Sunday, August 26, 2007

Catfights: Elizabeth Edwards, Michelle Obama, and Hillary Clinton

The lib media are fawning over Democrat presidential candidates' wives like Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama as they "stand by their men."

Of course, women like Ann Romney, Judith Giuliani, and Jeri Thompson are routinely attacked by the Left and its media mouthpieces. They don't consider them to be assets on the campaign trail. These women are either labeled as liabilities or not worth mentioning at all.

That's very different from the treatment that Mrs. Edwards and Mrs. Obama receive.


From The New York Times:

RICHARD NIXON had definite views about how the wife of a presidential candidate should campaign. In 1992, he was watching a lawyer named Hillary Clinton aggressively defend her husband in New Hampshire.

“If the wife comes through as being too strong and too intelligent,” Mr. Nixon observed, “it makes the husband look like a wimp.”

Now, 15 years later, strong and intelligent women are out in force on the campaign trail, and the focus is not just on how they reflect on their husbands but how they reflect on themselves. These women are full partners in their husbands’ campaigns while running mini-campaigns of their own, with hectic travel schedules, strategic agendas and a media horde in tow.

Is it any surprise, then, that they can “make news” just as often as their husbands? Or that the “news” about them can be distorted?

Michelle Obama, the wife of Senator Barack Obama, discovered this last week, if not before, when news reports truncated a comment she made about keeping one’s house in order. Her comment was quickly interpreted as a swipe at Mrs. Clinton. Fox News’ “Fox & Friends,” for example, showed a picture of Mrs. Obama juxtaposed against Mrs. Clinton over the caption: “THE CLAWS COME OUT.”

It's funny that the Times highlights FOX's supposed distortion of remarks made by Mrs. Obama.

Lib outlets also reported Mrs. Obama's "if you can’t run your own house, you certainly can’t run the White House" comment. It wasn't just FOX.

The Times is engaged in its own distortions.

So what else is new?


...[T]he dynamic with the wives and a female frontrunner has complicated matters. Elizabeth Edwards has been the trailblazer, criticizing Mrs. Clinton regularly, to the point of saying that Mr. Edwards would be better than Mrs. Clinton on issues that matter to women.

With spouses less programmed than in the past, the line is blurrier between what women like Mrs. Edwards and Mrs. Obama want to say and what the campaigns need them to say.

“These are two women lawyers who have been in the professional world where they’re expected to speak up,” Mr. Anthony said. “But they still serve as windows into their husbands’ character.”

Someone should notify the Times and inform reporter Katharine Q. Seelye that a woman doesn't need a law degree to be strong, intelligent, and "expected to speak up."

The contrast between how the media refer to the Dems' wives and how the Republicans' spouses are portrayed is striking.


...Modern campaigns almost demand that a wife speak up; they certainly give her plenty of chances. This is true even among Republican wives, who, like Nancy Reagan, often wield their power behind the scenes. Ann Romney, the wife of Mitt Romney, was asked what set her husband apart from the other candidates. “He’s had only one wife,” she replied.

How slanted!

"This is true EVEN among Republican wives."

How condescending!

Seelye discusses them as if they're a different species from the Dems' wives. As it is, she gives the Republican wives just one brief paragraph in her article and it's not a very flattering one.

The accomplishments and campaign roles of the Republican candidates' wives are dismissed. Seelye suggests that they may have power behind the scenes, but they aren't allowed to take center stage like Mrs. Edwards and Mrs. Obama.

I think it's a slam on Republicans, depicting the wives as less valuable to the campaigns and less capable in terms of their abilities.

Worse than that, the two Republican wives mentioned in the article aren't lauded for their contributions to their husbands' achievements. Instead, Nancy Reagan is mentioned as a behind the scenes puppet master. Ann Romney is mentioned only to use her quote that highlights her accomplishment of being Mitt Romney's one and only wife, a not too subtle jab at the marital histories of Giuliani and Thompson.

This article isn't about the presidential candidates' wives standing by their men. It's about the lib candidates' wives and Hillary. That's fitting I suppose, given that they're the only ones that really matter to the navel-gazers inside the bubble of liberal politics.

Every comment made by the Republican wives isn't being dissected. It's a rare thing to read or see any coverage of their appearances at all, let alone what they have to say. That's a function of the media more than a reflection on the women.

I don't get the fascination with the dynamics of the three Dem women lawyers and their verbal bouts.

It seems sort of tabloid to me, a little too heavy on the catfight angle.


Is it really necessary to focus on the fact that Hillary is a woman? Does it matter how her opponents' wives relate to her?

I think it's weird how the so-called sophisticated Left dwells on the gender issue. It's so '70s.

...Mrs. Clinton, of course, could have excellent advice for the wives about how to navigate this universe.

“Hillary is four laps ahead of them,” Mr. Thompson said. “She knows how complicated this is. She would be a great mentor for them. She was there, she knows their pain.”

Alas, she is probably the last person who wants to make it easier for them.

By "the wives," Seelye means Mrs. Edwards and Mrs. Obama.

It's a complicated universe to navigate for them. On the other hand, the Republican spouses -- ditzy Hollywood wives, third wives, and wives with a traditional homemaker and mother background -- don't face the same challenges.

Typical lib elitist crud.

All this talk about the dynamics of strong, highly educated women campaigning for their husbands as they face off against a female opponent raises the question, "What about Bill?"

He's the only male spouse among the field of candidates.


He's strong, right? He can hold his own alongside Mrs. Obama and Mrs. Edwards.

And he's a lawyer, although his law license was suspended for years and he was forced to resign from the Supreme Court Bar.

How does he navigate the universe of presidential politics and standing by his woman?

He tosses out some supportive statements here and there, but he hasn't gone on the attack against Hillary's Democrat opponents.

Bill doesn't seem to be too engaged. He's on the sidelines.

He came out on Saturday for a Hillary fundraiser at Martha's Vineyard, a family vacation spot where he liked to buy souvenirs for Monica Lewinsky.

Bill Clinton told the crowd his wife would make the strongest president among those seeking to succeed Bush in January 2009 because she has the best plans to deal with national security, climate change, health care and education.

"If we were not married and Hillary asked me to do this, to be here tonight, I would be here," the former president said.

Really?

Is this Bill standing by his woman or fantasizing about not being married to Hillary?

No comments:

Post a Comment