Reply #25: You need better reading skills. I never said all character-based attacks are sexist.

[athena]

In the OP, you praise Elizabeth Edwards for her statement and suggest that other candidates' wives should do the same. Elizabeth Edwards's statement was not a "legitimate character-based criticism." It was a 1950's-style sexist attack. If you don't see that, read Katha Pollitt's column; she explains it better than I can.

I currently support Obama over Clinton. As a woman, Clinton is prone to be criticized for being too liberal and dovish; to avoid such labels, she has moved right and assumed a hawkish position. Conservatism and hawkishness are the last things the U.S. needs right now, and that is why I support Obama. I've read both of his books, and I plan to volunteer for his campaign. But if Michelle Obama starts making statements similar to Elizabeth Edwards's, Barack Obama will lose my support. What Michelle Obama said yesterday is not sexist, since it is not openly aimed at Clinton and happens to be true of all the candidates. But criticizing Clinton directly for her "ambition" as you seem to suggest would be sexist. Running for president requires ambition and self-interest. Criticizing the sole female candidate for her "ambition" but not criticizing male candidates, who have at least as much ambition, is sexist.

I have never seen Senator Clinton turn criticism from men into sympathy for herself. As a feminist, my opposition to Hillary Clinton is issue-based. Your last statement suggests that yours is more gender-based.