Why does anybody give a flock what the first lady thinks?

[wiffleball 4,645]

No one in particular: I've always resented when they interview the First Lady like she matters or something. I mean, what's her qualifications? She's focking the guy we voted for (or not). Nobody voted for her. She's at best window dressing. Yet, people hang on every word. Wimmens in particular, seem to vote as much for the guy's wife as much (if not more so) than the candidate himself.

 

I'm not being sexist - If Nancy Pelosi got elected, I could give a flying fock what her hubby had to say too.

[tony hardware 0]

I think its even more demeaning of women's roles when they have those stupid first wives cookie contests around election time.

[Big Blue 06 195]

People care what she thinks because they know that she has the hubby by the balls.

 

HTH.

[FranksTanks 0]

I could really care less.

There was a video recently of an interview with Lynne Cheney and apparently she blew up about some questions. I would normally think that's funny only because I don't like her husband, but I didn't even watch it, because I honestly don't think they should even be interviewing her, much less asking her about politics. That's shouldn't be their jobs, its those who were elected (not that they do much better..).

[yostevo 0]

You must not be married because I'd say that my wife has major influence over what I say and do.

[davebg 0]

You must not be married because I'd say that my wife has major influence over what I say and do.

Exactly...and all you're in charge of is the focking remote to the TV.

[phillybear 364]

This is yet another reason why Hillary Clinton is focking useless.

[jets24 6]

This is yet another reason why Hillary Clinton is focking useless.

 

 

Beat me to it. Not only should we not give a flock what they say, we certainly shouldn't make them Senators and Presidential candidates for crying out loud.

[naomi 343]

read this

then this

 

They're always expected to be more than an ordinary wife and have some stately role. However, a few take it further and in Eleanor Roosevelt's case, what she did during her husband's presidency had a huge effect on some of his policies. At least that's what he and others said. She would actually go into areas and live with people in need, totally try to understand poverty from the inside out, and would report back the situation. She did a hell of a lot actually. Laura Bush has done some stuff, is obviously privy to things we can't be, etc. She's not an Eleanor Roosevelt, but sometimes they have something to say.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

This is yet another reason why Hillary Clinton is focking useless.

 

 

And the dems want to trot it out in '08 as their standardbearer.

[naomi 343]

Wimmens in particular, seem to vote as much for the guy's wife as much (if not more so) than the candidate himself.

 

I don't think so. I don't know anyone who would do that. It's concievable, but everyone knows the President is the active political player, that'd be ridiculous

[Birdseed 1]

I think its even more demeaning of women's roles when they have those stupid first wives cookie contests around election time.

 

You're exactly right, it is demeaning. But "they" do it because it does have an effect on elections. IMO John Kerry was hurt quite a bit by Theresa Heinz Kerry. She was portraid (prolly justified) as a real nutcase.