Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama
born: January 17, 1964
is it a sentiment you relate to? is it something you believe? i'm not sure its import, but it certainly was an unequivocal remark...
Thursday, February 21, 2008
what does it mean...?
"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction." February 18th, 2008.
Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama
born: January 17, 1964
is it a sentiment you relate to? is it something you believe? i'm not sure its import, but it certainly was an unequivocal remark...
Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama
born: January 17, 1964
is it a sentiment you relate to? is it something you believe? i'm not sure its import, but it certainly was an unequivocal remark...
Posted by
paul
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
LinkWithin
23 comments:
I had a little bit of a hard time listening to her say that as well.
The other day I read a 6 or 7 page bio on Michelle that Newsweek ran. I found some of her views on life to be very interesting. In the bio she talked about not being able to perform well on standardized exams, but was afforded the opportunity of attending Princeton for her undergrad and Harvard for law school because of affirmative action.
While attending both schools she felt like she was alienated from all the white students because she felt as though they looked at her as an affirmative action case.
Wouldn't being given the opportunity to attend harvard and princeton make one proud of your country? I understand how she may have felt while attending those institutions, but our country has come a long way in our treatment of minority groups.
is this jonny, mel or aaron speaking? i need to know how to tailor my response.
jonny
it's hard to know jonny. she belongs to two groups who have traditionally had many grievances with the traditional american establishment. real discrimination she has encountered in her lifetime is deplorable.
the unequivocal and pointed statement makes me think there is something more afoot. it would be distasteful to me if her position comes from an ivy league, intelligentsia's position of europhilic, self-deploring, socialistic stances. add more bureacracy and all the less-fortunate will be better off.
it will be fun to see what stephen has to say as he has been waiting for one of us to bite before making his first move.
so, my thought is that it is hard to know what she meant, but that i'm sorry if she has truly lived the 23 adult years with a shame and prideless emotion towards her country. if that is not just her opinion but her husband's as well, then it places a more ominous pale on their idea of change...
Sure seems pretty negative when compared to Obama's happy/cheery messages of change.
Makes me wonder what they talk about in the walls of their own home...
Also makes me wonder if McCain's supermodel wife has said anything of import lately...
Not impressed with the choices for First Lady/Man of the White house.
who are you people? it's just really hard to take you all seriously. it's a campaign. everything is recorded. it's a youtube world we live in. someone says something, it's recorded, and then people analyze the you-know-what out of it, and start extrapolating things out of thin air that just don't make sense.
secondly, michelle never said that she was ashamed of her county, nor did she say she was ungrateful to be american, nor did she say she was disappointed in America. let's not blow this out of proportion. what she said is that for the first time in her adult life she is really proud of her country. she didn't say that for all of her adult life she has been ashamed of her country, nor did she say that for her entire adult life she has never felt a little bit of pride in her country. what she did say was that she has never been really proud of it. really is modifying proud. perhaps at one time she could have been slightly or somewhat proud in her country. of course, now i've fallen into overanalyzing this thing.
Thirdly, michelle obama grew up on the south side of chicago. there are a lot of ways that america has failed the citizens of the south side of chicago, just as there are a lot of ways america has completely failed the neighborhood where I taught school. I italicize completely, because what is going on in much of the south bronx educational system is a complete and utter failure and gives me no reason to be proud of the american system. it makes me hungry for change.
paul, your blabber and extrapolation from this comment is unfounded. what are you talking about? what do you mean by "ivy league, intelligentsia's position of europhilic, self-deploring, socialistic stances?" it really just makes no sense and focuses on untrue stereotypes of the educated, liberal left and does not focus on policy issues.
also, how you come even close to the idea that she has lived her adult life full of shame towards america is really something else. pay close attention to what she said, watch the entire clip, read the entire transcript and then please try to make an informed judgement, rather than pull some rush limbaugh spin that jumps on top of anything, using the worst possible connotation to push your political agenda.
one more thing: how did you ever come up with the idea that her words (if also believed by obama, even with your extremely unsympathetic interpretation) give an ominous pale to their ideas of change? it is really hard to take you seriously. I only have to believe that you are baiting me.
jonny: maybe now finally michelle obama is seeing that our country is finally really opening itself up to treating minorities as equals, and this is what is really making her proud. on the south side of chicago, coming a long way in the treatment of minorities means very little if you have housing projects without a single white person, and schools still segregated.
amy: seriously? you wonder what they talk about in the walls of their home because of this little quote? how is it negative? if anything, it shows great optimism for the change that will occur.
stevie: great to hear from you!
isn’t the ‘youtube’ generation great? we get less script and more honesty. a more true look at people’s actual thoughts and feelings...
notice, my statement was guarded in its assessment. i prefaced everything with ‘it’s hard to know’ and ‘if she meant it this way’ and ‘it would be distasteful if’.
i appreciate that in your defense of you ultimately accepted that it took some contorting (‘over analyzing’) to explain away her comment.
so, on to your points. your starting out with “who are ‘you people’” was disconcerting as you over generalized unfairly about a group of conservative educated people—taking away from the policy issue at hand.
about her not being ashamed. my first response is that my statements about ashamed were prefaced with idea that my line of reasoning was one way to interpret her comments...certainly not exactly how she was feeling...
about her life in chicago and your time experiences in new york. you and i are in a quandry about this as we came to an interest head in our discussion over christmas when we began talking about the rich poor divide. there is a problem. it is shameful the excesses that are found at the top of the food chain in america. squeezing companies to get top dollar into the balance sheets rather than into the hands of its dedicated workers a problem. i don’t know what the answer is. i wish more business leaders would take the lead of warren buffet and bill gates in giving significant amounts back to the public. giving it in meaningful way (micro credit, needs based scholarships, money for inner-city health clinics and funding for medications etc). i think the capitalists, ceo’s, hedge fund managers, hollywood stars etc need to look at private, efficient solutions to societies problems and really give to these solutions. this all sounds idealistic, but i don’t understand where clinton is coming from when she says that she wants universal healthcare to become like medicare and social security. social security is headed for a colossal crash, and it’s not hard to see why. hand your money over to a bureaucrat and he will find a way to spend it during his tenor to get votes.
but i digress into what became a disjointed and tortuous attempt at my plea for more compassion with less bureaucracy—a pipe dream?
my blabber was intended as supposition regarding michelle obama.
incidentally, in searching for the transcript of her class warfare rallying cry i found a speech from her that i found touching and well written here
anyway, please don’t pretend that america’s ivy league schools aren’t rife with groupthink that is peddled as the religious truth.
finally, as i said once before stevie. a way to judge someone is best done by examining their life’s actions—not by reading what they say about themselves on a website. obama has one of the most liberal voting records in the senate. it is clear where he stands in his party. his ideas about change are timely and important. i’m just worried that the data we have about his today means that he would pushes taxes and entitlements as an excuse for a solution. i don't think entitlements are all bad, and i think bill clinton was a great example of someone who walked the middle ground and fostered economic growth while lifting up the lower echelons to a better place. now it is true that the president’s place is often about posturing, speeches and vetoes. he’s good at speaking, he’s good at posturing. we could certainly use a president on the international front who is articulate and thoughtful...
for instance, barack has done very little in the way of actual legislation during his tenure. i love the image of bill clinton staying up till all hours hammering out details of proposals and really investing in the minutiae. the devil is always in the details.
you like to make conclusions prematurely about my stance in regard to about the obama movement. i find things to love about what they represent and what they are doing. i still think they are a risk and we know very little about them. even on npr today, i heard a piece about how the commentator likes to have his candidate tested in the primaries before reaching the general election. he mentioned the royal treatment from the media as a guy that is easy to like, ‘a uniter, not a divider’, fun to be with and good to talk with. the commentator ended by concluding that was how bush was elected and that hopefully things won’t turn out equally partisan and inept as when he took office. i’m not saying it will, but i’m saying we lack sufficient information to make an informed decision...
I don't really want to get into this.
but using Paul's by their fruits (not their words) to judge them, I would point jonny, paul, and amy to michelle obama's career decisions. again and again she gave up higher paying jobs to help the less fortunate. so more than anyone else in the campaign (even her husband), she had LIVED up to ganhdi's challenge to BE the change you want to see in the world.
in my mind, michelle obama is THE most honorable person involved in any if the campaigns hands down, irrespective of that comment I. whichever room you spin it.
that's all I have to say on this subject.
forgive the many typos.
that what happens when you comment on an iPhone.
thank you peter. more to the point is that my original post was not making a judgement on the comment...it was asking for yours.
and like the speech i pointed to earlier, i have found much to like about michelle.
the only problem with playing the class warfare card is the incongruous nature of the obama's duel income, multi-millon dollar net-worth and million dollar estate. i don't begrudge them the money, but it would have been possible to amass that fortune most places in the world...america's current policies and atmosphere has gotten them to where they are...despite growing up in the south-side of chicago, she was able to rise where she is because of hard work and initiative. it is hard to say that what she acheived came because of handout (aside from need based scholarships that i agree with).
paul.
I don't know how you suck me into a debate I really don't want to engage in, so I'll be brief.
the obama's didn't get out of debt (think of student loans from Princeton and harvard) until they got money from his best seller "audacity of hope." (only published a couple years ago in 2006) so don't be too quick to write them off as your run of the filthy rich folk.
petey: i did not say they are filthy rich...but they make more than most in the country, "According to the couple’s 2006 income tax return, Michelle's salary was $273,618 from the University of Chicago Hospitals, while he had a salary of $157,082 from the United States Senate. The total Obama income, however, was $991,296 including $51,200 she earned as a member of the board of directors of TreeHouse Foods, plus investments and royalties from his books."
student loans, as you know, are often the last to go because of their extremely low interest rates. there are some professionals who don't pay off their loans till close to retirement because they are paying on higher interest loans (house payment).
their salary is a separate issue...it is what it is.
i love the work the work she was involved with in chicago...it wasn't all 'low-paying' or 'pro-bono, public service' as you state (university of chicago hospiitals?)...but the time she gave to the community is admirable and is the type of change i would be interested in. private citizens creating change and creating solutions that actually work.
it is true that speaking in public is tough as you don't often know the full import of your words till you speak them aloud and have each syllable analyzed. however, the words remain self-revealing.
this husband wife couple is a couple i admire. i love their dedication to their family, i love the career choices they have made and i enjoy hearing them talk about much of it.
it is refreshing to see this in a couple in the public sector.
nevertheless, i know countless families who give the same importance and time to their families. they are self-less, thoughtful, dedicated to their families and the community.
these qualities are fairly common in mormon communities around the world. i doesn't make the average mormon a stellar candidate for president.
you would say most mormon couples are way too right wing...i would say i am worried this couple to far in left field.
but maybe over the course of the general election they will convince me that they can be moderate and realists. a difficult task when compared to the track record that john mccain has amassed over the years...
What do you think about this?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8637.html
jonny: huckabigot is more slimy and more loose with the truth than the last arkansas governor to grace america with his presidential bid.
President McCain has a nice ring.
dad: warmongering has a nice ring as well.
Ring around the collar?
Ring around the toilet??
dad f: you just got pwned by your daughter-in-law.
As do 'surge' and 'success.'
same with casualties, death, and destruction...
which was happening with abandon under Sadam
oh father. you're so silly. and so quick to forgive mccain. i'm not arguing with you about whether we should have gone in in the first place. I'm not arguing about the surge. i'm arguing about what should follow. we should begin to withdraw and give the iraqis some accountability and a reason to get their act together. that's all.
The recent legislative compromise would suggest that is what is happening.
Post a Comment