First Elizabeth, now Michelle...D-Women doing the dirty work for their men

[BeyondGeography]

After last night's thinly veiled mocking of HRC's "in it to win it" mentality by Michelle Obama in NYC, it looks like the potential first ladies of our party have no problem doing the dirty work for their men in this campaign when it comes to taking swings at Camp Clinton. And it might even be a good tactic.

One is reminded of Elizabeth Edwards' "our marriage has been happier" comments last fall. Yes, I know, she subsequently apologized, but there is a criticism to be made about the character of the Clintons and one couldn't criticize the Edwards campaign for thinking that this might best be made by Elizabeth, not John.

In politics, men have to be careful when going after women in public, especially Hillary, who plays the victim card beautifully. Dial back to the 2000 Senate campaign when Rick Lazio tried to bully Hillary into signing a piece of paper (it was a no-soft money pledge) in a televised debate, marching into her space and pointing his finger at her, which effectively ended his campaign. Not that any of our candidates would be so ham-handed, but don't be surprised if you see a trend here; the male candidates taking on a policy-based critique of Clinton, with the character-based critique left to the women in their campaign, starting with their wives.

[northzax]

it's only fair

it's not like Senator Clinton isn't using her spouse, right?

[noamnety]

1. "plays the victim card"???

You mean, won't put up with sexist shit?

[ripple]

2. What did Michelle say last night? n/t

[BeyondGeography]

5. link

March 10, 2007 -- Sen. Barack Obama hit Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's turf last night for a megabucks Midtown fund-raiser, where his wife made thinly veiled jabs at his rival's "in it to win it" campaign slogan and called her husband "the real deal."

"I know that Barack is in this not just to win," Michelle Obama told the crowd of more than 1,500 people at a $100-per-head event at the Grand Hyatt Hotel on East 42nd Street.

"This race is not about winning, because winning isn't enough nowadays. Winning without dignity, winning it without honor, winning without authenticity and truth is not winning at all, and we're not in it for that."

Earlier, Michelle Obama said, "Barack is the real deal . . . Barack is really exactly who he says he is. You know, there's no hidden agenda to this guy. He is decent, he is sincere, he is authentic, he isn't manufactured."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03102007/news/nationalnews/real_deal_barack_take_big_n_y__pot_nationalnews_maggie_haberman.htm

[ripple]

12. Thanks

Wow, them's fightin' words!

She succinctly articulated the main reasons I support Obama over any other dem contender. With the state our nation is in, winning in 2008 just isn't good enough. We need a leader with authenticity, one who does more than pander and posture. A narrow win by a politician's politician would succeed only in reinforcing and further perpetuating the bitter partisanship that exists not just in DC, but throughout the nation. We need a populist, progressive president now more than ever.

[sandnsea]

19. That's not what Elizabeth did at all

Elizabeth took a personal jab at Hillary, working vs sahm divisive shit, especially considering Elizabeth was a working mom.

This is straight politics, one campaign after another. Comparing the differences. Not the same at all. This is how it's supposed to be done.

[karynnj]

34. I agree

Michelle Obama is picking up on Hillary's line. But if you take the line "I'm in it to win" and repeat it at various events, the other campaigns will take the phrase and expand on it. Every candidate is in it to win.

Michelle Obama expanded it quite nicely. Saying they want to win with dignity, does not say Hillary doesn't care about dignity any more than Hillary saying she was in it to win meant that Obama and Edwards were in it for the run of eating food at fund raisers.

Elizabeth Edwards appologized for her comment, which she should have. It is very likely that those words were suggested by some strategist. They were tacky - and Edwards already appolgized. It's also true that they were disengenuous. It is true that Edwards has not worked while the younger 2 were little - though you could argue that she has been campaigning for at least half of Jack's life - she did work when her two oldest were young.

It is also true that working outside the home can be as valid an option as being a SAH mom as long as the child is well taken care of and has a lot of time with its parents. Chelsea clearly grew up safe, secure and loved. (as did the Edwards kids)

[Ethelk2044]

22. This is Ridiculous

She was only stating the reasons why Barack was in the run

[oasis]

47. Not a hint of implication.

:sarcasm:

[saltpoint]

3. I'm looking forward to working very hard for the Democratic ticket in 08

and am eager to be rid of this horrifying Bush administration and all its works.

Go, Democrats.

[ElizabethDC]

4. It's interesting, to say the least.

I have tremendous admiration and respect for both Elizabeth and Michelle, even if I occaisionally disagree with what they're saying. During Bill Clinton's campaigns, Hillary would often criticize his opponents - once, when Bill was running for governor, I believe she even showed up at one of his opponent's press conferences and argued with him. So it's nothing new.

Elizabeth and Michelle are both incredibly intelligent women, and I think it's nic and unsurprising to see them participating in their husbands' campaigns. And, yes, it's often convenient for them to offer criticism of the other candidates, because I think people are generally less inclined to be critical of the spouse than they are of the candidate.

[AtomicKitten]

6. Consider it one of the perks of marriage.

I think the Democratic women are showing moxie and decorum. If subtle digs like this disturb your equilibrium, going to the show will blow your mind. The Republics are notoriously brutal on the wives of Democratic candidates.

[MADem]

7. Ugh. I find this whole construct troubling. Disturbing. A dreadful, fetid, MEOW MIX.

First, I think Elizabeth Edwards said what she thought, it was essentially true, but it "came out the wrong way." The media hopped on it and beat it to death. It was a nonstory, fluffed into one.

The idea of "men" sending their "wimminfolk" out to do catfight-battle with a female opponent is just, well, cheesy. And playing the VICTIM card? When people behave poorly, and the other person is maligned, that's not playing the victim card.

This is the 21st Century. I'm hoping we're past that stuff.

Any married candidate who doesn't use a spouse to increase their coverage is a damned fool. Those that aren't married that have a great mother or father or kids or siblings that can do the rally them here/there/everywhere routine are also quick to use those assets. It's what candidates do.

But setting up imagery that has 'the ladies' going after Senator Clinton is....ugh...sexist, I guess. It's not what we do.

[BeyondGeography]

9. We're not as highly evolved as all that

Anyway, Michelle did go after HRC last night. Barack took the high road. Good politics, in my book.

[MADem]

11. Of course, she made a reference, but if she were in North Carolina, she

might well have found a way to swipe at Senator Edwards and his kitchen table. After all, they were fundraising in New York, HRC's state. They were competing for dollars that would otherwise easily gravitate to the home state Senator.

I don't think Mrs. Obama is playing a 'battling wimminfolk' game. I would imagine she'd be a bit appalled if it were shopped about as such. It's just not helpful, that kind of reference.

I think the catfight "take" on her comments is first, untrue, and second, beneath us. I think her commentary was a 'target of opportunity' exercise based on proximity to an opponent of her husband's, not a gender thing.

I just don't think it plays well, either. It's not something that should be boasted about, even in the unlikely event it is true. YMMV.

[sandnsea]

20. Did you read what was said?

Go read what was said and then see if the OP portrayed it correctly. I don't think so. Michelle was just comparing campaigns, not engaging in personal attacks the way Elizabeth did. And btw, Elizabeth has done it on more than one occasion to more than one person, she actually does have a bit of meow in her, sadly.

[MADem]

26. I did read it. I have no problem with Mrs. Obama's remarks, I have

problems with the "fightin' wimminfolk" and "play the victim" characterizations that the original post is employing to describe the event.

As I said elsewhere, if she were raising money in Carolina, she might go after Edwards' kitchen table. If they were going for dough in New Mexico, it could be Richardson who gets a swipe. The 'femaleness' of Hillary is not what she's addressing, but the OP doesn't portray it that way. It comes across in the OP as Barack sending the Missus out to get down in the mud with HRC.

Please read what I wrote. It's not Mrs. O I have trouble with--it is the OP's suggestion that because there are females in the equation, it somehow has to be a catfight. I find that troubling, frankly.

[sandnsea]

27. Read your other posts after

We're pretty much in agreement. I missed what you meant with your cat fight remarks - no, we don't need two strong women arguing political tactics lowered to a cat fight. Although I personally stand by my Elizabeth opinion, she does sling some backhanded digs, although not all that much and not often enough for it to become an issue I don't think.

[venable]

36. a bit of meow?????

I hope you're not serious. You might take a closer look at this amazing woman before you say something like that.

How about a massive amount of intelligence, character, experience, honesty, and fight.

Which you choose to characterize as 'a bit of meow'.

please.

[sandnsea]

39. Oh absolutely

She's got the tacky little comment about Hillary, discussed in this thread. Then there's the tacky jabs at Teresa, having to redo her guest room for them, and Teresa's art collection. Yes, Elizabeth absolutely has a bit of meow in her, shocking to me too, but true.

[ClassWarrior]

8. I'd say whatever work they're doing, they're doing it for their nation.

A Progressive claiming they're doing it "for their men"???

:shrug:

NGU.

[Bitwit1234]

10. Again we have the Clinton bashing

It seems to me that in this climate now, the republicans are doing enough smearing and slaming with out the democrats doing it to themselves. I have not seen one incident where Hillary Clinton has come out and bashed her opponents. I don't know who will turn out to be the best candidate. They should all show what they can do and will do.

But I think it is very interesting how the democrats have joined the republicans in their smear tatics..I don't like, I never have and it sure as hell puts me off a candidate whose only rhetoic is to bash their opponents.

I won't buy a Quinos (sp) sandwich because of the bashing of Subway. It puts me off.

I would never buy an Apple because of the bashing of the other PC's it puts me off.

I can not and never will stand negative campaigning and ads. That's my opinion. And I think that a candidate who can not stand on his own merits, who has to bash his opponents does not have very much to offer.

[MADem]

13. I don't think Mrs. Obama intended it the way it is being shopped, frankly

I think she would be irritated at the characterization, too. People who have a membership card in the discrimination club get that sort of thing.

My take on what she meant is upthread. If she'd been in New Mexico, she may have taken a shot at Richardson. To paint this as a GirlFight is just .... not good.

[sandnsea]

21. I agree, this is just politics

As long as it's on campaign messages and policy issues, it's fair game.

[BeyondGeography]

14. Errrr, what about this famous quote in SC a few weeks ago

“To underscore a point, some people may be running who tell you we don’t face a real threat from terrorism,” she said. “I’m not one of them. We have serious enemies who want to do us serious harm.”

[athena]

31. How is that "bashing her opponents"?

She is saying that she takes the threat of terrorism seriously and that terrorists still exist who want to harm the U.S. It's not negative campaigning; it's relevant and important: the country does need a president who will do more than Bush to protect it from terrorism (secure the nuclear and chemical plants, for example). Obama makes statements like that all the time, suggesting that other liberals are too divisive, anti-religion, etc. If that's all you can find, I'm convinced that Hillary Clinton doesn't engage in negative campaigning. Frankly, I'm impressed.

[sandnsea]

40. Keep repeating that

I had forgotten she said that, a very low point for her. The last thing we need is ANY Democrat saying there are Democrats who don't take terrorism seriously. It was a horrible thing for her to say.

[ripple]

15. I think Michelle was speaking more to her husband's strengths

rather than attacking Hillary personally. Obama does have the qualities she mentioned and frankly, I think that's what sets him apart from the other dem contenders.

And don't forget, Hillary mentions her experience in the WH- as opposed to the *other candidates* inexperience when promoting herself. I see that as valid and necessary self-promotion, rather than a personal attack on the other candidates.

[karynnj]

35. Hillary, by and large, has not attacked the others

her minions have. The whole Geffen/Obama thing was unnecesary.

But, if you want an example of Hillary bashing someone - look no further than her unseeming stabbing John Kerry in the back, implying to many that he did say what the RW characterized him as saying. This after John Kerry stood up for every Democrat under attack, including her husband. He deserved better - and many of us will not forgive her.

[athena]

16. I lost all my respect for Elizabeth Edwards because of that comment.

It was completely uncalled-for. What was her point -- that women with careers and ambition are less happy than stay-at-home wives? What decade does she think this is, the 1950's? Elizabeth Edwards's comment, in fact, is the reason I don't support John Edwards. If Michelle Obama starts bashing Hillary Clinton for her ambition, her husband will lose my enthusiastic support as well.

If you think that it's good strategy for male candidates' wives to make sexist comments about Hillary Clinton, you're forgetting that half of the population is female and that many of us are sick and tired of being called bitches for the same behaviour that gets called leadership in men and earns them pay raises.

Here is a great column by Katha Pollitt on Elizabeth Edwards's statement:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061120/pollitt

If people keep making sexist attacks on Hillary Rodham Clinton, I may just have to vote for her. That means you, Elizabeth Edwards! As tabloid readers know, the wife of John Edwards told guests assembled at a luncheon hosted by Ladies' Home Journal that she felt her "choices" had made her "happier" and more "joyful" than HRC. Translation: I've parked my legal career on the shelf to mind the kids, support my husband's political ambitions and tend our wonderful marriage, unlike Hillary, a bitter ambitious career woman with a philandering husband. Well, isn't that special! Isn't she the fulfilled woman of the year! Why are we talking about whether or not a woman senator who, maybe, wants to run for President is less joyful than a (former) senator's wife who, maybe, hopes to be First Lady? Nobody would dream of measuring a male presidential hopeful on the happiness scale. If they had, Abraham Lincoln would never have been elected. It is sad to think that Ms. Edwards would play the happy-homemaker card to help her lightweight husband best a woman with about ten times as much political experience. We all know Edwards did such a great job running for Vice President--the man was everywhere!--and made such a fantastic impression in his debate with Dick Cheney. Still, I might have gone for him in the 2008 primary, because every now and then he pops up out of nowhere and says poverty is bad. Now I dunno. We bitter ambitious career women have to stick together.

[BeyondGeography]

17. Not all character-based criticisms are sexist

I'm more interested in what happened last night. Michelle Obama contrasted her husband's character with Hillary's "in it to win it" mentality. Fair game, and not sexist, and definitely better coming from a woman than from a man. It's hard to avoid the gender prison; if Barack says it, he's threatened by a strong female, if Michelle says it, it's a catfight and she's the b-word. Hillary the Hawk isn't about sensible foreign policy as much as it is about overcoming the weaker sex stereotype, etc.

The OP simply states there are legitimate character-based criticisms that one can make against Hillary (hopefully, you don't find THAT to be a sexist statement), but these are often/almost always better coming from the a male candidate's wife than from him directly. In no small part, this is because Hillary is great at turning criticism from men (not to mention their bad behavior; practice makes perfect) into sympathy for herself.

[ElizabethDC]

18. Yes, but

similarly, criticism about Obama is often contrued as racist. Of course, some of it is, just as some of the criticism aimed at Hillary is often sexist. But I don't think that means that any of the male candidates aren't going to bash Hillary, just as it doesn't prevent people from criticising Obama.

Honestly, I don't think that Michelle was criticising Hillary b/c they're both women, but rather b/c Hillary is Barack's top rival for the nomination. I don't think sexism had anything to do with that.

[MADem]

24. No, the original post says "D women doing dirty work for their men"

That's catfighterry, IMO.

I don't want to get into a big argument, but it isn't the same sort of take as "President Clinton Supports Senator-Wife's Campaign," at all.

What I am saying is when that sort of 'dirty work for their MEN' language is employed, it paints BOTH females (not just the one) as mud wrestlers in bikinis clawing and scratching. It just isn't helpful.

IMO.

[athena]

25. You need better reading skills. I never said all character-based attacks are sexist.

In the OP, you praise Elizabeth Edwards for her statement and suggest that other candidates' wives should do the same. Elizabeth Edwards's statement was not a "legitimate character-based criticism." It was a 1950's-style sexist attack. If you don't see that, read Katha Pollitt's column; she explains it better than I can.

I currently support Obama over Clinton. As a woman, Clinton is prone to be criticized for being too liberal and dovish; to avoid such labels, she has moved right and assumed a hawkish position. Conservatism and hawkishness are the last things the U.S. needs right now, and that is why I support Obama. I've read both of his books, and I plan to volunteer for his campaign. But if Michelle Obama starts making statements similar to Elizabeth Edwards's, Barack Obama will lose my support. What Michelle Obama said yesterday is not sexist, since it is not openly aimed at Clinton and happens to be true of all the candidates. But criticizing Clinton directly for her "ambition" as you seem to suggest would be sexist. Running for president requires ambition and self-interest. Criticizing the sole female candidate for her "ambition" but not criticizing male candidates, who have at least as much ambition, is sexist.

I have never seen Senator Clinton turn criticism from men into sympathy for herself. As a feminist, my opposition to Hillary Clinton is issue-based. Your last statement suggests that yours is more gender-based.

[BeyondGeography]

32. The OP is about tactics, EE was never praised for her comments n/t

[MADem]

23. I think she opened her mouth and forcefully stuffed her foot in it, myself.

She did apologize after all--rather profusely.

She was shopping a book, trying to be perky, had just gotten over boob cancer. A lot of balls in the air. I think she just screwed up. I thought the apology was sincere.

[Tellurian]

28. Yes, I forgave Elizabeth Edwards long ago..

not that she needed or warranted forgiveness for her statements. I believe deep down, she is a good hearted person and may have been reacting to some other external influence during the campaign and lashed out unintentionally at the closest person nearby. imo-

[athena]

30. She may have meant well,

and I can't imagine how tough it must be to deal with cancer, but people in positions of high visibility have to be careful about what they say. When the wife of a candidate running for president suggests that young women are happier as homemakers, she hurts the credibility and self-confidence of young women trying to establish their careers in law, science, business, and politics. No matter what anyone may say about Senator Clinton, she is a great role model for young women, and the wives of male candidates should respect her for that, not attack her for it. Criticizing her positions on the issues is fine, but criticizing her "ambition" hurts women.

Hillary Clinton's positions on the issues make it impossible for me to support her for president (I think she's great as senator), but I have the utmost respect for her for always behaving professionally despite the vile personal attacks she has been getting for decades from conservatives and liberals alike. She is paving the way for the next generation of female leaders.

(Not disagreeing with you; just explaining why I feel strongly about this.)

[MADem]

41. Sure, but it's not like Mrs. Edwards missteps every day of the week

She's not a Barbara "Rhymes with Witch" "Gee, aren't these Katrina refugees lucky" Bush, who shoves her size thirteen down her throat every time she opens her mouth. And she did apologize.

Senator Clinton is a great role model, and she's tough. She's had to be, with the shit she takes. The fact that she accepted the apology without any fuss shows what a class act she is.

I think if she can forgive (and she does have quite the capacity for that) then who are we to keep the issue front and center? Let all the candidates get on with their pitches, let's drop the tired old sexist comparisons and faux contests (and the Obama/Osama, Hussein nonsense, and the race junk, and all of those other shitty -ists and -isms too, while we are at it) and hopefully we'll have an interesting primary season, a lot of great debates, and come up with a nominee that will take back the White House and bring sanity back to the nation.

[venable]

37. nt

repeat post

[venable]

38. somebody sounds a little bitter, somehow.

I'm speaking of Katha Pollit.

Her analysis of the episode is close minded, and pre-determined to jump on a poorly phrased statement by Elizabeth, which HRC understood after their phone call, to attack what Ms. Pollit thinks of as a lightweight - JohnEdwards. by the way, this is the very candidate that The Nation considers the best progressive candidate.

Further, their erstwhile star - Alex Cockburn - has said on more than one occasion that the best Dem in the public eye, the only one worthy of the presidency, is Elizabeth Edwards.

If she wants to attack Edwards, do so. but to get so friggin holier-than-thou about a nothing episode??

pathetic.

[ShortnFiery]

44. Thanks for the Info! n/t

[July]

48. Agree w/you, and I have no problem with "I'm in it to win it."

I assume most candidates feel the same way. Michelle Obama's implied contrast (Barack authentic/Hillary in it "just" to win) seems disingenuous to me. Hillary didn't say, "I'm in it JUST to win," and MO really doesn't know HRC's motivation any more than I do. I see MO's comment as putting words -- words that make Clinton look bad -- in HRC's mouth.

Obama's in it to win, just like Clinton. And I like Hillary's saying that she wants to win. It's part and parcel of her biggest asset, that she's a strong woman. Not everyone likes a strong woman, but for those who do, that statement helps her, not hurts her.

And for the record, I'll be voting for whatever Democrat wins the nomination, no matter how ambitious s/he is or what his/her spouse has said.

[JI7]

29. i don't see how Michelle Obama's remarks were about Hillary

at all.

[Nedsdag]

33. I didn't either

If anything she was criticizing the "win at all costs" mentality that Hillary's campaign is espousing. She wasn't going after her personally at all.

To be honest, I didn't see anything wrong with the statement Elizabeth Edwards made. Katha Politt is entitled to her opinion but her support for Hillary would go against everything she stands for.

[election_2004]

42. Sorry, but Hillary is fair game

It's an unspoken fact that she has sent Carville/Begala/McAuliffe out to attack anyone running who doesn't have the last name of "Clinton" - - and mark my words, they'll start doing the same to Clark and Richardson, when those two begin gaining steam!

Hillary can't have her cake and eat it too. If she's going to try to disingenously play the joint Victim/Savior card while spinning any criticism from her male opponents into a "Poor Me" defense, then she shouldn't be surprised when any of the wives come after her.

[BeyondGeography]

45. We agree

No need to apologize; as an Obama supporter I think it's smart that Michelle got those digs in. Better her than Barack, because I do think the "Poor Me" defense would automatically be deployed if he (or any other male candidate) made any negative character-based comments about her.

[mnhtnbb]

43. Hillary started this working woman vs sahm stuff long ago with her cookie comment

The chickens are only coming home to roost.

[BenDavid]

46. Oh my my ..if this was a school yard, all HRC

would have to say, " hey barrack, youse don't have a set of balls to criticize me so you let your woman do it? Hell, I got a set, bill's got a set, all these other guys have a set,do you?

[izzybeans]

49. Yeah what Michelle Obama said was a real low blow.

:sarcasm:

"In it to win it" sets itself up as a shallow campaign slogan.