Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Michelle: Still not ready for prime time
Wow, an hour of Michelle Obama on C-Span on being scared and struggling. No mention of her Magnet Program high school or her scholarships & subsidized loans for college and grad school and Baracks for prep school on up - except to complain about paying off these loans. Let me get this straight - Barack went back to Harvard Law School, graduated in 1991, simultaneously was a State Senator, a lecturer at U Chicago Law School, Chairman of an educational board and on another one, and an associate attorney and probably made a few pennies on the first printings of his first book. Somehow that income should have added up, and the 2nd fact that most people with loans know is they're not worth paying back early because they're subsidized so they're cheap loans compared to say mortgages. And he finished paying them back after 10 years. Should we be sympathetic?
Oh wait, she just called Obama becoming a "Constitutional Law Scholar" - I thought he was a lecturer, not a research professor. She talks about Obama's mother growing up in Kansas (no, she left earlier, she moved around until they settled in Hawaii). Ann was on foodstamps when she went back to grad school - while presumably living with her parents (her mother was a bank VP, father by that time a store manager), while her son was going to prep school partially on scholarship, and of course Ann was still married. Let's just say that maybe it wasn't so "tough" as it was convenient - God Bless America for easing the lives of people trying to do something different, trying to get ahead, no? Could Michelle try saying that one time?
Now she's onto his grandma in Kenya, his time in Indonesia - had forgotten that was still in the stump speech.
Now she's back to fear, "the fear of what might happen if you do something different, change is hard..." Now we're back on struggle, "no you can't, it's not your time". "We're not supposed to be here, we're not supposed to dream". Well, no, that's what all that educational support is about, all those foodstamps and welfare aid is about, all that inner city support that even paid Obama's salary when he went to Chicago to canvas and organize. Let's look at some of the supporters of Obama's Developing Communities Project for one:
Developing Communities Project, Inc. wishes
to say "thanks" for their support over the years.
- Catholic
Campaign For Human Development - Chicago Capacity
Building Initiative - Chicago Community
Trust - Chicago Foundation
for Women - Girl's Best
Friend Foundation - Illinois
Department of Human Services - Mayer &
Morris Kaplan Family Foundation - Polk Bros.
Foundation - Tribune Charities
- Wieboldt
Foundation - Woods Fund
of Chicago - US Bank
Comments (48)
Wow, I thought you all were saying Obama was the bitter one?
This however has to take the cake for inane and bitter posting. Next time I urge you to sober up and drink your coffee before posting so as not to embarass yourself further.
May 7, 2008 6:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
You do sound a little bitter, Desidero.
But I also get your larger point.
My sense is that "telling it like it is" might be a good place to start the dialogue, cuz Republicans tend to whitewash everything, and McCain will be tryin to convince us that "Happy Days Are Here Again."
We do have to be able to show people how we get from here to there, from where we are today to where we all hope to go.
I think Barack's success is due in large part to the fact that he has been able to both acknowledge how far off track America has gotten and build a sense of hopeful determination that we, the people, can effect the changes that will get us back on track; and that he, as president, will be the kind of leader that promotes that kind of citizen-driven change.
That, for me, is one of the most important aspects of his campaign: Americans need to reclaim ownership of their own citizenship beyond paying taxes and wearing a flag pin or putting a "Support the Troops" ribbon magnet on the car. It's not even enough to cast a vote. Citizens need to follow up and hold their representatives accountable. They need to stay informed of the issues, of progress being made (or not), and keep pushing for continual improvement. Democracy only works if citizens are informed and engaged. If we aren't paying attention, all sorts of problems and mischief can emerge, as the last 7-8 years have clearly shown.
One final point: I think this country has gone way, way too far in the direction of expecting charities to fill in the gaps of the social safety net, while systematically dismantling the functions that government used to do more efficiently. A person suffering from diabetes or AIDS shouldn't have to "hope" that some foundation charity will be there in time of dire need. A person facing the end of their days shouldn't have to "hope" that there's a bed for them at the hospice. An older person shouldn't have to "hope" that a nonprofit for elderly services got their grant to help them file an abuse claim. An 8 year old kid shouldn't have to "hope" that there's a spot for her in the afterschool program while her mom's at work.
If you've ever worked in the philanthropy sector, as I have, you can get mighty bitter that real people get screwed out of having their basic needs met because we, as a society, have not made taking care of our people a priority.
No amount of "God Bless America" changes society's priorities - people - citizens - do.
May 7, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Check out definition #2.
I realize, it's just a drop in the bucket, but for someone as far gone as you I figure every bit helps...
May 7, 2008 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton took her best shot. She almost sent this thing into overtime. We know you hate Barack, but it is time to lay down your weapons. Disarm.
May 7, 2008 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. I am trying to be gracious in victory but Hillary supporters like you are making it very hard to do so. It is indeed time to set aside the hatred and bitterness and come together for the good of the party and of the nation. If you can't do that then I feel sorry for you.
May 7, 2008 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eek - jdw, my comment was meant for Desidero - I was agreeing with your post. I hope that was clear. ;)
May 7, 2008 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's clear :)
May 7, 2008 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
After Hillary's next big comeback are you going to go after the kids to celebrate?
May 7, 2008 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dudes, you'll be talking to middle America, looking for those swing voters. There was hardly a drop of hope in that speech. If you think this is the way you're going to go after McCain, you better think again. Barack disassociated from his preacher - he's not going to be able to disassociate from his wife.
May 7, 2008 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero-
May I suggest Mydd or Taylor Marsh for your reading and posting pleasure.
Dude, It's over. Stop grasping at straws.
May 7, 2008 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I wanted to speak to an echo chamber, I'd head on over. If it's really over, you better get your shit together. The second part of the play isn't going to be nearly as pretty. And may I remind, if it's over, you're representing all Democrats now, not just your own dream team.
May 7, 2008 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, if Obama has proved one thing, it's that he's got his shit together. Wouldn't be the nominee if he didn't.
May 7, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the bullshit I hate to hear. And I've heard it for months - he's getting more contributions so he must be better, he has more delegates so he must be better. He outspent Hillary by tons in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana, and his main progress has been to get an ever-increasing percentage of the black vote, now over 90% for both NC & Indiana, while his white youth vote advantage has hollowed out (around 55-45 in both states), and he does progressively worse in the older white age brackets. I don't know how he's going to consolidate in the months ahead, presuming he has the nomination, or what this means in the general, but I sure wouldn't take the attitude that he's been running a good campaign of late. He's been distinctly mediocre at least since Wisconsin.
May 7, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mediocre? Not at all. He was running out the clock as well as trying not to alienate Clinton supporters and get off message by going too negative. As for the money thing, Clinton started with a $100 million dollar warchest and 100 SDs in her pocket, and Obama came from nowhere to beat her. Your mistake is just looking at the last month of the campaign. Obama looked at the whole campaign, and he won.
May 7, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blah blah blah - he's had the money advantage since Super Tuesday at least and he was a presumed solid contender back on Meet the Press over a year ago - they all thought Hillary's lead would disappear once he got serious (Daily Howler has addressed this). So now it's time to evaluate bang for the buck. Run out the clock strategy? I think he was more trying to survive the Rev. Wright thing and back away from bittergate, but what do I know.
May 7, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
they all thought Hillary's lead would disappear once he got serious
That's an exaggeration. Shrink, maybe, disappear, definitely not. Viewed as a whole, my conclusion is that Obama is the better campaigner. Maybe Clinton was better tactically, but he killed her strategically. In fact, that he decided to run this year at all is proof of that.
May 7, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just to be clear, "that" in my last sentence means proof that he saw much farther strategically.
May 7, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Take a look at various polls from end of 2006 and early 2007. As early as November 2006 Obama was well on the board against McCain, and by Feb 2007 (when he announced), ABC, Newsweek, Reuters and others had him ahead of McCain with numbers sometimes better than Hillary.
Go back through and read the Daily Howler archives from January and February 2007, and you'll see the meme developing - Hillary is unelectable, she'll do anything to win, she's a witch, Fineman distorting her polling numbers, Hillary won't retract her AUMF vote, Bill's going to get all horny in the White House, and other fine twistings.
The big one for many is that she "won't retract her AUMF vote", while they selectively ignore the first part of Hillary's quote: Well, I have said, and I will repeat it, that, knowing what I know now, I would never have voted for it. But I also—and, I mean, obviously you have to weigh everything as you make your decision—I have taken responsibility for my vote. The mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress into a war that should not have been waged.
That was in February 2007. But in later months, the beginning part of the phrase would appear in the press as if it were the first time she'd said it - as if she'd flip-flopped.
But in any case, it's a sheer fairy tale to say that Obama was a long-shot when he announced. He had already caught up to McCain and pretty well Hillary, and a lot of pundits had already predicted that Hillary fatigue, baggage and Bill would make her unelectable (not to mention their own daily spin). Note that by then Chris Matthews was in full swing, and he wouldn't be called on it until a year later.
May 7, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon--using his numbers against McCain is hardly an indicator of his chances of getting the nomination.
May 7, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I checked a better indicator of the conventional wisdom--Intrade. (Yeah, I know, terrible for prediction, but it does reflect what people are thinking.) Obama traded as high as .38 in 2007, so I have to give you credit--he was considered a real threat during part of 2007. But then he sunk to as low as .11 in the fall. In any case, I accept your point that he didn't just come out of nowhere.
May 7, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trying not to alienate the Clinton supporters? He appears to have alienated about a third of them. Makes it look effortless. But he gets a lot of help.
May 7, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can only assume that you feel those who vote Dem consistently will abandon ship with that guy as the nominee.
Why is it you make that assumption?
Because you are extrapolating the Dem primary into GE results with little effort at explaining your translation.
It usually seems to boil down to that guy as an explanation.
May 7, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm saying look at the way the ship's sailing and correct course. I'm not assuming anything. Do risk analysis. Look out for reefs, cliffs and icebergs.
May 7, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have a mismatch between your stated intent and the way in which you present your case.
Hence being called bitter a such.
May 7, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I was a paid consultant I might wear a tie as well.
May 7, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 7, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
And there's always Hillaryis44 - that site is pure gold!!! ;)
May 7, 2008 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Wright torpedo failed to take the USS Obama down. Now the nattering nabobs of negativity, the conservative brain trust, are pitching Michelle as the next "scary bogeyman". Hitchens was spewing this manure over at Slate yesterday. Hey, the guy has a big bar tab to pay.
I know they have to earn their keep for their GOP paymasters but I gotta say it just ain't convincing. The candidate never dies because of the spouse, too many stones and glass houses for that to be effective. Ain't. Gonna. Work.
May 7, 2008 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Listen to her speech and see if it isn't a downer to her. Sure, Barack is the main act, but she's got a serious supporting role if at least image-wise, and of course it's important she doesn't become fodder again for Republican ads.
May 7, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, what a completely classless act.
May 7, 2008 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Help us get together. Lets talk it out. The Obama/Clinton fight is over. If the second part of the play isn't going to be pretty, be constructive at least. The time for democrats attacking democrats, as wrong as it was, is over.
May 7, 2008 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is constructive. Tell Michelle to look up words like "hope", "positive", "uplifting", etc. in the dictionary. Otherwise she's just going to be batting practice for the Republicans, and I'm the last one who wants to see that. Obama's got the black vote - while that doesn't mean to ignore their interests (and some are a bit disgruntled that that's what it looks like), she's got to develop a stump speech that includes the other 88% of America.
May 7, 2008 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. I'm curious whether Desidero believes this is a problem of perception and presentation (which she and Barack can correct), or an essential flaw in Michelle Obama's character (actually hates America?!). If it is the first, Desidero, I'd love to hear some advice on how we might go forward effectively. If it is the second, then that might preclude the possibility of constructive dialogue.
May 7, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Huh... the "exactly" was in reference to jdw, not the original post. Bah.
But as long as I am here, and I can read Desidero's newest comment, I'd suggest that Michelle has been using those hopey words in speeches and appearances quite a bit lately (if the Obama campaign is one thing, it is nimble). But folks who do not want to see those things will not (and those are the ones who have already dug in their heels). Imagine for a minute that you are learning about Michelle Obama for the first time, and that you are an undecided general election voter (and perhaps not the kind that scours C-Span docs late at night). Try to look through their eyes, and then give me a little advice. I'd suggest (despite the right-wing noise machine), things aren't as dour as you make them seem. She's charming, wicked smaht, beautiful, and, yes, positive. We all wear blinders in this bloggy world. Hopeful the imminent end of the primary season will allow you to take off at least one set of these blinders (the primary blinders... I call them "Lannies"), and survey things afresh.
May 7, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I think a language coach and a good speech writer could work her through it in a day. She's schooled in her community and that's what passes for a political speech there. She's not a dumb woman, she has a decent sense of humor, but to date the campaign's been pretty tone deaf on what passes for pessimism to much of the electorate. Her "first time proud" stump statement earlier was an enormous boner by whoever vets her speeches, not specifically her. But go through the CSpan speech and see if it doesn't sound like they're sticking with that vibe. "Always moving the bar, can't ever win" - well what about you, honey - I thought you and Barack are examples of success, and now I'm just hearing how tough and frustrating it all is, how the man or "they" is always messing with you. How does this mesh with the Audacity of Hope? America loves a success story, stories of perserverance and never-get-up, steadfast determination, rags-to-riches. Well, I still don't buy the rags part, but what the hey, stop making the riches part so dreary and self-pitying we'll forgive the excesses on the early years - I like a good tear-jerker as much as anyone.
May 7, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Got it. And what you are saying makes sense. It's one of the challenges of being the "change" candidate... describing why we need a change without appearing to trash the way things used to be. It's certainly a tricky line to walk (especially among certain groups of Americans, who as you correctly note, love a success story--and also love nostalgia, talking about the "good old days" [Pepperidge Farms commericals?]). Never mind that for much of America the good old days were not all that good (or that, even if things work out for you, that that is not necessarily evidence of the system "working"...)--that's just not the sort of thing you are supposed to say on a campaign trail. Leave that stuff to us. Obama himself seems to be pretty well on message w/r/t these points; I see no reason why Michelle can't be or won't be as well...
Thanks for your response, Desidero.
May 7, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I think Desidero is being helpful here. If you'll indulge me in a misogynistic chess analogy... do not bring out the queen to soon. From a purely political, practical standpoint-- she needs to stay away from the cameras. She needs to be doing a lot of smiling and waving right now. Behind the scenes, do what Desidero suggests-- go to school, learn how to play the game... then slowly... slowly... do some low key, small events.
Think for example, how absolutely prime-time Teresa Heinz Kerry was... and still there were manufactured "gaffes" and "mistakes" that the right could seize upon. Let me say this more forcefully: you cannot be bred more perfectly than Teresa Heinz Kerry, yet there was still blood. They need to hide Mrs. Obama away before there is a more serious problem. There is no time for learning on the job here, because this is a game where you have to be perfect just to stay in the game. Just to have a chance to win, you must be perfect.
May 8, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Man, if you guys can't take this from some poster, how are you going to deal with McCain and the Rethug onslaught?
May 7, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can I ask (seriously): can you define not being able to "take this from some poster"? Or, better, can you describe what it means to "take it," and why it would be a good idea? Because the responses to Desidero's post seemed diverse enough (from defensive flaming to thoughtful responses) that I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not trying to be snarky-- it just that "taking it"/"not taking it"/"not being able to take it" has been a term I've heard thrown around with some frequency in the last weeks and months, and its meaning seems almost always to be in the eye of the beholder.
Thanks...
May 7, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think he meant the initial responses, including a multitude of "take it somewhere else where they love you"
May 7, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps a person who changes avatars and names frequently is not the best person to go to seeking answers to serious questions.
A few weeks ago one variant of a certain person said "So long and thanks for all the fish". Another variant quoted from "The Exorcist" and responded to a question in German.
Just as you can tune in to Chris Mathews to wait for a train wreck, you can read certain blogs and see a wreck in print. It's oddly entertaining to watch or read the wreck in progress, but the event has no relation to real world issues.
May 7, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I only added an o to my name because TPM screwed up my account and I couldn't get Desider back. Avatars, ask Billy, he punked me on the way out of here and I've been possessed ever since. By the way, how did you get so faceless and non-descript?
Anyway, I calls em as I sees em, and if that ain't good enough, don't know what I can add.
May 7, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding the name, I was referring to the variations that follow Desidero. I think Inferno was used at one point.
Why put up an avatar since we are all anonymous?
May 7, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cause I make a badass chimp.
May 7, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not anonymous. I'm Kyle Reese and I've come back through time to protect Hillary Clinton and to defend the Democratic Party and the American way of life.
Left turn, Clyde.
May 7, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again Desidero?
This is what is called a hasty generalization. You take one speech, made by Michelle Obama, and generalize to the entire campaign. You might wanna try something else. I don't know, how about you give it up and re-join the Democratic Party.
Moreover, I doubt that your assessment of Michelle's speech is anything other than the rantings of a discouraged Clinton supporter. Of course you will forgive me if I doubt the objectivity of your assessment, won't you?
May 7, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't recall that I invented "first time proud of America", and I don't think I put it on Republican airwaves. Why don't you stroll on over and examine yourself when you get finished doing rum-and-Red Bull shooters? Michelle speaks (real media)
May 7, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love this. I want to remember the echo chamber just the way it is today.
May 7, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment