Politics - Mrs. Obama
There was a front page article in today's NY Times about Michelle Obama (Barack's wife). There were a couple things about it that bothered me but first I have to address the "why do I care" issue. I'm trying to see why the spouses of presidential candidates warrant front page NY Times articles. I can't really understand why people care who, if anyone, their presidential candidates are married to. I mean, I can understand a mild interest, I suppose who someone marries reflects a little bit on them, on their judgement, but not so much as you'd think from the media attention.
So, two things bothered me about this article.
The first was when they referred to the competition and said that Elizabeth Edwards is "dealing with incurable cancer". Is that redundant or did I somehow miss the discovery of a cure for any type of cancer? I think that would have been front page news and, it's true, I wasn't getting the NY Times every day for the last two months, but I did come back to a job in the health care industry so I think I would have heard. All cancer is incurable. There is no cure for cancer. The phrasing here makes it pretty clear that they are trying to avoid calling Mrs. Edwards cancer "terminal", they feel the need to modify cancer with something but not that something. Maybe it's not terminal. I certainly hope it's not, as, I'm sure, do most people. If they need to modify cancer though, they can say breast cancer, or even recurrent cancer, or even recurrent breast cancer, all of which would be accurate descriptions of Mrs. Edwards condition, but incurable cancer, while accurate, is redundant and I expect more from the NY Times. After reading those last few sentences you may be silently, or not so silently, calling me a hypocrite, but I'm not, I just have a double standard. The Times is subject to a higher standard than I hold myself to.
The second thing that bothered me was the implication that Michelle Obama's life has been specifically orchestrated to better her husbands chances of becoming president. They mentioned Judith Steinberg Dean and Theresa Heinz Kerry and then said, "Faced with those discouraging precedents, Mrs. Obama, 43, is trying a fresh approach: running as everywoman, a wife, professional, mother, volunteer." It may be true that Michelle Obama's image better suits campaigning and is more attractive to the voting public, but is it really an approach she's using. She's an executive at a hospital making a mid six figure salary. She's also a wife, mother, and philanthropist. She can't have planned all that around the idea that her husband might one day run for president. I suppose Bill Clinton is trying out the new approach of being a man and former president to help with his wife's campaign?
So, two things bothered me about this article.
The first was when they referred to the competition and said that Elizabeth Edwards is "dealing with incurable cancer". Is that redundant or did I somehow miss the discovery of a cure for any type of cancer? I think that would have been front page news and, it's true, I wasn't getting the NY Times every day for the last two months, but I did come back to a job in the health care industry so I think I would have heard. All cancer is incurable. There is no cure for cancer. The phrasing here makes it pretty clear that they are trying to avoid calling Mrs. Edwards cancer "terminal", they feel the need to modify cancer with something but not that something. Maybe it's not terminal. I certainly hope it's not, as, I'm sure, do most people. If they need to modify cancer though, they can say breast cancer, or even recurrent cancer, or even recurrent breast cancer, all of which would be accurate descriptions of Mrs. Edwards condition, but incurable cancer, while accurate, is redundant and I expect more from the NY Times. After reading those last few sentences you may be silently, or not so silently, calling me a hypocrite, but I'm not, I just have a double standard. The Times is subject to a higher standard than I hold myself to.
The second thing that bothered me was the implication that Michelle Obama's life has been specifically orchestrated to better her husbands chances of becoming president. They mentioned Judith Steinberg Dean and Theresa Heinz Kerry and then said, "Faced with those discouraging precedents, Mrs. Obama, 43, is trying a fresh approach: running as everywoman, a wife, professional, mother, volunteer." It may be true that Michelle Obama's image better suits campaigning and is more attractive to the voting public, but is it really an approach she's using. She's an executive at a hospital making a mid six figure salary. She's also a wife, mother, and philanthropist. She can't have planned all that around the idea that her husband might one day run for president. I suppose Bill Clinton is trying out the new approach of being a man and former president to help with his wife's campaign?
posted by Beth at
8:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home