Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Is Obama's Victory—or at Least... | "I Like to Be Pretty" »

Wednesday, June 18, 2008


posted by on June 18 at 13:53 PM

Obama has expressed his “deep disappointment” in John McCain for failing to denounce attacks on Obama’s wife, Michelle. In an interview with the Brody File, Obama said,

I think families are off limits. I would never consider making Cindy McCain a campaign issue, and if I saw people doing that - I would speak out against it. And the fact that I haven’t seen that from John McCain I think is a deep disappointment.”

Now, some criticism of Michelle Obama is inevitable. Unlike Stepford heiress and cookie recipe thief Cindy McCain, Michele is a strong surrogate for her husband’s campaign. On the other hand, the kind of ridiculous “angry black woman” accusations made against her by right-wing pundits in recent weeks (highly recommended: here) deserve denouncing, and if McCain wanted to take the high road, he would denounce them.

But I wonder: Where was Obama’s strict “families are off limits” stance when he was snapping at Clinton that he “didn’t know who he was running against” sometimes—her or her husband—in the South Carolina debate (after Clinton pointed out that she, not her husband, was Obama’s opponent)? Where was his “families are off limits” stance when he blasted Clinton in that same debate for “your husband[’s]” criticism of Obama’s statements on Ronald Reagan? Where was it when he implied Clinton was dipping into her wealthy husband’s assets to pay her campaign debt? And for that matter, where was it when media pundits like Chris Matthews were implying that Clinton didn’t win her Senate race on her merit, but because people felt sorry for her because her husband “messed around”?

If families are off limits, they’re off limits—whether the spouse in question is a former President or a whip-smart corporate attorney working full-time for your presidential campaign. I find it disappointing that Obama’s desire to take the high road didn’t emerge until it was his spouse under attack. Nor will I be surprised if Obama has a similar revelation about sexism, a topic he consistently declined to address when it was used to against his female opponent, once it’s turned against his wife.

RSS icon Comments


Poor, sad, defenseless Bill Clinton.

Posted by Dan Savage | June 18, 2008 2:00 PM


You don't see the difference between a former POTUS campaigning on behalf of his spouse, and a non political spouse campaigning on behalf of their spouse?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | June 18, 2008 2:04 PM

Well, unlike Cindy "Homebreaker" McCain, Michelle is classy.

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 18, 2008 2:04 PM

I had this whacky notion, when ECB posted saying she liked Obama, the race was over, Clinton had conceded, etc, that all these pointless and insubstantial jabs were going to end.

Not to say Obama is beyond reproach, but at least pick on the man for something a little more significant. The only criticisms I ever see coming from ECB are those that involve Hillary Clinton and how wronged she was by the Obama campaign.

Christ. Get over it, Erica.

Posted by Dan | June 18, 2008 2:05 PM

I had this whacky notion, when ECB posted saying she liked Obama, the race was over, Clinton had conceded, etc, that all these pointless and insubstantial jabs were going to end.

Not to say Obama is beyond reproach, but at least pick on the man for something a little more significant. The only criticisms I ever see coming from ECB are those that involve Hillary Clinton and how wronged she was by the Obama campaign.

Christ. Get over it, Erica.

Posted by Dan | June 18, 2008 2:06 PM

Obama was returning mud.

Michelle is not slinging any.

THAT is the difference

but nice try kthx

Posted by Non | June 18, 2008 2:09 PM

It isn't as if Bill didn't step up to the microphone and paint a target on himself, asking to be addressed. When Michelle Obama or Cindy McCain start making public statements about the opponent, then they should be addressed. Until that happens, they should be left out of it.

Posted by Katrina | June 18, 2008 2:10 PM

Fucking Slog comment system.

Posted by Dan | June 18, 2008 2:11 PM

I think when the family makes disparaging remarks (ala WJC) about his candidacy, he's allowed to fight back. And since Hillary brought up her husband in the SC debate, I think he has a right to respond to that.

Meanwhile, again, there's a war going on with over 4,000 dead U.S. soldiers, and anybody who claims to give a shit about the nuances of how a candidate defends his spouse is either being petty or has other fish to fry. Ask about flag pins next!

Posted by Ziggity | June 18, 2008 2:12 PM

ECB: I bet you will vote for McCain.

Get over it, really get over it. Besides your "argument" holds no water.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | June 18, 2008 2:12 PM

My dear Barnett,

I believe both Mr. Clinton and Ms. Obama should be held accountable for the substance of their comments. They are ON limits in these regard.

Where they are OFF limits is when nefarious forces (Fox, Rush, ecce, et al) attempt to hang racial code from their otherwise straightforward commentary.

Calling Ms. Obama out on her positions is completely legitimate; calling her an angry black woman because she dares speak up on the campaign trail is not.

In the end, this is not about Obama's awakening from a sexist slumber; it's about him reacting to the mean-spiritied and agenda-rich attacks that say nothing about the substance of Ms. Obama's arguments and everything about the racial baggage this country still carries.

Posted by Jubilation T. Cornball | June 18, 2008 2:13 PM

the difference is huge. bill is a former president, and when he speaks people pay attention. he used this position to trash obama on behalf of his wife (as opposed to campaigning positively for her by selling her strong points, which would be the respectable thing to do). bill took the first shots, and put obama on the defensive.

but seriously, FUCK BILL CLINTON. he's not some meek defensless victim, cowering in his spouse's shadow, he's a FUCKING FORMER PRESIDENT. and why are you, a feminist, defending one of the biggest misogynist pig slimebags known to american politics??

Posted by brandon | June 18, 2008 2:17 PM

I love it! Erica, you are misogynists wet dream. Keep doing what you are doing!

Seriously, if you can't see the difference between the former President attacking Obama and Michelle Obama just campaigning for her husband then you really need to see an eye doctor and maybe a shrink too?

Show me where Michelle attacked Hillary, Bill, Chelsea or Socks and I will shut the hell up, but until then enjoy sticking your own foot in your mouth.

Posted by Archie Bunker | June 18, 2008 2:18 PM

I am waiting for the day that FOX News steals ECB away from the Slog. "Democrat" slamming other Democrats: Check. Erroneous reporting of "facts": Check. Aggressive attacks against any opinion but her own: Check.

It's only a matter of time.

I'm exaggerating, but seriously: What are you trying to accomplish here? Are you still that bitter about Clinton not winning the vote?

Posted by Dawgson | June 18, 2008 2:19 PM

Damn it Erica, would you please stop trying to make me not like you?

Posted by monkey | June 18, 2008 2:19 PM

What 3 & 14 said. You're not just reaching, or even stretching. You're standing on a rickety chair, on your tiptoes, holding one of those grippy extendo-wands, trying to reach a vase precariously balanced on the top edge of an oversized armoir. And then a fly lands on your nose.

Posted by laterite | June 18, 2008 2:21 PM

CLINTON: Now, I just -- I just want to be clear about this. In an editorial board with the Reno newspaper, you said two different things, because I have read the transcript. You talked about Ronald Reagan being a transformative political leader. I did not mention his name.

OBAMA: Your husband did.

CLINTON: Well, I'm here. He's not. And...

OBAMA: OK. Well, I can't tell who I'm running against


Posted by elenchos | June 18, 2008 2:21 PM

I see the Obots are still running in overkill mode.

Posted by RonK, Seattle | June 18, 2008 2:22 PM

"Where was it when he implied Clinton was dipping into her wealthy husband’s assets to pay her campaign debt? And for that matter, where was it when media pundits like Chris Matthews were implying that Clinton didn’t win her Senate race on her merit, but because people felt sorry for her because her husband “messed around”?

Seriously? These are attacks on Hillary, not Bill! You are going to lose your credibility making crazy leaps like this.

Posted by hillpagan | June 18, 2008 2:23 PM

Here I thought the primary was over. Something to keep in mind, ECB...

Posted by eugene | June 18, 2008 2:26 PM

For serious, Erica. Michelle O was never PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. It's a little different, I think.

Posted by Grant Cogswell | June 18, 2008 2:27 PM

@19: Obots! Brilliant! You're a fucking genius! Too bad your candidate won't win. Aww.

Posted by Ziggity | June 18, 2008 2:28 PM

still? really?

Posted by skye | June 18, 2008 2:30 PM

erica, please don't let your frustration about the sexism in this country cause you to lose all focus on meaningful thought processes. this "point" your making is so off its a bit painful. sigh indeed...

Posted by douglas | June 18, 2008 2:32 PM

Because there's no difference between being married to an attorney of comparatively low profile and being married to the de facto head of the party (at the time), of course. Were you just desperate for attention again, ECB?

And for that matter, where was it when media pundits like Chris Matthews were implying that Clinton didn’t win her Senate race on her merit, but because people felt sorry for her because her husband “messed around”?

This sentence is such obvious padding. Odd that it becomes Obama's responsibility to constantly rebut sexism by anyone, anywhere in the primary campaign.

Q. Do you think this has been a particularly racist campaign?
A. I do not. I think this has been a positive, civil campaign

- Hillary Clinton, 5/20/08

Posted by tsm | June 18, 2008 2:32 PM

yes, and where was hillary when her husband was saying that obama's views on withdrawal from iraq were "delusional" and "a fairy tale"?

Posted by brett | June 18, 2008 2:33 PM

@19 - Really? Because what I see is a bunch of people pointing out what they perceive as flaws in Erica's reasoning. How does that automatically make them "Obots" in "overkill mode"?

On the other hand, maybe don't answer that. I'm resigned to the fact that there is a small but resilient group of Slog commenters that think anyone who disagrees with her is an Obama cultist and/or misogynist.

Posted by Hernandez | June 18, 2008 2:34 PM

I think the wives are fair game. They have been an issue in all recent elections, or is memory short about Kerry's wife, about Bob Dole's wife, about Gore's wife? And I do think McCain's wife gets her share of nasty comments.

Why should Michelle Obama get a free pass, to me she seems remarkably similar to a certain Hillary Clinton during her husband's first campaign for president...

Posted by PopTart | June 18, 2008 2:38 PM

OK it is now official, the lame dancing that girls, I mean womyn, do in nightclubs will no longer be refered to as "stirring the pot." It will now be known as the "Erica."

Posted by wisepunk | June 18, 2008 2:41 PM


He said that the story of Obama's opposition to the war was a fairy tale, not the position itself.

Posted by keshmeshi | June 18, 2008 2:42 PM

Spouses should be off limits, except, you know, when they just happen to have been PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Posted by Trevor | June 18, 2008 2:43 PM

Wow, you really pulled out a whopper this time ECB, I guess it's all over for him.

I'm not sure him saying he's not sure he can tell who he's running against is a comparable type of personal attack as the angry black woman thing.

Posted by Todd | June 18, 2008 2:45 PM

I saw this on another site this morning and my first response was Obama's a gentleman for defending his opponent's wife. Someone should compare him to McCain and his name calling for his wife.

From ECB

Nor will I be surprised if Obama has a similar revelation about sexism, a topic he consistently declined to address when it was used to against his female opponent, once it’s turned against his wife.

ECB. In March, Obama gave Hillary the chance to talk about sexism as he did for racism. She missed her chance. Now Obama could do the same to passify the female Hillary supporters who screamed sexism when it was mainly the media being sexist towards her.

Posted by apres_moi | June 18, 2008 2:50 PM

PopTart, I see no reason to lower the bar and allow bullshit smears and whisper campaigns and outright lies by irresponsible surrogates to be fall under the name "fair game." It's fair to criticize their spouse, and certainly it is fair to reply to a spouse's attacks on you, as Obama did with Bill Clinton.

But Obama is saying McCain should use his influence to slow down and even stop the slime machine. He's right about that.

Posted by elenchos | June 18, 2008 2:50 PM

Whateva, Elizabeth Dole served in the white house for over 10 years compared to Bob's zero. Yet, I don't think anyone looked to Elizabeth Dole to find out about Bob Dole's politics during the 96 election. For some reason the media had no problem confusing Bill's politics with Hillary's politics. Do you have to be a former president to speak for your spouse? Senior cabinet members under 2 administrations don't count?

My crazy theory is that the media thought Bill was speaking for Hillary because Bill has an outie.

Posted by poppy | June 18, 2008 2:55 PM

Did I really just read that a vocal ex-President is off limits when their spouse runs in an election?



Reach much?

Posted by udebudebu | June 18, 2008 2:57 PM

OH PLEASE. Erica, that's ridiculous, and someday I hope you'll look back and see it. If there was EVER an exception to the rule, it's Bill Clinton. Seriously.

Posted by ellen | June 18, 2008 2:58 PM
Christ. Get over it, Erica.


Posted by Anon | June 18, 2008 3:01 PM

i do think mccain's wife should be off limits. for example, the way she helpoed break up mccain's first marriage. or her opiate addiction and the way she stole painkillers from her own charity and somehow got out of being charged with a felony. or the way she plagiarized recipes.

that kind of thing. totally off limits. pass it on.

Posted by brett | June 18, 2008 3:05 PM

Yep, comparing the former President of the United States to the administrator of a Chicago hospital in terms of influence is truly valid. Maybe if Bill had been in the background, quietly portraying himself as the model campaign spouse, no attacks would have come.

Posted by Gitai | June 18, 2008 3:07 PM

Oh, boo hoo, poor Hillary.

If only . . . . . . .

Posted by Johnrl1 | June 18, 2008 3:12 PM

Game Over

It's time for Erica to stop writing about this election. I'm the biggest—sometimes, it feels like, the only—Erica supporter at this blog. I don't agree that she's guilty of "being totally insane," or that her outlandishly long articles have permanently turned this blog against her. My desire for her to stop writing about this election is both professional and personal. First, there's now no scenario in which Erica can regain any journalistic credibility on this subject. And second, I don't want to see her embarrass herself and diminish her legacy as a journalist.

First, the facts. Barnett didn't win over enough readers in her previous articles. If she continues to write about this election (still unclear at this time), Barnett will have to win at least 70 percent of her remaining arguments—a shift that doesn't seem plausible even if she continues to chip away at her standing with white, working-class readers in articles that they have yet to read. (Hello, Denver convention and election night.) Moreover, Barnett's base of white, working-class readers isn't enough to overshadow her past errors in judgment and win the popular opinion. To win, Barnett would have to win the support of a substantial majority of Slog regulars, and they're more than aware which way her political wind is blowing. The longer Barnett continues to write about this election, the uglier it will be for her in the end.

And—not that I'm opposed to fighting dirty—hasn't it gotten ugly enough for Barnett already? The endless articles crying wolf at Obama, the painfully insincere disdain for "context" and "professional detachment"—Barnett is embarrassing herself. I'm tired of defending what her writing career has become. Barnett has always enjoyed strong support among liberal, bike-peddling, environmentally-conscious readers. The fact that she felt the need to pander to them with gimmicks like the endless block quotes (as opposed to, say, actually writing more words than she quotes from) speaks volumes. Her inability to differentiate between a candidate’s wife and a former president of the United States of America was the final straw. She's desperate, and it shows.

More than anyone at this blog, I've hated—and if there was a stronger word, I would use it—the sexist, condescending, and just plain despicable treatment of Erica in the comments section and by many Slog readers. I've hated it every time they called her a "ball-buster" or a bitch or a fat, lesbian harpy. I've hated it every time they've compared her to a nagging wife, every time they've blamed her for her not getting her facts right, every time they've made fun of her opinions. And I hated the fact that Erica isn’t held to an equal standard than any other professional journalist would ever be held to. I want to see a competent, liberal, intelligent, tough woman writing for The Stranger in my lifetime—and Erica could've been that woman.

But it's time to face facts: Erica can't write about politics. So it's time, to use Obama's hackneyed term, for a little "reality check." Now that it's clear that Erica can't write about this election, we need to convince her to put an end to her political ramblings. Because her past articles on this election have been miserable failures and she can't risk more of these miserable failures. Because Obama and Barnett agree about more than they disagree about. And because he’s winning. As aggravating as this protracted election battle has sometimes felt, it's engaged a new generation of Slog readers, and it's given a voice to commenters who want things to change—commenters who want logins, the ability to edit, and an end to a comment system that takes a minute and a half to post a bit of plain text.

I have concerns about her willingness to change, of course. I worry that she's insular, that the few compelling arguments she’s made will be lost among the towering heap of cry-baby articles, and that she isn't up for a knock-down-drag-out battle with some of the toughest assholes in the Slog comment sections. But if anything, this drawn-out battle with Erica Barnett has prepared Slog for the trials to come. So Erica has done her job.

Now it's time to call it a day.

Posted by JC | June 18, 2008 3:20 PM

Recipe for Stranger Advertising Revenue.

ECB Haters

1) ECB posts about Obama
2) ECB haters lose shit
3) Stranger informs Advertisers of total number of comments.
4) Advertisers shower Stranger with cash.
5) Repeat forever. ECB Haters never tire.

Posted by blank12357 | June 18, 2008 3:24 PM

I approve of everything that Obama says and I will defend to the death his right to say it.

Posted by umvue | June 18, 2008 3:30 PM

I don't really see why or how families are off limits. OK, maybe kids, but if she's supposed to be off limits then don't have her on the view campaigning for him. Everyone else of a reasonable stature in the campaign is fair game and the candidates can be forced to repudiate them. Obviously it's difficult to repudiate your wife, but it can be done and if she's not making your case then tell her to disappear. She doesn't have to be a happy homemaker presumably she can stay busy being a high powered professional.

RACIST SHIT like baby mama is off limits for wives and other living things.

So I guess I sort of half agree with ECB: Obama doesn't make much sense here.

OTOH, I disagree strongly with ECB's continuing to carry water for the Hillary was robbed by sexists dead-enders. Obama isn't a sexist because he failed to address sexism in Hillary's campaign. As hard as it is for them to understand not everyone sees things like the Hillary supporters. They would have been satisifed with nothing & would have blamed him for not calling out whatever their issue du jure is even though he and others might disagree as to whether that is legitimate criticism.

After all he's not going to apologize for "she's nice enough" which is apparently one of his big sins.

Erica post a long heartfelt anti-sexism essay by one Violet Sock's descent into madness (trafficing in racism and random rumors about Obama) calls into question whether her judgement was ever clear enough that we should have taken her seriously.

Surely her original words stand on their own but it's a fucking shame that the pro-Clintoners have wrapped their legitimate anti-sexism up with anti-Obama hatred, devotion to their candidate and a bit of racism.

Posted by daniel | June 18, 2008 3:31 PM


You Rock!

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | June 18, 2008 3:36 PM

Erica, I wish you all the best, but every time I have read one of your articles on the Clinton/Obama contest it feels like you are reproducing a victimized, powerless status of (white) women in this country that is not entirely accurate. I don't think that is your goal, but that's how it comes across.

Clinton could have done a much better job herself addressing the sexism she encountered from the media, instead of tacitly encouraging racist attacks against Obama by her supporters. I think that kind of behavior is one of the reasons sexism is still so prevalent in our society; us white women should not be alienating potential allies by trying to kiss white men's asses.

I wish you luck working on your bitterness, because it seems to be a major block for you writing cogent arguments on this issue.

ps - don't let the asshole commenters get you down.

Posted by asteria | June 18, 2008 3:52 PM

These topics have become uninspired and stale.

Bring back Chelsea Somethinghyphensomething!

Posted by NapoleonXIV | June 18, 2008 4:06 PM



Knock it off. I can't see your name on a single article without thinking, "Jesus, what *now*..."

Probably not the best thing for a journalist to cultivate in a readership, even on the Slog...

Posted by Intervention | June 18, 2008 4:09 PM
50'll do anything to rile the masses and get 100 comments to one of your dumb posts, (and then, of course, whine how mean the commenters are).

I'm really fighting the urge to write something nasty, but I wouldn't want to upset "John Doe" or risk the chance that Keck will give you a bonus for being "picked on".

Posted by michael strangeways | June 18, 2008 4:12 PM

All you DNC money is belong to us, ECB.

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 18, 2008 4:26 PM

Of course a candidate's family isn't off limits. They've never been off limits.

It's all part of the election kabuki that we're periodically subjected to:

Candidate A's Wife/Daughter/Brother is ridiculed by Candidate B's proxy.

Candidate A or his proxy calls for Candidate B to renounce such egregious behavior, which he does or does not do depending on which course of action is perceived to enhance his appeal to the greater number of potential voters.

Posted by Bison | June 18, 2008 4:32 PM

Tonight, learn why some urban dwellers are still not over the Primary! Film at 11!

Followed by analysis of the secret documents proving McCain has Dementia!

Posted by Local News Promo Team | June 18, 2008 4:35 PM

Erica, I think the problem is that you're trying to find equivalency between those two cases when there isn't really any.

Posted by Greg | June 18, 2008 4:37 PM

Thank you ECB for pointing out Odrama's hypocrisy. Odrama's baby mama IS actively campaigning for her and both of them need to develop thick skins if they wanna play the game. Shut da bleep bleep bleep up already you bleeping empty suit Odrama.

Posted by Odrama | June 18, 2008 4:46 PM

What 55 said. There really is no comparison, and you're making yourself look foolish by suggesting so.

Posted by Ashley | June 18, 2008 5:05 PM

@ 43 wins. What an embarassing post you've written, ECB. Just add it to the collection, I guess.

Posted by jason e | June 18, 2008 5:15 PM

I'm sorry your candidate lost. Either start writing about how much you love McCain or get on the Obama bus (or cross your fingers that Maxine Waters will run as an independent.

Posted by elswinger | June 18, 2008 5:27 PM

I think this is a dumb post, but I don't like that everyone is making this about ECB instead of about what she said. ECB's posts always end up being about her, and not what she says--and not because of what she says.

My reaction to this post was admiration that Obama simultaneously said he wouldn't make personal attacks while making an implied reference to the various stories about Cindy McCain. #40 totally gets it. Obama does this on purpose. Every time he says "Look at me, I'm not making this about Cindy McCain," the reader thinks about all of the things they've heard about her or McCain's treatment of her. At the very least it makes people think "what about Cindy McCain?" It's brilliant politics, and this is another reason Obama's going to win.

Posted by Cascadian | June 18, 2008 5:50 PM

Sen. Clinton hammered the electorate repeatedly about her experience in President Clinton's administration. Over and over again. Repeatedly. And so on. But Sen. Obama isn't allowed to criticize President Clinton?

How on earth is that supposed to make sense.

Criticizing a President is off limits, regardless of the above?


Dude, this is just sad.

Posted by Chas | June 18, 2008 6:04 PM

Wow. I have not read The Slog for months (mostly because ECB got so boring with her mindless Clintonista chatter) and I see things have not changed.

Snore snore...

Posted by RichardZ | June 18, 2008 9:00 PM


Pathetic argument. Lame.

I agree with the commenters that disagree with you. Bill Clinton spent the entire primary campaign attacking Senator Obama, may of his attacks were personal in nature. Senator Obama has every right to defend himself.

In your future blog entries, you might help your case if you are able to point to specific examples in which Michelle attacked Mr. McCain.

By the way, Cindy McCain has already attacked Michelle Obama a couple of times on her 'really proud' remarks, without provocation by Michelle. Maybe John McBush was right about his wife Cindy - the trollop is a c_nt.


Posted by Allen | June 18, 2008 11:55 PM

"Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian"

Now if some one who would say that in a televised debate would endorse Obama, we might be able to do something with it.

Oh we know what you are thinking, there is noting wrong with being a lesbian, so there is nothing wrong with saying that.

But, again, if only someone who said;
"The president and I share the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe that. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman."
would endorse Obama, we might get some traction with you too.

Posted by Swift Boat Veterans For Truth | June 19, 2008 2:37 AM

Absolutely agree with that its somewhat hypocritical for Obama to cry foul only when it's convenient-there's a disturbing pattern here. He watched on as Bill clinton was unfairly labeled a racist, and his legacy of promoting good race relations was threatened-and Obama even condescendingly alluded to being a big believer in redemption and forgiveness when asked abt the possibility of the black community forgiving clinton(not to mention his campaign pushing that story very hard).

Perhaps he should have said spouses are off limits only when they are not ex-presidents or high profile politicians. It was even more disappointing that black leaders-who knew better-didnt speak out in defence of the clintons-they could easily have acknowleged that certain remarks were careless but drawn a line at the racist label-and people like clyburn even came out to amplify those accusations. Where was Obama when the Democratic national commitee issued statement after statement harrasing Cindy mccain on her taxes?

Posted by Tim | June 19, 2008 6:50 AM

This is stupid any way you cut it.

Posted by Buckywunder | June 19, 2008 11:31 AM

Michelle Obama's been getting hit since February; it's not just new.

As other commenters have pointed out, there is a big difference between the racially loaded, non-issue 'baby momma' comments, and pushback against a former POTUS who injected himself into the campaign.

Also, I was surprised to see you use such disparaging language about Cindy McCain. 'Stepford' is just a different way of cutting a woman down. Can't have unity and derision.

Posted by Brie | June 19, 2008 4:34 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.