Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

When political spouses join the fray, they're fair game (USA Today editorial)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
vivalarevolucion77 Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-20-08 01:00 PM
Original message
When political spouses join the fray, they're fair game (USA Today editorial)
May 20, 2008

Responding to an ad from the Tennessee Republican Party that reruns Michelle Obama's now famous "proud of my country" line, Barack Obama warned Monday that his opponents should "lay off my wife." Regardless of whether the Republicans listen to him, he is trying to establish some limits.

On the Republican side, John McCain's campaign is also trying to set some spousal limits. Following the lead of Cindy McCain, the campaign insists that her tax records are none of the public's business.

It's natural that candidates want to shelter their spouses, who aren't on the ballot, from scrutiny and criticism. And it's understandable that they would seek to apply some parameters of privacy and decency to a campaign likely to have little of either by the time it's all over. But it's hard to see why these spouses deserve the protections the candidates advocate.

In Mrs. Obama's case, she is an accomplished professional who has campaigned vigorously on her husband's behalf. If the Obamas seek the benefits of having her do so, they must be willing to accept the scrutiny that her words — and gaffes — attract.

Continue reading:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/05/when-political.html#more

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Clear Blue Sky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-20-08 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. Makes sense.
If spouses want to be part of the campaign, then they are a part of it, for better or worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-20-08 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Mrs. Kerry was. And Mrs. Gore.
And Mr. Clinton. I didn't hear one fucking word of protest from Barry about the attacks on Bill Clinton during this campaign. So Obama thinks only the little woman needs protection. Any man has the brass balls to support a spouse, gut him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susankh4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-20-08 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
3. I am all for "privacy" as in:
Edited on Tue May-20-08 02:04 PM by susankh4
Tax returns... I support them being private. If the spouse is filing separately, especially.

Comments made in the privacy of home. Private. Sure.

Information shared within a professional relationship with a physician, lawyer or clergyperson: private.

But... what a spouse says while on the campaign trail? Give me a break. What one says while acting as a surrogate on the campaign trail is not "private" for anyone else. And it should not be for Michelle Obama.

Any attempt to portray Mrs. Obama's ill thought out statements as "protected" will only be played out as whining.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
4. To revisit an old wound ...
a lot of DUers--probably not a majority, but some outspoken members--had no problem when some commentator referred to the Clintons' "pimping out" Chelsea. Some tried to argue it was just a neutral term, used in all kinds of ways these days that don't involve prostitution; others tried to argue that it was accurate, sending somebody not on the ticket out but in a given important demographic to trump up support among that particular demographic.

What I haven't seen hide nor hair of is anybody referring to "pimping out" Mrs. Obama. I suspect that those arguing for the term's neutrality isn't all that salient; and those arguing that it was accurate for Chelsea would suddenly be aghast at the term's application to their favorite candidate's faithful wife.

But when Chelsea went on the campaign trail, she opened herself up to have her comments criticized. (Not that I actually heard any of them criticized, but perhaps I wasn't paying attention.) When Michelle Obama goes on the campaign trail, she opens herself up to have her comments criticized. And for her husband to try to intervene, after putting her out to fight for him, is to say he thinks he deserves some special advantage or rules. (As though we needed more proof.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prophet 451 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-21-08 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
5. I still don't see the problem with that line
I have never understood why Michelle Obama's comment and Rev. Wright's "God damn America" caused such a flap. Well, actually I do know why, it's because of nationalism. Americans are trained from birth to be inordinatly proud of their country not for what it has done or what it represents but for the mere fact that it exists and that is nationalism. To quote the late great Bill Hicks (a man who had much to say about the stupidity of "American pride"): "Aren't you proud of your country, son? / I dunno, I didn't have much to do with it, my parents fucked here". Here (England) and in most of the Western world, what Wright and Michelle Obama said wouldn't have raised an eyebrow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 11th 2024, 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC