home

John McCain's First Wife Issues: Will Women Voters Turn Away?

First wife issues are nothing new. Lots of politicians have them. But John McCain, who will face some trouble from a segment of voters over his current wife Cindy's past prescription drug troubles, cannot be pleased today to see his first wife and mother of his three oldest children in the news.

Surprisingly, Carol McCain is defending him, even though he left her after his return from Vietnam and re-emergence as a war hero. Carol charitably says he was having a sort of "midlife crisis." Many others say it was because she had been horribly disfigured in a car accident and gained a lot of weight. [More...]

Now for the goodies. Laying the backstory:

McCain likes to illustrate his moral fibre by referring to his five years as a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam. And to demonstrate his commitment to family values, the 71-year-old former US Navy pilot pays warm tribute to his beautiful blonde wife, Cindy, with whom he has four children.

But there is another Mrs McCain who casts a ghostly shadow over the Senator’s presidential campaign. She is seldom seen and rarely written about, despite being mother to McCain’s three eldest children.

The meat:

She was the woman McCain dreamed of during his long incarceration and torture in Vietnam’s infamous ‘Hanoi Hilton’ prison and the woman who faithfully stayed at home looking after the children and waiting anxiously for news.

But when McCain returned to America in 1973 to a fanfare of publicity and a handshake from Richard Nixon, he discovered his wife had been disfigured in a terrible car crash three years earlier. Her car had skidded on icy roads into a telegraph pole on Christmas Eve, 1969. Her pelvis and one arm were shattered by the impact and she suffered massive internal injuries.

When Carol was discharged from hospital after six months of life-saving surgery, the prognosis was bleak. In order to save her legs, surgeons had been forced to cut away huge sections of shattered bone, taking with it her tall, willowy figure. She was confined to a wheelchair and was forced to use a catheter.

Through sheer hard work, Carol learned to walk again. But when John McCain came home from Vietnam, she had gained a lot of weight and bore little resemblance to her old self. Today, she stands at just 5ft4in and still walks awkwardly, with a pronounced limp. Her body is held together by screws and metal plates and, at 70, her face is worn by wrinkles that speak of decades of silent suffering.

McCain divorced Carol in 1980 and married Cindy one month later. Carol's version:

My accident is well recorded. I had 23 operations, I am five inches shorter than I used to be and I was in hospital for six months. It was just awful, but it wasn’t the reason for my divorce. ‘My marriage ended because John McCain didn’t want to be 40, he wanted to be 25. You know that happens...it just does.’

Others are less charitable:

Some of McCain’s acquaintances ... portray the politician as a self-centred womaniser who effectively abandoned his crippled wife to ‘play the field’. They accuse him of finally settling on Cindy, a former rodeo beauty queen, for financial reasons.

....friends say privately he was ‘appalled’ by the change in her appearance. At first, though, he was kind, assuring her: ‘I don’t look so good myself. It’s fine.’

....A sympathetic Nancy Reagan took Carol under her wing.

But already the McCains’ marriage had begun to fray. ‘John started carousing and running around with women,’ said Robert Timberg. McCain has acknowledged that he had girlfriends during this time, without going into details. Some friends blame his dissatisfaction with Carol, but others give some credence to her theory of a mid-life crisis.

McCain (and Cindy) have taken good care of Carol:

Friends confirm she has remained friends with McCain and backed him in all his campaigns. ‘He was very generous to her in the divorce but of course he could afford to be, since he was marrying Cindy,’ one observed.

It may be enough for Carol, who indeed is supporting McCain's campaign this year as she has his past campaigns. It's not enough for this man:

Ted Sampley, who fought with US Special Forces in Vietnam and is now a leading campaigner for veterans’ rights, said: ‘I have been following John McCain’s career for nearly 20 years. I know him personally. There is something wrong with this guy and let me tell you what it is – deceit.

‘When he came home and saw that Carol was not the beauty he left behind, he started running around on her almost right away. Everybody around him knew it. ‘Eventually he met Cindy and she was young and beautiful and very wealthy. At that point McCain just dumped Carol for something he thought was better.

‘This is a guy who makes such a big deal about his character. He has no character. He is a fake. If there was any character in that first marriage, it all belonged to Carol.’

Keep in mind this is a UK paper, which views the presidential race rather theatrically:

While Obama will surely press his credentials as the embodiment of the American dream – a handsome, charismatic young black man who was raised on food stamps by a single mother and who represents his country’s future – McCain will present himself as a selfless, principled war hero whose campaign represents not so much a battle for the presidency of the United States, but a crusade to rescue the nation’s tarnished reputation.

So, water under the bridge? Or will the thought of a man who leaves the disfigured wife who raised his kids for a younger, rich woman be a turn-off for women voters?

< A New Version Of The Malign Acceptance of Sexism | The New John McCain >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    It won't turn away Republican women voters (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:54:36 AM EST
    if the Republican voting history holds true.  It could deter Indy female voters.  As for many progressive female voters though who is to say because neither candidate is thrilling at this juncture.

    Hun? (none / 0) (#102)
    by Newt on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:55:32 AM EST
    What about the millions of progressive women who already voted for Obama, and will work for him to win the GE?  

    What progressive women do you speak of or for?

    [ Parent ]

    How nice, I'm a Hun (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:00:07 PM EST
    Maybe tomorrow I can be a sweetie.  I speak of progressive female voters that I know to include myself. That is who I speak of and that's Ms. Hun to you.

    [ Parent ]
    Hsun Nu (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:08:38 PM EST
    Attila?

    [ Parent ]
    My mistake ;) (none / 0) (#132)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:17:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Maybe a typo? (none / 0) (#130)
    by standingup on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:16:45 PM EST
    At least I hope it was a typo and intended to be "huh."  

    [ Parent ]
    freudian slip of the finger (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:17:48 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Typo (none / 0) (#134)
    by neoliberal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:18:22 PM EST
    My apologies. That was meant to be a "huh?"

    [ Parent ]
    You've got two usernames? (none / 0) (#154)
    by tree on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:38:30 PM EST
    Isn't that a no-no?

    [ Parent ]
    Nope. I made the typo (none / 0) (#173)
    by Newt on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:17:34 PM EST
    I take full responsibility for the dastardly act, and I don't know who neoliberal is.

    Neo, I'm in Oregon, my real name is Newt.  Who are you and why are you apologizing for my mistake.

    [ Parent ]

    neo made a comment below (none / 0) (#181)
    by tree on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:27:29 PM EST
    with the header "huh?" Probably just mistakenly apologized for your typo. Confusion all around.

    [ Parent ]
    You funny. I meant Huh not Hun. (none / 0) (#152)
    by Newt on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:38:14 PM EST
    Ms. Newt

    [ Parent ]
    Careful... (none / 0) (#167)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:03:44 PM EST
    your Freudian slip is showing.

    [ Parent ]
    He doesn't pretend to be perfect (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by catfish on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:55:17 AM EST
    I wonder if the reason women have a problem with Obama is Michelle's "if you can't run your own house, you can't run the White House" comment.

    So...if my husband cheats, should I not get promoted at work? That comment just reeked of that right-wing evangelical righteousness.

    Huh? (2.00 / 1) (#20)
    by neoliberal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:09:19 AM EST
    "So...if my husband cheats, should I not get promoted at work? That comment just reeked of that right-wing evangelical righteousness. "

    How is that different from people who think less of Obama for these words, when his wife said them? Is Michelle now an extension of Obama? That's horribly sexist, imo.

    [ Parent ]

    But what was that (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:15:10 AM EST
    about his having to 'vet' her prospective employer to make sure she'd be treated right?

    [ Parent ]
    LOL! (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:15:54 AM EST
    So let me get this straight...it's okay to smear HRC with accusations of racism because of something her husband supposedly said...but it's not okay to attribute Michelle Obama's sexist views to her husband?

    Hilarious.

    [ Parent ]

    Both are acceptable (none / 0) (#43)
    by neoliberal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:21:41 AM EST
    Or neither are. That's what I'm saying. Both statements were dumb, imo. I'm certainly not excusing Michelle.

    [ Parent ]
    it's not sexist (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by boredmpa on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:36:38 AM EST
    there's a difference between relationship issues (which can be unknown, private, and complicated) and marrying someone that is openly rude/uncivil/belittling.  

    It's a judgment issue for the self-defined unity/bipartisan candidate.  

    [ Parent ]

    It's not sexist. (none / 0) (#125)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:11:09 PM EST
    It's called political expediency. You better learn to tell the difference, and then get used to it, because Michelle Obama is hardly a shrinking violet, and doubtless she'll provide a juicy target for the GOP.

    [ Parent ]
    Was he really raised on food stamps? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by catfish on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:57:29 AM EST
    I think for a short period his mom used food stamps while she pursued her Phd.

    I like the phrase "wealthy and the well-connected."

    There's a huge difference between Obama and other people who never see avenues of opportunity.

    Maybe his prominence will eventually drive that point home.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#16)
    by andrewwm on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:07:21 AM EST
    The best lifestyle Obama ever experienced until graduating law school could be, at best, described as lower middle class. At times it was worse than lower middle class. The probably best and most stable part of his youth were when he lived with his grandparents, who were hardly wealth. What got him into a prestigious high school was a scholarship, which he had to "earn" through his own hard work.

    He's not somebody who escaped the worst of the worst poverty for sure, but he wasn't exactly born into anything resembling privledge unlike the last, oh, 4 Republican presidents + McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    Grandmother was not (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:13:31 AM EST
    a typical white woman.  I believe she was a bank officer in Hawaii.  And step-papa, whose name he used for some years, was definitely not middle class.

    [ Parent ]
    Grandmother Sounds Pretty Amazing To Me (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by daring grace on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:37:46 AM EST
    She worked in wartime factory during WW II, and worked her way up to being the first female vice president at her bank between 1960-1970.

    Typical? Maybe not, though I know a fair number of working class women of my mom's generation who lived similar experiences.

    Being an exceptional woman doesn't necessarily imply she led or came from a privileged life.

    [ Parent ]

    Privilege (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by bobbski on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:24:26 AM EST
    FDR came from a privileged background, yet look at the good he did for the country.

    Politicians, especially those with little or no experience, always try to stress their humble origins.  The more they try highlight it only serves to show that they have nothing of substance to offer the nation. It's all crap.

    The notion that someone who came from the back stabbing world of Chicago politics could actually care about anyone other than himself is ludicrous and ridiculous on its face.

    As for McCain, time spent as a POW counts for something a whole hell of a lot more than anything Obama has done in his life...  I say this as most assuredly not a supporter of, nor as one who intends to vote for, John McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    completely false (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:26:49 AM EST
    and off topic. Further misrepresentations like this will be deleted. His grandmother and a co-worker were made (the first ever for Hawaii) vice-presidents of a bank in 1970 -- he was 9 and in  Indonesia living with his mother and stepfather from  ages 4 to 10. Then he attended an elite school on a scholarship. His grandparents were not poor. His mother was poor from when his father left around age 2 until she remarried when he was around age 4. (Best dates since there is a paucity of exact dates out there.)

    [ Parent ]
    The dude is a Harvard legacy (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:44:29 AM EST
    he got points because his dad also went there.

    he's not a humble man of no means by any means.

    [ Parent ]

    well (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by progrocks on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:59:39 AM EST
    I am pretty sure the law school could give a rats about whether his father went to some other part of Harvard. As a African American who graduated Summa, he was getting in without any legacy help.

    But believe what you want........

    [ Parent ]

    Rught... (none / 0) (#123)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:09:44 PM EST
    ...none of that goes on at Harvard.  Evah.  

    Believe what you want to believe.

    [ Parent ]

    He graduated magna ... (none / 0) (#161)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:44:22 PM EST
    not summa.  And this was from HLS, so it would have no bearing on his admission to HLS.

    I cannot find any reference to him graduating with honors from Columbia.

    Legacy considerations are huge.  There have been studies on this.  

    [ Parent ]

    Harvard doesn't care about legacies? LOL (none / 0) (#182)
    by angie on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:28:05 PM EST
    That is either the most willfully ignorant statement ever made in the history of the world or you are really, really naive.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, LOL All You Want But (none / 0) (#193)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:38:23 PM EST
    Not all legacies are created equal.

    [ Parent ]
    Legacies are HUGE at (none / 0) (#215)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 03:11:50 PM EST
    Harvard.

    [ Parent ]
    Precisely. (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Landulph on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:21:34 PM EST
    Barack Obama is the son of a Harvard-educated economist, grew up in an upper-middle class home, attended an elite prep school, became a Harvard-educated lawyer, and is now a US senator. That's the biography of 90% of the people who have run for President in the past 100 years. Let's stop pretending there is anything remarkable about his life story--other than, as we have already heard ad nauseum, his being "the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas*"

    *actually, Mumsey was raised in the posh Seattle suburb of Mercer Island, Washington, but "a white woman from Washington" doesn't exactly alliterate with "Kenya", nor does it connote heartland values. Ah, the New Politics of transparency and idealism!

    [ Parent ]

    Upper middle class home? (none / 0) (#194)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:38:47 PM EST
    When Obama was living with his grandparents, he was living in a two bedroom apartment.  And being a VP of a banch did not necessarily entail a lot of money.  Every branch has VPs--in some banks everyone not a teller is a VP.

    "Son of a Harvard educated economist" is misleading.....Obama met his father once after he left when Obama was an infant.   It would seem hard to believe that Obama got any benefit out of having a Harvard educated economist as his father....when that father was absent.

    [ Parent ]

    His father also reportedly fathered many (none / 0) (#196)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:42:52 PM EST
    subsequent children, some of whom were attributed to him via paternity tests.

    [ Parent ]
    Mercer Island (none / 0) (#204)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:48:19 PM EST
    wasn't always posh, or posh everywhere.

    [ Parent ]
    Omama's step father was (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Inky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:44:31 AM EST
    an oil executive who lived in one of the nicest houses in their Jakarta neighborhood. He then lived with his grandparents in a high-rise by the beach in Hawaii while he attended the most elite prep school on the island. Yes, it's true that his grandparents' high-rise appartment only had two bedrooms, so it wasn't completely posh, but I still wouldn't describe his lifestyle growing up as "at best, lower middle class."

    If you want to talk about a childhood of privation, you should look into Bill Clinton's childhood story. His circumstances growing up make both Barack and Michelle Obama look positively spoiled in contrast.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama's childhood. (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by wurman on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:30:19 PM EST
    Chicago Tribune (link)
    Madelyn Dunham, a rising executive at the Bank of Hawaii during Obama's Punahou days, was more reserved but seemed to love having her grandson's friends over to play and hang out.
    [snip]
    Ann and the boy lived with the Dunhams in Honolulu until Obama was 6.
    [snip]
    He is 9 years old, living in Indonesia . . . . One day while visiting his mother, who was working at the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta. . . .
    [snip]
    When Obama was in 4th grade, the Soetoro family moved. Their new neighborhood was only 3 miles to the west, but a world away. Elite Dutch colonists once lived there . . . . In the early 1970s, diplomats and Indonesian businessmen lived there in fancy gated houses with wide paved roads and sculpted bushes.

    Sen. Obama lived an upper middle class life.  The newspaper report essentially "takes down" the story that his family was poor.  His grandmother was a vice-president at the Bank of Hawaii.  

    A less kindly account is at Hopelessly Partisan (link)
    Referenced there is "(Obama: From Promise to Power, see page 36-38) Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendell gives the following description of the elite prep school:" & follows on to this--

    Punahou had evolved into a prestigious college preparatory academy that served Hawaii's upper crust.... Obama's grandparents maneuvered him into Punahou; his grandfather's boss, an alumnus, intervened to have Obama accepted. And Madelyn's job at the bank helped pay the steep tuition. ...
    [snip]
    If his mother actually did receive food stamps, it would only have been while she was getting her PhD (1974-1977), and while the family was sending Obama to an expensive private prep school. . . .

    During the times when Sen. Obama lived with his mother either the Food Stamp program did not exist or they were not in the USA.

    The Obama poor child story is a myth.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks for posting the Trib links (none / 0) (#179)
    by shannon on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:25:48 PM EST
    The Obama childhood myth is unfortunately taken to be fact by much of the media and most of his supporters.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not (none / 0) (#183)
    by Jgarza on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:28:41 PM EST
    sure what Obama's biography has to do with McCain leaving his wife.  Is it not possible for you to refrain from bashing Obama, even in posts that have nothing to do with him.

    [ Parent ]
    I believe the first post (none / 0) (#198)
    by tree on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:43:44 PM EST
    (since deleted for falsity) tried to compare McCain's background with Obama's. Hence the ensuing discussion about Obama's real background.

      Perhaps this will help you understand the frustration when discussions about Obama elicited  the usual "BUT, but Clinton...." posts. I mention this only because you made quite a few of those yourself.

    [ Parent ]

    My post is 1 in a string of responses (none / 0) (#208)
    by wurman on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:51:15 PM EST
    to a cut & paste comment asserting that Sen. Obama was from an economically deprived childhood.  The relevance developed from comments about McCain's wives vis-a-vis Mrs. Obama.  Sen. Obama's wife asserted that Sen. Clinton was not qualified to be president because she couldn't even keep her own house in order, etc.

    Which led to a question about Sen. Obama's boyhood financial situation & his mother's possible "poverty."

    It's false.  And many commenters wrote that, & Jeralyn was one of them.  I provided 2 references for the factual bases of the arguments that Sen. Obama had a reasonably comfortable life & was well-connected in Hawaii.

    It helps to follow the thread.

    And my quoting referenced sources is not "Obama bashing."  Jeralyn would delete my comment if I had trashed the senator for the fictional accounts of his childhood--even if he fabricated them for himself.

    [ Parent ]

    "Scholarship"? (none / 0) (#200)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:46:05 PM EST
    Did you talk about the scholarship to Punahou?

    [ Parent ]
    right, because (none / 0) (#51)
    by SarahinCA on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:27:28 AM EST
    poor white women earning their PhD are clearly living a life of hard knocks.

    [ Parent ]
    I meant "poor" (none / 0) (#57)
    by SarahinCA on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:29:03 AM EST
    Not poor.  But Jeralyn posted more appropriately than my snarky reply.

    [ Parent ]
    Across the pond you can see (none / 0) (#64)
    by catfish on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:34:37 AM EST
    how easily they would buy into the myth he was born a poor black child.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly. This whole myth (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Landulph on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:25:28 PM EST
    about Obama's upbringing is really a form of latent racism, because it conflates class and race. So many commentators (and frankly, "Creative" Class Obama fanboiz) see an African-American and ASSUME he must have had a childhood out of "The Wire" or a Spike Lee movie (this is probably their only exposure to real African Americans)--like there are no affluent black people in America. I find it very disturbing, to be honest.

    [ Parent ]
    Lower middle class? Not by a long shot.. (none / 0) (#120)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:06:50 PM EST
    When his mother was in grad school, using food stamps, Obama was living on Mercer Island with his grandparents. Mercer Island is expensive, way over the price range of lower middle class. Then he was living in Hawaii with his grandparents after coming back from Indonesia and he went to a private prep school. He was not a scholarship student there. His grandparents paid the tuition. Again, not lower middle class. McCain was raised on military bases, not in the lap of luxury like his current wife. If you are going to make arguments, you should get your facts straight.

    [ Parent ]
    Not True, On Several Points (none / 0) (#147)
    by daring grace on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:30:26 PM EST
    The Chicago Tribune had a biographical series on Obama in June, 2008 which was fairly exhaustive and did, in fact, point out ways that his campaign had shaded information they released about his life.

    But he never lived on Mercer Island. His grandparents had moved to Seattle for a job opportunity for his grandfather and then they moved to Mercer Island in the late 1950s because they liked the high school there for their daughter (who was still childless, of course.)

    Mercer Island back then was described as rural and a far cry from the trendy spot it is today. In any case, Barack Obama never lived there as a child.

    In 1960, after Obama's mother graduated from high school, her parents moved to Hawaii for another paternal job opportunity, and she attended the University of Hawaii, met Obama Sr. etc.

    [ Parent ]

    Either way, the idea that Obama (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:40:18 PM EST
    was raised in poverty is ridiculous. I find most of his claims in his biography to be specious. I find Barack Obama to be one of the biggest phonies to come down the political pike in a very long time. He should have stayed in the Senate and done his job. Doing his job is not big with him, actually. I want a President who isn't ashamed of half his family, who can actually stand up for his constituents rather than defending a campaign contributor against a law suit by his constituents, who can win a campaign by other means that either eliminating the competition or slagging them with sexist and racist accusations. Obama isn't that person. He is over-rated, over-hyped, and over-matched. Soon he will be just over. Then he can go back to doing the job he was originally elected to do, which he has woefully neglected to further his personal ambition. Then he can worry about getting re-elected to the Senate. He isn't going to be the next President.

    [ Parent ]
    To this day... (none / 0) (#158)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:40:47 PM EST
    ...there are still "lower middle class" people living on MI.  There are pockets on the center of island, away from the waterfront, that are filled with small houses from the 40's and 50's.  

    It may take a lot of money to buy a house on the island these days, but that always hasn't been the case.  The regions (Eastside) wealth is a relatively new development.  

    [ Parent ]

    Revisionist history (none / 0) (#176)
    by angie on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:24:00 PM EST
    First, he was "raised" by a single mother for exactly 2 years before she remarried. Second, his life in Indonesia was better then lower middle class -- they had servants for crying out loud. When he returned to HI when he was 10 he went to an exclusive prep school paid by his grandparents. Maybe middle class, but not lower middle class, and he certainly wasn't "raised on food stamps."

    [ Parent ]
    Turning away from McCain (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:58:25 AM EST
    doesn't mean turning to Obama.

    That's what a lot of folks don't seem to get.

    I believe that McCain has a lot of flaws, myself, and I will never vote for him, but I don't think the MCM will focus on those flaws. After all, how many Presidents were womanizers? I think the only one that wasn't, in recent history, was Jimmy Carter.

    Well, maybe Reagan. ;-)

    Try Truman. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:10:36 AM EST
    Despite his Missouri machine political start, he was pretty much straight arrow.  And Bess was formidable.

    [ Parent ]
    Sadly, it's going to be very, very hard (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Landulph on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:31:18 PM EST
    to make an issue of this, in my view, simply because Carol McCain has consistently supported her ex-husband in his political campaigns.

    More and more, this election is looking like a choice between the flu and the plague--and I have no idea which is which.

    [ Parent ]

    Nancy was wife #2 (none / 0) (#12)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:05:00 AM EST
    Jane Wyman, Mrs. Reagan #1, was a model of decorum during Reagan's tenure as President.  

    [ Parent ]
    I think Nixon was also faithful. (none / 0) (#30)
    by tigercourse on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:14:14 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    A lot of good that did. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by scribe on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:42:00 AM EST
    He never made a dishonest buck either, which, in his eyes meant what he had done to the country and the Constitution was all right.

    Actually, it just showed him to be too naive to be a real Republican - if he couldn't profit from his government service, he wasn't true enough to the Republican party's ideals.  He was just a tool.

    You wanna see a real Republican - look at Cheney.  A year or two ago, he put his money into Euro-denominated investments.  Seems to have done pretty well by himself.

    [ Parent ]

    JFK was a seroius womanizer (none / 0) (#177)
    by angie on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:25:18 PM EST
    funny how the Obamabots always attack WJC for that while simultaneously comparing Obama to JFK -- either the irony is lost on them or they don't know anything about JFK (or both).

    [ Parent ]
    I think it all depends... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Mike H on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:00:12 AM EST
    It depends on the media, honestly.  We in blog-land can speculate all we want, but if the media plays up the story and makes McCain look bad, more and more people will be turned off.

    If, however, the media protects McCain and ignores anything negative about his past choices, voter opinion about his treatment of his first wife will be moot, because most voters won't even be informed he HAS a "first wife".

    so, there are 2 deceitful candidates (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Josey on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:00:54 AM EST
    imho the big difference is Obama based his presidential campaign on deceit.


    McSame... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Thanin on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:19:41 AM EST
    is basing his campaign on bushs 3rd term, which is overflowing with deceit.

    [ Parent ]
    Do you realize (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:55:58 AM EST
    that the mindset you are putting forward has been a loser twice already? We tried that against the real Bush in 2004 and it didn't work. The only way what you are saying would work is if Obama was running against Cheney. He's not.

    [ Parent ]
    The mind numbing effect... (none / 0) (#111)
    by Thanin on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:01:03 PM EST
    of 9/11 has all but warn off.  This is evident in how most all elections to have already happened this year ended with the defeat of the republican candidate.  The political landscape has changed dramatically from 2004.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:15:18 PM EST
    the political landscape has changed but you are ignoring how toxic Obama can be made to be. Already the GOP has driven his negatives up. Obama has made the HUGE mistake of campaigning on "new politics" and "personality". He personality thing can easily be punctured and the "new politics" has put him in a defensive box.

    [ Parent ]
    Can I get a ruling on this, Jeralyn? (5.00 / 5) (#118)
    by tree on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:05:09 PM EST
    I know you've shut down and deleted posts that name-called Obama or Clinton. Can we stop with the name-calling of McCain as well? McSame, McBush, Mc-whatever? I'm never voting for McCain but I am oh so over all the petty name-calling.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree with this so much. (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by eleanora on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:21:19 PM EST
    Voting for McCain isn't an option for me, but can't we please just be civil as we argue against him?

    And I hope we don't fall into the ageism trap like "McOld" and "McAlzheimer's" that I've seen everywhere. Getting into this mindset is going to hurt all Democrats, because one of our common values is that we fight on the issues, not on prejudice and name-calling. Promoting bigotry against older people is just as bad as making racist or sexist arguments. Yuck.

    [ Parent ]

    I'd just go to LGF (none / 0) (#185)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:31:44 PM EST
    and other forums, and point out that McCain is not a good conservative and not a good friend of Israel.   That would sow trouble for Mccain more than anything else.

    [ Parent ]
    Well... (1.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Thanin on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:12:17 PM EST
    the name of the website is TalkLeft, and really, McSame is pretty benign.  I guess I'd just say that, we're democrats right?  Cant we at least blow off a little steam when addressing each other about the other side?  Its not like McSame is a slur or really all that offensive.

    [ Parent ]
    I've reached my limit on name-calling (none / 0) (#148)
    by tree on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:30:45 PM EST
    That's just me. But I've asked myself how the country's  gotten to such a place that the most outrageous and vile name-calling is considered acceptable public discourse. There are many reasons but the one that affected the left blogosphere most was, IMO, the name-calling that started with the Bush Presidency and just kept expanding and deepening until it became ordinary and acceptable. Don't get me wrong, no one deserves to be called names more than GWB, but its oozed and spread into toxic levels that are now used by some to smear anyone and everyone who expresses a differing opinion. This is really antagonistic to democracy.

    I'm certainly not accusing you of doing this, and I admit McSame is not a particularly nasty name. But my tolerance is up. If we are going to walk this kind of name calling back, we have to walk it back for everyone, regardless of whether we like or agree with their politics or not.

      As the saying goes....speaking for myself only.

    [ Parent ]

    You make a good point... (none / 0) (#162)
    by Thanin on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:48:06 PM EST
    the main reason I say McSame is because there are a lot of democrats and independents that still see the guy as some sort of 'maverick', which simply isnt true.  I want to reinforce the fact that he is the same as all the worst things about the republican party, and McSame is a succinct way of doing it.  Typing out 'McCain (the same as bush ethically and philosophically)' just doesnt have the same staying power.  

    But like I said I do see your point, and if Jeralyn bans the name (which she might), I'll gladly stop using it.  Until then I'll keep typing it since it does make me feel just slightly better (I really really really hate conservatives).

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks for the thoughtful response (none / 0) (#165)
    by tree on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:56:40 PM EST
    I hope she does ban it but its her decision obviously and not mine. Until there's a ruling your perfectly within your rights to use it and it she says its OK to call him that name then I'll respect it. Until then I'll probably carp about it off and on. No personal offense intended.

    [ Parent ]
    None taken... (none / 0) (#171)
    by Thanin on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 01:14:00 PM EST
    it'd get pretty boring around here if people didnt express whats affecting them.

    [ Parent ]
    How Is Characterizing (none / 0) (#136)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:19:33 PM EST
    McCain as McSame, or McBush namecalling. I calling someone Bush is namecalling well then then the GOP must own it.

    [ Parent ]
    Is he really? (none / 0) (#90)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:47:55 AM EST
    I know that's an Obama TP, but is it factual?

    [ Parent ]
    Considering his stated goals as pres, Yes. n/t (none / 0) (#106)
    by Thanin on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:57:51 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    look at his positions (none / 0) (#115)
    by scribe on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:02:01 PM EST
    and compare them to Bushie's - no daylight.

    It's only when he's trying to widen his audience from Bush's 28% that he tries to show some daylight, but he promptly tells the 28% that he doesn't really mean it.

    [ Parent ]

    eh (5.00 / 13) (#8)
    by nell on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:01:46 AM EST
    there are lots of reasons not to vote for mccain, but his marriage is not of them. jus as I didn't judge bill clinton for less than desirable behavior towards his wife, I won't judge mccain. nobody knows what happens in a marriage except he two people who are in it. as far as I am concerned this isbetween john and carol and or john and cindy.

    As long as he and his first wife have a peaceful (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:03:05 AM EST
    relationship, I don't see it mattering to anyone who is open to the idea of voting for him. If being divorced makes one ineligible to hold office, our candidate pool just got a lot smaller. However, I will be celebrating my 35th wedding anniversary in just a couple of weeks and am open to being drafted at the convention if being long-time married is a major qualification. 8^)

    The Democratic party (5.00 / 11) (#10)
    by dk on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:03:29 AM EST
    used to at least have an argument that they could claim some sort of moral superiority when it comes to respect for women, but I think this primary pretty much wiped that out.

    Maybe the whole attempt of charitably acknowledging that "there is sexism" but taking no personal responsibility for it, plus arguing that the other side is more sexist, may win some votes.  To me, it's meaningless.  Just my opinion, of course.

    To be honest, I feel very uncomfortable (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:05:38 AM EST
    trying to judge McCain about this. I don't think there's any way we can really know what went on in his family.

    There's no way I'm going to vote for him, but this isn't going to have anything to do with it.

    I also feel bad for his first wife... (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:12:26 AM EST
    ...it seems she is at peace with all of this and she still has a lot of health issues. I don't think she needs to be dragged into a political campaign, but I'm sure she will be. Everything is fair game, I suppose.

    [ Parent ]
    To some extent, (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:07:32 AM EST
    I think McCain's story is hardly unusual--returning from  war, having emotional problems, wanting to make up for lost time....  Happens often enough that the armed forces are making an effort to counsel families, I believe.  The fact that the first wife's glamour and looks were gone--that does not sound so good (especially considering the number of wives who stand by disfigured, tormented husbands.)  OTH, maybe she prefers a quiet life, not on public display.

    McCain is no model husband--neither was Bill, nor JFK, nor even Ike.  (Truman and Carter are the only 2 I would be willing to bet never cheated.)  But there is a difference between being a good and faithful husband and being a darn good president.  I think we have mostly learned to differentiate.

    I can't remember, (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Lahdee on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:12:46 AM EST
    Did he support Senator Webb's GI Bill?
    Did he support Webb's amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act requiring that active-duty troops and units have at least equal time at home as the length of their previous tour overseas?
    Increased funding for the VA?
    I honestly don't remember.

    [ Parent ]
    Off the top of my head, the answers are (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by scribe on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:23:53 AM EST
    no, no and no.

    [ Parent ]
    Thought so n/t (none / 0) (#58)
    by Lahdee on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:29:54 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Great questions, (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by eleanora on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:24:25 PM EST
    I'd love to see us collect good, substantial reasons why McCain is a bad choice, rather than this personal stuff. His voting record on veteran's and supporting active troops has gotten just terrible, especially lately.

    [ Parent ]
    I wonder (and I got deleted (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:28:36 AM EST
    yesterday for this)why we can honor and glorify JFK and he was a notorious womanizer (and drug user from what I've read), but today we all have to be sanitized. Hillary kept her marriage together, for whatever reasons and she is maligned for that. The statistics today show a big divorce rate for soldiers coming home from Iraq/Afghanistan....what's the difference?    

    [ Parent ]
    JFK (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by BackFromOhio on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:40:54 AM EST
    I would be very careful labelling JFK a "drug user" as you do.  It is my understanding that whatever he took for back pain, Addison's Disease, etc. was prescribed-- perhaps unorthodox at the time, but prescribed. Your choice of words makes it sounds as though he was doing illegal drugs.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:53:26 AM EST
    he and Jackie, like many other celebrities/important people, went to the infamous Dr Robert for "vitamin shots" which were in actuality speed balls. Whether or not they knew this is unknown.

    And just because something is a prescription drug doesnt mean it's not addicting or judgement impairing.

    [ Parent ]

    There were articles and stories (none / 0) (#112)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:01:32 PM EST
    of his smoking "marijuana" and cloaking w/women in closets. Those are the sorts of drugs I was talking about, not for his Addison's disease.

    [ Parent ]
    Articles like this one, and there (none / 0) (#121)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:07:38 PM EST
    are many:

      JFK

    [ Parent ]

    The real point is... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Thanin on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:44:19 AM EST
    when republicans over look this kind of thing its hypocrisy.  I mean come on, they impeached a guy cause of this kind of stuff, yet they nominate someone whose done the same thing but in a seemingly worse way?  Pathetic.

    [ Parent ]
    good luck redirecting ... (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:41:26 AM EST
    ...the hurt and anger felt by Clinton supporters toward Obama onto McCain.

    it's not likely to work.  Indeed, you may even find it provokes memories of Bill clinton's destruction by the media.

    [ Parent ]

    I'd add Ford (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:52:55 AM EST
    to that probably didn't cheat list. Cindy was prescription drugs, so without knowing why she started taking them it's hard to criticize.

    Betty Ford was an alcoholic, and I'm sure she wasn't the only wife to have an addiction.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this. (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by bslev22 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:10:55 AM EST
    I do understand that Talkleft, like most its readers including yours truly, are shifting into general election mode in an effort to help elect Senator Obama.  I applaud that and understand the challenge it poses.  But can we at least start off by discussing the positives about Obama and stay away from this kind of stuff?  I wouldn't vote for Senator McCain under any circumstances, and I don't need to get into how McCain dishonored his first wife almost 40 years ago.  He could be the most loyal husband in the world and I still wouldn't vote for the guy.  I don't think that makes me unique among supporters of Hillary Clinton.

    This all goes to his character (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by scribe on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:15:04 AM EST
    or lack thereof.

    He and his entire history are fair game.  And, if we can kick up enough negatives about him, so much the better.

    [ Parent ]

    If McCain's first wife (5.00 / 8) (#53)
    by Nadai on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:27:54 AM EST
    was speaking out against him, I'd agree with you, but she's not.  And while McCain's life is fair game, hers isn't.  She's doesn't deserve to be dragged into the public eye because you detest her ex-husband.

    [ Parent ]
    interesting standard. (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:48:17 AM EST
    Live by it and die by it.

    [ Parent ]
    Character? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by santarita on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:52:00 AM EST
      This country faces critical issues in the economy, the climate and in foreign policy.  I'm going to vote for the candidate that has the best vision and the best ideas to get us out of the messes that we have made.  Both Obama and McCain are politicians at the national level - to me that makes it a given that they are not virtuous. Do we rreally want to encourage mudslinging?  

     I'd rather see this contest decided using our rational side rather than our emotional side.

    [ Parent ]

    Did you (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:59:54 AM EST
    like the media chasing around Kerry's ex-wife? Bill Clinton was smart enough not to use this stuff about Bob Dole. He ran around on his first wife.

    If you can't win on the issues then you deserve to lose.

    [ Parent ]

    It Is The Hypocrisy (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:15:28 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Jeralyn, I'm disappointed. (5.00 / 10) (#31)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:14:15 AM EST
    I won't do the personal attacks thing.  McCain is like a lot of returning VETs whose first marriages don't work out.  I will NEVER again participate in the politics of personal destruction no matter the given Party of a particular candidate.  I've seen it from the other side in this primary.  It's ugly and unworthy of comment.

    If you choose not to participate (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by scribe on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:20:23 AM EST
    in the "politics of personal destruction"*, then you had better be prepared to live under a (continued) Republican dictatorship.  Because they neither do, nor will, show any such scruple but will instead sneer at your namby-pamby-ness.

    This is a fight for power.  The Republicans know that not only are their political lives on the line but, given the depths of depravity and criminality they've participated in over the last decade (more or less), a lot of them stand a good chance of going to prison for a long time for what they've done.

    How hard would you fight to stay out of prison?  You can be assured they will fight harder.

    I regret that politics and political activism have sunk to this level (though an argument can be made it always was there and we only see it now through better reporting) - but this is where we are.  Deal with it.

    -

    *  That term being, FWIW, a Republican whine when they get caught with their pants around their ankles or dirty money in their pockets.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't give a fig. (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:24:29 AM EST
    I'm not going to destroy a guy personally who lived in a box for 6 years because he refused to go home without his buddies.  

    [ Parent ]
    Well You Are In Line (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:32:07 AM EST
    With the MSM. Strange that a guy who lived in a box would be for torture, no?

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Thanin on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:40:37 AM EST
    I guess once you live in a box any opinion you have becomes unquestionable.  

    Want to expand the Iraq war 100 years?  Its ok cause you lived in a box.  Want to deny other war vets a decent amount of college money?  Its ok cause you lived in a box.  Want to cheat on your disfigured wife, divorce her and remarry some rodeo queen (or whatever she was)?  Its ok cause you lived in a box.

    [ Parent ]

    The war and the college thing are issues. (none / 0) (#88)
    by masslib on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:46:11 AM EST
    Not personal destruction.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree masslib, (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by NJDem on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:52:27 PM EST
    and I don't think Obama is going to win over any voters with these kinds of personal attacks (and if anything he's opening himself up for some).  

    Does his POW status make him immune to criticism, no.  Does it make him worthy of respect, yes.  

    When I read that posters on 'progressive' blogs started making fun of JM's inability to raise his arms past his shoulders, I felt the same type of hurt as when they attacked the Clintons.  He doesn't deserve that and either did/do they.  I imagine I'm not along here.

    Can't we find something else to attack McCain for--like when he voted for the Cheney Energy Bill?  Oh wait...    

    [ Parent ]