Obama, in the most recent debate:
CLINTON: Now, I just — I just want to be clear about this. In an editorial board with the Reno newspaper, you said two different things, because I have read the transcript. You talked about Ronald Reagan being a transformative political leader. I did not mention his name.
OBAMA: Your husband did.
CLINTON: Well, I’m here. He’s not. And…
OBAMA: OK. Well, I can’t tell who I’m running against sometimes.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: Well, you know, I think we both have very passionate and committed spouses who stand up for us. And I’m proud of that.
What a stupid, sexist remark. Too bad he resorts to such snake tactics after saying brilliant things like this:
We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity.
Barack Obama is tremendously frustrating. Being a person who would like to see him succeed, I find myself, as an African American man whose mother attends Senator Obama’s “afrocentric” church, unable to support him, yet or maybe never. I wrote in my blog today:
“Some people would say that Obama has kept Black people at arms length. However, exhorting Black people to take responsibility for themselves, more of a Bill Cosby theme rather than a King one, gives Barack Obama a different dimension than other African American presidential candidates and leaders in the recent past. He tells Black people what they must do rather than what others must do for them.” (Read more at http://learningbyheart.blogspot.com/)
I haven’t yet made up my mind about who I will support in the California primary in a few weeks, but I *do* feel that Hillary Clinton’s analysis of what we need as a nation next is just more measured, thoughtful, and important. It has he weight of statesmanship rather than “the audacity of hope.”
I’m not totally sure I follow you, Brian. I went to your blog and read more, but remain a bit confused. Are you criticizing the second speech I quoted here (about needing to stand in solidarity with illegal immigrants and the LGBT community) for being too condescending?
I support Edwards. Alas, I fear my ship has sailed.
I used to support Edwards. Now I want him to pull out of the race and throw his supporters to Obama.
I agree that Obama’s comment would be improper if delivered about any other candidate spouses. But in Obama’s defense, when a candidate spouse is a former president, the rules are somewhat different. Unlike the other candidate spouses, Bill Clinton is a very disciplined, very calculating politician, and it’s impossible to believe that he and Hillary don’t coordinate their messages.
Bill Clinton has been delivering increasingly sharp attacks on Obama while allowing Hillary to avoid campaigning negatively herself. It’s hard for me to believe that that isn’t a calculated tactic, and I think Obama is right to call them on it.
I strongly disagree. This is a sexist attack against a viable female candidate. It’s a dog whistle, suggesting that she can’t be her own candidate.
1. I read it as a swipe against one of her strongest supporters.
2. Bill has been attacking Obama a lot lately so that Hillary can take the high road. (instead of her saying it herself)
3. Hillary is running in a large part on the experience she got while Bill was president. So Bill’s definitely in play.
The attack seems valid to me.
“I can’t tell who I’m running against sometimes” is very, very different from “why are you allowing your supporters to make comments like X that you don’t agree with?” Elizabeth Edwards has also made comments that her husband can’t make, but no one suggests that they don’t know if her husband is running or if she is. No one would say that they can’t tell if they’re running against Obama or Oprah. Candidates always use supporters to make points that they can’t make – every candidate does it. The fact that Senator Clinton has a more popular supporter than Oprah on her side does not give Obama license to suggest that she’s a puppet for that supporter, no matter how frustrated he is that he’s losing.
For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity.
Is he talking about legal immigrants or illegal aliens? Or is he deliberately trying to conflate the two?
OK. Well, I can’t tell who I’m running against sometimes.
Nope, sorry; I don’t see this as sexist. Bill Clinton has been quite active on the campaign trail – plus, she’s been touting her activities as his wife while he served two terms as President as “experience” that should count positively towards her fitness for the office. And the fact that he ran for election and served two terms as President makes his presence on the campaign trail very much different than the usual spouse who’s never run for anything or held office supporting their spouse.
If Sen. Obama had said this about any other candidate’s spouse, you might have a point. But Bill Clinton is a special case, and his activities on the campaign trail are fair game here.
Brian Thomas says:
He tells Black people what they must do rather than what others must do for them.
I’m not clear on this. Do you consider this a good thing or a bad thing?
i also don’t think the attack was sexist. it annoyed me because i thought it was snarky and sarcastic, but not sexist. if michelle obama took a lot of press time attacking hillary, then she could have said the same to obama…
I’m also failing to see sexism here. If Hillary had been a two-term president and was out campaigning for Bill now, and Barack a had said the same thing to Bill in the debate, no one would’ve blinked. The comment had nothing to do with her gender, it had everything to do with the fact that Bill — who is, unlike Michelle Obama, Elizabeth Edwards and other candidate spouses who may or may not be saying provocative things about their spouses’ rivals, a political figure himself — is out there playing hatchet man on her behalf.
And when Clinton is getting endorsements from highly visible figures who explicitly state that its because of a long-standing relationship with her and her husband that had its genesis in her husband’s presidency, calling her out on the use of her husband’s credentials to further her campaign is completely fair game.
I completely agree with the sexist nature of that attack. Ironically, though, back when Bill was running, people made similar comments about Hillary (as a way to disparage Bill, cuz who would want a female for president?!).
As for the 2nd quote in the original post, I agree it sounds great. But I can’t really see it as much more that the standard hypocrisy from Obama.
It was snarky, but probably not sexist.
ADS wrote: “Candidates always use supporters to make points that they can’t make – every candidate does it … No one would say that they can’t tell if they’re running against Obama or Oprah …”
I disagree that nobody would say they couldn’t tell if they were running against Obama or Oprah, especially if Oprah were to go on the campaign trail with Obama and attack Hillary, like Bill travels and attacks Obama.
I do agree many candidates make these snarky comments, and that there’s no excuse but the ‘ends justify the means’ effectiveness for all the crappy behavior during elections.
BUT, any of the left field candidates are head and shoulders above the loonies the right has offered up this election year. Because Gravel and Kucinich aren’t viable, Obama is currently my candidate (even though he inexcusably doesn’t support same-sex marriage).
Just keep in mind, while we’re nitpicking the relatively saintly candidates, we have to remember how much cynical profiteering, negligence, and ignorance there is to undo from the past several years, folks.
Is he talking about legal immigrants or illegal aliens? Or is he deliberately trying to conflate the two?
Ron, please take that to an open thread. Thanks.
So what? This is a right turn from the post. No one’s arguing that Obama is equal to Guiliani. He did, however, make a blatantly sexist attack against Clinton, and I’m not going to hold of criticizing him because he’s ostensibly on my team.
If he wins the nomination, I’ll vote for him in the general election. If he wins the general election, I’ll be happy we have a Democrat in office. I will nevertheless criticize him when he’s acts like an asshole.
While that was a very crude remark, I do think that the source of Clinton’s career is her husband. It was his presidency that got her political career off the ground. It’s fair to acknowledge that her political career is piggybacked on her husband’s name, just like it’s fair to acknowledge that Kerry’s political career relied partially on the financial backing of his wife.
Still, they are most certainly not the same person, nor do they have identical political platforms. Obama was way out of line for saying that.
I think this is an appropriate general analysis that fails in the specifics.
Take Elizabeth Edwards. Can she say what she wants? Of course. We all know that (since she’s still married) there’s probably some level of communication between her and her husband, which is why her support gets discounted more than a neutral party.
But the press that Elizabeth gets is primarily because she’s the wife of Edwards. She doesn’t have as much of a presence or a newsworthiness in and of herself. She doesn’t HAVE a bully pulpit given to her.
Oprah is the other extreme. She has a good pulpit from which to preach. but she has no particular connection to Barack other than her views. She’s no different from Rush Limbaugh in that respect. There’s no sense that Barack has any control over what she says: people who support him may ask for his input, but that’s only because they support him.
Bill, OTOH, is in his own category. He commands enormous public love and affection, and can pretty much be guaranteed to be newsworthy wherever he goes. If he wants an audience–local or national–he’ll get one. (unlike, Elizabeth Edwards.) But (unlike Oprah or Limbaugh) Bill Clinton is also married to Hilary. And therefore we assume that there’s more “teamwork” going on there. That there’s a common goal.
Most people get only one advantage. Bill has both. I think this remark was appropriate.
As it happens, I hate Obama and I like Clinton. So I’d be happy if he loses, and I’m happy that Hilary has Bill to help her out. But I think attacking that fact is fair game.
The problem that I see is that Hillary sometimes does try to have it both ways. She’s happy to use her famous, well-liked, former president husband to deliver attacks against Obama, but then she tries to disassociate herself from him when it suits her. Frankly, Bill’s behavior (and by extension Hillary’s) during this primary has been rather unbecoming. As he is one of only two former Democratic presidents still living, one might hope that Bill would be more supportive of the party in general. Sure, it’s only natural that he would support his wife, but do the attacks against Obama have to be so nasty? He isn’t just the candidate’s spouse, he’s also a former president and (ostensibly) a statesman. If Obama does win the nomination after all, Bill’s attacks on him may be hurtful. It doesn’t look good for a former Democratic president to basically say that Obama isn’t qualified. Unfortunately, this campaign really confirms the old GOP idea that the Clintons look out only for themselves. As someone vaguely Democratic, I wish they (especially Bill, given his position) would be more concerned for the party/left-of-center politics in general.
Given Hillary’s heavy reliance on her husband in delivering attacks, I don’t think it’s wrong for Obama to call her on it, albeit in a snarky way (which doesn’t bother me at all, but YMMV).
Although I have no idea what you mean when you claim his snarky, “I can’t tell who I’m running against sometimes,” is somehow sexist as well (how again?), I do understand your point that you …
Me, too. Though here I’d only say he acted petty. Inappropriately for a person with integrity, even.
O.K.
Riiight… conveniently forgot all the racial dog whistling hillary and billary have been doing…Par for the course for (white) feminists
Hmm, I don’t see this comment by Obama as sexist, particularly in context of the rhetorical battle of who represents change. If his remark is sexist, then I cannot imagine what anyone could say about the very relevant former president’s role in his wife’s campaign that would not also be sexist.
“Riiight… conveniently forgot all the racial dog whistling hillary and billary have been doing”
Did I? Hm. Nope. Don’t think I did.
I didn’t post about it, though. Pam Spaulding has excellent analysis at Pandagon or Pam’s House Blend if you’re looking for a blogular fix.
I guess that didn’t piss you enough to write about then…I wonder why
For the record, I posted on this because I didn’t see anyone else posting on it. I didn’t post on the other issue because I had nothing to add to Pam’s post.
However, it’s my blog, my time, and my interest. I am not responsible for defending my choice of topics to you. Your whining that I’ve chosen to post on what interests me and not what interests you is irrelevant. This is classic trolling — the suggestion that I should not post about what I want to post about because I should instead post about what you prefer. This asininity is oft deployed against both women and people of color. Why are women complaining about how they make seventy-six cents on the dollar when there’s real oppression in other countries??? Why are black people pointing out racially themed parties at colleges when children are STARVING in china???
Worse, I consider your rambling to be basically the equivalent of Gloria Steinem trying to pit race against gender and saying that gender wins. She acted asinine. So are you acting asinine. The fact that Hilary’s campaign has engaged in racist mudslinging does not make it legitimate for Obama to engage in sexist mudslinging, nor does it make it illegitimate for me to point out Obama’s sexist commentary.
Now, have you got something substantive to say on the subject at hand? If not, fuck off, Andrew.
On the other hand, if you’ve got a substantive argument about racism linked to the Hilary campaign written on – say – your own blog that you’d like me to read and consider reposting or commenting on here, feel free to link it. I’d be interested in reading it.
I read the exerpt from the debate in the post, and, well, I’m lost. What the hell are they talking about?
So I googled up the debate and read it in context. As best I can tell, they’re trying to paint each other as pro-Reagan, and are criticizing the fact that they each, at one time or another, have pointed out that Reagan changed American politics. Well, duh. I’m with Edwards; I wish these two would quit squabbling like children and keep the focus on healthcare, Iraq, and the environment.
(Of course, if they did that, the voting public might realize that there’s very little difference between the three of them, and might start listening to other candidates. Can’t have that, now.)
That said, I don’t see how the remark was sexist. Obama wasn’t saying that Hillary can’t be her own candidate. He was saying that Bill has been acting as Hillary’s attack-dog, presumably at her behest, and Obama wants to make sure that Bill’s poor behavior is percieved as reflecting poorly on Hillary. As he should.
I don’ t the statement was sexist in the least. Billary tries to have it both ways – I agree with Sarah post, how ever none of my statements would be as well formed as the ones already posted so I will just say great converstaion and I love your blog!
So I googled up the debate and read it in context. As best I can tell, they’re trying to paint each other as pro-Reagan, and are criticizing the fact that they each, at one time or another, have pointed out that Reagan changed American politics.
No. I can see how you’d think this, as the Powdered-Wig Pundits kept lying about it. But Obama made two separate remarks recently. One mentioned Reagan. The other talked about liberals and conservatives in the last 10 or 15 years. Reagan was not President in that time, while Bill Clinton was. Guess which remark Hillary responded to?
Italics begone!
[They’re begoned! — Mandolin]
Maybe the reason you’re the only one talking about it is that it wasn’t sexist. WHat’s sexist’s the fact that Hillary gets Billary to make like white knight and spews his white maleness and everyone eats it up. Obama pointing this out is somehow sexist? And is the childish namecalling and language really necessary. And comparing me to Gloria Steinem is just pure projection on your part. FInally I do believe my handle is Lloyd Webber, not Andrew, so please refer to me as I would prefer, as I extend you the same courtesy Mandolin. Good day and God bless
Lloyd Webber, you continue in the vein of not adding substantive comments. Feel free to add some, but next time you drivel, you’re banned.
Also — no more with the “Billary” stuff in this thread from anyone, please. It’s just as sexist as the original remark.
(I am glad you like the blog, though, Raquita.)
Frankly I’m sick of all the quibbling about racism and sexism between Hillary and Barack. Not because I don’t think that there’s been racism. Not because I don’t think there’s been sexism. But because far too many people seem to have chosen sides (even when they explicitly claim that they haven’t and/or won’t). They whine about the other side playing into oppression olympics in the very same breath that they engage it in it just as bad (or worse). I don’t think everyone who “chooses race over gender” is sexist. But I also don’t think that everyone who “chooses gender over race” is racist. I’m not a big fan of either Hillary or Barack, but if it came down to it, I’d go with Hillary. Partly because her health care plan, while sucky, is simply better than Barack’s. And, yeah, partly because she’s a woman. I shouldn’t have to choose the black MALE to “prove” I’m not racist (and yeah, that rhetoric is out there). But if that’s what it takes, fine, so be it. And if I want to talk about the sexism that’s out there, to take a miniscule portion of the internet to talk about the subtle sexism from the men (black and white) campaigning, and the disgusting amounts of overt sexism from their liberal male supporters, that doesn’t mean I don’t care about race. It means that I’m sick of liberals ignoring their own sexism and the sexism they see around them. And if I don’t talk non-stop about the racism in the campaign (cuz, really, why should I bother to talk non-stop about the very subject that every single fucking blog in the liberal blogosphere is already talking about), that doesn’t mean I don’t care about race. And if you think it does mean that, then great…you can have the gold medal in the oppression olympics. I’m going to continue working on gender equality.
(FTR, I do not think that Mandolin is guilty of any of this, and none of this was directed at her — and I thank her profusely for having the guts to actually talk about this subject, because I know from experience that doing so can make you a target, esp. in the male-dominated liberal “progressive” blogosphere.)
Riiight… conveniently forgot all the racial dog whistling hillary and billary have been doing…Par for the course for (white) feminists.?
I am not responsible for defending my choice of topics to you.
Hear, hear!
This is classic trolling — the suggestion that I should not post about what I want to post about because I should instead post about what you prefer.
It’s also an oft-seen pattern that people try to both deflect criticism on topic “A” and label the poster by saying “Well, why are you ignoring ‘B’? That must mean you are trying to hide that you are in favor of ‘B! and are thus racist/sexist/whatever.”
Hell, the kids in my Scout Troop try it on me when I catch them out on something. “You were told not to use the axe on live trees.” “Charlie was using the axe outside the axe yard, why don’t you yell at him?!”
I guess that didn’t piss you enough to write about then…I wonder why?
Lloyd, try to raise the level of your discourse past an 11-year-old trying to get out of cleaning out the spaghetti pot.
I think it’s absolutely valid for Obama to comment on the fact that one of Clinton’s main selling points is her husband.
As someone else pointed out above, if she wasn’t trying to pass off her years of being married to Bill as political experience, then perhaps it wouldn’t be fair game. But since Obama’s held more elected offices than Clinton, she has to introduce something else to count as “experience.”
Which is ridiculous because if we really wanted experience we’d all have voted for Bill Richardson. Really.
I thought Obama’s remark was appropriate because he is probably frustrated having to defend himself against the dirty attacks from two highly public figures, one an opponent and the other a former President and the opponent’s spouse. I don’t think there is anything sexist about it. The Clintons have run as a team for several years now – the “two for the price of one” branding they offered during Bill Clinton’s campaign and which is often alluded to during Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Obama is treating them as a team because that’s how they behave. If they were a gay couple, his response would be the same.
“Which is ridiculous because if we really wanted experience we’d all have voted for Bill Richardson. Really.”
^2. Hell, I wanted to.
Nope, not sexist. If Hillary Clinton had a surrogate who she wasn’t married to engaging in vicious mudslinging against Obama, Obama would have grounds for that snarky remark as well.
Hillary’s campaign has attacked Obama too much through surrogates, including Bill Shaheen and Bob Johnson insinuating that Obama was a drug dealer, and the constant attacks from Bill. This doesn’t even mention Hillary’s employment of the reincarnation of Lee Atwater than is Mark Penn…
It is absurd for Obama, or his supporters, to claim that the fact that the ex-president is supporting Hillary is somehow unfair. Obama knew that would be the case when he decided to run, and he calculated a strategy based on running against the former the last successful Democratic administration, as well as Hillary herself.
His strategy is, and has always been to win by putting together a coalition of Right-leaning independents and Reagan Republicans disillustioned with Bush, young voters with no adult memories of the the 90s and the Clinton administration, and men made uneasy by the idea of a female President — using Republican-type personal character slurs and talking points against Hillary and the former President and his administration, as well as coded sexism.
It may work. But it will weaken the party as it does so.
Mary: There is nothing unfair about President Clinton supporting Senator Clinton’s candidacy. But his involvement is far more aggressive than is typically seen from other candidate’s spouses; and his stature as a former President gives him a much louder “bullhorn” for his views. He has used this to launch criticisms of Obama that are, to be generous, inaccurate, provocative and without real substance.
As for your description of Obama’s base, what do you make of this turn-out in South Carolina, as reported by the NY Times:
Obama has attracted voters of both sexes, all ages and many colors. I think that is a good thing. I also think it’s a good thing to attract independents (right or left leaning) and disaffected Republicans, because the next President is going to need political capital to break through the partisan gridlock. Granted, that begs the question “to what end?” but as a general statement about strategy, it bears keeping in mind. In the general election, Barack Obama has a much better chance than Hillary Clinton of beating John McCain, whose enormous appeal for independents should not be underestimated.
I don’t think your demographic analysis adds anything to this conversation, Kevin, so I’m going to ask that this particular thread of discussion get dropped.
It’s the NY Times demographic analysis, and I quoted it in response to Mary’s description of Obama’s coalition. The demographics attest that the coalition is much broader than Mary has contended. That is why it is relevant to the discussion.
But, hey, if you don’t want an informed discussion, Mandolin, that’s fine by me.
Kevin,
I apologize for making an error. It happens. I’m really not enchanted with your parting muckraking, though. It’s out of line, and out of tone with my initial comment.
Meanwhile, from this point forward, attacks on the viability of any candidate — including Obama — based on demographic analysis don’t really strike me as on topic. Let’s try to focus this on the specific incident, not a general free-for-all “I hate X, but love my candidate because…”
Come on, Kevin, that’s out of line. If she thinks the discussion of “who votes for Obama” isn’t totally relevant to the issue o”f obama’s commentary and its sexism (or not)” that’s a valid call. It’s not like she deleted it, it’s just that she doesn’t think it’s relevant to the issue at hand.
neither do i, fwiw, and as I’m sure you can tell i’m at complete odds with mandolin regarding the post topic so i’m not just ganging up on you.
Here’s why: how many women have to vote for Obama to make his comments (if sexist) become nonsexist? how many women would have to fail to vote for Obama to make his comments (if nonsexist) become sexist?
There is no answer, it’s a trick question, which is why it’s irrelevant.
Sorry, Mandolin. I shouldn’t post so early in the morning, when I’ve not had a humanizing dose of coffee. I retract my snippy comment.
Sailorman: Again, my citing of voting demographics was relevant to Mary’s description of Obama’s coalition, a description I find erroneous and incomplete, particularly as borne out by the voting patterns. I didn’t bring up the composition of Obama’s support, but I responded to it with an argument backed by data analysis as provided by credible sources. That seems within bounds of the discussion, at least insofar as it has meandered.
And I agree, that even if a majority of women may support Obama, that has no bearing on the sexist or nonsexist nature of his comment. I think his comment was directed at the tag-team the Clintons have played and the increasingly large surrogate role President Clinton has played in Senator Clinton’s campaign – a role that even Michelle Obama cannot match, because she does not have the same command of either the airwaves or the Democratic Party machinery. As I said before, were the Clintons a gay couple, Obama’s comment would have been appropriate. Maybe a little snippy, but…eh.
[Sen. Obama’s] strategy is, and has always been to win by putting together a coalition of Right-leaning independents and Reagan Republicans disillustioned with Bush,
You think that Reagan Republicans disillusioned with Pres. Bush will line up for Obama? The Reagan Republicans that are disillusioned with Bush that I’ve talked to are upset with him because they thought he was a conservative. I’d like to see the analysis that says that Reagan Republicans are actually considering voting for Obama.
But it will weaken the party as it does so.
The Democrats’ problem here is that they have been pushing identity politics for decades. They weren’t ready to deal with two people that appeal to two different identity groups. And both of them want to win pretty badly and have a shot to win, so in the end they have little recourse but to go after each other. Since the basis of their campaign is identity politics, that’s the basis on which they compete. If they split the delegate vote on Super Tuesday it’s going to get real entertaining. The competing cries of racism and sexism will probably escalate; if not directly on the part of the candidates, certainly on the part of their supporters.
The basis of the Republican candidates’ campaigns are more policy-based, so when they go after each other they’re spending most of their time talking about policy differences instead of which one of them is being more racist or sexist. That kind of discourse is going to appeal to the non-party faithful and independents a lot more. Plus, there don’t seem to be any Whitewater/Rezcko deals in the background to slime them with.
I’d love to see a Democratic convention where Obama and Clinton each have about 45% of the delegates they need and Edwards holds the difference. The winner will have to jump left some to pick up his delegates. I’d love to see the Republicans take it down to the convention as well, but I don’t think Huckabee is going to have the delegate count to play the Edwards role. I could be wrong, though.
Let’s face it; Michelle Obama is only important (from a political sense) because she’s Barak Obama’s spouse. Bill Clinton is important because he’s an ex-President and one of the best politicians I’ve seen in my lifetime. And by claiming her tenure as First Lady as part of the political experience she has that qualifies her for office better than Obama, she’s tied herself to Bill. Barak has every right to talk about that. Especially if he wants to win.
Ron
The Democrats’ problem here is that they have been pushing identity politics for decades.
Funny you should mention this… It’s not as if the contemporary Republican party hasn’t been pushing white and male identity politics since it’s incarnation in the 50’s. If memory serves me right, what was the reason the majority of southern Democrats jumped ship to the Republican party? What sort of coded languages have folks been using to discuss the “illegal immigration” problem outside of “they’re going to end our culture and way of life”?
To be fair, the democrats have also been notorious for playing the white male race card a la Elizabeth Edwards “John is someone who looks like them”.
But let’s be honest, minorities have only now been catching up with the identity politics game that has largely been the domain of white men…
“But let’s be honest, minorities have only now been catching up with the identity politics game that has largely been the domain of white men…”
Just now catching up? Well, let’s see – Southerners have been seeing themselves as a minority since the beginning of the Republic, with good numerical basis for calling themselves a minority, even if they happen to be white and male. Later the Irish took control of city governments based on their solidarity as a minority, even if they were white. Or are now. Or whatever. Black “block voting” was consciously used as a political tool beginning in the 60’s, although that could be “only now catching” up if you have a very, very long persective.
So the comment about Democrats pushing identity politics for decades is flat true. In fact of course it was Democrats that pushed the segregationist, white racist politics of identiy in the first place, and when they finally started dropping it, that was when that demographic finally jumped to the Republican Party they had been toxically hating for a hundred years.
“Barak has every right to talk about that. Especially if he wants to win.”
He has every right to say whatever he wants. I have every right to criticize it.
However, I’m not criticizing his discussion of what you mentioned. I don’t mind that. I’m criticizing his decision to intimate that Hilary Clinton is her husband’s puppet.
I’m criticizing his decision to intimate that Hilary Clinton is her husband’s puppet.
Fair enough. But then, I didn’t interpret his comment like that. I interpreted it as “I’m being ganged up on.” I didn’t hear a nullification of Hillary, I heard an addition of Bill. It never occurred to me that Obama was saying that Hillary was just fronting for Bill.
I don’t agree with you at all. The Clintons are playing dirty politics by having Bill say whatever he can to smear Obama without any real repercussions on Hillary while she keeps her hands relatively clean. She also pulls votes from his popularity as a former president. She is certainly her own candidate, but she obviously doesn’t shun the benefits gained by his campaigning (which DRASTICALLY outweigh that of other campaign spouses) and b) his ability to be an attack dog.
I think Obama’s totally justified in his criticism. Sure, he could have risen above it, but when people are printing abject lies about you you have to respond eventually. Can you really blame him for getting frustrated with that sort of thing? He never denigrated her status as a presidential candidate, he just questioned the fact that he seemingly has to defend himself against two people both accorded a similar weight of opinion – Hillary, the candidate, and Bill, the former president spouse whose words still carry a lot of weight with a lot of people. It seems perfectly valid.
Since it seems commenters are having increasing difficulty staying on topic for this post (not that it was working really well at the beginning), I’m closing comments.