Conservative criticism of Michelle Obama has no merit whatsoever and serves only as an outlet of right-wing hatred. That's the impression that Los Angeles Times reporter Robin Abcarian leaves readers with his June 11 story, "The GOP takes aim at Michelle Obama.":
They loved to hate Hillary Rodham Clinton. They loved to hate Teresa Heinz Kerry. And now, it appears, conservative voices are energetically taking on Michelle Obama.
"Mrs. Grievance" bellowed the cover of a recent National Review, which featured a photo of a fierce-looking Obama. The magazine's online edition titled an essay about her stump speech "America's Unhappiest Millionaire."
Michelle Malkin, the popular conservative blogger, called her "Obama's bitter half."
[...]
Story Continues Below Ad ↓It was an unscripted remark as she spoke in February about the enthusiastic response to his message of hope that set off conservatives: "And let me tell you something," she told a Wisconsin crowd. "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country."
The Obama campaign clarified her remarks right away: "What she meant is that she's really proud at this moment because for the first time in a long time, thousands of Americans who've never participated in politics before are coming out in record numbers to build a grass-roots movement for change."
But conservatives pressed the attack. John Podhoretz, editor of Commentary, wrote that she had inadvertently revealed "the pseudo-messianic nature of the Obama candidacy."
The issue has shown no signs of going away.
Old story. Nothing to see here, let's move along, Abcarian seems to be saying. To that end the Times staffer coughed up a Republican pollster to decry the conservative attack as emblematic of what's wrong with political discourse:
"It's exactly why I hate politics," said Republican pollster Frank Luntz. "It's wrong. It's attempting to demonize someone who is very smart, very accomplished, but not totally tuned to the dangers of political discourse."
Abcarian did also turn to Malkin to justify conservative scrutiny of Mrs. Obama, but prefaced them by characterizing conservative attacks as "brutal":
In the current climate -- where sound bites are recycled endlessly and context is ignored in favor of impact -- her more dour pronouncements have paved the way for brutal critiques.
"This is a huge debate among Republicans," said Malkin, who noted that until Obama's "proud" remark, "she was the new, glamorous Jackie O, and most stories focused on her pearls and wardrobe." But, Malkin added, "from what I've seen, despite her husband's admonition to lay off of her, she's not stopping what she's doing, and I don't think the rest of us should ignore her and treat her with kid gloves."
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
LA Times Readers
June 11, 2008 - 09:51 ET by allanfThe LA Times can be pretty sure that most of its customers are committed leftists. More moderate readers have left - and the newspaper is dire straits.
So a story like this just appeals to their base.
Those big bad Repubs
June 11, 2008 - 10:00 ET by DaieWhen a Republican says something we are being mean, brutal, dishonest or as Obama likes to say distracting. When a Democrat does it they are merely making a point, observation or saying what 'everyone' really thinks. What about the things that are said about Laura Bush. That's right...those things are justified because Bush is just so bad!
Not that much is said about Laura Bush
June 11, 2008 - 10:53 ET by Dee Bunkbecause she doesn't put herself in the political fray and First Wives (or husbands) shouldn't.
No one demonized Roslyn Carter because she didn't put herself in the political fray. Laura, Barbra and Nancy didn't either. Barbra Bush came the closest to it but no where near what Hillary and Michelle did or are doing.
Apparently this is going to
June 11, 2008 - 09:59 ET by motherbeltApparently this is going to be the meme. Maureen Dowd has one too, called Mincing Up Michelle
It's always the Republicans you know. There is nothing controversial about Mrs. Obama, it's just how those mean Republicans "paint" her.
the Democrats know hate -
June 11, 2008 - 10:06 ET by TruthMongerthe Democrats know hate - it's fairly obvious these people are in the grip of evil
I read some of Dowds crapfest - any complaints about Michelle are all about "mining racism" - just pathetic
this will probably be one of more popular diversionary tactics they will have to employ to desperately try and keep the focus off the completely inadequate character and qualifications of the Obama's
ironically it's the Dems positioning themselves to leverage racism to their advantage - playing on white guilt
are these people absolute scum or what?
Yeah, I like that phrase
June 11, 2008 - 10:19 ET by motherbeltYeah, I like that phrase too.
It doesn't even matter what it was that E.D. Hill said, it's Dowd's analysis of it that is telling:
That’s a good preview of how Republicans will attack Michelle
The LAT article chose the same verbiage:
But conservatives pressed the attack.
the Times staffer coughed up a Republican pollster to decry the
conservative attack as emblematic of what's wrong with political
discourse:
(emphasis added throughout)
Not opposition, not disagreement, not criticism. Attack.
That's the template. If Michelle Obama were criticized for saying the same thing Rev. Wright said, that would be called "attacking" her.
these people are
June 11, 2008 - 10:30 ET by TruthMongerthese people are pro's:)
Republicans are the party of Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice - and both could have easily been president by now...
Dems fought to maintain slavery, founded the KKK, fought the 60's Civil Rights Act tooth and nail - and yet their propaganda machine dares to try and smear Republicans as the racists...
and Dems are still the "plantation party" of racist organizations like the Rainbow Coalition
like I said - are these people scum or what
McCain seriously ought to consider an African-American as veep - that would be the worst possible scenario for the Democrats racist election strategy...
Liberals want to see balcks succeed under certain condidtions
June 11, 2008 - 10:50 ET by krendlerLiberals want blacks to succeed, but ONLY if it's on their terms. Thus the vitriol and bile spewed at Colin Powell ("uncle tom"), Condi Rice ("house maid") and Clarence Thomas ("worst supreme court justice ever") by the left and the black community over the years.
Polls showed that Colin Powell could have had the Republican nomination if he'd wanted it, but you never heard a peep from the media about "A New, Colorblind Age of America". Conservatives not considering Powell's race to be any kind of issue didn't fit the msm's "Only the Dems can save America from the racist white conservatives" narrative . A liberal black was required. Thus, the "maybe America is finally past the race issue" hoopla we're seeing now with Prophet Obama.
America has, in large part, been over the race for the better part of 3 or 4 decades, but very few were going to cast a vote for the likes of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.
this is why all the old
June 11, 2008 - 11:28 ET by TruthMongerthis is why all the old Democrat race baiting rings fairly hollow now - if it weren't for the MSM propping this "Republican racism" crap up it would never even be a serious consideration...
Democrats have been desperate for relevance for a very long time - since they have no platform to offer they must resort to creating fake issues to sucker in some voters - "racism on the right" or "global warming/cooling/climate-change/whatever" or "tax cuts for the rich" or "the evils of capitalism" or "the sad plight of illegal criminal immigrants" or "gays must be able to marry" yada yada yada...
Meanwhile real issues like terrorism?
"what terrorism?" "George Bush created it!"
pathetic lying bastards, serving no tangible purpose at present, at considerable expense to the taxpayer and morality in general
Incredible
June 11, 2008 - 10:17 ET by MOONSTRUCKI think we all know where the real hatred lies. And it's not with the righties. This has to catch up with them, doesn't it?????
you can't outrun the
June 11, 2008 - 10:26 ET by TruthMongeryou can't outrun the truth
but these liberal Dems are like roaches - very hard to get rid of them
Ya gotta admit. Its a
June 11, 2008 - 10:09 ET by bassndudeYa gotta admit. Its a target rich environment.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I don't hate
June 11, 2008 - 10:30 ET by bigpapaanyone...
not even Obamalamadingdongs hateful wife.
L.A Rag
June 11, 2008 - 10:30 ET by American TaxpayerMany Americans will be amazed to find out the L.A times still has readers. I thought Sean Penn and George looney were the only subscribers to the L.A rag...
Twisted
June 11, 2008 - 10:39 ET by iveseenitall"Liberal" illogic: The lies from the left are "free speech"; the truth from the right is "hate speech".
Who is Barry Sotero?
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
This is LIBERAL HATE.
June 11, 2008 - 10:40 ET by mattmThis is LIBERAL HATE. This is how they do it. They preemptively accuse conservatives of hate. This way they can paint the Right as haters while discrediting legitimate criticism of the Democrat in question.
These people are despicable, low-life scum-bags.
"These people are
June 11, 2008 - 11:24 ET by Clear thinker"These people are despicable, low-life scum-bags."
You are being waaay too respectful.
"Abstain from McCain"
A chip off the ol' rev'
June 11, 2008 - 10:47 ET by GalvanicPapers like the LA Times have avoided the obvious connection between Michelle Obama's remarks, and the anti-American rants of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his pal Fr. Pfleger.
Hatefest checklist
June 11, 2008 - 10:56 ET by SickofLibs1) Loved to hate Teresa Heinz Kerry - CHECK
2) Loved to hate Hillary - CHECK
3) Learning to hate Mama Obama - CHECK
Surprisingly accurate conclusion for the LAT.
Actually you're close,
June 11, 2008 - 12:36 ET by dscottActually you're close, except we didn't need to learn to hate, all we needed to learn was her positions. Given her love of running her big mouth, the American People are in for a treat learning about all the ignorant stereotypes Michelle believes in.
Teresa Kerry was the straw that broke the camel's back on John Kerry, her forceful treatment of shoving kids around set a tone that most Americans would never tolerate from a stranger doing to their kids. Talk about resonance!
The LA Times recognizes Michelle is the Achilles Heel of Barrack Obama and thus is attempting to innoculate him by engaging in a pre-emptive attack. Sorry Charlie, that won't work this time. Michelle will be Barrack's advisor in the WH just as Hillary was to Bill, so she is fair game. We plan to expose every hateful word that rolls out of Michelle's big mouth and her coming appearance on "The View" will give us lots of cannon fodder.
If the Obama campaign were smart, they would shut her up in a room until the day after the election. Even with that move though, the genie is out of the bottle since we have Obama's other close race baiting pals who also love to run their mouths, Wright and Fleggler. All three of these close associations were turning the tide in the Dem primaries, that's why Hillary was starting to win all the final primaries. Had there been another round of primaries, Obama would not be the presumptive nominee of the Dem Party. Oh goodie, we have a shallow candidate with obnoxious associates. If the GOP can't or won't capitalize we will, count on it.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
I don't think we ever
June 11, 2008 - 12:58 ET by PeskyDaneI don't think we ever learned to hate Teresa as much as we were amused by her. Would have bought tickets to the "What the hell is Wendy's chili?" moment.
Regarding M. Obama, there is just something disconcerting about someone who has benefited from an economic system rich enough to support a small nation-within-a-nation of academics, "community organizers," and diversity comissarrs and yet still views that same nation with such a jaundiced eye.
Teresa was clueless, but at least she was fun.
M. Obama should know better, given her humble origins, but does not. I can not imagine that this woman ever new the agony of having to meet a payroll, and once she got a taste of actually having to produce a product at Sidley Austin (huge international law firm), she apparently could not wait to get out of there and go into the public sector. On all the bios (virtually all cut-and-paste) I've read on her, her work in the private sector is barely a blip on the radar, so who knows what happened there, or how long she actually lasted. There seems to be a yawing gap between when she actually left the law firm and began to work for the City of Chicago.
I seem to recall something about....
June 11, 2008 - 11:07 ET by Prester John...reaping what you sow.
Wasn't Maureen Dowd trying
June 11, 2008 - 11:24 ET by charlietexasWasn't Maureen Dowd trying to "toughin up" Obama when she made fun of his ears??? Now its the republicans that are the hate mongers?? I don't get it!
The democrats are week....like Fredo. They have no spine.....like Fredo.
And this guy is going to save America and bring us together???
I'll give you something to cry about!!
mom
and they cry like
June 11, 2008 - 12:08 ET by red_dragon311and they cry like Fredo too
"....I'M SMAT!!!!! NOT DUMB LIKE EVERY BODY THINKS"
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Gerald Ford
If the BO campaign has any
June 11, 2008 - 11:56 ET by KillgraveIf the BO campaign has any sense, they will secretly replace that bitter harridan with a glassy-eyed, smiley Fembot that can sing patriotic songs flawlessly and hug white kids on command.
Only after November they can let the real one out of the attic.
That might work, just as
June 11, 2008 - 11:58 ET by MassConservThat might work, just as long as they keep it out of range of any DVD remotes. ;-)
The point, which the libs
June 11, 2008 - 12:23 ET by PeskyDaneThe point, which the libs pretend to miss, is that M. Obama has firmly inserted herself into the arena. As such, she is subject to all that goes with it in this most brutal of bloodsports. This "hands off" approach implies that she is weak (maybe she is) and too ill-informed (again, perhaps) to endure the crowd's heckling, much less go toe-to-toe with her fellow combatants.
Poor Michaell, you guys are mean
June 11, 2008 - 14:47 ET by allamericangirlI don't know why the LA Times is worried. I'm sure the Obama campaign will continue to clarify and explain what she really means each time Michelle says something that offends Americans. They will probably assign an OFFICIAL CLARIFIER to Mrs. Obama. Obviously after 20 years in their Church it looks like she might have been listening. The stuff she is saying sounds a lot like a watered down version of her pastor. I guess she didn't share with Barak what she was hearing the Rev. say because we know that after 20 years he never heard a thing.