<p>Geez, don’t you get that she was trying to make the point that is NOT what America should be? She was CHALLENGING her audience (young college students) to rise up past that, insinuating that they were using their comfort level ("[that’s</a> America](<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony]that’s">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony)") as a way of continuing their own habits. I didn’t have to listen to the whole 8 minutes, because that statement came immediately after she said something about the students being at a richly diverse campus and not taking advantage of it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Kluge,</p>
<p>What is it about…
–“excellent”
–“clever”
–“wonderful”
–“smart”
–“impressive and nice to hear”</p>
<p>…that offends you so in my post?</p>
<p>You see, I do not worship politics; I casually offer my 2 cents and I vote. I am often wrong…I find. But that’s it. </p>
<p>And as you must know --having combed through my posts for repeated critiques these past weeks, ad nauseum-- I am for Senator Obama in this election. I believe he is the best choice and best man for the job at this time: but for president, not prophet nor for spiritual leader of America …not even liberal icon. Don’t care about it. I am not thrilled on my tip-toes, I just thing he is the best choice. </p>
<p>Similarly, Michelle, to me, is neither a guru nor a saint nor the beloved spouse of same; she is merely a brilliant woman who struggled against great odds to become a wonderful, successful and thoughtful human being that seems to inspire a great many of us, like her husband, at just the right time; yet some of us with this or that caveat in so doing. I am one of the latter. </p>
<p>It is not apostasy; it is a difference in view or of opinion on this or that political point.</p>
<p>To me, I do not need to adopt Michelle or Barack’s every word as gospel to believe that she or he is a good person with good ideas for America. I think she would agree, even if a few of her supporters are troubled by this all to casual appreciation of an exceptional woman. </p>
<p>As for beer swilling, pizza eating, cigarette smoking, joint toking young adults living on their parents dime: they are real. </p>
<p>Be on the look-out. </p>
<p>.</p>
<p>Woodwork:</p>
<p>I agree with you totally, except for the “beer swilling…” I know lots of young people are like that. I just don’t know them. My S’s 5 roommates plus friends have been in and out of my house this summer. The only thing on your list I’ve seen them do is eating pizza. Two of them celebrated their 21st birthday last month, and neither did so by getting drunk. </p>
<p>But I agree with you regarding the Obamas. They do not walk on water, they can and–should–be scrutinized and criticized, like anyone else.
Specifically, about Michelle Obama’s speech, I thought it was remarkable that a woman who had written her senior thesis about self-segregation at Princeton should exhort African-American students to get out of their comfort zone and mingle with non-AAs. She knows how difficult that can be, but also how necessary. I thought it was a good speech.</p>
<p>Absolutely, the Obamas should be scrutinized and criticized like anyone else. And no one – starting with John McCain – should be subjected to the kind of pseudo-scrutiny and pseudo-critique I see in thread after thread about Obama here. For all the whining conservatives do about “political correctness”, I’ve never encountered anything to match StickerShock’s reaction to this speech, in which the ONLY thing that possibly matters is that a premise for one of the rhetorical devices is that “America” isn’t perfect (even if in a way no one could possibly argue that it was perfect), and that makes Michelle Obama unacceptable as a President’s wife.</p>
<p>I don’t like this kind of crap when Obamaites do it, either. Which they do, on occasion. It really impoverishes American political discourse.</p>
<p>It irritates me that many Obama supporters seem to be automatically considered Obama worshippers. I don’t worship Obama nor his wife. I don’t doubt that they have made mistakes and will make mistakes in the future. But I admire them and I believe they can be good for America in a way McCain won’t. That doesn’t make me a worshipper, or a starry-eyed groupie and similar accusations by the right only show how shallow and frustrated Republicans have become of late.</p>
<p>I didn’t drink the kool-aid, either, yet I somehow manage to support Obama. :)</p>
<p>Hopefully, as the campaign continues and more is revealed about McCain’s substantial record of Public Service, vast catalogue of knowledge, and many examples of solid, pragmatic & dependable judgement, you all will come around to voting for the “tried and true” of John McCain in this election!</p>
<p>Even you, Hindoo!</p>
<p>Sorry, bz. Nothing has to be “revealed” about McCain that way. To anyone who’s been paying attention, he’s pretty much a known commodity. I like McCain a lot, and I trust him infinitely more than I trust the current administration. I completely believe that if John McCain had been President for the past eight years, the country would be much better off now.</p>
<p>That said, he’s a conservative Republican who will still have to pander to a base I fundamentally abhor. He has chosen – honorably, but wrongly, in my view – to ally himself to current Bush Administration policies rather than emphasizing his differences with them. And his substantial record of public service doesn’t include a whole lot more executive management than Obama’s. He has always been a maverick loner who doesn’t play particularly well with others. Things broke perfectly for him in the Republican primaries – he went from also-ran to presumptive nominee in a heartbeat when Romney, Huckabee, the even loonier right, and the ghost of Giuliani managed to cancel each other out – but he hasn’t shown a whole lot of ability to manage his party, much less the nation, and there have been some revolving doors in his campaign staff. (Things broke well for Obama, too, obviously. It’s not that his record is so much better than McCain’s, but it’s not worse, either.) Plus – sorry – he’s at the edge of being really old, and I think the fact that he has never learned even to use e-mail shows what a bizarre bubble he’s lived in for the past decade.</p>
<p>So, I’ll tell you what I tell the pollsters who call pretty frequently these days. I have a positive impression of John McCain. There’s a chance that I will vote for him . . . if Hell freezes over.</p>
<p>This voter will not “come around” to vote for an elderly, anti-choice, pro-tax-cuts-for-the-rich hawk showing early signs of Alzheimer’s.</p>
<p>
An important point, Marite. I’m glad you picked that out. I missed it first go-round.</p>
<p>Sill, I am a bit put off by the savaging of **Stickershock **in this thread.</p>
<p>Her point is legitimate, even if others do not accept it in the context of their politics. I thought Michelle’s speech was a very, very good speech --extraordinary, in fact. Also consider Marite’s point that she’s been there before herself when she was the student not the teacher… I was impressed and even moved by it. Michelle is able to convey a great deal of sincere emotion in her speaking. It’s a gift.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, like Stickershock I was also struck by the “It makes you feel justified in your ignorance. That’s America” …barb, early on in the speech. </p>
<p>Clearly, Michelle Obama knows that of which she speaks and she knows how to say it. What she said, as **JHS **implies, is that ***“America” isn’t perfect (even if in a way no one could possibly argue that it was perfect).” ***That way would be “ignorant”. Which is, I suppose, another way of saying “imperfect,” as JHS says; however, a very lazy and harsh way to say something so obvious and true of all nations (imperfection – not ignorance) that it goes without saying…usually. </p>
<p>Expectations are too high.
If Dan Quayle said the same we would simply say, but of course. He’s dumb. We expect less (“potato” aside). No one would hold Laura Bush to the same high rhetorical standard as Michelle Obama. Neither would they hold Cindy McCain. But then, Cindy McCain and Laura Bush are not sold as being so very “intellectual,” or “really, really smart” by their supporters in the same way that Senator and Ms Obama or by theirs. It’s part of their brand. It’s all over this forum. Rightfully so, too.</p>
<p>Great and inspiring speech; Poor choice of words in one sentence.
I agree with Stickershock on this final point.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>As quoted here, isn’t it clear that what she’s saying is that the “that’s America” conclusion comes out of a feeling of justified ignorance, which is nevertheless ignorance. It seems obvious, to me, anyway, from the quote that “that’s America” is meant to be a quote in itself–in other words, you might feel this way, now move on–not that she herself is stating it.</p>
<p>I don’t need to feel veiled dislike of SS for her politics; in fact I don’t at all–I like her very much-- to nevertheless feel that she is in this case reading the quote wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you WILL vote for a politically immature, pro-tax-on-the-Middle Class, novice whose policies include that babies born alive during an abortion ahould be put in a storeroom & left to die?</p>
<p>:confused:</p>
<p>There is an important difference between the statements “One encounters ignorance in America” and “All one encounters in America is ignorance”. The first acknowledges that ignorance is part of the the mix in American life. The second characterizes America as ignorant. In the context of her whole speech, and in the context of her whole life, I don’t see any fair reading of Obama’s speech that resolves what little ambiguity it had in favor of the second reading.</p>
<p>Also, let’s be fair about her use of the word “ignorance”, which after all was directed not at America, but at her audience. Ignorance can have a spectrum of meanings, ranging from mere lack of good manners, to malevolent denial of truth. Again, she was using the word at the gentle end of its spectrum – in a way that she might well have substituted “inexperience”.</p>
<p>There’s a deep cynicism at work here. The underlying message of StickerShock and her cronies is that of course 99% of what Michelle Obama (and by extension her husband) says is an outright lie calculated to snooker the American people. It’s only by chopping up her discourse into little bite-sized pieces and examining each shorn of its context that we discover a few nuggets that supposedly reveal her true ideology, diametrically opposed to what she has been saying at length.</p>
<p>
Perhaps there is, but Michelle Obama said neither of the two. </p>
<p>Her words were clearly stated and do not need restating by clever exegesis. </p>
<p>It’s true that her statement, or anyone else’s --say Hillary’s or Bills in SC-- can be interpreted a number of ways that would make them out to be… say “racist” or “America hating” or --drum roll-- run-o-the-mill politicians. </p>
<p>Your two interpretations of Michelle’s actual statements amount to exactly two interpretations. Stickershock’s is a third. There are more (mine for instance is a fourth). But we all have the benefit of listening to her actual words; no ventriloquism necessary. </p>
<p>On the other hand, saying “The underlying message of StickerShock and her cronies is that of course 99% of what Michelle Obama (and by extension her husband) says is an outright lie calculated to snooker the American people” barely rises to the level of fair argument, let alone honest interpretation. I cannot take your statement to be at all representative of Stickershock’s views. </p>
<p>The underlying message?
Please.</p>
<p>How does this liberal mangling of someone else’s view square with someone who could thoughtfully say “I don’t like this kind of crap when Obamaites do it, either. Which they do, on occasion.” </p>
<p>Yes, on occasion they do. </p>
<p>Very aggressively.
Like the Sharks and the Jets, these street fights always end poorly.</p>
<p>Characterize politicians, celebrities, dead people and Holy Writ as you will, but leave the “underlying message” and inner feelings of the actual people posting here to state in their own words. </p>
<p>Just my opinion. </p>
<p>.</p>
<p>bz2010 – what kool aid have YOU been drinking? Sheesh…</p>
<p>Woodwork, where did you find offense at you in my post? My comment on your earlier post was that it was bizarrely off-topic, not that it was offensive. Now I see a string of further posts, each indulging in increasing levels of arch, convoluted verbosity, coupled with near-random </p>
<p>line spacing</p>
<p>and *emphasis,
*
altogether creating the impression of a fast food diner smothering an order of fries with ketchup in hopes that it will make it more interesting.</p>
<p>What’s your point, Woodwork? I honestly have very little clue. (Oh, except that you think young people are slobs. Point taken. And you’re dissing Dan Quayle, who I thought got a raw deal, personally. Not sure of the relevance to Michelle Obama, though.) I generally refrain from taking offense when I have no idea what someone is trying to say, so -</p>
<p>I’m really not offended at anything you wrote. 
Honest.</p>
<p>
Thanks, WW.</p>
<p>I believe words mean something. Had Michele Obama sid “That’s NOT America,” she’d have earned a thumbs up from me. She sees ignorance & fear as American traits. I completely disagree. As I said, she is a crepe hanger. Contrary to what JHS believes, I don’t have to chop “up her discourse into little bite-sized pieces” to find objectional tidbits. There is negativity as an obvious undercurrent in many of her statements. Did you see Obama’s answer to the seven year old girl asking why he is running? More crepe hanging.</p>
<p>“Savaging” of StickerShock? Hardly. What we have here is rather shocked amazement on the part of most posters in this thread. StickerShock (who makes no secret of her considerable dislike of all things Obama) started a whole new thread in order to take a few words out of their clear and benevolent context in order to slime Michele Obama, and by extention, her husband. Honestly, how was StickerShock “savaged”? On the contrary, if anyone on this thread could have been said to have been “savaged”, it was Michele Obama.</p>
<p>Woodwork: Barack Obama devotes at least as much time as John McCain or George Bush to talking about how great America is – Michelle Obama somewhat less, to be sure. What then is it supposed to mean when StickerShock plucks out one phrase, two discrete words following 20 others that are fine on their own, from a 20-minute speech, pronounces herself disturbed, and offers it to the world with the implication that every right-thinking person ought to be disturbed, too? </p>
<p>In the course of that speech, Obama refers to America as a “great nation”. She says that the story of her father – hard working, dreams for his children – is the story of America. She talks about how much opportunity there is here, even in troubled economic times. She spends roughly half of the speech telling the students that democracy isn’t something to sit back and enjoy, that it requires personal engagement, personal contact with other citizens and empathy for them, hard work and sacrifice. She exhorts them to live their lives out of hope, not fear. She implicitly criticizes both the Bush Administration and gangsta rap culture for promoting fear rather than hope. She also talks a lot about how hard it is to borrow for education and to pay off the loans, but how that shouldn’t make you retreat from engagement with the world. There is a constant message that you may have encountered prejudice and suspicion, but that shouldn’t make you stop reaching out. That’s what the speech was about.</p>
<p>Now, StickerShock has the intellectual tools to analyze that speech and to specify what she agrees with and what she doesn’t. Based only on having read a great number of her posts, I suspect there’s probably about an 80% overlap between what she believes and what Michelle Obama was saying. I may disagree with Obama as much as StickerShock does, albeit about different things.</p>
<p>But StickerShock didn’t do that. Instead, she played “gotcha!” But the “gotcha!” is only important if you believe that it’s a glimpse of what Obama truly believes, as opposed to all the other completely admirable things she was saying at considerable length. She didn’t engage with what Obama was saying, she pointed to one tiny bit as uniquely revealing about Obama’s character and views. She deserves to be called out on that. </p>
<p>(Actually, it is pretty clear that StickerShock hadn’t listened to the speech at all. She was probably referring to a version that had been edited down to just that statement. She refers to the video as “undated”; if you listen to the speech, Obama starts by talking about the South Carolina primary “next week”, so the dating is not really in question. It doesn’t matter. StickerShock knew what she was doing.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>–No doubt.</p>