Friday, September 28, 2007

I am woman...and I've been given a right to vote.

Anyone else think it's amazing that a wife can have a different opinion than her husband?

I'm not talking politics here. I don't give a flip about Democrat vs. Republican in this post. I have no opinion on the subject of Hillary's question in this debate. Hell, I have no opinion on Hillary as a presidential candidate.

What gets me about this is that no man on the panel would have been given his wife's public opinion on their debate questions as smug justification that their answer isn't valid, even if their wife was in politics.

I thought we were done with the times where a wife was told not to worry her pretty little head about such things. Cook me a pot pie. Go ask what's upsetting The Beav.


  1. I agree, probably. Seems like the question's purpose was more about making her look bad than about her actual answer.

    But I don't suppose there is a male candidate whose wife is in politics and whose answer can be thrown in his face. At least not anyone in the spotlight.

  2. Elizabeth Edwards makes public statements that are at variance with what John Edwards says (e.g., he's not comfortable with same-sex marriage and she is). The pundits interpret that as "he wants to appeal to the voters who don't like same-sex marriage, while using his wife to win over voters who support it." They don't imply that there's an inherent problem in the spouses disagreeing.

    Hillary gave a reasoned answer with several supporting statements, suggesting that she really has given thought to the issue (jeebus, who hasn't by now?!?). So she doesn't parrot her husband's statements. Why should she?

    Wanna smack Russert for that.

  3. It was a sleazy tactic, and I agree with Annie Jones that the intent was almost certainly to put her in the position to have to respond to the "disagreement" comment (rather than to get her answer to the initial question).

    However, I think it's really hard to say that this would never have happened to a man. This particular marriage represents an incredibly unique situation. How much of Russert's tactic was because Bill Clinton is a man, and how much was because he was the President? If a man on that stage was married to a [female] former President who made that kind of extremely controversial suggestion publicly... I don't think it's a slam dunk that the same tactic wouldn't have been used.

    Of course, making that scenario happen means living in a world where a woman has already been President. That implies some societal changes that I think would directly affect the outcome of this thought experiment. *grin*

  4. mmmm...I'm thinking if Hilary did those debates topless they'd go easy on her. Then when she won the Presidential race on 08 the victory celebration could be sponsered by "Hooters"....hell I might even vote for her....her VP should beCarmen Electra

  5. I am not familiar with the Russert comments. It seems to me that we the public will get whomever the great parties feel they want and that is regardless of who is the best candidate or who we the public want. I've heard it said that WE elect the president. In reality we only have the choice of one of the two that the parties CHOOSE to let us vote on. Maybe we should skip the primaries and just put them all up on the ballot to let the highest vote getter win? That would really be letting the people choose and might change the way these people handle their campaigns.


Absent Minded Archives