Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Politics | 11/01/2008 12:47 pm

Cindy McCain's Press Secretary Says: 'I've Never Seen Someone So Maligned'

wowOwow caught up with Laurye Blackford, Cindy McCain’s press secretary, who gave us a ring from ‘The McCain Express’on pre-election weekend
By The Staff of wowOwow
Shutterstock

wOw: Are you good at keeping secrets?

Blackford: I’ve kept all your secrets, wOw.

wOw: Aren’t you only a heartbeat away from Mrs. McCain?

Blackford: I would say yes when she does all of her interviews, when we travel on the road and when she’s approached by the press. But Mrs. McCain is an incredibly smart and capable woman and really can hold her own. I usually brief her first thing in the morning, depending upon what time our day starts, and I leave her the last thing at night when we get to whatever hotel we’re staying at.

wOw: What drew you to your job?

Blackford: I think with Mrs. McCain in particular, I’ve never seen someone so maligned. Having worked in the media for so many years as a senior broadcast producer both at "Good Morning America" and "The Early Show" on CBS, I knew who a lot of the players were. I thought I could help enlighten her to the mainstream media.  I really was drawn to her because she’s an incredible woman and so strong and yet she is so misrepresented in the media. It was shocking to me how misrepresented she was. I don’t want to go too much into the image of her, but I think everybody knows that she was very quiet and stood silently behind her husband but, that is not who she is at all. 

She’s a very accomplished woman in her own right. And I think a lot of times the main stream media sees a Republican woman, or the wife of a Republican candidate and think, ‘Oh they must be brainless, witless and told to do whatever they’re told to do.’ But I think that has been disproved with Laura Bush and I think the same goes as well for Cindy McCain. These women have strong opinions and lives of their own.

wOw:Do you and Mrs. McCain ever discuss Mrs. Obama and what do you say?

Blackford:We don’t, actually. They’re both very different women at this point in their lives.  Mrs. McCain certainly understands where Mrs. Obama is in her life now. Mrs. McCain understands that Mrs. Obama is the mother of two young girls. She’s been there too. But her children are older now and she has four of them. But she understands the trials and tribulations of trying to juggle a political life and maintain some balance of family life.

wOw:How does she stay in touch with her children right now? 

Blackford:She has three BlackBerrys at all times! She’s the most technologically advanced person I’ve ever met. It’s amazing. She is constantly on the phone with her children or texting them all day long.

 

247 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

OMGIAMGOING NUTS
Burca, better a whimp than a traitor.
By OMGIAMGOING NUTS on 11/02/2008 6:06 pm
DeBúrca obj
OMGIAMGOING, a “traitor”, how so? Besides I never called Sidney a “wimp”. You asked me how the name sounded, I said “the name is OK, OR else, it sounds like the wimpy kid everyone picked on, it just depends upon how you wish look at it.” We were talking about NAMES, not labels. BTW… after reading your posts about how you are a “real American” and all the “hussein” stuff… I am convinced you are either Sean Hannity or a 13 year old boy whose parents listen to a lot of Hannity, which is it?
By DeBúrca obj on 11/02/2008 6:17 pm
OMGIAMGOING NUTS
burca, and I’m convinced you are ‘itching’ for a fight…not today “sweetie”
By OMGIAMGOING NUTS on 11/02/2008 6:37 pm
DeBúrca obj
Nope, not itching for a fight. I just couldn’t ignore your adolescent posts anymore.
By DeBúrca obj on 11/02/2008 6:48 pm
OMGIAMGOING NUTS
tick tock
By OMGIAMGOING NUTS on 11/02/2008 7:39 pm
Wine Warrior
Imanuts….If you are calling him a traitor…say why. We’d all like to know. Why is Senator Obama a traitor? Facts please.
By Wine Warrior on 11/03/2008 2:55 pm
Wine Warrior
You’re not ‘going’ nuts…you are already there. Maybe cut back on drinking the KoolAid. You are quite the redneck, and very pathetic. Senator Obama put himself through Harvard Law and was an honor student, as opposed to D student McCain who dumped his crippled wife for a richer/much younger version, and one who stole drugs. Senator Obama taught Constitutional Law, and was the editor of one of the most prestigious publications in the US, and voted by his Harvard Law Class as most likely to become US President. There is a very long list of stellar endorsements for him for good reason. But ignortant people like you who vote against their own best interests are never interested in facts.
By Wine Warrior on 11/02/2008 6:48 pm
OMGIAMGOING NUTS
winO put the glass down..you’re drunk enough.
By OMGIAMGOING NUTS on 11/02/2008 7:38 pm
Wine Warrior
I’m A Nut”…..I WRITE about wine….and drink it lightly [except on 11/4 when plan to have plenty of champagne while celebrating. On the other hand you’re drunk on ignorance..and that’s a permanent condition about which the great George Monibot wrote about in the London Guardian…..sounds as if was writing about you. How does it feel to be a Hun? Totally ignorant of the fact that the US was founded on 18th c French Enlightenment ideals and that’s what made her great? And now the knuckle-dragging Huns are in charge and look what the predictable result has been. Tsk tsk. Why is that republicans are such blockheads that they never can draw a straight line between cause and effect? “How these gibbering numbskulls came to dominate Washington: The degradation of intelligence and learning in American politics results from a series of interlocking tragedies” By George Monbiot The Guardian, Tuesday October 28 2008 “How was it allowed to happen? How did politics in the US come to be dominated by people who make a virtue out of ignorance? Was it charity that has permitted mankind’s closest living relative to spend two terms as president? How did Sarah Palin, Dan Quayle and other such gibbering numbskulls get to where they are? How could Republican rallies in 2008 be drowned out by screaming ignoramuses insisting that Barack Obama was a Muslim and a terrorist? Like most people on my side of the Atlantic, I have for many years been mystified by American politics. The US has the world’s best universities and attracts the world’s finest minds. It dominates discoveries in science and medicine. Its wealth and power depend on the application of knowledge. Yet, uniquely among the developed nations (with the possible exception of Australia), learning is a grave political disadvantage. There have been exceptions over the past century - Franklin Roosevelt, JF Kennedy and Bill Clinton tempered their intellectualism with the common touch and survived - but Adlai Stevenson, Al Gore and John Kerry were successfully tarred by their opponents as members of a cerebral elite (as if this were not a qualification for the presidency). Perhaps the defining moment in the collapse of intelligent politics was Ronald Reagan’s response to Jimmy Carter during the 1980 presidential debate. Carter - stumbling a little, using long words - carefully enumerated the benefits of national health insurance. Reagan smiled and said: “There you go again.” His own health programme would have appalled most Americans, had he explained it as carefully as Carter had done, but he had found a formula for avoiding tough political issues and making his opponents look like wonks. It wasn’t always like this. The founding fathers of the republic - Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and others - were among the greatest thinkers of their age. They felt no need to make a secret of it. How did the project they launched degenerate into George W Bush and Sarah Palin? On one level, this is easy to answer. Ignorant politicians are elected by ignorant people. US education, like the US health system, is notorious for its failures. In the most powerful nation on earth, one adult in five believes the sun revolves round the earth; only 26% accept that evolution takes place by means of natural selection; two-thirds of young adults are unable to find Iraq on a map; two-thirds of US voters cannot name the three branches of government; the maths skills of 15-year-olds in the US are ranked 24th out of the 29 countries of the OECD. But this merely extends the mystery: how did so many US citizens become so stupid, and so suspicious of intelligence? Susan Jacoby’s book The Age of American Unreason provides the fullest explanation I have read so far. She shows that the degradation of US politics results from a series of interlocking tragedies. One theme is both familiar and clear: religion - in particular fundamentalist religion - makes you stupid. The US is the only rich country in which Christian fundamentalism is vast and growing. Jacoby shows that there was once a certain logic to its anti-rationalism. During the first few decades after the publication of The Origin of Species, for instance, Americans had good reason to reject the theory of natural selection and to treat public intellectuals with suspicion. From the beginning, Darwin’s theory was mixed up in the US with the brutal philosophy - now known as social Darwinism - of the British writer Herbert Spencer. Spencer’s doctrine, promoted in the popular press with the help of funding from Andrew Carnegie, John D Rockefeller and Thomas Edison, suggested that millionaires stood at the top of a scala natura established by evolution. By preventing unfit people being weeded out, government intervention weakened the nation. Gross economic inequalities were both justifiable and necessary. Darwinism, in other words, became indistinguishable from the most bestial form of laissez-faire economics. Many Christians responded with revulsion. It is profoundly ironic that the doctrine rejected a century ago by such prominent fundamentalists as William Jennings Bryan is now central to the economic thinking of the Christian right. Modern fundamentalists reject the science of Darwinian evolution and accept the pseudoscience of social Darwinism. But there were other, more powerful, reasons for the intellectual isolation of the fundamentalists. The US is peculiar in devolving the control of education to local authorities. Teaching in the southern states was dominated by the views of an ignorant aristocracy of planters, and a great educational gulf opened up. “In the south”, Jacoby writes, “what can only be described as an intellectual blockade was imposed in order to keep out any ideas that might threaten the social order.” The Southern Baptist Convention, now the biggest denomination in the US, was to slavery and segregation what the Dutch Reformed Church was to apartheid in South Africa. It has done more than any other force to keep the south stupid. In the 1960s it tried to stave off desegregation by establishing a system of private Christian schools and universities. A student can now progress from kindergarten to a higher degree without any exposure to secular teaching. Southern Baptist beliefs pass intact through the public school system as well. A survey by researchers at the University of Texas in 1998 found that one in four of the state’s state school biology teachers believed humans and dinosaurs lived on earth at the same time. This tragedy has been assisted by the American fetishisation of self-education. Though he greatly regretted his lack of formal teaching, Abraham Lincoln’s career is repeatedly cited as evidence that good education, provided by the state, is unnecessary: all that is required to succeed is determination and rugged individualism. This might have served people well when genuine self-education movements, like the one built around the Little Blue Books in the first half of the 20th century, were in vogue. In the age of infotainment, it is a recipe for confusion. Besides fundamentalist religion, perhaps the most potent reason intellectuals struggle in elections is that intellectualism has been equated with subversion. The brief flirtation of some thinkers with communism a long time ago has been used to create an impression in the public mind that all intellectuals are communists. Almost every day men such as Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly rage against the “liberal elites” destroying America. The spectre of pointy-headed alien subversives was crucial to the election of Reagan and Bush. A genuine intellectual elite - like the neocons (some of them former communists) surrounding Bush - has managed to pitch the political conflict as a battle between ordinary Americans and an over-educated pinko establishment. Any attempt to challenge the ideas of the rightwing elite has been successfully branded as elitism. Obama has a lot to offer the US, but none of this will stop if he wins. Until the great failures of the US education system are reversed or religious fundamentalism withers, there will be political opportunities for people, like Bush and Palin, who flaunt their ignorance.” monbiot.com
By Wine Warrior on 11/03/2008 2:14 am
OMGIAMGOING NUTS
drunkard, hun i just wanted to let you know that after your first “hun” i quit reading. Maybe someone else will read that garbage. lol
By OMGIAMGOING NUTS on 11/03/2008 6:48 am
Wine Warrior
George Monbiot garbage. Hun, you are a very small, sad individual.
By Wine Warrior on 11/03/2008 12:24 pm
OMGIAMGOING NUTS
wino suck it up
By OMGIAMGOING NUTS on 11/03/2008 12:32 pm
Catherine Kaiman
Wine Warrior, Nuts probably read it, however is probably to ashamed to admit that it far exceeded his/her intellect. It’s easier to spew hatred and promote racisim, than to take the time to be educated on the facts.
By Catherine Kaiman on 11/03/2008 7:50 am
Rita@ Goldivas
Wine, Thank you for this post. I’ve often wondered how the cultural bias against intellectuals came to be, I’m planning to get Susan Jacoby’s book.
By Rita@ Goldivas on 11/03/2008 9:24 am
gulliver fourmyle
you are presently ‘gone’—-read my post—-You are the Traitor—-now, may i google Emmylou Harris, Madonna, judas priest, Mosart’s queen of the night?—-some Jo-el Sonnier, Chuck berry and forget this? thanks—-
By gulliver fourmyle on 11/02/2008 9:51 pm