Democratic Convention 2008

Ma-Ma-Ma-Belle

|

Not much of a night for the Democrats, as good as Michelle Obama's speech was. And it was good—heart-hugging biography bolstered by what I've always found to be an engaging speech style. (I particularly dig her breathless "Ehh!" on "Ehhverything!") The Democrats are relishing their discovery of a family that grew up poor. Try and make Kerry and Gore relatable like this.

That said, the Democrats' biographies always end in the most mundane places. Michelle's father struggled to raise her, but she grew up and… hey, here she is! Obama lost his father, but he took some menial jobs and… oh, look, there he is on that screen! The narrative for both Obamas treats profits and business as malicious careers, swampy pathes not taken, and lifelong political rent-seeking as the highest form of living.

But I'm being a party pooper. There are a lot of people tonight who used to dislike Michelle Obama.

NEXT: Breaking: Candidate's Wife, Political Party, Crazy About Him

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yeah, the digs at her are going to look petty and mean now.

  2. Their oldest daughter is as cute as it gets.

  3. But I’m being a party pooper. There are a lot of people tonight who used to dislike Michelle Obama.

    And that’s 100% what the speech was about. The idea that they were trying to accomplish much of anything else is either cynicism or stupidity.

  4. I found Michelle’s speech stale and mechanical. All the “right” moves and inflections for a college “A”, but no heart or personal flavor in her message, nor her presentation. Not exactly a ringing launch to the four-day “Obamathon”.

  5. The real Michelle is still there. Not easy to forget her earlier comments and anti- American black liberation church. We won’t be fooled. She’s still the angry black lady not worthy of being first lady to this great country. NOBAMAS for me.

  6. I’ve never understood why people get awed by speeches. Someone gives a speech, then the talking heads bloviate about how the speech achieved or did not achieve its intended result. Doesn’t that make people feel like they’ve been fooled or toyed with, when it is admitted that a speech is taylored/scripted/rehearsed to achieve a different perception of the speech giver?

  7. “Doesn’t that make people feel like they’ve been fooled or toyed with, when it is admitted that a speech is taylored/scripted/rehearsed to achieve a different perception of the speech giver?”

    That’s exactly what her speech was about – a hollywood style production deliberatly crafted to present an alternate image of her 180 degrees from the reality of who she actually is – a radical, militant, angry woman.

    Byron York pointed that out in a National Review article.

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWI2MDM1OGUxZDZjYWQyODhmYTIzZTE2NGRkYWQ3MzM=

  8. Good luck with that, Eileen. Maybe you can roll some Rush Limbaugh audio making those points over the footage of the girls grabbing the microphone and talking to daddy.

    Sure. That’ll work.

  9. Whoa, I’d better go over to National Review to see what they think about the black liberal.

    Lemme guess: sullen. Not grateful. Had everything handed to her.

  10. The narrative for both Obamas treats profits and business as malicious careers, swampy pathes not taken, and lifelong political rent-seeking as the highest form of living.

    That’s public service to you, Wiegel, get it right.

  11. Make that The narrative for both Obamas, and John McCain, treats profits and business as malicious careers, swampy pathes not taken, and lifelong political rent-seeking as the highest form of living.

  12. “Whoa, I’d better go over to National Review to see what they think about the black liberal.

    Lemme guess: sullen. Not grateful. Had everything handed to her.”

    And as usual, they are 100% correct.

    As Michelle Obama has repeatedly and definitively proven herself with her prior public apperanaces before her new “makeover”.

  13. Gilbert, you ignorant jackass, I purposely chose language common to slavery-era descriptions of uncooperative black women, and you seconded me.

    You go on the wall over the fireplace.

  14. I’ve never understood why people get awed by speeches. Someone gives a speech, then the talking heads bloviate about how the speech achieved or did not achieve its intended result. Doesn’t that make people feel like they’ve been fooled or toyed with, when it is admitted that a speech is taylored/scripted/rehearsed to achieve a different perception of the speech giver?

    Terry,

    I’ve always thought “is good at giving speeches” is a skill akin to “is good at sneaking up on people.” Sure, its a useful skill, but one that will more likely be used to take advantage of me than to help me.

  15. “Gilbert, you ignorant jackass, I purposely chose language common to slavery-era descriptions of uncooperative black women, and you seconded me.”

    I don’t care what you claim to have done.

    “Sullen, Not gratefull and had everything handed to her” is a perfectly accurate description of Michelle Obama.

    And you aren’t the least bit capable of proving the case is otherwise.

  16. Gilbert,
    As we all, middle class black people that go to good colleges didn’t work hard. In fact, if I were to write up a script of success in the US it would be “black and raised by a municipal worker in South Chicago”.

    “Sullen, Not grateful and had everything handed to [them]”. Isn’t that a better description of the current top two of the executive branch?

  17. There are a lot of people tonight who used to dislike Michelle Obama.

    Mitch Hedberg: “I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, also.”

  18. Ah yes, how silly of me.

    When a black person acheives success, the burden of proof falls on those who claim that she earned it, not on those who claim that she had everything handed to her.

    I’m going to mount you in an action pose, Gil, like you just jumped out of the water after striking the worm.

  19. bzzzzztchzzztttt – (Statement of opinion) + (Unsupported assertion) + “You are a liberal, and therefore incapable of being right” +(Statement of opinion) + “And you can’t prove otherwise” bzzzzzgcchhzzzzttt.

  20. Eileen, you are an angry woman or part of the KKK. You are just mad because Mrs. Obama got some thing you don’t have “an education”.

  21. “When a black person acheives success..”

    The subject isn’t a generic “black person” – the subject is Michelle Obama.

    She is a political animal just like her husband. Neither one of them “achieved” success.

    “I’m going to mount you in an action pose, Gil, like you just jumped out of the water after striking the worm.”

    Nope – it is physically impossible for you to do so.

  22. When a black person acheives success, the burden of proof falls on those who claim that she earned it, not on those who claim that she had everything handed to her.

    I guess the inequity of affirmative action has exposed one of Joe’s raw nerves. I have some sympathy for the progressives on this one; defending the indefensible is a VERY difficult task.

  23. …and you know that she benefitted from affirmative action because she’s black?

    Bigotry, wayne.

  24. Hmm, was my comment deleted because I had a REALISTIC take on why no matter what the Obamas say, many people will still take the “they are not like us” stance?

    I was just saying what MANY people really think, many of them around where I live. A lot of people are not to bright and/or bigots.

    That’s reality.

    It’s nice that reason thinks anyone can make a nice speech and instantly all voters are rational MENSANS or on the other hand emotional-types who will instantly change their long-held “beliefs.”

    Wow

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.