Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find it interesting that more people on this site aren't questioning/examining the future spouses of Presidential candidates. Harry Truman, was always saying, when faced with an important decision: Let me pass this by the Boss first (his wife). We all know about control-freak Nancy Reagan's role in the White House. And we know about Hillary's role during Bill's Presidency. And if you've read biographies of any of the First Lady's, they were all influential in some way or another. I can't imagine the wife of any President merely sitting by, knitting a sweater, overhearing her husband proposing some legislation that completely goes against her beliefs, without speaking out or uttering some kind of threat. I really admire Barack Obama, but wouldn't vote for him for one reason only: his wife. Here's a woman that told her husband he couldn't run for President unless he quit smoking. And he's been chewing up the Nicotine eversince. Someone overheard her before he gave his famous speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention say: You better not ********** up! And yes, I've read of her screw-up about finally being proud to be an American. But here's a woman, I suspect, will far surpass Nancy Reagan or Hillary Clinton as wives of Presidents, will be a very controlling Co-President. So why is anyone worrying about Bill Clinton being Co-President when we have Michelle Obama! And I'm just beginning to explore Cindy McCain.
I find it interesting that more people on this site aren't questioning/examining the future spouses of Presidential candidates. Harry Truman, was always saying, when faced with an important decision: Let me pass this by the Boss first (his wife). We all know about control-freak Nancy Reagan's role in the White House. And we know about Hillary's role during Bill's Presidency. And if you've read biographies of any of the First Lady's, they were all influential in some way or another. I can't imagine the wife of any President merely sitting by, knitting a sweater, overhearing her husband proposing some legislation that completely goes against her beliefs, without speaking out or uttering some kind of threat. I really admire Barack Obama, but wouldn't vote for him for one reason only: his wife. Here's a woman that told her husband he couldn't run for President unless he quit smoking. And he's been chewing up the Nicotine eversince. Someone overheard her before he gave his famous speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention say: You better not ********** up! And yes, I've read of her screw-up about finally being proud to be an American. But here's a woman, I suspect, will far surpass Nancy Reagan or Hillary Clinton as wives of Presidents, will be a very controlling Co-President. So why is anyone worrying about Bill Clinton being Co-President when we have Michelle Obama! And I'm just beginning to explore Cindy McCain.
If those men have such power, shouldn't they be able to control their own wives?
Whoever said that hit the bull's eye. Women are the powers behind the throne. If Barack Obama had power over his wife we'd see pix's of him having a smoke after one of his speeches or beforehand. And how many President's have smoked over the years. Many! Jackie Kennedy smoked right up until 3 months before she died in 1994.
I find it interesting that more people on this site aren't questioning/examining the future spouses of Presidential candidates. Harry Truman, was always saying, when faced with an important decision: Let me pass this by the Boss first (his wife). We all know about control-freak Nancy Reagan's role in the White House. And we know about Hillary's role during Bill's Presidency. And if you've read biographies of any of the First Lady's, they were all influential in some way or another. I can't imagine the wife of any President merely sitting by, knitting a sweater, overhearing her husband proposing some legislation that completely goes against her beliefs, without speaking out or uttering some kind of threat. I really admire Barack Obama, but wouldn't vote for him for one reason only: his wife. Here's a woman that told her husband he couldn't run for President unless he quit smoking. And he's been chewing up the Nicotine eversince. Someone overheard her before he gave his famous speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention say: You better not ********** up! And yes, I've read of her screw-up about finally being proud to be an American. But here's a woman, I suspect, will far surpass Nancy Reagan or Hillary Clinton as wives of Presidents, will be a very controlling Co-President. So why is anyone worrying about Bill Clinton being Co-President when we have Michelle Obama! And I'm just beginning to explore Cindy McCain.
Are all first ladys co-presidents? Absolutely not. Incredible lunacy for people to think that a first lady is co-president. This notion has never had any validity and certainly doesn't have any now that Clinton is desperate and severely needs angles to boost her pathetic candidacy in teh 11th hour.
I find it interesting that more people on this site aren't questioning/examining the future spouses of Presidential candidates. Harry Truman, was always saying, when faced with an important decision: Let me pass this by the Boss first (his wife). We all know about control-freak Nancy Reagan's role in the White House. And we know about Hillary's role during Bill's Presidency. And if you've read biographies of any of the First Lady's, they were all influential in some way or another. I can't imagine the wife of any President merely sitting by, knitting a sweater, overhearing her husband proposing some legislation that completely goes against her beliefs, without speaking out or uttering some kind of threat. I really admire Barack Obama, but wouldn't vote for him for one reason only: his wife. Here's a woman that told her husband he couldn't run for President unless he quit smoking. And he's been chewing up the Nicotine eversince. Someone overheard her before he gave his famous speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention say: You better not ********** up! And yes, I've read of her screw-up about finally being proud to be an American. But here's a woman, I suspect, will far surpass Nancy Reagan or Hillary Clinton as wives of Presidents, will be a very controlling Co-President. So why is anyone worrying about Bill Clinton being Co-President when we have Michelle Obama! And I'm just beginning to explore Cindy McCain.
There sure have been some influential first-wives that is for sure! I also think Mrs Obama wears the pants in the family.
Are all first ladys co-presidents? Absolutely not. Incredible lunacy for people to think that a first lady is co-president. This notion has never had any validity and certainly doesn't have any now that Clinton is desperate and severely needs angles to boost her pathetic candidacy in teh 11th hour.
The Bosnia story she just made up sure makes her desperation obivious. Is she so desperate for some kind of "experience" that she completely forgot that there were reporters there, and her daughter was there? That the lack of bullets would be revealed?
But like a total idiot there she is, up behind a podium talking about her big Bosnian adventure, having to duck bullets when it did not happen at all. She assumes her supporters are stupid idiots who could never find out the truth, but she's right in the fact that many don't even care what a liar she is.
Seems like some people here are already laying the foundation for Laura Bush in 2012. Her co-presidency will be regarded more highly in the history books, given the real foreign policy challenges she had to co-confront. She also co-presided over some real tax cuts, something Republicans will forever cherish.
Plus, just like Hillary (and as you mention, Michelle), she had to deal with a husband that was an addict. Yet Laura had that nipped in the bud before her man took office; Hillary, not so much. Michelle is still to be tested on that front.
Before you disregard this response as purely misogynistic... If you are going to throw out the hypothetical question that you did, we should examine the most current evidence available, right? Why not Laura in 2012?
Seems like some people here are already laying the foundation for Laura Bush in 2012. Her co-presidency will be regarded more highly in the history books, given the real foreign policy challenges she had to co-confront. She also co-presided over some real tax cuts, something Republicans will forever cherish.
Plus, just like Hillary (and as you mention, Michelle), she had to deal with a husband that was an addict. Yet Laura had that nipped in the bud before her man took office; Hillary, not so much. Michelle is still to be tested on that front.
Before you disregard this response as purely misogynistic... If you are going to throw out the hypothetical question that you did, we should examine the most current evidence available, right? Why not Laura in 2012?
Because women shouldn't be President...they have a more important role to fill.
If those men have such power, shouldn't they be able to control their own wives?
I believe wife control is now officially designated a hate crime.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Powers Behind The Thrones
