Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The First Lady Free-For-All: Michelle vs. Cindy

Thousands of words and hours of cable television coverage in this campaign have been dedicated to the spouses of Barack Obama and John McCain.

Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain have become political figures in their own rights during the course of the past 20 months and their roles as helper and, occasionally, hindrance to their husbands' campaigns have been analyzed endlessly.

New polling conducted in Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin for the washingtonpost.com and the Wall Street Journal by Quinnipiac University provides some interesting data on how well known each spouse is and what voters think of them.

Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama
Cindy McCain in San Diego, July 14 (Photo by Sandy Huffaker/GettyImages)/Michelle Obama in Kansas City, Mo., July 10 (AP Photo/The Kansas City Star, David Eulitt

As expected, Michelle Obama is the better known of the two -- a name identification edge born in equal parts of her prominent role in her husband's campaign and Republicans' efforts to vilify her. (It's also worth noting that the poll was in the field for almost the entire arc of the now infamous New Yorker cover controversy, an episode that likely had a dramatic effect on Michelle Obama's name ID.)

A sidenote: If you haven't read Sophia A. Nelson's op-ed piece entitled "Black. Female. Accomplished. Attacked." about Michelle Obama or Libby Copeland's profile on Cindy McCain, you need to.

In each of the four states, roughly half of respondents knew enough about Michelle Obama to offer an opinion about her. Opinion was most divided in Colorado (30 percent favorable to Michelle/26 percent unfavorable) while in each of the other three states roughly three in ten voters said they had a favorable impression of her while less than one in five said they felt unfavorably toward her.

Cindy McCain, a much less high-profile presence on the campaign trail, was both less well known and more widely liked than Michelle Obama. Nearly six in ten voters in all four states said they hadn't heard enough about Cindy to offer an opinion; among those who did have an opinion about her, however, those rating her favorably outstripped those who regarded her unfavorably by roughly a three-to-one margin.

When voters were asked which of the two women "better fits your idea of what a First Lady should be," the results in three of the states -- Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin -- were a virtual draw. In Colorado, however, 37 percent said Cindy McCain was more in keeping with what a First Lady should be while 27 percent said Michelle Obama fit that description.

What do all these data points tell us? That Michelle Obama has more potential -- for both good and bad -- to be a major factor in her husband's chances this fall than does Cindy McCain. Michelle Obama is already better known, despite the fact that McCain has run for president once before, and seems to stir greater positive and negative feelings from voters.

How voters feel about a candidate's spouse is not likely to determine whom they support. But, in a presidential election, any number of factors influence who a voters chooses -- and it's a mistake to dismiss out of hand the impact the candidates' respective spouses will have on the ticket.

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 24, 2008; 10:00 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Fix: Huge (Sort of) in Michigan!
Next: Obama Crowd Builds in Germany: Good or Bad?

Comments

Cindy Mccain would be an elougant first lady.She is rich and has poise and has told Michelle Obama that she has always loved her country.Michelle obama has said that all her adult life she has never get that NEVER BEEN PROUD OF AMERICA.She Sure as hell will not belong in the white house.May be we should send her to africa as she claims she is african american.President Teddy Roosevelt has said to be an American you shall have no other name before you.Evidently Michelle Obama is not an american.

Posted by: Dolores fleming | July 28, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Cinddy Mccain will make an elougant first lady,she looks more of alady than michelle Obama.After michelle obama saying in two remember two of her speeches that all he adult life she has never been proud of america.Some one ought to shoot her and end her miserable life.All the things america has given Michelle Obama and she has never been proud of America.I say throw her out of the country and send her to Africa.maybey she can be proud of AFRICA.

Posted by: Dolores Fleming. | July 28, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Cindy Mccain has about as much class as the bobble head on the dashbourd of my SUV. She is classless and the smathering of drugs she takes when no one is looking you can see it on her crack addicted face.

Posted by: JimP | July 27, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Once again, Mr. Cizzilla has proven himself the prince of trivia. In addition to his treatment of the future of the United States as a sports contest ("Who won the week?"), he now is promoting the Battle of the First Ladies.
Cizzilla is a headline-hunter - period. If he wanted to do the country a serivce, he'd concentrate on the issues facing us rather than the relative merits of Michelle vs. Cindy.

Posted by: Dick Brandlon | July 27, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Cindy McCain on the other hand is a lovely, elegant woman who projects American core values.

Posted by: mehuwss I THINK NOT. YOU ALL COMPLAINING ABOUT MICHELLE OBAMA PAYING FOR PIANO LESSONS NEED A REALITY CHECK. READ:

Elitism, Thy Name is Cindy McCain
Cindy McCain said: "In Arizona, the only way to get around is by small private plane.
But Cindy McCain jokes about buying a fricking plane and spends more in a month than many Americans make in their adult lives and the McCains are portrayed as just "down home" folks? McCains' SEVEN homes

John McCain,Between 2001 and 2006, McCain contributed roughly $950,000 to the foundation
John McCain,the sole donor to the John and Cindy McCain Foundation, and his wife is its chairman and president.
During that same period, the McCain foundation made contributions of roughly $1.6 million. More than $500,000 went to his kids' private schools, most of which was donated when his children were attending those institutions. So McCain apparently received major tax deductions for supporting elite schools attended by his children.
McCain's foundation has given about $50,000 to the school, mostly during Meghan's years there. Donations to Xavier have dropped off since Meghan graduated (in 2003 or 2004) and went on to Columbia University. For 2006, the foundation cut Xavier a check for just $250.
Collectively, McCain's kids' private schools rank as the largest recipient of his foundation's money. The largest individual recipient is the U.S. Naval Academy Foundation, which received $210,000 in both 2001 and 2002
There's nothing illegal or improper about the foundation's contributions, but it's not exactly the pattern of giving you'd expect from someone who has cultivated an anti-elitist image.
John and Cindy McCain own two condos both in the private Coronado Shores high-rise condominium towers.
They bought the first in September 2004 for $2.6 million. The 1,749-square-foot property has an annual tax bill of $28,232.

The second condo was purchased in March for $2.1 million. The 2,320-square-foot property has an annual tax burden of $22,354.

Posted by: Katerina Deligiannis | July 26, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

I repeat what Barack Obama said about people critisizing Michelle Obama: please lay off (my wife) her; and also Cindy McCain. Instead, focus on real issues.

Posted by: Anju Chandel | July 26, 2008 4:17 AM | Report abuse

After reading all comments, i'll add, as far as McCains 1st. marriage, know one breaks up a marriage, only he and his wife did, i don't buy that crap, 2nd. Obama's wife is as wrap up in herself as Obama, she the head chief in that household, we'll see more of her then him if he's president, can't have two shinning lights' last but least, Hillary Clinton will still get my vote, she doesn't turn my stomach to watch her, if this country needs to bow down anymore to other countries we might as well throw the towel in, Obama isn't GOD, him and his wife come on to fast, to strong, it's their race, Cindy McCain, she's a lady, let her husband run, as far as her and drugs, bring it up, we'll check out Obama's past records, just what does he enhale, do you really think he kick the habit? Looking at the whole mess, give me a Clinton, both BILL and HILLARY can still bring this country back on it's feet, i hope and pray every night that she'll still be PRESIDENT, she's the best so far, she answers questions, she is someone who can stand up to CONGRESS, she's just looks like the one who could take the HEAT.

Posted by: J. Barnett | July 26, 2008 3:00 AM | Report abuse

After reading all comments, i'll add, as far as McCains 1st. marriage, know one breaks up a marriage, only he and his wife did, i don't buy that crap, 2nd. Obama's wife is as wrap up in herself as Obama, she the head chief in that household, we'll see more of her then him if he's president, can't have two shinning lights' last but least, Hillary Clinton will still get my vote, she doesn't turn my stomach to watch her, if this country needs to bow down anymore to other countries we might as well throw the towel in, Obama isn't GOD, him and his wife come on to fast, to strong, it's their race, Cindy McCain, she's a lady, let her husband run, as far as her and drugs, bring it up, we'll check out Obama's past records, just what does he enhale, do you really think he kick the habit? Looking at the whole mess, give me a Clinton, both BILL and HILLARY can still bring this country back on it's feet, i hope and pray every night that she'll still be PRESIDENT, she's the best so far, she answers questions, she is someone who can stand up to CONGRESS, she's just looks like the one who could take the HEAT.

Posted by: J. Barnett | July 26, 2008 3:00 AM | Report abuse

After reading all comments, i'll add, as far as McCains 1st. marriage, know one breaks up a marriage, only he and his wife did, i don't buy that crap, 2nd. Obama's wife is as wrap up in herself as Obama, she the head chief in that household, we'll see more of her then him if he's president, can't have two shinning lights' last but least, Hillary Clinton will still get my vote, she doesn't turn my stomach to watch her, if this country needs to bow down anymore to other countries we might as well throw the towel in, Obama isn't GOD, him and his wife come on to fast, to strong, it's their race, Cindy McCain, she's a lady, let her husband run, as far as her and drugs, bring it up, we'll check out Obama's past records, just what does he enhale, do you really think he kick the habit? Looking at the whole mess, give me a Clinton, both BILL and HILLARY can still bring this country back on it's feet, i hope and pray every night that she'll still be PRESIDENT, she's the best so far, she answers questions, she is someone who can stand up to CONGRESS, she's just looks like the one who could take the HEAT.

Posted by: J. Barnett | July 26, 2008 2:59 AM | Report abuse

The polls say more about America and Americans than they do about either of these two ladies!

Posted by: Vgirl1 | July 26, 2008 1:31 AM | Report abuse

As if the spouse SHOULD have much to do with who is elected but having raised the issue, lets just bring some facts to bear on this issue. Cindy McCain comes from a very privileged background. Her entire life history is one of wealth and privilege. She has a history of drug abuse exacerbated by her felony drug theft for which she got a pass. However, she has worked hard to overcome this problem and her good works with her charities are wonderful. That she got special treatment from the law enforcement and drug enforcement agencies is obvious. One can only imagine what would have happened to Michelle if she had done something similar to that illegal behavior of Cindy. That is the tragedy of inequality in the criminal justice system in our country. All that being said, I think both women are remarkable and Cindy is not John McCain's problem, John McCain is his own problem. He has never admitted his women problems, he has a searing hot temper often directed towards his wife in the most disgusting anti-feminism manner. His disgusting referral to his wife Cindy as a C*** is beyond the pale and that alone should disqualify him from the presidency. I have yet to hear any confession of his error on this issue so we can expect that sort of behavior in the future since he shows no insight into any regret for being so chauvinistic. Both women would make fine Presidents, but that is not the issue. McCain's disgusting behavior toward women totally disqualifies him. Imagine him with the German leader and she says something that he does not like, UGHHHH!!!!

Posted by: Mari | July 25, 2008 8:45 PM | Report abuse

It would be wise to learn more about these women, especially John McCain's wife. She is no respectable lady. She wrecked McCain's home causing him to leave a disabled wife who remained faithful and cared for his children all the time he was held in Vietnam. On coming home she was no longer good enough for him and Cindy McCain was more then willing to entertain him. She knew he was a married man because the immoral relationship started while John was still married to his first wife.

Cindy McCain is an admitted drug addict, addicted to prescription drugs according to her but still addicted nonetheless. How many of us have been given drugs that could cause addiction and were strong enough to let them go when our need was past? It shows a very weak self indulgent personality.

From records it is clear that even with all her money she doesn't like to pay her taxes, another showing of her lack of character.

All she would represent is a low class tramp who managed to be born with a silver spoon in her mouth. She would NEVER be a first LADY because she is definitely NOT a lady. She is a fornicator so those of you who like to thump the rest of us over the head with your bibles should keep that in mind.

Michelle Obama, however, even with the press and the Republican party so hot to demonize her, is a complete lady who is a great mother and a faithful wife. I can say nothing wrong about this woman and anyone else HONESTLY could not either.

There is no comparison here really, a lady or a tramp. I sure as hell don't want our country represented by the tramp or her fornicating husband, who by the way is surely senile since he can't keep a single fact straight these days. If the press would be fair they would all point out these flip flop flip again flops. When Kerry was running they made a huge issue even taking comments out of context to portray a flip flopper. With McCain they wouldn't even have to do that, he offers new instances on a daily basis.

Unfortunately the Bush administration is still pushing for propaganda and the press is editing for the most part and ignoring these facts that happen almost every time he opens his mouth. Thank God for blogs for without them we would be completely in the dark!

Posted by: EJGendron | July 25, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Those those of you critizing Michelle Obama who this Canadian thinks is fabulous, intelligent, elegant and charming compared to Cindy Lou, a doped up zombie, whose father was associated with the Arizona mobster, Kemper Marly should check out her history.
mattwelch.com/archives/2007/12/23-week
suzieqq.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/mccainmarried to the mob
hiddenmysteries.org/conspiracy/restsory/kempermarly. That you would let your prejudices distort your view of the better first lady is beyond me. We have a black, beutiful, intelligent, charming Hatian Canadian as a Governor General who, yes has been to the tea with the Queen of England. We are very proud of her accomplishments and her continued presence representing Canada on the world state.

Posted by: Sandra | July 25, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Ah yes! Top Gun John comes back from Vietnam, dumps the disabled wife with the permanent limp who waited 5 years for his sorry azz, and runs off with the svelt, tall, blond rich girl half his age.

Our hero now runs for President on his war record instead of admitting the whole Vietnam fiasco was a dreadful mistake.

Go to the Wall and peruse the 58,000+ names that we "honor". I'm sure their families would rather have them with us rather than have the "honor". Thousands of kids drafted off the streets and sent off to the jungle to "fight communism".

I'm sitting in my bedroom - next to my bedroom set stamped "Made in Vietnam".

McCain - the son and grandson of Adminrals - has learned nothing in 70 years. What a waste.

Posted by: toritto | July 25, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

DON'T YOU PEOPLE HAVE ANYTHING BETTER TO DO WITH YOUR TIME ????

Posted by: A. Forrest | July 25, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Mrs. Obama has the potential to be another Hillary, at least the good points of Hillary. Mrs. McCain I admire for her ability to put up with her husband and his misogyny.

Posted by: Archie1954 | July 25, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Excellent point, Mr. Manley.

Under any circumstances, I think you agree Mrs. Obama will be a First Lady we can all be proud of.

Posted by: Sunshine | July 25, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

TIME AGAIN FOR DEM SUPERS TO LOOK AT HILLARY?


• Obama's hubris, issue nuances and new polling could lead Dem superdelegates to reconsider support

• Too soon for Barack to be acting like President-Elect?

A new Washington Post/Wall Street Journal poll focuses on the other race for the White House -- the contest to become the nation's First Lady. While it's true that a vote for a presidential candidate is not necessarily reflective of the voter's opinion of his spouse, it's a leading indicator nonetheless. And the poll does not seem to auger well for Barack Obama.

Among those polled in four key states who had an opinion on the subject, Cindy McCain's "favorables" outstripped Michelle Obama by about a 3-to-1 margin -- this, despite Cindy's past problems with prescription drug addiction, and charges stemming from the theft of medications from a charity sponsored by her foundation. The poll didn't specifically ask about voter reaction to the recent cartoon cover of the New Yorker magazine depicting Michelle, a Yale law graduate with no record of drug use, as a fist-bumping black militant, and her husband as a turban-clad Muslim. The drawing was intended to satirize the bigoted views of the extreme right; but many, including Obama himself, took offense.

Could racism explain the disparate approval ratings of Cindy and Michelle? It's a premise that cannot be ignored. Virulent racism remains a great stain on the Republic. The poll seems to portend that Cindy McCain's foibles and shortcomings will be excused in voter evaluation of her suitability to become First Lady, while Michelle Obama's race will not. Those who would diss Michelle while refusing to disapprove of Cindy's past probably would not vote for Obama in any event; but it's an indication of how racial perceptions may color the final vote count.

To conclude that the vote for president will be decided solely on racial grounds would be to insult the character and intelligence of the American electorate -- how else to explain Obama's presumptive nomination as the Democratic candidate? But the First Lady polling once again demonstrates the pervasive role that race and racial stereotypes still plays in our supposedly enlightened society.

That is why some political observers believe that to win, Obama must follow in the measured footsteps of another African-American pioneer, Jackie Robinson: to succeed, project a perfect balance of talent, determination, humility and pride.

No one questions Obama's talent, determination and self-confidence; where he falls short of the ideal is in the humility department. The obvious, some would say overdone, stagecraft involved in his foreign tour is but the latest example of a campaign that too often has taken on the imperial airs of a cult of personality. It too closely follows a disturbing narrative that Obama cannot seem to shake: the notion that he's arrogant, effete and presumptuous to a fault -- especially for a candidate with only three years' experience on the national scene.

In this upcoming election, experience still matters -- despite the conventional wisdom that Hillary Clinton's failure to secure the nomination in the primaries indicates otherwise. It is still likely that this election ultimately will turn on the experience question:

Which candidate has the experience, values, and judgment to become the next president?

Neither candidate scores particularly well among those criteria. McCain's increasingly apparent memory problems and his verbal gaffes have raised new concerns about his age and agility. But McCain's many years in Congress and the automatic respect he engenders as a former P.O.W. probably give him the edge with typical (read: white suburban/rural) voters.

And, of course, McCain gets the racist vote by simply showing up.

If "judgment to lead," as Obama's slogan puts it, trumps experience among the electorate's major criteria for choosing the next president, it still will be close. If voters prefer the"safe" candidate, they probably will go for McCain -- unless Obama brings along an experienced, well-known and respected vice presidential candidate who would serve in the role as trusted advisor and mentor.

If Obama seals the nomination, the only candidate on the horizon that fits that bill is Chris Dodd. The animus among Obama, Hillary and Bill would seem to render Hillary an unwise v.p. choice.

But Hillary would be my pick as the Democratic presidential nominee most likely to defeat McCain -- a belief cemented recently by Obama's retreat from core principles: his acquiescence to the FISA wiretapping/telecom immunity bill, the Supreme Court decision barring handgun regulation in D.C., and the court's expansion of application of the death penalty. Throw in his pandering on church-state issues and some recent nuances on the Mideast, and he becomes even less convincing as the candidate of "change."

If the GOP is able to paint Obama's foreign jaunt as a presumptuous and self-absorbed excerise in hubris as opposed to a true fact-finding mission, Democratic superdelegates may be left to wonder: Are we really going into the general with our strongest candidate?

A disavowal of their endorsement of Obama by black leaders such as Jesse Jackson, Sheila Jackson Lee, Bob Johnson of BET could presage an announcement by Hillary Clinton that she, too, is withdrawing her endorsement of Obama, and has decided to challenge him at the convention for the nomination.

This is the secret, unspoken hope of millions of frustrated and concerned Democrats.

These skeptical Hillaryites -- some may view them as less cynical than realistic -- do not dislike Obama. But they believe that his persist demonstrations of hubris and elitism; his vacillation on some key issues; the disillusionment among some core supporters; all that, coupled with manifestations of endemic racism among segments of the electorate, could thwart his "improbable journey" to the White House.

And such skepticism over Obama's chances comes in a year that by all measures should favor the Democrats, given the sagging economy and dissatisfaction with the current Republican administration.

This is the uncomfortable realpolitik that starry-eyed pundits choose to ignore.

The question is: Is it a question that the superdelegates can afford to ignore?


IF YOU VALUE THE RULE OF LAW AND THE
RIGHT OF DUE PROCESS, PLEASE CLICK HERE:


http://www.nowpublic.com/world/vigilante-injustice-organized-gang-stalking-american-
gestapo-are-they-doing-hi-tech-torture?

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/zap-have-you-been-targeted-directed-energy-weapon-
victims-organized-gang-stalking-say-its-happening-usa-1

Posted by: scrivener | July 25, 2008 4:11 AM | Report abuse

The Bush administration is up to its old tricks again, quietly putting ideology before science and women's health. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is poised to put in place new barriers to accessing common forms of contraception like birth control pills, emergency contraception and IUDs by labeling them "abortion." These proposed regulations set to be released next week will allow healthcare providers to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it. We can't let them get...

Posted by: Anonymous | July 25, 2008 3:45 AM | Report abuse

@ SUNSHINE: The question really is can I imagine the Queen Of England sitting down to tea with Michelle Obama? The answer is
"I don't know, if it's not a burden on Ms Obama." The Queen Of England is hardly the sharpest tool in the box, has very little formal education and speaks with an extremely limited vocabulary.

Michelle Obama went to two of the best universities in the world and has a great mastery of a wide range of topics, a very impressive vocabulary and a sophisticated way of expressing herself.

Posted by: DexterManley | July 25, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

_____: I agree with you. I don't understand this at all. Granted, I'm coming from a "non-American" viewpoint but I think Michelle Obama is pretty admirable really. Besides, she and her husband are roughly my age and went to similar schools as I did and I understand them perfectly.

What was the big hoo-ha about Michelle Obama's Princeton years? That she wrote a paper in support of a thesis of Noam Chomsky's or something. We ALL wrote that paper in college! Gee, whiz.

I have no means of understanding a person like Cindy McCain because I've never met anyone like that before. I know wealthy Latin Catholic women, Afro-Latin Catholic women, Jewish women, Arab women, Chinese women, European women, but I don't know Cindy McCain's "breed". I can't relate to it. White American Gentile Right Wing heiresses are a little above my pay grade.

I'm not huge on "social class" but Cindy McCain seems LESS elegant rather than MORE elegant that the wealthy women I've met in my life.

Michelle Obama seems very graceful socially and I think that the Obama family presents a very wholesome vibe overall. But I'm going by "foreign" not American codes of behavior.

Posted by: DexterManley | July 24, 2008 11:21 PM | Report abuse

All these polls show is that if you are a blond rich girl, you can steal a man away from his disabled wife, support him in his political "hobby," break the law as a drug addict and be as shallow as a rain puddle and the average American will think you are better than a poor black woman from a working class family, who got scholarships to college, got a law degree, married her soul mate and had two lovely children.

Our country has a long way to go, don't you think?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

Ahh, the old "meds" joke. Isn't that a little cliche by now on blogs. Any time anyone expresses an alternative viewpoint, there's this dumb joke about "meds".

A corny joke about "meds" is not argument. It's not negotiation. It's boring.

What problem do you have specifically with Michelle Obama? Or do you have a problem with all Black women? Or is there something specially admirable about Cindy McCain?

Please enlighten me.

Posted by: DexterManley | July 24, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

The spouses are running in this election but I would much rather see Michelle as Ist lady then Cindy. The Obama's take their marriage vows more seriously then the Mc Cain. Cindy had no business messing around with a married man, even if John McCain was playing the field. I do not trust Mc Cain. The SS is broken so says Mc Cain and all the baby boomers but he still goes ahead and accepts his $2000.00 each month, yea, like he needs it?

Posted by: wilhelmina78 | July 24, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

John McCain used the same words about loving America for the first time that Michelle Obama did, and he wasn't vilified for it.

The reason is simple: the Republicans saw a golden opportunity to pull out the old playbook and racially demonize her.

Don't think for a second that people like Gen. Colin Powell don't know what has happened.

Just as key power players in the old democratic establishment came out to support Obama after the South Carolina primary, by attacking a good woman the Republican party sealed the Powell endorsement for Obama.

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 24, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Are you off you meds or something? Do a little studying of Cindy. You would not want he babying sitting your cat.

======
Michelle Obama's angry, weird persona is not first lady material. She reminds people of the Black Panthers. Moreover, she appears to be consumed by bitterness and self-pity.
Cindy McCain on the other hand is a lovely, elegant woman who projects American core values.

Posted by: mehuwss | July 24, 2008 7:55 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

There's obviously something I'm missing here. I guess it's because I come from an Eastern-European Jewish immigrant family to South America. Thus, I don't have any experience of what it's like to feel "American."

I suppose that's why I'm not understanding a lot of the criticisms of the Obamas. When Clinton became president and ended all of the Reagan-Bush meddling down here, I think everybody took a deep breath and thought "this is a great second-chance we all have; let's not screw it up with bigotry." Thus, Jews and Muslims not only get along with fighting, we consider ourselves to be pan-Semitic cousins. There are so many immigrants from everywhere that nobody notices skin color. At every level of society, social groups are mixed up with every color, religion, etc.

To be fair, I live in the city and have no contact with Indios or Mestizos from the interior. That's a completely different thing. But descendants of African slaves and African immigrants are a garden-variety part of city life.

It almost seems as if your Civil War never ended. That it'll always be White versus Black. North versus South. USA versus Islam. Meanwhile, with all this hating going on, you're economy is in the toilet.

Luckily, it's not my problem. But maybe a re-think on the USA arrangement of things is in order. It's not that hard. We all did here. They all did it in Western Europe. They're doing it now in Eastern Europe and Russia.

Posted by: DexterManley | July 24, 2008 8:22 PM | Report abuse

MEHUWUSS: I'm not sure I understand. I studied the Black Panthers in American history in college in the USA. I know who Joanne Chismard and Newton, Brown, Rush, Cleaver and Carmichael are or were. I know who Angela Davis is.

Michelle Obama is nothing like those women and has none of the BPP's politics.

In CdP, we have a pretty mixed culture. There are no black/white boundaries really. Michelle Obama reminds me of the 1000 well-educated Black wives of Black bankers I've been around since childhood in terms of style. In terms of politics, she be considered kind of an ordinary center-left party supporter.

Posted by: DexterManley | July 24, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

Michelle Obama's angry, weird persona is not first lady material. She reminds people of the Black Panthers. Moreover, she appears to be consumed by bitterness and self-pity.
Cindy McCain on the other hand is a lovely, elegant woman who projects American core values.

Posted by: mehuwss | July 24, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

It's because every time Michelle opens her mouth ("America is a mean country" or "This is the first time I've been pround of America"), she comes off as the stereotypical "angry black woman". And Americans -of any color- don't like that.

Posted by: NObama | July 24, 2008 7:22 PM

You chosen two quotes out of hundreds of thousands of words in speeches she's given all over the USA.

I never encountered a lot of "stereotypical angry Black women" during my years living in the states, and I only lived in cities. So, I don't get what you're on about, NObama. I don't assume that "stereotypical angry Black women" represent any sort of threat to the stability of the USA. It didn't seem that way when I lived there.

But she's absolutely right that America is a mean country. While a student, I encountered more than my share of anti-Semitism and anti-HISPANIC bigotry.

Until Clinton affirmed Carter-Torrijos in 1999, we saw the meanest possible American behavior. I was never a fan of Manuel Noriega. I've always been sort of a "Torrjista" but was it really necessary to kill 10,000 civilians, make 100,000 homeless and bomb a dense, poor, urban neighborhood, then let US soldiers run around the capital defacing Catholic Churches? For what, to bring Noriega up on TAX CHARGES? I hear Michelle Obama. The USA is pretty mean and give precious few reasons for pride.

Posted by: DexterManley | July 24, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

"I am in beginner"? It doesn't even make sense.

========
Whatever any of you think of "SnObama," I must given this individual credit for one of the most clever and cutting lines of this cycle:


"Ich bin ein BEGINNER!"


If I were a GOP strategist, I'd be ordering the "altered voiceover" attack ad right now... if someone on the dark side has not done so already.

Hillary -- get ready for your comeback.


Posted by: scrivener | July 24, 2008 2:51 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

It's because every time Michelle opens her mouth ("America is a mean country" or "This is the first time I've been pround of America"), she comes off as the stereotypical "angry black woman". And Americans -of any color- don't like that.

Posted by: NObama | July 24, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

I would, however, like to add on to Dippa's criticism of Dianne 72's points.

An African artist won Britain's Turner Prize some years back and had an absolutely fine tea with the Queen.

I get the xenophobia in the USA, but here in South America Michelle Obama is seen sort of like Argentina's Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, the wife of the former Center-Left president Nelson Kirchner. Sra Fernandez de Kirchner was a legislator in her own right and now is a very fine president herself.

We could easily see Michelle Obama follow Blagojevic as Illinois governor and then perhaps follow her husband into the Oval Office.

What passes for "class" in the USA is not "class" anywhere else in the developed capitalist-democratic-republican-parliamentary West. Michelle Obama's intelligence and knowledge of the larger world scream "class" to us.

Cindy McCain is our image of a rich, old, ignorant, drunken gringa. That image may fly in the USA if she's rich enough or her husband is famous enough, but not outside the USA. Cindy McCain's what we call "asquerosa" -- nauseating.

Posted by: DexterManley | July 24, 2008 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Michelle Obama: Princeton undergrad, Harvard Law.

Cindy McCain: The College Of Percocet And Vodka.

I rest my case.

Posted by: DexterManley | July 24, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

See who the first wife of John McCain is working for now and who she contributed to

http://webofdeception.com/#carolsheppmccain

Posted by: Robert Lewis | July 24, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

At least Obama PAID for his drugs. Cindy STOLE her's from her own company.

Posted by: Dippa | July 24, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

WHY DON"T WE DISCUSS MICHELLES SA. AT COLLEGE WHERE SHE THINKS WHITE PEOPLE STINK. WHY WAS THAT TAKEN OFF ALL THE WEB PAGES SO QUICK. YOU WANT TO BRING ALL THAT DRUG STUFF ON CINDY....WHAT ABOUT OBOMAS DRUG USE......./
AT LEAST CINDY KNOWS WHEN TO TALK AND WHEN NOT.
MOST OF ALL SHE HAS ALWAYS BEEN .....PROUD OF HER COUNTRY...... SHE ALSO DOES NOT THINK AMERICA IS A MEAN COUNTRY, AS IS OVIOUS THAT MOST OF YOU DO.....MICHELLE WOULD NOT HAVE TIME TO BE FRIST LADY ANYWAY.....SHE WORKS OUT 90 MINUTES A DAY....AND WOULD BE IN THE ROAD TAKING HER CHILDERN TO SOCCER,DANCE,DRAMAR,GYMNASTICS,TAP,PIANO,AND TENNIS.......AND ETC......

Posted by: J.B...N..GA | July 24, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Sigh Evil. Keep your blinders on and everything will be ok; good luck with that. Maybe one day you will wake up and realize there is more than 1 side to an issue and that ignoring all other sides of an argument to blindly follow one side is a sign of ignorance.

Posted by: Cryos | July 24, 2008 3:23 PM

I realize there are two sides to arguments, there are not two sides to facts. Again, you started this with attacking Michelle Obama. You now say that Americans don't side with Democrats on issues. You are wrong. Wrong is a side. We are not arguing over what is better policy. We are arguing over things that have verifiable numbers. If I said the Cubs are currently in first place in the NL Central and you said the Brewers were, there would be two sides of that argument, but only one would be right.

Posted by: Evil | July 24, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Here's my musical tribute to Michelle Obama...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsWnZMSJOg

Posted by: Keith | July 24, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Radical_Moderate wrote: "As a Democrat I find myself in the odd position of defending Laura Bush, but I think that Mrs. Bush is a lovely woman who has quietly pushed an agenda of reading skills and education behind the scenes (she was a Librarian.) ... I don't think that every First Lady needs to be as proactive as Eleanor Roosevelt or Hillary Clinton. Feminism is too big to box women in that way. ..."

While I respect your opinions about Mrs. Bush, the fact that she has spent 8 years doing next to nothing (including what she may do "behind the scenes") is truly an affront to every citizen of this country. And this really has nothing to do with feminism. This has to do with people caring about other people. Considering the dire problems that this country faces, this is no time for Laura Bush or any person living on the government dole to do so little to help the citizens of this country. Frankly, if Laura Bush really cares that much about the children of this country and their education, why can't she do more ... and why can't she set a better example by becoming more openly involved in these matters?

Posted by: Kay Decker | July 24, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

Another day, another McCain gaffe. The old man is getting really confused.

Posted by: old old old | July 24, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

"Ich bin ein beginner!"

"Posted by: snObama | July 24, 2008 12:12 PM"


WHEN THE DISINFORMATION ARTISTS RESORT TO DEFENDING OMBAMA (THEIR TRUE TARGET?) PERHAPS THERE IS STILL HOPE FOR DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA

It is funny, regardless of your political leanings. And so you have revealed yourself once again. Have a nice day.

Posted by: scrivener | July 24, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Sigh Evil. Keep your blinders on and everything will be ok; good luck with that. Maybe one day you will wake up and realize there is more than 1 side to an issue and that ignoring all other sides of an argument to blindly follow one side is a sign of ignorance.

Posted by: Cryos | July 24, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

>

>

WHEN THE DISINFORMATION ARTISTS RESORT TO HAVING TO DEFEND OBAMA (THEIR TRUE TARGET?) PERHAPS THERE IS STILL HOPE FOR DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA.

It IS funny, whatever your political leanings... and so you have revealed yourself once again. Have a nice day.

Posted by: scrivener | July 24, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

"Who is going to win an election is decided by a lot of things, but we can agree that McCain needs to make people feel uncomfortable with Obama being President to win. That's what he's trying to do. We'll see what happens."

So all the scare tactics of McCain is too old and senile, will keep us at war forever, same as bush, etc with no credible basis are any different? Both candidates strategies are to tear down the other so you are disillusioned if you think it is one sided. At least have the ability to look at both sides of the issue even if you agree with one side more.

Posted by: Cryos | July 24, 2008 1:38 PM

I've missed the ad run by the Obama campaign about McCain's age. I have heard McCain talk about McCain's age. I have seen McCain say Obama would rather lose a war to win a campaign. As far as him being the same as Bush... you'd have to ask Mark Sanford about that.

Posted by: Evil | July 24, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Of course Cindy would make a better First Lady! Let's see, he was born with a silver spoon in her mouth, and got everything she could possibly want as a child. She then became a sl*t and had sexual relations with a married man, then further degraded herself by marrying someone 20 years her senior. She then decided "money was not enough" and used her family's money and political influence to have her husband cheat into the political scene. Then (big surprise) she became a serious drug addict and even resorted to stealing to fuel her habit. Now she sits on the chair of a "beer distribution company" (LOL), and stays out of her husband's way. On top of all of that she fits the perfect description of what most people would call a "dumb blond."

Now, with a resume like that how can Cindy not be considered to be the perfect candidate for first lady. I mean even Laura couldn't match this list of "accomplishments." You can forget about that negro girl Michelle who actually had to work to get where she is. Just because she went to all those damn liberal "Ivy" colleges up North she thinks she can fit such an important role. The only way she'll ever enter the White House is as a MAID!

Posted by: VirginiaIsForLosers | July 24, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

There's nothing funny about it or you, pathetic scrivener. see a doc, seriously.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Whatever any of you think of "SnObama," I must given this individual credit for one of the most clever and cutting lines of this cycle:


"Ich bin ein BEGINNER!"


If I were a GOP strategist, I'd be ordering the "altered voiceover" attack ad right now... if someone on the dark side has not done so already.

Hillary -- get ready for your comeback.


Posted by: scrivener | July 24, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Ret. Gen. John Abizaid, the former commander of the US Central Command from 2003-2007, told a meeting of the Pacific Council on Monday that if the people of Iraq want the U.S. to leave, the U.S. should leave. "We can't be in Iraq more than the Iraqis want us to be there," Abizaid said. Reportedly, Abizaid predicted that by January the Iraqis "will be close to getting their act together." "The Iraqis have moved beyond the American political debate," he added.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

esterday evening, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) denied that he was wrong in claiming the "surge" policy in Iraq "began the Anbar Awakening." Pressed by a reporter, McCain argued that the "surge" actually began before more troops were added to Iraq:

McCAIN: First of all, a surge is really a counterinsurgency strategy. And its made up of a number of components. And this counterinsurgency was initiated to some degree by Col. McFarland in Anbar province relatively on his own. When I visited with him in December 2006, he had already initiated that strategy in Ramadi by going in and clearing and holding in certain places. [...]

Q: So when you say 'surge' then, you're not referring to just the one that President Bush initiated. You're saying it goes back several months before that?

McCAIN: Yes.

But McCain has previously admitted that the surge only entailed the increase in troop levels. "We have drawn down to pre-surge levels," he said in May. "Was he saying 'We are drawing back down to where we were before Colonel McFarland started using counterinsurgency tactics in Anbar as part of the Anbar Awakening.' No, that is completely and patently absurd," Ilan Goldenberg writes.

Posted by: McCain getting more and more confused | July 24, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

I cannot believe the comment that Hillary should be "nominated" because Americans are too racist to elect Obama. First off, he won the delegate race by 200 delegates, so already this argument is off kilter. Secondly, he has led McCain in EVERY SINGLE POLITICAL POLL to date. There are no guarantees he will win, but this suggestion revealed racism at its worst - another reason the accomplished Obama should win. So that we can get over the most evil, vile discrimination of the dark ages. Yes We Can!
Obama '08

Posted by: Prof S | July 24, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I do wish Cindy McCain would get asked what she thinks of drug sentencing laws... if they need to be reformed so non-violent offenders with drug problems could get the same deal she got (she was not prosecuted) for themselves. If all nonviolent offenders were treated like Cindy McCain, then we could save a lot of money on prison costs.

Posted by: Goldie | July 24, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

THE WA/PO FIRST LADY POLL: NEW REASONS
FOR SUPERS TO CONSIDER A HILLARY CHALLENGE?

Could racism explain the disparate approval ratings of Cindy and Michelle? It's a premise that cannot be ignored. Virulent racism remains a great stain on the Republic. The poll seems to portend that Cindy McCain's foibles and shortcomings will be excused in voter evaluation of her suitability to become First Lady, while Michelle Obama's race will not. Those who would diss Michelle while refusing to disapprove of Cindy's past probably would not vote for Obama in any event; but it's an indication of how racial perceptions may color the final vote count.

To conclude that the vote for president will be decided solely on racial grounds would be to insult the character and intelligence of the American electorate -- how else to explain Obama's presumptive nomination as the Democratic candidate? But the First Lady polling once again demonstrates the pervasive role that race and racial stereotypes still plays in our supposedly enlightened society.

That is why some political observers believe that to win, Obama must follow in the measured footsteps of another African-American pioneer, Jackie Robinson: to succeed, project a perfect balance of talent, determination, humility and pride.

No one questions Obama's talent, determination and self-confidence; where he falls short of the ideal is in the humility department. The obvious, some would say overdone, stagecraft involved in his foreign tour is but the latest example of a campaign that too often has taken on the imperial airs of a cult of personality. It too closely follows a disturbing narrative that Obama cannot seem to shake: the notion that he's arrogant, effete and presumptuous to a fault -- especially for a candidate with only three years' experience on the national scene.

In this upcoming election, experience still matters -- despite the conventional wisdom that Hillary Clinton's failure to secure the nomination in the primaries indicates otherwise. It is still likely that this election ultimately will turn on the experience question:

Which candidate has the experience, values, and judgment to become the next president?

Neither candidate scores particularly well among those criteria. McCain's increasingly apparent memory problems and his verbal gaffes have raised new concerns about his age and agility. But McCain's many years in Congress and the automatic respect he engenders as a former P.O.W. probably give him the edge with typical (read: white suburban/rural) voters.

And, of course, McCain gets the racist vote by simply showing up.

If "judgment to lead," as Obama's slogan puts it, trumps experience among the electorate's major criteria for choosing the next president, it still will be close. If voters prefer the"safe" candidate, they probably will go for McCain -- unless Obama brings along an experienced, well-known and respected vice presidential candidate who would serve in the role as trusted advisor and mentor.

If Obama seals the nomination, the only candidate on the horizon that fits that bill is Chris Dodd. The animus among Obama, Hillary and Bill would seem to render Hillary an unwise v.p. choice.

But Hillary would be my pick as the Democratic presidential nominee most likely to defeat McCain -- a belief cemented recently by Obama's retreat from core principles: his acquiescence to the FISA wiretapping/telecom immunity bill, the Supreme Court decision barring handgun regulation in D.C., and the court's expansion of application of the death penalty. Throw in his pandering on church-state issues and some recent nuances on the Mideast, and he becomes even less convincing as the candidate of "change."

If the GOP is able to paint Obama's foreign jaunt as a presumptuous and self-absorbed excerise in hubris as opposed to a true fact-finding mission, Democratic superdelegates may be left to wonder: Are we really going into the general with our strongest candidate?

A disavowal of their endorsement of Obama by black leaders such as Jesse Jackson, Sheila Jackson Lee, Bob Johnson of BET could presage an announcement by Hillary Clinton that she, too, is withdrawing her endorsement of Obama, and has decided to challenge him at the convention for the nomination.

This is the secret, unspoken hope of millions of frustrated and concerned Democrats.

These skeptical Hillaryites -- some may view them as less cynical than realistic -- do not dislike Obama. But they believe that his persist demonstrations of hubris and elitism; his vacillation on some key issues; the disillusionment among some core supporters; all that, coupled with manifestations of endemic racism among segments of the electorate, could thwart his "improbable journey" to the White House.

And such skepticism over Obama's chances comes in a year that by all measures should favor the Democrats, given the sagging economy and dissatisfaction with the current Republican administration.

This is the uncomfortable realpolitik that starry-eyed pundits choose to ignore.

The question is: Is it a question that the superdelegates can afford to ignore?


IF YOU VALUE THE RULE OF LAW AND THE
RIGHT OF DUE PROCESS, PLEASE CLICK HERE:


http://www.nowpublic.com/world/vigilante-injustice-organized-gang-stalking-american-gestapo-are-they-doing-hi-tech-torture?

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/zap-have-you-been-targeted-directed-energy-weapon-victims-organized-gang-stalking-say-its-happening-usa-1

Posted by: scrivener | July 24, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

It's interesting how the DianneBOT keeps evolving. Now it's a pork sandwich. Wall-E has more personality.

BB

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | July 24, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Which do you prefer?

The spoiled drug addict beer heiress who chased after a married man with children and a crippled wife, or the honest young woman who worked her way through college?

That's the real choice.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

WHY DO I CARE ABOUT A CANDIDATE'S SPOUSE!!! These two women may be fine upstanding people or they may be empty headed idiots but it doesn't matter because THEY ARE NOT RUNNING FOR OFFICE! Their husbands are.
Why is there so much press about them? Lets talk more about the issues. Children cant read, people are hungry, people are without health care and you nuts are arguing about two people who have nothing to do with anything.
Eye on the prize people!

Posted by: Dan | July 24, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

to not a kos kook , your racism and fear are pungent you also failed to mention WHITE and pill- popping stepford wife, vacant stare husband stealing dumb-belle. also there is not one thing wrong with struggling,get used to it MRS MICHELLE OBAMA will be your first lady, get used to it.

Posted by: dee lite | July 24, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

To what can we attribute the "fact" that Obama is more known to the general public than McCain. A Senator who has run for President twice and a long time serving one at that. A war hero! It's because most people pay no attention to other than what's drilled into them by the MSM who are in the tank for this empty suit crook from Chicago!

Posted by: NO-BAMA-NO-WAY | July 24, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

the best test of character MRS MICHELLE OBAMA did NOT date a married old geezer old enough to be her father. case closed

Posted by: dee schultz | July 24, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

So what you are saying in the first few paragraphs that a majority of women prefer beautiful, rich Cindy to a financially struggling(her words) and angry Michelle. What a surprise.

Posted by: not-a-kos-kook | July 24, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Dianne72wrote:
Can you imgaine her (Michelle)sitting down to tea with Queen Elizabeth II?

Do you mean imagine? Yes I can. Her Majesty would enjoy meeting Mrs. Obama, a classy, intelligent well spoken woman. Mrs. Obama will be an excellent representative of the United States.

By the way, her name is Michelle LaVaughn Obama. Perhaps you are thinking of someone else.

Posted by: Sunshine | July 24, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

"Who is going to win an election is decided by a lot of things, but we can agree that McCain needs to make people feel uncomfortable with Obama being President to win. That's what he's trying to do. We'll see what happens."

So all the scare tactics of McCain is too old and senile, will keep us at war forever, same as bush, etc with no credible basis are any different? Both candidates strategies are to tear down the other so you are disillusioned if you think it is one sided. At least have the ability to look at both sides of the issue even if you agree with one side more.

Posted by: Cryos | July 24, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Obama's stances on issues are about as stable as the weather so whether Americans agree with his positions or not depends on which day you're talking about.

Posted by: Cryos | July 24, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Now you are mentioning things that are fact. Mentioning polls as fact and candidate's viewpoints as fact are a whole different story.

If you say republicans are to blame for the economic problems that is an opinion not fact. I could counter that democrats have had control of congress and attempted to pass no laws in relation to the housing market, speculation, etc since promising to help the economy in 2006. They have had time to grill Roger Clemens, hold dozens of politically motivated hearings yet didn't have the foresight to the energy problems? I also could say Congress has an even lower approval rating.

Posted by: Cryos | July 24, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Evil if you believe polls are unbiased and indicitive of fact I am done wasting my time trying to debate issues with you. That's all I have to say on this one. So I suppose the polls in 2004 that Kerry was going to be president were fact?

Posted by: Cryos | July 24, 2008 1:23 PM

The early exit polls? Well, yes they were an idication of how people were voting early. Most polling around election day showed a close race and I'd say that was pretty spot on. There is a thing called margin of error, but when something is polling 60-40, that's pretty spot on.

So, you believe that the American people want to stay on the same path we're on? I assume since you are telling me that my facts are wrong, that that is what you believe.

I am not saying Obama is going to win. I am saying that Americans agree with his positions moreso than those of McCain. Now, as we know, that is not enough. Americans voted for Bush over Kerry because of "values". Not because they wanted to privatize social security, but because of "values". Who is going to win an election is decided by a lot of things, but we can agree that McCain needs to make people feel uncomfortable with Obama being President to win. That's what he's trying to do. We'll see what happens.

Posted by: Evil | July 24, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

"No, it's a fact. Look at the polls, my friend."

Keep letting the media and liberals thinking for you and convincing you opinions are fact; ignorance must be bliss but apparently it's working for ya. Me personally I prefer to make up my own mind and don't base my beliefs off of a political party's platform.

Posted by: Cryos | July 24, 2008 1:18 PM

I'm not basing my beliefs on a party platform, I basing them on things like facts. It's a fact that the housing market is in the tank. The media is not making that up. It's a fact that people are losing their homes. The media is not making that up. It's a fact that the Iraq's PM said he wants us out by 2010, the media is not making that up. It's a fact that banks are failing. The media is not making that up. It's a fact that the President has an approval rating around 30%. These are all facts. You can say you don't like those facts, but they are facts.

Posted by: Evil | July 24, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Evil if you believe polls are unbiased and indicitive of fact I am done wasting my time trying to debate issues with you. That's all I have to say on this one. So I suppose the polls in 2004 that Kerry was going to be president were fact?

Posted by: Cryos | July 24, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

lay off the wives, there will be in charge of
Anything. Does anyone seriousely thing Cindy
McCain will have any effect on policy.

To the people that says Michele Obama is a racist

WHERE IS YOUR PROOF

what acts do you have documented

you have one mistatement

and a crazy black preacher

let me tell you something

i have seen a lot of crazy black and white preachers

that doesn't make anyone that comes to there Church racist.

Michele Obama doesn't want to be Hillary Clinton

she wants to take care of her kids advise and support

How dare you internet thugs

attach her

all she is done is went to college at Princeton where one of her roomates parents
were offended their daughter was rooming with a black girl.

got to Harvard

build a career and from outward appearances
build and All American two family home.

Don't you have any shame - is it that important to win an election or that someone like them doesn't

you should actually think and stop writing
YOU ARE SHOWING YOUR IGNORANCE

AND IT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED WE ARE WATCHING.

her life is certainly harder to be proud of
a country than Cindy McCain

who got everything she ever wanted including her own war hero even though he married to someone else.

I admire her for battling her drug addiction but the fact she stole it from her charity.

had Michele done that from one of the hospitals she would have been fired and prosecuted not rehabilitation.

it's easy to be proud of this country when you start from the top.

but to be fair to Cindy she has raised good
kids and I believe perhaps two of them are
fighting in Iraq.

I feel like a jerk commenting on either of them because neither has expressed a desired policy role and as long as that is the case THEY ARE OFF LIMITS!!!

Posted by: Michael Templer | July 24, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Evil it is obvious by your posts you are confused about fact versus opinion. Maybe you should look at a dictionary. Just because you see socialism as a better platform doesn't change that opinion into fact; get a grip.

Posted by: Cryos | July 24, 2008 1:10 PM

Read any poll and tell me where Americans don't agree with Democrats on the issues. I never endorsed socialism. I am talking about things that can be proven, ie facts. Just look at the new Wall Street Journal Poll. Sixty percent of Americans see Obama's views as in the mainstream. Do sixty percent of Americans want socialism? No. And even if they did it wouldn't change the fact that Republicans can't win on the issues this year. They have to make the Obama's seem scary. That's why we're talking about Michelle Obama and her thesis rather than McCain's plan for the economy, which is far as I can tell is the exact same as Bush's.

Also, you never answered my question on your feeling about Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice.

Posted by: Evil | July 24, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

"No, it's a fact. Look at the polls, my friend."

Keep letting the media and liberals thinking for you and convincing you opinions are fact; ignorance must be bliss but apparently it's working for ya. Me personally I prefer to make up my own mind and don't base my beliefs off of a political party's platform.

Posted by: Cryos | July 24, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

Evil it is obvious by your posts you are confused about fact versus opinion. Maybe you should look at a dictionary. Just because you see socialism as a better platform doesn't change that opinion into fact; get a grip.

Posted by: Cryos | July 24, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

We are talking about a mans wife, the person he is supposed to care about more then anything in his life that is dying from drugs and he didn't even care. Forget trying to make anything political about this, he is a sick in his mind man who lacks any ability for compassion. He is sick from his years as a POW and that is all there is to it. His mind is not one you want running your country. He ware hate on his face, I have met the man, that is like the cancer that was there, but it can't be cut out, it is what he is. He is a sick manwho must never be allowed to be our president.

++++++++
He said he had no idea. Really, his preacher is completely whacked out and he has no idea? This says more about him then then her.
Posted by: | July 24, 2008 1:01 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Michelle Obama is the racist and not Cindy McCain. It was Michelle Obama who not only was a member and supporter of the racist white and America--hating church Trinity for more than 20 years, but she even took her two daughters there to be indoctrinated into this racist cult. Cindy McCain was never a member and supporter of a BLACK-HATING church, club or whatever. Michelle Obama was!!!

Posted by: madhatter | July 24, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

That again is definitely your opinion. The liberal solution to everything of mandate, tax, and spend and their strategy of getting voters by "we'll give you stuff for free" isn't too solid of a platform.

Posted by: Cryos | July 24, 2008 1:04 PM

No, it's a fact. Look at the polls, my friend. Look at what McCain is running on. You may not know this, but trust me, Steve Schmidt does.

Posted by: Evil | July 24, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Lol evil. I wasn't defending Cindy with the drugs in the younger days I was defending Obama stating my personal opinion is I don't care if he did drugs when he was younger.

"Third, personally I wish we weren't talking about any of this, but the Republican Party knows that if this is about issues they lose"

That again is definitely your opinion. The liberal solution to everything of mandate, tax, and spend and their strategy of getting voters by "we'll give you stuff for free" isn't too solid of a platform.

Posted by: Cryos | July 24, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

He said he had no idea. Really, his preacher is completely whacked out and he has no idea? This says more about him then then her.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

we all know that the majority of hate directed at Mrs. Obama is emanating from the Rodham Clinton racists and bullet dodgers. As a general rule, they don't vote, they do not sway others to vote except in direct opposite to what the ugly racists wish. A win-win, in that in defeat they will become more racist and then die.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | July 24, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

What is important is when Cindy was going through her drug problems it took her family to do an intervention to help her. John Mccain could have cared less. He said he had no idea. Really, his wife is completely whacked out and he has no idea? This says more about him then then her.

++++++
True Knowledge asked, "Whom do you admire more...?"

Frankly, I don't care. I vote for the candidate, not the spouse. Unless there is an immediate problem with the spouse which would affect the President's ability to administer the office, then I don't care. And getting into spitting contests over stuff the spouse did decades ago or has yet to be proven, justs distract the real debate from where it should be.

A much better topic today would be what a couple of people have mentioned, CBS' Creative Journalism with the McCain interview. The link to the Kurtz/Shear item on The Trail was an eye-opener. They may have opened the door to a dirty little media secret, that what CBS did may not be an aberration, but a standard practice in the MSM.

That should much more important to all of us than any Cindy v. Michelle fluff.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | July 24, 2008 12:34 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

We love spreading rude gossip with foul four letter words. In fact we live for it. It keeps us from thinking, thank goodness.

Posted by: LOUD and DUMB | July 24, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

So according to the viewpoints of liberals that Cindy would be a bad first lady because she did drugs where does that leave Obama? Of course there will be a double standard and it shouldn't matter that Obama did drugs.

Personally I don't care if people did drugs in their younger days a lot of people did. But remember criticizm of drug use goes both ways. Obama must be the same as GWB since they both did coke.

Posted by: Cryos | July 24, 2008 12:35 PM

First, it's not the drug use, it's the stealing from her own charity that bothers me.

Second, younger days? It was in 1994. She was 40! She had kids she was taking care of!

Third, personally I wish we weren't talking about any of this, but the Republican Party knows that if this is about issues they lose, so we'll talk about "patriotism" and whether or not Michelle should keep her mouth shut instead. I'm just saying if Republicans are going to attack Michelle, and they have, then I think it's time to compare the two. If you want to talk about plans for the economy or foreign policy, I'd love it, but those aren't very good issues for Senator McCain, are they?

Posted by: Evil | July 24, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

In another one of his "major" speeches that make liberal hearts go pitty-pat, he had talked about the "many times" he had said "our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence" in Iraq. His reference was to the troop surge, and what he left out were the times he has said it would not reduce violence.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

"Interesting that you point out Republican attempts to vilify Mrs. Obama, but ignore Democratic efforts to vilify Mrs. McCain."

Nobody has vilified Mrs. McCain more than Mr. McCain, the only person to publicly call her a cvnt.

Posted by: Spectator2 | July 24, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

How ironic that I call for surrender and defeat in front of hitler's favorite monument - the victory column.

Dang Harverd education - no required history class.

Posted by: snObama | July 24, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Did anyone see the battleground state polls? There's a sidebar image posted in the First Lady post that takes you to the results.

Obama is down across the board including -5% in Colorado and -8% in MN. Have people been paying attention to the election at all recently and particularly this month? McCain is falling apart!

Who are these people being polled? If anyone is playing close enough attention to the campaigns they'd realize that this election should be a landslide in Obama's favor.

Posted by: jansjay | July 24, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

So according to the viewpoints of liberals that Cindy would be a bad first lady because she did drugs where does that leave Obama? Of course there will be a double standard and it shouldn't matter that Obama did drugs.

Personally I don't care if people did drugs in their younger days a lot of people did. But remember criticizm of drug use goes both ways. Obama must be the same as GWB since they both did coke.

Posted by: Cryos | July 24, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

True Knowledge asked, "Whom do you admire more...?"

Frankly, I don't care. I vote for the candidate, not the spouse. Unless there is an immediate problem with the spouse which would affect the President's ability to administer the office, then I don't care. And getting into spitting contests over stuff the spouse did decades ago or has yet to be proven, justs distract the real debate from where it should be.

A much better topic today would be what a couple of people have mentioned, CBS' Creative Journalism with the McCain interview. The link to the Kurtz/Shear item on The Trail was an eye-opener. They may have opened the door to a dirty little media secret, that what CBS did may not be an aberration, but a standard practice in the MSM.

That should much more important to all of us than any Cindy v. Michelle fluff.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | July 24, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Did anybody else see Bush's comments from over the weekend about how Laura is shopping for a house in Dallas, because living at the "ranch" in Crawford has been a "sacrifice"? George and Laura - so in touch with working class Americans! Their pseudo ranch was a complete fraud, and now that it's no longer politically useful, they're tossing it overboard. I, for one, am shocked.

Posted by: pinson | July 24, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

This is a mismatch. Self made Harvard educated against a bimbo drug addict. Is this a fight they really want to have?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

"No, I didn't read her thesis, why would I? I need to know what a twenty something potential first lady wrote?"

Lol Evil. You make all these assertions about Michelle and how Harvard doesn't give any breaks, etc and you don't even read the work you're complimenting and defending; nice.

Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice are respectable people and it has nothing to do with their race. I don't respect anyone who forwards the victim mentality agenda regardless of race, religion, gender etc.

Nice try to pigeonhole me with the liberal racist label. Hate to break it to ya but some of American males still have their balls. Not all of America has cowered to the hypocritical, double standard, political correctness prison of the mind where we are supposed to lay down and be lapdogs to whatever the liberals feel is politically correct.

Posted by: Cryos | July 24, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Actually, this topic is fitting. Right now!!! the economy is sinking into a depression that will likely be far worse than what we faced in the 1930's. Investors, banks and mortgage, cell phone companies all are actively defrauding consumers. Idiots blather about universal vs. private health care coverage when companies are dumping an ever mounting dhare of health care costs onto employees and those same private health care companies routinely deny customers even basic services, never mind life saving procedures like cancer care, heart surgery, etc. Wall Street investors and corporations are actively combing the world, looking for the cheapest labor markets, a little something that *WILL* cost virtually every American his or her job unless they trade wages and benefits and their entire standard of living in a rush to the bottom. A public that is oveerwhelmingly concerned about vicious rumors and attacks, non-measureable and ridiculous crap like "experience" - and, I might note, all "experience" is a someone comfortable with their past failures. Was Issac Newton "experienced"? How about Einstein? Lincoln? Nope! They were new, breaths of fresh air! - a public so besotted with what amounts to political gossip instead of policies doesn't even deserve to survive.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | July 24, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Actually, I think either of them would do a fine job.

Posted by: Shylibrarian | July 24, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

i dont see why anyone would have an unfavorable view of michelle obama. shes like the perfect mom and she didnt do drugs like another potential first lady we know


to see obama live at 1PM
http://sensico.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/watch-obama-live-in-germany/

Posted by: captain hawk | July 24, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

I love the way Germans can swoon over a good speech. they are perfect for me. all I need now is a little fire at the Reichstag.

Posted by: snObama | July 24, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

"Give me that any day over our current First Lady -- the lackluster, do-nothing Laura Bush. Frankly, I think that Laura Bush's almost complete lack of engagement is a disgrace to American women of every stripe -- liberal, conservative, or moderate. We need a First Lady who will go out there and try to improve the world in which we live ... "
===================
As a Democrat I find myself in the odd position of defending Laura Bush, but I think that Mrs. Bush is a lovely woman who has quietly pushed an agenda of reading skills and education behind the scenes (she was a Librarian.) I found Laura wonderfully gracious when she defended Michelle Obama's "proud of" misstep by saying that Michelle was taken out of context, etc. I don't think that every First Lady needs to be as proactive as Eleanor Roosevelt or Hillary Clinton. Feminism is too big to box women in that way. That said, there is something "off" about Cindy McCain, but no matter, she is NOT the Candidate.

Posted by: radical_moderate | July 24, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

I read Sophia A. Nelson's piece and posted it on my facebook page. It was excellent.

I hope Diane72 had a chance to read it. Perhaps it would change her views on Michelle Obama and in a sense, black women in general.

Obama 08 "Change We Can Believe In"

Posted by: jansjay | July 24, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Never have so many lefist in the media tried to protect a racist, loud, over valued person than is that of Michelle Obama. Sorry but the criticism she receives, she deserves, because of her "BG MOUTH." Hey pal,remember you reap what you sow, and huge weeds grow with the good wheat.

Posted by: Atico | July 24, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

C'mon, Chris, you can do better. You're just throwing meat to the hyenas with this post.

Posted by: FlownOver | July 24, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Next, FIX you seem to bat about .400 - which would be great if you were in baseball.

Posted by: Huh | July 24, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

These polls mean nothing Chris C.

If you ask people about which person is more favorable ignoring any reference to personal names or skin color you would get a very interesting and telling answer. If the poll question was phrased like the following which do you think looks more favorable:

Which person seems for favorable to you?


1) A person who born into wealth; competed in beauty contests; went to college and got degrees in education; inherited the family business to run; was involved in an affair with a married man whom she eventually married; adopted a South Asian girl; and stole drugs from her charity organization and did no jail time.

OR

2) A person who was born into lower middle class family who father was disabled; went to Ivy schools and got a law degree; worked as an attorney and in her community; married the man she feel in love with; and was a working mother.

Person number 2 would have a higher favorability rating, and that person just happens to be Michelle Obama.

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | July 24, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

I had the best time visiting my birthplace - Bethlehem.

Posted by: obamassiah | July 24, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

To be honest, I too would rather the media and pundits shed light on the Candidates rather than their wives, but it is what it is.

At any rate, Cindy McCain is an interesting psychological study (she seems like a very strange woman in some ways); however, none of this stuff about Michelle or Cindy is applicable to the Candidate's positions, unless the irony of Cindy McCain's charity work in the 3rd World is contrasted with John McCain's NO votes on extending medical benefits for poor children, subsidizing energy costs for the poor and elderly, fillibustering a raise on the minimum wage, etc., that hurt the poor in THIS country is counted.

The fact is, however, if the right is going to go "there" with Michelle Obama, then Cindy McCain, despite being what my friend calls, a "silent spectre" at John McCain's side will get a spotlight shined on her too fair or not.

Posted by: radical_moderate | July 24, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Ich bin ein beginner!

Posted by: snObama | July 24, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse


Cryos

Your posts are unusually dumb.
Or perhaps they're satire?

Posted by: lily | July 24, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Our Country is in a very sad position: high cost of gas, electricity, food, a senseless war, Americans are losing their homes by the thousands, etc. Neither Cindy McCain, nor Michelle Obama are will ever have to be faced with the above problems. The only things they have in common is that they are both wives of very politically strong husbands, who are running for President '08 and both are females.

Posted by: LBanks | July 24, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

I don't care what color, gender, etc you are if you got into school or work from connections, affirmative action, etc you did not earn everything but that is not saying you didn't work hard.

Posted by: Cryos | July 24, 2008 12:03 PM

Boy, you must really hate Cindy McCain then!!!

No, I didn't read her thesis, why would I? I need to know what a twenty something potential first lady wrote? No. Have you read Cindy McCain's thesis? No? Why not? Oh, that's right, she didn't do one. That qualifies as research?

Again, I understand that you don't like Michelle Obama. That's fine. Just admit that it is because of her husband's policies.

Or is it something else? Do you not like Clarence Thomas? Do you dislike Condi Rice?

Posted by: Evil | July 24, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse


Well, it's hard to get to know Cindy McCain because she's walks around like a zombee, glassy eyed. Another world. Opened her mouth once to say something nasty about Michelle.

It is also notable that nothing was said about her years as a dope addict, stuff that she filched, ( took, stole), from a charity foundation she helped found.
Swell gal.

ANd she's been around for years and years as senate wife and the last presidential race. Impact: zero. Zip.

Posted by: Maggie | July 24, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

How long the favorability lead for Cindy McCain lasts depends on how long it takes for people to learn about her using her "charity for providing drugs for poor people overseas" into a charity for serving her addiction to prescription pain relievers.

Posted by: Frank Palmer | July 24, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

What I know of Michelle Obama makes me like her immensely. She is intelligent, well-spoken, and so far demonstrates a desire to be involved in what goes on in our country. Give me that any day over our current First Lady -- the lackluster, do-nothing Laura Bush. Frankly, I think that Laura Bush's almost complete lack of engagement is a disgrace to American women of every stripe -- liberal, conservative, or moderate. We need a First Lady who will go out there and try to improve the world in which we live ... not just sit around on her duff the vast majority of her husband's presidency. (Of course, I do realize that if you're married to George W. Bush -- a president who spends 40% of his time on vacation -- that the bar for your own performance isn't very high. But, hey, Laura Bush should have married better!!!!)

Michelle Obama will make a great First Lady. I look forward to seeing her on the national and international front tackling important issues and addressing them with grace and resolve. Yes, she will be unfairly attacked on every front by the Republican leadership, but I'm sure that she's more than capable of handling what is coming her way.

Posted by: Kay Decker | July 24, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

It is your viewpoint Evil.

Did you read her thesis? That qualifies as good research? I read it and it is racially motivated crap. Passing the courses and the bar exam is very tough I'm not saying she didn't work hard for what she has I'm just calling out the false notion she "worked for everything herself." What about the person who was more qualified and didn't get in because of their race/gender? How is that fair?

I don't care what color, gender, etc you are if you got into school or work from connections, affirmative action, etc you did not earn everything but that is not saying you didn't work hard.

Posted by: Cryos | July 24, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

hOW DID oBAMA GET IN THE iLL. SENATE. hIS BACKERS MADE SURE ALL OTHER RUNNING MATES WERE DISQUALIFIED AND HE HAD NO OPPONENTS. ASK HIM WHO HE RAN AGAINST - NO ONE! AND DID NOTHING

PIANO LESSONS, IF WE WRER ALL RICH ENOUGH TO HAVE A PIANO - WE ALSO WOULD PAY FOR OUR LESSONS. pOOR CHILD!

Posted by: lynn parker. | July 24, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Sorry fellow political junkies, Chris C. is using his fake "McCain JV press pass" here. I feel for you Chris to be left in the U.S. while the real "meaty" political stories are overseas.

Cindy McCain has a better favorable rating because no effort has been put forth to impact her negatively as has been put forth on Michelle Obama.

Michelle Obama has been "attacked" by the conservative media on more than one occassion. The GOP, FOX NEWS, SEAN HANNITY, RUSH LIMBAUGH, and the like have constantly been trying to "beat on" Michelle Obama.

Last night on FOX Channel's Hannity & Colmes show in Hannity's interview with McCain, he attempted to bait McCain into criticizing Michelle Obama. Luckily McCain managed to stay away from this topic and reiterated (however not very strongly) that he hoped that families involved in the presidential race would be left alone.

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | July 24, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

That's your viewpoint Evil. I don't consider affirmative action candidates that get more then they deserve to work for everything; they get things handed to them for inferior work. I consider people that EARN their scholarship to work for everything.

FYI not everyone is jealous and envious of rich people. Some people try to figure out how to get there themselves instead of indulging their own bad personality flaws and waiting for handouts.

Posted by: Cryos | July 24, 2008 11:47 AM

Have you been to law school? They don't just give out those diplomas because of affirmative action. As a matter of fact, Harvard is a private school and has it's own admissions criteria. You may think it's easy for black folks to get into Harvard, but you are wrong. That not opinion, that's a fact.

I am not jealous of rich people. I do think that people who steal from charities shouldn't be able to buy their way out of jail time. If some poor person, of any color, had done that you can't tell me they wouldn't be locked up. I can tell you how Cindy McCain got to where she was... she was born with it.

Waiting for handouts? What does that mean? The Obamas got student loans, those aren't handouts. They are avialable to everyone. They just paid them off a few years ago.

Again, this is not my viewpoint, these are facts. Your viewpoint is that you discredit what Michelle Obama has done with her life because you disagree with her husbands policies. Which is fine, just don't act like you're not doing it.

Posted by: Evil | July 24, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

NEVER MIND THAT MC CAIN, OR MC BUSH, HAS SAT IN THE SENATE FOR YEARS. SO WHAT? DID HE DO ANYTHING TO HELP PRE EVENT THIS HORRIBLE ECONOMIC SIT., OUR SOLDIERS BEING KILL OR MAIMED FOR LIFE, THOUSANDS ORF WIDOWS AND ORPHANS LEFT WITHOUT MEANS OF A DECENT LIFE! THE OBVIOUS ANSWER IS - NO!!!
AND NOW THE AMERICANS ARE, I FEAR, FALLING FOR THE SWEET TALK AND EMPTY PROMISES JUST FOR A REALLY GOOD PAY CHECK, S S DOLLARS AND AN UNBEATABLE PENSION... AND WHERE WILL THE AVERAGE AMERICAN CITIZEN BE, ????

NOT A PRETTY PICTURE, IF WE ALL THINK AND THINK HARD COMES NOV. JUST DONT GIVE UP YOUR VALUABLE VOTE. SAVE IT - IT BELONGS TO YOU!

Posted by: lynn parker. | July 24, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Oh please MJS beat your feminist drum somewhere else. Nice try with the whole sexist/racist thing to try to silence dissent but I'm not buying it. The same thing goes for male spouses that run off at the mouth if their wife is a candidate. If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen or accept you will get criticism. It's not rocket science.

Posted by: Cryos | July 24, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

If Michelle kept her mouth shut she wouldn't be criticized for the things she didn't say. If you let your ego get in the way and insist on letting people know what you think you open yourself up plain and simple.

Posted by: Cryos | July 24, 2008 11:34 AM
___________________________________________

EXCUSE ME?!?!? How is intelligently expressing your opinions about the state of the country letting your ego get in the way? When you're a woman? Thanks Cryos, for your exceedingly misogynistic thoughts. Guess what, just because she's a woman doesn't mean she's not allowed to speak.

Posted by: MJS | July 24, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

I deserved that big raise. My husband being Senator and delivering earmarks had nothing to do with it. I had to pay for piano lessons you know.

Posted by: M shaniqua Obama | July 24, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

That's your viewpoint Evil. I don't consider affirmative action candidates that get more then they deserve to work for everything; they get things handed to them for inferior work. I consider people that EARN their scholarship to work for everything.

FYI not everyone is jealous and envious of rich people. Some people try to figure out how to get there themselves instead of indulging their own bad personality flaws and waiting for handouts.

Posted by: Cryos | July 24, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Neither of these women is pristine. People charge McCain is bad because she's a "trophy wife trust fund baby that once was addicted to drugs." So what makes an affirmative action college student with a poorly written borderline racist thesis who worked for companies on the behalf of Walmart any better?

Posted by: Cryos | July 24, 2008 11:34 AM
______________________________________

What makes someone who's worked for everything they've got better than someone who stole drugs from a charity and hasn't worked a day in her life? Is that really a question?

Posted by: Evil | July 24, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

I'm sure if people really knew as much about Cindy as they do Michelle her favorable would be extremely low.

Another poll should be done and the question should be asked as follows:
Whom do you view more favorably?
A wealthy woman who had an affair with a married man, stole drugs from her non-profit organization and when she was caught closed the non-profit, but never did any jail time. A woman who adopted a child and then told her husband, a husband who didn't know she was an addict and a thief.

Or

A woman who came from middle lower middle class family, went to a Ivy League school became a lawyer and worked in to help a needy community and later became an upper manager.

Whom do you admire more and have a more favorable option of?

Posted by: True Knowledge | July 24, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

We are not voting for first ladies. We are supposed to be voting for a President and to concentrate on which of these two jokers are at all appropriate for the honor of representing the USA. Michelle, is an anti American and she expressed her negivitivity loud and clear. As far as Cindy is concerned, her biggest fault is her husband. Actually, the two husbands put together do not come near being an appropriate Pres, and we are in for some hard times.

I would like to know why the Hispanic or Black or for that matter any segment of the people think they are most hard hit. How about the Seniors who will be cold, sick and ill fed this winter no matter what nationality they are. This applies to all USA citizens. Thanks for all the rotten and I dont give a damm attitude by Georgie,the dummy, Cheney, the animal, and Rove the Nazi

Posted by: lynn parker. | July 24, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Thank you Total Fake. If that is true that is despicable.

I wouldn't be surprised due to liberals views of soldiers but that is beyond excuse if true. If true I hope it gets in the media where it belongs and other soldiers know it when going to vote.

Posted by: Cryos | July 24, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

The 'republican smear' type accusations are funny and indicitive of the hands off approach liberals try to promote with the Obamas. If you criticize them you're part of the smear machine, racist, etc. The best defense is a good offense seems to be the liberal motto.

If Michelle kept her mouth shut she wouldn't be criticized for the things she didn't say. If you let your ego get in the way and insist on letting people know what you think you open yourself up plain and simple.

Neither of these women is pristine. People charge McCain is bad because she's a "trophy wife trust fund baby that once was addicted to drugs." So what makes an affirmative action college student with a poorly written borderline racist thesis who worked for companies on the behalf of Walmart any better?

Posted by: Cryos | July 24, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

What isn't discussed here is the outright fear of Michelle Obama that the media has.

What Michelle Obama said about Hillary Clinton and her daughter during the 2008 primaries was despicable, gutter and ghetto.

She's a hood rat, and the media is afraid to step up and scrutinize her.

Posted by: dredmond | July 24, 2008 11:12 AM
___________________________________

Wow! Stay classy, San Diego.

Posted by: Evil | July 24, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

First report from Afghanistan

I don't know each of your personal political convictions, and appologize if anyone finds this offensive. I thought it was important enough to share. This is Jeff's first hand view of Senator
Obama. Tiffany
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Hello everyone,
As you know I am not a very political person. I just wanted to pass along that Senator Obama came to Bagram Afghanistan for about an hour on his visit to 'The War Zone'. I wanted to share with you what happened.
He got off the plane and got into a bullet proof vehicle, got to the area to meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram.
As the Soldiers were lined up to shake his hand he blew them off and didn't say a word as he went into the conference room to meet the General. As he finished, the vehicles took him to the
ClamShell (pretty much a big top tent that military personnel can play basketball or work out in with weights) so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned the opportunity to talk to Soldiers to thank them for their service.
So really he was just here to make a showing for the American's back home that he is their candidate for President. I think that if you are going to make an effort to come all the way over here you would thank those that are providing the freedom that they are providing for you.
I swear we got more thanks from the NBA Basketball Players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders than from one of the Senators, who wants to be the President of the United States. I just don't understand how anyone would want him to be our Commander-and-Chief. It was
almost that he was scared to be around those that provide the freedom for him and our great country.
If this is blunt and to the point I am sorry but I wanted you all to know what kind of caliber of person he really is. What you see in the news is all fake.
In service, CPT Jeffrey S. Porter , Battle Captain , TF Wasatch , American Soldier

Posted by: total fake | July 24, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Chris why no mentition of Cindy's pill popping?

Posted by: Patrick NYC | July 24, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Yes, which is a better symbol of America?

The botoxed beer heiress with a bad drug habit, or the young woman who worked her way up the hard way and made it?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

WHY THE FIRST LADY DEBATE AUGERS FOR A
SECOND COMING OF HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

Virulent racism remains a great stain on the Republic. Cindy McCain's foibles and shortcomings will be excused in evaluation her potential as first lady; Michelle Obama's race will not. Those who would diss Michelle while refusing to disapprove of Cindy's past probably would not vote for Obama in any event.

Despite the conventional wisdom that Hillary's failure to secure the nomination in the primaries indicates otherwise, this election is still most likely to turn on the experience question:

Which candidate has the experience, values, and judgment to become the next president?

Neither candidate scores particularly well among those criteria. But McCain's many years in Congress and the automatic respect he engenders as a former P.O.W., probably give him the edge with typical (read: white suburban/rural) voters.

And, of course, McCain gets the racist vote simply for showing up.

If judgment trumps experience among the electorate's major criteria for choosing the next president, it still will be close. If voters prefer the"safe" candidate, they probably will go for McCain -- unless Obama bring along an experienced, well-known and widely respected vice presidental candidate who would serve in the role as trusted advisor and mentor.

If Obama seals the nomination, the only candidate on the horizon that fits that bill is Chris Dodd. The amimus among Obama, Hillary and Bill would seem to render Hillary an unwise choice.

But Hillary would be my pick as the Democrat most likely to defeat McCain -- a belief cemented recently by Obama's retreat from core principles, as exemplified by his acquicense to the FISA/wiretapping/telecom immunity bill; the Supreme Court decision barring handgun regulation in D.C.; and the court's expansion of application of the death penalty. Throw in his pandering on church-state issues, and he becomes even less convincing as the candidate of "change."

If the GOP is able to paint Obama's foreign jaunt as a presumpuous and self-absorbed exerise in hubris as opposed to a true fact-finding mission, Democratic superdelegates may be left to wonder: Are we really going into the general with our strongest candidate?

A disavowal of their endorsement of Obama by black leaders such as Jesse Jackson, Sheila Jackson Lee, Bob Johnson of BET could presage an announcement by Hillary Clinton that she, too, is withdrawing her endorsement of Obama, and has decided to challenge him at the convention for the nomination.

This is the secret, unspoken dream of millions of frustrated and concerned Democrats who fear that Obama's lack of executive experience, coupled with racial prejudice -- as evidenced by the polling concerning the First Lady issue -- will prevent Obama from winning the White House.

These skeptical Hillaryites -- some may view them as less cynical than just realistic -- do not dislike Obama. But they believe that his persist demonstrations of hubris and elitism, coupled with manifestations of endemic racism, will prevent him from winning the White House, despite the sagging economy, dislike of the current Republican administraton, and all the other factors that should auger in the Dem's favor.

This is the uncomfortable realpolitik that starry-eyed pundits choose to ignore.

The question is: Is it a question that the superdelegates must confront now -- before it's too late?

IF YOU VALUE THE RULE OF LAW AND THE
RIGHT OF DUE PROCESS, PLEASE CLICK HERE:


http://www.nowpublic.com/world/vigilante-injustice-organized-gang-stalking-american-gestapo-are-they-doing-hi-tech-torture?

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/zap-have-you-been-targeted-directed-energy-weapon-victims-organized-gang-stalking-say-its-happening-usa-1

Posted by: scrivener | July 24, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

I find it disturbing that more people think Cindy McCain fits the image of a First Lady. Where are we as a country that it is more First Lady-like to be a frighteningly nipped and tucked Stepford Wife who's biggest accomplishment in life is to inherit Daddy's money and company than to be a Harvard-educated lawyer who can speak up for herself and has opinions about the future of this country.
Where are we going and why are we in this handbasket?

Posted by: MJS | July 24, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

What isn't discussed here is the outright fear of Michelle Obama that the media has.

What Michelle Obama said about Hillary Clinton and her daughter during the 2008 primaries was despicable, gutter and ghetto.

She's a hood rat, and the media is afraid to step up and scrutinize her.

Posted by: dredmond | July 24, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

WHY THE FIRST LADY DEBATE AUGERS FOR A
SECOND COMING OF HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

Virulent racism remains a great stain on the Republic. Cindy McCain's foibles and shortcomings will be excused in evaluation her potential as first lady; Michelle Obama's race will not. Those who would diss Michelle while refusing to disapprove of Cindy's past probably would not vote for Obama in any event.

Despite the conventional wisdom that Hillary's failure to secure the nomination in the primaries indicates otherwise, this election is still most to turn on the experience question:

Which candidate has the experience, values, and judgment to become the next president?

Neither candidate scores particularly well among those criteria. But McCain's many years in Congress and the automatic respect he engenders as a former P.O.W., probably give him the edge with typical (read: white suburban/rural) voters.

And, of course, McCain gets the racist vote simply for showing up.

If judgment trumps experience among the electorate's major criteria for choosing the next president, it still will be close. If voters prefer the"safe" candidate, they probably will go for McCain -- unless Obama bring along an experienced, well-known and widely respected vice presidental candidate who would serve in the role as trusted advisor and mentor.

If Obama seals the nomination, the only candidate on the horizon that fits that bill is Chris Dodd. The amimus among Obama, Hillary and Bill would seem to render Hillary an unwise choice.

But Hillary would be my pick as the Democrat most likely to defeat McCain -- a belief cemented recently by Obama's retreat from core principles, as exemplified by his acquicense to the FISA/wiretapping/telecom immunity bill; the Supreme Court decision barring handgun regulation in D.C.; and the court's expansion of application of the death penalty. Throw in his pandering on church-state issues, and he becomes even less convincing as the candidate of "change."

If the GOP is able to paint Obama's foreign jaunt as a presumpuous and self-absorbed exerise in hubris as opposed to a true fact-finding mission, Democratic superdelegates may be left to wonder: Are we really going into the general with our strongest candidate?

A disavowal of their endorsement of Obama by black leaders such as Jesse Jackson, Sheila Jackson Lee, Bob Johnson of BET could presage an announcement by Hillary Clinton that she, too, is withdrawing her endorsement of Obama, and has decided to challenge him at the convention for the nomination.

This is the secret, unspoken dream of millions of frustrated and concerned Democrats who fear that Obama's lack of executive experience, coupled with racial prejudice -- as evidenced by the polling concerning the First Lady issue -- will prevent Obama from winning the White House.

These skeptical Hillaryites -- some may view them as less cynical than just realistic -- do not dislike Obama. But they believe that his persist demonstrations of hubris and elitism, coupled with manifestations of endemic racism, will prevent him from winning the White House, despite the sagging economy, dislike of the current Republican administraton, and all the other factors that should auger in the Dem's favor.

This is the uncomfortable realpolitik that starry-eyed pundits choose to ignore.

The question is: Is it a question that the superdelegates must confront now -- before it's too late?

IF YOU VALUE THE RULE OF LAW AND THE
RIGHT OF DUE PROCESS, PLEASE CLICK HERE:


http://www.nowpublic.com/world/vigilante-injustice-organized-gang-stalking-american-gestapo-are-they-doing-hi-tech-torture?

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/zap-have-you-been-targeted-directed-energy-weapon-victims-organized-gang-stalking-say-its-happening-usa-1

Posted by: scrivener | July 24, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Michelle seethes with anger at the white middle class and her own country. Cindy adopts and children throughout the world, quietly. And, her son enlisted and fought in Iraq. This fact has, unfortunately for the urban elitists, slipped out. The Obamabots hate the truth coming out. So, hide from debates unless carefully controlled, and spin Obama as "Presidential." Perhaps the voters will not see Obama as the little twerp at the table with warlords and experienced officials.

Posted by: Get Real | July 24, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

"It seemed like a great way to counter Obamamania. Sen. John McCain would board a helicopter in New Orleans today, skim quickly over the Gulf of Mexico and land on an oil rig -- a made-for-TV moment to highlight his call for offshore drilling, an issue that Republicans believe will be a big winner in November.

Then came Hurricane Dolly, a Category 2 storm that made a helicopter ride impossible. And then, improbably, a 600-foot oil tanker collided with a barge on the Mississippi River, creating a 12-mile oil slick and causing diesel fumes to waft over the city's French Quarter. The trip was off.

In this campaign, it seems, McCain just can't catch a break."

The WaPo rends its garments over the fact their darling Mccain is running a crappy campaign.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Interesting that you point out Republican attempts to vilify Mrs. Obama, but ignore Democratic efforts to vilify Mrs. McCain. Simply reading the greatly educational and dispassionate comments of your own readers will give you a measure of the extent of the slanders against Mrs. McCain.

Mrs. Obama's "pride" comment was a main-stream press event. They are not words which were put in her mouth by evil Republicans. It is hard to distort her intention and meaning here: that by voting for her husband people are showing their lack of prejudice; by voting against him they are showing racial prejudice.

Posted by: Villiens | July 24, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

I like Michelle Obama and think she would make a fine First Lady, primarily because she would accompany Barack Obama to the White House.

Chris, the more important issue of the day is the continued media fawning over John McCain and the stunning failure of major media analysts such as yourself to condemn the butchering of Katie Couric's interview with McCain this week.

CBS deliberately distorted that interview in order to paint McCain in a more favorable light. The despicable editing covered up McCain's lie about the origins of the Sunni Awakening. How can we expect the electorate to make informed decisions in this crucial election year when the media fails in its fundamental job of presenting an accurate view of the behaviors and attitudes of the candidates.

All responsible political analysts should denounce CBS for their reprehensible acts of covering for McCain. Katie Couric, who sits in the seat of great journalists Walter Cronkheit and Dan Rather, should be censured and ostracized for her conduct.

Posted by: dee | July 24, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Why is it a mistake to dismiss the impact of candidate spouses on the election out of hand? Neither Cindy McCain nor Michelle Obama are nearly as well known or as disliked as Hillary Clinton was when her husband was a candidate, yet Mrs. Clinton does not appear to have prompted many people to vote against Bill Clinton who would not have voted against him anyway.

The permanent campaign industry, which by definition includes this column, devotes a lot of time and attention to "issues" that most Americans just don't think much about. This is one of them.

Personally, I haven't seen anything to make me think that either Cindy McCain or Michelle Obama would not make perfectly fine First Ladies. This would continue an American tradition, actually; in recent years we've done rather better with our First Ladies than we have with our Presidents. In any event, if votes were moved by opinions about the candidates' wives enough for us to notice this November, it would be the first time. Absent hard evidence to the contrary, that's reason enough to believe that this will not be a major factor in this election.

Posted by: Zathras | July 24, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

"The New York Times leads with word that the Bush administration wants to devote $230 million slated for counterterrorism programs in Pakistan to help the country upgrade its fleet of F-16 attack planes."

Which they will eventually use on us.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Mark's comment sums up everything that needs to be said.

Posted by: GT in China | July 24, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Kurtz & Shear have a writeup on The Trail, for those interested in CBS's McCain interview:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/23/by_howard_kurtz_when_cbss.html

Or get into a shouting match here about pill-popping & calling folks 'whitey'.

Posted by: bsimon | July 24, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

here's an interesting comparison for me...when I see the Obamas, I see partners with great affection for each other. The McCains? Not so much. In fact, it's interesting that, by her own admission, Cindy McCain was deep in the throes of drug addiction and her husband had no clue. Mrs. McCain took flying lessons and bought a plane and her husband had no clue. Mrs. McCain and her husband met during his first marriage and lied to each other about their ages and, until they saw a copy of the marriage license, neither had any clue about their lies (she claimed to be 28 but was 24, he claimed to be 39 when he was actually 43).

Tells you a lot about McCain and his wife.

Posted by: Karen H. | July 24, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

I think this subject will rapidly continue to trail downward to the canyon floor. No potential posters have enough knowledge of the lives of these two women to offer anything of substance.

bsimon's challenge to address CBS-Couric's "editing" of an interview to substitute the answer to the question asked with other material is worth pursuing. Without regard to party, a network's apparent breach of ethics is worth scrutiny in the press, and worth noting to the public.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | July 24, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

If a First Lady is supposed to be a vacuous, out-of-touch, botoxed clothes horse, I agree that Cindy McCain would fit the bill.

Posted by: bondjedi | July 24, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

No sane person should really believe that the race will come down to spouses. Unless Michelle really picks up an AK-47 or Cindy gets caught popping pills, that is...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: matt | July 24, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse


Hired by Cindy McCain in 1991, Gosinski enjoyed his job, but he began to notice McCain's erratic behavior in the summer of 1992. In his journal, he wrote that he and others suspected the boss was addicted to painkillers and might have been stealing them from the organization.

From Gosinski's journal, July 27, 1992:

I have always wondered why John McCain has done nothing to fix the problem. He must either not see that a problem exists or ... not choose to do anything about it. It would seem that it would be in everyone's best interest to come to terms with the situation. And do whatever is necessary to fix it. There is so much at risk: The welfare of the children; John's political career; the integrity of Hensley & Company [Cindy's parents' business]; the welfare of Jim and Smitty Hensley [Cindy's parents]; and the health and happiness of Cindy McCain.

The aforementioned matters are of great concern to those directly involved but my main concern is the ability of AVMT to survive a major shake-up. If the DEA were to ever conduct an audit of AVMT's inventory, I am afraid of what the results might be ... It is because of [Cindy McCain's] willingness to jeopardize the credibility of those who work for her that I truly worry.

Posted by: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/drugs/print.html | July 24, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

As Harold says, we should abide by the norms of our moral universe, if we decide to bring up Cindy McCain's history of addiction. I would argue that our morality requires us to call out double standards where we see them. The mere possibility that Michelle Obama uttered the word "whitey" was enough to send the whole country into a tizzy for several days. Yet, nobody seems to care about the fact that Cindy McCain enlisted her employees to help her steal Vicodin from her own charity.

This whole episode underscores the rock bottom Republican truth: There are two sets of rules. One for the rich and powerful and one for everyone else.

Posted by: The truth | July 24, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Cindy McCain more fits what people think a First Lady should be? Is this for real?

Doesn't say much for the position of First Lady, does it?

Posted by: Susan | July 24, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Why does no one seem to talk about Mrs. McCain's drug abuse and homewrecking ways? Voters need to educat themselves and stop relying on the Fox News filter.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Maybe people would like to know more about Cindy's McCain's years-long drug addiction-- and stealing those drugs from a children's charity.

Don't you think you journalists have an obligation to inform the public?

Posted by: full disclosure. | July 24, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Yes, Mr. Cilizza, why don't you talk about the news media's desperate effort to get McCain elected, which is forcing them to shred any pretense they ever had [no matter how slim] of 'journalistic ethics'?

Posted by: Anonymous | July 24, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Now that's a debate I'd pay to see.

Posted by: Aleks | July 24, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Slow news day, Chris?

Why don't you do a post about their kids, too?

Posted by: Doug in NYC | July 24, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if The Fix thinks the potential First Lady angle has more of an impact on voters' decisons or less than a candidate who criticizes media bias in favor of his opponent in the same week a media outlet favorably edits an interview with him that covers up a potentially significant gaffe?

Posted by: bsimon | July 24, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company