Presidential Spouses

A candidate’s spouse cannot ensure an election win, but they can certainly ensure a loss.

Presidential spouses generally fall into two categories: The elected official by proxy, i.e. Hillary Clinton national policy maker, and the demurely, staid and proper role of the First Lady. Not to disparage the non-policy making spouses, but they did not campaign, were not elected, and continued their preceding roles within their families along with the customary duties of First Lady with dignity.

I use the term spouses because there is a statistical probability that Hillary Clinton could achieve the White House.

Republicans had assumed, along with Hillary Clinton and her political machine, that she was the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee. Their reasons are primal and obviously self serving: She is the most beatable of the Democratic nominees in the general election chiefly because 50% of voters would not vote for her under any circumstance. The perfect political opponent. After her overwhelming defeat in Wisconsin and Hawaii by Barack Obama, garnering his 10th win in a row, her presidential aspirations are on life support and barring some political shenanigans by the Super Delegates, her presidential campaign is effectively finished.

It seems apparent, assuming that the Democrat Super Delegates do not vote contrary to the majority of primary voters, that Barack Obama will be the Democrat nominee in the general election.

Should this cause consternation for Republicans? No.

There is one other factor, other than Hillary Clinton’s overwhelming unfavorable and negative rating, that is leveling the negative playing field within the Democrat party. The one x factor that has caused a considerable credibility breech and negative publicity for the Democrat nominees– their spouses.

John Edwards, before dropping out of the race, had to deal, almost on a daily basis, with the imbecilic, idiotic and anti-American dialog and actions from his wife, Elizabeth Edwards. Not that it hurt him so much in the primaries because her rhetoric is in accordance with the far left liberal mindset that Edwards panders to. She would have been a considerable problem in the general election.

Many respected political analysts, both Democrat and Republican, have conjectured that the catalyst for Hillary Clinton’s spiraling descent from front runner status to a mathematically irrelevant candidate is due to Bill Clinton’s disenfranchisement of Black voters. He achieved this by a race baiting strategy against Obama before her candidacy headed into the southern states. His explosive temper tantrums, on air, against the press and anyone else in his or Hillary’s path to the White House has not only alienated a broader spectrum of Democrat voters, but has awakened dormant memories of his presidency and what to expect from a co-Clinton administration if Hillary is elected.

Michelle Obama stated earlier this week that, “People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and … for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.”

Her comments have set off a firestorm of criticism because her remarks are viewed as unpatriotic and justifiably so. The criticism is coming mostly from conservative and patriotic Americans and has garnered a negligible adverse reaction from the left because, at this point in the game, she is preaching to the choir.

Michelle Obama, when discussing a plan for change, stated the following, “I know voters like a plan,” she said. “What’s the details, tell me about your policies. Plans are important, I agree. . . . But a lot of this stuff isn’t rocket science.” As with her husband’s speeches, she is articulates nothingness.

Contrast Michelle Obama’s patriotic void with John McCain’s wife, Cindy, “I am proud of my country.” Just that simple.

Through out the Democrat primary race for the nomination, the candidates bantered back and forth as to who was the most liberal, who could do more for people who won’t do anything for themselves, who could spend the most taxpayer money on these people, and who could turn this great capitalist country into a non-functioning socialist society the fastest. The Republicans, even with McCain as the nominee, should be able to overcome the problematic socialist ideology during a debate with either Clinton or Obama.

At this point, Obama may be equally as beatable as Clinton in the general election for two reason. He is an extremely captivating speaker. His oratory skills are more polished than any candidate from either party. He is one of the most captivating political speakers this country has seen in a long while. But, neither he nor his speeches have any definitive substance. If one reads his speeches from a script, to say it is unmoving would be an understatement. He speaks about nothing but does it with astonishing delivery. At best his speeches and ideology are nothing more than recycled socialist ideology dating back to Carl Marx’s “The Communist Manifesto” of 1848 and circa 1960’s radical liberalism.

First reason, he is running on change. He is going to bring change. He has never specifically mentioned what he is going to change or how, but he is going to bring change. At some point he is going to have to define what needs changed to salvage this country from the grip of capitalism. Is he going to change an economy that has seen the longest running bull market in U.S. history? Probably so with liberal economic policies and tax increases. He has stated that he would pull the troops out of Iraq immediately. Regardless if you agree with going to war with Iraq or not, pulling the troops out at this point is an exclusive endeavor from the reason to go to war. If he is elected and does pull the troops out, Iraq will become the largest breeding ground for international terrorism the world has ever seen. If given the opportunity, what type of jurist would he appoint to the Supreme Court? Some one cut from the same clothe as Ginsberg would fit his ideology. The court would, again, shift back to an activist, policy making court.

Second reason, his wife. Is it fair to go after a candidates family members? Yes, if they choose to campaign as a perceived co-candidate. No, if they are not overtly involved in the process. Taking the astutely observed roles of Elizabeth Edwards, Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama in their spouses campaign, it is apparent that voters would be voting for a package deal. At this point, it becomes a contingent event and they should be as equally scrutinized as their spouses. Her statements are relatively benign at this stage of the process within the Democrat fold, but if she had made those statements in the heat of battle between Obama and the Republican nominee in the latter stages of their campaigns, especially when Obama is being pressed for substance, the results would probably have a catastrophic effect on his campaign.

If John McCain does indeed get the Republican nomination, and when either Obama or Clinton get the Democrat nomination, at the point the dialog gets heated and politically ugly–and it will, this is the point where Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama will do exponentially more damage to their spouses campaigns than any conceivable good they could bestow upon it considering their track records.

There are dramatic contrasts to their respective negativity that they would bring to their spouses campaigns.

Even though Clinton has some flexibility to pander, albeit at this point probably without success, to the center or just left of center with a message of change and moving forward, Bill Clinton will negate any positive gains by dragging her campaign back to the 1990’s and every conceivable nuance about him, and there are myriad, into the spotlight.

Obama has the problem of having painted himself into the radical left corner with no legitimate or convincing escape toward the middle. Regardless if Michelle Obama makes any more unpatriotic comments of this nature in a campaign against a Republican candidate, this statement will come back to haunt the Obama campaign in the general election and be used as an attack on her and her husbands patriotism. But, if she continues giving these types of insights into their foolish personal credo, especially close to November, she could profoundly aid in his campaign’s derailment.

Just as Hillary Clinton’s history of perpetually being in the same room with corruption, yet always innocent, coupled with her large negative ratings, and Bill’s ethical and moral shortcomings, it does make for a Republican dream antagonist. But, with Obama having insignificant political substance, a non-existent political track record, and no discernible accomplishments, when he does speak of anything with substance, it is a radical far left socialist ideology. If he gets the nomination, it would take little effort for a skilled politician to reveal the substance void under his thin veneer. Couple that with his wife’s insensate discourses and you should have another Republican dream antagonist.