And people thought Hillary was a dragon lady

I saw late last night on CSPAN the entire Michelle Obama speech of which I had seen just a 60 second clip earlier in the evening on YouTube. In that brief clip which I watched on my computer, without great video and sound, I didn’t pick up what was all too plain on tv—Michelle O’s anger, her unceasing anger at America, her unchanging emotional negativity, even where she said that for the first time in her adult life she feels “really proud” of America, because people are coming together. Even in her “pride,” she still projected bitterness and a sense of grievance.

Michelle evinces a typical characteristic of many black women in America: fixed intense anger as the organizing force of her personality.

Her entire speech, which went on for some time, consisted of an unmodulated, victimological rant. The victimology began with her account of her husband’s presidential campaign. As she told it, “they”—the mysterious, sinister “they”—kept moving the bar on her husband’s candidacy. First they said he could never raise enough money to be a viable candidate. Well he did. Then they said he could never put together a sufficient organization to be a viable candidate. Well he did. Then they said he could never win Iowa. Well he did win Iowa, by a big margin. But then they said that winning Iowa didn’t really count, because Iowa is just a caucus state and—



In the world of reality, after Obama won Iowa there was an explosion of Obamania in this country, with Obama very strongly favored to win New Hampshire and drive Hillary Clinton out of the race. Michelle is turning the five-day period after Iowa on its head, saying that people were putting down her husband’s chances, when in fact he was being treated as the front runner and the inevitable nominee, until Hillary’s win in New Hampshire, expected by no one, saved her campaign.

For Michelle Obama to say that “they” were putting down her husband’s chances after Iowa proves beyond a doubt that she lives in a victimological fantasy world. Wherever she looks, she sees sinister forces “raising the bar,” making it impossible for her husband to succeed. Even when the world is deifying her husband, as it was after Iowa, she thinks the world is putting her husband down.

“Moving the bar” was the theme of her whole speech. Just as the bar kept being moved on her husband’s campaign, it keeps being moved on the entire American people, who are always reaching for a bar that is always being pulled out of their reach. Americans’ existence is one long victimhood.

There is not a single element of charm, niceness, fineness, or generosity of spirit that is discernible in Michelle Obama, only narcissism, self-pity, and endless, roiling anger. She one of the most unpleasant personalities I have ever seen, and easily the most unpleasant I have seen in national politics.

- end of initial entry -

Sage McLaughlin writes:

Re Michelle Obama’s “raising the bar” theme, well, all I can say to her is “join the club.” White America has had the bar moved on it for decades. For all the talk about an Obama presidency somehow elevating us all and cleansing white Americans of the stain of Original Racism, my guess is that we’re going to be told—once again—that in fact, this was only the beginning, and that much more needs to be done. Much more, it seems, always needs to be done. Get ready for some serious bar-raising in the event that man ever wins the White House.

And for her to make the frank admission that she has never in her adult life been proud of America before now—that is a most revealing comment. In a saner America, it would be finally damning of her and everything she represents. That she could make such a remark to applause says as much about the degraded state of American patriotism as anything.

Just a reprehensible performance all around, and it inspires in me real contempt for my own countrymen. This is the campaign that “elevates us all”? For shame.

LA replies:

That is a great insight by Mr. McLaughlin about what “raising the bar” really means, and who is raising the bar on whom.

(By the way, by the standards of certain critics of VFR, my praise of Mr. McLaughlin’s comment makes me a sychophant, perhaps even a vile sycophant.)

LA writes:

John Podhoretz at the Commentary blog takes Michelle Obama to task for her “proud of America for the first time” comment. He gives lots of things for which he says she ought to have been proud of America during her adult lifetime. All of them are liberal things. Podhoretz, like Mrs. Obama, can only conceive of America being good to the extent that it is liberal.

[UPDATE: This comment is somewhat wrong. See the entry, “Correcting a point on John Podhoretz.”]

Jeremy G. writes:

It seems so obvious that a McCain run against Obama would be a disaster for the country and an intensely alienating experience for large segments of the American population. I can’t decide who I would rather lose the election! With McCain’s candidacy assured, I don’t fully understand why conservatives are not actively working to influence the outcome of the Democratic primary. Is it because conservatives can’t decide whether Hillary or Obama is worse? Think it about it this way, if Hillary defeats Obama, blacks will direct their anger against white liberals. This will be an unusual position for white liberals. For many of them, it will be the first time in their lives where they will have to defend themselves against an open, aggressive, and explicitly racial black hostility. If McCain defeats Obama, blacks will direct a dramatically increased hostility against America and they will be joined by their joyous white liberal allies.

LA replies:

Excellent observations from Jeremy. (Whoops, there I go with that sycophancy again.) For the record, I remind readers that my views on this have switched from a year ago, when my earlier impressions of Obama (of his persona, not his policies) were ok and Hillary was still the dragon lady we’ve known since 1992. I was awakened to the nature of the Obama phenomenon in the five days between the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary, when Obamania really took off and we saw the spectacle of a country eager to bow at the feet of the black (or bi-racial, or trans-racial or non-racial, or however you want to describe him) god, and when I personally got my first full draught of Mrs.Obama’s character and world view, and saw what that said about Obama himself and what an Obama presidency would be like. At the same time, I saw that Hillary had amazingly changed and was less the dragon lady than she had been. I don’t want to be living under the Clintons again; it would be a disaster in many ways. But living under the Obamas would be far more damaging to America. That’s the way I see it.

Tim W. writes:

Having sat through Orwellian diversity training, I can vouch for Sage McLaughin’s observation that whites will be the ones having the bar raised on them. After being lectured about “white privilege” we were shown a video of a group session involving people of various races, genders, and “orientations.” The sins of “sexism” and “homophobia” were noted, but even they took a backseat to the focus on “racism.” In the video, the racial minorities browbeat the whites over and over, harping on slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, Manifest Destiny, immigration law enforcement, and a litany of other sins.

No amount of contrition on the part of the whites in the video was enough. Sometimes, one of the “people of color” would praise the hapless whites for trying to rise above their racist nature, but would sternly tell them there was much, much more they needed to do. Most of the time they accused them of not even trying, even though they were falling all over themselves to apologize for alleged white sins going back to the 1492.

An Obama presidency will be a national diversity training seminar. Barack will be the good cop who tells us we’ve made some progress but have a long way to go. Michelle will be the bad cop who tells us we’re still a bunch of racists while browbeating us every chance she gets.

Rachael S. writes:

Sage McLaughlin writes:

“For all the talk about an Obama presidency somehow elevating us all and cleansing white Americans of the stain of Original Racism, my guess is that we’re going to be told—once again—that in fact, this was only the beginning, and that much more needs to be done.”

I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment of what the Obama phenomenon represents for white America (especially for those who are happily throwing themselves upon the pyre of their own liberal guilt). The first time I heard Michelle Obama’s remark was on the Mark Levin show. There was a glitch in the audio (the same audio that VFR linked to in the Breitbart video) that made it easier to not hear the “really” in her quote, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am—really—proud of my country.” It sounded like she had just said “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am proud of my country.” The more I thought about this imagined quote, the more I saw red. Her actual quote was less bad, but amounts to the same thing in the end. Every “step forward” in the Civil Rights Era would have made her proud if she had been living through it, but then when she started not seeing this progress all the other progress would be negated. We are only as good to them as the most recent thing we did for them, or gave to them. Sinister? How about alarming? Eventually there will be nothing left to give the aggrieved minority groups except ourselves.

Ken H. writes:

It’s fascinating to see how the media deal with Ms. Obama. Her Wikipedia biography says the following. There is little reason to doubt it as the Wiki usually gets the facts right in the left wing hagiographies.

“graduated from Whitney Young High School in 1981 and went on to major in sociology and minor in African American studies at Princeton University, where she graduated cum laude with an Artium Baccalaureus in 1985. She obtained her Juris Doctor degree from Harvard Law School in 1988.”

Now here’s the question. How does a woman with merely a cum laude GPA get into Harvard Law? I have googled to see if her LSAT scores are on-line, but my suspicion is that those scores are in the same memory hole where they recently found Hillary Rodham’s senior thesis. For Harvard Law, one would typically need at least a magna degree (a summa would be much better), plus a very high LSAT score. (There are detailed web sites that will give you the GPA/LSAT breakdown of entrants at all the law schools.) The LSAT, by the way. is little more than an IQ test which is why her scores would be really interesting to know.

An affirmative action baby who is less than appreciative of the opportunities provided by our society? Certainly that never happens!

The Princeton Sociology department provides this interesting, confirming biography:

“At Princeton, she discovered sociology during her freshman year, excelling in the department’s courses from the outset. For her senior thesis, she completed a questionnaire survey of Black alumni of Princeton University and life-cycle changes in their orientations toward the black community and toward the white community. Her course work and independent work earned her honors in the major and she went on to Harvard Law School. Later, she returned to Chicago and had a successful career practicing law at the corporate firm of Sidley and Austin.”

Looking a little more into the nature of “honors” at Princeton, I see that they grant them on a sliding scale based on both grades and theses. Apparently one could have a “4.0 point” (actually 12 point at Princeton) and not be a summa, provided all the other kids made A+. So much for standards and the meaning of honors. Certainly others can give you more direct knowledge of Ivy League academic polices than I can, but I cannot wait to see how and when the topic of affirmative action comes up in the campaign. The presence of a classic “angry black woman” certainly increases the entertainment value we can expect in the coming months. Perhaps we can look forward to a Michelle Obama vs. Condoleeza Rice smackdown, uh, debate.

Gintas writes:

Tim W. said,

“An Obama presidency will be a national diversity training seminar.”

For most of us that is a chilling image. Most of us are just trying to keep our heads low and keep out of trouble at work. We go to the diversity training, and we know all the right answers, and we give them what they want. We participate in the lies, carefully crossing our fingers behind our backs.

We have been well-trained to submit for such a time as this.

Jeremy G. writes:

Thanks. I wanted to add that a Hillary win against Obama in the primaries and then against McCain in the general elections would be a double win for the conservatives that McCain defeated and openly despises. And Hillary is the most conservative and probably the most competant candidate among the three. As Ann Coulter recently wrote, Hillary is our girl.

LA replies:

I saw the event where George Bush the elder endorsed McCain. Even eight years ago, McCain was not in good shape. But now he really looks old, and his voice sounds like the voice of an old man. And mentally there’s very little there. He uses the words, “proud,” “honor” and “honored” about once every 10 seconds. Pride and honor comprise his entire mental furniture. He’s Bob (“This is America”) Dole ‘96, with the addition of an ego and a resentment against conservatives. This man does not look like a winner. Hillary must beat Obama. She must use all those Super Delegates and be absolutely ruthless.

Jay F. writes:

The combination of Michelle Obama’s “raising the bar” theme and the intense anger in her speaking style is racial code language. She is appealing to an almost universal perception among blacks that they have to work harder, be smarter and behave better than members of other minority groups in order receive the same rewards.

This code language targets two audiences. In Texas, Mrs. Obama’s words are a clear signal to black Democratic primary voters, who resent the courting of Hispanic voters by the sinister white “they.” Blacks can either vote for someone who shares their struggle or once again find the rules of the game changed to keep them out of power. Obama’s fight is their fight; his triumph would be theirs, too.

On the national level, she is warning desperate Hillary supporters and the so-called “Super-delegates” how black voters will perceive any result short of an Obama nomination. The implication is that if the rules are changed or non-elected delegates choose any other candidate than Obama then the Democratic party is just as rotten and racist as any other American institution.

LA replies:

As Richard Lowry made clear in a recent column, the ONLY way she can stop him is through the Super Delegates. So, as Jeremy points out, if she beats him that way, and then beats McCain, she will be a Democratic president with blacks angry at her. Add a continuing reasonably strong Republican presence in both Houses of Congress to stop renewed open borders bills, nationalized health insurance, and other leftist horrors, and it would be overall the best possible outcome.

LA writes:

Here is the discussion about Michelle Obama’s “first time I felt proud of America” remark. There are signs that the L-dotters are starting to wake up from their hate-Hillary obsession and realizing who the real threat is.

Here are a few samples:

Reply 12—Posted by: dches, 2/19/2008 7:15:44 AM

This woman is all about “Black Power” and “Black Attitude”. Look at her face, her eyes. She hates whites. Trust me, she does. And her phony cigarette smoking husband does as well. Votes are the only reason they pretend to “like” whites. I went to Philly for a convention and had never dealt with this until I got to that city. I was courteous and polite to everybody I met there, but sometimes when you were dealing with blacks in a store or restaurant you could see them looking at you with contempt and hatred. They could not and would not look you in the eye. I did not imagine this. I am not imagining it either with Michelle Obama. I saw some of this arrogance when they were in NH. They have to put on their “game face” for the most part in front of a crowd, but they get pretty arrogant once you get them off the stage. There were some problems here with them doing the “Do you know who I am?” routine. This woman is very bad news for America and hopefully we will never find out how bad.

Reply 18—Posted by: Intentional, 2/19/2008 7:39:42 AM

The day after the convention America is going to wake up and realize what the Dhimwits have nominated. Barry will be lucky if he carries Illinois.

But, Republicans must keep this a secret until after he’s nominated. So be vewwwy quiet, we’we hunting wabbits!

Reply 19—Posted by: Maybeth, 2/19/2008 7:43:37 AM

Of course Michelle pays no attention to the beautiful and generous side of America and its citizens. She is a racist, and racists are filled with hate for all things white.

Reply 20—Posted by: FL_Absentee_Voter, 2/19/2008 7:49:15 AM

I’ll admit to being one of those who want piaps and everyone associated with her gone from the scene as early as possible. That is, until I heard this racist screed on Hugh Hewitt last week. #11 nails it. I’m hearing Angela Davis all over again—and it’s frightening.

Mark Jaws writes:

Am I the only one here who believes that having an angry black racist in the White House is a good thing for the re-awakening of white race consciousness? To me Michelle Obama is the perfect poster child of black ingratitude and hostility, and she clearly demonstrates the futility of trying to placate the implacable. And as far as the bar raising for whites goes, I have stood up for over 30 years to white bashing in the work place and nothing has ever happened to me. I lost no job and received no threats or other adverse action. It is all in your self-persecuting Eloi minds.

LA replies:

Mark Jaws has just shown us the silver lining in this situation. If Obama does get elected, we can remember Mark’s point that Obama’s presidency will help raise majority consciousness against the black agenda. VFR has got every contingency covered.

Mark A. writes:

Amen to that comment by Mark Jaws!! I live in a “minority-majority” city. It is 55 percent black. As a white man, I was never really aware of my “whiteness” until I lived here. There is NO self-respecting white male in this city who would privately (and that includes the privacy of a voting booth) disagree with anything written about race on VFR. White racial awareness is alive and well believe you me. All the way from doctors down to the high-school drop out who delivers your pizzas. The politically correct whites are the thumb-sucking suburbanites passively hoping that all will be well and we’ll “just get along.” Barely any white males in my city believe that.

Having an Obama presidency is what we need. We need a Secretary of State Al Sharpton. We need a Secretary of Defense Jesse Jackson. We need a proposed two-tier tax system under which the marginal rates of white males are increased by 10 percent across the board in order to pay for our past “sins.”

Some people need to be hit with a fly-swatter; others need to be hit with a two-by-four. America needs to be hit with a two-by-four. Go Obama.

LA replies:

Well, this is a really interesting discussion. I can’t dismiss Mark Jaws’s and Mark A.’s argument out of hand, they might be right. In fact, “Spengler” has a column this week (unfortunately filled with historical errors about the American Civil War) arguing that what is needed is to spark a conflict with Islam, and he thinks Geert Wilders with his forthcoming movie may do that.

James N. writes:

I voted for Obama in the New Hampshire primary to stop Hillary. I still think that was correct. Here’s why:

Hillary is not just one person. She is surrounded by a cadre of deeply feminist women, all, like her, bereft of any actual achievements, but filled with anger and bitterness against men.

If she takes office, she brings with her thousands of committed Stalinists—judges, regulators, and Executive Branch lawyers. They have been planning, formally and informally, to strangle freedom in America for thirty years.

Her whole shadow Administration is a horror. But man, are they competent, schooled in the ways of Washington power, rested, and ready. It’s a nightmare from which America may never awaken.

Obama, on the other hand, is an empty suit mouthing leftist platitudes. I agree about Michelle. But the Obama bench is not nearly as deep as Hillary’s. His election will call forth countervailing powers, and his inexperience and lack of intellectual depth will likely prevent any serious damage. I am making the assumption that, by November, Obamamania will be a thing of the past, in fact, it’s fading already.

I only hope he has the staying power to see off the Clinton crime family before all the magic is gone.

Shrewsbury writes:

Hell’s bells, being shocked by Michelle Obama puts one in the same category as astonished right-liberals, such as Dennis Prager, astonished that a Mahometan elected to the U.S. Congress should take his oath upon a Koran. Well, gosh, that’s what happens when you allow Muslims into Congress. Like, duh? And Michelle Obama is what happens when you desperately attempt to maintain the fiction of a single multiracial society. Black people will always hate and mistrust and resent white people because they is white. The only question is, why are we so frantically trying to win their approval and “integrate” with them? Let them go their own way. Anything else results in hatred, rape, murder, and endless turmoil and misery. Not to mention great heaping truckloads of b.s., like the cooked-up finger-wagging outrage of this or that Putzhoretz when some African-American in our oh-so-integrated society actually speaks his mind.

N.B.: There was no vile sychopancy in this message.

LA replies:

I understand Shrewsbury to have said that I was naive (like a liberal being surprised at Muslim extremism) to be in the slightest degree surprised that Michelle is a race woman.

Shrewsbury continues:

Anyway, even in the best of all possible worlds, why should African-Americans feel any pride in America anyhow? America represents European culture and traditions. America was made by white people. Even in the best of all possible worlds, in which everybody loved one another, blacks would still have no part in it. So Shrewsbury finds Mrs. Obama’s statement perfectly understandable, even obvious (though full of ominous implications). What other America could she possibly be proud of than an America that was being shaped by black people? I mean, like, duh.

Charles G. writes:

I agree with Mark Jaws. Put them in the White House and watch the Good Ship Liberalism hit the shoals. And of course all the government sponges would rally to their defense, making the disconnect between taxpayers and government even more pronounced. By all means let’s help elect Obama. I plan on casting my suicide vote for him.

Until white voters “feel it,” they’ll remain passive. Barack and Michelle are just the couple to get the job done.

LA replies:

Well, haven’t I always said that only suffering and disasters brought on by liberalism can wake the West up from liberalism? From that point of view, the question becomes, which Democrat will make things worse?

Robert B. writes:

You know, I have to agree, on the one hand, with Mark Jaws. For an historical perspective on this, see what went on in the post Civil War / Reconstruction era South. It was not pretty, and the pain, humiliation and outright immoral illegality of what the black politicians did to the whites is what led to Forrest’s founding of the original KKK.

On the other hand, it may also mean that “The Revolution,” begun in the 1950s, has finally achieved its pinnacle—somewhat akin to what the placing of a Communist in charge of Russia meant to the Czars and the old nobility—that a member of the race that once served the Founding Fathers, has now replaced their heirs and thus the Revolution is complete.

Mark A. writes:

The issue for us is not which Democrat makes things worse. Who are we kidding? Obama, Clinton, and McCain are all just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titantic; deep down, everyone reading VFR knows it. The point is which candidate will help awaken the non-racial Right while we still have 66 percent of the country. Answer: Obama. [LA replies: That’s what I meant: Following the logic of you and Mark Jaws, I was saying, which one is worse, the better to cause people to wake up.]

Look at the inverse from the Black perspective: it doesn’t matter which candidate makes their life better—they will still choose a Black leader. South Africa was far wealthier under apartheid. Rhodesia was wealthier, safer, and a better place for Blacks under Ian Smith. This means nothing to them. People instinctively do not like being ruled by the Other. The Albanians don’t liked being ruled by Serbs; the French didn’t like German rule, and the Negro hates being ruled by Whitey. Those instincts are still there. They are still embedded into the White man. Whites are going to have a visceral reaction to being bossed around by an Affirmative Action Presidency. Affirmative Action comes up all the time during political discussions I have with other Whites. There is seething anger out there. Maybe not in the pampered suburbs, but on the mean streets of urban America, Whites are mad.

With respect to Michelle Obama, I leave you with a quote from H.L. Mencken:

“Therefore, the effort to educate him [the Negro] has awakened in his mind amibitions and aspirations which, in the very nature of things, must go unrealized, and so, while gaining nothing whatever materially, he has lost all his old contentment, peace of mind and happiness. Indeed, it is a commonplace of observation in the United States that the educated and refined negro is invariably a hopeless, melancholy, embittered and despairing man.”—H.L. Mencken circa 1908.

Mark Jaws writes:

Not only is an Obama Administration more likely to rouse long dormant and suppressed traditionalist consciousness, its pro-Third World policies will undoubtedly take on a more Arab and Moslem tilt and thereby alienate some liberal and moderate Jewish supporters of Israel. As early as 1968 I can remember my very politically astute Jewish mother warning her more liberal friends that once the members of the civil rights community assumed a greater degree of control in the Democratic Party, they would turn on Israel in a New York minute. Let us also not forget that two of the three men in Barak’s life were Moslem, and that his spiritual advisor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, is an avid Farrakhanite.

However, as much as it delights the imagination of contemplating the fallout of a failed Obama Administration, should we trust the security and safety of our nation to this empty suit who is likely to appoint a Pee Wee Herman to Secretary of Defense?

LA replies:

I see that even our uber toughminded M. Jaws is having at least a momentary qualm about “the worse, the better”!

Mark K. writes:

Given Michelle Obama’s college days and attitudes and Barack’s empty rhetoric, isn’t this couple’s ascent to the presidency the ultimate step in America’s affirmative action program? This is what one gets once the mechanisms of affirmative action go into motion—all the way to the leadership of the society that implements it. The Obamas are merely requesting that the nation continue “affirming” them.

LA replies:

That’s a cool insight.

Mark Jaws writes:

I happened to watch all of Obama’s speech last night and I am convinced he is a really hard core leftist. Obama’s Moslem and semi-communist background and the fact that his wife Michelle minored in Black Studies (we know how radicalized those departments in Ivy League schools) have caused this uber tough guy hard liner to rethink his visceral opposition to McCain (the devil we know). In any case, no matter what lemons may fall from the skies of political misfortune, Mark Jaws will make lemonade.

LA replies:

“… no matter what lemons may fall from the skies of political misfortune…”

Reminds me of the title of one of the Travis McGee novels, The Dreadful Lemon Sky.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 19, 2008 02:29 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):