Dogged politics: A pup for the Obamas?
By Kim Campbell Thornton
May 19, 2008
I’m glad to see that the Obamas are planning ahead and thinking straight about getting a dog for their daughters. In an interview on Good Morning America, Michelle said the girls had been promised a dog “a year from now,” adding
By then, we’ll be settled, one way or another. What we know about raising a dog is that you have to be pretty stable, so you don’t drive your dog crazy.
Barack seemed to think that getting a dog might be dependent on how willing the girls were to be responsible for taking it out, even during cold weather, but Michelle had the last word:
We’re getting a dog. The dog is a done deal.
Who will be walking the dog? Michelle says, “I’m going to take care of the dog.”
I’m just wondering whether it will be an elitist dog or a working-class dog.
I believe they have an allergy issue to deal with and have been taking that into consideration. If it ends up being a doodle . . . {head explosion}
I am happy to hear she knows she’s gonna be saddled with the responsibility. If I remember correctly, she does early morning workouts, so maybe they’ll get a pup that could use a morning jog :) But in all honesty, I don’t expect a ‘proper’ pet selection beyond the allergy issue. Heh, maybe they’ll surprise me?
Comment by straybaby — May 19, 2008 @ 10:06 pm
I only hope it’s not one of the Arab breeds!
:-O
Comment by slt — May 20, 2008 @ 4:03 am
Straybaby, what’s your basis for believing they won’t make a “proper” pet selection?
And who gets to decide what’sa “proper” pet for the Obamas, and whether or not they’ve made their selection “properly” ? You?
Comment by Lis — May 20, 2008 @ 4:14 am
Betcha it will be one of Oprah’s GRs! lol
Comment by Deb — May 20, 2008 @ 4:36 am
I’m really curious as to where this contempt for the Obamas’ pet-selection judgment comes from.
Really, really curious.
I mean, since it doesn’t come from anything they’ve either said, or done, with regard to pets.
Comment by Lis — May 20, 2008 @ 5:49 am
Wow, that’s a lot of snark for one innocuous post.
I’m actually glad to see how responsibly they seem to be approaching it. With Michelle Obama’s emphasis on her taking care of it, and even waiting til things are settled, it seems clear they don’t want a dog for the sake of having a dog.
I also wonder if that means they’re more likely to, yes, adopt a dog, rather than getting a trendy cross-breed or even purchasing a purebred.
Comment by Christine — May 20, 2008 @ 6:41 am
Dogs and politics can be a treacherous mix.
Driving back from San Francisco over the weekend, I passed a station wagon with a “Romney 08” sticker on it.
And all I could imagine was that station wagon with the Romneys’ poor Irish Setter on top.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 20, 2008 @ 7:01 am
Comment by Lis — May 20, 2008 @ 4:14 am
history :) And no, I don’t get to decide what’s proper, but I can hope they don’t get it from a pet store or buy into some of the false hype out there regarding hypoallergenic designer dogs.
Comment by straybaby — May 20, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
Whose history? They’re not, in fact, the elder Bushes, who bred their springer spaniel, Millie, or the Fords, who bred their Golden Retriever with the oh-so-not-political name, Liberty. They’re not the Clintons. They’re not the Nixons, who don’t appear to have ever done anything inappropriate with their pets other than verbally exploit Checkers in a speech—and you gotta admit, Checkers probably didn’t think anything of that except that Dad had said his/her/its name.
They’re themselves, and they’re sounding like responsible prospective pet owners, and if you don’t like them, fine, but at least let’s try to refrain from attacking them for possibly at some time in the future doing something that they have not only not done in the past, but show zero signs of being likely to do in the future.
Hypo-allergenic dogs: Actual, for-real, hypo-allergenic breeds exist. Hypo-allergenic dogs. Not non-allergenic. People genuninely do need to be warned that non-allergenic dogs (or anything else) don’t exist; it gets deeply frustrating that people smart enough to know better rant on about the (correct) phrase “hypo-allergenic” as if it were the (incorrect) “non-allergenic.”
Comment by Lis — May 20, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
Oh, I don’t know … I always thought King Timahoe really liked Richard Nixon.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 20, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
I can get them a nice Staffordshire Bull terrier - short coat, small, playful, hardy and that terrier personality is great for kids - the latter is even in the breed standard.
That would make a statement and get the Obamas a great pet for their kids.
But then, I have an agenda :>)
PS Poodles are great dogs, one of my favourite breeds but I usually recommend active sporting types that require a lot of grooming, exercise and training for more experienced owners. People should start with something easier while they learn the ropes.
PPS I’m glad they aren’t going the ‘OK but if we get a dog you have to look after him’ route, since it’s always a huge mistake. It puts pressure on the kids and creates unnecessary strife with the dog becoming a gamepiece. The adults have to take the responsibility, let the kids do what they can. That way, they will love having a dog and the dog will get lots of input from everybody in the family.
Comment by Caveat — May 21, 2008 @ 5:03 am
Comment by Lis — May 20, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
I wasn’t attacking them our their history. Geeze. History in general these days seems to have well known people, smart and otherwise, getting dogs from pet stores and crappy breeders. That is all I was talking about. AKA not getting hopes up that they do the right thing.
“it gets deeply frustrating that people smart enough to know better rant on about the (correct) phrase “hypo-allergenic” as if it were the (incorrect) “non-allergenic.””
this is exactly what I’m afraid of. Otherwise smart people buying hype about whether the dog in question is non-, not hypo-. You can ask all the right questions, and get all the wrong reassurances. It happens. A lot.
BTW, I don’t know them to like or dislike them. I’m just yee of little faith when high profile people announce they will be getting a dog. :)
Comment by straybaby — May 21, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
I wasn’t attacking them our their history. Geeze.
Yeah, that was kinda my point. All that very personal and nasty snark, and it has no basis in anything in the history of the targets of it.
History in general these days seems to have well known people, smart and otherwise, getting dogs from pet stores and crappy breeders.
Also of well-known people who get dogs from decent to excellent sources, and are exemplary pet owners. E.g., the younger Bushes, and Ted Kennedy.
Of course, that doesn’t get nearly as much attention, because it just isn’t as much fun as sneering at the stupid ones.
That is all I was talking about. AKA not getting hopes up that they do the right thing.
Really, you did seem to be proceeding on the basis of “guilty until proven innocent, and no evidence for the defense will be entertained.”
“it gets deeply frustrating that people smart enough to know better rant on about the (correct) phrase “hypo-allergenic” as if it were the (incorrect) “non-allergenic.””
this is exactly what I’m afraid of. Otherwise smart people buying hype about whether the dog in question is non-, not hypo-. You can ask all the right questions, and get all the wrong reassurances. It happens. A lot.
The Obamas do seem to speak, and write, as if they know the meanings of words. And they don’t seem to be easily buffaloed.
BTW, I don’t know them to like or dislike them. I’m just yee of little faith when high profile people announce they will be getting a dog. :)
Um. You’ve been talking about them as if, simply because they’re famous, they must be shallow, greedy, and irredeemably stupid. That’s not “little faith”; that’s a rather profound faith—albeit of a rather popular kind, these days.
Comment by Lis — May 21, 2008 @ 8:46 pm