As I said last night, Michelle Obama's attractive claims that she left the corporate world to labor among the wretched of the earth, or whatever, opens herself up to scrutiny that she might not be able to overcome. Spengler points out that her negatives are very high, and then says:
The promotional video introducing her speech to the convention made a great deal of the fact that Michelle left a corporate law firm to tutor disadvantaged children, but did not mention her re-entry into the corporate world. Her role at the convention, again, leaves her open to pointed questioning about the discrepancy between her rhetoric and her own career choices.Whether the Michelle Obama we saw on Monday night has the sangfroid to stand up to the inevitable hazing by the press corps remains to be seen.
Is hazing by the press corps "inevitable" in the Michelle Obama case? I dunno. Spengler's column brought to mind, though, how odd it is that in praising Michelle Obama's speech last night for relaunching her brand from Angela Davis in heels to skinny Oprah, I've basically been admiring how effectively she's managed to give an essentially dishonest account of who she really is, for the sake of boosting her numbers.
But then again, isn't that what political conventions are for?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Rod,
Thanks for your prolific, terrific blog. You often give me a lot to think about and re-consider. The conversation you offer on faith, politics, culture, values, and media is vital. I hope that we all learn from one another and are gracious to one another. (Ha! In a blog conversation... can you say "idealistic believer"?)
Anyway, I'm thinking that to be a public, prolific blogger takes a lot of guts. And there's bound to be misunderstanding. And perhaps I misunderstood you.
When you compare Michelle Obama with Angela Davis and Oprah Winfrey I couldn't help but see you using the latter as personally attacking the former. I read your words, not as an attack on ideas, but on all three people. As I summarized the three personalities above- based on public information- I see real profound among them, especially with Angela Davis and Michelle Obama.
Here's my take. There's a lot of talk about whether folks can identify with Michelle and whether Barack is elite. Michelle comes from a solid, harding working, no-nonsense family. Barack is the child of a single mother. Both defied the odds. Ivy League. Successful professionals. To me, there's is the "American story." Rags to riches.
By way of contrast, the McCains had many advantages. Riches to riches, socially-economically speaking.
So... I'm wondering whether McCain's complaint of Obama being "ambitious" is code for "uppety you know what," especially when in his book, McCain said that he was "ambitious, seeking the presidency." Why is it okay for John but not Barack?
Or... is this the Swift Boat strategy again?
I do agree that there are real issues and ideas at stake. I am disappointed that the media, following or feeding this trend I don't know, does not deal with more substance.
Graced people, grace people,
duh-sciple
Michelle comes from a solid, harding working, no-nonsense family. Barack is the child of a single mother. Both defied the odds. Ivy League. Successful professionals. To me, there's is the "American story." Rags to riches.
But according to them, America has to CHANGE, because America is "downright mean".
No we're downright perfect.
The 30 million uninsured are so because of their own sloth. The thousands losing their homes are all be wild speculators who gamed the system and lost. Only lazy people unwilling to work two jobs are poor. Only socially degenerate brown people abuse drugs. There are no polluted rivers. The air is pristine everywhere. There are no unsafe workplaces. There are toys with lead in them. Salmonella never happens in our perfect fruits and vegetables.
The Republican party has fixing all those non-existent problems as its highest priority.
Ann wrote: But according to them, America has to CHANGE, because America is "downright mean".
I write: If by CHANGE, "they" mean repent, renew, reconcile, redress... then I agree.
If by DOWNRIGHT MEAN, "they" mean there is injustice, greed, corruption, both subtle and outright violence... then I agree.
The meanness is often subtle. When McCain writes in his book about his "ambition to be president" that's okay. But when Obama has ambition to be president he is being an "uppidity black man."
When the Obamas overcome obstacles (socio-economic-racial) to become successful, instead of fulling the "American story" they are "elite" and we can't "identify with them"- I take that as code that they "don't look like us." When the McCains "overcome" privilege through birth- that is not "elite"?
Yet I give John McCain a lot of credit for many of the privileged of his generation for fighting rather than avoiding the Vietnam War. I give him credit for remaining in prison and not misusing the privilege of his family background. Further, I credit him for working "across the aisle" and for being a "maverick". Sadly, I have missed this John McCain throughout the summer. The Rove paradigm has pressured and deformed the John I know.
One final thought. From the "white point of view"- black people have made many gains since the Civil Rights era- they see how far black folk have come. From the "black point of view"- they see how far our society still needs to travel for there to be true racial justice. Perhaps this explains why Ann is offended that we still need to "change, she sees how much has changed already. Meanwhile, Michelle O sees how far we have to go before she can be completely "proud" of America.
Note: I am trying to see the various perspectives in the "kindest way possible." Don't know if I've succeeded.
May peace and justice kiss,
May truth and kindness embrace,
The Duh-sciple
One wife
One home
One nation
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.