<p>edvest1: “I find your accusations comical at the least and bizzare at extreme”</p>
<p>You missed something, Edvest. :)</p>
<p>Originalloog, your link may get deleted. I am on my way out and haven’t even looked at it yet, but you need to give the title of the video and describe where people can find it if it does. CC doesn’t allow links to places like YouTube (this recently happened to me)</p>
<p>in the face of hate and the evil genius of the Republicans, the 91 year old Senator Robert Byrd who endorsed Obama today, is a great example of CHANGE. “Si se puede.” This man was a KKK wizard and also campaigned against the civil rights legislation in the 1960s… </p>
<p>"Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., endorsed Barack Obama for president shortly after noon today, focusing on his hope to end the Iraq War.</p>
<p>“As people all across this great nation know, I have been one of the most outspoken opponents of the Bush administration’s misguided war in Iraq and its saber rattling around the globe,” Byrd said.</p>
<p>He said he had “no intention of involving myself in the Democratic campaign for President in the midst of West Virginia’s primary election. But the stakes this November could not be higher.”</p>
<p>Byrd praised both Obama and Hillary Clinton, saying their "integrity, honor, love for this country and strong belief in our Constitution I deeply respect…</p>
<p>“Barack Obama is a noble-hearted patriot and humble Christian, and he has my full faith and support,” Byrd concluded.</p>
<p>[The</a> Charleston Gazette - Latest News - Byrd endorses Obama for president ](<a href=“http://www.wvgazette.com/latest/200805190255]The”>http://www.wvgazette.com/latest/200805190255)</p>
<p>"Where have you been for the last eight years??? </p>
<p>Let me see…George Bush is as stupid as Curious George and looks like him as well (no outrage from CNN then, however - you could put that on t-shirts and worse), he entered into a conspiracy to blow up the World Trade Center, he is in Iraq for oil, his isn’t even really president (Cheney makes all of the decisions), he is really just a drunk, he lied to get us into this war, he doesn’t care that innocent young people are being killed, his dad got him in Andover, Yale, and Harvard (and OUT? - I guess that means 41 paid liberal faculty to pass the kid?) , he purposely sat and read to little children while the 9-11 attacks continued, he spends all of his time on vacation in Texas (because they have no modern technology there? - no phones, no computers, etc.?), his daughters were privileged party girls while in college, etc. Does any of that ring a bell?"</p>
<p>Yes. While I don’t for a minute think Bush was involved in a “conspiracy” to bomb the World Trade Center, some of the other points sound about right.</p>
<p>Okey Dokey, Hindoo.</p>
<p>You have supported my point that neither side holds higher ground when it comes to smearing the other, and distracting voters from the real issues.</p>
<p>This morning I heard on the news that Barack Obama was trying to stop ctiticism of his wife because of her remarks. It came to me then that if a future First Lady is going to use her position to talk shop (to make political statements), then she is FAIR GAME to be criticized just like anyone else. I believe her husband is naive to think otherwise. </p>
<p>No, I don’t think bizarre things should be made up about her. I don’t think she should be disrespected. However, when she expresses herself politically in a way which legitimately causes a gut feel concern in voters, people who are OK with her sentiment don’t have a right to shut down others’ impressions. If MO wants to avoid being criticized, then she should stick to things like reading to little children and cutting ribbons. Personally, I think she is too smart for that, and should continue to express herself (while at the same time maturing a little about fielding the aftermath).</p>
<p>"This morning I heard on the news that Barack Obama was trying to stop ctiticism of his wife because of her remarks. It came to me then that if a future First Lady is going to use her position to talk shop (to make political statements), then she is FAIR GAME to be criticized just like anyone else. I believe her husband is naive to think otherwise. "</p>
<p>I think taking out a four minute ad against a prospective first lady – what the Tenn. GOP did – goes beyond criticism.</p>
<p>I’d feel the same way if the Dems took out an ad against Cindy McCain because of her history of drug addiction and embezzlement or if they had taken ads out focusing on the wild behavior of George Bush’s daughters.</p>
<p>Neither Cindy nor Michelle is running for office. It’s fair and appropriate to focus ads on the political candidates, but not their families.</p>
<p>“If MO wants to avoid being criticized, then she should stick to things like reading to little children and cutting ribbons.”</p>
<p>Ridiculous. It’s appropriate for her to campaign for her husband, which is what she was doing.</p>
<p>This is what Barack Obama said, and I agree: "“The GOP, should I be the nominee, can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record,” Mr Obama said.</p>
<p>"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.</p>
<p>“Whoever is in charge of the Tennessee GOP needs to think long and hard about the kind of campaign they want to run, and I think that’s true for everybody, Democrat or Republican,” Mr Obama said in the ABC interview, adding: “These folks should lay off my wife.”
[Barack</a> Obama warns off Tennessee GOP from smearing his wife Michelle - Times Online](<a href=“http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3963576.ece]Barack”>The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines)</p>
<p>Michelle Obama can campaign for her husband without making political statements. However, if she waxes political, then she needs to be able to field criticism for her remarks just like everyone else. </p>
<p>Obama’s wife or family should not be “attacked”, but his wife’s political views are fair game. </p>
<p>I haven’t seen the ad - I’ll check it out. If it is disrespectful, I won’t like it, just as I have not liked the disrespectful smear campaign lodged against President Bush for the past 8 years (despite the fact that I don’t agree with a lot of his decisions).</p>
<p>For Obama to have sat on his hands all of these years as his reverend spewed hate speech, and to now be up in arms because his wife’s political remarks were criticized, seems ridiculous to me. It also seems naive, which is one of my concerns about him in general. </p>
<p>Obama just doesn’t have that much experience yet. A jump to assume the presidency is really way too much for a guy with his resume, no matter how brilliant he is. I wouldn’t vote for him if he had 50 years in the senate, BTW, because I disagree with his views of how problems should be solved. But I will agree that he is an amazing prospect for those who are very left leaning. A true super star. Just not ready yet - way too junior.</p>
<p>When Hillary Clinton stuck her neck out politically as First Lady, she was criticized for her views. If Laura Bush chooses to do it, she will be as well. Michelle Obama isn’t breaking any new ground here.</p>
<p>"post69 by sunnymamere: “Obama can triple my taxes,”</p>
<p>Sure sweetie.</p>
<p>Spidey–I don’t know if or how I’ve “supported your point,” but I’m happy to accommodate. And yes, you’re right–as it turns out, both sides are pretty despicable when it comes to smearing the other. Being a moderately leaning liberal, I tend to focus on the slime hurled at my candidates. People on the other end of the spectrum must feel like I do when Bush, et al, are dragged through the mud.</p>
<p>1of42:</p>
<p>You can attack what someone says, but do not attack the person. Your attempt to ridicule me qualifies as personal attack.</p>
<p>you said [post #97:] “…apologize for using your finely honed “shoot first, comprehend later” skills that are normally received for making haphazardly ridiculous posts making all kinds of hilarious accusations…”. </p>
<p>This came after a prior personal attack on me as one owning “the crown of the most ridiculous post of the year”.</p>
<p>Disagree with what the person says, but do not attack the person. Your personal attacks only make you seem more condescending and inflammatory.</p>
<p>I stayed within those bounds. My comments to Spidergirl (post #92 ) surround what she said. </p>
<p>[excerpt:] Let me see…he entered into a conspiracy to blow up the World Trade Center, he is in Iraq for oil, his isn’t even really president (Cheney makes all of the decisions…</p>
<p>It did not read like a parody to me. It was not possible to know her intentions. I have to interpret based what was said.</p>
<p>edvest: Honestly, it didn’t read like anything other than what it was, and my intentions were perfectly clear. I am not trying to come down on you for it - it was a mistake (no big deal). I do think, though that if you are going to participate in a debate, you should follow it. And if you make a mistake, you should own it.</p>
<p>Another thought on the original post, and the issue of criticism against Michelle Obama…</p>
<p>Let’s all remember that Mrs. Obama began the campaign with a cruel, personal attack on Hillary Clinton and her family. She made the remark that if Clinton could not keep “her own house” in order, how was she going to run the White House? It was a stab to the heart of that family’s most humiliating personal pain, the philandering of the father. It was also, frankly, a misogynistic dig, as if women could if they were better or more capable or more…whatever, keep their men and the home front in line. At the very least, the remark had NOTHING to do with the issues, and was just pure, nasty politics. </p>
<p>Barack Obama today called the ad criticizing his wife “classless”. I’m afraid Michelle’s early attack on Clinton was MUCH lower on the class scale. She came out of the gate on the attack, so her husband really has no grounds for complaint when she is put under a spotlight, and neither does anyone else.</p>
<p>Spidygirl, there’s a biblical passage which speaks of “straining out gnats while swallowing camels.” To me, it seems like you consider deliberate misrepresentation of a politician’s wife’s readily discernible intended meaning in a speech (for the purpose of attacking her husband) as less offensive than accurate commentary on an elected politician. What Michelle Obama meant with her “really proud” comment - in context - is clear and unobjectionable - uplifting, in fact. On the other hand, it’s true that George Bush never would have been admitted to Andover, Harvard or Yale without family connections, and most of what he emphatically told the American people leading up to the invasion of Iraq was in fact untrue.</p>
<p>Yet you seem to be more upset about comments about Bush which are true - in plain fact - while expecting Barack Obama’s wife to “get used to” having her opinions blatantly and intentionally misrepresented. The “cruel, personal attack” on Hillary Clinton? Another readily debunkable misrepresentation. Read the story: [Media</a> Matters - CNN’s Sylvester cropped Michelle Obama’s quote; Flanders claimed “we know” she attacked Clinton](<a href=“http://mediamatters.org/items/200708220011]Media”>http://mediamatters.org/items/200708220011)</p>
<p>Seriously, what is the basis of your opinion? Is there any amount of debunking of the falsehoods you’ve accepted in support of your opinion which would change it? At this point, I’m inclined to doubt it. Your posts have the ring of “My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with facts.”</p>
<p>I have not seen the ad, so I won’t comment on it. I think that Michelle Obama expressed herself badly. But so did McCain on the 100 years in Iraq and Obama pounced on him. I agree that if MO campaigns for her husband, she has to be prepared to be criticized. She needs to make sure she says exactly what she means; and if it goes over badly, she needs to take her lumps.</p>
<p>This said, it is risky going after one candidate’s spouse. It opens the door to retaliation, whether the spouse says anything, a la Bill Clinton or Michelle Obama, or not (or practically not) a la Cindy McCain. And both Bill Clinton and Cindy McCain are vulnerable to highly critical reviews of their personal lives and personal views. It is not a matter of moral judgment but of electoral tactics. And we may remember that it was some Republicans who insinuated things about the McCain’s adopted daughter last time. No member of a candidate’s family is out of bounds once one starts on this slippery slope.</p>
<p>For myself, I really hope that the Obama camp will not go after Cindy McCain. But the temptation will be there if MO keeps on being attacked for expressing herself badly even though her meaning was clear and unobjectionable.</p>
<p>“Let’s all remember that Mrs. Obama began the campaign with a cruel, personal attack on Hillary Clinton and her family. She made the remark that if Clinton could not keep “her own house” in order, how was she going to run the White House?”</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton is running for office. Michelle Obama isn’t.</p>
<p>I think that the comment that Michelle made was appropriate. A big reason that I’m not pro Hillary is that I don’t want Bill Clinton in the White House again. When he won the presidency, he was by far my candidate of choice, but due to his personal transgressions, he screwed up big time. </p>
<p>He is a loose cannon, and I’d feel more favorably about Hillary as a candidate if she wouldn’t have to bring him back into the White House with her.</p>
<p>There’s also every evidence that Hillary has lied to cover up Bill’s affairs. While that apparently did not happen with Monica, it does seem to have happened with his affairs that occurred while governor. </p>
<p>More reason for me to distrust Hillary. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, regardless of what the GOP does to Michelle, I will be disappointed in the Obama camp goes after Cindy (though I personally am not impressed by her). The attack all and take no prisoners approach to campaigning is old style politics that I want to see ended. I hope Obama continues to rise above it.</p>
<p>I want change, and thus far, the way Obama has been campaigning is the kind of change that I want to see.</p>
<p>In my opinion, spouses are fair game in politics if the information used about them is presented truthfully.</p>
<p>Because the Republicans are untruthfully representing MO, should the Democrats and Liberals give CM a free pass on her behavior, which is suspect, and involves behaviors I, as a voter want to know? NO!</p>
<p>The differences are MO and her “words”, turned into sound bites which are meant to deceive.</p>
<p>The questions about CM concern her behavior, health and spending of money in unethical ways. Exposing this in a truthful way is important.</p>
<p>Twisting either woman’s words, into a deceptive commercial is the problem.</p>
<p>NOrthstarmom: "A big reason that I’m not pro Hillary is that I don’t want Bill Clinton in the White House again. When he won the presidency, he was by far my candidate of choice, but due to his personal transgressions, he screwed up big time. "</p>
<p>Now you are doing exactly what you said we shouldn’t do (criticizing the possible First Spouse). If it is good for the gander, it is good for the geese.</p>
<p>NSM: “Hillary Clinton is running for office. Michelle Obama isn’t.”
If she wants to get in the trenches, mud is going to be slung in her direction as well (and rightfully so). If a future first spouse wants to be treated like a future first spouse, she shouldn’t be strapping on the gloves like a candidate. That ain’t “campaigning for her husband”. That’s stepping in the ring.</p>
<p>Obama’s remark was hurtful not only to the candidate - it was an attack on the whole family. That is particularly out of line, and it makes it quite ridiculous for her to claim “foul!” now.</p>
<p>I also have no respect for a woman (or a man) who chose to bring her little daughters to listen to a man who, under the guise of Chirstianity, spewed hate speech about “White America” and says things like “God Bless America? God DAMN America!” Perhaps Hillary Clinton should talk about how Michelle Obama wasn’t keeping HER house in order, because having a guy like that as your pastor is an OBAMANATION!</p>
<p>The bottom line is, if you start it, don’t whine when it comes back at you.</p>
<p>Kluge:</p>
<p>MO’s remarks were not misrepresented, and her damage control afterward just didn’t make sense. In their original context they were enough to turn me way off, and a lot of other people as well.</p>
<p>MO’s nasty criticism of Hillary not being able to “keep her house in order” is not “accurate commentary”. When has it become morally acceptable to blame victims? By this line of reasoning, should we go back to the good old days when women were blamed for their own rape because of the way that they dressed? </p>
<p>I’m curious what you think Hillary could have done to keep her house in order, since this was such an accurate statement. Lose weight? Cook better meals? Please explain.</p>
<p>The left has already been going after Cindy McCain for some time, although her issues are not political at all. They are health-related. Cindy McCain is in recovery from a life threatening mental health problem, the disease of addiction.</p>
<p>I have still not seen the ad, but MO’s original for-the-first-time-in-my-adult-life-I-am-proud-of-my-country comment, in its original context, was not OK in my opinion. Her spin afterward didn’t make sense AT ALL. Her supporters now try to spin it all further, that she is being “misunderstood” and “misrepresented”. I would feel more comfortable if she just went with her original remark, which is the type of thing said by people on the way left all the time.</p>