I don't remember: did Hillary Clinton and Tipper Gore speak during the conventions

[question everything]

of 1992, 1996 and 2000?

Since when do spouses address a political convention?

[Skidmore]

1. When they are former presidents. I think Carter should be allowed

to speak too.

[Captain Hilts]

26. I think as a former Dem prez, it's his right to speak. nt

[ellacott]

2. This has been called a change election

Maybe thi is part of that change.

[Marrah_G]

3. You realize President Clinton was a Democratic President right?

Why try and drum up some new argument?

[bunnies]

8. Seems to me that the OP is referring to Michelle Obama.

That would make more sense. Dont you think?

[Marrah_G]

23. Yup ! silly me, I read that soooo wrong.

[bunnies]

32. :)

Dont feel bad. Ive been wrong once before myself. :hi:

[question everything]

10. Please read my question again: it is about the candidate's spouse

not about former presidents.

I don't remember Hillary and Tipper addressing the conventions that nominated their spouses. However Teresa Heinz Kerry did, and Michelle Obama will.

Of course both Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter should speak.

[Marrah_G]

22. DOH- I read that SOOOO wrong

My apologies- now I just feel silly !

I think Michelle speaking would be great !

[onenote]

30. you can look these things up.

Hillary spoke in 1996. Tipper intro'd Al in 2000. Pickles spoke at both the 2000 and 2004 repub conventions.

[question everything]

33. Thank you. Did not remember.

Seems like we've gone a long way from the spouse just standing by her man (so far) looking with adoring eyes.

[madaboutharry]

4. They do address the conventions.

Theresa Kerry addressed the convention. I remember Tipper Gore addressing the convention.

I don't know about the republicans since I would never watch their convention.

[bunnies]

5. Do you take issue with Michelle speaking?

:shrug:

[alwysdrunk]

31. That's what it sounds like to me

:shrug:

[VADem11]

6. Teresa Heinz Kerry did in 2004

It's pretty common actually.

[question everything]

11. She did, and I think this was the first time

This is why asked about previous conventions.

[indie_voter]

7. This is with regards to Michelle Obama speaking?

I think because of the special circumstances (read: black family). they want to get her front and center and show she's not scary (like our stupid media would have the country believe, she's obviously not scary but a very smart, capable & interesting woman)?

[Arkansas Granny]

9. It would be nice to know exactly what you are referring to in your post.

I assume that you are commenting on the fact that Michelle Obama is speaking at the convention on Monday night. I don't have any problem with this.

http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/08/10/michelle-obama-hillary-clinton-to-open-democratic-convention/

[question everything]

13. Yes, I don't know why a spouse should address a convetnion

that is nominating her spouse. And, I thought it was strange when Teresa Heinz Kerry did the same in 2004.

This is why I was asking about Clinton and Gore.

[Arkansas Granny]

16. So much attention is now focused on the spouse and family of the candidates that I

don't find it strange at all that a spouse is chosen to give a convention speech.

[saracat]

12. Yes they did. I remember Tipper speaking on Mental health.

[question everything]

14. "They?" Did Hillary in 1992? 1996? (nt)

[saracat]

19. Yes. I just don't remember what she spoke on. I am sure it can be "googled"

[arcos]

37. Hillary had recently published her book in 1996...

And the Republicans were criticizing it as "socialism", because according to them it took a family to raise a kid. Hillary however, spoke on the necessity of strong communities, strong education and health care, and she finished up by saying "yes, it does take a village".

[Drunken Irishman]

15. Tipper did in 2000.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/democratic/transcripts/u090817.html

[Skwmom]

17. Since THREE Clintons are speaking, why shouldn't Michelle?

[saracat]

21. 3 Clintons aren't speaking. Chelsea is introing her mom as a former Presidential candidate, and Bill

is a former 2 term President. Michelle will and should speak most other nominees spouses have.. I do not see the OP as an attack! It was a question. Chill out.

[Skwmom]

25. Hillary, Chelsea, and Bill. Hmmm... doesn't that make 3? Plus, introducing someone does require

one to SPEAK.

[saracat]

28. It isn't the same as making a major speech and The Clinton's are there is separate capacity's.

Hillary would likely NOT be speaking if she were there just as Senator or a former First lady but former presidential candidates do speak. Michelle ids speaking in the traditional role of the spouses nominee.Sounds like you think the Clinton's shouldn't be there. The thing is, they have contributed much and their place is assured.As is Michelle's.

[Diane R]

29. It's ridiculous to have Chelsea speak. Her mom is not the nominee. Typical Clinton hubris.

[saracat]

35. She is introducing her mother for gods sake . No different then when JFK Jr. spoke

I think, I may be wrong , he introduced Ted but if he introduced someone else the idea is the same. Would you call that Kennedy hubris? Sheesh. Some folks hate the Clintons worse than freepers.

[Xenocrates]

18. Eleanor Roosevelt did in 1940 (nm)

[Captain Hilts]

24. FDR owed her Big Time after that one. Advantage, Eleanor.

Cleaning up after he'd ticked off other people, as usual.

[MGKrebs]

20. Coupla' things...

At first I responded as if this meant to question Hillary's speaking at the convention, since that is the general gist of so many posts around here- challenge everything Hillary, and since the O.P. doesn't specify what motivated the question. Which leads to the next thing: If this is connected to some other thread- so much so that the inspiration doesn't even need mentioning, why is it a new thread? And if there are 20 threads on the same subject, why? Does anybody bother to just keep one subject together anymore? Anybody who wants to write something just starts a new thread? I mean, why bother to even open a thread and look at it. Essentially every post is shown in the forum thread list. The only time it is necessary to respond in a thread is to K&R.

And why are we supposed to assume what the O.P. is talking about? Is it too much trouble to actually write it out? When did it become OK to assume that everybody reads virtually every thread (or at least their titles) and understands the hip "topic of the moment"? It's like litter. There's junk strewn everywhere. Are people posting new threads from their phones while waiting in line or something? Too much trouble to navigate around?

This is no way to have a discussion. This seems to be becoming more and more just a bunch of people posting new threads so they can see their name on the thread list more often. 15 minutes of fame, if you will. If some people post 17 threads about Wesley Clark, then some other people have to post 26 threads about Sebelius.

Maybe it's better. There isn't really any discussion to speak of, so we don't fight so much. In other words, it's just another social networking site. Hi. My name is Krebs and I think Bill Richardson RAWKS. :headbang:


I must be getting old and cranky.

[noel711]

27. How quickly they forget!

Oh my, YES! Tipper Gore introduced her husband Al,
and he strode out, Bent her backwards, and planted
a huge, amourous smooch on her!

The crowd went wild, and it was the butt of jokes
for years!

But I'm looking forward to Stepford Wife Cindy Mc.
introducing her dear hubby John,
and seeing him struggle out with a walker..
and she pecks him on the cheek. Oh yes.

[EffieBlack]

34. Elizabeth Edwards spoke in 2004

[arcos]

36. I remember Hillary speak 1996... "Yes, it does take a village"... nt