« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
GOP to make Michelle Obama a target and my response
Not surprising...those good ol boys are working on mounting an attack on Michelle Obama as a way of attacking her husband.
http://www.politico.com/news/s...
"It's less than a week into the general election campaign, but already Michelle Obama is a Republican target.
Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger leveled the
first blow, introducing Republican John McCain's wife at a fundraiser
this week as someone who is "proud of her country, not just once, but
always." Obama wasn't mentioned by name, but the audience got it.
The dig signaled the start of what Democrats expect will be
a concerted effort to cast Michelle Obama as an unpatriotic radical -
and, by extension, Barack Obama as well. It also pointed out the
urgency to define Michelle Obama to general election voters before the
opposition goes too far in doing it for her, strategists said."
I'm not surprised that they would do this, but if I were them I might think twice before going ahead with it.
Here is my plan going forward:
1) I will only refer to Cindy McCain as Sen. McCain's second wife...the
one with a history of stealing drugs from the American Voluntary
Medical Team, oh and that was after she was working for the Keating
Five as an accountant who couldn't keep track of receipts.
2) At the same time I will bring up Carol McCain, referring to her as Sen. McCain's first wife,
the former swimsuit model and the one who was crippled and debilitated
following a car accident. When he returned from Vietnam, he proceeded
to go skirt chasing...at which time he met Wife #2, which he married 1 month after divorcing Wife #1.
The right takes marriage and fidelity very highly...they just need some education about John Sydney McCain.
P.S. Please feel free to spread the word...
Comments (52)
In my opinion, Obama made a mistake by saying "lay off my wife". That showed the GOP that they could get under his skin by messing with Michelle, and boy are the sharks ever circling. I hope he can remain resilient and not get thrown off his game by it.
June 12, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, he did the absolute right thing. I would have been disappointed if he didn't issue that warning. These attacks against Michelle are racially motivated. These creeps need to be called on it.
June 12, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
He doesn't have the luxury of losing his temper. My point still stands. If the GOP think he is vulnerable and can be thrown off-balance by attacking his wife, then they'll do it. He gave them an opening.
June 12, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why can't he lose his temper? Is he supposed to be super or sub human? McCain loses his temper all the time.
June 12, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think your posts below illustrate better than I ever could the perils of losing one's temper.
June 13, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't see it as a loss of temper. Not at all. I saw it as a man calling for decency and boundaries during campaigning.
And going forward, we'll see the contrast--the Republican/McCain sleazy tactics against Obama's restraint. That's why I think we should make a point of NOT stooping to their tactics.
I think the contrast will be obvious and effective.
June 13, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, you're a wimp. Anger is healthy.
June 13, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was for RobbyLove
June 13, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Obama was losing his temper - at all - when he issued that warning. I think he was saying "Don't forget that those guns can shoot in both directions." In other words, if wives are in the target range, then remember that Cindy McCain stands there also. And they *really* don't want to go there.
I'm willing to bet that, as in other situations, he's biding his time and not making a big issue of it right now, but someone is keeping very careful account of what is being said. If at some point they cross over the psychological line, or a bad attack can be traced back to the McCain campaign, you'll see something 'atypical' from Obama involving Cindy McCain ---------- and they can't say they weren't warned. (And it might not be directly at Cindy .... perhaps sympathy for women who are called foul names in public by their husbands?)
His goal, of course, is not to attack Cindy but to keep them from going after Michelle in unseemly fashion. And it doesn't really matter that Michelle campaigns more than Cindy does -- the essence of the attacks is "do you want someone like this to be First Lady?" So it's equally relevant whether it's a vocal or silent spouse.
I've noticed before that he's very long-range in his thinking, picks his fights and that he waits a day or two after the public/media gets fed up with something before he weighs in. Some people complain that he's too slow -- perhaps it's working in the legal world but I see it as the best, most masterful kind of arguing. When people are irritated they are paying attention, so words said at that point will carry much more weight.
I think the warning was said very deliberately and that it was a true warning.
June 13, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd love to see McCain asked about all of his rumored extra-marital affairs when he goes on about protecting the sanctity of marriage from the evil gays.
Obama should take it as a compliment that he is so clean that they need to go after his wife.
I do think Michelle is more of fair game because she has been heavily campaigning for Barack and continues to do so. Did Laura campaign for George Dubya? Will Cindy campaign for John?
That being said, I think attacking Michelle could really backfire.
June 12, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we do something to support Michelle Obama? I mean really, where are all the HRC supporters right now--the flaming feminists? I don't want to go after McCain's wives, or his mistresses. I want to go after him. It is obvious to me that the Obamas have a strong and loving relationship so I'm not sure they need our help, but this crap of going after Michelle when Laura Bush has been treated like Mother Theresa and Cindy "Bud" McCain is treated with kids gloves is so fucking racist it makes me sick. I don't think any spouses are fair game (with the exception of Bill because he WAS an elected official). But, this has to stop...it is racially motivated. What can we do?
June 12, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was it racially motivated when they did the same thing to Hillary during Bill Clinton's campaign. No. It's that the media attempts to destroy strong intelligent women like Hillary and Michelle. Those who were silent at the sexist attacks on Hillary and even worse the so called democrats who participated in it have sacrificed our moral authority to call the media & the GOP on sexist attacks on Michelle Obama or Nancy Pelosi or the next woman who runs for President. As an sexism apologist KateO, you've played a part too. Kudos to you!
June 12, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
My criticisms of Hillary had not an iota to do with sexism. You faux feminists need to understand that if you want to be considered equal, that means you get criticized as a person. I did not like or approve of Hillary's campaign. What the media did was a different issue and they were equally acidic to Obama. How dare you call me a sexism apologist. I see that you still think your candidate lost because of sexism. That's unfortunate because it means you will just embrace the victim's role as long as you think it serves your purposes.
June 12, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never said Hillary lost because of sexism. I said I was APPALLED that democrats did not speak out against sexism when it emerged in this campaign and you Carol Soprano and Tena and three of the most vocal anti-feminists who were saying Hillary should just shut up about sexism and accept it. You just care about attacks on Michelle because she's black. If the same things were said about Hillary you'd be excusing it as usual. You are a hypocrite.
June 12, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I might add, since we are throwing ad hominem insults now, that you appear to be a self-hating black woman, who somehow feels she has to align with the white majority to be accepted. Of course, that is based on your avatar, which is a sultry seductive "come screw me" woman of color. For all I know you are probably a fat white guy who works in IT.
June 12, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
And again you expose your massive amounts ignorance. I am an African American woman and I expect to be treated with respect on BOTh levels. An when I say that African American comes before woman because it is more salient to me. That said my political views are not guided by my identity - they are guided by my principles which include progressive economic policies - hence why I supported Hillary. Not because Barack is black and not because Hillary is a woman.
You are so bigoted and small minded that you can't even conceive that a black woman votes based on policies versus the color of her skin or her gender. It must be nice to just walk around and not even think about issues and just say I'M WITH THE BLACK GUY. Yes I root for the black family on Family Feud, but the presidency is not an effing game and I vote for the candidate I think is best equipped to meet the challenges that face our nation. For me that candidate was Hillary and I will support Obama over McCain in the general election.
And my avatar is what you perceive it to be. I don't consider it a come hither avatar. I consider it a mocking quit the bullshit & get real you know I'm right smile and it is particularly apt when I'm in a dialogue with a small minded bigoted ignorent psychoanalyzing hypocrite like you.
June 12, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya know Dijamo, you have flung a lot of shit yourself in the past few months. So, if you are going to throw it, you gotta be ready to catch it. I find it funny, and actually quite an honor, to be lumped with Tena and Carol Soprano, who I consider to be two of the most strong willed, opinionated, intelligent, and feminist women posting on this site. Why is it that only certain strong women are ok? Is there a test now? If you didn't support Hillary you can't pass? You know how stupid that sounds, and how counter to the whole notion of feminism? Because that's what you've been saying. I don't support Obama because he's black. I support him because of what he stands for and for what he says. I don't just care about criticisms against Michelle because she's black--but I do think they are more hyperbolic and ignored because she is. I never heard the same level of nastiness against Hillary that I am hearing against Michelle Obama. Be careful of who you call a hypocrite. And Democrats did speak out against sexism, including Obama, and many people on this site. And stop watching Fox News, since they were the only place that seemed wedded to sexism. You want to play a coy game and it's bullshit. It really is.
June 12, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's my test: If sexism and misogny are A-OK with you against one person, you have no moral authority to come to the cause and reinstate your NOW card to defend someone you like. When you allow or excuse sexist attacks on one person, you allow it to be acceptable against others. You may consider yourself and Tena and Carol strong women, but I do not. Strong women did not participate, relish or accpet the destruction of other women in gendered terms. Antifeminists like you who deny sexism except when it suits their purposes just perpetuate an environment where it is acceptable to launch these attacks on Hillary or Michelle Obama or whomever is the target of choice. That to me is bullshit and I have zero respect for apologists.
You must have an awfully short memory because Hillary was attacked mercilessly when Bill was campaigning and Michelle Obama has not faced anything of the sort yet. She will though and while obviously it is wrong against any woman, it does expose the hypocrisy of those Obama supporters and democrats who were spewing bitch this and shrillary that everywhere on TPM if they rush to her defense.
Karma sometimes bites you in the ass and the Obama campaign who was silent in the face of sexism will certainly experience it against Michelle in the general election. Hillary was strong enough to make it through although it made her "polarizing." Let's see how Michelle Obama handles the same treatment.
June 12, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dijamo,
You say: "I say that African American comes before woman because it is more salient to me."
And yet.
To somehow avenge what you perceived as mistreatment sexist treatment of Hillary, you are willing for Michelle Obama to be abused and hummiliated, when she is both African American and a woman.
I just don't get your disconnect.
Please explain.
June 13, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
KateO,
I think you've got a crush on her.
FB
June 12, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dijamo, I don't it.
Suppose, for the sake of discussion, I say: "Yes, Hillary was subjected to sexist and sometimes misogynistic treatment, and I understand why any woman would find that objectionable. I admire you for pointing this out."
Now, to me, the next logical thing to be able to say to you is: "And I thank you for your consistent stance on this, that you are just as supportive of any other woman who is being subjected to sexist or misogynistic treatment -- in this case, Michelle Obama, who is currently being called a "baby mama."
But I can't say that. Why?
Because you think it's OK to vilify Michelle Obama, as some kind of weird payback for Hillary. You seem to be saying that, because Hillary was abused, other women should be abused...rather than saying that no women should be abused, ever.
Think about it.
Thanks.
June 13, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, dijamo, there were and are plenty of Democrats who speak out against both sexism and racism.
And as for what the Republicans will exploit--they'll use whatever's available. With Hillary Clinton it's sexism; with Michelle Obama, it's both sexism and racism.
I'm with you on what you believe in--it's just that I see you painting Obama supporters with a broad brush (and if it becomes a habit, you end up with erroneous conclusions), and I see you, out of resentment for the bad treatment Hillary has gotten, setting up the lose-lose argument of "who suffers more...victims of sexism or victims of racism?"
As I write this, it occurs to me that I should be fair: I see Obama supporters setting up conditions for the same argument. I doesn't matter who is doing it, the result hurts all of us--and benefits the right-wing, who would love to divide and weaken us.
If it helps, you should know that there are Obama supporters who saw and disapproved of/spoke out about the shabby, sexist treatment Sen. Clinton received.
June 13, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You conflate sexism with disagreement. That's your problem. I don't condone sexism or racism in any form. I was just as offended as you were when people (usually the media) made sexist remarks about Hillary Clinton. What you fail to understand is that it is possible for a woman to genuinely dislike Hillary and her brand of politics and do it without being sexist. Just as it is possible to dislike Obama and not be a racist. True feminism is judging someone based on WHO THEY ARE, male or female. Obama was the more "feminist" candidate to me. I don't have a short memory. I worked for Hillary Clinton in the 1990s. I didn't like her or respect her. I can say the same about some male bosses. Does that make me sexist? No, not for a minute. So stop with the tiresome sexism card. You should only use it when it's going to get you somewhere. Obama did not condone sexism anymore than Hillary allowed people to think Obama was a Muslim who loved Farrakhan. Politics, sweetie. You seem to relish watching Michelle get trashed. How is that being a feminist? And by the way, Hillary is polarizing because she is combative when she need not be and, to some of us, a fake. Has nothing to do with her chromosomes.
June 12, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Make no mistake - I think it's perfectly acceptable to dislike Hillary for many reasons. Expressing that dislike in gender demaning terms like bitch and shrillary is not acceptable. The media has crossed the line many many times against Hillary. Where was your outrage? You've read disgusting and demeaning comments against Hillary by so-called democrats have you EVER spoken up to say that's not acceptable? Your faux silent outrage makes it easier for people to attack Michelle Obama. Everyone talks about Hillary accepting personal responsibility for her losing campaign - where's your personal responsibility for being silent int he face of sexism.
Hillary is polarizing because she may be bowed and humbled, but she has never been broken. Michelle Obama will have the same inner strength in the face of these attacks and once again she will be a "polarizing" figure. Do I enjoy the destruction of another woman? No. But perhaps it will allow the democratic party come to terms with how we lost our bearings on respect for women in the public sphere.
June 12, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm curious. I agree that Bitch is a negative term directed at women, (I reserve a**h**e for males) but what term would you suggest using for both genders that would deliver the same sentiment? (I took Shrillary to just be a play on her name, not her gender.)
June 13, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a clue. Identify what your particular issue is with her and address that. Don't use bitch as a shortcut because you are too lazy to get to what is really bothering you. Of course if gender is what is really bothering you, bitch is probably the right word to use. I'd hope this applies not just to Hillary but to all women. Look at KateO's picture. It's a damn set up for me to use a shortcut and if I am pissed call her the b word. But I didn't take the bait - I addressed my issues with her and called her "a small minded bigoted ignorent psychoanalyzing hypocrite."
I believe the counterpoint of bitch is dick for the males. I could call David Axelrod a dick or I could call him an obnoxious arrogant windbag. Obnoxious arrogant windbag is more specific, gets my point across and avoids demeaning someone in gendered terms.
Feel free to spread this technique to others.
June 13, 2008 6:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why have you hijacked this thread. Grow up.
June 13, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Would that be the technique of calling out others for their perceived past failures whilst absolving yourself of all responsibility here and now?
If so, don't worry, it's already common enough, as common as the cold I caught last week, which I actually wish someone in my office might've had the maturity to not spread.
June 13, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does anybody ever not go to work when they have a cold? Seriously. I work in schools, where there are sneezing, hacking, puking kids year-round. Parents send their kids to school with damn near everything--contagious or not.
So in the grown-up world, are their people who are a concerned enough about being contagious to actually quarantine themselves?
June 13, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, dijamo, that's a great technique! I've never seen anyone express that actual technique for governing personal reactions before. Awesome!
You know, being human, I realize I have a lot of ingrained sexist/racist preconceptions buried in my subconscious--results of decades of living in the world, right?
This technique, assuming I'm successful in applying it (I humbly admit), will help me surface and identify any of those hidden, ugly preconceptions and become more conscious of them. Maybe that'll help me exorcise them!
It's like a good social/mental hygiene tool!
Thanks for the tip. Seriously.
June 13, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anh. I agree with dijamo. Sexist.
We really don't see the word "shrill" used against men very often.
June 13, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
In your second paragraph here, you assert things that aren't really knowable to mere mortals. That you assert them with such ease is troubling. Unless, of course, you've provided proof of your omniscience elsewhere and I've merely failed to pay proper attention. In which case, my apologies. Otherwise, seriously, who are you to assert this:
"Michelle Obama will have the same inner strength in the face of these attacks and once again she will be a "polarizing" figure."
Setting aside that this strikes me as 'crazy talk', how exactly do you know this?
June 13, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay perhaps Michelle Obama in the face if these attacks will curl into the fetal position and cry woe is me. Somehow I think not. She comes across as a very intelligent, strong minded, self assured woman and I'd assume she like Hilalry will make it through the media fire bearing the inevitable battlescars. I have much respect for Michelle Obama (though I'd wish she'd have not played into the polarizing, can't take care of your own house) against Senator Clinton. Bear in mind that the sexist attacks were going to happen to Michelle Obama REGARDLESS of how the dems treated Hillary. The difference is that we as a party have less moral authority to call the GOP on their BS because we were silent when it happened to Hillary. That's where my outrage is - not against Michelle Obama.
June 13, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me see if I've understood you.
It's a terrible thing for Hillary to have been called a bitch or Shrillary, but it is perfectly OK with you for Michelle Obama to be called a baby mamma. (Even though, by the way, Michelle has two girl who are still impressionable children, who cannot possibly be protected from this namecalling.)
Here's a thought: why not object to the mockery of Michelle Obama for the sake of her girls, who are both African American, and female, and still able to be deeply scarred.)
Old Testament "eye for an eye" retribution seems a bit outdated and truly sad in this context.
June 13, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not an eye for an eye - it's recognizing this attack was going to come anyway and we have no moral authority to decry it when we were silent to the sexism against Hillary. I could yell my head off as much as I want and if even democrats didn't listen about sexist attacks on Hillary and even people in my own party were denying sexism played a role, why on Earth would the Republicans or ordinary Americans who watched Hillary get trashed expect that Michelle should be treated differently? When you are silent or participate in a culture of disrespect, you perpetuate it. The democrats used to stand against sexism and we've ceded the high moral ground and exposed a whole lot of hypocrisy. Sexism doesn't occur in a vacuum - it affects our culture overall. And if you don't see any sexism in how Hillary was treated, our culture has taken many many many steps back. That is the true outrage.
June 13, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, I was reading along, minding my own business, thinking about all of the points and trying to ignore the name-calling. Then you had to go and say that the democrats used to stand against sexism.
But I can't abide by revisionist history so allow me to point out that when Monica Lewinsky was CRUCIFIED by the press, I don't remember democrats standing against sexim. And I remember NOW being very, VERY quiet.
June 13, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're conflating two very different issues. Monica Lewisnky trashing was not about sexism. It was about sex. Bill Clinton didn't get off (pardon the pun) easy. He was impeached. Hillary got trashed as well. Again attacking someone because because of their sexual indiscretions. Puritanical - absolutely. Sexism - hardly.
June 13, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clarification: he was impeached and acquitted, but impeached nonetheless. Momica Lewinsky may have suffered public humiliation but that is much more due to Ken Starr and his mass printing of the star report than anything the democrats or the clintons did. Bill was not the one publicizing the sexual escapades. And I don't see how Bill and Hillary came away unscathed.
Sex not sexism.
June 13, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you saying that a woman who can't be broken is polarizing simply because she can't be broken?
June 13, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
June 13, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love Dijamo's principled refusal to stand up for Michelle Obama as a way of teaching a lesson to other Democrats.
I remember my grandfather telling me stories of Dijamo's great-great-grandfather, Cornelius Westhauer Mo. It seems that Mr. Mo was an outspoken abolitionist, a man who would travel all over the country and make great, impassioned speeches about the evils of slavery. After a couple of months, however, Mo became disillusioned that people who he saw as his intellectual and moral peers didn't seem as interested in the dismantling of the system of slavery as he was. Furious, he threw down his papers, tore off his tie, and stomped off towards his home, arms folded tightly across his chest and, some say, steam emanating from his ears. During his long walk home, Mr. Mo vowed that he would never fight slavery again, as long as he lived.
"I'll show those faux-freedom fighters. I hope that every slave in the South gets whipped extra hard today. That oughta make those no-good, do-nothing bleeding hearts sorry for their inaction."
Good to see that some things never change.
June 13, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, where does Dijamo refuse to stand up for Michlle Obama?
And no, pointing out that Michelle is getting the same treatement Hillary did before her, and wondering where some people's outrage was when Hill was the target is not the same thing.
Back on topic - who didn't see this coming?
I'm sure the Obama campaign did, I just hope they've worked out a good strategy for dealing with it. I'd love to see them call it out - and take every opportunity to make John McCain publicly repudiate what's being done in his name.
June 13, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it makes sense to degrade Cindy McCain because you object to the same being done to Michelle Obama. Defining Michelle is what needs to be done. If you compare the two Cindy can't hold a candle to Michelle.
I think the criticism will have some backlash from feminists and also some independants. Michelle is an impressive woman, and a mom of two adorable daughters to boot. Picking on a strong, impressive woman doesn't produce quite as much sympathy as picking on a mom of two little girls. I think emphasizing her mom aspect could increase the backlash. And no I'm not suggesting she should look any weaker or anything like that. But show how rounded she is rather than just the formidable campaigner. To attack her is to attack all facets of her.
June 13, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not that motherhood will deter McCain. His "joke" about "why Chelsea is so ugly" was about the worst and most misogynist attempt at humor I've ever heard by someone of his national standing, yet even the Clintons gave him no grief over it. It ranks with Huckabee's "joke" at the NRA convention about Obama diving to the floor. Public reaction to people who make remarks like these should be strong enough to effectively remove them from candidacy for public office. Yet the media and much of the public give them a pass.
June 13, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Targeting Cindy McCain is not the answer to the slime machine going after Michelle. Defend Michelle Obama and attack JOHN McCain.
Also, your last line about the right taking marriage and fidelity highly is a myth. It's all rhetoric, and they consistently forgive and excuse Republicans for their personal foibles. I doubt very much if anyone cares that John McCain dumped his first wife.
June 13, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are many voters who are members of the 'First Wives Club'. In addition, it's the how and why he 'dumped his first wife' that is representative of this 'nice guy's' true character.
June 13, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, is that you?
June 13, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
And by this query, your point is..........? (And no, it is not Billy.)
June 13, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Woman for McCain:
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/D/A/2/vote-for-spite.jpg
June 13, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liam, you always make me laugh. I decided to stay out of Dijamo's mudwrestling pit for awhile but had to come back to watch. Thanks for the laugh.
June 13, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lawrence Beaglebugger is a swell guy.
Barack has the quick mind and eloquence to put all such lowlifes in their place.
June 13, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just a political mistake. Attacking the other candidate's wife makes you look like a bully and makes him look rightous when he gobsmacks you. McCain will regret not speaking out forcefully against this crap. If people ahd not attacked Hillary in '92 Bill might well have lost.
June 13, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment