The First Family's Lifestyle

[Anonymous]

Okay, I'm racist. You got me.

[Anonymous]

Seriously, what a weird thing to fixate on. There are many things to criticize about the president, but this is so superficial and insubstantial. you do realize that every president hosts state dinners, it is part of the job description. Laura Bush and the twins travelled to Europe, Africa and South America while GW was in office. The Obamas' vacations make news because they don't have a summer home in Kennebunkport or a ranch in Texas, so they do travel to other locales around the US which gives the WH press corp something to talk about in slow news weeks. but at least that has the side benefit of promoting tourism to places like the National Parks (which they visited both this year and last.)

It is frightening to think that people make voting decisions on such surface issues, like whether someone vacations like a "real American" or not. If I don't vote for Obama next time around it will be because of his policies in Afghanistan, or his tepid action on gay rights issues or who knows what, but it won't be based on media driven perceptions of his "lifestyle," jeez.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, the POTUS and his (and someday soon, I ppray "her") family are entitled to secret service and f;ying on a US Air Force Plane. It is only called Air Force One if the President is aboard. Also, what can you expect from a woman who wears $500.00 athletic shoes to feed the homeless?

Uppity, uppity Negro.

[Anonymous]

OP here. As I wrote, I am a Democrat. I plan to vote for Obama in 2012. I am concerned that this lifestyle could alienate undecided voters. The trip to Marbella was a tipping point for me. Maybe that's why the President didn't go? Why else would he stay home for his birthday? Maybe his handlers didn't want to cultivate the extravagant lifestyle image.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, what a weird thing to fixate on. There are many things to criticize about the president, but this is so superficial and insubstantial. you do realize that every president hosts state dinners, it is part of the job description. Laura Bush and the twins travelled to Europe, Africa and South America while GW was in office. The Obamas' vacations make news because they don't have a summer home in Kennebunkport or a ranch in Texas, so they do travel to other locales around the US which gives the WH press corp something to talk about in slow news weeks. but at least that has the side benefit of promoting tourism to places like the National Parks (which they visited both this year and last.)

It is frightening to think that people make voting decisions on such surface issues, like whether someone vacations like a "real American" or not. If I don't vote for Obama next time around it will be because of his policies in Afghanistan, or his tepid action on gay rights issues or who knows what, but it won't be based on media driven perceptions of his "lifestyle," jeez.

You do know that people voted for Jack Kennedy because he looked so much better than Richard Nixon., while the people who at the time only listened to radio thought Nixon was the better candidate. This is not a new trend.

[Anonymous]

If everything else about Obama didn't already suck then we probably wouldn't take notice of his lifestyle. It's simply the last straw, the icing on the cake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. As I wrote, I am a Democrat. I plan to vote for Obama in 2012. I am concerned that this lifestyle could alienate undecided voters.

You've just described me, too. From a pure political calculation, this may be a misstep. This is because most American voters are resentful, covetous little shits. Okay, most *people* are.

[Anonymous]

This is just so indicative of politics today. People don't use critical thinking at all when making judgments about public figures and policy.

It's such an odd thing to criticize but if you're going to do it, at least get the facts first. Are they traveling more than other First Families? Are you comparing their so-called extravagance with previous White House occupants like the Reagans, Bushes and Clintons? Sounds to me like you heard a sound bite on Fox and extrapolated from there.

And then this thing about $500 athletic shoes. Is that true? If so, would you begrudge an Ivy League-educated corporate lawyer with a high salary the option of buying expensive shoes? Why, and what does that have to do with anything?

Is this really what you base voting decisions on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If everything else about Obama didn't already suck then we probably wouldn't take notice of his lifestyle. It's simply the last straw, the icing on the cake.

Yep. As PP pointed out, you guys are sulking because Commander Crankypants and his elegantly coiffed dim-wit running mate were rejected by the largest number of Americans in electoral history. This after your previous joke of a President single-handedly destroyed American geopolitical and military prestige, the economy, and the political system.

But you're right, the bad man with the funny name hasn't fixed everything yet, so time to throw a tantrum.

[Anonymous]

11:25 OP here. I don't watch Fox. I agree that those are valid questions, I'd love to dig up those numbers, but even if we had accurate data, they would not include the context. And the context is that are in the midst of a slow and uncertain economic recovery after the deepest recession since the Great Depression, the economy's lost millions of jobs and economists are not sure when the economy will create replacement ones.

I actually wonder why Obama didn't go to Marbella. It's his birthday after all. It could be that his image folks are concerned about the same things that trouble me.

As for what people base their vote on, it's a mix and you know it. My sense is that undecided voters are the most likely to decide based on style issues. Though style's driven voters for centuries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. As I wrote, I am a Democrat. I plan to vote for Obama in 2012. I am concerned that this lifestyle could alienate undecided voters. The trip to Marbella was a tipping point for me. Maybe that's why the President didn't go? Why else would he stay home for his birthday? Maybe his handlers didn't want to cultivate the extravagant lifestyle image.

Here's hoping it does! I want him out of office.

[Anonymous]

Why was it okay for everyone to constantly make fun of GWB's big ears, and yet if someone made a comment about (for example) Obama's big lips....it would be considered racist?

What if an African American was commenting on GWB's big ears? Would that be racist?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:If someone can work breast-feeding and co-sleeping into this, it will be the perfect DCUM thread.

Totally. I suspect this OP is the same one who posted recently criticizing the Clintons for throwing an expensive wedding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:11:25 OP here. I don't watch Fox. I agree that those are valid questions, I'd love to dig up those numbers, but even if we had accurate data, they would not include the context. And the context is that are in the midst of a slow and uncertain economic recovery after the deepest recession since the Great Depression, the economy's lost millions of jobs and economists are not sure when the economy will create replacement ones.

I actually wonder why Obama didn't go to Marbella. It's his birthday after all. It could be that his image folks are concerned about the same things that trouble me.

As for what people base their vote on, it's a mix and you know it. My sense is that undecided voters are the most likely to decide based on style issues. Though style's driven voters for centuries.

True, research has also shown that "undecided" voters also tend to be "low-information" voters. Despite the biannual TV celebration of these folks, the reality is that they tend to be as dumb as sporks, and have no sense of public duty. Boy do they love to preen about the weighty deliberations they undertake, though. "Ya know, Obama or Palin: that's the question. You gotta look at the *issues*, y'know? Like where they stand on 'em. I'm really gonna think about it hard, but I just *don't* know yet."

This is the best (non-partisan) treatment of the "undecided voter" phenomenon ever written:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/05/AR2008090502666.html

Bottom line, voters are stupid, gullible, and they're not getting better. Read Michael Kinsley's "Big Babies." Or Shenkman's "Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About The American Voter"

We complain about our politicians, but it's the fault of the imbeciles who elect them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. The Obamas were comfortable but they certainly did not live like this before they moved into the White House, and we were not underwriting any pre-election extravagance. I don't expect them never to entertain or take vacations. It's a question of degree. We are paying for this extravagance. We don't like when CEO's live too grandly, do we? And just because Reagan, Bush, Clinton did it doesn't make it right. They all live like royalty and they hid the budget in other departments to make the number look lower. (I know, two friends worked in the White House in Clinton administration.) It's not just the money. It makes for a warped disconnect. Obama's lost his connection to how most of the people who elected him to office live.

How do you know this - its not like they had the press coverage back when he was just a senator from Illinois. The Obamas have been millionaires for a few years now and other than the state dinnners and other official functions (which it part of parcel of being president), they probably could afford to have the same types of vacations that they have now. Also, I am sure that Obama and his family would prefer to buy 4 (or more) first class tickets to tickets to Spain, pick a hotel of their choice and enjoy some down time, but my virture of their position they cannot do that.