Thursday, May 22, 2008
A Riddle
13 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu May 22, 10:14:00 AM:
... and which emphasizes why Michelle is 'fair game' to political 'attack' for her statements about how she feels about this great country. Clearly she's a factor in decision making with BHO.
By , at
Thu May 22, 12:17:00 PM:
Kennedy’s youth and inexperience invited aggression. This was true not only in Khrushchev’s Europe, but in Southeast Asia as well, where JFK’s inability to handle his own ambassador led to the overthrow of the Diem regime and the vast misery that ensued. Obama is indeed like Kennedy – in ways that should give us pause.
But Cassandra is unfair to cite the dog story. What type of man ever wins an argument with his wife over household issues like that?
By 
Escort81, at
Thu May 22, 12:47:00 PM:
Obama probably understands enough about the JFK administration to realize that the summit did not go well and led to the Berlin Wall and to nukes in Cuba. He is also an astute enough politician to understand that virtually all of his party, and some outside of his party, believe that negotiation is an end unto itself, not a means to an ends. He is making a political calculation that sounding like he is making a break with 29 years of no presidential level discussions with Iran will highlight the changiness of his campaign, although the spinning required to get there now has probably rendered the tactic roughly break-even, if not slightly negative.
Maybe he can send Michelle to negotiate with the mullahs. I doubt Michelle would go to Tehran and wear the required garb there, however.
Regarding the dog discussion, I can empathize with Senator Obama -- I rarely came out of a negotiation with a Princeton co-ed with a satisfactory result (and I was engaged to a classmate of Michelle's).
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu May 22, 01:06:00 PM:
"Obama probably understands enough about the JFK administration to realize that the summit did not go well and led to the Berlin Wall and to nukes in Cuba."
I doubt it. He's historically ignorant. (double entendre FTW) This guy that thinks Roosevelt and Truman's policies of peaceful diplomacy are a thing to be emulated. They are, (unconditional surrender in WWII, prop up democracies against evil invading commies, including fighting in Korea) but not in the way he seems to think they are.
I would bet all he knows about the Kennedy administration is the 'legendary' parts.
By Cassandra, at
Thu May 22, 01:19:00 PM:
You know, it doesn't bother me that he didn't "win" the argument, Pasquin. What bothered me about that episode was two things:
1. She publicly rode right over him, without any apparent awareness of how that made him look.
2. There was no consideration of his point of view - whatsoever - or respect in her tone of voice.
I sometimes win arguments with my husband too on household matters, but it's generally because he concedes (as I do where like matters are concerned with him) that this is my sphere of influence. But if I were, for some odd reason, to get into it in front of a group of Marines, I would defer to him or be more conciliatory than I might be in private. This is a simple recognition that you do not disrespect someone, and thereby diminish their apparent authority, in public if they are in a leadership position.
That is what I find so appalling.
By Cassandra, at
Thu May 22, 01:24:00 PM:
I'm sorry, but I think that a leader has got to be able, on occasion to do two things: project credible authority and be somewhat ruthless (and by that, I mean that he or she must be able to do what the position requires even when that is awkward or personally unpleasant, as it nearly often becomes when you are placed in a position of authority over others).
If you can't do those things and still manage your personal relationships, you have no business being in the Oval Office. And if he's going to be jockeying for the position of top dog with his wife in public, that scares me a bit. She needs (as a First Man would need to know too) to know that she is not the President and there are times when she should probably pipe down.
That takes a good deal of grace, and it is not easy, especially for someone with a strong personality. But it is absolutely necessary.
By , at
Thu May 22, 09:52:00 PM:
Cassandra. With these comments, you are betraying either your age or some kind of mental illness. It is safe to say, at least, there is no place for you on the left side of the bar.
If America understood its place in the world, in particular how we are perceived by others, it might not be so difficult (and necessary) to talk with some of these folks once in a while.
By , at
Thu May 22, 10:38:00 PM:
Oh please.
It was a playful discussion that has been repeated in a million households a million times: Mom and the kids want a dog and Dad resists because he *knows* he'll be the one walking it at 6 am (unless of course one has Secret Service people to walk the mutt).
Check out the tape when Mrs. Obama looks into the camera and with a smile on her face says to her kids "You're getting a dog" and then check the smile on his face too. To jump to the conclusion that she had "diminished his authority" because of a playful family exchange says more about the author's spousal relationship than it does Mrs. Obama's.
Your last name wouldn't by any chance be Stepford, would it?
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri May 23, 01:54:00 AM:
"It was a playful discussion that has been repeated in a million households a million times: Mom and the kids want a dog and Dad resists because he *knows* he'll be the one walking it at 6 am (unless of course one has Secret Service people to walk the mutt)."
Are you married? Because that is not how you handle a domestic issue. "You're doing this because I say so." That's a bunch of bullshit. Even for something as relatively simple as getting a pet. And if you're going to dictate things to your spouse, you don't do it in front of cameras.
By Cassandra, at
Fri May 23, 05:56:00 AM:
Squealer, is this how those on "the left" handle simple differences of opinion?
With these comments, you are betraying either your age or some kind of mental illness.
If you disagree with me, why not present a rebuttal to the points made in my post as to why meeting with Iran without preconditions is not appeasement? Personal insults are not an effective rebuttal, and furthermore they fail to demonstrate the much-fabled progressive open mindedness and tolerance for people who think or act differently from themselves.
But then, I always find pejorative labels so helpful in "establishing a dialog" with the other side, don't you? :)
And the same goes for Stepford. You know nothing about my spousal relationship. As a matter of fact, the reason I think this odd is that my husband and I always maintained a united front before our kids. Even when we disagreed (which we did frequently), we discussed our differences privately, then came to some understanding, then whoever conceded backed the other person in front of the kids. There was no 'winner' or 'loser', and our kids weren't able to divide us by going to Mom or Dad to undermine the other parent because the first thing either of us did was check with the other. As I stated in my first comment, my husband gave in to me rather more often than the reverse on domestic matters and he backed my decisions, contra the "Stepford" thing. Reading is fundamental.
And I've been married for nearly 30 years. It works. Very well :)
I guess I tend to agree with Dawnfire. Even said with a smile for the camera, an ultimatum is an ultimatum. It just seemed weird to me, because even if you were joking, your kids are going to hear a promise. What are you going to say later to your children? "Mommy wasn't serious when she said that on national TV? You can't really have the dog?"
I don't think so.
By , at
Fri May 23, 08:03:00 AM:
Here's the clip. You can see where she "publicly rode over him" in the 60 seconds of the clip.
Of course, you watched the segment before you blogged about it, yes?
By , at
Fri May 23, 10:21:00 AM:
With these comments, you are betraying either your age or some kind of mental illness.
:))))
Or too much time on her hands.
By Cassandra, at
Wed May 28, 09:20:00 AM:
Actually, I did watch the segment before I wrote about it.
And I just watched it again.
And having watched it again, I don't see anything different - I saw her say the same thing. Again, we may have a difference of opinion over what it all meant, but the difference between you and I is that I don't generally characterize disagreement as mental illness.
It's an interesting argument technique, but I can't say it is particularly persuasive.
