The article is called: "Michelle's Foot Meets Her Mouth" - a title I find pretty disrespectful attitude towards a person who has accomplished a great deal more in her life than the author.
So, I decided to go over the article with a fine-tooth comb, in order to see how many lice came out.
The first paragraph:
In January 1980, Jimmy Carter was "far ahead" of Ronald Reagan in the race for the White House; 10 months later Reagan won 45 states. In July 1988, Michael Dukakis was beating George H.W. Bush by 17 points; Bush eventually won 426 of 538 electoral votes. In June 1992, H. Ross Perot led Bill Clinton by 14 points; Clinton finished 25 points ahead. So to think that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)'s four-point lead over Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is unassailable is wishful thinking.
Caro has a point, although it's basically irrelevant to his article. Unless he is simply psyching himself up to believe that the target on Obama's back is close enough for him to hit with this peashooter. "Wishful thinking" is right, buddy.
Moving on:
Each of those other candidates lost because of major weaknesses. Obama, however, does not have a readily apparent Achilles heel; Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) thought it was his inexperience, but her inability to exploit that suggests she was wrong. But no campaign is perfect, and Michelle Obama '85's recent actions have crystallized my fears about Obamamania. This is not an attack on her; rather, it is an attack on how her statements are the perfect embodiment of my pre-existing doubts. While many of these were misstatements, they are Freudian slips and not mere malapropisms.
How convenient that "her statements are the perfect embodiment of [Caro's] preexisting doubts". This is a "just so" type argument that simply reveals the author's bias in the same paragraph in which he claims not to have any. In the examples that follow, one can see how he distorted "her statements" so they fit his bias perfectly.
It started with a profile in The Wall Street Journal which quoted her imploring Barack to "feel - don't think!" And here I thought that truthiness had dropped out along with Stephen Colbert. I doubt that someone accused of offering "an eloquent but empty" campaign by his presumptive Republican challenger should emote more and think less, especially considering that many of our current problems stem from President Bush's failure to think things through.
Yes, feeling not thinking. What the author doesn't report, however, is the rest of the quote from that same WSJ article -
"Don't get caught in the weeds. Be visceral. Use your heart -- and your head." That's right -- she said "and your head". I guess Caro didn't read the next line in the WSJ paragraph; it seems that he simply saw a connection to emotion and thought to himself - oh no! we're going to get 4 more years of emotions leading us astray, like Bush did!
The same article revealed that Michelle has no male staff members and quoted a passage in her Princeton senior thesis where she wrote, "I will always be Black first and a student second." My first reaction to the quote was to think that she is a disciple of extreme identity politics, but unfortunately her thesis is embargoed so I can't find out the context. The idea of identifying first as a member of a small group worries me, especially considering her hiring practices. I have no problem with being proud of one's background; I certainly am proud of mine. There is, however, something wrong with putting identity first. Any president or first lady must follow JFK's example and put being American above being a hyphenated American.
Oh no, no male staff members. And how many staff members are we talking about? 10? 100? 3? Honestly, I don't know. But this might be something relevant to someone who was going to make a point about it. To be fair to you Barry, the WSJ should have researched this, or found it relevant to print, but they didn't.
As to the "black first, student second" line, here is the quote from her thesis, released by the Obama campaign, in context.
Earlier in my college career, there was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the Black community I was somehow obligated to this community and would utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit this community first and foremost. My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my "Blackness" than ever before. I have found that at Princeton no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my White professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with Whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them (my emphasis) I will always be Black first and a student second.
To them. Now, I went to an ivy league school, and I'm white. But I came from a privileged background and hadn't had many minority friends at that point. And I understand exactly what she's saying. Lots of whites (including myself) tried TOO hard to be nice, and struggled to be "real" with the black students we met. In this way, race definitely affected my friendships at first, before we got to know each other as people. Being overly concerned with offending each other tends to make things uncomfortable, just as being blatantly disrespectful does.
Since her thesis has been released, Barry has added this author's note:
Since this column was published, Michelle Obama '85's senior thesis has been released to the press by her husband's campaign. As it appears to still be embargoed by the University, I would direct readers wishing to view it to visit it here. Since reading it, I have determined that the comment "I will always be Black first and a student second" referred specifically to how others viewed her on campus, not to how she viewed herself. However, other passages seem to reinforce my overall interpretation of the document, i.e. that her primary identity was "black" and that she viewed her immersion in a predominantly white institution as threatening and in many ways bad. No matter what you think of it, this thesis is a look inside her head and a clear enunciation of the thought processes that to my mind still shape her worldview.
"Threatening"? In what way does the passage, in context, indicate that Michelle felt threatened? Honestly, it sounds like she is describing a reality many minorities feel when they arrive on campus. Her experience is not unusual - it is the same that many immigrants feel when they arrive at a new country, or perhaps how the author himself might feel, if he was visiting a foreign country.
What is ridiculous is that Caro makes a huge leap from her "feeling like a student second" 23 years ago to the suspicion that she would be a "hyphenated-American" first and an "American second". Maybe one must live a little, and have a bit more experience, to perceive that "being a student at Princeton" is a tiny thing, compared to patriotism of "being an American" that unites all people, not just the rich and privileged. Perhaps Caro equates his Princeton tiger with the Stars and Bars? Hmm. How... elitist. Like Al Gore, or something.
Next: the supposed "Black Separatism" of Obama's pastor:
Her beliefs as an undergraduate would be immaterial to this discussion if they did not appear to be part of a continuing pattern. The Obamas' church is led by a pastor who espouses black separatism. The Obamas say they disagree with many of their pastor's actions, and I commend Barack for condemning his church's 2007 endorsement of Louis Farrakhan. Actions, however, speak louder than words, and at some point Obama must ask his pastor to stop serving as his personal spiritual adviser if they really disagree on so much. My worry here is that the post-racial rhetoric does not match the reality of his beliefs.
Hannity tried this same tack, but couldn't provide any evidence of Trinity's espousal of black separatism:
From Media Matters:
On the June 26 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity again accused Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright -- pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ, which Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) attends -- of holding "these black-separatist views, about the Black Value System." Following a trend from previous shows, Hannity did not mention Wright's explicit denial on the March 1 edition of Hannity & Colmes that his church embraces separatism. Moreover, Hannity cited no specific evidence that Trinity espouses black separatism, and, indeed, Media Matters for America could find no reference on Trinity's website suggesting an espousal of black separatism, which, as articulated by African-American activist Stokely Carmichael, is the position that "[i]f we are to proceed toward true liberation, we must cut ourselves off from white people."
Caro need not worry. Rather he would be better off relaxing and concentrating on his studies instead of stirring up the pot and making people afraid.
But, no, there are more distortions on the way:
Another disturbing comment was Michelle's quip that only Barack understands that "we have to fix our souls; our souls are broken in this country." The President's job isn't to save our souls, and this statement sounds like Pat Robertson's rhetoric. There's also an astonishing level of arrogance in thinking that one's husband can fix our souls, and it fits well with the occasionally messianic overtones of Obamamania.
The "only Barack" paraphrase is lifted from Malkin, Hewett, Morrissey and their ilk. But at least Morrissey gets the quote right. Here's Michelle's quote in context:
We have lost the understanding that in a democracy, we have a mutual obligation to one another -- that we cannot measure the greatness of our society by the strongest and richest of us, but we have to measure our greatness by the least of these. That we have to compromise and sacrifice for one another in order to get things done. That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this (my emphasis) who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation.
Note that she says: "in this" - the subset of individuals running for president -- not out of everyone in the country, or the world. That one qualifier conveniently gets left out of the RWNM's bleatings, and it's crucial. And what does her husband "understand"? Not that her husband "can fix our souls" as the author claims, but rather that "we have to fix our souls". That's the main difference between fact and interpretation. But I guess they don't teach close reading at Princeton. You'd think so, it sure costs enough.
Next up, Caro claims another element in Michelle's "pattern":
Then there is her statement that "things have gotten progressively worse throughout my lifetime." This country has problems, but a time traveler from 1990 would marvel at the improvements in urban areas, the dramatically lower national crime rate and a GDP about twice as large when adjusted for inflation. While debate on these points is possible, it is silly to pretend that we have been in a consistent downward spiral.
Caro implies that her comment that "things have gotten progressively worse" apply to joblessness, urban life, crime, etc. - you know, things that have to do with African-Americans. However, her comment, in context, is specifically about healthcare:
Once again, context exposes the all-important context:
"Americans are in debt not because they live frivolously, but because someone got sick. And even with insurance, the deductibles and premiums are so high that people are still putting medication treatments on credit cards. And they can't get out from under. I could go on and on and on, but this is how we're living, people, in 2008. And things have gotten progressively worse. Throughout my lifetime, through Democratic and Republican administrations, it hasn't gotten better for regular folks."
Next up: the "Final Straw" for Caro
The final straw came last Monday when she said that because of her husband's success in uniting many, "for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country." That's incredibly self-centered and insulting to those of us proud to be Americans. Ronald Reagan won the Reagan Democrats in part by describing America as the "last best hope of man on earth." You will not win those voters back by telling them that the only aspect of America to be proud of is a willingness to unite behind her husband's vacuous calls for change. It's mind-boggling that she would make this statement when Barack is running against a war hero; McCain fired back on Tuesday saying he's "never lived a day ... that I haven't been proud [of my country]."
This is really the only quote that is a true clunker from Michelle. Still, she clarified her remarks a few days later and did it with class.
Stripping context is the sharpest tool in the shed of spinmeisters and ideologues everywhere, including the media themselves. I sympathize when a senior from Princeton makes these mistakes - but not when adults who should know better pick up the misunderstandings of a young man and lend credence to such nonsense.
Permalink | 28 comments