The senator is upset because the GOP has used his wife’s comment about being proud of America “for the first time” as fodder for a commercial. He said attacks on his wife should be out of bounds.
On the one hand, I can sympathize. On this board, attacks on my family is the one boundary I ask participants not to cross.
On the other hand, he’s basically asking for a free pass for Mrs. Obama who is out stumping for her husband, on the road and on TV talk shows. This is presidential politics, and it is frankly naive of him to think that that can, or even should, happen. Her phrasing was monumentally dumb when she said it, and even though she endeavored to clarify (i.e, regret and rephrase) her remarks, that doesn’t make them any less a legit target for critics. It isn’t as if, for instance, the GOP dug into her background and discovered she was on antidepressants or something and was saying, “Do you want a medicated woman in the White House?” These were public statements made in a public forum, and that makes them fair game. If Obama wants his wife off limits, then keep her out of the spotlight. But if she’s willingly in the spotlight, then sorry, Senator, but she’s just going to have to endure the glare.
PAD
• 
Fully agreed. I think Sen. Obama’s going to have to be a lot more careful in general, especially now that it’s looking more and more definite that he’ll nab the Democratic nomination. Really, he should have been more preemptive with the Rev. Wright nonsense, and apparently, he needs to learn Michelle a few things.
On a totally different note, I just saw in Marvel’s solicitations for this summer that Larry Stroman is coming back to X-Factor. Is this a one-issue deal, or is he on for a while? You two make a brilliant pair.
“it is frankly naive of him to think that that can, or even should, happen”
Why are people realizing just now, when the primaries are almost over, that his naivete and inexperience will be a problem for him when facing off against the Republicans? Sigh.
Why are people realizing just now, when the primaries are almost over, that his naivete and inexperience will be a problem for him when facing off against the Republicans? Sigh.
I’ve been saying that for a while. I think Hillary is unelectable because she’s going to galvanize the GOP base against her, but I remain unconvinced that Obama is going to look anything but callow and naive compared to McCain.
PAD
But they’ll manage to galvanize the base against anyone. Whether it’s turning Al Gore’s home state against him, or turning John Kerry into a wind-surfing, war-storytelling flip-flopper, or Barack Obama into a radical black separatist, they know how to do this to anybody. The fact that Hillary was still in the running after 15+ years of those kind of attacks on her should have been seen as a proof of strength, not baggage.
Honestly, I read Obama’s statement as something almost like a threat of retaliation. I just looked up his exact words (emphasis mine).
“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. 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. These folks should lay off my wife.”
And, indeed, opening themselves to character attacks on the candidate’s wife is probably something the Republicans should consider carefully. Offhand, there’s the fact that John McCain courted Cindy McCain while he was still married to his first wife (the one who, you know, raised his children while he was in a POW camp). Not to mention the period where she was addicted to painkillers and resorted to stealing them from the medical relief charity she started.
Any sufficiently motivated (and unethical) individual could craft quite the attack ad campaign using just those two pieces of information, and knowing John McCain’s temper, he’d probably make a scene about it once it aired. I’d say the Republicans are more vulnerable to this type of cheap shot than the Democrats are. I’m sure they’re just still used to having open season on the opposition, and think that Obama’s going use the same “ignore them and they’ll go away” strategy that let the Swiftbull Veterans get away with their attacks on Kerry. It doesn’t look like Obama is going to repeat that mistake.
I’m not sure Barack actually believes what his wife is out of bounds in that context, the problem is if he says nothing or fails to respond, the next step is Barack obama fails to stand up for his wife, why do you expect he’ll stand up for you.
Obviously they won’t be that blatant about it, but it’s not something he can just ignore without comment.
btw I see you’re scheduled for Toronto’s fan Expo in August. There’s no expected issues unlike some of the other places that said you were going is there?
What’s a little frustrating about the hoo-haa about what she said is the quote is often gotten wrong. What she said was “For the first time, I am really proud of my country.” which could just as easily imply that she was proud of her country before, but even more proud of it now.
Even the full quote is dámņìņg. The notion that in all these years, this is the first occasion she has to be REALLY proud of her country, still doesn’t show her in the best light.
PAD
PAD,
It might now show her in the best light as far as some people are concerned but with all the crap the U.S. Gov. has pulled since 1960 .. it may very well have just been her being honest.
Her comment doesn’t bother me at all .. it’s like saying one has to be proud of everything a parent does or does not do. It’s simply unrealistic.
It also doesn’t help matters any that she said it in two different speeches.
Anyhow… I agree with Obama that his wife should be out of bounds in some areas, but anything that she says while stumping for his campaign or speaking on behalf of his campaign is fair game in the same way that any other person working for his campaign would have their statements open for criticism.
It was either this, or pull a Michael-Dukakis- sentencing- the-hypothetical-rapists- of-his-wife to-yoga-therapy.
Yeah, but not because McCain isn’t callow and naive himself, with McCain’s friends in the press pool covering for him, volunteering he “misspoke,” when he has to be publicly corrected there’s no evidence of a link between Iran and the insurgency against the Iran-friendly Iraqi goverment.
The press keeps chewing McCain’s food for him, and he keeps chirping with his beak open like he’s a baby bird.
Okay, I don’t get this. I really don’t.
Yes, Michelle Obama is stumping for her husband. Yes, the things she says ABOUT HER HUSBAND should be subject to analysis. But even if we take her statement — “for the first time in my adult lifetime I am really proud of my country” — in the most negative light possible (discounting the word “really”), she’s expressing HER PERSONAL OPINION, which has nothing to do with Barack.
If she’d said, “my husband told me that, for the first time in his adult life, he is proud of his country,” then yes. Fair game. Because her HUSBAND is the one running for office. Whether Michelle Obama is proud of her country or not has no bearing on Barack Obama’s position on the same issue.
And finally, the “crime” she committed is trivial even if we interpret her comment in the worst way. So let’s say she wasn’t proud of her country until recently. So what? I know many people who aren’t proud of their country right now. Do we no longer tolerate dissent? Is a presidential candidate no longer allowed to associate with people who don’t march in lockstep with him (or her)? Is that really what we want?
(In the interests of fair disclosure, I am a Democrat. But I’d also defend Cindy McCain’s refusal to release her tax returns on the same grounds. She’s not the one running for President.)
My forty-three cents (adjusted for inflation)…
— Scott
I have the same opinion as PAD about Michelle’s comments. If she’s making herself a political figure, then she’s a legitimate target for political attacks.
Scott, I can see what you mean about her stating her personal opinion and not the opinion of her husband. However, she stated that opinion while stumping for her husband. Once she has started asking for people to listen to her opinion about politics, she can’t really pick and choose what they respond to. She’s either in the political game or out.
However, I don’t agree with PAD that this is a sign of problems to come for Obama. He’s sticking up for his wife, something that makes him look good even if he’s technically in the wrong. I don’t think Obama is going to look naive compared to McCain. In the last few days I think he’s actually done a pretty good job of putting the debate on his terms and looking strong against McCain.
I used to think that Obama was unelectable in November. Now I’m starting to think that he might actually win it. I think Mitt Romney probably would have launched the kind of slash and burn campaign that would have beaten Obama, but I don’t think McCain will do that kind of campaign.
What i’m afraid of in regard to Obama being/not being electable – Jimmy Carter was electable.
I happen to think that Carter was, in some ways, too good a man to be President successfully.
But whether that is true or not, he was naive about what he could exect in Washington, and he had no real grip on the levers of power.
And we got two terms of Ronald Reagan.
What do we get after Obama’s one ineffectual term?
I get the feeling some posters would prefer that women shut up and stay in the kitchen. THAT would have really helped fight WWII. If not for the women taking jobs in the factories, a lot of munitions might not have made it to the troops overseas.
Peter:
You’ve always been someone I admire and respect deeply and will continue to think of in high regard. But I think you’re wrong.
Here’s a video that was posted on Obama’s web site, please watch it and tell me he’s naive
https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/newforeignpolicy?source=20080519_NFP_LP_DB_G
Second, do we really want this to be a debate about what Mrs. Obama said or meant to say and then it become an endless bashing of Cindy McCain?
I don’t want that!
I want Obama and McCain to debate the issues and let the people of this country decide who is the better leader, not beat up on each other’s wives!
But McCain thinks he can hit Mrs. Obama and not pay a price for it, Obama can hit him back with:
1. The fact that not only are Cathloics evil, but all Jews should go to Israil so they can die in a coming war between Jesus and and Anti-Christ.
2. McCain ditched his handicapped wife to marry ahot beer heiress.
3. McCain has been heard to refer to his current wife as something that ryhmes with ‘punt’!
Last I’d like to ask Matt soemthing: Matt, you keep saying that Obama is naive, but where is all this experince Hillary is supposed to have? Since she’s been in the senate, she has enacted less substantive legislation than Obama, instead just playing it safe for almost 8 years in the senate waiting to be president.
She has shown worse judgement than most sentors and as far as foigen policy experence, do any of you think the prince of Saudi Arabia will be seen negociating with a woman in or out of Saudia Arabia? Worst of all, all the world leaders she knew when she was frist lady are dead or out of office.
If she were the front runner and the nominee, I would support her. But she’s not! So we need to support Obama this year and change the debate to something positive. Otherwise we will not last as a people much longer!
Alan Coil,
So… You couldn’t come up with a sensible argument and you just decided to try and insult everyone who disagreed with you? Nice.
Josh Pritchett,
I don’t know what you’ve been reading or where, but it hasn’t been here. No one is saying that the trivial stuff should be the center of the debate, but most of us think that it is reasonable to assume that anyone who opens their mouths as an official member of the Obama campaign staff or when stumping on his behalf is fair game. Obama’s response and the way he chose to phrase it made him look very clumsy and naïve in these matters. And it’s not the first time that Obama has displayed how green he is in the political arena.
It’s also odd that you’re telling us that we have to support Obama. Other than the conservative voters here; most every one from the host down does support Obama at this point. I’m probably the most critical of the left of center crew when it comes to Obama and even I have more or less said, both here and on my on blog, that Hillary needs to drop out and get the hëll out of the way of the clear and rightful front runner and the party’s need to actually start the official Obama v. McCain campaign.
“1. The fact that not only are Cathloics evil, but all Jews should go to Israil so they can die in a coming war between Jesus and and Anti-Christ.”
I’m going to assume that you meant to say “The fact that his spiritual advisor and supporter said that not only are Catholics evil…” If not, that would be one hëll of a weird argument for Obama to try and score points with. Anyhow…
Where have you been? That’s been getting play in the media. That’s been all over the media chat shows and even pops up on Fox News through the odd liberal host or guest. Old news and in the debate cycle already. As for the other two, one won’t mean much with 90% of the voters out there and the other is hearsay. And what would the Democrats really do to the obvious counter of your #2 by the Republicans?
“What? He married a rich heiress? Say, didn’t your last Presidential nominee do the same thing as well as several current members of the Democratic majority?”
Yeah, killer weapon that one is.
Alan Coil: “I get the feeling some posters would prefer that women shut up and stay in the kitchen.”
Eh? Alan, who are you talking about? I don’t see anything like that in this thread.
Jerry, it doesn’t mater how mater how many times they’ve talked about it on FOX or..
Wait your getting news from FOX???
Okay, if I stepped on anyone’s toes. But I feel very strongly here.
Jerry, everyone has said for the last few months that BILL CLINTON has been trying to stick up for his wife and most people have cut him some slack for that when he has put his foot in his mouth. Are we to expect Obama to do anything less?
I think the point here is, and Peter this is for you. Obama was in essence channeling David Banner: “GOP, don’t make me angry, you wouldn’t like me when I’m angry”
If they want to see a fight and they want to test his metal. Obama is saying tread lightly, or you will be picking a fight you don’t want.
I don’t want it to go that way! I just don’t think it’s okay because everyone else has done it before. That’s the same logic as: Well, if your freinds jump off the the bridge would you jump too?
Like Mrs. Obama, I am proud of my country for the first time in a long time when there is a change a good man like Barrack Obama can be president.
Jerry, Peter, everyone else; you’re right. We can’t make them go away, we can’t make them stop slandering the Obama family. But we can do like my dad used to say: Consider the source (No I don’t mean the one from the New Gods comics)
If all they have are attacks, slander and out of context commets, then they don’t have a case or ideas or a better way to lead this country and deserve to lose. So I’m on the side of the guy who has the better case, ideas, etc, and I hope you all will be too.
Perhaps I should have used the word ‘people’ instead of ‘posters’. That would have gotten my point across better.
Okay Alan, what ‘people’ are you talking about?
Josh Pritchett,
“Jerry, it doesn’t mater how mater how many times they’ve talked about it on FOX or..
Wait your getting news from FOX???”
No, I get my news from the local paper, several national papers, the net, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, BBC News, CNN, Fox News and POTUS 08 (it’s an XM thing) to name a few. But nice way to start out with a straw dog.
“Jerry, everyone has said for the last few months that BILL CLINTON has been trying to stick up for his wife and most people have cut him some slack for that when he has put his foot in his mouth. Are we to expect Obama to do anything less?”
And just as many other people have pointed out that Bill should know better and not be so clumsy in the way he defends her and that he’s actually hurting her at times by rushing out to defend some things that the candidate should be defending. In cases like this you have to learn to take your lumps and respond in ways that don’t make you look weak, whiney, clumsy or naïve.
“Obama was in essence channeling David Banner: “GOP, don’t make me angry, you wouldn’t like me when I’m angry” If they want to see a fight and they want to test his metal. Obama is saying tread lightly, or you will be picking a fight you don’t want.”
Well, there’s a definite reference to his being green in this, but it isn’t a Hulk reference and it has nothing to do with the environment.
“I don’t want it to go that way! I just don’t think it’s okay because everyone else has done it before. That’s the same logic as: Well, if your friends jump off the the bridge would you jump too?”
There’s a difference between not doing something foolish just because someone else did it and not recognizing the reality of a situation. Obama is about to enter into one of the nastiest games in politics. He’s about to run for the office of the POTUS. He should know that the tricks are going to get dirty and the tactics are going to go low. He can respond to that in several ways that don’t involve going that route himself and that don’t show off how green he is at this game.
He also needs to better learn when to let a member of his staff reply to something rather than replying himself. A staffer could have come out, stated that it’s kind of funny that the GOP wants to run attacks based on his wife’s two slips of the tongue when the Republicans nominee has had numerous slips about far more serious issues, referenced the multiple Iran/insurgents gaffs and then left it at that. Obama wouldn’t end up looking as green as he does and the counter to the GOP attack plan would be in the news cycle and in the spin machine to counter their attack.
“Like Mrs. Obama, I am proud of my country for the first time in a long time when there is a change a good man like Barrack Obama can be president.”
See, and it’s stuff like that that’s going to trip up Obama and any of his very vocal supporters. I’m proud of my country and have been for as long as I can remember. I’ve had moments when I wasn’t to proud of the leadership and moments when I wasn’t to proud of my fellow countrymen, but I’ve always been proud of my country. What you and Michelle Obama are saying can be, basically, broken down into saying that you’re only proud of your country when you get what you want. You may not mean it that way, but it’s going to be read like that by many when looking at your comment or hers.
“But we can do like my dad used to say: Consider the source (No I don’t mean the one from the New Gods comics)
If all they have are attacks, slander and out of context comments, then they don’t have a case or ideas or a better way to lead this country and deserve to lose. So I’m on the side of the guy who has the better case, ideas, etc, and I hope you all will be too.”
Which has nothing to do with what’s being discussed really. You can say consider the source all you want, but in this case the source for this discussion was Obama and the discussion was around his actions making him look unneccissarily green, naïve and politically clumsy.
If you mean that we should consider the source of the attacks on her, then you should be emailing Obama. He’s the one making foolish statements that look like hollow threats. Most of us are just pointing out that he said a very foolish thing in a very foolish manner and that anyone who is set up as a representative of his campaign is fair game when they’re speaking on behalf of that campaign. And if you think that the GOP is going to change their playbook just because you and obama said so… Well, then Obama ain’t the only naïve member of this debate.
Alan Coil,
Still doesn’t really ring true.
Just got back from a surprise party for my Dad’s 70th birthday and missed all this!!!
PAD– This is why even if I disagree with 75% of your politics (rough estimate, numbers subject to change) I always have to weigh your opinions carefully–you have an inherent sense of fairness that will always keep you from swigging the partisan kool aid.
for the record though, I disagree that Obama won’t win. Have you seen those crowds? McCain’s supporters like him. Obama’s love him. Hëll, some worship him. This is Dole/Clinton all over again
David Gian-Cursio–If Obama, or, more likely, some of Obama’s nuttier followers, try to play that kind of hardball against Cindy McCain they will do Obama incalculable harm. McCain has already been confronted by a heckler who tried to embarrass him and he came off looking way better for it. Imagine the scenario–someone criticizes Michelle over something she said and they respond with “yeah…well your wife took drugs!!! Do we want someone in the White House who admits they took…wait. Nevermind.”
Obama’s too smart for that and if he had that kind of go for the jugular mindset he would have used it against Hillary by now.
Scott– Sure you can say whatever you want. And you have to be willing to take your lumps for it.
And I think that Cindy should release her tax returns. Her husband is running for president. He would have the power of life and death for the freaking human race. It’s not asking for too much in return that we be aware of any and all potential conflicts of interest. I appreciate that she is not running and she has had a life before McCain but I still think she should release them. (For that matter I think anyone who doesn’t release their full medical records should not ever be considered for president)
Alan- I get the feeling some posters would prefer that women shut up and stay in the kitchen. THAT would have really helped fight WWII. If not for the women taking jobs in the factories, a lot of munitions might not have made it to the troops overseas.
Um, was that joke? You really think that PAD and others thinking that Michelle Obama having to take responsibility for her own words is the same as wanting her to shut up and stay in the kitchen? At best that’s incredibly patronizing to her and the worst kind of strawman argument. C’mon now.
Jerry- I don’t think Hagee can accurately be considered a “spiritual advisor” and any attempt by the Obama side to label him as such will backfire and bring up more questions about Obama and Wright. And anyway, at least Hagee has admitted he was wrong, which I would not hold my breath for in the case of Wright.
Jerry, it doesn’t mater how mater how many times they’ve talked about it on FOX or..
Wait your getting news from FOX???,/i.
Jeeeze Josh, he said “even pops up on Fox”. He’s saying that even Fox had to talk about it. Believe me, Jerry shares your poor opinion of Fox.
Anyway, as I said, Obama would be a fool to bring up Hagee, unless he really wants to open up the Wright wounds just as they are healing. I may or may not vote for him but it would seem I have a higher opinion of his intelligence than some of his supporters.
Just got back from a surprise party for my Dad’s 70th birthday and missed all this!!!
PAD– This is why even if I disagree with 75% of your politics (rough estimate, numbers subject to change) I always have to weigh your opinions carefully–you have an inherent sense of fairness that will always keep you from swigging the partisan kool aid.
for the record though, I disagree that Obama won’t win. Have you seen those crowds? McCain’s supporters like him. Obama’s love him. Hëll, some worship him. This is Dole/Clinton all over again
David Gian-Cursio–If Obama, or, more likely, some of Obama’s nuttier followers, try to play that kind of hardball against Cindy McCain they will do Obama incalculable harm. McCain has already been confronted by a heckler who tried to embarrass him and he came off looking way better for it. Imagine the scenario–someone criticizes Michelle over something she said and they respond with “yeah…well your wife took drugs!!! Do we want someone in the White House who admits they took…wait. Nevermind.”
Obama’s too smart for that and if he had that kind of go for the jugular mindset he would have used it against Hillary by now.
Scott– Sure you can say whatever you want. And you have to be willing to take your lumps for it.
And I think that Cindy should release her tax returns. Her husband is running for president. He would have the power of life and death for the freaking human race. It’s not asking for too much in return that we be aware of any and all potential conflicts of interest. I appreciate that she is not running and she has had a life before McCain but I still think she should release them. (For that matter I think anyone who doesn’t release their full medical records should not ever be considered for president)
Alan- I get the feeling some posters would prefer that women shut up and stay in the kitchen. THAT would have really helped fight WWII. If not for the women taking jobs in the factories, a lot of munitions might not have made it to the troops overseas.
Um, was that joke? You really think that PAD and others thinking that Michelle Obama having to take responsibility for her own words is the same as wanting her to shut up and stay in the kitchen? At best that’s incredibly patronizing to her and the worst kind of strawman argument. C’mon now.
Jerry- I don’t think Hagee can accurately be considered a “spiritual advisor” and any attempt by the Obama side to label him as such will backfire and bring up more questions about Obama and Wright. And anyway, at least Hagee has admitted he was wrong, which I would not hold my breath for in the case of Wright.
Jerry, it doesn’t mater how mater how many times they’ve talked about it on FOX or..
Wait your getting news from FOX???,/i.
Jeeeze Josh, he said “even pops up on Fox”. He’s saying that even Fox had to talk about it. Believe me, Jerry shares your poor opinion of Fox.
Anyway, as I said, Obama would be a fool to bring up Hagee, unless he really wants to open up the Wright wounds just as they are healing. I may or may not vote for him but it would seem I have a higher opinion of his intelligence than some of his supporters.
Sorry for the double post. twitchy fingers, too much airline coffee.
“Jerry- I don’t think Hagee can accurately be considered a “spiritual advisor” and any attempt by the Obama side to label him as such will backfire and bring up more questions about Obama and Wright. And anyway, at least Hagee has admitted he was wrong, which I would not hold my breath for in the case of Wright.”
Oh, I agree. They don’t want to stir that hornets nest up again by their own actions. However, you are in error about two things. It’s not just Hagee. There’s another fellow (can’t remember his name off the top of my mind right now) with McCain now that also says the same garbage and right after Hagee “admitted he was wrong” he did two radio interviews where he went right back to saying exactly what he said before about NO and other topics. But the point still holds that Obama’s people do not want to resurrect that garbage again by their own doing.
Obama’s too smart for that and if he had that kind of go for the jugular mindset he would have used it against Hillary by now.
Well, that’s the balance Obama has to strike. If he tries to give as good as he gets, there’s no guarantee it would work (democrats just don’t seem to have had much luck with demonization in the last few elections) but, more importantly, he’d lose a big chunk of what makes him attractive. On the other hand, if he just lets the opposition tar him with the same sort of stuff that was used to such effect on Kerry, Gore, and McCain himself, he’ll just be slandered into oblivion.
He’ll need to run a kung-fu campaign, deflecting negativity without actually going negative himself, while simultaneously counteracting the weak-willed, naive child meme by projecting the impression that he’s perfectly capable of executing a bare-knuckle, mud-slinging negative campaign, but doesn’t want to or consider it necessary. That second part is the real trick, since Obama can’t seem to find fault in any aspect of the campaign without people accusing him of running crying to mommy. Compare that to Clinton, for instance, who has complained in the middle of a debate about being picked on, but is still seen in some quarters as the more durable candidate.
PAD,
You can relax. While McCain could win, I find it unlikely for him to beat Obama for two reasons:
1.) McCain doesn’t inspire like Obama does. While not everyone “worships” him as one person suggested, there is a devotion for him like many of us had for Reagan back in the day. Living here in Iowa, what he did in the caucus was impressive.
2.) McCain seems to go out of is way to thumb his nose at conservatives. If the conservative base doesn’t turn out, it is unlikely he can win.
Besides, if McCain does win, other than perhaps the war, I doubt he will do much that would offend you anyways.
Iowa Jim
Here he is. Rod Parsley:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3548250.ece
I’d link more stuff, but I keep getting stuck in the spam filter when I do that. The upgrades the site’s filters have seemingly gone through are nice, but a pain.
Carter got lucky in that the party bosses hadn’t yet realized that dominating the early primaries counterbalanced their favor. He didn’t have to make beating Senator Hillary Clinton look easy. If he runs his administration half as well as he’s been running his campaign, Obama’s going to keep the wave that carries him into the white house.
Sorry, but I don’t feel in the least for Barack’s “pain” over the GOP’s “unfairness”. Especially not after the past 5 months of Barack (and nearly everyone in the mainstream media) doing absolutely nothing to stop all the anti-woman attacks on Hillary (whether the “Citizens United” logo–which I won’t list beyond that–or the “shrill voice” or the “ex-wife” comments or, most notably, Olberman’s superdelegate suggestion to “take her in a room and only HE comes out”) nor did Obama (or many of his supporters/fans) condemn the “pimping Chelsea” comment (for which Hillary was lambasted when SHE talked tough about demanding the reporter’s being punished–who wants to think how fast the guy would’ve been fired if Barack had been described as “pimping” his daughters?). Nor has Michelle herself earned any sympathy. She has been every bit as anti-Hillary with her comments from the outset and now she and Barack feel that THEY should somehow be exempt from “attack ads”? Nope. Ain’t gonna happen. Michelle Obama has redefined “ambitious” (and that had already been redefined by Barack’s very candidacy).
Also, considering how Barack has been so eager to attack BILL CLINTON’s participation during the primary season, I find it highly amusing that NOW, all of a sudden, a spouse should be “off-limits” to criticism.
Sorry, Barack, but you AND Michelle brought this all upon yourselves. After all, all’s fair in love and politics. If you thought the campaign against Hillary was hëll, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. The GOP has barely scratched the surface in their campaign and, don’t forget, we still have all the 527s to hear from (if you thought the attacks on Kerry were bad, after the attacks on Obama, we’ll look back on the anti-Kerry ads as “the good ol’ days”).
Posted by: Mike at May 19, 2008 06:50 PM
I remain unconvinced that Obama is going to look anything but callow and naive compared to McCain.
Yeah, but not because McCain isn’t callow and naive himself, with McCain’s friends in the press pool covering for him, volunteering he “misspoke,” when he has to be publicly corrected there’s no evidence of a link between Iran and the insurgency against the Iran-friendly Iraqi goverment.
The press keeps chewing McCain’s food for him, and he keeps chirping with his beak open like he’s a baby bird.
Um, exactly how have the press been hard on Obama? Who asked Obama when the Great Lakes got moved (his campaign noted how they were so important to the people of OREGON)? Who challenged Obama on his recent comment about the expanded US (he made a comment about 57 states)? Who corrected Obama when he explained Hillary’s win in West Virginia as due to the state’s proximity to Arkansas? Who asked him why he isn’t worried too much about Kentucky (again, because of its proximity to Arkansas–as opposed to its being right across the Ohio River from Illinois and at least one full state separated from Arkansas)?
Where have all these anti-Obama media personalities been (other than FoxNews)? MSNBC and CNN have been in the Obama pocket since January (at least). The punditocracy have COMPLETELY failed to do their jobs in reporting the Democratic primaries (witness all the calls from the pundits for Hillary to drop out while completely forgetting that: Reagan challenged Ford all the way to the 1976 GOP Convention; Ted Kennedy challenged Carter all the way to the 1980 Democratic Convention; and, Jesse Jackson challenged Dukakis all the way to the 1988 Dem Convention) because they’ve all fallen for the Obama Rockstar Campaign.
Hëll, I thought it was funny when some “progressives” screamed their outrage over the internet when Hillary met with Scaife yet Barack’s claim that he wanted to meet Ahmadinejad “without preconditions” and his claims to “cross the aisle” didn’t create any murmurs of disapproval. Barack’s fans make such a big deal over his “anti-war” stance, yet one of his strongest supporters has been John Kerry (the guy who was “for the war, before he was against it) and Barack has done NOTHING different from Hillary since his election to the Senate with regards to the war (check the actual voting records–their records match so closely that you *might* find 5 actual differences; as he’s been in the Senate for 3 1/2 years, that’s not a substantial difference and ESPECIALLY given all his TALK of “change”).
Honestly, I thought (a couple of months ago) that I would be able to vote for whichever Democrat emerged from the Convention with the nomination. Now, though, I cannot find myself voting for Barack Obama as the nominee. (This doesn’t mean I plan to vote for McCain. I intend to check out the alternatives.) Where Obama killed his chances with me is his supporters’ overenthusiasm at playing the race card (if you’re white and you don’t vote for Obama, you’re a racist). I live in Alabama and I HAVE voted for more than a few African-American candidates over the years so I don’t need some snot-nosed punk (and his rabid fans) trying to guilt me. Why should “racism” be stronger to overcome than “sexism”? We could say that people voting for Obama over Clinton are STILL voting for a MAN, instead of a woman, and it would be just as accurate. (Hëll, there was some African-American pundit on CNN this past weekend who had the gall to say that whites who could enjoy watching Black athletes or enjoy Black entertainers, then they shouldn’t have a problem with electing a Black President. Naturally, the host didn’t turn that around replacing “Black” with “woman” because that would suggest that Hillary is still campaigning for the nomination. The punditocracy on MSNBC and CNN have already decided that Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee. That’s also a bit funny. The same “progressives” who have slammed the mainstream media throughout the Bush era haven’t said a word regarding the veritable Obama lovefest. Maybe they secretly worry that once Obama is the Democratic nominee then the media will show their true colors, pardon the expression, and become the “dyed-in-the-wool Republicans” they always are.)
Last I’d like to ask Matt soemthing: Matt, you keep saying that Obama is naive, but where is all this experince Hillary is supposed to have?
As a resident of New York, I disagree with your claims that Hillary has done nothing with her time in the Senate, but even putting that aside, the experience that is most relevant in this discussion is political experience; she’s been through the grinder. She’s dealt with 15+ years of right-wing attacks and she’s still coming out strong in head-to-head match-ups with the Republicans’ most well-liked national figure. Obama hasn’t ever had a serious contest before (Alan Keyes?!) and if he thinks the primary slap-fight was tough, wait’ll the general election. I prefer a candidate who’s already been battle-tested.
do any of you think the prince of Saudi Arabia will be seen negociating with a woman in or out of Saudia Arabia?
Considering one of Saudi Arabia’s closest allies, Pakistan, has already had a female prime minister, I think she’d get by.
So we need to support Obama this year and change the debate to something positive. Otherwise we will not last as a people much longer!
It’s not me, or most of the people on this blog, you need to convince; it’s the vast number of voters out there for whom negative campaigning is designed, those who vote with their “guts” rather than their heads. It’s a sad reality, but those are the people who decide elections, not the far smaller number who can sort through spin and political manipulation on their own.
And it is for those people that a campaign needs to learn how to anticipate negative attacks and deal with them effectively. Unfortunately, that’s not a skill you can pick up in a few months.
Jerry, Peter:
How does Obama come off as weak or naive for defending his wife? I mean Bill Clinton has defended his wife and no one called him weak or naive. If someone critized my wife harshly, then I don’t wait for someone to defend her honor like some modern King Arthur waiting for Lancealot to defend her honor. I do it myself!
Second, why should we not consider the source? After all what I was saying was that the fact that they are weak on the issues and can only attack Obama’s family shows how weak they know their position to be. Like some school yard bully trying to hide their shortcomings, the GOP has taken a shove at Obama and called his family bad names.
All Obama has done is stood up to the bully. If he had not said anything he would have looked weak. But we’re debating whither or not he looks weak FOR standing up to the bully. I think that shouldn’t be the point; the point is, bullies back down when they see you’ll push back or if enough people gang up them.
One of the points Obama has made in the campaigne is trying new approches to politics, trying something new that might or might not work, like FDR’s new deal: Somethings worked, others didn’t. The point was, we had to try.
I think Obama is fine with attacks on himself, after all he met the Rev. Wright buisness with grace under fire. But it’s late in the race and it’s just never right to go after a man’s wife even if she speaks up for him in public or in a presidental race and shows a lack of that old time gentlemenship and honor we used to cheerish in this nation.
Also, Jerry, I was just having a laugh at you over FOX, okay! Don’t take it the wrong way, man. I’m forced to watch it too at least once a week too. I’m just having one over on you, man.
Uh, Mike I would point out that the press has been hard on Obama because they beat the Rev. Wright story over and over again, he’s gun comment over and over and his connection to some guy who was in an alleged terroist group hardly anyone remembers for weeks.
The press gave McCain a pass for weeks over his connections Rev. Hagey, avoided his connections to big lobbists, and don’t mention or explain the Keating five.
Also the press covered Hillary snipper fire thing for less than 3 days and has never once brought up her connections to the health insurance industry.
Also I don’t know of any Obama supporter who has played the race card. the only person I see playing the race card is Bill Clinton. Just because you’ve been around politics all your life doesn’t make you a great president, like at W!
Oh, Matt, the lady PM of Pakestain was over thrown in a military coup with Saudia Arabia’s blessing. I guess they didn’t like her that much!
David – Agreed. One thing Obama could have done is to point out that “the Republicans could have campaigned on their record, or on their policies, but instead chose personal attacks. Work it out for yourselves.” And left it at that.
Obama can’t seem to find fault in any aspect of the campaign without people accusing him of running crying to mommy. Compare that to Clinton, for instance, who has complained in the middle of a debate about being picked on, but is still seen in some quarters as the more durable candidate.
A good point–had Obama choked up during a bad time in the campaign he’d be this year’s Muskie. There is a double standard. Complaining about the way the game is played doesn’t reflect well on a man, to most people. But hey, it isn’t like he wasn’t able to win anyway.
Never? Never ever? But Hillary is a man’s wife…are you suggesting Obama should have rolled over and taken her attacks?
Also the press covered Hillary snipper fire thing for less than 3 days
In what universe??? Type in “Hillary” and “sniper” into google news and you get thousands of stories from just the past month. 3 day story? Hëll, it was more than a 3 day story when Bill Clinton stupidly brought it back to the forefront with a few more additional lies of his own.
I think you’d have a hard case to make arguing that the press has gone easy on Hillary. Not that they are entirely to blame for that–one of her many mistakes was to needlessly antagonize the press and set up a situation where they were ready willing and eager to see her fall.
You’ve always been someone I admire and respect deeply and will continue to think of in high regard. But I think you’re wrong.
Here’s a video that was posted on Obama’s web site, please watch it and tell me he’s naive
I don’t care if he IS naive. I care how he comes across, particularly in terms of how he stacks up against McCain. Politics is perception. When he tries to remove from the table comments that his wife made repeatedly in public forums while stumping for him, that comes across as naive. To make such demands makes it seem as if he hasn’t been paying the least bit of attention to the way presidential politics works.
Obama’s problem is that he comes across like someone who believes he can change the world purely on the force of personality. And if this is an example of how he’s going to do it–by demanding and expecting to be treated differently. just because he says so–that’s going to be a problem. There are ways to go about it. His initial speech during the Wright stupidity, talking to American voters in a forthright manner about race relations, was brilliant. But that’s because he managed to transcend self-interest and speak to broader concepts. In this case, basically he’s saying that the GOP is being mean to his wife. My response is, where the hëll has he been? They ganged up on John Edwards’ wife and her biggest sin was that she has cancer, for God’s sake. Asserting that family aren’t the ones running for office and therefore shouldn’t be subject to attack ads is a viable contention. But his wife was the wrong person and the wrong example to defend. If she’s going to publicly stump for her husband, then she has to expect the results of those endeavors to be held to the same scrutiny as anyone else with whom Obama is associated. He has to expect that to. Not to do so comes across as…well…naive.
PAD
How does Obama come off as weak or naive for defending his wife? I mean Bill Clinton has defended his wife and no one called him weak or naive.
I never said he was weak, or came off that way, and I’m unsure why you’re putting that word in my mouth.
There are any number of ways that he could have defended his wife that would not have come across as naive. But the bottom line is that, while she’s out stumping for him, he can’t be thinking of her as his wife. He has to think of her as simply another voice speaking on his behalf. His words and his sentiments have to stand on their own, because it is upon those words that he will be judged, not his personal outrage as a husband.
Let me put it this way: If Oprah Winfrey had been the one who spoke several times about being “really proud” of her country for the first time, and she was the one who was the subject of the attack ad, and Obama demanded that Oprah’s comments be off limits, we’d think he was out of his mind. By the same token, if the way he had responded to the Wright comments was to say, “He’s my minister and because of that we should just leave him alone,” that would have been seen as ridiculous.
Is it possible to take dispassion too far? Sure. Dukakis showed that when faced with the famous question about the death penalty if it was his wife who had been raped and murdered. But Obama needs to focus on the issues being raised rather than his sense of personal outrage. He succeeded in that spectacularly with Wright, at least initially, and failed to apply that same standard to his wife.
PAD
The press doesn’t have to have been particularly hard on Obama for my observation to be true. He hasn’t given them much of an opportunity.
In contrast to Kerry’s handling the swiftboaters — which was to simply back off of his superior hold of the position of hero-candidate — Obama handling of the Wright story was masterful. At the very least, he can call playing the Wright card what it is.
For once we have a decent, smart, accessible candidate who doesn’t owe his success against the- Engine-of-Destruction- We-Call-Hillary to special interests. If you aren’t ovulating over how Obama is handling his campaign, I think the glorious times we are living in are wasted on you.
Has Obama needed to be corrected more than once for any of these mistakes?
Have you gotten in line to be called Iranian by John McCain?
no offense PAD, but you talk about the perception, but defending your wife is the all the perception he needs. Republicans label the word “liberal” as something to be ashamed of yet most people attend liberal arts schools and want other countries to be more liberal in their government. Yeah there probably were more nuanced ways but all they grey crap is why Democrats are preceived as wimps. Sometimes you have to be a little black and white Republicans.
Besides, that ad looks like the stereotypical hillbilly that people think the South is made of. Perception.
Frankly, I think any candidate (male or female) would be naive to think that their spouse is “off limits” In the case of any world leader, their spouse is usually expected to take part and/or represent our country in social functions – weddings, funerals, diplomatic summits, etc.
While, of course, the candidate should be our primary focus; I think it is important that we are confident that his/her spouse is thoughtful and articulate.
Should we do a deep probe to discover if they cheated on a math exam in 8th grade? Of course not. However, if they have had alcohol or substance abuse problems in the recent past… that’s another story.
Argh. I need an early morning editor. The first “our” above should have been “their.”
no offense PAD, but you talk about the perception, but defending your wife is the all the perception he needs.
Except he didn’t really “defend” her. Instead he angrily said that it was “low-class” to attack her. Except she wasn’t attacked; the things she said were attacked. That’s a subtle but important difference.
The perception–accurate, in this case–is that he has no problem putting his wife out there to stump on his behalf, but does have a problem when the things she says are held to the same scrutiny as anything anyone else says. He wants a double standard, and that’s both dangerous and, ultimately, condescending. As if his wife is incapable of defending the things she says herself.
PAD
PAD, there’s one other reason why Obama’s comments could work well.
It’s an umbrage-off. The Democratic Primaries have been full of either Obama or Clinton saying “shame on you” for something said by the other side. Whether it was the “monster” comment by one of Obama’s people or racially insensitive stuff said by a Clinton supporter, the result was the offending person leaving the campaign. So yelling, “We’re better than that, stop it,” has worked in the Democratic umbrage-off.
Now the same thing is starting up for the general election. John McCain has said he wants to run a respectful campaign. He objected to a TV commercial that used Reverend Wright. He lost that one, but there are other cases where his people have toned things down because of McCain’s wishes. So when Obama says, “Whoever is in charge of the Tennessee GOP needs to think long and hard about the kind of campaign they want to run,” he’s actually claiming that they’re not living up to McCain’s stated standard.
If Mitt Romney had won the nomination you’d be right, this would be a terrible tactic on Obama’s part. However, it is much more likely to be effective with John McCain as the opponent. His campaign has done their share of whining, too. Obama can’t even say the phrase, “losing his bearings,” without a McCain representative accusing him of ageism. So this is all part of the new umbrage-off.
One of the most significant things about Obama’s statement is that he seems to think he can determine what can and can’t be said about his wife. There are things being said about her that he has every right to deplore, but so what? Comparisons with PAD’s distaste for criticism of his family are not very apt, because this, right here, is PAD’s own property, and he really does have the option of silencing offensive posters. That he hasn’t done so to me, and to a few others, is purely a matter of his own restraint, rather than something out of his power. Senator Obama is faced with a reality he can’t alter.
You seem to be the best proof Obama isn’t going to lose any support for indulging in the behavior you’re referring to. Family-interaction — and outer-action, if you get my meaning — involves hypocrisies that are more than tolerated, and we’ll take it and we’ll like it.
Mike: The Senator is free to desire whatever he wants, but he has serious problems if he thinks he can have it.
Which people? The same people who thought Hillary should just keep her big, fat yap shut about national health care when she was Bill’s First Lady. Them people. The ones who apparently think she should keep her big, fat yap shut now, even though SHE is the candidate this time, and Bill is merely her spousal support. I pretty much detest those people.