Taking words out of context to suit your agenda is nothing out of the ordinary.

Woking from home today I caught the show.  I think Michelle did an excellent job; came across as intelligent, humorous, informed, and poised.  

Perhaps she should've burned a Laura Bush doll in effigy?

And if she HAD referenced Clinton, the blogs would be alight with how sexist Michelle Obama is "she thinks Clinton's only there to bake cookies blahblahblah".

I think what she said was not to fuel the fire. That doesn't mean not taking a position on anything, it means not trying to use your position to push issues that might be politically contentious. I am in a minority of folks that think it was a bad idea for Hillary to be put in charge of the health care plan. She wasn't really elected to any kind of post, and that was a pretty big deal to be left to an unelected, unappointed official.

Besides that, the more she tries to be demure, the more unfair it will seem if the GOP keeps hammering her. As Obama said, "I would never even think about attacking Cindy McCain."

In a parliamentary system a distinction exists between the "head of state" and "head of government" (a king, queen, or president is the first, the prime minister is the second).  It's the head of state's job to represent the interests of the nation and not get too involved in politics.  

In the US most of the duties of these two roles are combined in the presidency (though not completely, separation of powers means the president doesn't have any formal role in the activities of Congress).  Still.

There's a good argument to be made that the First Lady--or consort--or whatever, which is not any sort of official position, should construe his or her duties to be more along the lines of what a head of state would do rather than a head of government or party.

The electorate does not vote for the First Lady, and yet it's commonly understood that the person who occupies this position is entitled to a level of respect which is independent of whatever is happening in politics.

Don't think Laura Bush played her "head of state" role very well (did she ever find her issue?  the way some previous first ladies stumped for literacy, or care of the mentally ill, or some similar issue which was both neglected and not highly partisan).

Lastly, we haven't yet had a Republican First Lady who tried to throw herself into great political debates (and that's only a matter of time).  When this happens, I'm not sure people will be so warm to the idea that a First Lady or Gentleman should do this (what if she turned out to be like Anne Coulter?).

I think Laura Bush's "issue" was literacy.  She used to be a school teacher.  I didn't feel she was a very prominent advocate though.. and considering the irony of her husband's lack of intelligence maybe this was a good thing.  LOL  I remember hearing that Bush doesn't read books - how funny is that?

a gracious shout out to Mrs Bush. There were people who were interpreting Laura's comment as rather snide, it's nice to see Michelle wasn't one of them.

We can always count on Michigoose to step in and let us know how worried he is about all the flaws he sees in the Obama campaign.  It's touching, because he really wants Obama to win, right guys?

Here, Michigoose, step into the

You've earned it, big guy!

That was in the context of all the attacks she/Barack has had to deal with.

Laura Bush is no attack dog.

These people want to win, and are subtly shedding their "messenger of change" schtik. In an interview with John Harwood of CNBC last week, Obama stated that he might be willing to defer his tax increases on Capital Gains, etc. Look for a steady and continued tack toward the center.

Next will be some waffling on the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Just another politician... and "Michelle" will turn into Betty Crocker in no time. Look for her favorite cookie recipes to surface before long....probably during something substantial like an "Oprah" session.

The final irony of this long miserable campaign will be that as this happens, the centrists (pragmatists) will stand by Obama, as they have known all along that he is just another politician, probably marginally better than McCain. The "Obam-orons", who actually bought into all this bs, will be the first to turn on him, like flies on shit.

Coincidentally, AOL is using Michelle's The View appearance to do a comparison of the candidates' wives.  Unfortunately, they only polled Michelle's favorables, and not Cindy McCain's.  As of about 3:30 am EDAT:

Does your opinion of a candidate's spouse influence your vote?
61% yes  
38% no  
I don't vote 1%
total votes   186,404

What is your general opinion of Michelle Obama?

Unfavorable  58% (116,145)
Favorable 33%    (64,785)
I don't have an opinion  9% (17,680)

I was very, very surprised how many people let their opinion of a politician's spouse affect their vote.

When you look at the Republican candidates from primary season, almost all of them took the caveman approach that a wife was to be seen and not heard - especially the most "christian" ones, like Huckabee, whose wife was not allowed to speak a single word during the entire process.

Then, you look at the Democrats, and their wives act like... gasp... EQUAL HUMAN BEINGS!?!?!?!

We had Elizabeth Edwards front and center.

We had Michelle Obama front and center.

We had Bill Clinton... ok we had a freaking woman almost win the nomination!!!

Its funny.  Last night, I was watching CNN, and they had Larry Sabato on, and he said that the wives of the candidates should be seen and not heard, that they should just look pretty, that they should not discuss policy or feed the flames of controversy, that the more they are in the background as a trophy (my words not his), the more they help their candidate.  What a modern guy.  He's at the forefront of the nineteenth century!