I think that works, msbelle. Or just a generic in today's politics, it is unusual for high profile political spouses to take opposing views public.

ION, OOF. Been going and going tonight. 66 laps in 63! minutes. With cooldown, got to 2 miles. Home, laundry, dinner, manicure, recycling out. Still haven't walked Loki. Morning: market, Ellicott City for a haircut. Am hoping to hit Target and TJ's in Columbia on that trip, if I have time. Then back, swim, get all dressed up, go to a thing @7. Sunday, rake leaves, try shopping for a dress, more laundry, swim.

Aaron Sorkin explains his understanding of the plight of the little man.

I saw that yesterday, and sighed. He's an utter fuckwit. Given what I've heard about how Zuckerberg is portrayed in The Social Network, I'm starting to wonder if it's an inadvertent self-portrait of Sorkin himself.

It's VERY unusual for a political spouse to go public with a differing view. On both sides of the political fence.

I'd be quicker to assume those of a conservative political bent would find it difficult to grasp the concept of a spouse embracing differing political and social views--especially if it's the wife.

Maybe that's where the poster is coming from--why is the liberal left taking note of Cindy McCain's publicly expressed opinion on DADT? They shouldn't get worked up about it if they're so into women's right and how she should be able to express her views.

However, I don't think the left is expressing surprise at her holding her own opinion--merely that she's expressing it so openly, which is not a typical political spouse thing to do.

It was the same situation when Barbara Bush came out in the media as saying she supported a woman's right to choose, when her husband stated his political pro-life stance.

However, I don't think the left is expressing surprise at her holding her own opinion--merely that she's expressing it so openly, which is not a typical political spouse thing to do.

I think a lot of it also has to do with John McCain's ever-shifting stance on the matter - at one point he said bluntly that he would support a repeal, but has been backpedaling ever since. So you have to wonder how he feels about it at home, and how much of his official opinion on the matter is political posturing.

I know back around the mid 2000s his stance on gay issues in general was a lot more accepting. It even seems to me he's moved much further to the right since losing the election.

As I'm eating leftovers for dinner, the spicy larb is reminding me that I stabbed the roof of my mouth with a pretzel four hours ago, and it drew an uncomfortable amount of blood.

Not that this will stop me from eating the rest of my dinner.

I know back around the mid 2000s his stance on gay issues in general was a lot more accepting. It even seems to me he's moved much further to the right since losing the election.

Sadly, in recent years I have been forced to conclude he's a wanker.

Yeah, I like Cindy way more than John at this point.

It's VERY unusual for a political spouse to go public with a differing view.

I vaguely remember Laura Bush very discretely being pro-choice.

The left, ostensibly supporters of women's rights, seems unable to conceptualize a healthy marriage in which the wife does not fall in lock step with her husband's ideas.

it's in response to Cindy McCain being in the NOH8 video saying the US government policies and not allowing gays to serve in openly in the military has contributed to the culture of bullies against LGBT youth.

My guess is what's really irking your poster is the suspicion that the left is rather pleased with that she's willing to publically come out in favor of repealing DADT. But he can't say, "how dare you approve of her!" so he has to say "shame on you for finding her views noteworthy."

Hey, the points about the Ladies Bush makes me wonder, is there an equivalent example on the left of a political wife taking a much more conservative position.

Mary Matalin and James Carville. But then again I always suspect that their common ground is this: Two shepherds married to one another might differ strongly in how to treat the sheep they herded. But ultimately they would agree that the purpose of raising sheep is to produce wool and mutton. Similarly, both Carville and Maitalin are political consultants. I think whatever they disagree on, they both agree their ultimate job is to get their clients into power.