Michelle Obama is using her position to do real good for the world, which RedState doesn’t like one bit:
[Michelle Obama] is an angry, arrogant, martinet that [sic] isn’t aware that “first lady” is an honorary title that has no proper, Constitutional role and is not an elected position with legal, legitimate powers of its own
Now, don’t misunderstand me here. I am neither saying that wives are unimportant nor that a first lady should hide her light under a bushel for the entire time she is in the White House. But a first lady, Michelle, does not direct policy, nor serve as an official advisor in government, nor have “deliverables” to promulgate, nor have much of a role with czars and “advisory boards.” That, little lady, is for the actually, legally empowered, officials.
To put it simply, dear, you ain’t no official. [. . .]
Chillax, honeypie. Read a magazine, watch the kids, and leave the policy to the real officials, will ya?
Presumably, RedState also objects to the incredible extra-constitutional power wielded by the White House Chief of Staff, the press secretary, the director of communications, and don’t even get me started on the deputies. They “ain’t no” officials!!
Given the PUMA’s apparent hatred of all sexism, everywhere, one can’t help but think that their rejoinder will be swift, and deadly. Any day now, once they finish indulging in far-far-right fantasies about Bill Ayers being the real author of Obama’s biography (because what if he is!).
U R serious!
Granted the last part of the statement was uncalled for. Concerning the remarks about 1)You do not call the First Lady “little lady” or “honey pie”. I don’t like her personally but it was secxist.And the place of the first lady is still a position to respect no matter who it is.
2)With that said there have been far WORSE sexit statements said about women on the right. Ie the Playboy article concerning eight conservative women in a list of the ones the author deemed his “Hatef@%k” list. Not only wad it misogynist but racist as well. The statements Mrs. Palin has to endure are a prime example of sexism gone wild in this country.Asd men on the LEFT have taken full advantage of in demeaning women.
Should PUMA say something? YES! No question.
But Madame Fisrt LAdy has missed countless opportunities to bridge the divide between women of different political ideologies. A divide destorying what our foremothers had fought so hard for.
Posted by Lady Libertarian | June 29, 2009, 7:15 pmTo be honest, I have never quite understood why the first lady has a public role in the US. These guys are right, after all, in that she has absolutely no democratic legitimation. There are many countries in the world where you actually never hear a word from the president’s / chancellor’s / prime minister’s spouse, and that arguably makes much more sense (e.g., I don’t even know what my head of government’s husband looks like!).
I would see the problem more in (1) the offensive and belittling choice of words and (2) the hypocrisy of only criticizing democrat first ladies and never the republican ones, but that does not mean that their underlying argument is to be rejected.
Posted by Mintman | June 30, 2009, 1:43 amI admit it’s weird that American first ladies generally do feel the need to wield real power, when that’s not the norm in other countries, but I think it’s the result of the nexus of America’s history with “separate spheres” (women shouldn’t work) and a history of politicians marrying supremely talented women. I.E., these women feel torn between the cultural expectation that the first lady is a figurehead “model wife,” and their own talents, resulting in a half-step position of authority within the Executive Office of the President. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that: in fact, I rather like it. After all, there are plenty of unelected, unconfirmed positions within the EOoP.
Posted by ACG | June 30, 2009, 8:38 amMaybe that is part of the problem: as long as you are used to vote for a couple, you may have it easier to overlook that somehow the office-holder of the two is always male. If you only ever saw the office-holder in public, you might start to wonder more quickly why there is never a woman among the presidents.
Posted by Mintman | June 30, 2009, 11:44 amI think that many Republican First Ladies seemed to stay out of policies and things of that nature. Many found a cause and worked on that. Like Laura Bush was an advocate for people with AIDs. Mrs. Bush before her was advocate for reading,things like that. It always seems that Democratic First Ladies have a tendency of putting themselves in the middle of policy decisions outside the norm of the First Ladies duties. Like that of Hillary Clinton. Either why, I agree the remarks were belittling. How can I say this…even as a woman who works in a male dominated field. The first Lady has a certain set of duties that she should stick with. We vote for a single candidate on issues, not the candidate and his wife.
Posted by Lady Libertarian | June 30, 2009, 12:06 pm