Children of politicians and their many uses

Message

gsabc · #1 Post by **gsabc** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:07 am

http://tinyurl.com/5htjss

Bob Juch · #2 Post by **Bob Juch** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:11 am

That's a long version of what I said.

BackInTex · #3 Post by **BackInTex** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:28 pm

Bob Juch wrote:That's a long version of what I said.

If that is what you said, you are one confused person. But I already suspected that.

Being 'out of bounds' for 'investigative journalism' does not by default mean they must be persona non grata for the campaign.

Every politician has the right, and perhaps duty, to be seen with their family. That doesn't mean a major news paper gets to dig dirt up on the non-candidate and put it on the front page.

The difference being obvious to those with common sense:

A politician with his/her family is about the politician.
Front page dirt about the family member is not about the politician.

Bob Juch · #4 Post by **Bob Juch** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:50 pm

Palin's interaction with her family helps to define what sort of person she is. That makes her family fair game.

If she doesn't want her family to be in the public eye, she shouldn't put them there.

BackInTex · #5 Post by **BackInTex** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:53 pm

Bob Juch wrote:Palin's interaction with her family helps to define what sort of person she is. That makes her family fair game..

No it does not

Bob Juch wrote: If she doesn't want her family to be in the public eye, she shouldn't put them there.

There is a difference between being in the public eye and getting a lower GI by the press.

Ebeneezer Beast · #6 Post by **Ebeneezer Beast** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:56 pm

I can think of a number of uses for children. Sweeping chimneys, mining coal, digging ditches, firing boilers......

silverscreenselect · #7 Post by **silverscreenselect** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 1:01 pm

Bob Juch wrote:Palin's interaction with her family helps to define what sort of person she is. That makes her family fair game.

If she doesn't want her family to be in the public eye, she shouldn't put them there.

Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter doesn't have her partner on stage with the family. That's fair game.

Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter does have her "baby daddy" on stage with the family. That's fair game.

Presumably, Sarah Palin putting her entire family but the pregnant daughter up on stage would also be fair game.

Appa23 · #8 Post by **Appa23** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 1:07 pm

Bob Juch wrote:Palin's interaction with her family helps to define what sort of person she is. That makes her family fair game.

If she doesn't want her family to be in the public eye, she shouldn't put them there.

O.K. So, you would be in full support of reporters following Obama's two kids at school? How did Malia (?) do on that test? Would she has gotten better than a C if her dad and mom spent more time with her?

What if she is caught cheating? Hits another student? What if she <gasp> uses the Lord's name in vain? (Clearly, she did not learn anything at Trinity's Sunday School.) Should such actions be the subject of newspaper exposes and checkout magazines?

I mean, clearly, Barack and Michelle Obama asked for their kids to be the subjects of national scrutiny when they choreographed that exchange at the end of Michelle Obama's speech.

BTW, all I heard last week is how Obama's kids are the cutest things.

Well, those cutaways of Piper holding Trig were iconic cuteness and undeniable family love. Try and disagree!

Appa23 · #9 Post by **Appa23** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 1:12 pm

Bob Juch wrote:Palin's interaction with her family helps to define what sort of person she is. That makes her family fair game.

BTW, if I was an Obama supporter, I would not want voters defining Palin (or my candidate) based on how the family interacts.

silvercamaro · #10 Post by **silvercamaro** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 1:20 pm

I see an enormous contrast between the treatment of Palin's children and the last child under the age of 18 to live in the White House, Chelsea Clinton. Everything about Chelsea was off limits. Nobody questioned why a 16- or 17-year-old girl had to hold her mommy's hand in public. No one questioned whether Chelsea had a teen-age sex life. Of course, no one even so much as said aloud that the poor kid was so homely that any such liaisons seemed highly improbable.

The Bush girls were over 18. When they got in trouble, it was widely reported, as was fair.

Biden's kids also have been in trouble, including at least one DUI. That evidently has not been widely reported. I'm not holding my breath for the day that might happen.

JBillyGirl · #11 Post by **JBillyGirl** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:21 pm

I don't think that a politician having their children stand with them in public should be an automatic invitation to open season on those children. There are a lot of misdeeds Palin's children could have done that would be complete non-issues to me, as is her husband's DUI of 22 years ago. You can't hold all a child's screw-ups against his or her parents.

That said... while the Democratic Party and Obama campaign should not make hay out of Bristol's pregnancy, I think it IS a relevant topic (to some degree) for the rest of us for two reasons: (1) her mother wants to foist "abstinence-only" education on public schools when it is painfully clear it may not have worked so well in her own family's case; and (2) her mother has publicly touted her daughter's "choice" to keep the baby, but she is determined to take away just such a choice from other women and girls who may be in far more dire straits.

And Judy, I love you, but your digs at Chelsea Clinton are way off base. I know you're better than that.

earendel · #12 Post by **earendel** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:27 pm

Appa23 wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:Palin's interaction with her family helps to define what sort of person she is. That makes her family fair game.

If she doesn't want her family to be in the public eye, she shouldn't put them there.
O.K. So, you would be in full support of reporters following Obama's two kids at school? How did Malia (?) do on that test? Would she has gotten better than a C if her dad and mom spent more time with her?

What if she is caught cheating? Hits another student? What if she <gasp> uses the Lord's name in vain? (Clearly, she did not learn anything at Trinity's Sunday School.) Should such actions be the subject of newspaper exposes and checkout magazines?

I mean, clearly, Barack and Michelle Obama asked for their kids to be the subjects of national scrutiny when they choreographed that exchange at the end of Michelle Obama's speech.

BTW, all I heard last week is how Obama's kids are the cutest things.

Well, those cutaways of Piper holding Trig were iconic cuteness and undeniable family love. Try and disagree!

FWIW I heard someone in our office comment that if Palin hadn't been a "working mother" her daughter wouldn't have gotten pregnant. I should add that the person who said this is a very conservative person and is opposed to Palin precisely because she violates what he believes to be the literal teachings of the Bible regarding "women in authority". He thinks that she has no business claiming to believe the Bible is literally true if she isn't staying at home.

silvercamaro · #13 Post by **silvercamaro** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:42 pm

JBillyGirl wrote:
And Judy, I love you, but your digs at Chelsea Clinton are way off base.

JBG, you are undoubtedly correct, and I am happy that Chelsea seems to have grown into a charming and accomplished young woman. The fact that you thought I was unfair, however, might underscore how unfair the treatment of the Palin children seems to many people in 2008.

Weyoun · #14 Post by **Weyoun** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:42 pm

Bob Juch wrote:Palin's interaction with her family helps to define what sort of person she is. That makes her family fair game.

If she doesn't want her family to be in the public eye, she shouldn't put them there.

I'd submit that anyone who attacks the child of a politician is incredibly creepy.

earendel · #15 Post by **earendel** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:44 pm

Weyoun wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:Palin's interaction with her family helps to define what sort of person she is. That makes her family fair game.

If she doesn't want her family to be in the public eye, she shouldn't put them there.
I'd submit that anyone who attacks the child of a politician is incredibly creepy.

I'd second that thought - and let's not forget that Rush Limbaugh referred to Chelsea Clinton as "the White House dog" on his short-lived TV show.

Weyoun · #16 Post by **Weyoun** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:44 pm

JBillyGirl wrote:I don't think that a politician having their children stand with them in public should be an automatic invitation to open season on those children. There are a lot of misdeeds Palin's children could have done that would be complete non-issues to me, as is her husband's DUI of 22 years ago. You can't hold all a child's screw-ups against his or her parents.

That said... while the Democratic Party and Obama campaign should not make hay out of Bristol's pregnancy, I think it IS a relevant topic (to some degree) for the rest of us for two reasons: (1) her mother wants to foist "abstinence-only" education on public schools when it is painfully clear it may not have worked so well in her own family's case; and (2) her mother has publicly touted her daughter's "choice" to keep the baby, but she is determined to take away just such a choice from other women and girls who may be in far more dire straits.

And Judy, I love you, but your digs at Chelsea Clinton are way off base. I know you're better than that.

The vice president (or president, really) has little to do with what is taught in public schools. The "abstinence only" ploy is just a roundabout way of getting back to the gossip that people love to get off to.

Weyoun · #17 Post by **Weyoun** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:45 pm

earendel wrote:
Weyoun wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:Palin's interaction with her family helps to define what sort of person she is. That makes her family fair game.

If she doesn't want her family to be in the public eye, she shouldn't put them there.
I'd submit that anyone who attacks the child of a politician is incredibly creepy.
I'd second that thought - and let's not forget that Rush Limbaugh referred to Chelsea Clinton as "the White House dog" on his short-lived TV show.

And that was tasteless, too, and it rightfully backfired on him.

JBillyGirl · #18 Post by **JBillyGirl** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Weyoun wrote:I'd submit that anyone who attacks the child of a politician is incredibly creepy.

Would that include John McCain, who once joked that Chelsea Clinton was so ugly because Janet Reno was her father?

Al Gore · #19 Post by **Al Gore** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 3:05 pm

JBillyGirl wrote:
Weyoun wrote:I'd submit that anyone who attacks the child of a politician is incredibly creepy.
Would that include John McCain, who once joked that Chelsea Clinton was so ugly because Janet Reno was her father?

Yeah, but Janet kicked his ass for that comment.

BackInTex · #20 Post by **BackInTex** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:05 pm

JBillyGirl wrote:IAnd Judy, I love you, but your digs at Chelsea Clinton are way off base. I know you're better than that.

I HAVE heard certain commentators/comedians make comments about Chelsea's looks. It saddened me that they would stoop so low. Actually any comments about anybody's natural looks saddens me. Even Camilla Bowles didn't deserve that.

Now Michael Jackson and Burt Reynolds are fair game.

And I actually think Chelsea is kinda cute, in a Julianna Margulies kind of way.

SportsFan68 · #21 Post by **SportsFan68** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:28 pm

Chelsea looks great now. Back in her White House days, not so much.

She musta got one of those makeovers that they're always doing in magazines. Sometimes I like the "before" photos better, but not this time. I especially like the straight hair and new color.

Catfish · #22 Post by **Catfish** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:50 pm

During the DNC, my son asked, "Who's that hot chick?" I looked up and realized that, yikes, he meant Chelsea. Talk about turning into a swan. Wow!

mrkelley23 · #23 Post by **mrkelley23** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:51 pm

BackInTex wrote:
JBillyGirl wrote:IAnd Judy, I love you, but your digs at Chelsea Clinton are way off base. I know you're better than that.
I HAVE heard certain commentators/comedians make comments about Chelsea's looks. It saddened me that they would stoop so low. Actually any comments about anybody's natural looks saddens me. Even Camilla Bowles didn't deserve that.

Now Michael Jackson and Burt Reynolds are fair game.

And I actually think Chelsea is kinda cute, in a Julianna Margulies kind of way.

I don't keep the extensive records that lb does, but I distinctly remember some comments about HRC's rather generous hippage. Couldn't have been you, though, could it?

mrkelley23 · #24 Post by **mrkelley23** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:53 pm

SportsFan68 wrote:Chelsea looks great now. Back in her White House days, not so much.

She musta got one of those makeovers that they're always doing in magazines. Sometimes I like the "before" photos better, but not this time. I especially like the straight hair and new color.

She got more than that, at least according to some sources that ought to know, published a few years ago.

SportsFan68 · #25 Post by **SportsFan68** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:59 pm

mrkelley23 wrote:
SportsFan68 wrote:Chelsea looks great now. Back in her White House days, not so much.

She musta got one of those makeovers that they're always doing in magazines. Sometimes I like the "before" photos better, but not this time. I especially like the straight hair and new color.
She got more than that, at least according to some sources that ought to know, published a few years ago.

If that means plastic surgery, I can't dispute it based on the results, which are a dramatic improvement.