I was really suprised b/c she is a great speaker...I am going to asume the moment caught up w/ her, but she needs to be careful b/c this could come back to haunt her husband .
Every public speaker makes flubs. I don't think she meant to say she has never been proud of America. But it really doesn't matter. She is not a candidate and her feelings about America is not an issue. I hate it when politicians nit pick on every little thing that is said. That only detracts from the real issues. I hope the Republicans do not go down that route. By the way, McCain made a great speech tonight. Obama is making one now in which he is promising everyone the kitchen sink.
much ado about nothing. She was talking about the force of "change". I think what she meant is the people usually get duped by the lies of the party, and since they have no real choice (i.e. a people's candidate who is not indebted to the party), they nominate two "party men" and have a choice of "the lesser of two evils". Obama presents himself as a man of the people, and not on the scene long enough to be too indebted to the party. By the American people voting for Obama, for the first time in a long time, there will be one candidate running for Pres. who is not "owned" by his party and through them, by big corporate america. If that's what she's saying, and it is in that context that I interpret her comments, she would basically be correct. I think her comments are from a certain perspective, and in the general case, they make no sense. You have to put them in the context they are delivered, and not take them out of context, unless you don't like Obama and democrats, in which case you'll just bitch about them. Basically she is complimenting the electorate for trying to "free" themselves from party and corporate ownership.
I'm not so sure this is a flub. Under pressure, sometimes folks' filters don't work 100% and they end up saying what they are feeling versus what they are thinking. Perhaps she really hasn't been all that proud of America in her adult life - which would be about the last 30 years or so, correct? Coming of age in the late or immediate post Vietnam-era, post-Watergate, resurgence of conservativism in national politics. Not an unexpected comment from a certain generation with a certain worldview. There are a LOT of people who would agree and applaud her statement. Food for thought.
if you think it wont affect anyone's opinion negatively youre crazy. theres already many who spoke out feeling that way saying it lost their vote. their opinion is their opinion; there is no right or wrong. people are very fickle about such things.
tirk is right on this one. in an extremely close race one little flub like this by a spouse can make the difference. there is a reason that spouses are generally kept away from being surrogate speakers, but instead are the smiling supportive other half shaking hands at fund-raisers. generally that reason has nothing to do with brains. if a spouse pops off at the mouth, the candidate cant get away from the remark. a staff member surrogate can easily be dismissed to distance the candidate from the remark. when a spouse does act as a surrogate, everything is closely scripted and controlled so these remarks dont happen. the more low key non-policy speeches are the norm.
This is just a guess, but the folks who would get all offended over a comment like this would likely vote for McCain anyway.
No, folks who don't even conceive that there's a chance that the exact words that came out of her mouth may not accurately express exactly what she wanted to convey. Which is surprising given the speaking difficulties that our current President is known for.
Anyone who runs as a candidate of a party is indebted to the party. And simply because they are a party candidate - as most are - does not mean they are "owned" by Corparate America.
