May 4, 2011 UPDATED: White House asked California paper to take out unflattering remark about first

May 4, 2011 UPDATED: White House asked California paper to take out unflattering remark about first lady Read more: dailycaller.com...

dailycaller.com

A small weekly paper in California claims that a White House official asked it to remove a sentence from a “benign” feature about Marine One because it reflected poorly on first lady Michelle Obama.

In an email to The Daily Caller, Gina Channell-Allen, president of the Pleasanton Weekly in Pleasanton, California, said that her paper “received a call from the White House asking us to take out part of the story because it reflected poorly on the First Lady.”

Read more: dailycaller.com...

(visit the link for the full news article)

I found this article interesting for a few reasons. The main reason being on how the government knows what a newspaper, especially a small town paper, is going to print before it makes copy. In the interest of fairness, in this article the white house denies this ever happened. The second reason, if this is true, is that the white house is trying to control the news even on minor issues such as this.

dailycaller.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Not sure how this would take anyone by surprise? This is yet just another confirmation that the news sources regardless of how small is spoon fed to us based on what they (TPTB) want us to see, hear and read.

reply to post by shadwgirl


Let's impeach the sob. I am glad someone is keeping a running list of impeachable violations so we can drag them out for the next election and defeat this criminal holding the highest office of the land. This is all good stuff. Keep up the good work soldiers of the confederacy or Republic or whatever the heck we are calling ourselves these days.

Funny...
I don't see that mentioned in their blog:
m.whitehouse.gov...

Everything is going to hell in America and they have all this disinfo generated day after day.

I was surprised!

I figured the unflattering line mentioned her extra-wide caboose or her less than beautiful face.

But it was just referring to the fact that she is 'snooty', the surprise was not there, I kind of expected that she was like that.

Originally posted by Granite
Funny...
I don't see that mentioned in their blog:
m.whitehouse.gov...

Everything is going to hell in America and they have all this disinfo generated day after day.

Since you posted it, I looked at the WH blog.
Didn't see any mention that she looks awful in most anything that she wears.

Our next First Lady should be Pippa Middleton. Vote for Donald Trump, I am sure he can arrange a marriage before the election, and he obviously doesn't care what the newspapers have to say about his ol' ladies!

reply to post by shadwgirl


Who the hell does this Michelle Obama think she is? Does she in all honesty think she's way above HRH Queen Elizabeth ??? The Obamas did'nt even get an invite to Prince William's wedding for pete's sake!

reply to post by shadwgirl


they need to just keep her at home. we didnt elect her as president, she has no real job in the white house. her husband was voted in not her. i cant stand her or obama really.

Originally posted by butcherguy
I was surprised!

I figured the unflattering line mentioned her extra-wide caboose or her less than beautiful face.

But it was just referring to the fact that she is 'snooty', the surprise was not there, I kind of expected that she was like that.

Well, it seems like an allegation and nothing more.

Besides, how hard would it be to say, call the paper and 'tell them' you are with the White House staff, and be believed? Especially if you were, say, a member of a PR group retained by the party?

Or, how hard would it be to simply 'say' that 'you received a call' asking you to remove the comment?

Too fluffy for analysis, if you ask me. This seems like typical political 'filler,' the kind Madison Avenue and Hollywood agents use to lay the groundwork for future 'theater.'

Originally posted by butcherguy
I was surprised!

I figured the unflattering line mentioned her extra-wide caboose or her less than beautiful face.

But it was just referring to the fact that she is 'snooty', the surprise was not there, I kind of expected that she was like that.

Please post your photo so we can figure out if you're qualified to sit in judgment. Be sure to get a shot of your caboose too.

Of course the White House denies it -- that's meaningless, tells us nothing one way or the other. Because it's what they'd do if it were false or true regardless. So we can't decide anything based on that.

I think it fits with their style, though. They have, as an unknown staffer said during the campaign, a very tightly wrapped message.

hmm no offense, but she sounds like something a spoiled, upper class sensitive corporate whore would say* people like that, get offended and have things changed simply becuase they didnt like how it sounded or read* how selfish and disgusting*

reply to post by ziggy1706


You have no idea if she ever even saw the sentence. There are hundreds of people working in the White House who deal with thousands of items and tasks every day. The odds that anybody bothered to check with her first are incredibly slim.

Originally posted by sepermeru

Originally posted by butcherguy
I was surprised!

I figured the unflattering line mentioned her extra-wide caboose or her less than beautiful face.

But it was just referring to the fact that she is 'snooty', the surprise was not there, I kind of expected that she was like that.

Please post your photo so we can figure out if you're qualified to sit in judgment. Be sure to get a shot of your caboose too.

Of course the White House denies it -- that's meaningless, tells us nothing one way or the other. Because it's what they'd do if it were false or true regardless. So we can't decide anything based on that.

I think it fits with their style, though. They have, as an unknown staffer said during the campaign, a very tightly wrapped message.

If you don't believe the story, that's fine.... there's no confirmation. But that doesn't mean that the reporter is lying either, it is a standoff. I will say that when Bill Clinton was POTUS, a man was arrested for quietly holding a sign at an event held in the county that I live in. He was held for a period of time, no charges were filed and he was released. I would be willing to bet if you asked Clinton about it that day, he would have denied it, but the Secret Service was involved, and the man did nothing wrong.

In regards to my physical appearance and your desire to see me.....

I am sure there is a justice sitting on the Supreme Court of the US that you don't believe is qualified to be sitting there. You should set your sights higher, I am nothing. (but I don't have a fat arse)

Maybe you should you should pick a nasty with that internet critic Perez Hilton, he actually makes money calling a wide load just what it is. I don't.

reply to post by butcherguy


Eh? I do believe the story. I just don't believe Michelle necessarily knew anything about the call made to the paper.

I'm not sure what you're on about inre Perez Hilton and wide loads and all that. Were you not the one who posted that she's ugly and has a big butt? Seems like it's only reasonable to ask for some evidence that the person making this claim isn't just projecting. I don't think she's ugly and her butt looks fine to me. I think she and her husband are reprehensible, but not physically ugly.

reply to post by sepermeru

I think she and her husband are reprehensible, but not physically ugly.

I agree with you, except for the last part.

I think she has a wide rear. I think the front part of her noggin is unattractive, but that is a matter of personal taste.

He has Dumbo ears and his eyes are too wide set for something that isn't in a jar on a museum shelf, again just a matter of opinion.

Now about the Perez Hilton reference, all those people that he critiques are famous. Almost every single one of them are famous because they chose to be( as does his ugly mug). If you want my pic up for many to see... show me the money. that's why the rest of them do it!

if i were that paper's chief editor...i'd read them the second amendment and tell them to go $%#^ themselves

Originally posted by here4awhile
if i were that paper's chief editor...i'd read them the second amendment and tell them to go $%#^ themselves

I think you mean the first amendment...


The White House denies the story, The reporter says it's true. We can't be sure who's telling the truth.

In my opinion, the comment seems like far too small potatoes for the White House to make a stink over it. Like Maxmars said, the complaint could have come from anyone.

Then again, it could just be this small paper trying to drum up controversy to draw attention to itself.

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by shadwgirl

 

Let's impeach the sob. I am glad someone is keeping a running list of impeachable violations so we can drag them out for the next election and defeat this criminal holding the highest office of the land. This is all good stuff. Keep up the good work soldiers of the confederacy or Republic or whatever the heck we are calling ourselves these days.

Perhaps you could open a thread 'The Impeachable Violations of Obama' and we can list them all and keep adding to them...a collaborative effort.