home

Obama's Wife Takes a Swipe at Hillary

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 10:50:54 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Michelle Obama is on the campaign trail, stumping for her husband. From a recent speech,

At another stop, in Atlantic, Michelle said she travels with her husband in part "to model what it means to have family values," adding "if you can't run your own house, you can't run the White House." She didn't elaborate, but it could be interpreted as a swipe at the Clintons.

I thought playing the "family values" card was a Republican strategy. Maybe not when your candidacy appears to be, as Obama acknowledged the other day, "a stretch" for the voters".

I don't appreciate Obama (or his wife's) personal snipes at fellow Democrats. It's one thing to criticize policies or positions on issues. It's another to launch personal attacks. To use your spouse as the messenger is even lower.

Update: Obama's campaign denies his wife's remark was a swipe at the Clintons.

< Karl Rove and the Mining Disaster: Connecting the Dots | Dem Rep. McNerney Firmly Committed To Date Certain For Iraq Withdrawal >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama's Wife Takes a Swipe at Hillary | 104 comments (104 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    out of context...again (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by mike in dc on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:25:59 AM EST
    Jeralyn, read the full transcript of Michelle Obama's remarks, and you'll see it wasn't a swipe at the Clinton's.  She was talking about her family situation only.
    Sad to see so many willing to hop on a drudge-driven bandwagon.

    full remarks (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by eric on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:42:28 AM EST
    Do you have a link to her full remarks?  The linked article purports to give the context - maybe that reporter is wrong?

    Parent
    from TPM (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by mike in dc on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:52:43 AM EST
    That one of the most important things that we need to know about the next President of the United States is, is he somebody that shares our values? Is he somebody that respects family? Is a good and decent person? So our view was that, if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House. So, so we've adjusted our schedules to make sure that our girls are first, so while he's traveling around, I do day trips. That means I get up in the morning, I get the girls ready, I get them off, I go and do trips, I'm home before bedtime. So the girls know that I was gone somewhere, but they don't care. They just know that I was at home to tuck them in at night, and it keeps them grounded, and, and children, the children in our country have to know that they come first. And our girls do and that's why we're doing this. We're in this race for not just our children, but all of our children.

    Parent
    I don't see how this (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Maryb2004 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 12:04:57 PM EST
    could possibly be interpreted as a swipe at Hillary.  The Clintons no longer have small children, so putting children to bed can't affect her campaign.  And, anyway, from all reports during Bill's presidency they both made Chelsea a priority in their lives.  

    This was the media looking for a catfight and a way to make everyone remember (yet again) Bill's indiscretions.  Because catfights and indiscretions sell advertising and real issues don't.

    Parent

    I don't think Bill Clinton necessarily (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:05:31 PM EST
    made Chelsea a priority in his life while he was involved w/Monica Lewinsky.  Revelation of that sordidness must have been very embarrassing for Chelsea.

    P.S.  Michelle Obama as Lady Macbeth?

    Parent

    Because the Media is trained to do so (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:37:31 PM EST
    And I find it hard to believe the Obama campaign was unaware of that.

    Parent
    Being aware of that doesn't mean she (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Maryb2004 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:20:45 PM EST
    intended the result that occurred. Or even should have expected the result.

    I know next to nothing about Obama's wife and for all I know she may be as manipulative as Nancy Reagan.  But it seems to me that if she was really trying to draw a parallel to the Clintons she wouldn't have talked extensively about tucking her young children into bed.  She would have talked about spending time together with her husband.

    It would be nice to hear a recording rather than just see the words. A strategic pause could make all the difference in interpretation.  

    Parent

    Family values (none / 0) (#37)
    by coigue on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:13:19 PM EST
    is totally intentional and specific as a right-wing dog whistle.

    Parent
    Where does the phrase "family values" (none / 0) (#39)
    by Geekesque on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:13:57 PM EST
    appear in that quote?

    Parent
    It is quoted in the article (none / 0) (#47)
    by coigue on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:32:19 PM EST
    with quotes around it. Certainly that is out of context. But you have to admit that "family values" are popularly considered a very narrow representation of possible healthy families, and you also have to admit that the Obamas fit quite well in that narrow club and she was pointing that out.

    Parent
    So what's your point? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Maryb2004 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:01:06 PM EST
    I said it clearly wasn't intended as a swipe at Hillary.  I don't see how the use of the word values or even the phrase family values, even if used intentionally, proves that Hillary was an intended target (if she even had an intended target).

    Parent
    This is a case of the media lying about (none / 0) (#34)
    by Geekesque on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:08:07 PM EST
    Michelle Obama.

    For Pete's sake, if she can't talk about her own family and what a good father her husband is without people trying to manufacture a false controversy, something needs to change--and it isn't Michelle Obama.

    Parent

    That's assuming a degree of conniving... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Chris Andersen on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:10:53 PM EST
    ...on the part of Michelle that I just don't think she's capable of. Let's not fall for the traditional media trap of assuming that EVERY statement has an ulterior subtext.

    Parent
    It could be interpreted that way... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Chris Andersen on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:08:58 PM EST
    ...if what you WANT to see is a cat fight between Michelle and Hillary.

    Otherwise, it is obvious that Michelle was talking only about her own family.

    Parent

    The reporter got it wrong (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by eric on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 12:13:31 PM EST
    This looks pretty innocuous to me.  The reporter that wrote "but it could be interpreted as a swipe at the Clintons" was really reaching.  Beyond reaching, really.  Just plain making stuff up.  This is just Michelle Obama talking about how she and her husband are campaigning while at the same time taking care of the kids.


    Parent
    Raeching to say the least (none / 0) (#74)
    by Chris Andersen on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:12:56 PM EST
    A significant number of traditional media reporters are probably salivating at the prospect of a cat fight between Hillary and Michelle. So they are primed to wildly misintepret comments like this in order to fulfill that desire.

    Parent
    "family values"????? (none / 0) (#6)
    by coigue on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:30:08 AM EST
    that's a right-wing buzzword when used in a sentence
    where she is talking about how proud she is to suport her husband's career.

    THe term has a history, and it is insulting to anyone who chooses another family model.

    Parent

    but... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Anonymous Liberal on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:39:28 AM EST
    ...it would cease to be a right-wing buzzword if Democrats made an effort to reclaim it. It's not in and of itself an intolerant or objectionable term, particularly not the way Michelle Obama used it. Keeping families together is a good thing.  Kids who grow up in tight, loving families (in whatever form) do better than kids that grow up neglected or in dysfunctional families.  

    This anger seems really misplaced to me.  

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#12)
    by Peaches on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:48:57 AM EST
    There is nothing wrong with "family Values" and there is no reason that "Liberals" or "Democrats" should not reclaim the term from evangelical Christain conservatives.

    From the link,

    But as the campaign has moved along, her speeches have become stronger, funnier and more personable. She speaks with more emotion than her husband; you feel she is the power propelling him, that she has the psychological mettle, the tough skin, the searing ambition.

    My colleague Mary Mitchell asked Michelle how she was able to "snag Barack." But Obama knows he is the lucky one. At least he should know. Michelle is an incredible asset to his campaign.

    This does not sound Anti-woman to me, but rather a testament to the importance of Michelle Obama to the character of her husband.

    Parent

    I think she is reassuring (none / 0) (#40)
    by coigue on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:14:51 PM EST
    conservatives that they share some 'family values.'

    Parent
    reclaiming a word (none / 0) (#45)
    by coigue on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:29:55 PM EST
    would be much MORE effective if it were a lovely lesbian couple using the word, rather than in the context of a woman supporting her man and taking care of the kids.

    (Which is also noble, but I fail to see how it reclaims an already overly narrow term)

    Parent

    Dems that are already living (none / 0) (#56)
    by coigue on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:48:50 PM EST
    within the overly narrow boundries of "family values" are hardly in a position to reclaim the term.

    Show me a nice lesbian couple with two kids, then talk to me about reclaiming the term.

    OTOH, it is now unclear whether she ever put the words "family"and "values" together.

    Parent

    sorry (none / 0) (#57)
    by coigue on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:59:41 PM EST
    i didn't mean to repeat myself. I didn't get enough sleep last night.

    Parent
    It's not all about Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Anonymous Liberal on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:34:07 AM EST
    Jeralyn,

    I think it's a stretch to say this remark was intended as a swipe at Hillary.  That's not at all clear from the context.  People say a lot of things when they're touring around the country and the press has a tendency to overanalyze everything and try to stir up controversy.

    I have to agree to an extent (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:36:02 AM EST
    and yet that seems to be the play the article gives it and it is not at all clear that that was not the intended effect.

    I: think it is not so clear.

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 01:52:21 PM EST
    that it's unclear.

    Part of me wants to give her the benefit of the doubt, particularly given the context of the exact remarks.  Also, I'm tired of smart, independent women (read Hillary Clinton in 1992) being beaten down by the media and don't really want to engage in that.  Again.

    Part of me, however, can't help but wonder at a campaign that doesn't realize a statement like that will inevitably be taken by the MSM as a slap at Clinton (both because so much of the election coverage has been about Obama v. Clinton and the general obsession with the Clinton private life) or if the campaign does realize that and doesn't care.  It's not exactly a terrible storyline for the Obama campaign to have both the initial read and the "correction" in the news at the same time Clinton is being hit on her "negatives."

    Parent

    "She didn't elaborate....." (none / 0) (#26)
    by magster on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:31:26 PM EST
    It turns out Michelle Obama did elaborate, putting the quote in the context of her own family.  

    The Sun-Times reporter should be reprimanded or suspended.

    Parent

    It CLEARLY was not a reference to Hillary. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Geekesque on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:04:09 PM EST
    Indeed, the full context makes that clear:

    That one of the most important things that we need to know about the next President of the United States is, is he somebody that shares our values? Is he somebody that respects family? Is a good and decent person? So our view was that, if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House. So, so we've adjusted our schedules to make sure that our girls are first, so while he's traveling around, I do day trips. That means I get up in the morning, I get the girls ready, I get them off, I go and do trips, I'm home before bedtime. So the girls know that I was gone somewhere, but they don't care. They just know that I was at home to tuck them in at night, and it keeps them grounded, and, and children, the children in our country have to know that they come first. And our girls do and that's why we're doing this. We're in this race for not just our children, but all of our children.

    To characterize this as an attack on Hillary is truly Drudgian.  That reporter should be publicly reprimanded, if not fired.

    Parent

    Come on (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by DA in LA on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:59:29 AM EST
    Now you are doing the work of Republicans.  To assume that was a swipe at Hillary is a big stretch.

    Not vs Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by robrecht on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 12:16:45 PM EST
    I think the Obamas are in general trying to appeal to families and religious and reclaim this demographic from the fundamentalist war mongers.  Very good.

    PS: I apologize to all fundentalists who are not war mongers!

    Wipe the tear away (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Jgarza on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 12:17:39 PM EST
    I love what big cry babies Clinton supporters are.  I guess the way she is going to fight the "right wing machine" is by crying about them.  I, for one, can't wait.  She has been so effective at it. I mean thanks to her great skill at fighting the "right wing machine" we have universal health care.  Caving on welfare reform was a great idea, what a way to fight them. The Clinton's brought us DADT and DOMA,that really stuck it to the right wing machine.

    So under a Clinton administration we will fight the "right wing machine," about how mean they are to Hillary, and triangulate on policy. Sounds like a great way to move forward from Bush.

    Yes, HRC is such a victim. Puhleeze. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 01:42:40 PM EST


    As a hardcore Gore supporter (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by bronte17 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 02:37:00 PM EST
    I will say that Michelle Obama is a striking woman with a strong sense of herself and her family. Her presence in this presidential campaign is a positive one for women.

    This is being taken out of context... considering her persona and strength of character. Obama shouldn't apologize for his wife.  Good gawd, what a woman she is and Obama is lucky to have her.

    She is a cornerstone of strength and power for that family. This woman graduated cum laude from Princeton and has a JD from Harvard.    

    "I am tired of being afraid . . . I don't want my girls to live in a country that is based on fear."

    Michelle said she travels with her husband in part "to model what it means to have family values," adding "if you can't run your own house, you can't run the White House."
    ...
    But as the campaign has moved along, her speeches have become stronger, funnier and more personable. She speaks with more emotion than her husband; you feel she is the power propelling him, that she has the psychological mettle, the tough skin, the searing ambition.

    My colleague Mary Mitchell asked Michelle how she was able to "snag Barack." But Obama knows he is the lucky one. At least he should know. Michelle is an incredible asset to his campaign.

    If this were intended as a hit on Clinton, then it applies to her position as a sitting Senator (her "house"). She supported the Iraq War.

    Actually, it applies to many of these Democratic candidates who voted for the Iraq War, not just Clinton.

    Hypocracy (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by phedeen on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 08:45:27 AM EST
    Jeri,
         In looking at the 2008 election stories on this site, there are a number of posts critical of Obama, and none critical of HC. Why is that?

         Are you making "personal attacks" about Obama? The text doesn't bear out the Drudge interpretation of Michelles' comments, and you have no proof that what she said was a campaign plan to attack HC.

         I find your implication that he's using his wife as the messenger to be a cheap shot - do you think Bill is "used as a messenger" for HCs' campaign? Is that a problem for you, or is it ok because he's a man (or because he is the spouse of the candidate you support)?

         I too don't like to see Dems engaging in personal attacks on other Dems, whether by candidates or bloggers. Please stop.

    Jeralyn has not hid the fact that she is a big (none / 0) (#81)
    by Geekesque on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 03:32:03 PM EST
    Hillary supporter and similarly has been upfront that she is not a fan of anyone named Obama.

    Parent
    TalkHillary (none / 0) (#82)
    by Aaron on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 03:58:24 PM EST
    Then perhaps Jeralyn should change the name of this blog to Hillarytalk, since Hillary Rodham Clinton certainly isn't the most left-leaning candidate in the race, quite the contrary, these days she represents the moderate to right-leaning segment of the Democratic Party. So I suppose in this case Jeralyn has allowed her personal preference to compromise her political leanings, or she believes that Hillary is far more progressive than she lets on.  In other words Clinton has had to pretend to be a moderate in order to acquire and maintain her seat in the Senate, and her position as the front runner in the Democratic race.  If so then she is just another one of those in our government who is comfortable practicing deceptive politics.

    The left want to know what Hillary will do in Iraq as president, will she keep our military there for another 5 or 10 years?  If so, the people of this nation have a right to know before she gets the Democratic nomination.  We're not going to sit back and allow the candidates for our presidency to avoid telling us what they're going to do when they get into office.  I know where Barack Obama stands, but Clinton doesn't want to give us a straight answer.

    For the record, I do not support an immediate pullout from Iraq, that would be irresponsible and dangerous, but I live in a democratic republic, where the people are sovereign, and I am willing to bow to the will of the people of this nation, unlike some of our elected representatives who were specifically placed in the House and the Senate to carry out the people's will, and have not done so.


    Parent

    "TalkLeft" (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 04:18:04 PM EST
     --change to TalkProgressive?

    The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

    The title is probably o.k. but the description doesn't really fit at present.  


    Parent

    I'm thinking it should be (none / 0) (#85)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 04:47:17 PM EST
    TalkJimakaPPJ. Is it just me or he getting more prolific? Some threads lately it seems like he's posting 1/4 to 1/3 or even more of all the comments.

    Parent
    You are sure to be (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 05:07:04 PM EST
    "called out" in the subject line!  If you are reading the open thread, you will see a pleasant exchange, with some didacticism, but, overall, in good spirit; mostly about sports and aging.

    P.S.  Your observations ring true.

    Parent

    Those pleasantries (none / 0) (#88)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 05:23:58 PM EST
    and side discussions of gardening etc are meant to blunt responses to his usual nonsense, IMO. Fine, we're all human, but I already knew that.

    Parent
    Is there a history of posting poems? (none / 0) (#89)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 05:25:35 PM EST


    Parent
    Oh no (none / 0) (#91)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 05:33:24 PM EST
    Is he charming you with his lyricism now?

    Parent
    Unlikely, but it is surprising. (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 05:35:27 PM EST
    The subject of this discussion once replied to one of my inquiries by stating he is allergic to us.  

    Parent
    He Did Post (none / 0) (#99)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 05:51:56 PM EST
    The Oscar Wilde Poem The Ballad of Reading Gaol. He trivialized it as he is pro death penalty.

    Parent
    I am certainly not a defender of PPJ (none / 0) (#90)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 05:31:55 PM EST
    but if he does 1/4 to 1/3 of the comments, the other 3/4 to 2/3 are Edger, squeaky and Dark Avenger. Oh and BTD, as is his right.

    From what I've seen, most threads are interesting for the first couple hours or so and then those 4 bicker for three more days.

    Not that I don't get caught up in a bicker once in a while my own bad self, but if you think it's all PPJ...

    Parent

    Its interesting because my first day (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 05:34:15 PM EST
    commenting on TalkLeft I was barred for submitting too many comments!  [The chatterer rule.]

    Parent
    I can't explain that! (none / 0) (#94)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 05:36:09 PM EST


    Parent
    Did You Get (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 05:37:30 PM EST
    Limited to 4 a day or were you posting so fast that you got an automated message that said take a break?  

    Hard to imagine that you were relegated to chatterer status.

    Parent

    It was an automatic message. I (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 05:44:07 PM EST
    e-mailed for an explanation and Jeralyn sd. I was o.k. Very quick response too.

    Parent
    That's Not (none / 0) (#100)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 05:55:58 PM EST
    A chatterer. Your brain and fingers were just too fast for the system. I got it once too, and was suprised.

    Parent
    What TalkLeft needs is a Jotter. (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 05:39:29 PM EST


    Parent
    Jotter? (none / 0) (#101)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 05:56:39 PM EST
    What's that?

    Parent
    Jotter is a fixture at Daily Kos who (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 05:59:19 PM EST
    assembles a spread sheet as to the impact of various diaries on that site. Number of comments, views, recommendations, etc.  Pretty impressive.  I think he can also tell who has commented the most, gotten the most kudos for comments, etc.  

    Parent
    Co-dependents (none / 0) (#103)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 06:01:29 PM EST
    I don't think much would be lost if people stopped responding to him. I suppose there's something to be said for it as an exercise in keeping argumentation skills honed, but the quality sure drops, as you said, after the first few hours. And no one ever gains an insight or changes their mind in those dragged-out "discussions."

    To me it seems that when it's just a matter of reflex rebutting and there's never any sign of reconsideration or evolution in thought that there's little point in engaging. It's just throwing up competing propaganda points, and it's getting stale.

    Maybe I'm just cranky today, but I expect more from this site, where people of quite a range of different views rub shoulders, more mixed than most.

    Parent

    I hear you and agree. (none / 0) (#104)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 06:12:53 PM EST


    Parent
    Revisionism (none / 0) (#105)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 06:13:37 PM EST
    It is a GOP trend to repeat a lie so many times that it appears to be true. Digby puts it in a nutshell while critisizing dub for his new history lesson on Pol Pot.
    But, you know, as Bush often says, history is for dead people. (Or something like that.) These pomo neocon historians are hard at work rejiggering the narratives all the time, both current and historical. (I'm beginning to think it's a massive mind-f[*]ck operation done with the express purpose of making us all crazy having to defend the obvious all the time. Perhaps they figure we'll just give up at some point and submit to their will out of sheer exhaustion.)

    digby


    Parent

    BTW (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:11:03 PM EST
    Let me phrase a question for you that I am asked all the time when I say I support Kucinich:

    Why do you support someone who has no chance?

    If you want to be progressive, BE PROGRESSIVE.

    Kucinich and his cuffs (none / 0) (#86)
    by Aaron on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 05:05:10 PM EST
    Somebody please tell Dennis to have the cuffs of his shirts tailored, so they don't slip over his hands while he's gesticulating, making him look like a little boy in too big a shirt, as I saw happen during the AFL-CIO debates.

    Parent
    First Hillary's cleavage, now this. (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 05:37:01 PM EST


    Parent
    Hillary backs the Surge (3.50 / 2) (#9)
    by cmpnwtr on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:39:17 AM EST
    Hillary has dug herself a hole now, with comments being reported by the wires that she thinks the surge is a great thing, especially in Anbar province. Now that is really a puzzle, since Anbar wasn't even part of the surge. So she has misspoke and the MSM have done their usual job of crappy reporting.

    Hillary didn' back the surge (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by robrecht on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 12:08:37 PM EST
    See the account over at Raw Story.  It seems the AP and Drudge misquoted her, but the NYT had a better account and Hillary's campaign also has released a clarifying statement.

    Parent
    Be Careful! (none / 0) (#76)
    by Chris Andersen on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:17:20 PM EST
    The media is in a "play up any Iraq-positive comments from Democrats mode". So any Democrat who even suggest in the least that ONE thing might be going right in Iraq will be played up by the media as if they are endorsing the Surge and the entire Bush Iraq strategy.

    There are obviously going to be periods of localized improvement in Iraq. But these are limited to region and time and can change on a moments notice (the region that just suffered the worst car bombing since the war began was previously characterized as one of the calmest).

    Parent

    Questionable tactics, and miscalculations (1.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Aaron on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:08:52 PM EST
    I'm glad to see that this little Obama smear machine is losing traction with the talkleft kids, looks like Jeralyn and Armando have miscalculated when they decided to jump on the Clinton boat, and proceed to spin everything they can latch onto Hillary's way.  I think you guys may have underestimated the readers of your own blog.

    One can only speculate upon the motivation for this rather hard line pro-Clinton stance, but it has a rather desperate feel to it that's hard to figure in a race where Hillary has a double-digit lead.  As I've asserted in other comments, the American people are not going to swallow the politics of fear this time around, so perhaps Hillary and her supporters had better rethink their strategy before her poll numbers begin plummeting as a result of their own actions.

    It's a new day in America, and the Democratic front runners better get with the program, Obama saw it early, but Hillary is still playing it safe, and apparently trying to cater to the voters who according to some she has little chance of winning over.  Obama is obviously trying to define himself, as opposed to letting the other candidates define him, while Hillary on the other hand already finds herself well defined by the right as a lefty, and by much of a left as a sellout to the Republican agenda.  So why are her poll numbers so high, can we really trust these media polls from the major media providers, who have their own agenda?  

    Perhaps the moderate voices in this country really are the strongest, contrary to what Markos and many others on the left would have us believe.  Perhaps Hillary Rodham Clinton's acquisition of the Democratic nomination is already a foregone conclusion, and the will of the people matters not a whit any longer.  I'm skeptical of everything at this point.

    PS I like Obama's position on Cuba, it's high time we ended this archaic Cold War fairytale.  Of course Hillary is playing it safe and proposing no change to the current US policy with Cuba.

    CNN is playing the fear tactics on this issue, talking about Florida as a swing state, and how the Cubans in Florida are staunchly Republican, and questioning Obama for opening this can of worms. So if they're so staunchly Republican why would it matter what a Democrat says about US Cuban relations, they're going to vote for a Republican anyway right?  Better rethink that one.  Cubans are funny when it comes to politics, they may register as Republicans, and talk a good Republican game, but when they get behind those partitions, and no one is looking over their shoulder, their choices might surprise many.

     I question this characterization of Cubans in South Florida, and Florida as a swing state, Florida is vastly more red than blue by county, if it weren't for the blue Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties and their large populations (where all the Cubans are by the way, more than 50% of all the Cubans in the United States, though that is sure to change with all the Cubans refugees choosing the easier route through Mexico these days as opposed to trying to paddle across the unfriendly Straits of Florida) the state would have little to no chance of going Democrat.

    Not sure why you label BTD an HRC (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:13:32 PM EST
    apologist.  I haven't seen that.  

    Parent
    I support Dodd (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 08:01:10 PM EST


    Parent
    Then how about taking a page from your candidate, (none / 0) (#80)
    by Aaron on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 03:15:01 PM EST
    And began referring to the leader of Pakistan by his rightful title, "General" Musharraf, as Chris Dodd rightly does.

    Using the title "President"  in reference to Musharraf, is not only inaccurate, but it helps perpetuate the fallacy that he is the elected representative of the people of Pakistan.  We both know that's not the case and perpetuating such propaganda is inherently wrong and dangerous.  It dilutes the definition of the word and will lead other nonelected leaders to appropriate the title.

    Reference,

      President -- 1. The chief executive of a republic

      Republic  -- 1. A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them.




    Parent
    It's not necessary to assume ulterior motives... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Chris Andersen on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:19:41 PM EST
    ...on the part of Jeralyn or BTD. When I first heard about this comment I was pissed at Obama (and I have no particular preferences in this race). But when I read the full quote I realized that her comment was taken extremely out of context in order to distort it into an attack on Hillary.

    She was talking about her OWN family dammit!

    It's a lesson we all need to learn and re-learn. Just because something is reported doesn't mean it is correct.

    Parent

    Oh ick. (none / 0) (#1)
    by coigue on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:13:38 AM EST


    ouch (none / 0) (#2)
    by eric on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:14:40 AM EST
    if you can't run your own house, you can't run the White House

    ?  What is she trying to imply?  That Hillary isn't running her house because 1)her man cheated on her or 2)she isn't a man?

    number 2 (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by coigue on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:16:39 AM EST
    and that is exactly what it is, Obama is gonna need to shovel his way out of this particular anti-woman pandering.

    Parent
    Do you always take Matt Drudge at (none / 0) (#36)
    by Geekesque on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:11:29 PM EST
    face value?

    Parent
    Jeralynn is Matt Drudge??? (none / 0) (#41)
    by coigue on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:17:52 PM EST


    Parent
    actually it's a swipe (none / 0) (#3)
    by coigue on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:15:30 AM EST
    at ANY woman who makes choices different from hers.

    Let's get real, why is she using GOP code words that 'tsk tsk' working women.

    THis really does piss me off because I take it personaly.

    It's not a swipe at Hillary, as any objective (none / 0) (#33)
    by Geekesque on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:06:43 PM EST
    reading of her full remarks in context would reveal.

    Parent
    I didn't say it was (none / 0) (#35)
    by coigue on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:11:21 PM EST
    I said it was a swipe at all women who aren't following their men around supporting his career.

    Shame on her.

    Parent

    It's a swipe if you're Matt Drudge (none / 0) (#38)
    by Geekesque on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:13:19 PM EST
    or someone with an axe to grind against the Obama campaign.

    Parent
    Wow. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by coigue on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:25:25 PM EST
    your name calling notwithstanding, using the term "family values" in such a traditional context is NOT reclaiming the term as others have said. On the contrary, it says in the undercurrent: we won't rock the boat on "non-traditional" families

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:30:29 PM EST
    I agree. That sh*t should be buried with the GOP. Also, she was taking a swipe, at who?.... Should we go through the choices?

    Parent
    The Full Quote has been posted. (none / 0) (#48)
    by Peaches on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:32:33 PM EST
    right here
    That one of the most important things that we need to know about the next President of the United States is, is he somebody that shares our values? Is he somebody that respects family? Is a good and decent person? So our view was that, if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House. So, so we've adjusted our schedules to make sure that our girls are first, so while he's traveling around, I do day trips. That means I get up in the morning, I get the girls ready, I get them off, I go and do trips, I'm home before bedtime. So the girls know that I was gone somewhere, but they don't care. They just know that I was at home to tuck them in at night, and it keeps them grounded, and, and children, the children in our country have to know that they come first. And our girls do and that's why we're doing this. We're in this race for not just our children, but all of our children.

    She does not use the term "family values." The reporter put two words together in her quote to create a controversy.

    Parent

    Are you sure that's the whole thing? (none / 0) (#49)
    by coigue on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:35:57 PM EST
    If so the reporter should be flogged, and I take it all back.

    Parent
    Now that's a position I can support! (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Chris Andersen on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:21:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Clearly (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:38:42 PM EST
    Jennifer Hunter has a position in this and has framed the quote to serve her agenda. Nonetheless that kind of talk by Obama is code for traditional family values in its unqualified state.

    It was a swipe at the competition as well.

    Parent

    Looks like she used "family values" (none / 0) (#51)
    by coigue on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:38:49 PM EST
    at another stop in Atlanta, and that that is where the quote comes from.

    I'll try to find a link.

    Parent

    can't find one (none / 0) (#53)
    by coigue on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:43:49 PM EST
    which means that she may have just made a mistake, or the reporter was making things up.

    Who knows?

    Parent

    The Clintons ARE dysfunction incarnate (none / 0) (#16)
    by Dadler on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 12:08:13 PM EST
    Why are we afraid to say it?  As if we're not all dysfunctional to some degree, as if someone with dysfunction is one area of their life can't be spot-on in another.  Bill is a guy with a profound sexual dysfunction (you don't risk what he did for it if it's not profound), and to a great degree their relationship is a perfect example of co-dependence.  Her dysfucntion kept his going, his dysfunction kept hers going.  

    As for whether Obama's wife was aiming it at Hillary, I'd say no, since Hillary DID stay with Bill and they raised a quite intelligent and impressive daughter in an intact family.  

    How do you know (none / 0) (#20)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 12:16:48 PM EST
    that she wasn't referring to Guiliani?

    And Hillary WAS defending the surge. Face it.

    seems like a romney / rudy / tammy faye swipe (none / 0) (#22)
    by seabos84 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 01:24:01 PM EST
    look at all the hypocrisy on the fascist side.

    from ollie north testifying in his uniform after being a good loyal UN-American FASCIST to ... alberto ... whatever.

    In My NOT humble opinion, all Dem campaigns should always have people who ALWAYS ATTACK --

    people who are gonna snivel and whine about debasing politics, cuz, in some bambi-esque fantasy there was some ... ha ha ha... golden era ... those people can listen to the tomes and read the soaring speeches.

    I hope Obama's wife keeps going after the despicable fascist hypocrites.

    oh, and if Hillary wasn't so in bed with the other side so often, she wouldn't have anything to worry about !

    rmm.

     

    Rudy not Hillary (none / 0) (#30)
    by austinmayor on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:25:24 PM EST
    That jab, if it was a jab, looks like a pretty naked shot at Rudy and his "Lets talk about the collapse of the World Trade Towers not the collapse of my family" policy.

    -- SCAM

    Jeralyn, I know you're a Hillary supporter (none / 0) (#31)
    by Geekesque on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:00:56 PM EST
    but this post is well beneath your standards.

    It's crystal clear that she wasn't talking about Hillary.

    FWIW (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:25:04 PM EST
    Jennifer Hunter, the former editor of North Shore magazine, has just been named to the Sun-Times editorial board. "It's a step down for her, having run the magazine successfully for almost three years," says her husband, John Cruickshank, publisher of the Sun-Times.

    link

    Clearly Jenifer Hunter is editorializing here. Although I do not like the Family Values crap. It is way too loaded and a snipe at her competition.

    A win-win for Obama. Press coverage (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:26:49 PM EST
    of his wife's remark reminds all of Bill Clinton's indiscretions, with a negative bounce back to Hillary Clinton, who, just like Michelle Obama, supported her husband.  

    Why wasn't it a swipe at Rudy? (none / 0) (#52)
    by OkieFromMuskogee on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:42:38 PM EST
    You have to be looking for a catfight in order to interpret what Michelle Obama said as a slam against Hillary.  That was Matt Drudge's take, of course.  But if you are still looking for veiled meaning in what Michelle said, Giuliani was her obvious target.

    Better still, read Michelle's statement in context, and it doesn't seem to slam anyone.

    Sorry about the language (none / 0) (#55)
    by coigue on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 04:45:52 PM EST
    I forgot where I was

    Likely story! (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:05:01 PM EST


    Parent
    lol!!! (none / 0) (#64)
    by coigue on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 06:25:23 PM EST


    Parent
    running your own house (none / 0) (#62)
    by ding7777 on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:49:47 PM EST
    should not necessarily be a prerequsite for running the White House

    In context- (none / 0) (#63)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 05:50:59 PM EST
    It is no more a swipe at the Clinton's than anyone else. It could just as well be said it is  a swipe at the Bushes. Jenna and not-Jenna being tucked in at night? Ha!
    The big differences are between the progressives and the neo-cons, not various Democratic candidates.

    what's very clear (none / 0) (#67)
    by cpinva on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:57:18 PM EST
    is that the reporter made stuff up. she decided she "knew" what ms. obama was thinking, and put that in a "news" report. how did she know this? beats me, she didn't say. maybe she read ms. obama's mind.

    as reported on rawstory, these comments are similar to those made by ms. obama at other campaign stops in the past couple of months, nothing particularly new here.

    must really be the dog days of summer.

    as for the clinton's purported (according to dadler) "dysfunctional family", would that more families were that "dysfunctional": two extremely intelligent, extremely accomplished parents, and a smart, attractive and, by all accounts, very well adjusted and successful daughter.

    yeah, i'll gladly take that kind of "dysfunction" any day.