Michelle Obama: My Husband Is Only Candidate Who Can Change How World Views America
Campaigning for her husband today at a historically black college in South Carolina, Michelle Obama told the audience that a Barack Obama win would change the country's image in a big way. "Imagine our family on that inaugural platform," she said. "America will look at itself differently. The world will look at America differently. There is no other candidate who is going to do that for our country. You know that."
South Carolina's Democratic electorate is expected to be about half African-American, so the state is considered a must-win for Obama, and this sort of appeal could help him solidify the black vote.
At the same time, there's a certain other candidate who would also change America's image — by being the first woman president — so it might come down to which milestone would be valued more by some of those voters.
Comments (59)
joshmax wrote on November 20, 2007 2:11 PM:But the "first woman president['s]" "family on that inaugural platform"-- definitely NOT a different look for America. In fact, that SAME family has appeared on the inaugural platform in very recent memory.
christine wrote on November 20, 2007 2:13 PM:The wingers go CRAZY with this. On Hannity's radio show Friday, he and a caller were talking about something else she had said along these lines. They were like, "what does she mean, this is code, vote for Obama because he's black." Whatever the reason for her saying this, whether it hurts or helps Obama, it's still a 100% true statement, more so than if Hillary wins.
cb wrote on November 20, 2007 2:17 PM:joshmax - I couldn't agree with you more. The only difference with the first woman president['s] family on the inaugural platform is that Chelsea no longer is in braces.
jgale wrote on November 20, 2007 2:20 PM:This is the most pursuasive arguement that Obama can make about his candidacy. If Obama is elected, he might good president or he might be an ineffective president. BUT, he has a chance to be a historic president that will forever change America for the better. We need to take the chance since we are getting done with a president that has change America for the worse.
I also think her comment about how the world will view us differently is important.
K wrote on November 20, 2007 2:21 PM:Of course this is so -- but the world would also view the U.S. differently if a woman, or a hispanic, or anybody BUT a white guy became president.
Oh, and can somebody explain to me how this isn't using the "race card," by the same light used by those who claim Hillary is using the "gender card"?
DTM wrote on November 20, 2007 2:25 PM:Eric tries to reframe the question as "which milestone would be valued more" by voters, but that is not in fact the question Michelle Obama raised. Rather, her question is which person, if elected, would do the most to change both how American views itself and how the world views America.
The domestic question may be closer (although it does seem to me that I see a lot more people around here arguing that America is not ready for a black President than that America is not ready for a female President). But the international question does not seem all that close to me, particularly in light of the Margaret Thatcher precedent (of course Americans may not see her as particularly precedential, but on the world stage I think a lot more people tend to lump together "Anglo-Americans").
JenJen wrote on November 20, 2007 2:30 PM:A certain other candidate? Hillary and Bill switch places and the writer of this piece thinks America would view that as some kind of milestone? Joshmax and CB are exactly right.
Mrs. Obama is right... just having Barack Obama as the nominee would make this country feel different about itself, and would certainly make me one proud Democrat. The fact that the wingers are already going nuts is just icing on the cake. :-)
DTM wrote on November 20, 2007 2:33 PM:christine,
I once saw Tucker Carlson try to make an issue out of a similar statement by Barack Obama. His guest asked him something like, "Are you saying that it isn't true?", and that was pretty much the end of the discussion.
K,
By the ordinary usage of the term, if Clinton said, "vote for me because I am a woman and electing a woman would be a good thing," that would not actually be "playing the gender card". Rather, "playing the gender card" would require her to imply that someone else was doing something negative to her because she was female. In other words, "playing the gender card" (or "the race card") depends on some explicit or implicit accusation of sexism (or racism).
Perplexed wrote on November 20, 2007 2:38 PM:Come on. For god's sake. We KNOW you like Clinton. We know you love Clinton. We know you are going to vote for Clinton and you want everyone in the world to vote for another Clinton and get that fresh start by going very very slowly in regards to Iraq and stoping that horrid "trillion dollar tax increase on the middle class."
Now for god's sake, quit trying to work Clinton into every friggin' article you guys put up on here. It's getting to be a joke and I'm sick to death of it. It honestly is making me reinterpret the fine work that has gone on here. Maybe you guys really are just the flip side of the Republican machine.
Depressing.
DemAC wrote on November 20, 2007 2:40 PM:Oh yes, replacing ole’ W with a strong clever lady President will of course not change how the World view the US at all. No, no no. Same old same old. But with Obama, oh ye folks: lo and behold. He is not only black, he is not only for hope (and change too, don’t forget the change!) he is almost super natural, he will transcend every boundary and walk on water, he will…
*zzzzzz*
Mike Bakunin wrote on November 20, 2007 2:42 PM:Ms. Obama: Yada yada yada.
JenJen wrote on November 20, 2007 2:44 PM:Perplexed:
I know!! It's really been staggering to me to see how willing the blogosphere is to line up behind Hillary Clinton before the first caucus is even held. Honestly, I've been a bit taken aback by it. Maybe I don't know my favorite bloggers as well as I thought I did... or maybe just seven years of Bush united us so much that we didn't realize exactly how different from one another we really are.
Thanks for expressing my own frustration better than I could!
markg8 wrote on November 20, 2007 2:44 PM:It's not just the Thatcher precendent, it's the Indira Ghandi, Benazir Bhutto, Golda Meir, Kim Campbell (Canadian failure), Angela Merkel, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner in Argentina, Michelle Bachelet in Chile, Ireland's Mary McAleese, New Zealand's Helen Clark, Finland's Tarja Halonen, The Philippines' Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Mozambique's Luisa Diogo, Liberia's Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Switzerland's Micheline Calmy-Rey, India's Pratibha Patil precedent.
That's just from a cursory google search. The rest of the world is likely to look at Hillary and say ho-hum. OTH Obama a black man raised partly in the largest predominantly Muslim nation on earth becoming president? Yeah that's a big deal.
Derek wrote on November 20, 2007 2:45 PM:
Andrew Sullivan - Goodbye to all that
Consider this hypothetical. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man—Barack Hussein Obama—is the new face of America. In one simple image, America’s soft power has been ratcheted up not a notch, but a logarithm. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonization of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about what America is in ways no words can.
I support Obama---and i believe Michelle has a point----not only because of skin color, but of the attitude towards other cultures, especially in the middle East.
But changing the way the world looks at America is not a very high bar to set. As soon as that idiot Bush is gone---the world will probably look at us differently.
Wil Burns wrote on November 20, 2007 2:49 PM:I have nothing bad to say about Obama.
If Obama wins - whoever wins the Democratic nomination, I'm behind him/her all the way.
But seriously, between the Black guy with two years experience
and the only team to win back-to-back presidential campaigns since FDR,
(the team that beat war hero Bush and war hero Dole),
...who do you think the super-racist GOP wants to run against?
(Some call that "Hillary worship."
Looks like common sense to me.)
Seriously, people. You don't have to be supporting Hillary Clinton to concede that she will change the perception of America and dramatically change the face of international affairs. Just the other day I was talking to an Iranian woman who liked Hillary because it would send a strong signal on women's rights in countries where women have few rights compared to men. Women of every ethnicity/race are given second-class status and to deny the importance of the "leader of the free world" being a woman is absurd at best.
I don't happen to think that is, in and of itself, a good reason to support Hillary, but it is real and obvious. Why is there such a pervasive lack of consistency when it comes do disucssing the Clintons? I expect that from the right, but not so much from the left.
cb wrote on November 20, 2007 2:50 PM:Yeah- what markg8 said.
Jane wrote on November 20, 2007 2:51 PM:Sure change the way that stable place Pakistan looks at us.
Obama's comments about Pakistan are even more appalling when you learn that he was an International Relations major undergrad at Columbia. He should have known better so this is not something we can expect a little experience to cure.
DemAC wrote on November 20, 2007 2:52 PM:Derek,
And what if that young Pakistani Muslim happens to think that she’s seen enough men with power and would care to identify with a fellow woman?
Mindboggling – isn't it?
NYMARJ wrote on November 20, 2007 2:58 PM:If you anti-Hillary people think that electing Hillary will not change our image in the world you have another thing coming. My daughter was interning in Berlin this past year and I emailed her a picture of Hillary and myself taken at a party. My daughter, probably supporting Obama said - oh Mom, but all of her officemates and bosses were esctatic and printed copies and placed them all over the office. Not to say Obama would not change our image as well - but Hillary is loved around the world.
Also if Bill Clinton had said only a woman named Hillary and no one else can change our image in the world plenty of people would be saying he played the gender card to gain woman's votes- there is no doubt about it.
Any Democrat elected will change our image in the world - the world could never believe we elected him in 2004 - having thought 2000 was a mistake
Dan wrote on November 20, 2007 2:59 PM:DemAC,
Pakistan has had a woman leader already. A corrupt one at that.
Obama's comments about Pakistan are even more appalling when you learn that he was an International Relations major undergrad at Columbia. He should have known better so this is not something we can expect a little experience to cure.
Senator Biden: But folks, I got to say something here. Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. The truth of the matter is, none of what you heard earlier is correct. It’s already the policy of the United States, has been for four years, that if there was actionable intelligence, we would go into — into Pakistan. That’s the law.
Wil... in response to you writing, "But seriously, between the Black guy with two years experience
and the only team to win back-to-back presidential campaigns since FDR,
(the team that beat war hero Bush and war hero Dole)...who do you think the super-racist GOP wants to run against?"
Couple things here... I'll vote for the Dem nominee if we nominate a cherry red stapler. And you know, I voted for Bill Clinton twice and still adore him. But, Hillary isn't Bill, and when I was voting for Bill, I wasn't voting for a "team." I was voting for him. And even though it's tough to admit it, I'm not so sure Bill would have beaten war here Bush or war hero Dole without a little help from chart-flipping Ross Perot.
If she does become the nominee, I do hope Hillary can make a better case of showing me why she'd be a great president, rather than take too much credit for her husband's great presidency.
dajafi wrote on November 20, 2007 3:04 PM:For all the shots Sargent took yesterday, if there's anyone in the tank for Hillary at TPM, it's Eric. Perplexed is on point here--please, just let us enjoy one story without sticking InevitaBillary in our faces.
As for the Hillbots here, I sincerely hope you view the prospect of the Bushes and the Clintons riding in the limo on Jan. 20, 2009, making little jokes about "you were sitting here and we were sitting there," with pleasure; to me it's beyond nauseating.
Other than that obnoxious sense of entitlement, I still have no idea why Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation is running for president. If she has any inclination toward leadership beyond mushy platitudes and Beltway truisms, it's exceptionally well-concealed.
markg8 wrote on November 20, 2007 3:07 PM:DemAC,
If that young Pakistani Muslim happens to think that she’s seen enough men with power and would care to identify with a fellow woman...she can always vote for Benizar Bhutto like her mom did.
Women have risen to the top in just about every country BUT the US. Nobody outside the US is going to see Clinton as an inspiration.
DTM wrote on November 20, 2007 3:13 PM:Just to be absolutely clear, I would not personally say that if the United States elects a female President, it would have no effect whatsoever on world views. I just don't think it would have nearly as much effect as electing Obama.
Generally, not every argument in which Obama claims "I could do X the best" is actually an attack on Clinton. Rather, it is usually just him making the case for his Presidency.
RonK, Seattle wrote on November 20, 2007 3:20 PM:Michelle Obama is right.
But Hillary Clinton would be a threefer.
First woman POTUS. (Not as big a deal as first black POTUS -- the world has seen female heads of state before.)
But then there's Bill Clinton -- probably the most admired person in world history (globally, even allowing for US right and left wing detractors).
And there's not doubt that Bill Clinton's America was the most admired nation (again globally) in world history.
That buys America a big round of second chances and benefits-of-the-doubt. And it marks the Bush regime as an disturbing anomaly.
RockGolf wrote on November 20, 2007 3:23 PM:Without respect to whom I would prefer as your President, were Hillary elected, I suspect much of the world would see it as a Bill Clinton puppet presidency, not unlike Evita Peron, Lurena Wallace or a very recent Central or South American woman whose name (or country) I can't remember. In each case, at least to an outsider, a popular leader's wife, whose husband could not be re-elected on constitutional grounds, was elected under the assumption that the husband would be the power behind the throne.
I'm not by any means saying this would be the case with the Clinton's, but to the world at large it could easily look that way.
RockGolf wrote on November 20, 2007 3:41 PM:Update: The other woman I was thinking of is Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, recently elected as President of Argentina.
Steve Snyder wrote on November 20, 2007 3:42 PM:Hey, Michelle... we could all vote Green, elect Cynthian McKinney and have BOTH black and woman bases covered!
Denis wrote on November 20, 2007 3:53 PM:I am surprised there has been no comment on Richardson... He to would change the perception of who can succeed in america.
As a footnote: Richardson is third or fourth on my list at this time but here in Iowa we do see and hear all of the candidates and obviously Richardson is not a traditional candidate.
George of Palos wrote on November 20, 2007 3:58 PM:Obama's political career to date has been:1)Two terms as an Illinois State Senator from Hyde Park ;one of the most liberal wards in the City of Chicago.Therefore his election was a given as he was the Machine candidate.In Springfield he did what Senate President Emil Jones told him to do. 2)He won the primary for the Democratic party as the white vote was split between several candidates. He then ran against the carpetbagger Alan Keyes after the Illinois GOP ran off their primary winner, Jack Ryan, was accused of wanting to have sex with his then actress wife Jeri Ryan in some unusual places. Therefore, he has never had to indure the hardball tactics of the GOP.Obama backers keep flaunting the polls that show him leading in Iowa, but I would be curious to see how many voters in the state that he represents, Illinois, would vote to reelect him for a second term.
gujar wrote on November 20, 2007 3:59 PM:I wish it was Clinton/Obama ticket. That would be historic and we could own the white house for next 16 years.
Ni Daye wrote on November 20, 2007 4:03 PM:I believe Mr. Obama's mother should shut up. She is not helping her son.
Wait a minute! She's his wife. God, she looks old. Never mind. Please keep shooting your mouth off.
kjoe wrote on November 20, 2007 4:04 PM:And now--for something completely different---------------------------------------------------
Under Hillary---Maureen Dowd would be ---secretary of----I can't decide. I think she should at least get a nobel peace prize for this column---dominatrix-obambi-flick the whip-spank him-
Hillary freezes out Obama
By Maureen Dowd
11/20/2007
Maureen Dowd
The debate dominatrix knows how to rattle Obambi.
Mistress Hillary started disciplining her fellow senator last winter, after he began exploring a presidential bid. When he winked at her, took her elbow and tried to say hello on the Senate floor, she did not melt, as many women do. Instead, she brushed him off, a move meant to remind him that he was an upstart who should not get in the way of her turn in the Oval Office.
He was so shook up, he called a friend to say: You would not believe what just happened with Hillary.
She has continued to flick the whip in debates. She usually ignores Obama and John Edwards backstage, preferring to chat with the so-called second-tier candidates. And she often looks so unapproachable while they're setting up on stage that Obama seems hesitant to be the first to say hi. Advertisement
With so much at stake, she had to do it again in Vegas last week, this time using her voice, gaze and body language to such punishing effect that Obama looked as if he had been brought to heel. It was a mesmerizing display, and it came at an event that drew the highest television ratings of any primary debate this year. The momentum Obama had gained from a vivid speech at the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner in Iowa drained away by the end of the first half-hour.
Other guys, like Rudy, wouldn't even be looking for a chance to greet Hillary, as Obama always does. Other guys, like Rudy, wouldn't care if she iced them. But she can tell that Obama does care, that he doesn't want her to not like him or be mad at him, that he responds to the sort of belittling treatment that she sometimes dished out to her husband and his male aides at the White House, yelling at them and calling them wimps if they disappointed her.
Obama may be responsive to Hillary's moods because he lives with another strong woman who knows how to keep him in line. Michelle said she let her husband run for president only when he agreed to give up smoking, and she's a master at the art of the loving conjugal put-down.
When Hillary walked onstage Thursday, Obama stood to her left waiting to shake hands and say hi, as he and Edwards had done with Chris Dodd. She turned her body away, refused to meet his eyes and froze him out. Again. And he looked taken aback. Again.
For the rest of the night she owned him. He was so off his game that he duplicated her dithering performance from the last debate on the issue of whether illegal immigrants should get driver's licenses. After a tortured exchange with Wolf Blitzer, he ended up saying he favored it — one more sign that the law professor is oblivious to the visceral nature of campaigns.
Hillary brazenly leapt away from that politically devastating position and said she didn't support the licenses anymore. And Obama didn't even call her out on her third reversal on the matter. She was willing to absorb the flip-flop criticism to cut her losses on an issue that could have dragged her to defeat in the general election.
Obama and Edwards, who both seemed shaken by a few seconds of pro-Hillary booing, let the front-runner set a ludicrous standard: that any criticism of her shifts on issues is "mudslinging" and a character attack.
She is a control freak — that's why her campaign tried to coach wonky Iowa voters to ask wonky questions — and her male rivals are letting her take control. The Democrats should not be afraid to mix it up now, while they have a chance, and get all the doubts and disputes out on the table. Taking some flak clearly made Hillary stronger.
If Rudy's the nominee, he will go with relish to all the vulnerable places in Hillary's past. At the Federalist Society on Friday, he had barely spoken the word "she" before the audience began tittering appreciatively.
He went through a whole faux-bemused riff on Hillary's driver's license twists without ever uttering her name:
"First, she was for the idea and supported Governor Spitzer, who wanted to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Then she was against the idea. Then she was for and against the idea. And then finally she said it should be decided on a state-by-state basis. This is the only time in her career that she's ever decided anything should be decided on a state-by-state basis," Rudy said. "You know something? She picked out absolutely the wrong one. Right? I mean, this is one of the areas that is given to the federal government to deal with under our Constitution, the borders of the United States, immigration."
Rudy laced his speech with faith references, including the assertion that America has "a divinely inspired role in the world" and a mission to "save a civilization from Islamic terrorism."
Hillary has her work cut out for her. Rudy will not be so easy to spank.
Rather, "playing the gender card" would require her to imply that someone else was doing something negative to her because she was female. In other words, "playing the gender card" (or "the race card") depends on some explicit or implicit accusation of sexism (or racism).
DTM,
Playing the race card or the gender card does not require an accusation of racism or sexism. Implied or otherwise.
You use the *whatever*-card to make people feel good about you or just feel for you so that they might choose you over someone who isn't your race or gender.
Jane wrote on November 20, 2007 4:22 PM:Re:Pakistan
Obama already hit the newspapers there big time and badly.
Joe Buck wrote on November 20, 2007 4:24 PM:RonK writes that Bill Clinton was "probably the most admired person in world history".
I have to assume that this is satire.
Compared to either Bush, Clinton looks very good. But he was not particularly great or particularly admired around the world. He was competent and sensible, as compared to George W. Bush who is neither, but he wasn't much of a leader, and had few lasting accomplishments that didn't advance the Republican agenda. NAFTA? George H. W. Bush's people wrote it, Clinton got it enacted. Welfare "reform"? That was Reagan's dream; Clinton got it enacted. The GATT and WTO? The rules were written by Republican corporate lawyers; Clinton got it enacted. He tried to fix health insurance, but left office with more uninsured than he entered with, and he lost the Congress to the Republicans.
This strikes me as a very risky strategy for Obama for 2 reasons. 1 -- the risk of a backlash not on Fox but among Dem primary voters. Older, working class white dems do not want to feel they are being guilted into voting for a black candidate. I know that sounds borderline offensive on several fronts as I write it, but they need to be going in the opposite direction right now, as he becomes an increasingly credible candidate for the nomiation. I continue to believe Obama needs to give some sort of speech in which he addresses head-on what it means for the PArty and the country to have a black nominee/ president.
2. It raises the "who do you want to have their hand on the Bible/ finger on the trigger" question, which does not play to BO's advantage.
DemAC wrote on November 20, 2007 4:33 PM:Dan and markg8 et al,
I see now. You’re of course correct. As there was a female leader once in Pakistan (and occasionally at other places as well) there is absolutely no point in electing a female President in the US. Been there, done that, seen this. I’m slightly awed by your brilliant logic and of course concede my point. Stupid, stupid little me.
And that the World would view the US more positively because we elect a female President – no, of course not. Stupid little me again. Never in the field of human history went imperialism and patriarchy together, no no no.
But Obama who is for hope (and never, never forget the change! The change!!!), wow, now that ought to do it! By jolly how they all will come around! Little white children and little black children, Christians and Gentiles, Jews and Muslims, all will hold hands and not an eye shall be dry in the World when we sing together.
BTW: Camp Obama really should make a video where he transforms water to wine, I mean: how’s that for change!
DTM wrote on November 20, 2007 4:37 PM:George of Palos,
Your post contains several false claims. To give just one example, Obama won the primary with 53% of the vote. 53% of the Democratic Party in Illinois is not black, so "splitting the white vote" does not explain his victory.
Second, here is a relatively recent poll about Obama from Illinois:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=9acde2f2-da64-4175-bb54-121eaf30bb18
Note, by the way, he is more popular than his fellow Democratic Senator Dick Durbin in every cross-tab, including among whites, Republicans, conservatives, and so on.
loki,
Here is a link on "the race card" (which I believe is also applicable to "the gender card").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_card
As explained there:
"In the first, and more common context, it alleges that someone has falsely accused another person of being a racist in order to gain some sort of advantage. . . . In the second context, it refers to someone exploiting prejudice against another race for political or some other advantage."
Michelle Obama's claim does not fit into either of those two categories, nor would Clinton saying that people should vote for her because she is a woman.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 20, 2007 4:43 PM:Kuncinich would be the first elf . . .
Richardson the first of Latino descent . . .
Clinton is the same old shit without dangly-down bits in the underpants . . .
Obama would be the first obviously hen-pecked man . . .
Biden would be the best dressed since JFK . . .
Edwards or Kuncinich would be the first Democrat since Carter left power . . .
Although I will give her that Dodd and Gravel would be stereotypes . . .
destor23 wrote on November 20, 2007 5:00 PM:Well... that's offensive.
loki wrote on November 20, 2007 5:02 PM:Playing the race card is an idiomatic phrase referring to an allegation raised against a person who has brought the issue of race or racism into a debate, perhaps to obfuscate the matter. It is a metaphorical reference to card games in which a trump card may be used to gain an advantage.
I'd say Michelle's remarks fall fairly well into this description.
She most certainly brought race into the debate.
In each case, at least to an outsider, a popular leader's wife, whose husband could not be re-elected on constitutional grounds, was elected under the assumption that the husband would be the power behind the throne.
RockGolf: Eva Perón was never president of Argentina. True, she was very involved in Argentine politics, and she wanted to run for Vice-President, but opposition from the ruling elites and her own declining health prevented that.
You are probably thinking of Juan Perón's third wife, Isabel, who served as vice-president during his third term and succeeded him when he died of a heart attack in 1974, but who, unlike Evita, was not at all popular with the people of Argentina. She was never actually elected president, and it's not likely she ever would have been.
In any event, since her husband was dead at the time she assumed the office, he could hardly have been pulling her strings. Nor was she very much under the control of her husband's political allies: the true "power behind the throne" was an occultist and fortune teller whom she had made her minister of social welfare.
Christina Kirchner has long been involved in Argentine politics and had held elective office in her own right before running for the presidency of Argentina. (Néstor Kirchner was not constitutionally prohibited from running for re-election; he just declined to do so.) She appears to be a pretty strong personality; I would not think anyone would expect her to be anyone else's puppet.
You're making generalizations that are not necessarily supported by the facts.
George of Palos wrote on November 20, 2007 5:27 PM:DTM, The polling data that you link to is from 11-2006. I would like to see polling regarding a second term for Obama that is current. Illinois has many pressing needs, amongst them funding for mass transit. When Danny Rostenkowski was head of the Ways and Means committee he was able to deliver. As for being more popular than Dick Durbin; well that's no surprise as in Illinois Durbin's nickname is Mr. Bobblehead because he is usually on both sides of the question. Do not misunderstand me. I like Obama but Illinois needs to be represented full time and if you would read the letters to the editor in both the Chicago dailies and the neighborhood papers, the question is "what is Obama doing for us?"
DTM wrote on November 20, 2007 5:32 PM:loki,
Keep reading.
CognitiveDissonance wrote on November 20, 2007 6:05 PM:Three months ago, I might have believed that Obama was truly a candidate of change. But that was before his ill-advised campaign trip with the anti-gays, and how he handled the fallout. And before he not only fell for the tactics of the Prince of Darkness like a naive newbie, but then used them for all he was worth to smear Clinton. To say nothing of the huge amount of work his campaign has done scouring through every document ever written around the Clintons for something they can use against her. That kind of turns his Swiftboating charges on their ear - who is trying to Swiftboat whom? And the fact that all this is of great benefit to the Republicans in the general.
Whether you win or lose, you should still show that supporting your party is a top concern. Obama doesn't seem to care how much damage he does to the democratic party if it helps him win. After the last 7 years, I don't want to see any of our candidates using neocon tactics, telling us they will compromise with neocons, or embracing them in any way. That isn't change - it's just more of the same old sick politics and priorities that have brought America to the brink of ruin during the Bush years.
Wakey Wakey wrote on November 20, 2007 6:33 PM:Did Mrs. Obama bring race *up into the equation? Race is already UP. How can it not be brought up if it’s sitting there hovering? So much about our country is based on race. Race is the biggest elephant. I call him Charlie. And Charlie is staying where he's always been, seated front and center at the kitchen tables of Middle-America right next to the Heinz ketchup and those cheesy plastic salt n pepper shakers. Accept it. Gender is the other mammal in the homes of America. Gender is a Rhino. She goes by the name of Suzy and she seated coyly to the left near the dishwasher. She's likes roller-blading and playing charades.
What I don't understand is why you'd punish either client for being who they are and embracing that? It's amazing that old white guys, yep old white guys can somehow part their lips to state that Obama or Clinton somehow are gaining an unfair disadvantage by being female or black. We are American's and we know being black or female is so not an advantage here, unless your trying to get a free drink at the bar or you vying for a Nike shoe endorsement package. Get it right: the only reason why Hillary or Obama have an advantage in this equation is because of W doing such a crappy job for 8 years. Blame it on W. It's his water let him carry it.
Sorry, allow me one more statement before my keyboard disintegrates: Who's been playing the race card thus far? Hillary has. Time after time Hillary plays to AA's, Jumpin Jehoshaphat - I can't recall a single time which Barack has even said the word "black" or "African-American". Why is that? We all know a huge amount of Barack's support would dry up quicker than a raindrop in a thimble atop the roof of a Hummer during the peak of a Texas summer if he even mouthed the words "Jena 6", yet Hillary can play the sax and take up doing the wop on Ellen DeGeneres wearing a throwback jersey and no one would bat an eye. Hillary MASTERfully expresses her kumbiyah views on black issues treat at every turn, often very outspoken on racial matters using it to her advantage especially whenever she addresses black media. Hell, I saw Hillary on a TV One interview with Cathy Hughes. Hillary used more stereotypical black mannerisms than 2pac. Talk about playing to the crowd? I was ready for Mrs. Clinton to stand up and tell viewers to throw their hands in the air.
There's no getting away from the issues of race or gender in this election. We shouldn't pretend gender and race aren't on the minds of every American as we approach this nomination. Mrs. Obama shouldn't be criticized for suggesting that the world’s view of America might be re-positioned if her husband was elected. It's the truth. Once again thank W for that. Suzy could you pass me a glass. Charlie, did you eat all the ketchup again?
Ni Daye wrote:I believe Mr. Obama's mother should shut up. She is not helping her son.
Wait a minute! She's his wife. God, she looks old. Never mind. Please keep shooting your mouth off.
Nice bit of wicked satire.
And I agree with you completely.
Michelle O-Bomb-A is a big-mouth loose cannon who does damage to her husband's campaign every time she starts flapping her lips.
DTM wrote on November 20, 2007 6:36 PM:George of Palos,
Unfortunately I am not aware of anything more recent, and I would be as interested to see it as you.
But I do think that poll is at least relevant for the purpose of determining whether Obama was successful in Illinois (at least originally) by appealing only to a narrow base, or rather to a broad base. The answer is that at least originally, he appealed to a very broad base. Again, I would also like to see more recent information if it can be found.
pacc wrote on November 20, 2007 6:36 PM:... and Michelle O-Bomb-A is a racist, too.
lestatdelc wrote on November 20, 2007 7:38 PM:Michelle Obama needs to put a sock in it starting months ago. "My husband is the only one..." is a HUGE turn-off. This "he is the only one" stuff is lame regardless of whose spouse or boaster is saying it in the primary.
You can laud that you think Obama can make positive change, just as spouses and supporters of other candidates can do likewise, but this "only one" crap does nothing but make your own horse sound like a vain, lame hack who is over-hyping a telemarketing product.
Spare us the arrogant bombast please and STFU.
JenJen wrote on November 20, 2007 7:45 PM:Quoting Maureen Dowd? Really?????
By the way everyone, RockGolf is teaching all of us a valuable lesson when he/she writes:
Without respect to whom I would prefer as your President, were Hillary elected, I suspect much of the world would see it as a Bill Clinton puppet presidency, not unlike Evita Peron, Lurena Wallace or a very recent Central or South American woman whose name (or country) I can't remember. In each case, at least to an outsider, a popular leader's wife, whose husband could not be re-elected on constitutional grounds, was elected under the assumption that the husband would be the power behind the throne.I'm not by any means saying this would be the case with the Clinton's, but to the world at large it could easily look that way.
kjoe wrote on November 20, 2007 7:59 PM:
JenJen wrote on November 20, 2007 7:45 PM:
Quoting Maureen Dowd? Really?????
As a very obvious demonstration of her level of idiocy. I should have labelled it sarcasm---or better yet---not have posted it at all. But---
"dominatrix-obambi-flick the whip-spank him-???"
yikes.
JenJen wrote on November 20, 2007 8:08 PM:kjoe... is MoDo expecting us to get turned on, or something? ;-)
sdhays wrote on November 20, 2007 10:02 PM:This really is a tantalizing possiblity for an Obama Presidency. Over the last seven years, every good thing attributed to America has been violated: our government tortures people; the President ignores the Constitution while Congress fiddles; the Presidency itself is stolen and four years later we still can't conduct a fair and above-board election nation-wide, we invaded, destroyed, and occupied a country that didn't attack us and wasn't a threat to us; we walked out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; the US government endorsed the coup of the democratically elected (even if he isn't a great guy) Hugo Chavez; a major American city was destroyed, the federal government ran around in circles while people died, and the city is still not rebuilt and the effor to defend the city from another big hurricane are woefully inadequate... the list goes on and on and on. The point is a new President in and of itself is NOT going to change the world's perspective of us; we knew Bush was a disaster, but we gave him another four years. It's going to take more.
Barack is different from all the others (sorry, Bill Richardson, I just don't see you having a chance). To people overseas who only occasionally follow American politics, he would be a powerful symbol that America has turned a corner, and they would have hope (I'm not trying to tie this into Obama's shrink-wrapped theme, but what can I say? it's a good theme). The US would no longer be the place with white people running things, but a place where non-white people can be President. It would establish that the American dream of a tolerant society with people of different races and backgrounds living together peacefully still exists, and that Americans are going in a new and positive direction. He would have to follow through with policy to capitalize that, but the cynicism which has developed would instantly be put on pause, waiting to see what he is going to do. Hillary is a Clinton. Hillary is white. I just don't think that she has the same potential as a symbol that Obama has.
Now, this isn't a reason to vote for Obama by itself. A symbol isn't enough. But a symbol who gets things done could take us a lot farther a lot faster. I think he could be it, and that's an exciting thought.
jello wrote on November 21, 2007 11:48 AM:if obama does make it as nominee, it would be sweet poetic justice.
bush won by stealing the black vote. only to turn around to be succeeded by one. talk about coming full circle.
