Hey, Jamie, you hear that sound?  That weird drop in pitch?  It's the Doppler effect and it's caused by the news cycle shooting by you at 100 miles an hour.

As Joe Klein wrote, the Obama campaing is increasingly about how wonderful the Obama campaign is. Contentless, vaporous, swooing Narcissism. It really is just breathtaking.

Which is why you can expect a "clarification" to come from Michelle Obama sometime in the next 48 hours.

Dumb comment.  She'll have to clean it up.

check out the fun they had with this over at the Corner today for a preview...

oh please...

level of narcissism?  This from the likes of a pup reporter who spent two [rather productive I might add] weeks touting his own horn about how long he spent researching some wackos archived newsletters?

Listen, it was a pretty inane remark for sure but it will be forgotten by most folks, most folks who are not conservative, white, male, and deathly afraid of the ass whuppin' you'll be gettin' by her husband in the fall.

And let's face it, this is the first time that an African American is seriously contending for the presidency and though MO may have overstated her case - tickling the shriveled nuts of guys like Pod and other hapless right wingers - and on that score, I can proudly say that I have NEVER been prouder of this country.  And if you and the GOP don't like, kiss my hairy brown ass...

Not fatal by far. One interview with Michelle -- and there are surely a slew of them coming -- is all it will take for her to show her contrition. And no one, not even on the Right, seriously believes that Michelle Obama hates America. McCain will use it to his advantage now, but it will wear thin before most people to the left of Dick Cheney start caring.

I think she was talking about politics. But harp on her language all you want I guess...

Dumb comment, but also, could you be any more overblown Jamie?  I mean, "America, we rock!" Seems to be your message.  I love America, and there are times that bring a swell in the throat and a rise in the pulse (perhaps you, like I, love the look of Old Glory rising above the WWI Memorial in Beinecke Plaza on a crisp winter's night, especially as FDR pops up on the ol' iPod).  Still, dumb comment, overblown response.  

You know, just the other day, I said that mint chocolate chip has "always" been my favorite flavor of ice cream.

Can you believe my narcissism? For one thing, only God has "always" existed. I mean, honestly, who am I to say that I had an ice-cream-flavor preference before I was even born? It's like, hello, the world didn't start in 1974, you know?

And the truth is, for several years, I didn't even have an actual favorite flavor of ice cream, because you don't serve ice cream to babies, and even if you do, babies don't really develop the capacity for aesthetic judgment at first.

Plus, orange sherbet was actually my favorite ice cream from about the age 4 to the age of 8 or so.

Which all combines to make me a delusional narcissist and a liar.

Or maybe this was just a non-literal turn of phrase for emphasis, and taking it literally as a definitive personal manifesto is the kind of idiotic "gotcha!" trick that is supposed to divide the crap the conservative opinion mafia publishes against its enemies from the thoughtful analysis one expects from The New Republic.

Plus, and this message is just for Kirchick, if Podhoretz -- either one of them -- has already said everything you want to say on a subject, then you really shouldn't bother.

A boneheaded comment for sure, so what? Mr. "economics isn't my strong point" and "100 years" will give us plenty more gems over the next few months that should overshadow this one.

Here's a guess as to the long term impact of this contretempes:  zero.  Perhaps she went back to far, "my adult life", but I -- a USNavy veteran -- have spent the past 7 years ashamed of the Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rummy administration.  Arrogant, incompetent, belligerent, bellicose, inarticulate, not a lot to be proud of there.  And, while I wasn't impressed with the Republican overresponse, I can't say I was proud of Bill Clinton getting blow jobs in the Oval Office.  One of the reasons I support Obama is the belief he will make me proud of my country, again.

jaunty,

what an ugly, mean-spirited, racially corrosive post. back off the ugly stuff.

Speaking of the Corner, did anyone catch this gem?

corner.nationalreview.com/post

Not enough to go after Obama for being a typical black liberal in disguise, no now he's a closet Marxist to boot (and, get this, his mixed heritage, is most likely evidence of such as it is in the case of most mixed-race people of his generation. Sounds like Birth of a Nation to me).

To his credit, Andrew Stuttaford, grabs a stick and pushes the stinking turd away (though not far enough for my taste):

corner.nationalreview.com/post

At any rate, I think the GOP's point of attack is clear: Obama is a leftie, don't be fooled by the Oprah talk, he's further left than any Democratic candidate since at least the 80's. This ideological argument has a subtle racial tinge but with enough room to allow for a plausible deniability (at least when Derb isn't the one offering it). And I fear Obama's extremely thoughtful and honest book may give them ammo in this venture (see Schiffen's dense reading of Obama's relationship to his Marxist "mentor").

I'm sorry but it sounds like they're arguing no black man should be given a chance at the presidency unless he explicitly rejects every shred of the community and history he grew up with (and how condescending of her to pat most "black folks" on the back for refusing to listen to the dirty commies).

"And no one, not even on the Right, seriously believes that Michelle Obama hates America."

I beg to differ. In fact at the Corner it only took a few hours to assert that her hatred is shared not just by Obama but every Democratic candidate this year. In fact, Michelle Malkin ended up looking like one of the more restrained respondants.

She said, "in my adult life". As I'm a 45 year old woman, I think I have the same experience of the nature of this countries politics throughout my adulthood. And I can, that this is the first political season in my adult life where I am proud to see what is rising up from the masses: a desire for honor, dignity, and inspiration.

Have their been moments where the US has demonstrated goodness? Yes? But on the political front, it has been pretty dour. Especially for those not of the privileged class. For anyone to interpret her intent to apply to anything other than politics is to struggle to demean this woman. And it seems a desperate ploy to tear her down a bit. Jealous, perhaps?

There's thing called hyperbole. It's a well known rhetorical device. Michelle was obviously employing it here. Some would expect a professional writer to know a bit about it.

If she meant it politically (i.e. about the government and public process rather than in a broader sense) then it was a dig at the Clintons -- her adult life began in the early 80's, and every president since then has been either a Republican or Bill Clinton. So, in other words, this is the first time real change has a chance in government in her adult life (kind of like Obama's touting of Reagan as a change agent, while Nixon and, ahem, Clinton were not).

Or maybe she just really hates the Olympics.

Michelle also said:

"Now all my life I have confronted people who had a certain expectation of me. Every step of the way, there was somebody there telling me what I couldn't do. Applied to Princeton. "You can't go there, your test scores aren't high enough." I went. I graduated with departmental honors. And then I wanted to go to Harvard. And that was probably a little too tough for me. I didn't even know why they said that."

She got into Princeton in spite of low test scores and she has to rub it in.   She remind me of another gentleman who got into Yale in spite of low test score and liked  to rub it in. If she really graduated with departmental honors from Princeton, why would anybody told her that it was “probably a little too tough for me”. Give me a break. It’s  a fairy tale.

pccostello,

sorry your tender sensibilities were wounded. Truly. Madly. Deeply...

Still, when looking at this comment and trying to understand how MO could say this, it is pretty hard to ignore that race - and racial perspective - does factor into the equation, from her perspective and the hyperventilating indignation from her white...er sorry, don't want to be racially corrosive...from her conservative critics.

As a long time reader of this magazine and probably one of the few in plucky but masochistic brown regiment, it always amuses me how uptight some tnr readers can get when one brings in race. Amazing. Predictable.

More right-wing fun & games:

hotair.com/.../audio-mark-levin-tears-into-michelle-obamas-first-time-i-am-really-proud-of-the-country-comment

OK, I'm going to bed. Eventually.

Grow up black, you'd feel the same way.  You have no shame.

I would expect a double Ivy Leaguer whose husband is running for president and doing damn well, to choose her words more carefully and speak just a little bit more diffidently.

I suspect it was a more telling comment than she meant it to be and may expose some rather obtuse attitudes along with self-regard and resentments that aren't attractive.

But, it was hardly a fatal utterance.  Nobody noticed it in Wisconsin, obviously.  And, it's a long time until November, so she's got time to learn to watch herself.

Michelle is a bit brasher than what usually works for the candidates wife.  But she is sure not the elephant in the room embarrassment of John Kerry's wife.  Imagine if we'd been stuck with her the last four years.

Not to mention him.

OH MY GOD!! MICHELLE OBAMA HATES AMERICA!

Oh please.  Jamie, I'm usually on your side, but come on.  Maybe you meant to send this to "Contentions" and it got here by mistake.  

Man that hockey game at Lake Placid was rad, we won the cold war that night right?

mlarsen23 writes, "...Grow up black, you'd feel the same way.  You have no shame."

Well, I don't know how humble Michelle's beginnings were, but Obama wasn't wealthy (though he went to Hawaii's primo prep school.)  Still, they both have done very well for themselves in this country.  

I wonder if they would be prospering as well anywhere in Europe or the UK?  

Meanwhile, there have been a helluva lot more black people massacred in Africa since Michelle was born than have been mistreated here.  We know what our sins have been against blacks.  But the worst of it ended in 1865, paid for in the blood of a quarter million yankees.  And then atoned for again starting at least in the 1950s.

No genocide or slaughter has been perpetrated against blacks in the United States that would compare to the multiple African genocides of the last 20 years.

I don't even read Kirchick's posts anymore; I just read the comments to see how off base the latest post is. Based on the comments, I put this on a 7 out of 10 on the Peretzian scale*.

(*Peretzian scale: 1 to 10 with 1 equaling an argument based upon undisputed facts, that is well reasoned and thoughtful, if not necessarily persuasive; 10 equals the rants of a madman based on a superior sense of self, hatred of certain persons, contempt for contrary opinions, doomsday prophecy and presented in a sophomoric writing style.)

You act like the sins are over and have no residue.  Give me a goddamn break.  There should be plenty of shame to go around here for years and years to come.  It's only that other countries are even worse that we can have any pride at all.   We could do so much better and you know it.   Damn right we should be critical of this country.

Adamvaught, probably more like an 8. She wasn't proud when we won the Gulf War? Like, we totally kicked ass, and the whole thing was televised. Any warm blooded soul, even America haters, must have thought it was pretty awesome. Not Michelle 'I hate Everything' Obama.

Maybe, just maybe, she's tired of a noise machine that demands pride of country for all sorts of things, as though we need some religious release and an ability to prove the steel of our virtue on a weekly basis. To the extent that America is worth being proud of, it's for its liberty. (We have a fair bit, even if you don't use it as well as we could and blacks and gays have less of it than is fair.) Posts like this, feigning outrage over insufficiently patriotic rhetoric, make America less free. Of course, not in the sense of the country's laws. But cultural freedom is not the same as political freedom, and both matter.

How could Michelle Obama not be proud of the Miracle on Ice? Or the great work Alan Alda did on MASH? Has she ever eaten a McRib? What about all our moving sidewalks in airports? Call waiting? Disposable contact lenses? CSI: Miami? The complete works of Paul Simon excluding his lackluster 1980 release "One Trick Pony"?

I was born in 64 and I feel the exact same way. When I saw the fall of the Berlin Wall I kind of thought "Go Germany!" not "Go USA!". Shoot me. Also, Mary Lou Retton left me cold. But maybe I'm not much of a nationalist. We're richer, so I don't feel like bellowing "BOO-YAH!" when we win something over some other country. What makes me proud now is that my fellow Americans are exceeding my expectations for them. Particularly the "Republicans for Obama". Now we really are rewarding merit over fakey bull$h!tt, over the brand name, over the presumptive winner. And by "we" I don't mean me and some people somewhere. That's the difference. Most stuff I love is not popular. If I had been an adult when the Beatles were popular that might be different. But I was born in 1964. And I hate Nickelback.

Another 1964 baby here.

Miracle on Ice!!

Prize for the most smile inducing line of the night....

Michelle only gets better and better - it's called H-O-N-E-S-T-Y.

Not pandering, not calculating poll tested hooey, honesty.

It'll take people some getting used to, be talked to and not at, having a real person share real thoughts and expecting you can handle it.

I think most of us welcome it.

I'm pushing 69, and I remember all the things you mentioned (except the "miracle on ice," which it would never occur to me to mention in this context).  In the age of the Civil Rights Act, the War on Poverty, RFK, MLK, and McGovern (yes, McGovern) I felt the country was on the right track, despite Vietnam (or even because of it, insofar as it awoke a genuine popular antiwar movement).  This is the first time since then I've had the same heady feeling.  

For the past ten years, I've been living in Europe, where I work as a book translator.  One thing will make me very happy if Obama wins (or for that matter, if Hillary wins): I'll feel much better when I tell people I'm an American.  And, I have to admit, I'll enjoy asking my French friends when they're going to elect a North African president.  

As I wrote in a different thread, this is Michelle Obama's "Hillary Clinton inadvertantly disses Tammy Wynette" moment -- she'll learn.

And though she wasn't thinking of it, I think even she would admit the Clinton administration's intervention in Haitti, Bosnia and Kosovo were proud moments for America.  

A bit hard to square the notions that Michelle Obama is of superior intellect and political acumen and that she didn't feel a sense of pride, exultation, relief, vindication and hope from the events of October 1989. Was she living on a desert island at the time?

Tep, I don't think anyone says she has superior political acumen. Intellect, yes, acumen, no. And, as with Wandrey, it's one of the things I find appealing about her. And yes, I think that people, even those of superior intellect, can misspeak, overspeak, not stop to consider every counterexample to their statements, etc.

I don't think her remarks were very smart, and I'm sure she'll learn that the ocean is full of sharks, so you have to be very careful not to leave any blood in the water.

But let's be reasonable too.  Her adult life started in the early 80s.  Sure, we've done some good and worthwhile things in that time, but it's hardly a track record to be proud of overall.  Reagan introduced the "greed is good years."  Bush I managed to convince the world that Reagan's outrageous defense spending and his stewardship of it defeated the Soviet Union, as if Gorbachev, and Schevardnadze, and the Eastern European polis, and all those others who actually made history, didn't exist; Bill Clinton proved you can be a policy wonk and still as dumb as sh** about what is expected of a leader. Don't even get me started about the last 7 years.

Through this all the American people (of which I am decidedly one) acted as if cheap oil was their birthright and would never end, and that global climate change (which we have known pretty solidly about for 20 years, self-satisfied denial notwithstanding) was myth that could never affect us, and throwing all that money into petro-states that opposed us, and sponsored terrorism around the world was just OK.  We spent like drunken sailors, as if cheap credit was bottomless and would never have to repayed, and we gleefully  handed our national credit to overseas economies in exchange for cheap goods.  We tolerated an increase in income disparity that was already amongst the worst in the first world; ditto health care access disparity.

I do not hate America.  I consider myself an American patriot, precisely because I want to change these things, and undo the damage our narcissism has done and is doing.  But I'm not all that proud of our record, some shining moments notwithstanding, either.  I'd be a hypocrite to say otherwise.

It's a bit like having a 25 year old kid with great ability and zero ambition, coasting through a mediocre college with C's and living at home afterwards: you can love that kid, be willing to do anything you can do to move him or her off their duff so they engage with the world and live up to their promise, be proud in a minor key of his or her occasional accomplishment, but you can't really be proud of them overall, and you sure as heck can't (or at least shouldn't) dodge responsibility at some fundamental level for what their doing either.

I don't think Barack Obama can change everything dilitant and narcissistic and wasteful about the United States.  But dammit, at least he's standing up for the idea that we can do better by the world and by ourselves.

Maybe that's what this proud wife meant.

Chan - if you expect Michelle Obama to *ever* speak "diffidently" you may be in for a long wait, thank God.  Wrong lady.  What sexist claptrap, funny though.  Maybe she can bind her feet too, walk two or three steps behind?  Again - wrong lady.  You want diffident, stick with the always smiling, pretty, silent, patriotically correct Mrs. McCain (who really is a lovely person, I have met her twice and she's elegant and kind hearted and diffident as they come - a Republican dream girl).

And Jaunty - awesome post, but I'd ignore pcostello (something you know I rarely do), he's the thomsondavid of the Hillary people without the manners and doesn't say anything that isn't a) utter hooey b) a nasty personal, irrelevant insult to Obama c) a nasty personal, irrelevant insult to a poster.  Don't waste the finger energy responding or  the eyeball juice reading it.  He's the classic you can dish it out but not take it, touchy, thin skinned attack artist - skip it.

You nailed it as you always do - any mention of the fact that folks of color may have had a trial or two in this country sets of paroxyms.  One of the biggest weaknesses of TNR is this fact.

Hey Tep - you know you're manipulating what she meant, so just say so - she does need to be toughened up for the Republicans I agree, just say so, I can't even imagine that you buy in to this nonsense.

jaunty,

maybe it's time you looked at how you talk about race, and what you use your talk about race to do. here's nothing tender about my sensibilities, on this or other subjects. but you sure do seem to use a lot of racial implication in your "arguments." What MO said is likely to stick. It is a remarkably revealing statement that says tons about personal entitlement and her general attitude toward the community. Of course race is part of its context. Big deal. So what? Separate from any tendrils of race, it will offend lots of people. Plus, she's looking pretty cold and self-interested at the moment.

Let Michelle debate the blond on McCain's arm - then we'll see whose spouse does the most damage.  I won't be watching - I could care less what these people have to say - but I'll bet Michelle kicks Mrs McCain's backside.  

pccostello,

Let's look at racial implications for just one moment. Over the past few days, McCain  - and from your post, you - are starting to create a nexus with Obama and entitlement. Now, look at that. What exactly does that imply?  I would venture to say that this is coded language. For some folks, entitlement = social security, for others, especially white social conservatives, entitlement = welfare = people of color.

Now every presidential candidate can be accused of vanity and a sense of presidential destiny. Otherwise, why would they be running.

But, why is Obama, in the words of white conservatives, now the only candidate who is somehow "entitled" to the nomination. Are they implying that, like welfare or their pinched perception of affirmative action, Obama, for some UNKNOWN reason, perceiving himself as "entitled", when John McCain isn't? How can someone call Obama entitled when we have the poster child for entitlement GWB sitting out his last forlorn, SC given days in the WH.

So, my friend - to borrow another McCain phrase - perhaps compared to the monochromed readership of tnr, I am a bit aggressive about race but does it bother me? Not really.  I enjoy the debate and I will listen to what you say. I suggest that since you have already internalized McCain's coded entitlement language, you might do the same.

Tep e.a. - what is all this stuff about how Michelle Obama should have felt proud of *America* in 1989?

Proud of the tens of thousands of East-Germans and Czechoslovaks who took to the streets, night after night, to challenge a totalitarian dictatorship that had not hesitated to clamp down with violence before - perhaps. Proud of the underground intellectuals, who had worked so thanklessly and assiduously, in poverty and at secret get-togethers, to advance this moment, perhaps. Proud of the Germans, overall, this country that had overcome the legacy of its Hitlerite past and now succeeded in throwing off their other dictatorship as well, that too I can imagine. Proud, elsewhere, of the Romanian revolutionaries, some of whom died in their struggle to rid their country of Ceasescu's abominations, and of the stubbornly resistant Poles and their trade union Solidarity, perhaps the single most important local player in bringing forth the end of Soviet-style communism.

But proud of *America*? You were watching the images of these Germans in tears, crowding through the now open Berlin Wall and embracing each other, and you thought - "Wow, Arent We Americans Cool!"? Or, "We did that!," or something?

I admit I'm talking from a European perspective, and of course I realise that Reagan's moves to ratchet up the arms race beyond what the decaying communist system could afford without falling prey to rapid internal erosion played an important role too. But I've never gotten how Americans just kind of self-evidently claim the credit for the 1989 revolutions that were so hard-fought by tens of thousands of brave local protestors, many of whom had faced prison and harassment by the communist state for it. I've always just found the implicit arrogance baffling.

1. Moon landing = amazing technical achievement of American know-how

2. Miracle on Ice = meaningless sporting event that had nothing to do with the American people; it's like cheering Luke for destroying the death star

3. Fall of the Berlin Wall = had nothing to do with America; it's like being proud of America for the first Polish pope

4. American victory in the gulf war = what about Nicaragua? Or Grenada?  Why is this a proud moment for America?  That we beat Saddam just enough to have to do it again?  

5. Abatement of ethnic slaughter in Balkans = while we did a good job, it was not what one would call inspirational... and I thought your GOP overlords were opposed to this?

6. Americans taking in refugees = not as much as we'd think and definitely more in the background

7. Americans giving charity to tsunami victims = definitely a good thing but you're confusing the scale of the comment; MO didn't mean that there's been *nothing* good. As they said on the Simpsons (snpp.com/episodes/4F23), America has "fresh-faced youngsters skipping to school, scraping knees and spelling bees and pies cooling softly on the windowsill" - all great things - but MO isn't a 'hate-America liberal.  Yeah, those people exist... in very small numbers in the real world and in huge teeming hordes in the brains of conservatives.

All these things Jamie mentions are either non-American victories (Berlin wall), non-victories (Olympics), or on a small scale (Gulf War).  MO is talking about scale.  She is suggesting that her husband's candidacy is on the par of something HUGE, like winning World War II or the Civil Rights Act.   And, she's wrong about the scale or she's right, but that should be the argument.  I think she's right.

I think we have gotten so used to the past few months that we can forget how un-be-freakin'-lievable it is that we may have a Black president.  America was founded on liberty and also institutionalized slavery.  Lincoln gave his all to end slavery; then King gave his all taking it to the next level.  If Obama is elected, he will have taken it even higher.  And performed a miracle.

The miracle is that there will be mainstream acceptance of Black leadership.  Toni Morrison said 10 years ago that she doesn't think there'd be a black president in her lifetime. It's one thing for which we can thank Bush - Obama wouldn't be as possible if we didn't have 8 of our most shameful years since McCarthy.  

If Obama wins it won't end racism, it won't end poverty, or crime.  But it will be a huge victory for what it means to America.  On the scale of winning World War II not some inane hockey game.  

And this is not even taking into account that Obama seems to be the real deal.  He's really seems to be smart, judicious, and a good man.  As they say about all minorities who want to break into the big leagues - you have to be twice as good to go half as far.  So by that math, Obama is 4x as good in order to make it all the way.

And, to be honest, the only times in my adult life that I have felt the same level of pride that I do now about Obama is when Clinton won in '92 and in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when America came together with a shared purpose.  Clinton turned out to be much less than his promise and the luster of '92 has since worn off (which, admittedly, may happen to Obama's win in '08).  And while I was proud we came together after 9/11, I'm much happier to have that happen in a time of joy than in a time of tragedy.

Spouses get more of a free pass than the candidates themselves. MO will be fine, especially in comparison to "Pills" McCain (HT virginiacentrist). Maybe it's just me, but I find something endearing about a political spouse who doesn't know how to avoid a gaffe and doesn't speak in bland poll-tested sound bites. The current First Lady seems perfectly nice, but has always freaked me out in a Stepford wife kind of way.

CFK has the Republican attack angle on Obama exactly right. They're going to hit him as a "neo-Marxist" far left radical, with plenty of "Barack Hussein Obama" Muslim insinuation thrown in for good measure. Listen to Bill O'Reilly these days for a good preview.

You don't think that conservatives will tar Hillary as hating America? Are you high? It doesn't make any difference what anyone says, the anti-American charge will be there. Based on the primary season, my gut says Obama has the political - and rhetorical - skills to most effectively rebut it.

ok, so she is not ready for prime time yet, a few short years ago she was nothing but a state Senators wife. If she had just thrown in a qualifier, for the first time in my adult life I have felt proud about Politics in America kind of thing, it would have been fine. And also she will probably spend more time in the background like Laura Bush (has she said anything meaningful ever? everyone likes her because she keeps her mouth shut). It is just unfortunate that she had to step up because Bill was supposedly such a great advantage for her. Do I wish she were more like Elizabeth Edwards (minus the cancer) sure. But as fantastic as Elizabeth is as a person she is still only a minor sideshow. Hopefully now that Clinton is done she can go back to her life.

BTW, jaunty: "kiss my hairy brown ass?" That's an all-timer...

marcellusw101

perhaps I should shave it?  No? Yes? Anyway, it is still pretty brown..

Great post, cypess.  Great great stuff.  

You too, jaunty.   Though I consider myself a mixed-race heritage (two different counties in Ireland), I think your perspective is important as well.  

But, Jamie is right about one thing- if there is anything I expect 20-year-old African-American women to get excited about, it is hockey.  

Thanks Boneill.

What jobeek said. And cypess. The fall of the wall really was inspiring, and big, but it wasn't an America thing. And the moon landing - she did say her adult life. We 1964 Dragon ladies were mighty proud of America then - and we were expressing that pride by yelling for our parents to buy Tang. And those stick things that came in foil. Made by Pillsbury - what were they called?

But for real - another thing, that Jamie didn't ding her for, but others have - this isn't about the fact that her husband is running for president, it's - I think I speak for her, it's a 1964 thing, cough cough - it's about the fact that people are overflowing stadiums, and lining up around blocks to vote for someone who is appealing to their sense of civic duty. Someone who is telling them that we are our brother's keepers, that every child is important. One of the reasons I'm so cynical is that I see the public school system so screwed up - funded by property tax, which is an abominably unequal system and a joke on the word "public" - and I've seen politicians completely resigned to this system, because they recognize that nobody will ever want to pay for someone else's education, and they will never say something's unfair when it is, because the majority of the voters and the funders of their elections benefit from that inequality. I thought these politicians had it right about the voters, and this election is the thing that gives me hope that they are wrong. That we are all better than that. Because Obama is appealing to people's better natures and winning because of it. And people are not just inspired by what he's saying - they are inspired by the the other people who are inspired. That is how Iowa changed it. People now see that others feel the way they do, and that is a reality-based, hard-headed reason to hope that things are going to change, and work towards it because it might actually happen. It's a huge huge shift. And unprecedented in my adult life.

jobeek, I agree. I give Reagan credit for one major thing, recognized Gorbachev as being the real deal, Ronald Reagan recognized the change in the direction of the Soviet leadership with Gorbachev, and shifted to diplomacy, with a view to encourage the Soviet Leader to go further with his reforms. The 4 summits they had were milestones. Beyond that, it is absolutely obnoxious to take sole credit for the Eastern Europeans rise to freedom. Are we willing to take credit for Tiananmen massacre? Are we to be proud that young chinese died in the pursuit of their own freedom as though it were we who did the dying? I am certainly proud the Chinese students built a statue modeled after our own statue of liberty, but the glory and the pride are theirs. I did not shout "USA" when they were mowed down in the streets.

In 50 years, God willing, the Chinese will rightly honor that brave man who confronted takes in Beijing. But the pride I feel in him is the pride I feel in recognizing the greatness inherent in all freedom loving people. His is a human achievement (and a Chinese one) not an American one.

give credit to George Bush for one thing, if he hadn't been such an out and out disaster, the almost universal loathing of the status quo would be missing. Put it this way, if Gore had won in 2000 we would all be facing the prospect of a Lieberman Presidency. Sometimes you have to hit absolute bottom to make a change.

Bush is terrified of Obama. I saw him on Fox defending Bill Clinton not long ago, and said nary a bad word about Hillary but acted like he had never even heard of Obama. Neither Clinton or McCain is an outright rejection of him. Obama is.

blackton you are right about Bush. He is a uniter after all. I'm not even joking.

How's this for narcissism?

"How about the fall of the Berlin Wall?"

That made me feel proud of Germany, not of the US.  Perhaps you were thinking of the Berlin airlift, which happened before M. Obama was born.

To follow up on ggponi,  a lot of criticism follows the pattern:  "How narcissistic of Michelle Obama!  And after she went to Harvard . . ." etc, etc.

What would really be narcissistic would be judging how proud you are of your country based on how good it has been to you.  

Michelle Obama's comments are in fact the opposite of narcissistic.  

Without america there would never have been need of the berlin wall. The russians would have just rolled through west germany, and onward. Either literally or with proxy governments. Who in the world could have stopped them, if the US wasn't there? People in the streets of germany may have held back the tide, till the tanks began to roll over them, i suppose.

If i were alive during the 1930's, i would have likely burst with pride when louis beat schmelling. To be fair to max, he was never the ogre the media presented him to be. When hagler beat mintor for the middleweight title in england, i was proud to call myself american. Same when marvin beat mustafa hamsho (syrian national.) When pryor beat arguello, i was somewhat proud, but my pride was tempered because i'd always admired the way alexis conducted himself.

widlcat...

hee, hee...I hate to say it but most of these lads probably have no idea what you're talking about. When Foster pole axed Rondon, Ali decapitated Dunn, Leonard flummoxed Duran, Chacon wore down Limon, Robinson revenged himself against Turpin, Foreman incinerated Roman, and Quarry pounded Bodell.

You are my man wildcat...

jobeek -  no q that the EU economic/political "magnet" attracted millions of East Europeans but you know and I know and everyone with even a scintilla of understanding of realpolitik knows that the difference between 1989 and the eruptions of 1953, 1956 and 1968 was that *** in 1989 the Soviets refused to call out the tanks***.  The reason they refused is simple, and obvious, and was brought home to me by senior staffers from the USSR's leading foreign policy think tank: when Reagan matched and exceeded, in spades, Andropov's escalation of the arms race, and linked that race to America's vast and growing and irreversible lead in semiconductor and other hi-technology, the Politburo threw in the towel. To the Soviets, Cruise missiles + SDI meant Game Over. You can spin it any way you like, but Gorbachev could have easily done what his forebears did-- in fact, he did call out roops against Lithuanian protestors, butchering 14 of them, in 1990 (so much for his humanitarian cred)-- in 1989, but he chose not to because the Cold War ended 4 years earlier, when the Soviets gave up and put a hick "reformer" from the provinces in charge.

Wandrey, I'm sorry but the demise of the Soviet Empire is far and away the most important event of the latter half of the 20th century, and it was an enormous victory for the free world. Which is something to be immensely proud of if you happen to be a citizen of the free world's leading nation. Maybe I'm just an old euro-centric, but I fail to see how any educated American who lived through the long twilight struggle preceding that victory could feel otherwise.

As a Democrat who agrees with Berman, Wieseltier, Walzer et al that we desperately need a "decent Left, I found Michelle Obama's remark puzzling and dispiriting.

best regards,

t

"the  Fall of the Berlin Wall had nothing to do with America" - suuuurrrrre. Man, the BS is flying high today.

Let's try again: the USSR and its puppets in Berlin and Warsaw and Budapest and Prague violently suppressed every single spontaneous social movement toward freedom or dignity east of the Elbe, save one: the movement to travel across borders in 1989. What accounts for this radical U-turn in Soviet policy? Did West German policy change radically during the 1980s? French policy? British? What about the EU--whoops, there was no EU in 1989. There were several radical changes to the world environment during the 1980s, the most notable of which are obviously

1) the tenacity of the Solidarity movement in Poland and Jaruszelski's inability to crush it, even with martial law-- credit Walensa and Wojtyla for that;

2) the collapse in oil prices in 1984-85-- credit no one for that; and

3) the radical acceleration of the arms race by the Reagan administration, specifically the joining to that arms buildup of advanced technologies in which the Soviets had fallen behind not just the US but even  Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea. Bottom line, the Soviets by 1985 were well aware that the source of military might had shifted irrevocably toward high technology, and in that arena, no amount of investment or shock-worker inputs or Five Year Plans would enable them to even catch up with South Korea, let alone match, let alone outstrip, the US.

There's nothing more pathetic than the surly refusal of the ignorant to grant the credit due to Reagan and the US high tech/military establishment, credit that the Soviets themselves readily and easily assign to Reagan and the US. I don't understand this self-hating mindset, and I hope to God that Obama distances himself from it publicly and forcefully before November.

Tep - This woman is allowed to be proud that America has given this many victories to a black man and mean exactly that.  No one thought that was possible, including black America. And look, here we are.  

She slipped up one or two words -  and no, did not pay homage to fall of the frigging Berlin Wall  or hockey games in a three minute election night victory speech (which would have sounded bizarrely off topic or extremely pompous).  

I also agree that the fall of the Berlin Wall was not soley and American moment of transformation (it was the end of the french revolution  - wink to Mao).  Last night was.

Jaunty - my very first hero was Ali, as in posters on my walls and scrapbooks. I wasn't alone in my lilly white beachy little elementary school either.  He was God to all of us.  

Him and OJ Simpson!!!!!  I had a Juice poster too, ugh.  Right next  to Farrah and Peter Frampton.

Oh and pashaw Tep to that insulting "decent left" stuff, that's blood libel.  

I don't truck with being called a lefty wuss because I may have a beef with someone in power or the power structure itself at some moment in time - not when I'm from a family who are former military, academics AND lefites all stuffed into the same people.  

Just because someone isn't a hawk doesn't make them indecent.  Don't like hectoring Columbia professors?  Join the club. They have as much real influence as my Uncle Ralph.

And it's amazing that you'd infer that Michelle Obama is somehow an indecent America hater after one flubbed sentence.

She's normally every bit as inspiring a speaker as he is, even a bit more concrete at times - but she's a strong presence who is constitutionally incapable of cant, ass kissing or insincerity. She doesn't need her patriotism questioned every other second because of it.  Which is why so many of us admire her.

Our discussion of this deceptively minor remark shows what a land mine this issue is-- especially for a candidate who pledges to put behind the bitter disputes of the boomer generation. Those disputes, for educated people anyway, come down to two broad but intensely powerful memes: individual "freedom" vs "responsibility", and the use of American military power abroad. When you talk about being "proud of America", you're inevitably touching on US foreign policy and specifically our military interventions and aggressive containment policies.

Michelle Obama is apparently a political naif who doesn't realize that her remark triggered all the raw emotions felt on both sides of the boomer divide regarding US foreign policy. Those emotions are real, and important, and we've been assured by her husband and his supporters that his candidacy will sublimate them. I'm less and less confident that he can do so. Michelle's stupid and offensive remarks don't allay my fears.

OOOO Baby I love your way. Everyday.

This is an amazing country. No? Where a black man can aspire to the lead the worlds most powerful nation. All of this despite the ridicule we've had to bear at the hands of all of those other more perfect nations out there. That they should provide such shining examples is our blessing. Jeez I hope that this will somehow put us back in their good graces. All good things guaranteed. I think it's time we started to carry weight in this regard.

Well Tep, you feel what you feel, I respect that -  but I think you're *really* stretching hard to misinterpret her remarks.  The overreaction to her strikes *me* as insulting.  To each other own huffiness factor.

But I agree that she has to understand that with the gigantic, incredibly powerful and unstable platform she's got right now, one or two words are enough.  Maybe Cindy McCain is on to something.

People are itching to start taking Obama down, that's the way this stuff works, so she needs to be extra careful.  

Like I said, she's incapable of cant. She's a smart woman, she'll get it.  But don't expect some canned, poll tested mea culpa. That's just not her.

(She's also under enormous stress trying to keep her girls and her husband *safe* - she's sometimes scared.  We aren't too swift when we're scared - other political families have been through this, not her.  She's already had a pedophile set up a website focusing exclusively on what he planned for her girls, imagine that one.  Let's not even think about the rest - with Obama and such.  She accepts it completely but she doesn't have to always be perfect under this much pressure, come on Tep).

Oh come on.  Michelle's remarks may be "stupid" in the sense that they were poorly crafted for the media-driven world that we live in.  But if you were really offended by them, then your standards for offensiveness must be so low that it's remarkable you can make it through an ordinary day without dying of shock.

Yo boxo - great sentiments, you old sentimental Republican guy you - you guys keep us honest.  I like Tep's idea of Joe Biden for Veep alot.  Joe is like the Rain Man - get him going on foreign policy and he's so knowledgable and comfortable with himself, it's just a relief to watch him. Anything else, you're kind of waiting for the verbal bomb you know is coming.  

Thats assuming we Democrats do not rip each other limb from limb before then, which is a distinct possibility you have to admit.  We'll be like the final scene in Blazing Saddles.

Why "stupid and offensive," tep?  She corrected herself and explained "really proud."  This means that there have been potentially many occasions when she's been just plain old proud.  This time around, however, it's about being even prouder.  I mean, why trail along in McCain's missus's footsteps as she tries to paint MO as a combination of Malcolm X and Jane Fonda, ca. 1969?

If American political life is dependent upon never admitting that one might ever have let the needle on the national pride indicator fall below max. output, we're in even a worse state than we think.  Who felt proud of America during Katrina?  During Abu Ghraib?  Hell, during the Florida "recount" come to that!

Ratner - you are too effing funny.

I think we need a contest on how in God's name we think Democrats are going to heal this Civil War rift between us all.  How about:

1) A giant air guitar contest in Denver, presided over by guitarists selected by the superdelegates. No Huckster allowed.

2) Several boxing arenas set up in Denver for voters still pissed at each other, gloves and mouth guards provided.

3) Live Oprah feed to selected locations across the country with call in capability (my husband just howled NOOOOOOOOOO at the top of his lungs, maybe not). Any ideas?

I'll say this. The Obama campaign has to take care. He can't afford to get careless. Allow me to be straightforward and offer that there are many dynamics which are releasing themselves by virtue of his unique station and message. These things can easily be misconstrued. His wife must needs be a little more careful about some of the things she has been saying. This isn't the only bozo she has pulled and I'll guarantee you will hear of other remarks which she has made in the recent past which will sound suspect.

I'm pulling for the guy and have been from the git. I think an Obama-McCain race has the possibility to clarify. It also has the possibility to obscure... without extreme caution.

I didn't see the "really proud" correction. I was responding to her statement that asserted she was not proud of her country prior to her husband's campaign successes.

Which, frankly, I would not have paid much attention to had not so many of my fellow liberals rushed into the breach to supply all manner of reasons why such an odd statement is justified. TO be honest, THAT'S what really rankles. I'm proud of my country's recent history, including those successes to which Republicans like Reagan are owed primary credit.

Funny but I thought that was Obama's message, no?

I'm glad she clarified her remarks earlier today. It was much ado about very little, in my judgement.

More on proud to be an american theory is going back to 1921 (or so) when jack dempsey squared off against luis firpo(?) AKA the wild bull of the pampas. Which is down in south america, i think. As everyone here probably knows, firpo knocked jack clean out of the ring towards the end of the first round, a round that dempsey was pretty much dominating before luis landed a wild right hand haymaker, (one of dempsey's few faults in that he could get reckless at times and charge forward in a headlong rush.) Had it not been for the writers and other members of the press literrally hoisting him back in, the title would have changed hands that night. Jack swore till the day he died that he doesn't remember anything after going through the ropes till after the fight ended (2nd round, i think.)

I agree with tepplukhin2u with giving credit to the US of A when its due. Too many posters here have the attitude that since the hard parts over, lets all piss on the americans.

Jaunty, some of the fights you mention i had completely forgotten about. The one that would have pretty much swelled all americans with pride would be louis-schmelling, owing to the times and what was percieved to be at stake. My grandfather listened to the fight on the radio, and i could hear the pride in his voice, even decades removed from the event, when he talked about it.

Wandrey: "(it was the end of the french revolution  - wink to Mao)"  - I think you mean Zhou En Lai.

Tep: One can acknowledge that the Reagan defense buildup contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union, and the freeing of Eastern Europe, without seeing it as a major reason for blowing our own horn.  Reagan ran a hell of a risk with the safety of the world because of his ideological antipathy to the USSR and communism.  Gorbachev was the real deal, and as a result it worked.  But Reagan was pushing all the USSR's buttons long before he knew that, and even then it was a near-run thing.  It could easily have gone wrong, with Gorbachev replaced by hard-liners, and Reagan's ideological inflexibility triggering a deepening of the cold war.   Their own mistakes notwithstanding, the USSR never had to match the US missile for missile to be threat to the world, and had things gone differently on Gorbachev's side, all Reagan's spending and bluster would have only made things worse.

Just because something works, doesn't make it smart or noble - and if you want to understand just how smart Reagan was about this stuff , recall that he walked out on the deal at Reykjavik in order to save SDI.   You can argue (and I would agree) that the Reykjavik deal was a mirage, and would never have worked anyway, but SDI - a plan that every responsible scientist in the country knew was bogus, and which had it succeed without the USSR falling would have made the world profoundly less safe - was never a sound reason for abandoning an arms control deal.  Reagan was buffaloed by Teller, pure and simple.  So he got a twofer: nearly negotiated a dysfunctional deal, and then abandoned for something that could never work.

There is nothing self-loathing about my attitude toward the United States.  It's a great country with great potential, and we sometimes do very good things.  But we fall way short of our potential and have pretty consistently for years.

wildcat,

my dad can remember listening to the Brown Bomber v Maxie execution on the radio. My mother remembers crying while listening to the Bomber getting stretched out by The Rock.

And one of my dad's most prized possessions is an autograph he got from Floyd Patterson (when FP was training for his first bout against Quarry) that said, "To Danny, Kenny, and Randy, your friend Floyd Patterson."  The Old Man and some of his truck driving compadres stopped off at a bar in LA and the Champ dropped in for a frosty one.  The Old Man, a former welterweight who grew up with Art Aragon, the original Golden Boy, struck up a conversation and Floyd gave him the autograph and bought the boys a round or two. The Old Man still perks up when he tells that story.

jaunty,

this thread is probably dead, but I had a very busy day yesterday and just read in.

Your argument is ridiculous. The great movement in which Obama is enlisting his legions is himself. He, in his own words, is his own cause--"We are the ones we have been waiting for." Same for his supporters: Oprah chanting "He is the one." This is the personality cult, narcissism and entitlement that everyone talks about. Same issue with MO being proud of her country for the first time because it is al about her husband and herself right now. This is also why the comparisons to MLK or RFK are ridiculous. Both of these men, and especially MLK, had committed and sacrificed for years on behalf of causes that were outside of themselves. Obama is most pasionate about himself. Basically, he is a wealthy state legislator from Illinois with a year in the senate before he began running for president.

But I guess all criticisms of Obama are really implicit, sub-textual, coded racist stuff, aren't they?

pccostello

You post makes your case for his inexperience, but you completely elided my question about "entitlement = Obama = code"

But, then again, I think you have answered my question. In a fashion and with the avoidance, quite revealing.

oh, and btw, Bob Kennedy had exactly as much senatorial experience as BO when he ran for president. Granted, he traded on his dad's and brother's positions to establish a long record of pre Senate public service but given the thin resumes of the likes of Fred Thompson and one term gov Mitt Romney, BO light experiential resume hardly stands out amongst this crowd. HC has just one term more experience, Huckabee is what, a two term governor in a podunk state, and Rudy was a term termer in NYC who, if you do recall, was at Bushian lows in the polls in the twilight stages of his second term before 9/11.

Criticism of BO experience are certanily valid. However, painting him as the sole "entitled" candidate, when he is not the only relatively inexperienced candidate who has run, does not hold much water.

and the entitlement = Obama is still, in my eyes, coded racist language, certainly given the context of who is making the charge and for whom.

You can continue to disagree but it won't change my suspicion...

jaunty (or the avatar of eric michael dyson),

try reading my post before you respond. the whole second paragraph is about your argument.

RFK had been attorney general, taken on Hoffa and the teamsters, sent federal troops against racist governors in southern states, confronted hoover at the fbi, struggled through the bay of pigs fiasco and written a book about it, suffered his brother's assasination and helped the nation through our national mourning, played a key role in developing civil rights and voter righs legislation both before and after his brother's death, helped to rally and to develop the farm workers union, and helped to develop and lead an extremely contoversial and bitterly, even violently, contested national anti-war movement. and that is just some of what he did BEFORE he ran for president. His passion was about the issues. He never ran on the idea that he himself was the change. so don't cite comparative terms in the senate. what nonsense.

and MLK? would you really dare to compare obama to him in commitment, suffering, and accomplishment?

obama himself is actually the candidate of coded rhetorical appeals that are sexist, ageist, and racialist: using code to describe hillary as drinking tea and attacking when she gets "down," mccain's "half-century of distinguished service," and using malcolm's code language (bamboozled, etc.) in south carolina to descibe the clintons--two of the strongest proponents of civil rights this country has seen--as raciist deceivers.

put the race cards back in your pocket. the game is over.

jaunty,

one other thing--your "suspicion" is your own. it's not phenomenologically about the other, but is inside you. think about the idea of projection, which is often what suspicions are about. think about the language of your original post. when you say you are suspicious, you are describing your own charactreristics.

pcostello,

Since we are the only wretched ones left on this post, I will end it by saying that I completely disagree with you on every point except on the issue of Obama's relative senatorial inexperience. This is true. However, he has not been sittin' around waiting, failing at every job that his prezadent father could arrange for him while he was planning to bamboozle the country. Obama's creds are strong, his life odyssey, though it obviously does not resonate with your bullet proof sanctioning mechanism, shows a life spent in service and achievement. You really are tone deaf to this reality.

Pray continue to project your bias while I continue to do the same with mine. But let us end this because it really is starting to get weird. However, if you would like to continue our discussion go to mrcookie1@comcast.net and if you would like to continue a well mannered discussion/disagreement, let's do it there.

Jaunty/mr. cookie, i just read the news about the sister of joe louis, found frozen to death outside her nursing home. A sad end to a sibling of the man my grandfather considered, to his dying day, the greatest heavyweight champion in the history of the ring. (His opinion, not necessarily mine.)

wildcat,

yeah, I heard that on my drive in to work. Sad. I would rank Louis in the top five heavies for sure..  Let me see, if I had to rank

1) Ali 2) Louis 3) Dempsey 4) Marciano 5) Jack Johnson

wildcat, if you don't already know this, you can go to www.youtube.com and see just about any fight that has film.  Last night, I watched Norton/Bobick and boy, was Bobick a stiff.

I also watched the Marciano-Louis fight and was surprised at how well Louis did in those early rounds. Granted, The Rock stretched him out but good but only seeing the KO of a fight can often obscure the value of the entire fight, especially from the loser's perspective. Louis threw lots of good crisp jabs in those early rounds, and until The Rock wore him down, countered effectively. Notice The Rock's eyes at the time of his KO...he didn't get those puffy brows from Louis kissing him.  

How well i remember duanne bobbick (another great white hope who was all hat and no cattle.)getting his ass kicked by ken norton. I watched that over at my girlfriends house, and i can still remember telling her father and 2 brothers before the bout got underway that it wouldn't last long. I had watched bobbick fight a tomato can some months before, and i was not impressed at all. I'd go so far as to agree with duanne that the punch hitting him in the throat (2nd round?) played a part in him losing, but the fact is, if it hadn't been that one punch, it would have been another.

I've always maintained that had louis fought marciano when they were both in their prime, it would'nt have been close. No disrepect at all to rocky, but in my judgement, he was essentially a street fighter wearing gloves. A (for all intents and purposes) one-handed brawler who might, or might not, do ok against the likes of joe frazier, dempsey, etc, but would never be able to close the distance against ali, holmes, and other fighters with good lateral movement. I even wonder what would have happened if he fought mike tyson, who i consider one of the best left/right uppercutters in the history of the division. Marciano had a tendancy to lunge at his opponent, and when you do that and fail to connect, you leave yourself open to a well-placed uppercut, a punch mike was very adept at throwing. I'd heard it was kevin rooney who taught him that, but whoever it was, they taught him well.

wildcat,

go to my email, mrcookie1@comcast.net to continue this conversation. It's getting to hard to get back to thiis post.

I agree with you about Louis in prime v Rock in prime. Hey, Rock was a great puncher but he never really fought any of the great fighters in their prime - Louis, Charles, Walcott - and even then, both Charles and Walcott both nearly beat the Rock. No fault of the Rock, he beat whoever they put in front of him. Still, against a big puncher like Liston or Foreman, I think that Rock might have gone under. Ali and Louis had the skills to beat him pretty handily.

Tyson is a hard one to gauge. With the exception of the Spinks fight, whenever a good unafraid fighter went up against Tyson, Tyson lost. Hollyfield twice, Douglass, Lewis.  He was, as you said, a vicious uppercutter - is Marvis Frazier's skull still bobbing? - but he had no defense and was easily out gamed when he fought a smarter man. He also had no capacity to think and adjust his fight plan. He was, to put it bluntly, a dumb fighter. Not a dumb person but a dumb fighter. Louis was hardly a Mensa member but he almost always able to adjust and change his game in tough fights, the Billy Conn I fight for example.

At the risk of having this last post disappear, never to be seen again by human eyes...

I'm not sure louis changed his tactics with conn in the first fight. Rather, i'd say billy changed his by wrongly assuming he had joe beat going into the 13th and trying to finish him off. In other words, never trade punches with a puncher if you have another out. Conn's glaring mistake, in my judgement.

I agree with you about mike being a dumb fighter, but i'm not as sure that was true early in his career (circa 1988-1989.) Early on, he appeared to have an adequate defense (compliments of cus dimatto's peek-a-boo) to go with impressive hand speed for a heavyweight. It wasn't till that disgraceful don king and his handlers started controlling tyson did he start to forego any meaningful defense and become a headhunter. I remember forming that impression during the buster douglas fight. Which ended, if i remember, when buster landed a 5 punch combo, including a beautiful right uppercut. Ironic that one of mikes best punches in his arsenal was instrumental in him losing that fight.