home

Michelle Obama On Hillary As Veep

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:09:17 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Mark Halperin reporting:

[Michelle Obama on GMA this morning] [s]ays she didn’t say that she didn’t want her as her husband’s running mate, adding: “I think the world of Hillary Clinton, particularly as a woman…There is no way that I would say absolutely not to one of the most successful and powerful and groundbreaking women on this planet.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Whether she means it or not, it means a lot that she did say that. Personally, I am quite pleased. Well done, Michelle Obama.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.

comments closed

< "Millenium Bomber " Sentence Upheld | On The Popular Vote >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Michelle Obama On Hillary As Veep | 268 comments (268 topical)
    Indeed. (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Faust on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:11:21 AM EST
    It's almost always a question (in my mind) whether people in politics mean anything that they say 100%. What's important is that they are willing to say what needs to be said.

    as a voter (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by TalkRight on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:16:16 AM EST
    i do care if they mean it or not. I know they are trying to be nice to her supporters to get their vote in GE (in case O is the nominee).. but as a supporter of Hillary I know all too well that how much they hate her, redicule her and demean her. I will never support O ... not any time soon.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah but the question is (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by talex on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:26:37 AM EST
     'why' they are saying what must be said.

    Let's face it Obama dislikes Hillary and so does Michelle. I can't believe Armando even questions if she was sincere or not. It's pretty obvious that given all the gaffs Michelle has had and and the fact that the Tennessee GOP is running a TV ad with one of her most infamous gaffs that she is now going on TV and:

    (1) trying to rehab herself and

    (2) trying to woo Clinton supporters.

    That is pretty clear. It's pure cynical politics and self-serving and there is no sincere in it at all.

    After all the co-opting that Obama has done from both Clinton and Edwards, Michelle is now going to try to take up the torch of the womens movement?

    Sorry 'sweetie' but being First Lady is just being First Lady - it is not being the First Woman President of these United States.

    [ Parent ]

    And it was the Obama campaign that..... (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:48:52 AM EST
    ...attempted to demote the importance of the office of first lady anyway.

    [ Parent ]
    I Give michelle About Five Minutes Before She (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:12:40 PM EST
    has something negative to say about Hillary, especially if Hillary manages to squeak out an OR win!

    [ Parent ]
    Yes she also said (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by TalkRight on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:12:32 AM EST
    I am not sure I can vote for Hillary in another interview a month or two back.. we all know why she is saying that NOW. [after inflicting all the insult]

    Not sure why but I just can't take Michelle. She is THE woman behind Obama. No doubt about that.

    she said she wasnt sure (1.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Jgarza on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:36:12 AM EST
    if she would go campaign for her.  She was clear she would support her.  Get your story right.

    [ Parent ]
    And that makes it better how? Hillary has (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by leis on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:58:14 AM EST
    expressly stated she will campaign for the nominee.  You settle for too little if that is acceptable to you.

    [ Parent ]
    I know that she hates Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by TalkRight on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:58:33 AM EST
    is that NOT the correct story? How come suddenly she thinks she will absolutely NOT say no to Hillary Clinton.. woman like her the worst enemies of woman. Ferraro just said.. "she may NOT vote for O" - I am with her.

    [ Parent ]
    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#261)
    by abfabdem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:53:18 PM EST
    I heard this clip on Air America, the question was would she support her and she said she'd have to review Hillary's positions on issues first and then think about it.  On subsequent programs like Stephanie Miller they tried to make it seem like the question had been about campaigning but it was not.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanx you Jgarza for clearing (1.00 / 1) (#246)
    by Electa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:31:31 PM EST
    up the lie that Michelle said she wouldn't vote for Hillary.  The absolute falsehood on this board about Barack, Michelle and OBsupporters is a real eye opener.  Over 70K people turned out in MT yesterday, how do the people in this venue totally dismiss the statement that the American people are making?  One in every 20 people turnouted to hear OB's message according to MSNBC...OMG, heaven forbid that I cite something from a MSM network.

    Hillary represents ole school politics, a machine that's being crushed and headed to the politico scrap recycling pile.  She looks like and reminds the American people of the root cause of the current political dyfuctionality that permeates through this country.  Political dinosaurs are headed to the plaster of paris museums.  Stop!!! take a deep breath, that includes artifacts like Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton, too.

    I'm pulling my locks trying to figure out who these people are.  They claim to be Democrats, that dwell under one big happy tent, but the mean spiritedness that's oozing across this board clearly demonstrates the opposite.  

    One in 4 HRCsupporters vehemently state they will not vote for Obama should he become the nominee, and they claim OBsupporters to be the haters? I'm confused.  Truth of the matter is, some folks counted Obama's candidacy as nought.  Got caught with their drawers down so to speak and decided to take him seriously too late in the game.  Why should the Obamaniacs, as we are proudly tagged, be held accountable for Hillary's campaign shortfall.  I've heard her supporters blame everyone in the mix for her laggings all except for the pitiful campaign she and Bill ran.  Blame it on the rain.

    [ Parent ]

    Interesting (5.00 / 5) (#258)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:48:21 PM EST
    Back when Obama said it was in doubt whether all of his supporters would vote for Hillary, it was supposed to be a selling point for his candidacy.

    Now, the fact that all of Hillary's supporters may not vote for Obama is, once again, evidence that he's the better candidate because his supporters aren't haters.

    There's nothing particularly wrong with Obama supporters, but the part of their brain that processes cognitive dissonance sometimes seems to have been turned off.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't hate Obama, (3.00 / 2) (#265)
    by soccermom on Mon May 19, 2008 at 02:02:12 PM EST
    but of the three candidates when rated on who represents my values, in order:  Clinton,  a distant second, McCain.  Obama third, but then it's just because there are three in the race.

    I have never liked all the talk about "koolaid" or messiah or cultishness.  I was neutral about Obama until I learned more about him.  At this point what is evident to me is that we have nothing in common.

    My sister, a bank vp Republican in Kentucky, will vote with me for Clinton and then for McCain.  We don't agree on a lot of things, but a big NO to a President Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    HRC as VP must be getting serious consideration (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by pluege on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:15:39 AM EST
    well certainly if the HRC as VP notion is to proceed that had to be done. Of course it never should have had to be done, but too late for that.

    (IF Obama is the nominee and IF he picks HRC for VP and IF she accepts, the HRC love fest in left blogostan will be sickening - oh the hypocrisy. )

    That, or IF he gets the nom, and doesn't (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:38:14 AM EST
    select her, they can't blame Michelle.

    I DO care if she's sincere. Hillary has been asked to weather enough from this mob that makes up Obama's circle.

    He would only put her there for easy votes and she and Bill could do the exhausting campaigning for the lazy one.  

    Personally, I wouldn't want to see her under the control of this arrogant man. I wouldn't trust him not to ban her from meetings, and keep her as far off in the corner as possible.

    [ Parent ]

    Why would it be anything other than tactical? (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by lambert on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:40:59 AM EST
    Sincerity is not an important consideration. No politician is sincere as we understand the term; they can't afford to be.

    They've worked out that their campaign of antagonizing Democratic constitiuencies to seize control of the party apparatus isn't working, so no they want to say "Honey, I've changed!"

    In two weeks, all this will have gone the way of The Best Speech EVAH in Philly.

    [ Parent ]

    Robert Byrd just endorsed (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:59:38 AM EST
    maybe there's some truth in the article a couple of days ago stating that one of the bigger bargaining chips for endorsements is to put Hillary on the ticket.


    [ Parent ]
    Endorsed whom? (none / 0) (#137)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:01:04 PM EST
    And frankly, I think the SD's should just STFU for now.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama. And rally what better way to respect (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:12:49 PM EST
    the voters of your state than endorse the guy who got 26% of their support.  This election is becoming a joke.

    [ Parent ]
    He has exercised his independent judgement (3.00 / 0) (#193)
    by JoeA on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:25:14 PM EST
    as to who was the best judgement,  I thought that was the correct metric for Superdelegates to be using?

    There is an undercurrent to the endorsement though and some symbolism given his membership of the KKK in the 40's.

    link

    [ Parent ]

    Hmmm... (5.00 / 2) (#236)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:13:23 PM EST
    "In two weeks, all this will have gone the way of The Best Speech EVAH in Philly."

    At least, that's the hope.

    Reality sometimes has a funny way of sticking her finger into places she's not necessarily wanted...

    [ Parent ]

    That's what VPs do (none / 0) (#252)
    by Electa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:41:55 PM EST
    stay in a corner and go to diplomatic funerals.  Cheney broke the cycle but was rapidly relegated back to his hole after becoming an utter disdain to the American peoples.  VPs are place keepers waiting on the prez to kick the bucket or get assassinated.  

    [ Parent ]
    Patently false (5.00 / 0) (#255)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:46:32 PM EST
    the notion of giving the VP a real policy portfolio was pioneered by Carter-Mondale and continued with Clinton-Gore.  I would hope we wouldn't go back to the past by nominating some Dan Quayle-type.

    [ Parent ]
    They should have asked her about him as VP (5.00 / 6) (#97)
    by myiq2xu on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:47:28 AM EST
    Her expression would have been priceless.

    [ Parent ]
    Amen to that....For What It's Worth...Just More (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:51:10 AM EST
    pandering and backpedaling by the obamas.  Michelle doesn't want Hillary on the ticket.  She has already made that perfectly clear.  We have seen this type of backpedaling by the obama camp, obama especially, time and time again.  The superficiliaty of it is astounding.

    [ Parent ]
    When did she make it clear? (none / 0) (#198)
    by JoeA on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:27:09 PM EST
    In the unattributed assertion by Bob Novak in one of his columns?   That's pretty weak.

    [ Parent ]
    damn, my spelling screw up is astounding! :) (none / 0) (#247)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:32:35 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Good statement (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:16:48 AM EST
    This is important for her to say IMO.

    Even if Obama is the nominee and Clinton isn't the VP, the meme that "she didn't get it because Michelle vetoed it" would be toxic on so many levels.  Good to see she's willing to do some necessary walking back.

    If Michelle and Barry walk backwards any more (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by elixir on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:02:19 PM EST
    they'll be back in Illinois.  The presumptuous pair are really very green.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh How I Wish They Were Back In Illinois.... (5.00 / 6) (#146)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:04:15 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I doubt she says the same thing (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:41:23 PM EST
    to her husband. If he does offer the VP spot to Hillary, I think she should decline it. Why play second fiddle to an incompetent when she can go back to the Senate?? She likes her job there, and does it well. Which is more than you can say for Senator Obama. I wouldn't believe a word Michelle says about Hillary as VP. She has obviously been instructed to not make waves, so she goes on national television and lies like a rug. I don't think she wants Hillary anywhere near Obama in his administration.  It would only highlight his lack of substance. And with Hillary seen as his "nanny" during his administration, he won't get re-elected, but she will get the top spot instead. 4 years too late, but she will get it. Unless he is impeached.

    And should he be impeached, she would end up as President. Yeah, I know, early to talk about impeachment, but given his political methods so far, it is likely they will come back to bite him in the ass sooner or later. And that is what brought Nixon down, as I recall. And Chicago Combine methods are a hell of a lot dirtier than Nixon ever thought of being. Think about that for a minute or two. Scary, huh?

    [ Parent ]

    I don't know much about Michelle Obama (none / 0) (#44)
    by ksh on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:30:41 AM EST
    but I like her so far.  It would be stupid for her not to recognize what so many Democratic voters believe, that HRC is a powerful and capable candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    unfortunately, she seemed stuck on stupid before (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by kempis on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:06:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It wasn't her at her best, though (none / 0) (#194)
    by ksh on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:25:37 PM EST
    I lump it with the kind of intemperate things spouses can say during a campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    heh, I like that. [nt] (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by JoeA on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:28:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    probably in response to reports (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:17:15 AM EST
    she was the biggest obstacle to a unity ticket.
    I have been reading that for weeks.
    It's not personal! (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by lambert on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:43:06 AM EST
    That's just a narrative, though personalities are part of the story.

    I would argue that the Obama Movement has finally figured out that throwing Hillary's supporters out of the party isn't possible. So now they want to play nice. Professionals all, but I'd be very surprised if the party professionals in Hillary's campaign take this seriously. Why would they?

    [ Parent ]

    honey, please (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:44:27 AM EST
    John Edwards' bright and shiny face won us all back.  This is just gravy.  Didn't you hear?  He's going to win KY for Obama!

    [ Parent ]
    it's possible to toss us out--just not smart (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by kempis on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:05:45 PM EST
    Maybe they're beginning to realize that they really are alienating about half the party with their arrogant, Alter/Kos/Arianna-blogger-like pronouncements about Teh Evil Hillary and her Flying Monkeys (us).

    Maybe.

    [ Parent ]

    Good (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by kempis on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:17:25 AM EST
    ...but why the delay? The rumor that Michelle absolutely nixed Hillary as VP was circulating, what? A week ago?

    This is a step in the right direction, but it should have been made much sooner.

    Their response team... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by kredwyn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:40:26 AM EST
    seems to be kinda slow on the process and respond side. And even then there are generally 3-4 different responses that come out over a period of time.

    [ Parent ]
    I thought they here hyper-competent? (none / 0) (#94)
    by lambert on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:46:50 AM EST
    Haw.

    [ Parent ]
    You (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:55:14 AM EST
    get to look "super-competent" when you have the media in your pocket and they never call out your gaffes. Obama has made a very long list of them that the media mention if they have no other choice and then turn to something Senator Clinton did or said 35 years ago.

    As Real Estate is location, location, location.

    Politics is perception, perception, perception.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow to Sen. Obama's wife. Wow. (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by wurman on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:17:59 AM EST
    In terms of so much of the silly punditry, this is huge.

    I've read kazillions of pixels about how Michelle Obama "hates" & "disses" & "bad mouths" Sen. Clinton.

    There seem to be a few obvious options: the self-styled expert pundits are full of drek (my 1st choice); Michelle Obama has come 'round to a very powerful reality; someone is preparing the way, somehow, for a shift in perceptions of Sen. Clinton by the Obama campaign; some grooms & trainers are in the stable, dunging out the stall, currying the fur & getting the Unity Pony ready for a trip to the winners circle.

    Hello pragmatism.

    Michelle's Fakeout (5.00 / 7) (#42)
    by Athena on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:30:18 AM EST
    Hello fakeout.

    As her husband silently climbed to power in a movement fueled by rank sexism and boysrule mentality, she was silent.  Her own "little woman" pose.  Watching the big man.

    Barack and Michelle have never decried the misogyny in this campaign; they have ridden the wave gladly.

    [ Parent ]

    "Little Woman" Pose? (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by daring grace on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:59:00 AM EST
    What an odd characterization of an accomplished woman who is an attorney and mother, and who has been an active and effective campaigner. And, one who has tweaked her husband (albeit, playfully) on the stump.

    I can understand your attack on Michelle Obama if you feel she's part of a misogynistic message, but YOUR choice of epithet is puzzlingly sexist.

    [ Parent ]

    It's Accurate (5.00 / 4) (#171)
    by Athena on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:14:08 PM EST
    As a woman who benefitted from sexism when it propelled her husband to power, I think that the characterization of Michelle is accurate.  A little woman willingly overlooks and/or tolerates the second-class status of herself or other women in the service of an all-important male.

    [ Parent ]
    Words Matter (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by daring grace on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:29:20 PM EST
    Aside from our disagreement about whether Michelle Obama has behaved the way you describe, I guess my issue is with women using this kind of language against one another.

    I have no problem with anyone calling her out for this kind of thing when they perceive it. It's using the denigrating language of female put down I find disheartening in these discussions.

    [ Parent ]

    Got It (5.00 / 1) (#238)
    by Athena on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:17:19 PM EST
    I hear you and understand your position.  I guess there's just a level of hypocrisy her regarding Michelle and her views about Hillary that goes too far for me.

    [ Parent ]
    Uh, I think that was the point. (none / 0) (#179)
    by leis on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:17:12 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Ponies don't have fur.. (none / 0) (#218)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:45:12 PM EST
    they have hair.

    [ Parent ]
    Gee, what (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:18:03 AM EST
     a few months of on the job training will do.  Learning how not to put foot in mouth.  Never did saying nice things get people in trouble.  Well, wait, except when Hillary said nice things about MLK and LBJ.

    too little too late (5.00 / 11) (#22)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:22:25 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Exactly ... (5.00 / 15) (#78)
    by Robot Porter on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:42:41 AM EST
    why does the Obama campaign get kudos for doing stuff that any smart politician would have done months ago.

    Is this a Presidential Election or the Special Olympics?

    [ Parent ]

    It's a pity they only allow one 5 (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by MMW on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:53:03 AM EST
    Your comment deserves quite a few more.

    [ Parent ]
    THX (none / 0) (#118)
    by Robot Porter on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:57:18 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I get your point, (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Klio on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:57:15 AM EST
    but the Special Olympics comparison isn't nice.  It's bound to hurt people's feelings, with reason, and I know that wasn't your intent.

    Just saying ....

    [ Parent ]

    Keep it up.... (5.00 / 1) (#230)
    by kdog on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:06:23 PM EST
    and the creative analogy will be extinct.

    Do you think special olympians are incapable of understanding a humorous analogy?  Lighten up...

    [ Parent ]

    you talking to me? (none / 0) (#263)
    by Klio on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:56:46 PM EST
    I don't know what you mean by the extinction of the "creative analogy."

    But more importantly 1) implying [as the disappeared comment did] that the Special Olympics are some kind of clusterf*ck really does a disservice to the athletes who participate very valiantly & heroically in them, all while struggling with real disabilities.  Don't diss them.  It's just not the right thing to do.  I'm telling you this as a friend.

    And 2) a lot of hurtful stuff gets said on the internet that we let pass, b/c who wants to be the scold?  But you know what?  More of us should call it out when we see it.

    So how about instead of telling me to lighten up [if you are in fact talking to me] you just acknowledge the inappropriateness of the remark and let the gentle corrective steep?  Thanks.

    [ Parent ]

    You do (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by magisterludi on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:59:27 AM EST
    the Special Olympics an injustice. (quasi-snark)

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you. I think the latter. (none / 0) (#143)
    by elixir on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:03:51 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Obama has been saying for months (none / 0) (#204)
    by JoeA on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:31:01 PM EST
    that Hillary would be on "anybodys" shortlist for VP.  Let me know if you want me to direct you to transcripts or video of one of the numerous instances.

    [ Parent ]
    Brushing up on her image? (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by BeBe on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:44:55 AM EST
    Something is up. Sen Obama also said spouses should not be targeted. He should have said that 6 months ago. I am glad they realize they have a problem, but it will take some heavy duty effort to fix these divisions and time they may not have. It may be too late for many people to listen to them.

    [ Parent ]
    It wsn't convenient (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:56:45 AM EST
    6 months ago. Then the wouldn't have been able to make political hay out of Bill Clinton's comments. It's absolutely amazing that the standards apply only to the Obama camp.

    [ Parent ]
    This Morning He Was Saying "The TN GOP (none / 0) (#149)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:05:40 PM EST
    needs to lay off his wife."  He should have tried laying of HIllary Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:16:20 PM EST
    as the candidate herself, was fair game. That said I don't seem to remember him having that tough of a time using Bill(both his comments, actions and former position) to his benefit. Somebody ought to tell Obama whatis good for the goose is good for the gander. I daresay the GOP cares much that he's upset that "poor. poor Michelle" is being abused. He'd be etter off lobbing a bunch of ads at Cindy McCain and her billions.  

    [ Parent ]
    The Republican (5.00 / 0) (#196)
    by samanthasmom on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:26:35 PM EST
    blog sites are having a field day. Over at Hot Air they are adding it ti his "whimpiness quotient".

    [ Parent ]
    Remember Doug & Wendy Whiner From SNL? (5.00 / 1) (#245)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:29:23 PM EST
    With the exception of diverticulitis (I assume they don't have it), they are The Whiners to a "T".  I have no sympathy or empathy for the obama's.  The saying "they can dish it out, but that can't take it" also comes to mind!

    [ Parent ]
    You Aren't Lying....Word Around Town Is.... (none / 0) (#122)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:57:45 AM EST
    The only time obama opens his mouth is to change feet!

    Seriously, at some level we know Michelle is not sincere.  Can't you imagine she would be at odds with Hillary constantly in the WH.

    [ Parent ]

    And since Obama has said that (5.00 / 0) (#222)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:49:15 PM EST
    Michelle's job in the White House would be raising the kids, that pretty much sidelines her. I don't think she is going to like that..Awwwwwwww..poor thing. I wonder how she is going to like being kept "in her place" while Hillary is VP. I hope I never find out, but it is fun to think about. Heh.

    [ Parent ]
    hmm (1.00 / 1) (#54)
    by ksh on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:33:58 AM EST
    are you talking about the (paraphrase) "Civil Rights Act couldn't have been passed without LBJ taking the lead" quote?  

    I don't think Clinton meant anything negative about it, but it was a bit tone deaf in terms of how black voters might digest the remark.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:40:48 AM EST
    no wonder it was so much fun to demagogue the awkward statement with the South Carolina primary coming up, huh?

    It's not like the Obama campaign just sat back and let voters draw their own conclusions, you know.  They actively jumped in and spread the notion that Hillary had intentionally disrespected MLK.  Really great brand of politics, that.

    [ Parent ]

    Do you really know that? (none / 0) (#99)
    by ksh on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:48:30 AM EST
    I'm not a campaign insider, but the media sort of ran with the statement coming, as it did, either shortly after or before the Jesse Jackson remarks.

    But honestly, I have no information about what the Obama campaign did with the remark.....it was made in public, correct?

    I expect, by the way, for campaigns to do this, just like Clinton used the bitter controversy and the Rev. Wright to her advantage as often as she could.  

    And she should have.  It's a campaign not a party game.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:53:41 AM EST
    Portraying an awkwardly-phrased statement as a race-baiting insult to MLK is not the type of politics I can get behind.  That's how they wanted to win South Carolina, so good for them, but it was slimy.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't forget Jesse Jackson jr. (Scum-Chicago) (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by AX10 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:17:33 PM EST
    who ask why Hillary did not cry for the victims of Katrina.

    [ Parent ]
    what I'm asking is (none / 0) (#190)
    by ksh on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:24:10 PM EST
    do you know that the interpretation came from the Obama campaign....surrogates, the candidate, his wife? The remark was reported soon after it was made.  

    I guess you're saying they pushed one interpretation over another.  Maybe you're right. But I think the remark was, at best, insensitive (though not on a grand scale).

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (5.00 / 5) (#215)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:43:18 PM EST
    The campaign was all over the alleged "insult" to MLK.  They made enough hay out of it to fill a pole barn.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm sorry (5.00 / 5) (#119)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:57:18 AM EST
    but this is so absurd. It's apparently not done to admit that some white people had something to do with civil rights in this country.

    This, from the man who wants to have a "national conversation" about race.

    How on earth can we?

    [ Parent ]

    True enough (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:08:06 PM EST
    something like trying to claim the suffragettes succeeded without men.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't see that Obama was (none / 0) (#199)
    by ksh on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:27:41 PM EST
    behind that remark as much as the media. No one has shown me any quotes to show they pushed that remark more than the media did.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually, he knows that SOMEBODY has to (none / 0) (#207)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:33:47 PM EST
    do the work, and he's not up to it.

    [ Parent ]
    He Never Is....He is inept AND lazy!! (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:40:54 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I just don't believe that HIllary would accept (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by athyrio on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:18:15 AM EST
    that position, as she is so much more qualified IMO to be president....Would be almost an insult to see the more qualified woman backing up the less qualified man...Have seen this in the business world for many years...

    It's more important that he ask ... (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Demi Moaned on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:30:33 AM EST
    than that she accept.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by bjorn on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:35:17 AM EST
    although I would like it is she did accept...

    [ Parent ]
    It's all in the how (none / 0) (#91)
    by Demi Moaned on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:46:10 AM EST
    And I agree with you. My own feeling is that she neither covets nor spurns the VP nomination, and that it depends a lot on how he asks her.

    [ Parent ]
    As long as you don't care. . . (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:18:27 AM EST
    whether she meant it or not (and, to be fair, it would require an almost superhuman detachment for her to feel that way at this point).

    Pols are pols (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:19:28 AM EST
    I never worry too much what they REALLY think.

    [ Parent ]
    words matter (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:21:01 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Indeed they do (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:26:19 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Since "words matter," (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:37:58 AM EST
    I have a couple questions.

    Is Michelle Obama saying she thinks the world of Clinton because Clinton is a woman, or because Michelle Obama is a woman, or both?

    Second question.  Isn't this a tepid endorsement of the idea of Clinton on a jt. ticket w/Obama?

    There is no way that I would say absolutely not


    [ Parent ]
    oculus: nail on the head (5.00 / 6) (#80)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:42:49 AM EST
    the verbal equivalent of, "I would probably p*ss on her if her hair was on fire."

    How stupid do they think we are?  Well--they've said it, haven't they?  We're racist, elderly, tertiary-educated low information voters.

    Why would they need us anyway?  We sully the bright and shiny new coalition.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't forget the ultimate insult (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:10:29 PM EST
    We work! The creative class is repulsed by the idea that people who perform manual labor might have a proportionate say in the political process.

    [ Parent ]
    She was presu8mably responding to (none / 0) (#208)
    by JoeA on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:35:16 PM EST
    the assertion by Bob Novak that she had ruled out Hillary as a VP pick.

    [ Parent ]
    I worry what they really think (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by DandyTIger on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:46:05 AM EST
    because eventually they vote and make policy.

    [ Parent ]
    pols are pols so why congratulate Michelle now? (5.00 / 4) (#173)
    by fiver2 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:14:59 PM EST
    These are the diplomatic nothings that she should have been saying from the very beginning about another presidential candidate who has a dedicated following.  That she went off message in interviews about HRC and repeatedly said that people who can't keep their own homes in order are unfit to run the White House was pure idiocy.  Amateur hour.  I'm glad she's learning on the job, but to jump up and down and clap about her improvement is too much.  There never was any advantage to Obama's campaign from her nastiness about HRC and her sexist cracks about infidelity.  People finally seem to have impressed that on her.  You'd think a presidential candidate's spouse would have figured that out from the beginning.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:21:33 AM EST
    It is mostly a useless exercise to fret over whether a politician "means it," whatever the circumstances.

    [ Parent ]
    Truer words were never spoken. (none / 0) (#107)
    by wasabi on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:51:50 AM EST
    All politicians lie.  It's part of the job description to get elected/re-elected.
    But I'm just a cynical seasoned voter.

    [ Parent ]
    Lot of people are thinking that Hillary would (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by TalkRight on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:18:55 AM EST
    take the VP.. but they are WRONG, she knows O is a candidate that will doom come Nov.. imo she will stay out of race, if she is not the nominee.. I still think she will be the nominee though!

    party loyalist (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by pluege on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:27:47 AM EST
    for some unfathomable reason, HRC is an extreme party loyalist in spite of all the stabbing in the back, piling on of republican unfounded inanity and character assassination, and sexism against her at the hands of democrats that she has been subject to for the past 15 years.

    if HRC thinks BO will lose in November without her as VP, she will take the spot.

    [ Parent ]

    good point (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by TalkRight on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:29:43 AM EST
    but I would NOT want her to bail out O.. I want him to go down.

    [ Parent ]
    and what party are we trying to save here.. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by TalkRight on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:32:45 AM EST
     the one that kept silent while their important base of working class voters were called racist or the one that kept silent and enocuraged all that sexist comments against one of their most qualified womans.

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed (none / 0) (#82)
    by rnibs on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:44:00 AM EST
    She, unlike Barack, puts the party first, and I think she knows how much the party has ticked off her following.  I think she would accept in an effort to try to get the Dems to win in Nov.

    I will not vote for Obama, except if she was the VP, then I'd probably whimp out and vote for him (her, really).  I know several women who would not vote for him under any circumstance, and would consider it an insult for her to be in the VP spot.

    [ Parent ]

    Charm School Graduation (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by santarita on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:21:45 AM EST
    I think someone may have told Sen. and Ms. Obama that their negative campaigning against Clinton has been too effective and alienated about half of the base needed to win in November.   We are going to see the charm turned on big time.

    Bless their hearts. (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:57:23 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Ddouble bless her heart! (5.00 / 3) (#209)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:38:46 PM EST
    But the obvious question should have been, "Do you want her to be VP?" which the interviewer mercifully did not pursue.

    I don't take her statement as a positive at all.  Taken together with the rest of the Obama camp moves, i.e. (1) backing off declaring himself a winner tomorrow, May 20 (2) Tom Hayden's odd revelation about Hillary's internship at a law firm with leftist clients
    (3) John Edwards endorsement out of the blue;

    I think these are all part of a strategy to stem some forseen negative revelations about the Obama campaign.  I will not be surprised if the rain starts pouring soon for him.

    [ Parent ]

    Charm (5.00 / 1) (#241)
    by oldpro on Mon May 19, 2008 at 01:23:14 PM EST
    that is forced and visible makes me gag...

    ...which is why I never could stomach John Edwards.

    Pols need to be able to fake sincerity but it has to pass the laugh/groan test.

    The Obamas?

    Need more schooling.

    [ Parent ]

    Clearly Michelle Obama is learning (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by pluege on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:23:31 AM EST
    ... to be the serial liar necessary to be in mainstream American political life - no more of this saying what is on one's mind.

    Or (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:27:37 AM EST
    You are a typical voter and believed that her earlier statements were the truth and it is only now that she has learned to act like a professional pol aka liar.

    [ Parent ]
    Then what was the point of her earlier statements? (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by lilburro on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:36:50 AM EST
    "Can't take care of your own house, how can you take care of the White House?"  Hillary's "tone?" (also on GMA I believe).  This new statement is great but there's got to be a lot more where that came from to lend some credibility.

    [ Parent ]
    Same Thing As This Statement (3.00 / 0) (#89)
    by squeaky on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:45:45 AM EST
    To rally voters for Obama. What else would it be? I don't really care about what she has said, but I think it is funny that many are certain that Hillary supporters believe that she was not acting like a pol before because she went negative on Hillary, and now that she is acting like a pol because she complimented Hillary.

    Maybe I need to get the special glasses and decoder ring to know when Pols are expressing how they really feel.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Fair enough. (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by lilburro on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:03:56 PM EST
    Certainly two markedly different ways of rallying voters to Obama though.  If you believe her statements were equally strategic, then she has certainly been one of the most divisive figures in this campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#191)
    by squeaky on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:24:13 PM EST
    I would have liked all the candidates to be supportive of their opponents, irrespective of what their supporters have been doing.
    Because perhaps then many who share Dem values would have not lost perspective as to what we all are fighting against, namely the GOP.

    I do not know who is the most divisive figure in this campaign, but I would imagine that if you ask, somewhere around half would argue that it was not Michelle Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    That's what Hillary has been doing (5.00 / 2) (#216)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:44:17 PM EST
    making the pledge several times that she will work her heart out for the democratic nominee; criticizing Bush for his attack on Obama. BUT

    Obama or anyone in his campaign, has ever come to the defense of Hillary when she has been bombarded with sexist attacks by the media and some Obama surrogates.  Obama himself is documented to have said some sexist things himself against Hillary.

    I also think that by now, the Obama campaign is convinced that there is a REAL danger of a big block of Hillary supporters who will not vote for him (including me).

    [ Parent ]

    Campaign strategy (none / 0) (#121)
    by wasabi on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:57:43 AM EST
    The only way to knock off Clinton in the Primaries was to make her and her husband poison, because there are many Democrats that think Bill Clinton did a good job during his Presidency.

    The Obama team got enough Dems to turn on the Clintons to probably win the nomination, but fractured the base in the process.

    It's good to hear her say this, but w/o the offer for VP, I don't think it'll sway many of her hard core supporters.

    [ Parent ]

    Agree (none / 0) (#134)
    by squeaky on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:59:55 AM EST
    Let's hope for a unity ticket.

    [ Parent ]
    and you're what.... (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by pluege on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:39:09 AM EST
    thinking she said those "earlier statements" that hurt her husbands campaign because:

    a) she secretly wants her husband to fail?
    b) she secretly liked HRC all along (and has been proud of America all along too), but wanted to become the center of attention and create a firestorm of criticism?

    I'm not sure what that makes you.

    [ Parent ]

    What It Makes Me? (3.00 / 0) (#111)
    by squeaky on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:52:58 AM EST
    hahahahahaha     How about skeptical whenever a pol (or wife) expresses their inner feelings on the tee vee.

    And just because her negative statements about Hillary turned you off doesn't mean that she wanted Obama to fail. Die hard Hillary supporters were certainly not who she was speaking to when she went negative.

    Certainly not someone that believes I have seen who any of these characters really are on a personal level.

    [ Parent ]

    Got a bridge in Brooklyn for you (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by pluege on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:20:51 PM EST
    so you'd like us to believe that Michelle Obama is a shrewd politician that lies all the time for affect. The one about finally being proud of her country was  very affective (for mccain). And pissing off HRC supporters has also paid big dividends as Obama has increasingly lost larger and larger percentages of all demographics except African-Americans.

    [ Parent ]
    I Do Not Care (none / 0) (#206)
    by squeaky on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:32:42 PM EST
    What you believe, but it is clear that what you believe is determined by who you are supporting. I do not like all the negativity in either camp. Many here, including yourself, only seem to mind when the negativity comes from Obama's camp, but when insults are hurled at Obama it is just speaking the truth.

    Can you see that or are you in too deep?


    [