I would like to concede the point and admit error, but IIRC, that "ashamed" statement is what started a firestorm in which Michelle was central.
sorry, i totally missed your point, you're right hillary is by far the most ambitious first lady and I don't see anyone in her class.
Ambition is about the only virtue I see in Hillary. I am disgusted by her methodology and personna in exercising it.
I would expect Michelle Obama to take on an active role in something other then selecting the dinner plates, hosting a whitehouse brunch or lending her name to some symbolic 'just say no' campaign. Like Hillary, she is a qualified professional in her own right. I also expect her to be labelled a Btch and to hear chorus of demeaning chants about her qualifications, ability, intentions or hairstyle from the usual suspects. Ain't politics grand.
Regardless of whether or not she wants to be or is, she's going to be portrayed as the root of all evil by the wingnuts, much like HIllary, who was vilified as an ice-cold lesbian drug runner - not just among the crazies but in the Wall Street Journal opinion pages. So like it or not - that's the kind of misogynistic treatment she is going to receive. I have no doubt it would have been the same for Elizabeth Edwards, Theresa Heinz Kerry, Tipper Gore - see, e.g. this thread. If there's anything the right wiing attack machine likes to smack down it's a female who they like to think has it coming.
I am not saying that I disagree with you, because you make an interesting point. It is curious to ponder...at what point does perception become reality?
At the point that the WSJ opinion page starts calling her a lesbian drug runner (or other such equivalent unstable rantings) as they did during Hillary's time as first lady. Given the things that the wingnut machine's rants about Barack have amounted to thus far I don't see this to be too far off.
Get used to it. More women are getting advanced degrees and have the confidence to show it. It's not going to stop anytime soon, and just because she's outspoken doesn't mean that she's a cutthroat b****.
While I certainly am not a big fan of Hillary Clinton, if WSJ actually stated that she is a lesbian drug runner, that seems to be libel. Of course, they'd have to show Times malice, etc...but I think you get my point. That point is that the WSJ (or anybody else) need not manufacture things just because they disagree with a person. Politics in this country has become distasteful indeed.
So if Michelle Obama is fair game I guess it's fair to ask why Cindy McCain refuses to release her tax returns and why she just unloaded two million in Investments she had in companies that do business in the Sudan? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/14/cindy-mccain-sells-sudan_n_101767.html
That definitely is fair game IMO. If Hillary wins the nomination, I'd be strongly in favor of exploring her (and Bill's) ties to the UAE and other Arabs who give her millions of dollars -- oh, sorry, to Bill's library that refuses to release how funds are spent or from whence they come. However, the hate-filled Huffington blog has very little credibility in my book. But that's just me.
This thread is worthless without mentioning Eleanor Roosevelt. She was very involved with Franklin's presidencies.
Also, don't forget No DailyKos, No MoveOn.Org and No N.Y. Times. Actually, I pretty much read anything and everything. I just ignore those who preach hate. Those with an axe to grind also get short shrift as far as citing as a source. BTW, did you get my email?
editorial, "Investigate Mena," WALL STREET JOURNAL, July 10, 1995, pg A12 I don't really get your point. The WSJ need not manufacture things, they can just repeat ridiculous manufactured things (see, e.g., a call for congressment to investigate the president and his wife smuggling drugs out of an airstip in arkansas with the CIA) in their editorial pages to carry out whatever agenda they have. Further I don't think you have a very realistic concept of defamation law nor of the role or capacity of the office of the President if you think the lack of a libel suit has any meaning here. Hillary got pilloried and made into the right-wing's root of all evil. Any high profile woman who speaks her mind is going to get the same treatment. Michelle Obama's going to get the same. It's SOP at this point.
