« California Supreme Court Hands November Election to McCain (If He’ll Take It) | Main | US Currency Discriminates Against the Blind, Federal Appeals Court Rules »
May 20, 2008
Memo to Obama: This is Politics, Not High Tea
Recently, Michelle Obama has been on the campaign trail, and some of the things she has said have rubbed certain commentators the wrong way.
For example, when she said that “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country,” alarm bells went off all over talk-radio and the conservative end of the blogosphere. Rush Limbaugh wondered aloud why this woman, who has been the beneficiary of one of the finest educations available in this country, had not been proud before. And callers from all over the nation seethed with anger at the notion that it was somehow inappropriate to have been proud of America before Barack Obama appeared on the stage.
The Tennessee GOP didn’t overlook those comments, either. It introduced a video entitled “Proud,” featuring Mrs. Obama’s remarks, interspersed with some Tennesseans talking about what made them “proud” of America. Not surprisingly, the rise of Barack Obama is not among them.
On ABC, Senator Obama groused that it wasn’t fair for the GOP to bother with Michelle, apparently merely because she is his wife:
“The GOP, should I be the nominee, I think can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record," Obama said. "I've been in public life for 20 years. I expect them to pore through everything that I've said, every utterance, every statement. And to paint it in the most undesirable light possible. That's what they do.
But I do want to say this to the GOP. If they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful. Because that I find unacceptable," he said.
Really? Why?
Is it “unacceptable” to talk trash about Bill Clinton when he says something stupid on the campaign trail? Or is that different—because he’s a man, and he can defend himself?
Some may find Obama’s defense of his “better half” rather quaint and chivalrous. But it flies in the face of everything feminism--all feminism--has ever wanted for women. She’s not being attacked for being a woman—as, arguably, Mrs. Clinton often is. Instead, she is being ridiculed for something she said that was both impolitic and flatly ridiculous. The idea that she has not been proud of America before is disturbing. The fact that she may really mean it is more so.
But it is her statement—hers to defend or deny, hers on which to be engaged in the battle of ideas in this political season. She is giving as good as she gets, and she should not need her man to step up and shield her from the consequences of her independent actions.
Feminism (the egalitarian kind that has allegedly triumphed over the "little woman" condescension of the past--the kind even Mother Phyllis Schlafly lives in and celebrates) is supposed to be about leveling the playing field, and not treating women like “girls.” When the new guy in the political game has already climbed the ladder past the older, more experienced woman, and then starts calling professional women “sweetie,” it can’t improve his image to put a protective arm around his wifey and tell everyone to stop being so mean to her.
The problem women have in Obama is that he says what they want to hear, but he is still a man. Feminism of the radical sort would love to see a woman in the Oval (after all, it's shaped like a womb, isn't it?). But the sad fact of liberal and pragmatic feminism is that, as long as there is a man in the running--someone who already has a good shot at carrying the feminist's water--they will fall for the tall, dark, handsome devil every single time.
Like Bill Clinton before him, Obama is the kind of man Democratic women like--and, like Bill Clinton before him, women's advocacy groups will inevitably side with him, rather than her, because deep down they believe that only a man can really make a difference. He can clear the path for Hillary, but he cannot let her go first.
Mrs. Obama has entered the game. She is a player. She makes speeches and says things, and all those things are fair game. This may well be a shot across the bow the Obama camp feels the need to make. It needs to clarify where the boundaries are, before the wider press and the people get a look at Michelle Obama’s thesis, in which she whines about how hard it is for educated blacks to maintain their ties to the black community.
Oh, please.
And, given that it was not just the Senator, but Mrs. Obama, too, who sat in the pew for twenty years of America-bashing, Afrocentric , James Cone theological nonsense from the mouth of Reverend Wright—and who allowed her children to be raised in it, as well—in that case, surely the lovely Michelle might find herself on the wrong side of that uncomfortable question during the general election, as well. Perhaps there is more that we have not yet seen, which Mrs. Obama might not be able to stop herself from saying.
Are we to imagine that Mrs. Obama intends to be the most shy and retiring of first ladies, standing only in the shadows, having no influence? Is it not as fair to ask who the president’s wife is as it is to ask who the president’s advisors are? If Michelle Obama is going to be a power broker—like Nancy Reagan and Hillary Clinton—then she’d better get used to the scrutiny that comes with it. If she wants to be left alone, then she’ll have to convince us that she won’t have any influence. If that’s a possible case to make.
If Mrs. Obama doesn’t want to play, then she shouldn’t do anything but stand there. What she says from the podium—like what the man says from the pulpit (do I mean Wright or Obama here? It’s getting hard to tell)—is fair game for discussion and criticism.
If she can’t stand the heat, Senator, get her out of the kitchen.
Posted by Kerry at May 20, 2008 06:54 AM
Copyright © 2007 by author. May not be copied, published, or otherwise used (except for brief quotes) without express permission of author. Articles published with permission by Pardon My English.
-->Comments
I've long predicted that Michelle Obama would prove to be Barack's biggest liability. Kerry's a bit silly to expect him to NOT protest against criticisms of his wife. Her tortured invocation of feminism is unnecessary; most democrats (you know, 50% of the country or so) would find it to be a little weird if he didn't defend his wife. If he left her to hang, I have no doubt that you would (justifiably) wonder what was up with that. But it's true that her statements are sometimes just horrible, and I think she'll be 3x the problem that Hillary was for Bill back in '92.
Posted by Some Fella ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.pardonmyenglish.com//nav-commenters.gif)
at May 21, 2008 09:21 AM
She is indeed the problem. While Barack might conceivably have sat in the pew for 20 years listening to nothing (as apparently he did while getting his political science degree and in his history and geography classes--58 states, Senator?), Michelle not only clearly listened and believed, she already agreed with the basics of black power theology.
And it's SO much fun when she complains about having to pay back her student loans and the high price of ballet and piano lessons. It's just priceless.
Posted by Kerry at May 21, 2008 09:38 AM
First of all, Black Power theology, as some call it isn't about attacking white folks. It's focused on what Black in America (and the Diaspora as a whole) have to do as individuals and as a collective to better our position in the world.
Black Power/Liberation Theology isn't clamoring for welfare (which more whites are on than blacks) or social programs. The premise is to go out there, provide for your family and community and overcome despite outside circumstances and influences. (I wonder why whites aren't offended when Dr. Cosby or Juan Williams say the same thing?)
As for sitting in a church for 20 years, Dr. Wright is more than a few sound clips. But to be fair, if the government could conduct the Tuskegee experiments for nearly 30 years. If the government is capable of creating COLINTELPRO, or the program to infiltrate, disrupt and destroy organizations of color that promote self reliance and economic empowerment, is it too far to conjecture that the government could have created AIDS or place drugs in the ghettos to fund other activities? (IRAN/CONTRA) Enough about Dr. Wright, that's not the point of this.
It just seems to me that many white Americans do not and sadly will not ever get what it means to be Black in America. We do not see the same America you guys see. You see the Founding Fathers as great men of conviction and courage who stared down the British and laid the foundation for the greatest country in the world. Most blacks view the Founding Fathers as a bunch of cowards and hypocits who wanted liberty for mankind, just as long as mankind was white and owned property. That's just one example.
If you want an example more current, I'm sure Michelle's chest opened with pride when a black man was incarcerated for more than 2 years for having consensual sex with a white schoolmate. Or even prouder when people in KY, OH, PA admitted to refusing supporting a non-white candidate. (By the way, why is Obama criticized for not gaining the support of "hard working, white Americans" when Clinton doesn't have support from upwardly mobile, educated young and middle aged Americans?)
Quite frankly, many of the historical events of this country that makes you proud, makes us cringe because often times, our people were the ones on the suffering end of the equation or never received the credit we deserved for causing the event that made you so proud.
I'm not typing this to be flippant. I'm sincere. I'm not going to speak for all my fellow African-Americans but I'm sure if any read this blog they will agree with a majority of the points I'm making.
For many of us, Obama's campaign is the first time we really feel like a part of American democracy or the electoral process. Of course, Shirley Chisolm, Thurogood Marshall, or even Dr. Condi Rice amd Justice Clarence Thomas all have achieved and served this country with distinction, even if there are disagreements with their policies and politics.
However, none of them, or the many qualified African-Americans who have lived and since died since the foundation of this Republic has never come as far as Obama.
When Michelle Obama said her "proud" comments, Black America understood perfectly. For the first time, a grouping of people--of all ethnic groups was receptive to a black person being in charge.
Many blacks thought we would never, never see this in our lifetimes (And that's the reason many of us fear for Obama and his family's safety)
She is proud because it seems like kids in school today do not look at color the way my generation still does. She is proud that finally a highly educated black person doesn't have to break their relationships in the black community to appease whites in the boardroom (That was the point of her thesis)
She is proud that more and more blacks are looking in the mirror and making decisions to not only uplift their position but to reach back and help other who look like them.
For the first time, a lot of blacks are proud of this country, or beginning to be.
Posted by leantotheleft at May 21, 2008 01:27 PM
ltl:
Explain to me why black people continuously side with the party that fought a war to keep them enslaved and then spent another hundred years trying to put them back into de facto slavery, AND which has openly admitted in this primary season that many of its own people are, essentially, racists.
How does that work?
Posted by Kerry at May 21, 2008 04:07 PM
And one more thing, ltl,
I don't want you to think I don't "get" the Obama thing for blacks. I do. My friend and I were talking about this today, about how she wishes he had different issue positions so she could vote for him, because she would really like to vote for a black man. I understand that. I do. In my heart of hearts, I would like to see a black Republican run for the office, so that threshhold could finally be crossed. And, as a woman, I wish Hillary were a different woman. Condi Rice, maybe, or Phyllis Schlafly.
What I'm saying here, though, is that Michelle Obama's background isn't what people think it is. She's no retiring wallflower. If anything, she is the Hillary to his Bill--she's would be a much more capable president than he would, in my opinion. Unfortunately, both of them are liberal to the point of socialism--and even as close to revolutionary socialism as people in their positions are likely to get.
I'm not sure what you know of Cone, but I've read him, and unless you know him personally, I don't see how you can read out the anti-white aspects of his theology. He's promoting the closest thing you can get to Nation of Islam while using the name of Jesus.
I agree, however, that a good deal of black power theology is about rejecting handouts and welfare. But the Afrocentric nature of the theory is what captivated Michelle Obama, and I think it feeds her anger. And I don't think that's a good thing.
By the way, does Columbia have a thesis requirement? How come we haven't heard a peep about anything Barack did there, while getting his Political Science degree? And how did he get a degree from C.U. in POLITICAL SCIENCE without finding out that the Kennedy-Khruschev meeting probably actually CAUSED the Cuban Missile Crisis, instead of defusing it (which is apparently what he thinks happened)?
Posted by Kerry at May 21, 2008 08:40 PM
Kerry,
Why is having a sense of Afrocentricity a bad thing when millions of Americans display their Irish, Italian, Polish and Jewish heritage and pride without any problems?
To be honest, this bus we call America needs to be operated by a pair of eyes who have a different view of the terrain. The Obama's (like many Blacks) do not want to see any harm come to this country. We live here, our children live here. We own property, have businesses, we have investments in blood and treasure here. However there is way too much flag and patriotism worship going on around here to examine the impact of our policies domestically and abroad.
It's time to have an objective look at America. To be objective one has to admit that this country is not perfect, or always right in foreign policy.
I will probably be accused of being anti-semetic (a charge more and more blacks seemed to be labeled with these days) but the Israelites and Palestinians needs us to be an impartial referee not just someone to calls the fouls on Palestine while turning a blind eye to what Israel does.
I'm not saying that's what Obama will do but what I am saying is it's time to look at things differently.
Posted by leantotheleft at May 22, 2008 03:28 PM
Your right about one thing,Kerry. the mask of tolerance and equality portrayed by the Democratic Party has been exposed. And yes, Blacks in America are paying attention.
Posted by leantotheleft at May 22, 2008 03:30 PM
"Your right about one thing,Kerry. the mask of tolerance and equality portrayed by the Democratic Party has been exposed. And yes, Blacks in America are paying attention."
Well, what took so long?
Posted by Kerry at May 22, 2008 04:30 PM
I'd think the words of the founder of Black Liberation Theology sound different than yours:
"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."
This is much different than the message given at the all-black (except me) baptist church I used to go to in Alabama. GREAT BBQs afterwards and they didn't mind my non-theism much.....or my whitey-ness.
No, the governmnet didn't creat the HIV virus to kill off black people...even insinuating it make you the fool you are.....HA!!! did they ever miss the mark. Black people....homosexuals.....it's all the same, eh? Not a single piece of evidence, but when you WANT to believe something you don't need little things like evidence.
....and like most of the people that bring up the Tuskeegee experiment.....including black reverends that lie about it to get ignorant people to believe that it's not "too far to conjecture that the government could have created AIDS or place drugs in the ghettos to fund other activities." ....do you even know WTF the Tuskeegee experiment was? For 15 years, the experiment was valid...from 1932 until 1947.....for the remaining years, it was an atrocious event of 400 cases of medical malpractice.
What it was not is what it's portraye das...."They did it in Tuskeegee so they did it with HIV/AIDS".
Yep...we "did it to them injuns too".,...wouldn't surprise me.
Posted by Sarge at May 22, 2008 04:46 PM
Note: Comments once posted become the property of Pardon My English. We therefore reserve the right to make use of such in any manner and for whatever purpose we deem appropriate. Please refer to comment policy for further information.
