Michelle Obama: My husband will always be the underdog no matter what

Posted by: ST on April 3, 2008 at 10:08 am

It’s hard to understand exactly what Michelle “this country is just downright mean” Obama is saying here:

With Obama now leading in the national polls, Michelle Obama said she has seen how the bar for her husband has been consistently raised this year, and how he has met each of the challenges.

“The irony is that’s what’s going on for regular folks in this country” she said. “The truth of the American experience today for many regular folks is that folks are trying to reach a bar that just keeps moving.”

But, Obama said she still believes her husband is the underdog in the race.

“We are gonna need Pennsylvania” she said. “Because in this ever-shifting, moving bar, Barack Obama will always be the underdog. No matter how much money he raises, no matter how many wins he pulls together, no matter how many delegates he accumulates; he is still the underdog. It’s the way it works.”

Carol Platt Liebau speculates:

What isn’t is clear is what she means when she insists that because of an “ever-shifting, moving bar,” her husband is doomed to perpetual underdog status because “it’s the way it works.”

Is she asserting the presence of a racial double standard — racial victimization talk that once again suggests that she has shared Jeremiah Wright’s views every bit as much as her husband, if not more? If not, to what does she attribute her husband’s position as eternal underdog no matter what?

I think there’s a good deal of merit to Carol’s argument. IMO, it boils down to straight up playing the victim card. Liberal Democrats like Michelle Obama know that one of the most surefire ways to win over people is to portray another group of people, or in this case, a person, as a ‘victim’ of our “downright mean” society. This stirs up feelings of both sympathy and anger, and spurs people on to want to ‘correct’ the allleged ‘injustice.’

Let’s keep in mind, though, that barring an unlikely collapse of his campaign, Obama is poised to stay ahead in the delegate count, and continues to out-fundraise all candidates, and it’s all happened, in part, with the eager help of our mainstream media, who have treated him like a messiah by giving him, dare I say, affirmative action-like fawning coverage. Considering all that, it’s unclear whether MO was speaking out of deliberate or genuine ignorance, because no one can seriously look at Barack Obama and where he stands now and credibly view him as an “underdog.”

I should note that she was speaking at a rally at Carnegie Mellon University alongside … Teresa Heinz Kerry. Talk about two peas in a pod.

Related: Barack Obama gets the endorsement of Hanoi Jane (via Memeo).

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

  • Locomotive Breath 1901 trackbacked with "There goes the neighborhood."
  • 15 Responses to “Michelle Obama: My husband will always be the underdog no matter what”

    Comments

    1. Neo says:

      Does Michelle Obama think that a President Obama would have it any easier ?

      Can you say “most hated man in America” ?
      That is the job description, I believe.

    2. sanity says:

      As former President Bill Clinton was extolling his wife’s credentials, Obama’s campaign office in Bloomington began giving away tickets to Sunday’s Dave Matthews concert at Assembly Hall.

      Jason Schechtman, 19, Deerfield, Ill., a student at IU, got his tickets about 8 p.m. after waiting more than three hours. He met folks in line who said they’d left the Clinton rally to wait for tickets.

      “I was leaning toward Obama, but this sealed the deal for sure,” he said. “The Obama campaign announced this right as (Bill Clinton) was about to speak, and it brought everyone from over there to over here.”

      Link

      I guess whatever it takes to steal away from one crowd to get them in yours and to a degree it worked.

    3. sanity says:

      Former President of the United States, Jimmy Carter has hinted that he might cast his vote for Senator Barack Obama to aid his emergence as the candidate for the Democrats in America’s bid to elect a new President.

      Carter, who is a Super Delegate from Georgia State, gave this hint at a media interaction after the Carter Center Awards for Guinea Worm Eradication in Abuja yesterday.

      Carter, who was accompanied by his wife Rosalynn, did not profess a direct support for Obama but rather choose to make a veiled statement.

      “We are very interested in the primaries. Don’t forget that Obama won in my state of Georgia. My town which is home to 625 people is for Obama, my children and their spouses are pro- Obama.

      My grandchildren are also pro- Obama. As a Super Delegate, I would not disclose who I am rooting for but I leave you to make that guess,” he said.

      Link

      If Carter and Jane fonda is for him, I would NEVER vote for him…NEVER!

    4. Severian says:

      Yeah, that’s just exactly who I want to have a right to vote. Someone who will make up their mind on the basis of a free concert ticket.

      We definitely need some way to purge the idiots and incompetents from the voter roles. I still like the idea the Athenians used, only property owners as they had a vested interest in government policies that the unlanded did not. Poor and unlanded folk like to vote for government handouts.

    5. benning says:

      Jeepers! I feel so sorry for those poor, picked-on Obamas. Shucks.

      Perhaps we should just annoint the Obamas as King and Queen and show them how fair we are.

      Let the Corruption begin!

      Oy! :-"

    6. sanity says:

      Let the Corruption begin!

      Begin?

      When has it ever stopped?

    7. Lorica says:

      If Carter and Jane fonda is for him, I would NEVER vote for him…NEVER!

      Nothing screams vote for me like 2 traitors endorsing your candidacy. – Lorica

    8. Lorica says:

      Is it me or is MO as stupid as Terry Kerry?? – Lorica

    9. Great White Rat says:

      Does Michelle Obama think that a President Obama would have it any easier ?

      Neo, that’s exactly what she seems to think. After all, since he has the MSM in his pocket, anyone who dares to ask him to explain his policies – much less anyone who doesn’t vote for him – is (in her words) “mean” and very likely a racist to boot.

      Sev, I agree with you in principle about getting the clueless off the voter rolls, but I don’t think the Athenian model is the way to go. There are many more indicators that one has a stake in good government than real estate, and I’ll bet your political thinking was on solid ground well before you bought land. Besides, it didn’t serve the Athenians very well in the end.

      My thought would be a voter qualification exam. You have to have a certain level of knowledge beofre you can get behind the wheel of a car – why not before you go into a voting booth?

      It would have to cover basic concepts of American civics and economics. Nothing picayune like knowing who is the deputy foreign minister of Sri Lanka, but I think anyone who doesn’t know who his own congressman is, or can’t come within 2000 miles of finding Iraq on a globe, or doesn’t grasp the effect increasing business taxes has on prices shouldn’t be allowed near a voting booth. If you don’t know what the UN is, you have no business muddying up the voter pool for those of us who do.

      Of course, that’ll probably mean the end of the Democrat party as we know it. Just chalk that one up to serendipity. :d

    10. NC Cop says:

      Well, with garbage like this, it’s no wonder he’s always the underdog:

      Obama adviser suggests 80000 troops stay in Iraq until 2010

      As Barack Obama continues to criticize John McCain for saying he’s willing to keep a 100-year troop presence in Iraq, another Obama adviser has suggested U.S. forces could stay in Iraq longer than the Democratic candidate initially thought.

      United States should transition to an “over-watch” force of between 60,000 and 80,000 troops by the end of 2010, according to an article Friday in the New York Sun.

      That appears to be at odds with Obama’s public position of removing all combat brigades from the country within 16 months of taking office.

      Now for the real kicker, drum roll please:

      The Obama campaign said in a statement: “The writing of Mr. Kahl, one of hundreds of outside advisers to the campaign, is not representative of Barack Obama’s consistent policy position on the Iraq war.”

      Ahhh, I see. So one of your Iraq advisers is proposing things completely different than what you believe? Does anyone see a “I was against keeping troops in Iraq, before I was for it.” moment coming????

    11. Thanks for the tip, NC! Just blogged about that here.