Michelle Obama -- A Not So Secret Weapon In South Carolina

For black voters – especially black women voters -- in South Carolina, the two biggest concerns they voice about Barack Obama are (1) the fear that he’ll be a martyr and would get shot and (2) the conviction (or fear) that conviction that white people won’t vote for him, thus balkanizing his candidacy and setting back the cause of civil rights for a generation.

Obama has the support of well more than half of South Carolina's black Democratic men, but he splits the votes of black women with Hillary Clinton.

The panacea has always been a win in Iowa – if those white folks found Obama acceptable, then black Democrats would be socially cued to accept his candidacy as potentially transformative.

But Obama’s campaign believes that they're beginning to succeed in wooing black voters away from Hillary Clinton well before a single person has caucused.

The secret is a famous woman -- but not the Big O -- the Big M -- Michelle Obama, whose campaign stops in South Carolina are devoted to the story of how she, too, had similar fears, and how she came to cast them away.

A turning point may be have been a big M.O, speech in on November 20, Orangeburg, where she told hundreds of black voters that she’s “so tired of being afraid” and didn’t want her daughters to grow up being afraid. She speaks of her proud, South Carolinian grandfather, who taught her that “my destiny had not been written before I was born.” Her family “gave her the strength and courage to overcome the doubts” that she faced as a young girl growing up on the south side of Chicago.

A few years ago, the Obamas met Coretta Scott King, a “woman so graceful and dignified”… King told her to “not be afraid…that God was with us, and that she would always keep us in her prayers.” “This is a woman who overcome other people’s doubts and ignorance…”

King, in other words, conferred her blessing on the Obamas.

So -- how to spread this benediction to voters?

The campaign made DVDs out of Michelle Obama's “Fear” speech and plays them regularly -- at house parties, at events, at organizing conclaves, at beauty parlors and barber shops -- what the campaign calls its B and Bs.

Voters who listen to Michelle Obama’s reasoning are said to be quite impressed and if they had reason to doubt, are invariably much more comfortable with the idea of Obama’s candidacy.

“If Michelle Obama could speak with every voter,” an Obama aide said, “We’d run away with the election.”

(Judge for yourself: the 30 minute speech is right here.)

Comments

Michelle may not be needed the way the latest polls are looking. Hillary will soon be in a SC free-fall and looking at 0-3 in late January.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | December 28, 2007 12:28 PM

Michelle is a tall woman and needs to get a higher-up mike. I don't like to see her having to hunch down to be heard.

Posted by Phoebe | December 28, 2007 12:52 PM

Sounds like the Obama campaign has come with a good script for Mrs. Obama to deliver. I would expect it would be effective, it sounds good.

Posted by Dickie Flatts | December 28, 2007 12:57 PM

One more thing black people all over the U.S. must understand: Hillary's campaign or the democratic party's big wigs don't give a hoot about blacks. All they do is pander to them every time they need votes. Hillary has done only one thing in this campaign: Denigrate a sitting black senator by using stereotypes and slurs. Such affront would cause an uproar if committed by republicans. All the race peddlers would be up in arms, marching like zombies.All those insults being lobed at Obama by the Hillary campaign should remind black voters that being black, smart, and competent will only bring the wrath of either party. Only dumb blacks are welcome!But, slurs coming from Democrats like Hillary and Bill should make blacks think twice about voting for such divisive figures.They've greatly abused the goodwill some black voters showed them.As a result, the black electorate needs to flex its muscle and send an unmistakable signal to the democrats in the primaries:They need to vote their aspirations, i.e., Obama.In the event HRC and the party establishment deny them this historic win, the black vote should withhold its participation in the general election to teach the dems a lesson they shall never forget. Taking the black vote for granted, denigrating black leaders, and expecting them to put the democratic party first must end now. I personally hope a Hillary win in the primaries will not necessitate 1 vote to put her over the top in the general election because mine has been lost since her campaign smeared Obama a couple of weeks ago.

Posted by joseph pierre | December 28, 2007 2:34 PM

Please keep in mind, lets be fair and give someone else a chance at running this country. the Clinton and the Bush families have been running this country long enough!

Posted by Elisa Sanchez | December 28, 2007 2:43 PM

Voting for a white lady after her male counterparts have occupied the oval office since the founding of this nation does not represent change. That's an issue no one seems willing to address.When blacks were enslaved by white men, guess who else benefited from that?When we were looking for equality in the desegragation of schools, guess who were our most ardent opponents? Reason: They didn't want their little ones to share the same environment as black children.
Black people should not get fooled in voting for HRC thinking she represents change.It's a farce!

Posted by joseph pierre | December 28, 2007 2:49 PM

Great article. Michelle rocks the house! But please I beg of you, get a copy editor. I know this is the age of "instant message speak", but in a "printed" form in a national publication sentences such as the following are inexcusable: "A turning point may be have been a big M.O, speech in on November 20, Orangeburg...." Sloppy.

The average high school student could correct this to read "A turning point may have been a big M.O. speech on November 20 in Orangeburg,..."

Posted by Keith | December 28, 2007 2:50 PM

I loved Michelle's speech -- its one for the history books. Joseph Pierre -- I agree with you. I am a lifelong democrat and always thought that if Hillary in the end managed to prevail by fair means, I would have voted for her -- but no longer. Not after the slurs. Its truly unforgiveable and the dems will deserve to lose if they nominate her -- there should be a boycott. I found this post via Rikyrah at Jack and Jill -- and she found it on daily kos. I have no idea who originally posted it, but I thank them wholeheartedly for speaking the truth and repost it again here -- people need to understand what has been going on. They cannot stay in denial about it:

"bell hooks, in one of her many brilliant writings, said "Beware the liberal walking beside you." I understood the meaning of the words clearly enough when I studied hooks a decade ago, but I was living in Canada then, and didn't understand the raw guts of the thing.

Now I do.

The academic term for what Hillary, Kerrey et al (including the media) are doing is reinscription - the reinscribing of racial stereotypes. That's what the "just saying what other people are going to say!" thing is called. Think of it as drumming racism into our heads so it stays there. Here's another one - "I'm just describing reality, the way things really are." Bob Kerrey's "I meant it in a good way" comment is classic. It's like "Jews are good with money." (Kerrey actually lied tonight, by the way, in saying that Obama attended a secular madrassa. There is no such thing, as he well knows. But he wanted the word madrassa in there.)

They're trying to make us fear Obama on a subconscious level, so we hesitate, so we "feel" that there is something that just doesn’t "feel" right....

And they're trying to make Democrats fear the big, bad xenophobic Republicans.

But Conservatives have no monopoly on xenophobia.

hooks warned against liberals for good reason. There is power in feeling oneself to be "one of the good guys." We like that. We like to think that those other guys are racist, but we're not. We’re the heroes! We like black people! We want black people to get ahead!

Alas, we don't want them to get ahead of us. Subconsciously, we "feel" that Obama should know his place. We'll march beside, him but heaven forbid he leads! We’re being nice to him, he should respect that and know his place. These are feelings, not thoughts.

It's all about how many degrees of difference there are between us and the "other" that we perceive. White males still rule this country, much more than we know. It's all about the mind. White females are one step removed from the white male subject, and Hillary has her own difficulties on that score. But black men are further away, because race is even more different than gender, and blackness creates even more fear in white men than femaleness.

It's all about power and fear. We fear what is different, and we can’t grant power to that which we fear. The Clintons, more ruthless than Karl Rove in his own wet dreams, are capitalizing on that fear."

Posted by donna L. | December 28, 2007 3:22 PM

Obamas are RACIST!!Chicago political operative has put up ObamaTruth.org a rather damaging array of videos and story links outlining Obama’s wife Michelle’s business dealings – from her $195K raise at the hospital she works for (which came, according to Novak, just after Baracks’s election to the most exclusive club in the world), to her seat on the board of Treehouse Foods.
The Obamas reportedly also had a less-than above-board real estate relationship with an “indicted political bagman” named Tony Rezko.
The most damning piece in all this is that while Sen. Obama was preaching progressive politics about healthcare and workers’ rights, it seems Attorney Obama was up to her briefs in the very predatory behavior he was criticizing.
In any case, if true, it takes a considerable amount of the shine off Sen. Obama’s squeaky clean image. Aint it always the way…

FLIPS AFTER '96 ON EXECUTIONS, GUNS
By TODD VENEZIA

December 23, 2007 -- Barack Obama has been flip-flopping like a carp on a boat deck, changing his position over the years on everything from the death penalty to the Patriot Act to Cuba, a review of his record shows.

The Illinois senator's views became markedly more conservative as he drew close to running for president.

On the death penalty, for instance, the Oprah heartthrob was a strong foe back in 1996 when he ran for the Illinois state Senate, according to a questionnaire from a political activist group that he filled out at the time. The answers were reviewed by The Associated Press.

But this year, he's been throwing some red meat to pro-execution voters around the country by saying he supports pulling the switch on those who commit particularly heinous crimes.

On gun control, Obama changed direction since 1996, when he called for a ban on all handgun possession and sales in Illinois.

In 2004, on another questionnaire, he backed off, saying a ban is "not politically practicable."

Taken together, the shifts could suggest a liberal, inexperienced lawmaker gradually adjusting to the realities of what could be accomplished, first in the Illinois Legislature and then in the US Senate.

On the other hand, political rivals could accuse him of abandoning potentially unpopular views or of trying to disguise his real positions. Many of the old views came from answers he gave to a list of questions submitted to him in 1996 by an Illinois good-government group known as the IVI-IPO.

Aides claim Obama did not fill out the questionnaire, and instead it was handled by a staffer who misrepresented his views on gun control, the death penalty and more.

"Barack Obama has a consistent record on the key issues facing our country," spokesman Ben LaBolt told the AP. "Even conservative columnists have said they'd scoured Obama's record for inconsistencies and found there were virtually none."

A spokesman for the Illinois group said the excuse is ridiculous because they interviewed him in person.

Some of the candidate's other changing views include a marked shift on health care, from supporting a single-payer, government-run health system, to opposing such a "socialized medicine" plan.

He also has changed many views in just the past few years.

He went from calling the anti-terrorism Patriot Act a "shoddy and dangerous" law to voting to continue an updated version of the law in 2006. He also said he would normalize relations with Cuba, but on the campaign trail has opposed such rapprochement with the Communist regime there.

**In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate.

In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.

Sometimes the “present’ votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support. At other times, Mr. Obama voted present on questions that had overwhelming bipartisan support. In at least a few cases, the issue was politically sensitive.

The record has become an issue on the presidential campaign trail, as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, his chief rival for the Democratic nomination, has seized on the present votes he cast on a series of anti-abortion bills to portray Mr. Obama as a “talker” rather than a “doer.”Although a present vote is not unusual in Illinois, Mr. Obama’s use of it is being raised as he tries to distinguish himself as a leader who will take on the tough issues, An examination of Illinois records shows at least 36 times when Mr. Obama was either the only state senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way. Among those, Mr. Obama did not vote yes or no on a bill that would allow certain victims of sexual crimes to petition judges to seal court records relating to their cases. He also voted present on a bill to impose stricter standards for evidence a judge is permitted to consider in imposing a criminal sentence. On the sex crime bill, Mr. Obama cast the lone present vote in a 58-to-0 vote. State Representative Jim Durkin, a Republican who was a co-sponsor of the bill, said it was intended to bring state law in line with a United States Supreme Court decision that nullified a practice of introducing new evidence to a judge in the sentencing phase of the trial, after a jury conviction on other charges. The bill sailed through both chambers. Out of 174 votes cast in the House and Senate, two were against and two were present, including Mr. Obama’s.
“I don’t understand why you would oppose it,” Mr. Durkin said. “But I am more confused by a present vote.” Mr. Obama was also the sole present vote on a bill that easily passed the Senate that would require teaching respect for others in schools. He also voted present on a measure to prohibit sex-related shops from opening near schools or places of worship. It passed the Senate.
!

Posted by Joe | December 28, 2007 4:47 PM

Major doubts over Barack Obama’s foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. they underlined this message by pointing to reports showing that Mr Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman. There was also strikingly robust criticism from an independent Washington think-tank about a 'disconcerting void' over transatlantic relations in Mr Obama’s foreign policy, as well as from a former British Minister for Europe. "Mr Obama’s advisers claim he has an 'intuitive grasp' of world affairs. Like G. Bush Obama as too raw for the presidency. Argument carries weight with voters, including Obama admirers.

Posted by Obama will lose | December 28, 2007 4:49 PM

Obama....Love him or hate him, this is what America needs to do:

www.youtube.com/user/bighitbuda

Please post a comment if you agree or disagree..

Posted by Truth Seeker | December 28, 2007 5:14 PM

This conversation would not be happening if a "sitting Senator" who happened to be white and gifted with a silver tongue but zero executive experience had tried running for President. (Like John Edwards back in 1999) It would have been a joke.

Even if the white Senator had received "sacramental" blessings similar to Coretta King, the holy widow of Saint Martin....coming from wives of white religious leaders and a famous white TV celebrity.

Even with a telegenic wife of even less experience who also speaks well.And is also clean, besides being articulate.

For such a white Senator would lack the morally uplifting skin color that will take away the guilt of wealthy liberals....

Posted by Chris Ford | December 28, 2007 5:29 PM

Michelle Obama is no more of an asset than Edwards' wife or Clinton's husband: her martyr speech will turn off some. Her brassiness will turn off some. Her jokes about her husband will turn off some. Edward's wife turns off some of us: her piousness, her big house, her being smarter than Edwards and all. Just as some people liked Bill but disliked Hillary there are some of us who like Hillary alot and like Bill less, or lost faith with him.
But all in all most spouses humanize the candidate and are used by the campaigns constantly to manipulate us this way.
It's tough to argue that Edwards doesn't have some advantage in South Carolina (that was the storyline four years ago) and it is silly to think that Bill and Hillary don't have a deep and earned relationship with Black voters throughout the south, the bible belt, and through much of the nation. Suggesting that michelle erases these other candidate's relationships with voters in those states suggests bias.

Posted by Michael | December 28, 2007 5:45 PM

Michelle is simply one of the most impressive women I've seen.
She is a down to earth everyday person who is intelligent and funny and as charismatic as her husband.
I've seen her on cspan a few times and she just impresses. She is one of those people you just feel you can be friends with. Yet, she is also commanding and graceful and classy.
I think she is quite amazing.
If I was much younger I would look to her as a role model.

Posted by vwcat | December 28, 2007 8:08 PM

Truthseeker, I love that video. It would be a great one for an advertisement.
It is very powerful.
Stand up!

Posted by vwcat | December 28, 2007 8:23 PM

I know the power of Michelle Obama. I was standing on the sidelines months ago, just putting my toes in the water with regards to the 2008 Democratic Race, when I read about a Michelle Obama fundraiser. For $25, I went to see Mrs. Obama. She was magnificent. So powerful. I signed up to volunteer right then and there, and haven't looked back.

The speech in South Carolina was wonderful.

Posted by rikyrah | December 28, 2007 8:58 PM

I have been reading everything I can get my hands on, watching every news program I can and listening to the people from across the country, such as jounalists, talk show hosts and to all the candidates on both sides of the fence and I cannot believe that there's anyone with a conscience who can honestly say that Obama is not a qualified candidate for the presidency of these United States.

What scares me more than anything else is the Willie Lynch attitudes of many of our so-called black leadership, like Andy Young, John Lewis, Al Sharpton (Undecided), Jessie Jackson senior(on the fence) and many others, including many black women politicial leaders and peachers.

As Michelle said "the time is now to put our fears aside" and not be taken for granted as the field negroes any longer. What has Hillary or Bill Clinton really done for you? Except a Welfare to Work Program that ended up in mininum paying jobs. It's time for us to stand up against a man who comes to a black jazz club to play his Sax and then to our churches to peach his game.

Hillary Clinton is Bill Clinton and Bill Clinton is Hillary Clinton and they have become extremely rich with donations from everywhere in the world as a result of their travels as co-presidents the first time around. Yes he has an office in Harlem wouldn't you if you had a brunch of dumb African Americans that would you follow you to hell.

Wake-up Black America your time to be accepted as equals is here. But you have get off your behinds and scream "I'm fired up and ready to go!"

Posted by jimmie g | December 28, 2007 9:04 PM

Top 10 Contradictions in Obama

1. [Obama on Not just change political party but change the game and players in Washington] Then why play the same game at all with the same players whose support he now seeks? Does he realize that while his rhetoric may be ideal, it's not the pragmatic necessary and urgent issue/call for America at this time?

2. [Obama on the right kind and wrong kind of experience] Obama does not realize that what he has is the POTENTIAL to have the right kind of experience. Unfortunately, now is not the time and the Oval Office is not the place to be earning and learning that experience.

3. [Obama on judgment] One judgment call on the Iraq issue does NOT mean Obama would have good judgments on a gamut of complex issues. From what's been reported he has avoided making a vote on crucial issues. And he only has very limited experience to showcase an array of judgment calls, which did not even do that except showcase tasks that he did just as he ought to. It's not a fair claim by Obama.

4. [Obama on the Iraq issue] America does not live by "Iraq" alone. It is not even a simple right or wrong issue. Lucky Obama - the present sentiment is just rendering him to seem right. If he has no concrete and significant experience in the world stage and security matters, it would indeed be a gamble to have him as president.

5. [Obama on the establishment] How can Obama posture to bring a new face and a new way in the establishment when he brings with him a circle of close advisers and staff from the Clinton administration? Employing “Clinton minds” around him means he embraces the Clinton policies.

6. [Obama on his policies] His policies are hybrids from policies that have been strongly initiated by and identified with his rivals. He talks of what’s wrong with past policies and other candidates’ policies but does not have an original policy of his own. He wants people to look only to the future because he has INsufficient past to substantiate the rhetoric he gives in the present.

7. [Obama on hope] It will be unfair to speak of hope that does NOT rest on substance and can NOT stand on a concrete relevant experience to make it happen. That would be tantamount to a manipulation of a people's desperation.

8. [Obama on triangulation] He is equally guilty of triangulating. Most of the time he draws the first snipe and criticism. Then he complains of negativity when his rivals counter his (and his campaign’s) attacks. And at worst, he speaks in abstracts and generalities which give him room to parse. But his motives remain equally questionable.

9. [Obama on character] Other candidates have been in public eye longer than he has. Naturally there is more to be played up about their faults and failings. But it does not mean Obama has a better character than the rest. He simply is an unknown character. Perhaps his eagerness to be elected now has much to do with that - for time might soon catch up with his closet and be found more lacking in character. If that happens, the presidency would be more difficult for him to win.

10. [Obama on family values] It is good that he has not yet gone through serious marital and family problems. It’s expected given that he’s young and his marriage is new. But there is much more that can be said about family values with Hillary – forgiving an unfaithful husband that mirrors her capacity to heal a nation’s wounds – raising a decent daughter that mirrors her capacity to restore respectability to America – showing personal strength and discipline that mirrors her capacity to be commander-in-chief – keeping generational bonds in the family that mirrors her capacity to inspire bipartisanship.

Obama may be good and experienced enough for Illinois but not yet for America.

Posted by MG | December 28, 2007 9:56 PM

America is a Democracy - We are not a Monarchy.
Wiser folks than us - saw to it long ago, that we be fortunate enough to realize this life blessing.
Nepotism may be fine for the old-corner-store but it will only serve to fail us again -as it has, most resoundingly, for the entirety of this millennium.

Voting for the worst policy decision in our life times does not make one 'experienced'. It -IS- high time America elected a woman as commander-in-chief. When a self made woman of conviction and talent stands up and demonstrates the character that can stand as an example for us all - we should stand behind her - with conviction and fortitude. Hillary Clinton is not that woman. She is the spouse of a former and popular President. In a nation, 300 million strong, are we to believe that the person most suited to be the President just happens to be related to the last President ?!
Are we really to believe this is the case ?
Will we make this mistake, again ?

Barack Obama has the strength and certitude to take America in a new and positive direction - a direction that our evolving nation - being formed all around us all as we pass through our daily lives - very much is in need of. There really is an immediacy of the 'now' that we all share. We truly must begin to think big again and to face the immense challenges before us in brave and selfless ways again - like those people in the old faded photographs on our walls did - for us. It really is time to wake up again America. The time is, most certainly, now.

Barack Obama for President of the United States of America.

It's time for America to Rise and Shine again.

Posted by PulSamsara | December 28, 2007 10:09 PM

I listened to Barack Obama this morning regarding the crisis in Pakistan. He immediately starting looking back, reminding viewers he did not vote for the Iraq war, which he has said a million times, and then said that much pressure needed to be put on Musharraf. I couldn't help but wonder what exactly the US can do to further squeeze M to do what exactly. It is extremely naive, and actually arrogant to think that the US can force Pakistan to give up OBL. Obama has said several times that the US needs to use military power within Pakistan to get OBL. He believes this is exactly what Bush should have done. I guess he would have supported that invasion. Political people are all the same regardless of their color or gender which clearly the Barack campaign has chosen to use race for a reason to vote for him. Political candidates always have all the answers until they get elected.

Posted by Susan Kachmar | December 28, 2007 10:12 PM

Yeah Truthseeker -- thanks for the great link!

Posted by donna L. | December 28, 2007 10:31 PM

" It is extremely naive, and actually arrogant to think that the US can force Pakistan to give up OBL."

We give Pakistan BILLIONS in aid supposedly in exchange for their cooperation in the war on terror and you, Susan Kachmar, think its naive and arrogant to demand that they stop harboring terrorists? TAKE A LOOK AT THIS:

Benazir Bhutto, when asked about Barack Obama's statement that he would use military force on Pakistani soil without authorization from that government, at a Council on Foreign Relations event in August:

QUESTIONER: You may have covered that, what I was going to ask you next, but let me try it anyhow.

We had quite an interesting, and indeed still are, mini-debate here politically between two — initially two of the Democratic aspirants for presidents, and it spread now across party lines. And Barack Obama kicked it off by saying, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." That's a direct quote from a recent speech of his. What is your reaction to that?

BHUTTO: Well, I wouldn't like the United States to violate Pakistan's sovereignty with unauthorized military operations. But the issue that I would like to stress is that Barack Obama also said, if Pakistan won't act. And that's the critical issue, that the government has to act. And the government has to act to protect Pakistan's own serenity and integrity, its own respect, and to understand that if it creates a vacuum, then others aren't going to just twiddle their thumbs while militants freely move across the border.

I think General Musharraf did the right thing recently in admitting that militants are using our soil, but he said the army has nothing to do with it. But nonetheless, the issue for me is that we cannot cede parts of Pakistani territory to anybody; not just the Taliban, to anybody. That in Pakistan we have one army, one police, one constitution, one government. We cannot allow parallel armies, parallel militias, parallel laws and parallel command structures. Today it's not just the intelligence services, who were previously called a state within a state. Today it's the militants who are becoming yet another little state within the state, and this is leading some people to say that Pakistan is on the slippery slope of being called a failed state. But this is a crisis for Pakistan, that unless we deal with the extremists and the terrorists, our entire state could founder.

Posted by donna L. | December 28, 2007 11:22 PM

Michelle may be an asset among blacks but she is a liability because of her obvious hatred of white people which make up the majority of the population.

Posted by Reba Shimansky | December 29, 2007 6:02 AM

Obama awarded "Person of the Year" award. Check it out

Posted by Dan Jones | December 29, 2007 6:37 AM

He immediately starting looking back, reminding viewers he did not vote for the Iraq war, which he has said a million times, and then said that much pressure needed to be put on Musharraf. I couldn't help but wonder what exactly the US can do to further squeeze M to do what exactly. It is extremely naive, and actually arrogant to think that the US can force Pakistan to give up OBL. Obama has said several times that the US needs to use military power within Pakistan to get OBL. He believes this is exactly what Bush should have done. I guess he would have supported that invasion.

Susan, as mentioned before, we're in the regretful situation of giving billions of dollars with essentially no oversight or influence to a very corrupt "ally" largely because the Bush administration didn't allow the military to do a thorough job before resources were shifted to Iraq. If it wasn't for Iraq, I firmly believe we could have not only broken Al-Qaeda and Taliban sympathizers but the level of stability within Afghanistan would help provide us with a strong enough ally in the region that we wouldn't need to beg Musharraf to take the border issue seriously.

Obviously the assassination of the leading moderate opposition party's leader greatly complicates the position, but I think Obama's hard-line on Pakistan is still the most reasonable option right now. We need to start treating Musharraf less like a traditional ally and make it clear that if he is passively supporting terrorism by hindering the effort to hunt down Al-Qaeda leaders within Pakistan's borders, we will consider him expendable and do the job without him. The threat alone should be enough for M. to be more compliant but we need to be prepared to take further action. Yeah, I'm sure it's to hear that a liberal like Obama or myself believes a case for preemptive war can be made in certain circumstances, but it kind of goes along with the whole "not against all wars, just dumb wars" thought.

BTW, and this isn't meant to be snarky but is asked out of my own ignorance: what's Clinton's plan for dealing with Pakistan? She seems averse from taking a hard-line with Musharraf, but I'm sure that she sees the Pakistan's unwillingness to work with us on Al-Qaeda as one of the most important national security issues. Of course, she does have one great asset that Obama doesn't on this issue: by shrewdly wisecracking about Gandhi running a 7-Eleven in 2004 she laid the groundwork for working with the Islamic right-wing groups in Pakistan. Give them Kashmir and Hill could be their BFF. (Okay, a little snark at the end.)

Posted by Sam | December 29, 2007 8:56 AM

About Michelle Obama:
I've listened to her speak for some time now, going back to her husband's failed bid in 2000, and I can't help with being impressed by her ability to be bluntly honest without coming across as snide or cynical. She seems to compliment Barack's more vaunted speech with her matter-of-factness (or "brassiness" as a previous commenter disparagingly called). Obviously, she is a very intelligent and accomplished woman in her own right, but beyond that you always get the sense that isn't just reciting talking points or trying to be a "soft" antidote to the candidate's "hard" rhetoric.

Being an over-educated white liberal man, I'm certainly not the target audience for her stump speeches, but I appreciate just folks when I hear it and she is, in the best possible way, just folks. Bill Clinton can go on spinning yarn to the point of embarrassing himself on Charlie Rose and coming across like a washed up rock star who should have stopped a long time ago. (A coincidence Hillary has dragged out the bloated corpse of Stevie Nicks for another round of "Don't Stop Thinkin' About Tomorrow?" I think not.) It's sad to see a personal hero of mine and the first presidential candidate I voted for have to remind us that he is first and foremost a politician who is comfortable saying just about anything. I'll take my first spouses opinionated, down-to-earth, and honest, thank you very much.

Posted by Sam | December 29, 2007 9:27 AM

Saying that Michelle obama's intelligence is an asset is kind of silly when Obama's, Hillary's edward's, Biden's intelligences are all assets too. Is her intelligence more of an asset than bill's or Hillary's or Mrs. Edwards' ? That intelligence and quickness is a hallmark of all three top tier dem candidates and thier spouses, so how is Michelle's a particular strength?
And is Stevie Nicks more 'bloated' than Oprah? Are any of these candidates and their wives not running around like rockstars? Remember that Hillary was a new kind of candidate's wife, professional, law school, substantive on issues, great on camera and that Mrs. Edwards and Mrs. Obama's roles in their husbands' campaigns are modeled after hers 15 years later. But it was a trail blazed by Hillary.
That certainly doesn't make Hillary a retread. Also Bill's magic act right now is to forge a tricky new model that has to be both substantial because we all know him to be and somehow akin to Mr. Thatcher, i.e., not the candidate. It's as tricky a new ground to tread as Hillary's was 15 years ago: we don't have an existing model for how we want Bill to be. Thus he's a little more Mr. Rogers in a sweater or short sleeves instead of a power suit: he is dressing for the new part, a little less sharp, showcasing his wife the candidate and senator, stepping back in earnest.
Hillary's best and singular model for the last 15 years has been and will continue to be Eleanor Roosevelt.
I like Michelle and I like bill but It doesn't make me believe that Barack Obama yet has the skills or strength or experience that is needed now to hit the ground running as president in a country as dismantled and disillusioned as this one, or in a world as haunted by 8 years of Bush weariness and wariness as this world of nations is. His childhood in indonesia doesn't prepare him for international relations anymore than my childhood in Rochester, Ny prepares me to make cameras or put together a darkroom: that desperate arguement of his shows he is not ready for primetime and that his supporters are too gullible by half. They believe in him and so they want to believe this fiction of the campaign.

Yes we sent Lincoln to the whitehouse with very little experience but our insular unconnected world was profoundly different then and yes we sent a very young governor from a tiny backwards state to the whitehouse 16 years ago but we wouldn't make the same leap now: yes he had three terms as governor already and we weren't at war and we were reagon and Bush weary and our domestic situation was far and away the more important component of the election.
Obama will not make it and if he makes it it is going to be a very ugly learning curve and we don't deserve that right now no matter how charismatic some find him and now his wife.

Posted by Michael | December 29, 2007 10:47 AM

His childhood in indonesia doesn't prepare him for international relations anymore than my childhood in Rochester, Ny prepares me to make cameras or put together a darkroom: that desperate arguement of his shows he is not ready for primetime and that his supporters are too gullible by half. They believe in him and so they want to believe this fiction of the campaign.

Uh, just what was Hillary's role in foreign policy during the Clinton administration? Maybe I mistook her for Madeline Albright when she went to North Korea. Maybe she actually orchestrated the Dayton accord. You know, she and Richard Holbrooke share a passing resemblance. And should she shoulder the blame for are inaction in Rwanda?

Talk about gullible by half. If you were serious about foreign policy experience you could at least be logically consistent and support Biden or Richardson. Instead you seem to subscribe to the experience by osmosis theory. Hell, if sleeping with somebody is akin to real world experience I should be ready to play first chair violin, make artisan cheese, and stalk my exes with frightening results.

I know a bit about her record as Senator (support Iraq authorization, taking cues from Lieberman on Iran). Granted, Obama is fairly new to working in foreign policy as an elected official, but he was wise to work with Richard Lugar on the loose nukes issue and showed a great deal of wisdom in both his opposition to the Iraq war and his realistic ideas about the duration of withdrawing.

And Stevie Nicks and Oprah? The two are night and day. One has developed a very strong following across generations based on self-affirmation (hey, I don't watch it, but seeing how my Mom and sister-in-law follow her almost religiously I can't deny her power). The other has made me take a baseball bat to a clock radio. Hell, maybe Hillary will replace waterboarding with forcing suspects to listen to Rhiannon for hours on end. At least Obama can fall back on Jeff Tweedy and Green Day.

Posted by Sam | December 29, 2007 2:01 PM

NOBODY scripts Michelle Obama... Ask MSNBC - after Mika Brzezinski (sp?) interviewed her, she mentioned that Obama's people had a list of topics to be avoided. Instead, Obama personally addressed everyone, ignoring the advice of handlers. She was calm, unflabbable, articulate and supremely intelligent.

In fact, she's the anti-Hillary. Though both women are brilliant, competent women, Obama has an utter intolerace of BS. If she'd married the likes of Bill Clinton, she would have showed him the door and changed the locks years ago. Michelle Obama does not need - let alone depend - on her husband to further her own ambitions. That's she's put her own career on the back burner is her own choice, not his demand. Her children and their welfare is her top priority.

Should Obama win the White House, Michelle Obama will be a legendary First Lady. Echoes of Jackie Kennedy and Lady Bird Johnson, but entirely her own woman.

Posted by Judy Raddue | December 29, 2007 2:39 PM

Superbly stated Judy. You describe prefectly the Michelle I saw speak from the heart, without script in Seattle several months ago. She's an amazing human being on every level and she'll be an outstanding First Lady.

Posted by donna L. | December 29, 2007 2:53 PM

You can add me to list of those who would be incredibly honored to have Michelle as a First Lady. I watched this speech a few weeks ago on Sen. Obama's web site & was moved to tears by her ability to speak with such passionate, heartfelt clarity. Whoever said she was the anti-Hillary hit the nail on the head. Michelle is truly courageous & caring...a person of great intelligence, humility & conviction.

So here's hoping that others are also tired of the fear that has gripped this country. Let's move forward together.

Obama '08

Posted by Kara | December 29, 2007 11:45 PM

The Obama campaign is in a panic. Mr. Axelrod's reprehensible statement is meant to deflect the spotlight and rescue his candidate, because as people think about the implications of Benazir Bhutto's assassination one thing comes to mind and it isn't the leadership experience of Barack Obama. International tragedy has made Barack Obama and his campaign desperate for fear their paper thin experience in foreign policy will be weighed as voters ready for the Iowa primaries. It's in moments of crisis you find out what a candidate has and the strength of his character to respond to real dangers in the world. Another example of Mr. Obama's campaign of "hope," no doubt.
But Mr. Axelrod has stepped into it now. Blaming Clinton? This statement is not only beyond the pale, but it is made even more reprehensible, not to mention ridiculous, by Obama's campaign turning from the very serious subjects of Afghanistan-Pakistan-al Qaeda to the pop culture filmmaker Woody Allen, equating the two in a statement that is so ignorant you have to wonder if the Obama camp actually understands the possible ramifications of what happened today. I assure you, it does not come close to resembling or reflecting Woody Allen's wisdom on life. Seriously, the celebrity candidacy of Barack Obama, now threatened by a foreign policy emergency, has slipped into the nonsensical.

Posted by Obama campaign is in a panic | December 30, 2007 11:01 PM

Please enjoy an article I've written titled "Experience Matters!"

http://www.nycivic.org/articles07/Bison/071231B.htm

Thanks,
Michael Oliva

Posted by Michael Oliva | January 7, 2008 3:59 AM

The

http://webofdeception.com/theobamaoptions.html

says Michelle used her free office space at the University of Chicago Hospital to run her business and do outside stock options.

Posted by robert lewis | February 11, 2008 8:09 PM

The

http://webofdeception.com/theobamaoptions.html

says Michelle used her free office space at the University of Chicago Hospital to run her business and do outside stock options.

Posted by robert lewis | February 11, 2008 8:09 PM