Erin Manning here; as Rod mentioned earlier today, I'll be blogging for a bit while he takes a much-deserved break. Officially, I don't start until tomorrow, but as Rod has graciously told me to jump in whenever I liked I'm going to take advantage of the opportunity.
This morning, of course, Michelle Obama made a much-discussed appearance on The View, during which she mentioned writing Laura Bush a thank-you note for defending her over her "proud of my country" remark:
She revealed that she had written a thank-you note to Laura Bush for defending her during an ABC News interview last week. Pressed about her potential successor's patriotism, Bush waved off a Michelle comment in February that she was proud of her country "for the first time in my adult life." The line ignited a firestorm among conservative commentators, but Bush asserted it had been blown out of proportion."I think she probably meant 'I'm more proud.' That's what she really meant," Bush said, speaking from Afghanistan. By way of advice, she added, "You have to be really careful in what you say because everything you say is looked at and in many cases misconstrued."
Obama said it took her a while to craft the note, and said she addressed Bush as "Madam First Lady." She said she was "touched" by Bush's comments and impressed in general with her "calm, rational approach." Obama added, "I'm taking some cues. There's a reason why people like her. She doesn't fuel the fire."
Now, I'm not a fan of the Obamas, but I thought this was well played. Laura Bush has continued to be a rather popular First Lady even among her husband's detractors; reminding the audience that Bush hadn't taken Obama's remark as an indicator of questionable patriotism or loyalties seems to me to be a rather smart move.
Cindy McCain, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be quite ready yet to let the matter drop. From ABC News' Political Radar blog:
ABC News' Ed O'Keefe Reports: Laura Bush may be ready to give Michelle Obama the benefit of the doubt when it comes to her patriotism but Cindy McCain may not."I don't know why she said what she said," Mrs. McCain explains in an interview with ABC News' Kate Snow airing on "Good Morning America" Thursday. "Everyone has their own experience. I don't know why she said what she said, all I know is that I have always been proud of my country."
I understand that plenty of people disliked what Michelle Obama said at the time she first said it, and that differences of opinion still exist about whether she really meant that she never had any pride in America before this election season, or whether she simply misspoke. But isn't it time to move on? We're only a handful of months away from the election, and Republicans had better hope that there are more substantive issues to discuss than what Michelle Obama said during the primaries, or to attempt to make the election more about personalities than policies.
Mike Huckabee thinks so:
June 18 (Bloomberg) -- Former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee warned members of his party that any attempt to undermine presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama by ``demonizing'' him would backfire.``The Republicans will make a fundamental, if not fatal mistake, if they seek to win the election by demonizing Barrack Obama,'' Huckabee told reporters in Tokyo. ``Don't underestimate the extraordinary, substantive moment that Barack Obama's nomination represents in our country.''
I don't think that Barack Obama should win the election (though I'm not a McCain supporter, either, and don't know right now how, or even if, I'll vote). But I think Obama should be defeated on the basis of his ideas and platform, not on the basis of something his wife said some time ago. And Huck is right--if Republicans think this election can be won on the basis of some "Dukakis in the Tank" moments, they'd better check a calender--that kind of campaigning is so twenty years ago.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
AnotherBeliever:
Thanks for your service to the country. My cousin and my first boss were both Vietnam vets. There's always some stress -- higher in some vets; lower in others. McCain came home from Vietnam 35 years ago. He adjusted quite well. As did the other vets serving in politics, including Kerry and Cleland.
I admire McCain's capacity for outrage. The way our resources and tax dollars are routinely wasted by idiots gets me raging. Along with the way our politics is corrupted by lobbyists, including those who are financing Obama's campaign. McCain doesn't get along with the K Street lobbyists and they don't particularly care for him ... and that's just fine with me.
You don't have to be a vet to enraged about politics or economics. I got enraged just last night trying to get my car filled with gas at a nearby service station ... and thinking about why we're so dependent on foreign oil when we have all these untapped petroleum resources in our own country and have refused to build a single nuclear power plant in 30+ years.
He's not talking about outrage.
He's talking about going ballistic. About rage (lose the 'out', or the 'en'. Just rage). And it isn't always sparked by political topics. He exhibited it with his own wife, when he called her, in public, a word I can't even say (and I was a sailor for 4 years, myself).
He gets along with K Street lobbyists just fine. No matter what you may or may not believe about Obama's lobbying ties, nobody, including McCain, disputes his.
Most of his campaign war chest comes from them, directly.
And shall we do the math on those 'untapped reserves' in our own country AGAIN? (4 years worth, and that's just with US using it).
Naw, I'll instead, note, that until his recent (and I mean a few days ago) flip flop, McCain voted against drilling those areas on 5 separate occasions.
If he'd just divorced his first wife in a semi-decent manner, I could have put it down to the unfortunate results of separation and post-war reaction.
Exactly. There are a lot of jokes about, basically, half the prominent Republicans being on their second or third wives, but I don't really care about amicable divorces without children involved. I'd even understand them with children involved.
It's that so many of these divorces were due to infidelity on the part of the husband.
And I'd grant McCain even more leeway than most. I'd actually understand if he was an emotional wreck after his POW experience, and possibly even if he had an affair. But not the near-instant remarriage to a younger richer women. That reads less 'emotional wreck' and more something else.
Your insinuations about McCain and his first wife and Cindy are baseless. Is this how you Obama people intend to win the elecion -- by smearing this courageous former POW?
The first Mrs. McCain is wholeheartedly supporting her husband's candidacy for President. The stuff about John McCain swearing at Cindy is totally bogus. Of couse, when dealing with slimeballs like some of the Obama campaign operatives who appear on this blog almost hourly (e.g. the self-boasting Navy veteran -- "sailor" -- who claims to run a homeless shelter), it's hard to prove a negative ... so it looks like we'll have to put up with this junk all the way between now and election day :-(
Those 'insinuations', though I haven't been the one making them, are part of the public record and based on statements by McCain, himself.
He ADMITS having cheated on his first wife. He ADMITS that he did so with his second wife before the divorce.
He married his second wife one month after he divorced his first wife.)
http://www.usvetdsp.com/mcaindiv.htm
By the way, I never claimed to 'run' a homeless shelter. Only to work for one. Not even on the board. Just a monitor and live in caretaker.
And aren't you the one who claimed that people had the right to dig into the records of people 'associated' with campaigns, and specifically mentioned wives? And repeated the old Swiftboat and Kerry in a tank (which isn't so much inaccurate as simply trivial.. there's nothing wrong with Kerry being in a tank, it just looked goofy.)
You can't say that, repeat your own list of allegations, then complain if anyone mentions anything about the candidate you support.
You have to, as the cliche goes, be the change you want to see.
Don't want to see the insults, the allegations, the diversions into areas that have nothing to do with the issues, then don't do that yourself. Or promote others doing it, just because they do it to a candidate you do NOT like.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.