-
Where Jill Will Talk Like She Writes
-
Don't Get Mad, Get Elected
Print This Post
May
19
When I read this story about Barack Obama in which he says to the Republican Party that they need to leave his wife out of the campaigning, I thought about all the times in the Ohio political blogs that we’ve been over the same territory, often about children but also about wives. From the article:
The GOP, should I be the nominee, I think can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record,” Obama said. “I’ve been in public life for 20 years. I expect them to pore through everything that I’ve said, every utterance, every statement. And to paint it in the most undesirable light possible. That’s what they do.”
“But I do want to say this to the GOP. If they think that they’re going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful. Because that I find unacceptable,” he said.
While I share Obama’s belief that the spouses of candidates should not be the target of an opponent’s campaign, I also know that given the current precedent in regard to that issue, on the local, state and national level, I find his warning kind of naive.
I do believe that spotlighting this line now gives Obama the chance to truly make it something to be observed. But it will also require his campaign to stay away from everything Cindy McCain. And you know what - if the can, that would be a fabulous new precedent to set.
But the Obama campaign definitely got into it about Bill Clinton. So, to now say the spouses are off limits? It’s reasonable, I can empathize, I wish it were the case that the spouses were out of the picture.
But given the history of the relevance of spouses in presidential campaigns (something about which I learned for an entire day over this past weekend), the practice may be very hard to eradicated.
Sphere: Related ContentBy Jill Miller Zimon at 12:52 pm May 19th, 2008 in Politics
Comments
11 Responses to “Obama hasn’t met Kevin DeWine if he thinks wives are off-limits to GOP campaigning”
Leave a Reply
-
Look Who's Talented
Twitter Updates
Miscellaneous
View my page on Women Action and the Media
Lijit Search
Power By Ringsurf
MTB
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Jill-
I wrote about this today also. Michelle Obama has inserted herself into the campaign already so I think it is a bit late for that. I don’t think that she, or any other spouse, should be attacked but to have public statements analyzed and criticized, really isn’t an attack.
Let’s think back to the Clinton years. Was Hillary Clinton not maligned?
Yeah, I know - I agree with Obama’s sentiment, I think many people in a loving relationship who place themselves up for election would feel the same way. It’s completely natural - where as believing that a spouse or loved one, who isn’t running for public office, is completely safe for all kinds of ridiculousness in negative campaigning is unnatural to me - it’s the worst of someone getting the best of them. Right up there with deadly sins.
And hey - Obama and Clinton have both changed a whole of expectations - maybe he can succeed here, esp. by putting out here so early. But I just have doubts about how successful he will be and how it will impact his campaign and supporters as it related to Cindy McCain - we know that there are ardent Obama supporters who love going after her.
So - we’ll see if chivalry will rue the day, but frankly, given some of the other sexist stuff that’s gone on in this campaign, the mixed messages are just pretty overwhelming.
This is one of the reasons why I came to dislike Obama so much. Early in the campaigning, Michelle told a crowd that someone who couldn’t take care of their own house couldn’t be trusted to run the White House in an obvious reference to Hillary’s marital problems. More recently, one of Obama’s supporters likened Bill Clinton to Joe McCarthy, while Obama was standing there.
Sanctimonious people are invariably blind to their own shortcomings.
Tess you are right. I remember that comment and thinking how utterly ridiculous it was. She has taken a few shots at Hillary along the way so I don’t think she will be out of bounds by any point.
Barack Obama is extremely naive, and yet again there limits being set on what we can and cant talk about with regards to him….in most campaigns spouses and children were typically off limits…but it did occur…in 1992 and 1996 Hillary Clinton was certainly talked about by the GOP during Bill Clintons campaigns…Teresa Heinz Kerry was scrutinized repeatedly in 2004, and this year the Obama camp repeatedly criticized former president Bill Clinton who is also a spouse. Unlike other spouses Michelle Obama has inserted herself into the campaign and been in the spotlight more than spouses in the past. She has in campaign stump speeches directly criticized Senator Clinton, as well as John Mccain, and has been very quick to talk about public policy and in our own words…tells voters what she and Barack hope to accomplish in this campaign. Laura Bush was not attacked in campaigns of 2000 and 2004 because she did not inject herself into the campaing the way that Michelle Obama has, and therefor Michelle Obama is fair game. Why should she be off limits to criticisms when she is out there attacking OBamas opponents? As a democrat I am very scared of an OBama president, but I am more scared of Michelle Obama being our first lady. So GOP continue to go after Michelle all you want cause she is totally fair game.
Tess - no question, those issues you cite feed into the least appealing aspects of Obama. We know of course that Clinton likewise has some pretty unappealing aspects.
I wonder - is it even possible for a presidential candidate, or any political candidate, to really not be seen as having unappealing qualities? Seems endemic to having to elect people, you know?
Michael - On what behaviors or positions of Michelle Obama’s do you base your fear? That sounds a little extreme to me. Even Hillary Clinton scaled back her involvement over the eight years, relative to what we might have thought it was going to be. I’m not seeing what you seem to be projecting.
What exactly is bothering you about the image of her as First Lady?
Jill,
I think that all candidates show some warts during the course of a campaign. There are two issues that make Obama different in this regard, imo.
The first and most important is that the heart of his early appeal was the promise that he offered a new way of doing the people’s business. If he truly did that, I would support him with no hesitation. The fact is that he offers “politics as usual”. If I have to live with politics as usual, I prefer the tried-and-true candidate.
The second issue is that Obama’s warts revolve around two hot button issues for me. The first is sexism and the second is the misuse of religion in politics. That includes Obama’s use of televangelism techniques to build his base. The messiah images that permeated his campaign creeped me out from the start.
I’m not a Clinton fanatic. There are things about her that grate on me terribly. The bottom line is that she is still the smartest and best prepared of the three candidates left in the race.
It is about what’s best for the country, right?
Obama seems to be guilty of attempted Galahadism in this case. He can’t be that stupid - he has to know that in American presidential politics EVERYTHING is fair game. I think he wanted to strike a pose as the protector of his wife’s reputation and perhaps show himself in the ’strong husband/leader’ role that might appeal to more traditional families. In any case, feminists hate Galahadism and no one on the right is going to buy it anyway.
Tess - I chose to vote for Clinton primarily because I decided that the risk of the downside of how entrenched she is in Wash., DC would be less costly than the risk of Obama’s newness and naivete. There were other elements to be sure, but that balance is the one I used to make the final decision.
Now - I was a Biden fan, and a Dodd fan and a Richardson fan. And i’ve learned my lesson - I thought it was a foregone conclusion and I didn’t do a thing for any of those candidates, when I should have. And now I feel “stuck” - I can live with either Clinton or Obama - but I have no adoration for either one and see the contributions they make and the detractions as well.
Part of me feels that Bush and his ilk have so irrevocably fucked us up in terms of trust that we can’t possibly figure out WHAT will be “best” for our country - you know? Some of what Obama says could be best, some of what Clinton says could be best. They really offer two very different paths - it’s really quite simple in many ways. Much like the Tin Man in the Wizard of Oz, when he crosses his arms and says, “This way!”
Anyway - that’s how I feel - which is why I absolutely cannot and will not get whipped up into thinking that a protest vote is what’s necessary. That is just not going to solve our problems - any of them, and certainly not in the long run.
Last thing I’ll add: I’m rather insulted by the supporters who say it will be another generation before there will be another female presidential candidate who is viable.
That shows a total lack of faith and/or understanding or recognition of the efforts going on nonstop around the country to get and keep women in the political pipeline.
We need to be augmenting those efforts and keeping the pressure up on multiple fronts.
And I feel confident that with a McCain presidency, efforts like those will absolutely be in danger. Here in Ohio - the female GOP candidates in the state senate are nearly extinct (Dems are doing better).
Anyway - thanks for engaging.
Bad American, “feminists” are not the Borg. Your statement reeks of prejudice.
You also miss the point, at least, you missed the one that I made. Obama was fine with his wife attacking Senator Clinton on her personal life. His response would resonate with me if he had demonstrated similar gallantry to his mother or grandmother or women in general.
Instead, he seems to be, once again, playing a part.