\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/us/politics/michelle-obamas-evolution-as-first-lady.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/us/politics/michelle-obamas-evolution-as-first-lady.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print Almost makes me wish she was running instead of her husband. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) Almost makes me wish she was running instead of her husband. So, what's your preferred gender? Just to make it clear, for yourself. Edited January 8, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 So, what's your preferred gender? Just to make it clear, for yourself. Try not to be a bigger douche than you normally are, you know what his point was. As to the topic: The worse things got for her husband in 2011, the more she rallied to his side, buoying him personally and politically. As the sun faded, the 150 guests — friends, celebrities, officials — sat on the South Lawn, listening to the first lady describe her version of Barack Obama: a tireless, upright leader who rose above Washington games, killed the world’s most wanted terrorist and still managed to coach his daughter Sasha’s basketball team. The president, looking embarrassed, tried to cut her off, several guests said, but she told him he had to sit and listen. She also thanked him for putting up with how hard she had been on him. At that line, a few of the advisers glanced at each other in recognition. Sounds like she has his back. Now you can disagree with their philosophy and their plans (which I do), but calling her a B word is out the box if you ask me. I disagreed with Nancy Reagan, but never called her a B word. Same with the Bush first ladies. But you Republicans tell yourself you are different... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Try not to be a bigger douche than you normally are, you know what his point was. As to the topic: Sounds like she has his back. Now you can disagree with their philosophy and their plans (which I do), but calling her a B word is out the box if you ask me. I disagreed with Nancy Reagan, but never called her a B word. Same with the Bush first ladies. But you Republicans tell yourself you are different... That was part of some good natured banter between Buftex and myself, but as usual you hop in and shoot your mouth off when you don't know what you are talking about. Now why in the world would you disagree with either of the Bush first ladies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) Sounds like she has his back. Now you can disagree with their philosophy and their plans (which I do), but calling her a B word is out the box if you ask me. I disagreed with Nancy Reagan, but never called her a B word. Same with the Bush first ladies. But you Republicans tell yourself you are different... What a laughably inconsistent response. You state that that you would never call Nancy Reagan a B word, well thats good for you, but there were many Democrats who did call her (and the Bush wives) that and even worse. You then follow it up with the same type of over generalization (You Republicans) when you should have been calling out the OP alone. Oh well, a book comes out and describes some in-fighting between Michelle and Obama's handlers and there follows the all too common diversion tactic of attacking Republicans.....................predictable. . Edited January 8, 2012 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) Major puff piece there. They can toot her horn all they want, it's not going to change anything. Truth is she's not motivational, inspiring, or genuine. As to Booster's bit, Drawing an equivalency between Michelle and Laura Bush is an exercise in mental flexibility. Laura Bush was more of a traditional first lady. Stayed away from partisan issues, had a safe non-controversial pet issue (child literacy), and for the most part stayed out of the political fray. This is true for Barbara Bush too. I would include Nancy, but "just say no" was a bit more controversial although popular at the time. Contrast this with Democrat first ladies of recent decades and you have a highly involved Hillary pushing a highly controversial pet issue (Hillarycare), whose own political ambitions were made clear by her choice to run for the Senate and then Presidency. Not to say she doesn't have a right to pursue her own ambitions, but lets not pretend it is somehow similar to the Bush wives' roles as first lady. And Michelle tried to walk that line but its hard for her. To her credit she's done a great public transformation from the angry and bitter (one might even say militant) persona of early primary rounds, to positive friendly Michelle that hit the campaign trail in the general election. To be fair, the press was more than willing to help with that image transformation. As far as her issues, she's not been nearly as involved with politics as Hillary was, and her crusade against childhood obesity on its face is relatively non-controversial. Although the devil is in the details, and calls for the strong arm of government to forcibly impose her idealistic will on people which is more reminiscent of Nancy and Hillary than either of the Bush first ladies. Finally, and those of the Democrat persuasion choose for their own reasonas not to acknowledge this, but Michelle is much more derisive and condescending than any of the aforementioned first ladies. AND she's clearly the most blatantly hypocritical. No one who's passionate about health eats like she does, plain and simple. Further, you can't preach financial restraint and rail against excess and then trapse around the world on the government dime like you're the goddamn Queen of Sheba. I know that Michelle's lavish vacations aren't substantially affecting the national debt, but its just bad imagery and is so adverse to her and Barry's message. Edited January 8, 2012 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 That was part of some good natured banter between Buftex and myself, but as usual you hop in and shoot your mouth off when you don't know what you are talking about. Now why in the world would you disagree with either of the Bush first ladies? Give the guy a break. He was just thinking WWFLPD? as is his norm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts