So Obama has won South Carolina. Surely, media coverage in the last few days, which continually painted a portrait of "the Clintons" in cahoots against Obama, had an influence.
From the New York Times web site: "Indeed, surveys of voters leaving the polls showed that many Democrats who believed Mr. Clinton’s role was important ended up voting for Mr. Obama.
Last week, Clinton advisers believed Mr. Clinton was rattling Mr. Obama and drawing his focus away from his message. The results on Saturday indicated, instead, that voters were impressed with Mr. Obama’s mettle and agreed with him that the Clintons ran an excessively negative campaign here."
But really, when voters "agree" with Obama that "the Clintons ran" an overly negative campaign (note how even the New York Times news section writes "the Clintons" rather than Hillary Clinton) they are not really forming their own impressions based on reality, but agreeing with a common media portrait of Hillary and Bill Clinton teaming in tandem in the last few days to critique Obama.
The media has run with this notion of Hillary relying too much on her husband in South Carolina, creating a “two-headed monster” as the New York Post put it. Maureen Dowd wrote, "It’s odd that the first woman with a shot at becoming president is so openly dependent on her husband to drag her over the finish line."
That’s an old canard—conflating a successful woman with her husband, as if she’s nothing without him. It’s a criticism often throw at Hillary. It’s an easy way to belittle a powerful woman. Somehow it’s a boon to Obama to have a powerful wife (Camille Paglia recently wrote in Salon that a reason to vote for Obama was that his wife was a “powerhouse.”). And it was O.K. for Elizabeth Edwards a few months ago to declare that her husband was a better candidate for women than Hillary. But it's not OK for Bill Clinton, who happens to be a former popular president, not just an average spouse, to take to the stump. As Hillary said at one point in the South Carolina debate, in response to Obama criticizing her for something Bill Clinton said, “He’s not here, I am.”
Relying too much on Bill to do her campaigning in South Carolina in the last few days before the primary played too much into her critics' hands, and didn't do much to appeal to younger post-feminist women who don’t want to see a powerful woman depending too much on her husband to fight her battles, even if he is a popular former president.
Hillary's challenge in the days ahead is going to be how to reach out to those postfeminist twenty and early thirtysomething women who haven't yet suffered much because of their gender and so don't see the importance of supporting the first female candidate for President. A suggestions: we should see a lot less of Bill, a lot more of Chelsea. Not just see, we should hear from Chelsea. Many young women will see themselves in Chelsea in a way they never will in Hillary.
Bill Clinton (with Gore by his side) could use his sex appeal as a way to attract young female voters in 1993. I remember Naomi Wolf on the Yale campus screaming that "These men are babes!" to the cheers of the co-eds. The “Obama Girl” YouTube video only strengthened Obama's appeal. Hillary can't capitalize on her sex appeal as a strategy. (When she innocently showed an inch of cleavage a female Washington Post reporter jumped all over her.) But maybe she can try to run a little more on her maternal appeal.
At Nancy Pelosi's swearing-in, surrounded by children and grandchildren, she capitalized on the image of a powerful woman as mother. For those millions tired of the fake machismo of George Bush, with its resulting thousands of dead young men and women brought home in body bags, a little maternal imagery might be just the right refreshing "change" America is looking for.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Not True that Obama is Only Now Mentioning Race in South Carolina
The media consensus is that Obama is now making a direct appeal to black voters in South Carolina, for the first time, and that prior to the last few days, Obama hasn't mentioned race. But this is far from the truth. Even more off the mark is that Hillary Clinton has injected race into this campaign in this last week.
Obama has always made indirect, symbolic references to his race, and had others, such as prominent African-Americans, refer directly to his race, and how his candidacy is so historic. There's nothing wrong with Obama mentioning his race in an effort to connect with fellow African-Americans, but why is the media so reluctant to acknowledge that race has always been a part of Obama's campaign?
Everyone also seems to be forgetting Oprah's stumping for Obama in December, and not recognizing how much race was a part of that. Oprah's and Obama's words were often about race, not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's interesting how the media has given Obama a free pass, praising him for not mentioning race and seeming to rise above it, when really, he's been mentioning it all along.
Has everyone forgotten Oprah's December appearance in South Carolina to praise Obama before thirty-thousand mostly African-Americans? As reported on CNN.com, In December,"30,000 people packed into Columbia, South Carolina's Williams-Brice stadium to hear the talk-show queen explain why she believes Obama is the man with the "vision" for America." She entered the ampitheater to the rhythmic chants of a song "Freedom! Freedom!". Most of these 30,000 were African-Americans, coming straight from church. Oprah stewed her speech with religious talk, saying "It is Amazing Grace that brought me here," and that she was "stepping out of her pew" by recommending a candidate. Then she said, "You know, Dr. King dreamed the dream. But we don't have to just dream the dream anymore. We get to vote that dream into reality by supporting a man who knows not just who we are but who we can be."
In New Hampshire, Oprah, the woman who can get millions of women to buy a book based on her recommendation, introduced Obama with a reference to the book, “The Autobiography of Jane Pittman,” an African-American novel. In a moving rendition, she said how the slave Jane Pittman asks of each new baby, "are you the one?," the one who will free her. Oprah answered, "Obama is the one." This had both messianic and racial undertones: she was pitching Obama as savior to the mostly black audience. Obama then took stage and aligned himself with Oprah, saying that for both of them, their appearance on the stage was “improbable.” Why improbable? Because of their race.
Obama has always made references to Dr. Martin Luther King. In his New Hampshire speech Obama said his catchprase, “Yes We Can,” was also the call of “a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the Promised Land.” He refers to his candidacy as “historic” without directly mentioning race; instead, prominent public figures, like Colin Powell, mention his race for him. Powell said last week on Tavis Smiley that citizens across the country can "enjoy this moment where a person like Barack Obama can knock down all of these old barriers that people thought existed with respect to the opportunities that are available to African Americans.”
So it's puzzling why media coverage seems to agree that only now is Obama making a direct appeal to African-Americans.
Obama has always made indirect, symbolic references to his race, and had others, such as prominent African-Americans, refer directly to his race, and how his candidacy is so historic. There's nothing wrong with Obama mentioning his race in an effort to connect with fellow African-Americans, but why is the media so reluctant to acknowledge that race has always been a part of Obama's campaign?
Everyone also seems to be forgetting Oprah's stumping for Obama in December, and not recognizing how much race was a part of that. Oprah's and Obama's words were often about race, not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's interesting how the media has given Obama a free pass, praising him for not mentioning race and seeming to rise above it, when really, he's been mentioning it all along.
Has everyone forgotten Oprah's December appearance in South Carolina to praise Obama before thirty-thousand mostly African-Americans? As reported on CNN.com, In December,"30,000 people packed into Columbia, South Carolina's Williams-Brice stadium to hear the talk-show queen explain why she believes Obama is the man with the "vision" for America." She entered the ampitheater to the rhythmic chants of a song "Freedom! Freedom!". Most of these 30,000 were African-Americans, coming straight from church. Oprah stewed her speech with religious talk, saying "It is Amazing Grace that brought me here," and that she was "stepping out of her pew" by recommending a candidate. Then she said, "You know, Dr. King dreamed the dream. But we don't have to just dream the dream anymore. We get to vote that dream into reality by supporting a man who knows not just who we are but who we can be."
In New Hampshire, Oprah, the woman who can get millions of women to buy a book based on her recommendation, introduced Obama with a reference to the book, “The Autobiography of Jane Pittman,” an African-American novel. In a moving rendition, she said how the slave Jane Pittman asks of each new baby, "are you the one?," the one who will free her. Oprah answered, "Obama is the one." This had both messianic and racial undertones: she was pitching Obama as savior to the mostly black audience. Obama then took stage and aligned himself with Oprah, saying that for both of them, their appearance on the stage was “improbable.” Why improbable? Because of their race.
Obama has always made references to Dr. Martin Luther King. In his New Hampshire speech Obama said his catchprase, “Yes We Can,” was also the call of “a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the Promised Land.” He refers to his candidacy as “historic” without directly mentioning race; instead, prominent public figures, like Colin Powell, mention his race for him. Powell said last week on Tavis Smiley that citizens across the country can "enjoy this moment where a person like Barack Obama can knock down all of these old barriers that people thought existed with respect to the opportunities that are available to African Americans.”
So it's puzzling why media coverage seems to agree that only now is Obama making a direct appeal to African-Americans.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Obama's Wife and Walmart
I haven't seen anyone mention that Obama's own wife, as reported by abcnews back in May, 2007, has "come under fire for serving on the board of a company that is a major product supplier to Wal-Mart." Knowing this, why would Obama throw the first shot in the South Carolina debate, and accuse Hillary Clinton of serving on the board of Walmart while he was working for civil rights in Chicago? Seeing how Obama in the debate conflated Hillary with Bill, criticizing her for her husband's comments, why hasn't Obama's wife been mentioned at all?
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Symbolism of Spouse in Election
Camille Paglia ends her punchy anti-Hillary Clinton, pro-Obama article in Salon this week by saying that, "And his wife Michelle is a powerhouse." So that his wife is a powerful women, a successful businesswoman, is a plus for Obama. But on the opposite side of the political spectrum, Rush Limbaugh repeatedly says on his show that Hillary wouldn't be where she is today "without Bill," that if she weren't a Clinton, she wouldn't be running for President. It's that old canard--a successful woman wouldn't be where she is without her husband.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Couric Unplugged-Revealing on Obama vs Clinton
In today’s New York Times, David Brooks writes that, “Clinton and Obama have eagerly donned the mantle of identity politics. A Clinton victory wouldn’t just be a victory for one woman, it would be a victory for little girls everywhere. An Obama victory would be about completing the dream, keeping the dream alive, and so on..”
What no one has pointed out is that Clinton might have eagerly tried to don this mantle, to claim that her candidacy is historic, but the media has not allowed her to, whereas Obama is allowed to cast himself as the 21st century Martin Luther King and this goes uncritiqued. As a result, Clinton's campaign lacks the passion and fervor of Obama's.
The video of Katie Couric unplugged on the night of the New Hampshire videos, that circulated on the Internet yesterday, is so fascinating because unlike the usual anchor-speak; this is candid, and has her saying two revealing things. One, she says, “my sister really liked that segment last night of Bradley, saying “people feel good about how far we’ve come,” about Obama, and I was like, thanks for watching that segment.” In saying that, Couric showed her own bias, that she, too, feels good about Obama’s success. For Couric’s sister, like many Americans, seeing this man, born of a white mother and a Kenyan father, allows our politically correct nation, which is afraid to discuss real sensitive issues of race and how far we have not come as a nation, feel good. It’s an easy pat on the back, a way for us to tell ourselves, look how far we have come as a nation, but really, it’s a false sense of confidence. There are so many ways we haven’t gone far at all, but seeing Obama succeed gives us a free pass to say look far we have come, it’s way of assuaging white guilt.
Couric’s second revealing statement was her remark that McCain’s wife, “looks like a Huskie” with “those weird blue eyes,” “the most intense blue eyes, light ice blue, I couldn’t stop staring at her.” In these words we can see how mean women are to each other, how naturally competitive and back-stabbing we are, how slow and reticent we are about sisterhood. Couric knew she would get some laughs from the tech people running around by critiquing McCain’s appearance. Right after Couric says this, she starts worrying about she looks in one monitor.
The media couldn’t stop talking about how women made Clinton win in New Hampshire, switching their allegiance to her in the last few days before the primary. But remember that New York Times poll, which showed that college-educated women are less likely to support Hillary than non-colledge educated women? Women are each other’s worst critics. African-American unity in this country is stronger than any sisterhood.
That’s why Hillary is conflicted. She wants to mention the historic nature of her candidacy, and yet as she said in her Meet the Press interview and last night’s debate, she wants to move this race beyond discussions of gender and race, because if it’s mired in identity politics, Obama will surely will the nomination.
What no one has pointed out is that Clinton might have eagerly tried to don this mantle, to claim that her candidacy is historic, but the media has not allowed her to, whereas Obama is allowed to cast himself as the 21st century Martin Luther King and this goes uncritiqued. As a result, Clinton's campaign lacks the passion and fervor of Obama's.
The video of Katie Couric unplugged on the night of the New Hampshire videos, that circulated on the Internet yesterday, is so fascinating because unlike the usual anchor-speak; this is candid, and has her saying two revealing things. One, she says, “my sister really liked that segment last night of Bradley, saying “people feel good about how far we’ve come,” about Obama, and I was like, thanks for watching that segment.” In saying that, Couric showed her own bias, that she, too, feels good about Obama’s success. For Couric’s sister, like many Americans, seeing this man, born of a white mother and a Kenyan father, allows our politically correct nation, which is afraid to discuss real sensitive issues of race and how far we have not come as a nation, feel good. It’s an easy pat on the back, a way for us to tell ourselves, look how far we have come as a nation, but really, it’s a false sense of confidence. There are so many ways we haven’t gone far at all, but seeing Obama succeed gives us a free pass to say look far we have come, it’s way of assuaging white guilt.
Couric’s second revealing statement was her remark that McCain’s wife, “looks like a Huskie” with “those weird blue eyes,” “the most intense blue eyes, light ice blue, I couldn’t stop staring at her.” In these words we can see how mean women are to each other, how naturally competitive and back-stabbing we are, how slow and reticent we are about sisterhood. Couric knew she would get some laughs from the tech people running around by critiquing McCain’s appearance. Right after Couric says this, she starts worrying about she looks in one monitor.
The media couldn’t stop talking about how women made Clinton win in New Hampshire, switching their allegiance to her in the last few days before the primary. But remember that New York Times poll, which showed that college-educated women are less likely to support Hillary than non-colledge educated women? Women are each other’s worst critics. African-American unity in this country is stronger than any sisterhood.
That’s why Hillary is conflicted. She wants to mention the historic nature of her candidacy, and yet as she said in her Meet the Press interview and last night’s debate, she wants to move this race beyond discussions of gender and race, because if it’s mired in identity politics, Obama will surely will the nomination.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Katha Pollitt on Women and Power
There were two thought-provoking quotes in Katha Pollitt's interview with Deborah Solomon in Sunday's New York Times:
Deborah Solomon: "Really? I think you’re underestimating the value of living in the Age of Britney Spears."
Katha Pollitt: "Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, poor Britney Spears — I feel sorry for all of them, because they are being made into these icons of female ruin. Everyone watches them collapsing in public ways that are tremendously humiliating."
DS: "Are you a Hillary supporter?"
Katha Pollitt: "In this country we have a real problem with women and power. If people don’t stop saying incredibly sexist things about Hillary Clinton, I may just have to vote for her."
Me (Laura): So, someone else who thinks people who have a problem with Hillary Clinton really have a problem with women wielding power. Which raises the question, why are college-educated women less fond of Hillary than less well-educated women, as a recent poll showed? It must be because women are each other's harshest critics, and there's that natural survival instinct shaping our behavior, that if another woman has power that means there's less for us to hold onto, an instinct that has left women in the work force without the "old boys' network" that men profit from.
Me, again: What Pollitt said about Britney and Lohan being "icons of female ruin" is also fascinating. I'm captivated by how there are certain female archetypes that keep coming up again and again in the media. I wrote about the Marie Antoinette archetype in the Chicago Tribune a few weeks ago (think Martha Stewart, Leona Helmsley, Barbara Amiel.) There's also this sexed-up, debauched archetype of the ruined woman, also a woman of wealth - Paris Hilton; Britney Spears; Lindsay Lohan - which keeps re-appearing. What does this say about our culture and our views of women? It's a reaction to women in power, the same kind of aversion to women in power that's operating in the case of Hillary Clinton, but a completely different archetype, a sexualized one.
Deborah Solomon: "Really? I think you’re underestimating the value of living in the Age of Britney Spears."
Katha Pollitt: "Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, poor Britney Spears — I feel sorry for all of them, because they are being made into these icons of female ruin. Everyone watches them collapsing in public ways that are tremendously humiliating."
DS: "Are you a Hillary supporter?"
Katha Pollitt: "In this country we have a real problem with women and power. If people don’t stop saying incredibly sexist things about Hillary Clinton, I may just have to vote for her."
Me (Laura): So, someone else who thinks people who have a problem with Hillary Clinton really have a problem with women wielding power. Which raises the question, why are college-educated women less fond of Hillary than less well-educated women, as a recent poll showed? It must be because women are each other's harshest critics, and there's that natural survival instinct shaping our behavior, that if another woman has power that means there's less for us to hold onto, an instinct that has left women in the work force without the "old boys' network" that men profit from.
Me, again: What Pollitt said about Britney and Lohan being "icons of female ruin" is also fascinating. I'm captivated by how there are certain female archetypes that keep coming up again and again in the media. I wrote about the Marie Antoinette archetype in the Chicago Tribune a few weeks ago (think Martha Stewart, Leona Helmsley, Barbara Amiel.) There's also this sexed-up, debauched archetype of the ruined woman, also a woman of wealth - Paris Hilton; Britney Spears; Lindsay Lohan - which keeps re-appearing. What does this say about our culture and our views of women? It's a reaction to women in power, the same kind of aversion to women in power that's operating in the case of Hillary Clinton, but a completely different archetype, a sexualized one.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Hillary Clinton as a Cuckold?
Judith Warner had an interesting post last week in her blog comparing public reaction to Hillary Clinton as a "cuckold", or "cuckquean", to the French reaction to their new President, Nicholas Sarkozy, a modern-day "cuckold," and his unfaithful first lady, Cécilia.
As she writes:
"In case you missed it, Sarkozy last year greatly entertained France by running a campaign in which his wife was almost entirely absent. Cécilia, a former model whom Nicholas first eyed, in his previous incarnation as mayor of the city of Neuilly, while administering the vows that consecrated her last marriage, left him in 2005, eventually showing up – and being photographed – with her lover in New York City."
"The Sarkozys ultimately reunited. But life together remained rocky. Cécilia made major headlines once again last May when she pulled a no-show on the night of her husband’s final run-off race against his Socialist rival, Ségolène Royal.
She was rumored not to have voted at all."
"Yet by summer, in the press at least, all was forgotten. When I was there, every major magazine featured glowing profiles of the new first lady. They praised her charm, her fashion sense, her break-the-mold modernity."
She writes that for Sarkozy, "perhaps one of his boldest, cleverest and most successful [gestures] has been the fact that, by keeping his head high, standing by his woman and steadfastly, defiantly, professing his love and desire. . .he has transcended the old role of cuckold. He has instead been something more like a political wife."
In contrast, Warner writes that Clinton, "[a formidable woman of real power and prestige. . .emerged from the Monica affair much more cuckold than cuckquean. Her husband’s perfidy did, in a sense, disturb the natural order of things; in the post-feminist age, women like Hillary are not supposed to be subject to such indignities. Hillary has never been, as she herself once put it, 'some little woman standing by my man.' Perhaps that’s what made the spectacle of her public humiliation so unique and so unsettling and, ultimately, so unforgivable for the many women who came away from it all despising her."
First of all, Warner is wrong that Hillary Clinton came out of her husband's public admission of his affair even more despised. On the contrary, many women seemed to become more sympathetic to her. Indeed, she did win the election for NY senator on the wave of new sympathy coming out of the Lewinsky affair.
Warner asks an interesting question: "Could such public forgiving and forgetting of a wanton political wife [Sarkozy] ever have happened here? And could Americans, like the French, ever elect a cuckold?"
Warner asks an interesting question, as Hillary Clinton is asking us to elect a cuckquean (the female version of the word cuckold) to the presidency.
But Warner should have asked an even more interesting one. Why is Sarkozy a more sympathetic cuckold than Hillary?
Society is more accepting of a powerful man who isn't afraid to show his soft, metrosexual, feminine side, than of a powerful woman who isn't prone to showing her feminine side, who appears "too masculine." That's why people still despise Hillary even though she's been "cuckolded." It's not that she comes out of this looking like a "cuckold," as Warner writes, and that no one likes a cuckold. It's just that she wasn't humiliated enough by her husband's infidelity. She gained power by it--she became a Senator, she got her public voice back, and her own career. Those who despise her would have liked her to have been humiliated, brought low, even further. It's Hillary's power, power that she retained, even strengthened, as a cuckold, not her humiliation, that make people dislike her.
As she writes:
"In case you missed it, Sarkozy last year greatly entertained France by running a campaign in which his wife was almost entirely absent. Cécilia, a former model whom Nicholas first eyed, in his previous incarnation as mayor of the city of Neuilly, while administering the vows that consecrated her last marriage, left him in 2005, eventually showing up – and being photographed – with her lover in New York City."
"The Sarkozys ultimately reunited. But life together remained rocky. Cécilia made major headlines once again last May when she pulled a no-show on the night of her husband’s final run-off race against his Socialist rival, Ségolène Royal.
She was rumored not to have voted at all."
"Yet by summer, in the press at least, all was forgotten. When I was there, every major magazine featured glowing profiles of the new first lady. They praised her charm, her fashion sense, her break-the-mold modernity."
She writes that for Sarkozy, "perhaps one of his boldest, cleverest and most successful [gestures] has been the fact that, by keeping his head high, standing by his woman and steadfastly, defiantly, professing his love and desire. . .he has transcended the old role of cuckold. He has instead been something more like a political wife."
In contrast, Warner writes that Clinton, "[a formidable woman of real power and prestige. . .emerged from the Monica affair much more cuckold than cuckquean. Her husband’s perfidy did, in a sense, disturb the natural order of things; in the post-feminist age, women like Hillary are not supposed to be subject to such indignities. Hillary has never been, as she herself once put it, 'some little woman standing by my man.' Perhaps that’s what made the spectacle of her public humiliation so unique and so unsettling and, ultimately, so unforgivable for the many women who came away from it all despising her."
First of all, Warner is wrong that Hillary Clinton came out of her husband's public admission of his affair even more despised. On the contrary, many women seemed to become more sympathetic to her. Indeed, she did win the election for NY senator on the wave of new sympathy coming out of the Lewinsky affair.
Warner asks an interesting question: "Could such public forgiving and forgetting of a wanton political wife [Sarkozy] ever have happened here? And could Americans, like the French, ever elect a cuckold?"
Warner asks an interesting question, as Hillary Clinton is asking us to elect a cuckquean (the female version of the word cuckold) to the presidency.
But Warner should have asked an even more interesting one. Why is Sarkozy a more sympathetic cuckold than Hillary?
Society is more accepting of a powerful man who isn't afraid to show his soft, metrosexual, feminine side, than of a powerful woman who isn't prone to showing her feminine side, who appears "too masculine." That's why people still despise Hillary even though she's been "cuckolded." It's not that she comes out of this looking like a "cuckold," as Warner writes, and that no one likes a cuckold. It's just that she wasn't humiliated enough by her husband's infidelity. She gained power by it--she became a Senator, she got her public voice back, and her own career. Those who despise her would have liked her to have been humiliated, brought low, even further. It's Hillary's power, power that she retained, even strengthened, as a cuckold, not her humiliation, that make people dislike her.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
On Obama's Wife's "Stinky" and "Snores" comment
As reported in today's New York Times:
"In an interview with Glamour magazine, Michelle Obama reveals that her husband, Barack, is so “snore-y and stinky” when he wakes up in the morning that their daughters won’t crawl into bed with him. The interview, in the magazine’s October issue, was conducted by Tonya Lewis Lee, who is married to Spike Lee, the filmmaker."
"Referring to their daughters, Mrs. Obama says: 'We have this ritual in the morning. They come in my bed, and Dad isn’t there — because he’s too snore-y and stinky, they don’t want to ever get into bed with him. But we cuddle up and we talk about everything from what is a period to the big topic of when we get a dog: what kind?'
There has been a lot of criticism from the vox populi, or the peanut gallery, in response to her comments, for being too humanizing, too crude, or basically, just too much information.
One man writes in the online comments to the New York Times piece, "Believe it or not the best thing she can do at this time is pretend she’s the little housewife who likes to decorate instead of trying prop herself up and minimize her husband." So he acknowledges the falseness of the stereotype of the First Lady, the archetype Laura Bush has modeled herself on, but suggests that this is an easier image for people to accept than the one Michelle Obama is trying to project. Another man writes, "The wives of Biden, Richardson, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Tancredo, Hunter, Paul, and even Giuliani ALL have shown better political sense than Mrs. Obama, in supporting from the sidelines and not eclipsing the candidate. I’d say the wives of Sen. Clinton and Sen. Edwards are both making the same mistake (although Bill is trying his best not to outshine, he’s the most popular wife of them all)."
So there's a feeling out there that she is not pretending enough, not giving in to the accepted archetype of the traditional First Lady, or potential First Lady, which is to be quiet and stay in the background while she lets her husband be glorified. She's trying to create a new mold, a new image for the First Lady that's more real, more candid, but that's not what people are ready to accept.
"In an interview with Glamour magazine, Michelle Obama reveals that her husband, Barack, is so “snore-y and stinky” when he wakes up in the morning that their daughters won’t crawl into bed with him. The interview, in the magazine’s October issue, was conducted by Tonya Lewis Lee, who is married to Spike Lee, the filmmaker."
"Referring to their daughters, Mrs. Obama says: 'We have this ritual in the morning. They come in my bed, and Dad isn’t there — because he’s too snore-y and stinky, they don’t want to ever get into bed with him. But we cuddle up and we talk about everything from what is a period to the big topic of when we get a dog: what kind?'
There has been a lot of criticism from the vox populi, or the peanut gallery, in response to her comments, for being too humanizing, too crude, or basically, just too much information.
One man writes in the online comments to the New York Times piece, "Believe it or not the best thing she can do at this time is pretend she’s the little housewife who likes to decorate instead of trying prop herself up and minimize her husband." So he acknowledges the falseness of the stereotype of the First Lady, the archetype Laura Bush has modeled herself on, but suggests that this is an easier image for people to accept than the one Michelle Obama is trying to project. Another man writes, "The wives of Biden, Richardson, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Tancredo, Hunter, Paul, and even Giuliani ALL have shown better political sense than Mrs. Obama, in supporting from the sidelines and not eclipsing the candidate. I’d say the wives of Sen. Clinton and Sen. Edwards are both making the same mistake (although Bill is trying his best not to outshine, he’s the most popular wife of them all)."
So there's a feeling out there that she is not pretending enough, not giving in to the accepted archetype of the traditional First Lady, or potential First Lady, which is to be quiet and stay in the background while she lets her husband be glorified. She's trying to create a new mold, a new image for the First Lady that's more real, more candid, but that's not what people are ready to accept.
Gender Roles Topsy Turvy in This Week's "Damages"
This week, the women seem to be sketched as black and white archetypes. Glenn Close's Patricia Hewes seems completely venal; she does talk to her associate Ellen Parsons about how she needs to find a mate that will not be threatened by her, but one senses that her advice has ulterior motives, that, for some reason, she wants Ellen's fiance out of the picture. (Foreshadowing is at work here: we know the ending, that her fiance is killed, and so Hewes' words of advice about what to look for in a man are not seen by us as supportive "girl talk," which is how Ellen views it, but as Machiavellian, well-thought out words that will influence Ellen to act according to Hewes' mapped-out plans.)
Meanwhile, Ted Danson's character continues to be portrayed in a more nuanced way, designed to elicit viewers' sympathies. (See my post from last week). He has just as dark a side as Hewes; he tells an underling to do whatever it takes to deal with the witness Gregory, including, it seems, kill him. But in this episode, as in others, we see him interacting lovingly with his son. We seem that he cares about what his son thinks of him, about the "legacy," he's leaving him, which is why he is setting out to write his own biography (after punching the assigned ghostwriter in the face.) The only time we saw Patricia Hewes with her son was after she met with the school principal, and they walked down the hall together (with her husband), and when she meets him at a restaurant, then, in the antithesis of a loving mother-son relationship, has him seized by hulking men to take him, without his knowledge or consent, to a behavioral boot camp.
So the writers of the show have chosen to make the powerful female lead character one who is not at all maternal, who compartmentalizes her life so as to block any maternal feelings from influencing her career (which doesn't mimic at all the real-life constant juggling act of working women) but to make the powerful male lead one who is totally driven by his paternal urges.
Meanwhile, Ted Danson's character continues to be portrayed in a more nuanced way, designed to elicit viewers' sympathies. (See my post from last week). He has just as dark a side as Hewes; he tells an underling to do whatever it takes to deal with the witness Gregory, including, it seems, kill him. But in this episode, as in others, we see him interacting lovingly with his son. We seem that he cares about what his son thinks of him, about the "legacy," he's leaving him, which is why he is setting out to write his own biography (after punching the assigned ghostwriter in the face.) The only time we saw Patricia Hewes with her son was after she met with the school principal, and they walked down the hall together (with her husband), and when she meets him at a restaurant, then, in the antithesis of a loving mother-son relationship, has him seized by hulking men to take him, without his knowledge or consent, to a behavioral boot camp.
So the writers of the show have chosen to make the powerful female lead character one who is not at all maternal, who compartmentalizes her life so as to block any maternal feelings from influencing her career (which doesn't mimic at all the real-life constant juggling act of working women) but to make the powerful male lead one who is totally driven by his paternal urges.