RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Michelle Obama to Children: “You can convince wrong people.”

Why what Michelle is telling children matters to Mitt Romney and senior citizens, his largest base

First Lady Michelle Obama at Nickelodeon's 25th Annual Kids' Choice Awards

Anxious to find ways to get “Anybody-But-Obama” senior citizens to vote for her husband, Michelle Obama is usurping parents, exploiting her media access to enlist children to view their grandparents as “wrong people” who must be pressured to vote for Barack.

Before speaking at the Kids Choice Awards [photo], Mrs. Obama spoke directly to children at a $500/ticket California fundraiser where for “a cool $38,500, a family of six could get a photo with the first lady at the event.” From MICHELLE TO KIDS: TELL GRANDMA TO VOTE OBAMA

I mean, I can’t tell you in the last election how many grandparents I ran into who said, I wasn’t going to vote for Barack Obama until my grandson talked to me, until my great-grandson talked to me, and talked about the future he wanted for this country.

You can get out there with your parents. You guys can knock on doors. I had one young lady who brought me a petition — she’s already working. You can convince wrong people. Sometimes we don’t listen to ourselves, but we will listen to our children.

Michelle is telling these kids that the “wrong people” are their grandparents and your great-grandparents. They’re so “wrong” that they are not going to vote for Obama. You kids just HAVE to save them from themselves! Forget your parents. You’ll have to do this yourselves!

And, kids, be sure to “knock on doors” and tell more adults that they’re “wrong” unless they vote for Obama. They’ll doubtless be impressed by your beliefs in Barack and Michelle.

This story has been passed around at a few conservative sites, including PJ Tatler and Breitbart.com, and linked at Drudge Report.

But, except for around a couple small stories, the Mainstream Media has ignored what Michelle Obama told children.

First Lady Michelle Obama at Nickelodeon's 25th Annual Kids' Choice Awards the day after her remarks to children

Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com has some interesting insights on the unseemly use of Michelle to get the votes of older Americans:

Michelle Obama, who has quickly become the Obama campaign’s tip of the spear when it comes to fundraising and vote-getting, is now stumping for children to convince their “great-grandparents” to vote for her husband.

[...]

This is a hallmark of leftist campaigning – the notion that children possess some sort of inherent wisdom to which their elders must heed. It’s insulting and ridiculous, but it’s also the same sort of electioneering that got Obama elected the first time. But during the 2008 election cycle, President Obama hadn’t yet sold out future generations to finance his world-remaking vision.

Primarily, however, Michelle’s focus is based on poll results closely monitored by Obama’s Chicago campaign headquarters. From Business Week magazine:

Romney wins seniors age 65 and over by 19 points.

The Mature Market site has more numbers:

Concern about President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform turned many seniors Republican; with 59 percent of those 65 or older voting Republican compared to 51 percent for those 60-64.

President Obama continues to hold a substantial edge among 18 to 29 year old voters, while voters age 65 and older currently favor Romney by a slightly larger margin than they backed McCain. (Source: PEW Research – The Generation Gap and the 2012 Election)

Silent voters (ages 66 to 83) favor Romney 54 percent to 41 percent (President Obama). (Source: PEW Research – The Generation Gap and the 2012 Election)

Baby Boomers (ages 47 to 65) split their vote evenly between President Obama and McCain in 2008, but Romney now holds a six-point edge among those voters today. (Source: PEW Research – The Generation Gap and the 2012 Election) … See more stats.

An op-ed at The Hill explains Barack’s reelection challenges:

The president has lost seniors and most likely won’t get the same bounce from the young. And that is what makes the so-called “war on women” campaign so important for the Obama White House. [...]

“You can get out there with your parents. You guys can knock on doors. I had one young lady who brought me a petition — she’s already working. You can convince wrong people.”

- Michelle Obama to children at a San Francisco fundraiser.

[T]he program created by Republicans in 2003 to modernize Medicare with a prescription drug benefit remains very popular with senior citizens and with most voters.

Vice President Biden traveled to Florida last week … to talk to a group of senior citizens about the Paul Ryan budget and Medicare, making a valiant effort to change the subject from the administration’s own track 
record on healthcare. But there is no sign that such tactics will work, as senior citizens remain highly displeased with the half-trillion in cuts to the Medicare program to pay for ObamaCare.

[...]

[C]alling Romney the godfather of ObamaCare is not going to help its real father in the next election. This law is a political liability for the president, and if the Supreme Court declares that it passes constitutional muster (and most analysts currently think it will), then it will remain a political liability for the president’s team.

The president’s law is unpopular because it amounts to healthcare rationing. That explains why senior citizens don’t like it very much, because they know instinctively that their healthcare will be rationed first.

Here’s more proof via exit polls in a snarky Daily Beast article, “Super Tuesday: Mitt Romney’s Senior Citizen Surge“:

Once again tonight, voters 65 and older were among Romney’s staunchest supporters. They were his best cohort in Vermont and Virginia. They may have saved his bacon in Ohio, where he walloped Santorum . … [In] Tennessee, the seniors went Romney.

But wait! There’s more: Seniors were key to Romney’s Michigan victory. They were his biggest backers in Nevada and, more importantly, his electoral powerhouse of Florida. They were the only age bracket he won in Iowa.

As for life beyond the primary, senior voters are the only age group in which Romney is outpolling President Obama.

The bulk of the American electorate may not consider Mittens scintillating, but the 65-plus set clearly finds him pretty darn charming. …

Aside from the Daily Beast snark, we can discern why Michelle is recruiting children who can’t even vote.

The Obama campaign has its sights set on Romney’s strengths. And we all know that Axelrod and crew specialize in isolating and attacking their opponents’ assets. Using whatever method will do the job.

Imagine how Axelrod will go after Paul Ryan’s budget, proving to seniors that Mitt Romney is going to take their Medicare and Social Security away. It’s already happening, but I have a hunch that Chicago is just getting started. Come Fall 2012, lord knows what Chicago will be telling seniors about Mitt Romney.

  • bbf

    ANYONE BUT OBAMA.  

  • bbf

    Flop_Flipper….Why the use of profanity and personal insults?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dolly-Cain/100002303813490 Dolly Cain

    Dictator 102:

    Have innocent children go door to door and explain to adults (that have far more life experience) why they should vote the way the Dictator In Chief and His wife Imelda (oops Michelle) says they should.

    When all of your parents are wards of the Super Government  state you can play all day long.  

    What? The NDAA bill authorizes their disappearance and detention.  Your parents may not agree to vote the way Imelda (oops Michelle) says they should.

    Don’t worry. The DHS will let all non citizens stay here cuz they say so in violation of Federal law. 

    Obama must really need the votes.  Too bad for him we citizens  (whose fathers are not foreign nationals) will still make his and Imeda’s (oops Michelle’s) lives interesting according  to the US Constitution.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dolly-Cain/100002303813490 Dolly Cain

    Dictator 102:

    Have innocent children go door to door and explain to adults (that have far more life experience) why they should vote the way the Dictator In Chief and His wife Imelda (oops Michelle) says they should.

    When all of your parents are wards of the Super Government  state you can play all day long.  

    What? The NDAA bill authorizes their disappearance and detention.  Your parents may not agree to vote the way Imelda (oops Michelle) says they should.

    Don’t worry. The DHS will let all non citizens stay here cuz they say so in violation of Federal law. 

    Obama must really need the votes.  Too bad for him we citizens  (whose fathers are not foreign nationals) will still make his and Imeda’s (oops Michelle’s) lives interesting according  to the US Constitution.  

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/BDYXXMV44GTCHXAEWFLKI6UELQ Ryan

    “Why what Michelle is telling children matters to Mitt Romney and senior citizens, his largest base”

    Were you having a stroke when you wrote this?

  • PPAA

    “Romney wins seniors age 65 and over by 19 points”

    And this is why the GOP is a dying party. Their base continues to shrink and erode.

    It is always funny that the GOP gets a big part of their support from retired people, the same people who spent all the money and who live off of government assistance.

    If Ryan’s bill is so good then why not implement it now for Seniors and not just for those 55 years and younger.

    Closing the “donut hole” in the healthcare reform bills also remains popular with seniors, so lets see what happens if conservatives are successful at killing reform through the SCOTUS.

    “half-trillion in cuts to the Medicare program to pay for ObamaCare”

    There is not a half million of cuts. There is a slowing of the spending, but no actual cuts. Spending for medicare will actually continue to go up. Also, there is less payments to service providers within Medicare Advantage, but no reduction in services or actual cuts to senior themselves.

    Who wrote that Hill Op-Ed? Sarah Palin?

    “we can discern why Michelle is recruiting children who can’t even vote. ”

    So going to the Kid’s Choice Awards is recruiting children. So any time a first lady does anything with children that is recruiting children? Funny stuff. You get a tinfoil hat for that one.

    • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

      LOL!  
      Thanks for the laugh!

      Oh yes, all little children want to be like Barry and Mooooochelle.  All little children want to live in a world governed by Barry O, The syncophant.  Ah, what a beautiful utopia called Barryworld.

      Please.   Peddle the Useful Idiot Demdrone crap somewhere else.

      It’s almost noon, Barry and Eric….the judges are waiting…

      • PPAA

        What do you got against Alsinsky?

        Do you even know who Alsinsky is and what he represented?

        • stodghie

          ppaa i sure did. i know who my enemies are!

        • Flop_Flipper

          What do you got against Alsinsky?

          That’s a rhetorical question, right?

    • Kickhimtothekerb

      Yes and thefuture the youth want will be pretty sad listening to someone whose husband is
      way out of his league!

      If they are looking for a future where the country is successful they need to look at someone who has had success creating jobs. Who understands the economy? Someone who will invest in companies with a future….Not GREEN companies, Every GREEN company
      the “O” admin has sent our hard earned tax dollars are simply downnthe swany! Millions of hard working Americans TAX dollars wasted.

      Romney& Bain Capital has touched the lives of all
      Americans!

      Check out the success

      http://tinyurl.com/72h7g5e

      • PPAA

        Funny stuff…

        So you want the youth to listen to a Republican party who sunk this economy with their tired and failed trickle down policies.

        Romney has created no jobs. He was good at making money for his private equity investors though, often on the backs of massive layoffs and eventual corporate failures. He was ranked 47th out of 50 Governors in job creation when he was the Governor. A terrible record.

        The loan guarantee program for alternative energy companies was set-up under Bush. It has so far had a very good track record, with only about 2% of those companies with loan guarantees having failed. And it is not clear at this point whether taxpayers will lose any money on those companies that have failed. Standing up an important green energy industry is important. It is what governments are doing all over the world. Sorry you are against new technology and government support for new technology and new green industries. By the way, how do you feel about the tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions, in government support the oil and coal industries have received over the years?

        • Kickhimtothekerb

          Romney’s critics like to point out that Bain Capital often made “obscene profits” at the expense of the companies they founded, funded or acquired. How much is too much profit?

          Only a small percentage of the companies that Bain financed failed, and of those, the
          failures occurred an average of eight
          years after being acquired. Eight years is a long time. The great majority of small businesses in this country never make it that far. That’s eight years where thousands of people had jobs which might not have existed at all, were it not for Bain’s assistance. These companies weren’t harmed by Bain’s involvement. Their life-spans were extended
          several years beyond what would have been their expected dates of demise. Businesses, like human beings, go through their own stages of life.
          They are born, they grow and mature, they get old and incontinent, and they
          eventually die.  That is exactly how capitalism works!

  • KenoshaMarge

    If “Grandparents’ are so stupid that they need the kiddies to tell them who to vote for I hope they stay home. Like I wish Claire McCaskill had when her 18 year old daughter told her who to support.

    The idea that those of us who are over the hill are too stupid or uninformed to make our own decisions is not only stupid it’s insulting.

    One of my granddaughters was a rabid obot in 2008 and she and her obot boyfriend came to my house and attempted to persuade me to vote for him in the primary instead of Hillary. When I told them I would not and why they both said that I wouldn’t support him because of his race.

    They could not articulate a good reason why he was a better candidate. They simply parroted talking points for him and against Hillary. When faced with facts and information, far more than they had, they played the race card. I don’t need people like that in my life.

    I don’t “like” Michelle Obama. I think she’s a racist and a liar and in spite of the high position to which she has been raised she’s filled with resentment.

    Every time I think I cannot have more disdain for the first couple something like his attack on the Supreme Court and this from her adds to my dislike. It’s reached a point of revulsion.

    • Dbb3

      Your granddaughter thinks your opposition to Obama was race-based? Well, she ought to know, Margie.

      • Flop_Flipper

        Let me be the first to welcome you to the blog, you Obot piece of shit. Word of advice: Don’t insult Marge. Unless you really are a masochist besides being a race baiting asshole.

      • beachnan

         Typical OBOT-you are despicable.  Just go away.

        • Dbb3

          Jeez, this is handbags at 10 paces stuff, utterly pathetic.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dolly-Cain/100002303813490 Dolly Cain

            I’m a vet. How about something else at ten paces.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dolly-Cain/100002303813490 Dolly Cain

        I’m black and a descendant of slaves unlike Obama and I can;t stand him. Whatcha got? 

  • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

    OT but funny

    Carol Costello of CNN asked on her Facebook page if Obama or the GOP were more radical.

    Over 7,000 responses squarely naming Obama as radical.  Oops…

    • http://twitter.com/MarvinMarks Marvin Marks

      “squarely naming” … it’s very amusing to me that obama haters are … well.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dolly-Cain/100002303813490 Dolly Cain

        We should love Obama why?  He has continued wars he vowed to end. He’s not brought the troops home as promised.  Oh yeah some came home and plenty were sent back.  I’m a vet and so are a good many of my family.

        His minions  vilified anyone who said a bad word about extreme Muslims groups while saying nothing bad about AQ or the Muslim Brotherhood  both groups on our government list of terrorists that are getting power in countries we helped overthrow.  We are being asked to give up our Constitutional liberties while  our government funds and supports said groups.Hr ain’t a descendant of slaves .  He has a Mom and Dad  that have no US history of slavery. I’m a descendant of slaves.. I don’t kiss butt . But you Obamabots, just like the Bushbots, sure do.

  • mumphrey

    “Not buying that especially after some of the more sophomoric mumphrey posts earlier today on another thread.”

    ¿Sophomoric?  Guilty.  But I can be reasonable, too, when I set my mind to it.  Each thread is its own little world, and some worlds call to me and say, “Mumphrey, go forth and be sophomoric.  Spread your inane and infantile natterings far and wide, and may they be held up forevermore as the example of the depravity of what a truly small and feeble mind can spew forth.”  And other worlds call out, “Mumphrey, now is the time to be still and try to listen and learn.  Spread your somewhat less inane and infantile natterings far and wide, and may they be held up forevermore as, if not quite mature and worthy of grown-up admiration, at least something that rises to an emanation from one of the lower apes.”  This thread is one of the latter.

    • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

      Your posts speak for themselves.  Yes, sophomoric.  Wear it. Own it.  That will put you ahead of Obama who blames everyone else.

      By the way, there’s a theme in those responses.  What’s missing is a one way bus ticket stapled to them.

  • mumphrey

    “Remember that Hillary did indeed win more VOTES during the primary–the caucuses turned the nomination.”

    This is debatable, as there is more than one way to reckon the overall tally.  Do you count zero votes for Obama in the Michigan primary, where nobody but Clinton campaigned?  (The DNC had stripped Michigan of its delegates long before the campaign began for jumping too far ahead in the schedule.)  That makes a big diffreence.

    And, anyway, the votes are irrelevant.  The Democratic Party doesn’t choose its nominee by votes, and hasn’t witin the last 30 or 40 years at least.  It’s delegates that matter, not votes, beyond the fact that you have to win votes to win delegates.  Clinton knew all this going into the campaign.  She knew what the rules were.  I don’t think she saw Obama as much of a threat, though, and I think she just wasn’t ready to fight a long, hard slog all the way through the spring.  I think she thought she was going to have it wrapped up within a month or so, much as Kerry had 4 years before.

    In the end, Obama won more delegates, and that’s how the party chooses its nominee.  If the party had had rules that said that candidates needed to win votes to win the nomination, then I think both candidates would have run different campaigns.  You talk about “gaming” caucuses.  Caucuses are complicated, and the rules that govern them are complicated.  I don’t know how they work, as I live in Virginia, where we have primaries, and I’ve never been to a caucus.  But the rules were there before the campaign began.  Clinton must have known them, but she didn’t do anything to have them changed if she thought they were unfair or undemocratic.

    I guess my point is that the parties get to write their own nominating rules.  And if there are bad rules in some states, or in the party as a whole, then Clinton should have brought this up before the campaign began.  Even if there had been no way to change them, she could have made it a cause and won voters over to it and her.  But I didn’t hear anything about “unfair rules” or “gaming” things until it began to look like she might not win.

    I know what it’s like to have your candidate lose.  My first election was 1988, where I watched a zombie somehow win the nomination over AL Gore, whom I thought would have been a much better nominee.  In 2004, I watched another zombie win over a field of people, just about any of whom would have been better and more inspiring than Kerry was.

    I guess what I’m saying is that if you’re still pissed off that Clinton lost in 2008 and that’s the root of your anger toward Obama, then, great.  have at it.  I don’t think that’s the most productive way to look at politics in the U.S. in 2012, but do you know what?  It doesn’t matter what I think.  You think your candidate got screwed out of a nomination she should have won, and that’s how you feel, and you’re altogether within your rights to feel that way.  If you think Obama stole the nomination and you want to criticize him, then that’s what you should do.

    But do it openly.  Don’tmake this about conspiracy theories and whether he’s really a Christian or not.  Say it aloud: Hillary Clinton was a better candidate and would have been a better president, and she should have gotten the nomination, but this nobody who’d been in Congress for all of 4 years got delusions of grandeur and jumped to the head of the line and stole the first chance we’ve had, the first real chance in 220 years of having a woman president.  It pissed me off and I really resent Obama for it, and, damn it, yes, I hate him for it.

    Great.  Seriously, I mean that.  I don’t agree with you about it, but I can respect that, if that truly is what you believe.  I’m jazzed about having a black president after 220 years, and I would have felt pretty damned bummed out if Obama had lost and Clinton had won.  I’d have voted for her, and most likely trudged around, trying to get people out on election day, just as I did for Obama, but I would’ve been a lot less enthusiastic.  I’d vote for her again this year, but unenthusiastically.  So I can see myself in your shoes if things had turned out the other way.  And, as I said, I respect that.

    But, jeez, own it.  I mean, seriously, Obama hasn’t done much in office that Clinton wouldn’t have done, at least as far as I can see.  They voted pretty much in step when they were in Congress together.  Obama’s a decent guy; he’s smart and he works hard.  I’m sure he’s made mistakes, but I’m not perfect myself; nobody is.  Hillary Clinton isn’t.  That’s no knock on her.  She’s human, just as I am, just as you are, just as Obama is.

    So if this is, at its heart, a personal, visceral thing, then admit it.  There’s no shame in that, really.  But people would take you more seriously if you were blunt about it.  I began chiming in here, in my unwelcome way, because I really just couldn’t understand the depth of what seemed to me to be unreasonable, and even paranoid at times, hatred of the president.  I was curious.  I really was.  So I began writing to try to get to the bottom of it.  I guess I poked people sometimes to get a reaction because I was trying to understand what was going on, and because, to be truthful, some of what I read offended me.  Some still does.  But I think I understand better why some of you are doing and sying what you’re doing and saying.

    So, I guess what I’m getting at here is that I wasn’t really trying to be an ass, though, needless to say I might have been one.  And whether you believe me or not, I’m sorry if I’ve pissed you off or poked you in any raw spots.  I do think I understand better what it is that drives so many people here, though, and that’s really what  I wanted.  I’ll try to be reasonably sensitive to people, though I can’t say I won’t wade in and be snippy when I see something that really rubs me the wrong way.  So, if you’ve read this far, then I don’t doubt that you’re eagerly awaiting my wrapup, and I won’t keep you waiting.  I’m off to bed.  Adiós.

    • DianaLC

      You have understood NOTHING.  This no longer has anything to do with Hillary’s winning or not winning.  It has only to do with what should happen in a country founded on the principles on which our country was founded.  What the Democratic Party did during the last primary and election
       was in no way a reflection that its movers and shakers–to use a common saying–understood those principles.  It has to do with valuing those principles OVER Party.
       
      And right now it has nothing to do with Clinton–I don’t think that I could or would vote for her now after she did O’s bidding.  (But mostly I’m still hoping she is not thinking of ever running again.)
       
      I think there is no reasoning with a person who knows it all and can act as if he or she is concerned about feelings.  You’ve received more of my time than you deserve.

      A party does not have the right to set rules and change them constantly throughout the nomination process.  A party does not have the right to ignore, for example from Texas, over 2,000 protest about rule violations.  A party does not have the right to take a person’s vote and give it to a candidate he or she did NOT vote for.  Because you were in a state that did not have a caucus does not mean you should demean the reactions of those who lived in states with caucuses.

      I am sure you will NOT take the time to really understand our discontent with the Democratic Party and with the Obama machine by taking all the time it requires to take these links and read them.

      http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/

      http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/the-triumph-of-fraud-caucus-analysis-by-dr-lynette-long/blog-12649/

      And if after viewing the first one–if you really do–you want to see all the videos from which they are building the long version, simply do a Google searceh for Parts I, II, III, and IV.In the U.S., a political party may run things as it wishes, but its members can and should then decide to leave when that party–no matter what issues it chooses to support–decides to act in ways that do not follow the principles of our founders and stated in our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.  If the party acts as if it is above the will of a large percentage of its members, then it will lose many menbers–such as I (who I will again remind you had been a member since 1970.)
      http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/the-triumph-of-fraud-caucus-analysis-by-dr-lynette-long/blog-12649/

      And if after viewing the first one–if you really do–you want to see all the videos from which they are building the long version, simply do a Google searceh for Parts I, II, III, and IV.

      In the U.S., a political party may run things as it wishes, but its members can and should then decide to leave when that party–no matter what issues it chooses to support–decides to act in ways that do not follow the principles of our founders and stated in our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. 

      If the party acts as if it is above the will of a large percentage of its members, then it will lose many menbers–such as I (who I will again remind you had been a member since 1970.)

      • Dbb3

        Ah yes, We We Not Be Silenced, the “documentary” where a bunch of utterly obscure Clintonites whine about being punked by the evil Obots. Whose producer Bettina Viviano claims Bill Clinton confided to her that Obama threatened to kill Chelsea and he has proof Obama wasn’t eligible. Now I have no doubt Bettina hears lots of voices in her head, so do most PUMAs like you, Diana. Why shouldn’t Clinton be one of them?

        • DianaLC

          2,000 complaints in Texas alone does not make these “obscure Clintonites.”  Go put your head back in the sand.  Funny how everyone NOT buying into the O myth because we DIDN’T put our heads in the sand are the “crazy” and “insane” ones.

          • Dbb3

            And you’ve nothing to say about the paranoid claims of WWNBS’s creator and what that says about its credibility? That was just a day or so ago and it was a Fox “News” anchor who tweeted the link. And what the hell is that pay button on the film website? What the hell is left to finish? An interview with Larry Sinclair? Sending a second unit to film scenics in Momument Valley?

        • DianaLC

          Viviano is a producer.  Try actually viewing the videos.  Look for the name Gaston, I believe.  Also, are you calling me a liar about my experiences as a caucus delegate.  Are you calling all the people who spoke on these videos liars?  Or are you–as I supsect you are–a person who really doesn’t want to watch them and instead wants to simply sput the retorts provided you by your obot and progressive sources?  There wre other people not association with Gaston who also during that time posted videos, but I believe they are no longer on the Web. 

          Did your read Lynette Long’s mathematical analysis of the caucus results–something she was more than qualified to compile?

          The story about the claimed threat to Chelsea is new–but it’s a red herring here that you bring it up.  It has nothing really to do with the topic of the way the caucuses were gamed.

          The truth of the matter is that the DNC turned its back when there was more than enough evidence and more than enough complaints.  The DNC had NO interest in making the state parties follow the rules in place for each state for conducting caucuses.

          As for the Viviano story, I haven’t even read much about it, yet.  So I will not comment, except to say that the little I’ve seen in headlines made me say this to myself:  “That sounds like the Chicago way of doing politics.”  And believe me, in the stories I read earlier about O’s time in Chicago, there were many accusations that were also a reflection of the Chicago Way. 

          So tell me that you’ve actually watched the four videos before they began trying to put them together into one.  Let me know by giving me specific comments about specific statements made by any of the people on the videos that are not credible.  If you comments are that you think they are making things up or lying, then I know your standards:  If O’s machine says it, it must be the Word because in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with Obama.

  • TeakWoodKite

    They know they can’t get any of the adults in the room to vote for them, much less work with them.

  • no_longer_a_democrat

    First, why is she dressed like a hooker, you can see her underwear lines from the back in several of the photos.

    Second, this loser is an embarassment. I couldnt’ stand Bush but loved Laura Bush. Can anyone seriously imagine Laura or Hillary saying something this stupid and self absorbed? Of course Meeechelle is the first first lady to be ashamed to be an American, by her own admission, most of her life.

    • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

      The slime event was good, though.

    • BronwynsHarbor

      Age-appropriate is a phrase that comes to mind.  Isn’t she nearly 50 years old?   You’re correct — Laura Bush, who I also liked, and Hillary both felt protective about children and wouldn’t have used them in a campaign.

      Kids already have plenty of people telling them how to think. Their teachers, their favorite musicians and actors, and TV shows.

      This example is from an adult TV show, but I was aghast that “Mad Men” (for NO reason) take a nasty swipe.

      A character says “Romney is a CLOWN” — but you don’t know who until you compute that the show is set in the 1960s so of course they’re talking about Mitt’s dad, George Romney.

      The script writers do not explain WHY. That was the sole reference to Romney. There’s NO clue why they considered George Romney a clown.

      That’s pretty low for a TV show that’s supposed to be so great. I may just stop watching.  It’s not that entertaining anyway since, more and more, I have grown to dislike all the main characters except Peggy.

  • mumphrey

    “Ever heard of PES? Obama is indeed a socialist.”

    I don’t know; ¿are you talking about the Party of European Socialists?  If so, then, no, but I have now, and I still don’t see what that has to do with Obama, as he is neither European nor a socialist.  And a broken link doesn’t really help you make your case.

    • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

      Figure it out, Einstein, and search/read the article and then come back with your argument.

      And no, it is not my failure for not doing it for you. 

      • mumphrey

        Well, give me a link that works, and I’ll read it.  Otherwise, I have to assume you’re just throwing up fake links and then blaming me when they don’t work.

        • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

          BS:  You are internet savvy and do not need hand holding.  I got you out the door and it’s up to you to make yourself viable.

        • mumphrey

          O.K., I found your article, even though you gave me a link that didn’t work.  Thanks for that, by the way.

          So it’s some Hoover Institute guy who says that Obama’s belief match up fairly well with the PES’s.  O.K.  You know who else’s beliefs match up fairly well with the PES’s?  Theodore Roosevelt’s.  He famously went on about “malefactors of great wealth”, and was a big fan of the estate tax.  He was also an environmentalist.

          Among some of his quotes are these:

          “The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them wherever need of such control is shown… The immediate necessity in dealing with trusts is to place them under the real, not the nominal, control of some sovereign to which, as its creatures, the trusts owe allegiance, and in whose courts the sovereign’s orders may be enforced. In my opinion, this sovereign must be the National Government.”

          “We are passing through a period of great commercial prosperity, and such a period is as sure as adversity itself to bring mutterings of discontent. At a time when most men prosper somewhat some men always prosper greatly; and it is as true now as when the tower of Siloam fell upon all alike, that good fortune does not come solely to the just, nor bad fortune solely to the unjust. When the weather is good for crops it is also good for weeds.”

          “I am in this cause with my whole heart and soul. I believe that the Progressive movement is making life a little easier for all our people; a movement to try to take the burdens off the men and especially the women and children of this country. I am absorbed in the success of that movement.”

          “To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed.”

          “The vast individual and corporate fortunes, the vast combinations of capital which have marked the development of our industrial system, create new conditions, and necessitate a change from the old attitude of state and the nation toward property.”

          “Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.”

          I list those not to prove that Theodore Roosevelt was a socialist–he wasn’t–but to show that many of his beliefs, no less than Obama’s would fit in well with the PES’s.

          And as for that PES…  It is a party made up of Europe’s Socialist parties along with its Social Democratic and Labor Parties.  I looked over its platform a little, and there seem to be no calls for socialization of industry or commerce, which is hardly surprising, as many of its members are not socialists, and would be unlikely to go along with such planks.

          So if your claim is that President Obama’s beliefs fall roughly in line with many of those of Theodore Roosevelt and many of those of an umbrella group of liberal parties in Europe, then, yes, case proven.  If you’re trying to tell me that he’s a socialist in the strict term, then, sorry, I’m not buying it.

    • mumphrey

      So, I feel like we aren’t getting anywhere; I wonder if we should maybe take another tack here.

      And to that end, I’m going to wade in here by trying to give some reasonable definition, even if it doesn’t take into account every subtlety or disagreement among experts.  I would define “socialism”, broadly, as an economic system where much of the economy is state owned and run.  The government owns and runs whole swathes of industry and commerce.  Railroads, for example; mining; banks; heavy industry; maybe insurance companies; maybe it might own and run all the stores in the country, or at least enough of them that they seriously compete with privately owned shops.

      Now, I know that this isn’t any kind of, well, definitive definition.  I am not any kind of expert in socialism.  But as a fairly well-read layman, I think my kind-of-definition does well enough to lay the groundwork.  Needless to say, if you have some better definition, then, by all means, chime in with it.

      A few things that are not definitively socialist (not to say that they are definitively un- or anti-socialist): High income taxes; low income taxes; income tax policy in general.  You can have high income taxes under a socialist system or under a capitalist one or a mixed one.  You can have low income taxes under any of those systems.  You can have a progressive, graduated income tax in any of those systems.  I would argue that the ACA is also not socialist.  It doesn’t do away with private insurance companies and set the government up as the only insurer.  It requires Americans to buy insurance from private companies, so that nobody will show up ininsured at emergencies at taxpayer expense.  Having everybody get medical insurance is, if anything, a way of doing away with the socialization of emergency room services.

      You can argue that requiring Americans to buy insurance from a bunch of private, for-profit companies is not the best policy to take as a country.  I myself make that argument.  But one thing you cannot reasonably argue is that making people buy things from private, for-profit businesses is socialism.  Socialism would be having the government do away with the private companies altogether and taking over the job of paying for Americans’ health care.  I would rather have seen a law that does that, but the Republicans, and some Democrats would not have voted for such a bill, so we got what we got.

      You might ask why I belabor this so.  Fair enough.  I belabor this because I want to understand what it is about Obama that angers so many people here.  You say it’s about policy and philosophical differences, but it can’t be about, say, a difference over socialism, since Obama, as I have tried to show you, is not a socialist.

      I’m happy to listen to you.  I don’t have all the answers.  I don’t know everything.  I know I might be wrong about things and you might be right.  I know that.  But if you’re ever going to convince anybody that you’re right–and if you want to see Obama leave office next year rather than in 2017, you’re going to have to do better at getting people to see things your way–then you have to make better arguments.

      Maybe your reasons for not liking Obama are emotional and visceral and personal.  And there’s nothing wrong with that.  Nobody says we have to like everyone we meet or who runs for office.  I know people I don’t like, not because I don’t agree with them politically or for any other logical reason; I just don’t like them.  That’s all right.  We’re all free to like or not like anybody and everybody.

      But if your reasons for not liking Obama are indeed personal and visceral and emotional, and I believe that they are, then you’d be better off amking those arguments straight out, rather than falling back on incoherent philisophical or ideological reasaons.  My guess is that a lot of people here were big Hillary Clinton backers, and are still bitter that she lost.  Fair enough.  Make your point, and try to convince others.  Maybe you’re so angry over 2008 that you want to vote for Romney this year.  You’re free to make that case.  I happen to think that anybody who voted for Clinton and liked her beliefs and the policies she likely would have followed would be crazy to vote for Romney, but if that’s your position, then make it.  But be open about it.  Don’t try to argue that Obama is a socialist, because he isn’t one.  And if you think he is, then you need to do a better job of proving your case.

      • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

        Why the different tact?  Either you figure it out or you don’t.  That would require the ability to look at Obama without the obot glasses.  It would also require the ability to fully understand the words being written and synthesizing ALL the factual information into a conclusion.  
         
        If the word socialist -which is the far left of the Democratic party is somehow offensive, then do tell what Obama’s “fundamentally change America” declaration really means.  Hint: Forbes.com  FIGURE it out.

      • HARP2

         Let`s start with one little fact.

        Presidents DO NOT rule………they Govern.

        Now if you can`t use that fact as a starting point, then we are wasting our time with you.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7Nlq80DVpo

      • BronwynsHarbor

        Mumphrey, we know why you’re here and why you’re trying to hijack this thread.  We do get tired of the predictable long-winded babbling of people like you, so someday soon … it will be goodbye.

        • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

          Thank you

        • mumphrey

          I don’t think you do.  I’m here because I’m really trying to understand what drives all this anger toward, hatred, even, of the president.  I think I’ve made some progress as far as that  goes, though.

          I’m trying to debate here.  I don’t see why people who don’t see eye to eye can’t still talk to each other.  You think I’m wrong.  I might well be.  I think you’re wrong, and you might well, be.  But, we can still learn something from each other.

          • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

            Not buying that especially after some of the more sophomoric mumphrey posts earlier today on another thread.

      • TeakWoodKite

        “So, I feel like we aren’t getting anywhere; I wonder if we should maybe take another tack here”

        Leave?

    • TeakWoodKite
  • Flop_Flipper

    Here we have the First Lady brainwashing and indoctrinating impressionable youth to challenge their grandparents. So much for the family structure, this is a nanny state gone wild.  The Junior Obot brats come around here and the dog gets let out. Just sayin….

    She should be arrested for child abuse.

    • HARP2
      • mumphrey

        If you truly believe that anything Obama has done is within a million miles of naziism, then you are seriously deranged.

        • HARP2

           One small step at a time. I`m surprised you with your dazzling knack for seeing into the future can not recognize the similarities.

          • TeakWoodKite

            I sure mumphrey can manage to agree, history does repeat itself…

  • http://twitter.com/LHN_UK Liverpool Hotels Now

    So it’s supposed to be a big deal that Michelle Obama thinks people that don’t want to vote for her husband are “wrong”??? … Seriously? Obviously she thinks they are wrong. I do too. Big deal. 

    Ask yourselves a question: Why do you never talk about anything of substance here? Is it because when it comes to substance it’s obvious President Obama is the right choice? (I think you know… somewhere deep down… that is the case.)

    • HARP2

      Now you made me do it.

    • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

      There’s a struggling little dem blog called The Ostroy Report that needs your *cough cough* insight and crystal ball there, bellboy.  Why don’t you wander on over.  

      In 2008 it would have over a 100 hits in a day.  Today, meh, maybe 3 to 7 on one thread.

      Why do you think that is?  Could it be the thrill of Obama is gone?

      As far as Michelle’s choice of words, one would think a Harvard graduate such as herself would have a more eloquent command of the english language.  But, alas, no, after all, that kind of competence wasn’t being emphasized when she went to school.

      Also, if this isn’t a place of substance, why do you persist in hanging around?  Obviously, someone such as yourself needs more like minded people to confirm how superior you are.  

      *snicker*

    • DianaLC

      And why do you get to define what constitutes issues that are substantive?

      So get this:  Deep down in the deepest regions of my heart and soul, I believe that Obama is the worst POTUS I have ever experienced as a citizen of the U.S. 

      And while I am not yet 65, I’m getting close.  So perhaps those of us who grew up in the U.S. when it was at its best and who attended schools when we were actually taught things of substance are the ones making the best decisions.

      To try to pit children against older people is what is “wrong.”

      To teach (indoctrinate children on) one’s own political views has always been wrong–that is definitely a socialistic, communistic method.

      But at the prices mentioned here, I’m guessing she was speaking to children of the “bad” guys–the POTUS’s 1 percenters, since I know no one who could afford those prices.  Funny who these people who are supposedly for the “common” folk hang out so much with the 1 percenters.

      • Flop_Flipper

        Remove the Nazi symbolism and it’s just like the Hitler Youth Brigade.

      • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona

        Not only do I find the O administration the worst ever but I find many things that Mr and Mrs. O does  deeply offensive.
        They are supposed to represent ALL americans but are so myopic they continually push their socialist slop agenda and offend at every turn.  
        This week it’s the Supreme Court and the idea that adults need children telling them who to vote for.

        • mumphrey

          “Socialist agenda”?  Do you even know what socialist policies are?  Most of what Obama has done wouldn’t stick out too badly in the Eisenhower or Nixon Administrations.

          I myself am not a socialist, but I can see the benefits of some socialist policies.  I’d rather that Obama leaned a little more toward socialist policies, especially in health care.  At the same time, I can understand why people would not be for socialism under any circumstances.  But Obama isn’t a socialist.  I can understand that there could be many reasons not to like the ACA, though I like it.  But socialism isn’t one of them.  It makes you look like you don’t know why you hate the ACA or Obama to go on and on and on and on and on about socilaism.

          From the way the people here go on, I can’t see that there’s any coherent ideological or philosophical reason for your opposition to Obama.  A lot of people here were–or claim to have been–big Hillary Clinton fans; some still claim to support here; and now most of you seem to be backing Romney.  How the hell does that make any sense?  My guess is that a lot of the opposition to Obama– and a lot of it spills over into outright hatred as I see it–is emotional, visceral.  That’s perfectly defensible.  Nobody says you have no right to oppose a politician if your opposition isn’t rooted in ideology or philosophy; but you’d seem much more coherent and reasonable if you’d acknowledge why you’re so dead set against him.

          I mean, seriously, can you name one socialist outrage Obama has wrought or tried to work, and tell me why it’s “socialist”?  I don’t think any of you people can even tell me what makes socialism socialism.

          • http://twitter.com/VeronicaVerona1 Veronica Verona
          • DianaLC

            mumphrey,

            I was a Hillary Clinton delegate during the primaries from the county through the state assemblies and conventions. 

            The behaviors I witnessed and endured from the Obama machine were indefensible.  I watched the “We Shall Not Be Silenced” videos.  (I bet you haven’t and will choose not to, just as all close-minded progessives choose not to.)  I read and studied all the reports of how the caucuses were being “gamed,” especially in Texas–and these were all well researched and documented.  I witnessed the behavior.  I also watched as super delegates were bought and paid for.  I read the reports here on the illegal ways Obama was using to pull in money.  I watched as the DNC took delegates she had won and gave them to Obama.

            I watched the debates, which Hillary always really won in terms of her knowledge.  Then I got to watch the terrible sexist way the MSM treated her and dismissed her.  I watched Obama take the state, rubbing a certain finger across his cheek as Jay Z’s “Ninety-Nine Problems and a Bitch Aint One.”  (or whatever the official title is).

            I got to watch the smug current resident of our WH claim that HIS people would not vote for her, but hers would vote for him.

            That was it.  I quit the party I had been a member of since I could first vote in 1970 since it no longer seemed to me to be the party I had always thought was for the people.  Remember that Hillary did indeed win more VOTES during the primary–the caucuses turned the nomination.  These were caucuses that were clearly, obviously gamed.  I watched then as the DNC made it clear that, like the old Soviet Politburo, they–should I say the “vanguard,” the “intelligentsia” of the Party–got to select the candidate.

            So there is the first thing I saw that smacked of socialism.

            Then I watched as O tried–and soon learned that no one would fall for it–to turn ACORN into some type of youth army.  Again a socialistic move.

            Move forward and we get to hear NP tell us to shut up and let them pass a law that NO ONE (except Tea Party members who were derided and called names by the MSM talking heads) had read.  She told us, as if we were nothing but uneducated peasants, that it should be passed and we could then see how much we liked it.  That is not the democratic way.

            I watched the MSM start acting like the old Soviet Pravda–spout the party line (thank heavens for Fox).

            I could go on an on about the echoes of socialism I sensed in his behavior.

            But, let’s also discuss other things about O that I didn’t like.  How about his secrecy about everything?  How about his actively making sure no one can find out anything about him–pretty unprededented in an open society where we should be able to judge our leaders by their life’s accomplishments.

            So again, I got to read CHICAGO reporters giving all the lurid details about the Rezko property deal with the Obamas.  I got to read about the total lack of accomplishment by Obama–the details of the failure and enormous waste of money in regard to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, that his good buddy Ayers probably got him into; his many “present” votes in Chicago; his “friends in high places” providing him the chance to put his name on things that he had done no work on.  Dang, his famous campaign speech was largely plagiarized.

            I, as a Christian, saw him claim to be Christian, then back peddle about his membership in Wright’s church (if you can call it that).  Then we get him talking about his Muslim background.  He plays to whatever audience he is speaking to.  He’s a chameleon, a narcissist.  I’ve read and know more about what is known about his personal biography than probably most of his supporters know.  All they know is the fiction of his probably ghost written “memoirs.” 

            I could go on and on about why Obama turns my stomach whenever I think of him in the WH.  Yes, it’s visceral.  He totally OFFENDS me at this point.

            All these experiences caused me to do some real soul searching about my political beliefs and I changed many of my previous opinions and kept others.

            Basically, as the great-granddaughter of people who escaped Russia just as the Bolsheviks took over–with many very distant relatives left there to be persecuted and sent to Siberial for being “kulaks,” I do have visceral reactions against this man, whose behavior smacks of the same attitudes I experienced from a Marxist professor who totally bought into the idea of the “intelligentsia” and the “vanguard” of Marxist theory.

            So–at this point all other “issues” don’t matter to me.  Health care needs to be fixed a little in this country.  Our energy policies and foreign policies need to be worked on.  Energy policies need to be ironed out.  But the important thing is that no matter what O says or does, at this point I DO NOT TRUST HIS ADMINISTRATION.  NOTHING HE HAS DONE IN OFFICE HAS IMPRESSED ME, BUT MUCH HAS NAUSEATED ME AND DISGUSTED ME.

            My early respect for Hillary is still in tact, though I now often distrust her for actually working for this man.  And as for changes in political philosphy, remember that she had been a Goldwater Republican.  It happens.

            I think there are far more PUMAs than you want to admit.

            As for Romney–I trust him at this point.  I’ve liked his behavior during this primary.  I like his “resume,” since it does show previous accomplishments.  I have read nothing about ugly personal history–which I have read about Obama.

            Your treatment of me on this site does not deserve a polite response to your questions.  But I’ve tried to give you some.

            Just quit the obot style of discussing issues and deciding what counts as valid evidence and what doesn’t.  People are feeling creatures as well as thinking creatures.  Modern neurobiology, neuropsychology, neurolinguistics, etc.—much of which I have read–supports the fact that emotion and reason can not be separated.

            I really, really emotionally can’t stand Obama.  I have throughout my long life learned to trust my emotional reactions.

          • TeakWoodKite

            “Most of what Obama has done wouldn’t stick out too badly.”

            Size is everything in a POTUS. tsk. Ask Monica.

          • Flop_Flipper

            To DianaLC below: One of the best comments I read on any blog. Well written, factual and passionate. Awesome job!

    • NoQuarterUSA

      You must not visit often because we’ve had countless posts on women’s rights, Afghanistan, Libya, nuclear proliferation, Russia, Egypt, the fiscal corruption of the Obama campaign donations enterprise … and … yes, how Obama Inc. is choosing to campaign because it is IMPORTANT to show how they attempt to hoodwink people, here recruiting naive children.

      Also, you must have missed the long section above about the fears of senior citizen voters about what Obama may do to Medicare.  

      Those kids should be scared too — after all, Obama is going to leave them with a massive debt to pay off.  They just don’t know it yet.

      – Bronwyn, who needs to log out as NoQuarter 

      • TeakWoodKite

        Rolf. :)

    • TeakWoodKite

      not “wrong”…”wrong people”.
       
      Oh, and if by “substance”, you mean not Obama, you’d be correct.
      If by deep down you mean somewhere”deep down”  in depths of the abyss of Obama lies, you’d be correct.
      @b

    • stodghie

      that was just so lame liverpool! hehe