A new attack on the president - his marriage

The Obamas' Marriage: Can A Partnership Be Equal If One Person is President?

This coming Sunday's New York Times Magazine cover is emblazoned with a shadowy picture of Barack and Michelle Obama on a dusty stage, smiling at each other and touching, about to embrace. Superimposed over the photo is text: "The First Marriage - It's Modern - It's a Formidable International Brand - And It's An Ongoing Negotiation." Dramatic much? But then, we haven't seen this kind of infatuation with a First Couple since the Kennedys.

The profile of the Obamas' marriage, written by Jodi Kantor, stretches back to the early days of their courtship, and traces through the years of Barack Obama's stints in the Illinois State Senate and the U.S. Senate, his failed candidacies and extended periods of time away from home. The Obamas, the youngest couple to enter the White House for quite some time, have a lot of mystique attached to their relationship, mostly because it is not disastrous or adulterous, and the First Lady decidedly does not stay out of sight. But the saga of the Obamas' evolving partnership is interesting because although they do seem to prize equality, Michelle has given up more. And this is a story that will continue to evolve through (at least) the next three years, as we see whether the Obamas can actually swing what seems to be the impossible: an equal marriage, when one of the the partners is the president.

I wrote a few days ago about how much it irritates me when men use "having a strong woman in their life" as an excuse not to talk about their own gender biases (although for the record, I do not care about the President's all-male basketball games). This is perhaps one reason why I love Michelle Obama so much - she just doesn't let Barack Obama get away with that kind of non-answer. Early on in the profile, Kantor asks the million-dollar question. Barack hemmed and hawed, saying, "My staff worries a lot more about what the first lady thinks than they worry about what I think."

Michelle answered more honestly. “Clearly Barack’s career decisions are leading us," she said. "They’re not mine; that’s obvious. I’m married to the President of the United States. I don’t have another job, and it would be problematic in this role. So that — you can’t even measure that.”

There are too many comparisons to the Clintons in here for my taste (is it really necessary to try to figure out which of the Obamas is "Bill" and which is "Hillary" - they're different people, for goodness' sake!). For me, the most relevant part lies in the compromises that Michelle in particular made for her husband's career - despite the fact that people often talk about how she is an inextricable part of his presidency. In fact, Kantor writes that Michelle actively worked, during the campaign, to appear to be a charismatic counterpoint to Hillary Clinton:


more . . . http://www.care2.com/causes/politics/blog/the-obamas-marriage-can-a-marriage-be-equal-if-one-of-you-is-president/

The comments are especially revolting.

Nothing--so they have to dig something up. Media concern trolls.

They would be held up as the shining example of "traditional family values."

Because, as we all know, only republicans can have values.

:sarcasm:

Take someone's strength and make it a weakness. The GOP are masters at it.

family values that the right asserts. They are a perfect example.

You're talking about people who come from the planet Stepford--where their wimmenz don't leave the kitchen (and *gasp!* certainly not with their limbs exposed!), but if they do, they keep their mouths shut and a couple feet to the rear. I'm sure the fact he doesn't have to hike the Appalachian trail to rendezvous with the woman he yearns for is also a bone of contention.

Does this article signal another GOP scandal soon to break? Seems like they're simply trying to raise a little dust to distract from a real issue.

:eyes:

then having the children, and staying married. But yeah, Michelle probably does go out too often and speak for herself too often to be the ideal freeper wife.

journey? I'm sure Michelle knew/knows exactly what she had to "give up".

She represents the people of the United States of America around the world, and she assists the President as well. She isn't compensated for her time, but she does have a very important role in the big scheme of things.

Michelle Obama is well educated, smart, and capable of doing many things. At this point, I believe she's decided it's best to take this path, and I admire her and respect her for it. She's been doing a wonderful job restoring America's image around the world, an especially difficult task that takes a particularly talented person, given the previous 8 years.

that a man and woman can have be in love for a long time and have admiration and respect for each other.

sounds like the fuckers complaining are just plain jealous

like it's abnormal not to cheat and be a pig/pigess toward your partner

...someone holding the Presidency creates an inherent inequality in the marriage, thusly subjugating the spouse no matter what. Basically, I take this as denigrating Michelle Obama as any kind of modern feminist whatsoever on the sole basis of her being married to the President, for allowing herself to be subjugated. That's the asinine message I got out of it.

Barack fancies himself superior to Michelle?

No.

He needs her a lot more than she needs him.

Overtime level....

to face this issue - male or female. And, in this instance, no, I do not think the comparison to the Clinton's is off base. The reason for that is that the Clinton's was, to all intents and purposes, the first presidency where prior to one spouse becoming President, the other spouse was, the financial breadwinner. In fact, I recall early in the Clinton Presidency when Chelsea became ill at school and told the teacher to 'call her father and not to disturb her mother at work'.

Like Hillary Clinton prior to Bill's presidency, Michelle's job paid more than Barack's prior to the election.

Another factor not mentioned here is that many modern couples need to take into consideration one partner's career enhancement over that of the other. You don't have to be married to the President of the US to find yourself in the situation where you're giving up something for your partner's career.

When you're married to the president you have three advantages over many of the other couples facing this dilemma: you know exactly how long your 'career sabbatical' may be, you have some degree of independent latitude in what you do with your time, and any future employer will not be inquiring 'why did you take this time off and what did you do?'

The presidency is a choice a couple makes. Not just the candidate. Had Michelle been vehemently opposed, Barack Obama would not be President of the US now.

"It was essential for the Obama campaign to present some sort of accomplished female counterweight to Hillary Clinton, to convince Democratic women that they could vote for Barack Obama and a powerful female figure besides. Consciously or not, Michelle made herself into an appealing contrast to the front-runner. She was candid; Hillary was often guarded. Michelle represented the idea that a little black girl from the South Side of Chicago could grow up to be first lady of the United States; Hillary stood for the hold of the already-powerful on the political system. And Michelle seemed to have the kind of marriage many people might aspire to; Hillary did not."

Like Kate Harding, who wrote a great post for Jezebel about this, that passage seems a little sad to me. Hillary Clinton does not represent the establishment - or at least, no more than the equally Ivy-League-educated Barack Obama. And Michelle, if anything, represents to little girls on the South Side of Chicago that they could grow up and marry someone powerful. That doesn't sound all that empowering to me.

But then again, Michelle does not seem to have the same political aspirations that Hillary Clinton had, and she gave up her particular fairy-tale vision of an ideal marriage long ago."

Here's a newsflash for Kantor: Hillary was not running to be first lady, she was running for PRESIDENT. But I guess us little women will just have to be content that we have an "appealing contrast" first lady. Woman president? Nope, not yet. Get back in line girls, your turn will come, some day, some year........the damn left is as sexist as the damn right!!!

:puke:

How 'bout she didn't win because she ran an inferior campaign to Obama? I guess you'd be happy to see Sarah Palin be president in 2012. She IS a female, and that seems to be the most important quality to you.

As for who was the best candidate, Hillary was the better candidate for me and millions of people. She didn't make it, but that doesn't mean that she wouldn't have been the better president. That's a matter of opinion. You preferred one candidate I preferred another.

:shrug:

she lost due to her inferior campaign. She didn't plan beyond Super Tuesday. And it's a shame that you can't be happy that the DEMOCRAT won instead of the Republican, just because the Dem. wasn't Hillary. If you're a Dem., you need to get over the primaries.

You keep browbeating me into liking someone who I obviously don't much care for. YOU are the one who needs to get over the primaries. Your candidate won the nomination, leave it at that. You think that he's the best thing since sliced bread, I think that he's a better option than a Republican but that's about it. If you want your opinions to be respected, then respect the opinions of others. I don't like monolithic thinking, everyone should have the right to think for themselves.

Live and let live.........

:shrug:

I said Hillary lost because she ran an inferior campaign, not because America is too sexist to elect a woman. You claimed I said there's NO sexism whatsoever during the primaries. That is NOT what I said. There was just as much if not more racism than sexism during the primaries, yet Obama still managed to win.

Wow-you "don't much care for" Obama? I'm SHOCKED! Would you prefer Palin over him as president?

Did you write this or are you quoting someone?

"And Michelle, if anything, represents to little girls on the South Side of Chicago that they could grow up and marry someone powerful. That doesn't sound all that empowering to me."

Really? That is how you view Michelle?

Newsflash: Michelle was successful before she even married Barack Obama, and they've never hid that from anyone.

It's a quote from the article.

Given that, how can you read that as anything but an obnoxious slam against Michelle Obama? They are praising Hillary, and making it sound like Michelle is a gold-digger whose only worth is that she married "up".

not on what Harding wrote at Jezebel.

The article was a nice piece on the Obamas and their marriage. There was no need for Kantor to keep making the Clinton comparisons, other than to trash them.

As for what Harding wrote, I think that few doubt that Michelle is an accomplished woman in her own right who has no problem speaking her mind. But Michelle was not running for president, Hillary was. The two positions are not comparable.

;)

That seems MUCH more interesting to me.

...and the other bush lives in a washington hotel because she's fed-up with dubya's crap?

geez.

He is making the rest of us look like slobs, which of course we are, and it makes me a little ill.


Mrs. grantcart has a hard time wondering why this year I have resulted to frequently stopping by the grocery store to by some cheap flowers on the way home. I don't tell her that seeing the President and the First Lady act like kids in love has made me reconsider how much effort I take in appreciating the best wife on the face of the earth.

...and made Laura more of an equal? :thumbsup:

I guess the Obamas' both being achievers rather than inheritors does mean that there is less embarrassed, silent staring into plates around the dinner table.

It is sophisticated and doesn't insult the readers intelligence. It's not gonna win a Pulitzer but it does its job. I'm sure the WH thought of it as an opportunity to make a good impression but I didn't find the author overly fawning or critical. The reader was left to make her own judgment, which I did.

My daughter and s.i.l. are the exact same age as the Obamas and two of my three granddaughters are the exact same age as Malia and Sasha, so I look at this with a bit of a prejudiced eye. My family is entirely liberal...they live in MA near Boston...so the Obamas and us are entertwined (at least in our own minds!).