Prior to his Senate run and big book deal, what kind of lifestyle do you think they led? Community organizers, adjunct professors, and state Senators don't exactly make a lot of money, and neither of them was born into wealth. They didn't grow up in privileged lifestyle like a Romney, Bush, Kennedy, etc.
Their 2000 adjusted gross income was 240K which should be pretty similar to what they were making since 1996. That is top 5%. Thus my laughter at them being normal middle class. If you think an adjusted for inflation 300K income is middle class, feel free to disregard.
Umm I saw them walking around Hyde Park shopping at the co-op and doing the same things I was at time, when I was making about 0 dollars. But anyway, you appear to have profoundly missed Major's point.
A few points: -to reinforce what CaseyH has already said, I think you all are woefully underestimating the allure of prestige and celebrity. I dont doubt that there are some women who would prefer a normal life and anonymity, but I think you're being naive to assume that the majority would, particularly those married to candidates running for president. -the point about first lady's having to give up their careers is a valid one, but I dont see how her national security is all that different from her children or the family of the vice president. Jill Biden teaches at a community college in the area (my sister was in her class), the presidents children attend schools, the presidents family goes to church on occasion....I mean, to imply that they have to play a political role as a result of them being couped up in their home with nothing else to do is at the very least debatable. -hypothetically, even if there was a first lady who dreamt of being a housewife and living simply in the midwest and has had to give up that dream for her husbands political aspirations, that's the life they elected to follow. No one forced her spouse to run for office, and many families have to negotiate those same decisions internally. -re: political role. For some reason, it seems that most people would object to the FLOTUS playing a political role, but dont believe 'innocent' politics are real politics and are therefore acceptable for the first lady to partake. As I've said before, there's absolutely nothing to qualify them for the roles they play, and there's a very apparent conflict of interest.
Obviously, you have identified a gaping loophole in the system. What reforms do you propose to save us from these voracious harpies who seek to rule over us?
You really cant understand the point I've tried to make over and over by now? From my first post in this thread: Post #9: Post #19: In response to you, post #20: Post #30: The original link was a Presidential Memorandum, which is a type of Executive Order. The memorandum explicitly designated the First Lady as leading the public service campaign for the Task Force on Childhood Obesity. It doesnt 'vaguely ask heads of departments for help'; It assigns heads of agencies to play a role in the task force, and appropriates funding from the Department of Health and Human Services to go towards funding the task force and its activities.
And what activities are those? I'm going to guess "produce a written report with nonbindiing recommendations" - scary separation of powers argument you got there...!
how much grief does michelle get from you for being unattractive in your eyes. i love when you guys don't own up to your own hatefulness. where i'm from we call that b****made
i wasn't around on this site when barbara was first lady i'm not going to do a samfisher style expose on the number of mean posts you have comparing mrs obama to the predator or any of a few others on their thoughts on her, just realize your post saying that she gets a "little grief" is especially ridiculous coming from you
I didn't realize we were specifically talking about the criticism from posters on this site. If you wanted to actually add to the discussion you should have talked about how I forgot her getting grief for talking about taxing foods which forced her to change her effort to an exercise based one.
Couldn't be bothered to read through all the responses, but ... Seriously? You made a thread asking if it is OK for the WIFE of the president to influence the president? I'm going to guess OP isn't married, but I'll ask anyway. What do you think marriage is? Do you think a wife is just a pretty face that's supposed to cook meals and dress up the kids for school?
you didn't specify anyone so i used your criticism and others on this site. who else would you be talking about?
criticism that might actually effect her life or she might even hear about? Someone saying Laura Bush never had a real job, Clinton is a cold, uncaring wife, Chelsea is a dog, Obama should stay out of food politics.
ahh but that's the falacy the only like criticism is hilary should stay out of healthcare politics. these people are attacking michelle in the same tired attempt of saying her husband is taking over the government, when in fact she's doing the same thing that other first ladies weren't criticized for.
If you are talking about food politics, her stance was more political than any other I can think of. Which is probably why she changed it. Getting kids to exercise is not really political. Getting kids to say no to drugs isn't political. DARE was not from Nancy as you said earlier. Food taxation and how much the government should be involved in the morality of eating yourself to death is political. I am not even sure what point you are trying to make now. You horned in on another debate talking about pros and cons.
food taxation? i'm making the point that she got more than "a little" criticism like you wrote. i'm not getting into one of your stupid ass obtuse arguments so please stop the tangents. this can be an interesting topic. tia
tangents? you broke into me talking to someone else. If you would have understood context, I was only mentioning those who actually took criticism. See the fact I mentioned her means that I believe her to have taken MORE criticism than her peers. Got it?
