Spousal Spat: Cindy McCain responds to Michelle Obama “proud” comments (1 Viewer)

[Pure Energy]

I wonder. Republican talk radio has been too busy trying to tear McCain down until recently. It'll be interesting to see what happens when they finally train their guns on Obama. I also wonder if that'll actually help McCain or maybe even hurt him.

Nahhhh...That "tearing down stuff" was like training camp....toughens him up and gets him ready for the fray.

 

[Thorin]

I think her comment was taken out of context as usual when someone says something.

That was my first response too. Then I looked into it a bit, she said it, period. There was no missing message.

 

[JimEverett]

I wish she would clarify it, and do so honestly.

I mean it seems incredible that someone as old as her would never have been proud of the U.S.

 

[xpuma20x]

This was a considered, not a dumb comment. She reflects the thinking of her vaunted educational background, which regards America less as a continuing experiment in popular democracy and more a systematic capitalist exploitation of indigenous peoples and people of color. An article in USA Today three weeks ago asked for the most familiar Americans taught in our schools. Washington was the only founding father to make the top ten cut. Martin Luther King was #1, Rosa Parks #2, and Sojourner Truth was #3. For the Sojouner Truth-impaired among you, she was an abolitionist and a feminist. This is as good as it gets in the history of America as filtered through a Howard Zinn prism.

The SR.comers are outraged, but for those versed in the higher reaches of academe, knowing glances are exchanged. Remember her words the next time an "immigrant pre-citizen guest" mows your lawn, or a "indigenous womyn" sews your shirt in an offshore sweatshop. They built this country.

+1, I think the majority of people are taking this out of context...mainly because they're either just taking it for face value or not understanding what she really meant....or of course just to have a reason to hate a candidate that they already disliked anyways. As much as I'm against it, the whole McCain concept of "100 years of war" is the same thing.

 

[JimEverett]

+1, I think the majority of people are taking this out of context...mainly because they're either just taking it for face value or not understanding what she really meant....or of course just to have a reason to hate a candidate that they already disliked anyways. As much as I'm against it, the whole McCain concept of "100 years of war" is the same thing.

What was the context, or what did she really mean?

 

[SaintsFan11]

I disagree, its going to be part of a whole pattern that the Republicans exploit, among other things. She has never been proud of her country till now, he doesn't put his hand on his heart during the anthem, he thinks wearing a flag lapel is wrong, etc.
This election is going to be too easy for the GOP.

That worked against Kerry because he ran as the patriotic candidate who served his country. It doesn't work against Obama because he is running on change. He's got a built in rebuttal to those charges: "These are examples of the politics of personal destruction and the politics of old." What you posted is what the Republicans do every election. It's not going to work, people will associate that with Bush.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I heard on the radio this morning that yesterday Michelle clarified her statements saying she meant she had never been proud of what was happening in the electoral process before now.

I think she's probably back peddling because of the heat the comment is getting. She said it twice in two different appearances so there was ample time to ratify the statement to give the appropriate meaning between the first and second appearance.

 

[RebSaint]

This was a considered, not a dumb comment. She reflects the thinking of her vaunted educational background, which regards America less as a continuing experiment in popular democracy and more a systematic capitalist exploitation of indigenous peoples and people of color. An article in USA Today three weeks ago asked for the most familiar Americans taught in our schools. Washington was the only founding father to make the top ten cut. Martin Luther King was #1, Rosa Parks #2, and Sojourner Truth was #3. For the Sojouner Truth-impaired among you, she was an abolitionist and a feminist. This is as good as it gets in the history of America as filtered through a Howard Zinn prism.

The SR.comers are outraged, but for those versed in the higher reaches of academe, knowing glances are exchanged. Remember her words the next time an "immigrant pre-citizen guest" mows your lawn, or a "indigenous womyn" sews your shirt in an offshore sweatshop. They built this country.

Really? I mean, you got all this information from one comment? And your probably one of the few people (besides me) who understood the Howard Zinn reference.

And no, actually I didn't really think much about her comment vis a vis "the people's history."

I think this example is a good one for political pundits to take this phrase and speculate as to what she really, really meant--i.e. throwing anything up on the wall, even if it stinks to see if it sticks.

And for those of you who lost or don't have a SJ translator: The point is that her far-left academic background makes degrading the United States a usual exercise, one in which she doesn't have to think about--other far-left academics know intuitively what she means, hence the exchange of "knowing glances"

You really think this is the case? I personally think your reaching, but that's just me.

 

[TnSaint]

Remember her words the next time an "immigrant pre-citizen guest" mows your lawn, or a "indigenous womyn" sews your shirt in an offshore sweatshop. They built this country.

I disagree...

 

[DMaestro]

She very well could have meant that she's proud of her fellow countrymen for being energized beyond precedent in this current election cycle ("hope making a comeback"). Considering our typical low voter turnout and political apathy, it's not that much of a stretch.

The comment was more narcissistic than non-patriotic. Nothing to see here.

 

[cruize]

The whole thing reminds me too much of 24.

 

[SoonerJim]

Really? I mean, you got all this information from one comment? And your probably one of the few people (besides me) who understood the Howard Zinn reference.

And no, actually I didn't really think much about her comment vis a vis "the people's history."

I think this example is a good one for political pundits to take this phrase and speculate as to what she really, really meant--i.e. throwing anything up on the wall, even if it stinks to see if it sticks.

And for those of you who lost or don't have a SJ translator: The point is that her far-left academic background makes degrading the United States a usual exercise, one in which she doesn't have to think about--other far-left academics know intuitively what she means, hence the exchange of "knowing glances"

You really think this is the case? I personally think your reaching, but that's just me.

What's fashionable in history these days? You're in the business. After nailing down dates, times, and documents, one is left to answer the overarching question of motive. Is that where the research lies today?

The current Newsweek cover story on Michelle Obama has three separate references to her quote where she says she doesn't have the ability to emasculate her husband. Why? There's also a reference to her Princeton thesis titled, "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community". Apart from the illiteracy imparted by a title repeating a word (my science Ph.D. is from lowly LSU), the paper is impounded until November 5, 2008, a Wednesday.

My humble thesis is that she seamlessly incorporated her education into her world view, and the former informs the latter. Please enlighten me on what the Ole Miss academy teaches, and remember Ole Miss ain't an Ivy. The Obama struggle, armed with four aggregate Ivy League degrees, continues apace.

"You've got to read this book. It's the truth!"
-Matt Damon to Ben Affleck on the Zinn-penned "People's History of the United States", from "Good Will Hunting"

 

[RebSaint]

What's fashionable in history these days? You're in the business. After nailing down dates, times, and documents, one is left to answer the overarching question of motive. Is that where the research lies today?

The current Newsweek cover story on Michelle Obama has three separate references to her quote where she says she doesn't have the ability to emasculate her husband. Why? There's also a reference to her Princeton thesis titled, "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community". Apart from the illiteracy imparted by a title repeating a word (my science Ph.D. is from lowly LSU), the paper is impounded until November 5, 2008, a Wednesday.

My humble thesis is that she seamlessly incorporated her education into her world view, and the former informs the latter. Please enlighten me on what the Ole Miss academy teaches, and remember Ole Miss ain't an Ivy. The Obama struggle, armed with four aggregate Ivy League degrees, continues apace.

"You've got to read this book. It's the truth!"
-Matt Damon to Ben Affleck on the Zinn-penned "People's History of the United States", from "Good Will Hunting"

I think you know the answer to that question. The fashionable thing in history has been to look at history from the prism of historically-oppressed people: blacks, women, Indians, the poor, etc.

Your right about that, but is her degree in history? Did she get a history degree at an Ivy league school? I don't have a problem with your argument, I just want proof that she's this far-leftist individual with this narrow, Howard Zinn-view of history.

Is this such a bad thing considering the fact that history for hundreds of years has been focusing on dead white guys? I mean, your post reeked of righteous indignation that we even consider looking at history through Zinn's lens.

And you'd be surprised at how much Ole Miss would resemble any one of the Ivy league schools regarding graduate instruction. Look at any run-of-the mill graduate school and I'm sure you realize that the Ivy League's tentacles reach out beyond the confines of Ivy League institutions. Furthermore, to argue that the academy just focuses on the history of women, the poor, Indians, and African Americans is somewhat misleading. There are plenty of dissertations being cranked out still focusing on dead white guys and what they did, how they thought, and their perspective on things. But there are some really goofy stuff on cross-dressing Indians and enough post-modernism to make one's head hurt.

Really, SJ what's her academic background? I'd like to know a bit more where your coming from.

 

[SoonerJim]

I think you know the answer to that question. The fashionable thing in history has been to look at history from the prism of historically-oppressed people: blacks, women, Indians, the poor, etc.

Your right about that, but is her degree in history? Did she get a history degree at an Ivy league school? I don't have a problem with your argument, I just want proof that she's this far-leftist individual with this narrow, Howard Zinn-view of history.

Is this such a bad thing considering the fact that history for hundreds of years has been focusing on dead white guys? I mean, your post reeked of righteous indignation that we even consider looking at history through Zinn's lens.

And you'd be surprised at how much Ole Miss would resemble any one of the Ivy league schools regarding graduate instruction. Look at any run-of-the mill graduate school and I'm sure you realize that the Ivy League's tentacles reach out beyond the confines of Ivy League institutions. Furthermore, to argue that the academy just focuses on the history of women, the poor, Indians, and African Americans is somewhat misleading. There are plenty of dissertations being cranked out still focusing on dead white guys and what they did, how they thought, and their perspective on things. But there are some really goofy stuff on cross-dressing Indians and enough post-modernism to make one's head hurt.

Really, SJ what's her academic background? I'd like to know a bit more where your coming from.

From Wikipedia, she majored in Sociology and minored in African-American history; qualifications enough. She was admitted to Princeton as a "legacy", since her brother already had a basketball scholarship there.

I'm not reeking of "righteous indignation"; I'm merely attempting to provide a holistic context to her statement and ascertain, yes, her deeds, what she thought, and her perspective on things. I have a right to know this in the event I begin sending her husband over half of my earnings next spring. And that's just the federal share.

His ascent is less impressive for his color than it is for his and his wife's peculiar view of this country. It filters in in dribs and drabs, nearly drowned out by the waves of adulation foisted upon him. Whatever works. It is so far.

My wretched hobby of reading the American Prospect, Nation, and Progressive magazines on the left gives me sufficient exposure to academic thought in the humanities. Your post seems to corroborate my hypothesis. I had one course in Sociology at LSU in 1974 and got the Full Monty of Marxism from an Asst Prof who bemoaned the state of Nixonian America. My near exclusive inhabiting of the sciences is testament to my search for truth, which in science at least has reproducible rules. I'm not smart enough to determine how this country got the way it is, but the exploitative angle is legion among academics, and we all know it.

An article in the WSJ described the state of academics in the only "hard" science among the humaniites, economics. Thanks to the influence of "Freakonomics", refereed journal submissions now assess people's choice of car color, days of shopping, and other such inanities. I fear this will spread to my areas of expertise.

Regarding proof of Ms Obama's college record, Princeton has sealed everything until after the elections. This will raise collective hope and dash collective cynicism. It's the Chicago way.