didn't like either first lady's outfit

• What did you think about Michelle Obama's dress? - sammypot
  • Reminiscent of a 1970s upholstered sofa. nm - GhostMom
  • A little too much brocade for the afternoon.. - sm
    • The color was gorgeous on Michele, liked Laura's coat too nm - Mrs. M
  • didn't like either first lady's outfit - Emily Ayn
  • Slightly retro, good color for her, very appropriate for event. nm - Confetti
    • I liked the dress but - Nan
      • The real fashion critics - daiseymae
      • OMG - dissing the dress. How superficial is THAT? - N/M
        • OMG -- talking about the dress period is superficial! - Lu
          • That is the "hollywood" liberal side. They - cant help being tacky about it.nm
        • I liked Ms Bush's outfit also - Nan
        • it is not superficial to be interested in what they wore - Emily Ayn
          • I love fashion too, but right now, more worried about - my country and O not protecting it.nm
            • Oh, you mean like 9/11 under Bush, right? - Nan
              • Let's all say it together... - okay
                • Correction...(sm) - Just the big bad
                • And what about the promise Bush gave, I think about capturing him? - Nan
              • which was planned under CLINTON - Emily Ayn
                • It didn't happen on Clinton's watch - O in Obama
                  • How 'bout something to back up your facts. - Backwards typist
                    • Uh...the DATE was 9/11/2001 - O in Obama
                      • I'm asking you to back up your facts that - Backwards typist
                  • one of the stupidest replies ive ever gotten - Emily Ayn
                    • You should know a stupid reply... - O in Obama
                      • Hey guys, who is going to the ballgame Friday nite? - anon
                        • Bring your balls and we'll all go! - You are more mature, right?
                        • Correction, I should have said - anon

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

elected position.  They basically serve as glorified housewife.  Clinton's experience comes from actual work experience with Nixon impeachment, Children's Defense Fund, and on and on and on.

I found like 9 clips of her and my stomach hurts from laughing so hard.

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2006/fruitcake-lady-p1.php

job to swap baby photos and serve tea to foreign dignitaries - not VP's.

The way I look at it, the Obamas will have more help taking care of the dog (they can be a lot of work!)  and also, IMHO, the girls are old enough now to have one and learn responsibility. 

Off topic, but if I were in White House, I would follow in Calvin Coolidge's footsteps:  He had 6 dogs, a bobcat, a goose, a donkey, a cat, 2 lion cubs, an antelope, a wallaby and a pygmy hippopotamus.

The woman was Eleanor Roosevelt. To say she was nothing to look at was an understatement. Very homely looking but what she accomplished which made me think of her when others are talking about looks. Do looks matter- what about a person's soul and heart- does that not count for anything now?

My stepmom worked in Washington during WWII. She saw Eleanor Roosevelt several times. She told me about how Mrs. Roosevelt would board a pubic bus and say hello to the people sitting there, not pretentious at all. I remember her later when she was working at the United Nations as a delegate. She became one of the greatest women of the 20th Century.  She was an humanitarian and civic leader (among other roles). She worked for the welfare of youth, black Americans, the poor, and women, at home and abroad. She persuaded her husband to create NYA which gave financial aid to students and young people. She worked closely with the NAACP. She visited the troops overseas during WWII.  She was a leader in human right efforts.  What she may have lacked in looks she certainly made up for it in her good deeds.

his own personal reasons.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php

The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.

Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."

Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.

In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"

Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.

Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.

Conversations With Bush The Candidate

Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.

The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.

I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."

Debating The Timeline For War

But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.

The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.

On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"

I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."

"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …

"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.

Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.

Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"

Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.

Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."

Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.

Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.

in AR's post that she was against it.  Instead, she acted as if the topic has no place on this board and shouldn't be discussed... like some kind of dirty little secret.

The *attack the messenger* technique has been used constantly in the last 5 years by the current administration (and his followers) when someone gets too close to the truth.  Don't believe me?  Ask Valerie Plame.

Same old.  Same old. 

But, it IS the RNC, so they are damned either way with socialists oops I mean democRATS like yourself. 

I received a call from an friend who was so upset and said Obama called Palin a pig in lipstick.  I responded, surely no, you must be mistaken.  Obama is running for office of the President of the United States.  Why would he ruin his chances of winning by calling this lady a pig.  That doesn't sound like rational behavior for a presidential candidate.  However, to my surprise I opened several different news sources (both liberal and conservative) and sure enough he did.  I'm thinking why, why in the world would you fall down that path of being so low that you would call Palin a pig saying "you can put lipstick on a pig and it will still be a pig".  If he was trying to make a joke in reference to her joke about the difference between a soccer mom and a pit bull is lipstick, this joke could not have come at a worse time for him.  How in the world is he going to explain that one.

Shame shame Barack Obama.  This has to be one of the lowest comments anyone can make about another candidate. - Not funny!  Why would you go and ruin any chance you had that people may have thought you had a little bit of "class" to you.

I haven't watched MSNBC but am curious as to how they are going to respond.  How can they support someone when this is his opinion of other people.

Talk about low class.  One more reason I will not be voting democrat this election.