Thanks, Greg.

It was hardly only Drudge that falsely attacked Michelle Obama for dissing Hillary.

Best, Terry

I read the article and it is clear that Michelle was attacking Hillary; CHEAP!! The Obamas are getting desperate by the day and btw, Bill was more effective in running the nation and Barack has been in office for only 2 years; as for Hillary, she has been a successful Senator for 7 years and their daughter, Chelsea is a wonderful person and intelligent! THE OBAMAS are pushing this over! Hope of politics? Uh-huh. NOT.

you all saw the transcript after the jump, right?

Shoddy journalism at its finest. The transcript is clear. Attacks came not just from the right, but from other Dem campaigns.

Shoddy all around.

If this was an attack on Hillary Clinton, then Bill Richardson saying the defining moment of his life was asking his wife Barbara to marry him was an attack on Hillary, too. John and Elizabeth Edwards renewing their marriage vows was a similar attack on Hillary.

Any candidate highlighting the importance of his/her spouse and their marriage is an attack on Hillary because she can't do that because everyone knows that her marriage is a sham and a public humiliation of Hillary Clinton --- thats the logic of calling this an attack on Hillary Clinton.

Thank you for posting the full transcript. This does not surprise me. For all her professional accomplishment, Michelle Obama is fierce about family.

I'll never forget the night when Obama accepted the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate - something he was not expected to win. Rather than play the Nancy-Reaganesque spouse, Michelle Obama kept it real, rarely cracking a smile as her attention was focused on keeping control over the 3-year-old in her arms and the 7-year-old running around. She looked like a lioness - not at all like a plastic pol's wife.

Since Ms. Obama is at least as smart as Sen. Clinton, I sincerely doubt it was personal. Even those of us who have little-to-no-fondness for Hill and Bill see that the best thing they produced was Chelsea. If anything was going right in that family, it was their parenting skills.

I agree, Karen -- but, you'll have to admit: The most henious and scurrilous moment of them all, the most serious assault upon Senator Clinton, was when Senator Clinton invited That Man to campaign with Senator Clinton.

You may laugh now.

I'm not an Obamaist, or a Hillarite. But folks -- this wasn't an attack on Hillary, and Greg's question is spot-on.

Read the full transcript, peoples.

Where?

This was not an attack on Senator Clinton. Please, any Clintonistas. Resist getting on your bicycles! Do not help Matt Drudge. Clintonistas, Obamaites, Edwardians and Everybody Elseians. Defend the democratic brand!

I am not a Hillary fan, but even if the quotes was taken out of context, it was still a second handed dig at Hillary Clinton. I am sure the Obama's knew what it would sound like. I really don't care, because I don't want to see the Clintons in the White House again. I was glad when Bill Clinton's presidency came to an end. The Clinton years were really bad for the democrats. I can't imagine the democrats having to go thru this again. I like Obama, but I don't think he is ready to lead the free world. I think Edwards is the right person right now, and he has the ideas and plans that americans need today.

Well, all the Obama fluffers are squealing on this one.

There is no room for this sort of trashy, sexist insinuation. Michelle O-Bomb-A needs to watch her big mouth very carefully.

That one of the most important things that we need to know about the next President of the United States is, is he somebody that shares our values? Is he somebody that respects family? Is a good and decent person? So our view was that, if you can?t run your own house, you certainly can'?t run the White House. So...

In the formal study of communications, it is well understood that 'understanding', which occurs during the decoding of messages, ultimately depends on the listener's frame of reference. Thus it is unsurprising that the above quotation would be interpreted by some as a dig against the Clintons -- irregardless of the subsequent clarification highlighted in Greg's post. Why? Because this 'clarification' could easily be interpreted as an attempt to provide cover for an intentional slight. Since, there is nothing to explicitly characterize the statement one way or other, there is no way to ascribe with any certainty the motivation for the statement.

Unfortunately for Obama, the burden of explanation is on him and his supporters. In my opinion, this will not be helpful to his campaign.

"Michelle O-Bomb-A" is super-trashy. Are you from the Radical Right?

Any candidate highlighting the importance of his/her spouse and their marriage is an attack on Hillary because she can't do that because everyone knows that her marriage is a sham and a public humiliation of Hillary Clinton --- thats the logic of calling this an attack on Hillary Clinton.

Yes. TeamHillary is constantly in attack mode. Perhaps CampObama should do a commercial and make 'putting family values back in the WH' part of their stomp speech. Maybe they should inundate the airwaves with 'familyvalues' pictures of them with their children and the Edwards should do the same.

Remind the public of how they will not be able to have their family look up to what the Clintons represent nationally in terms of family values.

Just wave the red flag in front of the aggressively bullcharging Hillary until she is dizzy from all the many attacks she has out there on the other candidates.

Edwards and Obama should team up with their families and call it Families UNITED for American values ...anything to keep TeamHillary in an uproar.

Isn't Chelsea's boyfriend a jailbird?  Let's put the spotlight on the Clinton 'family values' and what that will mean with Hillary in the WH.

Remind the public of how Bill will be a 'nationalsecurity risk' and how Hillary will have to keep up with Bill and not classified morninging briefings...let the public know what we are once again in store for.

Post a picture of Hillary's 'female team' and put a caption under it asking ...who will be the next Monica?

If Bill is supposedly 'her strength' attack him and his character to remind the public of just what we have been missing.

Take a page out of Rove's book for the Democratic TEAM...just like Hillary has been doing with all her ridiculous attacks on the Obamas.

Does it really matter whether Michelle was dissing Hilary?

This type of flippant self-righteousness is no less annoying and pathetic than when the Republicans employ it.

Hey, Obama. Get a grip on your wife. After all, "if you can't run your own house....".

"Another outright laughable attempt to create an Obama-Hillary cagematch."

Can't sell papers if there ain't no news. So make some news up.

Unfortunately, she stepped into controversial territory. Perhaps this was unintended. Maybe she thought she could just dip her toe in it. The burden of proof is now on the Obama campaign and their supporters.

I keep reminding folks. TPM and EC are not a neutral Democratic site. They are an arm of the DNC. The DNC has selected Hillary as the nominee. Thus the numerous headlines which cast doubt on Obama's candidacy, infer he is correcting gaffes repeatedly and that he is 'not black enough...not to mention how there was no follow up on earmarks Hillary has nor stories on her lack of a universal health care plan. Which we could reasonable expect to be constantly posted about if the site was neutral.

It is not. The site presents poll after national poll touting Hillary's lead over the other Dems without one post or thread that shows that in head to head matchup against every GOP candidate Hillary is a loser. She loses and trails Edward in every matchup and she is even farther behind Obama in head to head national matchups.  Hillary cannot win the General with the high unfavorables she has. Yet, EC constantly hammers us with polls saying she wallops the other Democratic contenders.  If the goal is to win back the WH, Hillary should not be the nominee. She can't win the general.

We will continue to see shoddy journalism and bashing of the other Democratic contenders at EC.  Multiple threads on Elizabeth and Michelle that show them in a negative light are to be expected. Not one thread on Hillary being the biggest recepient of healthcare dollars or of lobbyists money either.

There will not be any threads talking about Bill and his philanderering ways and how that poses a national security risk...we will only see headlines touting him as Hillarys big gun.

How much bias will it take before folks understand that this is a DNC site?

I didn't immediately like Michelle Obama. The first time I saw her, she struck me as being a bit severe. But I've grown to like her alot. She's tough and realistic and she's got a deadly sense of humor when she wants to be funny. If Michelle Obama had intended to insult Hillary, I can pretty much guarantee she would have done a far better job than this.

Not only is the columnist guilty of trying to "punch up" her blurb with a whiff of controversy, she flat-out fibbed when she added that Ms. Obama "didn't elaborate."

And, what a surprise that Mr. Drudge would take advantage of bad reporting (columnizing?) for his own ends. (sarcasm)

Bull.
No one speaking about their OWN family is responsible for other's misconstruing it as an attack on theirs due to their OWN dirty laundry.

If that was the status quo, people could not talk about being honest without crooks and thieves claiming offense!!

I don't buy your accusation that this site is biased towards any candidate or is a DNC site. TPM has a lot invested in their product to be so careless with their brand as you imply. All points of view are fairly represented here.

I would suggest that if you feel that TPM really is biased, that you present a systematic analysis of the biases you perceive along with the relevant facts.

I think it was a cheap shot. It's nice Mrs. Obama is such a traditional female who knows what the proper role for a woman is, to support her man by being home to tuck their children in while he is out and about. And, why is it that she only seems to know how to employ the male pronoun for presidential cnadidates . . . . very traditional indeed. Excuse me, but Chelsea Clinton seems to have turned-out ok. The Obama kids aren't on thier own yet. I'd rather go with someone who has a proven track-record raising a polite, smart, successful, non-drug using, boozing kid. The Obamas would be lucky if thier tucked-in daughters turn-out like Ms. Clinton.

it is well understood that 'understanding', which occurs during the decoding of messages, ultimately depends on the listener's frame of reference.... for Obama, the burden of explanation is on him and his supporters

 This is completely FALSE in terms of who has the burden. What is understood is if the listener's frame of reference falls outside of the norm that the speaker is addressing then they are wise to keep their mouths shut and not draw attention to the fact they accept adultery in their own marriage, when the speaker is addressing their own personal homelife.

So let's put Bill's adultery back on the front page for Hillary to apologize to the nation about. Put Bill's lies on the front page for Hillary to explain to the electorate about why she was BETRAYED by not one but TWO Presidents because she BELIEVED them.

Let's show the electorate how Hillary has  exceptional poor judgment BOTH in her private and professional life as a Senator. Let's emphasize that just like Hillary did not read that NIE report and voted with conviction to send Americans to die has the same conviction in a proven liar that she expected the public to believe was a victim of a VASTRIGHT WING conspiracy.

Michelle Obama has NOTHING to explain but Bill and Hill sure do.

They need to start explaining right now today, why americans should trust Bill in the WH again. Why America whose reputation is in tatters around the globe due to that incompetent 'decider' GWBush we should not be subjected to global humiliation based on some man unable to manage his genitals.

Start explaining HILL an BILL ...start now in the primaries before the GOP, Limbaugh and FOX bring all this tawdry, scum up on the national news for the children in OUR families to LISTEN to all over again!!

First of all, from what experience can you definitively claim that Michelle and Barack can't say anything without clearing with campaign staff? I think Michelle has been playing that role, conveying personal anecdotes to soften up a candidates political image. I'm not naive enough to think her statements aren't prepared, or even reviewed by staffers, but I think it's a little silly to think she's being used (or would allow herself to be used) to launch a personal attack that would undermine a central issue to the Obama campaign.

It's a bit of a stretch to call this single sentence, especially considering the innocuous context, "a direct attack on Hillary and Bill." I'd conceded that there MIGHT be room to interpret that meaning from the statement, but I'd remain skeptical considering the rest of her statements.

Regarding your other points, I don't see any problem whatsoever with Obama claiming Hillary is unelectable, or pointing out her negatives as a candidate. These are political disagreements, and should absolutely be considered fair game. Certainly you wouldn't argue that Hillary has no right to attack Obama's relative lack of experience, just because it may sting a little, and resonate with voters? By your logic, the candidates shouldn't be allowed to criticize each other's political positions and history for personal gain. Its each candidates challenge to overcome these substantive criticisms, convincing voters they're the best candidate for the office.

I think we can agree that personal attacks are futile, and something Obama has pledged openly to avoid. In my view though, the conclusions you draw from Michelle's quote are far fetched, and hardly constitute a personal attack.

There will be cheap shots taken as this goes forward and Obama and Michelle will be advised to hit back hard and harder using facts and indignation to expose those perpetrating lies and defame.

I will state I am an Obama volunteer and find their intellectual integrity far superior than all the other candidates.

I hope this is not taken lightly and Michelle who can carry herself should take to task the SunTimes reporter and Drudge personally....

where or in what manner did they not understand the context nor the quote, except with an agenda...be it partisan or merely professional hypebole.

I'll blame that lousy, misleading headline on the individual who wrote the lousy, misleading headline. I think it's a little over the top to claim that this is a "DNC" site. Well, way over the top, actually. I know what you're getting at, but I think it's individual writers--not the site.

That headline really, really sucks, though. It's something I'd expect from Drudge or the NY Post. Certainly not from TPM. In fact, the headline does exactly what the article accuses others of doing: it grabs attention at the expense of the truth. It's an excellent example of incredibly shoddy journalism.

Jeez--not to labor the point, but I just went back and read it again:

Michelle Steps Into Obama-Clinton Fight

The candidate's wife says, "If you can't run your own house, you can't run the White House."

Who wrote that crap? It's infuriatingly dishonest.

Hey I am not saying Obama can't say anything he wants about Hillary and her supposed un-electable status. But Obama has been testing those attack lines. Obama can say anything he wants.

Do you really believe that Obama or his wife can just go to a rally or a meeting and say anything they want? Please it is a prez campaign for christ's sake. Everything is scripted. Whatever come out of a candidate's mouth is scripted.

I am no political pro but I can very certain that a candidate don't say things w/o consulting with their advisers. They run internal polls daily and test their messages daily via focus groups etc...so I don't need to be there with Obama to know that his words and hie wife's words are carefully scripted.

I don't know if Mrs. Obama meant to attack Hillary, but I think that Hillary needs to be tested on this issue. If the general election comes down to Romney vs. Hillary, the right-wing trash machine could turn into a referendum on extra-curicular blow-jobs.

It's nice to see that people are willing to disregard context to justify their views. Seriously, this is another NON-CONTROVERSY, CONTROVERSY. And it is compounded by HRC supporters buying into this crap. How does that song go "You probably think this song is about you..."

if you feel that TPM really is biased, that you present a systematic analysis of the biases you perceive along with the relevant facts

For a systematic analysis look in the mirror.

I read the implied comparison as being about all of our "family values" friends on the right. She's talking about her kids--not whether she and Obama have a happy sex life.

Thanks for the clarification (mm irony), I better understand what you were getting at now. I think it's a better idea for Obama to respond to the controversy if this keeps getting bigger. Clarification, along with an insistence that the statement be presented in context, will hopefully persuade journalists/MSM, if they report the story, to treat the subject fairly (fat chance).

Hillary has never misconstrued anything in her life. Kamp Hillary simply looks for every available opportunity to make it appear that she's being unfairly attacked by Obama. The goal is to diminish the effectiveness of his real attacks. It's a ploy, not a defense.

I keep reminding folks. TPM and EC are not a neutral Democratic site. They are an arm of the DNC. The DNC has selected Hillary as the nominee.

This effectively establishes the fact TPM-EC is a neutral site. Why? Well, because I, as a HRC supporter, had leveled the same charge against TPM-EC but the other way around, accusing them of bias in favor of Obama, and even suggesting that they trade the TPM-EC logo for "Obama '08"...

I have since learned that TPM-EC has tried to be fair (for instance, "Yepsen declares Obama debate winner, presidential." Good for Obama, no?). The polls are what they are, and are not commissioned by TPM-EC. I understand that you do not like them, but for chrissake, do not shoot the messenger!

The site presents poll after national poll touting Hillary's lead over the other Dems without one post or thread that shows that in head to head matchup against every GOP candidate Hillary is a loser. She loses and trails Edward in every matchup and she is even farther behind Obama in head to head national matchups. Hillary cannot win the General with the high unfavorables she has.

You asked for it you got it. As you can see, what you claim simply is NO LONGER true. Please read the accompanying text to get the full picture of how things have evolved over the last couple of months, and maybe you'll drop that tired, worn out line altogether:

Released: July 18, 2007 ZOGBY: Dems Hold General Election Edge as Clinton Makes Big Move; Obama Remains Strong Against GOPers

Prospective match–ups show Clinton consolidating support among moderates & independents
Bloomberg has little impact as third candidate

Democrat Hillary Clinton has taken a big leap forward in prospective general election presidential match–ups against Republicans Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, riding mainly on a powerful wave of support from women and political moderates, a new Zogby International poll shows.

The telephone survey of likely voters has the former First Lady and New York senator leading all of the top four GOP contenders in prospective races, a significant improvement for her over the last Zogby poll to test such contests in mid–May. Democrat Barack Obama continues to lead those same four contenders – Giuliani, McCain, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and candidate–in–waiting Fred Thompson, the former senator from Tennessee – as he did in Zogby’s May survey.

Clinton (7/14/2007)
v. McCain: Clinton 45%–43%
v. Giuliani: Clinton 46%–41%
v. Romney: Clinton 48%–38%
v. Thompson: Clinton 47%–41%

The poll, conducted July 12–14, 2007, included 1,012 likely voters nationwide, and carries a margin of error of +/– 3.1 percentage points.

Clinton’s move over the past two months has been dramatic. Against Giuliani, Clinton has moved from a five–point deficit (Giuliani 48%–Clinton 43%) to a six–point lead, 47%–41%. Among moderates, Clinton expanded a six–point lead in May (48%–42%) to a massive 24–point edge, now leading Giuliani by a 55% to 31% edge. Against McCain, she went from a 49%–45% deficit among moderates to a strapping 52% to 35% lead – and this against the two moderate Republican leaders in the presidential race.

Her move to shore up female support is just as dramatic. For instance, in the contest against Giuliani in May, the two were tied among women at 45%. Now, Clinton leads, 54% to 35%. Against McCain, she expanded her lead from 7% to 10%, edging the Arizona senator, 51% to 41%.

Among independents, she moved from a 47%–39% deficit against McCain to a 46%–36% lead over him. Against Giuliani, Clinton moved from a one–point deficit among independents to a five–point lead.

Obama (7/14/2007)
v. McCain: Obama 45%–42%
v. Giuliani: Obama 46%–42%
v. Romney: Obama 49%–35%
v. Thompson: Obama 48%–40%

Obama’s edge over his prospective Republican rivals remained largely the same as in the May survey.

The survey shows, in fact, that McCain’s support among moderates and independents across the board has collapsed – this after his failure on the recent immigration reform bill and widespread reports of a campaign prone to mismanagement and fund–raising shortfalls. Not only does McCain now trail Obama and Clinton in the head–to–head match–ups, he has fallen into a 43%–43% tie with Democrat John Edwards, when two months ago he enjoyed a five–point lead against the former North Carolina senator.

Edwards (7/14/2007)
v. McCain: Tied at 43%
v. Guiliani: Giuliani 46%–43%
v. Romney: Edwards 47%–38%
v. Thompson: Edwards 46%–40%

Can Michelle have it both ways? She can certainly try. Can the Obamas undo this situation? Absolutely NOT! Yes, the MSM would like to see this as a personal contest between the Obamas and the Clintons. Michelle can certainly attempt to plausibly deny an implied attack with the evidence provided by her qualifying remark.

I hope Team Hillary makes a big deal out of this because it will backfire with the very women who already see Hillary's candidacy as a problem. Women who value family and women who choose to raise families and not have professional careers. Those women will be put out that a woman cannot even take pride in her own family, loving marriage and their need to have a father they can respect without someone like Hillary taking issue with it.

Let Hillary make a big deal about this. Women will rise up and demolish her.

She better sit back down, STFU and go home with Bill.  The Obama's represent the type of family right along with The Edward's that America wants in the WH.  Not that nationally REKNOWN adulterer baggage she continues to promote on the campaign trail.

First of all puissant, I will apologize for any implied personal attacks I may have made in the past. I would like to stick with the substance of the posts and not ascribe motives one way or the other.

I am not saying that the Obamas or the their campaign has a moral burden to explain their statements here.

They do not have to explain themselves at all. I don't know if this will just go away if they just stop talking about it and are careful about this in the future.

My point is that if there is explaining to do, the burden will be on them, their campaign, and their supporters. If future statements and rhetoric keep this issue alive, it will be up to them to control it.

Now as to firing up the Clinton's marital problems, if Obama wants to do this he is more than welcome -- but there would be a huge cost to his campaign. It would only hurt him and the party. Most Democrats would be disgusted at having to revisit this. This is Hillary's campaign, not Bill's.

The Republican's may try to do this, but again Hillary is not Bill -- no matter who tries to equate the two.

Personally, I think Hillary just needs a good BJ.

You write:

I hope Team Hillary makes a big deal out of this because it will backfire with the very women who already see Hillary's candidacy as a problem.

Obama and his supporters would only wish. I would be surprised if she says anything. Obama is the one in the spotlight here. Right now the spotlight isn't showing a positive situation.

Now, what does Hillary need to STFU about?

Thanks for the link, and it is, indeed, a pretty fluffy piece of stuff.

But why does the reporter say, after the remark in question "she didn't elaborate, but it could be construed..." etc? According to the transcript above, she clearly elaborated on what she meant in that transcript. Was the reporter at a different speech where she said the same thing, without continuing on with the context?

If not, then this is indeed very shoddy journalism.

Not true - it is found in many dictionaries! It is true that it is not considered by professional writers as good written prose. But I do not make any claims at being erudite.

I have a friend who's been a 'Town Meeting Member' in MA for 20 years, so he's more qualified than all of them by your logic.

And next time, it's "peeve", not "peave".

"Unfortunately, she stepped into controversial territory."

No she didn't. She was minding her own business, talking about her own family, and the Sun Times, Drudge and, sadly, TPM Election Central stuck a big, fat cow pie in her path.

(After reading the Sun Times piece, I've removed them from the perp list.)

Good grief, "to model what it means to have family values" simply means that Michelle and Barack wanted more time with their two daughters and are working quite hard at ensuring that. John and Elizabeth did exactly the same thing with their two young children.

Modeling = time with your family unit.

Not a difficult concept to undertand, IMO.

I want to see Obama beat her fair and square and on the issues. If he can accomplish that, not only does he deserve to be president, I believe he will be president. When this is all over, I'm confident we will have at least chosen the person most qualified to beat the snot out of the Republicans.

When she keeps the line about the White House knowing how it plays the spite is intended.

Tell it to Michelle.

....I, as a HRC supporter, had leveled the same charge against TPM-EC but the other way around, accusing them of bias in favor of Obama, and even suggesting that they trade the TPM-EC logo for "Obama '08"

I need to clarify a bit why I had leveled the dreaded charge of 'bias' against TMC-EC: When I started posting here again, I had come back and found a few of my posts deleted. The posts in question were usually 'hard-hitting' in challenging Obama's fitness to be POTUS. I had emailed TPM to ask why my posts were being deleted, but I was assured that TPM was NOT in the business of deleting posts, and that deletions, if any, might have been accidental. But then I understood between the lines why my posts might have been deleted: I noticed that the Obamites were going around awarding posts that they disagreed with a rating of '0', which caused them to be deleted as 'trolls.' Since my complaint, I have seen a few posters admonished for abusing the rating system. Voila! So, all in all, I never really thought TPM-EC was biased. I just did not understand why my 'anti-Obama' posts were being deleted. Thankfully, the deletions appear to have stopped.

This is an excellent race no matter who you're supporting, isn't it? We have more than enough great candidates, while they have zilch. Hillary is currently the front-runner and the heir apparent and I can't think of a better test for the rest of the field than to beat her for the nomination. Running against the Clinton machine is, for a Democrat, the ultimate test. For a Republican, not so much...

Fact free.

So my surgeon's husband is qualified to operate on me because he keeps her practice's books?

So Obama is going to be a good President because he is going to make sure Michelle gets home in time to put the children in bed? Tell it to Mamie Eishenhower.

Deleting accidental double post.

I want to see Obama beat her fair and square and on the issues

I wish that was possible also. Unfortunately when it comes to issues there is no such thing as fair and square when it is a man vs. women. In America, there is no such thing as fair and square when it comes to race.

So, to wish for such is an exercise in futility.

Only people who listen and think like Hillary would misconstrue an openly honest statement of fact as some how an 'attack' on their flawed character and tawdry homelife.

Has Hillary weighed in? I don't think she has.

Drudge's mission was to create a conflict where none existed. I suggest that to choose sides in this non-issue is to take Drudge's bait.

Great sleuthing Donna.

Which is why I find the reason WRB gave about the lack of neutrality for the site very plausible

Isn't Chelsea's boyfriend a jailbird?

Please check your facts before posting slander. Chelsea's boyfriend's father was convicted of a felony, not the boyfriend.

I came across the following on MSNBC. They claim that Obama's on the so-called 'wine track.' Perhaps the interview with Michelle and all that babble about how it's all about the children is supposed to give Obama a more 'downmarket' appeal. I mean come on. The Obamas are turning into the Flanders here.
[CT]
One million page hits against Bush!!!

This whole dust up is ridiculous.

If your husband cheats, you don't "run" your house?

Maybe someone should take a look at Chelsea if they have a question about Hillary running the house.

Limbaugh once called her "the White House dog."

She has grown up to be an attractive, poised and obviously intelligent woman that any parent would be proud of.

Then there's the Bush twins...

Great stuff.

"coy forgetfulness". Nice way to describe what goes on sometimes.

I still remember the endless discussion about Obama's foreign policy speech, and the continued wilful mischaracterization of his stance on what to do with terrorists in Pakistant. SOS, same cast of characters as today.

...so I don't need to be there with Obama to know that his words and hie wife's words are carefully scripted

LOL, with Obama and Michelle, you do not get the luxury of that kind of lazy generalization. It must be hard to only have the old boxed-up conventional notions with which to witness something different.

Again: Hillary hasn't said a word about this non-issue (correct me if I'm wrong).

The purpose of the Drudge headline was not to favor one Dem candidate over the other. It was to stir s*it up.

One look at the above post will confirm that the plan was a resounding success.

This whole dust up is ridiculous.

I agree, but the dust needs to settle without lingering misinterpretations.

If your husband cheats, you don't "run" your house?

Maybe someone should take a look at Chelsea if they have a question about Hillary running the house.

Limbaugh once called her "the White House dog."

She has grown up to be an attractive, poised and obviously intelligent woman that any parent would be proud of.

All of these points are relevant only if one first misinterprets Michelle's words as about anyone except the Obama family. But I agree with your last three points, and it is true that other commenters did start making comparisons......

Then there's the Bush twins...

Not pertinent, unless for an oft-used deflective segue into 'Clinton vs Bush', which is O/T.

Thanks, that jarred me, too.

Donna G:

You were the one who reported that Michelle used this line in two states.

Unscripted, puleeze.

What is truly naive is your belief that you are witnessing something different. Go read JoeChi's old posts.

Complaining that EC is an opposition research site is blaming the messenger.

When she keeps the line about the White House knowing how it plays the spite is intended.

When you cling to your misinterpretation, is spite intended?

BTW, by your measuring stick, do you mean to imply that all political speech should fit into bland generalities which can never be interpreted by those with chips on their shoulders?

I would like to know from those who rated this post as a 1 or 0, what makes it trollish? I am not seeing it.

If you agree that the Shrub Twins are just a couple of underqualified, Paris Hilton wannabes because at least Paris' daddy was a successful businessman, then the comments "could be interpreted" as an attack on the House of Bush. But of course, she said no such thing.

That wasn't slander. It was a question due to the lack of certainty. Thanks for the correction.

So, his daddy is a felon and Chelsea's is an adulterer. Got it.

All of this is nice (and I certainly don't mean to belittle her achievements), but none of it, collectively or individually, provides any UNIQUE experience to be President of the United States over any of the other candidates. I understand as a supporter you're looking for ways to underscore her experience argument, but the reality is that no prior job truly provides a meaningful proxy of what it means to be President of the United States.

I think your argument would find more support if you talked about her qualitative factors (decision-making abilities, conflict resolution etc.) that she obtained from these jobs than just making conclusory and self-serving statements about her "experience". HRC has substance, I just wish she (and her campaign) would stress it more.

Respectible women: Very Victorian of you.

I take it that you were there holding Hillary's hand when she decided that ambition kept her with Bill?

Just what do you think the impact of a divorce would have been on Chelsea whom everybody agrees has turned out well with the decision that was made?

It is a problem for you that Hillary is ambitious?

I know of no one who reached the White House without ambition.

Forgiveness is clearly not in your lexicon.

I will judge Hillary on her own actions, not Bill's.

Besides: It may not be an issue: She may be running against Giuliani.

Remember Bill is not running. Hillary is.

The problem is that whenever folks point that out people want to bring up how great Bill is as if he has some virtuous character. THAT's a Problem.

Bill is a lowdown twotiming wenchwrestling blowjobhaving adulterer and that is what him and Hill as a team mean to independents and folks with family values and especially women  raising children who believe in marriage and family. Fathers of small children are not all that excited about his 'national adultery' either because they have to explain it to their kids and assert that 'daddy isn't like that'...just like Obama had to tell his girls about that Obamagirl video.  Bill's adultery is no joke to families and not something easily repudiated when he is a president and his wife is now running for the same job. Kids do not get why they would be looked up to and rewarded like that. Kids get mistakes. They do not get daddy cheating on mommy. 

Democrats need to get use tohearing this again because it is all going to come roaring back like a tsunami over the national airwaves.

While folks can rate me 1's and zero's for saying it...it is what we are going to hear incessantly if Hillary becomes the nominee.

So don't hate the messenger. We simply need to clean up our acts and recognize that Hillary as the nominee in the general election is going to be an unecessary  exercise  in hell. Given that we have candidates who are far better and with far less dirty laundry.

I do not know any mother who wants her daughter to believe that infidelity is worth staying with a man if you get to be President or telling her son that it is OK once you are powerful to disrespect your wife, your family and the entire nation with a BJ in the oval office 'because you can'.

It just is not justifiable on so many levels that it is unbelieveable that we are even considering having to with Edwards and Obama more than capable of stepping up and representing this country proudly.

So what is your explanation for Bill's high approval ratings in his last year in office?

Voters care more about how well the government is running than how well the marriage in the White House is doing.

Children need to learn that you do not need to be perfect to be useful.

The political damage over this has already occurred and Hlllary showed she can overcome it in New York. And the polls show that she can overcome it nationally against the unattractive set of Republican candidates.

The claim is simply not "no experience" but experiences that are "relevant". Everything one does has some degree of relevance in terms of evaluating one's life...I just don't see the list as adding to Hillary's resume for the presidency.

I restrict myself to actual political campaigns, election results and what one's time was spent doing while being in elected political office with the greatest weight to the actual votes and not the "surrounding statements". I also think being appointed to a major policy issue counts--as Hillary's effort for healthcare should count. I also consider publications PRIOR to political office (after it gets a bit too calculating, IMO). I consider public servant type efforts--like the Edwards' effort for a foundation to honor their son. I also give some weight to college/university teaching roles.

In my decades as a dues-paying Democrat, I have relied too much on MSM and, frankly, Dem leaders. Now, I'm relying on what I consider the most important attributes a Prez can have with the least attention paid to opinionated diatribes and even the candidates' glowing resumes put out by their respective campaigns.

I'm simply tired of voting for the "lesser of" instead of who I believe best represents the values of the Dems and my own values. It has not resulted in very many Dem Prez wins in the past decades or permanent gains for the Dem Party. So I changed how I looked at things.

Classifying the post as a "Troll" is a bit much

Actually, it's abuse of the ratings system. 

It might be unfair to judge a post on its superficial qualities

It is, but you're entitled to do it, I guess. But the grammatical mistakes didn't really take away from what the person was saying, did they?

Credit to you, though, for explaining your rating. At least it was based on logic, and not simply that someone said something mean about Obama. (Or Hillary...take your pick.) 

This leads a reader reader to conclude...

The grammar gremlins work in strange and mysterious ways...

:-) 

"Thank God George Bush is our president." -Rudy Giuliani

If the Radical Right wants to swiftboat the Obama family for trying to have some parental time with two very young children, I say let the RR fly with it. And your innuendos that there's something amiss in the Obama family is simply that--nasty innuendo that I almost always see coming from the Radical Right.

If you have a peeping tom craze to discover the "secret family life of the Obamas" then please morph into a reporter and go after it. Of course, I fully expect you will not waste your time because I suspect you already know there is nothing to discover except a family unit struggling to maintain normality for two young daughters.

The pattern is that the 'coy forgetfulness' never seems to apply to a controversial issue where Hillary is the subject of distortion and misrepresentation rather it is consistently Edwards and Obama who the same cast of characters engage in 'coy forgetfulness'.

Despite the clear pattern, folks insist remarks  pointing out the clear pattern are over the top. The headlines on the threads demonstrate the pattern.

I think Obama is tone deaf to political reality. It shows in his remarks concerning meeting with other leaders, dissing Musharraf and explaining it didn't count because it was still the primaries and now this.

You can make attacks but it you do you should stand behind them and explain why they are correct.

What I dislike is the dishonesty in making an attack and pretending you haven't.

If you say something, and it is taken in a way you didn't intend, you apologize, explain what you did mean and in future make your point in a different way. She has kept using the same language and if her political advisors did not talk to her they should have.

I have lived abroad and I knew immediately how Obama's remark about Pakistan would be taken there and I remain alarmed that he didn't.

It's a measure of how small we all are, we little people:

We need role models.

Not want. Not tolerate. Not suffer, like we might suffer any other ordinary fool, because really: we have no choice.

These candidates are convinced, to the last one, that Americans need role models. And they are each contending before us to be the great man and great woman by way of excellence and competence in a suburban middle management role.

So, you know, it's all about images and modelling and political catwalks and "I'm too sexy for my shirt" and I guess I'll hold my nose and vote Democrat again.

The first line of the comment does not belong on *any* publicly accessible site, under any circumstances, ever.

The second line is thoughtless and puerile, though not as inexcusably inappropriate.

And what are you?

Isn't she directing this more at Rudy?

It depends upon whose standards you apply. :) I don't have a whole lot of respect for the DNC these days, so I guess I don't really care who they consider to be the opposition. But I wouldn't personally consider a candidate who wasn't sanctioned by the DNC to be an opposition candidate at this point. Once we're running against the Republicans, everyone who doesn't have a viable chance to beat them is the opposition in my book.

This is very serious. Naral, in the spirit of supporting the flipflopping Al Gore over Bill Bradley in spite of a clearly more supportive history of votes from Bradley 8 years ago, should demand Michelle take a lie detector test, and answer the question "when you said If you can't run your own house, you can't run the White House, was that in any way a reference to Hillary Clinton?"

Then, in the spirit of anticipating swift boat type of attacks on Hillary after they nominate her, should require her to answer the question "do you believe your husband never raped Juanita Broaddrick?"

"Romney will occupy the oval office in 09 if Hillary is the nominee."

I agree. But to get the nomination, the rest of the candidates have to get past Hillary. That's just a fact.

I read the article and it is clear that Michelle was attacking Hillary.

The only people who read an "attack" in Michelle Obama's comments are Republicans who want to stir up the Democratic primary and Hillary suppoters who see the whole world as a battle with attacks and counteracttacks. Attributing Clinton motives to the Obamas is untrue and unfair.

...as for Hillary, she has been a successful Senator for 7 years

Actually, Hillary has been a presidential candidate for 7 years based in the Senate.  What exactly can anyone cite as her "successes?" 

She has co-sponsored a lot of legislation that has gone nowhere; Senators do that to look busy, and some people fall for it. With no opposition to speak of, Hillary was re-elected in 2006, which qualified her as a "successful" Senator if the test is continued employment. Her major distinction in the Senate has been to demonstrate monumental lack of good judgment in voting for the Iraq War, a  clear failure on the most important vote she will likely ever face.

This faux controversy and the effort to attribute an affront that was never intended is great evidence of the Clinton baggage and distraction. It's a fact that the Obamas are giving a priority to family even with the pressures of politics and a campaign. It has nothing to do with the Clintons.

The contrast to the Clintons, however, is significant without a word from Michelle. I am sure Hillary and her supporters are very sensitive on the issue of marriage and family. It is a major issue Billary wants to avoid. It's a simple fact that Hillary's husband cheated on her a lot and it did damage to their family's relationships. By all appearences, Bill and Hillary have been separated since the Monica affair,with a marriage that is a professional partnership maintained to get Hillary elected. If she and Bill had divorced, she would not be a Senator or presidential candidate. Of course it will be a factor in the campaign. But it has nothing to do with the Obamas.

It seems a direct response to Obama's effectiveness in Sunday's debate. If you can't beat him on substance, create a controversy so Hillary can play the victim card again. Interesting strategy for a strong woman campaigning to lead the nation and the world.

It is clear upon reading the quote within context that she is talking about her own family.

With regards to what the "proper" role for half the species is, one should not perpetuate the ignorance that believes the appropriate role for women is resigned to the margins as support nor confuse custom with nature.

Children need to learn that you do not need to be perfect to be useful

Children need to learn that there are consequences for inappropriate behavior and illicit actions.

The political damage over this has already occurred and Hlllary showed she can overcome it in New York

A NY Senator is not the PRESIDENT of the UNITED States. The political damage of this is not going to end with Bill BACK in the WH. It is reliving the nightmare.  Hillary is campaigning with Bill as THE CLINTONS...the 'comeback kids' all over again.

ugh..the indecency of it all is just unmitigated gall.

And the polls show that she can overcome it nationally against the unattractive set of Republican candidates

False. Hillary is behind both Edwards and Obama in head to head matchups with the GOP contenders. Obama has the biggest lead over the GOP contenders he beats Guiliani, McCain, Thompson and Romney by much larger margins than Clinton and Edwards.

Hillarys negatives are too high to win the General. Democrats will rue the day they put her up as the nominee.

I fail to see how any of that is worth more than Obama's years spent as a community organizer, and when she gets into an argument about experience that justifies that, she loses because he's outclassed her there, all over the place.

If you don't think family values are important, you're missing the fact that values has been a buzzword the GOP has used to slay us for 8+ years.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a candidate who can turn that phrase on it's head and use values against the GOP's crop?

Yes, don't forget her time in Arkansas, when she worked as a corporate lawyer doing shady deals on savings and loans and sat on the WalMart board of directors with hefty compensation. Good experience for serving special interest lobbyists.

She had the resources of the federal budget and a full staff. "Hosting" conferences, traveling, and 'helping" to establish things give a notable resume for a First Lady

And despite the use of our tax dollars she STILL did nothing for the American workers, wiomen nor their families or children. Not one thing. Not one blasted thing.

I wish TPM would give more scrutiny to HRC's record and campaign.

I just fail to see what qualifies her to be President, as opposed to Edwards or Obama. She took the initiative in 1994 on health care and blew it.
She voted for the war, and has used weasel words to explain her vote, instead of just apologizing and admitting to a mistake. When polled, she has the highest negatives of any candidate ever.

Forget about Clinton II, this is going to be Dukakis II.

But somehow, saying the truth out loud will probably classify me as a misogynist troll, instead of someone who would like to see a true Democrat in office, not a former Goldwater Girl.

This is Hillary's campaign, not Bill's.

Do you really believe that? Hillary is only qualiifed as a surrogate for Bill. "Her" campaign is HIS campaign for a third term.

OK no news that I'm a Hillary supporter. But the fact that it was part of a "family values" speech (as least that's the lead-in MSNBC gave it) is what made me think of it as a shot at the Clintons.

Not that it's any more valuable than any other anecdotal evidence, but as we watched the story tonight I turned to my housemate and asked what she thought...she said it sounded like a shot at Hillary. (She's way modern so I don't think she's got bad attitudes about women's roles.)

I think this is less important as a cheap shot, and more about another campaign gaffe -- IF as they say the Obamas said it quite innocently, as it self-evidently could be seen as an attack line (outside their bubble). Poorly considered choice.

Also, the candidate's wife talking about the two of them as a moral and parental model for the nation is one of those things that can easily make the skin crawl. She's got real Theresa Heinz Kerry potential.

In other words, you are so Pavlovian trained that even when someone is wresting the "family values" mantle away from the Republicans you feel it is an attack on Hillary Clinton. It wasn't a gaffe, no where near as saying 'I wanted to be more than just a stay at home mom.' If anything, the 'gaffe' is on Hillary's supporters who have been so primed to try and jump on any BS as a 'gaffe' no matter how truthful or correct the statement might be. Or to be less subtle, using nuclear weapons to go after a camp of Al Queda targets is like using a sledge hammer to go after a fly. Not only are you not likely to get the fly (or the Al Queda targets), the collateral damage will be far worse than if you didn't go after the fly in the first place. Admitting that as a fact does not give anything away. Instead it proves that you actually have a brain.

Look, if it was a shot, you'd know it. Somebody would be spitting blood. Why should we be making tea out of Drudge's undrshorts to discern the possible meanings of this? Hillary made a pretty good speech at the VFW in which she made a mild comment that in Anbar province, Petraeus's tactics are paying off, too little and too late; and that there is no easy alternative, but that we can't ask American boys to die in a civil war which doesn't involve us. This, Drudge said meant, "The surge is working," and idiots of all sorts picked that up. Here's the flip side. Somebody misreads a speech by Michelle Obama, obviously, and Drudge links to it, and all kinds of people pop a gusset. See any patterns here? Sure, Drudge can pander to the GOP with the best of them; why do we end up believing that crap?

Obligatory on-topic content: no, this was not an attack on HRC. It was crappy reporting.

This discussion has, however, been very illuminating about the root of some anti-HRC feeling, here and elsewhere. Not all of it, mind you: there are substantive reasons why one might not support her candidacy - her apparently expansive view of executive branch power, for one. (For the record, I've narrowed it down to her or Obama, but I'm trying to keep an open mind about, say, Edwards, and if this crap keeps up for the next four to six months I'll vote for f'ing Kucinich!) But clearly underneath some of it is this:

How DARE that FALLEN WOMAN corrupt the MORALS of our CHILDREN and FAMILIES by DARING to SHOW HER FACE in PUBLIC! If she had KNOWN HER PLACE we'd have universal health care and NONE OF THIS would EVER have HAPPENED!

I have pretty serious reservations about HRC, but the scarlet letter she has apparently received because of her husband of all people is not one of them.

I'm shocked to find this, but I guess I shouldn't be. Besides, it's good practice for being shocked at the inevitable Republican attempts to play the race card if Obama is nominated. Neither likely attack will affect my choice.

Dead on about the abuse. Things on this forum get zeroed for entirely too prejudicial reasons.

From Wikipedia: Troll (Internet)

In the context of internet culture, an internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts messages about sensitive topics constructed to cause controversy in an online community such as an online discussion forum or USENET groups in order to bait users into responding.

Vehement disagreement with a post at best warrants an "unproductive", unless someone is just plain insulting. It's a mark of maturity to be able to read something from an opposing point of view and respect it (i.e. not try to judge it into oblivion).

There is a certain group on TPMCafe that abuses the rating system far more blatantly and egregiously than others. Thankfully it appears that TPM Cafe doesn't hide comments as easily as other sites.

uh huh.

whatever...

If you bothered to actually look at what and how I rate it you would see a pattern. And no, it isn't just about those that I disagree with. I have trolled and marked as unproductive quite a few that supported positions I have.

My criterea is simple. If it is an unprovoked attack or purposeful misrepresentation, I mark it as a troll. If it is somewhat provoked or slightly related to the thread but still over the top, I will generally rate it a 1 or 2 depending on how relevant it is. 3-5 are given as a general feeling about how well it is written, how persuasive it is and can, somewhat, be read as how much I support the underlying concept/theme of the post. My goal is to support an environment that actually has substantive discussions, that isn't about just name calling and who can get away with the biggest gross exaggeration or whopper.

You, on the other hand, seem to have a different agenda. It doesn't matter whether a person is practicing purposeful distortions. It doesn't matter if the person offers nothing but insults veiled within empty rhetoric. The posts and the posters that routinely use such practices shouldn't be identified as such.

Does using profanity really help make your point?

Bill is popular because he is a FORMER president. As the campaign heats up, and if Bill engages Hillary's us and them, vanquish the enemy, attack hard when criticized campaign strategy, his approval ratings will, of course, suffer.

Would someone please completely remove this headline and crappy non-story from TPM now? Forever? Please?

Please note, the following isn't a comment on your particular ratings practices. For all I know, your ratings could be spot on every time. But you point out several difficulties in how we rate people, and why things are not always as clear-cut, and why we should always take the side of free speech, rather than censorship, when using the ratings.

If it is an unprovoked attack or purposeful misrepresentation, I mark it as a troll. If it is somewhat provoked or slightly related to the thread but still over the top...

Can you always tell the difference between something that's a "purposeful misrepresentation" and someone who just has a different opinion, or may have heard different "facts," or any other possibilities?

Is "over the top" at all an objective standard?

It doesn't matter whether a person is practicing purposeful distortions.

Again, "purposeful." For that, you'd have to know the person's intentions. And the medium within which we debate and discuss is an incredibly difficult environment for gleaning things like "intentions."

There are no non-verbal queues or other contextual information, only words on a blog. Unless you're a mind reader, or unless it's the most obvious and blatant kind of troll (which is actually a rare thing), you just don't know.

It doesn't matter if the person offers nothing but insults veiled within empty rhetoric. The posts and the posters that routinely use such practices shouldn't be identified as such.

Again, I don't see a lot of this within Election Central, certainly not compared the number of troll ratings given out. And, again, I don't see how things like "empty rhetoric" can be used as a standard. Even "insults" is arbitrary, because people take anything mean that's said about [insert pet candidate here], and see it as an insult.

People are allowed to provide "empty rhetoric" here. People are allowed to say whatever they want.

People obviously don't like that fact, but it's a fact. 

What is clearly happening in Election Central is people are ratings comments they don't agree with, rather than on the content. The better approach is to just ignore the comment. 

And I also want to respond specifically to your comment above:

To have it auto-removed.

That's not what the ratings are for. Ratings for a person cumulate into a "karma" score. Granted, AJM's karma is completely f*&cked already, so in this case it doesn't matter.

But troll-rating a comment that you simply don't think others can see actually has a detrimental on the person's overall ratings score. The only real reason that's important is it could be the difference between someone having the ability to see -- and therefore uprate -- troll-rated comments.

What you could be doing there is making it more difficult to use the ratings system as it's intended.

Again, in that person's case, it wouldn't matter. But as a general practice, we should not be zero-ing out things that we just don't want others to see. It's not how the ratings are to be used.

Absolutely.

Which is why I, like you will mod up things I am not necessarily in accord with, just to offset an unwarranted zero. The zeros get thrown around here a lot by a certain contingent, with intent, it seems to bury comments they don't like or that are unfavorable to their candidate. Then when called on it, they act like High School English teachers grading on grammar.

If your candidate is that good, you have nothing to fear from free speech. If you are out to squelch opinions with a different view than yours, I have to question your (and the associated campaign's) motives.

Actually, in aggregate Edwards usually has a (slightly) higher margin over the respective republican candidates than does Obama.

Sheesh, even AOL has gotten in on the act, running one of their very unscientific polls with the news article about Mrs. Obama's comments as an attack on the Clintons'. The poll question, "is Michelle Obama correct about the Clintons'?

I found it interesting Mrs Obama's alleged attack recieved more attention than the comments made yesterday by Senator Clinton before the VFW convwention. "the new strategy is working in al Anbar province and a few other places but, it's too late."

Just when I get comfortable with a Clinton candidacy she goes and makes a statement like that. I'm back to sitting on the fence but leaning away from her. I hate it.

Duplicate

My Karma was doing nicely, thank you, prior to my making comments on the Palestinians, Nader and Obama. I promptly realized that I could muzzle myself with respect to these issues or accept my fate. I doubt that the quality or character of my posts have changed much as I change topics. I do get repetitive which I will try to cotrol.

Sometimes a relatively colorful insult is a more telling way of making a point than a boring lecture. The substantive point I was aiming at is that it is simply factually incorrect to equate civic and familial virtue. Running a good family is neither sufficient nor necessary in order to be a good President. Most of the American public understood this as is shown by the way they reacted to Bill Clinton.

There is also a squeamishness about illicit sex that some Americans indulge in more than do Europeans. It does remind me of the fifties although I had forgotten about Ike's wartime indulgence. In my judgment both Clinton and Monica who was an adult female who flung herself at him were betraying the country by risking the harm to his Presidency. I despise the way he treated Hillary. This does not negate the fact that I believe Hillary and Bill have both a political partnership and a loving marriage. I have been maintaining since Bill Clinton was first elected that he is a good ol' boy married to a Methodist Lady and that it has taken them both a great deal of effort to work it out.

Both Gore and Lieberman were personally repulsed by Bill's behavior and chose to distance themselves from Bill totally. The American public as a whole was more tolerant as shown by Bill's approval ratings and made the separation between how good he was as a President and how he conducts his private life. Politically I think Gore would have been far wiser not to have distanced himself from Bill. Lieberman was part of that attempt to gain distance from Bill and that we can all now agree was a bad mistake.

To see that same prissy strain resurfacing in Michelle's comment was disgusting and alarming. You do not talk about your family by sayng you. The defense of Michelle in the posts here runs along the lines of "She didn't say it and what she said was true." Which is remarkably like the thief's claim 'I didn't steal it and besides it wasn't worth as much as you said.'

Obama has a remarkable record of making statements and claiming not to have seen coming reactions which even I could have predicted beforehand.

I also object to his pattern of portraying himself as a new type of politicians and then indulging in these vicious sideswipes and then claiming that he wasn't doing anything. Accidentally mean but not on purpose doesn't cut it.

For the enjoyment of those of you who have presevered to the end of this post, here is a world class insult from Harold Nicolson circa post WWII courtesty of the New Yorker characterizing the United States as 'a giant with the limbs of an undergraduate, the emotions of a spinster, and the brain of a pea-hen.'