Michelle Obama is profiled in New Yorker magazine; here are a few excerpts:



Here is a link to the rest of the article: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/03...s?currentPage=3

Her attitude is what troubles me so much (i) about race relations as a white male, and (ii) about liberal viewpoints genearlly, as a classical Conservative.

First, this woman grew up in a poorer environment, but look at where she is today: "Obama, who graduated from Princeton, earned a law degree from Harvard, and became, first, a corporate lawyer and, more recently, the vice-president for community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals, spent all but the first year of her childhood in a four-room bungalow on Chicago’s South Side."

As a child from humble beginnings, she couldn't afford this education, but this "mean" nation provided it for her--the best available anywhere. She even attended one of the magnet schools she derides. She has had two great jobs. What does she expect?

Anyone with their eyes focused correctly should think that they have been blessed by this mean ol' nation and given--GIVEN--an education that I may not be able to afford for my own kids. She clearly is bright, but she has had made available to her the tools for her to be successful, and then some. But, she still complains. Why?

Well, it seems obvious to me: She does not believe in equality of opportunity (and not even in affirmative action to assist with opportunity); no, she believes, obviously, in equality of condition. If one person is rich, all should be rich; if one person gets good medical care, all should get it. "From each according to this ability, to each according to his need...."

She also says, "So if you want to pretend like there was some point over the last couple of decades when your lives were easy...." She clearly thinks life is supposed to be easy. Huh? No one ever said life would be anything but hard, and all the USA has ever promised anyone, at any time in its history, is a chance to play the game. The USA has not promised success; it has not promised ease; it has promised only a chance, which many nations do not promise at all.

If a woman with this exposure and education doesn't "get it", then clearly there is something fundamentally wrong with her. I would suggest to you she (and those who think like her) will not be happy until they have my money, my house, my car, my LIFE--and I will NOT give them up, to her or anyone else. Is this a common thread among blacks, even those who should know better? She has all she should ever want, and is still not happy and has contempt for the system that made all of this available to her; further, this opportunity is out there for almost anyone with any intelligence--it isn't easy, no not at all--but the opportunity is there.

Further, as a Conservative, I know there are many of my own race who think the same way, albeit with a different perspective. I give them less credence than Michelle Obama--at least she is black, which means she apparently suffers from a chronic sense of victimhood, despite her obvious blessings. What is the white liberal's excuse?

As to her specific complaints: (1) we are a "mean" nation. In 2006, US citizens gave $260.28 billion--BILLION---dollars to charity. This isn't tax money; these aren't dollars for govt programs. This is private charity. Mean? And things have gotten worse? For blacks, they have certainly not gotten worse in her 44 years. Did she not pay attention when she studied the '60s in school?

(2) You can't get medical care? No matter your ability to pay, anyone can go to any emergency room in the USA and get care and the hospital by law must give it to you. Who pays for that? I do, with higher taxes, higher insurance premiums, and higher medical costs. But I'm mean. Of course, you may not get to go to the Mayo Clinic, but shouldn't you get some benefit other than a bigger car for you hard work and wealth?

(3) No good schools? We pay more per capita for education that any nation on earth. If there is a problem with neighborhood schools, I would suggest that in predominantly black neighborhoods, where juvenile crime is greatest, they make their own beds. If the schools are bad, it is not from lack of funding.

"In 2001, the 29 countries covered in this report spent approximately $1.1 trillion dollars on education or roughly 4.1 percent of their collective gross domestic product. The United States spent the most on education in 2001 at roughly $500 billion, followed by Japan, Germany and France at $139 billion, $89 billion and $82 billion respectively."

(4) "For me, she said, you can talk about policies and plans and experience and all that. We usually get bogged down in that in a Presidential campaign, over the stuff that I think doesn’t matter...." Well, this speaks for itself. Did she really go to law school? Really?

With all of this as a preface, I have these questions for debate:

1) Is Michelle Obama's world view correct? Justify your response.

2) Does the USA promise equality of condition, or only of opportunity. Which should it provide, and why? What does our Constitution permit?

3) Do you find it amazing that someone who has so benefited from our system is so hostile to it? If not, why not?

Oh here we go again with yet another of Quick's attempts to showcase his racism. Are you capable of going a day without trying to start a race based flame war?

All I can say is "amen."

I will add, however, that Michelle Obama will not be on any ballot in November, so who really gives a damn.

Conservative is a race?

Who knew?

It's just like liberal. That's why blacks vote Democratic all the damn time. However, unlike liberalism, some forms of conservatism have patent rights to color blindness. Such is the case when Cubans vote Republican all the damn time. They're just voting self-interest.

It only makes sense. Blacks suffer from chronic victimhood, like Quick said, unlike lighter skinned Cubans. Their European background affords them some rationality, after all. Just ask Quick.

She has elected to go on the stump and to address substantive issues; she's not talking china patterns or roadside litter, and she's not trying to be a Jackie-O fashion plate. Once she steps into the ring, she is fair game. And, I'd say the prospective first husband is fair game as well.

As far as the race issue goes, if Obama thinks at all like his wife, I cannot wait for the new programs to come down the pike to create the "equality" she seems to think is missing. And since, unlike most of you , I have read his first book, I believe he thinks just like his wife. I do not think such a policy will unite us under Bob the Builder's mantra, "Yes we can!"

If you have a stake in this society, this should be of foundational interest to you. If you are a white masochist, of course, maybe you think it is your just due, as unwitting heirs to the outlawed U.S. chattel slavery system, to be separated by law from everything of material value you have worked so hard to acquire. That is your self-effacing privilege.

I must be some kind of masochist because I'm actually going to approach this in my typical semi serious manner.

Probably because it helps to prove a point I made months ago about how being black means Obama's loyalty comes under unreasonable scrutiny.

First nothing Mrs. O said is a call for equality of outcome. She's just comments on American life as it is, anything else is you reading into it.

Second its mostly true so yeah, I guess I agree with that world view and would love to defend it substantively.

I disagree that life has gotten entirely worse, though I understand what she means in terms of the cost of living vs. wages and other measures that are a bit in the doldrums.

I object to her nostalgia, everything else is right on target.

That last question is just rhetoric. America is built on changing the system, complaint is the lifeblood of democracy,

1) Is Michelle Obama's world view correct? Justify your response.

No, she is wrong on just about all of these issues. I find it very ironic how gloomy her view is when you look at how good her life is compared to just about anybody else's. She majored in Sociology at Princeton and got her law degree from Harvard. She met her husband while they were both lawyers for Sidley Austin, one of the country's oldest and largest law firms. The couple made nearly $1 million between them in 2006. She and her husband made nearly 50 times a couple working at minimum wage would make.


2) Does the USA promise equality of condition, or only of opportunity. Which should it provide, and why? What does our Constitution permit?

Equality of opportunity, obviously. This question is far too broad and could be its own topic in another forum category.

3) Do you find it amazing that someone who has so benefited from our system is so hostile to it? If not, why not?

Yes, but that's why there are Democrats. John Edwards' Two Americas spiel seems optimistic compared to what she has said.

1. Yes.

2. Blacks were excluded from the Constitution.

3. No. Because.

Another in a series of Obama drive-by shootings by quick. Stay tuned for the next chapter...

Yeah! A debate!


Oh, really?

Do you mind being specific?

I mean real wages are falling, college costs are increasing, aid is tougher to find and yes Americans are in debt up to our collective eyeballs.

So where is she wrong? On schools?

I'm a magnet grad myself and even I see the problem in offering such opportunities to a privileged few while writing of the majority of our kids who can't get a voucher or an invite.


Perhaps she care about the welfare of other people. A foreign concept in modern American politics, I know, but there are a few of us left.

Is Michelle Obama's world view correct? Justify your response.
As the responses on this thread prove, it depends who you ask. Is the cup half empty or half full? I agree with some of her assertions, but not as a blanket statement. The truth is that the country hasn't become downright mean. Certain individuals are mean. But most people are inherently good and just want to live their lives in peace and see their children grow up and be happy.

It looks like Michelle Obama has accomplished a lot and she should be proud of herself. And as the potential first lady of the nation, she should have a more positive and productive tone in her message.


Does the USA promise equality of condition, or only of opportunity. Which should it provide, and why? What does our Constitution permit?

Opportunity. We all have the opportunity to follow our dreams. That's the bottom line. Whether or not we let real and/or perceived obstacles stop us, well that's on us, now isn't it?


Do you find it amazing that someone who has so benefited from our system is so hostile to it? If not, why not?

I don't know Michelle Obama so I don't want to judge her motives. But it seems like she is frustrated with how the world is. I can relate to that in my own personal way. There are a lot of things I wish were different and better.

But in reality, the world owes me nothing. If I want to make my life better, I have to make it happen. Relying on government to make everything perfect and even across the board is foolhardy. This country may be filled with victims and racists, but there is still opportunity for anyone who wants to rise above the noise and get busy.

That's an attractive world view if you aren't a very goal oriented thinker.

That I think is fundamental to the left/right divide.

Liberals know America doesn't promise equality of outcome it doesn't even promise equality of opportunity.

It does promise equality under the law... and occasionally it even delivers.

...but liberals want results too, we want the absolute standard of living for Americans rich and poor to rise.

I'm sure conservatives want this too, they just don't seem to want to do much about it sometimes.

I know that's not the case but if they'd stop asking up to "buck up" and got down to the real work up building up the country without the lightweight platitudes, it would be a lot easier to see.

Blacks, as of 1865, sir, were NOT excluded from the Constitution.

Don't flatter yourself, of course. If Hillary gets back in the driver's seat, I'll address her foiables as well; but since she is generally a known quantity, there isn't much need.

I understand your excitement at seeing a black man striding toward the presidency, I really do. Your heart would overwhelm your head no matter what Obama wrote, said or did. But, when I see middle-aged, white males, whom Obama and his wife clearly loathe, chanting Bob the Builder's kindergarten slogan, "Yes we can!," at an Obama rally, I feel a duty to actually educate people about Mr. Obama--and his campaigning spouse--since this pie-in-the-sky view of him is not consistent with his own writings.

I don't take this as a slam on charter schools or magnet schools (especially since Obama SUPPORTS them), but rather a slam on the process to get into them. I can tell you right now, when you live in an area with horrible public schools (like I do), the charter schools fill up quickly and the rest of the folks are left to send their kids to awful schools. That's what I took from that statement and I wholeheartedly agree. And...I went to...a magnet school! My magnet school is located in an urban, almost 100% Black & Hispanic neighborhood. THe white kids are the 'privileged' ones who get to enroll in magnet programs and reap the benefits of the excessive funding these programs get, while the Black & Hispanic kids are still in regular classes, rarely able to even get into the magnet programs because the whole point of them is to bus in the white kids...but that's a whole different story.

As for equality of opportunity, sorry...it doesn't exist. When every single child in this country has the OPPORTUNITY to get the best education available, then that's equality of opportunity. As it is right now, we've got equality of oportunity to go to a school that may be great and may be horrible and may be something in between. That sure isn't my idea of equality of opportunity.

And I happen to agree with much of her overall assesment thanks to my experiences.



I think you are reading WAY too much into this. I highly doubt she's talking about herself and her own personal experiences. It is possible for someone to be concerned with other people, ya know She's talking about the bigger picture, the whole of America. Kids in many schools in Arizona don't have books, paper, or desks because their districts don't have enough money to afford it (after the administrators take their huge cuts, that is) unless the teachers shell out their own money to provide these things. The opportunity for higher learning is there for everyone who can afford it and/or the select few who can earn a full ride scholarship. The opportunity issue is with respect to primary education in this country...something that's seriously in trouble.

It never ceases to be a source of wonderment to me how supposedly intelligent and bright people can get their undies in a bunch over one or two comments selectively chosen and taken out of context.

Then again, lots of people are intimidated, unnerved and all shook up by a tall, educated, bright, articulate, attractive, well-compensated and "I don't have to stand by my man like a glassy-eyed Barbie doll" BLACK WOMAN. Particularly, White men really get bent out of shape by this kind of phenomenon. They're used to seeing Black women as hoochie mamas, hood rats and sex kittens. Any other type is like an alien with two heads walking around the neighborhood.

Which kind of points out how the total absence of strong Black women on contributes to making the emergence of Michelle Obama such an anomaly. A lot of y'all have never seen nor heard anything or anyone like Michelle Obama.

Strong and independent women terrify weak men. Add race to the mix and it only gets scarier.

Well, quick isn't the only one who can selectively quote from a ten page article. Two can play that game.

Barack has written eloquently about the pressure of assimilation for members of minority groups. When I asked Michelle if she had felt that sort of pressure, she replied, "What minority communities go through still represents the challenges, the legacies, of oppression and racism. You know, when you have cultures who feel like second-class citizens at some level ... there's this natural feeling within the community that we're not good enough...we can't be as smart as or as prepared--and it's that internal struggle that is always the battle." She talked about her first trip to Africa--Barack took her to Kenya to meet his father's family--and the realization that, as much as white society fails to account for the African-American experience, so does any conception of pan-blackness. "There's also the view among many black Americans that Africa is home," she said. "But when you're a black American you're very much an American first." link

But...but...doesn't Michelle Obama hate America?

No. She doesn't hate America. Neither does Barack Obama. They love America as much as anyone does. They just don't love it the same way YOU do, so their way must be wrong.

I get it. The reason you don't is because strong Black women scare the hell out of you.

Apparently you as well, NT.

That's why you posted this garbage.

Aquilla

I was referring to white masochists who want to vote themselves into a give-away under the Obama regime; you, being black, are hardly a masochist for wanting such give-away. I'd just call you an opportunist.



His loyalty to what and to whom? Please clarify.




The rich--a group in which she and Barack belong, thanks to that $1.6 million income in 2006--will always, should always, have better health care than the poor. That is why we work so hard to get rich. If you get nothing for your money, why bother.? Her comment about "Don't get sick in America" is silly--anyone can get health care, as I said above, thought not the best. She wants equal outcome--not equal opportunity to make enough money to buy the best health care.



Well, then do so.



If any black in this nation can look me in the eye and tell me that since 1964 their condition here has gotten worse, then I'd call them out on the spot. Let's see: free access to all public facilities and organizations of any kind, anywhere; anti-discrimination laws; affirmative action laws; AFDC and its successor program; all kinds of job programs and charitable programs; the decline and all-but-fall of the KKK; much greater share of national GDP; to name a few. Nope, blacks have nothing better in last 44 years.




I think you suffer from parallax distortion.



Your response makes no sense at all. If you actually read the article, you'd know that instead of being thankful she got to attend Princeton, a blessing few will ever have, she wrote this:

"Obama majored in sociology, investigating, in her senior thesis, “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community,” the ways in which attending Princeton affected black alumni’s sense of connection to the black community. At Obama’s request, the thesis was embargoed until November 5, 2008. Last month, amid charges of hypocrisy—the Obama campaign has congratulated itself on transparency—Obama finally released the document to the Web site Politico. A sample passage: “Unfortunately there are very few adequate support groups which provide some form of guidance and counsel for Black students having difficulty making the transition from their home environments to Princeton’s environment. Most students are dependent upon the use of their own faculties to carry them through Princeton.”

As a Southerner at one of the nations finest universities, and one not located in the South, I was teased about, and occasionally ostracized for, being Southern and I had no support group, either, but you'll never here me complain about the experience. I never expected anything other than to "use my own faculties" to carry me through--at school or anywhere else.

I'm aware of the original subtext of the masochist remark, I was just being clever... it's a habit.


...and it is telling that you have a notion of some "give-away" I'm waiting for. The government "gives away" roads and police and social security too. I hardly think accepting them is being an opportunist.


The United States of America and its people. You have repeated denied his fidelity to this nation, have you not?


You are assuming she's speaking relativistically. Could she not simply be calling for a improvement in the absolute welfare of the poor and middle class?


Generally speaking I agree. I said I object to the nostalgia, there never were any good old days.

..but in the last decade or so life has been getting tougher. I've already mentioned a few reasons why this is so.


.... and that's lovely.

However one must consider scope and context. In the time Obama went to college racism was a very tangible concern as was the artificial poverty most blacks were still mired in.

You may think he's advocated blacks be babied in the Ivy League but without actually reading the report you're likely just projecting.

That's where you're wrong, Aquilla. I don't consider a Black woman who catches a Broadway play, plays tennis and shops for shoes while thousands of her own fellow Americans are suffering and dying, to be a strong, Black woman at all.

I consider her a sellout.

Michelle Obama isn't.

You would do well, quick, to remember what you write from post-to-post. On your 4th attempt to get people to read Barack Obama's, Dreams from My Father, you did directly challenge Obama's loyalty to this country

What was she doing during Katrina? I sure didn't see her dangling down from a helicopter rescuing people. So, tell me, NT, what was Michelle Obama doing at that time?

Aquilla

Did you mean to say, "That's an attractive view if you ARE a very goal oriented thinker?"




Condoleeza Rice is a strong black woman who happens to have different political views than yours. Is it a crime for her to live a prosperous life? Do you think every black person must view themselves as a black person first and foremost? Your criticism is unfair, and your definition of "strong, black woman" is narrow, to say the least. Did Condoleeza Rice ever promise anything specifically to black people and then not deliver on that promise? If so, I will accept your criticism of her. But if you are admonishing her purely based on the color of her skin, and your expectations of her, based on that ethnic attribute, you are being extremely unfair.

Maybe she was catching a Broadway play or playing tennis with Monica Seles or shopping for shoes in NYC. I dunno. It wasn't my day to watch her.

The point is I didn't see Condi Rice dangling down from a helicopter rescuing people either. You'd think the Secretary of State might give a damn about what is happening in The United States of America.

Apparently not.




That's the thing doomed planet. I've got conservatives telling me I should be proud of Condi Rice and besides the fact that she's Black, I can't find a whole lot of reasons why I should feel anything about her. I'm not saying they don't exist, but if YOU think she's such a "strong Black woman" doomed planet, you're free to point our her accomplishments to me instead of wagging your finger and telling me I'm being "extremely unfair."

I think it was "extremely unfair" for her to be getting her party on in New York City while the same Black people whom are supposed to be proud of her were drowning like rats in New Orleans.

I could care less about her different political views. What I do care about is does her different political views benefit anybody not named Condoleeza Rice?

I am not admonishing Rice purely based on the color of her skin. I am admonishing her based on the (lack) of content of her character. That IS fair.

I know, weird to quote one's own post.

Anyway, I found out what Michelle Obama, aka "strong black woman" waas doing during Katrina. She was working on the board of TreeHouse Foods Inc., a major supplier to Wal-Mart and raking in big bucks too from her position as Vice President for Community and External Affairs for the University of Chicago Hospitals. (Healthcare costs anyone?). Hell, she made more money ($273,618) than Barack did as a US Senator, and probably more than Condi Rice. Yet, where was she during Katrina? I don't know, but if she'd have been there we'd have all heard about it.

And while we're at it. I have another question.......

According to this link, the combined income of the Obama family in 2006 was s $991,296. Nice chunk of change. Yet, from this link about Obama's Grandmother in Keyna, we read the following.......



Gee. you would think at close a million a year in income Obama could at least afford to buy his grandma a TV set. Heck, he might even pitch in for a satellite dish.


Aquilla

Wether you agree with what she does or not Condoleezza Rice IS a strong black woman. You can criticize her lack of character, compassion or whatever... but as long as being a strong woman means being independent, thinking for yourself and living your own the life the way you choose to, than Condi Rice is indeed a strong black woman.

I understand your point of view, I just think that "strong" doesn't necessarily equate to "caring for everyone in need." Condi is a strong woman in terms of her intelligence, facility with the language, and educational and political achievements. Whether or not they have actually helped anyone is debatable.

I personally question whether Condi Rice's actions have helped anyone.

I would, however, submit that Rice is a stronger woman than George W. Bush is a man.

That sometimes happens with bosses and underlings. During my years of teaching, I saw male principals who couldn't find their butts with both hands when their secretaries were absent.

Look, I simply asked for clarification. For all I knew, EDIT was saying his loyalty to blacks would be questioned, because of his mixed race background, loyalty to his party, etc.

I completely stand by my point. I think he is at least as divided in his loyalties as a Zionist president might be. Since none of you have read Dreams and are therefore arguing from total ignorance, perhaps I'll supplement my prior post to further underline the point:

Obama's dad married in Africa and had a child; he then went to Hawaii, met Obama's white mother Ann; they got married, and she gave birth to young Barry 6 months later; either because she found out about the previous marriage or some other rift, she divorced Barry's dad; Barry did not see his dad from the time he was about 19 months old until he as about ten, and then Obama's dad visited with him and his grandparents and mom in Hawaii for several weeks. During a period of time prior to this tenth birthday, Barry lived in Indonesia with his mother's second husband, whom she later divorced. After that divorce, he went back to Hawaii. His mom left him in the care of her parents while she went back to graduate school. His mom's parents raised him most of his formative years. His dad died in Africa before he ever saw him again.

Yet, despite all of this, he wrote an entire book about his voyage of self-discovery to find his....father? The father who had little or no role in his upbringing and whom he saw for a but a few weeks in his entire adult life? Why not "Dreams of my Mother?", or "Dreams of my Grandparents?" Without reading in Dreams any of the tales of black nationalism, or the epithets directed towards whites by him and his friends, the virulent distate for whites reflected in so much of the text, or his clear love for Kenya and his half siblings in Africa and their relatives, I find this very odd and indicative of his divided loyaties.

I can hear that great sucking sound of Obama-directed tax dollars going from the USA to Africa directly or through the UN....I doubt McCain will be sending our tax dollars to...Ireland.

Example:

From Barack Obama’s Senate office comes this statement: “As we strive to rebuild America’s standing in the world this important bill [Global Poverty Act] will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world.â€�

The bill, called the Global Poverty Act, is the type of legislation, "We can - and must - make a priority", said Obama, a co-sponsor.

"Jeffrey Sachs, administrator of the Millenium Project, confirms a UN plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7% of GNP [745 billion dollars per year] annually to fund this Global Povery Act."

...And the only way to raise that funding, Sachs confirms, "is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels." [ala the Bali Global Warming proposal.]

The UN proposal also commits contributing nations to such programs as "Bio-diversity" and other globalization schemes. Interestingly, Obama's GPA is devoid of actual dollars and percents; only tying the bill to the labrynth of mandates set forth in the UN Millenium Project. In other words, we surrender our independence to the UN on a host of issues.

Read more: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=...mp;pageId=56405

Quite the contrary I meant precisely what I wrote.

The "stiff-upper lip" theory of government is great if all you need is a feel good message...

(and it is a special irony that those who claim Obama lacks substance are attacking him for his wife's tone)

...but is is silly to abandon progress because you think people should just put up with their hardships.

All process and no goal is what I'm hearing a lot lately.


Is my new name reciprocated cleverness?

My cards are on the table no treason involved.


Total?

Only concerning that one book, not his whole record which you seem to be conveniently ignoring.

...and Africa.

Possibly the one thing Bush can point to as a proud point in his presidency is that he increased aid to Africa like no one before him.

He is in fact the creator of the Millennium Challenge Account program.

Is he disloyal too?
Or are they both simply committing themselves to the countries previous promises concerning the Millennium Goals. That 0.7% goal was set and agreed to years ago by a number of states including the US.

No one's being forced to do anything.

That's about what I have to say about this thread. Apologies for the one-liner.

Do we wonder why First Ladies and would-be First Ladies tend to stand silently by their men and grin like brainless mannequins?

I remember when Hillary Clinton was roundly criticized when she said she wouldn't just "stay home and bake cookies" in response to a journalist's question. All of a sudden, the homemakers of America were supposedly up in arms, incensed over a remark that they were "sure" meant that Mrs. Clinton was demeaning the role of homemaker and not just speaking for herself.

Michelle Obama is still fairly new to the process. She still has the audacity to believe that people actually care about what she has to say, so she runs the risk of being seen as an "uppity" black woman who has had all of the advantages and still has an attitude.

Condoleezza Rice is really irrelevant to this debate.

There is a lot wrong with America. To point that out does not make a person un-American or unpatriotic. The problem is that it tends to embarrass some of us when a relative political ingenue such as Mrs. Obama makes some guileless statements about the state of our country.

God help us all if Mrs. Obama actually said something that WAS inflammatory or anti-American!

Do we want all of the wives of the candidates to be sweet, compliant servers of tea and platitudes, always choosing to be seen and not heard?

How about some perspective in this? The candidates themselves say things that cause controversy; can we expect their spouses to be any less human?

What is your definition of progress? If it includes encouraging people to be more accountable for their lives and less dependent on the government, I am all for it.





That's a good point, PE. I like the fact that Mrs. Obama is willing to be forthcoming about her point of view, but she must understand that her words will be taken and dissected. That goes with the territory.

So, tell me, NT, where was she while "thousands of her own fellow Americans were suffering and dying"? At a board meeting for TreeHouse Foods? Where was she? What was she doing that made her your ideal strong Black woman? Cashing in her paycheck and bemoaning how bad America has treated her?

Aquilla

What makes you think you're the only one who's read the book. Maybe others have and aren't as scared silly by it as you are.

There are plenty of reviews of the book available and here's one from Amazon.com:

I am not a Obama supporter, a liberal Democrat or cranky Republican. I read this book because the more I see of the man the more intrigued I become so I wanted to know for myself, who is this man? And this book, his first, is pretty much a search for his identity. A deep, probing look at who I am, the same journey that most conscientious, self-examining people will take at least once in their lifetime. Barack Obama is a deep thinker, pondering the roots of his black father and white mother and what separates them but ultimately what unites them. His journey is a fascinating one that is well written and well thought out. I was totally enthralled by his story and while there is nothing in here that makes one say, wow, he would make a great president, there here is plenty here to say, wow, what an incredible spirit and human being.

link

Out of 158 reviews on Amazon.com, 111 gave the book four-and-half-stars out of a possible five. Only six reviewers gave the book less than three stars.

Darn Barack Obama supporters! Always skewing the results.



Know what I find odd, quick?

I find it odd since you have proclaimed anyone that hasn't read the book as you have is "therefore arguing from total ignorance" that you don't know the title. It's not "Dreams of My Father." The correct and full title is Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.

If you can't get the title of the book right, why should anyone trust you got your facts straight?

Oh, by the way, what does ANY of this have to do with Michelle Obama? What are you thinking hijacking your own thread to back door into it your highly suspect critique of her husband's first book?

I'm pretty much in agreement with this take on the whole thing. Where the Republicans fell all over themselves to claim that there's nothing wrong with the US of A, the Democrats face up to the realities of job loss, bankruptcy, foreclosure and basically the symptoms of something wrong with the US of A. Well, many somethings.

This is exactly why change is reverberating this election season. The trouble with the Republican side is that the old tactics of divide and conquer aren't working, yet they must be attempted because they worked so well in the past.

Ah yes, the movement of time and the continuation of history. You can only mess with people and get away with it some of the time, and then even the most dim bulb on the string eventually goes, "Hey . . . I'm being screwed!" Outward that is, off the string and into the darkness.

And so the questions about Mrs. Obama come out because she has the audacity to express an opinion, as opposed to Mrs. Bush who keeps quiet until handed a script, and I think she has already quit that job. What's the point? It'll only be a few more months and this episode will be done. I can't help but feel sorry for the former librarian.

Fundamental to the questioning is the amount of loyalty that the next POTUS needs to have. Well, what about loyalty? What is it?

It certainly isn't being a yes-man or woman, and that looks like what the questioning is about. How dare anyone say that there's something wrong with the country? Okay, if that's what we want then we'll end up with another GWB or worse.

Case in point.

We say that, but would we return to a time without freeways, public schools, and the FDA?

The progress I mean is the kind of progress Michell Obama spoke of.

Actual improvement in the quality of life for Americans.

Is that so much to ask?

1.) From her point of view or whoever is handling her, sure. Remember some people were saying Obama didn't hold the reins in his own campaign and he was the product of a couple people pulling his strings? I think they flocked to Michelle.

2.) The stipulation is that freedom shall be provided to pursue happiness. Laws are not in place to prevent anything she's railing against, so the case can be made that America need only protect the process of achieving equality and not promise it outright.

3.) No. Happened before.

I see. Since you haven't bothered to read the man's book, you are stuck with quoting reviews at Amazon. NT, this has to be the single most feckless attempt at making an argument I have ever seen. I expect better from you than this. At least withhold comment until you have read Dreams. You have no basis to argue anything about the book. It is a quick read--give it try.

Oh, and I apologize profusely about misquoting the title. The grammar is bit odd and I lapse back into what sounds best to me, and I type quickly. My dreams are of people, not from them.

NT, as I have said before, Obama's black and you are going to support him, no matter what. Fine. I have a number of female colleagues who have said the analog about Hillary. I chuckle at you both. If you vote solely based on race or gender, then I pity you.

Obama and his wife are exactly the kind of folks that this nation has bent over backwards to assist, to the tune of trillions of dollars over the last 50 years, and who still don't get it. Fine. Maybe one day....



I don't support Bush on this point. Are you really so daft, have you really read so few of my posts, to think I acquiesce in everything the Republicans do generally, or Bush does in particular? Bush has done one thing I like--cut my taxes. I am non-committal on most of his other actions, but cutting taxes was enough to get my support over his Democratic opponents, all of whom have been committed to raising my taxes, and those of businesses and individuals that drive the economy. Britain had really high taxes in the 1970s--many of its wealthy relocated and became citizens of Monaco, and many of its businesses went offshore. Their economy nearly collapsed. Ours will, too, if taxes are jacked up. The wealthy and businesses do not have to sit there and take it.

So long as we have a budget deficit, what in the world is Bush doing sending tax dollars to Africa? First, our govt has no basis for foreign aid of any kind--not one word in the Const contemplates such expenditures. Second, let charities do it--charities where people choose to send their dollars rather than have their tax dollars diverted to something the Const doesn't even contemplate.

The difference between Bush and Obama is this 0.7% GDP bloodletting is unfunded now. Obama plans to remedy that. If he does, he will spend on this program in two years about what the entire Iraq War has cost from its inception to date. Think about that.

Aye, there is the rub.

Fact Check

Nighttimer did not quote any Amazon.com review. He did cite statistics on how reviewers rated the book.

http://www.amazon.com/Dreams-My-Father-Sto...8158&sr=1-2

Here's something that might interest you from the above link. Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance is currently No. 144 on the Amazon book sales list. That means you are probably not the only person who has read the book and that many astute people may have come to a conclusion that differs from yours - one that's apparently filtered through racist lenses.

I am not disappointed, though. This misstatement is exactly what I would anticipate from you, quick.

BTW: I have the book and just to make you happy, quick, I'll start reading it today. I'll get back to you later.

That is a laughably false number as we are talking about a $379 billion dollar war as of November of last year.
Link

Far more if you speak of the real costs.

Link

Anyway I'm not here to debate that particular policy, I've done so in other threads and am always up for a repeat.

I simply ask why you don't impugn Bush's loyalty like you do Obama's over aid to Africa.

[quote name='turnea' post='239863' date='Mar 7 2008, 01:12 PM'
I simply ask why you don't impugn Bush's loyalty like you do Obama's over aid to Africa.
[/quote]

You can explain Bush with lack of wisdom; I never need to get to loyalty.

But I would naturally assume a man born in America; with two American parents, one of whom was President; with no siblings who are citizens of another nation that begs for handouts and financial aid; would likely be reasonably loyal to the nation. This should be doubly so since his wife never said something like she'd never been proud of her nation until this year....

Glad you are reading the book; I am sure you'll comprehend some of it differently than I, but if you plan to vote for the stealth jet candidate, you at least need to read his blueprints.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co....articleii.html

Your carping on Obama’s loyalty is just another phase of McCarthyism, quick.

I think both liberals and conservatives on this board are too sophisticated to buy into your proposed hysteria.

I hope you'll admit that's a pretty flimsy argument.

Actions speak louder that family trees. You condemn Obama for recommending something Bush is actually doing and then say he's disloyal because one of his parents is African?

It's lack of wisdom in Bush because he's pure WASP, is that it?

That dog won't hunt quick

You have a tough time understanding posts, I see. Turnea asked why I had no comments about Bush's loyalty. I guess the best response I could have made was, "huh?" Bush's intelligence, well, that is another story. But, I have no doubt Bush would only send dollars overseas if he thinks somehow it will be to the USA's benefit--even if unconstitutional.

Obama grew up in Indonesia, and seems very much in love with his Kenyan side of the family. Also, since apparently you have not read Dreams, I presume you have no idea how Obama feels about the US and Africa. I certainly feel, and his legislative record certainly indicates, he will be in favor of sending billions of our dollars to Africa, and not necessarily because it will benefit the USA. I would call that a divided loyalty.

But, I would have the exact same comments about loyalty if Joe Lieberman were running--he has access to dual citizenship, as that is Israeli law, and he is not just a Jew, but a Zionist. I do not think he would hesitate spilling American blood to help Israel, and his voting record shows it, even if it might not be in our best interest to do so. Such a predilection for favoring Israel would create a divided loyalty.



Dog hunts great, Turny, my son. Obama wants to FUND the promise, making it materially different from anything Bush is doing.... But, read the flippin book. If you don't think after finishing Dreams that Obama is in love with Africa, then, well, read it again with your glasses on....

I understand you perfectly, quick. You are questioning Obama's loyalty, which makes you pretty much a neo-McCarthyite. I am older than you so you can't use the condescending "son" you threw at Turnea. I saw the same crap coming out of some conservative circles when Kennedy ran in 1960, Would he be more loyal to the Catholic Church or the Country. Although I detest Romney for other reasons, I saw the divide loyalty thing coming at him concerning his Mormonism. This is old, tired nativistic , jingostic crap, quick. It never dies, it just resurfaces whenever anyone different runs for office.

So that's your closer?

"My argument has collapsed under the weight of its own faulty assumptions, go read a book and call me in a week."

Understand I did something few other poster to this thread were willing to.

I took all of this quite seriously, probably more so than it deserved.

So let's review the results.

Of your original argument on Mrs. Obama's words we have... nothing.

Of your substituted argument on aid for Africa we have.... less than nothing, a thoroughly illogical mess.

Of your call for people to "read the flippin book" we have a tacit admission that you can't frame and support an argument in this thread at all.


What exactly is the point here?

Obama spent time outside the US and has an African father. He clearly has sympathy for other parts of the world including Africa....

Therefore his loyalty is in question?

Don't think anyone has any trouble reading between the lines here, quick.

Such a faulty argument in a reasonably intelligent person always means something is missing.

You've left little to the imagination, I'm afraid.