Email This to a Friend
Criticizing Michelle Obama: Fair or Foul?
It's too late in the game for Barack Obama to warn us to lay off his wife.
I must confess I got a chuckle out of Barack Obama’s warning us all to lay off his wife. Sorry, pal, but it’s too late in the game for that. If you didn’t want her to be a legitimate target, you should have told her to stay home with the kids.
The days when the little woman remained at home while the menfolk went off to run for president ended a long time ago, back in the days of Bess Truman and Mamie Eisenhower. Ever since, we voters have been encouraged to take an interest in the wives, trying to determine whether we wanted them to represent America as the First Lady. Frankly, I’ve always suspected that Teresa Heinz-Kerry had more to do with costing her hubby the election than Kathleen Harris, hanging chads and the Supreme Court, put together — for which, I, for one, will be forever grateful.
Many years ago, another prominent Democrat came to the defense of a family member. Some Republicans had accused FDR of wasting millions of tax dollars by sending a U.S. destroyer to the Aleutian Islands to retrieve his little Scotch terrier, Fala. But at least Roosevelt had the good grace to say that he, his wife and his children, all expected to come under attack from his political opponents, but that his dog, being a thrifty Scot, would have been the first to object if the accusation had been true.
I agree that there are times when the honorable thing is to keep women out of harm’s way. That’s the way the Mafia conducts its business. You don’t go after the other guy’s wife, mother and children, because you don’t want his goombahs coming after yours. But the difference is that the dons don’t arm their women with Uzis and tell them to go out and earn their keep. Of course nobody in his right mind ever suggested that politicians were as honor-bound as Mafiosos.
Politicians tend to turn campaigns into family endeavors. Hillary sends Chelsea out on the hustings, but being the candidate’s daughter, she’s supposed to be spared not only critical comment, but even hard questions.
Barack sends Michelle out to make speeches and give interviews, but when her words suggest a certain note of bitterness, racism and disaffection for America, Mr. Obama tells us we’re not supposed to take her to task.
Well, Senator, if I recall correctly, you also think your spiritual advisor and your good friends, a corrupt lobbyist and an unrepentant terrorist, should be left out of the equation. So, on exactly what basis would you have us consider your qualifications to be our president? I’m sure you wouldn’t think it cricket if we judged you by your books, filled, as they are, with smoldering hostility towards white people and the capitalist system. Or perhaps you’d have us consider your record as the great conciliator, the man who’ll unite us all, when you have the most partisan, most socialistic, voting record in the U.S. Senate. Or perhaps you’d prefer to be judged on the basis of your vast experience in foreign affairs? No, I didn’t think so.
The fact is, these political spouses serve a very real, very positive, purpose. Not only do Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton serve as lightning rods for their respective spouses, taking hits that would otherwise be directed at the candidates, but they serve to remind the rest of us that maybe our own husbands and wives aren’t so bad, after all.
Television writer Burt Prelutsky is the author of The Secret of Their Success: Interviews with Legends & Luminaries.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
22 Comments
1. Everett:Al Gore lost because of “Kathleen Harris, hanging chads and the Supreme Court,” not John Kerry.
Jun 1, 2008 - 11:35 am 2. Smokey:THE RULES
No one is allowed to criticize or question:
1) Obama’s ears
2) Obama’s smoking
3) Obama’s wife’s partisan electioneering
4) Obama’s knowledge of geography
5) Obama’s refusal to wear a Flag pin
6) Obama covering his crotch and shutting his eyes during the National Anthem
7) Obama’s pastor of 20+ years
9) Obama’s refusal to disclose his SAT scores
10) Obama’s refusal to disclose his high school transcripts
11) Obama’s claim that he didn’t get into Harvard because of Affirmative Action
12) Obama’s insider position with ACORN, convicted of election fraud
13) Obama’s __________________ (fill in the blank)
Each MSM media outlet may mention these issues one (1) time only. Then they must MoveOn.
Now everybody, let’s play by THE RULES.
Jun 1, 2008 - 12:03 pm 3. Believer:My thoughts regarding candidates’ spouses posted elsewhere would have been better shared here.
This article – with the right amount of humor – beautifully sums things up. Spouses are fair game. They reveal much about the man – and alot about who how he might handle power.
My take was that the Clintons’ and Obamas’ marital relationships share a common denominator. An overly strong, know-it-all wife. One who imposes her will on her husband – and on us.
Her dominance makes the relationship seem not just wrong, but almost evil in that the man becomes pathetically weak. He reveals this weakness in his poor character and judgment. Neither Clinton nor Obama has really grown up.
I think any leader of the free world needs to show that he has the appropriate power and strength in his marital relationship in order for us to be assured he’d show power and strength in equally important relationships. Ones that would affect us, not just his family.
Jun 1, 2008 - 12:42 pm 4. Spinoneone:Well, gee, I seem to remember that we weren’t supposed to attack Hillary, either, and look what happened there shortly after she became first lady!
Michelle has had her head beside his on the pillow for more than 20 years. Given her know political leanings [closer to Marx than he is] perhaps we would be better off learning a bit more about her and what she sees to be her role in the White House, if and when. Bet that would scare a lot of people.
Jun 1, 2008 - 2:12 pm 5. njcommuter:If you can’t stand the heat … stay in the kitchen?
Jun 1, 2008 - 3:57 pm 6. Dave:Maybe Obambi had this video of his wife at TUCC using the term “whitey” in the back of his mind when he said these things. Certainly, if it exists, HE knows it does and so does she!
We may have to wait until October to see it…but when and if it does…will he throw his WIFE under the bus, just like his grandmother and his church???
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/19/obama-freakout-over-michelle-video-the-ticking-whitey-time-bomb/
“But the real reason for Obama’s extraordinary freakout is that he fears the release of the videotape, reported here, of Michelle Obama in the pulpit of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church railing against “whitey.” And we don’t mean Whitey Ford. Four Republican sources have told me that the tape exists. I’ve also been informed that Karl Rove and his allies have a copy of it and are using it to raise funds for independent expenditure groups. The tape, I’m told, will be disclosed as the GOP October Surprise. It’s a ticking time bomb.
Jun 1, 2008 - 5:22 pm 7. Burt Prelutsky:…
Does Obama have a copy of the “whitey” video? We know that he knows that his wife knows. The video really does exist. If we have to wait until October to see it, Obama might explode before then from the tension.”
Everett–You are right, of course. It was Al Gore, not John Kerry. It’s just so hard to keep those pathetic left-wing presidential candidates straight.
Regards, Burt Prelutsky
Jun 1, 2008 - 5:43 pm 8. joe blough:Maybe if that video is released he’ll explain that he never knew how his wife really felt.
And if the pressure is intense enough, maybe he’ll divorce her.
Jun 1, 2008 - 7:26 pm 9. Mohammed the Teddy-Bear:“It’s just so hard to keep those pathetic left-wing presidential candidates straight.
Regards, Burt Prelutsky
Jun 1, 2008 – 5:43 pm”
Indeed, it is, Burt, the DNC does seem to have the cloning process down pat. BTW Did you know that John F’n Kerry served in Vietnam? It’s certainly seared into MY soul!
Keep writing, Burt, you’re one of the best reads out there.
Jun 1, 2008 - 7:56 pm 10. John D:John Kerry did try to control who was allowed to criticize him.
First you couldn’t criticize him if you weren’t a veteran.
Then you couldn’t criticze him if you weren’t a Vietnam Veteran.
Next you couldn’t criticze him unless you were a Swiftboat Veteran
Then you couldn’t criticze him unless you were a Swiftboat Veteran that had served in his squadron.
Finally you couldn’t criticze him unless you were a Swiftboat Veteran that had served on his boat.
The circle of people whom he considered qualified to criticize him kept getting smaller and smaller.
I think in the end he had decided that no one was allowed to criticize him at all.
Jun 1, 2008 - 11:23 pm 11. bill-tb:Maybe Comrade Obama will throw her under the bus next. You have to admit, Comrade Obama has a whole lot of really weird friends … But seems not to know the meaning of freedom. Collectivism, that’s Harvard for Communism.
Al Gore lost because he lost. Al Gore is a loser.
Jun 2, 2008 - 4:04 am 12. Cindy Sue Causey:*THANK YOU*
In this particular political season of exponentially increasing mudslinging abuse by and towards those involved, gets a High 10 for made me laugh out loud funny..
Jun 2, 2008 - 4:15 am 13. Barbara:Burt, as ususal, great article. I find I am always agreeing with you. Michelle may be more radical than her husband and/or has a harder time concealing her racism and marxism than him. But they both think the same. It doesn’t take a genius to see what he’s about. He is the company he keeps. His closest company is his wife, who deserves to be “attacked”. When you say things like she has, what would a person with a brain expect?
Jun 2, 2008 - 7:53 am 14. Sue:I marched for Women’s Rights before it was chic to do so. But, every woman I knew also knew a truth most MSM wouldn’t talk about then, since or now: the “queen” bee syndrome. This was a female who would use any wile she could, lie, cheat or steal to get ahead. She denigrated other women for her own success. Sound familiar? Hillary and Michelle have nothing on each other because they are both queen bees.
Jun 2, 2008 - 11:08 am 15. Mike:I’ve got some old news here: in the USA today , race trumps ALL. Obama’s policies must not be questioned , lest you be branded a racist by Pinchy and the Old York Times. Obama’s race indemnifies him against all wrongdoing. The East Coast, guilty white liberals deem it so. Any who disagree with them must be labeled racist, white trash, ignorant, savages fit only to pay taxes to support those who despise them.
Jun 2, 2008 - 7:02 pm 16. Janis:If candidates wives are fair game because it says something about the candidate, what about Cindy McCain stealing illegal prescriptions for drugs from her fammily charity and the getting a slap on the wrist when she was caught instead of doing any time? What does that say about her actions, rather than just Michelle’s words? And how would you treat it if it were Michelle who had stolen drugs instead of Cindy?
Jun 4, 2008 - 5:08 pm 17. Richard:The paradigm changed with the Clintons. Oral sex isn’t sex. What’s the meaning of “is”. She was in effect co-prez remember? Executing national legislation a la “free health care”. Now, her aspirations and ambitions are made evident, albeit poorly executed. The days of a woman being a man’s silent partner in America’s highest office are gone. Irreversibly gone.
Jun 5, 2008 - 3:37 am 18. Spooky:Is that loud-mouth America hating witch fair game? You bet your ass. It’ll be her policies domestically we’ll see if Barry Wingnut Obama is elected.
Bank on it, just not in America. They’re coming for your money here.
Once she began to campaign for her husband, she became fair game. By the way it would be interesting if Obama and Hillary ran and won, we would have four presidents, Barack, Hillary, Bill and Michelle.
Jun 5, 2008 - 11:20 am 19. Richard:Hey Spook…., that’s a spooky thought. Tupperware or sex toy parties?
Jun 5, 2008 - 5:05 pm 20. B from Bloomington:My money (what’s left in America) is on the latter.
Ha ha ha ha ha!!!! This guy REALLY is funny, or incredibly naive. Did he think he could make a run for president and not have people tossing onions at his family? Come on. I remember when President Clinton was elected and the media was downright mean to them all, even (at that time) little Chelsea, until his wife put a stop to it. Hillary stood up for her child and said that she and her husband were fair game, but her child was off limits. Also, what was the Special Council doing for the entire 8 years of the Clinton presidency… looking in every nook and cranny that spanned both President Clinton and his wife’s personal and professional lives going back decades. Why does Obama expect it should be any different for him and his family? Oh, I forgot…. just because…. ????? Get real fella.
Jun 11, 2008 - 12:05 pm 21. Pajamas Media » If Michelle Obama Isn’t Racist, What Is She?:[...] on stump speeches to talk about how surprising it is that white people in Iowa would vote for him – isn’t fair game. [...]
Jun 12, 2008 - 9:17 am 22. Pajamas Media » Michelle Obama and the New Face of Feminism:[...] struck many, including myself, as racist. Her belligerent style drew so much flak, in fact, that Barack told the press to lay off of her. Pages: [...]
Dec 5, 2008 - 12:05 am