Robert Reis + Bathouse Conservative = Embarrassing.

I didn’t like Mrs. Obama’s speech, much more then the Pelosi speech. With all the “family values”
bromides and allusions to religion that Obama is making, it sounds like the Democrats
have been finally taking the advice of “populist” Democrat strategists like Rudi Taxeria.
That is, talk the talk on social issues, but don’t walk the walk.

The difference is whereas the Republicans TALK like social populists, but govern like economic
plutocrats, the Democrats are talking like social populists, but will govern like liberal elistists. That means of course, the Wall Street agenda, with the government picking up the bill for the collateral damage.

I agree with you about Kennedy though. Everytime this drunken, sexually degenerate sot gets
up to make a speech, he just literally makes the working class whites rankle. Pelosi has the same
effect.

Unlike Pelosi and Kennedy, the Obamas sound sincere. Almost believable. Almost.

“The neocons have tried to define Michelle Obama as a b*tch, and her color no doubt plays a role in that caricature. What came out of this speech was the impression of a very strong woman who is, nevertheless, a very traditional wife and mother, one who has managed to balanc two often antithetical roles – the professional and the maternal – quite effortlessly, with the latter certainly predominating. In that sense, Michelle’s no Hillary Clinton – whom she went out of her way to praise in the course of her speech: she is staying at home baking cookies, and quite obviously sees nothing wrong in that. How many white women, especially those who have worked for a high-powered law firm, are likely to have done that? “

Yeah, those black women are the epitome of virtue.

How many white women would have worked for a high-powered law firm after having had Michelle Obama’s test scores?  And how many white women would’ve been able to pull a 6 figure salary as a “diversity consultant”?

Neoconservative demonization of the Obamas reflects not so much what they themselves feel as, rather, a crude caricature of what they think the typical American peasant feels. Neoconservatives have given so much energy and time to gaining access to the ears of power they have become utterly out of touch with “just folks.” They retain their urban, ethnic fear/hatred of the populist “other”, seeing mom-and-pop America as a would-be lynch mob - a vast collective of blithering racist goons hiding beneath veneers of congenial cornpone. It’s classic left-based denigration of the weakest link of the enemy class, and to that extent the neocons haven’t rolled that far from the Trotsky tree. And perhaps they project their own taste for savagery onto Americans in general, fully expecting poll boosts after showing ugly “trophy photos” of enemy corpses in Iraq, or Saddam’s own necktie party. Neoconservatives fully believe average-Joe America quakes in fear that Obama will bring ghetto vengeance to the White House, and seek to foster and exploit that misapprehension. Anyone buying into that line must have been astounded that Michelle Obama failed to lash out at the damn honkeys all up in her business.

You’re right; after this speech targeting Michelle O. will backfire for the Republicans.

I’m wondering if Obama can charm the die-hard Hillary supporters?

I’ve been watching the convention on C-Span.  It is “less obnoxious” than eithe MSNBC, Fox or CNN--jmho.

Curt you are accurate in your caricature of the neo-cons.  They are savage semi humans who will do anything to gain power and they perceive other as possessing their same low charachter.  What they fear more than anything is anyone who has high morals and character.  It is for these people who they reserve their most vitriolic media assaults.

the last repubilcan convention was, in the face of a million protesters and the growing realization that there was no way to ever win the war, a smashing success.  Karl rove is a genius and he effectively locked out reality for the full duration of the thing.  there were NO neo cons, only fire and brimstone southern populists.  will these same characters show up to mcains convention?  ehh, probably

Lester the keynote speaker at the Republican convention is Rudy Guiliani. It goes downhill from there.

Downhill indeed Jack, for the “Independent” Senator from Connecticut will also be speaking at the RNC, who, by the way, is an unabashed cheerleader for American intervention abroad and is against banning the procedure euphemistically referred to as “intact dialation and extraction”.  But, to his credit, at least he is consistent.

What struck me about Michelle’s speech was its genuiness and honesty.  Sure it had some bromides, but in a lot of it I felt a strong belief that she was telling the truth.  I’ll bet average americans got the same message.  Could Cindy McCain credibly deliver a similar speech?  Not in a million years.  The Obama’s are flawed and are about to have reality hit them in the face when they win, but I will take an honest intelligent man and his wife over the public serpents who now represent us in the remnant of was once a fine country.

Gee, Jack, now you are commenting on posts that are not there.

Comments
Robert Reis + Bathouse Conservative = Embarrassing.

Posted by Jack Hunter on Aug 26, 2008.

jack- well, what they want to do is mask what the GOP has become and kind of dresss it up in reagan era drag.  I dn’t know that joe lieberman will provide that but republicans are VERY practical.  you wouldn’t see them out protesting their own convention and having these ridiculous rivalries and so forth in front of the cameras.

Michelle Obama is a statist, racist beneficiary of affirmative action just like her husband.

So what if McCain is bad. So is Obama.

Vote third party.

Frankly, Michelle Obama’s speech terrified me- if only because she struck notes reminiscent of postmillenial evangelical pietism (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard28.html), with a few sentences about how she and her husband will not rest until perfect and total justice is created and society becomes effectively flawless. As a friend of mine said recently of such attempts to create Heaven on Earth, “That’s when people die”.

I’ve spent the last few months trying to decide which candidate will make a more disastrous President; I think watching Michelle’s speech may have convinced me that the title belongs to Barack.

First, I agree with Bernie’s post.  Second, all this blather about how Obama’s wife came
across as honest and sincere in her speech only proves that very few realize this is all
a game for POWER.  It seems that very few have learned from the history of politics in
this nation of ours that demogoguery and Madison Avenue-packaged candidates are the
currency which consistently and continuously purchase American saps campaign after campaign,
despite the fact, that our country continues to decline morally, economically, and
politically.  How long will Americans keep holding onto Liberal pipe-dreams?  Finally, why
was Obama’s wife permitted to speak at the convention, anyway?  Why wasn’t she back in
her kitchen making snacks for the delegates?

I didn’t watch the speach, I didn’t watch the Messiah’s speech. I won’t watch McCain’s speech.

What I do know is this. Michelle Obama is an ‘executive’ in charge of ‘community outreach’ for a Chicago hospital. Translation, she is all about getting money and benefits for her kind. Her kind is not my kind. I don’t hate her kind, but I certainly wish my kind would realize that we are up against.

Raimondo, I really like you’re writing and you’re one of my favorite bloggers - even if I agree with you much less of late.

The major criticism I have for you is that you’re far too hopeful about the state of modern politics.  Yes Michelle Obama’s speech showed a hard-working, All American Mother (tm); but is it true?

“Curt you are accurate in your caricature of the neo-cons.  They are savage semi humans who will do anything to gain power and they perceive other as possessing their same low charachter.”

It’s comments like these that turn people off of paleoconservatism.  Certainly the neoconservatives are manipulative and underhanded, but this is hardly unique to the neoconservatives!  Trust me, if the paleocons really “won back the party” we would have the same sort of thing (and indeed we *did* when we *were* in power, if you can really say something like that of such a diverse movement).  That’s just politics, and I’m afraid there’s no way to avoid it.  We can shun it, but other people who agree with us will surely be just as corrupt as the war-hawks; at least we can try to ensure that they’re corrupt for a good cause eh?

Instead we should be attacking the neocon’s *ideas* - which are actually quite a bit more consistent and coherent than you’d think from watching FOX news.  They’re absolutely wrong, but they’re not *evil*.

You know something’s wrong when even erudite academics like Paul Gottfried jump on the “I hate those evil power-hungry neocons!” band-wagon (not that he doesn’t also argue against their ideas).