We’re kicking off Giving Tuesday early this year! Your donation today will be matched up to $10K, doubling your impact! If you donate $50 today, the Reader will receive $100.
The Reader is now a community-funded nonprofit newsroom. Can we count on your support to help keep us publishing?
Sun-Times Senior Obama Expert Jennifer Hunter rather embarassingly stands by her throwaway punking of Michelle Obama. Was it irresponsible for her to speculate? It would have been irresponsible not to.
I’m glad I took the day off Tuesday, when the firestorm hit. I didn’t read my e-mails; I didn’t watch television. I jogged and bought groceries and tended to my family, so I didn’t know what happened until Wednesday morning.
Just so we all know she’s not a hypocrite. Jennifer Hunter for president!
Apparently, my column on Michelle Obama became a rant for the news media when it ran that morning — I guess there is not enough to report in the dog days of August.
Are there better things to discuss than her reporting? I’ll have to take her word for that. But this snide, I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I tone really, really should be beneath her.
But in the fifth paragraph of the story, I suggested that during an introduction to a speech by her husband, something she said could be interpreted as a swipe against the Clintons, and that set the tongues wagging . . .
Emphasis hers. Here’s why that’s important:
OK, but as I stood there in Atlantic, Iowa, listening to Michelle Obama talk and hearing the cadence of her speech, my immediate reaction was that she was obliquely referring to the Clintons.
Why did I think that?
Well, she said she and Barack were modeling “what it means to have family values in this country and we haven’t seen that for a long time” [emphasis added]. Wasn’t Bush the family values guy? What did Michelle mean by “we haven’t seen that [family values] for a long time”?
In case you missed it: “Wasn’t Bush the family values guy?” This is Jennifer Hunter undermining her own argument. This could be interpreted as Jennifer Hunter admitting error or taking a swipe at Bush, but she doesn’t elaborate.
Then she talked about the future president being someone who “respects family . . .” Did Bill Clinton show respect for his family with his bimbo eruptions? Did he consider the impact on his child, let alone his wife?
I’ll grant that it could have been a swipe at Bill Clinton, who is not running for president. Hillary, who is, seems to have come through the most public affair–not, we should note, hers–in American history with her marriage intact and a seemingly functional daughter.
Michelle Obama added: “So our view is that if you can’t run your own house, you certainly can’t run the White House.”
Oh yeah? Boom! Clang! [Fart noise!]
The Clintons certainly did have a hard time running the White House and their own house during the Monica Lewinsky affair as independent counsel Kenneth Starr and his henchmen began snooping around and President Clinton was impeached by Congress.
He really should have considered the possibility that a blowjob would damn near shut down the U.S. government.
So you can see where I was going with this. It didn’t take a huge leap of logic. My mistake was not grabbing Michelle Obama when she left to ask for further elaboration — I was waiting to hear her husband speak.
Let’s rewrite that for clarity: “Reporting would have interfered with my waiting. So I took a leap of logic instead.”
But at least my column — which is my own opinion — did give the news shows something really important to talk about.
And in the end, her defense is the rhetorical equivalent of sticking her tongue out. I would have cut the column at Bang!; I don’t understand why she ends it with a whimper.
If this seems like nitpicking over something that doesn’t matter, here’s why it does.