-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/07/michelle-obamas-being-defended-one-article-at-a-time/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I don't know if America can handle her. She doesn't fit negative stereotypes of Black women, and they don't know what to do with that. Well, rather, they keep trying to force her into those stereotypes in spite of who she really is.
All of us know that Michelle is not rare in terms of the broad outlines of her biography-- Black, educated, successful, self-respecting, intelligent, beautiful, well-put-together woman from a middle class background. But when does White America get a chance to see us? I mean REALLY see us? Our stories are rarely told, even in a fictional setting, and when they are, they are segregated to Black-oriented TV shows or other media. We've been here 400 years, and we're still foreigners.
I am so glad that Michelle is able to handle the scrutiny and negativity with grace. I probably would have cussed at least ONE person out by now!
In the meantime, it is my pleasure to do as much as I can at Michelle Obama Watch. I know we're being effective because we've already got quite a few ('Michelle is "whiny" "ungrateful") trolls!
And thank you for the site!
Although we are fans, MOW is not a fan club. It's bigger than Michelle Obama the individual just like the election is bigger than Barack Obama the individual. I believe Rikyrah has pointed that out here many times (ex. the fate of future Black candidates after the race-baiting).
Interesting, though, that no one seemed to find her exclusion from Barack's overseas trip worth a mention. Did his advisors think a tall, indiputably African-American wife would hurt him in Arab/Muslim countries? Or was he afraid of being upstaged in Europe as JFK famously was when he said "I'm the man that accompanied Jackie Kennedy to Paris?" There was some quote about her staying home or staying low-key to "raise her daughters." Doesn't she do that anyway? I found her blatant exclusion from the trip a little problematic. But as for the rest, she'll be aight. If she could get to Princeton from the South Side of Chicago, and possibly to the White House, she doesn't need my support.
Why take his wife into a WAR ZONE. You name it, bringing Michelle would have been a distraction, and taken as a negative.
HE needed to go.
He can take Michelle on his first overseas trip AFTER they win.
Plus, has MIchelle ever been away from the girls for a week? I don't think so.
This person is not truly "concerned" for Black women...
The New PLANE
and
MICHELLE?
I know the limits. I know the double standard under which Obama campaigns.
"Michelle Obama will not be travelling with Senator Obama to Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, and Europe - she’ll be staying home with Malia and Sasha. It has also been revealed that Michelle does not plan to deliver policy speeches during the presidential campaign nor will she have a policy role in the Obama administration."
Not that any of the above was an expectation, but it was clear to me that that was a specific attempt to reduce any perception that she'd have a role in the campaign going forward as anything but dutiful wife and mother. Of course, given the negative publicity, I guess the campaign has to downplay her to win, which is too bad. I'd personally prefer an active First Lady more in the Eleanor Roosevelt vein than in in the Laura Bush one, but that's me.
All the folks running to MO's defense seemed to miss this one. But again, I don't think she needs defending to the point that it's become, but I also don't think her husband needs to become the deity that some folks think he is, either. But that's a whole nother post and I think I've made my point. I support both Obamas, but some people are taking "support" to a stan-like level that I thought only entertainment celebrities got. That's my main point.
And again, Michelle has never delivered a policy speech. I have heard her speak before and all she really talked about was her background and Barack's background and why he would be a good President. It wasn't geared toward policy. She doesn't want that to be her role. She is not Hillary Clinton. She is not Eleanor Roosevelt. She is Michelle Obama. And for the time being, it remains to be seen what kind of first lady she might be.
I can't imagine a Black woman that could find her way to both Jack & Jill Politics and Michelle Obama Watch has actually never heard of sites that defend and support Black women like What About Our Daughters? (http://whataboutourdaughters.blogspot.com/) and and Black and Missing but not Forgotten (http://blackandmissing.blogspot.com/)
But then again, you a "sistah" are suggesting that Barack Obama take his beloved wife into a war zone to prove that he really loves her.
"Defending" Michelle Obama is not just about defending one Black woman - Ivy League degree or not. Black women have a history of defending ourselves out of necessity and that is where I am coming from and many of the other MOW watchers. Defending Michelle is defending ourselves and other Black women. And if you don't believe that Michelle Obama's image and press coverage on her won't have an effect on everyday Black women than you must not believe that other more prominent images of Black women (videos, Flavor of Love, etc.) have any effect at all on everyday Black women. Or on the educated, professional Black women whom you seem to believe don't need any support at all whatsoever and have everything figured out!
I am Black - and a woman by the way. And one thing Black women know is that if you want something done - sometimes you have to do it yourself.
I didn't think there were enough sites addressing health & fitness for Black women - so I started one.
I wanted to see more sites addressing beauty & fashion for Black women - so I started one.
What are YOU doing?
Your responses to another black woman who simply posted her opinion speak volumes about the very issue I described. What makes Michelle Obama any more worthy of defense than any black woman? While it may be true that an Ivy League education, a six-figure paycheck and a handsome, smart hubby running for President is not going to solve every black woman's problems (in fact, it has obviously added some) I don't think I'm speaking for the minority when I say many of us would love those problems. I think the confrontational, contentious and ultimately nasty way that you responded to my post speaks volumes about your supposed defense of "black women." I won't respond to your specific questions as I have no need to defend myself. Since you don't know me, you'll just have to wonder. I will say this as I've said before. I support all black women in their positive endeavors, including Michelle Obama. But in truth, neither the women of FOL or Michelle Obama's treatment in the mainstream media have any impact on my life whatsoever. As I've said before, I have other struggles. I commend you for doing what you believe in, but it appears by trashing me and my opinions on this site, you've involuntarily belied your own point as well as any true desire to uplift and/or defend black women.
I'm not "defending" Michelle Obama for my health - and neither are the other MOW bloggers. If you don't like her - fine. If you can't relate to her - fine. But don't walk into a thread talking about "cry me a river" and not expect a response.
You seem awful sensitive about receiving strong responses to the negative tone that YOU introduced here. You start with "cry me a river" and then go right to saying we're "stan-ish" and questioning whether or not I'm a black woman and then doubting "my sincerity in uplifting Black women."
You walked in on the attack. You dished it out but you couldn't take it. And now everyone else is to blame.
Whatever...
I'll just hang my hat with Town, ChicNoir and Rikyrah and say goodnight.
"This person is not truly "concerned" for Black women..."
I'd say that set the tone.
We can't dialogue because you ain't cosigning with me. Just because I came on here nasty does not mean you need to be nasty with me. Maybe if you had been nice to me after I was nasty to you things could have been different. But since I have friends offline who cosign everythign I say, screw your funky blog. You're a bunch of haters. Screw your funky little blog, Anovelista. Because you put me on blast, I don't believe you're all about the upliftment of black women. So lets go and do what we do best: you go back to your funky little blog getting all that attention and I'll go back to wishing my blogs had gotten that much attention.
I think people have taken to Michelle Obama for 2 reasons:
1) We haven't seen attacks like this on any other potential First Lady, Hillary Clinton included. I expect criticism, that's fine. But the level of pure hatred of this woman is boggling people's minds and I think that's why blogs like michelleobamawatch have been started so people can talk about it and dissect the bullshit.
2) I think many of us see ourselves in Michelle Obama, in that we're going through the same bullshit she is on a lesser scale in our work lives and daily lives. When I see people claiming Michelle "hates white people," even though there is nothing that she has said to indicate that she hates white people. I am reminded of times on the job where I've been accused of "hating white people" just because I'm having a concern/power struggle with someone who happens to be white on the job. And so I wonder, "Where did THAT come from?" How do you go from "Town is having a problem with Sally Ann's tardiness" to "Town hates white people," especially when Town has said nothing about white, people, white people etc.? Especially when Town interacts with a multitude of white people without incident. How do we jump from "Michelle's not proud of her country" to "Michelle hates white people?" The coverage of Michelle fascinates me.
I'm talking day to day issues of money, jobs, child-rearing, our images in media, etc.
Well according to the popular statistic being thrown around, 70% of our children are born OOW. So if money and child rearing are real problems for you, make sure you have a ring on your finger and fewer children.
Uh, no. It's not.
THAT is where I am coming from when I take my valuable time and contribute to Michelle Obama Watch.
What's amazing is that I just spent a wonderful few hours with the most fabulous black women I know -- my nieces. And you know what, Michelle Obama didn't come up once, because again in our day to day, she doesn't loom that large. But if she does in yours, I don't judge you for it. As for venom, and jealousy? Well, it would admittedly be nice to have my own six-figure job and handsome, accomplished man, sure. But I don't begrudge Michelle or any other black woman any of those lovely things.
For the record, and not that it's important, but I don't have children so that is not MY particular issue. But I'm sure it resonates for many women.
It's silly for you to claim that you're not jealous or dripping with hateration when from post one you say "cry me a river, why they be defending Michelle, who cares if she has a six figure income and a man." Like I said before I see EXACTLY where you're coming from.
You don't want to start up your blog discussing issues that are near and dear to you? Fine. But don't get mad when people start up blogs dealing with issues that are near and dear to them. And then when you get called out you claim "people are tearing you down." Say wha? If Michelle Obama offends you so, all ya gotta do is click that red X in the upper right hand corner and keep it moving.
HMMMMMMMMMM........like you? Telling on yourself, aren't cha?
Trust and believe, I am a black woman. And given my background and what I do for a living, I'm very aware of the images of black women. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to cut this response short, since today is one of my favorite black woman's birthdays and she's at my door with the fam. But I'll holla back....
Besides, if just one of us is doing better, that's one more than before. I love all my sisters and wish you well in your mind body and soul and do not begrudge you for succeeding - that just gives me hope that I might be able to.
07/21/2008
Associated Press
A picture of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius holding a T-shirt with the words "Barack Chalk Jayhawk" across the front has caused a bit of a stir with the University of Kansas.
The university is concerned that it might look like it is supporting Barack Obama. The words are a play on the university's "Rock, Chalk, Jayhawk," chant.
The T-shirts came about after the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee referred to supporters from the university as Barack Chalk Jayhawks. Obama used the term during a campaign stop in Kansas City, Mo.
The university gave the Young Democrats club permission to print 100 shirts in support of Obama -- as long as only members of the group received the shirts.
Associate athletics director Jim Marchiony said that the state university should never be used to further a political candidacy.
___
Information from: Lawrence Journal-World, http://www.ljworld.com
McCain gaffes pile up; critics pile on Jim VandeHei, Mike Allen
1 hour, 29 minutes ago
Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) said “Iraq” when he apparently meant “Afghanistan” on Monday, adding to a string of mixed-up word choices that is giving ammunition to the opposition.
Just in the past three weeks, McCain has also mistaken "Somalia" for "Sudan," and even football’s Green Bay Packers for the Pittsburgh Steelers.
Ironically, the errors have been concentrated in what should be his area of expertise – foreign affairs.
The Dangerous One is an idiot and a fool.
Cut. Print it.
And I'm guessing you're asking that question with all "respect" for McCain's military service, right?
The Dangerous One has no foreign policy "expertise."
He's a warmonger who wants to fight wars.
He's an idiot and a fool.
Period.
Thanks, but get the %(#@!* out of my country!!
(paraphrasing)
When has McCain said that his experience as a POW gives him foreign policy expertise? Hell, when has he said his experience as a POW gave him national security expertise?
John Sydney McCain is UNFIT to be President of the United States.
Period.
He's crying about media coverage being unfair to him. He's full of it. So full of it, his pores are oozing. His "base" continues to give him a free pass for all of his stupidity and there are far too many examples to list.
He doesn't know jack, has no concrete plans or strategies, no visions. He's running on a platform of ENTITLEMENT. War hero. Veteran. 26 years in the Senate, blah, blah, blah.
He has no integrity, he's infirm, he's mentally unstable, and he's stupid.
And did I mention he hates women?
Oh, yeah, and he surrounds himself with incompetents and crooks and liars.
Birds of a feather....
His own state wants him out of the Senate.
It's becoming clear that his surrogates and supporters (included those right here at JJP) are constantly talking outta their asses right along with him because they need to convince themselves that he's fit for office.
He's not. And you know it.
But his peeps are hoping the stupid electorate doesn't realize it until after he's elected.
John McCain must not be elected and anybody who cares about their children and their grandchildren and their nieces and nephews will do everything in their power to make sure it doesn't happen.
A no-shitter for you: I'm not as big on McCain now as I was....say.....back when he wrapped up the nomination. However, I'm still not convinced that Obama is the better candidate. All he seems to have is his antiwar platform (and damn if it isn't working-well-at present).
I've read the Blueprint for Change; it's vague. I've listened/read his speeches; they're good, but vague.
You-and probably everyone else here, with the exception of S and (possibly; ain't exactly sure) Karmi-believe McCain is unqualified. Got it.
What makes Obama qualified?
I want to know what you think, in your words, without referring me back to everything that's been posted before. Feel free to hit me offline if need be (think my email's on my profile).
I said McCain was UNFIT to be President. In fact, I believe him to be UNFIT to hold any public office at this point, though he's certainly QUALIFIED to remain a Senator.
Barack is perfectly FIT to be President. He's wise, intelligent, brilliant, even, he listens well which, makes him a great negotiator/compromiser, he leads well, he knows how to organize all sorts of people behind a common goal, he's got a lot of common sense, he allows himself to think out loud, he admits mistakes with ease, he loves, and he's a great communicator.
INCUMBENTS are the only people who can claim to be QUALIFIED for the office because they've served a term.
How is that going to lower what I pay for gas?
How is it going to keep my family safe from terrorism?
How is he going to accomplish his goals without expanding the size and reach of the federal government...and without raising taxes?
Those are my concerns. I know where McCain stands, even if I don't always agree. I can't honestly say that I know where Obama stands.
Based on your standards for fitness, I'm sure there's more than a few people who are fit to be president.
The war's off the table; that was my biggest issue. We've got our victory; there's nothing left to fight for. So now, I need to look at everything else.
Gas: Energy has been an issue for over 30 years, and Republicans have seen to it that almost nothing has been done to promote energy independence, increase mileage standards, or develop renewable sources of energy. Even Pres. Bush admits that we can't drill our way out of this problem, but the only proposals they advance deal with drilling, and new oil fields will take up to 10 years to produce anything. Republicans don't have a solution to the problem that actually FIXES the problem. They've got the same tired solutions that will perpetuate the issues we have with global warming, the Middle East, China, and Russia. They will not lower what you pay for gas, at least not in the near term.
Government: What do you mean about the "size and reach" of the federal government? The government's size and reach seems only to grow under Republican administrations, primarily in terms of DHS and military spending. Obama will use the federal governments' powers to address the problems that face us. I don't know why that's a problem. It's nothing more than a talking point for Republicans.
Taxes: Unless your household makes around $200,000 annually, you don't have much to worry about.
Terrorism: Do you really think Obama is going to stop being vigilant about terrorism?
McCain has incredibly vague policy prescriptions, and they seem to change with the wind. He isn't fit to President. I thought rather highly of him before this campaign began, too, but the more I see of him, the more certain I am that a McCain administration would be nothing more than a continuation of the disastrous Bush administration. We really do not need another administration without the intellectual capacity to create sound policies.
On gas...at least the Republicans have come up with something. Working on developing alternative fuels is fine-and should be done as well. But if we've got resources here, why not tap into them? Democrats don't seem willing to do that (though, admittedly, that might be more of the environmental lobby's fault).
I don't subscribe to the school of creating government programs to fix society's ills, which is what I meant by "size and reach." I think health care is a problem in this country, but I don't think it's the responsibility of the government to provide it for everyone. Not to mention that I don't know how we can pay for all these programs without either raising everyone's taxes, or cutting some other part of the budget. And I'm fairly certain what part of the budget will be targeted, and I can't support that.
I'll concede on taxes; can't do the math.
Far as national security...correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never heard Obama suggest the use of the military as anything other than an absolute last resort. I recognize that diplomacy plays its part, as well it should. But-at least for me-I want someone as president who can not only talk down our enemies, but is willing to bomb then down if necessary. And probably more important, I want someone who our enemies know is capable of that too. I don't see that in Obama.
Thanks for answering, seriously. I don't believe McCain will be a repeat of the Bush administration; but he's making too many minor mistakes that are starting to add up.
I am not sympathetic to this position. From what I understand, it will cost about $150 million to build a rig to drill in deep waters. In light of the billions upon billions in profits oil companies have earned just in the last year, they should have plenty of capital to begin building and drilling.
Bombing people: Obama has made it clear that he is willing to use military options, much to the dismay of ME and other doves on the left. For example, he has said that he would be willing to go into Pakistan to get al Qaeda if Pakistan leadership were unwilling. However, he has also made clear that bombs will not be a substitute for diplomacy nor a first resort .
Really, re-read Obama's Blueprint for Change. I found it to be quite detailed. In fact, it is much more detailed than what is available on John McCain's website.
But he doesn't even talk about his experiences as a POW; other people have done that for him. In fact, one of his criticisms is that he doesn't talk about it enough.
And djchefron, if McCain were running against....say, Wes Clark, that would be a valid argument (Clark lead the peacekeeping in Bosnia; McCain was a pilot). But against Obama, any military experience carries some (we'll disagree on how much, of course) weight against a person against none.
One I fully expect you not to agree on.....
Funny, though....I didn't say having military experience qualified you to be president (even went back and read through all the comments today to make sure I didn't). I said it was leverage against someone who didn't have any.
However, McMumbles has pimped his POW status as a reason he should be president on too many occasions to mention. Even his biggest supporters - corporate media - have acknowledged this. In fact, at least once or twice a week, Tweety talks about how McCentury uses it to further his presidential ambitions, as does Lipless Joe and Massa Buchanan.
::
That's a bold-faced lie, not worthy of a man who claims to be intelligent. And if you believe that, you don't follow your own candidate closely enough to know it's a bold-faced lie.
He spent most of his time in Maine yesterday talking about his POW experiences.
But you refuse to see the "facts on the ground" as they really are and instead make them what you want them to be so you can continue to preach WAR.
You're no different than McCain on this.
It's so transparent and relies on pure lies.
But, yeah, you're right......not appropriate.
and GreenLady, thank you as well. You just ended my moment of weakness.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/45069.html
:)
We can always find fault in others. When is the last time you looked in the mirror and seen your faults? Only those living in a glass house are throwing stones. Remember we all get a turn. I send love to our country and all those in it.