Republican First Ladies are all saints, and Democratic ones are all cast iron bitches, apparently. Two stories indicate that 2012 as an election year means Michelle Obama is fair game. First, we get one step closer to the n-word…
Kansas House Speaker Mike O’Neal on Thursday apologized for an email that made fun of first lady Michelle Obama’s hair style and mockingly called her “Mrs. YoMama.”
The emails featured pictures comparing Mrs. Obama to the Grinch, a Dr. Seuss character, because of their similarly wind-blown hair.
“Sorry, just had to forward this latest holiday message,” O’Neal reportedly wrote in the email he shared with fellow Republican lawmakers. “I’ve had worse hair days, but this is pretty funny.”
According to The Lawrence Journal World, O’Neal forwarded from his personal computer the email that said, “I’m sure you’ll join me in wishing Mrs. YoMama a wonderful, long Hawaii Christmas vacation – at our expense, of course.”
Boy, I remember all the horribly racist emails about Laura Bush. Oh wait, never happened. And they’ll keep doing it and apologizing only when they get busted as long as they can keep getting away with it.
But the story that shows that the GOP absolutely knows that President Obama and his wife are likeable people? Michelle and Barack getting the Clinton Second Term treatment a year early with a new “White House insider” book by Jodi Kantor.
The dramatics that surrounded the passage of health care reform — culminating in Emanuel’s near-resignation — reflect the type of struggles that routinely pitted Emanuel against the first lady during the first two years of the Obama administration. The two jockeyed for influence over the president even before he formally took office.
Kantor, who interviewed for the book 33 White House staffers (many on several occasions) but not the president or the first lady, reports that Michelle Obama had “doubts” about the choice of Emanuel as chief of staff. Emanuel, in turn, had been opposed to bringing Valerie Jarrett, the Obamas’ longtime mentor, into the White House as a senior adviser.
Once the administration began, the frictions only escalated. Emanuel rejected an effort on the part of Michelle Obama’s chief of staff, Jackie Norris, to be part of his 7:30 a.m. staff meeting. The administration did not outfit her with a speechwriter for some time. And the first lady’s office grew so isolated from the rest of the presidential orbit that aides there began, as Kantor writes, “referring to the East Wing as ‘Guam’ — pleasant but powerless.”
Sam Stein, who really ought to know better, gleefully buys the portrayal of the First Lady as pretty much every awful stereotype ever associated with successful black women: mean-spirited, arrogant, overly controlling, petty and disdainful of her “betters”. Michelle Obama is an asset to the President and to the country, and just a few days into 2012 it seems the plan is to completely trash her in an effort to sink her husband.
Where have we heard this story before?
It just gobsmacks me to see that as much as folks like Stein complain that Democrats aren’t given a fair shake in the Village media (and they aren’t most of the time) we have Stein guilty of breathlessly pushing this gossipy “Michelle Obama’s really an awful person” nonsense. I thought the Manic Progressive crew wanted Rahm out of the White House anyway. Instead, we see that Michelle’s a insecure screamer and the return of The Democrat In Charge Is An Emasculated Wuss from that “bastion of liberalism”, FDL.
And I shake my head as I realize there’s now a concerted effort at the top to lower Michelle Obama’s likeability ratings as low as possible because she is such an amazing asset to the President. Yes, official Washington hated Hillary Clinton when she was in the White House. But they absolutely despise even the thought of an accomplished PoC in the position.
HuffPo is definitely pushing the notion that all that matters is “Democrats in Disarray!” with the First Lady vs. Rahm (and so will the Breitbart types on the right). Kantor’s NY Times excerpt on the other hand makes it seem like Michelle was the only one who knew that Rahmbo was a purely political creature and she was the brave resistance, protecting her husband.
Both views miss the point. The issue here is that Kantor’s book and the manufactured political spectacle it creates undermines the First Lady’s role in the White House only when a Democrat is in it. The greater point is that this is permissible way to treat Michelle Obama (and yes, Hillary Clinton as well) when Laura and Barbara Bush and Nancy Reagan were seen as heroines. Keeping kids off drugs was apolitical common sense when Nancy Reagan championed it, Laura Bush, librarian, wanted to improve child literacy rates, a truly noble cause. Getting kids to eat right makes Michelle Obama the most horrible nanny state harridan on Earth who gets booed at NASCAR events. There’s a component to the attacks on the First Lady that exceed even the hell Hillary Clinton was put through, and it’s that I’m objecting to, specifically the Village playing along like that component doesn’t exist.
2012 is going to be an unremittingly slimy year for the Obamas. And the worst part is I truly believe part of the reason this is being done is to get Hillary 2012 folks off the hook. It’s not racism if it happened to the Clintons too, you know. Patriotism really is the last resort of a scoundrel, and that goes for the asshats in both parties.
And as the top of the post recounts, what Michelle Obama is going through is much worse. I know how difficult it can be to be taken seriously as an intelligent PoC in America that breaks a number of stereotypes on a daily basis. I can only imagine how frustrating it must be to have gender bullshit thrown in on top of all that. Then again, judging from the crazy that’s happened around here in the last week plus, I’m getting a very clear picture as to what all that entails.
And as for Cole’s opinion that the NY times excerpt isn’t a hit piece, that’s again not the point. The point is that the notion that a strong, intelligent woman advising her husband is “controversial partisan politics” in the first place. The point is that Kantor’s book can easily be cherry-picked to get out of it what you want to get out of it, hagiography or damnation. And really, the primary issue is that nobody seems to think that Michelle Obama shouldn’t be subjected to the Village Circus as First Lady, whereas it’s been wildly different before.
We should be asking ourselves why we’re being asked to think about why anything the Obamas do is somehow “unprecedented” or “never been done before” and always in a negative connotation, rather than focusing on the positive “unprecedented” things they have accomplished. Do I think it’s a hit piece? Cherry-picked as it is, it’s still not flattering. The entire book appears to be just trying to pick a fight and sell copy, like most political books.
That should be obvious.
Jennifer
It’s not limited to just Hillary and Michelle, either. About the only Democratic president’s wife in the past 75 years who didn’t inspire some level of grousing was Bess Truman, and perhaps Lady Bird Johnson as well. Eleanor Roosevelt and Jackie Kennedy were widely disliked in conservative regions. I don’t recall Rosalyn Carter coming in for a lot of vitriol, but certainly the rest of the Carter family wasn’t off limits; Rosalyn got pretty much the same “dumb hick” portrayal as the rest of the clan, at least on occasion.
The Moar You Know
I wonder when we’ll get to see some redneck representative with a watermelon and a Glock reenact Someone’s suicide and blame it on Michelle.
Like they did to Hillary.
I swear to God, Democrats had better learn how to not just respond to this kind of shit, but to respond in kind with interest (they beat one of yours, you shoot one of theirs) or we’re going to be the victims of this kind of shit for all eternity.
eemom
aw c’mon Zan. The IMPORTANT thing is that people aren’t mean to Glenn Greenwald on twitter.
CT Voter
Politicalwire repeated the advertising tease about the book yesterday: “A gossipy look inside the WH”, and then added that Jodi Kantor hadn’t interviewed the Obama since 2009. And in her own words, didn’t want to, because she wanted to tell the story, not have the Obamas tell the story.
And Ezra Klein and Sam Stein were both tweeting enthusiastically about the “Must read” material by Kantor. While never once recognizing how Michelle Obama (as other Democratic First Ladies, to be sure) is treated differently than the saintly Laura and Barbara Bush. Both portrayed as strong-willed in a good way.
I was pretty disappointed that Ezra and Sam have seemingly become card-carrying members of The Village. Sadly, they’ve been potted, along with rest.
Brachiator
This is beyond stupid. There is no universe in which Mrs Obama’s likeability rating is going to affect how Obama views his wife, or how he relates to her.
Equally stupid is the NYT’s portrayal of Mrs Obama as the lone beacon of progressive politics in the White House.
And Hillary Clinton continues to be overrated as First Lady.
I agree, though, that official Washington has problems with the fact of a black president and First Lady. It must rankle Sally Quinn and her Mayflower roots pedigree to have to defer to Mrs Obama. And this is in addition to the standard political in fighting.
JustBeingPedantic
It’s not like Laura Bush killed anyb…oh, wait.
CT Voter
@eemom: That’s right. We need to keep perspective, folks. Relentless negative treatment of the First Lady without consequences, and a tell-all piece by a reporter from the Grey Lady designed to grab as many eyeballs as possible is just how things roll. Get nasty and abrasive and refuse to let up on Glenn Greenwald? You’re psychotic and a parody of yourself.
CT Voter
@Brachiator:
I interpreted this to mean that there’s an effort to lower her likeability ratings so that she’s no longer an asset on the campaign. An effort not by the WH, but outside the WH, and their relationship with each other isn’t part of the issue.
Ruckus
When assholes don’t like you, there is no level to low for them to stoop to in maligning you, your character or anyone associated with you. And conservatives are assholes. Unfortunately conservatives and assholes is not a mutually inclusive grouping.
Chris
Well, I’ll bet it’s controversial with the people who believe the “wives, submit to your husbands” stuff. I’ve met people who take that stuff really seriously – how the husband has to be the head of the family, how it’s the wife’s duty to support him and not try to do his job, etc.
ETA: course by that standard Mrs. Reagan was probably a big blasphemy, but IOKIYAR.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
This is the only part of your post I’d disagree with– I really don’t think there are enough Hillary 2012 folks to affect anything, but
There certainly is a strain of Clintonite (leaving aside the full on psycho PUMAs) who likes to pretend racism isn’t a factor in criticizing Obama, they even seem to get personally offended when it’s brought up, but i agree the Village is a much bigger problem. I still can’t believe there was no grown up at Politico to 86 young Dylan Byers’ piece downplaying Newt and Rick’s racist hog calling, and perhaps giving the lad some weekend reading assignments
4tehlulz
inb4 racism
Yutsano
@JustBeingPedantic: Too soon?
Kantor needed an angle to advance her career. She found one. She’ll have pundit appearances guaranteed for at least a few months. Cui bono applies here.
A Humble Lurker
Sort of OT, but apparently the Justice Department has updated what constitutes rape for the first time since 1929 according to TPM. Any front pager want to talk about it?
I just find it deliciously ironic considering the tweet that started Nun-rape gate.
lamh35
slow clap Zandar. Thanks for this.
I was wondering why so many other people I respect blog-wise felt completely different than John Cole did, when so many of the Black bloggers I know were pretty much in agreement with Zandar.
In a way this shows how your reality (i.e. being a PoC) can change your perception…
Sly
@Jennifer:
Bess Truman hated Washington so she never did anything to inspire vitriol.
Lady Bird Johnson was only beloved by all if don’t count slimy redneck assholes calling her a communist and a nigger-lover because she supported the Civil Rights Act, and gave the first ever speech tour by a First Lady to promote it in the South.
RSA
Maybe some former First Lady of a Republican President could step forward to defend the current First Lady. Not this one, though.
Brachiator
@CT Voter:
Still stupid. This stuff doesn’t matter to those who admire Mrs Obama.
As for the rest, there is not much you can do about it, and it can even backfire. There is a pathetic core of haters, for example, who miss no opportunity to post negative often race based, comments about Mrs Obama, in response to any news story about her. More and more I am seeing counter responses along the lines of “what is wrong with you losers,” particularly when the comments are in non US web news sites.
Chet
@Chris: Indeed, and this is why even Lady Starbursts herself drew fire from certain elements of the GOP base.
MildlyAmusedRainbowPerson
@Brachiator:
She’s an asset to the president because people outside the White House really like her – not because Barack loves her. That’s why the WH sends her out as a surrogate – and should do more often. Anything the Village-GOP-Trollkibble Industrial Complex can do to damage her popularity will help the GOP in 2012.
stinkfoot
When I read the Kantor excerpt, Michelle came off great. It was Rahm who came off like a total asshole. Maybe I am already predisposed to think like that — that is, it fits my biases — but that’s how I read it. In fact, I was kinda thinking this piece tests the waters of public acceptance of a more politically involved Michelle. Maybe she has a senatorial run in her future. Which is counting a lot of chickens before the eggs are even laid, but I like the idea of a Senator Michelle Obama.
MikeJ
Malia cheats at jacks. Can’t actually get past threesies without double bouncing.
There are also rumours that Sasha often talks to her friends about which boys are cute.
dogwood
In the end the Obamas are pretty lucky this came out now. The buzz will die pretty quickly. Kantor has some credibility unlike the Regenery Press crowd that will be publishing like crazy over the next 6-8 months, so it’s good to get this crap over with early. These books don’t have much effect anyway other than reinforcing people’s biases.
And while I agree, democratic First Ladies seem to take a worse hit, I must admit Nancy Reagan didn’t get a free pass. She was just lucky that there was no 24 hour cable news to deal with. I remember very clearly the flap over her purchasing new WH china during a recession and handwringing over the cost of her wardrobe. I think the Bush ladies came out the best in this and that’s because the Bush family has a long, long history of establishing a poltical machine populated by retainers exceedingly loyal to the family. Thus, you just weren’t going to find any insiders willing to dish the dirt on Barbara and Laura.
Jennifer
@Sly: I did not know that. She was a bit before my time, politically-conscious-wise. But it just strengthens my point – Dem first ladies are almost always “fair game”, at least over the past 75 years.
Francis
I dunno know is anyone else has noticed but has Huffpost made a concerted effort to trash Obama the last year or so. I’ve been suspicious of them ever since their corporate “merger”. They have become a repository from crazy lefty anti-Obama screeds and breathless headlines about Obama “alienating his base”
I went on there yesterday expecting the headline to be about the awesome jobs report and instead I was greeted with some drivel about Obama failing to increase the minimum wage!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/05/obama-minimum-wage_n_1184752.html
As if all King Obama needs to do is sprinkle some magic Hope dust and Boehner/McConnell will magically agree to increase the min wage by 2 dollars/hour.
Lame. Lame. Lame.
John Cole
@eemom:
Oh go fuck yourself. When I read the piece, my honest reaction was that this makes Michelle look even better than I thought she was. I thought it made Rahm look like a petty asshole, and a lot of people around Obama look kind of feckless, but my main reaction was “Damn Michelle is cool” and I’d like to vote for her.
CT Voter
@Brachiator:
Terrific. It’d be even more so if they were US news sites, though.
OzoneR
WTF is this?
What kind of asshole jokes about cancer?
kindness
What do you really expect? I mean, the Village Elders, the MSM in general are hard wired for Republican rule. They’ve said it, we’re not making that up.
They’re assholes. Dehumanize your opponent. That way no one cringes when republithugs act in an unconscionable manner. That’s what I’ve come to expect.
It was good enough for Gobbels.
gaz
FTFY
OzoneR
@stinkfoot:
To a pure blood progressive, of course she does. To a moderate unprincipled independent waiting to see which way the wind blows, she comes across as someone who doesn’t know her place.
CT Voter
@OzoneR: Yes, wasn’t that lovely?
A front pager from FDL, no less. You don’t have to scroll through the comments to find the crazy any longer.
j
Well, unlike Laura Bush, Mrs. Obama never murdered anyone. And unlike Nancy Reagan, she was never a Hollywood whore who broke up a marriage and give birth to a daughter 5 months after tying the knot to her (then married) boyfriend.
(See how easy that was?)
OzoneR
@Francis: We can’t even get a fair wage enacted in fucking New York City with a City Council full of left wing Jane Hamsher wet dreams.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@OzoneR: I can’t even figure out what point they’re trying to make.
Suffern ACE
@OzoneR: Well, being old enough to remember the shit that Carter took for having Roslyn sit in on cabinet meetings, and Nancy Reagan’s machinations and fights with his chiefs of staff, I’m thinking Michelle’s interference is pretty weak sauce.
OzoneR
@CT Voter:
I read as far as the comment where the douche said cancer would think Obama is an awesome host and clicked the x. These people aren’t progressives.
MikeJ
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: That if he only used the bully pulpit, Obama could scream away cancer in every American right now. His refusal to do so proves he’s nothing more than a crypto republican.
dogwood
@John Cole:
This just goes to show how we all interpret things differently. I thought is made the little anonymous leakers look like petty, feckless assholes.
Linda Featheringill
Relax, Zander. Michelle is even more popular than Barack. Do you think the Queen of UK cares if she argued with Rahm? Do you think she remembers who Rahm was? Do you think the girls of all colors, in the US and elsewhere, who look at Michelle as a role model care if she gets into arguments sometimes? Do you think that I care if she grouses now and then?
The answer is not only no but Hell, no.
And who are those people that are criticizing? Hmph. Never heard of them and will soon forget them. Michelle, however, will be remembered for a long, long time.
bemused
It’s the Democrats who are in disarray? Oh, for pete’s sake.
I don’t remember any Democratic in office, let alone a House Speaker, ever trashing a Republican first lady in email or in any public comments.
JPL
@lamh35: Last night someone mentioned the Huff hit piece and at the time it was front page with glaring headlines. If you read that first you view is tainted. The actual article is not that bad but you can see how one can take that article and infer what you want. (huff post,for example)
OzoneR
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
I think it’s “He’s so weak, he wouldn’t even fight cancer if he was diagnosed with it”
which is so stupid and offensive, I don’t know where to start.
Kane
I sometimes wonder where Laura Bush was when Katrina hit the Gulf Coast. We know Condi was buying shoes and taking in a Broadway show, Cheney was vacationing, and husband George couldn’t be bothered. But where was Laura as the world watched the elderly and young die in the streets? Did she even make an attempt to get her husband off his butt to help these people, or did she just remain silent?
Unfortunately, we will never know the answers to these questions. Maybe the media thought it was unimportant or maybe they were afraid that they might offend Mrs Bush by asking.
wobblybits
@bemused: That is because they don’t see Michelle as a human being. She is a big bootied, baby momma, uppity negress and everyone knows that such people really aren’t human (rather, she and her kind are things) and are not deserving of the respect you would extend a human.
ETA: This is just my opinion given all the disgusting jokes, comments and remarks made about the FLOTUS and POC in general.
JPL
@Kane: I’d love to know how many days she spent in the White House but that’s because I’m curious.
bemused
@wobblybits:
Of course. So many Republicans are incredibly shallow people with no class.
ChrisNYC
The “they only do it to Dems” thing is not all bad.
Dem women are 1) front and center and 2) generally effective and forceful. First Ladies less so than say Pelosi but it’s part of Dem culture. Remember during the Planned Parenthood dustup over the summer, the GOP hastily cobbled together a bunch of GOP women to give a press conference. And you looked at them and it was like, “Who are these people?” because they get no air in that party. Women in this country look at that comparison and I think it really matters. Let the GOP advertise their distaste for women and see where it gets them. (Though I think with Michelle the black part of “black woman” is the prime driver.)
stinkfoot
@OzoneR: Fair enough. But why should we worry about what feckless-minded low information voters think? Or, put another way, let’s say Kantor’s piece is an accurate portrayal of White House politics — why shouldn’t we citizens know about it? It’s interesting, it’s part of our national history, it shows us a more complicated story than the official narrative. For progressives it is certainly heartening to see that their policy preferences are getting voiced so close to the center of power.
As for “knowing her place” – it is really naive for the voters you are talking about to assume that no previous First Lady ever let her husband know her mind. Can you imagine Barbara Bush keeping a tight lip? The counter arguments are so easy: Why should she keep mum? Why wouldn’t a President talk with his most intimate companion about important issues? Even better – Michelle was right, Rahm was wrong.
Keith G
There seems to be quite a cottage industry at registering outrage whenever possible as much as possible. Maybe those other bloggers and Zandy are writing what they feel they need to write in order to get the reaction they desire.
eemom
@John Cole:
oooh. Touchy, aren’t we.
@CT Voter:
fuck off. Who the fuck appointed you censor?
Yeah, I’m fiddling while ROME burns here. Idiot.
dogwood
@Kane:
Reporters cover the things their sources allow them to cover. There were obviously no sources in the White House willing to answer questions about the First Lady. And I’m sure there were plenty of insiders willing to cut off access and clam up if the press went after her. While I have no doubt there are people loyal to the Obama’s working in the WH, there are obviously people willing to leak to the press about the First Lady in order to go after their boss. Of course, being a woman I find this cowardly and petty, but it is what it is.
El Cid
Whether or not a President’s spouse voiced opinions to other people about policy and opposition to them is (a) an empirical question, but (b) of debatable interest.
This may not (or may) be a journalistically strong enough account, but in the case that there were occasions in which Michelle Obama voiced disagreement with one or more staffers, and it was decently documented, then anyone who was interested in such things could make whatever conclusions they’re pre-determined to make, whether ‘progressive’ or ‘independent leaning’.
I see that it could be kind of interesting, but I doubt it would be different for many Presidents’ wives to have to one degree or another opposed some staffer’s actions or policies.
wrb
@Francis:
If you were part of a deadly serious conspiracy to take over the country and the world for the likes of the Murdoch, Koch and Walton families could you imagine not taking control of the leading “liberal” news aggregator.
More and more I’ve been thinking that the strange changes that have occurred in the last 30 years- from the rise of freshwater economics to CC denialism to the tea party- all fall into place most neatly if you assume master planning.
A few years back I would have called that crazy conspiracy talk.
Brachiator
@MildlyAmusedRainbowPerson:
I don’t think the Village can damage the affection that people who like Mrs Obama have for her. Here, the Village is overrated. It’s like bloggers, of any ideology, who still make references to the Whitey Tape. With the exception of die hard racists, this reference is meaningless in the real world.
Apart from this, I still think the NYT article is more about the war that supposed progressives are waging on the president than it is about Mrs Obama. I just don’t see concern over Mrs Obama’s popularity as being an issue anywhere outside the Village and the blogosphere.
That said, I do expect Republicans to foolishly attack Mrs Obama. This is all they know.
JWL
Democrats always gossiped about Nancy Reagan in genuinely snide fashion, too, albeit always with a grudging appreciation of her mojo.
Keith G
@OzoneR:
With respects, help me out. I am not sure who you are painting with this broad brush.
BruceFromOhio
@dogwood: When people love you, they tell you. When people hate you, they tell anyone BUT you.
boss bitch
@Francis:
It is not recent. I started reading the Huffington Post during the “they cling to guns” controversy and started weaning myself off of that site in early 2009 because I saw the same thing you did.
MildlyAmusedRainbowPerson
@OzoneR:
It’s been pointed out quite often that the genuinely independent voter is rather rare. I assume that a moderately unprincipled independent would be even rarer – a veritable chupacabra among demographics.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@boss bitch: Huffington pretty much went straight from rightwing activist to concern trolling Democrats; in 2000, when she was selling herself as a disillusioned independent, she organized a big anti-Gore rally outside the Dem convention, because even though she was still an independent, Al Gore was not pure enough for her.
B W Smith
@Keith G: I’m not entirely sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that Zandar has an ulterior motive and this is not his true reaction to the upcoming book and other treatment of Mrs. Obama? So if Zandar writes what could very well be his “honest reaction” and Cole writes what he says is his “honest reaction”, only the former is suspect? I have no doubt that two people with different backgrounds and life experience could have completely different reactions upon reading something with no hidden agenda whatsoever.
Suffern ACE
@wrb: Your supposedly liberal TV network was, until recently, owned by GE and was founded to give a platform to express the Clinton hating Hilary bashing views of its chairman. Just sayin…
srv
So did she spike Daley too? Is she Chief of Staff now?
FlipYrWhig
@eemom: The real enemy is political correctness, defined as being mean back to people who are constitutionally, congenitally, reflexively mean.
Violet
@JWL:
Even President Obama, in his first press conference as President, made an ill-adivsed comment about seances and ended up apologizing to Nancy Reagan. She definitely was talked about as first lady, and not all of it was complimentary.
FlipYrWhig
@boss bitch: I thought Lawrence O’Donnell’s show started out as HuffPoTV. Happily that hasn’t stuck.
Mark S.
Is anyone going to remember this story by next week?
MildlyAmusedRainbowPerson
@Brachiator:
People who know her, sure. Liking is much more susceptible of change driven by a (negatively) remade image.
A Humble Lurker
@eemom:
I thought that was snark and CT was agreeing with you. CT, was I wrong?
MildlyAmusedRainbowPerson
@boss bitch:
I never really trusted the HuffHo (I mean Comrade Arianna) and it was the nonsense about vaccines that really put the cap on things for me.
Gravenstone
@eemom: Apparently the same people who appointed you moral scold.
Sophia
From the FDL link:
Anybody share my distinct memory that this argument was almost exclusively made by Clintonites after Hillary decided she needed more time in the Senate before she could run for President?
As for people trying to bring down Michelle Obama’s favorables, I have faith in her unrelenting awesomeness shining through.
dogwood
@Mark S.:
Nope
Mr Stagger Lee
Speaking of Hillary,and sorry to be o/t, it seems that the RW is pushing a Hillary for VP, though I see Robert Reich is pushing this also. What do you hear.
Mark S.
@A Humble Lurker:
That didn’t seem like snark to me.
Mino
I would guess that Eleanor Roosevelt was the most polarizing First Lady, ever. She definitely was the liberal in that couple and their enemies knew it. At the same time, she was absolutely revered by the common folk.
Democratic bloggers haven’t held their criticism of Republican First Ladies–Stepford wives comes to mind. But, no, official Dem operatives have been circumspect. Though they let Babs have it over Katrina.
lacp
This shit isn’t new, is it? Maybe my aging memory is failing me, but I seem to recall a lot of really vile invective aimed at Michelle Obama during the 2008 election. This year, when the Republican presidential field consists of the Mouse Patrol, it’s probably going to be a hell of a lot dirtier.
gogol's wife
@A Humble Lurker:
I thought so too, but I had to read it twice to figure it out. I’m almost certain that’s the case. CTVoter was agreeing with eemom.
Keith G
@B W Smith:
I would be more generous to the former if he would not include such light-weight BS writing as:
Isn’t this true of most books longer than two paragraphs?
That’s not much of a point.
Villago Delenda Est
@Mark S.:
That is a point. It’s a slow Saturday. We need to harp on something!
This is not to discount Zander’s well taken point that Dem first ladies get the shaft from the vermin of the Village, who will faun over GOP first ladies no matter how horrible they are in realty (see Bush, Barbara).
Suffern ACE
@Villago Delenda Est: I think the issue i that the vermin of the village always include a lot of Democrats who are more than willing to trash their own first lady. Especially if she is “pushy.”
dogwood
If you think about it realistically, what’s really strange about all this is the fact that there is such a fascination with the Obama marriage in the first place. I remember the first Kantor piece on the couple and I’ve seen her interviewed. She’s kinda obsessed with this marriage. I assume that race must play a large part here otherwise such a conventional marriage and family wouldn’t draw much attention. While I didn’t like it, I certainly could understand the interest people had with the Clinton marriage. Look, people knew he was a rounder when they elected him, and I guess it’s natural to speculate about how Hillary could tolerate it, why would she stay with him, what does she see in him, etc. But WTF, you’d have to be brain-dead to wonder what makes the Obama marriage work. Smart handsome guy marries smart beautiful woman; they have smart cute kids, a cute dog and a cute grandma. These people are completely conventional in the world of upwardly mobile America. This kind of crap must be so tedious to African Americans.
B W Smith
@Keith G: OK, so your complaint is about his writing style and not his motivation? That certainly did not come across in your first post. Your first post seemed to indicate that POC have a motive in their outrage.
Mark S.
The Saints are probably the hottest team in the League right now, so I’ll definitely go with them.
The other games? Texans, I guess.
Mark S.
@Mark S.:
The perils of having multiple tabs open.
WaterGirl
@Keith G: I don’t know how Zandar feels about being called Zandy, but unless you guys are friends or he goes by Zandy and I missed it, I find your use of Zandy as a nickname to be incredibly dismissive and offensive. Let’s just call Barack Obama Barry while we’re at it.
And agree or not with what Zandar writes, I believe he is completely sincere with what he writes. So I’m jjust gonna say that I wonder if you have an axe to grind with zandar or whether you might have a problem with people of color.
uptown
If you have to write that – it means it isn’t and you are probably wrong.
Anne Laurie
@Jennifer:
Lady Bird got slammed non-stop by the Camelot defenders — I think Jackie Kennedy was Sally Quinn’s role model — as well as all the Southerners who, shall we say, did not care for her husband’s support of the Civil Rights Act, or her support of her husband’s support. As for the feelings of that generation’s progressives, google “Lady MacBird”. I’m not old enough to remember the Truman administration even at second-hand, but from all I’ve read of contemporary reports, her husband was regarded as a dim-witted place-holder in over his head due to the tragic loss of The Last Great American President, and the most anyone bothered to say about Bess was that she was even more of a pretentious jumped-up hick than her machine-politician husband (it was the First Daughter who got most of the public abuse, because she was at least visible).
Going back to Abigail Adams, the FLOTUS has always been a proxy target for That Man in the White House. Democratic First Ladies get slammed for being emasculating power-hungry overeducated busybodies who don’t Know their Place (even Mrs. Kennedy, who was accused of meddling in global politics every time she bought an imported dress). Republican First Ladies get caricatured as Marie Antoinettes/Madame Pompadours whose voracious appetites & lust for trinkets can barely be controlled by keeping them drugged (going back to Mary Todd Lincoln, reputed laudanum addict, all the way thru Mamie Eisenhower, who “everybody knew” was a closet drunk, up to Laura Bush, purported Xanax junkie). In other words, to their enemies, Dem FLOTUSes are all up in everybody’s business, and Rep FLOTUSes are greedy spendthrifts, just like their husbands’ disgusting unworthy administrations. This has been cranked up to eleven because Mrs. Obama is the First Black First Lady, but I doubt there’s a charge laid against her that hasn’t been thrown at her predecessors. Of course she was ambivalent about moving to the White House — she knew she’d be moving into a battle zone, but she armored up and did it anyway, more power to her.
B W Smith
@WaterGirl: Thank you for being much more direct than I was. The Zandy bothered me, too.
SW
You couldn’t pay me to read that swill. However, if it has her kicking Rahm’s ass, she gets extra-credit points from me.
Loneoak
I shared Cole’s opinion on reading the piece: I liked MO even more because she was absolutely right about BO’s advisors, and Rahm looked like a dick. On the other hand, I think Zandar is right that this book is certainly meant as a hit piece with some nasty gender and race dynamics blended with conservative media nonesense. No matter how nasty Laura Bush could have hypothetically been no one would write such a book about her. It’s just that the Village is so stupid it doesn’t know what sorts of things are hits and which are compliments for real people.
Shawn in ShowMe
@Violet:
But Nancy Reagan really did have seances at the White House. If pointing that is a being snide, the person in question really brought that on herself. The plain facts paint Nancy Reagan as nutty, not my characterization of the facts.
Let’s compare apples to apples:
When Nancy Reagan campaigned for kids to just say no to drugs, her critics criticized the simplistic nature of her message.
When Michelle Obama campaigns for kids to eat better, her critics skip the critique of the message and get right to attacking the First Lady personally. See the difference?
Comrade Scrutinizer
Seems like I recall a lot of criticism of Nancy Raygun during St. Ronnie’s second term, especially from staffers who were pissed off by her constant interference with scheduling and policy matters. Of course, by that time she was probably channeling Edith Wilson…
MildlyAmusedRainbowPerson
@lacp:
I remember the Babymama and Terrorist Fistbump stupidity. Which is more than enough, frankly.
kay
@Francis:
Of course you did. Because who are you going to believe is sincere on the working class, Francis? Arianna Huffington, populist pundit (until that’s no longer a fashionable thing to be) or Hilda Solis, Obama’s Sec of Labor, who (allegedly) “dodged” the Huffington Post’s probing questions on the minimum wage?
Call me crazy, but I’m going with Solis on this one.
Suffern ACE
@Shawn in ShowMe: Childhood obesity is not a problem white children have and is another sign that the Obama administration favors blacks and hates whites. See Coulter, Ann.
Also, controlling her kids diet makes her a bad parent.
Let me give you cookies.
I can only imagine the litter that would plague the highways if she made beautification an issue. My guess is that Sarah Palin would be burning tires on I-95.
Shawn in ShowMe
@Keith G:
Are there any black bloggers that you don’t consider to be lightweight? Maybe I’ve been reading the wrong ones?
WaterGirl
@B W Smith: It took me awhile to compose my comment on the iPad, so I wrote mine before I saw yours. I was glad to see your exchange with keith g I don’ think he came off well in those comments, either. It’s sad to see people act like that.
Palli
@Kane #44 laura was overly medicated, I think and didn’t do enough for anyone to talk about anyway. Barbara Bush managed her daughter-in-laws with an iron hand; poor Laura came as damaged goods.
rikyrah
thanks Zander. I hear ya.
Shawn in ShowMe
@dogwood:
Obama and Michelle are who “progressives” thought John and Elizabeth Edwards were and they can’t stand it.
rikyrah
@dogwood:
thank you, dogwood.
as a Black person who grew up in a loving two-parent home, and is from a family of long-time married folks, I do indeed find it tedious.
kay
@Suffern ACE:
Governor Kasich’s wife pushes childhood obesity prevention, and Governor Walker’s wife pushes exercise to prevent and manage chronic diseases, like diabetes.
Must be a states’ rights thing, huh? There must be some principled reason conservatives make no fucking sense whatever.
Also. What’s the difference between Laura Bush pushing reading for kids, and Mrs. Obama pushing exercise and diet? Why wasn’t Laura Bush intruding into the sacred parental domain? She was coercing our children, with her DIRECTIVES on reading.
WereBear (itouch)
Don’t know how pertinent it is, but President Obama’s way of putting women in charge of all kinds of things has always warmed my heart. It’s obvious he is a true feminist, and is rewarded with the love and respect that he gets from his wife and daughters.
Just modeling that is what sets off those who think women are supposed to be subservient. That must make him a wimpy fellow with low testosterone!
That is the way it seems to me; a Democratic First Lady must be a “ball busting bitch” because how else can it be that they are treated as people!
Racism turns this up to eleven.
Keith G
@WaterGirl: No axe. I do not know what color she/he is. Not sure why that is important.
@B W Smith: It is more than style. It is the content on which an argument is based. If the desire is to explain that a book is bad, or just not of sufficient quality, than make an argument based of specifics.
Jeesh. The NYT article made several people seem a bit sketchy, but not Mrs. Obama. She seems like a real kick-ass, sharp person – very worthy of all she has accomplished.
I again focus on a big problem in this post:
Which it seems he has not read.
I do not understand how this can be used to make a sincere argument. Sorry if that seems dense.
The Moar You Know
Thanks to those of you pointed out Nancy Reagan got treated badly as well; I have to admit that’s true, and not all of it was from Democrats as I recall either.
But Democratic First Ladies definitely have been getting far worse treatment since WW II.
Citizen_X
@Comrade Scrutinizer: I don’t think I was pissed at the time about Nancy Reagan seeking to influence her husband per se. What stands out in my memory is anger about her influencing Ronnie based on advice FROM A FUCKING ASTROLOGER.
j
@Villago Delenda Est:
FIFY
CT Voter
@eemom: It was snark. Obviously done badly. Jeepers.
Phil Perspective
@Violet: Elected Democrats or The Village, never talked mean about Nancy Ray-gun like today’s Village and elected GOP’ers do.
gogol's wife
@Loneoak:
I finally choked down my bile and read the first few paragraphs. Your analysis is correct. God I hate the New York Times (except for the crossword puzzles).
Keith G
@Shawn in ShowMe: Where am I referring to a person or persons as being light weight?
MTA67
Apology is fine and well but does not negate the fact. The email proves he is a closet racist that was outed.
CT Voter
@A Humble Lurker: I was agreeing with eemom, and yes, it was snark. Badly done, clearly.
Phil Perspective
@Shawn in ShowMe: No. We have learned that FLOTUS and Elizabeth Edwards were/are a lot more “Progressive” than their husbands. So your point makes no sense.
srv
I don’t get all the Nancy hate. Yeah, she talked to the dead, but she did help drive out some of the wackiest on Ronnie’s staff like Regan. Probably her goading as much as anyones who pushed Ronnie lurv Gorby. The neocons were not at all happy about that.
Citizen Alan
@j:
To be fair, I believe it was just simple manslaughter. Hardly worth mentioning, coming as it does after eight-years of Hillary Clinton, Professional Assassin and Death Dealer (tm Dan Burton).
B W Smith
@The Moar You Know: At least Kitty Kelley had the decency to wait until Reagan’s terms were done before writing her “staffers tell-all” about Mrs. Reagan.
Shawn in ShowMe
@Keith G:
OK, are there any black person or persons whose writing you don’t consider to be light weight?
j
@WereBear (itouch): But the MSM complained that he never golfed with any women, and when he did they complained that it was the WRONG woman.
Phil Perspective
@dogwood: What’s even more nuts is that people know that most politicians cheat. I said most, not all, remember. So why people would even care about Clinton’s marriage is beyond me. I mean, did anyone ever ask David Vitter’s wife what she thinks about her husband’s habits?
Villago Delenda Est
@Suffern ACE:
Have you seen Huckabee’s spawn?
WaterGirl
@Keith G: So you called Zandar a dismissive nickname, why? You get on your high horse because he doesn’t justify his comments well enough, and you call him a dismissive name, because what? It strengthens your arguement somehow?
Oh, and in case you didn’t catch it, I saw at least 3 comments where the person seemed to pick up race issues from your comment today. That should make you think for a minute, anyway, I hope, in spite of your backpedalling when you got called on it.
Elie
I guess I expected this — sadly. And fully expect PUMAS and the Manic Progressives to gallop right along with it.
Why? Cause anything to bring down Obama — ANYTHING — (as with Hillary during Clinton’s term). This may not be the worst of it.
That said, it is just not going to do these folks any good. After they get through calling all black folks freeloaders, aliens from other planets,etc — after all the mean they can throw out — all the pain and negativity to divide our nation rather than building or brininging us together… they will still have nothing. They are actually assuring that their labels and slurs have less and less meaning and effectiveness over time — they are numbing everyone, themselves included…
I have no idea why these people can look at themselves in the mirror.. why they destroy the very institutions and values they say they believe in strongly….Mystery…
Chuck Butcher
OH, goddamit to hell.
Nancy Reagan got loads of shit for running the WH with seances, being the (pre-Cheney) hand up the kazoo moving St R’s lips, and mucking up the office. If you think I didn’t enjoy the whacking St Ronnie got over that … wellll.
Hill Dweller
@Villago Delenda Est:
Obesity is the least of his problems.
Villago Delenda Est
@srv:
Nancy Reagan’s angle, always, was protecting the Reagan brand. She was fiercely protective of her husband, both in office and in regards to his legacy. She had no time for staffers who she felt were out to protect themselves at the expense of her husband.
You have to give her credit for that.
B W Smith
@Keith G: No, it’s not dense. I would ask you to refer to your original comment. The block quote you were replying to specifically referred to Black bloggers. As for not knowing that Zandar is a person of color, he has stated on numerous occasions that he, like the President and ABL, is of mixed race. I’m not sure how you have missed that. As for calling him Zandy, which you didn’t address in your reply, I have never seen you address John as Johnny or Doug as Dougie. Perhaps I missed that but if not, it sure appears that you are trying to be dismissive.
Valdivia
Totally late to this because I was out all afternoon but wanted to say: exactly what Zandar said. great great post. now I am going to read the comments!
Rob Wolfe
I am saddened but not surprised that now that folks have figured out Zandar is not the correct shade of light beige his writing has somehow suddenly deteriorated in the eyes of some.
This is pretty pathetic.
WaterGirl
@Keith G: You respond to a comment where the person talks about black bloggers, and you were talking about “Zandy” and others bloggers, and you didn’t notice that you were talking about black bloggers?
Maybe, but I find that kind of hard to believe.
I’m gonna let this go now. I have tried to make my point the best I could, and you’ll either think about it or you won’t.
peace.
Elie
@B W Smith:
Keith has some “issues”. He is basically an ok dude, but his “issues” are not all that acquainted with Himself all the time. He means well though. Those damned consistency and aligment checks just keep fucking him up.
slag
@Loneoak: Agreed.
And as for why people are fascinated with Michelle Obama, I don’t know. But I know the reason that I’m fascinated with her–She’s the first real person I’ve ever seen in the White House. Totally transparent in a way no First Lady I’ve ever seen has been. Unlike her husband, she’d never been practiced. He floats; she walks. I dig that about her, and I think it bodes well for our future when people see folks like Michelle Obama in the White House. I’m glad she’s decided to work with kids, even if it is a somewhat stereotypical role for her to play.
SensesFail
@kay:
You are giving conservatives WWWWWAAAAAAYYY too much credit here.
WaterGirl
@B W Smith: Jinx. Again.
Edit: glad to be in good company!
Keith G
Oh lordy, and so it begins again.@Shawn in ShowMe: There is not enough blog space here to list the authors, journalist, poets, statespersons and friends of African ancestry whose words, wit, and advice have moved and helped me. I am not sure why this matters, but you seem to feel it does.
@WaterGirl: Maybe that was a mistake done during exasperation, but isn’t Zandar a made up device by an anonymous person? I am sorry Zandar person that I clipped your made up name. I hope there are no scars.
Almost two billion people think Jesus rose from the dead. They are also wrong.
The Ancient Randonneur
It really is odd how much love GOP First Ladies get. Jesus Babbling Christ they put Barbara Bush’s picture on the one dollar bill. That is WAY over the top.
Chuck Butcher
West side dead thread commenting – repost:
O for Cri-yi sake. Celebrity gossip article and book letting the prols peek in past the curtains to find out that – OMG! somtimes they fight…
Worse yet, sometimes they don’t agree about how to do politics?
Sure, there is the limpballs school of offensive as hell bullshit spouted as reason… (er, something) I know it may be seen as “white privilege” or some such but I’m not overly displeased to see the GOP put itself on view for what it is. That isn’t approval of the POV, but since it is their political agenda it is useful to have it more clearly on display.
I get considerably more worked up by the whispers, by the closeted bigotry that slinks by under the radar. The wink and a nod. “nudge nudge wink wink” to steal from better commedians.
dogwood
@Phil Perspective:
Really? A few un-sourced quotes in a NYT piece and you’ve “learned” that the FLOTUS is more progressive than her husband. You are definitely an easy sell. And since you take these sorts of sources as gospel, I’d like your opinion on “The Myth of St, Elizabeth” in Game Change. By your standards we “learned” that Elizabeth Edwards was a crazy harpy who micromanaged her husband’s campaign poorly, and treated people like shit.
Nicole
@B W Smith: ABL is not mixed race. She was adopted into a mixed family. It was one of the things I remember getting thrown at her when she posted here- the mixed race “accusation” (which was stupid on its own) and her having to explain more than once her family history.
Shawn in ShowMe
@Keith G:
I’m not asking you for an all-star list of Black writers from the beginning of time. I’m asking for two black bloggers whose writing meet your weight standards. I thought Zandar’s writing was pretty substantial but maybe you can enlighten me.
dogwood
@Villago Delenda Est:
Absolutely. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
Chuck Butcher
@Nicole:
WTF?
Is there supposed to be some sort of moral framework built into what a person’s race is? If I use a person’s race as a measure of their writing and reasoning what is it that I’ve just demonstrated?
B W Smith
@WaterGirl: Me, too. Sometimes I fear I am the only person that reads into statements and am timid to say what I think.
@Elie: Haven’t seen you around for a while, Elie. I mostly lurk and will comment some on weekends but I read everyday. I respect your opinion, so if you say he is mostly a good guy, I will believe you. I was in no way calling him a racist. How can you tell by what unknown people write on a blog? I just watched a small group of folks make every ABL post impossible to read and that same group is still making wise cracks about her. I don’t want to see the same thing happen to Zandar. I enjoy his POV. He makes me think.
B W Smith
@Nicole: Thank you for correcting me. I’m not sure where I got that idea.
dogwood
@Phil Perspective:
I suppose you’re right here, but that was hardly the point of my comment.
slag
@Keith G:
Whatever your initial impetus, you’re not doing yourself any favors here. You’re looking more and more like an asshole.
And quite frankly, I do think you should apologize for your mistake. Without the additional dismissive outbursts.
Keith G
@Elie: Elie! You’re back.
Thanks….I think
@WaterGirl: I do not know one darn thing about Zandar’s demographics. I imagine it is a made up name. I could be wrong. if is is a proper name, I hope that person was not offended. I would assume that they are strong enough not to let Keith G (part of my real name) bother her/him one iota. I am just a guy typing stuff on the internet while a roast finishes roasting.
Nicole
@Chuck Butcher: No, of course not. But when people commenting on ABL’s posts called her mixed race (usually, if I remember, as some kind of accusation that she had no right to talk about the black experience in America, which always left me scratching my head), she would correct them. She was described above as mixed race; I was just clarifying, as she repeatedly took time to do.
I agree, it’s ridiculous to judge or qualify someone’s posts based on their race, and I’m oblivious enough that I confess this is the first time I’ve been made aware of Zander’s background, even though I’ve been reading his posts here since he first became a front pager. I probably read comments by him before then, but as I said, I tend to be oblivious unless something is repeated to me several times and I also tend to scroll right past people’s names and just read their comments so I usually can’t remember who said what anyway.
B W Smith
@Chuck Butcher: I don’t think Nicole was making any characterization, she was simply correcting my error.
Keith G
@Shawn in ShowMe: I am not being disingenuous, but if you know that Zandar is Black then you have me at an disadvantage. That is a thing that I did not know.
geg6
The two Michelle Obama threads have been quite educational for me. I like these kinds of threads because of what they reveal about some of our commenters here at BJ. They have been every bit as educational as any ABL thread ever was.
Now, what could FLOTUS and ABL have in common that would account for that, I wonder?
Valdivia
@geg6:
I feel exactly the same way.
Larkspur
@Chris, you quoted Brachiator::
Even though you are obviously correct that wifely deference is a really important component to this batch of wingnut sectarianism, I’ve been reading books like The Last Stand: Custer, Sitting Bull, and the Battle of the Little Bighorn (Nathaniel Philbrick), Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era(James M. McPherson), and Duel: Alexander Hamilton, Aaron Burr, and the Future of America (Thomas Fleming).
And I’ve been fascinated to read just how intently those huge historical man-figures confided in their wives, asked their wives for advice, conferred with them about major decisions in their professional lives, respected and depended on their opinions, and looked to them for solace. So there’s the common perception of what marriage was like back then, and then there’s what really happened. Despite all the constraints upon women, legal, social and intellectual, husbands and wives sometimes lived in true partnership.
So everybody should just lay off the vindictive flinging of crap like this. Neither Hillary Clinton nor Michelle Obama has done anything to deserve it. I have only one complaint about Shelley O, and that is that I wish she would stand up straight. Sometimes she slumps a little, and I think she should always, always stand tall.
Keith G
@B W Smith: I sincerely did not know. I read very little of his stuff, as a busy life enforces some limits.
I promise that I will read the B-J Commenting Style Sheet. I guess it was updated, but I confess that I will miss reading about Mittens, McCrazy and Cariboo Barbie. I guess I was just an unwashed heathen in assuming that such treatment of elected government officials was not beyond the dignity of this blog.
cry me a river
This isn’t a black thing, and it’s barely a woman thing. It’s about the influence the First Spouse has on the President: when the Obamas eat meals together and/or go to bed at night they probably engage in pillow talk about issues ranging from policy to their duties as parents. Possibly followed by kisses/hugs/sex, possibly not. The life of a US president, while it has mundane elements, isn’t mundane. But presumably the Obamas have a normal relationship.
There is nothing, no statute preventing Michelle from giving advice to Barack. Michelle’s is the last voice he hears every night and the first he wakes up to. He obviously listens to her, since they share significant qualities of mind (ethics, values, etc) or they wouldn’t be married.
I meant to add more but need to go.
clayton
@geg6: To put it as kind a way as possible, I believe that like the blog owner (who lives in WV) there is a certain population of commenters here who don’t have much real life experience with people outside their own community. If you know what I mean :)
j
Mission accomplished! ABC Network News just did a 5 minute piece on that gossip book, and they even dragged Cokie Roberts out of the bar to opine on “what it all means”, as if she was ever a FLOTUS. She was the daughter of a congressman and was given a “news” job because of that fact.
Which brings up my next point, ALL these people on the MSM are holdovers from the LBJ administration, at least. Barbara Walters has been around since dirt was invented, Cokie is Watergate era, and Mrs. Greenspan predates time itself.
When will the MSM start hiring women to replace these “inside the Beltway” doyennes? My vote — FIRE David Gregory and replace him with Rachel Maddow.
Instant ratings gold, and as a plus, REAL journalism, not GOP ass kissing.
CT Voter
@geg6: I usually read the comments without joining in. The threads of the last week or so, though, have pushed me to throw my two cents in. And I agree: the comments have been revealing.
Sunshine is a good thing.
WaterGirl
@geg6: @Valdivia: I read that and I’m hoping I didn’t come off like a total jerk. I am not usually confrontational, at least I don’t think I am, but I just felt I had to speak up.
gaz
@Keith G: Curious why you couldn’t actually name one.
Actually I’m not.
We’ll wait why you google furiously.
Ya tool.
CT Voter
@j: And the snippets that will be discussed on network/cable new, AND the way they will be discussed was one of Zandar’s points. So, I’m glad everyone who read the excerpt from the NY Times decided that it made the First Lady sound even better.
The concern isn’t with what readers of Balloon-Juice think, though. It’s with how this “gossipy look inside the Obamas” will be portrayed. And since Cokie Roberts felt Hawaii was too exotic for then-candidate Obama to “vacation” in (without ever mentioning he was visiting his dying grandmother), well, then, I’d say the concern is justified.
boss bitch
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
I had no idea she did that. I wasn’t paying attention to politics then. Oh this burns me up.
Dustin
Not necessarily. eemom often get’s a “shoot first, read later” policy around here. Hell, a lot of the long-timers do. Sometimes it’s better to just roll your eyes and move on because even if they see your point they’ll all just deflect the issue. If you read the 100+ threads long enough you’ll see it coming a mile away.
Chuck Butcher
If race has to factor into the writing or reasoning of an article, then something is wrong with it. The piece needs to hold together on its own, not on factors external to it.
eemom
@CT Voter:
omg. I apologize.
Lemme check the warranty on this here snark detector…
j
@The Ancient Randonneur: WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
End of thread!
(J/K)
geg6
j @158:
Good idea to replace Dancin’ Dave with Rachel. Can you imagine tomorrow’s Press the Meat with Rachel questioning all the GOPers running for president? Dave will give them a tongue bath; Rachel a tongue lashing.
Speaking of MTP (and being completely OT), what those idiots thinking, agreeing to all go on the show the morning after an evening debate?
Keith G
@gaz: That is why I did not answer. Not only was it not relevant to our discussion, but there was no way to respond to that type of question (a thrown gauntlet) without Google being thrown in my face as you have now done. Thank you.
Valdivia
@WaterGirl:
speaking for myself I can tell you I was cheering you on! No the illumination comes from those who seem to not get at all the points being made by Zandar and questioning that argument.
CT Voter
@eemom: I’ll try to polish the snark generator, as well–
eemom
‘course, Cole’s wasn’t snark. Tee hee.
@Dustin:
what are YOU on about? That was the first time I’ve ever misunderstood a comment directed at me.
I am, however, pleased to be promoted to “long timer.” Fuckie used to always diss me as an eemom-come-lately.
B W Smith
@Keith G: WTF, dude? With my first reply to you I gave you a chance to explain what you meant and the backpedaling began. As far as I know, there is no ‘style-sheet’ for commenting on BJ. You can say whatever you think (lots of folks do) but you should, at least, be able to explain your thought process when asked. Snappy rejoinders notwithstanding, I find most of your comments not worth my time. I’m sure the feeling is mutual. Have a good evening.
BTW, since I was wrong about ABL’s race, I could be wrong about Zandar. I really don’t see that it makes a difference. There is no excuse to be disrespectful regardless of a person’s race.
Shawn in ShowMe
@Chuck Butcher:
That’s an admirable principle. Unfortunately, my experience on this earth suggests that people’s biases are a more accurate predictor of how they view what they read. And I’m more concerned about what people actually do, not what principles they claim to hold.
Keith G
@B W Smith: I am having a wonderful evening as I hope you are.
Hill Dweller
@j: Can you give a quick summation of ABC’s coverage? Was it focused mostly on the gossip? Was their spin negative?
Chuck Butcher
@Shawn in ShowMe:
It is my experience that there are about a whole lot of damn excuses for poor writing/reasoning and lack of reading comprehension and processing. I think that sucks and give a rat’s ass about excuses on whoever’s side. If you can’t manage it, stay the hell out of the public.
boss bitch
@j:
They are very slowly being replaced by their children or the children of the politicians they covered. See: Jenna Bush, Meghan McCain, Luke Russert, Chelsea Clinton, and Liz Cheney.
Did I leave anyone out?
cat48
I read that fucking hit piece yesterday & I was so angry I couldn’t sleep, eat or concentrate until about an hour ago. Kantor is a piece of trash. I’m sure the Villagers, Wall St, Mittens & all the hateful Ron Paul progressives are filled with glee. Black folks can never have any respect or be treated like other folks would be unless they keep themselves checked at all times & do what their “betters” want them to do. I’m truly hurt.
j
@Hill Dweller: It was nothing BUT the gossip. And Cokie added NOTHING to the story, other than a condescending tone of voice, as IF she’s some kind of “authority”. In an hour or 2 it will be on their web site. If you are in an area that can’t get ABC World News Now (or whatever they call it) because of football try the web site later.
eemom
@Shawn in ShowMe: @dogwood:
excellent points.
I especially like
Chuck Butcher
This article by Zander uses hyperbole to reach conclusions that aren’t supported except by the hyperbole. I’m making no assertion that the limpballs aren’t exactly as they appear and that isn’t the crux of the article. You can throw all kinds of shit in the blender and come up with something nasty, even if some of the ingredients are simply vanillia ice cream.
Gossip pieces aren’t intended to be all flattering, the prols peeking through the curtains want to see something. Then you’ve got the politics of racism, and that is another thing. Mixing them up just discredits your point.
MikeInSewickley
Having tried to follow the thread so far, I can’t believe how much of it degenerated into a “I’m rubber, you’re glue” debate.
For Christ’s Sake – I don’t see why it has to immediately trash down to a “you’re not black so you’ll never understand” argument. Yes, I understand what it can mean to be considered subhuman and, yes, I’m not black.
My parents spent 4 fucking years in German concentration camps during WWII – my father a Serbian POW and my mother was a 16 year Russian farm girl who became slave labor. I heard all the horror stories. So please spare me any bullshit that I would never understand since I wasn’t personally in the camps – after 75+ years of watching my parents dealing with physical and psychological trauma and trying to live a good life, I don’t need to me patronized.
That off my chest, I now say that I think Cole was not automatically dismissing the “Mrs. YoMama” crap that this article subtly has. But, Christ! Can’t we enjoy the fact that we have one of the most vibrant, intelligent, and forceful first ladies in generations, and she is a democrat, and she is black???
Can’t we just take the great thing we have been given and run with it?
By the way Digby agrees with Cole (even more so as she ends by saying maybe the wrong Obama is President).
Man…this is getting tiring.
kay
@boss bitch:
It’s mind-boggling to me. I understand converts, big tent, allies, whatever. I get that. What I don’t get is letting them define “liberals” or “Democrats”. Where, exactly, does Huffington get off hammering someone like Hilda Solis, who has been plugging away for years on working class issues?
You know, conservatives don’t do this. Left to Right converts are treated with some healthy skepticism. They don’t run the joint.
WaterGirl
@boss bitch: It’s truly depressing when you see them all listed in one place like that.
I watched Up! with Chris Hayes last weekend, and I thought it was a breath of fresh air. I looked around the table and it seemed like everybody was around the same age as Chris Hayes. And I say that as a baby boomer.
I think either Rachel or Chris Hayes would be great hosts on Meet the Press. Hell, go back to a panel where it’s both Rachel and Chris.
AA+ Bonds
I heartily encourage anyone who enjoys democracy and its fruits to try not worshiping those related to public officials by blood or marriage. In fact, try fucking ignoring those people unless you’re investigating corruption.
It really, really, really helps. Helps civilization, I mean.
AA+ Bonds
One of the better things about the W. Bush presidency was Laura’s invisibility. I do not think First Ladies are where we need to go for feminist role models – yes, even Eleanor. Peronism will kill America before fascism does.
B W Smith
@AA+ Bonds: Where do you look for role models? Most lists of admired people include politicians and their spouses. I would much rather have my child aspire to be like the President or Mrs. Obama than some sports figure or music star. I have long hoped that their father and I would be their role model but from 13 to about 25, that’s pretty much out the window. There is huge difference in someone being a role model and someone idolized like Evita.
dogwood
@MikeInSewickley:
You’re right, this shit is getting tiring.
AA+ Bonds
@B W Smith:
Margaret Sanger? Rosalind Franklin? Harriet Tubman? There’s a few, off the top of my head. Is it really that hard? Try harder, for your kids’ sake.
And this
begs the question. That’s the whole problem.
Look, I’m an avowed fan of Cristina Fernández. I think Secretary Clinton would have made, at the very least, as competent a centrist in the top spot as Obama. Hell, I’d probably have voted Ted Kennedy for President straight through 2008, no matter how many mistresses he killed.
But those people’s rise to fill those niches evinces a failure of the democratic spirit, not its victory. Mistrust of such figures should be assumed in the United States.
Nicole
@B W Smith:
Or sex, or orientation, or really, anything other than an individual’s actions/words.
I’m currently recording onto mp3 a book about comparative politics and it postulates that, as bad as America is on issues of race, we’re still way ahead of Europe. So, uh, yay us? Kind of?
M. D.
The piece of trash written by Jodi Kantor will not change my opinion of Mrs. Obama. I respect her as First Lady, I think she is a wonderful First Lady.
B W Smith
@Nicole: I agree actions and words are what should be heeded. Ahead of Europe? I hope our goals are loftier.
AA+ Bonds
A good piece at Salon on the topic of liberal name-worship:
Do we need another Kennedy?
dogwood
@B W Smith:
Your response is very gracious, but you won’t get anywhere with someone who equates admiring Michelle Obama with Peronism.
j
@cat48: I can’t quote anyone on record but as you know “some” say that the author of that unsourced for the record piece of wasted ink “may” be suffering from syphilis and that it “may” be eating out her brain. Nobody will go on record, of course, but you know what “that” means. It means that that is what “they” say. (Or not, as “some” would “say”.)
Did this “reporter” ever go to journalism school, or was she a pity hire?
FlipYrWhig
@MikeInSewickley: Hey, here’s a thought. Maybe when someone is president he or she has to make decisions he or she wouldn’t ordinarily want or like to make, but when someone isn’t president she or he can advocate for one position and stick to it. Perhaps that explains why people who are president make compromises that annoy people, as opposed to the theory that all presidents just like to spite and disappoint their supporters for the hell of it.
Shawn in ShowMe
@MikeInSewickley:
We’re trying. The inital post was about how the Jodi Kantor’s of the world won’t let us. Everything else in this thread flowed from that.
The lady’s only 36 years old and holds the distinction of being the youngest person to edit a section at the New York Times. We’ll be hearing her pearls of wisdom in Big Media for the next 30 years.
You know what I’m tired of? My enemies having a monopoly on friends in high places. It sure would have been nice if Ms. Kantor would have channelled her Obama family infatuation for good rather than for evil.
To paraphrase Lord of Rings: “And now you tell me young Ezra Klein has betrayed us? Our list of allies grows thin.”
dogwood
@FlipYrWhig:
Oh, Flip. There you go being all rational again.
magurakurin
Not a bad thread. I liked the part where CT and eemom made up. Some of the vitriol at Keith G. seemed a bit over the top as he seems to be an okay guy from previous postings. Overall I came the conclusion that perhaps both Cole and Zandar are right. I can see where the book might be intended to be a hit piece, but judging by the example of JC’s reaction, it has failed in that mission. And most likely it fails because Michelle Obama is quite simply, an awesome human being.
Now I need to check the mail to see if my life has arrived yet. I need one.
dogwood
@Shawn in ShowMe:
I’ll play devil’s advocate here. I remember Ms. Kantor from PBS coverage of the ’08 DNC. She comes across as a bit nerdy and intellectual. She definitely seemed very interested in the psychological make-up of then Senator Obama and the dynamics of his family. I also read her 2009 piece on the Obamas which would hardly be called a hit piece. My guess is that since this is a book and not an article, they’ve leaked the salacious shit to boost sales and interest. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that when the book comes out and people read it, they’ll find the overall portrait of the couple will be positive.
We must also acknowledge that Ms. Kantor’s “friends in high places” aren’t just the bigwigs at the NYT, but sources in the White House who were willing to portray both the President and the First Lady in an unflattering light. The book wouldn’t be possible without them.
B W Smith
@dogwood: You are probably correct. I hardly take kindly to someone who doesn’t know me telling me I should try harder for my children. My children are now all adults and seem to have turned out fine. They all reach an age when a being like Michael Jordan or Britney Spears sounds much more enticing. Most parents know we don’t choose our kids role models, all we can do is talk about the folks we respect at the dinner table.
Shawn in ShowMe
@dogwood:
I read elsewhere that the publisher didn’t even send out advance copies of the book. If the entire book was a hit piece, you’d think every outpost in the MSM would have a copy. Your scenario definitely sounds plausible. I hope you’re right.
Hal
Of all things, I’m thinking of the recent life insurance commercial featuring an AA family, where the wife, at the the end of the commercial, is responding to her husband when he says something about how wonderful he is in providing his family with insurance. Her response? mmmm-hmmmm. That’s it for black women in popular culture. Loud, crazy, out of control, neck snapping mmmm-hmmmm-ers who aren’t to be fucked with. (I’m looking at you Tyler Perry.)
I think our culture, American culture, has absorbed that image, and now, all black women are reacted to based on that image. For many conservatives, it flies in the face of what they think of blacks in general, especially the enthralled by white Dems image they decided is status quo for black people. So I’m not surprised that any profile of Michelle Obama is always going to be controversial. She’s not Halle Berry, she’s not Zoe Saldana. In many ways, she’s Celie from The Color Purpe. Too black, and too unconventional in her appearance to fit some fantasy image of black women. (Basically white with a tan.)
It will only get worse as the election approaches. Michelle Obama will never be a universally accepted first lady. She’s the first black First Lady, and I think it will be a long time before that fact becomes just another blip in the biography of first ladies.
dogwood
@Shawn in ShowMe:
Absolutely. I also doubt that Ms. Kantor has much to say about how the book is rolled out and excerpted in the NYT. I’m probably just blowing smoke here, but my initial reaction to Ms. Kantor wasn’t that she had some ax to grind, she just seemed extremely interested in the Obama’s personally, which seemed a bit odd. I still believe that has something to do with race, but it doesn’t necessarily mean she’s out to get them or has some agenda. She is not Maureen Dowd by any means. If she does some TV interviews you’ll see what I mean. The story could die fast, because she’s much more of a Charlie Rose type guest than a Hardball type guest. She just might bore the public to death.
Brachiator
@Larkspur:
Great point. John Adams also comes to mind here.
But even here, history is more complicated, in a good way. One of Theodore Roosevelt’s most trusted advisors was his sister Bamie. He relied on her so often that her home became known as “the other White House,” because of his visits there before he made big decisions. His sister was also a huge influence on Eleanor and on TR’s daughter.
I admire Mrs Obama without reservation. I don’t need to see her as the last progressive avatar in the White House, as parts of the Kantor piece seems to want to portray her. If she gives her husband advice, that’s all well and good. But presidential spouses should not be looked at as co presidents or semi cabinet officials.
As far as the dumbass criticism of Mrs Obama goes, Bamie Roosevelt comes to the rescue again. Eleanor once noted her aunt’s advice on how public figures should deal with criticism.
Do not be bothered by what people say as long as you are doing what seems right to you, but be sure that you face yourself honestly.
Michelle Obama passes this test with flying colors. I am really not concerned with the nonsense that will come from the president’s enemies directed at his family. Nor do i think that most Americans, those of good will, will pay sttention to the crap
After this, you just have to fight back against the fools. And sadly, some of these fools may be on the left, aiding and abetting the usual gangs of fools on the right.
Nellcote
here’s an interview with Jodi Kantor from Chicago Magazine:
For almost five years, Jodi Kantor has covered politics, including Chicago’s most famous couple, for the New York Times. She has peeked inside the Obamas’ marriage, traced the First Lady’s roots back to slavery, and explored the president’s relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. She has been in the White House too many times to count, she told me in a telephone conversation from her apartment in Brooklyn, where she lives with her husband, Ron Lieber, and their daughter, who turns six next week. Because Leiber, who grew up here, writes the Times’s “Your Money” column—and has to work out of New York—her editors allow her to commute to D.C. Kantor, 36, also traveled often to Chicago to research her forthcoming book, The Obamas (Little, Brown, $29.99). She spent most of her time in Hyde Park interviewing the First Couple’s friends—some, such as Marty Nesbitt and Eric Whitaker, who remain very close—and many more who were once friends but now seldom, if ever, see the Obamas.
In 18 months of work, Kantor conducted 200 interviews, many with high-level West Wing aides—repeated interviews with Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod, for example. Unprecedented access to the East Wing, Kantor says, came compliments of Michelle Obama. “I’m the first book author to have access to what really happened inside the East Wing.”
Kantor’s advance is said to be in the seven figures, boosted by a 40-minute Oval Office interview with the First Couple on the subject of their marriage that resulted in a much-discussed October 2009 New York Times Magazine cover story. The Obamas did not speak to her again for the book, but they did not stop people close to them from talking.
The book is out January 10. Until then, Little Brown has embargoed it, but, embargo notwithstanding, Kantor gave me some fresh insights and anecdotes. The first part of my interview with Kantor is in Chicago’s January issue and can be found here. Below, you will find more from our conversation, including Kantor’s take on the Obamas’ private quarters, her encounters with the president’s daughters, the relationship between Michelle and Laura Bush, and more. And check back next week for the final part of our interview, in which Kantor discusses the Desiree Rogers controversy, Barack’s time at Columbia University, and the role that Valerie Jarrett plays in the First Family’s lives.
CF: Of the stuff you learned about the Obamas, what stands out?
JK: These are two people who really did lead fairly normal lives not that long ago, and the major question that the book asks is, “What happens when you become the president and the First Lady?” I do feel that I wrote the book for Chicagoans because there’s the sense I get when I’m in Chicago that the Obamas were so much a part of so many peoples’ lives, especially during the presidential campaign. There were so many people who volunteered their time and went to primary states and made phone calls…. And then it’s like, poof, and [they] disappeared to Washington…. I think a lot of Chicagoans were left wondering what happened to these two people? How were they transformed? What do they really make of the experience? I really wrote the book to answer those questions.
CF: Is Michelle quieter on issues than you would have expected?
JK: She has gone through different stages during her First Ladyhood…. She came to this office with very little idea of what it really entailed. She did not throw herself into research about her predecessors. She didn’t model her First Ladyhood on anybody else’s tenure, and she has really had to figure it out step by step. I think that the big question to ask about her work is how much in substantive terms is it really going to move the needle either in how our country treats military families or the significance about “Let’s Move,” taking on one of the hardest public health problems there is [childhood obesity]. Part of the drama I see is of this woman wrestling with this really traditional role and grappling with the question of what can she do and what can’t she do and what is her role—and where does she really belong in this greater picture and narrative of the administration?
CF: Did Michelle ever want to have her office in the West Wing, like Hillary did?
JK: Michelle has had to grapple with Hilary Clinton’s legacy as First Lady…Michelle Obama never wants to be seen as the kind of First Lady who is overly involved in the West Wing.
CF: Is she an adviser to her husband?
JK: In the most private, intimate sense, not in the sense of “I’m coming to your senior staff meeting.”
CF: Any relationship between Michelle and Laura Bush?
JK: [After the 2008 election, the Obamas went to the White House where the Bushes showed them their new home.] The women stop in this little sitting room off of the bedroom and Laura Bush takes Michelle Obama to the window and she says, “If you look out this window you can see the Rose Garden and you can look out over the Oval Office…. When my husband had a really long day, I would just stand at the window where nobody could see me and I would look over things…. My mother in law Barbara Bush showed this to Hillary Clinton when [Clinton] moved into the White House, and Hillary Clinton showed it to me, and I’m showing it to you, and when you leave the White House it will your job to show this to your successor.” That window is just the perfect metaphor for First Ladyhood because it’s this hidden window on power.
CF: Have you ever seen the Obamas’ White House private quarters?
JK: No. I can’t even name a journalist who has ever been up there under the Obama watch…. Different presidents have used the private quarters in very different ways. The Clintons did have more work events up there, and the Bushes, interestingly, were very open with the private quarters. Laura Bush even let documentary filmmakers film there. The Obama attitude with the private quarters is, “This is Sasha’s and Malia’s home.” The night that health care reform passed, the president threw a party there…. [The First Lady and girls were out of town.] I always thought it was telling that the one night the president spontaneously threw a party in the residence, he did it when his family wasn’t home.
CF: Have you ever run into the daughters while you were in the White House doing interviews?
JK: A few months ago, I was in the Diplomatic Room on the ground floor…. They don’t have a private entrance to their house. They have to walk through the Diplomatic Room, and then they actually duck behind these brown screens in order to get to the private residence. The screens look like the kinds of screens you’d find in a church basement. I was standing with some White House staff. All the sudden, Sasha and Mrs. Robinson [Michelle’s mother] came in, and it was clear that Sasha was returning from school. She had a backpack, and the staff people acted like it was no big deal; they smiled and nodded politely. I had a different reaction. I sort of instinctively shrank away because I felt really funny that Sasha had to run into a reporter coming into her own home.
CF: Malia?
JK: I was walking down the stairs in the East Wing not long ago, and she bounded right past; she and Sasha were running up the stairs, and they had a Secret Service agent right behind them. He looked very happy. He looked like he had drawn the most fun assignment.
CF: Did you ever cross paths with the Obamas in the White House and have them recognize you—“Oh, that’s the reporter who’s writing the book on us?”
JK: They know exactly who I am. We have an intense relationship. They really care about the Times, they read the Times. I’ve seen them at the [White House] Christmas party every year. After the big marriage piece was published in the New York Times Magazine, I brought my husband to the Christmas party. I walked up the Obamas, and I said, “Well, now you can check out who I’m married to,” and they thought that was very funny; they pretended to inspect [him].
CF The Obamas didn’t talk to you for the book. So how did you get your information?
JK The story I wanted to write was never going to come from the Obamas’ lips. There’s so much they can’t say. I’d [previously] interviewed each of them on different topics, from religion to parenting to their marriage. I interviewed 33 White House staffers, most of them many times. I wouldn’t trade that for a quick interview with the president, because I’m not sure he’s at liberty to discuss the real questions I asked in this book. In a way, it goes to Barack Obama’s own predicament as president: He’s such a gifted storyteller. Yet can he really tell his own story anymore?
CF When the Obamas left for D.C., they said they would come home about every six weeks. Yet they’ve hardly been back at all.
JK They did not have a clear idea of what the presidency was going to be like. Look at the contrast between George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Bush’s father was the president and before that was the vice president, so the Bushes spent holidays in the White House; they knew the staff, the routines, the traditions. The Obamas didn’t have any of that. Four years before the Obamas went to the White House, they were living in this condo apartment in Hyde Park, which I’ve been in; fairly small, has a very small closet, so it’s hard to figure out how Michelle Obama’s clothes, even her more modest wardrobe back then, fit in there.
CF Are they close to any former presidents or First Ladies?
JK They have never had the Clintons over to dinner in the White House, which to some people speaks to the fact that the Obamas have not been schmoozers at all. In Washington, they are considered quite introverted.
CF Would the president be more outgoing if Michelle were not there to restrain him?
JK You could say the opposite. Michelle Obama is the real politician in the family in the sense she is more effusive, better at connecting instantly with people. A good source of mine once said to me, “Here’s what you have to remember: She is Bill Clinton, and he is Hillary.”
CF What if there is no second term?
JK Eric Whitaker told me that the president has a very unrealistic fantasy. [He] thinks that once he’s out of the White House he’s going to be able to walk around like a normal person again. But their South Side house is very exposed, not really a great place for an ex-president to live. It’s hard to imagine them going anywhere but Chicago. Everyone I’ve talked to thinks they’ll come back and yet lead a very different life from the one they’ve led here so far.
Karen
I think what makes people hostile towards Obama and his wife is that they seem to have a healthy marriage. The GOP won’t find a blue dress with them. I think that’s what the PUMAs hate too, they can’t use the Maury Povich model of what they think a black family is. The name calling and insinuating towards Michelle Obama is…..she’s horrible because she wants kids to eat healthier? Do you really think that would be screamed about if they could have found anything else? Do you think that there would be all this muttering about how “professorial” Obama is on one hand then the next second saying that he only got into college because of affirmative action? Don’t you think that it eats at their souls that it wasn’t one of the Obama girls who had a baby out of wedlock? Never mind the ages of the girls at that time. It still pissed them off. I guarantee if one of the Obama daughters is in puberty or older by now, there will be nastiness about her too.
CT Voter
@kay: HuffPo gets off hammering Hilda Solis because hammering Hilda Solis gets page views.
Why HuffPo is considered “a liberal site” is…I was going to say beyond my understanding, but really, it’s predictable. Launch a site as an “alternative” to whatever is out there, point out the absurdities of Republican politicians, Voila! A money maker. Then, pivot to criticizing Democrats, and, Voila! More money is made!
AA+ Bonds
@dogwood:
Yeah yeah, I know, It Can’t Happen Here.
Except it did, in 2000, and almost did again, in 2008.
This is one of those things where Democrats can’t see past their noses. If they do it, it’s horrific. If we do it, it’s fine.
CT Voter
@Nellcote:
.
Jodi Kantor has had an intense interest with the Obamas. I wonder if that “intense relationship” Ms. Kantor claims to have with the Obamas is actually a “relationship”?
dogwood
@Nellcote:
Well, I looks like I might have been right after all. It doesn’t seem that Ms. Kantor is looking to do some hit job. We’ll have to wait and see, but the book probably will be more flattering than the news programs are hoping for.
dogwood
@AA+ Bonds:
Sorry, I just don’t get your reference to 2000 and 2008. First lady worship doesn’t seem to fit the scenario. But what do I know.
dogwood
@CT Voter:
I said it before, but wait until you see her interviews when the book comes out. She is the epitome of intense. I’m not surprised she’d use that word. She is also very earnest in a geeky sort of way. If you were the first couple of the US and knew some journalist was going to delve into your past and write the definitive tome on your marriage, you’d probably be glad that it was Jodi Kantor.
Brachiator
@CT Voter:
Solis is a good person, but a crappy Secretary of Labor, just as Gary Locke was an inadequate Secretary of Commerce. Obama desperately needs someone with an innovative vision in this post. And the gold standard here is FDR’s Labor Secretary, Frances Perkins.
CT Voter
@dogwood: “Delve into your past” and write “the definitive tome”?
Kantor’s book will get a lot of attention, to be sure. And, to many in the media, it will be, no doubt, the “definitive tome”. Because Kantor says “We had an intense relationship”. And the family in question cannot address any of the substance of the fruits of the “intense relationship” that Kantor claims.
So: Kantor interviewed many people. Had an “intense relationship” with….the Obamas? Without interviewing them since 2009? And this is the definitive tome on the First Family?
No. This is the “definitive tome” because of the so-described “intense relationship” from a reporter who will make probably a nice profit off this book. And while the author profits from access to the WH, and, her “intense relationship” with a couple she hasn’t interviewed in two years…Sam Stein tweets about “must reads”, as does Ezra Klein, and HuffPo fuels the flames.
Jody Kantor :: Bob Woodwardwannabe.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Keith G:
If you read him much then you would have known it. Now what were you complaining about in this post that you made in here?
I don’t think the problem with Zander is lightweight writing, I think that you are a lightweight reader. Another point, nym or name, most times that someone mangles my name it has been done because that person had a problem with me of some sort.
As an aside, I bet your eyes are brown. :)
dogwood
@CT Voter:
I think you are missing my point. Did you read the interview that Nellcote posted? There’s nothing there to suggest Ms. Kantor is out to get the Obamas. And I’m sorry, but if you are President of the United States people are going to wrtie shit about you and your family. If that’s the case, you’d rather have a rather earnest geeky intellectual like Kantor do it then someone else.
Hill Dweller
@Brachiator:
Ideally, Obama would have made changes to a number of executive positions more quickly, but with Republicans crippling the confirmation process, that just wasn’t possible.
For example, both the President and Geithner wanted another Treasury Secretary last year, but the WH staff were(rightfully) afraid they couldn’t get someone else confirmed. Ultimately, Obama ended up convincing him to stay on until the end of his term.
Republican obstructionism has been an under-reported and under-appreciated aspect of Obama’s first term. They should have had to pay a dear price for basically trying to make governing as difficult as possible during a devastating financial crisis. Alas, the media is worthless.
eemom
@CT Voter:
I agree, the “intense relationship” is off the charts sickening self-aggrandizement — though I also agree with dogwood that she doesn’t seem to have it in for the O’s.
Most likely, she’s just a young emmessemm larva eager to grow her wings.
And a good evening to you, sir/madam.
still sheepish about the misunderstanding earlier : (
Brachiator
@Hill Dweller:
This is true. The Republicans opposed Obama’s nominee to replace Locke at Commerce for months.
GOP obstructionism has been reported on. But it has been lost in the relentless noise raised by the Republicans. And the average citizen pays little attention to the details, and quickly falls back on “both sides do it” and “why don’t they just get bipartisan?”
Blaming the media is just insufficient in the age of the InterTubes. People jump on FaceBook, Twitter and YouTube in a nanosecond about all manner of useless crap. To go on about how the media is falling down on the job of shovelling either crap or truthiness is a waste of time.
Steeplejack
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
Slightly ironic that you misspelled Zandar’s name in this comment. But that’s not mangling, of course.
Mnemosyne
@AA+ Bonds:
Peronism? No, it probably can’t. It’s a specific movement that utilizes elements from Italian and Spanish fascism, not a general reference to building a cult of personality around a leader’s wife.
Peronism is more than Evita, and you sound silly every time you try to claim that there’s nothing more to it than leader worship.
Nellcote
@dogwood:
The WH statement about the book was that it was old news and exagerated gossip. They don’t sound upset. And though she didn’t interview the Obamas she did have access to their close friends. Reading Kantor’s stories on the Obamas from the NYT archives, I don’t see malice in her writing this book. Obviously that doesn’t apply to people who want to cherry pick and distort for their own ends. But as the saying goes, haters gotta hate.
dogwood
@Nellcote:
Yeah, I think I must be the only person here that has actually heard her speak about the Obamas. My instincts certainly could be wrong, but I got the impression she wasn’t some Bob Woodward wannabe, but rather a journalist who was intrigued by these people and their story. Hell, the Obama’s gave her access so I doubt they thought she was some hit-job journalist. And let’s face it the Obama’s aren’t dumb. If you want the public to believe all the nice things Jodi Cantor is going to write about them, then you have to air a bit of dirty laundry as well.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Steeplejack:
Nope, just plain inattentiveness on my part…lol! I never had a prob with it until one day someone here was deliberately spelling it the way I misspelled it. Since then I’ve even looked at his name to make sure between posts and have still screwed it up.
Loose nut, keyboard and all that, but admittedly so on my part. If I was perfect I’d be President. ;)
OzoneR
@stinkfoot: Oh i don’t think the book shouldn’t be written or the story told. What bothers me is the imminent spin on it.
Suffern ACE
@Mnemosyne: Yeah, to be honest, I think I’d prefer that liberals, especially liberal men, would learn that it’s o.k. to defend their tribe’s damn women and put off worrying about my creeping Peronism when its threat manifests itself in something more ominous than Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton.
Kola Noscopy
@geg6:
I assure you that ACL and FLOTUS have almost nothing in common, except perhaps the one thing you are obsessed by and which makes you a racist.
Maus
@Kola Noscopy: Bah, you don’t even need to go there. Some people are just drawn to narcissistic personalities. I don’t think her biggest fans are necessarily bigots, but they’re certainly sloppy at debate and quicker to anger than creating anything resembling an insightful response.
I’m a complete outrage junkie, but i know better than to gibber and cherry pick comments, then throw out nasty comments about *everyone* and STICK AROUND being nasty on a site where I dislike everyone.