A few days ago, I wrote a post on Michelle Obama and her remarks made in a speech at UCLA. I commented that her remarks about her country and the American people were negative in tone. I also pointed out a few of her statements which I felt were appropriate for criticism. What was not in that article was Michelle Obama's comment a few days ago in front of a Wisconsin audience, a comment that has caused even more criticism.
In this speech, Obama told her audience that it is only now-for the first time in her adult life-that she has felt proud of her country (adding that it is not just because her husband "has done well", but that she sees a "hunger for change" in the American people.)
Excuse me?
Already, Barack Obama's campaign manager, David Axelrod, has attempted to put a spin on this, claiming that Mrs Obama's words were not well formed and misunderstood. I'm sorry, but that doesn't wash. The words were very clear. Michelle Obama attended Princeton and the Harvard Law School. She is a professional woman in her 40s. Articulation is not one of the lady's weaknesses. When you add this comment with the comments made at UCLA, as well as previous negative comments about life in America, then a question arises in the public's eye as to her attitude toward her country.
Cindy McCain's reaction was simple and to the point; she stated publicly today that she has always been proud to be an American.
Many people who know Mrs Obama are jumping to her defense and insisting that she is, indeed, a patriotic American. That may be so, but I think it is incumbant for Mrs Obama to come out publicly and clarify her remarks. It is not in the Obamas' interest to let this question linger or grow. Michelle Obama is two steps away from the White House as our First Lady. If her pride in her country is open to question, I don't think she and Barack are going to make it.
She has not been seen in public since that statement, to my knowledge. At lease she has not been talking in public. I'm sure her husband took her to the woodshed for that statement. He is soooo upbeat and she comes out with those negative remarks.
ReplyDeleteHaving said all that, I'm not sure it matters to Obama's followers. They are so enraptured with him it makes no difference what she says.
They are both scary. And they might just win the White House. Oh my.
Debbie Hamilton
Right Truth
Great point, Debbie. I would think that Michelle would be out there clarifying her comments.
ReplyDeleteWhere is Michelle?
Maybe if the MSM continues to hide the story, she won't have to explain. The only people who are reporting it are Fox, the blogs and talk radio. MSM has kept it confined to small articles on the back pages. As far as I know, the Washington Post has not reported it.
ReplyDeleteNews media bias? You be the judge.
A Google news search seems to indicate otherwise, Gary. I searched for the keywords "Obama" and "proud." I even saw that one of the columnists of the Washington Post covered it (and criticized her for being "rude" for saying it!)
ReplyDeleteLooks like it's getting a lot of play, actually. Personally, I think that they're making too much of it, but I'll admit that they'd go after a conservative in the same manner. (See my post about Huckabee and his disbelief in evolution.)
My statement about the Washington Post was based on a statement by (hold on to your seat) Bill O'Reilly on his morning radio show today. Maybe today (after O'Reilly pointed it out)the Washington Post put something out on it. I don't know when.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's a minor thing, though the msm will downplay it and limit the damage. Michelle Obama's statement was very clear and consistent with prior statements she has made in prior speeches.
When exactly did she decide she was proud of her country? When Barack ran for president? When he was elected to the US Senate? When he was elected to the Illinois Senate? In other words, when she was 43, 40, 35?
In spite of her impressive resume, I have serious doubts about whether I want her as First Lady.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that it was a stupid thing to say. I accept the explanation that was given though, that she was referring more to the political process (but again, I agree with you that she needs to speak up and say this for herself.)
ReplyDeleteAfter all, Bush said while he was running, "There ought to be limits to freedom." Now THAT'S a scary statement! Still, when looked in context, it wasn't quite as bad as it sounds on its own, but it still sounds pretty bad.
Bill O? Geez, Gary. Haven't you learned from Bush's statement, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me (insert akward pause, look confused,) not gonna get fooled again"? Truly, words to live by.
Lance,
ReplyDeleteThe words, "political process" were never spoken in Michelle's statement-only by those trying to spin it. She said what she said.
Check out the things she has said in her previous speeches. It is similar to John Edwards' "Two Americas" speeches. It is all very consistent.
I don't know what the the relevance of following 2 paragraphs is to the issue.
Well, I'm not going to defend it, 'cause I agree that it was a dumb thing to say (as I've stated from the start.) I know I put my foot in my mouth from time to time and what I say isn't really what I mean though, so I have no problem chalking it up to that - as even intelligent people do that.
ReplyDeleteAs for the other two points, I was just referring to something that Bush said when he was on the campaign trail that was equally offensive (in my eyes, anyway) and I didn't hear a whole lot of conservatives criticize him on that one.
Regarding Bill O, I was just saying that you oughtta know better than to use him as a source. The guy does have a track record of just making stuff up. (Like saying that French imports have gone down, when in fact they've gone up. But what can you expect when he cites the "Paris Business Review" - a publication that doesn't actually exist.)