Politics | 05/20/2008 7:59 am

wOw's Views on the News: Time to Lay Off Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain's Money?

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

This week, Obama warned the GOP to "lay off his wife" in response to a Republican ad that attacks the senator’s wife for comments she made in February. (Click here to read the whole story on abcnews.com.) Meanwhile, "Mrs. McCain’s Money" is a top headline on nytimes.com (read the article by clicking here) and has also been in the spotlight on the campaign trail.

Should political candidates’ spouses be off-limits from media and public scrutiny? Why or why not? And, if so, what do we do when the better half has already been president?

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

I believe Mrs. Obama’s comments, when spoken openly, are absolutely fair game, and so is Mrs. McCain’s tax return. More so Mrs. McCain, as her business could easily benefit from his business, so to speak, and there is a public right to know about the financial affairs of presidential candidates and their spouses. And when a spouse is campaigning for her husband or his wife, his or her actions and words are as much a part of the story as any campaign employee’s would be. And we know employees in campaigns get fired all the time for saying something or having associations embarrassing to the candidate. The candidate can’t fire a spouse but the press has every right to cover the words, actions and money-making enterprises of spouses.

By Joan Ganz Cooney on 05/20/2008 8:02 am

e-mail alert

I’m with Joan on this. They get up there as full participant in the campaign, they are absolutely fair game. Obama’s fiery pastor is liable, why not his wife (who I happen to think is fantastic)? As for Cindy McCain’s financial statements, I believe she’s not bound but if Geraldine Ferraro was disqualified from running because of her husband’s shady business dealings, it seems a double standard. Personally, I agree with Cindy McCain in not releasing. She says it’s to protect her kids and I think she’s right.

By Candice Bergen on 05/20/2008 8:03 am

e-mail alert

Out campaigning and off-limits? Neat trick.

By Judith Martin on 05/20/2008 8:04 am

e-mail alert

Barack Obama’s "lay off my wife" drama was fetching and cute and made him look gallant. But it’s totally unrealistic and he knows it. No campaign has ever "laid off" the candidates’ spouses so why now? Politics has developed manners? Not bloody likely. Consider the attacks on Mrs. FDR, on Hillary in Bill’s White House, on all of them. They are part of the panoply. And Mrs. McCain’s money is fair game just as Nancy Reagan’s free dresses were! Everybody with a hat in the ring, or even a beret touching the hat, is up for examination.

By Liz Smith on 05/20/2008 8:45 am

e-mail alert

yep… i agree. free game. And like Liz says. Obama knows it. so does McCain.

By Chrome Toe on 05/20/2008 8:55 am

e-mail alert

I agree and echo what Joan and Liz have said. Financial transparency is necessary and is the best approach to drive away temptation on part of the powerful and undue attack by observers.

By E . on 05/20/2008 9:11 am

e-mail alert

Fair game. They want to play with the big kids—so have to take their lumps.

By Star Lawrence on 05/20/2008 9:27 am

e-mail alert

Right, Star. It is totally okay to trash Sen. Clinton (1/2 the country) because she was singing “Stand by Your Man,” and to trash Sen. Clinton (1/2 the country) because she didn’t divorce the SOB. It’s okay to make her responsible for what dumbass things come out of his mouth in the heat of battle, but it’s not okay to hold Sen. Obama’s feet to the fire for what his wife says. To me, it’s just more of the BS that has dogged Sen. Clinton from the beginning. If Sen. Obama wanted his family safe from criticism, he should have done something about his campaign’s vicious attacks on the Clintons early on. But now that it appears as though he’s sufficient delegate votes to become the candidate of the Damnocrats, NOW he wants to play nice? Raspberries.

By Mugsy Peabody on 05/20/2008 9:54 pm

e-mail alert

Michele Obama is entitled to her opinion. But the GOP is also right to criticize it. If Michele Obama is going to be a strong opinionated First Lady, she is going to be vulnerable to verbal attacks like this. Let’s look at the last few First Ladies….Laura Bush…supported her husband…librarian…fought for literacy issues…extremely likeable…Hillary Clinton (skip)…Barbara Bush….opinionated…motherly…expressed opinion..generally self depracating…but I always felt, politically sharp…Nancy Reagan…difficult first couple of years…likeability issues but grew into role…Rosalyn Carter….quiet but opinionated…Pat Nixon…a saint….Lady Bird Johnson…classy…supportive…extremely bright and passionate about her pet issues..namely beautification of USA…Jacqueline Kennedy…class and sophistication…as you can see the role of first lady varies…for every Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton…there is a Laura Bush and Mamie Eisenhower

By J M on 05/20/2008 9:31 am

e-mail alert

JM You forgot Betty Ford Rosalyn Carter let some views be known Did you know that Barbara Bush was the most popular first lady - had the highest poll ratings of them all. When she was asked why - her response was that she never interfered with her husband’s job. She did her job. Is that possible today? I don’t know. Women have changed so much.

By Frannie Em on 05/20/2008 11:19 am

e-mail alert

I completely agree with Candace: The political spouses are fair game. Michelle Obama is fantastic. The “unpatriotic” label assigned to her for writing honestly about the racial divide at Princeton, is preposterous. ( Liz, Obama wasn’t trying to look gallant; he was just being his usual civil self and protective spouse. Should he behave instead like Bill Clinton at Transylvania University the other day? The White Men in Coats should have marched in and dragged him off the stage. Diagnosis: Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Cindy McCain is quite correct in not releasing her taxes to protect her kids. There is distinction between her circumstance and that of Geraldine Ferraro’s husband who was involved in unsavory businesses. Meanwhile, I am still waiting for Bill Clinton to reveal the donors and their contributions to both his Library (Marc Richards’s wife) and his Foundation (“The New York Times” uncovered some interesting deals). Talk about the “October Surprise,” some imaginary scandal involving Obama, Clinton operatives have drummed up to scare voters. That surprise more likely would be about the two abovementioned Clinton enterprises.

By Patricia Burstein on 05/20/2008 9:33 am

e-mail alert

correction: I meant to say THE MEN IN WHITE COATS, not THE WHITE MEN IN COATS.

By Patricia Burstein on 05/20/2008 10:22 am

e-mail alert

I would be more interested in knowing more about the Bin Laden family/Bush business dealings, wouldn’t you?

By Mugsy Peabody on 05/20/2008 10:54 pm

e-mail alert

Yes, I would, Mugsy. What do you think about the ethics of a sitting president to use Air Force I for purely partisan purposes:campaigning for party candidates? Please, give me your thoughts, Mugs…I value your views. Thanks

By beth willis on 05/21/2008 7:48 am