It's the economy

While the topic is somewhat different, it reminded me of Anglachel's post today about women in politics and what the treatment of Hillary, Michelle Obama, and Sarah Palin tells us about how both parties see women, neither in a particularly healthy way.

The reason this post reminded me of Anglachel's post was the mention of Michelle Obama. I keep meaning to do a post on how she's slowly being transformed into the Stepford First Lady that seems to be a required part of our political culture (which is unfortunate, she has much more to offer than she's going to be permitted to give) and how her husband's own campaign pretty much ensured this would be true through his mocking of the idea that a First Lady has any kind of substantive role during his campaign against Clinton. Since I haven't had the time, I'll just quote Anglachel (links omitted):

Also in the progressive blogophere, though in a complicated way tied up with points of congruence with the Right due to Republican drift, are slanders against Michelle Obama. These attacks focus on her role as wife and her ostensibly illegitimate participation in the campaign. I also see her as a target of racism that cannot be expressed directly towards Barack Obama. I have read any number of allegations, all leading back to "anonymous" (i.e., non-existant) sources in the campaign that it was Michelle Obama's decision to not allow Hillary to be VP. I have no idea what Michelle's input on the VP selection was, and I assume that she is a highly trusted counselor to her husband, just as Hillary obviously is to Bill (and vice-versa), but I doubt she was the only person who said no to that choice, assuming she even said no. Michelle is getting the Lady Macbeth treatment, cast as the scheming woman who drives her husband over the edge and into villany. Given the opposition of the current DNC leadership to all things Clinton, making Michelle the fall guy (gal?) for Barack's decision smells to high heaven - someone is gladly trading in character attacks on her to get themselves off the decision hook.

Something that may not be as obvious is the way in which Michelle is being domesticated and disciplined into the role of good First Lady. It is ironic, given Barack's own snotty comments about Hillary's years in that position, which was part of the misogynistic puts downs and trivializations of his opponent. But Michelle herself is going through a very public "taming of the shrew" process to tone down her sex appeal, limit her statements (whether you agree with her or not, it's better to have outspoken women than the alternative), play up her helpmeet status and generally craft a very pure maternal image. The crafting ends up being a criticism of Hillary, a capitulation to Republican standards of public wives, and a loss of an opportunity to change the rules for how to cover political spouses. I keep thinking of the petty sniping at Dr. Dean, the missus, who simply went on with her medical practice rather than be arm candy for Dr. Dean, the blowhard.

In light of this forced transformation, I don't think it's surprising that Michelle Obama did not raise the issues the Republic of T wanted her to. She isn't going to be allowed to, not just because it would be divisive in this post-partisan world, but because she's not going to be permitted to discuss issues at all. She's going to be Laura Bush, urging people to read.

This has driven me nuts, too, even though I only even considered supporting her husband for about 5 minutes about six months ago. I can't imagine they can keep her squashed down forever, though.

Thanks for posting this.

pretending we can all get along and all can work together to get the right thing done is foolishness--it's never been true.

The question seems to trick you into thinking very deeply into it, but I think the answer is simple: the one that champions the primacy of basic human and civil rights, the one that fiercly defends the freedom of opportunity to choose one's own destiny. That is what's at the very heart of the history of America, isn't it?