Back to Clive Crook's blog homepage
Michelle Obama’s speech
August 26, 2008
Michelle Obama did her part and closed a somewhat purposeless first day of the Democratic convention on a positive note. She came over as strong and assured, yet approachable and not at all threatening or angry–those last two were the notes, of course, that the campaign was most anxious to avoid. Her story was touching, and their marriage reflects well on her husband. Yes, one thought, she is a remarkable woman and he did well. Also, she dealt deftly with a couple of awkward issues: of course she loves America; and words can barely do justice to her regard for Hillary Clinton. It was good stuff, well delivered.
My spirits sagged, and even then only a little, at just two points. It’s starting to annoy me that Barack keeps telling us how he turned down Wall Street for a career in “public service”. By this he means politics. Just how great a sacrifice is that? The kind of ambition that gets you into the Senate and maybe the White House is not exactly renouncing the world and all its temptations, is it? And now here we have Michelle doing the same thing. She gave up lawyering, she says, and chose “public service”–the kind that leads in due course to a 300k-plus salary. I’ve no problem with it. I just don’t want to keep being asked to admire the sacrifice.
The other dispiriting thing was the stuff with the girls at the end. They are cute, and the traditions of American politics must be observed, no doubt, but it makes me uncomfortable to see children used as political props. One ought to feel much the same way, I suppose, about spouses. At a couple of points in this campaign, when Michelle has come in for criticism, Barack said, “leave her out of this.” At those times I remember thinking, he’s right: the country is not electing her. Maybe, in fact, it is: in any event, you can’t have it both ways.
A little earlier, the ailing Ted Kennedy greatly moved the audience with a most dignified address–a speech that was all about the country and Obama, and not at all about him. And yet, as I say, the first day seemed somewhat drifting and unfocused. With three days still to go, it is too soon to complain of complacency. But the Democratic campaign is in trouble. So far, you would not know it from the mood in Denver.
Michelle Obama has to think about the possible ways to introduce and execute the new state strategies in the fields of economics, politics, foreign affairs. The Bush administration pre emption strategies led the nation to the crisis, failed to deliver any positive result and created the situation, when the Americans fight with the rest of the World. Bush administration mistakenly decided that it is necessary to destroy everything, which is outside the US border with the purpose to pretend be a global Leader. However, this is a very wrong assumption. The real global Leader has to unite the other nations in the World around the positive global development strategies, for example the P.R. China government made a lot of progress in this direction in recent years.
Posted by: Viktor O. Ledenyov | August 26th, 2008 at 9:48 am | Report this commentClive Crook is right. The Democratic campaign is in big trouble, precisely because of the complacent mood in Denver and seeming lack of urgency in attacking McBush. I posted more about this under “The Biden Factor”, just in case anyone is interested.
Posted by: algasema | August 26th, 2008 at 12:49 pm | Report this commentViktor O. Ledenyov writes: “The real global leader has to unite the other nations in the world around the [sic] positive global development strategies . The P.R. China government made a lot of progress in this direction in recent years.”
Yes, Mr. Ledenyov, China has made a great deal of progress in this direction, especially in Tibet, Burma, Sudan and Zimbabwe. And don’t overlook Russia’s role in global development either, especially in Georgia.
Not that the US has done badly in terms of “global development” in Georgia, as the Caspian pipeline is “developing” a lot of profits for western big global oil companies.
However, I don’t understand what Mr. Ledenyov’s comments have to do with Michelle Obama. She is not running for president.
Posted by: algasema | August 26th, 2008 at 2:26 pm | Report this commentalgasema’s excellent comments in “The Biden factor” offer the attack strategy I agree should be followed. Obama, however, should not allow McCain to pose as a protector, with his rantings about Russia in the wake of the disaster in Georgia, when McCain (and Randy Scheunemann) obviously helped to cause that catastrophe.
Include me among those who cringe when the spouses of the candidates receive so much attention.
Posted by: James Canning | August 26th, 2008 at 6:29 pm | Report this commentMichelle Obama is not running for the US President, but as a first lady she will have an enormous influence on the Barack Obama, who is a candidate for the US President from Democratic party. This is a short clarification on the above comment by Algasema.
Posted by: Viktor O. Ledenyov | August 27th, 2008 at 9:14 am | Report this commentMichelle Obama seems to be the next Hillary Clinton. Michelle claims that she’ll “help with policy”. She is NOT being elected, so keep her out of policy meetings. The US neither needs or wants that type of “strong woman” in the white house - as first lady or as VP or as president.
Posted by: njpro | August 27th, 2008 at 2:51 pm | Report this commentMichelle Obama’s speech was talently presented but the content is phoney. It is manipulative.
Americans are so naive, no wonder they were put down by the NeoCons. It is so easy to manipulate them and now it is the NeoLibs turn, supposedly.
Posted by: RCS | August 27th, 2008 at 8:45 pm | Report this commentI guess a single man would never get to become President of the US of A! www.winnowed.blogspot.con
Posted by: Vinod Joseph | August 28th, 2008 at 3:36 am | Report this commentMichelle could easily be making well above her $300,000 salary, so yes she is sacrificing. I know of young white women lawyers (younger than Michelle)who are above that bracket,so she is giving up something, to work in a job that allows her time with her children and family. As far as Barrack is concerned the commitment to public service does not automatically mean a shot at the White House, or even the State House.
Posted by: Tom | August 29th, 2008 at 5:01 pm | Report this comment