Michelle Obama - yay or nay?

[Anonymous]

Thank you 16:08 for reminding us of the "angry black woman" stereotype. I agree that calling her "angry" plays into this stereotype and it is baseless. I also agree that some people just cannot stand to see others do well.

[Anonymous]

YAY--100%. She is smart, successful in her own right, and natural in a way that most people in public life can't even approximate.

[Anonymous]

Nay. But she'll be an entertaining First Lady I'm sure.

[Anonymous]

Before you give her too much crap about a college thesis...

I have to ask if any of you spent any time at Princeton in those years. It was really not a comfortable place for people of color in the 80's.

And, most of the people of color you would see on campus were waiting tables.

[Anonymous]

I've met her, and she really impressed me. She is very down to earth and real. She did not impress me as angry either (impassioned to make things better, especially for women and children in our country, but not angry). Her story is a really impressive one. She was raised by a stay at home mom and a father with a painful disability who was never late to work (I believe he worked for the city). He inspired her to work hard, and she did-- going to Princeton and Harvard Law. She seems to want to make a difference in the world and takes her role as the primary parent to their girls very seriously. She's very funny and seems really playful with Barack. I don't understand why people wouldn't like her.

[Anonymous]

PP - I completely agree with you. She is a smart, confident woman. I feel like people are trying to find something wrong with her. My mother and I are strong Hillary supporters but we think Michelle Obama is great. My mother calls her a "lioness" because she is so strong, proud, smart, and beautiful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Before you give her too much crap about a college thesis...

I have to ask if any of you spent any time at Princeton in those years. It was really not a comfortable place for people of color in the 80's.

And, most of the people of color you would see on campus were waiting tables.

Thanks for adding that. As well, there's nothing about her thesis that strikes me as attributable to being young and immature. In the 80s, the problems Blacks faced in elite schools (which were designed to nurture well-to-do Whites) were very real and my guess is that these problems continue in some form but hopefully diluted. (BTW when I was at Georgetown in the 70s the most visible Black man on campus was Pebbles, a sad clown of a person who worked for the Jesuits that the White students adored -- so much that they kept him full of beer and cheered when he danced drunkenly at the student pub. ) BTW, we still live in a society where Black men have a hard time getting cabs (e.g., Danny Glover) and would do well to carry a Wall Street Journal when walking in wealthy White neighborhoods.

It's great that our society changed such that people like Michelle Obama can go to elite schools but there was also a price to be paid for that and certainly anyone in her situation should reflect carefully about what choices they should make.

Haven't noticed that she was particularly angry but I haven't been paying too much attention to her. And if she's angry I certainly understand why! This debate about her senior thesis is quite absurd! Should she smile quietly and sink into oblivion like Pat Nixon? Or be a grown-up woman who thinks for herself?

[Anonymous]

I was a previous poster who said she seemed angry. I am basing this on an interview of her about a year ago.
She was asked if she worried about Barrack's safety running for president. She replied, well, no, ""as a black man, he could get shot going to the gas station." Huh? Are we living in the Jim Crow South?
If she's referring to the fact that black men are nine times more likely to be murdered than white men, then she has a point (BUT these murders are typically committed by other black men...so not sure what she was gettting at)
But to specifically mean Barrack -- Harvard grad, senator, well-heeled...that is nonsense. And makes light of the circumstances and the reality of the lives of inner-city blacks (particularly young, black men).

I'm not arguing that she and Barrack never experienced (and continue to experience), but for her to suggest that blacks are still so disenfranchised they are unsafe in the general public (?threat of lynch mobs?), is sort of hard to take seriously coming from a Princeton alum. I mean please, if he isn't safe going to the gas station, how did he garner the Democratic nomination? The public is not trying to put the angry black woman stereotype on her, she is doing it herself.

[Anonymous]

meant to say never experienced racism..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was a previous poster who said she seemed angry. I am basing this on an interview of her about a year ago.
She was asked if she worried about Barrack's safety running for president. She replied, well, no, ""as a black man, he could get shot going to the gas station." Huh? Are we living in the Jim Crow South?
If she's referring to the fact that black men are nine times more likely to be murdered than white men, then she has a point (BUT these murders are typically committed by other black men...so not sure what she was gettting at)
But to specifically mean Barrack -- Harvard grad, senator, well-heeled...that is nonsense. And makes light of the circumstances and the reality of the lives of inner-city blacks (particularly young, black men).

I'm not arguing that she and Barrack never experienced (and continue to experience), but for her to suggest that blacks are still so disenfranchised they are unsafe in the general public (?threat of lynch mobs?), is sort of hard to take seriously coming from a Princeton alum. I mean please, if he isn't safe going to the gas station, how did he garner the Democratic nomination? The public is not trying to put the angry black woman stereotype on her, she is doing it herself.

I still don't see that as angry.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I was a previous poster who said she seemed angry. I am basing this on an interview of her about a year ago.
She was asked if she worried about Barrack's safety running for president. She replied, well, no, ""as a black man, he could get shot going to the gas station." Huh? Are we living in the Jim Crow South?
If she's referring to the fact that black men are nine times more likely to be murdered than white men, then she has a point (BUT these murders are typically committed by other black men...so not sure what she was gettting at)
But to specifically mean Barrack -- Harvard grad, senator, well-heeled...that is nonsense. And makes light of the circumstances and the reality of the lives of inner-city blacks (particularly young, black men).

I'm not arguing that she and Barrack never experienced (and continue to experience), but for her to suggest that blacks are still so disenfranchised they are unsafe in the general public (?threat of lynch mobs?), is sort of hard to take seriously coming from a Princeton alum. I mean please, if he isn't safe going to the gas station, how did he garner the Democratic nomination? The public is not trying to put the angry black woman stereotype on her, she is doing it herself.

If black men are nine time more likely to be murdered than white men (and I don't know if that is true or not, but it sounds believable), then does it matter who is committing the murders? Her point had nothing to do with the race of the murderers, but rather the race of the victims. I also don't agree that social class automatically provides a barrier. Sean Taylor was very wealthy and lived in a mansion in a well-healed neighborhood. That didn't prevent him from being shot to death. Also, education is no protection against prejudice. Do you remember when TV Nation showed Yaphet Kotto trying to catch a taxi?

Its also interesting that you cite an incident from about a year ago. Michelle has probably been on TV at least 100 times since then. If she hasn't displayed anger more recently, I'm impressed. I'm lucky to go a couple of days without displaying anger myself.

[Anonymous]

I do think the data indicate that social class provides a great deal of insulation against prejudice and, not incidentally, the risk of black-on-black violence. Yes, Sean Taylor lived a well-heeled neighborhood and was wealthy. In the end, however, he was murdered by black men who had visited his home with one of his relatives (sister? stepsister?). His family and neighborhood ties were directly related to his death. Barack Obama does not have similar ties. Nor does Michelle, who grew up in a working class but not dangerous neighborhood. For these reasons, I actually agree with the poster who said the circumstances are very different for inner city blacks and the Obamas. However, due to his race, Obama may be at greater risk of violence than the average white male presidential candidate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was a previous poster who said she seemed angry. I am basing this on an interview of her about a year ago.
She was asked if she worried about Barrack's safety running for president. She replied, well, no, ""as a black man, he could get shot going to the gas station." Huh? Are we living in the Jim Crow South?
If she's referring to the fact that black men are nine times more likely to be murdered than white men, then she has a point (BUT these murders are typically committed by other black men...so not sure what she was gettting at)
But to specifically mean Barrack -- Harvard grad, senator, well-heeled...that is nonsense. And makes light of the circumstances and the reality of the lives of inner-city blacks (particularly young, black men).

I'm not arguing that she and Barrack never experienced (and continue to experience), but for her to suggest that blacks are still so disenfranchised they are unsafe in the general public (?threat of lynch mobs?), is sort of hard to take seriously coming from a Princeton alum. I mean please, if he isn't safe going to the gas station, how did he garner the Democratic nomination? The public is not trying to put the angry black woman stereotype on her, she is doing it herself.

In the interview you're talking about, Michelle Obama was asked if she worried about Barack being killed now that he was running for president (a fear a lot of people have, by the way), and she answered that as a black man, he could be killed at a gas station (I don't recall the gas station part, but that's what you're quoting). This doesn't show anger, but the reality (that you agree with) that black men are more likely to be killed than white men. I agree with the poster that said she was talking about the race of the victims, not about the race of the perpetrators. Frankly, black men are more likely to be killed under circumstances that white men never have to think about (unarmed black men have famously been killed by police, for instance, in many nationally covered cases). Michelle Obama was talking about that reality, and was displaying no particular emotion about it, by the way. It makes me sad that people are imputing anger to her where really none seems apparent.

There is injustice in the world still. Realizing that does not mean that people are unjustifiably "angry." It does however, give us things we need to change. It is my sense that this is where Michelle Obama is coming from.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone heard rumor of tapes with her and Farrakhan together on stage making racist remarks?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone heard rumor of tapes with her and Farrakhan together on stage making racist remarks?

There is absolutely no evidence that such a tape exists.

This rumor originates from Larry Johnson of the No Quarter USA blog. At one time, Larry was a fairly reasonable guy, but during the primary became very pro-Clinton and anti-Obama. He appears to have gone completely bonkers lately and his blog is full of people consumed by irrational Obama hatred who do nothing but try to hype any anti-Obama rumor they can find. Larry claims he heard about this tape from four (or five, or two, the number keeps changing) sources who talked to people who saw the tape. His information is third-hand and he admits that he has not talked to anyone who has seen the tape.

His story has repeatedly changed and for a while he claimed it was Farrakhan's wife. His most recent update backtracks on several key points, while still claiming that the tape exists (while still being no closer than three degrees removed).

I believe that Larry is being played by Republican dirty tricksters. The Republicans hate Larry because of his defense of Valerie Plame. By using him as a conduit for a fake rumor, they can hurt Obama and discredit Larry at the same time. Its a two for one.

Here is a good article about the rumor:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126883.html