Hillary Supporters unite part 2; no bashing please

[robinb]

Hypothetical Question of the Day:

If Hillary were "John" - would the calls for "John" to leave the race be as loud?

It seems to me that they are piling on - because she's a "girl." And its acceptable to do that...... whereas "John" might be respected as a scrappy fighter.....


- still hoping for the dream ticket........

I really don't think it would make any difference if "Hillary" was "Harold". I think it has more to do with traditional politics in trying to force the second place threat out of the race.

 

[DISUNC]

ED KOCH: Obama is a sure Loser

As Democrats coalesce around Sen. Barack Obama, one of Hillary Clinton's must outspoken supporters is not mincing words: the party is walking needlessly and unaware into a general election buzzsaw.

"I believe Obama probably will win [the Democratic nomination], although in politics you never ever can count anybody out," said former New York Mayor Ed Koch. "I think Hillary is doing a magnificent job and is a great candidate and if anybody can pull it out, she can. But my honest opinion is, it probably won't happen. And that he will be the candidate and that he will lose."

Koch's argument, while never voiced in public by Clinton, is thought to reflect the opinion of the senator and her key aides.

Were the majority of states and voters who had gone to Obama - and the superdelegates who could very well affirm their decisions - making a grievous political mistake?

"Mistake is not exactly the word," replied Koch. "It is the wrong judgment. The reason that the superdelegates are there is to select that person who is most likely to prevail. And...even though he does not win on his own merits in terms of racking up sufficient delegates, in all probability the superdelegates will be afraid to exercise their own judgment. And we will simply go along with the count of the delegates that were chosen in the polls."

Koch's argued that Obama showed a complete lack of conviction and leadership in handling the controversy surrounding his former pastor. The theme is a constant feature in the former mayor's syndicated columns, several of which have directly questioned the credibility of Obama's attempts to distance himself from Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

"I am shocked, without knowing the reason that it is happening, that none of the allegations with the respect of Wright, his former pastor, have had any impact on his polling," said Koch. "I'm absolutely surprised because I think that all the things that Wright says -- and nobody believes that Obama supports those statements -- but he didn't have the courage to stand up and object for twenty years.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/07/ed-koch-obama-is-a-sure-l_n_100697.html

 

[Planogirl]

I really don't think it would make any difference if "Hillary" was "Harold". I think it has more to do with traditional politics in trying to force the second place threat out of the race.

I agree. There might be a few who don't want to see a woman in the race but I don't believe that there would be many. I hope that we're way past those days.

 

[punkin]

Michelle's problem is that she really believes the same things Wright does.

 

[moon]

I see shades of Teresa Kerry here.......

http://thehill.com/byron-york/michelle-obamas-tales-of-woe-2008-05-07.html

I remember lots of people who didn't vote for Kerry just because they didn't want Teresa as first lady... I can see it happening again

"Mistake is not exactly the word," replied Koch. "It is the wrong judgment. The reason that the superdelegates are there is to select that person who is most likely to prevail. And...even though he does not win on his own merits in terms of racking up sufficient delegates, in all probability the superdelegates will be afraid to exercise their own judgment. And we will simply go along with the count of the delegates that were chosen in the polls."

That's one problem I have with the Democrat leadership. Sometimes they seem so... spineless. If "The reason that the superdelegates are there is to select that person who is most likely to prevail", but are afraid to do so because they may offend people, then there's what's the point of having "Super" delegates?

 

[Planogirl]

Michelle's problem is that she really believes the same things Wright does.

Do you really think so? I still don't know much about her and that's my fault.

 

[punkin]

Do you really think so? I still don't know much about her and that's my fault.

The whole "proud to be American" thing has echoes of Wright's philosophy.

 

[Chuck S]

The whole "proud to be American" thing has echoes of Wright's philosophy.

And after that, the Obama campaign seems to have put a gag order on her.

 

[DISUNC]

And after that, the Obama campaign seems to have put a gag order on her.

She is still talking, the Press aren't reporting it!

 

[Dolce27]

Here's another article about Michelle's speech:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/05/020456.php

This past Friday Michelle Obama gave essentially the same stump speech in Charlotte, North Carolina that she had given the week earlier in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Based on the stump speech, Yuval Levin calls Mrs. Obama "The unhappiest millionaire." Levin's NRO column carries a link to the C-SPAN video of Mrs. Obama's North Carolina speech. It is well worth watching.

Levin characterizes the pervasive themes of Mrs. Obama's stump speech as the "gospel of bitterness." Levin finds Barack Obama to be preaching a similar gospel, albeit one that benefits from "a peppier and more upbeat stump speech[.]" Senator Obama's enormous political skills make it much more difficult to discern the somewhat repulsive views and attitudes that are nakedly on display in Mrs. Obama's stump speech.

Michelle Obama seethes with bitterness. While she preaches the gospel according to Barack, she wears resentment and bitterness on her sleeve. It is therefore painful to listen to her. She's apparently even still angry about her SAT scores. She didn't test well in school, she explains. Somehow, she has overcome.

Mrs. Obama seeks to convey convey the impression -- she expands on the theme at great length -- that Senator Obama's campaign is, to borrow Joe McCarthy's formulation, the victim of "a conspiracy so immense..." It is not clear whether the Obama campaign can overcome the power of these sinister forces.

According to Mrs. Obama, the Obama campaign has been constrained by nameless forces constantly changing the rules of the game and thereby preventing Senator Obama from securing the nomination. Who are "they"? Mrs. Obama says just enough about these nameless forces for us to infer that "they" include the Clintons and their supporters. "They" seem also (incredibly) to include the mainstream media. These nameless forces have approximately the same specificity as the names on Joe McCarthy's list.

In her North Carolina speech Mrs. Obama reiterates the condescending political sociology that she elaborated in her Fort Wayne remarks and that Barack Obama preached at his closed-door fundraiser with the San Francisco Democrats. Given the modesty of her and her husband's family backgrounds, Mrs. Obama denies that she or her husband could be elitists.

Yet Mrs. Obama's political sociology comfortably fits the What's the Matter With Kansas? school of thought held by the Demoratic Party's liberal elite. Indeed, it was an elite group of wealthy San Francisco Democrats to whom Barack Obama was preaching the gospel of bitterness in San Francisco.

Mrs. Obama mocks the notion that she and her husband are elitists. She implicitly asserts that only those born to wealth are capable of looking down their noses at their fellow citizens. She does not think highly of those of us who want to be left alone by advocates of the administrative welfare state such as she and her husband. Moreover, she finds us guilty of making our children the victims of our fears. We are raising "young doubters." (I confess!)

But aren't those in her audience afraid of the sinister forces struggling to hold the Obamas down? Apparently not any more than she is. If her remarks were to be believed, they would by themselves instill deep fears. Her audience seems to understand that her impassioned whining is not to be taken seriously.

She says that she and Barack were born to parents of modest means, not with "silver spoons" in their mouths. Nobody knows the trouble they've seen. The burden of paying for her undergraduate education at Princeton and her law school education at Harvard has scarred her. It remains a motif of her stump speech. No one is accorded a chance to ask her if she thought about attending the University of Illinois, or if she's grateful for any of the financial assistance that facilitated her and her husband's attendance at the finest institutions of higher learning in the United States.

It appears that no one in the Obama campaign has the nerve to speak frankly with Mrs. Obama about how her stump speech might be improved. She could benefit from constructive criticism, because she is woefully deficient in the ability to see herself as others see her. She has just enough self-awareness to omit her admonition to the Los Angeles disciples of Barack:

Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. 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.
As I said last week about Mrs. Obama's Fort Wayne remarks: As long as Senator Obama won't require us to listen to the missus, I might be willing to settle for the compulsory mental readjustments.

PAUL adds: So Michelle Obama didn't do very well on her SATs but was admitted to Princeton? No wonder she's sore.

One of the problems with lowering the bar pursuant to "affirmative action" is that placing the bar back where it was requires raising it.

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt and Michelle Malkin have more. At NRO Byron York also devotes a column to the speech.

To comment on this post, go here.

 

["Got Disney"]

I agree. She's a negative person. She reminds me of an ex friend who kept sucking the life energy of those around her. Everything was drama and poor her. Michelle is the exact same way. Positive life force sucker. Her husband seems opposite, or is it just my observations. I guess opposites attract.

I so agree. Anytime I have listened to her speak she has a negative undertone and yes an elitist attitude. I have never liked her even when I liked Obama.

Michelle's problem is that she really believes the same things Wright does.

I so agree with this. You can here it in her words and see it on her face.

And as far as her replies to poor Obama .....does she honestly think that her DH has not had a far shake after all he has been the medias WOW boy although the nomination until the last few weeks. Hillary is the one the media has been targeting and bias against.

Yes she is one of the reasons that I don't want Obama. Actually a big reason. I see her being very influential in Obamas life and when in the white house you know husbands and wives use each others as sounding boards.

In addition if he gets the nom there is no reason for me to vote this election because DH will not vote for him he will go back to his REP party and vote McCain or he wont vote at all. So if he votes McCain and I were to vote Obama we again would cancel each others votes. This could be the first time in 30 years that I have not gone to the polls

 

[chobie]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";24994002]IYes she is one of the reasons that I don't want Obama. Actually a big reason. I see her being very influential in Obamas life and when in the white house you know husbands and wives use each others as sounding boards. :[/QUOTE]



You do realize that those same things were said about Hillary as a reason not to vote for Bill, don't you?

 

[Dolce27]

Michelle's problem is that she really believes the same things Wright does.

I'll be honest in that I don't know much about Michelle Obama, which I guess that if she's potentially the next 1st lady I should learn more about her. After reading the 1st article posted on here about her speech the other night, I spoke to a co-worker who heard the entire speech.

I wish that I could find a transcript of the speech – I think a video of the speech may be posted on youtube but for some strange reason our IT guys have blocked youtube so we can’t watch it at work.

My co-worker said that Michelle told a story of meeting a 10 year old little girl and how upset she (Michelle) was to know that all of that little girl’s hopes and dreams will be dashed (because the little girl is black).

This is why I want to hear the speech myself, or at least see a transcript of it, to see exactly what Michelle’s words were in regards to that story and not listen to a second hand version of it. The co-worker who told me this story said that so far she’s been unable to find anything written about it on news websites, but that she (my co-worker) has found transcripts of other parts of the speech online.

But if my co-worker is telling the truth, and didn’t misunderstand Michelle’s point to the story, then yes – I’ll say that Michelle Obama believes in Rev. Wrights views. From what is being shown by Rev Wright, it appears to be that Rev. Wright falsely preaches of oppression to the black people in 2008 when there isn’t oppression. Racism – yes. Oppression – no.

If there were oppression than Michelle Obama would not have a law degree from an ivy league university, live in a million dollar home, make more money than I ever will, and have a husband that is currently the leading Democratic nominee for the next US presidential election.

Yet, if she’s telling a bright and ambitious 10 year old little girl that she will never make it far in life because her skin color is black – then Michelle Obama is preaching oppression and that’s really sad.

I hope that my co-worker seriously misunderstood Michelle Obama. If anyone has heard the speech in it’s entirety – or better yet, can find a full transcript of the speech to post here – please let me know.

 

[robinb]

I just read JARNJ3's article on Michelle Obama. I guess that I have a different view on her speech than the writer did. If you have ever experienced the "glass ceiling" due to gender or race, then you know how the bar is always raised just as you get to it. I would be curious to know if she was speaking to a predominantly african american audience because that kind of speech would resonate with people who may have experienced the glass ceiling themselves. It also puts Barack in the role of the "underdog" which motivates people to get out and vote. Someone who is a clear leader doesn't need your vote while an underdog does.

FWIW, I like Michelle Obama. She seems more normal and less "robotic" than many other spouses of politicians.

 

["Got Disney"]

You do realize that those same things were said about Hillary as a reason not to vote for Bill, don't you?

That's fine....Bill has been very weired during this whole thing. WE know pretty much who Bill is ...we have no real idea who Michelle is and what many have seen of her ( other than OS) have not cared for her. I don't hold her comments against Obamas but again who are friends are and our spouses are say a lot about a person.

Again I did not like her at all even when I was a fan of Obamas.....so that has not changed due to my no longer caring for him. She always seems so negative in her speeches...unlike Obama who delivers a positive message.

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

I'll be honest in that I don't know much about Michelle Obama, which I guess that if she's potentially the next 1st lady I should learn more about her. After reading the 1st article posted on here about her speech the other night, I spoke to a co-worker who heard the entire speech.

I wish that I could find a transcript of the speech – I think a video of the speech may be posted on youtube but for some strange reason our IT guys have blocked youtube so we can’t watch it at work.

My co-worker said that Michelle told a story of meeting a 10 year old little girl and how upset she (Michelle) was to know that all of that little girl’s hopes and dreams will be dashed (because the little girl is black).

This is why I want to hear the speech myself, or at least see a transcript of it, to see exactly what Michelle’s words were in regards to that story and not listen to a second hand version of it. The co-worker who told me this story said that so far she’s been unable to find anything written about it on news websites, but that she (my co-worker) has found transcripts of other parts of the speech online.

But if my co-worker is telling the truth, and didn’t misunderstand Michelle’s point to the story, then yes – I’ll say that Michelle Obama believes in Rev. Wrights views. From what is being shown by Rev Wright, it appears to be that Rev. Wright falsely preaches of oppression to the black people in 2008 when there isn’t oppression. Racism – yes. Oppression – no.

If there were oppression than Michelle Obama would not have a law degree from an ivy league university, live in a million dollar home, make more money than I ever will, and have a husband that is currently the leading Democratic nominee for the next US presidential election.

Yet, if she’s telling a bright and ambitious 10 year old little girl that she will never make it far in life because her skin color is black – then Michelle Obama is preaching oppression and that’s really sad.

I hope that my co-worker seriously misunderstood Michelle Obama. If anyone has heard the speech in it’s entirety – or better yet, can find a full transcript of the speech to post here – please let me know.

At the bottom of the link you posted there was another link that kinda gives a bit more of the speech. It has some commentary too so you have to take it for what it's worth, but it touches on the part with the little girl.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGQ1MzFkMWU4MmYxMjhkZmNiZGE5YWY3NWUzNGMyMmY=&w=MQ==

Yep, Hillary plays the race card, but this little girl who will have a hypothetical asthma attack will have to wait in the ER for hours in this country today because she's black if this is really her speech.

 

[lilyv]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";24994311]That's fine....Bill has been very weired during this whole thing. WE know pretty much who Bill is ...we have no real idea who Michelle is and what many have seen of her ( other than OS) have not cared for her. I don't hold her comments against Obamas but again who are friends are and our spouses are say a lot about a person.

Again I did not like her at all even when I was a fan of Obamas.....so that has not changed due to my no longer caring for him. She always seems so negative in her speeches...unlike Obama who delivers a positive message.[/QUOTE]

Robin, I'm just gently dropping by with a bit of a befuddlement. Why are writers for The National Review (DISUNC's post) as well as The Powerline Blog (#270) being quoted here as if they're great sources? Those are both arch-conservative publications, the darlings of the Republicans. Hope it's OK to ask.
I'll check back later. The cupboard is bare, and so it's off to the grocery I go.

 

[wvrevy]

If you really want to know who Michelle Obama is, why not actually get it from the source, instead of posting articles from extreme right-wing nutbars like Powerline and the National Review?

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Michelle+Obama&hl=en&sitesearch=

http://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?ei=UTF-8&p=Michelle+Obama

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Michelle+Obama&search_type=

Have fun.

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

Robin, I'm just gently dropping by with a bit of a befuddlement. Why are writers for The National Review (DISUNC's post) as well as The Powerline Blog being quoted here as if they're great sources? Those are both arch-conservative publications, the darlings of the Republicans. Hope it's OK to ask.
I'll check back later. The cupboard is bare, and so it's off to the grocery I go.

I don't care who posts where. I've never been a fan of shoot the messenger type posts. That goes for links too. Provide a copy of her stump speeches from a different source and we'll discuss them.

Obama's race speech was posted on Drudge first. Drudge was a naughty place for dems in the 2006 race. Now he seems to have a connection to the Obama camp.

 

[Dolce27]

At the bottom of the link you posted there was another link that kinda gives a bit more of the speech. It has some commentary too so you have to take it for what it's worth, but it touches on the part with the little girl.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGQ1MzFkMWU4MmYxMjhkZmNiZGE5YWY3NWUzNGMyMmY=&w=MQ==

Yep, Hillary plays the race card, but this little girl who will have a hypothetical asthma attack will have to wait in the ER for hours in this country today because she's black if this is really her speech.

Thanks. I'm at work and haven't looked through everything yet and missed that link.