Cindy’s Money

"I love how the McCains & Clinton’s have 10-100X the millions that Obama has and he’s the elitists."

People keep saying things like this, as though it means something. But "elitist" doesn't mean "wealthy" - it means "looking down on others." For all their money, the McCains and Clintons have not scoffed at the beliefs of others. Obama has. His comments about "clinging to guns, etc." conveyed the message that he did not believe that religious people and those who believe in gun rights have a valid, well-considered basis for their attitudes. It said that they were only doing those things that a good liberal wouldn't because they were not smart enough and emotionally stable enough to recognize those things as foolish.

That's why he is an elitist.

Elitism is not necessarily a function of money, Angela (and I must say I love your scintillating analysis: "Whatever."). Elitism is attitudinal, often driven by how you were raised and educated.

Obama's problem is that he seems to be struggling to hide his disdain for the every day person.

FuzzyFace,
Even if you take Obama's comments at face value--which would be dubious given his own religiosity--it makes absolutely no difference to his politics or his style of governance. His proposed policies actually address issues facing poor and middle class Americans, where McCain only seems to be able to promise more war and permanent tax cuts for the wealthy. Hrmm...

As for the Clinton's not scoffing at the little people, I think you're forgetting about her little "Screw em" quote.

Obama's problem is that he seems to be struggling to hide his disdain for the every day person.

You're obviously not struggling to come up with anti-Obama smears :-D

Or maybe you really do have a window into his mind...

As should be expected, liberals like ChrisWWW try to explain Obama's intentions, not realizing that millions of Americans actually "feel" emotions. Unfortunately for Obama, folks like Chris aren't there to explain to each American exactly why they should feel connected with the guy.

Newsflash: people vote for likability and experience. Whatever little bit Obama had is being lost as his radical ties are being revealed.

And the bowling certainly didn't help.

When Obama made his 'bitter' comment, he wasn't looking down on people, but trying to explain why people vote the way they do rather than in their economic interest. His point was that people were 'bitter', not because they had stupid beliefs and voted for them, but they put these first and foremost over economic issues because politicians were ignoring them on the latter. And that meaning is obvious, but for those who want to find something wrong with Obama, all reason and thought about this issue is going to go out the door and they are just going to label Obama as an elitist.

Senator obama attended the most elite private school in Hawaii along with Columbia and Harvard. Senator McCain's sons have gone in the military even though his idiot daughter attended Columbia as an art history major.

I wonder which Ivy league the daughters of Senator Obama will attend and whether either of them will apply to the military academies? somehow I doubt it.

Whose family attends private schools and/or Ivy Leagues does not make them elitist. Every Republican would say if someone has the money, then they have that ability, they've 'earned' the money so as to send their children to private and prestigious institutions. The moment a Democrat/Liberal/Progressive does it though, that makes them elitist. IOKIYAR

i wonder what everybody thought about Mrs. Kerry's fortune way back there in 2004?

Unfortunately for Obama, folks like Chris aren't there to explain to each American exactly why they should feel connected with the guy. [...] Newsflash: people vote for likability and experience.

Educating the voters is going to be a priority of any honest campaign. What you're talking about doing instead is nothing more than playacting and pandering to the lowest common denominator.

And another thing, people don't monolithically vote for the most experienced candidate. Or did I miss when Joe Biden was chosen as the Democratic nominee?

You can also put Michelle Obama whining about the high cost of after school activities. Only the top few percent of the U.S. start building their children's resume while they are in kindergarten.

What makes Senator Obama an elitist is that he wants to bus the children of the middle class over long distances to crappy schools for social engineering purposes while his own children attend private school. First rule of leadership, do not ask others to do something you would not do it yourself. Senator Obama would never let his daughters drive by themselves (when they are old enough) in crime ridden urban areas but he calls pizza deliverymen and cab drivers racist for not wanting to enter the same neighborhoods.

"And the bowling certainly didn't help."

LOL!!!! But it turns out he can play those well-known elitist games of pool! And basketball!

Please.

First rule of leadership, do not ask others to do something you would not do it yourself.

That pretty much invalidates the entire Republican platform on:
= War
= Sanctity of marriage
= Fiscal conservatism
= Health care

Not releasing her financials is going to be a political noose for McCain. They are better off doing it now as the calls for transparency are going to get louder and louder leading into the general. Couple that with questionable investments that aren't sold off until after they become a public embarrassment and its nothing but bad for Senator McMaverick.

She should probably release a vague, short document outlining her general financial worth- without details about her various holdings- just as Teresa Heinz Kerry did in '04.

ChrisWWW,

You have acknowledged one of the reasons that the Republicans are going to stop being relevant in politics. Even Republicans hold their leaders to some level of standards. However, as far back as the 1970's the Democratic party stop insisiting that their leaders demonstrate any level of leadership. How else to explain liberal judges ordering destructive forced busing court orders while their own children attended all white private schools?

Cindy McCain is not an heir to the Anheuser Busch fortune; that's just plain wrong. She is an heir to the guy who had the Anheuser Busch *distributorship* in Arizona.

Chris said: Educating the voters is going to be a priority of any honest campaign. What you're talking about doing instead is nothing more than playacting and pandering to the lowest common denominator.

No, Chris, I'm talking about reality. People want to vote for someone who shares their values, which makes them comfortable and likable. You can't change that, as much as it doesn't fit into your idealistic utopian vision.

This is why Obama will be crushed in a general election. Because there is no way the broadside of the Democratic party (blue collar, middle class families) is going to vote for a guy who looks down on them. Forget about Independents.

Well, getting back to the issue, I actually don't see why Cindy McCain needs to divulge her tax returns. She's not running for President. I don't see any reason to force a violation of her privacy; the return on investment concerning gained insight about the actual candidate doesn't seem worth it. I don't need to know her business.

Her rationale for hiding her investment trail certainly sounds contrived. "Protecting her children"... from what? From the embarrassment of knowing their Mom makes money from the folks who advanced the Darfur genocide?

Okay, that makes sense. As does the likelihood she has far more such 'embarrassments' to hide.

Halliburton, Enron, Blackwater, the mafia, plastic surgery write-offs? Who knows? And, no, she isn't a 'private citizen' anymore. She wants to be our First Lady without letting us know if she's a lady at all.

First Lady isn't really an office. Is it? And people don't have to prove their innocence. I don't want TV cameras in my house or looking at my checkbook. I don't have to demonstrate my innocence to gain this right. Others have to demonstrate my guilt for me to lose it.

This is entirely a political matter. If people feel more secure about McCain knowing his spouse's financial matters, then they can ask to see the records. His wife can refuse if she wishes and take the small political damage. There can't be more than a handful of people who might have voted for McCain but just don't trust him anymore because they can't see his wife's tax return.

I'm having fun today! This is my third comment pseudo-defending McCain and I have absolutely no plans to vote for the man.

pacatrue,
I have no sympathy for the McCain's privacy concerns until he repudiates the expansive and unsupervised domestic spying program put into place by his party under George Bush.

And, since McCain's political career was built on his wife's fortune, it seems like her financial records are especially relevant.

ChrisWWW, I'm completely open to arguments that Cindy McCain's finances are important information and the public would be better served if we knew them. That's the political discussion. However, I think she has both a legal and a moral right to say, "no thanks," no matter how much legislation her husband writes taking away the privacy rights of others.

"I actually don't see why Cindy McCain needs to divulge her tax returns. She's not running for President. "

In a world where only honorable people are elected, I would agree with that abstraction.
In the world as it is, I can easily envision the president's assets being transferred to the spouses 'private' portfolio..

When it's a couple in the WH, it's also a couple planning theri financial future.

Senator McCain's sons have gone in the military even though his idiot daughter attended Columbia as an art history major.

Perhaps you can enlighten us on why attending Columbia as an art major is idiotic.

Thank you for any information you can provide on this.

Sincerely,

Kathy K. (whose daughter is an English lit major at Barnard College, and is definitely not an idiot)

However, I think she has both a legal and a moral right to say, "no thanks," no matter how much legislation her husband writes taking away the privacy rights of others.

Legal maybe. Moral no. Our honorable politicians and their financial backers should have to live in the America they've created for the rest of us. And in this case, that means no right to privacy.

Cindy most certainly should divulge financial records. If McCain becomes president he will have tremendous influence over policies which would enrich McCain and his family. Don't tell me we've already forgotten how Bush set energy policy purely for the benefit of his family's (and supporters') interest. Not only did his family and supporters benefit financially from his policies, but the environment suffered.

Have we also forgotten Cheney's belief that energy conservation is a virtue?

I'm not blaming the Bush administration for the high oil prices, but the Bush administration does have policies which encourage energy consumption which do contribute to higher prices. His policies benefits the energy industry and contributes to environmental problems.

So I think it's important for the American public to know the finances of the McCain family and what conflicts of interests exists (or not). I really don't want a president whose wife has financial interests in hotspots in the world. If McCain needs to pressure the governments to clean up their human rights records (or whatever) does anyone really think he would place the USA's interests ahead of his own? If he did truly place the country's interests ahead of his own, then he would insist that his family not benefit from investments in the countries he negotiates with.

At any rate, given his closeness (or his advisors' closeness) with some of the world's nastiest regimes and his wife's investment in Sudan, I think there is definitely cause for concern about how his family benefits from their investments.

It's just not enough for the McCains to say, "It's none of your business." If the McCains truly want to lead the government then they need to show that they place the interests of the USA above their own. I'm very suspicious of someone who says, "Vote for me for president, give me the most powerful position on earth, and trust me when I say I won't abuse your trust. Oh, and we won't release our family's financial records because we don't think they're any of your business." Don't we already have a person in the White House who said "Trust me"? And we've seen how well that's worked out.

Does anyone think we also have a right to record Cindy and John's conversations at dinner time? Those conversations likely have more sway on public policy than her financial holdings. How about her medical records? After all, maybe she has some disease and McCain will use his power to steer medical research funding in that direction even when it isn't the best use of resources. Clearly her medical history should be open as well so that we don't get taken for a ride.

This isn't a theater for absurd exytremes, I hope. Or have I wandered into a comedy sketch?.

When one member of a family assumes a position of high power, his family is going to join him in the spotlight. It can't be avoided. II needs to be a family decision, then, whether to go there or not. The public can't play family counselor.

For a democracy to function well, the electorate needs to trust the governement, from the president on down. For the sake of trust, appearances are very important, even if a specific act or postition to the contrary is perfectly defensible in other circumstances.

Cindy has to pay the price tag on being married to a candidate, i.e. being scrutinized in a way she wouldn't be otherwise for the sake of appearances, if nothing else. What she does will, through her husband, affect the level of trust.

A parallel situation concerns relatives appointed to high government positions or working as lobbyists. There is no reason why these relationships couldn't be innocent of wrong doing, but general perceptions trump individual cases..

Does anyone think we also have a right to record Cindy and John's conversations at dinner time?

pacatrue,
Nope. But phone conversations are definitely on the table.

pacatrue, I don't think we have the right to record dinner conversations. However the medical question- steering research to study and fight a disease a family member has is interesting. The president will always set priorities (on pretty much everything, not just medical research) and will direct resources accordingly. As such the candidate needs to make his positions clear on the campaign trail and if the public likes what they see, then he would be in office. If the candidate said he would start a "Manhattan Project" for diabetes research, which would require a tremendous amount of resources, then the public can take that into consideration when selecting a candidate.

The problem with politics is that so many candidates make campaign promises that they don't keep. That's politics everyone says, but it's also horrible because the candidates (essentially) campaign and are elected on false pretenses. That's why I favor looking at past actions/votes as a way of determining the future actions of a candidate. In my mind Obama has been the most consistent, McCain says one thing one day and another thing a month later. Who knows where he truly stands? If a candidate truly shows "growth" and changes their mind over tie on a certain issue, I'm fine with that. However any candidate who suddenly comes out with different views on the campaign trail is immediately suspect in my book.

I guess I'm giving a slippery slope argument. I understand the logic of why the public should know a spouse's financial records. The problem is that the exact same logic could be used to argue for medical record access, phone record access, recording conversations, and I'm sure lots of other things I haven't thought of. Google search records? And remember this is not for the candidate; it's for the spouse of the candidate.

So either 1) there is some principled way to say that financial records should be available for the public for a candidate's spouse while the others are not; 2) there is no principled way to distinguish financial from medical records and therefore the public should see them all; or 3) there is no principled way to distinguish and therefore the public does not have access to financial records.

I know that Chris is half-joking, but I will take him to support #2. I would guess runasim thinks #1 is possible. And I am inclined towards #3.

In the end, I would prefer stockboy's method. Does McCain have any history of steering funds to his, his wife's, or his friends benefit? What has the actual candidate done?