<p>“This is from about 6 months ago. She probably stays closer to the script now.”</p>
<p>Too bad. I found it amusing when she said it and still do. </p>
<p>I think she’s attractive as well. So much for PCness.</p>
<p>I didn’t think it was that provocative but it was good to listen to. The video led me to this one: [YouTube</a> - Michelle Obama: Be not afraid](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqCYFpUAJ2Q]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqCYFpUAJ2Q) where she talks about living in fear and voting with hope.</p>
<p>I think Ms Obama makes a good point.</p>
<p>Which brings up the major issue I have w Hillary.</p>
<p>I don’t care how smart she thinks she is- but how smart could she be, to still be with that man?
She should have cut and run a long time ago.</p>
<p>So she stayed with him as people are saying to further her political career?</p>
<p>What does that say, about what sort of president she would be?</p>
<p>Her values put ambition higher, than common sense?</p>
<p>^^^ along those lines, and what kind of anger must Hillary have regarding the Republican forces who tried to ruin them years ago.
What sweet revenge to be sitting in that White House after all those years of angst, and years of waiting for “her” moment. </p>
<p>Michele is amazing- did everyone see the Larry King interview Monday night.
She is certainly her husband’s equal in all ways.</p>
<p>I really would have liked to see her interview on Larry King. Do they ever do reruns?</p>
<p>While I’m not particularly a Hillary fan, I prefer to give her the benefit of the doubt when it comes to staying with her husband. Perhaps her values put marriage first, which in my eyes is a good thing, not a bad thing. Perhaps she really does love Bill and is willing to forgive and work on her marriage. So what you see as a weakness could also be considered a strength, since we can not see inside her mind and heart to know her true reasons.</p>
<p>^^ I agree that forgiveness and staying in the marriage may be strength in a marriage and I too give Hillary the benefit of the doubt. Partly because I would do the same (forgive and stay). </p>
<p>However the point is more why did she allow her husband to stray (probably many times) and not find out about it. Michelle looks like she keeps Barack on a tighter leash. We could have a woman running the show after all?!</p>
<p>I agree that I don’t know her reasoning- but since they have left the white house, their careers have dictated that they lead largely separate lives- so they must have a different idea of marriage than I do.</p>
<p>[Bill</a> and Hillary Clinton: the dynamics of a marriage - Times Online](<a href=“The Times & The Sunday Times: breaking news & today's latest headlines”>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3294457.ece)</p>
<p>I don’t have the impression that Barack is on a leash- he is not a “hound dog” type as is our 42nd president. However, I do think Michelle will be a very different type of first lady than we have seen for a while.</p>
<p>This looks like the Larry King interview: [YouTube</a> - Michelle Obama on Larry King Live](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyBc33UjvDU]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyBc33UjvDU)</p>
<p>EK4, I agree. There’s something about Michelle that tells me that if Barack were to stray she would NOT put up with it, would send him packing, but then again she doesn’t seem to be a politician in the making. </p>
<p>I think that is one of the things that bugs some women about Hillary. Not only did her husband stray, he strayed over and over again, was caught over and over and basically humiliated Hillary over and over on his way up the ladder and while perched at the top of it. She chose to stay, which on some level I admire because I want to believe that part of it was for Chelsea’s sake and part because she does value the institution of marriage and her marital vows and that on some level she loves the man, etc… </p>
<p>But! It’s also disturbing to me that Hillary would not give Bill the boot. I would have told my own daughter to do so (or even my own Mom) and I certainly would not have allowed myself to be disrespected that way, but Hillary chose to allow it. Why? Because of her own political ambitions, I assume. And it’s this calculated acceptance of personal loss versus career gain that I can’t get past. Perhaps every politician must give up something of him or herself to climb the ladder but to not at some early point just say “enough, I will go this on my own” is foreign to me. It’s like Hillary was, in her own strange way, a kept woman. And that’s not an equal in a marriage. And that makes marriage a sham. So how can Hillary appeal to modern women who insist on being true equals/partners in a marriage? It’s like she has the veneer of a glass-ceiling breaker but something is strangely contradictory at the core. </p>
<p>I guess that’s the disconnect for me.</p>
<p>kathiep: Thank you for the link!</p>
<p>momof2inca: I would forgive out of love, not political ambition. As long as the love is still there, the marriage is viable, IMHO. </p>
<p>I assume that Hillary also loves Bill.</p>
<p>*She chose to stay, which on some level I admire because I want to believe that part of it was for Chelsea’s sake and part because she does value the institution of marriage and her marital vows and that on some level she loves the man, etc… *</p>
<p>on some level I sympathize with it-
but Hilary has an education- and friends- she isn’t forced to stay with someone that has a different idea of marriage than she does.
I also think, that if it really was about being a role model for her daughter- that she would have made different decisions.</p>
<p>I try and think about- if my daughter was in this situation- what would I want for her.
Would she want Chelsea to make the same decisions she did?</p>
<p>I guess we all have a different definition of love.
Someone who doesn’t think oral sex is “sex” and claims they “didn’t inhale”, doesn’t have a problem bending the truth to suit their purposes.</p>
<p>( not that , that is a isolated incidence with our heads of state)</p>
<p>Vparent,
I agree, but at what point does a woman’s love for her cheating man (and I’m just assuming that he is still doing it even now) reflect her own lack of self-worth? For me that point would be two times (once to forgive and twice to realize I’m not a respected partner in the marriage), maybe other women are more forgiving. </p>
<p>Something tells me that she is not that forgiving and that she made a deal with him early on and now it’s his turn to deliver. </p>
<p>This type of marriage for convenience/career ambition is foreign to me and I distrust it. Thus I have a tendency to distrust her.</p>
<p>On the other hand, Michelle Obama I have a tendency to trust very much. She seems like she would not put up with crap from anyone if it was going to hurt her kids or herself, and that includes Barack. She’s even said this is his one shot at the White House, and he’s said he really had to convince her to let him run. </p>
<p>I like that in a person… it shows respect for self and parnter, as well as the ability to sacrifice… but not a bottomless bucket and very little calculation. The Clinton marriage seems disfunctional at the spiritual/emotional level, though I agree that as a political coupling it seems to be working out quite nicely for them both.</p>
<p>There is a lot to be said for family history, being with the person who knew your family members, who is the parent of your child, and who is very good company. If the Clintons’ faith is sincere, part of it is forgiveness, love, patience, and forebearance. We cannot judge what the heart and soul of anyone else’s marriage is. </p>
<p>There is a “take no prisoners” element to the Obama campaign which leaves me cold, and I have heard it verbalized that the strategy is to not allow any voter the fantasy that he would wait his term in the vice presidency…to the extent that I heard Michelle Obama respond to a question about supporting HRC’s candidacy if she won the nomination that “she would have to think about it.” Perhaps that is her version of no more partisan politics, i.e. she feels no obligation to support any other Democratic nominee. Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Edwards have been quite aggressively negative about HRC and the issues of her candidacy as a woman…a bit of gamesmanship so that husbands did not soil their hands perhaps. All of the candidates and the surrogates are reading a script which has been vetted…these things are no accidental slip of the emotional tongue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Her comment that she would “have to think about it” is a little less harsh when followed by the rest of what she said, which was “Everyone in this party is going to work hard for whoever the nominee is.” </p>
<p>I googled and found this video of the interview: </p>
<p>[Daily</a> Kos: State of the Nation](<a href=“http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/5/9541/11382/367/450182]Daily”>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/5/9541/11382/367/450182)</p>
<p>Could you be more specific about a “take no prisoners” element, lorelei? I’m not sure I understand what you mean. </p>
<p>I believe Michelle Obama is sincere about his “one shot.” I think Obama, if he doesn’t win the nomination, will not take a VP spot and that he would rather run for governor of Illinois at some point. If people don’t like the guy and what he stands for after 7 years of Bush/Cheney then what is four or eight or 12 more years going to do for him? Sure, I get the experience factor, but that doesn’t seem to be the issue at this point in time. I also think Michelle approaches the “one shot” deal in terms of what this must be doing to their family (i.e. mom and dad away from the kids). She grew up in a very close, stable home with her parents very much present (as contrasted with Barack’s upbringing). I’m pretty sure that her aversion to giving people the impression that Barack will be endlessly available to run for President is due in part to not wanting an absentee father raising her kids. </p>
<p>I just don’t see the “take no prisoners” angle in either of your examples.</p>
<p>It is frequently difficult to separate the message from the messenger, and much of the media coverage has espoused the Obama plan to “rout” Clinton. I understand the methodology of stacking the delegate count in the state election, but I find much of the terminology of the electoral season to be cruel. Ageism and sexism are as bad as racism, though none are acceptable. To designate a description of the processes of government, i.e legislation as an agent for idealism, as racism is unfair, if not disingenous. </p>
<p>I had not thought about the “one shot” family issue, and that is a sensible ultimatum from Mrs. Obama (if it went that far.) I do fear for his safety. (H was at a dinner where one of the Supremes spoke, and even the judge was surrounded by U.S. Marshalls…one has to wonder if the judge knew what his lifestyle was going to be before he entered that arena.) At any rate, I hope the Secret Service is up to the job.</p>
<p>I am not particularly a Hillary fan, and voted for Obama in the primary. That being said, I’m totally dismayed by the strain of “I don’t trust her because she’s with him” criticism. VP said</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We may not see that marriage as representing love in our definitions, but how can we possibly know how they feel, underneath? I think it’s terribly anti-woman to say she has no self-respect for staying with him–we just don’t know what their private relationship is like; we just know the sensational stuff.</p>
<p>I hope she’s judged on something else; otherwise, it seems she’s being punished again for what wasn’t her fault.</p>
<p>Co-sign garland’s post, in its entirety.</p>
<p>I’m with Garland. I really can’t stand Hillary and am a huge huge fan of Obama and Michelle. But I really think the criticism of how she should have dealt with Bill to be irrelevant and also off base. </p>
<p>Anyone who has been a therapist or has walked down that horrible marital path knows it’s way, way more complicated and difficult than one can imagine. So much so they would never judge another’s choice. We simply have no idea about their motives, their marriage or the complexity of their relational dynamics.</p>
<p>Hypothetically, every woman I’ve ever met says they would leave in such a situation. Its super easy to make hypothetical decisions. Yet I also know many who have actually experienced it and they find it not remotely so straightforward as they thought they would (and are often surprised by their subsequent choices).</p>
<p>Well, I am only speaking for myself and projecting myself into her shoes. I’m not trying to judge Clinton but rather unravel my own complex reactions to her as a candidate for President. I will vote for her if Barack does not win the nomination but I have an uneasiness about her that is shared by other women (my mom, my sister some of my colleagues), and I’m trying to figure out why.</p>
<p>I just have to go with what I’ve learned in life and that is: by your actions and words and tolerance or lack thereof, you teach people how to deal with you. If she is staying with Bill out of love, I find that mind-boggling because how does having multiple affairs over decades show love to HER? If she’s staying out of love, then I have to interpret it as a one-way street unless she is a closet swinger or something (doubtful) and approves of that lifestyle. She seems more traditional than that. Does anyone think that it truly does not cause her pain that he would seek sex and companionship with other women in addition to her? I don’t, thus I see staying with him as a painful choice and I would not recommend my own D to do this.</p>
<p>If she is staying with him out of politics, then fine. That’s one way to live. I value a monogamous marriage more highly than I do a career. But to give her the benefit of the doubt, she might believe that she is sacrificing monogamy for the greater public good. Perhaps she sees sticking by Bill – so that he would win the presidency and so that she might, too – as a worthwhile trade-off. Not for personal gain or glory but because she truly believes that he/she/they can do more good together (as flawed as I might think their together is) than apart. </p>
<p>If that is the case, then I guess I admire her ability to choose the public over herself. That is an admirable quality. But I still would feel incredibly queasy advising my D to go down that path and I know that my own self-worth (maybe it’s unfounded pride, who knows) would cause me to try a different route to reach the goal. </p>
<p>The third possibility is that she gave up on love long ago and doesn’t care what Bill does with other women as long as he remains outwardly in partnership with her to further her own ambitions… rather like a business deal. No pain, she’s just accepted it and moved on. And that’s another way to go about things and probably not all that uncommon. But if this is the case then I find her a bit more calculating than I’m comfortable with and I have a difficult time feeling a connection.</p>
<p>None of this is a deal breaker versus McCain. But versus Obama (since they have nearly identical political goals), I guess it is.</p>