Matthews: "Do Americans want to return to the Hillary model of first lady, or do they like the Laura Bush model?"
On the June 17 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, host Chris Matthews, leading off the discussion topic "What are Americans looking for in their next first lady?" asked "The Matthews Meter" -- composed of 12 of his regular panelists, including June 17 panelists BBC Washington correspondent Katty Kay, Newsweek chief political correspondent Howard Fineman, and MSNBC host Tucker Carlson -- "Do Americans want to return to the Hillary model of first lady, or do they like the Laura Bush model?" All 12 panelists responded that Americans want "the Laura Bush model."
Guest Michele Norris, host of NPR's All Things Considered and the only panelist on the June 17 show who is not a participant in "The Matthews Meter," said that she did not think the question was "reflective of what you actually see on the campaign trail this year." Norris continued, "what you see are people who, who actually reflect the way many women live. They're juggling careers and kids and you see a very different kind of spouse on the road."
Unlike Kay and Carlson, Fineman identified himself as "a voter in The Matthews Meter" and added that the choice between Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush "was the only choice we were given." He then said that Michelle Obama, wife of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), "has a chance to be something different because I think she's more comfortable in her skin" than Hillary Clinton. He continued: "Michelle Obama is a younger woman, more confident, more settled as a professional person and wife." Michelle Obama, who was born in January 1964, is 43, only one year younger than Hillary Clinton, born in October 1947, was in 1991, the year before Bill Clinton was elected president.
Carlson claimed that Michelle Obama's comments that her husband forgets to put away the butter or pick up his socks were "emasculating." He added, "[A]gain and again, she belittles her husband."
Kay stated that "Laura Bush is incredibly popular, even though her husband is unpopular. Hillary Clinton was not very popular, even when Bill Clinton had good approval ratings." Kay speculated that this was because Clinton was perceived as "too hungry for power, that she was too ambitious." In fact, though Laura Bush's favorability ratings as first lady are higher than those of Hillary Clinton when she was first lady, Hillary Clinton was still viewed favorably by a majority of the American public most of the time. (In 20 of 28 USA Today/Gallup polls conducted between 1994 and 2000, Hillary Clinton received a favorability rating of 50 percent or higher. In 23 of 28 polls, her favorability rating exceeded her unfavorability rating. She received a favorability rating of 60 percent or higher in seven of the 28 polls.)
From the June 17 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show:
MATTHEWS: We put it to "The Matthews Meter," twelve of our regular panelists: "Do Americans want to return to the Hillary model of first lady, or do they like the Laura Bush model?" This amazed me. By a unanimous vote, the meter says voters prefer the Laura Bush model.
KAY: Laura Bush is incredibly popular, even though her husband is very unpopular. Hillary Clinton was not very popular, even when Bill Clinton had good approval ratings. People --
MATTHEWS: But why was she unpopular? Because she was too far to the left? --
KAY: It's not -- OK, first of all, it's not a very easy position, being first lady, or even running to be first lady, and many have been criticized for different aspects. But with Hillary Clinton, there was a feeling that she was too eager for power, that she was too ambitious, that she was trying to promote herself as being president, almost, when she hadn't been elected. They felt uncomfortable. That clip that we showed earlier in the program about how she wasn't going to stay home and bake cookies and have teas, that alienates a lot of people, and you're not going to hear her say it this time around, I'm absolutely sure of that.
MATTHEWS: Michelle -- Michelle Obama is a lawyer, she's an Ivy League grad. She's got, what, a degree from Yale Law, or Harvard or whatever, and she says she's going to continue her practice, continue to take care of her kids. Isn't she more the Hillary model?
NORRIS: I think -- I don't know that she's more the Hillary model. She's a lawyer, so they have similarities there. I think the question that was posed to The Matthews Meter -- no disrespect to those who participated in that, though -- was --
MATTHEWS: Unanimous vote.
NORRIS: Well -- but I don't think it -- it reflect -- it is reflective of what you actually see on the campaign trail this year. What you see --
MATTHEWS: Oh, good.
NORRIS: -- is a very different --
MATTHEWS: So they're wrong.
NORRIS: -- and what you see are people who, who actually reflect the way many women live. They're juggling careers and kids and you see a very different kind of spouse on the road.
KAY: It's interesting that Michelle Obama has decided to say, "I'm going to step back from my career," that she's actually taken on more of a domestic image. Talking about things like having to unblock the toilets, for example, how her husband doesn't put the butter away. She's almost deliberately promoting a much more middle-class -- the kinds of things I think women can relate to.
FINEMAN: Please.
CARLSON: Well, let me just say, I think when she says he doesn't put his clothes away and he leaves the crumbs around, he's a pig, she is following a sitcom schtick. Tried and true. My husband, the fool. My sort of slightly out-of-it, dorky husband. I think it's emasculating, actually. I think she comes -- wait, hold on, let me --
[crosstalk]
CARLSON: Listen to me, I knew that would make you mad. But listen to what she says. She -- again and again, she belittles her husband. "My husband, he's not the savior you think he is." Bill Clinton, by contrast -- Bill Clinton never said a bad thing about his wife.
MATTHEWS: Howard, last word coming up here.
FINEMAN: As a voter in The Matthews Meter --
MATTHEWS: Yes, as one of those who voted we prefer Laura.
FINEMAN: -- that was the only choice we were given. Michelle Obama has a chance to be something different because I think she's more comfortable in her skin.
MATTHEWS: OK.
FINEMAN: Hillary, as first lady, was jumping out of her skin, saying, "I want the power" -- of course, now she's running. Michelle Obama is a younger woman, more confident, more settled as a professional person and wife.
MATTHEWS: Listening to you, Michele, I hear you say, people may want the more traditional, yesterday kind of wife, but they're not going to get that choice, because the women who are running for first lady are modern.
NORRIS: Most of them, but not all of them, not all of them. I mean, there -- you have a full spectrum here. You also have women who left their careers. You have Ann Romney, who is, I would say, probably more demure than Michelle Obama. But Michelle Obama is not talking about, when she steps out on the plank, and she's, you know, a bit sassy, it's not necessarily in terms of policies --
[crosstalk]
MATTHEWS: OK, this will go on, we'll bring this up again later.
KAY: What they don't like is when they listen to Judith Nathan saying, "I'm going to be in on Cabinet meetings." I don't think anyone in the country is saying, "Oh yeah, that's going to make me vote for [Rudy] Giuliani."
MATTHEWS: I'll be right back with scoops and predictions.
Is Matthews actually aware that there's a possibility of having a 'First Gentleman' and that comparing Laura Bush to Hilary Clinton is disingenuous at this time?
Setting aside this minor detail in Tweety's Hillary-hating idiocy, let us ask who would be better suited for First Spouse.
Would you rather the POTUS be married to a Rhodes Scholar, popular and widely admired throughout the world or, well... Duhhbya?
For Mathews, if it supports the ideology, its viable. Being disingenuous is not a concern of his. Given his history, a minor sin.
No, there's no possibility of that. Get a grip on reality!
Why ask what "model" Americans are looking for in a first lady, other than it leaves Hillary as PRESIDENT out of the picture?
Why not instead ask, who do Americans prefer as their "model" for PRESIDENT? Hillary or Laura? Now, THAT would be an interesting poll, because Laura has no credentials whatsoever to indicate she has ANY qualifications for the job, whereas Hillary is running way ahead.
How about this: An issues DEBATE between Hillary and Laura? Find out who knows the most about national issues.
Matthews has lost his mind.
What has Hilary got on her "presidential" resume? Living in the white house? So has Laura. Hilary has done nothing that qualifies her to be a president. She isn't even a very good senator (I was for the war...now I'm against the war), (there were WMD's while her hubby was pres, then all of a sudden they disappeared) + (ya'll KNOW what I mean)
AP - Who did you vote for in the last 2 presidential elections?
I voted for Bush. On his watch; he's installed 2 normal thinking judges on the SC, he's seen the economy improve to levels never seen before, he's provided one of the lowest unemployment rates of all time, he's protected the US from terrorist attacks while reducing world wide terrorist attacks. All while being being perceived as one of the worst presidents of all time.
Not much on his resume, huh?
On Bush's watch, he's protected us from terrorist attacks?
Really?
The war is a dealbreaker with the American public. Even if the economy is good, and that's questionable, his legacy is in the toilet. He stole the 2000 election, ignored the warnings for 9/11, put himself in a bubble with yes-men (and women) around him, divided the country even worse than it was when he came in, started a war on cherry-picked evidence, oversaw spying on Americans, the leaking of classified CIA information, the purging of US attorneys for political purposes, and more. He's destroyed our standing in the world, our moral authority and our credibility.
By 2009, Jimmy Carter is going to look like Lincoln.
What did Bush do to steal the 2000 election? Even if you disagree with the SC decision Bush had nothing top do with putting any of those people on the bench. I don't see how you can pin it on Bush that he won.
I think the fact that Al Gore couldn't even carry his home state was one of the reasons he lost the 2000 election.
I think the fact that when all valid votes were counted Gore won Florida by ANY COUNTING STANDARDS speaks for itself
Then he shouldn't have conceded the election. But, he did, so he lost! AND the SC says the election results stand as they are. Claim illegalities all day long, but it doesn't change the FACT that Bush won the election and was approved by the supreme court. Besides, it's a better thing that Bush won. If Gore had won, then we would be in the middle of koran class right now.
You honestly think that if Gore won our country would have been taken over? Please tell me that you are exaggerating here.
Auto, you do talk really tough on these military actions. How have you served our country? Do you believe we are doing enough for those who do serve?
Never heard of Katherine Harris? The Secretary of State for Florida as Bush's campaign head in the same state? She was the one who ordered the scrubbing of the voter rolls to prevent more people from voting. Also bear in mind the Governor has some say in what goes on in the state as well. What was his last name?
The butterfly ballot alone makes the whole difference in the election. How was that even allowed to happen? Why were police blocking a polling site in a black area doing car-by-car searches?
I suppose you can believe that Harris had a valid reason for changing the scrub list criteria, although nobody knows what it was, or that the butterfly ballot was a simple oversight of election law, or police just felt like blocking voters for the hell of it. And it's just a coincidence that the two people with the most power over all of this are loyal Bushies.
The butterfly ballot was designed by a Democrat and approved by both parties prior to the election. I agree it was a poor design but it was approved.
Not just a poor design, an illegal one. It does not comply with Florida election law.
"LePore was a registered Republican, but then switched her party to Democratic because, according to her, "when I ran [for the supervisor position], I chose Democrat because the incumbent was Democrat and the county registration is predominantly Democrat." After the 2000 election, she switched her party registration to No Party Affiliation."
How any objective person approved the ballot is a mystery to me, but it certainly doesn't disprove the effort to steal the election.
Oh, and as to reducing the terrorist attacks worldwide?
Attacks quadruple in 2005, and rising again in 2006.
heh heh. Love your work, Brab.
Didn't the left-leaning supreme court confirm the election results as accurate? Meaning none of the examples I stated were refuted. And, he added opinionated examples of his own. Yeah, he did reeeeal good.
Left leaning Supreme Court???? You do realize the five justices called conservative (Thomas, Scalia, Rehnquist, O'Connor (who you might find to be leftist, but she is moderate), and Kennedy) voted for Bush and the others voted for Gore? This was not a left-leaning Court by any means. You may find O'Connor liberal, but you would be in the minority, my friend.
So there's no basis for anything I've said? There were no problems with voter rolls or ballots in Florida? No outing of Plame? No DSM? No attorny purge? No "terrorist surveillance" program?
You can blow it all off as "opinionated" all you like, but there's a strong case to be made for all of them. It's no surprise to anyone here that you refuse to accept any evidence that conflicts with your political views, of course.
Voter problems? Sure, happens in EVERY election.
Plume? Bush didn't do that, and the person responsible wasn't even gone after.
Attorney Purge? Again, every president does it.
DSM? what's that stand for?
Terrorist Surveilance? Yeah! It's called keeping the country safe! You got a problem with that?
SC? So we agree that it was left leaning.
I know you didn't address this one to me, AP, but there are a few questionable statements in your post:
1) The SC was not left-leaning, in fact, 6/9 judges at the time were appointed by Republican presidents (Souter was the surprise)
2) Regarding the attorney purge, please find an instance where as many attorneys were replaced in the middle of the President's term and not at the beginning. Every President at the beginning of his term replaces the attorneys left from the previous administration (or recently has). If every President has done what Bush has, it should be easy to find examples of attorney firings in the middle of Presidential terms, right?
3) As to the wiretapping, when FISA has been amended 5 times for Bush and you can get a warrant after the wiretap is done, he has few excuses not to comply with the law as it exists.
4) As far as Plame goes, is Bush not responsible for the actions of those he appoints?
5) Voting: Look at the felons lists that were done in Florida. Many of those people should have been allowed to vote. I am sure you have at least heard those theories and they do seem a little more extreme than those that come up in every election, do they not?
To add to what FBB said, DSM is the Downing Street Memos. We picked and twisted our evidence to support the war.
Brab,
Feel free to add/edit things to my points if you want to. Sorry if I added too much to your discussion.
Not a problem at all, you covered it quite well.
Thanks, I look forward to his counters.
1; You change the arguement to "by appointer", not whether they are left leaning by decissions made.
2; Doesn't matter WHEN, it WAS done by all presidents.
3; So, your arguement is what? That America would be safer if he followed the law as you interpret it?
4; If one of his appointees comitted murder, would Bush be responsible for it?
5; We agree, then, that there are voting irregularities during every election.
You are so disengenuous. Of course it matters WHEN. All presidents when going from one administration to another especially from Dem to Rep or Rep to Dem get resignations from everyone to put their people in. That is understandable but it is unprecedented to fire your OWN appointees for political reasons in the middle of a term. Your propaganda talking point is weak to the point of being ludicrous.
The only way to call the Renhquist court left leaning is by your ludicrous sliding scale where anyone to the left of Ivan the Terrible is a liberal. Otherwise its beyond ridiculous.
Of the 5 points listed, that's the best you can do? It may be 'unprecendented', but there is nothing illegal or wrong with it. He can fire them ANY time he wants. It's funny watching you squirm, trying to defend an undefendable position.
Maybe, just maybe one of the people he fired is the guy suing his dry cleaner for $54 million. It's quite obvious that guy thinks and acts like a liberal! You must be very proud of his actions!
So, why did he lie about the reasons he fired them? If he had not said it was for "performance issues," this whole thing would have blown over. However, he insulted them and they have proven him wrong.
The point is that Bush's program is illegal. If his way is the only way to keep us safe, as your post suggests, then Bush should have gotten the law changed. Oh, wait, he did. And he still broke it. And remember this quote:
"Surveillance of communications is another essential method of law enforcement. But for a long time, we have been working under laws written in the era of rotary telephones. Under the new law, officials may conduct court-ordered surveillance of all modern forms of communication used by terrorists."
That was after FISA was amended. Considering that 72 hours of surveillance were allowed before getting a warrant, nobody understands why breaking the law was necessary for our safety. You are welcome to explain it, if you like.
As for every election having problems, that doesn't really address an election that has a much higher amount of problems of a very suspicous nature. That's like looking at a someone shot in the back and saying "well, everyone dies eventually". You can't brush off inherent irregularities when there's sign of intent.
As for every election having problems, that doesn't really address an election that has a much higher amount of problems of a very suspicous nature.
Oh? You have proof that these irregularities are higher than other elections? You have proof these are all of the "suspicous nature"? Don't make claims you cannot back up with facts. Although, that IS the usual liberal tactic.
Who cares whether Bush's wiretap program breaks the law, I prefer safety. Would you prefer that Los Angeles be a cloud of dust but be able to say "at least the judges didn't approve the illegal wiretaps"?? This is national security we're talking about. He isn't going to wiretap your phone because you suspect he can. Only paranoids think that.
What is stopping him from tapping our phones? Why, if an attack is imminent, can Bush not get the warrant in the three days following the wiretapping?
Who cares if Bush's program breaks the law? Seriously?
So, as long as the government tells you its doing something for our national security, its ok and you won't question it?
Would you feel the same way if a Democratic President was using the same tactics or would there be a problem?
1) Please list all of the "left-leaning" decisions the Court has made. Just because they disagree with you does not mean they are left-leaning
2) You sure that it doesn't matter when? If we get a Democratic President and the attorneys are investigating Democrats or not investigating enough Republicans as the Democratic President would want, you would be ok with him firing people? Have you read about the cases those who have been fired were pursuing?
3) The Courts in this country have so far found that Bush broke the law with his wiretapping program. The Senate has amended the bill for him five times. They have worked with him on this case. As it stands now, they can listen to calls and then, as much as 72 hours later, write up a warrant. What is so bad about that? If the program stays in place, will you be ok with Hillary or Obama possibly listening to your conversations or Republican operatives conversations without a warrant? Why doesn't the President have to follow the law? Conservatives have defended this saying well if you don't have anything to hide, you don't have anything to worry about. So, why doesn't Bush come clean about this one?
4) Presidents are responsible for who they appoint. Many Republican posters here have a field day with Sandy Berger. If he did what was alleged, yes, Clinton is responsible.
5) Look, if you don't have an open mind on voting irregularities, that is your call. I have a feeling that nothing we say or show you would change your mind about Bush. He seems to be able to do no wrong in your mind.
Funny you bring up the guy suing his dry cleaner. Have you seen what Justice Bork is doing? The guy who has spoken out for tort reform and lesser damages is in a slip and fall lawsuit as the plaintiff:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/11062.html
Honestly, Auto, I will wait for you to show me examples of Republican or Democratic Presidents who have replaced U.S. attorneys in the middle of their terms.
What kind of overwhelming proof would it take for you to ever admit that Bush has done a single thing wrong?
I thought liberals are of the opinion that Iraq is in a civil war (sunni v. shiite). If you count those actions as terrorist actions then it can hardly be considered a civil war. If it's a civil war, then the numbers you refer to aren't acurate.
From the same 2006 article:
"Afghanistan had 749 strikes in 2006, a 50-percent rise from 2005 when 491 attacks were tallied, according to the report. However, it also details a surge in Africa, where 65 percent more attacks, 420 compared to 253 in 2005, were counted last year, largely due to turmoil in or near Sudan, including Darfur, and Nigeria where oil facilities and workers have been targeted."
Also, despite notions by Bush and others that progress was being made in Iraq:
"Kidnappings by terrorists soared 300 percent in Iraq over 2005. "
Do you really think all the attacks were recorded when the Taliban took over. The terrorist act counts are bogus.
Sure whenever YOUR sides propaganda is shown WRONG by the FACTS too bad for the facts. Get over it.
Leather,
The report was filed by YOUR party by Bush's appointees. If you don't think its accurate, blame them.
Honestly, I'm not sure what their definitions are, or why they changed from 2003 to 2005. But that is Bush's state department making those reports, so even they don't seem to agree with your assertion.
You made a claim. Along with your delusional baseless assertions you were flat out wrong. Admit it and move on
Don't forget the record deficits, the almost total loss of a great American city (New Orleans, when will it get rebuilt anyway?), greater division in the country than any other time in my lifetime (I am young), huge increases in oil prices, the politicalization of a formerly neutral organization (Department of Justice), expanding the government to a record size, illegal wiretapping, starting a War in Iraq and not providing the armor/equipment, no bid contracts to companies like Halliburton which have overcharged the American people by millions, Jack Abramoff, the outing of a CIA agent, not funding NCLB, the paid reporters, torture, Abu Gharib, the Plame leak, anthrax, Walter Reed, Dusty Foggo, the Military Commissions Act, secret prisons, Medicare Part D, Douglas Feith, not testifying under oath for the 9/11 commission, not implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, reducing pollution standards, Mike Brown and FEMA, signing statements, the briefing about Bin Ladin, saying he "doesn't think about Bin Ladin" (unless he needs a boost at the polls), Clear Skies Act, Missle Defense Shield that does not work, Jeff Gannon, Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch, not allowing photographs of flag-draped coffins, Enron connections, Patriot Act provision allowing for attorneys to be appointed without vote, politicalization of the GSA, Paul WOlfowitz appt to World Bank, Tomlinson and Public Broadcasting, 500,000 lost emails, secret energy task force, oil execs not under oath, Jose Padilla not getting a trial, Monica Goodling, voting irregularities, Randall Tobias, Dick Cheney's 9/11-Iraq connection lies, should I go on? For a better list go to:
http://www.netrootsmass.net/Hugh/Bush_list.html
Did you give Clinton the same credit after the 1993 WTC bombing?
Most of your assertions were just subjective judgments. I think the two judges he put up were rightwing hacks. The economy is GREAT IF you own an oil company but the median income is barely above what it was in 2000. However you DID make one claim that was an objective measurable historical FACT and of course as usual you were WRONG. Do you EVER know what you are talking about Bush has NOT decreased worldwide terrorist attacks they have INCREASED DRAMATICALLY
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18399660/
WASHINGTON - Terrorist attacks worldwide shot up 25 percent last year, particularly in Iraq
In its annual global survey of terrorism to be released Monday, the State Department says about 14,000 attacks took place in 2006, mainly in Iraq and Afghanistan. These strikes claimed more than 20,000 lives — two-thirds in Iraq. That is 3,000 more attacks than in 2005 and 5,800 more deaths.
Not much on his resume at all:
Posted a national debt higher than any in history.
1000 + insurgent attacks per week in Iraq alone.
Decreased welfare roles by changing the definition of "poor" so fewer people met it.
Watched while a major defense contractor (Halliburton) moved their corporate headquarters to Dubai (Making them a middle eastern company for US tax purposes).
Allowed Defense contractors to move major manufacturing overseas so we can't build a weapons system without using Chinese components (specifically: ICs in our jets)
I could go on but that's quite a resume, I should say.
Booker
AUTOPSYCHIC:
Your claim: "(Bush has) protected the US from terrorist attacks while reducing world wide terrorist attacks."
THE FACTS: "The number of terrorist attacks worldwide increased nearly FOURFOLD in 2005 to 11,111 according to statistics released by U.S. counterterrorism officials yesterday."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/28/AR2006042802181_pf.html
How much more WRONG can a poster BE????
Hey, tex...how many of those happened in the US?
"he's protected the US from terrorist attacks while reducing world wide terrorist attacks" ------AutoPsychic
You were the one who brought it up or were you just making baseless assertions without the facts to back it up like you accuse liberals of doing?
AUTOPSYCHIC:
I would fill you in on Hillary's resume, but why bother? So many books, so much news coverage of every aspect of her life, and you see nothing of a professional, legislatively capable nature.
That's fine. Continue to believe she is as unfit for office as Laura is, and then when she wins, you can begin your eight-years-in-duration St. Vidas Dance punctuated with hysteria and hissy fits. It will be fun to watch.
I would fill you in on Hillary's resume, but why bother?
Amen to that brother! WHY BOTHER! She won't win and isn't worth the effort to support. Thank you for saying that so eloquently. Looks like the dems will have the problem the republicans had a few years ago. Perot took a bunch of votes away from Bush allowing Clinton to win with 30% voting for him. Is that the lowest vote it took to win a presidency? Nobody wanted Mr Clinton, nobody wants Mrs Clinton! So, now you'll see a split vote between hilary and Obama allowing the weakest of republicans to win the election.
And Nader took a bunch of votes from Gore, especially in Iowa. Clinton won elections by far more decesive margins than Bush (Yes, Bush got more votes, but the percentage differences between Clinton and Dole and Clinton and Bush I were far wider).
Who is your man for 2008, Auto?
Semantics.
Interesting.....so if Senator Clinton becomes first woman president, that makes her husband the First Gentleman.
How does this fit into the "Mathew's Meter" Would he ( President Clinton) be more like a Hillary first lady, or a Laura Bush first lady? What exactly is Mathew's point to this nonsense?
Is the "First Lady-Mathew's Meter" poll...just another oportunity to compare Senator Clinton to Laura Bush? They bring up Judith Nathan, and Michelle Obama, yet it seems the only reason to mention the Hillary-Laura poll, is to be able to compare the two first ladies. Since Senator Clinton is running for president, is Mathew's real point, that she would be a president who was less popular as First Lady, than Laura Bush is now as First Lady?
SI_W.....you beat me to the First Gentleman line! I need to type faster I guess! :-)
Will someone please explain to me why Republican's are so obviousely insecure concerning intelligent women with strong beliefs?
I'm not a huge fan of Hillary, but I don't believe she's evil as professed by Limbaugh, Hannity, and Savage. They must they hate her because she's posseses a high IQ. Yet, they cozy up to Laura Bush and Condi Rice, who are dumber than a pair of socks. I know in part it is a Democrat Vs. Republican thing, but I can't think of one Republican woman (or man) who could hold a candle to Hillary in a debate.
Maybe it's just that smart women wouldn't fall for those types of men.
I don't think that either Condi Rice or Laura Bush are dumb. Just delusional. This is unfortunate but not unusual, apparently for many intelligent people.
I respectfully disagree. How smart can two women who fawn over George W. Bush possibly be?
How smart can two women who fawn over George W. Bush possibly be?
Well Rick, Hillary is certainly intelligent about many things, BUT how smart can she be to put up with a philandering husband, and continue to "fawn" over him? Just saying...
My wife [a Democrat] is disgusted with Hillary for this. You'd be surprised how many woman out there lost respect for Hillary for not kicking her hound dog to the curb for his indiscretions.
I don't get why women or anybody else would have a problem with two people working out their marriage. It is theirs after all, not anyone elses. If every cheating spouse got the boot, we would have a much higher divorce rate. People can and do work out their problems for many reasons and the reasons are nobody's elses business. I don't get that mentality, although I can see why a swift retaliation such as divorce is very satisfying for unlookers. I give them credit for staying married.
Julia,
ONE indiscretion can often be forgiven, and the marriage saved. But Bill was a serial philanderer. I believe that's the reason many woman lost some respect for Hillary.
At some point I think a spouse who puts up with that type of behavior is looked upon as weak.
Well, I don't know how many indisrections he's had. And neither do you, outside of the many made up by the scandal patron, Scaife. But why do you care why she or anyone else stays married? It's for the two people to decide. I guess divorce is convenient for many, but not everyone wants to use the option. I never lost any respect for Hillary based on her decision to stay married.
Made up?
Yeah right. Monica was the only time he strayed ::roll eyes::
Why did Hillary choose not to divorce a serial philanderer? Because she loved him? Or because Bill, warts & all was worth keeping around to further her political ambitions?
A truly strong woman [or person] would not have put up with his betrayals for political power.
BTW where I come from we call a spouse who puts up with a serial cheater...a doormat.
And we don't respect him or her for it.
Yeah, Hillary a doormat. Good luck with that narrative.
I didn't say Monica was the only time he strayed. I don't know and neither do you. And you are not the arbiter of another couples marriage. If you think it's a weakness to stay married, then that's your opinion. Some people may agree.
First off, we don't know how many affairs he has had.
Secondly, we don't know the kind of agreement the two of them might have had about who could do what and what the penalties would be. That is their personal relationship and their personal decisions to make, and it's not up to us to judge what another person or couple should or should not do. If Jeter would stick by his spouse after one affair but not more than one, that's his choice, but he has no right to enforce that choice on to another person, nor does he have the right to condemn someone who's tolerance for infidelity might be different than his!
Lastly, how much respect does he think we should have for someone like Laura Bush who allowed their children to live in a family with an alcoholic who stops drinking but fails to go into recovery and remains a dry drunk?
That's being a doormat, and that's what Laura has done. It's her choice, and as a liberal I am willing to grant her the right to stand by her man even though he was a business failure repreatedly who only got by because his father was an important guy and because he got chosen by Karl Rove when he bet that he could make any idiot Governor then President! I wouldn't make the same choice she made were I in that same position, but I am more than willing to cede her that decision-making power!
Jeter, on the other hand, knows better than Hillary if she's better off with Bill or without him, per Ann Landers old rule.
Sue,
You are a piece of work, first you rake Jeter over the coals because he is offering his opinions on the Clinton marriage, then you slam Laura Bush's decision.......typical double standard on your part.
Jeter, and the rest of us, have every right to judge these people and decide for ourselves if we will overlook or condemn their behavior with regard to electing them to the office they ask our support for. It's part of the process........if their marriage is irrelevant to you, fine. But to some it may not be.
It is their opinion, and their choice.
Jeter, sorry to bring this us but remember the line " for better or for worse". In many of my working years I have found woman like Hillary who have a cheating spouse that they truly love. For some serial cheating is the endof the line and for others it's not. For some that choose to stay redemption comes in late years. My judgement of Hillary in regards to staying with Bill have little if nothing to do with my judgement of her for voting for the war.
I for one had no problem with Bill as my President but would have nipped (literally) the serial cheating in the bud along time ago as a husband.
Pearlene,
I liked/like Bill Clinton. I thought he was a good President.
I personally wouldn't put up with a cheating spouse, and I'm quite certain my wife would "nip it in the bud" also were I to stray.
The idea that ones love wouldn't eventually die after being betrayed repeatedly seems bizarre to me. But hey, I suppose others have a tolerence for most anything...But once trust is gone in a marriage...what's left?
What? Boot Bill and have to move out of the top palace in the land? She's too smart for that. She rode him to a Senatorial seat. She's a user, too. Sociopaths in love.
Yes, I will adopt your definition of sociopath when you make a post that's not black and white. Or maybe I should say green.
Jeter, serial cheating compared to an alcoholic. You will always be either a recovering serial cheater or a recovering alcoholic until to either cheat or drink again. You have to take the person's word that they aren't doing either.
In this case, Hillary put up with Bill and Laura put up with Junior. I'd be willing to bet that there were many times that Laura wanted to leave. Stay with a man who drank and used drugs until he was 40? Yet no one asked Laura why did you put up with Juniors sh*t. Could she have stayed because she knew of the Bush dynasty? Could she have knowledge that her husband was in line to become President? Wouldn't it be fair to ask Laura the same questions that you would ask Hillary?
Pearlene,
I honestly have wondered why Laura Bush put up with Georgie back then...and even now ;-)
I sometimes believe that power and/or money or the combination of the two gives some people unending tolerance for bad behavior that we common folk would never put up with.
I couldn't agree more. It has to be power and or money cause neither (Clinton or Bush) is as good looking as Clooney( just saw Oceans 13).
JETER:
It's always fun to have a meddling, judgmental busybody in the neighborhood, like your wife, deciding which marriages should be kept together, and which should be "kicked to the curb". Some slow day, please regale us with your wife's views on the marriages on your block, which are demonstrating cause to disrespect one or the other spouse, and for what reasons. We all just eat up that type of gossip.
"That Sally. Can't cook to boil water, and that plumber is over there every other day. And she's really let herself go ... that HAIR! Can't see why Sam puts up with it!" Whoo-wee, let the gossip fly!
Tex,
None of our neighbors are running for President.
Hillary is.
Therefore, like it or not, her life...which includes her sham of a marriage is fair game for discussion. As is any candidates. Rudy's 3 marriages...bad luck? Bad choices? Or a lack of character?
If one is willing to sacrifice their personal dignity, if one is willing to accept public humiliation, if one is willing to rationalize, overlook, deny, and enable a spouse's behavior as Hillary has done for her own lust for power, what does that say about her character?
By your disparaging insulting remarks directed at my wife, you have ironically enough accomplished what you often accuse others here of doing...AND in fact have offended a block of Democratic woman voters who are college educated with careers, strong marriages & families who would not endure a spouses mental abuse simply to further their ambitions.
But I suppose all those years you've spend typing out your diatribes in your mother's basement have left you without a sense of reality. Or perhaps just senseless.
Carry on cowboy. If nothing else your posts are good for a chuckle.
JETER:
I didn't bring up your wife ... YOU did, speaking FOR her to bolster your Hillary hating.
If there was any disparagement of anyone involved in you citing your wife as a source, it falls entirely on YOU. YOU did it.
But you knew that.
Oh, and JETER;
Saying we should ONLY be concerned about personal lives if it's a candidate? It's a non-starter. Your (and your wife's) moral outrage is either consistent, or it is not. If you do not vet your plumber or electrician to see if they might be having an affair, the better to refuse to give them work, then you are simply a rank hypocrite.
And guess what? Those MILLIONS spent to uncover Clinton was getting a hummer? You won't have that advantage when digging into the personal life of your grocer or auto mechanic. This leaves you either hopelessly ignorant, or simply applying a blatant double standard.
If ONE TENTH of the time and money that was spent digging into Clinton's personal life were to be expended on Bush, or Rudy, or Romney ... God knows WHAT would be turned up. But we'll never know, will we? Because moral witchhunts are a tool of the RIGHTWING, to be used on THEIR opponents, and you couldn't care less what lies in the backgrounds of YOUR guys. Hypocrite.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with holding leaders to higher standards of conduct. It has nothing to do with being hypocritical and everything to do with placing a value on the position of leadership that the President of the United States has. It's quite simple.
Nothing wrong with considering personal conduct? To each their own, I guess, but I consider it monumentally irrelevant. I didn't disqualify Bush 43 based on his past alcoholism and all-but-admitted cocaine and marijuana use. I don't care about rumors of his marital problems with Laura (I know, tabloid crap, but still). I didn't care about stories about Bush 41 having an affair. Reagan was an aldulterer, if I remember rightly, and Nancy was pregnant when they got married. Where was the demographic that didn't vote for him because of that? But Hillary stays with a man who cheated on her, and that's supposedly a solid reason not to vote for her. Whether it's sexist or partisan, or both, the double-standard seems to be breathtaking in scope.
From what I've seen, both Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter were really nice guys, with solid characters. Does anyone judge them on that, or on job performance instead?
It's not irrelevent to me to evaluate someone's personal choices. It's just another piece of the puzzle to determine who a person is and how they may choose to run the country.
Fair enough, so what choices would be at the top of such a list? Are they more like a tiebreaker?
I would imagine that's it up to the individual what their criteria is for voting for someone. Each person has the right to make that determination on what they look for in a candidate. Some consider personal characteristics very important, while for others it would not be a factor.
I agree, Tommy. I am just looking for insight into Bruce's thought processes, that's all. By the way, great post a few weeks back on the marriage thing. I figured if I said something there it might get lost in the jumble.
Thanks for the kind words.
Infidelity is pretty high on the list because that particular indiscretion is all about betraying trust and acting selfishly. And the more recent the infidelity is the more I don't like it because we are supposed to get wiser and learn from our mistakes and the mistakes of others as we mature. If you want to mess around, stay single. If you want to run for President, be faithful to your wife. Is that really so difficult?
I agree, thanks for the response. Where would you rank marriage fidelity on the qualifications list for a President?
Forgive me if I am prying, but the fascination with the fidelity issue of our last President really intrigues me. It seems to have captivated our country far more than this war has.
I wouldn't rank it right at the top but I rank it on the list somewhere because the President is the definitive leader of the country and infidelity is a character issue. Part of being an effective leader is having good character in my view.
I agree completely.
I love when Tex gets unhinged...you can always count on a bizzaro post to follow.
My wife is a part of a demographic of voters. Democratic woman who will not be voting for Hillary. Their reasons, whether you like it or not include the loss of respect for an otherwise intelligent woman who has compromised her own self-worth by allowing herself to sacrifice her personal dignity, has accepted public humiliation, has rationalized, overlooked, denied, and enabled a spouse's abusive behavior solely to obtain political power.
I brought up my wife as an example of this demographic...YOU insulted her & the others. Sorry cowboy you ain't gonna squirm your way out of that one.
If & when my plumber, electrician, grocer or auto mechanic have the chance to serve in the Oval Office as President & Commander in Chief & as the so-called Leader of the Free World I will "vet" them more carefully. Your analogy BTW was dumb.
Tex go take a sedative & lie down
OR
Get out of your mothers basement and get some fresh air.
Why don't you go rope some cattle or something...
Don't pick on Jeter's wife, Tex. Imagine the tribulations of that poor woman, staying married to a man who has aligned himself with one of the most corrupt, arrogant and incompetent organizations imaginable.
And on top of being a Yankees fan, he's a Republican! ;0D
I can forgive Jeter being a Republican, but a Yankees fan?!
If you are trying to say Hillary is smarter than Condi you are crazy. Condi is far more accomplished academically and professionally.
Your partisanship reeks.
Yeah, Condi is personally accomplished. Too bad that hasn't translated into anything meaningful for her in her tenure with Bush. She has been spectacularly bad.
Leather, a Sec. of State with only frequent flyer miles and NO deal to her credit?
PEARL:
Don't forget, as an "accomplished" brilliant person, Condi was charged with protecting this nation as head of National Security.
She did a brilliant job, except for that little glitch on 9/11 ... which she discounted after being repeatedly WARNED, and chose to do NOTHING AT ALL. Actually, that was one of the most spectacularly bungled and incompetent "professional" moments for any person in a position of responsibility. She is not only a FAILURE, but a bloody failure.
Then, as Secretary of State in an administration which believes talking, diplomacy, compromise, and cooperation to be all SIGNS OF WEAKNESS and APPEASING? That position called for the Maytag Repairman, and again she shows she does NOTHING well.
WHAT THE HELL has Condi ever done to help the people of the United States? She's done MUCH to harm us, with her incompetence.
If by the Mrs. Bill Clinton Model CM is talking about the ability to fail at everything, then yes, I prefer the Laura Bush Model.
BTW, I'm glad MMFA is posting on the weekends.
What did Hillary fail at?
Therick.....well if Copious says it, it must be true, after all he has his own "blogspot". The article about MMFA readers not being able to think for themselves is a real gem.
I ignore this guy as the spammer he is.
My God! This guy is a certified nutjob! His blog is filled with dishonest / strawman and two-wrongs-make-a-right type arguements. It's all opinion with nothing to back up his statements. He should have saved words and wrote "Republican-GOOD, Democrat-BAD."
However, I love the way he keeps his writing simplistic to attract readers as young as eight. That's a good quality to employ when you write to the audience he's attracting.
therick , I'm beginning to think that coprophagousdescent (who would not change his screen name to compliantconsent, as I requested, to battle the irony surplus here) is a hyper-stoned lefty doing performance art, or a tech-savvy kid.
I live in a heavily GOP zombie area, and even the most obedient of the ones I know have more nuanced talking points than CD.
Not exactly that would be the BUSH model failing at everything except being an obnoxious drunk and cocaine snorting party boy. I guess Laura was successful at killing her ex boyfriend. Other than that she was WHAT? A librarian. Good gig. When Hillary bankupts half the companies Bush did get back to us
What has Laura Bush accomplished as first lady other than to avoid being in the press much...i.e. knowing her place?
She has not (as far as I know) gotten behind the wheel of a car while drunk and killed anyone else since becoming first lady. But, I did read and hear that she smokes ciggs often!
Yeah, I heard Laura's a big time smoker too. Kind of blunts the pristine image a bit.
Yeah, I heard Laura's a big time smoker too. Kind of blunts the pristine image a bit.
Oh for crying out loud big friggin deal she smokes. So does Obama. Yeah we've heard he's quit or is trying to, but big friggin deal if he hasn't.
I don't think smoking hurts Laura or Obama's *image* except to the very narrow-minded.
I personally don't care if she smokes or not. But don't be disingenuous in not acknowledging that it's the righty press that brought this subject up with Obama. Weren't you just the other day bringing up the goose/gander parameter? Please.
parameter should have been paradigm.
Weren't you just the other day bringing up the goose/gander parameter?
Yes, which you quickly dismissed if I remember correctly ;-)
I could care less if Obama smokes and have never made it an issue, nor do I care if Laura is puffing her brains out.
Personally I think Liberals have a bigger problem with the cigarette smoking habits of the common man/woman.
And don't be fooled into thinking Obama is trying to quit because of Conservatives...nope he's doing it for the Liberals. Basically, all the so-called Conservatives in the media asked was : Mmmmm we wonder if the Dems/Libs who normally look down upon smokers will give Obama a pass?
Do I think it's a nasty habit. You bet. I wouldn't care if anyone smoked if it didn't create nasty air for others to breathe. It is a selfish habit. And I dismissed your comparison because I thought it was disingenous. Cons have been browbeating liberals for decades and I didn't think your analogy was apt because of the force of the cons use of that particular bludgeoning tool for so long. Your plea for leniency for conservatives after that is peevish at best.
Disingenuous?
Why? Because I simply asked a poster to insert "SOME" in front of Conservatives so as to distinguish he didn't mean "ALL".
And I'd explained that Liberals had come down hard on me when I first posted here for writing "Liberals blah blah blah" instead of "SOME Liberals blah blah blah"
Yeah I'm disingenuous. Maybe you better look into the mirror Jayne..
Some/most liberals doesn't cut it. Because the arguments used by cons in the first place is wrong. That's the point. When cons use a false premise and apply it to liberals (some/most or all - take your pick), then it doesn't matter the count. What Harlequan was saying about cons (most/some or all) was in fact true. That's the difference. That's why I didn't think your analogy worked. Liberal has been made into a dirty word and is foisted upon anyone who doesn't agree with conservatives. When we make up stuff and slander and then call it conservative, then you have something to talk about.
So let me get this straight? You're saying that "Conservatives support Bush's War in Iraq", is a factual statement?
Well, SOME, such as myself didn't support any such action. Not in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007.
So in fact "Conservatives support Bush's War in Iraq", is a false or misleading statement.
"SOME Conservatives support Bush's War in Iraq", or perhaps "MANY Conservatives support Bush's War in Iraq", is in fact the accurate statement.
Not ALL Conservatives agree on every issue.
I'm gonna go out here on a limb and figure Liberals don't either. That's why I never make a blanket or generalized statement about Dem/Libs.
Look, thank your conservative brethern for starting with a false premise about liberals. Take the larger point. But alas I know you can't see the forest for some/most conservative trees. Sheesh. I shall now poke out my eyes.
Sheesh. I shall now poke out my eyes.
I agree that would be for the best ;-)
Just kidding of course.
Goodnight Julia.
Goodnight my good man. But C'mon! Don't you want me to poke out my eyes just a teensy, weensy bit?:)
But C'mon! Don't you want me to poke out my eyes just a teensy, weensy bit?:)
Nah, I'm not that sadistic.
Maybe if you'd just stop typing ;-)
I must say I'm a tad disappointed our discussion did not rate one of your limericks.
I'd like one. Just be nice!
Oh and btw, you used the Anne Coulter defense of smoking act. Next time, get her permission. And try telling Randi Rhodes the bit about liberals and ciggs.
Oh and btw, you used the Anne Coulter defense of smoking act.
Did I? Cool. Great minds think alike ;-)
I've never listen to Randi Rhodes [though I've heard she's pretty rude & crude]...what pray tell did she have to say on the subject of smoking?
She has not (as far as I know) gotten behind the wheel of a car while drunk and killed anyone else since becoming first lady.
Rick, Laura Bush was not drunk. She ran a Stop Sign.
Please don't spread MIS-information ;-)
He was clearly being sarcastic.
Oh really? So now you're a mind reader & interpreter of Rick's post?
Why'd he mention "Drunk" at all?
Explain the *sarcasm* here?
Oh wait--is this the old Limbaugh "hey I was only joking excuse"
I'll be willing to wait for Therick to answer for himself. I'm still guessing sarcasm. That's how I took it. You are free to take it any way you like. And I will apologize to Therick in advance if I misconstrued his intent.
Oh please, if he were being sarcastic he would have written:
*She has not (as far as I know) run any more Stop Signs and killed anyone else since becoming first lady.*
That's sarcasm.
She wasn't drunk.
Okay, dude, Don't have a coronary episode. We like you.
I don't think it was clear he was being sarcastic in his comment about Laura Bush.
There's a pretty strong conspiracy crowd out there who thinks that she was drinking and perhaps even purposefully drove her car into the car of an ex-boyfriend.
It looks like a made-up story, because all the evidence shows a simple accident caused by a distracted teen-aged driver running a stop sign at an inopportune time. There's no evidence of any nefarious motive or substance-impaired driving, but that doesn't stop some people from "joking" about it.
I think joking about that is just as offensive as joking about Chelsea being the Clinton family dog.
Let me get this straight:
Chris Matthews wants to know what "Americans" want in a First Lady...
...so he polls 12 Washington insiders?
This is, without question, the stupidest political show on TV. Nothing - even on Fox - is as insipid.
You nailed it. Mr. "Let's Play Hardball" Mathews continues his ongoing project of trivializing and otherwise undermining the political process. He embodies everything that is wrong with MSM "news." He's worse than the usual miscreants on Fox News because he professes to be a Democrat with insider knowledge of Washington politics even as he facilitates the slimiest attacks and innuendos against honest Democratic politicians.
Matthews worked for Tip O'Neill and Jimmy Carter. Before that he was in the Peace Corps. The closest I have ever heard him come to claiming party affilitation, however, is when he notes that his family was "cloth coat Republican." I get the feeling that he had his fling with liberalism when he was young and idealistic, but has returned to the family default as age and cynicism have claimed him.
He's been better on Iraq, since the beginning, than any other member of the MSM that I'm aware of, but doesn't seem to be able to make the logical leap from that to breaking free of the myth of "Republicans=National Security."
Tip retired in 1987. Carter's presidency was 30+ years ago, and Matthews was in the Peace Corps when I was in junior high school, and I'm 50. But he has said -- and so has his brother in a Washington Post interview -- that he voted for Bush in 2000. And I'm pretty sure he has talked about voting for Republicans at other levels. I don't recall if he said anything about 2004. I can only take so much of Tweety. If I watched him every night i'd probably have busted the TV by now. The occasional moments of clarity, sense and truth get drowned out by spectacularly silly crap.
at least this is a break from his republican man crushes....can't you just smell thompson's after shave lotion....check out those manly features on romney.....isn't bush hot in that flight suit....
Matthew should stick with questions more along his speed. Questions such as should he date Giuliani while Rudy is in drag? Or should Matthews fawn over the manly codpeice Bush wears.
In handling the questions such as the one above Matthews will be on par as to what his mental capablilites are.
Note: Matthew loves more than on guy and all of them are "R's".
Laura Bush always reminds me of a Stepford Wife". Not much sponteneity or straying from the script. Given her husband's love affair with the bottle, and subsequent flights from reality, she's soldiered through for the glory of the Bush name. Hillary has done no less with Bill, but I think she really digs the guy. Half of his effectiveness was her input and influence. Hillary's skills beat Laura's by miles. Chris had better get with the fact of First Husband Bill Clinton. He'll turn blue.
You said in a few sentences what I beleive but ever so much more effectively. Thanks.
I wish the comparisons about "first ladies" would cease. If they want to chew tobacco and spit all day that's fine with me. I do not like to think of all the money wasted with these endless "ceremonial" events, flying all over, cutting ribbons, etc.
I don't need a royal family in the White House. My wish for a first lady would be someone like Doctor (Mrs.) Dean.
Yes, Mary. But alas I think she is too private to be comfortable in the role. Sigh.
Matthews...' my paycheck runs out in November, remember?' 'Morris and Stephanapoluos are my heros... ' please bring something to eat... and drink- no kool-aid, please... it cleanes too fast and only the dummies are left... and reich...
Carlson claimed that Michelle Obama's comments that her husband were "emasculating." He added, "[A]gain and again, she belittles her husband."
This comes from a guy who made a career out of wearing the bow tie. Need I say more about the bow ties symbology from a Freudian perspective? Go figure.
I know I'm late to the discussion but personally I'd prefer the Molly Sims model as First Lady. ;-)
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/2006_swimsuit/models/molly_sims.htmlThe problem with corporate media is that they are relentless in pursuit of corporate and right agenda. If this is the model of free press...it is a joke. They hire idiots like whats his name (I dont remeber his name now, he use used to wear bow ties) and chris mathews, who is the king of 'kiss ass'. Night after night, the public has to listen to these stupid men. No wonder the U.S. is in a mess. Do you want to improve life in america..then fire these stupid men.
Mathew's idea of a good president is someone you can have a bear with. What a stupid man he is. He was a war hawk before it went sour. I hate to see bumbling idiots like him night after night.
Wauw, there's a Hillary and a Laura-model of first lady? And you can even compare them as to which you like more and less? First ladies have this thing about them, how do you say, they keep far away from politics, opinions and all of the action, so why ask our opinions about it? How about you ask us what model of president we prefer, coward? Scared of the answer, that's right. A raise from the decider for you!