And if Hillary was still out front and center people would be complaining that she's still trying to hog the spotlight and that any defense offered would be angling for the VP spot.

I think Michelle and the Obama campaign can handle the smears themselves. In the very least I'm interested in seeing them try...

I don't really like the Hillary defense - playing the victim. I want to see Michelle face the attacks head on and handle them with grace and yet toughness. I wonder if we'll get a Michelle Obama speech on issues confronting her. She's more intelligent than 99% of those attacking her and I believe more than capable of defending herself.

The Obama campaign just needs to make sure they let Michelle define herself rather than allowing the GOP smear campaign do it for her. I understand she is not a candidate but going on "The View" for an hour is not the defining I am looking for.

I want her out front describing what it means to her to be the wife of Barack Obama and balancing being a mother first and the demands of the campaign and being a public figure; of protecting her daughters from the smear campaigns against both Barack and her and about trying to be as normal as possible with their kids.

I think Michelle could be the voice to many if given the opportunity. Now she can't come out in front and play a political figure, however if the GOP and 527's start piling on, I'd love to see her give a major speech defending herself and introducing herself all at once. "John McCain, the GOP and the 527's like trying to tell you who I am, well I'm here to tell you who I am..."

Jonze:
A speech by Michelle Obama is a good idea. But it is already too late for it to be perceived as a self-introduction, ahead of the 527's; they're already in action. At this point, unfortunately, it would look more defensive than definitive.
That is not necessarily a reason for her to reject giving such a speech. I agree, absolutely, that it would be -- for example -- an opportunity for her to point out the very specific ways in which she is more patriotic than most people: she is, after all, willing to sacrifice the tranquil life she and Barack and their children built for the greater good of her country. No small gesture. Nor is it a small gesture that she and Barack are well aware that they run a physical risk. Who among the flag-pin patriots would risk the same?

I don't think she could be out in front with an introduction speech because she isn't a candidate in it would probably backfire and the GOP would probably point to it to say she wants in the political game so we'll treat her as part of the political game. However if the GOP wants to attack first and smear her it certainly opens the door for her to defend herself, and in grand fashion.

Cindy is already trying to score with snark points, I would be careful if I was here, because I don't think many Americans identify with a trophy wife heiress born with a silver spoon in her mouth.

"Hillary is not still in the running, is she?

No, of course not. She has proven her acceptance of defeat by gamely endorsing Obama.

So we are left, baffled. Because there is a disconnect here --unless Hillary has a wish for revenge that is stronger than her political savvy. And we know she is too smart for that."

I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. Not releasing her delegates and not having surrogates remove VP sites and not sending notice of condemnation to sites like Hillary 44 (?) and the Clinton's enemy list and on and on...
So, which box to mark - the one for TOO SMART or SEEKS REVENGE? Hmmmm.

Absolutely. I don't think anybody who has any knowledge of the last twenty years could really believe that the Clintons will go quietly into the good night. I have a couple of suspicions on how it's going to happen, but geez, I sure hope I'm wrong.

That's funny, 'cuz Bill was just at the LA opening of Beatty's new film sans family.

"If Hillary were jumping on this Michelle issue you would be all over her like grease on gravy. When she says something, you squawk. When she doesn't say anything, you are incensed."
Excuse me, but you are basing your rant on what exactly? Or was this just a wild shot hoping to find an applicable target?
If HRC does speak out for Michelle and against any attacks directed at her, then I will be praising her for coming forward.

Spot on! If these people spent one-fourth the energy in Obama-boosting as they did in Clinton-hating, I would actually have some respect for them. However, over the past few months, I have posted more positive comments about Obama than some of these yahoos - and I was a Clinton supporter. I wonder exactly what percentage of Obama's support has nothing to do with him and everything to do with this pathological hatred where they wail to the heavens because she dares to mention sexism and 2 weeks later they howling like banshees because she doesn't. She could whistle down the moon and pass out stars on the sidewalk and they would moan because it wasn't the sun.

Um... did Michelle Obama speak out on Hillary's behalf when Hillary had to endure all manner of sexist insult? If not, I hardly think that Hillary owes her anything now.

I believe it was the Obama campaign who wanted Hillary to go away and STFU. Now that she has, you want her to come back to defend Michelle Obama from the same attacks that the democratic party and the Obama campaign were silent to when they were against Hillary? Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. It is your own hypocrisy you can't see. Hillary owes Michelle Obama NOTHING. Hillary faced the seixst attacks on her own and I am sure Michelle Obama can do the same.

Very truly yours, HRC

ARGH!

WENCH HILLARY'S ON ME SHIP
A PIRATE BOOTY, SHE MOVES HER HIPS

AND WHEN IT'S ALL SAID AND DONE
I'LL RESCUE HER FROM BILL CLINTON

HARKEN YE LANDLUBBER! THE WENCH IS RECHARGING HER BATTERIES!

SHE'LL BE BACK FOR MORE CORPORATE RAIDING!

ACQUIRE! MERGE! MARAUD! DILUTE! DILUTE!

ARGH!

There is one obvious place that Hillary could make an immediate difference, and she wouldn't have to take much time off from her vacation to do so. She could make a statement distancing herself from, and condemning, the comments being made against Obama on web sites that claim to be operated by her supporters.

"An Open Letter to Senator Clinton: Please Help Undermine the Anti-Obama Web Sites (using your name)"
http://msa4.wordpress.com/

The fact is that Hillary ran a divisive campaign that made many women feel that if they weren't for Hillary, they weren't being good feminists.

"Hillary is NOW Damaging Feminism"
http://msa4.wordpress.com/page/3/

dijamo:

This poster doesn't want Hillary to speak up on behalf of Michelle. This poster wants to hate Hillary.

Sweetie, do you really think that women were not listening to Obama? We just decided that he wasn't nice enough!

When you are partisan you have difficulty assessing the flaws of your own candidate. There are brain scans to prove it.

What happened with the disaffected portion of the Hillary voters is that we were never partisan for Obama,so we did our home work -- nuclear leaks, impeachment, sweetie, Michigan and Florida, 2004 interview recommending finishing the job in Iraq and decided we couldn't vote for him.

Many of us made this decision before Hillary lost -- I know I did.

Dijamo,
I learned several years ago that it is important to see one's own part in any flap or resentment. Therefore, I owe you an apology: in hindsight, it was a cheap shot for me to refer to you in this blog as I did -- in the third person, out of the blue as well as out of context, without quoting any of your comments from other threads to give any relevance to my sideswipe of you.
Therefore, rather than making a passive-aggressive jab at you, I would like to say a few things to you directly.
You have written exhaustively, angrily and, I think, often illogically from thread to thread -- often contradicting something you or someone else said before. Never mind.
The bottom line in all your posts is always the same: your belief that sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton was not protested (or protested enough by enough people) to quell your sense of injustice and outrage on her behalf.
That is your point of view and you are entitled to it. But I do ask you to consider the following:
1) This single obsessive point is so important to you that you insert it into every response you make -- whether the subject of the piece is related or not. At least you are guilty of non sequiturs and, at worst, you are guilty of gross insensitivity. As an example -- many of us were simply aghast when, in particular, you hijacked a Deanie Mills blog that had nothing to do with either HRC or sexism. Rather, it was an eye-opening, sobering blog detailing the horrific conditions -- physical, emotional and psychological -- being endured by wounded veterans and their families. In answer to this piece (which discussed the facts that vets are warehoused in roach motels waiting to be treated at Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval Hospital while their families languish hours away without contact for weeks or months on end) YOU thought it appropriate to jump in and derail that discussion with your favorite vituperative harangue about Hillary and sexism.
2) Nothing anyone of a dozen or more TPM posters has tried to say to you -- on any number of subsequent blogs since then -- has made any difference to you whatsoever. On the contrary, any appeal to you to see the issue from any perspective other than your own, or to at least engage in civil dialogue, has unleashed a stream of vitriol and name calling of whichever person from and by you. Granted, it is your choice not to see any merit in a differing point of view, but that is no justification for the personal villification in which you have indulged.
3) I am not, nor do I pretend to be a psychologist; but, at 59, I've lived long enough to recognize deeply-ingrained pain when I hear it -- particularly when I hear it disguised as outrage. Therefore, I suggest, very gently, that these blinders-on diatribes on your part are not about HRC at all; rather, they are about you, and your own life experience. I believe they are evidence, truly sad evidence, that there have been multiple circumstances in your own life that were unfair that were never properly acknowledged; and, because they were ignored, you never received an apology for them.
You may find that last statement incredibly presumptuous and intrusive. If so, I apologize for that -- because that's not my intention. I admit that I am projecting, in the sense that I know, from my own life experience, that it's easy to forgive that for which there has been recognition and an apology, and very, very hard to let go of that which has been glossed over and dismissed.
So, Dijamo, may we now discuss issues -- all issues -- with a sense of mutual respect?

PARTY UNITY. That's why she should release her delegates.

If you read rather than skim my post, you will note, Oregon Activist, that I did say Hillary had been subjected to sexist comments. Therefore, your references to "these people" and "Hillary haters" and "squeal if this, and squeal if that" are simply inaccurate.

Not true. You do not know my motivations, ant more than I know yours. But your response does imply that you have a tendency to look at the cup as half empty, rather than half full.

It is not a question of what is owed. It is a question, now that there is ostensibly no vested interest, of what is the right thing to do.

Interesting. And what the War, Womens Rights, Supreme Court, Energy and Economics?
And Hillary did initially agree to the FL-MI sanction. Remember her statement about votes not counting?!?
You're okay with more of our service personnel (and others) being wounded and killed as the war goes on? And the trillions of dollars wasted that could save and improve lives in our own country?
And you don't have a problem with another Republican appointing at least two more Supremes?
And really, the utterance of Sweetie as a justification is just silly.
Obviously, you were not basing your endorsement of Hillary on her platform, which is closely aligned with Obama's and polar opposite of McCains.
Hillary must be so proud (NOT). You listened to her then, but now you turn a deaf ear? Guess you didn't really value her efforts, much less her knowledge about our country and the direction we need to go much at all. She's a strong woman and if she thought McCain was the best choice I believe she'd sure as Hell let us know. But, guess you know better than HRC. Be sure and send your resume to McCain, bet he'll find the best position for ya.

Really? Then why is it that Obama himself made the decision to start the website to document and refute slurs? I read, just this morning, that his advisors were initially against it -- in effect, supporting your idea that slurs be ignored -- but Barack said, "no, this is not OK, and we're going to confront it directly." So, if you are an Obama supporter, will you support him and Michelle on this issue?

Possible. i have not checked since last week when they were not yet relesased.

Nonetheless, it's simply a ritual. There is no binding obligation on the delegates to vote for Clinton. It is also very common for candidates to not release their delegates until the convention.

It is another petty little thing to harp on about Clinton instead of talking about McCain still having his fundraiser organized by the "lie back and enjoy it" oilman or talking about McClatchey's story on the innocents in Guantanamo and McCain's sellout on the torture bill or comparing how Obama and McCain spent their time yesterday (helping sandbag in Iowa vs. fundraising and campaigning.

But, as I have said before, there's a clique of Obama supporters who have no energy for Obama, just energy for hating Clinton.

Thanks for your apoloy and well thought out response that I need therapy. Perhaps you should see your own psychologist as I NEVER RESPONDED TO DEANIE MILLS POST if this is the one you are referring to: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/hillary-supporters-from-one-mo.php

In fact the only time I an remember having brought up seixsm was where it was either specifically the topic at hand or the original poster specifically asked Clinton supporters to tell them why they were still pissed.

Are the many of you who were simply aghast by my non-sequitur actual other posters or the imaginary people that live in your head? Because it seems like you are much more in need of counselling than I am when you make up shit like that. Perrhaps I am the crazy one and you could simply link to the offending post to which you refer - but it is certainly not by deanie mills.

You accuse me of calling people names, yet I am told I am self-hating, uncle tom, etc, etc, etc and you have the audacity to say I need counselling in your post. Yeah, the problem with etiquette and basic decency on this site is directly attributable to me.

The problem people have with me (and I'd assume you are included) is that you can't argue on facts because the facts are not on your side so you make up stuff or misrepresent my position or call names because you can't win the argument.

And I really appreciate wholeheartedly your concern for my mental health. My views on fairness and equity and treating everyone with respect come not from some freudian childhood trauma, but actual deep-seeded principled belief that sexism and racism are wrong and we need to confront them when they occur - even if we don't like the person they are directed against. Radical theory I know.

Let me let you in on a little secret. I don't need your validation or anyone else's on this site. If you don't like what I post, then don't read it. It's that simple. IGNORE. I don't need to converse with you and you need not converse with me. I don't mean to be rude, but your opinion is not the only one and just because you don't appreciate my perspective does not mean that others don't. That's the beauty of the internets - a whole wide range of opinions for you to consider or ignore. I can read a post a total ignorant jackass telling me I'm a sellout and IGNORE it. So I would encourage you if your are so overwhelminly offended by my positions, you don't have to read them. Ignore them. Live in your little world where you only hear people echoing your own thoughts because that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. We wouldn't want actual facts or reality or logic or dissension to interfere with your certitude in your own position.

Wendy. Good story. Contact me at UPEI. There's a very interesting turn of events in Victoria that may benefit you. www.upei.ca.