That's because her audience is full of fembots, the same droids that chanted Yes We Can until their mind turned to pudding
That's because her audience is full of fembots, the same droids that chanted Yes We Can until their mind turned to pudding
The announcement of the record debt occurred just minutes prior to the 'official' start. Not that this affected anyone in attendance.....
Mitts wife could take a lesson.
So does this mean Mitt's and Ann's audience just didn't give a **** about their candidate and his spouse?
I'd also argue that it seemed Michelle's speech not only talked positively (relative, of course) of her husband, but also reinforced his policy decisions.
Ann was a totally bad speaker, but she just seemed to argue that her husband was not a robot. She didn't really seem to delineate any policy or platform that they would champion if/when elected.
Neither one of them is on the ballot, last time I checked. So what?
Because the words they speak are an insight into the policy of their candidate husbands. Just like hearing the VP candidates talk, or the other party endorsers (i.e. Christie).
I recall a lot of people getting a giant hard on for Clint Eastwood's wacky words last week. I think the first lady candidates' words are are least marginally more relevant than a semi-retired Hollywood figure's.
However, I strongly suspect their names ARE on the ballot. I said nothing about voting. Wow.
Similar threads
