Rumor has it that Michelle Obama was proud of her country a second time - June 3rd, being number two. I don't particularly care for her, given the "proud" remark and her making derisive comments about her husband's hygiene but I don't think that she is going to leave a leaf-scar on the tree of public opinion this electoral season.

Don't you have to assume that a huge portion of that 42% is really an unfavorability rating for Barack himself? Just because Republicans are on the outs doesn't mean they've disappeared -- there are still a bunch of Republicans out there who'll stick with Bush and McCain to the very end. If I were a committed Republican and were asked if I'm favorable or unfavorable toward the Democratic nominee's spouse, I'd probably say "unfavorable," no matter who they were, just to make it register that "Hey, I still don't like the Democrats!"

Michelle is great, lib. Get to know her. When she opens up and talks freely, it's hard not to like her. She's funny, intelligent, and she speaks with a lot of compassion and understanding. The Obama campaign has nothing to worry about, as long as they don't run in fear and try to hide her away.

I fear that when the reality start to sink in with the GOP - that the party and the Mummy are seriously screwed and standing paralyzed in front of a steamroller - then we are going to some extremely ugly and vicious stuff coming Michelle Obama's way. It will make what came at Hillary look like kisses from Santa Claus...

The latest is that Rasmussen poll comparing Michelle with Mrs. McCain. Humm, strong smart Sister compared to pretty Blonde rich wife. I wonder who will get higher marks in this society?  

She's not as obnoxious as her foes make her out to be; neither is she terribly smart. She says a lot of dumb things but that's par for the course, as political wives go. OTOH she's no Maria Thereza; OTOH she's no Jackie Kennedy. Not dumb but no real class or style, either.

If Michelle is as intelligent as her Ivy League education suggests, why is she attacking standardized testing? Why has she (and Barack for that matter) refused to release her SAT scores?  To be sure, the questions are rhetorical.  Michelle and Barack are clear cases of affirmative action at work.  The would never has seen Princeton or Columbia, let alone Harvard Law, if they didn't come from an African American background.  While it is hard to blame them for taking advantage of preferences that the schools were happy to extend, let's also not give them credit for the high level of intelligence that the two of them clearly lack.  They are both mediocre intellects whose sudden rise has all the marks of a mania that will hopefully dissipate before November.  

To clarify the above, I admire her ability to work the system and lift herself up from a blue-collar background to millionaire status. I'm just no convinced that the aff action-law school-political connections path to success is the one that deserves the kind of accolades (not to mention fawning) conferred by her and her husband's groupies in the media. IMHO, given the type of signal that desperately needs to be sent to our STEM [science tech engineering math]-averse schoolchildren, such adulation is best reserved for people who earn hard degrees in hard subjects, people with patents to their name,

Again, she's accomplished, but certainly not more so than, say, either of the parties' 1996 POTUS candidates' wives.

Michelle is one of the most brilliant, substinative speakers I have ever seen (twice).  This was before  the demonization process set in.  It doesn't even matter what she says or does anymore, she's  the new Hate It Girl.

I guess its time to rev up the old find-a-witch machine now that the Democrats have a real shot.  Hillary's story was getting a little old after 15 years and now she's lost some of the spotlight, so Michelle is on.  This SAT scores thing is small bore.  I wonder how long until the secret murders and sex rings come up.  Maybe they'll find her preschool teacher to spill the beans on her mediocre block building ability.

Accusing people of being affirmative action idiots is cowardly and says much more about the accuser than the target. As the people making it well  know - there is no recourse, no provable argument back (not that this lame slur even deserves one).  Yes I AM smart?  Effing SAT scores are supposed to prove that?  Give it a rest, find something real or that matters just a tiny bit, otherwise you look like the bitter idiot, not her.

By the way, Cindy McCain is not an empty suit, she is a wonderful woman whom I have also met twice.  She has personally run a non-profit for years that focuses on providing health care to destitute children, often in dangerous war zones (which she has travels to regulalry with no fanfair) and often the most hopeless cases.  

She even adopted one of these children as an infant. Her daughgter was almost dead at the time and is now a freshman in college.  Can any of you say that?  Most people do not know of her work - and still write her off as an empty suit (notice how we don't demand stupid meaningless things like her SAT scores - too white, too pretty, too recognizable, doesn't fit the storyline we're building for her) because she always wanted it that way.  She has never wanted publicity for her work.

Let's use our brains a wee bit, shall we people?  Get out of the gutter for say, three minutes?  Or is  that too long to hope for?

In response to Aslusky, Obama was president of Harvard Law Review. This is not like signing up for the school newspaper and being popular. Law doesn't have the same sort of peer reviewed journals that science does, so HLR is held in extremely high regard and the process to become an editor is quite competitive. Obama made quite a name for himself at Harvard law. I myself decided to support him partly in response to Laurence Tribe's observation that Obama was the most impressive student he had seen in decades.

As for Obama's SAT scores, I don't know what he has to gain by releasing them. Even if he did do quite well, it's considered bad form to boast about your SAT scores in your freshman year of college, let alone 30 years later. This is especially true for a man who is always being accused of being an elite liberal elitist who is prone to elitely eliting.

Who, the f#*& cares about anyone's SAT scores!  Some of you folks have got to come back to this planet and stay on it for a while.  Breathing some oxygenated & polluted air will go a long way to help focus on some real issues instead of completely fabricated ones.

And who cares about elite - the last two 'bubba' Presidents were incompetent.  We've had extremely good elitist Presidents (JFK, Eisenhower, Roosevelt, even Washington and Jefferson), and very few good ones who you'd like to have a beer with.  The greatest thing in my mind about Barak and Michelle is that they can carry on a great conversation without having to stop and use a spittoon.  

Has Michelle ever committed a federal drug crime? No? Then I think that settles the potential First Lady Fight. I just don't think Republicans really want to go there; attacking Michelle too publicly will force the newsmedia to "balance" their reporting with stories about Cindy. And on most people's scales, being a convicted criminal is worse than being being a bit cold and distant. Heck, the one thing people dislike more than an ex-con is a rich ex-con who used wealth and connections to get off easy.

Plus there's Cindy's history with the Keating Five scandal, where she had a hand in the actual wrongdoing. The worst anyone has said about Michelle is that she was maybe improperly involved in getting federal funding for a hospital; a far cry from a rich woman helping other rich people defraud bank customers.

I'm with Wandrey - Michelle Obama is all right by me.  I'm not all that interested in the spouses of the candidates, and would rather they shut up and stayed home, to be honest.  But I have heard her speak on several occasions and have always been impressed with her intelligence and spirit.  She will be a credit to America as First Lady.  

Neil

WaltB - high five

Rhubarbs too - except the CIndy stuff, selling the Keating Five goes down like day old bread (or decades in this case), ancient history more than atoned for.

Willpastor - my favorite post in months.

Sorry, I have to take a moment to slap down this affirmative action garbage.  Barack Obama graduated HLS magna cum laude.  That puts him in about the top ten percent of the class.  Better than I did.  In case you haven't been there (you were, right, Slusky?  you seemed so knowledgeable), there is no line on your (anonymously graded) blue book where you get to put down your race.   So even if race played a role in getting him admitted, he shot the lights out when he got there, so it looks like it was the right decision.

And president of the Law Review is the most highly sought-after prize for the most highly competitive group of people you have ever seen.  That he was president tells me two things: (1) he is very very smart and (2) he is able to command the respect of other very very smart people.  Call me crazy, but that means a lot in my book.

aslusky:  "They are both mediocre intellects whose sudden rise has all the marks of a mania that will hopefully dissipate before November."

Uh-huh?  Well, all I can say is that the needle on the intellectual gauge for the White House has been so low over the last few years, I'm quite looking forward to an ostensibly "mediocre" intellect moving in.

These polls hold water for people whose POTUS voting metrics run along the following lines:

1) What kind of underwear does Obama wear?  a. Boxer, b. brief, c. boxer-brief, d. other, or e. commando-style.

2) If Obama choses E. above for the weekends at home does that make him a regular guy, effete or slob?

3) Michelle uses four different shampoos. Does this make her a smart woman for not using the same shampoo all the time or an elite liberal?

4) Michelle uses PAM non-stick spray when she makes fish-sticks. Are the fish-sticks Gorton's fake cod fish-sticks or hand breaded fillets from the nearest Dean & Deluca? Does she drink Chablis or MIke's Hard Limeade with her fish-sticks and tater-tots on the "kids pick dinner" night at home?

5) When voting for POTUS you automatically ask yourself "is he a normal guy?" As if a normal person would be running for POTUS. What the hell is POTUS anyway? No normal guy says POTUS. It sounds like a strange opossum.

6) You think Rush Limbaugh is a normal guy and straight shooter or you think Martha Stewart really does know how to cook and you find her condescending manners an inspiration.

7) You actually care if Bradgolina stay together

8) You replace your #3 "The Intimidator" sticker at the start of every NASCAR season.

agentzero is correct that Obama graduating magna cum laude gives him credibility as an excellent Harvard Law school graduate.  Credibility, I would add, that his membership on the Law Review, which sets aside a few "minority" seats allocated by a lower standard than the rest of the seats, does not.

Michelle, unfortunately suffers from the typical side-effects of Affirmative Action at elite institutions: resentment and ingratitude growing out of self-perceived inferiority.  (An inferiority that is often understandalble, given that half of blacks at elite law schools finish the first year at the bottom 10% of their first year class.)

It's also unseemly even though she makes 300K as "community outreach specialist", whatever that means, and her husband is a best-selling author, she acts as if she's trying struggling to make ends meet.  Teresa Heinz Kerry should have tried that one.  

I'm just waiting for PCCostello to rise up in defence of a woman being unjustly attacked.  Or is feminism good only to defend Hillary and deride her opponents?

aslusky: I've been teaching law for the past fourteen years in some of the best schools in Canada and continental Europe.  And I just wanted to confirm your "affirmative action" point.  Every time I get an anonymous exam to mark, I have the hand-writing checked for racial markers (you do know about the secret affirmative action hand-shake and markers, don't you?).  If it's by a Brotha or a Sista, why, I just mark it up by a couple dozen percentages.  Fairness, professional integrity, teaching objectives, the future of the Bar - none of that matters to me as a law prof.  No, siree.  All that matters is the "dap" at the end of the class that I give only the Brotha's and Sista's, secretly laughing (along with all the other profs, of whatever political background, with whom I am of course in a secret Affirmative Action league) behind all the Honkey, Wap, Chink, Jap, Frog, Brownie, Gook, Chick, etc. students of mine.  So yeah, your insights are blinding.

icarusr -- as a law prof, does the factoid I previously mentioned -- that about half of blacks at elite law schools end the first year in the bottom 10% of their class -- sound right to you?  I got the information from a WSJ op-ed by Gail Heriot, UC-San Diego law professor and member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.  

Gurdjieff:  when I was there, you got on by grades or by a writing competition.  Both were anonymous.  I am not aware of a minority set-aside, but I guess that doesn't mean it's not so.  In any event, part of my point was that he was *president*, elected by his peers, not merely a member.  It's not credible to me that that was an affirmative action vote.

Icarusr:  and by "dap," of course, you mean "terrorist fist-jab."

from a 2006 Harvard Crimson article on affirmative action at the law review:  

"Today, 14 editors are selected with equal weight on grades and writing competition scores and 20 on the basis of the competition alone.

The remaining seven to nine spots are filled on a discretionary basis, which McGrath wrote 'can be used for [the] affirmative action program.'”

www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx

Thank you, aslusky, for reaffirming my suspicion that racism isn't dead, it's just hiding.

"why is she attacking standardized testing?"

Because repeated studies have suggested that the SATs have bias that favors whites and males. This website gives a decent review of the issue: www.fairtest.org/.../satfact.htm

"Why has she (and Barack for that matter) refused to release her SAT scores?"

Because it is superfluous to the general election.

"Michelle and Barack are clear cases of affirmative action at work."

There is no affirmative action program for assigning grades to students, nor for honors programs; I'd be willing to bet that Havard Law Review doesn't have an AA program for electing officers either.

"The would never has seen Princeton or Columbia, let alone Harvard Law, if they didn't come from an African American background"

Argumentum ad absurdum; poor white kids get into these institutions every year in much the same way: hard work, good grades and a shitload of student loans.

"let's also not give them credit for the high level of intelligence that the two of them clearly lack."

I wonder if Obama's professors at Harvard are aware that he was changing his grades behind their back?

"They are both mediocre intellects whose sudden rise has all the marks of a mania that will hopefully dissipate before November"

Are you claiming that 20 years of work as community organizer, civil rights attorney, and elected official is sudden?

So how *did* Barack Obama get on to the HLR editorial board -- by way of the 14 seat block (grades plus competition), the 20 seat block (competition alone), or the 9 seat block (discretionary)?

gurdjieff66: Let me stress I have always opposed set asides of every kind.  And I have done so as a minority myself.  When my university wanted to introduce an AA programme, I was a student member of its Board of Governors - and the most vocal opponent of the proposed programme.  As I said back then, "Do not hand me crutches, for then people will think I cannot walk on my own."  I have had to suffer the "token" label throughout university (even long before there was an AA programme) and career (despite racking up many firsts and prizes and awards and honours).  And in fact, one problem with AA programmes is precisely the kind of conversation we are having: because some get in under the programme, and because some might not do well, it means that all got in under the programme and none would have done well.  This is vox populi e ignorami and has nothing whatever to do with the reality of specific cases.

Did Obama and Michelle get in through the AA programme?  I don't know.  Did they pass because of the AA programme?  Impossible because of anonymous grading.  Does the existence of AA programmes necessarily denigrates the achievements of the couple?  To ask the question is to expose one's own ignorance and, indeed, stupidity - I won't mention prejudice.

Incidentally, my verbal SATs were in the 300s; since then, I have pubished a highly technical book and many peer reviewed articles on theories of interpretation and argued before some of the highest international courts.  Anyone tells you SAT scores tell you about verbal ability, refer them to me.

Finally, about the "lowest 10%" question.  Yeah, you know, before AA programmes, almost all "lowest 10%" were white and male.  Which to me suggests we should exclude Male Honkey from law school.  And most Dean's list students are Jewish, so we should only admit Jews to law school.  In any event, I have no idea whatever if the "about half of blacks at elite law schools [who] end the first year in the bottom 10% of their class " were AA students, legacies, or regular over-achievers who burned out, and neither do you.  These kinds of statistics are problematic not only because they are incomplete but because there are no control groups, no causation analysis, no connecting the dots.  Just numbers.  Without more, it's impossible to say why.

icarusr,

Fascinating personal stuff. I appreciate it. Now, I KNOW that I benefited from Affirmative Action. Given the arc of my life, especially my hardscrabble upbringing, I got into college on AA,and I probably got my first job on AA though my college and grad school record was strong so I don't really know.

Did it bother me? Not bloody likely.  Once given the chance, I have spent my life achieving and eclipsing the competition. I have never spent one moment feeling inferior to anyone, especially on intellectual or professional measures. Now culturally, I started at a huge disadvantage but my natural tenacity, toughness, and bouyant charm has narrowed the gap somewhat but really, did I give a rat's ass about how other folks view me culturally? Shee-at...  If it bothered those weenies that I was around, screw them. While they were out doing stupid things and acting like idiots, I was making time with their girlfriends, who all loved what I brought to the mix and told me, right after they told me what weenies their boyfriends were....

You all rock and I only lament that aslusky has probably not returned to this to take note of any (postive OR negative) feedback.  Shameful how ignorant people are.  A little knowledge (aka, "a little terminology") is a dangerous thing.

Jaunty - thanks, and thanks for sharing.

Wandreycer, you sound pretty unhinged. You're not going to convince anybody with invective. The call for STA scores or some other measureable quantity of ability is absolutely legitimate. Of course, while we're at it that should be asked of other candidates too. All of them -the two left the major contenders in the past- have degrees in fluffy, non-quantitative subjects.

Too many Americans play the system that way. The snobbery of education is such that a degree in French or social work from Harvard is more prized than one in electrical engineering from the University of Michigan. It shouldn't be the case. One is fluff where you can get away with feeling and words, another is to know and prove things precisely.  

Generally today the snobbery works the other way, to almost always put the scientists on a higher plane, because they can "do" stuff.  However, what one should do, and why one should do it, and whether one shouldn't in fact do it, and what has happened in human history because of X or Y doing stuff or not doing stuff, are all cultural, ethical, and social questions, which are the subject of a spectrum of interpretation and can't be conclusively dealt with on positivist grounds of proof and precision (or only to a certain extent, as in "Did Shakespeare write 'Arden of Feversham'", answer = maybe).

Personally, I don't believe in these hierarchies.  The sciences have one job to do, the humanities another.  But it's a pity if prejudice rules.

"The call for STA scores or some other measureable quantity of ability is absolutely legitimate."

I'm pretty sure that if there was some sort of metric even in the vicinity of legitimate in regards to POTUS, people would be all over it by now; you're not the first hard-science type to have that idea, and you won't be the last. Not that I don't like the idea, because I would be very interested in reliable predictors of presidential performance; but it seems to me that there are so many factors and ways to interpret the breadth of issues covered by "politics" that its all but impossible to isolate any set of metrics that will be better than "vague correlation" without being overly narrow in scope.

The SAT thing needs to be dropped altogether because the SAT was designed to be a predictor of performance of a student at the college level; there are so many metrics which have occurred between then and eligibility for running for POTUS (GPA, extracurricular activities, jobs and job performance to name the biggies) that it makes the notion beyond ridiculous.

If I remember correctly, wasn't Leninism based on Taylor's "Scientific" Management?  The Soviet Union was run in an orgy of science.  Didn't "scientists" decree the superiority of the Aryans over the Jews and the Slavs under Hitler?  "Dr." Frist was a scientist, specialist in "hard stuff", no?

Engineers may know how to build bridges over gorges and make nuclear bombs; politics, and government, are about people, balancing interests, and making hard choices that are not determined on the basis of rules of physics or of mathematics.

As for SATs, "beyond ridiculous" understates the matter.  It's not a 17 year-old who's running for President but a 71 year-old.  McCain could have a perfect SAT score and he would still be unacceptable because of his POLITICS.  Huckabee could well come in with a trailer truck of Sc degrees, and he would still be unacceptable because of his POLITICS.

GSpinks, thank you for a well-reasoned post. While I normally dislike or disbelieve your posts, you have made your case pretty convincingly here - you are right. Indeed SATs are poor measures of ability.

Yet it seems to me that the Obama supporters have brought it upon their candidate. We hear all the time how great he is because he went to these great schools and was an editor of Harvard Law Review. Good for him. But if his academic credentials are put so forward, why not have them scrutinized? Incidentally, I find him impressive, even if I dislike his direction and judgment, as reflected in his choice of mentors and associates.

I find her a lot less impressive and I think it is normal that she be scrutinized: she has participated fully in his campaign. Nobody obliged her to participate to the extent she does, to go around and tell how Barack will demand this that of you, and when exactly has she started to feel proud. Since she wants to be more than a picture and say substantial things, why shouldn't her substantial statements be scrutinized?

Now both her and him yell how unfair it is for her to be criticized. It's not unfair at all. What does she think, that no one should say a word to her? Lese-Michelle?

ironyroad "Generally today the snobbery works the other way, to almost always put the scientists on a higher plane, because they can "do" stuff. "

ironyroad you distort again the debate. I said simply that studying science is harder than a lot of  humanities. I would not include there music, where you have to prove your abilities. But I would certainly include literature, history and law, where there is so much of that "every answer has some merit".

Moreover, you haven't quite seen my point, even though it was very clearly stated: much of the praise for the Obamas derives from the academic institutions they attended - not from what they studied there. I tied to the snobbery of respecting the institution, not whether the person did something hard or not. I had one year of law school many years ago and quit, as I thought it uninteresting - even though much, much easier than science in terms of material and grades.

As for demanding grades or scores or whatever, that was demanded of George Bush, who was widely (and rightly) suspected to be a legacy admission. At some point all of these things are unjust: athletes, legacies, affirmative action. It would be much fairer if everyone got the same chance, while making financial allowances for the poor, regardless of ethnic and racial background.