0
   

MichelleObama: Black and White Culture Not The Same

 
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2008 07:34 pm
squinney wrote:
Just to clarify, I DID ask Hawkeye to tell me what he meant. So, I don't think he was going on and on about the same thing on different threads.

My spine straightens, however, when it comes to suggesting Obama needs to shut Michelle up.

I doubt any of you think I speak for Bear, or vice-versa. The differences in people, and being able to be respectful of those differences and still care for someone, is what makes one more pragmatic and inclusive. I would NOT vote for him if he told his wife to change her thoughts, words, or anything else just to win the election.

Surely, in this age, we are beyond this.

(crossing fingers)


Clap, clap, clap, [rises to his feet] clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, [intensity rises] clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap ...
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2008 07:35 pm
squinney wrote:
Just to clarify, I DID ask Hawkeye to tell me what he meant. So, I don't think he was going on and on about the same thing on different threads.

My spine straightens, however, when it comes to suggesting Obama needs to shut Michelle up.

I doubt any of you think I I speak for Bear, or vice-versa. The differences in people, and being able to be respectful of those differences and still care for someone, is what makes one more pragmatic and inclusive. I would NOT vote for him if he told his wife to change her thoughts, words, or anything else just to win the election.

Surely, in this age, we are beyond this.

(crossing fingers)


countless GOP operatives have said that there is a 100% chance that Michelle's words will be used against Barrack. It has always been accepted practice to tar candidates with guilt by association, and while Barrack wants to think that this rule does not apply to him I suspect that the majority of right and center citizens will think that it does. He should know this by now after the Wright scandal. He needs a plan to deal with everything that Michelle has said.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2008 07:37 pm
I don't even think it is his call. It's hers. If Bear said something inappropriate at my workplace I'd make sure he got "the look" and understood what it meant. He'd correct himself on cue if it wasn't something totally heartfelt.

If totally heartfelt, I'd let him say it, defend himself and go on. Anyone listening that didn't understand it was his opinion and not necessarily mine, would just have to deal with it. I wouldn't tell him to change his beliefs or that he isn't able to voice them.

Then, of course, that might be why I'm not the President. Laughing
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2008 07:44 pm
To whatever point I listened, I didn't mind what she said.

If some of Michelle's words somehow mess up the election, that is more of an indictment of the rest of us than of her, to me. How can we have no clues in this new century?
Re running a campaign, there's the assumption you rein in any possible burrs, plasticize.
So it goes again.

Personally, I rather enjoy their apparent contretemp/discussion.

Too bad it is so frightening.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2008 07:52 pm
Why does she (or any political spouse) have a role in the campaign? seems odd from outside of the U.S.

I've been trying to remember the names of spouses/partners of politicians here. Other than three or four over the past 40 years, I can't think of any. Spouses don't play any role in campaigns here.

If she's out campaigning, I think she's fair game.




(three or four is definitely a push - Olive, Margaret and Arlene - I'm stuck at that point)
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2008 07:57 pm
squinney wrote:
I don't even think it is his call. It's hers. If Bear said something inappropriate at my workplace I'd make sure he got "the look" and understood what it meant. He'd correct himself on cue if it wasn't something totally heartfelt.

If totally heartfelt, I'd let him say it, defend himself and go on. Anyone listening that didn't understand it was his opinion and not necessarily mine, would just have to deal with it. I wouldn't tell him to change his beliefs or that he isn't able to voice them.

Then, of course, that might be why I'm not the President. Laughing


It has been said for as long as I can remember that the best people will not run for office because they don't want to have their lives chewed up by the process in the way that we are talking about with Michelle's words being used as a dagger into Barracks candidacy. I know that Barrack as often said that this needs to change. He is right about that. But Barrack is a smart guy, he has to know that he is running with the rules that are currently in force in politics. He has to, he has to know what is coming and have a plan to either do the attach in or use it to his advantage. Right?
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2008 08:26 pm
ehBeth wrote:
Why does she (or any political spouse) have a role in the campaign? seems odd from outside of the U.S.

I've been trying to remember the names of spouses/partners of politicians here. Other than three or four over the past 40 years, I can't think of any. Spouses don't play any role in campaigns here.

If she's out campaigning, I think she's fair game.




(three or four is definitely a push - Olive, Margaret and Arlene - I'm stuck at that point)


MILA!!!! Smile
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2008 08:55 pm
Are the wives fair game? Are the churches? Trinity has programs could probably help Cindy. http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/26045/thumbs/s-CINDY-MCCAIN-large.jpg link
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2008 09:09 pm
squinney wrote:
My spine straightens, however, when it comes to suggesting Obama needs to shut Michelle up.

Well, someone has to show her who's boss in this marriage.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2008 09:11 pm
blueflame1 wrote:
Are the wives fair game? Are the churches? Trinity has programs could probably help Cindy. http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/26045/thumbs/s-CINDY-MCCAIN-large.jpg link


yes, but being a rehabbed rich white addict is cool these days, being a mouthy black woman is not....apples and oranges
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2008 10:44 pm
Cool?

Tell us, just what has Michelle Obama said that has your panties in such a bunch?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Jun, 2008 11:53 pm
Dowd's take on the problem, as usual I mostly agree with her:
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/opinion/11dowd.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 07:43 am
I don't see where she has created any problem other than the fact that she's an educated black woman married to a man who is running for president. And Maureen Dowd's article clearly points out that Michelle Obama is not the problem. It's the backwoods mentality of the public, fanned by the media, that's creating this "Sapphire" (smart-ass black woman, as in Amos n' Andy) mystique to tag her with.

Will we ever grow up and get beyond the need to label and vilify anyone and everyone who doesn't fit into our perception of who they should be?
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 07:49 am
Yes, I'd like to know what she's actually SAID, too, to create problems for her husband. That article was just an opinion piece.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 08:35 am
georgeob1 wrote:
This was unusually testy for you Mame. Where's the lighthearted, tolerant person with the odd accent I once knew?

I think that hawkeye's point that Michelle will be a problem for Obama is valid. I doubt that it will be a major issue in itself, rather that it may appear to some as a piece that completes or fits in a larger puzzle. The underlying issue is whether Obama is really what he represents himself to be. It is certainly a valid question when applied to any candidate for high political office, though some Obama supporters consider it to be an intolerable act of racism, slander or worse, when applied to their sainted hero.

The truth is that there are lots of viewpoints out there, and in some cases it will really be an element of a smear, while in many others simply a valid question that merits an answer.


Michelle is even "blacker" than Barack and that is a problem for some white folk. These folks generally vote Republican anyway. IMO if we voted for First Ladies, Michelle wins in a landlside against Cindy especially for those under tyhe age of fifty.

What sems to be a problem for you unassimilated white folks is not a problem to the multi-culturally assimilated who comprise the majority of the US population today and whose numbers grow by the hour.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 08:38 am
Mame wrote:
Yes, I'd like to know what she's actually SAID, too, to create problems for her husband. That article was just an opinion piece.


It is not even that. It is a smear posted on a blogspot. It just shows how desperate the racists who hate Obama are. They will link anything to try to smear the Obamas.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 08:39 am
eoe wrote:
Cool?

Tell us, just what has Michelle Obama said that has your panties in such a bunch?



It's those terrorist fist jabs.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 08:40 am
hawkeye10 wrote:
Dowd's take on the problem, as usual I mostly agree with her:



That men are irrelevant?
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 08:58 am
It would certainly be unusual if Michelle Obama, a Harvard educated lawyer, did not have a lot of opinions on a great many issues. But to unearth everything the woman has ever said, including statements made in her undergraduate thesis at Princeton, in an attempt to characterize her as being unpatriotic or anti-white, is just plain absurd.

Michelle Obama, like Hillary Clinton before her, does not fit the mold of the traditional First Lady. Both are highly educated female lawyers who would be expected to have strong views of their own. And Hillary, during her husband's first campaign for the Presidency, faced similar demonization because she, too, was a "target-rich environment".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/03261992.html

Michelle Obama, in addition, does not fit the image of a traditional white First Lady. Those who are uncomfortable with Barack Obama's racial heritage are likely to be even more disturbed with the image of a black First Lady, from a working-class African-American background, presiding over White House social functions. There's not much that Michelle Obama can do about her race, or about the vestiges of racism (or sexism) in our society, but those who do attempt to malign her on the basis of her race or background are likely to find themselves branded as bigots and excoriated in the mainstream media.

Michelle Obama does have an advantage in the fact that most Americans know little or nothing about her. The campaign has thus far displayed her mainly as a wife and mother, downplaying her accomplishments as a graduate of Harvard Law School and a vice president at the University of Chicago Medical Center. And Michelle Obama has solidified this impression by emphasizing that her main job, at this time, is being a mother to her daughters. She declines to discuss what her particular role as First Lady might be.

She has raised eyebrows in the past by mocking her husband:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20041755/print/1/displaymode/1098/

and, in the future, would probably be better off not making those kinds of statements, since they tend to negatively backfire on her husband. She seems to have already learned to knock it off. She's learning...

I think that Michelle Obama has to begin defining herself for the public before the Republicans begin doing that for her. She has a wonderful opportunity to promote "women's issues" on behalf of her husband, helping to win him votes, capitalizing on her own experience as a working mother, and drawing increased attention to needs for daycare, improvements in the educational system, rising food prices, etc.--all of which can help her connect to the average American woman, and vice versa. She can, in many ways, pick up where Hillary Clinton left off with female voters. She can be a very valuable political asset.

Although she is apparently a somewhat reluctant political wife (she reportedly tried to talk her husband out of running for the Senate), she is also a strong source of support for him. She is also an extremely intelligent, accomplished woman, whose husband is now making history. She will not knowingly do or say anything that will jeopardize his chances for election. But she must begin to define herself, and her values, for the public, as soon as possible, before she finds herself irredeemably caricatured out of all proportion. In other words, she must "package" herself before the opposition beats her to the punch.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 04:13 pm
Hillary is a good example as in how she was force to junk most off her unconventual ways early into the first administration. She is not is that on the campaign trail she resisted the urge to voice her own opinion, and voice opinions that were counter to Bill's.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 09:59:33