What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Cheap and Easy Wireless TiVo solution view!
newegg.com - How I set up my wireless TiVo for less than $50.00
379 Comments
- detcade, on 11/15/2009, -24/+376http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/firstlady.asp
Origins: On 1 July 2009, the White House released its Annual Report to Congress on White House Office Staff, a report listing the names, position titles, and salaries of White House employees. Several days later, columnist Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times put together a blog post in which she used the White House report to identify 22 staffers working in the Office of First Lady. (Sixteen of the listed names were staffers who had the words "First Lady" in their position titles, five were staffers with the words "Social Office" or "Social Secretary" in their titles, and one was listed as a "Staff Assistant.") Lynn Sweet's list was posted to
the Last Crusade web site (and the Canada Free Post web site) with the introductory paragraphs (reproduced above) claiming that First Lady Michelle Obama had hired "an unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim," and variants of that version have circulated via e-mail with the subject line "First Lady Requires More Than Twenty Attendants."
So far as the original White House report is accurate, it's fair to say that First Lady Michelle Obama has about 22 staffers working for her, directly or indirectly. (Some other accounts put that figure at 24.) However, it's grossly inaccurate to claim that the current First Lady has hired "an unprecedented number of staffers," or to assert (as stated in the anonymously tacked-on final paragraph) that First Lady Laura Bush had but a single staffer working for her.
The 2008 White House Office Staff List, issued during the final year of President George W. Bush's tenure in office, includes sixteen different staffers with the words "First Lady" in their position titles — exactly the same number as that listed for Michelle Obama in 2009. If all staffers listed with "Social Secretary" in their titles are included as part of the First Lady's retinue (as was done with the Michelle Obama example cited above), then Mrs. Bush had at least 18 people working for her in 2008 (not including any of the various personnel listed only as "Staff Assistants," some of whom may also have worked for her directly or indirectly).
In fact, according to Anita McBride, Laura Bush's former Chief of Staff, Mrs. Bush had between 24 and 26 staffers working for her by the end of her husband's second term in office. It's therefore fair to say that the size of Michelle Obama's staff is not "unprecedented," but rather on a par with her immediate predecessor's.
Moreover, according to the Associated Press, several other First Ladies had larger numbers of personnel working for them than Michelle Obama does:
A look at some first ladies and their staff sizes:
"Laura Bush: Between 24 and 26 by end of President George W. Bush's term in 2009, according to Anita McBride, Mrs. Bush's chief of staff.
Lady Bird Johnson, whose signature issue was beautifying roadways, had a staff of 30, said Stacy A. Cordery, a history professor at Montmouth College in Illinois who studies first ladies.
Betty Ford had almost the same number.
Jacqueline Kennedy, who made renovating the White House her cause, had about 40 people on staff, Cordery said." - fadeout, on 11/16/2009, -26/+159Anyone surprised that a website advertising Glenn Beck's 9/12 nonsense would just happen to not include a reference as to the size of Laura Bush's staff? Or Nancy Reagans?
Didn't think so. :) - uncleosbert, on 11/16/2009, -12/+121i don't get it. why didn't conservatives complain about the expense laura bush incurred traveling around the world promoting literacy?
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/re ...
did mrs bush think she was going to the oscars? de la rentas aren't cheap!
"MRS. LAURA BUSH
First Lady, 2001-2009
Mrs. Bush, the ambassador for The Heart Truth, wore her red embroidered and sequin Oscar de la Renta gown to the Kennedy Center Honors Reception at the White House on December 3, 2006."
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov//educational/hearttruth/e ...
look how nonchalantly newsmax reported this very same piece of news:
"Laura Bush traveled to Afghanistan in March 2005. Her staff of 21 was not told of the plans."
http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/first_lady_laura_bu ...
can anyone explain this? - detcade, on 11/15/2009, -14/+109Now watch me get dugg down for posting facts.
- billricardi, on 11/16/2009, -14/+102Buried: Inaccurate.
A) "an unprecedented number of staffers" - WRONG. As has been pointed out, some first ladies have had in excess of 30.
B) "staffers to cater to her every whim and to satisfy her every request" - WRONG. There are certain whims and requests that President Obama satisfies for her. All. Night. Long! - Rsulliv1, on 11/16/2009, -3/+68How dare you try to provide context!
You're muddying up people's pure emotional response with details and facts!
I hope you can sleep at night...
/s - Lightstab, on 11/16/2009, -21/+68Why do Republicans hate black women?
- Sogladtobehere, on 11/16/2009, -10/+56This is so much *****. Most of those positions are not for her, but for the President (some of their roles cross over to the first lady). Even a casual glance at the list of staffers reveals the bias of this writer. More smear than substance.
- Atario, on 11/16/2009, -4/+48What the ***** is this *****?
"Canada Free Press" -- and then "...Because without America there is no Free World"? And a days-left-till-Obama's-gone countdown clock?
Don't what few right-wing nutjobs there must be hiding in Canada have their own pet stupidity to worry about without latching on to ours? - Atario, on 11/16/2009, -5/+48I can.
When they do it, it's powerful and noble. When the other guy does it, it's shameful and wasteful. And, in this case, probably "uppity". - bowens44, on 11/16/2009, -14/+55Oh, the Canadian version of world nut daily....how surprising.
- uncleosbert, on 11/16/2009, -6/+44this wasn't a secret. i'm curious if they'll even acknowledge your post.
"To accomplish all this, Mrs. Obama has a staff of 24 people, at a cost of more than $1.5 million, according to an annual White House report to Congress. This is roughly the size of the staffs of predecessors Laura Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton."
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/33181610/ns/today-wh ...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl944 - tastypaste, on 11/16/2009, -2/+39She's black.
That is literally all there is to it. This wasn't even an issue when Hillary Clinton was first lady. So we can infer that this is not solely a partisan attack. It's a racially motivated attack.
(And before some jackass says, "Bawww, not all conservatives are racists. There are legitimate reasons to oppose the Obamas!" Let me add that no, not all conservatives are racists and yes there are legitimate reasons to oppose the Obamas but this is not one of those legitimate reasons. This is a race-based smear campaign.) - uncleosbert, on 11/16/2009, -12/+48it's fewer than ladybird and jackie o had:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl944
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/firstlady.asp - boshhead, on 11/16/2009, -3/+37I didn't digg you down. But I did bury the article.
- rolf, on 11/16/2009, -9/+41Michelle Obama has nothing extreme in terms of staff going as far back as Lady Bird Johnson. The last 50 years, this was normal.
But I think the Imperial Presidency, which existed long before Obama, has too much power and money for running it. It is but a symptom of our entire government running beyond the people's means... and as they say, you should set an example at the top. I think it would be wonderful if Obama stepped up in slimming down the White House budget (not just the 1st Lady's) as an example to all other agencies. - uncleosbert, on 11/16/2009, -8/+38"I could understand Kennedy's 40 for renovation as she would need interior decorators and the like in addition to her normal staff, but the rest?"
perhaps one or two were involved with renovation but it's more likely that they did the same as the current staff. they aid the first lady with appearances and traveling and also help with projects she undertakes:
"Over the course of the 20th century it became increasingly common for first ladies to select specific causes to promote, usually ones that are not politically divisive. It is common for the first lady to hire a staff to support these activities. Lady Bird Johnson pioneered environmental protection and beautification; Pat Nixon encouraged volunteerism and traveled extensively abroad; Betty Ford supported womens' rights; Rosalynn Carter aided those with mental disabilities; Nancy Reagan founded the Just Say No drug awareness campaign; Barbara Bush promoted literacy; Hillary Rodham Clinton sought to reform the healthcare system in the U.S.; and Laura Bush supported womens' rights groups and encouraged childhood literacy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Lady_of_the_Uni ...
my question is why you guys don't already know that this goes on. it wasn't a secret. why is it such a big deal now? - uncleosbert, on 11/16/2009, -6/+36they also help with projects she undertakes:
"Over the course of the 20th century it became increasingly common for first ladies to select specific causes to promote, usually ones that are not politically divisive. It is common for the first lady to hire a staff to support these activities. Lady Bird Johnson pioneered environmental protection and beautification; Pat Nixon encouraged volunteerism and traveled extensively abroad; Betty Ford supported womens' rights; Rosalynn Carter aided those with mental disabilities; Nancy Reagan founded the Just Say No drug awareness campaign; Barbara Bush promoted literacy; Hillary Rodham Clinton sought to reform the healthcare system in the U.S.; and Laura Bush supported womens' rights groups and encouraged childhood literacy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Lady_of_the_Uni ...
my question is why you guys don't already know that this goes on. it wasn't a secret. why is it such a big deal now? - theuniversal, on 11/16/2009, -23/+53meloon:
Do you think these people are all to iron her clothes and put on her makeup? She has a public schedule almost as busy as the Presidents, pushing issues like health and education. Also, don't think that people don't notice that the number of "attendants" has never been an issue with past first women (who were all white, conincidence?) and who all had just as many staff as Michelle Obama.
Really, you idiots are so predictable. My only question is why be such a ***** about it with your sarcastic "how humble" comment? It's the internet and you're anonymous so why not just come out and say what you want to say, and call her an uppity *****? Oh wait, I know why, because then some people that aren't 100% sold on being racists might not be so easily sucked into your crap.
BTW, canadafreepress buried as spam. - GTKarber, on 11/16/2009, -3/+31How dare Michelle Obama employ people while there are people unemployed out there!
- tastypaste, on 11/16/2009, -7/+34Check out the Last Crusade website. They are highly racist and attack minorities, "diversity" and Obama regularly. It's a bunch of evangelical christian nonsense. They don't research they make up ***** and rant about minorities taking over their glorious white christian nation.
http://thelastcrusade.org/ - charlietuna, on 11/16/2009, -2/+29Facts have a well known liberal bias.
credit to Stephen Colbert - pinchduck, on 11/16/2009, -1/+26It's a dumb hit piece. We have real problems to worry about.
- 1hrSleep, on 11/16/2009, -3/+26If the first lady didn't have those 22 attendants... That would be 22 more unemployed people, wouldn't it?
- CptBuck, on 11/16/2009, -8/+31There's a great old British joke (which I heard via Q.I.) that during the second world war the British government went around doing surveys of the country looking for spare workers to help with the war effort and they particularly focused on the staff workers of the aristocracy. So they arrive at the mansion of this duke and say "your lordship I understand why you need three butlers, five valets, a chamber maid, a house maid, seven grounds keepers, a dozen attendants, five chauffeurs, four nannies, six stylists, twenty gardeners and ten cooks, but is it really necessary to have two pastry chefs?"
to which the duke replied "GODDAMNIT! CAN'T A MAN GET A BISCUIT ANYMORE!" - MissCellania, on 11/16/2009, -4/+26OK, that's 22 jobs. At least someone is hiring!
- tastypaste, on 11/16/2009, -14/+36If it's not racially motivated then what's causing it? All white first ladies had the same treatment and the press never said a word about it. Then when the first lady happens to be black all of a sudden it's an issue. Nothing else has changed except the color of the first lady's skin.
And in case you hadn't noticed this "story" first appeared on the Last Crusade website. And yes the Last Crusade is VERY racist. Go check them out.
http://thelastcrusade.org/ - Tarkaan, on 11/16/2009, -4/+26@detcade When an article gets debunked completely by ***** *snopes* before it even gets out of the gate, I think the comment thread should be closed. Game over. Well played. And such.
- WiseGuy1020, on 11/16/2009, -5/+26@Emperor03 Please show us where you did.
- wpjmurray, on 11/16/2009, -2/+23@DavidNiven
Then why the criticism only now? Was there every any criticism of Laura Bush for her staff? A quick Google search found none. You must be a teabagger, the idiots who decided that Obama is taxing us to death and exploding the national debt to an extent where they are protesting on the mall, after they were silent for eight years during Bush's doubling of the national debt. You're a moron. - Laminarcissus, on 11/16/2009, -0/+21Remember that you can bury stories as "Inaccurate" -- if enough people do then the story gets flagged as such.
It's a mechanism tailor-made for stories like this. - biotch, on 11/16/2009, -3/+24seriously?
They have to lie about the first lady now?
Are they really that desperate? - theuniversal, on 11/16/2009, -6/+25Emperor03:
Obama supporters (except for perhaps a few freaks) don't say ALL criticism of Obama is racist, because of course not all of it is. It's only right wing nuts that continually claim, falsely, that Obama supporters do that.
But a significant portion of the criticism of the Obama's is rooted in racism. I'm not sure why this would surprise anyone, since you don't have to be very racially sensitive to see that plenty of racism still exists in the US. The above sarcastic comment "how humble" is a perfect example, and it is a subtler way of saying that Michelle Obama has too much pride or she thinks too highly of herself, a bizarre complaint which a lot of people make CONSTANTLY about the Obamas, but oddly, is something you never see or hear said about our white leaders or successful people who are white. - kingofinternet, on 11/16/2009, -4/+22republicans don't need no stinkin' facts, or science, or reality.
- radiofan, on 11/16/2009, -4/+22These aren't handmaidens bringing her tea and bon-bons. The First Lady is officially the White House hostess and is responsible for running the social affairs of the White House and these are the people who get it done. The First Lady and her staff serve an important diplomatic function.
- uncleosbert, on 11/16/2009, -8/+26ok, why is it wrong for the first lady to have so many employees and why didn't we hear anything about it until right now?
- wpjmurray, on 11/16/2009, -5/+23@whipnet
You mean the elections where New York's 23rd District voted in a Democrat rep. for the first time since the Civil War? - 5thdigg, on 11/16/2009, -0/+18they are the retardicans, and the answer is yes.
- WasabiBomb, on 11/16/2009, -2/+19Strange that it apparently didn't bother you during the last administration, @DavidNiven.
- GTKarber, on 11/16/2009, -3/+20@Emperor03 That's not what you said. You said "it seems odd that our unemployed first lady needs 22 attendants while others are starving and begging in the streets."
It sounds like you're saying that there are other would-be attendants that she could hire. - seltaeb4, on 11/16/2009, -6/+23Yes. We can quite easily explain the righties' sudden interest.
But they will deny it to their last breath. - arkwald, on 11/16/2009, -0/+16@emperor03 Not too be a buzzkill for you but the per capita savings if she were to do nothing and have no expenditure what so ever would be wiped out by rounding corrections on your tax form. Also I think the facts stand out that her expenditures are not out of line with her predecessors. So the only really legitimate criticism would seem to be that we spend that much money on the Office of the First Lady to begin with. However as I alluded to earlier that possible savings is grossly out of proportion. It is akin to being on the Titanic and complaining to the captain your shoes got wet. If you want to eliminate waste then there are much bigger fish to fry. Things that would actually show up as savings on a tax return, because that is what your complaining about right? How this is costing the tax payer money. Right? Nothing like a trillion dollar war that we were told was necessary to fight. However it wasn't necessary at all, it was based off of fabricated intelligence. I mean let's be serious here if Michelle Obama rang up a trillion dollars in charges to 'fight for freedom' by buying curtains for the west wing, you rightly would have a conniption fit. However since a.) a Republican did it b.) it blew up a bunch of no name brown people on the far side of the Earth c.) all that money went to big companies. its not a problem at all that happened.
I mean don't get me wrong I am not defending her budget as necessary or even a good expenditure of money whatsoever. However $1.5 million seems so ridiculous to even mention when such a titanically greater theft has occurred. I am not even counting the human costs associated with it. Yet you have the audacity to be all insulted that she has 24 people working for her. I cannot be the only person here thinking how much out of your mind you are saying what your saying. Getting offended by $1.5 million yet seemingly giving a pass at $1 trillion, +5,000 dead Americans and tens of thousands of dead Iraqis is just disgusting. - altgeeky1, on 11/16/2009, -0/+16>As a taxpayer, I do NOT want my money being used to pay for such things.
Yes, you do... I checked through your comment history, and you had no such similar faux outrage when Bush was president. These aren't "attendants", BTW these re employees of the White House East Wing. The number of folks working there is no higher than in the previous administrations. - seltaeb4, on 11/16/2009, -4/+20One major thing they do is answer the First Lady's correspondence. Thousands of people write each month and they all require an individual response.
Also, managing her calendar/appearances/travel schedule is no small feat, and must be coordinated to the last detail with the Secret Service.
But these facts don't mean anything to people who forward around petty, fabricated e-mails like this. The last time they made up a story, they accused her of gorging on lobster, caviar, and champagne at the Waldorf-Astoria.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/roomservice.a ...
It's funny these lies are so readily and completely believed by angry right-wingers. I wonder what their particular problem with Michelle Obama is? Hmmm... - theuniversal, on 11/16/2009, -6/+22Loonacy:
The internet was alive and well during the entirety of Bush's Presidency. The Drudge Report has been around since the late 90's and broke the Monica Lewinsky scandal during Clinton's Presidency. The internet does not explain why the Obama's are constantly being criticized for having too much pride. - Elranzer, on 11/16/2009, -10/+25Another non-story for Republicans to circle-jerk each other over as their party crumbles into obscurity.
- Dubbleyew, on 11/16/2009, -1/+16I'm Canadian and I was thinking the same thing. It must be a ***** site. Canadian politics isn't at all like that it is clearly a right wing site.
Imma gona investigate this *****. - archiesteel, on 11/16/2009, -1/+15"why is it such a big deal now?"
Because the Republic Outrage Machine is beginning to run on fumes. They need *anything* that could be construed as scandalous, however tenuous, to last them until 2010. - BerateBirthers, on 11/16/2009, -9/+23She's black, and some people just don't like that.
- Kaiosama, on 11/16/2009, -17/+30Conservatives, STFU and stop posting your crap on digg.
Thanks. -
Show 51 - 100 of 383 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is