Even the Weekly Standard has found some of Mrs. Obama’s comments disturbing, although not that disturbing. 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/764fosie.asp

Michelle’s America
Mrs. Obama talks about herself and her country.
by Jonathan V. Last
02/19/2008 12:00:00 AM

Madison, Wisconsin
Roughly 600 people gathered at the Capitol Theater in Madison’s downtown Overture Center yesterday to listen to Michelle Obama make a pitch for her husband’s presidential bid. They were treated to a revealing glimpse into the mind of the candidate’s wife.

Mrs. Obama also spent some time during her Madison remarks dwelling on her own life. In a passage attacking No Child Left Behind, she claimed that “If my future were determined just by my performance on a standardized test, I wouldn’t be here. I guarantee you that.”

She returned to the subject of her test scores and education later in the speech. She began by telling the crowd how she met a poor, presumably black, girl in South Carolina. Talking about this young girl, Mrs. Obama said (quote):

She also knows that she is so much better than the limited expectations that this nation has for her. . . . She is hoping that the grownups in this country see some use for hope. Because that’s all she’s got. And she’s dreaming that we’ll get it right. And I know, because I was that little girl.

Now all my life I have confronted people who had a certain expectation of me. Every step of the way, there was somebody there telling me what I couldn’t do. Applied to Princeton. “You can’t go there, your test scores aren’t high enough.” I went. I graduated with departmental honors. And then I wanted to go to Harvard. And that was probably a little too tough for me. I didn’t even know why they said that.

But I could go through every curve and twist and turn of my life and find somebody that was telling me, “Lower your expectations. Set your sights low. You’re not ready. You can’t do that.” And every time I pushed past other people’s limited expectations of me, and reached for things that I knew I could do, and grabbed my seat at the table that others felt so entitled to what I learned is that there’s no magic to these people who feel so much more ready than me. I’m just as ready--always just as prepared--as anyone at that table.  (Unquote)

It was a remarkably un-self aware moment. If it’s true that her scores didn’t merit her admission to Princeton and Harvard, then rather than having someone trying to hold her back, it seems that someone was willing to take a chance on Michelle Obama. And that faith was rewarded: Even though her test scores weren’t particularly outstanding, she thrived in elite settings and has had, by all accounts, an impressive professional career, too.

But Mrs. Obama seems to both accept such a benefit of the doubt and then decry something that sounds a lot like the soft bigotry of low expectations. And she presents her academic credentials as a triumph over some nebulous group of people. When she talks about “grabbing her seat at the table” and finding that there was no “magic” in the other people who had also earned their way there, it sounds uncomfortably like she is dismissive of others who might not have had the help she received.

Or perhaps it’s just her reaction to a sense that there have been many people trying to stop the ascent of her and her husband. (If such people exist, they’ve been spectacularly unsuccessful.) Talking about Barack’s Senate campaign, in which he ran unopposed by a serious Republican challenger, Michelle said that the couple learned that “when power is confronted with real change, they’ll say anything to stop it.” There “they” go again.

As Sailer also documents, Obama is no scholar. He evidently has never written a scholarly article, even though he was the editor of the Harvard Law Review, and thus was entitled to publish. Sailer thinks Obama might have intentionally left no paper trail.

We all know Obama will be a lousey president, but at least he won’t the mad bomber or the the witch.He seems intelligent and promises to bring the troops home, after that its not good.At least the neocons hate him.

Anybody here particularly proud of their country? I’m not, and if things don’t change any time soon, it looks as though I’ll be saying that for the rest of my life.

John Lowell

“As a black man, you know, Barack could get shot going to the gas station.”

A black college administrator asked me a couple years back to research the number of black men who had been killed by black gangs versus the KKK in the previous year. Gangs: around 200. KKK: 0.

I concur with Jack. Obama will be a disaster, but
even disasters are relative. It’s difficult to
believe that the Senate’s most liberal member is
the least evil warmongering socialist of the
unfortunate trio left standing for president.

In four or even eight years, when our economy is
in the tank, the dollar is bird cage liner, and
we’re victims of further terrorism due to our
empire, maybe Americans will wake from their
slumber.  Maybe then they’ll be ready for a
Ron Paul-like candidate to show us the way.

Clearly, this country can’t avoid the looming
train wreck.  If the wreck is coming, who better
to lead the train than an empty suit like Barack
Obama?

Mrs. Obama talks about “race” because our Browns, because the Browns, beginning with Arthur de Gobineau, first brought up the subject.

The Blacks become Brown. The “Left” becomes “Right”. Marxism died a strange death indeed! It would seem that our Browns would be correct to call Mrs. Obama “sista”. She’s seems to be, so to speak, just a Brown of a different color.

I am looking forward to a possible Obama presidency. We all stand to become millionaires! Of course, four years from now a million dollars might not buy a second hand Chevy, but why quibble?

The guy’s volume goes all the way up to eleven.

Obama has promised to talk to Iran and says he was against Kyle Liebermann,which gives a blank check to attack Iran.These are 2 reasons that the neocons hate him, among others.The country is in the toilet, let Obama flush it and get the stink.But I will never vote for him or the mad bomber.

1) Face it. Dr. Paul will not be the nominee.
Neither will Huckabee. Our choices are Obama,
Hillary or McCain. As far as I can tell, Obama
is the least objectionable of the three.

2) As for Michelle Obama, she is nowhere as
obnoxious as Hillary’s spouse. As for McCain’s
trophy wife, well, it is not such a great display
of family values, really.

Larry Johnson, no friend of the Neocons, has an essay at the Huffington Post detailing some of the unexplored negatives surrounding the sainted Obama.  Here is Larry Johnson on the untested weakness of Obama:

No, He Can’t Because Yes, They Will

Obama’s untested achilles heel is his relationship with three men—Tony Rezko, William Ayers, and Rashid Khalidi. These names will become shorthand for Corruption, Terrorism, and the Destruction of Israel. Oh yes, I know. I am going to extremes. Well, let me lay out the facts and explain how the Republicans will likely use these relationships to bludgeon Obama’s presidential aspirations into dust. My challenge to you Obama supporters is to explain to me and other readers of this blog how Obama will defuse these issues.

There is a growing body of material in the blogosphere on this issue (looseheadprop has an excellent overview), but the mainstream media has paid little attention and most Americans know nothing of Rezko’s bribery and corruption trial. Not yet. But that will change starting February 25, when Rezko goes on trial in Chicago. The best Obama can hope for is an acquittal or mistrial. He cannot deny his longstanding friendship with Rezko. A man who has played a significant role in raising funds for his political campaigns and a man who helped Obama and his wife get the home of their dreams.
But it is highly unlikely that Rezko gets off. He just got nailed for lying to the judge about his alleged poverty and was promptly arrested for hiding millions of dollars overseas. And he is up against Patrick Fitzgerald. Pat Fitzgerald does not go to court unprepared and does not have a record of losing, particularly in Illinois. Remember, this is the guy who nailed Scooter Libby and the former Governor of Illinois. The boy plays to win.

When Rezko is convicted and, the details of the corruption and bribery charges are fleshed out and the public learns that Senator Obama got some of that dirty cash, do you really believe the public won’t care that the Democratic nominee for President is involved with a convicted felon? Hell, this is a political attack ad that writes itself.

We are talking about William Ayers hosting a fundraiser for Barack Obama and actively working with him to secure Barack’s first electoral victory in Illinois. But wait, there is more. Barack and Ayers also served on the board of the Woods Fund. And they worked together to give money to some other folks, including a group with ties to the PLO.

What makes Ayers so toxic is his own written record equating U.S. Marines with terrorists. Look at the beating that John Kerry took for tossing his medals over the White House fence. Ayers did not toss medals, he threw bombs. Real ones. Bombs that exploded.

Do you think that Republicans will ignore Obama’s ties to Ayers? The two were serving on the same board in 2002. We are talking less than six years ago and the record will come out showing some questionable grants by these two characters. William Ayers, in the age of terrorism, will be Barack Obama’s Willie Horton.

So far, the press has paid little attention to Obama’s ties to Rashid Khalidi, Middle East Professor at Columbia University and PLO activist. An article in The Jewish Week from last year offers up this tantalizing tidbit:

Khalidi, now the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University, and head of that school’s Middle East Institute, declined to comment on Abunimah’s recollections. But in an interview in Tuesday’s Daily News, he said he hosted the fundraiser because he and Obama were friends while the two lived in Chicago. “He never came to us and said he would do anything in terms of Palestinians,” Khalidi told the paper.

Nevertheless, one Hyde Park source close to Obama, speaking only on condition of anonymity, recalled, “He often expressed general sympathy for the Palestinians—though I don’t recall him ever saying anything publicly.”

Obama has made his pilgrimage to AIPAC (funny, but in his campaign against special interests and their grip on Washington he gives AIPAC a pass) and worked to position himself as a friend of Israel. But the relationship with Khalidi has not yet received the white hot media attention that tends to occur during the dog days of July and August, when the press needs a story. And guess who helped broker the appearance of Iran’s Ahmadinejad last summer at Columbia University? Professor Khalidi. The New York Times had his reaction to the event:

Rashid Khalidi, a professor of Arab studies and director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia, said, “The tone from the host of an event was uncivil and uncalled for.
“The president of the university had every right to state his differences,” he said. “That was more than acceptable. But I believe it was embarrassing to the university, frankly, that they should decide to invite him and then treat him in this manner.”

So, while Democrats engage in self-censorship and promote the worst kind of affirmative action pandering in promoting the myth of Obama, the Republicans are keeping mum and, like Brer Rabbit, begging not to be tossed into the briar patch and face the fearsome Obama. (Want to bet how many accusations of racism I will get for referring to Brer Rabbit?)

Although I still think the neocons would waste Obama as soon as he showed
pro-Palestinian inclinations, until now neither they nor the country club
Republicans have put a finger on him. The attacks on Obama have come from
this website, Steve Sailer, and an occasional tentative criticism in the
American Conservative. After reading the stuff on Obama being produced by
Mac and such GOP windbags as Cal Thomas, I have begun to wonder whether the
Republicans would ever dare to attack a black Democratic nominee, except in
the vaguest generalities. If they don’t go on the offensive because of the
fear of seeming politically incorrect, the Republicans will be doomed to
defeat--and will fully deserve their fate.

I wonder if this black female Harvard law school graduate is much like Mrs. Obama, just more honest. 

http://www.law.com/jsp/law/LawArticleFriendly.jsp?id=1196935479196

Judge Rejects Race Bias Suit Against DLA Piper

Anthony Lin
New York Law Journal
12-07-2007

A Manhattan federal judge has thrown out a race discrimination suit brought against DLA Piper by a former associate who claimed the firm’s New York office was a hostile work environment.

Charlene Morisseau, a 2001 graduate of Harvard Law School, where she was a law review editor, joined DLA Piper as a litigation associate in April 2003 but was asked to leave less than a year later. In a lawsuit filed last year, Morisseau, who is black, claimed her firing was retaliation for complaints she had made about discriminatory treatment.

She requested almost $250 million in damages from the firm and the 11 partners she individually named in the suit.

But Southern District of New York Judge Lewis Kaplan granted summary judgment to the firm Monday, finding that DLA Piper had put forth a “legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for plaintiff’s termination.”

“Here, the uncontradicted evidence demonstrates that plaintiff did not perform in a manner satisfactory to Piper notwithstanding her academic credentials,” the judge wrote. “She was a confrontational, stubborn, and insubordinate employee in an environment in which professional personal relations, flexibility and a willingness to accept supervision were essential.”

The judge deemed DLA Piper’s account of events admitted because Morisseau, proceeding pro se after firing her lawyers in April, did not timely file a declaration opposing the firm’s summary judgment motion, though she had been granted a number of extensions. Instead, Kaplan said he had only belatedly received from Morisseau via Federal Express “three volumes of purported exhibits” that he said were not authenticated and lacked exhibit tabs or a table of contents.

The judge said he would not consider any further submissions from Morisseau, who he said had previously “defied court orders, ignored schedules, failed to show up for or obstructed her deposition, and filed frivolous applications.”

Morisseau claimed partners at the firm discriminated against her by treating her differently than they treated white associates. In particular, she claimed partner Douglas Rappaport tried to blame her for a mistake he allegedly made in the course of representing a widow in a proceeding before the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund. She also accused former partner Aaron Katz of giving her writing skills subpar rankings on a performance review and then refusing to provide feedback justifiying his review of her work. She said both partners also disparaged her in hallway conversations as “too aggressive” and “not right for a law firm.”

PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR
But in court filings, DLA Piper denied treating Morisseau differently and said the firm had taken action because the ex-associate had exhibited a pattern of unacceptable behavior, including yelling at partners and throwing one out of her office.

The firm said Morisseau ordered former partner Marilla Ochis to “back up” out of her office after Ochis had come to discuss an e-mail exchange Morisseau had apparently taken offense to. In that exchange Ochis had told Morisseau not to be overly concerned with providing constant updates on ongoing matters but recognize that new matters might take precedence.

“The world would be a nicer place if we could all keep our ducks in a row,” Ochis had written, “but if the job were that easy, anyone could do it!” Morisseau replied the next day that she found the last part of Ochis’ message “extremely unnecessary.” Ochis said she went to Morisseau’s office to explain that she had not meant anything offensive by her e-mail.
According to the firm, Morisseau initially refused an assignment relating to the Victim Compensation Fund by Rappaport and later raised her voice at him in a hallway confrontation over that assignment. Morisseau was also allegedly rude to partner Heidi Levine, her designated mentor. In one instance, the firm said, Morisseau did not respond to a hello by Levine and, when the partner began to ask a question, the associate put her hand up in a stopping motion and said, “Heidi, goodbye.”

BAR ADMISSION
The delay to her bar admission is also at issue in a discrimination and retaliation suit Morisseau has brought in federal court in Atlanta against the employer she worked for prior to joining DLA Piper. After graduating from Harvard Law, Morisseau initially worked for the Southern Center for Human Rights, the group led by well-known death penalty appellate lawyer Stephen B. Bright.

In an affidavit Bright submitted for Morisseau’s New York Bar application, he said she “appears unable to separate reality and fantasy” and detailed “vicious attacks” and “false allegations of outrageous conduct” she had made against many of the Center’s lawyers and staff, all while “making virtually no contribution to the Center’s work in the eight months she was here.”

“All this reflects very poorly on the professional qualifications of Morisseau to practice law,” Bright wrote in his September 2004 affidavit. The Southern Center is also seeking summary judgment against Morisseau.

It’s really comical to hear people talking about Obama as the first black presidential candidate.  In the first place, there have been others before him, such as Alan Keyes.  In the second place, Obama is whiter than Hillary Clinton in some ways.

One really comical thing came to mind as I was looking at the blog column lineup; Paul Gottlieb looks like a black man in his photo above his column and Obama looks like a white teenager in many of his photos.  The support for Obama among American black people is as mystifying to me as the way so few black people I know took offense at having Bill Clinton characterized as ‘the first black president’. 

Clinton exhibited all the stereotypical behavior that white racists use to characterize black politicians, such as; philandering, lying, openly lusting after money, and opportunistic positioning of oneself in order to take advantage of any distraction from criticism directed at corrupt behavior.

Adriana, you wrote:  “Our choices are Obama,
Hillary or McCain. As far as I can tell, Obama
is the least objectionable of the three. “

Sorry to intrude upon your fantasy, but none of us face a choice at the polls among the three senators you listed. Either Clinton or Obama will likely be the democrats’ candidate and McCain seems positioned to be the republicans’ candidate.  There may someday be a choice at the polls between two of the pandering imbeciles you listed, but it’s extremely unlikely that there will be a choice which includes all three.

I usually don’t bother to read your silliness, but this time what you posted was sillier than your usual postings.  People with as tenuous a hold on reality and as confused a view of politics as you exhibit here shouldn’t even consider voting.  We’re in enough trouble as it is.

Ed, sorry, until Hillary concedes she is a viable
candidate (less likelier by the day), so she is
one of the people we can *reallistically* expect
as the next POTUS.  And of the three, Obama is
the least objectionable.

And if you count Hillary out, he is the better
choice than “Hundred Year War” McCain.

(Somebody tell McCain how the Hundred Year War
ended up - the English driven completely out of
France).

By the way, Ed, most of us do have a three way choice at the
polls, since a lot of the primaries are open to other parties and
Independents. Nothing keeps you from voting for Hillary or
Obama in the Democratic primary, and then voting for the
Republican candiate in November.

“Whiter than Hillary Clinton”?

How do you define “white”, then?