Let's face it, somewhere deep down inside, even Michelle Obama believes that in a more perfect world she would be the Obama running for President.
Come'on. We've all read Michelle's comments about Barack: He doesn't pick up his dirty laundry; can't make a bed better than a five-year old, while he's off playing rock star she is left raising their children and running the household remarking that she didn't sign up to be a single-parent; noting that she is married to the "man" Barack certainly not the phenomenon. In short, Michelle's relegated to the grunt work while Barack gets the fun work.
We've all witnessed Michelle's facial expressions when she observes Barack. Eyes rolling. And we've all heard Michelle speak about Barack when she delivers one of her un-edited backhanded comments about him. It's like she can't help herself. She knows she is better. Heck, even standing next to Barack, Michelle makes a more commanding presence by appearing stronger, more engaged, and more aware. In Team Obama, Barack's the cheerleader, while Michelle's the quarterback.
Michelle knows the same simple truth that all women know: when it comes to getting work done and cleaning up messes, women are better than men.
This is part of the reason of why Hillary Clinton is the better candidate in '08. Aside from the fact that she has more experience; she is a woman. It's time we recognize what a strength that is in a Commander in Chief.
Hillary is smarter, more capable, a harder worker, better multi-tasker, and most importantly, tougher than Barack.
Let's employ the "foxhole rule." Imagine yourself in the heat of war. Bombs dropping everywhere. You're dug in. You've got limited ammo. All hell is breaking loose. Who would you rather have getting your back? Barack or Hillary?
Hands down, I would personally choose Hillary because she would fight to the death. She would get the job done. She is one tough, smart cookie. In essence it's the difference between "can" and "will."
Sure, we all can do anything -- this is after all America. But what "will" we do -- that's what matters most. (Barack's "Yes We Can" mantra annoys me because it's too passive. I don't want to know what you can do. I want to know what you will do, dammit!)
Hillary is a will-do person not a can-do person.
Back to the foxhole. Can anybody realistically picture Barack fighting to the death? Taking it to the mats? Nope. He'd be the guy holed up in the corner reading his own prose hoping and pontificating about how in a more perfect world it should all end. Problem is that it's not a perfect world.
Queue Obama supporters saying: Barack wouldn't be in the foxhole to begin with; he voted against the war. Answer: reality check folks, like it or not, WE ARE IN THE FOXHOLE. In fact, we are doubly "foxholed" right now: First, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and second, our sinking, dismal economy.
The point? We need the best Commander in Chief to get us out of the foxhole -- not merely complain that we shouldn't be in the foxhole.
I imagine Obama supporters complaining that this sort of tough mentality is too akin to the war-mongering and posturing of George Bush and/or John McCain. My answer? Simple. Women, and more to the point, mothers do not want unnecessary, wanton, or reckless wars. Period. In other words, moms are tough, but we aren't looking for a fight. Imagine that mentality in a president.
To me the descent of Hillary Clinton's campaign has meant that we might never know the real truth behind statements like George Bush's "it's hard work to be the president." And that's a shame. I hope all the women out there reading this who've ever run up against the "male-work-ethic" identify with what I am talking about here.
But our country is a mess. It's going to require a lot of unglamorous, grunt work and perhaps a bit of a bad rap to clean it all up. To me, it sounds like a job for a woman because if there were ever a house that needed cleaning up, it would be our current WH.
As the saying goes: a woman's work is never done. Indeed women are the ones who tirelessly and (and perhaps truly miraculously) clean up the messes, unplug the toilets, nurture the children, and make sure everyone is as happy as can be at day's end. Michelle Obama gets that. I get that. You get that. And perhaps more than any of us, Hillary Clinton gets that.
That's why it isn't that difficult or even ironic to go back to the paragraphs above and see that Hillary and Michelle's names are interchangeable. In many ways, they are one and the same. They are smart, realistic, hard-working, problem-solving, and tough-minded women. They aren't too precious to do the grunt work. They aren't relegated to rhetoric. They are tough in the trenches. They are women. They are moms. They are us. And so why not?
Every woman has some degree of experience with men -- their husbands, boyfriends, fathers, brothers, colleagues, etc. And collectively we all know the truth: women are better. We are better at getting work done. We are better at cleaning up messes. We are tougher and more tireless. We are smart and strategic. And that is why we should all be supporting Hillary because, (sorry boys) now more than ever this one should be for the girls.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Correction: The title of Ms. Breitweiser's memoir is, of course, "Wake-Up Call: The Political Education of a 9/11 Widow". My apologies and thanks for any help...
I wanted to let Ms. Breitweiser know that I sent her a letter at the end of October 2007, via Author Mail at Grand Central Publishing (the publisher of her powerful memoir "Wake-Up Call; The Education of a 9/11 Widow"). The letter references some research I've been pursuing , which would greatly benefit from Ms. Breitweiser's input and insights. I haven't received a reply and wanted to know if there was a preferable way to contact her.
Hope this is appropriate to this site - many thanks for any help.
I've never seen anything as disgusting in the name of liberalism as the comments defending this post. Arguing for the superiority of one gender or the other is about as far from liberal as it gets. When did sexism become OK as long as you're the one on top? Or did you always consider the rest of us kind of pathetic for thinking it was about anything except winning?
When I read comments that thank the author for her courage to say something as controversial and important as "women are better than men," my head reels. Have you all lost your minds or only your principles? You're giving license to an amoral, self-aggrandizing urge for power, and calling it virtuous? With a straight face? You swapped out "equal rights, equal justice" for "me, mine, more, now." Aren"t you afraid your kids will find out?
I have asked multiple times... but nobody will answer. I want to know...
"Are women better at cave painting?"
I don't know about all women, but I am. :P
lol
Good for you! Keep on speaking up! LOVED it!
Thank you! GO HILLARY!!!!!!
Thanks, monique..
By Tuesday evening the Hillary train will be in high gear...
Thank you for having the courage to post this on this here -- it is about time someone did a piece that wasn't pro-Obama. I agree and, probably because I'm a woman, I *got* your analogy, unlike so many others. Furthermore, I am very disappointed to see all the sexist reactions -- you know, the ones who retort with such quick wit as to call you a "feminazi"? I mean really, is the best retort that you can come up with is some from Rush Limbaugh? If that is your reaction to an intelligent woman, no wonder you are supporting Obama.
Please do explain how defending a post that calls men inferior isn't sexist, but criticizing it is.
Michelle Obama:
"If you can't run you're own house, you certainly can't run the White House"
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/4/135338/3992
Hit play.
PS¦
So I assume all of you who attacked Kristen for being sexist would now have to acknowledge that Michelle Obama is sexist too???
How about some crow to go with that egg on your face????
I personally think it's a pretty dumb comment. But it's only sexist if Mrs. Obama thinks it applies to women and not to men.
You're missing the difference in the two metaphors, Cleever, no doubt intentionally.
MIchelle Obama's comment is referring to Hillary's inability to run a campaign and using the metaphor of running a household. She then links it to an icon of the presidency, the White House. She is NOT making a comment about the relative abilities of the 2 genders to do their jobs.
Breitweiser is. And very clearly. Essentially a "the best man for this job is a woman" argument.
Looks like yer crows have come home to nest, honey.
I was with you up until the "honey" crap, Myrrhis.
At any rate, I think you're absolutely right about the metaphor. Not only that, I saw nothing misogynistic or sexist in Ms Obama's remarks; in my opinion, those who do are those who WANT to see it. They are the folks who are so wrapped up in needing to see a woman win the Presidency that they wind up becoming the kind of shrill hysterics opponents of women's rights have long branded feminists to be. They're giving those of us who have fought long and hard for equality a bad name.
Huh.... so, ignore the war enabling, ignore the union-busting lobbyists running her campaign, ignore the fear-mongering and flip-flopping, ignore the media intimidation and litigious thuggery that would make the Church of Scientology envious, and just... vote vah-jay-jay?
Way to bolster the argument that voting should be a privilege.
Kristen, Spectacular and right on.
"women are better." Wow, I hope to God my sons never get wind of that. And I hope my daughter never does, either. You are a sexist.
My husband and I are partners. I am a stay-at-home mom (through my own choice, so don't think "gotcha"). When my husband gets home from work does he go kick his feet up while I make dinner and take care of our three children? No, together we take care of our children and our house. He makes dinner or I do, he cleans up while I put the kids to bed, or the other way around. The point is that we are both there, with our children, working together. Your assumption that women are the caretakers and are better suited to the tough job is completely baseless.
My husband and I raise our children to believe that they should never peg themselves based on their sex. Or should we raise the boys to believe they are "stronger," our daughter to believe she is "more nurturing?" Your stereotypes hurt feminism and degrades all of us. I refuse to raise my children to think, based on their sex, that they will or must behave a certain way.
I'm not even going to address your argument as to why Clinton is the better candidate, except to say that your arguments are ludicrous.
Yup.
POSTED THIS MORNING AND HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET:
I am shocked at how most everyone here has completely missed Kristen's point.
The point was not that you should vote for Hillary solely because she is a woman. The point was that her being a woman is a strong attribute that should be considered in our analysis and one we"ve never been able to appreciate in a president.
I will say this - Kristen"s post has been very successful in smoking out the racist and sexist bias that a lot of you people didn"t know you had.
Do you really think she literally meant Hillary could clean a house better than Obama? Likewise, do you really think that people aren"t going to vote for Obama just because he is black? Do you really think that people WON"T vote for Hillary just because she"s a woman?
You people need to get a grip.
This isn't really about who has a penis and who has a vagina, Kristin. Maureen Dowd nailed this in her last column (rare as that is).
We've just had 7+ years of severe testosterone in the White House. Yes, the country is in a big-time mood for feminine qualities in cleaning up this "mess." But the unltimate lirony of it is that Obama--for whatever reason--appears to be more in tune with his feminine qualties than Hillary. Her secrecy, her toughness, her fighting, her divisiveness and inability to admit mistakes--all feed a Bush-Cheney testorone meme that the country is desperate to escape.
Obama, on the other hand, seeks inclusiveness, openess and many other wonderful feminine qualities that people currently find desirable in their next president. That's why her female support is hemmoraging. (sic).
Sorry, but this isn't about gender. While Hillary has many admirable qualities and might make a fine president, there simply aren't enough people who like her, trust her, and want her to be president.
In a larger sense, Bush has screwed things so much that people actually fear the status quo more than Hillary's fear-mongering ads. When a liberal athiest like myself can view the Maya end-of-the-world 2012 calendar as anything more than a curiosity, you know that desperation is a prime variable in the upcoming vote. I don't care who fixes our problems. And I don't care what genitalia they have. Period. I just want them fixed.
Is Hillary more qualified? Probably. More intelligent? Questionable. I see a mimbleness to Obama's intelligence, a willingness to bring in disperate views. With her, I see authoritarian tendencies and an enemies list. Very cold-warish. And that type of thought must go the way of the Cold War.
We should really try to get past the gender issue in this, the most important of elections. I'm surprised that Kristan--a true patriot and intelligent beyond reproach--has taken such a gender-centric and simplistic approach to such a complex situation.
With all due respect, if women are so much better, how is it that men run the world?
Just asking.
"Michelle knows the same simple truth that all women know: when it comes to getting work done and cleaning up messes, women are better than men."
WHAT IS EVERYONE MISSING HERE?? She doesn"t literally mean cleaning like vacuuming and dusting. She means fixing problems¦taking care of things¦like the "mess" our country is in!! Do you all really think the point of Kristen"s blog was that we should consider voting for Hillary because of her vacuuming skills??
No one here thinks that. But many are amazed at Kristen's transparent and unapologetic sexism combined with her regressive embracing of essentialist notions of feminism.
But what if... just what if... Barack has the ability to still the bombs, to quiet the guns of war and to make sure that red phone isn't ringing in the middle of the night?
I don't want antother President who stands up to say she's prepared to fight the war. I want the guy who believes we can end it.
UnrulyWoman, well put and spot on!
Kristen, you took a BIG CHANCE coming on to the Obamaton Post blog and offering some facts. I will try to do the same, in case anyone here still has a functioning neocortex:
Contributions from SPECIAL INTERESTS up to 02/20/08
(opensecrets.org):
Lawyers & Lobbyists ...(did I see that correctly -- is that 'lobbyists'?)
Obama $11,345,836 ...( $11.3 million????)
Clinton $14,067,757
Other
Obama $13,638,950 ...(is that Mr. Obama in 1st place with nearly $14 mil?)
Clinton $11,092,066
Communications/Electronics ...(gee, would this include the media?)
Obama $6,057,316 (that's $6 million)
Clinton $6,161,973
Health
Obama $3,210,449
Clinton $3,949,534
Energy/natural resources
Obama $727,801
Clinton $792,588
Defense industry
Obama: $137,471
Clinton: $217,559
I'm confused, are you trying to HELP Hillary with this?
Assuming these numbers are correct, Hillary took more from Lawyers and Lobbyists, more from Communications (Media?), more from Health, more from Energy and more from the Defense industry than Obama.
The only faction that contributed MORE money to Obama was "Other". 'S funny, opensecrets.com (I am certain you mean opensecrets.org, btw) doesn't identify what it includes in "Other", but whatever it is, it is clearly NOT the biggest lobbying industries. Another interesting tidbit comes from individual contributions, as only 87% of Clinton's financing is from individuals, while 99% of Obama's is. Says something about where his support lies.
Think yer post may have backfired, Sparky.
Kristen, you are absolutely correct. No doubt Michelle would be a Co-President, just like so many said and detested about Hillary when she was the First Lady. I think, one day after Obama is elected President (hopefully not this time), Michelle Obama will also run for President (following in Hillary's footsteps). Hillary is a trailblazer and an icon who should be respected, not ridiculed. She is making it easier for the next woman (Michelle Obama?) to dare to go where no woman has gone before.
I hope that it will be easier for Michelle on her run for the Presidency, and that she will look back and realized that she misjudged Hillary and thank her for who she is and what she has done.
Well Kristen, congratulations you lost a fan. I used to admire and support you. Now I know your just a man-hating feminazi. Hate is hate, no matter who you direct it at. It makes no difference if its at a specific gender, race, religious group etc. Hate is hate, and you maam are a hater. You accomplished your goal of getting the 9/11 commission created. Your 15 minutes of fame are over, now go back to where you came from. We don't need your hate speech around here.
I disagree. It's actually worse than hate. Most people know hating is wrong. When they see it, they know to reject it. But this post has none of the markers of hatred that would warn off decent people. It gives me no reason to worry the author's harboring fantasies of burying an ax in some poor guy she catches watching her the wrong way. I don't think she hates men at all. Of course she does think we're inferior to real people, but not in any detestable way. It's not as if she blames us for being genetically unqualified to perform complex tasks. We're just harmless, lumbering, knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers with 401(k)'s. Nothing to get worked up over. Move along.
That, in a nutshell, is the banality of evil. What she's peddling isn't Hitlerian, but it is Faustian. Her echo chamber is menace-free, so you can enter without guilt. Of course, what you would think of a man commentator who would congratulate and thank a man blogger for his courage to say things like this about women... well that's your business (Yes- check the comments. There are women on this thread actually expressing those sentiments without a hint of irony).
Look, I think most progressives, whether they're for Hillary or for Obama, have principles they wouldn't sell out to justify some sleazy campaign pitch. And I think most progressives understand the principles we stand for well enough to recognize when they're being torched before their eyes, whether in anger or with a smile. They'd no sooner throw a man on that fire as they would a woman. Unfortunately, the people expressing their disgusting admiration and gratitude for this post are not among them.
Leo Marvin said: "..That, in a nutshell, is the banality of evil. What she's peddling isn't Hitlerian, but it is Faustian. Her echo chamber is menace-free, so you can enter without guilt..."
That's very good!
Twenty years ago... a searching spiritualist said to the audience I was in, "Satan never comes-out on stage to proclaim, '"I am evil... come partake of me."
critical thinking = the other national deficit
and wow this post is a great example. more "vote for hillary because she's a woman" schwag.
just curious of the author thinks that supporting the neo-con agenda of american imperialism is really a pro-woman position. I wonder if the author thinks that voting NO to banning the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas is a pro-woman position. I wonder if the author thinks that supporting bush's patriot act and no child left behind act are pro-woman actions. I wonder if the author thinks that serving on the board of a company that during her tenure refused to let it's workers organize and still refuses to pay a living wage to it's workers is really a pro-woman position.
all of these things are CLEARLY anti-woman, yet are all positions and actions taken by this woman, hillary clinton. to claim that people should support a candidate simply because she is a woman when that candidate has done many things that are anti-woman (and anti-human) is narrow and contradictory.
Hillary has not been able to run her own campaign as fiscally well as Obama. One wonders can she balance the checkbook at home?
Her vote to invade Iraq should be bothersome to you, since you know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Obama has managed to do what few in our history have done and that is to organize the movement for change. Young voters are coming out in droves to change what is happening in Washington. It will take a movement and those demands to turn things around for all of us.
Kristen - I really found your book and your actions re: 9/11 inspirational. And I have read most of your posts here.
But you really disappoint me with this post.
But of the two candidates, Hillary is much closer to your republican roots so perhaps that is the appeal?
Amen!
Interesting. I was just eavesdropping. Since this one's for the girls, I certainly didn't intend to jump in.. But then as I read about those foxholes, I began to think about my wife and me and I knew who would be the one digging the hole. Have you ever dug one? It ain't always all that easy. Nor is it fun. For that reason I am not in favor of any kind of politician who voted to empower any kind of stupid warmonger.
I know that I'm a bit of a coward; I never enjoyed looking at the wrong end of any gun. Once I ran like hell. Once there was nowhere to run, so I sweated hard and got lucky. And once I just stayed in place, wondering why. I have no idea how my wife would have acted, but if there are any strange animals around, I'm the one she has drive them off. She doesn't squeal and panic at the sight of a mouse, but once she did something of that nature when she found a bat in the bathroom. (I got it out.) I grant that in many ways she is tougher than I. And she is a much nicer person. But I have to drive her to work in bad weather. We men are often pretty ridiculous beasts. But we're not alone in this mess.
And we ar
Posted February 29, 2008 | 04:33 PM (EST)