The Sickening Mouth Breathers on the Right Will Always Attack Michelle Obama

Ramesh Ponnuru's gig as a thread-starting hate-monger for the TALK section of the washingtonpost.com's discussion area should be over after this entry.

Senator Obama says the criticism of his wife is “infuriating.” Over the weekend the Washington Post ran the 700th and 701st article deploring the existence of the critics without bothering to listen to them.

During the Democratic presidential primaries, Mrs. Obama said that her husband's so-far successful run for the presidency was the first time as an adult that she felt proud of her country. She said that America is "just downright mean." She said that her husband is "never" going to let us go back to our apathetic and ignorant lives. She complained about having to spend "$10,000 a year on piano and dance and sports supplements and so on and so forth" (she said this in a county where the median income, as of 2004, was $37,000). She said that the Obamas are asking young people not to go into corporate America.

Her defenders almost never mention those last two comments, since they don't play into the storyline they're selling: that Mrs. Obama is being criticized because she is an outspoken black woman.

Given the comments she has made, it would be remarkable if people weren't criticizing her. Her combination of bitterness, ingratitude, anti-Americanism, leftism, and, yes, elitism rubs a lot of people the wrong way. (Her hostility to men, as evidenced in this 2004 interview, is unpleasant, too.)

What's your take?

UPDATE: Following the suggestion of a colleague at the Post, I have edited the above to indicate when Mrs. Obama made these statements. This colleague also points out that the Post articles I mentioned above were directed more at The New Yorker's infamous cover than at Mrs. Obama's conservative critics. That's a fair point. But since that cover cartoon was intended as a commentary on the conservative critics, and the Post articles used it to talk about public perceptions of Mrs. Obama and black women generally, it would have been nice if actual conservatives' perspectives had been engaged.

If actual conservatives still existed, they certainly wouldn't be attacking Michelle Obama, now would they? The "actual conservatives" who were around twenty years ago had some fucking decency, at least, and some intellectual honesty.

Ponnuru's "update" was actually someone biting his head off for being a dishonest hack--he knew the smears he wanted to perpetrate through this medium and he launched them without context or shame. As parents, my wife and I have costs for daycare, dance lessons, field trips and other activities for our children. We base what we pay on what we make. If we were Senator and lawyer, we'd probably pay exactly what the Obamas pay because, umm, that's what you do. And I will guaran-fucking-tee you that neither the Obamas nor us, nor the vast majority of Americans, runs up $500,000 in a month on the American Express card.

This is how the right wing is going to mount their litany of smears and attacks on Michelle Obama--by staying just under the radar to use "forums" and "talk" and "The Corner" so that they can keep their hands clean. It's dishonest and nasty, and no one should just roll over and take it. Ponnuru is a dishonest smear merchant who will use whatever means he can grasp in order to smear Michelle Obama.

--WS

Enough Phony Outrage For One Day

When you read things like this, you wonder if Hanson isn't about to burst into tears after he writes something as overwrought as this:

(Barack Obama said this to Glamour magazine)

"It's infuriating, but it's not surprising, because let's face it: What happened was that the conservative press—Fox News and the National Review and columnists of every ilk—went fairly deliberately at her in a pretty systematic way...and treated her as the candidate in a way that you just rarely see the Democrats try to do against Republicans."

And that's where Hanson cuts Obama off. Fair enough. Here's the rest of Obama's thought:

And I've said this before: I would never have my campaign engage in a concerted effort to make Cindy McCain an issue, and I would not expect the Democratic National Committee or people who were allied with me to do it. Because essentially, spouses are civilians. They didn't sign up for this. They're supporting their spouse. So it took a toll. If you start being subjected to rants by Sean Hannity and the like, day in day out, that'll drive up your negatives.

Everybody who knows Michelle knows how extraordinary she is. She's ironically the most quintessentially American woman I know. She grew up in a "Leave it to Beaver" family. She is the best mother I know. And our kids are a testimony to that, because she's really had to raise them, oftentimes without me being there. She's the most honest person I know, she's smart, she's funny, so yeah, it infuriates me. And I think that it is an example of the erosion of civility in our political culture that she's been subjected to these attacks, and my attitude is that the people who have attacked her in the ways that they have...if they've got a difference with me on policy, they should debate me. Not her.

Now that you know the context of the answer--whereby, Obama all but demands that the attacks on Cindy McCain either stop or not be undertaken by anyone affiliated with his campaign--you can see why Hanson dishonestly cut off Obama's answer. So now we get the phony outrage of a man so desperate to find something to hold on to, you'd think he was coming unglued:

But this is disingenuous. First, Ms. Obama is the recipient of almost continuously positive attention and press coverage in the network news. In CNN's comparative profiles of the candidates, it dwelt on her accomplishments, while focusing on Ms. McCain's problems with prescription drugs, her privileged status, the circumstances of her meeting John McCain, etc.

Second, Ms. Obama, not on the prompt of the National Review, chose to play a highly partisan role, and, furthermore, publicly to indict American culture and life on the basis of her newfound prominence and exposure as a wife of a candidate, all in a way none of the other spouses of candidates in either party did with the exception of Bill Clinton — who not surprisingly was equally cross-examined.

These are things that I have simply never heard nor have I ever seen--have you? I mean, she went on The View and people loved her. She meets with people, and she talks about family issues--she leaves the AK-47 at home, obviously.

We're to expect the wife of a Presidential candidate to say nothing and hide in the background? I don't think Michelle Obama has said or done anything differently from that of Cindy McCain--and NEITHER of them approach the levels of partisanship we saw from Bill Clinton in the primary process. Not that that's bad--but Bill was far more political, for obvious reasons--he was the President of the United States, for God's sake.

Most observers, after all, will take offense when told by a potential First Lady that their country heretofore is not the sort of place to inspire pride, or is downright mean, or its people usually "uninvolved and uninformed". Most of us either did not know of Michelle Obama, or, to the extent we did, had a favorable opinion of her as a successful wife, mother, and highly educated and experienced career professional—until in a series of "raise the bar" sermons, she let loose a barrage of indictments against American culture.

Really, Mr. Hanson? Then why did the father of President Bush stand before the American people with the intention of distancing himself from Ronald Reagan and ask for a "kindler, gentler nation?" Amnesia sets in when we start trying to gin up phony outrage.

Once again the pattern proves the same: the Obamas spontaneously offer biting fundamental critiques on the unsoundness of American life and culture, from the important to the silly—whether our national temperament, or our supposed inability to speak a foreign language, or our diet, etc—and then the Senator recoils in anguish and hurt when any of the targets suggests that they are both wrong in their indictments and not especially the sort who can make the case America has been mean or unfair to its citizens.

Here's President Bush calling for more physical fitness and a healthier lifestyle--it's what Presidents do. And here he makes a fool of himself addressing the Italian prime minister in Spanish--now, do you think it would be wise to emphasize a little learning and accomplishment in this regard?

It is the duty of all journalists to call Obama on his double-standard on every occasion he draws upon it, since we are seeing a dangerous messianic quality in which anything short of the accustomed adoration becomes "infuriating" and a sort of exemption from cross-examination on an always expanding array of topics is demanded.

I don't see adoration--I see smears and lies, mostly. The only "adoration" one sees comes when the press attends a barbecue at one of John McCain's seven homes.

If You Have Nothing Invested in Any of This, Of Course it's Funny to You

This is typical of many of the reactions to the Obama cover from the New Yorker--Ann Althouse spends a portion of her day mocking the outrage:

And Kevin Drum is all at first I thought it was kinda funny....

But at the risk of seeming humorless, that reaction didn't last too long. Maybe it's because this kind of satire just doesn't work, no matter how well it's done. But mostly it's because a few minutes thought convinced me it was gutless. If artist Barry Blitt had some real cojones...

What is this fascination with balls? Jesse Jackson wants to cut Obama's, which presumes their existence. Michelle Malkin thinks they don't exist. Kevin Drum thinks they don't exist on Blitt — they've been oblitterated — though they may somehow exist in fake — or un-Spanish — form. But if Blitt had had real cojones...

... he would have drawn the same cover but shown it as a gigantic word bubble coming out of John McCain's mouth — implying, you see, that this is how McCain wants the world to view Obama. But he didn't. Because that would have been unfair.

Uh... no... because it would have been absurdly cluttered, stupid looking, and hard to draw. Not to mention clunkily literal and no fun at all. Blitt lacks balls because he assumes we have brains?

There's no context provided in the illustration. It's just the Obamas, with stereotypes and smears, and no context is provided. That's why the reaction has been so visceral. Many people have claimed a kind of phony omniscience, as in, "oh, I got it, it was funny, I wasn't taken aback." No, sorry--it's a classic example of being too clever by half while forgetting to make a point. Shock without context is sensationalism. People are so scared of being portrayed as un-hip, they'll say anything after the fact, or just keep quiet about it.

Funny things appear every day, but when something is unfunny to people because they see it as a smear, a confirmation of stereotypes, or the repeating of lies told to win elections, they get a little edgy and upset about it.

Now, funny is the idea Althouse believes her own lost and wandering ideas. She thinks it's amusing to watch the outrage--that's because, despite whatever affiliation she tries to identify herself with to deflect criticism, she has nothing invested in the success of Barack Obama and everything invested in having things be amused with. She has nothing invested in fixing what the Bush Administration has been frantically breaking for the last seven and a half years. It's entertaining to her--she's practically in the last throes of withdrawal at the idea this might stop.

--WS

No, It's Not Satire--it's a Smear

Well, this isn't even remotely funny:

The Obama campaign is condemning as “tasteless and offensive” a New Yorker magazine cover that depicts Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in a turban, fist-bumping his gun-slinging wife.

An American flag burns in their fireplace.

The New Yorker says it's satire. It certainly will be candy for cable news.

The Obama campaign quickly condemned the rendering. Spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement: “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

It's the kind of smear that falls flat. These are two people who, for lack of a better way to describe it, are far more representative of how real Americans live their lives than, I dunno...John and Cindy McCain? For starters, the Obamas can use computers and go to soccer games.

When do we get to see the cover with McCain, red-faced and enraged, with a cartoon bubble next to his mouth, calling Cindy a cunt as she pops pills in one of their seven homes and racks up $500,000 on the AMEX? Better yet, let's not see that. No one needs this kind of garbage. Plus, Michelle Obama's hair is fantastic--the depiction of her hair on this cover is the outrage of the week.

--WS

Michelle Obama at UMKC, July 10, 2008

Michelle Obama came to Kansas City today to hold a round-table discussion and talk with working women about economic (in)security. The panel consisted of Mrs. Obama and five area women who are struggling with this republican-caused disaster of an economy, and she took questions from the audience after. Every time an audience member gave back the microphone, so many hands shot into the air that had she answered them all, we would still be there, and I am getting to this seven hours later.

Wow. What an engaged and engaging speaker. She is smart, funny, quick-witted and savvy. She is impressive in her own right, and Senator Obama is a lucky man to have woman like her as his partner. I think she will be a terrific first lady who will use her position to bring attention to vital domestic issues. She could do a lot simply by doing what she did today, all over the country, for the first two years of her husbands administration.



The doors opened at 9:00 for the 10:00 event, and it was pretty cool to sit over in the press pen and watch as the mostly-female crowd filled the room in minutes.



The time lapse between these two pictures was about three or four minutes.





And this one was taken about ten minutes before the program got started.


The event started on time, and Mrs. Obama was introduced by Missouri State Auditor Susan Montee, who was one of the first of Missouri's Democratic elected officials to get behind Obama - She endorsed him one year ago today.



Mrs. Obama spoke for about fifteen minutes, then the panel discussion got underway with five area women who are all playing the game by the rules and falling behind. She spoke about her early life, growing up in a working-class environment, her father worked for the city and her mother raised Michelle and her brother. And today, a man like her father can't keep up and can't make ends meet on one salary.

She also talked about her husbands early years and his mothers struggles to complete her education and the fact that she had to rely on food stamps at times to put food on the table for Barack and his sister. She tells us that her husband understands the struggles of women, and the way she tells it, I believe her. His grandmother, now in her eighties, was a pioneer. She was the primary breadwinner in their home, starting her career as a secretary in a bank and working her way up to a senior executive position - and heard the thud when she hit the glass ceiling. He understands what women deal with because he has spent his entire life in the company of strong women who dealt.

After her prepared remarks,she took a seat with the roundtable panel. The participants were, going clockwise clockwise, Sister Berta of Operation Breakthrough (no serious conversation about poverty takes place in this town without her input), next to Sister Berta is Michelle Vitale. Following on around, that is Leanna Templeton at the right edge of the frame, and seated next to her is Sheila Johnson. Next to Ms. Johnson , being miked up in this picture, is Rebecca who didn't give her last name.

Each and every one of these women has a compelling story, and frankly I will more than likely come back to the well once more on this and get into the details of the conversation and the specific struggles of the women on the panel and the people in the audience.


She worked the rope-line for quite a long tiome, taking the time to stop and speak with everyone who waited patiently. I think at least as many people got hugs as handshakes, and the Secret Service guys almost seemed chagrined that she is so intent on interacting so intimately with the crowds.

***************
Yes, I am back on-line. I picked up the computer this afternoon but I had to spend several hours reinstalling software and reactivating installed copies. Regular blogging resumes tomorrow.

Thanks for the patience - and the help with the trip. I was telling Warren just yesterday that we have the best readers in the entire blogosphere. We are your fans, too.

~BG