Copyright by John T. Reed

On 2/19/08, Barack Obama’s wife Michelle said,

For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.

Michelle Obama’s adult lifetime began in June, 1985 when she graduated from Princeton.

Reagan was president then, having just won a second term with 525 electoral votes, the highest ever. His opponent, Walter Mondale, only won his home state of Minnesota—by fewer than 3,800 votes—and the District of Columbia. Apparently some Americans were proud of their country then. During the Reagan Administration, Michelle Obama graduated from high school, Princeton, and Harvard Law School. A black Temple professor said she is to be excused for this statement because she came of age during the [impliedly horrible] Reagan Administration. During Reagan’s second term, America won the 40-year-old Cold War. All sorts of other great things happened in America not related to who was president. In every presidential election year and Congressional by-election year, for example, Americans were proud of other Americans competing in the various Olympics. But during that four years, Michelle Obama found nothing to be “really proud” about.

The first President Bush succeeded him and the main event of his administration was the U.S. leading a U.N. coalition in throwing Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, which he had invaded. All sorts of other great things happened in America not related to who was president. But during those four years, Michelle Obama found nothing to be “really proud” about.

From 1992 to 2000, Democrat Bill Clinton was president. All sorts of things happened then in America not related to who was president. One of them was the revolutionary change known as the Internet which the American people embraced to the great benefit of the nation. But during those eight years, Michelle Obama found nothing to be “really proud” about.

Now we are told that she has finally found something to be really proud about: that Americans are hungry for change. Excuse me, but hasn’t every non-incumbent or party-out-of-power candidate in the history of politics also called for change?

Didn’t the election of Reagan and rejection of President Jimmy Carter indicate Americans embracing change?

Didn’t the election of Bill Clinton, who is a member of Michelle Obama’s party, and rejection of George H.W. Bush indicate Americans embracing change?

Didn’t the Republicans taking over Congress in 1994 during which they asked the nation to support their Contract with America indicate Americans embracing change?

Didn’t the Democrats, Michele Obama’s party, taking over Congress in 2006 indicate Americans embracing change?

Apparently, it’s not Americans embracing change that makes Michelle Obama—finally at age 44—really proud of her country for the first time. It’s that this time her husband “has done well” in the polls—precisely the thing she protested too much was NOT the reason.

What is different about this embracing of change compared to all the others during her lifetime? The black skin of the guy calling for this particular change.

This is black pride, not pride, or lack thereof, in the United States of America. When it comes to having real pride in the United States of America, Michelle Obama can only be satisfied by one thing: a black presidential candidate who is leading in delegate count. Her senior thesis at Princeton was “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community.” Newsweek said Michelle Obama had two extracurricular interests at Harvard Law School: demonstrating for more minority students and professors and recruiting black students to Harvard Law School.

I participated in a half dozen or so extracurricular activities in college and graduate school. None was associated with any skin color. I might demonstrate for, or help recruit, better students or faculty. But not blacker or whiter students or faculty.

As I said in my article about Obama’s work career, he sounds like he should be running for president of the NAACP, not the United States. Similarly, his wife seems to see everything as black versus white. That’s NAACP, not USA.

No doubt some will say being a black in America entitles her to a black-versus-white perspective on everything. I would not argue otherwise. The issue is whether a couple whose perspectives have been so distorted that they can only see things through the eyes of 12% of the population are appropriate to represent and lead 100% of the American people. Black skin does not disqualify anyone from being president. But seeing every issue as black versus white is way out of whack with reality and should be a disqualifying condition. Many so-called “black leaders” are obsessed with and totally preoccupied with race relations and black victimhood. That is their right, but it is most definitely not presidential.

I think Michelle Obama is one pissed-off woman has has been one pissed-off woman since she was in high school. She has a huge chip on her shoulder. What is she pissed about? Apparently the fact that “The [white] Man” runs America and that “The Man” has been victimizing blacks every minute of every day for hundreds of years. Her statement seems to be a manifestation of her hatred of non-black Americans.

‘She didn’t mean it’

On 2/19/08, various Barack Obama spokespersons and apologists have been saying Michelle did not mean it that way.

Watch the video of her original statement.

She is speaking slowly, deliberately, and choosing her words carefully—almost pausing between them for emphasis. Some news reports said the speech was written with those words in it and apparently she was reading them off transparent teleprompters used for televised speeches. Look at the expression on her face. She is not distracted. She is intent.

Is she inarticulate and in need of more articulate people to explain her? She graduated cum laude from Princeton and got a law degree from Harvard. Were those degrees the result of some sort of affirmative action quota that ignored her inarticulateness?

No. The spokesperson was not explaining her. He was speaking for her because she had been bound and gagged by campaign workers—figuratively speaking. How else to explain Michelle, who has been making speeches daily for months, suddenly not speaking for herself regarding what she meant?

The 2/25/08 Newsweek cover story on Michelle Obama said she has a “plain-spoken style.” I agree. Apparently too plain-spoken for her husband’s handlers. Plain-spoken people do not need spokespersons to convert their words into more understandable forms.

On 2/20/08, Michele Obama emerged and, essentially, just stubbornly repeated what she had said initially—that she was proud of America for deciding to embrace change. The media described it as her explanation or clarification. It was neither. Just a steely “Screw you” to the nation she wants to be First Lady of.

One spin she tried to put on it was that the context was politics. Not valid. Plenty of things that happened in her adult life involved people wanting political change as I listed above. She also characterized her husband’s campaign as the first time she saw people rolling up their sleeves to effect change. Also not valid. All campaigns have that. The Democrats certainly did that in 2006 to elect Nancy Pelosi the first female Speaker of the House and take control of both houses. Again, the only thing different this time is that it is her black husband who is claiming to be the focal point of the way to effect change. For Michele Obama, if it ain’t black, it doesn’t count.

She looked like she meant it

She looked like she meant it. Indeed, she looked like she had said words that that effect many times before. It reminded me of the “Barney Fag” incident.

In 1995, Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey publicly referred to openly-gay Congressman Barney Frank as “Barney Fag.” Armey apologized and said it was “a slip of the tongue.” It appeared more likely that he had said it in private so many times in the past that it slipped out once in public. I think that’s what happened to Michele Obama. She said words to that effect so many times to all-black groups of various sizes that it slipped out when she forgot that such sentiments are not acceptable to Americans in general. The Newsweek story quotes a Chicago Law professor as saying, “There is no difference between the public Michelle and the private Michelle.” That appears to be precisely the problem in this instance.

I don’t doubt that she’s sorry it came out. But the video looked very much like she meant exactly what she said.

I am speculating to a greater degree than I normally do here but that’s what happens when someone throws a grenade then gets bound and gagged and refuses to explain.

Pundit analysis of the statement

TV and radio pundits analyzing Michelle Obama’s proud statement have generally characterized it as a manifestation of the hate America or blame America first mind-set of the left. While that’s valid criticism of the left in general, it’s not logical in this case. If she were just leftist, she would have not forgotten about the various left-leaning changes in America like the Clinton Administration and the recent Democrat takeover of the Congress. Her dismissal of ALL change in America in the last 43 years, other than her husband’s ascension in the delegate count, indicates that the basis of the statement was racist, not leftist. I suspect the pundits have not said that because they are afraid to criticize a black about racist behavior—the same double standard that approves affirmative action.

Pundits are also mindful of the fate of their peers who dared venture into the race realm. Rush Limbaugh was being tested as a TV football announcer when he commented that he thought white sports writers were accentuating the positive and de-emphasizing the negative with regard to Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb because McNabb was black. In other words, Limbaugh was accusing some white sports writers of running a sort of affirmative action program for black quarterbacks. I do not read sportswriters so I would not know if that was accurate. But the larger point was that an accusation of affirmative action by white writers was twisted utterly without basis into a slur against a black man and Limbaugh was instantly fired.

The left has dismissed the criticism of Michelle Obama’s statement as the right making a mountain out of a mole hill. That is a standard intellectually-dishonest debate tactic. The organization MoveOn.org got its name from the left’s demand that the Congress move on to other things during the Clinton Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky-Paula Jones-Junanita Broderick-Kathleen Willy scandal. If the left wants to weigh in on the Michelle Obama “proud” statement, they need to point to facts or logic that support their position. If it is not important, they should just ignore it. If Obama wins the presidency, we will find out whether Michelle’s “proud” statement ultimately was indicative of anything significant regarding her view of the country she would be First Lady of.

She’s not running for president

Many will say she’s not the candidate. True, but First Lady is a significant position, albeit unofficial. We have had all sorts of First Ladies in the past, but I cannot think of any who had never been really proud of their country in their adult life until their husband led in the presidential polls. Clearly, if you wrote up a job description of the First Lady job, such sentiments would be disqualifying.

Also, Michelle Obama is not just another of the 299,999,999 people who are not running for president. She is the candidate’s wife. The current cover of Newsweek quotes the candidate as saying she is his “rock.”

If she has indeed expressed “first time I’ve ever been really proud of my country” sentiments multiple times before, it seems quite likely that Barack was there to hear it.

The most important decision the candidate ever made was whom to marry. There is no evidence he did not know what she thought about various things, especially big things like her country. There is no evidence that she hides her feelings from anyone.

In order for the “she’s not running for president” argument to prevail, he needs to distance himself from the comments. Otherwise, Americans are entitled to wonder the extent to which Barack shares Michelle perspective and feelings about America. As of 2/23/08, he made no effort to distance himself from the comments.

Michelle Obama’s Princeton college thesis

The following are quotes from or about Michelle Obama’s college senior year thesis “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community” followed by my analysis in red:

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, I will always be black first and a student second.

further integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.

In defining the concept of identification or the ability to identify with the black community, I based my definition on the premise that there is a distinctive black culture very different from white culture.

Predominately white universities like Princeton are socially and academically designed to cater to the needs of the white students comprising the bulk of their enrollments.

Princeton (at the time) had only five black tenured professors on its faculty, and its "Afro-American studies" program "is one of the smallest and most understaffed departments in the university.

only one major university-recognized group on campus was "designed specifically for the intellectual and social interests of blacks and other third world students.

Princeton was "infamous for being racially the most conservative of the Ivy League universities.

She quotes the work of sociologists James Conyers and Walter Wallace, who discussed integration of black official(s) into various aspects of politics" and notes "problems which face these black officials who must persuade the white community that they are above issues of race and that they are representing all people and not just black people," as opposed to creating "two separate social structures."

I hoped that these findings [a survey she sent to black Princeton alumni] would help me conclude that despite the high degree of identification with whites as a result of the educational and occupational path that black Princeton alumni follow, the alumni would still maintain a certain level of identification with the black community. However, these findings do not support this possibility.

As discussed earlier, most respondents were attending Princeton during the 70's, at a time when the Black Power Movement was still influencing the attitudes of many Blacks.

It is possible that Black individuals either chose to or felt pressure to come together with other Blacks on campus because of the belief that Blacks must join in solidarity to combat a White oppressor. As the few blacks in a white environment it is understandable that respondents might have felt a need to look out for one another.

One can contrast the mood of the campus years ago and the level of attachment to Blacks to that of the present mood of the campus [in 1985] which is more pro-integrationist.

Another possible hypothesis created from this study's findings explaining why respondents became attached to Blacks at Princeton is that the mood of Black students at Princeton during the time that most of the respondents were attending Princeton was more separationist. As discussed earlier, most respondents were attending Princeton during the 70's, at a time when the Black Power Movement was still influencing the attitudes of many Blacks.

It is possible that Black individuals either chose to or felt pressure to come together with other Blacks on campus because of the belief that Blacks must join in solidarity to combat a White oppressor. As the few blacks in a white environment it is understandable that respondents might have felt a need to look out for one another.

One can contrast the mood of the campus years ago and the level of attachment to Blacks to that of the present mood of the campus, which is more pro-integrationist, and the level of attachment to Blacks. Presently, with the Black Power Movement behind us and with the implementation of CURL (College Undergraduate Residential Life), the mood of the campus has been shifted in such a way that Black students are discouraged from forming separate groups because of a fear that they are segregating themselves from mainstream campus life by doing so. Thus, if a survey were to be made today of the level of Black involvement in minority organizations and their involvement in campus organizations, there would be a larger percentage of Blacks involved in mainstream life in comparison to the years when these respondents were at Princeton. But, on the other hand, the percentage of involvement in Third World organizations would be much lower now than then. It appears, that the present mood of the campus is one that encourages integration and assimilation of Blacks, whereas the mood of the campus and even society in general several years ago encouraged the separation of Blacks. Thus, the mood of the time may have contributed its influence to more respondents becoming attached to Blacks.

I appreciate informed, well-thought-out constructive criticism and suggestions.

John T. Reed