP for community and external affairs. With her education, her professional background, and her obvious intelligence, I’m quite certain she was well qualified for the promotion–along with the concurrent raise in salary. She later cut back to spend more time with her children, at which point her salary dropped by $50,000 a year (according to tax returns). </p>
<p>Here’s an excerpt from a site called On Deadline:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can read something evil into it if you want to, just as I could see evil in Cindy McCain’s $400,000 investment in a Charles Keating strip mall. But not everything or everybody is corrupt. Sometimes, as Freud would say, “a cigar is just a cigar.” Maybe, just maybe, Michele Obama was promoted because she deserved to be. And Cindy McCain bought into the strip mall because it seemed like a good investment.</p>
<p>“So what are you suggesting here? The U of Chicago is a private institution. They can pay their employees what they like.”</p>
<p>Hospital funding and zoning is very political. It’s good to keep the wife of your US Senator on staff, just in case, and giving double the salary helps. It is a private institution, except receives a large amount of public funding from Medicare and Medicaid. </p>
<p>Is she still getting that big salary while she travels around making speeches? Some political candidates spouses take a leave or resign, so as to not take funds from their workplace when they are not ther. Especially when the funds are supposed to go top making patient care better in Chicago.</p>
<p>What’s VP for community affairs at a hospital? Is it PR and lobbying for more private and public funds?</p>
<p>:““She’s terrific,” added Michael Riordan, who was president of the hospital in March 2005, when Michelle Obama was promoted to vice president for external affairs and had her annual salary increased from $121,910 to $316,962.”</p>
<p>Is this where our health care dollars should go?</p>
<p>“She later cut back to spend more time with her children, at which point her salary dropped by $50,000 a year (according to tax returns).”</p>
<p>So is her salary now $50,000?</p>
<p>No, swatparent. I said “her salary dropped by $50,000.” Don’t get cute with me! :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good question. Large companies/corporations seem loaded with job titles that the layman can’t decipher.</p>