‘One of the most important things that we need to know about the next President of the United States is, is he somebody that shares our values? Is he somebody that respects family? Is [he] a good and decent person? So our view was that, if you can’t run your own house, you certainly can’t run the White House. So, so we’ve adjusted our schedules to make sure that our girls are first’
If it’s a knock on Hillary for not spending enough time with her own daughter then it’s stupid. Chelsea’s grown and no one’s ever seriously accused Hillary of giving her short shrift. If it’s a knock on her for not being able to keep her man from straying or whatever, then it’s both stupid and exceptionally nasty — the rhetorical equivalent of those Australian lowlifes taunting her at a campaign stop with a cigar. Besides, it’s not going to work: the left’s line on Clinton unto eternity is that private foibles have no bearing whatsoever on managerial competence. If Obama seriously wants them to change course on that, I welcome him trying. It’d be magical to watch that hypocrisy flower.
The one thing that makes me think it might in fact be a shot at Hillary is that, per the left’s value system, she enjoys gender-based absolute moral authority vis-a-vis Obama and Silky such that if they want to get personal with her, they have no choice but to get a woman to do it for them. That’s why it was Elizabeth and not John Edwards who rapped her for not being woman enough. If someone in the Obama camp’s going to go this route, you’d better believe it’s going to be Michelle.
Obama’s already moved quickly to defuse this by denying that the remark was directed at Hillary. Never mind that anyway. Here’s the clip of his wife introducing him at another stop last week; skip ahead to about 5:10 if you’re counting down and enjoy her exceedingly nuanced take on what the war on terror is really all about. The left isn’t holding back anymore.