That is not a medical/scientific fact. Addiction is not as well understood, or as cut and dry as you want us to believe. Here’s the medical definition of addiction
Nothing in there about “permanent”. Chronic can mean anything that lasts longer that 3 months.
It was your cite. If you don’t like it, then find another.
A policy issue that she “clarified” later on. Things are not always black and white, Diogenes.
Perfectly played.
ETA: She will make a fine First Lady I’m thinking. MUCH better looking that Billy boy…
-XT
All the literature says that addicts are always addicts. This really a ridiculous point to nitpick and amounts to exactly the same kind of over-parsing “gotcha” that annoys us all when the media does it.
The wikipedia entry wasn’t perfectly written but the facts were backed up with linkable sources.
It was still a policy issue and not a personal cheapshot on the order of calling her a “plagiarist” or engaging in the veiled race baiting that the Clinton campaign has resorted to. My god, look at the mountains of sleazy material he could use against Hillary if he wanted to. He’s been remarkably poised and civil with her even in the face of frontal attacks on his character.
I don’t really feel any better about attacking Cindy McCain than I do about Michelle Obama being attacked… and I respect the subtlety (i.e., ineffectiveness) of the way she tried to contrast herself with Michelle. I think that McCain has a sense of decency, and decided to play this thing low. He probably also knows his wife isn’t the most dynamic of public speakers.
Dude, you brought up this “ridiculous point” for the express purpose of discrediting the source. What Cindy McCain said can stand or fall on its own, and has nothing to do with what she’s done in the past. And you like to talk about the right wing smear machine…
No, I didn’t bring it up to “discredit the source,” I brought it up to do two things, show that candidates aren’t affected politically by the behavior of the spouses…that other spouses have committed more egregious sins and it hasn’t affected any elections (Laura Bush killed a guy with her car, for Christ’s sake, and it wasn’t an election issue). and secondly to show that CM is living in a glass house if she wants to launch lowball attacks at Michelle Obama.
I think it also illustrates the double standard in how the media covers Dems and Pubs. Imagine if Hillary or Barack had ever said “I hate gooks.” Or if Michelle Obama confessed to having stolen drugs from a charity…or if Bill Clinton killed somebody with his car.
Like Teddy Kennedy?
Or came all over some strumpets blue dress like…
(I’m not seeing much of a double standard myself…YMMV though. Personally I think the blood suckers in the media are equal opportunity scum who are just waiting for someone to fuck up so they can breathlessly bring us the exciting news that, yes, politicians ARE human. Sort of…)
-XT
Whatever you say. The thing is, this was just one little throw-away line from CM, and the press is going nuts-- for a day. This will not survive the next news cycle, unless people like you twist and turn it trying to make it about MC instead of MO. It’s not like CM made a big deal about it over and over, trying to beat it into the public consciousness.
Imagine if Obama ever used cocaine. Oh wait, he did. Or if Ted Kennedy killed someone with his car. Oh wait, that happened, too. I really have no sympathy for the wailing on the left that the media is unfair to Democratic candidates. If anything, Obama is getting the movie star treatment.
Chappaquiddick was 40 years ago, so it’s not valid to compare it with the state of the media today, but even so, Ted Kennedy’s name is synonomous with it and it killed his presidential ambitions. It’s not like he got a media pass on it.
Same thing with the come-stained dress. The media doesn’t care if Republicans cheat on their wives unless they do it with other men.
Guys, nobody is going to win this one. If you ask hard core AA people they will insist that you are an alcoholic forever, no matter if you have been dry for 45 years. Other folks consider that nonsense.
But I’m pretty sure of regardless of your position, neither of you are going to be able out-cite the other to a definitive answer. IMHO it is as much a philosophical difference as it is an argument over biology.
Not that anybody asked for my opinion, but I’d advise just dropping this line of argumentation on both sides and saving yourselves a handful of aspirin.
See how nasty this has gotten already? Just in this thread?
I’m telling you again, there’s only one fair and appropriate way to settle it.
A Michelle-Cindy mud-match.
Please!
I’m glad I’m a drunk and not an alcoholic. I don’t want to go to all those damned meetings!
Just to be clear, that is exactly my position-- there is not definitive answer. Diagnosing “addiction” is not like diagnosing AIDS. I’m sure many people are addicts forever, but don’t accept that that is always the case. This is an emerging field of medicine and psychology and there is no consensus.
I’m surprised that nobody has brought up that Cindy McCain grew up rich and white in an Arizona suburb while Michelle Obama grew up working class (not in poverty but certainly not well to do) and black in Chicago. I think it’s a lot easier to be “proud” of your country when you’ve always had a safety net between you and poverty (which for most people, me included, is a few weeks of missed pay or some unexpected bills) or encountered racism or other forms of bigotry. Considering what Michelle (and her brother) have accomplished from working class roots v. what Cindy McCain accomplished with silver spoon roots (i.e. becoming a thieving junkie whore 
) I think Michelle’s better qualified to speak on what is and isn’t great about being an American.
ETA: I hope it doesn’t make me racist, but I have to admit that I have a major prejudice towards white people with big trust funds (mainly, admittedly, because I’m a white person without one [my inheritances from my father were a few dying cows, a proclivity towards HBP and hemorrhoids, my mother, and old women]).
They certainly had practice during the Illinois Senate race. Ryan had his staff follow and videotape Obama 24-7.
I’m not sure what your point is-- that Michelle Obama needn’t be proud of her country? Given that she corrected herself and said has always been proud of America, I don’t see what there is to defend. She’s experienced and lived the American dream more than Cindy has, so maybe she has more to be proud of-- both about herself and her country. That’s pretty much how I interpreted her explanation when she talked about having gone to Princeton and Harvard.
You can play this story out so many different ways, which is one reason it doesn’t have any substance.
Well, my guess is that our brave IRS agents collecting taxes, the vast majority of our teachers educating our youth and the social service people who administer our various federal aid programs have very rarely been called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice for their particular government program. The soldiers, sailors and airmen in our armed forces however have died by the thousands throughout our nation’s history and though you may be allowed to question the reasons for which they are sent to fight, equating their service to any other federal job is a bit much. They swear a duty to preserve and defend our nation’s most important principles as laid out in the constitution and do so with their blood and toil, if you can’t see how hating them equates to hating that which they defend with their lives then we might as well be speaking different languages.
Crtiticizing some of the actions of the military is not “hating the troops.” I’ve served in the military and I didn’t much like Abu Ghraib (although I blame the civilian leadership for most of the problems in Iraq, not the poor saps in the uniforms).
Now if we can stipulate that it’s not nice to “hate the troops” (which nobody really does), can you explain why it IS ok to bash teachers, IRS agents, ATF agents, social workers, etc. Cricetus’ point still stands that the right wing does nothing but bash America and Americans all day long, but then pretends to be more patriotic than thou when it suits them.
I don’t think that’s quite it. A central right dogma is that all government is odious or incompetent, that human beings somehow function at a handicap when they function on behalf of The Government. So the criticism is muted by the excuse that it isn’t the fault of the individual dedicated civil servant, but is due to the retardation inherent in bureaucracy, as compared to the naturally invigorating Free Market.