Puppet Master

Well, Mr. President  Obama Sir, while the world is distracted by your lovely wife's new hair do, her getting up close and personal with Her Royal Hugginess and that sweater that looks like that argyle sock my ex lost in the wash 20 years ago, it seems that just about everybody missed your pronouncement on Afghan president Hamid Kharzai's despicable law allowing husbands to rape their wives. (Background here.)

My man Matttbastard didn't miss it though:

While holding a press conference the NATO summit in France, Obama was just asked a tough question from Fox News’ Major Garrett (I know, even a stopped clock is right twice a day) regarding the absolutely disgusting Afghan marital rape law and what steps the US intended to take (if any).

Obama sputtered out some mealy mouthed diplo-speak about how the law is “abhorrent” and that  “the views of the administration have been and will be communicated to the Karzai government.”

Not satisfied with this non-response, Garrett followed up, asking for clarity.

The subsequent statement from the POTUS absolutely floored me:

“We have stated very clearly that we object to this law. But I want everybody to understand that our focus is to defeat al Qaeda… .” 

Excuse me?!

Matt has the transcript. Here's the video, via Think Progress.

So, is it just me, or is Obama saying Kharzai's political success -- on the backs of Afghan women -- will help defeat al Qaeda? Because we haven't seen him helping much so far.

What's more, he's ''our guy'' now. Just like Saddam was the ''our guy'' then. If Kharzai is so willing to sell out women, how long before he sells out NATO forces?

Not impressed.

UPPITY WOMAN DATE: Ooops. I bookmarked this on Friday for blogging and forgot it. More on this madness for Michelle, from The Nation's Katha Pollitt.

...  there's this developing story line--call it the Goldilocks and the Three Bears syndrome. Hillary Clinton was too ambitious; Laura Bush (who?) was too retro; but Michelle has the woman thing just right. As David Samuels writes in New York magazine:

There are clear limits to Michelle's ambition. She went to excellent schools, got decent grades, stayed away from too much intellectual heavy lifting, and held a series of practical, modestly salaried jobs while accommodating her husband's wilder dreams and raising two lovely daughters. In this, she is a more practical role model for young women than Hillary Clinton, blending her calculations about family and career with an expectation of normal personal happiness.

Would you like some manly condescension with that factual misinformation, ladies? By all means, avoid "too much intellectual heavy lifting"! If Samuels regards $273,618--Michelle Obama's salary in her last year as head of community affairs for the University of Chicago Hospitals--as modest, he must be the richest magazine journalist in the world. Michelle Obama, who made almost twice as much as her husband the senator, earned more than 99 percent of the population, and 98 percent of men. Moreover, she did so while raising two small children, often without her husband, who was off legislating in Springfield and Washington. That Samuels, like a 1950s home ec teacher, advises "young women" to keep their ambitions "practical" if they want to be happy shows just how disturbing Hillary Clinton--or rather the nightmare fantasy of Hillary Clinton--has been to certain male psyches.

It's worth the time to read the whole thing.

Comments

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

Esteemed and Beautiful Moderator

Re President... Barack ... Obama
.... suckers?

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

Oh, and er ....

anagram of the day ....

President Barack Obama

=

An Arab backed imposter

[mb]

You know Antonia, when all of the naysayers howl and squawk about the fact that everyone is now equal and therefore feminism is obsolete, all you need to do is open up the Sunday Star as I did this morning and read that an intelligent and accomplished woman like Michelle Obama is more valued for her bangs than her brains, and that her husband is seemingly unconcerned about the marital rape law in Afghanistan.

It's like riding a bicycle; either we're going forward, or falling off, because there's no such thing as standing still.

[Antonia]

Thanks mb. I could not agree more.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

MB (Moderateuse Belle?)

"It's like riding a bicycle; either we're going forward, or falling off, because there's no such thing as standing still."

Actually, there is. As an every-day biker (?) I often
1) stop bike
2) put one or both pieds on the ground
3) remain in that position (lights, etc)

Is there an equivalent in politics or feminist theory?

[Paul]

"squawk about the fact that everyone is now equal and therefore feminism is obsolete [...] It's like riding a bicycle; either we're going forward, or falling off, because there's no such thing as standing still."
---
Ever since my time in Women's Studies, I've said feminism has little to do with equality, and everything to do with advocacy. Unlike the '20s and '60s women's movements, equality doesn't really enter into feminism, except coincidentally (which is why a number of hardcore feminists have mistaken me as their ally, when I see them as part of the problem for women) Feminism is not obsolete because people are equal; it's inneffective because it fundamentally supports and presents the notion that we aren't - in direct contrast to the movements it claims it sprang from.

Your bicycle analogy is perfect. In essence, unlike issue-based social advocacy which can stand down once the destination has been reached (ie. Women's Sufferage, equal pay for equal work) - your biopolitical issue cannot stand down once you've gotten to where you need to go --you need to keep widening the gyre, lumping various disparate issues together into one massive continuum so as to diminish the impact of any victories various women's advocacy has gained (which would mean obsolescence).

[mozo]

Antonia, just because I'm having a bad Monday and need an outlet to snark...

From your blog: "...while the world is distracted by your lovely wife's new hair do, her getting up close and personal with Her Royal Hugginess and that sweater that looks like that argyle sock my ex lost in the wash 20 years ago..."

Now I don't worry about political spouse fashion statements or lack thereof, unless it is hideously inappropriate (e.g. panty-less micro-mini at Buck House). Nor do I think reporters should be worrying their pretty little heads over it either. The quote starts on the right tack but then you seem obligated to add your own "what not to wear" comment. Please don't go down that Perez Hilton road.

[Antonia]

Mozo,

You're absolutely right. But I still think the fuss over the sweater was lame.