New Yorker Profiles Michelle Obama

The March 10, 2008 issue of the New Yorker has a very long profile on Michelle Obama. It's mostly a big puff piece, but I wonder what the evangelicals will make of this:

Barack had a more bohemian attitude toward romance. “We would have this running debate throughout our relationship about whether marriage was necessary,” Obama told me. “It was sort of a bone of contention, because I was, like, ‘Look, buddy, I’m not one of these who’ll just hang out forever.’ You know, that’s just not who I am.

He was, like”—she broke into a wishy-washy voice—“ ‘Marriage, it doesn’t mean anything, it’s really how you feel.’ And I was, like, ‘Yeah, right.’ ” Eventually, he proposed to her over dinner at Gordon, a restaurant in Chicago. “

< Clinton Conference Call: Live Blogging | 5th Anniversary of Iraq War Decision: Who Will Get Us Out? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Why do I find puffery so painful? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Fabian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:49:25 PM EST
    I attempted to read the article but gave up.

    Maybe if there was a puff piece on Bill Clinton, I could do a compare and contrast.

    "Don't hand me no lines... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by goldberry on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:03:37 PM EST
    and keep your hands to yourself"

    Cruel baby baby baby why you want to treat me this way
    you know I'm still your lover boy I still feel the same way
    that's when she told me a story 'bout free milk and a cow
    and she said no huggin no kissin until I get a wedding vow
    my honey my baby don't put my love upon no shelf
    she said don't hand me no lines and keep your hands to yourself

    Baby, baby, baby why you want to treat me this way?  
    You know I'm still your loverboy

    But why (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by BernieO on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:05:58 PM EST
    does she say these things? She seems to lack common sense about what is and is not appropriate.

    heh (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Nasarius on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:14:12 PM EST
    She also sounds utterly vapid in this quote. I'm sure she's not and it sounded okay when she was chatting with the interviewer, but jeez. It's cringe-worthy in so many ways.

    Not quite ready for prime time. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:14:54 PM EST
    However (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:21:21 PM EST
    She is very polished when compared to her brother, Craig:

    I asked Robinson about Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment. "He's straight up saying things that aren't true," Robinson responded. "And it was great, because Barack didn't go crazy. He just said, `Hey, we just have to say something when somebody says something that's blatantly not true.' No one's ever called those people on it." He went on, "Michelle and Barack's plan is to win this election. They can't be worried about what he says. I mean, you know, sometimes you get angry. But it's so ludicrous that it's almost comical. It really is. It really is. And the whole crying now before every primary? You've got to be kidding me. If I was a woman, I'd be embarrassed for her," he said of Hillary Clinton.

    On behalf of womankind, thanks.


    Does he get any slack because he's a (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:33:44 PM EST
    college basketball coach?

    Ummm........ (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by oldpro on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:48:17 PM EST
    ....which college and what's their W/L record?

    East coast, but I don't remember which (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:50:39 PM EST
    school.  Maybe Dartmouth?

    Brown University (none / 0) (#57)
    by ivs814 on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:08:57 PM EST
    Ah, no doubt one of those majors (none / 0) (#56)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:08:03 PM EST
    in "human kinetics."  (The latest euphemism for phy ed.)  

    This seems to be a family trait (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:25:30 PM EST
    air the family dirty laundry for all to see (she has all said that he's smelly and can't find the clothes hamper.  I know it's to "humanize" him and make him seem more like a "real guy", but there are things I don't need to know)

    So does that mean (2.00 / 1) (#63)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:27:39 PM EST
    you think it is time to bring out Roger Clinton for public examination again?  

    Personally I think it's time to start asking some serious questions about Obama's barber.  Clearly he hears a lot of that anti-America speech according to Obama.  Perhaps he too is poisoning the innocent and impressionable mind of Barack Obama.


    And like (none / 0) (#83)
    by Fredster on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:56:57 AM EST
    And he was like, and I was like...

    Puhleeze!  Is that how she would speak at a formal state dinner?  Like, unbelievable, ya know?


    Michelle Obama Wears Fur (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by KD on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:10:28 PM EST
    That's what I found out in the New Yorker piece, and that bothered me.

    If you lived in Chicago, (3.00 / 1) (#24)
    by scribe on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:23:32 PM EST
    you'd likely wear fur, too.

    I've been there in the winter when it was so cold, there was the better part of an inch of ice on the inside of the windshield in the morning, and that was after running the defroster for a half hour, full blast.

    Fur is useful in a climate that brutal.


    Down coats (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by stillife on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:38:02 PM EST
    are just as warm.  I grew up in Chicago and I never wore a fur coat.  

    Fur (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by KD on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:42:53 PM EST
    Fur is MOST useful to the animal who owns it. I don't appreciate it when people think it's OK to stick a probe up a mink's anus and electrocute him so that they can have a soft coat. Maybe that's just me.

    I'm even farther north, in a windier city (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:09:47 PM EST
    according to meteorologists -- and I don't wear fur.

    However, in many trips to Chicago, I can see that it's a status thing to do so there.   That's all.


    New York Governor's wife proudly (none / 0) (#54)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:51:46 PM EST
    wears fur to his swearing-in ceremony.

    Saw that... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by oldpro on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:13:03 PM EST
    I thought it, like...shocking.

    Not politically smart.  A politician's wife wearing fur will draw, like, the wrong kind of attention.

    Like, ditch the fur.  

    Like, even Pat Nixon knew that.

    Like, when did grownup, college-educated people begin talking like this???


    I've seen lots of fur wearing women in the NYT (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:51:07 PM EST
    style section; women walking on the sidewalks, carrying those really expensive and large handbags, wearing boots or sandals.  I think times have changed, or the presecution of some of the paint throwers has made it o.k. now.

    Nah (none / 0) (#77)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:51:01 PM EST

    it's never okay to wear fur nowadays.  Fake ones?  Sure, but then you'll confuse the paint-throwers.  

    Humans wearing real fur is as unnecessary as the dialogue in 10,000 B.C..  We've got other things to keep us warm now.


    I wear fur too (3.00 / 1) (#70)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:17:54 PM EST
    And so do lots of other women. So I'm not going to hold that against her. Wearing or not wearing fur is something about which reasonable individuals can disagree.

    She's an intelligent, accomplished woman.  She's not quite learned how to keep herself from saying things that will land with a political thud.  Not surprising. She'll get better at it.

    Of all the reasons that Obama is my second rather than first choice, Michelle Obama's wardrobe and occasional clunky statements are at the very bottom of the list.


    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:15:54 PM EST
    Yes Hillary is so conventional.  I mean, I remember when Abigail Adams was president.  It was shocking then, but today ... BORING.  I mean even when Eleanor Roosevelt was President, it was slightly scandalous, but now it's utterly passe.

    I read in some magazine (?) (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by zyx on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:23:46 PM EST
    where a woman said her preteen daughters were all gaga about Obama.  They asked whom she voted for and she said Clinton.  They asked why, and she said, for one thing, she thought she would like to have a woman president.  And they said, when was the last time we had a woman president?  (Okay, where DO these children go to school, huh...).  And she told them how very very long it has been, and they were just shocked, shocked, shocked!

    It sounded dumb when I read it, but the story will stick with me, nevertheless.


    It could be a good sign.... (4.00 / 1) (#65)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:44:20 PM EST
    not that kids don't know history, but that maybe to the daughters the sex (or race) of the candidate did not matter.

    Wouldn't that be something.


    "Last time we had a woman president" (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:10:22 PM EST
    suggests a sense of warm and fuzzy sense of history when there is definitely no such thing.

    As far as CNN goes, and I know this is wildly off-topic, but here's some quotes from a CNN article that you can read here Obama on Wright CNN

    "In some ways, this controversy has actually shaken me up a little bit and gotten me back into remembering that the odds of me getting elected have always been lower than some of the other conventional candidates," the Illinois senator told CNN's Anderson Cooper in an exclusive one-on-one interview.

    Obama declined to speculate on whether the controversy surrounding the Rev. Jeremiah's Wright's sermons may damage him politically, but said his campaign does best when it doesn't follow the "textbook."

    "If I was just running the textbook campaign -- doing the conventional thing -- I probably wasn't going to win because Sen. [Hillary] Clinton was going to be much more capable of doing that than I would be," he said. "We had tremendous success, and I think we were starting to get a little comfortable and conventional right before Texas and Ohio."

    To me a lot of this is just "once in a lifetime unity pony" spin that we've heard from him before but I think it's a bit strange to link it to Wright.  Including Wright as one of the many aspects of his campaign one might view as a far cry from the standard, such as his youth/inexperience, his grassroots organizing talents, his fundraising is not IMO appropriate.  Wright's heart might be in the right place but he made some seriously inappropriate comments.  Imagine Hillary speaking this way about Bill around the time of South Carolina.  I'm sure that would go over well.  "He's family."
    Let's get real.  I'm not going to protect Wright from his own stupidity.  I will protect Obama if he gets the nom but right now I think what he is saying, and has said about Wright, outside of his speech yesterday, has mostly been pretty glib.  "Glib" is not what I want to see.


    Sneaking in the digs (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by waldenpond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:40:49 PM EST
    at Clinton there wasn't he.  I would like hard-core Obama supporters to discuss him without referring to her and it has now occurred to me that I have been wishing Obama would talk less about himself and quit trying to swat at Clinton.

    You can read Michelle O's (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by zyx on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:30:48 PM EST
    Princeton senior thesis at Politico


    and then more linkies.

    pdf.  my poor computer hates that.  I did read one set of the four.  

    I know this is not nice (4.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Munibond on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:07:09 PM EST
    but I would be interested to hear what others at Sidley thought of Ms. Obama.  Three years and out at such a firm generally means things didn't work out.  Lucky for her she could get hired right away as assistant to the mayor.
    I had not read before that Mr. Obama clerked at Sidley.  Does anyone there have memories to share?

    Clearly a slow news day (3.00 / 1) (#25)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:24:42 PM EST
    Seriously, Jeralyn.  Are we really going to examine a 26 year old guy's views on marriage?  

    He's been married for 20 years without a hint of infidelity.  He seems to clearly love his wife.   I think his actions have pretty clearly proven his support for marriage.

    so... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:35:57 PM EST
    you're saying we shouldn't judge candidates on their history?  How far back would you like to go?  It seems five years suits you most days.

    What keen insights (4.00 / 1) (#31)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:49:50 PM EST
    About Obama can we draw from this piece?

    Yeah sure (2.00 / 1) (#33)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:56:12 PM EST
    that's what I'm saying.  Because I think it utterly silly to take an anecdotal quote by Michelle Obama and project it to mean that he doesn't believe in marriage when he has been married for 20 years, that means we should judge a candidate's history.

    Nice logical argument there.


    I meant to say (none / 0) (#34)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:56:32 PM EST
    we should NOT judge a candidate's history.

    when i read the article (none / 0) (#82)
    by nycstray on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:15:30 PM EST
    i thought the marriage comments showed another instance of lack of commitment/afraid to take a real stand or make a solid descision  ;)

    by you perhaps (3.00 / 1) (#38)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:07:47 PM EST

    Just what Obama said to Bill, Hillary (4.00 / 1) (#75)
    by TalkRight on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:11:31 PM EST
    and Ferraro until his pastor came to his rescue.

    I know this might be hard to believe (3.00 / 1) (#39)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:14:43 PM EST
    but Obama was considered an longshot to make any noise in this election.  

    Hillary has been the heir apparent for the Democrats since November of 2004.

    And it would have been better (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by zyx on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:31:11 PM EST
    for EVERYONE, including Himself, IMO, if he had run a respectable second or third and then gone back to his job and his plans B, C, and/or D to be president in 4 or preferably 8 years--because he might have the right stuff to be president, but I think he's green and needs a lot more experience making decisions and working with people and issues at the top.  And, also, showing people who he really is.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:37:40 PM EST
    I don't think that's true.  Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden were considered long-shots.  Obama got tremendous, largely positive press when he entered the race.  And it quickly was characterized as a two (or three if you count Edwards) person race by the media.  

    There was an acknowledgement that he had lower name recognition, but I don't think any analysis in February of 2007 (when he announced) would have said he was not expected to "make any noise".


    Well, he was "selected" by the MSM as (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by derridog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:11:37 PM EST
    one of the top candidates. They pretty much decide who is going to be crowned as "electable" and who not.  Why not Dodd or Biden or Richardson? All three of them have experience that puts Obama's in the shade.  

    Biden was actually put forward as the guy to beat when he ran in 1988 ( think it was) by the MSM.   But then he "plagiarized" the British politician, Neil Kinnock's speech  in only one instance (he had given him credit each time he'd earlier given the same speech but forgot once) and, because of this, he was ridiculed and drummed from the race.   Unfortunately, people now have no idea what plagiarism mean ( I know. I teach college).  Obama does it with impunity and all protests are diminished by the lefty blogs with the sneering words -  it's "the silly season," "Hillary plagiarizes too!"  "Everyone does it!"

    Boy, I sure wish Dodd or Biden or Richardson or Edwards was still in the race!


    Very little (none / 0) (#1)
    by Deconstructionist on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:31:30 PM EST
      I would imagine, because most people, even evangelicals (and her), recognize a line from a guy not wanting to commit and can distinguish it from not believing in marriage.

    Nice try though.

    Yeah, my husband tried that line out on me too (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:09:00 PM EST
    I had to give him the ol' ultimatum on my 29th birthday: by my 30th, we'd be married, or seeing other people.

    The proposal came two months later, assisted by my divine mother-in-law, who told him, "Don't screw this up."


    I lived with my wife (none / 0) (#84)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 07:32:27 AM EST
     for several years before I got the fish or cut bait demand.

    "evangelicals" (none / 0) (#79)
    by diogenes on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:11:45 PM EST
    Somehow I don't think that evangelicals are lining to vote for Hillary Clinton either.

    I can't bring myself to vote for Obama... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:32:32 PM EST
    but of the 3 stooges he seems by far the coolest.

    Doesn't really believe in marriage, hangs out with people who say radical sh*t, shoots hoops, plays poker, and smokes butts (or at least used to).

    All politics aside...my kinda guy!  Of the 3 stooges, I could stomach him the easiest.  Though a coolness endorsement from a knucklehead like me probably means he's cooked in a general election:)

    Lets see (1.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Jgarza on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:00:42 PM EST
    we have Obama was unsure about marriage versus Clintons marriage?  Wonder who comes out on top of that contest, or cheating with lobbyist John McCain.

    I perferred Shemp, too, for the (none / 0) (#4)
    by Joelarama on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:37:44 PM EST
    same reasons.  But America prefers Curley.

    It's America I'm worried about in this election, and I want a Democrat to be President.


    I prefer. . . (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:02:23 PM EST

    Larry... (none / 0) (#41)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:23:28 PM EST
    Did have the best hair

    I'm worried about America too my friend.... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:51:33 PM EST
    which is why I don't want a Democrat or Republican to be president.  At least any of the "electable" ones.

    This vicious cycle must end.


    I hear Nader is running. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Joelarama on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:13:11 PM EST
    I have to much to lose to go quixotic.

    I think... (none / 0) (#64)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:35:42 PM EST
    we've got nothing left to lose.

    Oh please. nt (none / 0) (#80)
    by Joelarama on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:22:05 PM EST
    Hey I don't have any kids.... (none / 0) (#85)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:44:18 AM EST
    I'm sure this republic will hold on through my lifetime...it's everybody else's kids I'm worried about.  

    We can't afford to play G.I. Joe anymore...the world has changed.  Globalization is forcing us to compete with people who will accept a far lesser quality of life than we will.  We simply cannot afford to have a military presence in 100-odd countries.  It's a new ball game.

    The Democrats and Republicans refuse to face these problems and make the hard decisions and tough choices.


    I think it is not uncommon (none / 0) (#5)
    by independent voter on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:40:48 PM EST
    for men and women to make statements like that when they are not ready to commit.
    What difference does it make? He's clearly devoted to her and his family, and they have been married many years.
    I would think that is very clear to everyone.

    I have something in common with (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:41:22 PM EST
    Barack Obama, an attitude about marriage.  But the evangelicals around here don't think much of me and my hairbrained ideas about what's okay and what isn't.

    evangelicals? (none / 0) (#9)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:51:41 PM EST
    Any evangelicals who would have a problem with him saying that wouldn't be voting for him anyway.

    The evangelicals that will vote for him won't have a problem with it.

    And I say that as a recovering evangelical.

    Anyone read the profile on his mother? (none / 0) (#11)
    by CST on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:54:58 PM EST
    Doesn't surprise me he would be more "bohemian" on this issue.  However, I think it's pretty obvious he's very devoted to his wife.  Given that McCain is divorced and Bill isn't exactly faithful, I think anyone is gonna have a hard time faulting him for being open minded about marriage when he was in his 20s.

    The Passionate Politician? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Chimster on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:14:38 PM EST
    Yeah, I was a bit like that too. I can't speak for others out there but my guess is alot of men are like that--wishy washy about marriage.

    But here's a hypothetical question: Did he marry her out of love or for some other reason? Was the flame there? Was it ever there?Michelle comes off as the person who wears the trousers and is the ultimate decision maker. The article says he proposed; but only after Michelle gave him an ultimatum ("I'm not one of these who'll just hang out forever").  If Barack returns to his bohemian ways if he's elected, I wonder if Michelle's consitent claim throughout the campaign that "if you can't run your own house, you can't run the White House" will be words that could come back to haunt her.

    Sorry, but... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Oje on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:39:43 PM EST
    This reads exactly like the wingnuttery about the Clinton's in the 1990s. This is why anti-Clintonism cannot be disassociated from anti-feminism. If Michelle Obama is a strong woman like Hillary Rodham Clinton is and was, it does not mean that she is the "ultimate decision maker" (do any nonabusive relationships ever reach such absolutes?). Obama is not a closet skirt-chaser or the presidential adulterer-in-waiting.

    Please, let's ween ourselves off the anti-Democratic sauce!


    it's only a hypothetical (none / 0) (#37)
    by Chimster on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:05:29 PM EST
    I know I shouldn't post hypothetical questions like this, but I know several female UDM's very well. I'm married to one. It is also why i want Hillary to be our nominee. Perhaps you read it like wingnuttery because I have negative feelings about Michelle (not Barrack) that keeps popping up when her name is mentioned. For that I apologize. It's my achilles heel.

    Yeah. I agree. I don't like Michelle Obama (none / 0) (#44)
    by derridog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:29:10 PM EST
    because of her lack of loyalty to the Democratic Party and willingness to say that she doesn't know whether or not she would support Hillary if H won the nomination. To me that seems incredibly arrogant that she is so casually willing to split the party out of spite.

    However, you are right about the strong woman meme being brought out by the rightwing.  This is how they tried to take Hillary down and how men try to take women down generally.   They imply that you are a ....breaker (can't say it on this blog), that you are abrasive, ugly and no man would want you and attribute all evil to you. ( Carl Jung referred to this as the evil side of the "anima" -- the male projection of evil within himself onto the female).  

    I've posted this before, but it's relevant to this thread.  About a month ago the WSJ published a piece on Michelle, claiming that she was the final decision maker in the family and that Obama's aides knew not to cross her. Then it showed her looking unattractive standing over Obama with her head on his shoulder, so that she looked in charge and he looked dominated.

    As an image-maker, I know this is how it's done. You have the visual backed up by the negative words -- just helping catapult that propaganda!


    Michelle comes with the package. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Chimster on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:45:13 PM EST
    Just as Bill will be part of Hillary's presidency, so is Michelle a part of Barrack's candidacy. Perhaps because Michelle is a strong-willed, strong-minded person, I read her quotes with great interest. But something, which I can't quite put my finger on, rubs me the wrong way with much of what she says. I can't recall her being warm or gracious (Yes, I have seen it with Hillary) and it just leaves me unimpressed. Maybe I should read the whole article in the New Yorker so I can warm up to her.

    I saw her on C-Span doing (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:48:45 PM EST
    a campaign presentation on her own in NH.  Quite impressive.  Some of her quotes; not so much.

    This past weekend... (none / 0) (#55)
    by oldpro on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:01:41 PM EST
    I saw it too and was transfixed.  She has become a very good speaker but I noticed two things:

    she didn't take in the crowd's reaction and respond to it politically, for when they clearly thought the speech was over and stood and cheered, she made them stop and sit back down so she could finish a verrry long speech...and,

    two...she looked very severe.  Her facial expressions were stony...no smiles...and her tone was lecturing and vaguely threatening somehow.

    It reminded me how little we know about these people and their real lives.  I'll read the profile...


    Yes, we know very little about either of the (none / 0) (#61)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:13:38 PM EST
    Obama's.  It really bothers me that the media has not vetted them.  They have been given the royal treatment.  I'm not asking them to go after them, just find out what they are about.  They were both involved in the Rezko deal, but we still don't know all the facts about that.  How does she feel about Rev Wright?  We don't know the answer to that either.  I can remember when Bill Clinton was first running and it seems to me we knew much more about him and Hillary than we do about the Obama's at the same point in time.  

    Obama speaks of transparency (none / 0) (#62)
    by Chimster on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:19:26 PM EST
    But, perhaps he's only referring to his political beliefs and not his personal life. I do know, however, he has smelly feet. Michelle let us in on that little tidbit.

    she isn't warm and gracious. (none / 0) (#66)
    by hellothere on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:56:58 PM EST
    that's the problem. open mouth insert siletto! she leaves me cold! and when you look at coretta scott king or some other ladies in the public eye, she doesn't compare well.

    Michelle is another Obama liability (none / 0) (#72)
    by Foxx on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:17:26 PM EST
    in the GE that people don't talk about. I don't think she is going to go over well.

    See above (none / 0) (#71)
    by litigatormom on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:21:55 PM EST
    I gave my husband an ultimatum too. My mother-in-law backed me up. Does that call my husband's masculinity or devotion in question? No. It just means he was a NY bachelor in the 1980s.

    As for who wears the pants in the family -- a man who marries a strong woman necessarily is confident about the cut of his own pants. The fact that his wife also wears pants makes them a stronger team vis a vis the rest of the world.


    A friend, who was married for 20 years and (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:55:49 PM EST
    had 2 kids, got divorced, kids in college, dated a divorced woman who had 3 kids still at home.  She sd., how do you feel about marriage.  He started explaining something he had read recently on the subject.  She was pissed.  She threw the gauntlet.  He sd. no, but changed his mind later.  How did this work out?  Not well at all.

    How many Bohemians in PA? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ben Masel on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:16:48 PM EST
    I believe a not insignificant ethnic group in the western part of the State.

    What I took from the quote (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:18:24 PM EST
    is that he didn't see the need for formal marriage, he thought living together would be fine. "Marriage doesn't mean anything." That's all.

    Frankly, and speaking as a contemporary of his (none / 0) (#50)
    by scribe on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:46:47 PM EST
    it does not sound that much unlike what many people in our generation was saying at the time.

    Finally, I can relate to Obama!! (none / 0) (#26)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:28:26 PM EST
    Sounds like he is only human.

    Slightly OT but. (none / 0) (#27)
    by gmo on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:34:49 PM EST
    For those who read the whole article, I'll add this from a friend's blog:

    "To call it sloppy reporting is a vast understatement. Without any serious discussion (or even passing mention) of the important and meaningful ways Clinton forever changed the "position" of First Lady from flowers and tea proponent to serious public policy maven, the piece is completely without context."

    I don't think one or two years (none / 0) (#32)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:50:44 PM EST
    really counts as "forever"

    This puritanical posturing (none / 0) (#78)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:07:47 PM EST
    seriously damages the credibility of this blog.

    The politics of shame is totally retrograde. So is this tactic of shielding oneself behind phrases like " I wonder what the (put your made-to-order demographic here) will think of this."

    Obama appears to believe in marriage. As far as we know.

    Now, do you really care one way or the other?