September 5, 2012

Michelle Obama's DNC speech made us think about her speech pleading for the 2016 Olympics in Chicago.

As in her speech last night, there's a misplaced emotionality that's too much about her family's personal need for gratification:



Here's the transcript, in the event that you can't put up with 6 minutes of slow sentimentality. This was an argument that we know the IOC rejected, so listening to it now, we hear the inappropriateness (to the decisionmakers' ears) of arguments like this:
Some of my best memories are sitting on my dad's lap, cheering on Olga and Nadia, Carl Lewis, and others for their brilliance and perfection.
As the first comment at the video notes, Michelle was 20 when Carl Lewis first participated in the Olympics, so that dad's lap business is easily detected bullshit.
Like so many young people, I was inspired. I found myself dreaming that maybe, just maybe, if I worked hard enough, I, too, could achieve something great.

But I never dreamed that the Olympic flame might one day light up lives in my neighborhood.
Dream, of course, was a key word in her husband's presidential campaign. His presidency dream was a dream fulfilled, but she's acting — and I do meaning acting! — as if her family now has a special privilege to identify dreams that they have and expect the world to fulfill them. But why would these IOC bigwigs subordinate themselves within Obama dreams?
But today, I can dream, and I am dreaming of an Olympic and Paralympic Games in Chicago that will light up lives in neighborhoods all across America and all across the world; that will expose all our neighborhoods to new sports and new role models; that will show every child that regardless of wealth, or gender, or race, or physical ability, there is a sport and a place for them, too.

That's why I'm here today. I'm asking you to choose Chicago. I'm asking you to choose America.
She wants them to "light up" her life (along with the lives of all those little people out there in her old neighborhood).  

Choose America? As if America is some sad, tragic little place where poor people await a ray of hope. And she's speaking with kindergarten-teacher earnestness. It didn't work. We know that.

And the speech last night? Why should that work? What was relevant to our decision who should be the head of the Executive Branch of the federal government? Like a skeptical IOC member, I am utterly callous to plaintive pleas about what gratifies the personal desires of the lady and her family. Live-blogging last night, I said "What's the point of all this?" And then, a quarter hour later, "I don't really see the point of it." Whatever she was talking about, it had nothing to do with the decision to be made.

***

Speaking of things I didn't see the point of last night, I wrote, at the end of her speech: "And then the music comes up: 'Move your body... move your little hips....' What?!" I thought the lyrics — like the lyrics to "I'm Every Woman" (played earlier in the evening and live-mocked by me) — were too sexual to punctuate the convention message. I'd taken the time to Google the "I'm Every Woman" lyrics to flesh out my intuition. But it was nearly 10:30 (my time) when Michelle finished, and I was too tired to Google what move your body... move your little hips.... was supposed to be about.

It turns out to be a BeyoncĂ© song written in support of Michelle's "Let's Move" program that's supposed to get kids to quit being so inert. BeyoncĂ© is talking to children — hence the "little hips."
I ain't worried, doing me tonight
A little sweat ain't never hurt nobody
Don't just stand there on the wall
Everybody, just move your body
Doing me? Sorry I have such a dirty mind! This is for the children. You know: those little fatties standing on the wall.

95 comments:

Shouting Thomas said...

I don't know why you don't get it, Althouse.

Academia has been prattling on for years about the need of blacks for "role models."

The problems of blacks are supposed to all be traceable to the fact that some people (i.e., racists) think bad thoughts and say bad things about them.

The problems of black people, thus, cannot be solved until everybody thinks nice things and says nice things about black people.

Black people can't be asked to suck it up and take their lumps like everybody else. If a single white person dislikes a single black person, the entire black community will crumble into dysfunction.

The Drill SGT said...

Come on, don't you want to make Michelle proud of America again? Surely you don't want to disappoint Malia and Sasha who would have to leave all their Sidwell friends and to back to the mean streets of Hyde park.

EMD said...

That Chicago speech was terrible.

Last night was much better.

Pogo said...

Wonderful piece, Althouse. I hadn't considered those things.

Our resident lefties think she
1) knocked it outta the park
and
2) showed up Ann Romney, who did a terrible job.

I cannot listen to the voices of Michelle and Barack anymore, so thanks for the translation.

Right is right! said...

Althouse-thank you for your analysis. This woman is a fraud. Her husband is a bigger fraud. The Republican convention looked like America these people look like a welfare line. The choice facing this country is as simple as black and white.

Shouting Thomas said...

The choice facing this country is as simple as black and white.

A hilariously poorly chosen phrase.

BarrySanders20 said...

Think how much time they'll both have to dream dreams if the voters decide not to reward her ineffective husband with a second term.

Will she be proud of her country then?

The IOC only had to choose Chicago to receive praise that, for the first time in Michelle's life, she was proud of them. But no, they chose somebody else, dashing her dream and forcing her to sit on somebody else's lap drinking a Slurpee while people who were not responsible for steering the car with the hole in the floor off the road try to push it out of the ditch.

CWJ said...

Regarding the IOC; the Obama's ran into a group of people whose sense of entitlement was as great as their own. This was something they had perhaps never experienced. No wonder they flubbed it.

CWJ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sorun said...

Oh my! Her and her poor daughters are going to be terribly disappointed if they can't implement their lavish travel plans for the next four years. There are so many places they want to see!

Appalled said...

I really don't care about the First Lady. I do not want her to have formal political input (other than the usual nightime discussions that begin with "How was your day?"). She should not have a staff. If she has a job outside of the house -- like Tony Blair's wife -- that would be excellent. I don't need to see her toned arms in Vogue, or the horse of her GOP counterpart in political ads.

The person who makes a decision based on the First Lady should not be voting, because they have no sense at all.

Colonel Angus said...

Dream, of course, was a key word in her husband's presidential campaign.

A dream to some. A nightmare for others.

Ipso Fatso said...

Sorun

There are so many places they want to see at tax payer expense! FTFY

Shanna said...

A little sweat ain't never hurt nobody

This is what the government is officially teaching our children?

No wonder their grammar is so bad!

Jim said...

Why does an obviously educated woman, Princeton and Harvard Law, have to do the stuttering thing? What's up with that?

deborah said...

I thought her speech was pretty good, considering the audience it was aimed at. My biggest complaint was trying too hard at emotioanlity toward the end.

I think the most effective thought in her speech was that she was worried the presidency would change her husband, but instead it revealed who he was.

The part about her dad's MS was inspiring. She had a good basic beginning. Little-known fact? Her dad was a Democrat Chicago ward precinct captain.

Also, the bodice of that dress was heart-breakingly beautiful.

Colonel Angus said...

Will she be proud of her country then?

This is why I just don't care for her as a person. There are plenty of Americans who have nothing but disdain for their country. But suddenly finding pride for the country for the first time because the voters deemed your husband worthy of the highest office just smacks of self serving narcissisim.

The two of then are clearly soul mates in that regard.

Paul Zrimsek said...

"Choose America" would have worked better last night than it did before the IOC (where it served mainly to remind them that they've chosen America pretty often already).

madAsHell said...

Wow! Not as many comments as I expected.

I don't think she is his best advocate, and it was a terrible speech.

Peter said...

What it's about: It's all about me. ME! MeMeMeMeMe. I am just SOOOooo great.

virgil xenophon said...

Of course the MSM lapped up Michelle's speech salivating like Pavlov's dogs. "Morning Joe" on MSNBC was almost--no, WAS--intolerable in this respect with CNN not far behind. And, sickeningly, the combined commentariat at both places was, in toto, probably more right than Ann insofar as B.T Barnum was right about the American public. Or to quote H.L. Mencken: "No one ever went broke under-estimating the intelligence of the American public."

Steve john said...

I think michelle's obama olympic bid speech so nice great speech to chicago olympics .



Buy Sexy Lingerie

virgil xenophon said...

PS: Remember, after Pearl Harbor public opinion polls had 70% of the American public SOLIDLY AGAINST going to war with Germany. We did NOT declare war against Germany until Hitler stupidly honored his pact with Tojo and declared war on the US. Had Hitler not done so most historians agree FDR would have never entered the war in Europe against Hitler which with hindsight would have been one of the most disasterous decisions in all of recorded history.

So much for the combined good judgement of the American people..

Steve john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
virgil xenophon said...

PPS:

"So much for the combined good judgement of the American people."

But we already knew that. They elected Obama in the first place, didn't they?

Marshal said...

as if her family now has a special privilege to identify dreams that they have and expect the world to fulfill them. But why would these IOC bigwigs subordinate themselves within Obama dreams?

...What was relevant to our decision who should be the head of the Executive Branch of the federal government?


Obama owes every position he's ever valued to this drivel which culminated in his becoming President of the United States. He's obviously been powerfully rewarded for using it. The adage 'if all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail'.

Understanding the limitations of his drivel - that it works only in the US due to lingering racial guilt over slavery and Jim Crow - requires intelligence, honesty, and an understanding of history / culture. Obama has never demonstrated any of these traits.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Michelle Obama's schpeech impediment is too dishtracting to me.

And the cry in her voice. Right out of Neil Diamond's 'Song Sung Blue.'

mariner said...

But we already knew that. They elected Obama in the first place, didn't they?

I wonder how many people who died at Pearl Harbor voted for Obama.

Tim said...

"...there's a misplaced emotionality that's too much about her family's personal need for gratification:"

And, you were expecting what, exactly?

The thing about the Obamas is, despite all the rationalizations, explanations, excuses, it was always about pretending this half-Black man, alienated from America by parentage, distance, culture and ideology, profoundly unqualified for office, was somehow the one who, by virtue of being elected, could sanctify America for its original sin, could enact the last elements pending since FDR to socialize America, could cement social Democrat majorities for the next generation or two.

It was always a mission doomed to failure, if only because the vessels for that mission - the Obamas - were so terribly flawed in the first place. No doubt, all of that mattered to them too - but always in second place to themselves.

They earned nothing, but believed themselves entitled to all.

And why not? Their experiences prove that people will enroll them, hire them, promote them, buy their books, listen to their speeches, elect them - when they offer nothing but themselves, as hollow as the slogan "Hope and Change."

Now they know the jig is up, and they are desperate to not lose all they have gained.

More Fore! years, for what, exactly?

Free birth control so the Sandra Flukes of the world can learn it pays to be irresponsible, that others will take care of you if you simply throw a hissy fit?

Dear God, what a miserable, grubby, pathetic vision these assholes have for America.

David said...

As the first comment at the video notes, Michelle was 20 when Carl Lewis first participated in the Olympics, so that dad's lap business is easily detected bullshit.

No. It's a lie, well beyond bullshit.

Tank said...

David

Calling black people out on lies is racist.

I know this from watching the [very funny] racist video over at NRO.

TMink said...

"too much about her family's personal need for gratification."

She is the Queen of the Entitlement Society. The Federal government now spends the most time and money on wealth redistribution than it does any other government program.

It is past time to wake up and smell the coffee the moochers are taking from the producers.

Trey

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Speech had a racist subtext, seems to me.

She wants us to help her family's dreams come true. Why her family? Because they're Black. We owe them.
Historical guilt and all that.

Ridiculous.


EDH said...

I ain't worried, doing me tonight
A little sweat ain't never hurt nobody


Masturbation as an Olympic sport?

Now there's a sport I could excel at.

Reminds me of my Olympic hero growing up.

creeley23 said...

I had forgotten the Obamas' peculiar failed bid for the Chicago Olympics. The sense of entitlement the Obamas radiate is breathtaking.

And like Tim said, "Their experiences prove that people will enroll them, hire them, promote them, buy their books, listen to their speeches, elect them - when they offer nothing but themselves...."

Jane said...

So the Olympics . . ."will show every child that regardless of wealth, or gender, or race, or physical ability, there is a sport and a place for them, too"?

The athletes have the Olympics to aspire to. The disabled, the Paralympics. The mediocre kids who don't make it past tryouts? Uh, no, the Olympics isn't exactly inspirational to these kids.

Seeing Red said...

--I think the most effective thought in her speech was that she was worried the presidency would change her husband, but instead it revealed who he was.----


Bug or feature?

deborah said...

Althouse, I pretty much like your brand of rouged individualism, but suggest in good faith that you strive for truth and clarity. Racking up hits is not more important than a good name.

Lem said...

Unless Michelle is running for something herself.. ala Hilary Clinton.. I didn't see what was gained by a re-introduction of herself and Obama.

Was she asking for a do over?

Speaking of children..

Ann Althouse said...

"Wow! Not as many comments as I expected."

Maybe because it's the 4th post on the topic and it just went up.

You need to control your expectations.

Meade said...

Okay, but what I want to know is: Was Barack able to hold back his tears?

Ann Althouse said...

"And the cry in her voice. Right out of Neil Diamond's 'Song Sung Blue.'"

We kept imitating that mannerism. I was searching for a word for it. Barack Obama does it too. It's kind of a political disease going around these days -- catching, like the creaky voice of young girls (but more conscious and therefore more phony).

creeley23 said...

Michelle Obama's DNC speech made me think of her campaign speech for Barack in March, 2008:

Barack, as Oprah said, is one of the most brilliant men you will meet in our lifetime. Barack is more than ready. He’ll be ready today, he’ll be ready on Day One, he’ll be ready in a year from now, five years from now. He is ready. That is not the question. The question is what are we ready for? Wait, wait, wait, because we’re ready for change. We say we’re ready for change, but see, change is hard. Change will always be hard. And it doesn’t happen from the top down. We do not get universal health care, we don’t get better schools because somebody else is in the White House. We get change because folks from the grass roots up decide they are sick and tired of other people telling them how their lives will be, when they decide to roll up their sleeves and work. And Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism, that you put down your division, that you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones, that you push yourselves to be better, and that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.

When I heard that it sounded so outlandish I laughed, but there was such a fascist chill to it, I also felt America was as close to chucking our republic for a Great Leader as it had ever been in my lifetime.

As I recall, the Obama team sat on Michelle after that speech and she never spoke so fiercely again.

Richard Dolan said...

Well, at least when Michelle was making her (losing) pitch to the IOC, she had an audience that mattered -- they were the decisionmakers. Do you really think that the voters who will decide this election were watching last night? I doubt it very much.

Lots of ink will be spilled, lots of back and forth by 'analysts' will be on offer, trying to spin which side won the convention phase of the election. But what matters is the extent to which these campaign events gain traction, get people interested enough to watch on youtube or elsewhere. As Frank Luntz said last night, there are only two rules that matter. First, people don't remember what is said but will remember how it made them feel. Second, it doesn't matter what was said so much as what people heard (often very different).

I think the first is what Michelle is aiming at -- trying to get those feelings for O all warm and fuzzy. The second is what the spinmeisters try to accomplish. At the RNC, for example, the spin that the lefties were trying to sell about Ryan is that he is an untrustworthy, opportunistic liar -- the whole game with the 'fact checking' nonsense that was anything but.

In terms of breakout into an audience beyond political junkies and committed voters, Eastwood's performance at the RNC probably achieved that goal (somewhat). The speecifying by the pols (at both conventions) almost certainly will not. Both teams will take a few select moments for the conventions and turn them into ads. As far as I can tell, that's about all that either side will get out of these affairs.

edutcher said...

Question, and it's by no means rhetorical:

If Barack (I guess we're all supposed to call him that) is so likeable, why did we have to have Moochelle give a speech to humanize him?

Lem said...

And the cry in her voice.

I notice that and pointed it out last night. It was as though Michelle wanted to well up in tears and could not quite summon the necessary emotional tipping point.

That's what happens when you keep the Speaker of the House (the town crier) at arms length. Boehner could give her a few pointers ;)

BTW, has anybody ever seen Boehner seating next to Obama in the cabinet room? Isn't the president supposed to meet with the house and senate leaders.. once in a while?

Comanche Voter said...

Move your little hips indeed.

Although I'm a retired lawyer I take machine shop classes at the local community college.

Last night on campus I saw a young man (well okay he was a 19 year old boy from the geezer point of view) wearing a T shirt that said, "I'm not a hipster--but I can shake your hips".

I think he understands the Beyonce song.

Tank said...

I am ready for them both to go away.

I am already ready for Mitt and Ann to go away too.

Oh boy.

Oso Negro said...

In 2008, Michelle Obama said "Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed." She was right! I had been lulled to sleep by years of big spending, liberal Republicans. I had forgotten how critical it is to oppose the Democratic Party in their every enterprise. I will never go back.

AF said...

"Michelle Obama's DNC speech made us think about her speech pleading for the 2016 Olympics in Chicago."

I assume that's the royal "us" you're using there? Because I, like 99% of my fellow Americans, had no idea that Michelle Obama gave a speech pleading for the 2016 Olympics in Chicago and could not possibly care less.

BarryD said...

Dear DNC,

If you have a speaker who makes most listeners cringe, and many think, "Aw, rot in hell!" then DON'T USE THEM IN THE CONVENTION.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

jr565 said...

It sounded like she was about to burst into tears during much of the speech. Probably nerves, but it reeked of desperation. PLEASE VOTE FOR OBAMA DESPITE HIS SUCKY RECORD! (near sob)

Real American said...

just an emotional appeal. that's all they have now. there's no logic. no argument. he's a horrible president and he's made this country worse off, and everyone knows it. so all they have is begging their own supporters to let them keep their power for just a little while longer because otherwise the bullies would win, the racists would win, the bigots would win - never mind that there's no actual reason to let this SCOAMF keep fucking up the country for four more years.

jr565 said...

Creeley quoting Michelle wrote:
Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism, that you put down your division, that you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones, that you push yourselves to be better, and that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.

that really was one of the most pompous speeches I've ever heard, and I can't believe dems bought that as an example of hope and change and not one of the most cynical demagogic attempts to invoke a cult of personality.
As for the work requirement, were that it were so. All those people on unemployment who paid the big bucks for school and put aside their divisions and came out of their isolation and comfort zones are now collecting a check because they can't find jobs. All those shovel ready jobs weren't really shovel ready.
And now Michelle wants everyone to vote for Obama again, he of the incomplete (by his own admission) economic policies. That's charitable. Clearly if he wee taking an economics class, hed be flunking right now. It's just too bad that the country has to suffer due to his lack of economic understanding.

Brennan said...

harumph. I overlooked the 20 year old sitting on her father's lap story.

BarryD said...

I'm dumbfounded that they had CARTER trying to sell us on Obama.

He could have said, "Look, the country's had worse. Remember?" and left it at that.

EMD said...

The choice facing this country is as simple as black and white.

Technically, it's half-black and white.

PatCA said...

Her husband also frames speeches in terms of himself. It's creepy to us, but it's the standard way of framing life experiences when you have been steadily inculcated with the values of the hood -- the victimhood.

EMD said...

I assume that's the royal "us" you're using there? Because I, like 99% of my fellow Americans, had no idea that Michelle Obama gave a speech pleading for the 2016 Olympics in Chicago and could not possibly care less.

I too, had no idea she had speechified on behalf of the City-Chris-Matthews-Says-I-Cannot-Say 2016 pitch.

PatCA said...

If you want to see the results of her husband's "caring," read this and weep:

Affordable Housing Now Slums

HJA said...

"Do you" means "be yourself."

Darrell said...

A ten-year-old with a lemonade stand knows that the secret to selling something is to let the potential customers know what it will do for them--not what it will do for the seller. Michelle's pitch for what the Olympics can do for Chicago was not a ringing endorsement for an Ivy League education--more like an indictment.

sydney said...

In 2008, Michelle Obama said "Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed." She was right!

I'll give you a big amen there. I never thought I would volunteer for a political campaign, but here I am spending my evenings making phone calls for the Republicans. But even then, Barack has changed my job and life so much, I will probably never be able to go back to my old ways. It is doubtful my practice will survive healthcare reform no matter who wins.

Darrell said...

I would think that Michelle would be happy to get a four-year head start in occupying that $35 million house in Hawaii that the Pritzkers have picked out. Why wait?

Michael Haz said...

The key difference between Michelle Obama's and Ann Romney's speeches: Michelle spoke of government goodness; Ann spoke of human goodness.

roesch/voltaire said...

I didn't get to see Michelle Obama's speech because the storm knocked out our power, so I went to watch it on-line and after reading this blog I think, perhaps because of her color, she serves as a rorschach test for folks to project into ; we have everything from questioning her law practice, to the crack in her voice.I guess this speech, even admired by Rove, set folks back and caused a bit of jealousy?

Ralph L said...

Darrell, isn't it funny the Chicago billionaires shelling out so he can live half way round the world from them (assuming it's true)?

I figured the half-assed IOC pitch was a quid pro quo for something, still not sure what yet.

Darrell said...

The Pritzkers have indicated that they might put up half--if they have to. You, of course, can contribute to make up the difference. Or you can cover the whole thing. Donations are expected to flood in.

Michael said...

RV. No, actually not. You would have loved the speech, however, regardless of content. Because of her color.

Darrell said...

Chicago, and by Chicago I mean Mayor Daley, was counting on the Olympics to cover pre-spending--like a $200-something million expenditure [I can't be bothered to look up the amount] for a train station that they won't let anybody see that got cancelled immediately. The next day or so, the local transit authority announced a shortfall of exactly that same amount--and the local media never connect the two events. I would think it was about pensions that were never funded here, but that's just me. Federl assistance would have kicked the can down the tracks for a few more years.

That Olympic pitch came a couple of weeks after the story about the high school kid getting beaten to death by a mob of "yoots" using wooden boards pulled up from a train platform. That happened a couple of miles from my home. I would have led with that. If we had the Olympics, they could use official bats or something.

Teri said...

My question about her speech is: why is it so admirable that her dad with MS made it to work, but Ann Romney with MS is just some lazy rich woman. I don't get it. Why are we supposed to empathize with Michelle's struggle to raise two kids, but are supposed to sneer at Ann raising five? And I heard Michelle say something about that people who work hard deserve success. Why doesn't that also apply to Mitt Romney? Does it only apply to people in government jobs? I really wasn't impressed with her speech, but then she wasn't really talking to me.

CWJ said...

RV, if you hear the whistle, you're the dog.

jr565 said...

EMD wrote:
Technically, it's half-black and white.

If we are going to use terminology the media used to describe George Zimmerman the correct terminology would be White African American or African american White.

Amartel said...

It was an okay speech, well delivered. (Dammit! Seduced by the vocal fry again.) No, really. It was not supposed to be a substance speech, it was supposed to bring back that lovin' feeling. Can that be done with anyone other than the party faithful? I think not.

It was certainly not for conservatives who automatically at this point question everything this couple and their minders/agents say. With good reason.

I don't think it's going to affect the independent/undecided voter.
Trying to think (feel) from the perspective of an "undecided" or "independent" voter, she looked too good, too well dressed, too toned, too perfect, to be crying like that. That kind of drama is no longer sympathetic to people who actually have very good real world reasons to cry. Also, I have never liked her tendency to wag that finger. Her husband does the same thing. Very very off putting.

Obviously, Mrs. O's speech was a big hit with the party faithful, the worshippers, the people who love them, er, passionately on a, ahem, personal level.

Methadras said...

Ugh, I just can't stand that perpetually sneering bitch face of hers. It's like a wolf bare it's teeth at you.

cubanbob said...

mariner said...
But we already knew that. They elected Obama in the first place, didn't they?

I wonder how many people who died at Pearl Harbor voted for Obama.

9/5/12 9:30 AM

And how many would not have died but for FDR's incompetence. Busting the Japanese code and not properly warning the commanders in Hawaii and elsewhere? Not preparing for a possible strike against Pearl even though the very same attack had been war-gamed in the 30's? Or not noticing the British did the exact same thing to the Italian navy a year earlier? Not having a radar air defense system in place when the equipment was available and the Brits use of it a year earlier was instrumental to their survival? Indeed what was the thinking of moving the fleet to Pearl to begin with and exposing it to risk without the proper defense preparations? Just sheer incompetence. Just like LBJ ignoring all of the warning signs before Tet.

Matt said...

Just read this:
"The First Lady's speech Tuesday was written at a 12th grade level - the highest in history among the wives of presidential nominees and far above Ann Romney's lowest mark of a 5th grade level."

Republicans are talking to people like they are in 5th grade!

Unknown said...

Right is right!, moby (ing) away.

Synova said...

I think that "doing me" might mean "being myself" tonight.

Ahem... anyhow.

The professional woman reduced to a support role really seems to bother you. I'll see what others have to say, but I sort of agree. Not that spouses shouldn't support each other and not that I liked the notion of Hillary being co-president, but dang the "charities and causes" thing is HARD and awful and horrible.

I joined the military while stationed at Clark as a dependent because rules prevented employment (like the First Lady) but you could still keep your little self busy with *causes*.

Ugh! Just let me die now.

I chose to stay home with kids because I wanted to do that, but the upper-class busy work for Ladies is soul destroying.

So I have some sympathy for Michelle that way. And Lady Diana. I'm not sure wealth is worth it.

But you know, more pastor's wives are rejecting that unpaid, subordinate, co-pastorship and refusing to automatically end up in charge of the Ladies Auxiliary and Sunday School just because of their husband's calling. Certainly the President's wife could do it, too.

Could she really not *be* a lawyer?

Why not?

Marshal said...

roesch/voltaire said...
we have everything from questioning her law practice, to the crack in her voice.


Don't forget us questioning her 275k / year job as a community outreach coordinator which was so critical the position wasn't replaced when she left.

Christopher in MA said...

I didn't get to see Michelle Obama's speech because the storm knocked out our power, so I went to watch it on-line and after reading this blog I think, perhaps because of her color, she serves as a rorschach test for folks to project into ; we have everything from questioning her law practice, to the crack in her voice.I guess this speech, even admired by Rove, set folks back and caused a bit of jealousy?

The soft bigotry of low expectations, eh, R/V? You sound just like Alec Baldwin, who whines that if the Crackhead in Chief was white, he'd be 17 points ahead of Romney by now.

Republicans are talking to people like they are in 5th grade!

Considering who so many of them voted for in 2008. . .

mojavehicular said...

From what I remember reading at the time, Rio was awarded the 2016 summer games partly because President Lula da Silva wrote gracious personal letters to every member of the commission; he didn't swagger into Copenhagen expecting them to wilt under his 'personal narrative', as the Obamas did.

Kirk Parker said...

Brennan,

I just thought, "So *that's* how it is in their family!" (Yes, my kids taught me that all of life can be explained via movie quotes.)

Amartel said...

First Lady's speech at 12th grade level article courtesy of ... Politico, of course. Reporting on the important things.

Meanwhile, further down in the article: "President Obama, on the other hand, has delivered some of the lowest grade level State of the Unions — preferring shorter, simpler sentences in his addresses."

But what grade level is that, Politico?

(Incomplete.)

Kirk Parker said...

ST,

"A hilariously poorly chosen phrase. "

Not at all--moby is as moby does.

DADvocate said...

My 16 year old daughter blames Michelle Obama for the lunches at her school sucking. Smaller portions, worse taste, same price. She's pissed. (Seriously. Obama would lose an election at my daughter's high school.)

irreverendsara said...

DADvocate,

Funny, my son was blaming Michelle for the fact that he had to pay extra for bottled water in the lunch platter. He wouldn't have had to pay extra if he chosen the milk (white, chocolate or strawberry). When he asked why, the cashier told him, "The government wants you to drink more milk."

PatCA said...

BTW when did spouses start making speeches?

I don't particularly like it.

Baron Zemo said...

I had read about the story of the 20 year old Michelle sitting in her fathers lap before.....but that was at literotica.com.

paul a'barge said...

With the Obama's it's all about MEEEEEEEEEE!! IT'S ABOUT MEEEEEEEE!

No lady. It's about America.

RonF said...

From Michelle Obama's speech:

When it comes to giving our kids the education they deserve, Barack knows that like me and like so many of you, he never could’ve attended college without financial aid.

O.K., me neither. Your point?

And believe it or not, when we were first married, our combined monthly student loan bills were actually higher than our mortgage.

OMG. She was a lot better off than I was. When my wife and I got married I was still IN school. We couldn't afford to get a mortgage until 13 years after we graduated. Long after, BTW, we paid off our loans completely. If you made enough money to pay a mortgage and school loans you were rich compared to me.

We were so young, so in love, and so in debt.

My wife and I were young and in love too - but we managed to minimize our debt without being a burden on others.

That’s why Barack has fought so hard to increase student aid and keep interest rates down, because he wants every young person to fulfill their promise and be able to attend college without a mountain of debt.

Kids aren't in a mountain of debt because the interest rate on that debt is 3% instead of 6%. They are in a mountain of debt because the PRINCIPAL is so high because the tuition charges and book fees are completely out of control, rising at twice the rate of inflation.

But attacking the actual cause of the problem would strike at one of their major bases of support, so that will never happen.

CWJ said...

@RonF

Bump!

The Crack Emcee said...

We were so young, so in love, and so in debt.

Hey, Dummy: Somebody Cue The Sanford & Son Theme

Roux said...

A two toned push up Popsicle with a Mary Tyler Moore wig on.


Meade said...

Barack should sing that song again. How does it go?

I
I'm so-o in debt with you...


Dreamy!