Comments on: Did Michelle Obama take a swipe at Clinton?

By: Kay

Kay — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:28:15 +0000

CNN: Keep reporting the negative press on Obama–makes me work even harder to get people to the poles to vote for him and it's turning many of the black voters that Hillary has against her thanks to her loving husband Slick Bill and all of your blatant negative reporting. Hillary needs the African-American vote, but she's slowly losing momentum with us. As an African-American, I was undecided yet leaning towards voting for Hillary, but not anymore after CNN's and Bill's pathetic antics and to think that I used to LOVE that man. Well, he's still a hottie. Go OBAMA "08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By: Rick, Toccoa, GA

Rick, Toccoa, GA — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:59:37 +0000

Let's give all of the candidates the benefit of a doubt. It has become so ingrained in our collective psyche, right or wrong, that all candidates are controlled by mudslinging. The first part of the term candidate is the word candid. Let them be candid. Stop looking at there comments through your own world view. Accept the fact that any leader should lead first at home, before anywhere else. Nothing more. nothing less. Is the statement correct? Then accept it as correct. Even the Christ, during his farcical trial, when struck for stating the truth, ask a very good question. "If I said something wrong," Jesus replied, "testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?"

Supporters of Clinton may apply what Mrs. Obama said to her, or they should just evaluate the statement as either personal conviction, a universal fact, a public opinion, or pure rhetoric. But it need not be an accusation.

Since the country at large did not believe that family roles and personality matters were viable factors in public affairs by electing Clinton to his first term, and then by re-electing him, it is doubtful that such a focus would provide any support for Senator Obama anyway.

Why don't we just stick to the facts, and journalists focus on them, rather than adding their own paradigms to the equation?

By: Danny B. Detroit, MI

Danny B. Detroit, MI — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:30:43 +0000

I think it is a big stretch to clain that was a swipe at Hillary. However, i still disagree with the statement itself, and hope that the Obama campaign refrains from "family values" smoke screen talk.

the skills required to be a good husband and/or father are NOT AT ALL the same skills required to be a good president. We are not voting for Father of the Year, nor awarding Home Ec badges!

By: sonya, atlanta, ga

sonya, atlanta, ga — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 08:31:54 +0000

No one wants to be Hillary. Suffers the indignity of a serial cheater husband so you can grab the brash ring of power thru a Senate seat and presidental run. Hillary is Lady Macbeth on steriods.

By: george washington dc

george washington dc — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:11:02 +0000

, Isaac from Louisville KY !
but Americans in general do not separate morals from religion. They link them together saying you can’t have morals if you don’t believe in god.
obviously bush does not have a conscience, otherwise he would not be so quick to throw away American soldiers’ lives away to pad his pocket with oil money. I can say that in my life time I have NEVER seen a moral president.
. Obviously we are reading from 2 different history books because you also failed to mention the economical crunch that removing slavery had on the US. Then you have Abe Lincoln who said that “I wish there was a way to keep the union together without emancipating the slaves.” Again just the fact that Thomas Jefferson continuously drew charts and took measurements of his slaves in order to prove that Africans were merely just a step up from primates, yet he indulged his lust with Sally Hemmings, proves morally bankrupt presidents since the 3rd president, and that fact that white people still pay blacks less than they do for fellow white people only points to me that we have not come that far “morally” yes we are not being whipped with a whip, but we are being whipped in the pocket book and in our social circumstances.
once again, did I say Bill Clinton? No I think I have given enough evidence that the presidency has been morally bankrupt for quite some time. Perhaps if you read a bit of history you would find that the great presidents like Theodore Roosevelt labeled him self moral and the doctrine of manifest destiny as a moral policy, yet what was manifest destiny, if not a measure to protect the monetary assets of the US by trampling all over the human rights of the native Americans and brutally killing them and removing them to reservations which in my opinion were at the time not much better a place than concentration camps, and on top of that it was basically genocide. Millions of natives died at the hands of a moral presidency. It is certainly much, much, much more than “ he messed up but who doesn’t”
I agree with you, but those of us who are actively trying to change the world around us for the better are called unpatriotic because we don’t serve the bush agenda, so I guess it is my fault that he feels that way about those of us who work towards a better world.
Do we have another choice??? I would rather elect the lesser of 2 evils than some moral zealot.
. I am not uneducated. I have had quite an education since bush has been in office. “We need a responsible gov’t” he said, “one that will be honest and forthcoming, and who will own up to their mistakes” “the buck stops here!” I’m sorry but did I miss something here? Iraq is messed up but the buck got passed, federal prosecutors have been fired under suspicious circumstances, but he claims executive privilege to avoid subpoenas. He will not own any of his “he just messed up”s at all but he is religious so that must make him moral and if he is moral then he is a good president. There is a book you should read, it is called “What’s wrong with Kansas” perhaps it may change your mind about why people vote for a “moral president” even though he is screwing them financially, and from a social welfare standpoint. I beg to differ but these things are not just mere “he messed up” issues.
. Yet it is interesting to point out that bush has the lowest IQ of any president that has ever been.
I said it once I’ll say it again, this country was built on the backs of slaves, Native Americans and anyone who was of non-white origin. To me this means that this has been a crooked system from the start, so how a “moral” person can ever be president, is beyond my imagination. I will say that I would prefer someone who robs me blind but keeps us friends with the rest of the worldand keeps us out of a war, than that of a moral idiot like bush who robs us, and gets us hated all over the world, and has people who want to kill us in the name of a deity.
. I would only add to this , that the worst thing we can do is elect a brilliant, profoundly self-serving person who “is moral.”

By: george washington dc

george washington dc — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:05:41 +0000

Whoa whoa whoa, ! Why don't you think a little bit about what you're implying by saying "politics is not the place to look for morals". While it is certainly true we see very little morals when we look at politics, it is precisely the lack of "moral" elected officials that has been destroying our children's future for decades. I would certainly agree that we don't need to look to our elected leaders for RELIGIOUS guidance, but if we continue to elect morally deficient people to public office, we are basically complicit in their crimes against the environment, world peace, etc. You can make the argument that most people are self-serving… but I also say that most people have a conscience. It would seem that the majority of our elected officials over the past few decades are lacking in that department. How else do you explain the predictable ignoring of ENORMOUSLY important, but inconvenient issues? Believe me, government officials have LONG known about certain environmental problems, but have avoided dealing with it because they would lose their jobs and campaign funding if they stood up strong for the necessary change. Oh, and you want to talk about slavery? Just think for a minute about how things in this country would be if we had cowardly, profoundly self-serving leaders at that time who were unwilling to stand up against it? Any leader at that time knew that to stand up to slavery would probably bring them a war AND a bullet. Fortunately for us, we had leaders willing to make big sacrifices to fight such injustice. Would the leaders we elect these days do the same? I doubt it. I would argue, passionately, that a decent but average man with a conscience would be a far better leader and make far better decisions when it came to important things than a brilliant, but undeniably self-serving man. NOW, SPECIFICALLY about Bill Clinton, because I know this is really who you're trying to defend here… Please change your defense to something more along the lines of "He messed up, but who doesn't", NOT the ridiculous argument that "Ehhh, morals don't matter anyway, I only care how well he does his job". Until the American people FINALLY realize that ALL the problems we see in our country and EVERYTHING we complain about is ultimately OUR fault, NOTHING will ever improve. One of the mistakes we make is electing self-serving, cowardly pieces of garbage who have no conscience and no qualms over selfishly taking the easy way out and passing the buck (er, the debt) to future generations. The sooner we realize that the MOST important thing about a candidate is his or her character, the sooner we will start to finally fix the problems our uneducated, lazy apathy has allowed to ravage our country. Something I would like everyone to think about: IQ is merely a multiplier to one's effectiveness at doing whatever one sets out to do. If we want to continue to elect those poor in character, we'd do much better to only elect really, really stupid people. The worst thing we can do is elect brilliant, profoundly self-serving people. I would only add to this , that the worst thing we can do is elect a brilliant, profoundly self-serving person who “is moral.” I mean really, just imagine you're trusting someone to manage all of your finances. The best case scenario is of course that you find a brilliant and trustworthy individual with a conscience. The WORST case scenario is that you appoint someone with incredible brilliance, but no concern for anyone else, no conscience. You would never be able to catch this person robbing you. Undesirable, but better, would be to appoint a relatively stupid self-serving jerk. You could at least catch him or her swindling you. And last, though not ideal, it would be even better to appoint a relatively stupid, but honest, person. The sooner we realize this, the better. Posted By Isaac, Louisville, KY : August 23, 2007 12:33 pm ________________________________________

By: Ava, Woodland Hills, CA

Ava, Woodland Hills, CA — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:05:52 +0000

Michelle, You're no Hillary!
Michelle, you'll never be a Hillary.
Hillary lived in the White House
Hillary will live again in the White House.
Michelle never will.
Michelle, you're no First Lady material
Your swipes at Hillary
Place you in the fishwives class
Not in our White House.

By: Larry, Oakland, MI

Larry, Oakland, MI — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:01:00 +0000

I don't think Mrs. Obamas comments should be interpreted as a jab at Hilary Clinton. If anything, I would think she was talking about the Bush family and the two mis-behaving daughters of the incumbent President. I applaud Mrs. Obama for not letting the presidential take precendence over the needs of her family. As Americans we always talk about the importance of family but we spend more time at work that we do with our families. I like the Obama's because they present themselves as real people and not politicians.

By: John, Des Moines IA

John, Des Moines IA — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:09:11 +0000
Give me a break people. First of all, this isn't even a story and much less, why is everyone commenting on it? Just let it go and CNN and all the rest of the news media will learn that no one cares about this non-news stuff. Do some real reporting for a change and let people make their own conclusions from what is said rather than jamming it down our throats. On a side note, who cares that someone is a good family man or woman or not. Being a good family person does not make them a good leader automatically. Personally, I'd much rather have someone that was "real" rather than some poster child for "family values". Give me that real person who actually will do something about the real problems in this country, which I'm afraid to tell you are not all caused by poor family values. Get a clue people and do some research and thinking for yourselves!!!

By: Isaac, Louisville, KY

Isaac, Louisville, KY — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:05:25 +0000

To Debi in Philadelphia:

You're right on! It was by design! Anyone who read the article was SUPPOSED to think about Clinton! The CNN writers deliberately worded things in just that way to create some controversy.

We would all do better to try to look deeper than the most readily available media excrement that floats to the top. Whether or not you like Clinton, whether or not you like Obama, the fact of the matter is that the ARTICLE is divisive, while Mrs. Obama's little speech was nothing but.

I realize that we live in a country where people look for any possible way to justify their positions, legitimate or not (which is in fact why the media makes so much money; we pay them to help us justify our rationalizations), but we, AS A COUNTRY, need to wake up.

The media will shape up once we, as a country, WANT it to shape up. It is doing exactly as we want it to do currently.

The second we want unbiased, unspun truth, the second we show preference to a company that provides it to us... that is exactly when ALL the major news companies will begin providing it to us. They really are just mindless businesses. They will do whatever it takes to keep our favor and get our money.

Think about it.

By: J. Akpan

J. Akpan — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:44:31 +0000

It is not for nothing that this adage went thus,” Manners maketh a Man”. In concurrence with Mrs Obama’s assertion, a good leader must show exemplary behavior. As we all know of for those who know,” Charity begins at home and ends outside’. One cannot claim to be capable of effectively leading a country such as the united states of America if he/she cannot lead his/her family.
That Michelle Obama’s comments were an indirect attack on Mrs Clinton or any other candidate is clear evidence of the perverse way some Americans look at issues. Some will say it is the American way of analyzing issues; this is incorrect. Any reasonable person will look at issues from various perspectives before reaching any meaningful conclusion, but strangely enough, this is not always the case with most Americans.
In this vein, I must say that, the assertion that, Mrs Obama’s comments were directed to Mrs Clinton, is not just political distortion of facts; but an epitome of the lack of perception of facts by those who try to interpret her comments for what ever reason and intention (the Clinton Campaign inclusive). For it is not for nothing that this idiom goes thus,” A Dreamer always looks for a shape and figure to suit his/her ethereal essence”.
Any candidate worthy of leading this great country America, should go past the level of
Accurately reading meanings from people’s comments and responding accordingly. America once so great seems to have become an ailing nation so-much-so that, would-be
Preisdents need not be upright in as-much-as they have the money to buy the media to enhance their way up. What a shame? Americans should wake up and stop maintaining the old status quo.

By: Isaac, Louisville, KY

Isaac, Louisville, KY — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:33:25 +0000
Whoa whoa whoa, georgewashington! Why don't you think a little bit about what you're implying by saying "politics is not the place to look for morals". While it is certainly true we see very little morals when we look at politics, it is precisely the lack of "moral" elected officials that has been destroying our children's future for decades. I would certainly agree that we don't need to look to our elected leaders for RELIGIOUS guidance, but if we continue to elect morally deficient people to public office, we are basically complicit in their crimes against the environment, world peace, etc. You can make the argument that most people are self-serving... but I also say that most people have a conscience. It would seem that the majority of our elected officials over the past few decades are lacking in that department. How else do you explain the predictable ignoring of ENORMOUSLY important, but inconvenient issues? Believe me, government officials have LONG known about certain environmental problems, but have avoided dealing with it because they would lose their jobs and campaign funding if they stood up strong for the necessary change. Oh, and you want to talk about slavery? Just think for a minute about how things in this country would be if we had cowardly, profoundly self-serving leaders at that time who were unwilling to stand up against it? Any leader at that time knew that to stand up to slavery would probably bring them a war AND a bullet. Fortunately for us, we had leaders willing to make big sacrifices to fight such injustice. Would the leaders we elect these days do the same? I doubt it. I would argue, passionately, that a decent but average man with a conscience would be a far better leader and make far better decisions when it came to important things than a brilliant, but undeniably self-serving man. NOW, SPECIFICALLY about Bill Clinton, because I know this is really who you're trying to defend here... Please change your defense to something more along the lines of "He messed up, but who doesn't", NOT the ridiculous argument that "Ehhh, morals don't matter anyway, I only care how well he does his job". Until the American people FINALLY realize that ALL the problems we see in our country and EVERYTHING we complain about is ultimately OUR fault, NOTHING will ever improve. One of the mistakes we make is electing self-serving, cowardly pieces of garbage who have no conscience and no qualms over selfishly taking the easy way out and passing the buck (er, the debt) to future generations. The sooner we realize that the MOST important thing about a candidate is his or her character, the sooner we will start to finally fix the problems our uneducated, lazy apathy has allowed to ravage our country. Something I would like everyone to think about: IQ is merely a multiplier to one's effectiveness at doing whatever one sets out to do. If we want to continue to elect those poor in character, we'd do much better to only elect really, really stupid people. The worst thing we can do is elect brilliant, profoundly self-serving people. I mean really, just imagine you're trusting someone to manage all of your finances. The best case scenario is of course that you find a brilliant and trustworthy individual with a conscience. The WORST case scenario is that you appoint someone with incredible brilliance, but no concern for anyone else, no conscience. You would never be able to catch this person robbing you. Undesirable, but better, would be to appoint a relatively stupid self-serving jerk. You could at least catch him or her swindling you. And last, though not ideal, it would be even better to appoint a relatively stupid, but honest, person. The sooner we realize this, the better.

By: Jordan, Columbus OH

Jordan, Columbus OH — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:57:22 +0000
I'm a conservative, and I'm big on family values, but I'm sick of how they get tossed around like a political qualification. Yes, families are important, and yes it reflects on someone's character, but any politician can parade his family around. And whoever can suggest that Mrs. Obama's remarks were directed specifically against the Clintons, Bush, or whomever...go jump in a lake.

By: GS3, Ohio

GS3, Ohio — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:44:40 +0000

Bogus! read the context too!
And everyone else get a life
Peace

By: Daisy Flake

Daisy Flake — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:43:57 +0000

Speaking in vague terms about running a household is not a good way to lead into why are qualified to run a country. Make statements such as you have to able to run a household without stating what the definition of running a household is and relating it to running the White House sound pollyanna ish. So, if I can run a household, I can be president; cool. Who cares who she was thinking of, it is an insult (superiority issue)to everyone by trying to say you can do something better because you say so. Running a household is such a private and individualistic and cultural (i.e. America) matter. The way someone runs a household may not work for my family.

By: Mikey, Tampa, FL

Mikey, Tampa, FL — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:21:15 +0000

Isn't it amazing that almost everyone posting a reply can see through the bull of this story. We aren't as stupid as the media thinks.

By: Dan, TX

Dan, TX — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:56:47 +0000

Mrs. Obama wasn't talking about Cllinton. Unless you think that every president's wife for the past 200 years was also talking about Clinton. Do you want me to show you the writings of the past first lady's and their statements on the importance of family? She is just saying what everyone – including Clinton herself – says about family. If you think this is about Clinton, it is because you either don't suport Clinton, and you want to make a point that Obama did not OR you do support Clinton and want to make it seem as though Obama is taking the low road. Either way, all of you folks are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Grow up.

By: jz, port st lucie, fl

jz, port st lucie, fl — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:55:06 +0000

Regardless of WHO said it, There is a lot of truth to what Michelle Obama said. Maybe morals are what this country needs more of.

By: F, Florence, SC

F, Florence, SC — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:45:36 +0000

Attack? I think not. She was merely saying what many christians believe is true in any area of life. There is no need to take on the responsibility of others if you cannot mind the affairs of your own home. That would be backwords and out of order. Are we not teaching our children to set priorities and become responsible in personal matters before they take on even greater tasks?

By: Lance, Monrovia, CA

Lance, Monrovia, CA — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 04:24:09 +0000

Mrs. Obama's introduction of her husband at the Iowa State Fair is perhaps the finest and most stirring moment I've seen in the entire campaign at any time thus far. She said that's she tired of fear, tired of being afraid. She spoke truly from her heart and I'd recommend anyone to check out the video on cnn.com video.

Sen. Obama and his wife are so much above the crappy attacks and soundbites, it washes off like water.

By: ByronJ,Chicago,IL

ByronJ,Chicago,IL — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 02:39:45 +0000

Say what you want. You can try every trick in the book to smear Mr Obama, but the fact remains that he WILL WIN the nomination and ultimately win the presidency. I can't wait to see the stupid look on your face when the votes come in. You know who you are. Enough Said.

By: Debi, Philadelphia, PA

Debi, Philadelphia, PA — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:56:31 +0000

To Lee in Fredricksburg: Lee I do think for myself, I read the article and the very first thing that came to my mind was "Clinton" and I believe that was by design.

By: Albert, Newark NJ

Albert, Newark NJ — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:44:42 +0000

All this hype is just more evidence of the rampant racism that still exists in this country. Most people like to pretend that we did away with all that in the 60's and 70's. We didnt. People just choose to not see it when it stares you in the face. Senator Obama is more than qualified for the role of president but i can guarantee that america will not yet tolerate an african american in the "white" house.

By: Juanito, Washington, DC

Juanito, Washington, DC — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:00:37 +0000

Well...it's obvious that some of the commenters have decided to believe that Michelle Obama was attacking Hillary, despite evidence to the contrary.
No fair-minded person would read her ENTIRE quote and conclude that she was attacking Hillary.

Sad to see such intellectual dishonesty here.

Even worse, I watched the political panel on Lou Dobbs an hour ago, and ALL three of them were bashing Senator Obama for "Michelle attacking Hillary".

I mean...why has CNN deliberately chosen NOT to play the entire Michelle Obama quote? All CNN is showing is just a selected portion of her quote, in order to make it SEEM LIKE she was talking about Hillary.

This is beyond the pale.

This is absurd.

By: Cindy

Cindy — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:59:04 +0000
CNN, you've become a parody of yourself. You guys are to LAZY to fact-check and use ONE SENTENCE out of a speech to smear this woman. Folks, this is the FULL text of her comment: MICHELLE OBAMA: That one of the most important things that we need to know about the next President of the United States is, is he somebody that shares our values? Is he somebody that respects family? Is a good and decent person? So our view was that, if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House. So, so we've adjusted our schedules to make sure that our girls are first, so while he's traveling around, I do day trips. That means I get up in the morning, I get the girls ready, I get them off, I go and do trips, I'm home before bedtime. So the girls know that I was gone somewhere, but they don't care. They just know that I was at home to tuck them in at night, and it keeps them grounded, and, and children, the children in our country have to know that they come first. And our girls do and that's why we're doing this. We're in this race for not just our children, but all of our children. Where in that comment does she refer to Clinton? You guys seem to be on a mission to tear Obama down and anoint Hilary to the throne. This is the same way Bush got into office. BTW, folks, CNN's pollster, Vinod Gupta, is a Clinton Supporter who's donated thousands to her campaign. Google it.

By: Michael, San Francisco, CA

Michael, San Francisco, CA — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:49:34 +0000

Mrs. Obama most likely did not intend to take a swipe at Senator Clinton, however, I think she is enjoying the fall out from what was a simple line taken out of context by the quote un-quote main stream media. Please CNN, there are bigger issues at stake in this election to bother with what a Senator's wife says on a campaign stop. More importantly, who is more qualified to lead this Country? That's what we should be talking about.

By: Shander21

Shander21 — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:42:23 +0000

CNN = CLINTON NEWS NETWORK

...STILL

By: OG REMS

OG REMS — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:39:02 +0000

It is about the Clintons! Mr. Clinton lied to the USA in the public eye of his marital affairs!!! Remember the healthcare promise from Hillary, it went nowhere! How would you feel if it was your daughter, niece, sister, etc. doing the intership at the White House! When you can answer that, "nogibbons" you can justify your comment. The Clintons are a disgrace, NO CLINTONS ON THE HILL!

By: David, Salinas, CA

David, Salinas, CA — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:32:36 +0000

I haven’t posted on this story, because I don’t think politicians’ personal lives are any of my business.

I don’t think the tones of most of the comments serve our nation’s interests in these trying times.

However, on the charge of media bias, I don’t see how anyone could think CNN was being pro-Clinton by running this story. CNN is running an entertainment business, with advertising revenue based on ratings. They report the news they think their audience will want. As near as I can tell, CNN’s only bias is toward CNN.

By: Sherry, Atlanta, GA

Sherry, Atlanta, GA — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:08:10 +0000

I think Mike had a good point there, why no one is addressing the issue of Clinton saying she would not run for president but ends up going back on her words, for some reason it has been taken off...probably by the same type of people who are reading meaning into Mrs. Obama's statement on family values, which is not addressed to any of her husbands political rivals in anyway.

Sherry

By: Jackie Ellington

Jackie Ellington — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:03:53 +0000

I hope she was finally talking about the grifters. It is time the candidates quit "skirting" around the crux of this Clinton legacy run. Where is Monica's picture?

By: richard eakes, rochester, ny

richard eakes, rochester, ny — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:51:33 +0000

Well, I'm an extremely liberal, undecided voter who is no fan of Hillary Clinton. That said, I was completely disgusted with Michelle Obama's comments, that were clearly aimed at Clinton. Please people. I don't care about peccadillos, but criticizing Clinton for the sins of her husband is lower than low. Not taking responsibility for it, and spinning it into..what? What was the point again? Still waiting to hear that.

Who among us has a perfect family? None of us. Thank you. I want our politicians to run the country well, not get into this holier-than-thou garbage.

By: Jonathan, Exton PA

Jonathan, Exton PA — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 21:50:56 +0000

First of all its not slander...its libel...

Second of all, i agree that any arguments made by the obama companion that would propel family values to the top of a voter consideration should not be construed as an attack or "swipe" (whatever that means) to any of the other candidates.

It is laughable how sound bites can be turned around to behoove a non-existent story.

Jon
P.A.

By: james, Minneapolis, MN

james, Minneapolis, MN — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:51:02 +0000
That one of the most important things that we need to know about the next President of the United States is, is he somebody that shares our values? Is he somebody that respects family? Is a good and decent person? So our view was that, if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House. So, so we've adjusted our schedules to make sure that our girls are first, so while he's traveling around, I do day trips. That means I get up in the morning, I get the girls ready, I get them off, I go and do trips, I'm home before bedtime. So the girls know that I was gone somewhere, but they don't care. They just know that I was at home to tuck them in at night, and it keeps them grounded, and, and children, the children in our country have to know that they come first. And our girls do and that's why we're doing this. We're in this race for not just our children, but all of our children. These are her actual words, just keep posting them so that people will know the truth instead of the "ratings truth" CNN puts up. Looks alot like self reflection to me.

By: Andy, Redford Michigan

Andy, Redford Michigan — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:46:48 +0000

This kind of news is what I expect from Fox News......Shame on You CNN

By: Mike, Pasadena CA

Mike, Pasadena CA — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:46:28 +0000
"So our view was that, if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House. So, so we've adjusted our schedules to make sure that our girls are first, so while he's traveling around, I do day trips. That means I get up in the morning, I get the girls ready, I get them off, I go and do trips, I'm home before bedtime. So the girls know that I was gone somewhere, but they don't care." Post the ENTIRE quote in your joke of an article, CNN. This is getting absolutely ridiculous! Does CNN have no journalistic standards anymore?

By: Stefanie, Austin, Texas

Stefanie, Austin, Texas — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:45:31 +0000
Someone posted the following as Michelle Obama's original quote. I couldn't find a reference for it. If this is her actual quote then this is yet another example of the way the media disgustingly twists people's words. She's talking about not allowing a run for the presidency ruin their family. Here's the quote: "So our view was that, if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House. So, so we've adjusted our schedules to make sure that our girls are first, so while he's traveling around, I do day trips. That means I get up in the morning, I get the girls ready, I get them off, I go and do trips, I'm home before bedtime. So the girls know that I was gone somewhere, but they don't care."

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:42:43 +0000

How come nobody brings up the issue of Clinton emphatically denying, in an interview a couple of years back, that she would not run for presidency. But here she is RUNNING for president? Instead they are focussed on issues that are entirely trivial. I wonder what meaning they will read next into Obama sneezing! Utterly rediculous!

By: Steve, Hartford, CT

Steve, Hartford, CT — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:08:04 +0000
Honestly, you Clinton supporters...Obama has more years of political experience than does Hillary. She may have visited a few more dignitaries, but she has about the same level of experience in foreign policy, none. He tendencies are alarmingly similar to Bush's in terms of government openness and accountability. She acts like she's got tons more experience with the presidency, but what she's got is experience asking people for money and playing the Beltway Game. Obama's books are excellent if you would like to know more about him, and The Audacity of Hope is very good at explaining what he wants to do for America. Soundbyte stories like this from the MSM are obscuring the truth about Obama: once you know what he's really like, you'll support him. This shows itself to be true in the vast numbers of Republicans supporting him. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the nomination is the much tougher fight for Obama. If he wins the nomination, he's probably going to win in a landslide. If you watch the coverage of Obama at the local and city level, it's overwhelmingly positive. And it consistently mentions Obama's broad appeal. I have confidence in Obama's campaign strategy, and I think it will make the difference come primary time this winter. But these stories by the MSM scare me, because their bias toward Clinton is very clear. (Not reporting that she got booed more than once, and then saying she won the debate? WHAT?) If you want to watch our country topple like the Roman Empire in the coming decades, elect Hillary or a GOP candidate, and Washington will proceed with its half-assed business-as-usual semi-actions (like No Child Left Behind, and immigration reform, and Iraq proposals, and a few relatively insignificant increases to minimum wage, and nonexistent bridge repairs, and over-deregulation of big business, and health care [Anyone remember Hillary's last stab at health care reform?], and ethics reform, and welfare reform [when what we really need to do is teach the man to fish instead of giving it to him], and energy independence [Congress has basically done what the auto industry told them to do], and making Social Security solvent [it's easy, just ditch the earnings cap, but Congress won't because rich people no likey that], and supporting our veterans [a fair portion of those troops that Americans have paid millions of dollar to proclaim support for will be homeless in the future if nothing is done], and so on. I could go on, but if that doesn't get the message through to you, your name just might be Karl Rove (or Hillary Clinton).

By: Donna Joe Tanner

Donna Joe Tanner — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:28:36 +0000

Mrs. Obama was talking about the Clinton's...no doubt. Pitty, though, that this lady considers herself above Hilary R. Clinton, a woman that had to make one of the most dificult choices a female has to make...keep the cheater...A woman who is capable of forgiving her husband for such an act, is the kind of person who I want for President...one that has the guts to stand without shame, and makes her OWN decisions. Been happily married now does not reflect what will happen if Mr. Obama wins the Presidency.

By: William Jefferson, Chicago Illinios

William Jefferson, Chicago Illinios — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:21:08 +0000

Nice try at denial, she was clearly taking a shot at Hillary Rotten Clinton. Spin it how you want but these two camps are actually competing right now for the endorsement so they may take shots at eachother, if you can handle it. Weak minds people.

By: Christopher, Chicago IL

Christopher, Chicago IL — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:43:25 +0000

This is the type of hogwash journalism that I would expect from one of your rival news networks. Shame on you CNN!

By: Tim, Pikesville, Maryalnd

Tim, Pikesville, Maryalnd — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:40:32 +0000

Even though I do not support Obama because due to his lack of experience. I do not believe that his wife was taking a direct hit at Mrs. Clinton. I totally support the Clintons, because together they have done more for me than any other political figure in my lifetime (I am 40). If Barrack wants to make sure he's in the White House, maybe he should eat crow and ask Hillary if he can be her VICE President once she gets the nomination... THAT TICKET WOULD SURELY WIN! Then once he has some experience in the White House as Vice President, maybe then can run alone for the President's after two terms as Vice.

By: Ashlee Camirand, Wyomissing, PA

Ashlee Camirand, Wyomissing, PA — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:38:08 +0000

I am not sure whay anyone is making such a big deal about this. yhis is what Political paties do. The try to make their opponents look bad. This is not a new tatic it is just the way it is. And since it is so common we should just read it and move on to what is important, the issues.

Ashlee Camirand (26)
Wyomissing, PA

By: J Golden Detroit Michigan

J Golden Detroit Michigan — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:26:23 +0000

Read the entire text of the speech. Mrs. Obama was pointing out the way she runs her own household, she was promoting her family as a role model – and saying anyone who wants to be in the White House should be one as well.

This snippet was taken out of context and interpreted to push somebody's political agenda, which is to create division among Democrats, as though that will strengthen a weak Republican field.

By: VM, San Diego, CA

VM, San Diego, CA — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:05:03 +0000
The quote in context: That one of the most important things that we need to know about the next President of the United States is, is he somebody that shares our values? Is he somebody that respects family? Is a good and decent person? So our view was that, if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House. So, so we've adjusted our schedules to make sure that our girls are first, so while he's traveling around, I do day trips. That means I get up in the morning, I get the girls ready, I get them off, I go and do trips, I'm home before bedtime. So the girls know that I was gone somewhere, but they don't care. They just know that I was at home to tuck them in at night, and it keeps them grounded, and, and children, the children in our country have to know that they come first. And our girls do and that's why we're doing this. We're in this race for not just our children, but all of our children. I can't believe you haven't corrected this yet. And I'm with Juanito, it was just bizarre to hear Anderson Cooper announce they were waiting for Hillary's response. I guess you're all working for her at CNN now.

By: Jana G. Los Altos Ca

Jana G. Los Altos Ca — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:38:57 +0000

No, it was about her own family. Only the repubs would create a false argument and the world falls for it. There are people dying in Iraq and we are talking about "fake" impressions taken out of context. By the way, she is a refreshing hope that people coming onto the world stage are honest, intelligent and not prone to "bumper sticker" rhetoric.

By: RuthieM

RuthieM — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:27:03 +0000
Unblievable. Media just ought to stop this nonsense and pounce on Romney or Guiliani or McCain or Thompson or somebody for a change. They're always fighting, attacking one another, and lying yet they get away with it. Michelle Obama was speaking of her family, which was very clear. Why does everything Obama and the Obamas say have to be directed towards Hillary Clinton? Because the 'powers that be' want it that way, that's why. Clinton shouldn't flatter herself so much. Attention is not always geared towards her. And it's also past time that Obama be called front-runner. (Romney, whose national poll numbers have always been in the toilet -- what 2%, 8% high, is called front-runner.) Obama's been first in the money race both quarters of either party, leads the donor race of either party both quarters and leads in polls in some caucus states (the only place Romney leads, Iowa). Why should Hillary then constantly be called front-runner just because she leads in National polls of 340 likely Democratic primary voters surveyed, who it appears are polled every 2 days?

By: F Martini Luzerne County Pennsylvania

F Martini Luzerne County Pennsylvania — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:17:11 +0000

Hillary Clinton kept her marriage together and should be applauded for that. She did what any good Christian would have done and showed forgiveness. It is time the news media did the same. Mrs. Clinton has worked her entire life in good works the force behind her husband and it is her time now to be the leader – and she is a leader! That is obvious by the manner in which she presents herself as a Senator, a candidate and as a family person.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:14:03 +0000

Can someone from CNN please answer this message with a direct answer? why is CNN so pro Hillary Clinton? what has she ever done to deserve besides be the wife of a man who cheated? come on america