Just Wondered/Michelle Obama's Thesis ?s

[bsnyder]

There is no blame to go on her for what she wrote. You are ASSUMING that there is. All I stated was that it may be seen as "inflammatory" nowdays, and I can understand why the first black man with a real chance at the presidency doesn't want something like that out there. You'd have Rush and his empty ditto-heads out there calling Barack a Black Panther for the next 8 months.



Was gonna answer this, but:

Your logical just does not hold up.

If Cindy McCain wrote something inflammatory about blacks, you'd have the Keith Olbermanns of the world all over it, calling her a racist. And by your logic, they should be blamed for being critical of her words, not Cindy McCain for what she wrote?


And I'll repeat this, in case you missed it:


You are wrong. There was similar interest in Hilary Clinton's thesis, when she was the candidate's spouse in 1992. The Clintons chose to use the same supressionist tactics as the Obamas. And her topic was not about race.

 

[Fitswimmer]

You are wrong. There was similar interest in Hilary Clinton's thesis, when she was the candidate's spouse in 1992. The Clintons chose to use the same supressionist tactics as the Obamas. And her topic was not about race.

and again, I ask about Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Laura Bush and Cindy McCain. If the spouses are this important, then these women should also have been vetted, right? Since you remember the interest in Hillary's thesis, and since then, as now, I could care less about the spouse of the candidate-then perhaps you can share your knowledge about them?

You said earlier that we should view all the spouses the same. Well, then let's do that. My vote is to leave them ALL the heck alone.

 

[bsnyder]

and again, I ask about Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Laura Bush and Cindy McCain. If the spouses are this important, then these women should also have been vetted, right? Since you remember the interest in Hillary's thesis, and since then, as now, I could care less about the spouse of the candidate-then perhaps you can share your knowledge about them?

You said earlier that we should view all the spouses the same. Well, then let's do that. My vote is to leave them ALL the heck alone.

You are sort of contradicting yourself here. Do you want me to provide information, or not?

 

[SwedishMeatball]

and again, I ask about Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Laura Bush and Cindy McCain. If the spouses are this important, then these women should also have been vetted, right? Since you remember the interest in Hillary's thesis, and since then, as now, I could care less about the spouse of the candidate-then perhaps you can share your knowledge about them?

You said earlier that we should view all the spouses the same. Well, then let's do that. My vote is to leave them ALL the heck alone.

I'm not disagreeing, but I don't think it's a realistic expectation. Between the media, radio/tv shows, the internet, etc. I just think it's part of the process now. Like it or not. Any spouse making, or being suspected of making, contraversial remarks shouldn't expect to be shielded in this day and age. To those who support Obama, this won't make a wit of difference. For those who dislike him, it might give them fodder for a day or two. Most importantly though, they should be considering the fence sitters. I believe she would earn a lot more respect by just standing tall and proud and being upfront about it. They risk planting doubt to do otherwise.

 

[Fitswimmer]

You are sort of contradicting yourself here. Do you want me to provide information, or not?

I don't need it, but clearly others do because to them what a spouse does matters. I was thinking that since you probably knew, it would be a public service for them.

 

[DisneyMomOK]

I'm not disagreeing, but I don't think it's a realistic expectation. Between the media, radio/tv shows, the internet, etc. I just think it's part of the process now. Like it or not. Any spouse making, or being suspected of making, contraversial remarks shouldn't expect to be shielded in this day and age. To those who support Obama, this won't make a wit of difference. For those who dislike him, it might give them fodder for a day or two. Most importantly though, they should be considering the fence sitters. I believe she would earn a lot more respect by just standing tall and proud and being upfront about it. They risk planting doubt to do otherwise.

 

[disneyjunkie]

So what do you all think is in the thesis?

Based on the title, I think

It contains information about her experiences as a black woman at Princeton.

It may contain information about black on black racism.

Maybe she compares her experience at an Ivy League to that of those who attended a HBCU.

Maybe she talks about the racism she faced (or didn’t' face) at Princeton.

Maybe she talks about her experiences in "both worlds"

Maybe she talks about the importance of remembering where you came from and giving back.

Why any of it matters now.

I don't believe there's anything in her thesis that will change my views. Now if she were the one running for President what she wrote would matter to me.

 

[disneyfan67]

I'm not disagreeing, but I don't think it's a realistic expectation. Between the media, radio/tv shows, the internet, etc. I just think it's part of the process now. Like it or not. Any spouse making, or being suspected of making, contraversial remarks shouldn't expect to be shielded in this day and age. To those who support Obama, this won't make a wit of difference. For those who dislike him, it might give them fodder for a day or two. Most importantly though, they should be considering the fence sitters. I believe she would earn a lot more respect by just standing tall and proud and being upfront about it. They risk planting doubt to do otherwise.

Good job Sherry. After all the secrecy and controlling of information that this current administration has done, I'm all in favor of being open as you can. Too much secrecy breeds mistrust, IMO.


Because you did such a good job Sherry, I'm going to do you a favor and give you the noogie, you wanted to give me.

 

[lilyv]

So what do you all think is in the thesis?

Based on the title, I think

It contains information about her experiences as a black woman at Princeton.

It may contain information about black on black racism.

Maybe she compares her experience at an Ivy League to that of those who attended a HBCU.

Maybe she talks about the racism she faced (or didn’t' face) at Princeton.

Maybe she talks about her experiences in "both worlds"

Maybe she talks about the importance of remembering where you came from and giving back.

Why any of it matters now.

I don't believe there's anything in her thesis that will change my views. Now if she were the one running for President what she wrote would matter to me.

Thanks Disneyjunkie. You said it well. There is no reason to declare open season on spouses. They aren't the candidate.

 

[Charade]

Man...if only there'd been this kind of outrage when Bush refused to release his own "military" records...or Cheney's Energy Task Force records...or, well, the dozens of other times this administration has refused to allow the public to know just about anything about just about anything.

Outrage? Where? People are just asking why she's not releasing it.

So, a 20 year old black female college student wrote a paper at Harvard about intentional and unintentional racism she experienced while on campus at the overwhelmingly white school?

There's no such thing.

 

[frndshpcptn]

Good job Sherry. After all the secrecy and controlling of information that this current administration has done, I'm all in favor of being open as you can. Too much secrecy breeds mistrust, IMO.


Because you did such a good job Sherry, I'm going to do you a favor and give you the noogie, you wanted to give me.

I agree as well.

She's out there, speaking on behalf of him. She'll have a huge platform from which to speak if he is elected. I really, really don't think its wrong to want to know more about her. Or about Cindy McCain. I'm not opposed to having a more holistic view of the White House, because in all reality no decision gets made in isolation by the President. People will weigh in and offer opinions to him or her on subject matter and I want to know a bit about the people the President will turn to when faced with making decisions that matter to this country.

And yes, I think ultimately the current people running for President will make thier own decisions. But I think it's accurate to think that they will look for counsel and guidance and third-party opinions to ponder.

I don't like the advisors that influence decision making and policy now. Next time around, I want it to be better.

 

[wvrevy]

Outrage? Where? People are just asking why she's not releasing it.

We're on page 9 or 10 of a thread about it, John. I think it's safe to say there's a lot of pretend outrage on this thread.

There's no such thing.

And therein lies the problem, because I think just about anyone who is black would disagree.

 

[Charade]

We're on page 9 or 10 of a thread about it, John. I think it's safe to say there's a lot of pretend outrage on this thread.

Ah... pretend outrage. Gotcha!

And therein lies the problem, because I think just about anyone who is black would disagree.

I agree. People sometimes perceive "racism" when none exists.

 

[lillygator]

I think the difference with Michelle and the prior first ladies (when running) is that, there were no threatening factors with Laura Bush, etc. The hidden paper, regardless how old and how she may have changed, was her own first hand experiences with race and a white school and how she was treated and I am sure are a huge part of her life.

She has been plenty vocal on behalf of her husband and whereas the other former first ladies, may have had a say/influence with their DH, it may not have been near as strong as many percieve Michelle's to be.

 

[wvrevy]

Ah... pretend outrage. Gotcha!

Yes, pretend outrage. If secrecy was a problem, they'd have been up in arms against George Bush years ago.

I agree. People sometimes perceive "racism" when none exists.

And people sometimes use racist or racially insensitive language without realizing they are doing so.

 

[lilyv]

I think the difference with Michelle and the prior first ladies (when running) is that, there were no threatening factors with Laura Bush, etc. The hidden paper, regardless how old and how she may have changed, was her own first hand experiences with race and a white school and how she was treated and I am sure are a huge part of her life.

She has been plenty vocal on behalf of her husband and whereas the other former first ladies, may have had a say/influence with their DH, it may not have been near as strong as many percieve Michelle's to be.

Threatening? I just wish there was a sense of fairness. We need to leave spouses alone. They aren't fair game.

Do we really need to read a paper to get an idea of what it was like to be an African-American minority at her college? She went on to law school, married, and has two children. I'm thinking her children are a "huge" part of her life.

If the 23 year old paper concerns you, vote for Huckabee, McCain or Clinton.

I'd love to know who the worriers are supporting, and why they aren't worried/nervous about their spouse.

 

[smartestnumber5]

There's no such thing.

Huh? Do you think the disciplines of sociology and psychology are just completely bunk then (the people who actually do the research seem pretty sure there is such a thing as unconcious racism!)? Or is this a semantics thing (you just call it "racism" when it's conscious and "smacism" when it's unconscious)?

There have been many studies in which they will try to see whether employers making hiring decisions, editors deciding whether to publish papers, academic chairs looking over CVs of aspiring professors, etc. have different standards based on race or sex.

In one study they took the same resume and sent it out to various employers (who were advertising openings)--some of the resumes with "traditionally black sounding names" and some with "traditionally white sounding names." The resumes with black names were 50% less likely to get a callback. A second study on the same topic found that they had to send out 1.5 times as many resumes with black names than resumes with white names to get 1 call back.

Scholars have noticed that when a top academic journals change their practices to blind-review (so that the editors cannot see the name of the author) of submitted papers the number of papers authored by women that were published in that journal immediately leaped upwards.

(Assuming these studies are well-designed and have been confirmed with similar studies), what are we supposed to make of the results? You don't really think that all of these employers are thinking "I hate black people. I'm not calling this person with a black-sounding name back" do you? The authors of the studies certainly don't think so. The very point of the studies is to show that unconscious racist and sexist prejudices play a huge part in ongoing race and sex differences in education and employment. Aren't these phenomena obvious instances of unconscious racism/sexism?

 

[gina2000]

The reality is that the Obama gurus think that this thesis is harmful to the campaign or it wouldn't be surpressed.

So I'm interested in knowing what's in it. Who wouldn't be based on their action?

I just don't care for suppression tactics. And since one has come to light, I'm going to question it. And since it came to light BEFORE it became an issue, that suggests that Obama campaign managers were and are concerned about the contents of the paper.

And yes, I'd question anyone from any party on this. And yes, it does matter. It is the suppression, the twisting and turning, the maneovering that makes me angry. I don't care what she wrote....I do, however, care about the obvious manipulation.

 

[lilyv]

The reality is that the Obama gurus think that this thesis is harmful to the campaign or it wouldn't be surpressed.

So I'm interested in knowing what's in it. Who wouldn't be based on their action?

I just don't care for suppression tactics. And since one has come to light, I'm going to question it. And since it came to light BEFORE it became an issue, that suggests that Obama campaign managers were and are concerned about the contents of the paper.

And yes, I'd question anyone from any party on this. And yes, it does matter. It is the suppression, the twisting and turning, the maneovering that makes me angry. I don't care what she wrote....I do, however, care about the obvious manipulation.

Lots of anger there. Why? She's not the candidate. Who are you supporting?

If it's Clinton or McCain, neither has released their tax returns. These are "supression" tactics. It's "obvious manipulation" that they are withholding real information from the public.

A paper written by a spouse is irrelevant. Refusal as a candidate to give complete information on where your income is derived is "witholding real information" from the public.

I'm just amazed folks will spend pages worrying about an old college paper of a spouse, while ignoring the tax return issue of two actual candidates.

 

[gina2000]

Lots of anger? Absolutely not. Just poking at a very interesting conundrum and making some observations. For the record, I don't care to be manipulated by anyone IRL or the political arena.

BTW, how do you know I'm not interested in Clinton's and McCain's tax returns and their suppression? You're assuming that I'm not.