Is It Fair To Target Opponent's Spouse During Presidential Campaigns?

Topics:

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I voted "No -- completely

May 19, 2008 - 20:15 ET by tracheostomy

I voted "No -- completely inappropriate" but that was a mistake on my part. I was stuck in the 80s there for a few minutes.

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

Clearly Michelle has stepped up...

May 19, 2008 - 20:18 ET by VT Con Man

so she should be ready to answer for her statements.

Instead we get whiny drivel from the messiah about how dispicable it is to have any expectation of her.

If she were untouchable, she should have kept her mouth shut. Otherwise, she is in the fray and should be held to account.

Were the situaton reversed and Mitt's wife or McRino's wife spouted off about how hateful our country was, do you think the libs/msm would pay attention? Of course they would!!!

This one is a no

May 19, 2008 - 20:19 ET by Gary P Jackson

This one is a no brainer....YES!

If the Bush twins, who have never campaigned for dad, and Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter is fair game, that witch, Michelle Obama is most definitely "in play". 

I voted 3, 4 and 5.

May 19, 2008 - 20:22 ET by R D Helm

As candidates spouses just merely speaking at campaign events, as per 1 & 2, does not imply influences in the policy arena.

Of course it's ok. And the

May 19, 2008 - 20:26 ET by ckc1227

Of course it's ok. And the way to keep it from happening is simple: stop making ridiculous comments that make you an easy target. If you don't want to be attacked for your anti-America views, stop telling people about your anti-America views.

stop telling people about your anti-America views

May 19, 2008 - 20:35 ET by HypocriteHater

To libs, that's like telling them not to breathe. Hey....wait a minute..

Whiners

May 19, 2008 - 20:35 ET by Scrapiron

The democrats have picked the most racist, most inept, most unqualified, biggest liars in the country to run for president. Is this the Archie Bunker family in reverse? If you can't stand up to your statements it's best to not make the statements. Looks like the old saying 'never argue with anyone who enters the battle of wits, unarmed' has resurfaced. Both of the Hussein Obama's, and their followers are definetly unarmed in the brain department. America is in more danger from these fools than it has been from any foreign enemy in history.

 

Old, Retired and glad of it.

I am with you Scrap

May 19, 2008 - 21:37 ET by DEVILDOCMOM

bhoohoo can't have it both ways. michelle needs to stand up for her statements, if she cannot, she needs to be quiet. These two are very dangerous for our country as you state.

I STILL cannot believe people line up to see them and hear him/her/them speak. Those in the crowds must not be listening to the content.

I think they're fair game to

May 19, 2008 - 20:46 ET by balboa

I think they're fair game to an extent, especially if they put themselves out there.  

That's fair,

May 19, 2008 - 21:57 ET by fitzfong

That's fair, bal.

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan

Should they be political

May 19, 2008 - 21:06 ET by Cortillaen

Should they be political figures in their own rights, make statements on policy, or attack opponents of their spouses, then yes, they are fair game. Of course, some things should off limits regardless (eg. Mrs. Candidateswife attacking her husband's opponent does not justify using her having paid for college as a stripper to slime her husband). If they say nothing in the political arena and have never had involvement in politics, there's nothing relevant about them to bring up, in my opinion.  Basically, they have to pass the "Does this person impact the race?" test to be fair game, and all commentary on them should be limited to the reason(s) they pass the test.

www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.

"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi

The Wifey

May 19, 2008 - 22:30 ET by JoelCT

"Hey, you meanies can't say anything about her. After all, she's just "the little woman", the "wifey". Anything she says outside of the kitchen is just... well, you know how women are; just ignore her."

Is that what he's telling us?

How many times have the media told us about Cindy McCain's addiction to pills a couple decades ago? How many times have they mentioned McCain's mother calling Hillary a female dog? Remember their merciless attacks on Nancy Reagan?

What a bunch of filthy hypocrites.

Uhh?

May 20, 2008 - 01:40 ET by JPR1

Who would the first "gentleman" be?

Struggling with that. No one seems to fit the definition.

By all means!

May 20, 2008 - 06:02 ET by sentforth5

She wants to play, too, so..she asked for it and she got it.

Of course it is OK!!! She

May 20, 2008 - 07:31 ET by dese

Of course it is OK!!! She made the decision to speak pubicly so she should be questioned.

I can't wait until the MSM

May 20, 2008 - 07:44 ET by Bruzilla

I can't wait until the MSM turns it's guns on Cindy McCain and her criminal and questionable history.  I'll bet this forum will errupt in "HOW DARE THEY!!!" commentary, and all these calls for attacking Michelle Obama and the absolute validity of making the spouses an issue will all be forgotten.

The forum will not erupt in

May 20, 2008 - 09:37 ET by Dan The Man 2

The forum will not erupt in "how dare they" as you say.  We will look at the issues and dicern the facts and make up our minds.  Facts are one thing inuendo and slander are another.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

Sauce for Goose, Obama

May 20, 2008 - 14:04 ET by PSPCpl

It is a given that the Leftard MSM will bring Cindy McCain's issues out during the campaign.  Their handlers at the DNC will see to it that they will.  She could sit there and say absolutely nothing and they would bring it out.  The DCN is the master of airing dirty laundry, true or not (can anyone say Dan Rather).  They learned from the masters of the game, the Clintons and their Clintonista mad dog followers (picture Carville ranting and raving about the trailer park trash).

The issue here is that she has decided to enter the fray in a voacal and active manner: she is fair game.  If she wants to go out and campaign on her husband's behalf, she can and should be held responsible for what comes out of her mouth in public: it is fair game.  If in private, she better make sure it's between her and her husband, her priest, or her doctor: otherwise, it's fair game. 

 And for that matter, we are talking about electing the leader of the free world and the most powerful nation on the face of the earth.  For those of you who are married, you damn well know how much influence your wife has in your life.  For that reason alone, her views and opinions are fair game.  And again, we can thank the Clintons for allowing, nay forcing us to have to travel down that road (the first overtly toofer pair).       

There's no doubt that will

May 20, 2008 - 14:21 ET by fitzfong

There's no doubt that will happen.  When the right opportunity presents itself, the media will pounce on the old news to make it sound earth-shattering.  After all, this is the same media that tried to capitalize on a car accident Laura Bush had when she was in high school.  The dishonesty about the whole thing is that they've had the story for years, and they've been holding back reporting on it because it's not the right time for the media's political ambitions.  The media wanted John McCain...because he was one of the two weakest Republican candidates...to get the nomination, so they sat on the stories.  If the media was so concerned about truth, you'd think they would have reported those stories back during the primaries...but they're dishonest, so look for it to drop in late October.  Here's the problem for your crowd, however: while the media will have to depend on old news to try and nail Cindy McCain, Bill Clinton and/or Michelle Obama will be tarnishing their own spouses' campaigns with fresh material.  Why?  Because they're both so egotistical that they can't keep their mouths shut. 

 

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan

It all depends on the

May 20, 2008 - 09:35 ET by Dan The Man 2

It all depends on the intent and veracity/ferocity of the spouses statements.  If the spouse is merely an ornament and answering perfuctionary questions then they are off limits.  They will most likely be in teh background and not affecting policy directly (Spouses always affect policy).  If they are vocal and outspoken, stumping both with and without their spouses then yes they are political fodder.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

I don't understand the

May 20, 2008 - 10:04 ET by QueenMum

I don't understand the majority of votes for choice 1. The spouse of a candidate is not campaigning for any elected office. The spouse is speaking on behalf of the candidate, just like any other supporter. Although I personally don't wish to see Michelle Obama in the role of First Lady, she would have no governmental powers under our Constitution. I believe Laura Bush had a positive influence on Pres. Bush's campaign. But I think it a mistake to say that she was "campaigning for the role of First Lady". It's interesting that some seem to see Mrs. Obama in a different light because of her more independent nature.

P.S. I chose 2,4, and 5.

I am the exotic Queen Mum, and I approved this message.

Hillary Clinton was the

May 20, 2008 - 13:59 ET by fitzfong

Hillary Clinton was the first, certainly in the television era at least, to "run" for First Lady.  She made it clear from the outset that she intended to have a large role in the Administration when it came to policy...and she had a massive policy role in Clinton's first term.  Throughout her stint as First Lady, she remained a highly political figure, not content to simply handle her ceremonial duties.  This visibility and platform effectively launched a political career that had no business existing in the first place.  Now she's in her second term as a Senator and is still running to be President of the United States...two things she would never have been able to do if she had been a more traditional (and respectable) First Lady.  As First "Gentleman", Bill Clinton would have the same ceremonial duties as all First Ladies have had...only, like Hillary, he would be unable or unwilling to perform those duties without simultaneously possessing a large helping of unelected power.  Perhaps the fact that Michelle Obama is making all the same noises that Hillary made 16 years ago suggests that she is looking for the same access to power than Hillary had as First Lady...and will use that unelected power as an unearned springboard to future political power (and perhaps her own Presidential run).  Perhaps that's why so many people have chosen #1. 

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan

If You Can't Take the Heat...

May 20, 2008 - 10:25 ET by bradbenj5952

Mrs. Obama makes speeches, gives politically oriented interviews, appears at rallies, makes harsh, political statements about America on behalf of and in support of her husband's campaign...and she's off limits! If one is going to step into the firestorm of politics you better be prepared to take heat from time to time.

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis

I picked the 3-5 option. 

May 20, 2008 - 21:20 ET by Alabama

I picked the 3-5 option.  If Michelle Obama wasn't out making speeches and saying dumb things, then it would be wrong to target her.

BUT

Since she IS out making speeches and saying dumb things, she needs to lie in the bed she's made.