I think it's important to remember that Michelle Obama is not a politician, unlike Bill Clinton. She's also not a standard-bearer for the Democratic Party - the reaction would and should be different for him. Holding her to that standard is a bit much. I wouldn't hold the wives of Huckabee, Romney, Paul, etc to that standard either. I also think she took some of the race stuff personally, and I can understand why she'd be upset with the Clintons right now (or at least, a week or two ago). She should have been bit more PC, but that's the nature of not being a politician herself.
Holding Obama's wife to the same standard as lifelong politician and ex-president Bill Clinton is just ludicrous to start with. He isn't just a spouse.
What a puss. He isn't man enough to come to Houston. I'm sure he makes the hippie Spurs fan's hearts go all a pitter-patter.
Hey, I thought you guys want to make this woman a future first lady. Guess in this case she is just an ordinary spouse. Double standard.
Double standard? The spouse of any presidential candidate gets more attention than normal but comparing her to Bill Clinton, who is a two-term president, makes no sense at all.
Yeah, that's a reasonable argument and I agree with you. A hypothetical question like that is a fairly easy one. It did not require political experience. A different answer there would have been in line with the image Obama is carrying on in this campaign.
Certainly true - but she's not Obama. Elizabeth Edwards has said some crazy things this campaign season that would have been totally unacceptable from Edwards as well and no one really cared. Ultimately, we're not electing these people. No one cared what Laura Bush or Theresa Kerry or Tipper Gore had to say either when they were candidates. Clinton is different in that his role in a new administration would be different and he represents the party as a whole, in addition to being a candidate spouse. He would have been fine saying what she said in the latter role - it's the former role that would have been problematic.
I was at Rice Stadium for that speech. There was a huge crowd (he addressed one side of the stadium, which was packed) and the feeling in the air was electric. Kennedy could give a speech like no one else. The hair was standing up on the back of my neck a couple of times. It just gave you chills. I'll never forget it. Impeach Bush.
Will blacks and upper income whites support Hillary in November? Will latinos and lower class whites support Obama in November? Where do the asians fit in? Will the party of tomorrow heal in time?
He knows he has Houston already, the black population in Houston is pretty high compared to other Texas cities. Especially with those who came from new orleans. Obama isn't worried about a handfull of people in Clear Lake who happen to work at NASA, they wouldn't vote for him anyways regardless of what his space policy is because he's half black. I feel the same way about you Meowgi.
We're not all hippies and we damn sure aren't all Spurs fans. However, this is the center of activity for Dems in this state. It's important to win Travis County to win Texas. Besides, if you were to drive through this city on any given day in any given area, you're going to see a ton more Ron Paul signs than any other candidate running locally or nationally.
wait So if Hilary was elected President what would Bill Clinton be call?? First Dude? First Gentleman? First Guy haha
Sure, Bill Clinton was a two-term president, that's why he should be disrespected and treated like a criminal. It's funny how he's been treated, especially among his own party members and so-called liberals, comparing to the treatment both Bush are getting among republicans. The way Reagan and Bush First, or even Bush Jr. were talked about by Republicans, despite some disagreement, it's still respectful. But when it comes to Bill, the only Dem president in the last 20 years, the way he's been scrutinized and bashed among liberals, you can't phantom those are supposed to be tree-huging, caring and loving bunch. Because you simply you can't see any appreciation for a man who did something good for the country and the world, from some VOCAL liberals. It's not really about party line or political view, but simply about some basic human decency to show even just very limited respect and appreciation towards good deeds of fellow human beings. Hopefully, that could be "changed" for good.
I don't know how much liberals ever liked Bill. He was never a liberal to begin with. I think he was still rather well respected until his latest behavior in regards to Hillary's campaign. I think some of the attacks on him are overboard. It is kind of crazy that they are acting like he's foaming at the mouth and rabid. He does deserve criticism for his behavior and comments, but I'm not sure why some of it is so overboard.
On Bill Clinton: I agree that it's silly to bother with the intensity of Bill Clinton's arguments, the finger wagging, red face and all that. That's silly. There is nothing silly about complaining that he is lying about Barack's record and positions and attributing false quotes to him. Bill knew exactly what he was doing when he said to a large crowd, "He said the Republicans had all the good ideas! I'm not making this stuff up!" But he was making it up and he knew it. He was also making it up when he said he and Hillary opposed the war from the start (they didn't and there is tons of video to support that) and when he said Barack's Iraq position was indistinguishable from Bush's or HRC's. I'm able to praise him for the good he's done (which is a lot) and criticize him for the bad. I do not subscribe to the idea, as egal and Deckard apparently do, that past good works are a shield against criticism of repeatedly and knowingly lying to the American people about another good Democrat in the service of getting his wife elected. On Michelle Obama: She never said she had to think about voting for Hillary; she said she'd have to think about working to support her. The headlines (and the posts here) are inaccurate as the transcript below shows. When you consider the number of lies the Clintons have pushed about her husband's record, positions and readiness to be president, can you blame her for not jumping enthusiastically into working for her while the campaign's still going on? And, if you can, you'll notice below that she amended her statement immeditately in the same interview. GMA: Could you see yourself working to support Hillary Clinton should she win the nomination? MICHELLE OBAMA: I'd have to think about that. I'd have to think about that, her policies, her approach, her tone. GMA: That's not a given? MICHELLE OBAMA: You know, everyone in this party is going to work hard for whoever the nominee is. I think that we're all working for the same thing. And, you know, I think our goal is to make sure that the person in the White House is going to take this country in a different direction. I happen to believe that Barack is the only person who can really do that.
I guess it just comes with the territory, and certainly there are those who have "teen idol" love for Barack Obama, but the random "puss" and "****Face" vitrol is so weird to me. It is impossible to take seriously in any way, and witnessing someone project a truly disconcerting and irrational amount of rage at a presidential candidate just reduces one's respect for the poster to zero. Obama has his flaws. There are things to wonder about. But calling him a "f***face" and "puss" because he is not "man enough to come to Houston" is really not a compelling criticism. It is, however, a compelling reflection of the poster's inability to resist the temptation of demonizing someone with whom the disagree. As a post script, I think the thing Democrats are going to really struggle with is not NASA, not Michelle Obama, not Bill Clinton - the problem is going to be getting out of Iraq. It's a given among the Dems, at this point, that getting the hell out of there is the least-bad option. I'm not convinced it is. David Brooks has a really good op-ed on this on the NY Times site. We act like we've sorted through all the info we will have in Jan 2009, which is obviously impossible. I worry that a Democratic President will corner themselves into choosing between a political promise and a more complicated ground reality....
