Well, for one “they go low, we go high” has not served American democracy much. For another, I don’t like friends of war criminals (see: Bush). Not saying a damn word about her husband’s atrocities is also pretty guilty. Mostly though I hate it when liberal has-beens try to steer the conversation even after though their methods have clearly failed. When the country’s most popular Democrat says “oh yeah Harris totes lost because she was a woman that was definitely it” it pushes a harmful, potentially fatal given the circumstances, narrative about the adequacy of Dem policies in 2024. Every part of the establishment Dem ecosystem deserves about this much scorn until they shut the fuck up and let people who know what the fuck they’re doing try to save democracy. Not to mention, scapegoating gender rather than politics drags down progressive women like AOC, who otherwise could make a bid for the presidency.
TL;DR: She’s, intentionally or not (though I suspect the former), doing the political equivalent of saying that inject bleach was actually a perfectly safe and effective treatment method for COVID.
She’s, intentionally or not (though I suspect the former), doing the political equivalent of saying that inject bleach was actually a perfectly safe and effective treatment method for COVID.
She wasn’t even an employee of the US government, let alone President at the time. It’s not even close to the same.
So was it fine for Charlie Kirk to say hydroxychloroquine was 100% effective in treating COVID? Because that’s the equivalence I’m making here: Charlie Kirk claiming hydroxychloroquine treated COVID and vaccines are ineffective in 2020 == Michelle Obama claiming Harris and Hillary lost because of their gender in 2025. Besides, again she’s the country’s most popular Democrat; even if she doesn’t have a formal role her voice counts for something. I’m not saying she should lead the charge against fascism, but the least she could do is not say dumb shit.
It’s one thing to hate Barack, but wtf did Michelle Obama do to deserve such scorn?
Well, for one “they go low, we go high” has not served American democracy much. For another, I don’t like friends of war criminals (see: Bush). Not saying a damn word about her husband’s atrocities is also pretty guilty. Mostly though I hate it when liberal has-beens try to steer the conversation even after though their methods have clearly failed. When the country’s most popular Democrat says “oh yeah Harris totes lost because she was a woman that was definitely it” it pushes a harmful, potentially fatal given the circumstances, narrative about the adequacy of Dem policies in 2024. Every part of the establishment Dem ecosystem deserves about this much scorn until they shut the fuck up and let people who know what the fuck they’re doing try to save democracy. Not to mention, scapegoating gender rather than politics drags down progressive women like AOC, who otherwise could make a bid for the presidency.
TL;DR: She’s, intentionally or not (though I suspect the former), doing the political equivalent of saying that inject bleach was actually a perfectly safe and effective treatment method for COVID.
She wasn’t even an employee of the US government, let alone President at the time. It’s not even close to the same.
So was it fine for Charlie Kirk to say hydroxychloroquine was 100% effective in treating COVID? Because that’s the equivalence I’m making here: Charlie Kirk claiming hydroxychloroquine treated COVID and vaccines are ineffective in 2020 == Michelle Obama claiming Harris and Hillary lost because of their gender in 2025. Besides, again she’s the country’s most popular Democrat; even if she doesn’t have a formal role her voice counts for something. I’m not saying she should lead the charge against fascism, but the least she could do is not say dumb shit.
I didn’t say it was fine, it’s just orders of magnitude less consequential.
Sure, I never said otherwise so I’m not sure how that’s relevant to my point.