Comments on: One-On-One With Michelle Obama

Katie Couric Talks With The Candidate's Wife About Style And Substance On The Campaign Trail

[mtnwitch]

Katie, when are you going to stop acting like Obama has already won and give Hillary some equal time? Or is it that tou want to tell who to vote for. You are obiously biased and it makes me ill. This is a news show, no entertainment.

[citizen22]

Wonderful interview with Mrs. Obama...one can certainly see that she is definitely "first lady" material. Not only is she beautiful, she''s also very supportive of her husband. I wish them the victory in this race. It is time for a serious "change" in this country, and who better than someone with a clear head for a change.

[latina4obama]

AMAZING! Some people are about to go postal with comments here. I''m glad you are all interested in reading about our future First Lady but realize that what you say is a reflection of who you are inside...

KATIE, great interview as usual. Michelle Obama is very intelligent and articulate. It is always a pleasure to listen to her. What a strong & awesome woman.

[latina4obama]

AMAZING! Some people are about to go postal with comments here. I''m glad you are all interested in reading about our future First Lady but realize that what you say is a reflection of who you are inside...

KATIE, great interview as usual. Michelle Obama is very intelligent and articulate. It is always a pleasure to listen to her. What a strong & awesome woman.

[disraeli928]

Do you also intend to give equal time to the spouses of other candidates or are you endorsing only Obama?

[realpatriot1]

Hopetrumps,

Have you been listening to Rush Limbaugh and taking notes?

How about he not give 2 *** what the Kenyan Constitution says since he''s never lived there or been naturalized.

Why don''t you go ask Bush to renounce his citizenship in the Republic of Texas, they think they''re a separate country?

[crater7]

realpatriot1; his plan is honest and realistic, her is:

BLA-BLA-BLA SIX PAGES OF BLA-BLA-BLA.

HERE WE GO, HONEST AND REALISTIC,

WE HAVE AN ADMITTED DRUNK, IN CHARGE WHO THROWS AROUND WORDS LIKE HONORABLE, AND HONEST.

I GUESS WE COULD HAVE AN ADMITTED DRUG USER, AS PRESIDENT, THAT WILL USE WORDS LIKE HONEST AND REALISTIC.

WE HAVE SEEN WHAT THE DRUNK HAS DONE FOR OUR COUNTRY,
HOPEFULLY AN ADMITTED DRUG USER WILL BE A LITTLE BETTER.

"THIS IS A TRIP"

[realpatriot1]

Rowdy, That was a nice little speech about how we have to get a grip on the causes of terror. However, it wasn''t as inspiring as an Obama speech and yet it still lacked the specifics of an Obama or McCain or Clinton or Bush speech.

I''ll stick wih Obama''s speech aboout going after Bin Laden if Musharif doesn''t and about fighting terror on the proper battlefield. That''s the only speech by anyone this year that made me feel like they had a clue.

[realpatriot1]

rowdy,

To continue you''re wrong on several of your contentions, He calls for regulation of insurance companies. Like Hillary, he will end the insurance practice of denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

He provides the same subsidies so that those who can''t afford their full premiums will be able to.

He proposes strengthening anti-trust laws to make it easier for generic drugs to get to market, he wants to establish standards for best practices and to develop an online clearinghouse where consumers and their doctors can see apples to apples comparisons of plans before choosing the option that suits them.

People who are currently insured can keep their plan but a new plan based upon the coverage that Congress receives will be made available to whoever wants it and will be administered by private insurers who agree to meet the program standards.

So what makes you think her plan will cover more people, because she told you so?

[realpatriot1]

RowdyTexan2,

They both are talking about the same kind of subsidies for people who can''t afford premiums. The difference is that she offers only platitudes regarding bringing down costs while he offers an actual plan.

I''ve been to both their websites and have read both of their plans. It took me all of 2 minutes to read hers because it consists of a 1 page "summary". Check it out if you think I''m lying.

His plan is 6 pages covering all the topics she does(which you all claim he copied from her) and plenty of issues she doesn''t even touch upon.

She claims her plan is universal but calling it that doesn''t make it so. Neither says what the plan will cost but she doesn''t even indicate how it will be paid for. How will she require people to pay for insurance they can''t afford and why is not promising universality before you know how to pay for it a good idea?

His plan represents the proper direction to go in to reach universal coverage without overpromising. In other words, his plan is honest and realistic while hers is a campaign promise to try implementing the Romney plan currently failing in Massachusetts to cover the uninsured.