GOP game-plan: When in doubt, go after the candidate’s spouse

June 11, 2008

In 1992, Republican attack dogs went after Bill Clinton by denigrating Hillary Clinton as often as humanly possible. In 2004, the GOP took great pleasure in taking on Teresa Heinz Kerry.

Now, the attack machine has decided to take rhetorical aim at Michelle Obama.

“Mrs. Grievance” bellowed the cover of a recent National Review, which featured a photo of a fierce-looking Obama. The magazine’s online edition titled an essay about her stump speech “America’s Unhappiest Millionaire.”

Michelle Malkin, the popular conservative blogger, called her “Obama’s bitter half.”

Even the relatively liberal online magazine Slate piled on. In a piece subtitled “Is Michelle Obama responsible for the Jeremiah Wright fiasco?” the contrarian Christopher Hitchens blamed her for her husband’s pastor troubles since she was a member of the church first.

The would-be first lady does not make pronouncements about policy and has insisted that her priority in the White House would be her two young daughters…. It was an unscripted remark as she spoke in February about the enthusiastic response to his message of hope that set off conservatives: “And let me tell you something,” she told a Wisconsin crowd. “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.”

The Obama campaign quickly explained that she misspoke: “What she meant is that she’s really proud at this moment because for the first time in a long time, thousands of Americans who’ve never participated in politics before are coming out in record numbers to build a grass-roots movement for change.” Even First Lady Laura Bush — hardly a liberal Dem — defended Michelle Obama, agreeing that the comments didn’t reflect her true feelings.

But the Smear Machine doesn’t much care. “It’s exactly why I hate politics,” said Republican pollster Frank Luntz. “It’s wrong. It’s attempting to demonize someone who is very smart, very accomplished, but not totally tuned to the dangers of political discourse.”

It’s your party, Frank.

A few angles to consider here. First, the Obama campaign is aware of the Republican strategy, is taking steps to prepare.

Recognizing the extent to which Republicans view Michelle Obama’s strong views and personality as a potential liability for her husband, Mr. Obama’s aides said they were preparing to bring aboard senior operatives from previous Democratic presidential campaigns to work with her, a clear departure from the typical way the spouse of a candidate is staffed. Mrs. Obama’s operation would include senior aides devoted to responding to attacks and challenges to her, particularly if she continues to campaign as much as she has so far.

Second, the possibility of a backlash is real.

John Kerry, who has campaigned with Michelle Obama, said the attacks could backfire. “She’s a mother of two young daughters, and her self-made story is America’s story,” the Massachusetts senator said. “I think a lot of people will be repelled by the attacks on her, because it’ll feel like an attack on their own family. Republicans smear her at their peril.”

And third, be sure to check out Kathy G’s very sharp piece on the “Hillary-ization” of Michelle Obama.

The Hitchens piece, contemptible piece o’ shite though it is, a surefire sign that, now that it’s clear Hillary’s presidential campaign is all but over, the right is proceeding apace with its attempt to Hillary-ize Michelle Obama. We have, of course, all heard about how “unpatriotic” she is. Maureen Dowd has already cattily attacked her for not being sufficiently deferential to her husband. And now we’re being treated to Hitchens’ exegesis of how her college term papers prove she’s really Stokely Carmichael in drag. Delightful! But hey . . . radical, unfeminine, unpatriotic — remind you of any other right-wing caricatures of a certain prominent Democratic woman with a famous husband?

It’s not surprising that they’re doing this to Michelle, because it’s one of the most basic moves in the wingnut playbook…. [I]f Michelle Obama ascends to the role which is the apotheosis of the cult of true womanhood — the role of First Lady of the United States — I predict that wingnut heads will explode throughout the land. And there will be a whole other layer of bullshit Michelle will have to deal with. In addition to the anti-Democrat bullshit, and the sexist bullshit, there will be, of course, the racist bullshit.

My heart goes out to her. The road she will be traveling on will be a difficult one, in particular because there is no one in the history of America who has trod that particular path before. She is an exceedingly courageous person to have chosen such a public role. Just by sheer virtue of being black and female, and daring to live a public life, she will be highly controversial. She will attract a hell of a lot of ugly hatred. Even for a person as strong as I am sure she is, there are sure to be times when that will be very, very hard to take.

What I’m wondering right now is, what can we – as Democrats, as feminists, as people who are deeply committed to racial equality — do to help and support her?

That last question is especially important. I’m open to suggestion.

I think this is yet another item on the list of things the wingnuts will regret trying. The only people who will be fooled by any of this are the people who wouldn’t vote for a black man even if he was married to a stepford wife. IOW, we will lose no votes, and if they play it too hard we will surely gain some from the centrists who will associate the Hillification of Michelle with McCain.

We should watch closely for the McCain people’s reactions, and if they go for this then use that to beat them over the head. I would also suggest drawing parallels between Michelle Obama and Elenor Roosevelt, who was also vilified by the right wing morons of her day.

  • I can’t believe the McCain campaign wants any kind of discussion of the candidates’ wives.

    That directly leads to a discussion of McCain’s first marriage and his infidelities, his decision to jump ship and marry a younger heiress with loads of cash, and then Cindy McCain’s pill addictions and her embezzlement from a charity, etc. etc.

    Next to that, “Michelle Obama isn’t grateful for all she’s got” doesn’t seem all that worth pursuing.

  • Oh, great. Bush is trying to revamp his sociopathic lust for blood and now Laura is trying to sound coherent.

  • TR is wrong about Cindy McCain.

    She did not embezzle from a charity, she stole drugs from it!!!

    So what if Cindy is a junkie thief, she’s not black…

  • “It’s exactly why I hate politics,” said Republican pollster Frank Luntz.

    I wonder if Luntz was behind Lynn Cheney’s outrage when Kerry called her daughter a lesbian, or Samuel Alito’s wife’s tears at his Judiciary Committee hearing. Those had to be two of the most phoney moments in American political history, and they both had Luntz’s stench all over them.

  • McCain’s camp may try it, but Obama plans to handle it.

    Barack Obama is recruiting senior staff to a new unit which will combat virulent rumour campaigns on the internet that threaten to cost him votes in the presidential election against John McCain.

    The unit is part of a huge expansion of Obama’s campaign team as he shifts from the Democratic nomination race to the campaign for November’s election.

    As well as the rumour-mongering problem, units are being set up to deal with other perceived vulnerable points, including off-the-cuff remarks by his wife Michelle. McCain’s wife, Cindy, questioned Michelle’s patriotism in February after she said: “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country.”

    Obama doesn’t intend to let anybody swifboat him or anyone else connected to him or his campaign.

  • Michelle could lower her profile a bit, starting with not walking out onto stage in FRONT of Barack, but behind. Also some of my freinds did not like her demeanor during the Larry King appearance…

    Not saying she should not be herself – and it’s a shame that she can’t, but may have to take on a certain role because politics is still politics, and you go to war with the media you have.

  • I don’t suppose the GOPer punt poodles would care for the idea of someone going after Little Miss Bitchy Baroness of intolerable monkey piss “Beer”—but it would be wise for them to know that it could be done. There are a number of issues at play here.

    She provides her private jet to her candidate-husband at a reduced rate, while arguing that her personal wealth has nothing to do with his campaign.. Those reductions might well constitute campaign donations—and she’s probably gone well over the allowed-by-law limit by now. Another issue would be all those “barbecues” at their home in Arizona. Is the home jointly-owned—or in her name only? Again, there’s the question of “campaign donation limits” on this topic.

    Has she used funds from her strained-through-an-old-window-screen hyena vomit “Beer” distributorship business to assist in the costs of her “financially-disconnected” husband’s political campaign? Is she soliciting donations from her outside-the-U.S. friends and acquaintances for a domestic political campaign? Has she used her own children as a false front to cover certain financial exploits that might not be legal under Arizona and/or Federal Law?

    How “deliciously simple” it would be to start asking such insensitively-curious questions….

  • Michelle could lower her profile a bit, starting with not walking out onto stage in FRONT of Barack, but behind.

    …Might disgruntle the feminists with that one, Ohioan. Perhaps a compromise—walking side-by side?

  • I think just using the words “McCain’s first wife” and “McCain’s second wife” will make him lose low-information “conservatives” who generally have no clue as to his affair with Cindy McCain and subsequent divorce from Carol Shepp.

    details here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_McCain

  • I think taking the “high” ground is always the best solution.

    If there is to be a new day in politics, a new paradigm, someone has to lead the chattering masses to that “promise” land.

    No one can resist nobility, and to not sully one’s self in the morass of these “wrong” thinking, win at any cost, bottom-line ethically challenged miscreants is nobility in the pursuit of a good and worthy cause. To engage the bottom-feeders at their level (or maybe any level) would be a mistake in terms of what’s best for humanity, a healthier future, and what many of us hope for – a tectonic shift in political and humanitarian thinking and action, not just here in the US but throughout the world.

    Whether we realize it or not, a shift in thinking and action of profound proportions is what the world needs – global warming, nuclear weapons proliferation, food crisis, poverty, health care, and on and on and on can’t be solved with the same kind of thinking that got us here.

    Let Gandhi be their guide.

  • Mr. Obama’s aides said they were preparing to bring aboard senior operatives

    Isn’t it a bit sad that we want our candidates (and their spouses) to be regular bowling, beer drinking, bar-b-cue schlubs, but only in a very polished and insincere way. I personally think Michelle’s flaws are quite endearing, as were Teresa Kerry’s.

  • I’m not sure I’m as sanguine as Kerry. Kerry was the one who thought it was smart to sit back and wait for people to realize the Swift Boaters were full of it. The American People aren’t so stupid as to think I’m not a real war hero, he thought.

    To be fair, I thought he was taking the smart strategy at the time — I thought letting it fizzle and die out made more sense. I was wrong. So was Kerry.

    As long as people will step forward and slap this down hard and early, it’ll backfire.

  • Gotta be fire with fire. Can’t attack McCain for his age; that would be contemptible. How about the fact that because of his age he can get away with mistakes that a candidate half his age couldn’t? Give hypotheticals based on his mistakes and at the end attribute them to him. After showing the inconsistency or absurdity finish with ‘John McCain said that’. Yes We Can!

  • ej@13 says:

    “I think taking the “high” ground is always the best solution.”

    Four years ago I would have agreed with you. But the “high ground” policy has never worked in American political history, and won’t work now.

    Hey, I’m a sweet girl by nature, but MY DEMS have to hit back and hit back hard in this election. Too much is at stake to allow another 2004.

    Michelle a target? Well, hell, so will Cindy McCain be. OUR 527’s have to match theirs, attack ad by attack ad. And, we have to make some of our own.

    No, the time to sit back is O-V-E-R.

  • It is the Media who should be the ones saying this swift boat stuff is not related to the issues it is a smoke screan to avoid the issues. The media is negligent every time they are outdone by Jon Stewart. Maybe they should watch his show and actually learn how to be a news organization by learning from a comedy show.

  • Ohioan said:
    Michelle could lower her profile a bit, starting with not walking out onto stage in FRONT of Barack, but behind. Also some of my freinds did not like her demeanor during the Larry King appearance…

    I try to treat my wife with the manners of an old-fashioned gentleman (even though I’m not that old and sometimes I’m not a gentleman). I hold her chair when she sits, I open the door for her, and I always allow her to proceed me when we cannot walk side-by-side. Good for Obama that he seems to have been raised the same way.

    As far as Ms. Obama’s demeanor, I’m proud of my wife’s ability to intimidate people and I gleefully leave all communications with insurance companies and other parasites of modern life to her.

  • ej

    I agree that Obama will do best by taking the high ground most of the time. But there’s no reason he can’t strongly defend himself on the issue-related garbage that the McCain camp intends to throw at him.

    Tit-for-tat on the low blows that Obama doesn’t want to touch can be handled by 527s totally separate from Obama’s campaign, keeping it honest and provable. Maybe start with McCain’s term of endearment, “c*nt”, addressed to his wife in public. His adultery. The Keating Five can be added, as well as a merciless repetition of his political and philosophical connection to GW Bush, his turning against his own campaign finance reform and torture laws, his lack of integrity.

    IOW, anything too low but true that Obama won’t touch but is known about him.

  • Kathy G and CB asked “What I’m wondering right now is, what can we – as Democrats, as feminists, as people who are deeply committed to racial equality —do to help and support her?”

    My answer: Speak out. When Michelle Obama is getting slammed for being a woman – Say Something. When she’s being slammed for being Black – Say Something. When she’s being slammed for being a Liberal – Say Something. Even if it’s only to your neighbor or colleague or the man or woman sitting next to you on the bus. Tell them you don’t agree. Ask them why they think what they think.

    Only when we all start calling this behavior out – in our every day lives as well as on blogs like this – will anything even start to shift.

  • What a great way to get the Clintonites back. Obama should stand up for his wife’s right to have her own opinions. And if the first lady’s opinions are that important, let’s have a debate. My money is on Michelle.

  • The Republican party will lose, and lose big.

    Nobody trusts them and their dirty tricks any more.

    Out with McBush in November!

  • Just in case you mean me, NEVER did. Hell, were it not for Obama, and Edwards fading, I’d be all for her. I may have thought she was presidential long before you did(93?).

  • “I’m proud of my wife’s ability to intimidate…” But it’s not OK for Clinton to be a forceful person.

    Uhh, I had no problem with her being smart, forceful, quick on the draw. I had a problem with her lying, denigrating her opponent in favor of a Republican, and allowing surrogates including her husband to repeatedly play the race card and the oh, she’s a victim card.

    Have they both been attacked he on race, she on gender? Yup. He just reacted in a more positive, change-oriented way than she did. That has nothing to do with gender, a lot to do with character.

  • phoebes in santa fe @ #18,

    I don’t think anyone would think of Gandhi as “sitting back.”

    Taking the “high ground” doesn’t have to mean, “do nothing” which seemed to be Kerry’s approach.

    I’m not sure what a response would look like, but proclaiming a “new day,” a “new way,” then resorting to “old thinking” tactics leaves one’s proclamations hollow.

    We, the world, are suffering from a profound lack of imagination across the board on so many levels. Our old ways will only give us more of the same results.

    We must all find new, healthier, and sustainable ways of dealing with each other which leads to cooperation, transparency, generosity, compassion, and love – not alienation, vitriol, paranoia, secrecy, and hate.

  • I say go with a two-pronged approach. First, put Michelle out there as much as possible, but in situations that reflected her best. She was great on Colbert, but sometimes on the stump her demeanor can come off as angry. Sadly, it’s just that her natural face expression isn’t always sunny (I can empathize with her on this one). Let women get to know her and her story. Don’t hold her back because she can be a real asset for Obama. And second, they need to hit back on every attack. The more outrageous the hits, the more the campaign should publicize them. Make these assholes look foolish, unchivalrous, and weak, that they can handle Obama, so they attack his wife. Going after her can backfire for the GOP, but only if the Obama camp does the heavy lifting. The media sure won’t do it for them.

  • Impartial said:
    “I’m proud of my wife’s ability to intimidate…” But it’s not OK for Clinton to be a forceful person.

    I don’t want to continue the fight over Clinton. But my opposition to her candidacy was never because she is strong or outspoken or because she is a woman. I opposed her because of her embrace of the DLC’s Republican-lite politics — all the policies, half the meanness. And because many of her political positions seemed to be shaped by political expediency rather than deeply-held principles.

    My wife, by the way, was even more outspoken in her opposition to Clinton.

  • Michelle Obama is completely responsible for her own image. One only needs to listen to her sermon/speeches in order to pick up on the underlying anger and hostility within her. “They” raised the bar on her all the way to infinity. “They” obviously would not be the black race. She is very busy pointing the index finger at everyone else when in reality she needs to turn her index finger completely around and point it at herself.

  • Impartial – another troll for McBush.

    I love the fake-out website. Totally anonymous.

    Go back to Little Green Footballs, they love your stuff there.

    Hillary for Majority Leader in the Senate!

  • ej, i wish i could believe. but when you say “no one can resist nobility” the facts simply line up against you. Dukakis believed a presidential campaign should be all about meritocracy, not sales pitches. He took the noble high road, never hitting back despite being ruthlessly attacked through the Willie Horton ads, through the most unfair debate question ever posed, the tank photos. . . he never stooped to the Republicans levels. And lost an astoundingly lop-sided election. John Kerry also believed that nobility would triumph over sleaze, and felt it was giving undue statute to contemptible behavior to address the Swit Boat lies. Again, the American voting public resisted nobility just fine: they elected one of the most divisive, non-noble Presidents ever. Similarly, the American voting public refused to re-elect perhaps the most noble, charitable, good-hearted modern President, Jimmy Carter, in favor of a sarcastic, snake-oil selling B-list actor.

    I don’t know where your faith in humanity comes from; unfortunately, while admirable, all evidence is that it is sorely misplaced. we can’t risk another naive miscalculation. what Dems really need to learn is not kindness, but killer instinct. the Repubs are like barroom brawlers who cry “uncle,” and when you show mercy and stop fighting they suddenly hit you with a bar stool. no, there can be no mercy and longer. we need to knock them down, and then while they are down we need to kick them, and while they are still down, we need to put a bootheel to their throats. Carter, Dukakis, Kerry showed mercy; the Republicans played them for suckers and the American public hearily went along — and we and the world have paid a steep and painful price. no more mercy, not now, not ever. this is a fight to the death – the Republican Party’s or, sadly, most of the rest of the world through wars and climate catastrophy. the choice is ours, i suggest we not let history learn we were too busy singing kumbaya to to the ugly but necessary task at hand.

  • ej@30 says:

    “We must all find new, healthier, and sustainable ways of dealing with each other which leads to cooperation, transparency, generosity, compassion, and love – not alienation, vitriol, paranoia, secrecy, and hate.”

    Darlin’, I so agree with your sentiments and wish (and hope) they will come true, but I still think we must strike back in this oh-so-important election. Even strike first, if need be.

  • Thanks for the correction, SOV.

    I hereby correct my statement — Cindy McCain stole drugs from that charity, not money.

  • I think ignoring the few Clintonites who are trying to keep strife alive is the better part of valor. Don’t take the bait–nothing you say, no facts you present, will convince the dead-enders.

  • Dave @ 19 re: Jon Stewart. Like this? http://youtube.com/watch?v=vmj6JADOZ-8

    EXACTLY like this!

    Nancy @ 22 was exactly right: Speak Out! Don’t let the ignorant voices rule. We have to be as vocal about the truth as those who are as militant about lying.

    As a strong woman I have no problem with strong women…any strong woman. But as a strong woman, I have had my fair share of “bitch” comments (which, btw, I embrace) where men in the same situations are simply strong.

    We have come a long way, but not far enough. And it is what it is and what it will be, at least for this election cycle.

    I would take a million Hillary Clinton’s and Michele Obama’s over a fraction of Cindy Stepford or Laura Bush (she of “no one suffers more than the president”).

  • I think Johnny McSame is a lot more vulnerable of this because of his wealthy wife that he committed adultery with. But of course, it’s ok when it’s Repubs that do it. Impeachable when Dems do.

    John McCain: Your retirement is too secure as it is, don’t you think?
    John McCain: Can’t poor sick children just get a job already?
    John McCain supporting our troops by keeping them uneducated.
    Why do I put these links in all of my comments? Click Here.

  • Quotes from two articles that help in understanding Michelle Obama and show that she can make a positive difference in the campaign:

    I don’t have the URL for this story
    Obama’s wife joins push to court working class
    By Caren Bohan, dated 5/1/08:
    She described herself as slow to warm up to his interest in a career in politics and said she was initially skeptical of his vow to remake the political culture — a theme that is central to Barack Obama’s book “The Audacity of Hope” and to his presidential campaign.
    “I’m the cynic in the family. I’m the one. This is the hope guy,” she said, drawing laughter as she pointed to her husband.
    “I’ve spent my life trying to convince him not to be a politician. Teach, write, sing, dance — I don’t care what you do. Don’t do this. These people are mean.”
    She says she has since come around, viewing her husband as someone “who could unite people around values.”
    In an interview on NBC’s “Today Show,” Michelle Obama said she was sometimes angered by coverage of the campaign.
    “I take the newspaper and I ball it up and I throw it in the corner,” she said. “You don’t want anybody talking poorly about the people you love.”
    The Obamas visited the home of Cheryl and Mike Fischer for a lunch of sandwiches and potato chips…
    Asked later about the lunch, Cheryl Fischer, 52, said it had gone well and she particularly liked Michelle Obama.
    “She is just down to earth. You can just talk to her. She’s like your girlfriend,” Fischer said.

    http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1030379.html
    Michelle Obama courts voters for Barack, by Rob Christensen
    Michelle Obama drew a huge and raucous crowd here Tuesday for a speech in which she argued that her husband was ready by experience, intellect and temperament to be the next president of the United States.
    Michelle Obama tried to humanize her husband and their lives — from the heavy college debts they incurred from their Harvard law school days to having her mother watch her children while on the campaign trail.
    And in Winston-Salem she poked a little fun.
    “I’m a big fan of accessories,” she said after mentioning the outfit of Mayor Pro Tem Vivian Burke. “I’m married to one. Just kidding.”
    The charm worked on April Mitchell, a 37-year old salon owner from Kernersville, who had been torn between backing Obama and Clinton. After listening to Michelle Obama in Winston-Salem, she said she would vote for Obama.
    Mitchell said she had watched several debates and did not get the feel for the man before Tuesday.
    “She made it more plain and simple,” Mitchell said.
    “She seems to come across very well to women voters because she is a mother and also a professional and a lawyer like Hillary,” said Marie Wilson, president of the New York-based White House Project, which encourages women in politics.
    “She is very straightforward,” Wilson said. “She is very authentic in who she is. People are hungry for that.”
    Lalanda Foye, a 40-year old IBM employee from Raleigh, was favorably impressed with Michelle Obama.
    “It takes a strong woman to be behind a strong man,” she said.

    ~~~~~~~~~~
    The accessories remark still cracks me up!

  • Does ANYBODY here listen to Obama, or realize what he is doing?

    I’m going to focus my comments on phoebes (sf) because I am sure we are totally committed to the same goal, but simply differ on how to get there — and while I have no contact with any campaign, I think it is likely that I do understand what he is doing. (For a better view of how I see the campaign, please check out a comment I put, a day or two ago — as often for me, too late for anyone but Steve to notice it — on the “From too little, too late…” thread.
    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15815.html#comments
    It’s the last comment on the thread.)

    No, we are not going to see a bunch of 527s blasting McCain and doing the work the campaign ‘doesn’t want to dirty its hands doing.’ Obama has said he will disavow any such effort — and will kick off the campaign anyone who is involved with such groups. And I believe him.

    This is not a Kerry-ish ‘nose in the air’ approach. (Sometimes I am amazed to realize that, as better than Bush that Gore and Kerry would have been, they were wrong on so many things. Lieberman for VP — or, almost, McCain. A play to the right which meant, had they been elected, we might have ended the war, but so many other things we wanted would have been impossible.)

    Obama’s role model — as I said in my post above — is not Kerry, or any other recent Democratic politician, but MLK — and maybe also FDR. He will continue to keep his ‘eyes on the prize,’ will mostly ignore the attacks — but when he responds it will be short and devastating. (Which is why I added FDR — see the “Fala speech,’ perhaps the best put-down of this type of Republican tactics.)

    Stop and think for a minute. If Obama, or a 527, attacks Cindy, that attack legitimizes the attacks on Michelle, agrees that ‘wives are fair game’ and elevates this sort of triviality to the same level as the attacks on McCain’s policies — and that is precisely what Obama has been arguing against through the primaries.

    Again, think about Martin, and the way he acted in acheiving his goals — and for those who are too young to remember him, and think of him as nothing but the poster with the ‘Four Words’ on it, or simply as the author of The Speech, take a good look at who he was, what he fought for, what tactics he used (Gandhi’s — not ‘non-violence’ but ‘truth-force’), and most of all just how successful he was.

    Martin did– and Obama does– understand the difference between fighting for something and fighting against someone. I don’t recall Martin ever making a personal comment about even Bull Connor, or Wallace, or Faubus, or the people on his ‘own side’ who were condemning his tactics and arguing for more direct confrontations. (Rightfully so. He knew that Wallace, that Faubus, were, in their own ways, prisoners of the same system as were those who were protesting against it. He didn’t give up on even them ‘coming around’ — and they did. Does anyone know who Faubus supported in 1984? Jesse Jackson!)

    He didn’t attack them, he didn’t have any need to show them up for what they were — because he knew people would see this in contrast. And more because this would mean he was — as were some of the radicals on his side — concentrating on ‘bad men’ when the focus should be kept on ‘bad policies.’

    I expect there to be one “Fala speech” during his campaign, a speech that lines up all the attacks he has received and responds to them with the most devastating weapon of all — ridicule. But that will be it.

    The rest of his campaign will be devoted to just what all of us have been saying he should be doing — demonstrating to the voters just how bad McCain and Republican policies are, for them and for the nation.

    That is the important thing. Not that John McCain is too old, too confused or too bald to be President, not that McCain’s treatment of his first wife matters, not that McCain’s supporters are self-destructive idiots or racists, not that McCain has flip-flopped on everything. (Most of these will come out — if only because reporters are going to wonder why he isn’t using the weapons that they will mention. And Obama doesn’t have to talk about McCain’s confusion — he’ll be showing that all by himself.)

    No, he’ll continue to say, rightly, that policies are the subject of politics and that is what we should be focussing on. Again an echo of Martin, who never varied from his theme that it was segregation that was bad — and later, that it was economic and social injustice and the war that were bad — and should be eradicated. Yes, it’s defenders were bad, too, but they demonstrated that every day and Martin never had to draw attention to this.

    So forget the idea of those 527s. That’s not what Obama is about. And that, above all is why, this year, I’m proud to be voting FOR a Democrat rather than just voting against a Republican.

  • I’m also with Nancy @ 22 – say something!! I received my first anti-Michelle email yesterday, a typically ugly, false rant about her college thesis, which claimed (falsely, of course) to have been verified by snopes.com. I replied to the sender (“reply to all” is even better if possible), setting facts straight, and forwarded it to snopes and the Obama campaign, which has a special address for reporting smears:
    watchdog@barackobama.com

    The campaign has a section to help respond to falsehoods (there’s a section for Michelle):
    http://factcheck.barackobama.com/

    Even better if you can find independent sources debunking them. For the thesis lies, this is a pretty good, well documented, rebuttal:

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/may/30/digging-dirt-college-years/

  • Why does, taking the high road” translate to “doing nothing?”

    Kerry, Carter, and Dukakis were then, this is now. Besides, they are not my point of reference anyway.

    I’ve always been a fighter and I’ve never advocated someone not fighting – fighting back, fighting for one’s rights, fighting to be heard, fighting for one’s dignity, fighting for what is right, etc.

    My point of reference was Gandhi, not ineffectual politicians.

    I know Gandhi never ran for public office, and never had to face the Republican machine, but my point is if a new paradigm is being offered the means to that end also must be new.

    Fighting back in a manner that only leaves the opposition with anger and determination to continue the bogus attacks gains nothing in the end.

    Gandhi found that after the victory of independence, the old of thinking interceded to diminish the victory into dangerous infighting, suspicion, vitriol, and hatred.

    This is not what the Democratic Party needs, not what this country needs, and not what the world needs.

    Fighting back “swift boat” tactics with the same, attacking McCain’s wife, and attacking McCain’s age may very well be what happens, and it may even be successful in gaining a victory – but to what end.

    Whatever changes or gains that may be achieved during a Democratic administration would simply be erased again whenever the Republican party, left hurt, angry, and bent on revenge due to “old school” political tactics, once again gains office.

    My understanding is that Obama wants to offer us something different. And yet, it seems that here there are advocates of doing whatever it takes to get into office then he can offer us change.

    The Republicans were denigrated for a similar attitude and frankly I don’t think it makes a difference from whom that mentality comes from – it’s destructive.

  • ej:
    Your close is so powerful I want to pull it out and echo it here — with whatever little wait my concurrence brings it.
    Whatever changes or gains that may be achieved during a Democratic administration would simply be erased again whenever the Republican party, left hurt, angry, and bent on revenge due to “old school” political tactics, once again gains office.

    My understanding is that Obama wants to offer us something different. And yet, it seems that here there are advocates of doing whatever it takes to get into office then he can offer us change.

    The Republicans were denigrated for a similar attitude and frankly I don’t think it makes a difference from whom that mentality comes from – it’s destructive.

  • No, destructive is Republicans in power.

    The Republicans live for suckers like you want us to be.
    Obama can offer something different – so did Carter. (And, in a way, so did Dukakis – a pure technocratic approach). Offering doesn’t mean it will be accepted.

    This election is simply too important to again get suckered in to losing politely like we did in 80, 88, and 04.

    You are just simply, purely wrong if you think that if we play nice and win the Republicans will say “wow, that having integrity and human decency really works! Next time, we should see who can take the highest road – that’ll show ’em!”

    The right understands only force. The response to how they have governed and how they campaign needs to be so painful they will think not twice, but twenty or thirty times before trying it again.

    hate to break it to you, but human nature just ain’t as sweet and light as your approach requires it to be.

    realism, not idealism. winning elections is about boots on the ground, not heads in the clouds.

  • ej and prup – I agree with you both about 80%.

    Obama IS a different candidate. I’m originally from Illinois and met Obama a few times in 2004 for his Senate race and again in 2006 when I spoke several times for Dan Seals, running for IL-10th House Race. (By the way, if you want to see an interesting race, go over to ActBlue and look up the IL-10th race).

    Good luck to us all. We’re going to need luck and hard work if we’re going to put our once-great country back on the road again.

  • If she is so smart then maybe she should have already learned to keep her mouth shut.

    If she is so smart then maybe she should have already learned, from how the Repo hate machine cluster bombs Fararro, Clinton, Pelosi and any other woman who is not a Repocon, that she needs to keep her mouth shut until she has carefully considered her words. I thought she was a lawyer, she should know better than speak carelessly.

    If she is so smart she should realize that the Repo hate Hillary campaign BS that Obama’s campaign and press support adopted so quickly and easily, against Hillary, can just as quickly be turned against her. And in fact already is doing so. She is now the number one anti-Repocon female target.

    If she continues to set herself up as cannon fodder for the hate press, she will take news space away from her husbands campaign points and will put him on the defensive on her behalf.

    If she is so smart she should know that a candidate’s spouse can do little to help them but a lot to harm them.

    If she is so smart she should realize that, since she is not running for office and is only a tag along. And that for the most part the only people who care what she thinks are ones looking for her to give them a catchy negative headline.

  • Marnie

    There is only ONE statement that Michelle Obama made that all of this hullabaloo is about. Hardly worth your diatribe.

  • Au contrarian said:
    No, destructive is Republicans in power.

    And Republicans could very well say the same thing concerning the Democrats. Who’s right? I guess the answer depends on which side one sits.

    In other words, half the people (more or less) are pissed off and ready to lash out 100% of the time (all things being equal of course).

    The world and this country now face problems whose solutions may very well require a more cooperative less partisan hostile model.

    Those who insist on the “old way” of thinking will either have to be left behind or we may all perish together – I think those very well may be the stakes.

    As Gandhi said, an eye for an eye only leaves the world blind.

  • The story of Cindy McCains drug addiction can be read on Salon news under the title ‘How Cindy was outed for drug addiction’. It also tells of the way John McCain attacked the individual that brought it to light, how he hushed the whole thing up, due to his connections. I think he may have had the individual at the charity (who was trying to help Cindy) fired.
    John McCain has always been a mean person. JS

  • No, destructive is Republicans in power.

    And Republicans could very well say the same thing concerning the Democrats. Who’s right? I guess the answer depends on which side one sits.

    That is a false equivalence, the worst kind of Broder-esque relativism.

    There are objective ways to look at this. And it is fact, not just partisan opinion, that Republican rule has been much worse in any rational purview than Democratic rule in recent times. Want to measure it by who created a tide that raised more boats further? Clinton kicks both Bushes, whose policies only favored the very rich, while Clintons favored nearly everyone (including, as it rurns out, the very rich). Want to measure by whose administration and which party’s other elected officials during the time period of that party’s preeminence had more arrests, convictions, resignations in scandal, non-resignations despite proven scandal? Yep, Bush II wins that one easily. Ground wars? Bushes 2, Clinton 0. Bonus points for lying, repeatedly, about the various alleged reasons for the war. Number of police on the streets? Size of federal deficit? Number of children uninsured or underinsured? Clinton wins them all.

    By what measure that any neutral moral philosopher or objective statistician might consider useful or appropriate do Democrats “destroy” the US or the world, much less in a way remotely approaching that of Republicans?

    This is not something to consider a matter of whether Au Contrarian was being “fair and balanced.” These is just the facts. If facts have a liberal bias, so be it.

  • To tuesdaze,

    I don’t think that the question of who is better than the other, or transversely who is worse than the other serves anyone or any purpose. Rather than that, I would hope that Obama’s vision and promises of something new would include a new world view and a new way of fighting for what one believes. If that is the case, then how he wins becomes just as important (if not more) than if he wins.

    Make no mistake; I want Obama to win not just because I think it’s important to upend the Republican “train wreck”, but also because in my view he is the one who offers this country and the world hope for a “new day” – a truly new way. I don’t want to settle for four or eight “good” years only to face another backlash from the other side filled with feelings of revenge that thinks they are just as right as we do complete with their undoing of whatever gains may have been achieved.

    That’s how it’s been for the last twenty years – back and forth, tit for tat, each side screaming at each other throughout the whole process. I’m not sure we can afford that kind of dynamic anymore – time may be running out for all of us unless we change our ways of thinking and action.

    I don’t think anyone wants Obama to do nothing when attacked. Besides, he hasn’t done that so far so I don’t think anyone has to worry. I do think, however, that it is crucial how he fights back. I would hope for the sake of all, for Democrats, Republicans, the entire country, and perhaps the whole world, that he fights from the “high ground.”

    • Comments are closed.