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.

A Friend Stopped By | 01/06/2009 4:45 pm

Who Do You Think You're Talking To? by Margo Howard

Editor’s Note: A longtime journalist, Margo Howard went into the family business (her mother was the fabled Ann Landers) in the 1990s as Dear Prudence. Her broad experience and understanding of human nature provide answers for the troubled — and entertainment for everyone else. Click here to read her column on Yahoo! Margo will be joining us as wowOwow’s official advice columnist beginning January 29. We can’t wait!

I grew up hearing my mother say to me, the television newscasters or the newspaper she was holding: “Who do you think you’re talking to?” The translation of this would be roughly akin to saying, “What do you take me for, a fool?” Or, as a lot of people said, back in the day, “Tell it to Sweeney.” Now I find myself saying the exact same thing to television newscasters or the newspaper I am holding … and the subject is most always politics.

Example: Barack Obama and his family were denied early access to Blair House, the official government guest house within the White House blockade perimeter.  The about-to-be first family needed to come to Washington earlier than the usual time because the little girls were starting their new school on Monday, January 5.  Laura Bush’s office said Blair House could not be made available to them because there were “previously scheduled functions.” Mrs. Bush’s office was not forthcoming about what these functions might be. My guess is that they are farewell parties for the RNC and other Republicans leaving town. There was major stonewalling when press people inquired which people were booked for Blair House. The First Lady’s office would only say, “The space is not available until the traditional date, January 15, and arrangements cannot be changed.”

This situation was definitely a “Who do you think you’re talking to?” moment. As The New York Times pointed out, keeping the first family and their four security teams at a five-star hotel is out-of-this-world expensive … and at a time when the government is reduced to printing money, everybody and his dog is getting a “bailout” and the taxpayer is getting nicked for everything. At some point we will know who these previously scheduled people were, and then the question will be asked: Why were they not moved to one of the White House’s 132 rooms, or the State Department function rooms … or a hotel?

Then there is the recently uncovered information that, as a senator, Hillary Clinton smoothed the way for a New York state developer. When he got federal assistance and tax-exempt bonds for his project, Bill Clinton’s foundation received a check for $100,000. Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman said, when pressed about this piece of information, that the senator would have done the same for anyone trying to get something done in the state of New York. To this explanation of amazingly coincidental timing I would simply ask, “Who do you think you’re talking to?”

Then, too, there is our vice president, Darth Vader, he of the curling lip, and the idiot Alberto Gonzales saying everything they did was to benefit the country – and that we’re better off for it! Interestingly, Don Rumsfeld is not saying much of anything. Bush is still blaming bum intelligence for everything, and, well, really, there is no other question to ask except, “Who do you think you’re talking to?”

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

georgia fatwood
Dear Carol….. Oh my stars……This is amazing….I will have to read and re-read….and I will direct you to the new thread on the death of an infant….Everything you have said here goes right to the heart of that matter…and I will ask that this post from you be “required reading” …… If this is how typical ole women reminisce, count me in….We could spend a year with this….every provocative sentence……every humane observation….. Without being a perfectly sappy creature here, I want to express my gratitude to you for what I feel is extraordinary generosity of spirit……..this is wowOwow at its very best….”Makes me proud to call myself woman..” and just as proud to call myself wowser……Thank you….
By georgia fatwood on 01/08/2009 2:32 pm
C jay
Thank you, dear sister - women’s hearts and minds are not that different; we celebrate our similarities revealed through diversity.
By C jay on 01/08/2009 2:48 pm
C jay
PS: Imagine if every women hit her legislature with “this” issue - women and children’s rights! I think war would take a back seat, and we’d finally have to have bake sales to pay for bombs, and nuclear weapons, and the government funding LIFE.
By C jay on 01/08/2009 2:50 pm
M L Staats
Oh, Carol J, you are so right on with this.
By M L Staats on 01/09/2009 2:23 am
Maurine H
Thank you a thousand times, Carol, for this brilliant post. You have described almost exactly years and years of my and my children’s lives.
By Maurine H on 01/10/2009 10:45 pm
C jay
Maurine, thank you, and all others for your self-effacing responses. At some point, our nation must come to grips with the plight of women … and men who are responsible parents, or trying to be. If we cannot come to any conclusion on what the courts should be doing, let’s just copy an excellent system, for now.
By C jay on 01/11/2009 4:39 am
HA BIBI
I am so adamant about this, I’d vote for DNA tests to be performed to seek out both parents, and make certain that both of them receive all medical bills up to and after birth of each child; that’ll help keep men’s trousers zipped (or buttoned). By Carol J on 01/08/2009 2:18 am Carol that sounds interesting but, could you expound on what the alternative would be for those parents proven by DNA, to pay…… if and when they don’t have the financial means to do so.
By HA BIBI on 01/08/2009 6:56 pm
C jay
Elaine! Oh, Elaine, it’s you. I’m not quite sure what you are asking in light of the topic and what I posted. If you are curious about my stance on women/mothers who cannot pay, they’re now being forced to take on responsibilities the fathers, and the courts, with whom children become the wards of in a divorce, very much alone. We need a CASA for divorce/abandoned mothers. I was in on the start of CASA years back (an infamous District Judge in far NW Texas et al) and this might be what we need to ram through again, for this concern. (Sheesh, that took the life out of us.)
By C jay on 01/11/2009 4:43 am
HA BIBI
Carol, not quite sure the intent of your opening line but nonetheless, my question posed was, that it appeared that you were interested in bringing about legislation in some manner, that would make both parents responsible for all costs incured by the birth and after care of a child. And again, I will ask, How do you pupose the persons involved….Mother and father of said child, will pay, if their resources are that to which they cannot?
By HA BIBI on 01/11/2009 10:23 am
C jay
Elaine, what do you suggest?
By C jay on 01/11/2009 10:56 am
HA BIBI
Carol, I can’t suggest and answer, as you didn’t answer my question.
By HA BIBI on 01/11/2009 1:13 pm
Frannie Em
Dear Prudence/Margo I am trying to understand this from the standpoint of manners and protocol. So, the partisanship is raging in this country, personally I would like it to settle down so that the country can get focused on the task ahead of turning the economy around. Presidential protocol and traditions are well understood by both parties in Washington, and if they don’t understand them I am sure there is someone to contact to find out the proper way to conduct ourselves. We had a sitting President that is coming to the end of his term, as well as a first lady that are in legal residence and have authority of the residences. It is the same for every president, and it will be the same for the Obamas when they leave the WH. Now my question. Was it proper for the Obamas to request to use Blair House before their appointed time? Why would his staff even ask knowing that the residences are usually booked? Is it to create a firestorm knowing that they would probably be turned down? Has there ever been other President Elects that have asked to move in early? Is this a first? Were there others? Maybe there were, but if they were I bet they were of the same party. I also looked at it as what if the roles were switched? What if the Obamas were in residence, and then the next PE wanted to come in early, and the Obamas decided to stick with protocol and say, sorry not yet? Would there be this firestorm of controversy? Wouldn’t the Obamas have the right to say so sorry, wish we could, but not yet? I am also wondering if there is anything else to it. So now the press is all nuts about this story, and the Clinton and $100,000 just gets swept under the rug. It just gets “curiouser and curiouser.”
By Frannie Em on 01/08/2009 2:27 am
Amelie Poulain
Sigh. So finally someone is asking the right questions. Thank you Frannie for your sanity at this time of day. It would make sense that the Oz PM stays at the WH instead, but the article uses the word “entourage” which implies a lot more people than they would want staying at the WH even for one night. I suspect the really big issue is that they will have to book the ENTIRE hotel, and even swap out the staff there with ones with high security clearance—-would be my guess, a hefty tab. I suspect the Blair House would already be “tricked out” with hi tech security/ trusted staff and designed for protection. I was in London when some of the G8 leaders were in the same hotel!!! It was a nightmare. They locked off many man floors and I was panicking that the elevator didn’t work! I used the house phone to alert them and they had to send security to come up and escort me out of the hotel so I could catch my plane. Can you imagine it was during today’s hysterical environment? Obama is just going to be a huge security risk for YEARS because of all the crazies out there. Do you know that the first 14 Presidents could have OWNED Obama if he was from slaves? There are many many unenlightened people who resent him. You’ve come a LONG way baby! But there’s a ‘ways” to go yet before there is peace on both sides. :)
By Amelie Poulain on 01/08/2009 2:43 am
Frannie Em
Amelie I definitely see the point that it would be cheaper and seemingly smarter all the way around. I am sure the security requirements are crazy, and as you said that “Obama is just going to be a huge security risk for YEARS because of all the crazies out there.” There is another week and a half until he moves in, and hopefully some of this will settle down. Will it be the entire hotel or just a couple of floors. I don’t know how big the hotel is so I don’t know what it would take. It will soon be over and we turn a new page. I want them to be safe and I want PE Obama to do well.
By Frannie Em on 01/08/2009 11:07 am
Marjorie C.
Frannie: So now the press is all nuts about this story, and the Clinton and $100,000 just gets swept under the rug. Yes, drama and diversion is what it’s all about. Whether it’s Obama generated or MSM generated, it’s hard to tell since they are so closely aligned.
By Marjorie C. on 01/08/2009 6:07 am