Michelle Obama Takes Fight to Clinton

[illinoisprogressive]

ON the eve of a campaign visit to Britain, the wife of Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential contender, has delivered a spirited warning to Hillary Clinton, his toughest rival.

“Nothing is inevitable,” said Michelle Obama, vowing that her husband was a “uniter” who could beat Clinton to the party nomination.

Asked if she thought Clinton was a polarising figure, she replied: “That is definitely one of the challenges she faces. You can see it in the surveys.”

In an interview with The Sunday Times, she said that her husband had the magic to defeat the Clintons’ machine even though he was behind in the polls.
Related Links

* The inconvenient truth about Al Gore

“People know Hillary and Bill, so their first instinct is to say: well, I’ve heard of these people,” she said. “But the more people see Barack, the more they like him. His favourable ratings are higher and, to top it off, he has brought in more money than any other candidate from a broader base of support.”

Drawing an explicit contrast with Clinton, she said: “The ‘inevitable’ candidate has not raised the most money and doesn’t have the biggest base of donors . . . So where’s the ‘inevitability’?”

She implicitly likened the rival campaign to a familiar but faded outfit at a time when America needed a fresh approach. “There is a choice we can make. It is a little scary because change is scary. Americans are creatures of habit,” she said.

“Sometimes we wear the same suit even if it’s got holes in it. We need a new suit, not just a new tie or new pants.”

Michelle Obama, 43, is an attractive and eloquent advocate for her 46-year-old husband. At 5ft 11in she has the looks of a model, but she is also emerging as a feisty campaigner.

She made it plain that they had no intention of letting Clinton walk over them. “A lot of times we’ve had leadership that has played on the divisions in this country, but the core values that unite us are real.” She thinks the key to victory lies in early primary states, where voters are seeing her husband close up. Obama, she claimed, was “neck and neck with one of the toughest political dynasties that we’ve seen in my lifetime”.

She added proudly: “The Clintons were supposed to be able to out-organise us. They haven’t . . . We’re building a grassroots movement of people and have an organisation that is unmatched in the early states.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article2652770.ece

[msongs]

1. sounds like SHE should be the candidate :-) nt

[Colobo]

3. Mmmm...

Gobama. :)

[sampsonblk]

41. I second that

She certainly has the words of a fighter. I like that.

[Nimrod2005]

2. President Obama!

[MADem]

4. Was it a wrestling match between the spouses?

I dunno about that strategy--if it is perceived that Barack is sending out the 'little woman' to fight his battles for him, and tackle his opponent, it could backfire.

It's why Bill just does the Rah-Rah Hill appearances, and stays away from any perception that he's fighting his wife's battles....

Not to denigrate the expat vote, but that's a long ass way to go during primary season. Of course, the weather won't get any better in the next six months or so, so now is as good as anytime. I guess.

[journalist3072]

7. Agreed...it's like Barack and John have both been getting their wives to do their bidding. eom

[Ethelk2044]

18. Obama does not need anyone to do his bidding. He has always hit back and hit hard. Bill

Has been doing Hillary's bidding. Everyone can see she can not hold her own. That is the very reason why Bill attack Barack about experience. Bill himself had the same amount of experience when he ran for office. Therefore your comment about Barack needing his wife to do his bidding is unfounded.

[journalist3072]

37. Talk about unfounded! Your comment that

Hillary can't hold her own is completely devoid of any fact or truth whatsoever. Next time, you might want to stop being a partisan hack and deal with the facts before making such a statement.

[emilyg]

46. But she did.

[maximusveritas]

35. That's just not true; Bill has done more attacking than Michelle or Elizabeth

Bill first attacked Obama's opposition to the war. He's also attacked Obama's experience.

[MADem]

50. He didn't attack, he was responding to a question by Al Hunt. There's a subtle difference, there.

That exchange was part of an interview, where he was asked about it--not a speech. It wasn't an attack, it was an observation in response to a question. And there was no invective associated with his remarks, nor was there a claim that Obama wasn't qualified or that he should not run.

I think it is a bit disingenuous to compare the two, especially with the qualifiers that the President put on the exchange, too:

Former President Bill Clinton showed his singular ability to diminish his wife’s presidential rivals when, in a television interview, he said that Senator Barack Obama had about as much experience as Mr. Clinton did in 1988 — the year Mr. Clinton decided not to run for the presidency.

“I was, in terms of experience, was closer to Senator Obama, I suppose, in 1988 when I came within a day of announcing,” Mr. Clinton said in a interview on “Political Capital with Al Hunt” that was scheduled to be broadcast tonight on Bloomberg television and again this weekend.
Mr. Clinton did not run that year, he added, because “I really didn’t think I knew enough, and had served enough and done enough to run.”

The former president quickly noted that he did not mean Mr. Obama should not be pursuing the nomination. But he said that compared to Mr. Obama, who went from the Illinois Legislature to the United States Senate in 2005, Mr. Clinton had far more experience when he finally did run in 1992, as governor of Arkansas for nearly 12 years and as a leader of national policy initiatives.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/bill-clinton-obamas-not-ready-to-run/

[maximusveritas]

53. Michelle's comments were also in an interview and were also observations

So again, I must ask, why the double standard?

[MADem]

54. She wasn't backed into responding. She OFFERED those observations.

There absolutely IS a difference, here--even my cite, above, noted it. Clinton didn't OFFER, he responded to a remark that was force-fed to him by Al Hunt:

On the campaign trail this year, he has been almost entirely complimentary about Mr. Obama and the other Democratic candidates — though, at some private events last spring, he was derisive about Mr. Obama’s criticism of Mrs. Clinton’s early support for the Iraq war.

In the new interview, however, Mr. Clinton was backed into his remarks about Mr. Obama somewhat. Mr. Hunt read him a line from Mrs. Clinton’s autobiography, in which she recalled that some people initially dismissed Mr. Clinton in 1992 as “too young and inexperienced.” Mr. Hunt then noted that some view Mr. Obama the same way today.

A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign declined to comment on Mr. Clinton’s remarks.



It's a strategy the Obama campaign is using, by trotting out the Missus to carry the candidate's water. Make no mistake, it's calculated and deliberate. And it is very different from the way that Al Hunt got the President to say what he did, even if you don't want to acknowledge that.

It's gotten us talking about them, this tactic, and maybe that's the goal.

My opinion is that it isn't the best move for the campaign to take on a regular basis. It is unfair to Mrs. Obama, IMO, because it would be too easy and certainly simplistic for the media to paint her as the woman with the rolling pin beating up anyone who is mean to her husband. I realize that YMMV, and that's fine.

This is a tactical observation of campaign strategy ONLY, and has nothing to do with the platforms of the respective candidates.

[maximusveritas]

57. Sounds like she was backed into it as much as Clinton was.

She was asked if Hillary was a polarizing figure.
We don't know what the other questions were, but I'm guessing they were around the same vein.

I guess we're just going to have to disagree on this.

[MADem]

60. That's a question that is easily avoided, though.

The answer is: "I'd rather talk about how my husband is a uniting figure, and what an Obama administration will do to better America and her standing in the world."

She could have avoided that question easily, she knows the routine, she's obviously been schooled; and she chose not to.

Like I said, this is a strategy. It's deliberate--unless you're suggesting that Mrs. Obama isn't too bright, and I know you aren't doing that.

She's sharp as ten new tacks, and this interview and this decision to challenge the Clinton campaign directly, using her as the surrogate for her husband, are clearly not accidental.

It's entirely possible that she's test-marketing this approach in the UK, knowing that there will be some bleed-over to the US, but it's going to be a lot less hyped than if she interviewed with, say, the NY TIMES. The campaign can then guage reaction to the approach, and either pour it on or rachet it back, depending.

My personal opinion is that she does better when she talks about how great her husband is. She's quite riveting on the campaign trail when she is stumping in that fashion. She loses stature when she starts ripping at others.

[maximusveritas]

62. Bill could have just as easily avoided his question.

He could have said, "I'd rather talk about how my wife's plentiful experience than my lack of experience."
He could have said a whole lot of things other than what he did say, which put the best spin on it possible for himself and the worst for Obama.
My point isn't that Michelle wasn't challenging the Clintons here, but that it is no different from what Bill has done. Again, I understand you must disagree and that's fine.

[MADem]

63. Not in the context that Al Hunt asked it.

You seem to be taking it that I'm in some fashion OPPOSED to this strategy by the Obama campaign.
Let me be clear, I'm not 'disagreeing' about whether this is an attack, or it isn't, or if Mrs. Obama is getting too aggressive, or not aggressive enough.

Both she and Mrs. Edwards are going directly after Senator Clinton, and both their campaigns ARE using that tactic. That's simple fact.

My critique has to do with the wisdom of it. Is it a good idea? That's the only real question. Because it IS happening.

I'm undecided right now, I don't have a candidate, I am just looking at how these campaigns are run in a more generic fashion.

For all we know, it might play out that using the Missus to do some sharp cutting against Sen. Clinton, specifically, is effective. Obama AND Edwards are both doing it in a calculated manner. It's not accidental, otherwise, they'd be able to avoid being quoted the way they are being quoted--they've had Media 101 lectures by their handlers, and they've had enough time on the trail to know what they're doing. And they WANT to be quoted, make no mistake. If they didn't, they'd hold their tongues.

Right now, I don't see the strategy as a good idea, but it's still a fairly fresh approach, it may gain traction, and I could be wrong. Maybe 'catfight' type shit works.

The fact remains, though, that President Clinton uses a very light touch. As the article plainly noted, he supports his wife, and deflects, for public if not private consumption, opportunities to get shitty about other candidates.

That is NOT what is happening in both the Obama and Edwards campaigns. There is a difference between what Mrs. Edwards and Obama are saying, and what President Clinton is saying, and the difference can plainly be seen in the quotations that are used.

Certainly, if President Clinton got down in the mud, or even halfway snide, the media would be blazoning his 'insults' in their headlines. But they don't even have a decent QUOTE to hold against him, and that's because, say what you want about the man, he's an old hand, a real PRO at this shit.

He knows how to speak, when to speak, and when to hold his tongue. He's not going to trash either candidate, because it would blow back on him and, more importantly his candidate-wife. AND, at this stage, anyway, he doesn't NEED to. It's easy to be magnanimous when you're in the catbird seat.

[jenmito]

65. I don't see how you can lump Mrs. Obama with Mrs. Edwards...

Michelle hasn't accused Hillary of stealing her husband's plan or anything personal. All she did was say Hillary's not the inevitable nominee. She didn't say HILLARY claimed she's the inevitable nominee, but that she's simply NOT the inevitable nominee, as the MEDIA is constantly calling her.

[MADem]

67. Both campaigns are using the same tactic--employ the female spouse to go after the female candidate.

This is not opinion, this is fact.

It's not important WHAT the two spouses say, and it doesn't matter that they aren't saying the same things. All that matters is that the two spouses ARE making remarks, very quotable ones, too, about Senator Clinton, and they are comparing her to their husbands, and they aren't being flattering in so doing.

The campaigns ARE using the wives to go after the Senator. That's apparent by the words that are coming out of said wives' mouths. There's no debate on that score. If you can read, you can see it.

I invite you to reread the quotations taken down by Mrs. Obama. Make no mistake, she's not being "victimized" here, the Obama campaign WANTS these quotes out there, just as the Edwards camp wanted Mrs. Edwards' comments out there, too, to create 'buzz.'

Step back from that partisan perspective and look at this as a campaign strategy. Get off the defensive, because I am not "criticizing" this course of action, simply commenting on it as a campaign methodology.

They apparently feel there is benefit to this tactic. That is why they are doing it, and they ARE doing it. That isn't at issue, no matter how much partisans pretend not to see the obvious, or try to compare President Clinton's inocuous remarks with the efforts by these spouses. They aren't the same.

I do question that call they've made, to use the wives to go after the Senator, but I acknowledge that I am often surprised at the voracious and enthusiastic appetite of the American public for this down-in-the-mud shit.

Time, and the polls, will tell us if it's a good idea.

[jenmito]

68. I ask you to give me an example of Michelle Obama saying "down-in-the-mud shit" about Hillary.

Saying Hillary isn't the inevitable candidate is not down in the mud. Nothing she said compares to things Elizabeth said. I'd compare what Michelle says to what Bill says.

[MADem]

69. OK, you're looking for a partisan fight. I'm not inclined to provide it.

Comparing the Senator to a 'faded outfit' was a direct shot. There were others in that interview, too, as well as in Mrs. Edwards' media availabilities.

Did you even bother to read what she said?

More importantly, are you even bothering to read what I am saying?

Apparently, not.

Any time a WIFE gets involved in pitching shots, and especially when they're pitched at a FEMALE candidate, that's 'getting down in that mud.' Really, you might display a little knowledge of colloquial language, an understanding of the direction my argument is taking, and not get hung up on phrases that you perceive as 'insulting' to your player.

It's a waste of my time, frankly.

One more time--I am not 'partisan' in looking at this. I haven't PICKED a candidate yet. Unless Gore decides to run, that is.

Fact: The Obama campaign is using the spouse to hit at Clinton.

Fact: The Edwards campaign is using the spouse to hit at Clinton.

Fact: The Clinton campaign is avoiding using the spouse to hit at any and all opponents, likely because they're so far ahead in the polls they don't NEED to so do.

I ask, and no one is willing to discuss, is this a GOOD IDEA? Instead, all I get is immature, "let's-not-THINK-let's-fight" carping over what constitutes "down in the mud" commentary, and irrelevant insistence that Remark A is way worse than Remark B. I really could give a shit about that--I'm trying to look at the big picture here, not nitpick bullshit.

Look, never mind. You're too invested in your candidate to discuss this without emotion.

It's pointless.

[jenmito]

70. The Clinton campaign IS using her spouse to hit at Obama.

You can say it's not, but it is. And I draw a distinction between what Michelle is doing and what Elizabeth is doing. I see nothing WRONG with what Michelle is doing because she is NOT saying anything that her husband isn't saying. They both talk about the Clintons being "same ol' same ol'" and that is NOT "down in the mud" politics like Elizabeth is doing, which I DON'T think is right. People accuse her of saying things John won't say and I agree with that. But Michelle isn't taking the roll of "attack dog." She's darn mild in what she's saying and not saying anything Barack isn't saying. And if the men would "attack" her she'd play poor victim in a second, Just Barack saying Hillary didn't seem to learn from her IWR vote caused the Clinton camp to accuse him of "abandoning the politics of hope.'"

So no, I don't think it's a good idea to get "down in the mud" when it comes to a spouse talking about a candidate, and no, I don't think they ARE doing that other than Elizabeth Edwards.

[MADem]

72. No, they aren't. And I provided a citation in proof that specifically refutes it, and

plainly, unequivocally notes that President Clinton has made it a point to be positive about the Democratic primary candidates in public outings.

Your continuing to insist on something that isn't factually correct isn't going to change the reality and does not help your argument.

Again, I have no dog in this fight, and you do. That's why this discussion is impossible, because you can't step away from your advocacy and look at the larger issue.

[jenmito]

73. You said Michelle compared Hillary to a faded outfit. She did not.

She implicitly likened the rival campaign to a familiar but faded outfit at a time when America needed a fresh approach. “There is a choice we can make. It is a little scary because change is scary. Americans are creatures of habit,” she said.

“Sometimes we wear the same suit even if it’s got holes in it. We need a new suit, not just a new tie or new pants.”

She compared old style to new style. Nothing dirty about that. It doesn't matter that you haven't chosen a candidate yet. I think you're unfairly portraying what Obama's wife is doing. Yes, Bill, popular as he is, can act like the "let's all be happy" spouse but he insults with a smile at times. And Elizabeth DOES attack Hillary as well as other people. I see a difference. You don't. :shrug:

[MADem]

74. The rival campaign IS the Clinton campaign. Or are you being deliberately obtuse?

I do believe you are.

Again, you are failing to see the points I am making, AND you are tilting at a windmill.

I am not a partisan. You are. You're wasting your time. And mine.

Try actually reading what I wrote. Eh?

[jenmito]

75. I KNOW it's the Clinton CAMPAIGN. It's not Hillary the PERSON,

which is a difference. Saying someone's campaign is old-style is not personally insulting a candidate.

[MADem]

76. No, there's no difference. The person is the campaign. That's how these contests are fought.

You're the one who is persisting with this "personal" business, as though there is a difference.

I have been trying to tell you to step back a few feet and look at the larger picture. If you actually think these shots across the bow are "personal" insults, I have a bridge to sell you. But they ARE shots across the bow.

It's just politics. You are unable to see this, though. And you're parsing details that have nothing to do with the issue I am trying to discuss, which, AGAIN, has nothing to do with touting a candidate.

I am interested in the advisability of a strategy, and you're grousing about people being MEAN to Mrs. Obama.

Look, have fun. You can beat your drum all day. I'm done. I don't give a sweet shit about the things you're arguing over. I am not invested in a candidate, ANY candidate.

I was interested in the larger picture, the tactics of the campaigns, but you're apparently unable to engage on that level. And you've effectively prevented anyone else from so doing with this bullshit back-and-forth that gives the impression that a substantive discussion is happening here when it isn't. Thanks fer nuttin'....

[jenmito]

77. You think you get it, but you don't. Having no dog in the fight doesn't mean you get it.

I told you my opinion on the larger picture, but you missed it. You're welcome. ;)

[journalist3072]

5. Note to Michelle Obama: Hillary Clinton has not said she is the inevitable candidate

This is a stupid argument to "take" to the Clintons, when Hillary Clinton has not said her getting the nomination is inevitable.

If Hillary Clinton thought it inevitable that the nomination was hers, she wouldn't be showing up at debates, engaging voters, etc.

[ripple]

14. Note to journalist: the press HAS said as much.

And it's long been assumed by party faithful and even casual observers that Hillary WOULD be the democratic candidate in this election cycle. It' hard to believe that Hillary herself didn't receive the memo.

Michelle is spot-on.

[Nedsdag]

17. ripple, there's no talking to journalist about Obama.

It's not worth it. It'll just turn into insults and innuendo.

According to journalist, Obama is the devil encarnate. Obama could save a member of journalist's family from a fire and it still wouldn't make a difference.

Perhaps journalist was the anonymous e-mailer sending out the "Obama is a muslim" e-mail.

[journalist3072]

20. Well, then, take the PRESS to task, not Hillary Clinton, when she's made no such assertion about her

inevitability.

If she stops showing up at debates, and stops talking to the voters....then, OK, I could undertand Michelle Obama's comments.

Until such time, though....her comments were downright disengenuous.

[Nedsdag]

21. Talking to voters?

What about Mr. Rolph who asked the question and she called him a plant because she didn't like the question he asked?

Whatever.

[cuke]

29. Another lie

Hillary did not call anyone a "plant".

[emilyg]

48. Not true.

[ripple]

42. How does that sand taste?

Of course Hillary isn't going to stop showing up in the campaign. I'm sure she is keenly aware that she needs to win the general election, if she becomes the nominee. THAT is a problem.

You appear to be saying that no one has the right to criticize Hillary as long as she is campaigning. Or at least, Michelle Obama doesn't.

I truly wish I had the photo of Murdoch and Hillary to post here. It just seems fitting.

[Colobo]

6. "We need a new suit, not just a new tie or new pants."

Very true!

[wndycty]

8. I'm going to be consistent. . .

. . .I didn't like it when Elizabeth Edwards went on the attack and I don't like it when Michelle goes on the attack. This has nothing to do with gender and has everything to do with the fact that candidates spouses are off limits. It would be in poor taste to attack Elizabeth and it would be in poor taste to attack Michelle. I'm happy both of the spouses are out working hard, but I just wish they would leave the attacks to the candidates or other surrogates.

[BootinUp]

11. Stirring the pot a little

I don't have a problem with it. She's a fighter it appears, it was a pretty natural thing not calculated in my opinion.

[MADem]

12. I am an undecided voter. I like all three of the top tier candidates, for different reasons.

If Gore jumped in, I'd support him, but for now, I am just enjoying the show.

THat said, I agree with your points. It makes me feel....uneasy. And I do think you nailed the reason--anyone who hits back at a spouse is, well, an ASSHOLE. You aren't supposed to do that. It comes off as, well, MEAN.

But when a spouse comes out on the attack, it's almost as though they know they're off limits. And that seems unfair.

I find it hideous when Laura Bush and Lynne That Evil Beast Cheney get up and flog their spouse's programs and goals--it's just not "on."

It's like coming to a knife fight with an automatic weapon, when you really don't belong at the damn knife fight at all in the first place.

[ripple]

15. Where did she mention gender?

She wasn't "attacking" Bill, she was simply pointing out the differences between the Clintons' politics and her husband's. Even if she had gone after Bill, as long as Hillary continues to use her husband's record as a campaign talking point, he is just as subject to scrutiny as she is.

[maximusveritas]

36. But where is the attack?

Other than the misleading headline, I see no sign of it. She's simply saying that nothing is inevitable and the Obama campaign has been doing well.
It seems like when either of the Obamas try to contrast their campaign with the others, they get accused of attacking, while the other campaigns don't get put to that same standard.

[BootinUp]

38. The different standard

is definitely true. But that is in large measure because Obama has set himself up for it or been framed by his opponents. Its politics and all that.

[Grandrose]

9. Good for Michelle! (K&R)

GObama...It's not over, until it's over! :patriot: :kick:

[illinoisprogressive]

10. I love that Michelle speaks her mind while remaining so elegant.

[waiting for hope]

13. Good for her!

[democratsin08]

16. more hate from the obama camp

is that all they have? i am very proud that hillary and bill are above this disgusting vitriol spewing from obama and his minions.

[Nedsdag]

19. What did Michelle Obama say regarding hate?

I'm waiting to hear.

If anything, Hillary and Bill aren't saying anything but THEIR minions are the ones spewing the hate.

[journalist3072]

22. Definitely agree with you there. Michelle sure isn't doing her husband's campaign any good

First, she embarrasses and humilitates him with a comment about how "stinky" (her words, not mine) his breath is in the morning, and how his children don't like that. I think she was taking an attempt to humanize him a little too far, lol.

And now this comment about how Hillary thinks her candidacy is inevitable, when she's made no such assertion.

[jenmito]

25. Did she say Hillary thinks her candidacy is inevitable?

Or not? Because the MSM sure claims her candidacy is inevitable!

[jenmito]

23. Could you please quote anything hateful she or "the obama camp" said?

Drawing comparisons and pointing out how one candidate is different from another in sot digusting vitriol.

[Colobo]

24. Is there a cult that worships Hillary out there?

Some people around here sound not like supporters, but worshippers.

"Holy Hillary, Mother of God..."

[jenmito]

26. It seems there are at least three people who worship her...

I don't know if a cult can have only 3 members, but if so, it's right on this thread. :shrug:

[Colobo]

27. I have them on ignore, but I'm sure there's a poster

whose nick starts with a T, which is like the leader of the whole thing.

[jenmito]

30. I have that poster on ignore, too....

along with another one who is just nasty, cursing all the time and putting others down. They add nothing to the conversation except hate and ignorance, like RWers.

[cuke]

28. Has the "Cult of Inevitability" got you down, Katz?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3605289#3606666

In that case, maybe you should stop drop doing it

[Colobo]

31. I will continue to root for and promote my candidate for the rest of the season.

[cuke]

32. You will continue to argue that Obama is inevitable and worship him

while falsely criticizing Hillary supporter for supposedly doing the same thing you do.

No wonder it's getting you down. It must be exhausting having to remember "Say one thing. Do another" without getting mixed up.

[BootinUp]

33. Katz does it tongue and cheek

I think you are taking him too seriously.

[cuke]

34. I disagree

"You can take Katz out of the Repuke party..." and all that.

Repukes are the ones who are big on worshipping politicians. I think there's a bit of projection in Katz's criticisms of worshipers

[Colobo]

39. C'mon, man. You're taking me way too seriously.

You're overanalyzing me.

[denem]

40. Overanalyzing?

cuke has run up an awful lot of posts in a very short time.

[cuke]

44. Whazzamatta?

Is Katz the only one allowed to be tongue-in-cheek?

:hide:

[ripple]

47. You weren't being tongue-in-cheek

You were being intentionally shitty. You are certainly allowed to do that, but I suggest that you do it with a poster that also behaves in a shitty, self-gratuitous manner. Trust me, there will be plenty of opportunities to make an ass of youself on this site. It seems foolish for you to destroy your credibility so quickly.

Welcome to DU, BTW.

[cuke]

66. No, you are being intentionally shitty

[emilyg]

49. How do you think you sound?

[Colobo]

58. It's a joke, Emily. Why are you guys taking me so seriously?

I know we are all sensitive and stuff, but we all need to lighten up.

[MADem]

55. Wow, TWO with one blow!! HRC supporters AND Roman Catholics, all with one swipe! NT

[Colobo]

59. Oh please! It's a JOKE! It doesn't to offend anyone

unless there are people who are LOOKING to be offended.

[MADem]

61. Ya gotta watch those religious references. You risk offending the devout.

And that's irrespective of their support for Senator Clinton. In fact, since she's pro-choice, anyone other than a Cafeteria Catholic would probably take issue with her candidacy. So it really is two separate groups you're taking a hit at, there!

Of course, there are folks here who despise religion to the point that they get a kick out of offending the devout, but I think that's just ill-advised. It always seems to devolve into picky-bickering, and then the moderators drag out the LOCK, terminating any opportunity for discussion...!

[democratsin08]

51. they are negative

everything they say is destructive to the dem party. hillary clinton is above this hateful display

[jenmito]

56. Still waiting for you to QUOTE some "digusting vitriol" as you called it...

TIA.

[ripple]

45. Disgusting vitriol? His wife is among his "minions"?

Did you bother to actually read the article, or do you just hate Obama so much that you spew that sort of shit whenever his name is mentioned?

Based on your previous posts, I'm guessing the latter is true.

[Catherine Vincent]

43. Nothing wrong with the wives out there promoting their hubbies.

As long as they are civil about it and not catty.

[Evergreen Emerald]

52. "polarizing" That is such a load of crap

She is no more polarizing than any democrat after the republican-led-media-propaganda-machine is done with them. Obama will not be immuned..he will be as polarizing as anyone else running.

[Clintonista2]

64. Oh Lord. Obama needs to hire new advisors

Tip: Don't let Michelle "He's stinky in the morning" Obama speak in public anymore.

[itsrobert]

71. uh oh, time for Clinton campaign to instruct Susan Estrich on a hit campaign on the Obama's

Much like they orchestrated against the Edwards.