Lambert, wisest man in lefty blogosphere

why apply that name to oneself?

There must be something - anything - more worthwhile to focus on.

"So disregarding those that are turned off by those things because of their own beliefs, when do we recognize it does not work as a political strategy to win? That our opponents will use this and more lies connected to it to defeat us? Is it morally wrong for us to be politically expedient in rejecting a candidate that may be politically wounded by his choices (but not a bad character himself)?"

It's really not about Michelle or her comments, so much as about how Obama deals with all of this--and about the very real impact these things have--true or not.

Obama himself responding badly, and non-denying this tape matters.

It is just stupid to deny that it won't be an issue. And I'll do my damndest to defend both of them if it comes out, but let's be honest, it's a campaign killer. My defense, your defense, the entire blogosphere's defense won't matter.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

I have no idea whether any tape exists. If it does it will definitely hurt his campaign. But I'm not going to go around discussing the political implications of something that may not even exist (and even if it does may not be nearly as "damaging" as portrayed).

Obama plays lousy defense, I grant you that. But I see no reason why I should read anything into his answer other than what's there. First, because Obama is incapable of speaking in short, direct sentences so who knows whether he intended to be evasive or was just being his usual indirect, mostly content-free self. Second, to the extent it's a lousy answer, I'm sure those who care about this "issue" can make that point.

I have enough problems with Obama without arguing over whether he sufficiently denied the existence of a tape that there's no evidence actually exists.

It's what they do.

Just tell them put up or shut up, and don't give their ratfucking campaign any oxygen.

What's really interesting is that I've got a clip of John McCain getting Eiffel Towered by a Great Dane and Lee Raymond. But I'm sitting on it until October, natch. Tell your friends. Trust me.

But I still believe And I will rise up with fists!!

I know you'd want to be clued in on this since you normally go along with the line that all the divisiveness and racial wedges have been employed by Obama's camp.

"There have been signals coming out of the Clinton campaign that have racial overtones that indeed disturb me," Andrews said at his campaign headquarters in Cherry Hill Tuesday night after he lost his bid for the U.S. Senate nomination. "Frankly, I had a private conversation with a high-ranking person in the campaign ... that used a racial line of argument that I found very disconcerting. It was extremely disconcerting given the rank of this person. It was very disturbing."

—Superdelegate says Clinton campaign used 'divisive tactics', http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/06...

Now, I'm sure you will find a way not to believe him, but thought I'd give you the chance.

___________________________
.delusions of un mundo mejor.

in regards to this matter...

Obama brought this on himself.

I'm feeling zero sympathy.

I'm sure Larry will speak on this all soon enough, he's a grown man and can explain himself.

But I'll post a link to an Al Green performance on this Friday in hopes that it provides a distraction.

Lay it down on Letterman

I have no idea whether Rob Andrews is telling the truth or not, although I will say if her campaign said something truly offensive and he continued to back her, then that doesn't speak much better of him than it does of her.

But I find it fascinating that even after Obama has won, when he desperately needs to find a way to unify the party behind him (which is supposed to be his specialty, Unity, isn't it?), there's still a movement afoot to crush her, to humiliate her, to ensure that her character is destroyed. Now we know why so many Obama supporters kept complaining about Clinton not taking on McCain even though they spent much more time beating on her than him. Now that Obama has become the presumptive nominee, you'd think more of his supporters would do what they said had to be done IMMEDIATELY in all those demands that Clinton drop out for the last two months - unify the party and turn their fire on McCain. Even though everyone, including Clinton, has acknowledged Obama is the presumptive nominee, that still hasn't happened.

It gets clearer every day that most of the Obaam movement (and isn't it interesting that apparently smearing Clinton is how you now get on Obama's good side, whether that's accurate or just what this SD thinks, it's quite telling), even it's new members, are more interested in destroying the Clinton wing of the party than beating McCain.

As lambert says, if it feels like I'm being purged it's because I am.

It should've vetted him. That they may not have and he may end up melting down over the summer is not something I can do anything about. They got the candidate they wanted.

Why...

yes, he did.

Slate-- Nasty Rumors: Deny or Ignore?--

"... Compare that with John Edwards, who did his best not to address the National Enquirer report that he had fathered a child with a former campaign worker. When a mainstream reporter asked him about it, Edwards’ gave a curt response—"Tabloid trash, completely false"—and moved on. He kept the quote short and noncontextualized, presumably to make it harder for the networks to report it. Obama, by contrast, spoke in full paragraphs, making it practically impossible not to report it. ..."

at least for me is this:

Let's get something clear. I do not give a flying fuck if Michelle Obama did say "whitey" in some video tape from whenever and wherever and with whomever she supposedly said it. Period. I sincerely doubt that anything we finally see will rise to the level of what we have been led to believe happened. Furthermore, I do not care if Michelle Obama is unpleasant, nice as apple pie, indifferent to the world, filled with petty resentment, serene and loving, or anything else about the state of her psyche. I'm willing to wager she is all of those things depending on where she is and who she's talking to, just as every major public female figure I have read about has had her inner soul meticulously dissected before the public eye and has been found wanting. The assault on Michelle Obama is exactly like the assault on Hillary Clinton when Bill was running for the White House. It is mean, vile, sexist, crude, derogatory and beneath contempt.

I do not think that it's a coincidence that this campaign targets Michelle Obama. The GOP must've noticed the wave of misogyny that the media and many fauxgressives unleashed, stoked, and tolerated, including the DNC itself. A perfect landscape onto which to launch this kind of attack.

There may be some sense of karma in seeing Michelle Obama turned into the same kind of "monster" that the GOP tried to turn Hillary Clinton into and that her husband leveraged in this campaign and which I didn't hear her object to. Or that the Obama campaign appears to have deliberately set out to create this kind of environment or at least did nothing to stop it and even now is using it to try to keep Hillary from getting a damned thing out of this.

But, here's the thing. Misogyny against any woman hurts all women. Racism against any one person of color hurts all people of color.

If it's just more of this misogynistic bullshit that's been thrown at Hillary Clinton for 16 years, I'm not about to participate in that. That the GOP may have done it against other wives, doesn't mean I'm going to. And all wives do not get attacked. Laura Bush was not attacked. Barbara Bush was mostly not attacked (despite the fact she is one of the more despicable members of that family). But then they also took a backseat - or pretended to.

Hillary Clinton was attacked. Teresa Heinz Kerry was attacked. Elizabeth Edwards was attacked (mostly by the media). Michelle Obama will be attacked. All accomplished. All strong. All outspoken. All Democrats. Not a coincidence as far as I'm concerned.

BTW, I'm not going to countenance misogynistic bullshit attacks against Cindy McCain either. Criticize her financial dealings or question her refusal to release her tax returns since she's paid for so much of her husband's campaign, but I'll defend her against sexist crap. As I hope I would any woman.

Because, again, some more, sexism and misogyny directed at any woman hurt all women.

you think they won't use it now--against a Democrat? When both the candidate and his spouse have given them soundbites to use????

Lest I be considered a meanie...

Michelle doesn’t get to wrap herself in any kind of protection that Hillary and Bill were denied in their times as spouses—doing that is inherently patronizing and un-equal.

The amount of time the media, so-called liberal bloggers, AND the Obama campaign spent parsing every single word that has came out of Bill's mouth...

the sudden calls to 'be careful' re:Michelle shall fall on deaf ears.

The media critique needs a reboot, and it ain't about to happen now.

The reason I'm so pissed at Obama is that his campaign in many, many ways violated my values. The answer to that, IMO, is not to then engage in attacks against him that violate my values.

I will not sink to his or the GOP's level.

As for that tape, either it exists or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then I haven't fallen for some GOP ratfucking tactic. If it does exist, then Obama can explain why he lied in denying it existed and try to deal with whatever political fallout comes his way, assuming there's even anything offensive on it.

What I won't do is assume Michelle Obama said something offensive because she's an outspoken black woman and you know how those people are.

they tried to make his own middle name off-limits and painted all mentions of it as an unfair attack--it's not automatically one no matter what they want people to think.

nor was Bill being racist when he brought up Jesse or called Obama's Iraq stuff a "fairytale".

Immediately painting stuff (and the intentions behind mentions of stuff) as misogynist is just as wrong.

Eh.

What I won’t do is assume Michelle Obama said something offensive because she’s an outspoken black woman and you know how those people are.

Shoe doesn't fit, so I won't wear it. (ha!)

As for my ethical standards...

The answer to that, IMO, is not to then engage in attacks against him that violate my values.

I'll have to save a clearer response to that for later...

Gotta run, have a good weekend.

Shouldn't attacking someone for their middle name be off limits? If for no other reason than it's stupid.

I agree that Bill wasn't being racist when he said his fairytale comment. I agree that the Obamas twisted the comment horribly. What I don't agree with is now twisting their comments in the same way.

Nor am I going to engage in the kind of mind reading that has led our famously free media to destroy political commentary in this country. What they've been doing to the Clintons for sixteen years. I have no idea if Michelle Obama's statement about this being the first time she's proud of her country was what she believes or was simply poor wording. What's more, I don't care. It's this kind of political discourse that's rotting our culture.

If others want to attack him for this, that's up to them. I'm only saying what I won't do.

I'm no Obama fan. If the election were held tomorrow, I don't know that I could make myself vote for him (never, ever voting for McCain). But it's not because of Michelle's proud thing or his middle name. If the GOP or others want to attack him on those things, they're free to. Since I don't care about those things and think they're bullshit issues, then I'm not going to.

Misogyny comes in all sorts of shapes and forms. The GOP and media have a history of going after the smart, outspoken wives of Democratic candidates and while some attacks may have been launched against GOP wives, it pales in comparison to what they've done to the Dems, with the possible exception of Nancy Reagan, who I will note was seen publicly as having a lot of influence in a way the Bush wives were not. So she was derided for her astrologer, just as Hillary was derided (falsely) for talking to Eleanor Roosevelt. Funny how strong women who could get men fired were made to look a little looney, that is when they weren't being painted as power mad bitches. And I say that as someone who has no love for Nancy Reagan.

Now, they will use racism to stoke resentment of the Obamas. But they will also target Michelle, particularly if she says anything remotely "controversial" or indicates she might have her own opinions. It will be all mixed up with the racist "other" crap, but it will still be there. Because political wives are not allowed to have opinions of their own. They are supposed to look into the camera and smile with the deadened eyes of Laura Bush (what has happened to her in the last eight years? I almost don't recognize her).

So now I've defended the Obamas and Nancy Reagan. Go forth and sin, hell has frozen over.

They made CDS a platform plank.

Look how that worked out for them. It worked, temporarily.

------------------------------------------------
“Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are.”
- Franklin D. Roosevelt

NYT-- She Dresses to Win -- " WHILE it’s not often that Michelle Obama and Barbara Bush appear in the same sentence, there are those who think that, as Barack Obama’s historic candidacy powers along, his wife seems to be borrowing from the playbook of the wife of Bush 41 and mother of Bush 43. We are talking here in terms of image and style. ..."

to psychoanalyze women. Maybe Michelle Obama wears what she wears because it looks good on her (it does, btw).

The only male politician I can think of who has been subjected to such scrutiny was Gore and that was mostly so the press could call him a woman.

Have I mentioned lately that I HATE the media? Because I do.

and when I look at a $900 ticket, I'm thinking about car repair or major work on my house, if not a medical bill.
A dress that costs $900? To wear how often? Once?

Oh, but didn't it sing of "the Royal house," and "the color purple"?

$900 is what you pay for, like, appliances. Big ones -- fridges, freezers, washer-dryer combinations.

A dress? One. Sleeveless. Dress. $900? W.T.F.?

I begin to understand, finally, the disconnect between DC-level and real, working-folks, this-economy-sucks level subsistence.

It's all on a GOP, oil-company-expense-account, sci-fi budget, once you're in Teh Village to stay, isn't it?