It’s in her Wikipedia entry, with sources.
I agree. I’m a big Obama supporter, but when I heard that quote, I went :dubious: . I understand what she was trying to say, but it still seemed like a rather foolish thing to say in a campaign. I’m glad to see that the quote hasn’t gotten as much traction as I thought it would, but I bet it shows up on one of those glurge emails attacking Obama’s patriotism soon enough.
sure.
The source for this is Cindy McCain herself. She revealed her addiction and her theft on a Dateline interview in 1999. If McCain was a Democrat, this would be a huge talker in the media, especially in the radio shows. Ditto for the adultery (and she wasn’t McCain’s only trick during his first marriage) but since he’s a Republican it’s a complete non-isse. Certainly nothing on a level with Michelle Obama saying she’s proud to be an American.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/22/cindy.mccain/index.html
http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0301mccainbio-chapter8.html
Is that really necessary?
It’s just not right.
I want to see them mud-wrestle.
[shrug] I think we tend to put most of the blame on the adulterous spouse, but the Other Woman or Other Man remains (presumptively) a homewrecker.
Holy crap, dude, this was very well known and very public.
He married Cindy about a month after he divorced his first wife. They two of them met over a year before the divorce, and Cindy called it love at first sight
As for her addiction and stealing pills from her own nonprofit, well, she came clean about it years later.
The really sordid part is that her own employee who tried to blow the whistle was summarily fired. He sued for damages, was then investigated for extortion, but the whole matter was dropped when Cindy finally came clean.
It was one hell of a story. While John was taking a Keating beating, she was popping pills.
You said she is a drug addict. Your cite doesn’t substantiate that-- in fact it contradicts it since it states that she “attended a drug treatment facility, began outpatient sessions, and ended her three years of addiction”, emphasis added.
Or, does that mean that I can say Obama is a drug user?
Maybe. But then, she’s not the candidate, as you said.
I love the way you spin things, Dio. If all she said was that she was proud to be an American, this would not be a news item. I agree that it’s a non-issue, but you needn’t change what said in order to make that case.
Once an addict, always an addict.
My point with that whole post was to show how easy it is to spin everything in the most tendetentious way possible. If Cindy McCain (that thieving, junkie whore) wants to play this game, we can play it too.
OK, so Obama is a drug user. Once a druggie, always a druggie.
Eh. If Cindy McCain had said the same thing, I expect Michelle Obama would have had a similar response. That’s the way the game is played. Nothing wrong with using what people actually say against them, at least IMO.
A drug addict in recovery is still a drug addict.
ETA: The other thing, not so much.
No. Everyone who drinks is not an alcholic. Everyone who does drugs is not an addict. Addiction is a disease. Those who have it always have it whether they’re active in it or not.
I don’t believe Michelle Obama would have done that. Look at all the ammunition she could already use against Cindy McCain but has chosen not to.
The Obamas have conspicuously NOT been negative or taken those kinds of cheap shots at their opponents. Barack has never really even fired back at Hillary.
Addiction is considered a chronic disease, but chronic does not mean “permanent”. And in the lingo of “once an addict always an addict” mindset, we distinguish between “addicts” (those who are still using) and “recovering addicts” (those who have been through treatment and are no longer using). Your own cite said that she “ended” her addiction.
Obama went after Hillary when she made the drivers license for illegal aliens slip-up earlier in the campaign. YMMV, but I personally have no problem with a politician takes another to task for the literal meaning of what he or she says. If Obama doesn’t do that, then he’s a fool.
I think Michelle’s comments were ill advised, but I think the appropriate response is that she will learn. Of course the haters jumped all over it – those people who feel personally victimized if you ever suggest that our country has been anything but one hundred percent perfect all the time.
I would advise her to apologize and say that she misspoke, that she has never been prouder to be an American.
I think that’s bad advice personally. She shouldn’t apologize because she misspoke. Anyone under a microscope is going to gaff things from time to time. She should just move on and in future make sure she is getting her point across more clearly. I think Obama himself is doing a great job of not second guessing every thing he utters. It always drives me nuts when politicians say something stupid and then try and explain what they really meant or apologize because they misspoke. He has been really good about sort of shrugging that kind of thing off and moving on…and making sure he doesn’t make the same mistake twice.
-XT
I couldn’t agree more.
But when have you been proud of America — not for just a brief thrill of the moment, but over an extended time period?
Just asking.
Addiction is permanent,
Yes, but they’re all still addicts.
It’s wikipedia, what do you expect.
That was a policy issue, not a personal cheap shot.
Me personally? Never. But I’d still rather live here than anywhere else. Patriotism is just not an emotion that I’ve ever felt or understood.
I couldn’t agree more.
But in recent years, when have you (collectively) been proud of America — not for just a brief thrill of the moment, but over an extended time period?
Just asking.
I’ve never quite understand why it’s a moral obligation to be proud of “America,” any more than it makes sense to call specific criticisms of America to be off limits.
It’s all so selective and arbitrary. It’s perfectly OK to hate on taxes, education, welfare, etc., without being called an America hater. But if you question the military, you hate America. These are all just government programs. Why are some government programs “America” and not others? If you criticize corporate America, even for corruption and fraud, you might find out that they, too, are America itself and that by criticizing them, you have expressed hatred for America.
A person can express hatred for American culture, fellow Americans, the government, etc., feel nothing but contempt for freedom and liberty, pollute the landscape, and still feel this avowed pride in “America” despite the contempt for the people, geography, and ideals that make up America. They can hate on virtually every aspect of America, and still feel like America is theirs to love and defend. Meanwhile, someone else can love apple pie, baseball, and their mom but feel HMOs need to be reigned in and feel that we’ve mucked things up horribly in the middle east, and be accused of hating America.
This makes me think there is no benefit to talking about love for, or pride in, “America.” The debate is framed the wrong way. I suspect if I said I was proud that every child is guaranteed an education, or that we try to take care of the needy, or that we look after the elderly, I would get a blank look, because the people who feel they own exclusive rights to framing the debate don’t want to do any of those things.