The Michelle Obama overreaction

Just last week I noted that Elizabeth Edwards, John Edwards’ wife, had become surprisingly aggressive in going after other Democratic candidates in ways the candidate probably wouldn’t.

With that in mind, it’s certainly possible that Michelle Obama would be willing to criticize other Democratic candidates, but after reading a bit about this, I think the media should probably settle down a bit.

Did she or didn’t she? That’s the question some political observers are asking about recent comments from Michelle Obama, the wife of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, that could be interpreted as a swipe against her husband’s chief presidential rival Hillary Clinton.

In Atlantic, Iowa last Thursday, Michelle Obama pointed to the strength of her own family and said the next president must be “somebody that shares our values.”

“Is he somebody that respects family? Is he a good and decent person?” Michelle Obama asked the crowd about the next president. “Our view is that if you can’t run your own house, you certainly can’t run the White House.”

No one cared about the comment until the Chicago Sun-Times suggested Mrs. Obama might have been leveling a veiled attack against the Clintons and their personal life.

Predictably, Drudge picked it up, with a blaring top-of-the-page headline: “Obama Wife Slams Hillary?”

The political press* certainly can get worked up over the strangest things, can’t it?

For what it’s worth, Sen. Obama emphatically denied the interpretation, telling reporters, “There was no reference beyond her point that we have had an administration that talks a lot about family values but doesn’t follow through.”

What’s more, the campaign issued a brief transcript of Michelle Obama’s comments, so people could see the context.

“One of the most important things that we need to know about the next president of the United States is, is he somebody that shares our values? Is he somebody that respects family? Is a good and decent person? So our view was that, if you can’t run your own house, you certainly can’t run the White House. So, so we’ve adjusted our schedules to make sure that our girls are first, so while he’s traveling around, I do day trips. That means I get up in the morning, I get the girls ready, I get them off, I go and do trips, I’m home before bedtime. So the girls know that I was gone somewhere, but they don’t care. They just know that I was at home to tuck them in at night, and it keeps them grounded, and, and children, the children in our country have to know that they come first. And our girls do and that’s why we’re doing this. We’re in this race for not just our children, but all of our children.”

Harmless. This is one of those no-there-there stories.

* OK, so if I’m questioning why the political press is getting worked up over nothing, why am I writing about it? Because the political press is getting worked up over it.

Once in a while, as part of my general approach to covering politics on the blog, I like to let readers know what reporters are buzzing about. That doesn’t mean I agree with the buzz, or care the same way they do, but I’m passing info along anyway.

We’re in this race for not just our children, but all of our children.

How about the adults, Michelle? How about all of the adults, you know, the ones that you want to vote for your husband?

  • Interesting that the media didn’t make the assumption that she was taking a swipe at, say, Rudy Cheated-on-every-woman-he’s-been married-to-whose-choldren-hardly-speak-to-him Giuliani, or John “Cheater” McCain, or the twice-married Fred “Ladies Man” Thompson, don’t you think?

    Why Hillary?

    Yeah, we thought so…because “Clinton” fires up the base. Holy Mother of God this is going to be a long campaign.

  • First Read does a nice job on this one, including this solid explanation:

    So, the story seems to have it all — a reference to the Clinton’s marital problems, more Obama vs. Clinton, etc. There’s just one problem: This all seems to be a manufactured controversy. For one thing, what Michelle Obama said isn’t anything new; in fact, it appears to be her stump speech. She said this on August 13, per the AP. And also on August 16, per the New York Times. In both instances, it appears she’s talking about her own family and its values.

    In a just-concluded conference call, Obama responded to the suggestion that his wife was slamming the Clintons. “She wasn’t making any reference to that,” he said. “If anybody who’s been listening to Michelle on the stump, she’s talked about the importance of family, and the need for our family to make sure that we’re thinking about our kids during the process of this campaign. And she’s repeated that in every stump speech. So, you know, there are no references beyond her point that we’ve had an administration that talks a lot about family values, but doesn’t follow through on it. . .

    First, this is a stretch even for Drudge, and it is sad that anyone will treat this as news (note the First Read blog’s challenge to its own parent on this issue).

    Second, however, I think it interesting that anyone assumed — even if you thought Michelle Obama was attacking another candidate — that the target was Hillary Clinton. HRC can’t run her own house? Last I knew she was on her first marriage and her daughter seems both well adjusted and seems to care deeply about and support her parents. Unlike, oh, Giuliani (who has it all – thrice married and his kids are endorsing Democrats), McCain, Gingrich, or most of the Bush family whose kids all seem to have had brushes with the law. So tell me again how this could even in Rethug Media Fantasy Land be about HRC?

  • Anne, if you and I are going to think alike, you have to think and type slower to give me a fair chance!

  • I bookmark Drudge because he has good links to hurricane maps. But his political news is about as substantive as what you might find on Fox “News,” so I never read it.

    The media loves a catfight. Simple as that. This story has as much substance as the latest sighting of a starlet in full emotional meltdown.

  • Sorry, Zeitgeist, I’ll do better next time!

    Seriously, why does the garbage get shouted from the rooftops and the truth get whispered behind cupped hands? Guess it’s hard having to repudiate their own abysmal job in “reporting,” huh?

  • I read that as Rudy first, “family values hypocrit Republicans” second.

    Hillary never would have entered my mind. Especially since Obama said “he”.

  • The family’s important…we get it. Much ado about nothing. Bush’s family was exported out of sight and Cheney’s family is whacked. Just a scent of family normalcy would be nice. MSM always trying to get a fight started so they have something to write about. Just like the Iowa debates with the GOP moderators. It’s never fair because Olbermann and his like won’t ask loaded questions with an agenda to ambush GOP hopefuls.

    Maybe Dems should give ’em something to write about like…”Well your’re ‘almost’ black…”,
    “yeah? well you’re almost a woman…” and throw food at each other. That would last Drudge several weeks. The family thing wouldn’t have been a story even if it had been a sto ry. These reporters are like wild dogs waiting for crumbs before the banquet begins.

  • I’m amazed (well, not really considering the source) Drudge would jump to the conclusion Michelle Obama’s remarks were about the Clenis. With all the Republican sex scandals that have occurred between Ms. Lewinsky and today, it’s remarkable Drudge blew past such a remarkable number of tawdry behavior by Republicans far more egregious than The World’s Most Famous Blowjob to find an appropriate reference for Obama’s remarks.

    As Mr. Furious noted, why is everybody blowing past the obviousness of the pronoun used? Given how much attention they focused on Cleavage-gate, you’d think they’d notice that “he” doesn’t refer to the part of our mammalian species with boobs.

  • The comment was made and interpreted by the media as having been about Hillary. Michelle is not an asset to Obama. She looked positively demented.

  • Obama has a history of saying the wrong things and then declaring innocently that it was his campaign’s fault. When we speak of Obama must we speak in hushed tones because we are not allowed to criticize him. Today Obama said he will deliver the Black vote. If I were a Black person I would hate being told I was a special interest group which could be delivered. I found that comment cynical and manipulating.

  • s. hall,
    Care to elaborate?

    1) Invasion of Pakistan – all he called for was a strike (perhaps by cruise missile)
    2) Talk to “Enemy” states with no prep – He said he’d talk with the “enemy”
    3) Family is important – reported as saying Hilary’s family is a mess.

    Systematic character assassination by misquotation and groundless speculation.
    But it’s Hilary the right is afraid of?

    Where’s my tin-foil hat? It’s around here somewhere….

  • Comments are closed.