The Face Off ended in a tie.
The Face Off ended in a tie.

Cnd vs IamFry

Giuliani
Face Offs: 3
Wins: 0
Losses: 2
Ties: 1
Ottawa, ON
All Face Offs
2
Votes
Biden
Face Offs: 45
Wins: 23
Losses: 20
Ties: 2
Boston, MA
All Face Offs
2
Votes

Michelle Obama should be "fair game"


Many people have said Michelle Obama should not be considered "fair game" for political ads and should not be "attacked" during the campaign. As Senator Obama put it himself : "Lay off my wife!"
But Mr.Obama, what about all the times you complained about someting Bill Clinton did during the campaign, what about hanging on to every word he said, and then using them for political gain? I don't see any logic behind the fact that one spouse can get shots fired at them but the other is off limits. If you let your wife be one of your surrogates and you let her campaign accross the country, just like Bill let Hillary do, and Hillary let Bill do, why can't we question what she says on the campaign stump?
Everyone i think knows her little slip-up: "This is the first time in my adult life, that i'm proud of my country."
Wait, so we can't ask legitimate questions about comments like that, where she really didn't think before she talked, but you can say whatever the heck you want about the other candidates spouses?
That doesn't make much sense to me. If Michelle is projecting Obama's message and is publicly campaigning for him, why shouldn't we be able to question what she says?


First of all, give me an example of Mr. Obama complaining about something Bill did.

Secondly, there are no laws against the Republicans talking about Michelle Obama, and they certainly will. Is it "fair game"? That depends. What is the aim of attacking Michelle Obama? Is it to discredit HER or to smear Barack by extension?

I have no problem with scrutinizing her for the purpose of discrediting her opinion, but to treat her comments as though Barack himself has made them is underhanded.


Ok, here are a couple of examples:

On january 20th he said: "Bill Clinton contines to make statements that aren't supported by the facts."

One of Obama's campaign managers said: "Bill Clinton cannot seriously believe Obama is not a patriot and cannot possibly be said to be helping - instead of hurting - his own party. Bill Clinton should never be forgiven. This is a stain on his legacy, much deeper than the one on Monica's blue dress."

I don't see how he can complain that his wife's statements shouldn't be questioned and then he does the same thing against Hillary's spouse.

Now, i don't mean "attack" Michelle, but some of the statements she made should be questioned. And if people somehow tie Obama's wife to himself, then that's what happens.

The Republicans were not trying to tie those statements to Barack, but they were legitimatly asking questions about someone who publicly campaigns for a presedential candidate, and it just seems that:
#1: Obama should apoligize to the Clinton's for using Bill as political fodder before complaining like this
and
#2: If he doesn't want her criticized for comments SHE made HERSELF, then he should get her out of the limelight


Ok, your one example of Obama "complaining" about Bill Clinton is a polite response to a comment that was *directed at him*. Let's be clear, I don't have a problem with McCain responding to comments made about him by Michelle Obama!

Really, get a clue. When you look at this situation objectively, you can't with a straight face say that Obama used Bill as "fodder"! I defy you to find an "attack" on Bill Clinton by Barack Obama that wasn't said in direct RESPONSE to something initiated by Bill himself.

The Republicans weren't trying to tie those statements to Barack? Of course they were! That's what they want more than anything. They want voters to associate Michelle's controversial comments with their opponent.

That's the problem I have with Michelle being "fair game". It's not about her; it's about using underhanded political tactics to smear HIM.


Did you miss the comment about Monica and Bill? At least the Republicans weren't getting personal with Michelle.

Obama and his wife, claim to be clean, anti-attack people, when the same people who have been around them for years, or who have been with their campaign, Jeremiah wright, that idiot campaign advisor who made the comments, the guests at his former church like Michael Pfleger to note some examples, really don't seem to have any "think before you talk" sense to them.

Ok, fine, most people agree with the fact that they try to tie Michelle to Barack through these ads. But the fact is, they are not getting personal, they are not pulling things out of mid-air and thowing them on t.v. They are taking quotes and actual phrases from her and questioning them in ads, she campaigns, so it is up to her to think about what she will say before opening her mouth.

Emphasizing the fact that I only gave one example of Obama, doesn't change the fact that it was an unnessecary "complaint" about Bill Clinton, and do you not think he was using this "complaint" to show people, if you can't trust this Clinton, why trust the OTHER?


What comment about Monica and Bill? How about citing an actual comment!

You say the response to Bill's words was "unnecessary"; sure, it wasn't necessary, but why shouldn't he defend himself? He should take it lying down? Would you have Hillary take an attack lying down?

You've said nothing in your latest entry to further your argument. I have a problem with using Barack's wife's words and disseminating them in a way that suggests that they're his sentiments. I have a problem with taking Wright's words and disseminating them in a way that suggests that they're Barack's sentiments.

You haven't defined the term "fair game", but to me, that suggests "anything goes". I don't have a problem with responding to anything Michelle says, but I feel that using her words (or Wright's words, or anyone's words) in an irresponsible, underhanded way is wrong.

Such may be "business as usual" in the political world, but not all that goes on in politics is just, or should be morally acceptable.

Comments

Add Your Comment
Biden

Cnd, I have an honest question for you: Do you think Barack Obama ran the more negative campaign?

Report Offensive Comment
Brown

I think there's a big problem with people who are relatively low level making comments that are then attributed to the top. The blue dress comment you quote came from the co-chair of the Iowa campaign towards the end of March, since the Iowa caucus was in January one has to wonder exactly what contact he would have had with a primary campaign focusing at that point on other primaries. I don't defend those comments, mostly because they are a pretty idiotic thing to say, but I think it's unlikely that comments of this sort have much to do with the candidates themselves.

Report Offensive Comment
Giuliani

But you must realize, whether he was co-chair for Iowa or Alaska or Texas, he made these moronic comments, he's part of Obama's campaign, he was probably around and with Obama for a huge amount of time, and has he been fired, or penalized in anyway? No. To say this doesn't have to do with the candidates is missing the point that when you work for someone, and campaign for someone who claims to be anti-smear, and then make comments like those, and then don't get fired shows something either about the conduct of that campaign or frankly the candidate him/herself.

Report Offensive Comment
Giuliani

He made not of had a very PUBLIC negative campaign, Fry, but those little quips like "You're likeable enough." To Hillary Clinton, or calling journalists "Sweetie" or sending out flyers in Ohio spreading lies about Hillary's health care plan when she has been campaigning for, most likely, longer than he has for public health care. During debate Hillary said things like "We will have a unified party and we will have a democratic president in November." And the he says "I will do (whatever) when I am president of the United States" like his usual arrogant self, and what do people do? Hillary is breaking up the party!! Sometimes you have to look deeper than his massive ego-maniacal rallies and look at the so-called "message" he is sending.

Report Offensive Comment
Hat

Hillary has made plenty of comments about her becoming the next president, she also has been guilty of smearing Obama herself (playing to Obama's supposed ties to the Islamic faith). In short, Hillary's been plenty negative herself so defending her against it seems a bit pointless. However, it is clear that Obama's camp chooses to parade Michelle Obama across the country to try to get votes. If he uses her to advance his position, then why shouldn't the republicans strike back? Obama has no problem using his wife as a political tool Fry (sending her to places like Puerto Rico and Nevada before their primaries), so why should the republicans feel guilty about trying to turn his political tool against him? Obama is the responsible party here, if he doesn't want his wife to be attacked or used against him then he should stop using her like that and keep her off the stage. Haven't heard much about Mrs. McCain have we?

Report Offensive Comment
Donkey

I'm not sure on this one. To Fry's credit, I didn't take this argument because I agreed with Cnd's argument, but Fry's 2nd argument moved me into a neutral zone. Bring me home with your last arg, Fry!

Report Offensive Comment
Vote

This is a very complicated political issue. When a candidate's wife serves as something of a spokesperson, it is hard to divorce the wife from the candidate. That being said, commentators should isolate "attacks" on Michelle as just that. Michelle is entitled to her own voice and her own opinions. In the end, it will be hard for many voters to separate what Michelle says from what her husband says, but Fry is right in saying that the two should not be conflated. And Barack should not be penalized for having an outspoken wife. They can't all be Laura the librarian Bush. Both Fry and Cnd have made good points and this one is still too close for me to cast my vote. (I am only trying to read the well thought out debates. Some of the debates on this site are ridiculous...)

Report Offensive Comment
Hat

i guess my point is that Barack is as much to blame for the combination as anyone else (in my opinion more so). He doesn't have to send his wife out there, he does it for his own gain. how can he then complain when people use her comments as ammunition against him? you can't have your cake and eat it to. (by the way can somebody explain the logic behind that saying?)

Report Offensive Comment
Biden

When Barack said, "You're likable enough," he was being ironic, and Clinton and the audience laughed! Are you really too dense to get that?

Report Offensive Comment
Giuliani

point is, if he doesn't want anyone to question his wife's comments, if he wants people to "lay off his wife", get her out of the field, that's what if comes down to. Ya, well it wasn't necessary, and even if Hillary laughed that doens't me she liked it. God knows what the media would have said about her if she didn't follow Obama little jokes.

Report Offensive Comment
Donkey

Cnd, you realize it's impossible to vote for Giuliani now, right?

Report Offensive Comment

Post A Comment

Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


or cancel

CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES

TOP STORIES on TIME.COM

TIME PHOTO ESSAYS

Photos: The Hajj Goes High-Tech

Advances in infrastructure and security improve the experience of Islam's holiest pilgrimage

( )


Athens in Flames

A massive student protest against proposed government reforms of state universities developed into major rioting in the streets of the Greek capital following the shooting of a teenage boy by riot police.

(Louisa Gouliamaki / AFP / Getty)