October 5, 2017

Michelle Obama tells us what to like.

The former First Lady said this to a crowd in Boston last week:
As far as I'm concerned, any woman who voted against Hillary Clinton voted against their own voice in a way. To me, it doesn’t say as much about Hillary ― and everybody’s trying to wonder. Well, what does it mean for Hillary? No, no, no. What does it mean for us as women? That we look at those two candidates, as women, and many of us said, ‘That guy. He’s better for me. His voice is more true to me.’ Well, to me that just says you don’t like your voice. You like the thing we’re told to like.
I'm using the transcription from "Millions of American women disagree with Michelle Obama: Donald Trump is their voice," by Eugene Scott, who "writes about identity politics" for The Washington Post. He says, "But what Obama and other critics may not understand is that Trump's voice actually IS the voice of many of his female supporters — the traditionalist voice that speaks out against a liberal culture that many conservative women feel has left them behind."

I first read the quote here at The Federalist, in a piece by Inez Feltscher, who rejects the idea that conservative women fail to think for themselves and says: "[I]magining that women on the Right are mere sock puppets for their husbands, sons, and fathers is a crucial illusion for an ideology that has constructed a political paradigm entirely upon identity."

I just want to note the irony: Michelle Obama is herself telling women what to like.

What I'd like to tell women (and other people) to like is endlessly asking: What do I like?

It's not easy to know, especially since part of the propaganda that surrounds us is about our "own voice." But those who tell us to be in touch with our own desires are often merely trying to make us believe that what we want is the thing that they are selling. We see that in endless TV commercials for food and cars: You know you want it. Like your insides are crying out for this sandwich. This car expresses what you, deep in your heart, have been trying to say. This shirt is you.

We're used to that kind of persuasion, for political candidates as well as commercial products.

It's harder to play this game out in the open, the way Michelle Obama is doing. Once you call attention to the way the other side drew people in by making them feel that their candidate expressed what they really felt inside, you're waking us up to the fact that you were doing that too, and you seem rather pathetic complaining that your depiction of the customer's internal desires didn't work on many people.

Complaining about your ineffective sales pitch won't make it more effective: We said true women vote for women, and those women who did not feel what we meant to make them feel are inauthentic women. Our "voice" was their "voice." If they rejected us, they rejected themselves.

Said openly, it sounds absurd.

I think I've seen ads for commercial products that play with this idea of misunderstanding your own true desires. You see a guy happily eating a sandwich, and his inner voice prompts him about some other sandwich, superior to this sandwich in so many ways, until he stops mid-bite, looks at the sandwich, and drops it and goes running off and is suddenly seen getting a sandwich at the advertiser's store.

That might be funny and persuasive, but now try to imagine a Democratic Party commercial that depicts a pro-Trump woman, enjoying what she thinks are her true desires, then realizing how Democrats really are better, and running off to join the liberal crowd and finding happiness at last. Hard to picture that being handled well. From what I've seen, it's better to keep it subliminal:

120 comments:

MathMom said...

This woman graduated from Princeton and Harvard.

jaydub said...

The irony is that she is complaining about women voting for a man instead of Hillary when she was telling women to vote for her husband over Hillary in 2004.

wendybar said...

She is a sexist and a racist. I am proud to NOT have voted for the lying corrupt Hillary Clinton and I would vote for Trump again if she ran again...

Todd said...

Quite frankly we saw this in this election. As far as I'm concerned, any woman who voted against Hillary Clinton voted against their own voice in a way. To me, it doesn’t say as much about Hillary ― and everybody’s trying to wonder. Well, what does it mean for Hillary? No, no, no. What does it mean for us as women? That we look at those two candidates, as women, and many of us said, ‘That guy. He’s better for me. His voice is more true to me.’ Well, to me that just says you don’t like your voice. You like the thing we’re told to like.

So to the former First Lady, a lying woman that protected a sexual predator and attacked other women, who only got to power by riding the coat-tails of a man, who then accomplished nothing of honorable note, and was involved in numerous scandals (going back decades) and consistently showed through her actions that she placed her own personal wealth and power of that of the country and the citizens she swore to protect is preferable to "that guy" because "vagina"?

Well at least we know who she thinks is her voice but I guess I should not expect better from a woman that stated that she was finally proud of her country as a result of her husband conning his way into the White House.

Ralph L said...

Individual desires or enforcing conformity?
If the Dems lose even a few percent more of unmarried women, they're sunk.

Big Mike said...

We said true women vote for women, and those women who did not feel what we meant to make them feel are inauthentic women. Our "voice" was their "voice." If they rejected us, they rejected themselves.

So Sarah Palin, Joni Ernst, Nikki Haley, Shelley Caputo, etc., are inauthentic. Good to know.

Kate said...

I always liked that Bernie ad. Why do the Dems mostly reach for the vinegar instead of the honey?

donald said...

She wasn't real complimentary to white people either.

Henry said...

It started with "What's the Matter with Kansas."

Now it's "What's the Matter with Women."

Soon it will be "What the Matter with Americans," if not already.


Hagar said...

Michelle says what she is expected to say and have written down for her to say.

Donald Trump I may not agree with, but as long as he continues to shake up the uni-party and driving the media batters, it is all good.

Sebastian said...

"to me that just says you don’t like your voice. You like the thing we’re told to like."

The thing women were told to like was Hill. She didn't have "your voice": even many liberal women who preferred Dem policies didn't think that screeching cackling voice was theirs.

Women proved their independence by not going for the woman. Of course, that is the very thing progs cannot tolerate. Hence O's sneering condescension. Which is not absurd: it is the prog MO.

BDNYC said...

That's the Democratic Party. Their pitch is everyone should vote their "interests," defined narrowly by the Democrats to reflect the demographic identity of the voter. Their hope is to divide us and pit us against each other until everyone (except straight white men) sees the light and realizes the Party is for them. Makes you wonder why any straight white men vote for Democrats. Voting against their interests like that.

rehajm said...

Oh yes. Isn’t it condescending to assume women look to an elected official for their ‘voice’ rather than using their own. Women who voted for Trump have their own voice.

Darrell said...

You are never more free than when you reject the conformity police.

AllenS said...

She didn't feel that way when Hillary ran against her husband for the nomination.

I don't think that she's so proud of this country anymore.

Bob Ellison said...

I once asked a friend about a woman he knew and I was going to meet for the first time, what are her politics?

His answer shocked me. He said she's whatever her husband at the time is. Used to be married to a conservative, and she was conservative; now she's married to a liberal, and she's liberal.

I don't think it's a woman or wife thing. Men and husbands do the same thing, but it's not manly to surrender your politics, so they don't admit to it.

Still shocking. Most people are much less moored to ideology than, say, the commenters on this blog. Most people swing this way and way, this way and that way.

Greg said...

There is a black NHL hockey player named PK Subban who was asked if he would support his fellow black athletes and kneel for the anthems. He said something to the effect of 'not just no, but hell no, and never'. He also pointed to his LEO friend who was there with him. Since then he has taken a lot of heat from white liberals, including fans who are disappointed in him, sports writers etc. As far as I'm concerned these people are racist scum. Telling a black man what to think is far worse than making him pick your cotton.

Chuck said...

I keep wondering these days; was it just once, or twice, that Ann Althouse voted for Barack Obama?

For me, it was zero. Although I am sure that I would have voted for Barack Obama in his losing primary run versus Bobby Rush in the Illinois 1st Congressional race in 2000. If I had been registered there.

Henry said...

Back in 2008, Craig Robinson, Michelle's brother:

But it’s so ludicrous that it’s almost comical. It really is. It really is. And the whole crying now before every primary? You’ve got to be kidding me. If I was a woman, I’d be embarrassed for her,” he said of Hillary Clinton.

MadTownGuy said...

""This woman graduated from Princeton and Harvard.

This explains why she said what she did. She was thoroughly indoctrinated.

AllenS said...

What does LEO mean?

Oso Negro said...

After 60 years of observation, it seems to me that the vast majority of women's motivation can be ascribed to three areas:

1) competition for status with other women
2) satisfaction of their nesting instinct
3) securing every possible advantage for their own children

I think everything else comes after that. These motivations make them susceptible to emotional manipulation.

David Begley said...

Excellent post by Althouse.

I take it one step further. It is more than identity politics. It's tribalism. It is white v black, male v female, coasts v flyover country, Hutus v Tootsie. This is destructive. This is not E Plurbius Unum.

For the lighter and harmless side of tribalism it is Badgers v Cornhuskers. The Nebraska fans will be passionate for their team but if Wisconsin wins the Cornhusker fans will salute them as they leave the field as per the custom. Nothing about Russia causing the loss.

Oso Negro said...

Blogger AllenS said...
What does LEO mean?


Law Enforcement Organization

Laslo Spatula said...

In the spirit of Tom Petty's passing...

Tom Petty - You Don't Know How It Feels

So let's get to the point, let's roll another joint
And let's head on down the road
There's somewhere I got to go
And you don't know how it feels
No, you don't know how it feels to be me

I am Laslo.

rhhardin said...

Women go for the high, shrill voice.

Big Mike said...

"But what Obama and other critics may not understand is that Trump's voice actually IS the voice of many of his female supporters — the traditionalist voice that speaks out against a liberal culture that many conservative women feel has left them behind."

Replace "has left them behind" with "is utterly inimical to them" and Eugene Scott will be closer to the mark. Phrased his way it sounds as though conservative women just can't keep up. Phrased correctly the fault is with identity politics.

rehajm said...

Since we’re discussing leftie marketing strategy the classic leftie ploy is, ah, liberal use of the shill, real or imaginary. The gaggle of women gathered around and the two biggest lefties amongst them chime in with theI talked with so and so about this and while she didn’t agree with us that thing set her off and she’s totally on board now. Heard it too many times to count. Does that really work on people?

AllenS said...

Michelle and Barry are two poster children on why affirmative action is/was such a bad idea.

Thank you, Negro.

traditionalguy said...

The basic contradiction is that Marxists prefer that we be governed by one man of steel Dicktator.The odd Jacksonian concept of voters voting for what they want must be Fake News/propaganda controlled or deemed to be illegal. Ask Catalons who dared to Illegally Vote and are being smashed for it by gestapo forces who own all of the gun barrels.

The Mueller Big Hoax of finding a Double Secret Russian/ Trump collusion that influenced votes is merely a declaration that the 2016 election was illegal.The next step is a gestapo forced redo the election. Ergo: Gun Confiscation is issue #1.

Bob Ellison said...

"LEO" usually means "law enforcement officer" in common use.

TwilightofLiberty.com said...

I don't understand the part about conservative women being 'left behind'. One is not being left behind if one does not wish to join the "progress" of the group.

People who think dudes belong in your restroom would be one example of progress a lot of ladies would likely not want to be a part of, for example.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Let Hillarys corruption, lies and money grubbing flow thru you... The left begs you, you horrible deplorables.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Curious George said...

"Oso Negro said...
Blogger AllenS said...
What does LEO mean?


Law Enforcement Organization"

Nope. Law Enforcement Officer.

Tommy Duncan said...

Said openly, it sounds absurd.

The Democrats are demagogues. Witness the current gun control hysteria. Or the Confederate statue hysteria. Or the Puerto Rico hurricane response hysteria ("death is a continuum"). Or the "Oh my god, Donald Trump is President" hysteria.

Russia, Russia, Russia...

LordSomber said...

I once asked a friend about a woman he knew and I was going to meet for the first time, what are her politics?

His answer shocked me. He said she's whatever her husband at the time is. Used to be married to a conservative, and she was conservative; now she's married to a liberal, and she's liberal.


Was her name Arianna?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Perhaps if Obama didn't give Hillary the position of Secretary of State, depriving Hillary
of her chance to use that position as a hidden money-making scam, Hillary would have fared better?

Poor judgement, Obama.

Bob Ellison said...

traditionalguy said, "The Mueller Big Hoax of finding a Double Secret Russian/ Trump collusion that influenced votes is merely a declaration that the 2016 election was illegal."

That's correct.

We are in strange times. Much like the late 60s. People are believing strange things, like that Trump is a homophobic, misogynistic, racist guy, and that Islam is a religion of peace (thanks, George W. Bush!).

It will subside, but it will take time. Probably five to ten years.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Greg said: There is a black NHL hockey player named PK Subban who was asked if he would support his fellow black athletes and kneel for the anthems.He said something to the effect of 'not just no, but hell no, and never'. He also pointed to his LEO friend who was there with him. Since then he has taken a lot of heat from white liberals, including fans who are disappointed in him, sports writers etc."

Luckily for him. the NHL is mainly white, so he doesn't have to fear getting targeted on the ice by an angry opponent (or teammate) who wants to take out the Uncle Tom and knows how to make it look like an accident. I am sure the reason many of the NFL players going along with this protest crap are doing so because they know that retaliation for "betrayal" can take a much more alarming form than beta sportswriters and liberal fans being pissy.

It was a relief to watch the MLB WC games without seeing any horseshit going on during the anthem. MLB has had more than its' share of controversy since the 94 strike. I'm sure they're not eager for more.

Clyde said...

Michelle Obama's fallacy is that there is a single overriding identity group in making choices like that. We all fall under multiple groups: Male or female, racial and ethnic, religious (or non-religious), sexual orientation, cultural, political, single or married with children. Each of those groups provides a different prism on the way we view government and its role in our lives, and those views shape the way we vote and the people we choose to vote for (or against). A married woman with children sees the world very differently from a single woman with no children, and the latter were far more likely to vote for Hillary Clinton than the former.

exiledonmainstreet said...

And yeah, there is nothing more infuriating to me than being told by a liberal Democrat what my interests are as a woman. I hate abortion, I hate the nanny state, and I hate identity politics.

Hagar said...

We spent 85 years getting into this mess and we are not getting out of it in just one presidential term.
Ultimately, it is going to take a general change in the way people in flyover country see things, and that is a slow process.
It is the Democrats who believe in miracle workers - for good or bad.
Trump is no miracle worker, but stirring the pot, getting a few things done, and making people think a little bit is a start.

David Begley said...

One more thing. President Obama frequently said, "That's not who we are." I submit that America is not a tribal society. It doesn't work. Ask Iraq.

jwl said...

Left wing types love their false consciousness arguments, they are narcissists who are incapable of understanding that not everyone thinks exactly like them.

Maybe next time, Michelle Obama can tell us what happened to mens voices when they voted for Hillary or when females voted for her husband instead of Palin ticket.

Bob Ellison said...

exiledonmainstreet, you can take some comfort in knowing that the three things you say you hate were not hate-worthy thirty years ago, but are now. "Identity politics" in particular was not even an openly discussed concept in government studies back then. Abortion was some kind of God-given right before Bill Clinton said it should be safe, legal, and rare. The nanny state is Obama's biggest, most terrible legacy.

It's getting better, maybe. People are waking up.

tim in vermont said...

Sometimes the blogress says it all.

Ambrose said...

Didn't million of women choose her husband over Hillary just 9 years ago? That was OK I suppose?

John Lynch said...

Millions of white men gave up their voice when they voted for Hillary.

What fascist crap. This isn't "one people, one voice." This is America.

Fernandinande said...

What to like - and what to feel:

"We as women feel like we have to be perfect all of the time. We worry too much about that. Women, minorities, the bars are different,"* Obama explained. "We experienced that over the last eight years. The bar just kept moving. We’re seeing that now, quite frankly. The bar is just—," Obama abruptly stopped, laughing as she lowered her hand further down.

*White men are bad.

Bob Boyd said...

...the traditionalist voice that speaks out against a liberal culture that many conservative women feel has gone around the bend.

Paul said...

The Obamas insist THEY speak for you. You can shut up while THEY speak for you. If you go against your self interest and vote FOR THE INTEREST OF YOUR COUNTRY, to them that is wrong!


So transfer your power of attorney to the Obamas! Let them vote for you!

And that is just the kind of thing Stalin did for the Russia. Votes rigged, only Communist party candidates allowed, purges.

Molly said...

"Said openly it sounds absurd."

I was thinking about the 1950s and 1960s when it was the right wing that said things like, "Communists support school integration; so if you support school integration, you must be a Communist, or at least a fellow traveller."

Today we have the left wing saying, "Racists support restrictions on immigration, and sexists support weakening of title IX enforcement, so if you support those views, you must be a racist or sexist, or at least a person unwilling or unable to listen to their own voice, or recognize their own self interests."

In both cases, it is a claim that masks that fact that the policy position is one that the claimant does not want to debate, or is unable to rationally defend.

Bob Ellison said...

Molly said, I was thinking about the 1950s and 1960s when it was the right wing that said things like, "Communists support school integration; so if you support school integration, you must be a Communist, or at least a fellow traveller."

Who said that?

Robert Cook said...

"Soon it will be 'What the Matter with Americans,' if not already."

Well, no, because most Americans didn't vote for Trump. Aside from fact that a majority of voters voted for Hillary over Trump, there were the many more who didn't vote at all.

But, that aside, what the fuck is the matter with Americans?

In an election with two such miserable candidates, why did anyone vote for either of them? When will Americans stay home en masse to protest the sham elections every four years that deliver us yet another mediocrity (or worse) who, despite party affiliation or promises made, will serve the wealthy ruling elite and stiff the people?

Big Mike said...

Bernie had a great political commercial, all right. But if you all come to Vermont you should look for Burlington Coat Factory, but don't look for Burlington College. His smiling wife committed bank fraud and bankrupted the college she presided over as its president.

Big Mike said...

In an election with two such miserable candidates, why did anyone vote for either of them?

Because one was vastly less miserable than the other.

tcrosse said...

In an election with two such miserable candidates, why did anyone vote for either of them?

Many of us voted Against one of the candidates, rather than For the other.

Bob Boyd said...

Hillary went further saying,
"But when I see women doing that[supporting Trump not Hillary], I think why are they publicly disrespecting themselves?"

Robert Cook said...

"Many of us voted Against one of the candidates, rather than For the other."

Sure, but if you're voting against a shitty candidate by voting for a shitty candidate, you're still voting for a shitty candidate, and the end result: we get a shitty president. This is the standard procedure every four years.

I voted, but for a third party candidate, as I have done for 20 years. If there were no third party candidates at all, or none I could countenance casting my symbolic vote for, I would abstain from voting for either of the two establishment party candidates.

G.I.G.O.

John Lynch said...

Hi, Robert Cook! Good to see you.

Bob Boyd said...

@ Robert Cook

I was going to stay home en masse, but then I found out what en masse means and I said, "Fuck it, I'm votin' for Trump."

Robert Cook said...

Thank you, John Lynch...do we know each other?

Xmas said...

Kind of sideways on this topic, but I love the refrain when poor, rural people are voting against their own interests when they vote for anti-welfare Republicans, like these people can only survive by government handouts. However, it's not the Republicans that empower agencies like the EPA which caused the closure of the coal mine, or the Army Corp of Engineers which called a roadside ditch a protected waterway, or Fish and Wildlife which named some mouse living on their farmland a protected species.

Hagar said...

Cookie, have you ever read "Don Quixote"?

Oso Negro said...

Blogger Curious George said...
"Oso Negro said...
Blogger AllenS said...
What does LEO mean?

Law Enforcement Organization"

Nope. Law Enforcement Officer.


Oh, thanks George, you are right! My brain is slow this morning.

Amadeus 48 said...

Chuck--I have been keeping score. Here are Althouse's votes since 2000 as revealed on this blog:

2000-Gore
2004-Bush
2008-Obama
2012-Romney
2016-?

She has had an extremely thoughtful reason for each of these votes and was open to voting for McCain, but he lost her. Also, she wanted the Dems to have to take some responsibility for our actions or inactions in the Middle East.
As to 2016, who knows? She knows, as do the readers of a private Facebook posts or posts immediately prior to the election.
I say we take Meade out for drinks and cross-examine him.
Or maybe it's just her private business, and, as she would say, why do you care how I voted? You should care about how you voted.

Robert Cook said...

Hagar,


I have not read Don Quixote, though I have been tempted to. Do you suggest I am tilting at windmills? Well, nothing ever happened without a bunch of people deciding to join together in common cause to achieve a desired mutual goal. Perhaps enough people will eventually become dispirited enough to say, Enough!"

exiledonmainstreet said...

Well, Cookie, it goes like this – suppose a hungry man is presented with a plate of cold Spaghetti-O’s straight out of the can and a plate of rotten meat with maggots in it. He has to choose one. He is also told that he can pass up both choices and ask for a lobster dinner prepared by a fine chef, but he probably won’t get it. Most people would chose the Spaghetti-O’s, which is hardly fine dining but is not completely repulsive, rather than hold out for a great meal they have little chance of getting.

The Democrats and NeverTrumper Republicans thought Trump was the plate of rotten meat. The conservatives thought Hillary was. What is ridiculous is that after the loss, Democrats and the media acted and continue to act like Hillary was the lobster dinner.

rcocean said...

2016? = not trump. Should be 2016 - Hillary? 3rd party?

Caligula said...

I was thinking of all those lame ads that assert "You deserve our product!"

Can you imagine anyone asserting "You deserve Hillary Clinton"?


Bruce Hayden said...

Michelle, no doubt, feels the same, that blacks who didn't vote for her husband were race traitors, just like women not voting for Crooked Hillary were sex/gender traitors, not voting the way that their self appointed betters and opinion leaders tell them to vote. And, yes, this is the same interest group pandering that Dems have been using for years - I just think that it is more apparent now since communications are now more open. IN the past Dem politicians could pander and push for group solidarity better because it was often in less public settings, limited to the demographic being pandered to and motivated towards group solidarity. Now, all this is out quickly on the Internet, and much of the country quickly sees how hypocritical it all is. Michelle is one of those elites who expect to be able to order lesser beings as to their voting, and I would never expect her to vote for a Republican woman, or Black. Rules are just for the little people, and she married well, so they don't apply to her.

rcocean said...

Michelle is just repeating what Hillary and the DNC have been saying.

White Women need to get in the Kitchen and fix the Democrat Party a sandwich

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

"I voted, but for a third party candidate, as I have done for 20 years."

So you voted for a fantasy, an ideal, whose reality would have been every bit as shitty as whatever major party candidate was on offer.

Given her undeniable record of corruption and incompetence, voting to keep Hillary out of office was the rational choice in 2016. Another wonderful morning of no Hillary in the White House.

Seeing Red said...

That statement is just the latest version of “voting against your self interest.” Nothing to see here, move along .

Mike said...

How strange. For eight years all the "cool" media were telling me I should like Michelle, admire her arms, acknowledge her goddamn garden, swoon over her $10,000 dresses, appreciate her telling us what kids should eat in school, and generally genuflect to her awesomely "individual" style.

What a load of crap. I will not be led to such strange thoughts. I don't like Michelle and never have. For the first time in my adult life I'm aghast at how stupid and trite the former first lady is.

Matthew Sablan said...

If only a woman can speak for women, should I have voted for Trump because he represents the male voice? Were men who voted against Trump gender traitors like women who voted against Clinton?

exhelodrvr1 said...

Bob BOyd,
"I was going to stay home en masse,"

In my case I didn't because I'm not Catholic. Not that there's anything wrong with that!

mockturtle said...

We women are allowed only one voice, unlike men, who are allowed as many voices as there are individual men.

Sebastian said...

I appreciate Althouse exposing Michelle, and the commentators taking her down, etc. etc., but we are wasting our time and energy in dealing with prog arguments as arguments. They are simply tools to achieve a result, never offered in good faith.

Of course, someone who argued in good faith would pause and consider why she had urged women to vote against a woman when her husband was running. Someone who argued in good faith would consider the irony in complaining about women following orders while lecturing them on how they should have voted. Someone who argued in good faith would consider that many men voted against someone who represented their "voice."

But the obvious is obviously irrelevant. Only positions and outcomes matter. Hill lost; she should have won; let's make up some reasons and clear a path to the next win.

Matthew Sablan said...

"We women are allowed only one voice, unlike men, who are allowed as many voices as there are individual men."

-- You can have as many voices as you want, provided you say the right thing.

D said...

Ask not what your country can do....
I have a dream.
Some ask why, I ask: why not.
You can have it all.
You cant always get what you want.
(70s interregnum)
Its morning in America.
We didnt start the fire.
Here we are now, entertain us.
Make soup.
The moment the rise of the oceans began to slow.
I'm not going to honour the flag of a country that oppresses black people.

Marketing some concepts is a tough sell. Its a buyers market.

Robert Cook said...

"So you voted for a fantasy, an ideal, whose reality would have been every bit as shitty as whatever major party candidate was on offer."

I vote as a symbolic act, rather than stay home. Staying home allows pundits to say "voters are disinterested." By voting, I show my concern, but by voting for third party candidate, I do not have to live with the sickening knowledge that I supported--even in a perfunctory, "vote-for-the-lesser (sic)-evil" sort of way--any of the corrupt, stupid, venal, lying tools of the elites that are our only quadrennial election choices.

Amadeus 48 said...

"Although I am sure that I would have voted for Barack Obama in his losing primary run versus Bobby Rush in the Illinois 1st Congressional race in 2000. If I had been registered there."

1. Racist!
2. Not being registered in that district has never stopped anyone from voting before. You are too gentlemanly.

Robert Cook said...

"Given her undeniable record of corruption and incompetence, voting to keep Hillary out of office was the rational choice in 2016. Another wonderful morning of no Hillary in the White House."

One might as well consider the rational arguments to choose one method of one's own execution over another. The end result will still be one's immediate death. Given what Trump has displayed of himself in the media for decades, and continues to do so now, anyone who thought--or still thinks--he is even marginally a better choice than Hillary is either blind or lying to themselves. Obama's supporters lied to themselves; Hillary's supporters lied (and lie) to themselves; and Trump's supporters certainly lie to themselves.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I thought the more interesting quote was her kick at the Republican party:
Michelle Obama Laments Lack of Diversity in Politics

Usually at the State of the Union address … when you’re in the room, what you can see is this real dichotomy,” Mrs. Obama said, according to videos of the event. “On one side of the room, it’s a feeling of color almost. On one side of the room, it’s literally gray and white. Literally, that’s the color palette on one side of the room. On the other side of the room, there’s yellows and blues and whites and greens. Physically, there’s a difference in color, in the tone.
“Because on one side, all men, all white,” she scoffed. “On the other side, some women and some people of color. … I looked at that and thought, ‘No wonder we struggle. No wonder people don’t trust politics. We’re not even noticing what these rooms look like


Now, I'm going to put aside for a moment the fact that "these people" rarely seem to understand the actual demographics of our nation today--you see a lot of white people in various positions in part 'cause there are a lot of white people in the country, proportionately speaking (and while the demographic projections show the ratio of white people decreasing over time the same is true for black people--we'll get less white as a nation but we won't get much more black)--and just point out two things.

1.) Pretty casual stereotyping there, isn't it? Either she's saying white people are not snappy dressers or that men are not typically as brightly attired as women. That's sexism by her definition, isn't it??

2.) Maybe I'm just more sensitive to it recently but there seems to be a LOT more open insults of "white men" as a group lately, yeah? Like..I see "white men are trash" on Twitter a lot, and I dismiss that 'cause it's Twitter, but you don't get more mainstream than Michelle O! I saw yesterday that Colbert made some reference to the coming glory days when white men finally die off, too.
I'll level with you: I never gave much thought to my membership in the "white man" club. I know, I know, that's evidence of my bias and privilege (what I see as normalcy means I don't have to identify with "my" group like others do, etc), but even given that I really never felt much of a "white identity." I mean of the people I know, interact with, and dislike personally most of them are white guys--that's historically true for me, too. The people I competed against for the affection of women, in sports, etc. were mostly white guys--in the autobiographical movie in my head most of the villains are white men!

BUT: all these prominent elites telling me I'm a member of this group and I should be attacked on that basis has made me think MORE about my commonality and/or belonging to that group--if only in solidarity with others I see as unfairly under attack! I've never really considered myself a member of this group and never gave much thought, nor felt much of anything, to my "white male identity," but the more these prominent Lefties attack that group (in explicitly racial & "gendered" terms) the more strongly I feel associated with it.
I could see someone saying "I wasn't an active member of the white male interest group until you attacked me for being one, but now that we've agreed that group exists and I'm a member I'm going to act accordingly and do my best to promote my group's interests and oppose yours!"
Maybe that's their intent--to drive extremism and increase division--but it seems like a dangerous tactic.

Portlandmermaid said...

What I like is not letting people tell me what to like.

Bryant said...

Thanks for the insight! I enjoyed this post.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

"Given what Trump has displayed of himself in the media for decades, and continues to do so now, anyone who thought--or still thinks--he is even marginally a better choice than Hillary is either blind or lying to themselves."

Oh dear, has he been crass? That's far worse than 40 years of blatant corruption on the public dime. The Left is going to need something a little more substantial than the duckspeak of their cohort.

D said...

I have no problem with Mr Cooks take. It is consistent. Provided he has choice, he is not wrong to exercise it as he sees fit.

I do think that if someone decide to vote for the (in their minds) "lesser of two evils" that Mr Cook should be equally mindful that such a person is not "inferior" in their decision making. Afford others in the tribe the same respect of making choices based on their understanding of possible implications.

You are in a life boat. Each party has one vote. It will (most likely) be Bligh or Christian put in charge. Some guy says "No way! I think it should be Cook!" It is quite apparent that only Cook and this one other guy are keen to that. (i.e. You have enough knowledge that if you go with Cook, that your choice wont change the balance) The vote will be close. Bligh is an asshole. Christian is a madmen. Neither offer complete certainty to get you to shore. You may decide to choose which - of Bligh and Christian - is less worse. Until Cook outlines why only he and his one devout follower make more sense, that is.

The future is unknown, and when Cook & his one comrade swears "I told you so!!!" when you hit the rocks, tell him to get a bucket already. Or, perhaps you yell back: "I chose the guy who put us all in hell in 3 months! If I chose your guy, we would have been hell in 2 weeks! You should thank me we're not dead already!"

Equally unprovable, but thats what you do with "I told you so's" in lifeboats.

smartsy said...

This the same woman that told kids to like her version of school lunches...look how that worked out...just sayin'.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

"I vote as a symbolic act, rather than stay home. Staying home allows pundits to say "voters are disinterested." By voting, I show my concern, but by voting for third party candidate, I do not have to live with the sickening knowledge that I supported--even in a perfunctory, "vote-for-the-lesser (sic)-evil" sort of way--any of the corrupt, stupid, venal, lying tools of the elites that are our only quadrennial election choices."

You missed the point, Bob. Believe me, I'm not making the stupid "wasted vote" argument. The exemplar of virtue you voted for would, in office, be every bit as self-interested and a tool of the Establishment as any major party candidate. Given your Leftist bent, perhaps far more so.

Angel-Dyne said...

AA: Said openly, it sounds absurd.

When you try to analyze something that is simply banal and stupid into some kind of meaning and coherence, you inevitably end with absurdity.

"Analyzing" what is obviously merely banal and stupid is an absurdity, itself.

Molly said...

replying to Bob Ellison at 8:34 a.m.

I googled "red baiting desegregation". a top hit is this book on the subject: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=9526 Segregation and Anti-communism in the south.

Achilles said...

Michelle Obama is a racist and a sexist. Just like everyone else on the left.

Skippy Tisdale said...

Achilles said...
Michelle Obama is a racist and a sexist. Just like everyone else on the left.


You left off whore.

Gahrie said...

I voted, but for a third party candidate,

I wrote my own name in.

rcocean said...

You're constantly hearing about "White Men" and "White People" in a negative way because its the only way the liberal/Left/Democrats can win elections and maintain power.

They've decided they can't win on policy. So, they've decided to win using "identity politics". You convince racial minorities and "women" that they should be voting Democrat because the Republicans are full of "white people". Don't betray your tribe and vote republican!

In order for this to work, the media and Entertainment has to constantly divide up and identify everyone as "white men" "White People" LBGT, Black, Hispanic, etc.

Its the old "Big city" ethnic politics played out on a nation wide scale. Vote Big Jim O'Conner for Mayor - he's an Irishman and a Catholic.

Comanche Voter said...

Queen Moochelle is good at telling people what they ought to like. She tells women how to vite, She told school cafeterias to sell kale to kindergarteners (as well as the rest of K-12 kids).

Kids, being smarter than Moochie, promptly dumped the Michelle Obama approved lunches in the trash--without eating them. And you know, last year many female voters dumped Moochie's ideas in the trash just before they stepped into the voting booth.

exiledonmainstreet said...


"Its the old "Big city" ethnic politics played out on a nation wide scale. Vote Big Jim O'Conner for Mayor - he's an Irishman and a Catholic."

And of course, the corrupt big city machines were controlled by - Democrats.

Thanks for the reminder that playing identity politics is a very old game.

walter said...

Such blatant pussy grabbing..deplorable.

Sydney said...

I have no respect for women who think this way. Which is why I can't think of one single woman Democrat politician I respect.

n.n said...

Female chauvinists and their male chauvinist counterparts are responsible for the extraordinary progress of sex diversity (i.e. sexism) and a million babies suppressed, disarmed, and aborted.

Amadeus 48 said...

I spent 40 years advising clients not to do business deals with people like Donald Trump. Then I voted for the son of a bitch for president.
It makes you think.

Pianoman said...

This isn't complicated. Michelle O doesn't see people, she sees groups. And you're supposed to vote for your group. If you don't you're a traitor. Period.

That's why Rachel Dolezal is "more black" than Clarence Thomas.

narayanan said...

what michelle is asking/claiming is - if even after women were allowed to vote, women voting for a male candidate is cancelling out all the other women voting the female candidate - so what was the point of giving them the vote?

BrianE said...

"But what Obama and other critics may not understand is that Trump's voice actually IS the voice of many of his female supporters — the traditionalist voice that speaks out against a liberal culture that many conservative women feel has left them behind."-

This is a false characterization. It implies that liberals are marching toward nirvana and "traditionalists" just can't keep up.

"Traditionalists"-- whether male or female- see the country veering toward the cliff of societal disintegration and are desperately trying to get us back on course.

William Chadwick said...

What She-Hulk is trying to say is that women who voted against Queen Cacklepants have a "false consciousness." That's a term she should have gotten from her husband, who would have gotten it from his uncle, Frank the Red.

By the way if a PRO-freedom woman--say, Tammy Bruce--had been running for president, running against a typical Democratic statist, should women have voted for her? I'm guessing Michelle would say no.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

rcocean said...They've decided they can't win on policy. So, they've decided to win using "identity politics". You convince racial minorities and "women" that they should be voting Democrat because the Republicans are full of "white people". Don't betray your tribe and vote republican!

I'd say the Dems have been making identity politics appeals for a few cycles now but are currently more explicit, and louder, about it. I'd also say that the big difference this time is that the Republican side ended up with a nominee who made some relatively-soft identity politics appeals himself, and won the Presidency, and that's caused the Left to freak the fuck out.
That's, I think, what's behind the fact that every third sentence you read is about "white supremacy" in some way. The Left can't believe the Republicans dared to use a tactic that was supposed to only be for Left-approved politicians! It's not fair; it's simply not done my good man. White people were supposed to be losing power nationwide and older white men in particular were supposed to be passe. The fact that a populist old white man managed to squeak out a win shows that their assertions that white people's political influence is waning and/or doesn't matter any more is false.

The irony, of course, is that in my opinion the Left going so hard for, and blatant about, their identity politics appeal likely caused a backlash/defensive response by non-Lefties and resulted in more votes for Trump in a close election.

rehajm said...

Then I voted for the son of a bitch for president.

Politics doesn't come à la carte. Rubber chicken or smelly fish?

Jon Burack said...

What I find interesting is how effortlessly Michelle expresses perfectly what Christopher Lasch way back in the 1970s identified as the triumph of a culture of narcissism. First, there is the now absolutely standard assumption that "we look at" things "as women," or as whoever WE are. We then evaluate solely on the basis of what is "better for me." Even more disembodied from the real world, we look at (or is it listen to?) someone's "voice" to see if it is "true to me." We are all supposed to like our voice. See. Its all just in our heads, our eyes, our ears. Solipsism. The world itself vanishes. I know self-interest has always been a fact of life in our politics. But "voice"? I am not sure that voice has much to do with actual self-interest. And since Michelle is presenting herself here as a defender of a deeper and better way to be politically, shouldn't she be urging us to look at what is best for the country, not for our voices? Or is that standard of objective reality now totally out the door? In which case we are in free-for-all land all the way - and my voice always takes precedence over yours.

Jim at said...

Hectoring. Lecturing. Condescending.

Run this woman for POTUS in 2020, Democrats.
Please.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Jim at said...
Hectoring. Lecturing. Condescending.

Run this woman for POTUS in 2020, Democrats.
Please.

10/5/17, 3:09 PM

Please don't say that.

Her husband also hectored and lectured and condescended to Americans.

We got 8 years of him.

Rick67 said...

"Those who tell us to be in touch with our own desires are often merely trying to make us believe that what we want is the thing that they are selling."

This. Thank you. Who in the name of sanity does this person think she is? I have had it with the "why do you rubes vote against your own self-interest?" card. Maybe we know our own interests (and our own voice) better than those who presume to speak for half of humanity.

There was a guy at my previous workplace who sometimes said "I just read this book that you would find interesting" and it was a book with which I would strongly disagree and would not be interested. His "helpful" suggestion boiled down to "you need to read this because I want to convert you to my point of view".

Professional lady said...

Why do Hillary and Michelle get to say what my voice is? Who put them in charge of all females? Seems to me identity politics has resulted in a dramatic increase in hate.

edwhy said...

I voted for the reefer smoker. I feel virtuous.

Jack Sherman said...

Vote shaming (is) for Dummies

Tinidril said...

I find it ironic that all these supposedly empowered women like Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama have done nothing to appeal to the female voter's intellect, but rather resort to the tired old female stereotype of NAGGING to guilt the voter. As a woman I find it hilarious that they don't even notice. I also am frankly getting tired of all the kindergarten politics the leftist women keep forcing on us (feelings, diversity, "her voice", whine, pander, nag, hate on white men, nag some more). Enough already. Do you have any opinions on real issues??

Robert Cook said...

"The exemplar of virtue you voted for would, in office, be every bit as self-interested and a tool of the Establishment as any major party candidate."

How can you know that? So far, the Brits who oppose Jeremy Corbyn are horrified that he seems intent on governing as he said he would, and does not appear to be glad-handing all the power-brokers in order to join the club for his own benefit.

To the extent any "exemplar of virtue" I might vote for--(more like, the candidate I can agree to support, which falls below the criterion of "exemplar of virtue")--became a tool of the establishment, it would demonstrate that our system is broken beyond repair, that no one, however well-intended, however rich with good ideas, conviction, and persistence, can prevail against the entrenched ruling elites. This may, in fact, be true. If it is, then it doesn't matter whether anyone votes or not, yes? Either no one truly has convictions they're prepared to put into action or the system cannot be moved off its course by anyone. Either way, this means our "experiment" has failed.

KJohnson said...

I believe it is just as racist or sexist to vote for someone because of their ethnicity or gender as it is to vote against a candidate because of their ethnicity or gender. I would far rather vote for or against someone based on character and policy and experience.