-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/05/michelle-obama-talks-about-the-a-word/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I mean, on top of everything else, now she has to comfort weepy strangers about this? Its HER husband, the father of HER children who is in danger (not to mention herself and her kids). Jeesh.
You think Martin and Malcolm had that conversation? Should they have talked about it? I might need to write about that over at my blog.
They thought about it and spoke about it many, many times. However neither had the secret service. Could you imagine their bravery to set out every day knowing that they had little to no protection.
Anyways, I constantly pray for the Obamas. Thats all that we can do. Constant fear and negativity really stops people from progress.
I'm curious as to the point of your question?
"D. said...
So is Michelle more or less patriotic than the 732 servicemembers who have died in Iraq since her husband was placed under protection?"
I'm curious as to the point of your question?
"D. said...
So is Michelle more or less patriotic than the 732 servicemembers who have died in Iraq since her husband was placed under protection?"
Michelle is going to be awesome First Lady! She is so right about not letting fear rule your life and cloud your decisions - it's really hard though - but invaluable.
-Leave it to d. to come up with a strawman argument.
No one said she was (other than you).
It isn't necessary for Michelle to bring up service members dying in Iraq every time she answers a question. The night before the Kentucky primary she gave the campaign volunteers a thank you speech. Just prior to that she met with the spouses of some of our troops and she has stated that one of her priorities as a First Lady will be to address the needs and concerns of military spouses.
"Not really.....just want to know what the standard is. It's a fair question, especially considering that Michelle made no mention of the servicemembers dying in Iraq during that part of her speech."
-Who said there was a standard?
Only you, d., only you.
Fair enough. I just found it interesting that she jumped to kids "dying in the street in [her] community." It's an obscure reference....unless you live in Chicago.
Komack,
The day you actually answer a question of mine, I'm gonna buy you a drink.
"kids dying in the street in her community" is not some obscure reference, whether or not one lives in Chicago...or Baltimore...or Philly...or Oakland.
Get some head-shrinking perspective.
And rikyrah,
REPRESENT!
If you care nothing about children dying in the streets of Chicago and cities across the nation it's an obscure reference.
Blame your friends for the soldiers dying in Iraq.
You always try to have your cake and eat it too.
What does her husband's secret service protection have to do with the war or patriotism?
Do you even know what you're asking or you as usual commenting for the sake of commenting?
I just want to know if Michelle can now be labeled as more patriotic than the servicemember who's been putting his life on the line for this country.
------
D what I find really interesting in the assertion embedded in your question is the assumption that everyone who is "serving" over in Iraq is doing so out of love of country. I say this because I know of several people who considered it a career like an other.
The military was the only gig for people with marginal educations and limited career choices. Many joined to "travel"... yeah right. They "joined" when there was no threat of war. Not everyone who works in the military has bought into the propaganda perpetuated by the White House and the flag wavers of yesteryear and contemporary xenophobes.
Give me a break. Talk about idealism.
I won't say that I don't appreciate the service people in Iraq but go look at the numbers of military people NOT reenlisting. I love this country too much to indulge the whims of war mongering statesmen. So you will never see my ass there. But I contibute in MANY ways to my community- helping to register people to vote, trying to help people in need. And I don't do it for a flag or for some warped sense of democracy. I do it because I love my people.
Patriotism comes in all shapes and sizes and I'm totally over war lovers idealism about what patriotism is.
The Obamas love this country so much they are able to criticize it and put their lives on the line for it. How dare you speak ill of people who have done that.
This made me laugh out loud, literally!!!
But I do challenge their perception of this country and many of its citizens.
Liberal, academic, ideology today is rooted in all that is wrong, unjust, unfair and immoral about this country.
The 'that pin' statement, Rev. Wright's 'G** d*** America', 'proud for the first time,' comments all reflect a view of this country that is hailed by progressives and today's Democrat party as 'truth.'
But this view of our country is not 'truth', it is opinion, and opinions not shared by many fellow Americans.
This is not to say that I am unwilling to acknowledge or accept the problems that exist (or have existed) within our country but I possess and optimism and idealism that allows me to see this country from a viewpoint that we are the most free, most just, most innovative, most prosperous and generous nation the world has ever known. We are exceptional and we are a force for good in this world. We can endure and overcome any hardship or obstacle that stands in our way, personally or collectively.
I have heard both Obamas speak about eschewing the pursuit of 'corporate' life, or monetary gain, in service to one's country and fellow man. Public service is a noble calling, and none more noble than the professional soldier who is willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for one's country. Yet, I have not heard military service included in discussions or speeches along side community organizing, social activism, the Peace Corps, etc.
Why must military service, or for that fact, pursuit of monetary gains be overlooked or villified.
When one combines Michelle's "pride" speeches and asides about a "mean" country, and Obama's own call for more "oppression studies" in our schools, then the need to remind Americans of concrete examples of our exceptionalism, of good works, and of men and women of singular accomplishment becomes even greater.
Otherwise by summer, each time he evokes American history, millions of Americans are going to wince, tired of either a sermon from a very materially successful person on the evils of, well, being very materially successful — coupled with the same old, same old race/class/gender take on American history that leaves out much of what was good and noble and led to our own fortunate circumstances.
The Obama's opinion to date seems to be: Greenpeace good; Goldman, Sachs bad; U.S. Army not worth mentioning.
Part of what appeals to me about the Obama campaign is the ability to hold the whole story of the USA; not need to seperate the racism that has existed in the military, in the country, from the service and the goodness that is can also be there.
If you ignore what is vile in our history, then you cannot fully appreciate the good and the noble.
::
That's some serious inanity.
You don't have to live in Chicago to know about kids dying in the streets. Or in schools. Kids die in the streets in all urban communities in this nation and a whole lot of suburban and rural ones as well.
Kids also die in the streets in Iraq. In Amsterdam. In Berlin and Prague and St. Petersburg and Sydney. In Rio and Johannesburg and Istanbul and Tokyo.
People who see the world only through the lens of the military are seriously fucked up.
He needs to say it more.
I believe 80 something % of Americans polled said they didn't like the direction this country is headed this dissatisfaction is not exlusive of the people you failed to mention.
As far as the soldiers and their mention in speeches, I'm sure they would rather have that GI Bill passed than lip service and thank yous for serving but fuck you when you get home.
In this academic and political environment it is impossible to ignore what is vile in our history.
It is the dominant theme of liberal, progressive, Democrat ideology.
I also stated that I acknowledge and except the bad as well as the good, but I will not allow my overarching view of this country to be predominantly negative.
Whatever reason soldiers have for enlisting, the requirement of 'the job' is the same for all: a willing commitment to put one's life on the line for one's country. they all deserve our respect and gratitude.
And frankly, I am more concerned with Obama's promises and policies with re: ti Iraq and Iran, his plans to raise taxes and increase the size and scope of the federal government.
rikyrah, thank you for this. I wrote my take on dawn's remarks as well. And I stole your picture:
Be Not Afraid
I have three sons raised in the public school system and I would disagree with your assertion that "In this academic and political environment it is impossible to ignore what is vile in our history." There is still a lot of ignorance masquerading as knowledge.
And no, I don't think Obama needs to state it more -- I hear that you want it stated more, but I am quite happy with the statements he has made.
You say "blame your friends for the soldiers dying in Iraq." But Rikyrah says, "stepping out into the unknown everyday, knowing that all it takes is just one nut. One crazy person."
That's what the soldiers face in Iraq every day-the proverbial "one crazy person." Yet they don't merit a mention by liberals because they don't agree with the war. They prefer to tell the soldiers "fuck you" while they're still fighting.
Really, what's the difference?
And I'll apologize for suggesting kids dying was an "obscure reference." I'm removed from those environments now, but it was wrong of me to reduce the matter to insignificance.
It's been said to me-literally and figuratively-plenty of times.
Hell, it's been said here.
I'm talking about Obama . . . He, Obama, is the one who is "disappointing."
Seriously... WTF is this?
"As I have traveled this country, I’ve been impressed not by what divides us, but by all that that unites us... That is why I am deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger’s divisive, backward-looking rhetoric, which doesn’t reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause."
Clintons stir up this "the black guy can't get white votes" and this #@$% talks about people who have supported his narrow azz for years "divisive"!!!
What was that word... Yeah! UNACCEPTABLE!!!
I believe in Obama, and have since I saw him speak at the Democratic Convention in 2004. I remember saying to my family as we sat and watched him speak "Oh my god! This is a once in a life time poliician! I'm so glad he's one of us!"
And I'm so glad he made the decision to run for president.
Not since JFK have I felt so good about a candidate.
GOBAMA!
Obama is running for president, and if he wants to win this election (his victory is not assured), he will need to persuade undecided, swing voters, not the already committed supporters like yourself.
For example, IMO, it is important for politicians - especially those 'running to be Commander in Chief - to visit war theatres like Iraq and Afghanistan if only to show support and respect for the troops serving there. Obama probably should have visited Iraq more than once for this reason alone.
Obama appears to have confirmed last night, at a press avail on a flight from Denver to Chicago, that he never made the effort to meet privately with General Petraeus at any point during his trips to Washington.
Senator Obama had the opportunity to receive a private, unvarnished briefing from the man responsible for directing what is unquestionably the country's most consequential military operation in decades, and it appears he never sought such a meeting.
Given that the left routinely criticizes Bush for stubbornly resisting to change strategy in Iraq, it would only help Obama to show his willingness to become fully informed rather than trying to deflect criticism as yet another 'distraction.'
"Fair enough. I just found it interesting that she jumped to kids "dying in the street in [her] community." It's an obscure reference....unless you live in Chicago"
Obscure to you, perhaps... Not to me. Our homicide rate here in Oakland for 2008 now stands at 55... and we're only halfway through the year.... and haven't hit summer yet. It's not at all obscure to me.
And any "criticism" of McCain and his wife is gospel.
Here's the answer to why Obama won't sit down with Petraeus or hasn't gone to Iraq until it became politically expedient for him to do so: because he was "against the war from the start."
Whatever that means.
What will be interesting is how if there are increased American casualties from the Obama surrender, how they will be blamed on Bush.
Frankly, I will do all I can to avoid that scenario.
D. obviously you were not there, or you would know that she did talk about service members dying. She talks about them quite often.
Also, with regards to your question about who is more patriotic, our servicemen or Michelle Obama -- this is not the patriotism olympics. We do not measure patriotism or compare it among ourselves. There are no scorecards for patriotism. Either a person is a patriot, or they are not. Michelle Obama is a patriot, and so is every single person serving in our armed forces. To use their service to tear down another person, any person, is extremely disrespectful.
Your remarks about American exceptionalism struck me. Does one have to agree with them to be considered patriotic by you? I have been thinking of two analogies that illustrate, to me, why belief in American exceptionalism is unnecessary and potentially dangerous.
The first analogy is to my family. I dearly love my family, including the immediate relatives, extended family, and in-laws. They're very supportive and loving. Yet I'd never describe them as "the most free, most just, most innovative, most prosperous and generous [family] the world has ever known." If I made such a statement, most people would find it ridiculous. Why? Because there are many great families out there, and because my family has their share of faults. I don't have to believe we're the greatest family in the world to love them deeply, or be very grateful for them, or have no desire to be a part of any other family.
The second analogy is to religious cults. Those who have studied cults document that many believe in their exceptionalism. They convince their followers that they alone know the truth and practice the truth. This is one of the beliefs that make cults so dangerous, because it isolates their members from the outside, "inferior" world, and makes it very hard for members to view the group objectively.
No. You do not need to agree with my beliefs in order to be 'patriotic.' IMO patriotism is not an outside absolute, but an internal feeling. For me, that is a feeling of confidence, respect, reverence, pride for the inherent goodness of our citizenry and the nation we have created. A nation to be cherished, nurtured and constantly encouraged to be 'a more perfect union.'
I accept your analogy, but conversely doesn't the same apply to seeing our nation from only the most negative perspective? Anything in the extreme has the potential to be dangerous. Both ends of the spectrum risk radicalization.
I am speaking in the most general of terms, and of course, there are exceptions to my characterizations, which I acknowledge. You may not need to believe that your family is empirically the greatest, but your love for you family must be unconditional. You must believe it is inherently good in order to sustain and maintain healthy, loving relationships that continue to deepen and grow. Otherwise, the family becomes conflicted and estranged.
Can you really deny that our democracy provides the greatest
opportunities for freedom, justice, achievement and prosperity?
Also, I think you confuse exceptionalism with superiority.
We are exceptional due to our unique national credo: the Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, our historical evolution and distinctive political institutions.
I am not ignorant of faults committed by our government.
My point is that there should be a balance that in my opinion seems to be missing on the left and from the Obamas.
For example, I can acknowledge that going into Iraq was a poorly planned and executed, a mistake, but I can also make the case that our courageous and capable military can overcome the challenges and obstacles they face and achieve success: a free, stable, self-governing Iraq that can defend itself from terrorists and insurgents.
I can be against the war, but acknowledge progress due to the hard work, intelligence and creativity and integrity of our military generals.
I can agree with parts of your argument and disagree with others without resorting to fear-mongering and hateful rhetoric.
I thank you for your thoughtful post and I have enjoyed this opportunity to share my opinion with you.