We are Women, not Wedges

June 7, 2008 · Posted in Election 2008 

The New York Times has an article today about the strategy the Obama campaign intends to employ going forward, particularly with efforts to turn states that traditionally vote Republican blue. The first steps are putting a full-court press on states like Virginia, North Carolina, and Ohio.

All in all, an excellent strategy. However, this leaves me cold:

Recognizing the extent to which Republicans view Michelle Obama’s strong views and personality as a potential liability for her husband, Mr. Obama’s aides said they were preparing to bring aboard senior operatives from previous Democratic presidential campaigns to work with her, a clear departure from the typical way the spouse of a candidate is staffed. Mrs. Obama’s operation would include senior aides devoted to responding to attacks and challenges to her, particularly if she continues to campaign as much as she has so far.

Anyone old enough to remember back to 1992 can’t miss the irony here, particularly if they supported Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the nomination. Hillary Clinton was shredded in the first years of Bill Clinton’s presidency, and mostly because she dared to actively participate in his presidency. She was criticized for everything from her hairstyle to her infamous “baking cookies” comment. Nothing she said or did was good enough, and she didn’t accept the criticisms without pushing back hard.

Michelle Obama is a strong, intelligent, thinking woman who expects to use her abilities to help elect her husband. I would be disappointed if she didn’t. She is an asset, not a liability. As John McCain works to woo Clinton voters into his camp, I would encourage women to stop and consider what they are planning to do to Mrs. Obama and reconsider. Do they really want to align themselves with a party that sees a woman unafraid to speak her mind as a liability? Do they want to support a party that would attack Michelle Obama for daring to have strong views and the courage to speak them? Hillary Clinton’s candidacy was for ALL women, not just white women, or older white women. It was for all of us. Right?

Don’t we then, as Democrats, owe it to Hillary Clinton to stop this kind of sexist message from seeping into the campaign? Make no mistake, the Republicans are really, really good at creating these sorts of wedges. They want you to be afraid of Michelle Obama because she is a woman who dares to stand equal with her husband. If Hillary Clinton really pioneered a trail, evidence of it will include willingness on the part of women to set aside their resentment about her candidacy, support Michelle Obama’s efforts to work toward her husband’s election and vigorously reject ANY effort to paint Mrs. Obama into a box.

Larry Johnson’s ugly, smarmy efforts to smear her by rumor are just the first salvo. Just tonight, he revealed his true self in his post today when he declared his support for Bob Barr — possibly the most extreme, radical right conservative alive — a man who spent his time in the Congress laboring tirelessly to bring down Bill Clinton. As I suspected, Johnson was never a supporter of Hillary Clinton. What he is: An ugly little man at a computer using words, Memeorandum, and blog traffic to divert attention and support toward Hillary Clinton so he could work with his other Republican operatives to smear her if she won the nomination.

Now that Hillary Clinton has suspended her campaign, he will concentrate his efforts on Michelle Obama, as he has been doing in recent days. Each and every woman out there ought to be outraged about it, and join in collective unity to push back on the efforts of the Republicans to use women as a wedge to win the White House.

We are women, not wedges. We do not exist to be viewed as liabilities for our husbands. We have our own identities, and our own voices. If we take anything at all away from Hillary Clinton’s bid for the White House, let it be the ability to be recognized as individuals, with our own opinions and identity. We should not, and will not, be censored because Republicans don’t like it. It’s time for them to hear things they don’t like, and deal with it, because they have some ’splainin’ to do about the $4.59/gallon gas price I paid today, the $4.39/gallon milk price I paid, my veteran son who lives with us because there are no jobs that will pay him enough to remain independent, the 4,000+ dead in Iraq, the deterioration of Afghanistan, and the futures of our sons and daughters, which hangs in a very delicate and precarious balance.

Whether you supported Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, the attitude that women should all behave like Cindy McCain is one that we should credit Hillary Clinton for shattering. She didn’t just put cracks in that ceiling; she shattered it.

Don’t let them win this. They will use bitter, hard feelings to drive it in as a wedge. We are women. We know how to build bridges and we teach our children to use their words to say “I’m sorry”, and forgive. Let’s be the women that lead by example and move past the primaries into an understanding that whether it’s Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama, no woman should be subjected to the abuse being used against Michelle.

Thank you, Hillary Clinton, for enduring the abuse heaped on you and overcoming it. May we all be a credit to a better future, where such behavior is not only unacceptable, it is unheard of.

Sphere: Related Content

Tags: , , ,

Comments

  • As a PR pro, I read that graph differently. I love, love, love Michelle, but she is a bit rough around the edges, particularly in how she conducts media interviews. Not surprising considering she really hasn't been in the national spotlight until the primaries. I don't think they're going to try to make her into something she's not (i.e., a cookie-baking Hillary). I suspect they're looking to give her some polish so that she can leverage her strengths, be prepared for her critics and dazzle us even more in the general election.
  • ursulas
    This makes sense to me. Hillary was merely a pawn theme for these sexist war-mongering pigs.
  • Great post -- thanks for starting this discussion. What has surprised me most from talking to women who are strong Hillary supporters, is the amount that cite Michelle as a reason they are hesitant to vote for Barack. "She's too rough around the edges." This indicates a couple things to me....

    First, women are the ones holding our gender back. We, as women, are intimidated and turned off by strong women. Recall back to earlier in the primary race when Hillary was constantly being forced to soften her demeanor (some might call it being more "lady like").

    More importantly, people are still, unfortunately, voting based on an individual's personality (likability) -- or those of his/her family -- rather than his/her abilities and stance on the issues. It's written between the lines of this post, and it's a problem we all need to start talking about more often. When it comes to choosing a President, having an opinion on a person is not a substitute for being educated on the issues.
  • The identity politics playing out in this election are frightening. It's not entirely the fault of the voters. As an example, Hillary courted the older women's vote by invoking the suffragettes and leaders of the women's movement. Barack, by his very appearance, invited voters to choose identity over issues, and since both were so similar policy-wise, voters were just about forced into a choice based on identity.

    But as I point out below, there is also a generational struggle in place here. I can't remember one as stark as this since the 60's, when people were coming to Bobby Kennedy in droves. This is a good thing. It's time for the young people to shed their apathy toward politics and become involved again, for their own good as well as ours. I really don't want someone old enough to be my father running the country, because they're too out of touch with the issues that are emerging in this election. The war is one that affects us all, but the BILL for the war impacts young people far more than it does me. The loss of prestige around the world affects young people more than it will me. Same for environmental issues.

    I'm passionate about these issues too, but I'm not representative of all boomers, being somewhat liberal and disdainful of the establishment voters even after all these years.

    In the generational struggle, what people forget is that they RAISED these kids. Their values are different, but they still raised them to form opinions, express them, and deal with the issues at hand. So when I hear snorts of disdain about Barack Obama or downticket progressive candidates and when they allow the discourse to sink into invective and personal attacks, I can't help but wonder what double standard they adopted to arrive at such behavior.
  • @Kristen - I completely agree that woman are the ones holding women back. I've had a variety of managers through the years and the ones that have been the most encouraging and the most understanding about family issues have been the men. You would think that a woman who obtains a respected position and struggled through the issues of career and family would provide understanding and assistance. But often the opposite is true - "I suffered through it so you should too."

    @Karoli - I just discovered this site and you on twitter and am so pleased to have found it.
  • Hi Kim,

    Welcome! I'm glad to have found you too. You speak truth about women -- there is often a sense that they somehow need to put their younger sisters through a trial of fire, or give them at least a taste of their battles before they will welcome them to the fold. It's too bad.

    There is also a generational struggle at hand. In my generation (coming of age in the 70's) there is a sense that we owe women some sort of payoff for the struggle. I certainly remember the unspoken bias toward women, but far more often I found that men were eager to mentor and push the motivated smart women up the ladder -- as long as they got the credit.

    In my case, I was okay with giving the credit as long as my goals were still met. Why did I care, especially when I knew that everyone knew who was doing the work and why.

    Today, I'm a real advocate for women taking hold of their own careers and destiny through self-employment wherever possible, even if it means working on their own business while holding down their job. In the long run, I think the maximum empowerment comes to those women who do not rely upon anyone but themselves to advance, and then hopefully provide opportunities for other women to advance.
  • Here here! I expect the conservatives will have plenty of dirty tricks up their sleeves that they plan to pull out while pointing and screaming about a WOMAN who dares be an individual. They can't aim their disgust at clinton now, so Michelle will get the brunt of it. And in the runoff so will every other woman who speaks up. trickle down economics might have been a joke, but trickle down abuse never fails.
  • Concern4Civility
    Agree. Really great post. Nothing to add, other comments have said it.
  • Great post! Michelle is incredibly kind, intelligent and "the closer". Like Obama, she offers a different generational approach to politics that is very refreshing and more difficult to define under old labels and preconceptions. But that doesn't stop the GOP from trying to demonize her.
  • I really think Michelle Obama has class. One of the things I most appreciate about her is that she's not afraid to speak her mind. I also like the fact that she's an involved, loving mom even as she takes on the job of campaigning for Barack. It makes me deeply angry that there are still those out there who think it's okay to attack her simply because she's not a shrinking violet.

    The NYT also has an article on Michelle's fashion sense. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but for me, I'd much rather hear what she has to say about more important issues than what she wears to rallies. It's so typical. So stereotypical. One of the reasons I never bought into the 'pantsuit' jokes about Hillary Clinton was because I thought it was petty and mean. Geez, I wear jeans as a uniform. Sue me.

    This is the kind of sexism we all need to push back on, repudiate and reject. :)
blog comments powered by Disqus