This One's For the Girls

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.

Comments

[KateLohman]

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...

[KateLohman]

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.

[LeoMarvin]

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?

[LBKN]

I have asked multiple times... but nobody will answer. I want to know...

"Are women better at cave painting?"

[Myrrhis]

I don't know about all women, but I am. :P

[LBKN]

lol

[monique]

Good for you! Keep on speaking up! LOVED it!

Thank you! GO HILLARY!!!!!!

[RockerfellerFile]

Thanks, monique..

By Tuesday evening the Hillary train will be in high gear...

[angienc]

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.

[LeoMarvin]

Please do explain how defending a post that calls men inferior isn't sexist, but criticizing it is.

[Cleever]

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.

[Cleever]

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????

[Myrrhis]

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.

[veracal]

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.

[blackhappy]

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.

[djjlynch]

Kristen, Spectacular and right on.

[kingshmoopy]

"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.

[LeoMarvin]

Yup.

[Cleever]

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.

[Omegaman]

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.

[rwilliams1961]

With all due respect, if women are so much better, how is it that men run the world?

Just asking.

[Cleever]

"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??

[Petey]

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.

[UnrulyWoman]

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.

[kingshmoopy]

UnrulyWoman, well put and spot on!

[Project4NuBostonTeaParty]

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

[Myrrhis]

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.