Has there ever been a First Lady

Has there ever been a First Lady who uses her political position to further a partisan agenda for the incoming Nominee?

These are interesting times and one of if not the most emotionally driven Presidential Election period ever witnessed by the general public.

The question I raise for discussion is whether or not it is appropriate for a First Lady while still in office use such partisan tactics against the incoming nominees for party advancement? In my humble opinion it has always been my understanding that the First Lady represents ALL peoples of the United States and not just those who share her own personal political views.

Regardless of who you chose to vote for and especially for those who have still not made that final decision, is it moral or ethical to use the highest office in our country to sway towards one candidate in such a manner as our current First Lady is doing? If she truly represents ALL Americans, all political parties and fairly see's everyone as equal then why step in against the 200+ Political parties to rue in favor of hers?

What message is this sending to future politicians, our children, our youth and to those who have just recently joined in the political arena where in the past they have remained silent and simply expressed an opinion among their closest people and did nothing more than vote?

IMO this latest couple residing at our White House have created more division among everyone in this and other countries and are now creating divisiveness among American Voters and the respect of an individuals right to vote without being attacked for their views.

I am not going to post how I think that this discussion should move forward or attempt to place rules of how posters should choose to post, I do however hope that it can remain civil so as to not be shut down by the Mods.

Does anyone here know of any other First Lady who has used her political power and position while still in the White house in this manner?
Are there any examples of First Ladies who showed respect for all Americans regardless of their Political views?
How many people are aware of the changes in the First ladies personal involvements with her position over the years and how do you see that affecting our country and the Title of First Lady?

It is simply a matter of time before we see the first ever First Husband, so if it were someone such as Bill Clinton, en.wikipedia.org... is it appropriate that he be the one to step into the current First Ladies position? Is it even again I ask moral or ethical for her to pull no punches when fighting to get him elected, in place as her predecessor, then what does that say for her concern for the American people? She is choosing her replacement but why is she not choosing another candidate that would not be a risk at the White House? *Remember Billy around the young interns"???

a reply to: antar

If she truly represents ALL Americans, all political parties and fairly see's everyone as equal then why step in against the 200+ Political parties to rue in favor of hers?

Why wouldn't the same question apply to the President and his/her endorsement of any particular candidate or party?

a reply to: antar

The accusations of groping women and a video of a candidate who claimed to do such things is unprecedented. I think the first lady can probably relate to being violated by a man more than her husband, which is why she was given the opportunity to speak about it. Of course in the end it helps benefit Hillary and the democratic party.

It would be naïve to think a republican administration wouldn't do the same thing! Hello, it's all about supporting the their political party! Look how many republicans and democrats still support these two candidates just because of their party affiliation. I can't remember a time where we had two scandalous candidates where voters and legislatures ignore the blatant lies and crimes of both candidates and still vote along their party line!

It sure says a lot about voters who don't stand behind their basic principles and moral beliefs. After this election, I don't think neither party has a right to take a moral high ground on any issue. Our legislatures have shown their true colors.

What message is this sending to future politicians, our children, our youth and to those who have just recently joined in the political arena

I think this a moot question. It would be a valid question if the rest of the political system were not already a complete joke, but alas we will not recognize the political system of our children in any event. So I say, let her talk, what real harm can it do. It's like peeing in the ocean. It makes no real difference.

It's not the same because of social media. Because of the internet.

Before it was easier to hide things from the masses.

Today, people have phones in their hands, and everyone's indiscretions are revealed publicly instantly to your phone.

And no one is innocent. You aren't. No one reading this is. I'm not.

And everything is exposed.

All of it.

There is no one that can hide anything. And if you think you can. You are wrong. It is all, ALL going to be exposed.

God brings all things to the light. There is nothing hidden from him.

The best we can do is repent and ask for forgiveness.

a reply to: windword

It's because she is a woman. Women are supposed to keep quiet, smile a lot and make sammiches. They aren't supposed to have a brain of their own. Duh.

a reply to: windword

I don't quite understand your question, guide me here...

It is perfectly fine to chose to back your own political party and views for the future of America, however my point being is that when it goes against the better choice for ALL Americans, America for future generations then why join in the frenzy and emotional turmoil when you supposedly represent the highest position in the country?

She states how shocked she is at the allegations of inappropriate behavior on the part of a Republican candidate, that the allegations in fact are something she cant get out of her mind... well I as well as everyone in the country cant get out of our minds the picture of the cigar in the Oval Office... The stained blue dress...THIS is who she is fighting to put back in that same Oval Office as her replacement.

When POTUS ran against the current nominee, he did not align with her nor did the current First lady, by no means were Hillary's platforms even close to theirs and yet now they will accept THAT couple over any number of alternate choices, some which would resonate with their original intentions?

Look at the choices she has as her replacement:


Melania Trump:
She could be the next Jackie Kennedy
Insiders warn the Slovenian ex-model should not be underestimated. Jackie Kennedy biographer Pamela Keogh told the Daily Mail that, just like JFK's iconic wife, Melania is "beautiful, smart and keeps her own counsel", with a chic fashion sense. As far back as 2000, she told the New York Times that if she were ever first lady, she would be "very traditional – like Betty Ford or Jackie Kennedy".
www.theweek.co.uk...

Who Is Gary Johnson's Future Wife, Kate Prusack? 7 Facts About Libertarian Candidates Fiancée:
www.ibtimes.com...

And lastly if it is a First Husband voters are wishing for...

Jill Stein's husband ***honestly not much on him yet nothing about him being a perv at The White House...
Richard Rohrer a Physician...
www.jill2016.com...

a reply to: WeRpeons

All I can do is star your post.

originally posted by: antar

Melania Trump:
She could be the next Jackie Kennedy

I don't think Jackie refused to appear at campaign rallies after her husband was shown to be a two-timing cad within months of their marriage.

Just sayin'.

a reply to: youandme

I WAS JUST saying the same thing to my Niece as I took her to work!

Do you suppose that the people out of work with nothing better to do than hanging out on social media spots like FB have pushed this emotional dogfight to the point of utter chaos? I personally have relatives who have never been active or even slightly interested in politics behaving like explosive activists reposting only that which sides with one side, their side. Never before have I seen the extreme feminist sides to any of these women... what is difficult to understand is that they refuse to watch or listen to anything other than the posts of others who side with them.

Not sure if that made sense, just had to reply to your post!

a reply to: antar

IT'S the CELLPHONES I'm tellin ya...

originally posted by: antar
a reply to: youandme

I WAS JUST saying the same thing to my Niece as I took her to work!

Do you suppose that the people out of work with nothing better to do than hanging out on social media spots like FB have pushed this emotional dogfight to the point of utter chaos? I personally have relatives who have never been active or even slightly interested in politics behaving like explosive activists reposting only that which sides with one side, their side. Never before have I seen the extreme feminist sides to any of these women... what is difficult to understand is that they refuse to watch or listen to anything other than the posts of others who side with them.

Not sure if that made sense, just had to reply to your post!

I believe it is much deeper than you or I realize. And I believe there are people who study this and know it.

I'm just saying what makes common sense to me as I watch things unfold.

It has very very much to do with social media. YouTube, Facebook, and the internet in general.

And those in power are very aware of this.

For example this message this reply to you can be read by hundreds of millions perhaps billions of people.

And who can say who will read it.

Who could have guessed you responded to it? Who can guess who you or me are?

No wonder the Facebook satellite was destroyed.

a reply to: antar

I don't quite understand your question, guide me here...

I responded to what you asked; "If she truly represents ALL Americans, all political parties and fairly see's everyone as equal then why step in against the 200+ Political parties to rue in favor of hers?"

Doesn't the president also represent all the people too? So, why single out the 1st lady for campaigning for their party.

It is perfectly fine to chose to back your own political party and views for the future of America, however my point being is that when it goes against the better choice for ALL Americans, America for future generations then why join in the frenzy and emotional turmoil when you supposedly represent the highest position in the country?

Who is doing that? I think that Michelle Obama believes that a Democratic Platform is better for the future of the United States than the Republican Platform or whatever platform a Trump administration might improvise. I do.

She states how shocked she is at the allegations of inappropriate behavior on the part of a Republican candidate, that the allegations in fact are something she cant get out of her mind... well I as well as everyone in the country cant get out of our minds the picture of the cigar in the Oval Office... The stained blue dress...THIS is who she is fighting to put back in that same Oval Office as her replacement.

Were you NOT shocked by Trumps words and his attitude toward woman, his position of privileged and his cavalier attitude toward sexual assault and his lack of boundaries?

Besides, Bill Clinton isn't running for president and "blue dress" is old news.

a reply to: Gryphon66

It seemed that everyone was there – except the honoree’s wife – Jackie Kennedy. The president attended the ceremony without the First Lady at his side. When Jackie had learned that Marilyn was to be performing at the benefit, she decided she was not about to attend.

President John F. Kennedy was turning 45. The Democratic Party held a huge fundraiser at New York’s Madison Square Garden. The birthday salute was televised before a national audience and 15,000 people had paid for seats to catch the show live at the Garden. The cream of American show business turned out to pay homage to Kennedy – Ella Fitzgerald, Peggy Lee, Jack Benny, Henry Fonda, Harry Belafonte. Greek opera diva Maria Callas was also there. Actor Peter Lawford, the president’s brother-in-law, served as master-of-ceremonies. But the pièce de résistance – the showstopper – was the performer who sang the finale – sexpot and film star Marilyn Monroe.

lisawallerrogers.com...

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Yep they have that special little code that makes them irresistible.. even more so than a home computer or lap top!!!

a reply to: antar

That's Jackie APPEARING at an event.

My post regarded the OPPOSITE of that.

Good snap though.

a reply to: windword

1995-1996 Lewinski ... came to light 1998... Was in office from -January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001

Locker room banter illegally caught on tape by someone who had no aspirations to become POTUS.. 2005

My kids have said FAAARRR worse playing xbox live... I have to remind them often that I am "in the room"... they say far worse, really.

a reply to: Gryphon66

That pic was another event, the written part was about Jackie's choice to avoid a big shin dig because of Marilyn coming...

edit to say I love both women...

originally posted by: antar
a reply to: windword

1995-1996 Lewinski ... came to light 1998... Was in office from -January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001

Locker room banter illegally caught on tape by someone who had no aspirations to become POTUS.. 2005

My kids have said FAAARRR worse playing xbox live... I have to remind them often that I am "in the room"... they say far worse, really.

Shame on you. Not them. Shame on you for letting them say such things.

I have two kids and they DON'T say shameful things. In my presence or out of it. I know. I check up on them.

a reply to: youandme

hehehe, oookkkay.