Comments on: Michelle and Hillary Open Thread

By: Octogalore

Octogalore — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:16:04 +0000

I see Liz’s point. I enjoyed both speeches, but agree — Michelle Obama’s role is the prospective first lady and she was coached and delivered a speech appropriately couched to appeal to the maximum number of voters along those lines. HRC’s speech was that of a candidate. Putting them together because they are women begs the question of whether we’d put a non-politician prospective first man’s speech in the same category as that of a male candidate. Answer: we wouldn’t. That takes nothing away from Michelle Obama, a smart and charismatic woman who has in the past, and I’m sure in the future will continue to, achieve on her own steam.

By: Charity

Charity — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:06:25 +0000

“….so you can parallel your campaign as a rich white woman with her freeing slaves and being a slave herself”

While by quoting Tubman she may, in your view, have been implicitly paralleling Tubman’s struggles and enslavement with her campaign, I believe she was in fact *explicitly* paralleling Tubman’s sentiments with the “American spirit” of “keep going.” Whether or not we agree with that or find it schmaltzy political tripe is another thing, but Hillary was no longer talking about HER campaign at that point in the speech – more, invoking a “can-do” narrative about the positive direction the country can and should move in BY ELECTING OBAMA, and citing evidence that Americans like Tubman have done incredible things in the past, against great odds and in the face of great adversity. You can still argue she shouldn’t have used Tubman as an example but then I think we’d be complaining that she DIDN’T cite any women of color in a speech that was so heavy on mentioning women and their achievements. As it was, my hope is that little girls, young women, or even older women watching the speech who look up to Hillary and were previously unfamiliar with the work of Harriet Tubman (sadly that is not unrealistic) may now be moved to look it up and learn something new, just as they might after hearing her mention Seneca falls, suffragists, etc. They will no doubt run into further whitewashing and distortion of history in their searchings but at least they have a starting point.

By: Planet Janet

Planet Janet — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:28:40 +0000

B. Canseco: “By mentioning the struggles of woman who you’d otherwise ignore simply so you can parallel your campaign as a rich white woman with her freeing slaves and being a slave herself? I’m sorry, I know BS when I hear it and I’m calling BS. It’s an insult to people who go thru real struggle. But anything to make her point, so whatever.”

That’s like saying you can’t mention landing on the moon unless you struggled as part of NASA to make it happen. Why can’t it be mentioned in good faith?

By: A Canadian Reader

A Canadian Reader — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:53:51 +0000

Finally, I’m seeing other people who were feeling, like I did, that Michelle Obama had to dumb down her style and content to appeal to “just folks”.

I felt like I was listening to a brilliant, accomplished woman trying her hardest to shoe-horn herself into the role of June Cleever.

Yes, I know, she’s not the candidate, but rather the candidate’s wife, but boy, did she lay on the wifely, helpmate thing thick.

I’m not a huge Hillary fan, but I can’t wait for a woman to be the leader rather than yet another “first mom” of the U.S.

By: Cara

Cara — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:11:14 +0000

Uh, no Liz, we’re comparing them because they were both headlining speakers. In any case, I wasn’t looking for a comparison, and I don’t believe that many people were talking about comparison, as much as a discussion of each. Further, Obama still has not given his speech which makes such a comparison currently impossible. Though I found the fact that women were headlining speakers on the first two nights of the convention interesting, and this is a feminist blog and therefore relevant, we can now compare both Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama’s speeches to Joe Biden’s, if you like.

By: Liz

Liz — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:49:38 +0000

Sadly we are comparing the speech of the “wife” of a candidate to a candidate. Why are we doing this to ourselves again? Sen Clinton isn’t the “wife” she is the candidate. Compare Sen Clinton’s speech to Barack’s.

By: Medea

Medea — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:49:16 +0000

Black Canseco, what, in your opinion, constitutes “real struggle”? Are rich white women incapable of struggling against anything?

I agree that quoting Harriet Tubman after running a racist campaign is a bad move, but I think that anyone’s words of wisdom are up for grabs if they are used in good faith.

By: Lauren

Lauren — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 04:02:03 +0000

also, can somebody explain to my grandmother what the 19th amendment did for black women, when they still couldn’t vote long after white women could

That occurred to me too.

By: B. Canseco

B. Canseco — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:59:57 +0000

Medea says: How does quoting Harriet Tubman “reduce” her to a mascot?

By mentioning the struggles of woman who you’d otherwise ignore simply so you can parallel your campaign as a rich white woman with her freeing slaves and being a slave herself? I’m sorry, I know BS when I hear it and I’m calling BS. It’s an insult to people who go thru real struggle. But anything to make her point, so whatever.

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:58:14 +0000

Those were the two best speeches at the convention I’ve seen. Although I heard kucinich gave a barn burner, but the cable networks wouldn’t show it. Damn, I’m switching to cspan.

That key note speech by mark warner? WTF was that? Are you freaking kidding me? What a snoozer.