Michele Obama: portrait in audacity
Candidates’ spouses (we can’t just say “wives” anymore, can we?) are less important than the candidates themselves. But they still have an effect on elections. Most spouses still try to go the old route of staying bland enough to cause no offense; it’s wisest to follow the medical maxim “First, do no harm.”
Laura Bush has been somewhat in this mold. But she has a sincere serenity, charm, and dignity that shines through. Teresa Heinz Kerry, on the other hand, seemed jumpy and edgy, scattered and a bit angry. Not a good thing, although I doubt it ended up mattering all that much in the final tally.
Bill Clinton is, of course, an anomaly. Not only is he the first prospective First Husband who truly has a chance of making it all the way to the White House, but he is the first First Husband to whom this would be a return trip. We don’t need to get to know Bill Clinton—we know way too much about him already. But lately we’ve been engaged in getting to know him in his new role.
The Clintons were revolutionary in another respect: it was the first time a First Lady had a powerful career history of her own (“I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but …”), and was considered to be a bona fide consultant on policy rather than just an emotional helpmate.
As time passes, and Presidential candidates come from the pool of younger generations, not only can we assume that more women will be running and therefore there will be more prospective First Husbands, but we can also assume that a greater number of male candidates will have wives more in the Hillary mold than the Pat Nixon or Nancy Reagan pattern (and, by the way, the latter does not preclude a steely resolve and a very strong spine).
The Obama marriage is of this new type. Like the Clinton one, it involves two extremely well-educated elite law school graduates with powerful careers. Although the Obama marriage appears to be smoother emtionally—we see no hint of the philanderer in Barack—there are certain similarities in terms of personality balance. In both cases, the husband is the more genial-seeming of the two spouses, married to a tougher, harder wife. And in both cases the wives made statements early in the campaign that caused controversy and criticism.
With Hillary, her “cookies” remark and her “stand by your man” quip seemed to alienate a whole group of women who did just those things—chose to stay at home and be mothers/wives, chose to take back an erring spouse. But, in one of those ironies of life, by the time the Lewinsky affair was over Hillary had ended up swallowing her own pride, and in a scene of public humiliation, did just that: she stood by her man.
Clinton’s verbal gaffes when campaigning for her husband seemed all of a piece. They had to do with her status as a women, wife and mother, and her uneasy bridging of the gap between the traditional roles for women and the new ones.
Michelle Obama, who has the distinction of being the first African-American prospective First Lady, also comes off as feisty—somewhat like Hillary, her fellow-lawyer. But the substance of her controversial words has been deeper and potentially more problematic. They go to the heart of her attitude towards this country and the opportunities it affords its people.
I’m referring, of course, to her “for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country” remark. But there is more grist for the same mill in a Lauren Collins profile of Michelle Obama appearing in this week’s New Yorker.
Although the magazine is a decidedly liberal publication, and one can assume that the author was predisposed to like Ms. Obama, a certain inability to fully warm up to her subject comes through. The Michelle Obama conveyed in the piece is an edgy sort, somewhat cold and harsh, given to a certain amount of bitterness despite what appears to be a life of love and stability and opportunity.
The experience of being an African-American woman of her generation growing up in this country is one I did not share, of course. Whether the very substantial chip on Michelle Obama’s shoulder is there mostly because of experiences she had because of race, or because of being female, whether they are somewhat generational, or whether they are just part of her idiosyncratic psychological makeup (or some combination of the above) I cannot say. But what is apparent is that she manages to convey a potentially offputting combination of anger and entitlement.
It does not appear that Michelle Obama’s comment about previous lack of pride in America was an aberration. Her stump speech, as described in the Collins piece, pounds home the message of a country of which to be ashamed.
This is not the sort of thing that traditionally wins votes. Nor is it the message her husband has trumpeted so far. They are almost like a tag team; he deals primarily with the hope and she focuses more on the shame:
[Her speech] begins with a broad assessment of life in America in 2008, and life is not good: we’re a divided country, we’re a country that is “just downright mean,” we are “guided by fear,” we’re a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents. “We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day,” she said, as heads bobbed in the pews. “Folks are just jammed up, and it’s gotten worse over my lifetime. And, doggone it, I’m young. Forty-four!”
From these bleak generalities, Obama moves into specific complaints…
Ms. Obama has been advised to lighten it up, but she refuses. “The life that I’m talking about that most people are living has gotten progressively worse since I was a little girl. . . . So if you want to pretend like there was some point over the last couple of decades when your lives were easy, I want to meet you!”
I’m not sure how this relentless downer talk translates into help for her husband’s campaign. I suppose it does, if you consider his very election to be the remedy, as Michelle seems to feel it would be:
The self-assurance that colors Obama’s assumption that her personal feelings are some bellwether of American achievement is also palpable in her forceful declarations that her husband is the only person who can solve the country’s problems. “I tell people I am married to the answer,” she said, in a speech in Harlem. “
The strange combination of overwhelming self confidence—to the point of absurdity—and extreme negativity about the recent history of this country is quite disturbing. Altogether it’s a tone we haven’t heard in American politics for quite some time, if ever.
The closest my memory comes (at least in terms of the doom and gloom part) is Jimmy Carter in his famous “crisis of confidence” speech—which is not a good precedent.
It’s standard practice, of course, to criticize the previous administration, especially when it’s of the opposite Party. But Ms. Obama goes much further; she is criticizing the last twenty-five or so years—her entire “adult life.” She sees those years as an unremitting downward slide for Americans, and Obama as the only hope. It’s not just that this isn’t good politics—it isn’t good history, either.
As for old fogy John McCain, he isn’t on Michelle’s radar screen. Not only is he not “the answer,” but when asked by writer Collins “if she thought that her husband, as the Democratic nominee, could take John McCain,” Ms. Obama retorted, “Oh, yeah. We got him.”
Perhaps there was more to her response that was left out of the article; perhaps not. But it seems an almost breathtakingly simplistic attitude to have. Never underestimate one’s opponent.
Barack Obama’s book was entitled The Audacity of Hope. The word “audacity” has as its first definition “fearless daring; intrepidity.” But notice its second: “bold or insolent heedlessness of restraints, as of those imposed by prudence, propriety, or convention.” Do both Obamas exhibit more of the second variety than the first?
“Do both Obamas exhibit more of the second variety than the first?”
Oh, yeah, plus unbridled arrogance in bushels.
I mean, really– “I’m married to the answer“?
As if one single person could solve the myriad challenges facing this country…
These Obamas creep me the ef out.
“Oh yeah. We got him”. Mrs. Obamessiah managed to simultaneously sound flippant, edgy and pompous though I suspect she meant to sound confident.
I second that opinion from Vince, those two give me the creepies. I can only imagine what they REALLY want to do if he were to win the WH.
There is a fundamental inconsistency in the Obama campaign’s deployment of the race card. America, they assert, is a racist and oppressive society . . .
. . . so oppressive that a black man with no previous experience can become a major party’s candidate for President, and his wife can earn a six-figure salary.
If that’s the fruits of racism, what’s the problem?
Eleanor Roosevelt was yet another sort of First Lady, back when she was in the White House, Barack Obama would not have been able to serve in an integrated military, if in fact he had been inclined to serve a nation so perverse.
This is what pisses me off about this loud mouth woman, look who she is and where she is and yet I am supposed to think America just gets suckier all the time? Please, she is living proof that she is full of it.
And they creep me out too. In fact I do not believe that poll out today that puts Obama 11 points ahead of McCain. He is just too strange. Rasmussen, on the other hand puts McCain ahead.
Terrye:
“[Michelle] is living proof that she is full of it”.
LOL! I am stealing that!
Michelle is “married to the answer”?
Barack = Allen Iverson with fewer tatoos
A couple of points:
First the snarky one–Doesn’t Michelle’s $360,000 salary have something to do with health care affordability?
Second–You don’t have to be black to have trouble finding your way in college. Being relatively poor can also be difficult if many of your fellow students have been more privileged. It doesn’t necessarily mean you are looked down upon; it’s simply a matter of not sharing the same experiences.
Third–If she values the simpler life of her childhood, why has she worked so hard for a complex life with material benefits? And if life is so much worse today, was she too self-centered to observe that people also had problems 25 years ago?
I get the feeling that she has been running and pushing so hard all her life, that she never had time to sort out her real values. Perhaps introspection is not her thing. She is no more ready to be First Lady than her husband is to be President. I second (or third) the creepy description.
I think she has done a lot to tarnish Barack’s halo already. Talk about yin & yang! If he let’s her keep speaking, I think she could completely shoot him down singlehandedly. Barack’s sole appeal to non-uber-libs is the optimistic vibe he gives off. She is destroying it.
And yes, I think she is fair game for criticism if she is going to speak publicly on Barack’s behalf.
Greetings:
So, you thought that affirmative action and its supporting industry were going to win the “victims” hearts and minds as opposed to ensuring its own continued existence?
Good. I’m not the only person to be reminded of Carter here. I do not understand these people. They whine about the cost of things, yet have an income most folks can only dream about. They do not seem to ever have had to worry about health insurance themselves although they pretend that they know what that would be like.
The most interesting thing to me is that the poor folks I know, people who really do struggle every day, are a lot more positive about life than these folks seem to be. Wonder why that is.
Yep. Every bit the Americans you are if you occupy the same negative universe America they occupy. An intolerant oppressive nation unless all your dreams and desires are instantly granted by the government that owes you for merely existing.
And you dont even need to be a resident. Right John? 😉
Legal resident that is…
Vince: These Obamas creep me the ef out.
Terrye: And they creep me out too.
Teri Pittman: I do not understand these people. They whine about the cost of things, yet have an income most folks can only dream about.
Beware the techniques of the Sociopath
http://toogoodtobereal.blogspot.com/2006/06/beware-techniques-of-sociopath.html
The first technique she talks about is charm. Dr. Stout believes it is “a primary characteristic of sociopathy. The intense charm of people who have no conscience, a kind of inexplicable charisma, has been observed and commented on by countless victims, and by researchers who attempt to catalog the diagnostic signs of sociopathy. It is a potent characteristic”.
“one of the most effective skills psychopaths use to get the trust of people is their ability to charm them. Some psychopaths lay the charm on too thick, coming across as glib, superficial, and unconvincing. Hower, the truly talented ones have raised their ability to charm people to that of an art, priding themselves on their ability to present a fictional self to others that is convincing, taken at face value, and difficult to penetrate”. One must always keep in mind that the charm, like manipulation, can be very subtle.
sociopaths can and will seduce family, friends and colleagues with their acting skills. Sociopaths will seduce others for power, money, control and sex.
The pity play is next on the list of sociopathic techniques.
Once the psychopath has identified a victim, the manipulation phase begins. During the manipulation phase, a psychopath may create a persona or mask, specifically designed to ‘work’ for his or her target. A psychopath will lie to gain the trust of their victim. A psychopath’s lack of empathy and guilt allows them to lie with ease – “they don’t see the value of telling the truth unless it will help get them what they want”.
According to the book the four messages that the psychopath communicates are
1) I like who you are;
2) I am just like you;
3) Your secrets are safe with me; and
4) I am the perfect friend or lover or partner for you.
“..the persona of the psychopath-the “personality” the person is bonding with-does not really exist. It was built on lies, carefully woven together to entrap you. It is a mask, one of many, custom-made by the psychopath to fit your particular psychological needs and expectations. It does not reflect the true personality–the psychopathic personality–that lies beneath. It is a convenient fabrication.
Fourth, the relationhip is one-sided because the psychopath has an ulterior–some would say “evil”–and, at the very least, selfish motive. The victimization goes far beyond trying to take advantage of someone on a date or during a simple business transaction. The victimization is predatory in nature; it often leads to severe financial, physical or emotional harm for the individual.
and for those that need a quick reminder to compare notes. http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mcafee/Bin/sb.html
Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
Authoritarian
Secretive
Paranoid
Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
Conventional appearance
Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim’s life
Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim’s affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim/s
Incapable of real human attachment to another
Unable to feel remorse or guilt
Extreme narcissism and grandiose
May state readily that their goal is to rule the world
(The above traits are based on the psychopathy checklists of H. Cleckley and R. Hare.)
to recognize them, keep the following guidelines in mind.
(1) They are habitual liars. They seem incapable of either knowing or telling the truth about anything.
(2) They are egotistical to the point of narcissism. They really believe they are set apart from the rest of humanity by some special grace.
(3) They scapegoat; they are incapable of either having the insight or willingness to accept responsibility for anything they do. Whatever the problem, it is always someone else’s fault.
(4) They are remorselessly vindictive when thwarted or exposed.
(5) Genuine religious, moral, or other values play no part in their lives. They have no empathy for others and are capable of violence. Under older psychological terminology, they fall into the category of psychopath or sociopath, but unlike the typical psychopath, their behavior is masked by a superficial social facade.
and anyone that wants to read more you can poke through the “mask of sanity” http://www.inventoland.net/img/blog/Cleckley.pdf
Regarding the semi-psychoanalytical paragraph, “Whether the very substantial chip on Michelle Obama’s shoulder is there mostly because of experiences she had because of race, or because of being female, whether they are somewhat generational, or whether they are just part of her idiosyncratic psychological makeup (or some combination of the above) I cannot say.”
Kafka said it best. “The arrow fits perfectly in the wound”.
The world, for everyone, finds its spots to attack. Some of us predisposed to problems with our knees and others towards cancer. Who of us accepts the attack, heals and perhaps learns to avoid similar attacks in the future? Those of us who accept that life is a struggle and can perhaps invest in loss are those that most profoundly bring people together to examine our common bonds, the fact that we have all been wounded and all must overcome a defect. Others will not accept this, will have their wounds picked away with a plastic surgeon’s knife, we will think that any ugly face is either a matter of perspective or an injustice that the collective must ignore or pay to fix.
I would sooner elect the wounds taken in the Hanoi Hilton then the perceived slights of jilted elites.
Excellent post and comments here, too. I agree, they have the whole good cop/bad cop routine going on. I think she lives in a dark world despite leading a charmed life. Think of how much more effective she would be if she was a happy warrior, encouraging less fortunate to work hard, get the best education they can and dream big.
Well, OK then. Who wants another beer?
Michelle Obama Agonistes profoundly bore me. Oh the terrible struggles of an Ivy League educated lawyer earning piles of money and sitting on corporate boards and preaching to hardscrabble residents of Ohio that they should eschew corporate America for a life of service as nurses and teachers. Gimme a break. An African American princess is still a princess.
Artfldgr,
You did everyone a service by posting all that information about the sociopath. For a couple of weeks now I have been trying to get a profile of Barack Obama based upon a variety of influences in his life. And the women in his life are a real key to understanding the man and how he thinks.
First, his wife… Michelle Obama struck me as cold, possibly sociopathological. When you find out about her background, it is not the underprivileged childhood myth that has been circulated. She came from a comfortable, not poor home. Certainly not upper middle class, but not even close to the desperately poor situations of many in the worst areas of Chicago’s South Side. BTW, many years ago, when a Jesuit seminarian at Loyola of Chicago, I did some volunteer work down in that area. Moreover, she got into Princeton. Granted, her admittance was based on a quota affirmative action program. I don’t begrudge anyone that. I’ve known some people who have gone that route. They made the most of it. And, you know, they are not bitter people. They are productive, hard working, good people that anyone would enjoy knowing and befriending.
But, this woman does not exude warmth, kindness, or real compassion for people. She has an agenda. And a real clue to the depth of her anger: her choice of studies and concentrations at Princeton – sociology (which often is warmed over Marxism)and African-American studies. This is a woman who had revolution and politics on her mind. Where it came from is anyone’s guess.
Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a metaphysical materialist Marxist, and also was kind of a cold person. Also described as a dreamer. But one who from a very early age was not happy with life. She too had a chip on her shoulder.
What does all of this say about Barack? Well, I’m sure it’s not the full picture, but there are enough clues out there to get a pretty good feel for the man.
So, along with everyone else, I’d have to say these people are frightening. But, maybe the under-40 crowd in this country needs a hard lesson in the unreality of socialism. I’m convinced an Obama presidency would be beset with crises and failure. Perhaps even worse than Carter’s. My generation needed to learn from the Jimmy Carter experience in order to appreciate Ronald Reagan and our country. Let’s hope that the kiddies who may put this pair in office can learn from failure and mistake. The even deeper question: are they capable of disillusionment?
Neo-neocon,
I can appreciate some of the description of your journey and personal evolution. I used to be a kind of revisionist Marxist 30 years ago. It began when I started college in 1977 and lasted until about 1986-87 when I began to break with the Left. And have been evolving rightward ever since. Yes, I too was a lifelong Democrat from a Dem family. I’m mostly surrounded by liberals/Leftists and they are not at all edified by my evolution. Thank God my wife is, like me, a Republican, but not quite as conservative as I am.
Outside of a few people who share a lot of how I now think, when the topic turns to politics – at work and socially – I keep my mouth shut. Today you are likely to be on the receiving end of many near-emotional rants or irrational, snarky comments. It is only wise to stay under the radar.
But, what does it say about our country when a lot of us cannot speak freely and engage a civil, rational discussion about controversial issues?
Pingback:Sierra Faith
Maybe we can understand why Michelle Obama is claiming that the country has been on a downward slide for her whole adult life of 25 years or so if we look at the administrations during this period: not only Reagan and the two Bushes, but the eight years of Bill Clinton. I think she is clear in her mind about the purpose of what she says during this campaign, even if it isn’t historically accurate.
very substantial chip on Michelle Obama’s shoulder
Yes, she has lived a hard life. She got into an exclusive high school due to racial preferences. She got into Princeton due to racial preferences. She got into Harvard because of racial preferences. She got her job because of racial preferences. At all these places the people around her were smarter than she was.
After her husband became a senator her salary was bumped up a few hundred grand so that she could do her job of demanding her employer include more racial preferences.
I’d be pissed too. Either that or admit that everything I have came not from my own true ability, but as a handout because of the color of my skin.
High-privileged people constantly whining about social injustice are not anything new. Prince Kropotkin, Count Tolstoy and lots of self-made millionaries in Old Russia did the same. They completely ignored the huge progress in living conditions of peasantry during their lifetime – from virtual slavery to status of free farmers in three decades after abolition of serfdom in 1861. America now repeats many ideological wars that took place in Russia 150 years ago.
Race guilt can make whites into slaves, thus it can sure do the same for successful people such as Michelle who cannot really be proud of achievements that they saw as being stolen from others.
I concur with all of the concerns expressed here, and offer a gentle reminder that the consequences of a rotten leadership, however brief in tenure, are far-reaching. Carter gave us Khomeini and modern Iran. Argentina will never recover from the Perons.
Barack, if elected, will not take office without an accompanying surge of Democrats into both Houses. That surge will do the country immense and permanent harm.
The Obamas are our Perons. I am very afraid of them both.
Pingback:The Thunder Run
I always appreciate Sergey’s perspective; I hadn’t thought of the parallel between Russia then and the US now. It’s certainly a disquieting one. Saint Obama and his charming wife are in themselves lightweights, but as x-rays of what the American elite thinks of America they are very disturbing.
I think the message that Michelle and her kind broadcast does not originate from their personal experiences. It’s merely what they think us “lesser” folk want to hear.
“Clinton’s verbal gaffes when campaigning for her husband seemed all of a piece. They had to do with her status as a women, wife and mother, and her uneasy bridging of the gap between the traditional roles for women and the new ones. ”
Yup… it’s not sexism either… she has a problem with the family concept (on so many levels…). I’d just as soon stay home and raise the kids (love to until they’re in grade school…). It’s a put down to me too when she throws derision onto the quaint notion of a bit of personal (re: career) sacrifice for one’s family.
Hi, Neo. I linked your article today. Don’t know how to use trackback or anything like that, but wanted to let you know.
Pingback:Pelosi & Clinton Money, Morrissey & more | The Anchoress
Could anyone venture a guess when and how Michelle Obama became a Marxist?
Pingback:Neocon News » Daily Quick Hits 3/7/08
>FredHjr Says:
March 8th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Could anyone venture a guess when and how Michelle Obama became a Marxist?
When she emerged from the birth canal?
Let me chime in on ‘creepy’. Vince P has hit on something.
I perceive Barack as intelligent, glib and way too much on the make; Michelle, as angry and unlikable. Viewed individually, neither strikes me as creepy.
Viewed as a couple?
Yes, they are.
Interestingly, your take on Michelle Obama’s stump speech does little more than underline its truth. America is suffering at the hand of mean-spirited diviseness and a frequent unwillingness to really listen to those with whom we might disagree.
That isn’t preachiness on my part, either. I’m as much (if not more) guilty than most people in that regard. I’m also willing to recognize the truth in Michelle Obama’s observations.
When one hears someone criticize the flaws of our nation in hopes of creating something better and then responds by labeling it “angry” or indicative of a sense of entitlement, one does little to improve things.
One might disagree with Michelle Obama’s sentiments. One might disagree with her preferred methodology for solving problems. That’s fine. Dismissing her as some kind of over-critical harpy or (as others have done) as some kind of anti-American isn’t fine. It’s silly–and it’s proof that she’s on the right track.
Oh… I think someone else mentioned Eleanor Roosevelt. A different set of circumstances (obviously), but definitely an influential First Lady.
Yours,
John Brown
When one hears someone criticize the flaws of our nation in hopes of creating something better and then responds by labeling it “angry” or indicative of a sense of entitlement, one does little to improve things.
Well it usually helps when the person who is seeking office (or the spouse) is not guilty of the very same things the rest of us are being accused of,, and then he is offered up as the only solution.
“The life that I’m talking about that most people are living has gotten progressively worse since I was a little girl. . . ”
M.O.
When reading the article I immediately thought that she was actually talking about herself – the lost security of her own childhood – and that she’s angry about it.
I consider this the irrational anger at imperfection, with the myth of Unreal Perfection as being possible.
America is the greatest nation on Earth, but not perfect. Nor does it lead in every possible category, so it might well be possible to have some other scale — many anti-Americans like to create such scales.
Nothing stops the ‘angry at America’ folk from leaving. Yet few do.
Their anger is more a destructive envy against those who have more, or the rich who disagree with them (and therefore should be punished/ taxed more).
And it’s anger against reality, where tradeoffs need to be made.
Like the two errors in justice: punishing some innocents, or letting guilty go unpunished. The more the system reduces one error, the greater the other error. And both errors will be made in any human system.
Of course, to anti-Christian Leftists, an “infallible Gov’t” replaces the disappointing God so that everything becomes possible, if only everybody would just believe in the True Leader!
I came here in curiosity and open-mindedness. What I found was a constant tone not of hatred, not murderous but quite dismissive. It’s like hearing Republicans describe Hillary as more dangerous than bin Laden. Pile on. Are you mostly women? I’m male. I don’t love, but do respect and listen to, Michelle, and I’ve come to increasing annoyance at Hillary in recent months. I do find this to be an intelligent blog, but one sided, unimaginative, and unempathetic. Please do better — you might offer something to our divided country. I find no path to a better world here.
Hamp: thanks for stopping by and insulting us. But that’s all right I guess, you were civil about it.
If you find things one-sided that’s because “the other side” , when they show up, they come to make a single pontification and then leave.
Or they act relentlessly like a deranged propagandist.
I know I’ve tried to engaged many Obama supporters in many of the other articles on this blog but they never answer any questions.
How can it be our fault things are one-sided when the other-side refuses to engage in civil conversation?
Our girl Hamp started off oh so sincerely but has immediately shown herself to act according to type.. like I said:
“Or they act relentlessly like a deranged propagandist”
where is michele obama from and the hometown her mother and father from
I don’t agree with anything with this offer, but you do make some good details. Im very interested with this matter and I other people do alot of investigation at the same time. Either way it was an adequately thoughtout and nice study then i figured I would leave which you comment. Really feel free to verify out my page sometime and let me figure out what you think.