« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
A reposting: A call-to-arms for Michelle
This is an edited reposting of a recent call-to-arms for all Democrats but particularly for all women. More importantly it is a special appeal to those who supported Hillary.
Many of you have said you will not support Obama. I would like you to reconsider not only because this country desperately needs to elect a Democratic president but because there exists another woman pioneer who needs your support and passion: Michelle Obama.
(Please now jump over and read a post called The Hillary-ization of Michelle Obama. by Kathy G)
http://thegspot.typepad.com/blog/2008/05/by-kathy-g.html#more
Or just read this important excerpt:
- I predict that wingnut heads will explode throughout the land [when she becomes First Lady]. And there will be a whole other layer of bullshit Michelle will have to deal with. In addition to the anti-Democrat bullshit, and the sexist bullshit, there will be, of course, the racist bullshit.
My heart goes out to her. The road she will be traveling on will be a difficult one, in particular because there is no one in the history of America who has trod that particular path before. She is an exceedingly courageous person to have chosen such a public role. Just by sheer virtue of being black and female, and daring to live a public life, she will be highly controversial. She will attract a hell of a lot of ugly hatred. Even for a person as strong as I am sure she is, there are sure to be times when that will be very, very hard to take.
What I'm wondering right now is, what can we - as Democrats, as feminists, as people who are deeply committed to racial equality -- do to help and support her? Here's the thing: we have, to an extent, the benefit of hindsight here. We know what the right did to Hillary, and we can expect them to do a lot of the same things to Michelle. How do we combat this?
I realize the Republicans and the Right-wingers will make the same disgusting attacks they always do. But one thing we need to be hyper-vigilant about is not letting the media itself get away with repeating ad nauseum these right-wing memes and narratives about Michelle (or Barack, or any Democrat, for that matter). Close scrutiny of the media coverage of Michelle Obama, as well as some energetic media-centered activism, will of course be crucial. Do readers of this blog have any more specific ideas? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
So to Kathy G’s call-to-arms I add my own to TPM readers.
Yes, Michelle will not be the first woman president but she will be an historic First Lady and I think she needs an army of woman who will remain vigilant on her behalf at all times not only when she is in the White House but equally important all through the general election. When the right-wing attacks we as Democratic women need to protest immediately and not let them define her. It would be amazing if we were to see some of the passion Hillary's followers have given their candidate be shifted to Michelle.
Yes, she represents a newer generation. Michelle was not in the first wave of fighters like Hillary but she too has had to fight every step of the way so all of us including those in "Hillary's demographics" should take up her fight now. We need to take up Kathy G’s call-to-arms and swarm ever time the MSM, or a pundit, or the ring-wing puts out something nasty. We need to flood the networks with calls, the newspapers with letters, the pundits with emails. Stop whatever it is in its tracks. We can do this. It will not be marching in the streets but in a very real sense it will be taking to the streets to insure the rights of all women.
We may not have a woman president this time around but we can insure the continued extension of women’s rights and of all aspects of social justice by electing Barack Obama and seeing his amazing wife redefine the role of First Lady.
(The exploding heads will be an extra and very exciting treat!)
Comments (26)
This must be joke right? Defend Michelle Obama against right wing sexism and misogny when the left wing supporters of Obama have used misogny against Senator Clinton at every turn and the Obama campaign have been sexism deniers? Riiiiiiiiiiight. And when it does any when TPM is aflame with oh how dare they treat her this way, I will send reminders of the even worse things said about Hillary by members of the dmeocratic party. Sometimes karma comes back and bites you in the ass. Deal with it.
June 11, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bitterness yields even more bad karma...
And high spirits and old souls have the ability to interrupt the karmic cycle, by rising above that bitterness.
Whenever you have the opportunity to step off that endlessly revolving wheel, you do yourself a spiritual favor.
June 11, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"step off that endlessly revolving wheel,"
That is the only way to deal with it.
June 11, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Make no mistake - I will support Obama in the general election. However what I will not do is close my eyes to the hypocrisy of those who chose to define when sexism and misogny is acceptable and when it is not. Those who have partaken in calling Hillary Shrillary or bitch or whatever have lost their moral authority to defend Michelle Obama and I intend to call them on it.
That's not bitterness - it's called holding up a mirror to those folks who have treated Hillary disrespectfully and then expect the wife of their nominee to be handled with kid gloves.
June 11, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
For the posters here who did that (and there were quite a few), that's legitimate criticism. However, Obama (nor his campaign) never partook in these, and of course, neither did several of his supporters. (I'd like to say that holds true for the majority of his supporters, but obviously no one has actually measured this, so it's my supposition against anyone who feels differently.)
So, regardless of how some liberals treated Sen. Clinton (and most conservatives), I think we should defend Michelle in the same way that many of us have defended Hillary. (She's never been my candidate of choice, but I have defended her from unfair criticism as well as inappropriate language.)
Similarly, if and when the right-wingers go after the Obama daughters, I hope we can all agree that it's as bad (if not worse because they're even younger) than when they went after Chelsea. That really sickened me in the 90s. (Hillary and Michelle at least have the maturity to not take it personally.)
June 11, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michelle Obama has played into the sexist smears against Senator Clinton as noted below with her if you can't control your house, how can you control the White House. She took advantage of the sexist attitudes towards Senator Clinton from the beginning of this campaign calling her polarizing as a plus for electing her husband.
I suspect she and Senator Clinton will have much commisserating to do post-campaign about how unfairly they have been portrayed, but Michelel Obama can't decry the sexist campaign against her if she played into against Senator Clinton.
And when you talk about the kids, Chelsea is STILL being attacked simply for campaigning for her mom from the right and the left. We as a party have ceded much moral authority to criticize the Republican smear machine when it has been used to stunning effect against Hillary in this campaign by so-called progressives.
While you Ben have indeed been likeable enough :) towards Hillary throughout this campaign, many many many Obama folks have not. I will not pretend that the hypocrisy doesn't exist and I will not be among those defending Michelle Obama. You play with fire and you get burnt.
Somehow, Hillary I believe will play a role in defending Michelle once those attacks come because she's been there and through the fire. And if Hillary does, it proves she's a better person than Michelle Obama who played into the gender attacks and Hillary's certainly better than me who would let Michelle Obama and the Obama supporters twist in the wind and find out what being vilified and called polarizing due to sexism and misogny feels like.
June 11, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 11, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
And need I mention she's went off on how polarizing Hillary is:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/10/michelle-obam-1.html
Well here's a clue - Hillary was polarizing because she's a string woman who was demonized by the right wing media in her husband's campaign. Guess what - Michelle's a strong woman too and she will be subject to the same treatment. The difference is of course that we (the Democratic party) have no standing to criticize the sexist attacks when you basically endorsed them against Hillary and your husband's supporters took part eagerly and in a much worse way than the GOP ever did.
Somehow I just can't bring myself to feel sympathy for someone who will be subject to the same attacks when she was silent and/or participated when they were done to her husband's opponent.
June 11, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa there, Dijamo.
I've been a fierce defender of Hillary Clinton since she started getting sexist smear attacks in 1992. I've always admired her courage in the face of the shrieking hyenas of the Right.
When it became apparent that she was the "inevitable" nominee last fall, I was prepared to vote for her, less than enthusiastically because of her support for the Iarq War that lasted well into 2005 if not longer.
It took me a while to warm up to Barack. I found the rhetoric uplifting, but to me he was too centrist and moderate. He said things that pissed me off.
But Hillary pissed me off even more, with her shameless pandering to ignorant rednecks. She could have killed the "Obama is a Muslim" rumor, but instead she had to append "as far as I know". Remember the "hard working people, white people" comment? She and her supporters used racist arguments more often than Obama and his folks made sexist comments. Hillary did things that weakened the party and the likely nominee, instead of going after McCain.
The Democrats, as a whole, did not engage in sexism, anymore than they engaged in racism. There are a few idiots who, frankly, are confused about which party they ought to belong to.
I don't believe for a minute that Obama is sexist, and neither are the vast majority of his supporters. The media were the worst offenders, especially Chris Matthews.
June 11, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed - the media was worse than the official Obama campaign. But for Michelle Obama and her husband to be pushing that whole Hillary is so polarizing issue from the beginning of the campaign. Why was she polarizing? Because the GOP smear machine constantly attacked her from the moment she stepped on to the political scene because she was a strong woman. By not playing up that whole she's so polarizing bit, Michelle Obama maybe didn't realize as a strong woman herself she'd be subject to the same treatment if her husband was nominated. She should have realized it soon & I can't sympathize with that.
I will not go into the unfair race cards played on the Clinton campaign from South Carolina because that's not helpful. When Hillary made the comment about blue collar whites that was based on a cross section of race and class. She's also gotten a tremendous amoutn fo support from Hispanics and Asians and women and older folks and lower income folks and her base is much broader than "hard working whites". It should be noted that before Hillary even made that comment, David Axelrod wrote off that demographic saying Barack doesn't need blue collar whites to win.
I have fierecely criticized Obama and have never once had to devolve into race to do it. How many Obama supporters can say they've never attacked Hillary on gender based terms? Anyone who calls Barack the n word is a racsit. Anyone who call Hillary the b word ends up on the most recommended reader posts. Quit the bullshit.
And in terms of the democratic party anytime race was mentioned no matter how tangentially they swarmed to Barack's defense. If Hillary was attacked in the media or by Obama supporters in sexist terms, people said NOTHING. That's not the democratic party I know and I lost much respect for the so-called democrats who engages in that crap in this campaign. It didn't just hurt Hillary. It makes it harder for us to confront sexist attacks on Nancy Pelosi or Michelle Obama or the next woman who runs for president who now knows this is the crap she can expect from within her own party.
June 11, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Adding, I'm not denying that Hillary was the target of vicious sexist attacks, and often people's attitudes towards her candidacy were steeped in sexism. Those incessant demands to quit the race would not have occured is she had been male.
But the overtly sexist attacks, the offensive toys, the media framing, the scurrilous websites were not created by the Obama campaign. Neither is the racism directed towards Obama the fault of the Clintons.
Progressives who fight sexism and racism must make common cause. If Hillary had won, would Obama's supporters have cried "racism"? Maybe some, but that would have gotten old really quick.
June 11, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I completely agree that sexist anti-Hillary comments were left standing, almost compltely ignored by people who call themselves Democrats. Heck, people who call themselves Democrats were actively using the "B" word, and some were making racist innuendo.
Democrats haev to get their act together and be absolutely clear that attacking candidates on that basis is completely unacceptable. There are plenty of ways to criticize Clinton, or Obama, without going there.
June 11, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks dijamo. Your posts made me realize that myself and too many others are still mired in the negatives (perceived or real) of the primary. But I will just tell on myself. (Actually, the list is too long and sad to complete.)
Okay, my point - I know that old cliche 'Two wrongs don't make a right' says it best. We cannot control anyone elses reactions or actions but our own. Our choice is either negative reaction or positive action.
'Defend Michelle Obama against right wing sexism and misogny when the left wing supporters of Obama have used misogny against Senator Clinton at every turn and the Obama campaign have been sexism deniers? Riiiiiiiiiiight.' No matter who the target is, we need to yell FOUL!
Too often I have used the negatives of others as justification for engaging in like volleys. And yet I know that this defeats our goal of working towards a more positive and cohesive climate of change. To paraphrase HRC, 'If we continue to look backward, we cannot (thus will not) move forward.'
'Sometimes karma comes back and bites you in the ass.' Unfortunately, if we continue to engage in paybacks and gotcha's, holding on to anger - the bad karma could also take a bite out of Obama's ability to prevail in the GE. (And please don't hold Obama responsible for any of my rants, opinions or other sins.)
June 11, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
"No matter who the target is, we need to yell FOUL! "
You do realize the incredible irony of this? If we need to yell foul no latter who the target is, why the silence against gender based attacks on Senator Clinton from the democratic party and the so called progressive democrats backing Senator Obama? So NO two wrongs don't make a right, but sometimes you really can't understand another person unless you've walked in their shoes. Michelle Obama will be walking in Hillary's shoes really soon and I look forward to seeing how she handles it and whether she will deny sexism as a factor.
Perhaps the Obama supporters need to experience gender based attacks and misogny on their candidate's wife from the GOP so they can appreciate what Hillary faced in this election. And also note perhaps that it must be even more hurtful for Hilalry coming from within the democratic party which used to stand for respect for ALL people rather than when Michelle is attacked by the GOP smear machine.
June 11, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Understand that I am replying in an effort to build a bridge and attempt to explain my stance...
I believe that Hillary benefited far greater from being a woman than she 'lost' due to sexism.
(Her core group were women who verbalized they 'wanted to see a WOMAN President'.) That said, the few times I actually listened to pundits or media agents, I did not hear sexist remarks directed at HRC. When I read them on the web I did take them to task. When I am the target of or witness sexism, I never ignore it - I deal with it. Same with any bigoted remarks and actions.
My point was that I will TRY to no longer base my responses and actions on those of others - in past or present. Instead I will TRY positive communication and follow the Golden Rule. That's my choice and my goal. But, maybe if I do this, someone else will respond in kind and play it forward.
(I think we can agree that some women are less supportive of their gender than many men!)
June 11, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. FYI - Hillary has earned 51% of the female democrat vote overall - Obama has won 45%. Doesn't sound like Hillary is the beneficiary of much gender bias to me. 90% of women are not supporting Senator Clinton, but 90% of blacks are supporting Obama in the primary so by your own logic Barack is benefitting far more from his race than Hillary benefis from being a woman. You should send Geraldine Ferraro an apology card as you've just proved her point.
And it is insulting when you say people are supporting Hillary just because she's a woman because that certainly wasn't my motivating factor. It's her policies, knowledge, experience and authenticity that I preferred to Obama.
Part of the reason why Hillary had less support among women is precisely because there are so many women that relish in the destruction of other women - including Maureen Dowd, nancy Pelosi and many many other women right here on TPM who deny that sexism ever existed in this campaign.
I can guarantee that you'd be in an uproar if someone said Michelle Obama was "pimping out" her daughters by allowing them to camoaign for her husband. I can guarantee you'd be in an outrage if someone called Michelle Obama a bitch. And that's fine. I can guarantee you'd be in an outrage if people were calling Michelle polarizing and divisive as I can guarantee the GOP will do to Michelle just as they did to Hillary.
Pardon me for being more outraged that you are so late to join the outrage party. If you partake in the destruction of someone in sexist and misogynst tones, you reap what you sow.
June 11, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You missed the point - probably due to my not communicating it better. Both Obama and Clinton benefitted and suffered from the 'isms'.
'I can guarantee that you'd be in an uproar if someone said Michelle Obama was "pimping out" her daughters by allowing them to camoaign for her husband. I can guarantee you'd be in an outrage if someone called Michelle Obama a bitch. And that's fine. I can guarantee you'd be in an outrage if people were calling Michelle polarizing and divisive as I can guarantee the GOP will do to Michelle just as they did to Hillary.'
I was outraged and spoke out against those remarks. I didn't witness anyone calling HRC a bitch, but if I had I would have spoken up. I am not selective about defending the target of any sexism/racism actions - It is always wrong and (to me) a sign of ignorance and hate mongering.
I've defended HRC many times. I know women who make no secret that they supported HRC because of her gender and I didn't mean to imply this was the reason for the majority who supported her.
In my opinion, HRC didn't lose the nomination simply because of her gender, any more than Obama prevailed simply because of his race. That is my opinion.
'If you partake in the destruction of someone in sexist and misogynst tones, you reap what you sow.' I agree 100%.
June 11, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I believe that Hillary benefited far greater from being a woman than she 'lost' due to sexism."
Isn't this kind of like the Ferraro claim that Obama had an advantage because he was black?
It is insulting to both women and blacks to try to quantify and compare the "benefit" of being black or female in a contest which has had no winners, ever, from either group.
June 11, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry dijamo, for chiming in with the same response...
June 11, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
No thank YOU - I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees how bananas that argument is.
June 11, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo, you have hybridized the many fake Dems and concern trolls here who trashed Hillary mercilessly, with some of the frustrated critics who were sincerely disappointed with her kitchen sink desperation and racist tack.
The really vile ones weren't Obama supporters in reality.
So you created a nonexistent anti-Hillary chimera in your mind, that unfairly puts the vile words of the posers in the same thought as the defensive words of the real Obama supporters.
Take a precious moment to go back and find some of those posts you claim were so over the top, and I would bet if you scxratched the Obama supporter surface of their originators, you would fnd a Mccain troll not too deeply buried.
So please, open your heart and your mind and separate those conjoined twins in your misguided perception.
You exaggerate the vitriol of the sincere Obama supporters by attaching them to the really incendiary fakes and posers, whose intentions were to make people like you resent everyone who supported Obama.
They were quite successful in their divisive subterfuge, apparently, at least at convincing you.
June 12, 2008 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't want to name names here BUT there are democratic Obama supporters (not GOP trolls) on tPM who have participated in the sexist and misogynist trashing of Senator Clinton. I know who they are and I am sure you do as well. They are NOT the newcomer trolls trying to seed dissension between democrats. And the worse thing is very rarely VERY RARELY have non-Clinton supporters stepped up to the plate and said that's not acceptable. That's not who we are as democrats. If it was a racist slur everyone was screaming about ban this person from the boarsd for all eternity.
Am I one to hold a grudge? Well I am supporting Obama and would like to see him as President so I can't be that bitter. But what I will not do is sit here and be silent when people are hypocritical about what's in or out of bounds against Michelle Obama vs. the much more hateful things they've said about Hillary.
June 12, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I still remember the first time I heard Michelle speak about how she was tired of being afraid. Seems like a lifetime ago, but that's what got me hooked. Not all this other stuff, but the simple fact that here was someone, finally, giving voice to what I was, myself, so sick and tired of ... fear. Fuck fear. Michelle rocks.
June 12, 2008 7:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo ---- What do you think of the Fox scrolling headline referring to Michelle as "Obama's baby mama?"
I don't recall that sort of langugage, or its equivalent, being used about Hillary by any "major" (tho I hate to call it such) news media.
No one is asking for kid gloves, or expecting them, but isn't this rather over-the-line?
June 12, 2008 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unless you Elizabeth2 were commenting about how inappropriate it was for news headlines to be calling Hilalry Shrillary or news organizations using the words bitch in reference to Senator Clinton or posters using the b and c words against Hillary, you have no standing to criticize Fox News for disprespecting women.
I think had Michelle Obama defended Hillary from the polarizing schtick saying Hillary was caricatured as polarizing by a right wing smear campaign that attacked her in the most gendered terms because she was a strong woman, she'd be in a better position for me to defend her. I think had she not said about Hillary if you can't run your house, how can you expect to run the white house, she may have earned my support. But that's not the way this primary campaign occurred. Hillary dealt with this crap and so will Michelle and she will soon learn how easy it is to be vilified as "polarizing" simply because you don't back down in the face of attacks. Hillary may have been bowed and humbled, but never broken. I'm sure Michelle's a strong woman and can take care of herself and will have many hypocritical defenders who participated in the sexist smearing of Hillary rushing to her defense.
June 12, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
For example, when a GOP consultant said it wasn't sexist to call Hillary a bitch because some women ARE actually bitches, you responded with:
dijamo --- Are you being sexist when you say (or think) those things? I certainly don't think so. So while neither term should be used to describe the totality of a person (of either gender), I think you would agree that someone can legitimately say "when you act that way you are being a bitch" and not mean it in a sexist way. ---- In other words "bitch" and/or "dick" are terms that may have their origins in gender-related traits but, as you demonstrate, nowadays refer to specific types of behavior and can be applied to people of either sex. Ergo, it's not automatically sexist to use them.
Interesting observation on MSNBC - Rachel Maddow apparently interviewed Geraldine Ferraro and, someone who listened reported, there was a true generational gap: things that Ferraro felt were offensively sexist simply didn't register with Maddow. I don't think it's necessarily age-related (I'm only slightly younger that Ferraro), but there is some truth that sexism is in the mind of the person hearing something (and whether something was intended to be a sexist slur may well be in the mind of the person speaking).
Posted by Elizabeth2
May 21, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
So sorry, you don't really have the moral authority to criticize Faux News for their story...unless you can call it racist! Racism is totally wrong. Sexism is funny and insignificant!
June 12, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment