Tag Archives: Michelle Obama

No ‘racist intent’? Is this guy joking?

OK, I cannot let this one go.

Donald J. Trump says he wants to bind the wounds that divided the nation during a heated presidential campaign.

Fine. Then the president-elect needs to put maximum distance between himself and individuals such as Carl Paladino,  a fellow who ran his campaign in New York.

Paladino, a one-time Republican nominee for New York governor, has said some hideous and hateful things about President and Michelle Obama. He told an alternative publication he wants the president to “die from mad cow disease” in 2017; then it got even worse. Paladino said this about the first lady: “Michelle Obama. I’d like her to return to being a male and let loose in the outback of Zimbabwe where she lives comfortable in a cave with Maxie, the gorilla.”

The president-elect’s transition team has issued a statement calling Palidino’s statements “reprehensible.” Yes they are, to the max.

What is utterly flabbergasting in the extreme is that Paladino said he didn’t intend any “racist” overtone in his statements.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/311686-trump-ny-co-chair-wishes-death-on-obama

According to The Hill: “Paladino on Friday verified to The Buffalo News that his comments were real, attacking the newspaper for inquiring about them. “’Of course I did,’ he said when asked if he had uttered the remarks. ‘Tell them all to go f*** themselves.

“’Tell that Rod Wilson I made that comment just for him,’ Paladino added, referring to one of the newspaper’s black columnists and editors.”

No racist intent? Paladino said he is “not politically correct.”

He is much worse than that.

Obama critics won’t stop name-calling, either

93464f48-0602-480f-afbc-a574e0c27869-large16x9_trump_leak

It’s going to be a difficult transition for many millions of Americans from the Obama presidency to the Trump presidency.

I totally am in that camp. I’m one of those Americans who’s going to have a tough time making that switch.

Yes, some critics of this blog — and some acquaintances of mine — have questioned why I keep commenting negatively about Donald J. Trump. “Move on,” they say. “Get over it,” they admonish me.

Well, OK. I will get over it. I will move on … eventually.

Perhaps I should offer a deal for those critics to ponder. How about many of them stop hurling epithets at the current president?

I don’t associate with those who’ve been amazingly harsh toward Barack Obama, his lovely wife Michelle — and even those precious and beautiful daughters of theirs, Malia and Sasha.

You no doubt have heard some of the hate that has spewed forth against the first family. Much of it is based on the president’s policies. Much of it also is based on more visceral feelings.

Let’s not pussyfoot around here. There has been a racial component to the criticism against the first family. No, I am not pointing the accusatory finger at all the critics. Those who’ve said things publicly through social media, though, have conducted a shameful smear campaign against  the president and his family.

Will I be able eventually to accept fully the election of Donald J. Trump as president of the United States? I am going to make every effort possible to do so.

But I won’t be badgered, pestered or browbeaten into doing so by those who have kept yammering negatively against the current president over matters that transcend public policy.

It’s not that I intend to deliberately return what others have flung at the man Trump is succeeding as president. Those who have said many ugly and hurtful things, though, need to understand that some of these wounds will take time to heal.

So, if some of us continue to complain out loud — and vociferously — about the policies being proposed by the current president, I’ll offer this response: Get over it!

Trump to ‘batch it’ at the White House

49321869-cached

Note: This blog post has been updated.

Melania Trump has declared that she and her son, Barron, will move into the White House after the youngster finishes his school year at his private school in New York City.

***

An interesting and somewhat puzzling development has cropped up in this transition from one president to another.

Melania Trump won’t be moving to the White House when her husband, Donald J. Trump, is inaugurated as the 45th president of the United States.

She and the couple’s son, Barron, will remain in New York while husband/dad tends to governing the country. Why won’t she move to the White House? Mrs. Trump said she wants her son to continue attending the private school he attends near their home.

OK, I won’t challenge her parenting skills. Mrs. Trump reportedly wants to shield 10-year-old Barron from the pressures of living in the People’s House.

I do have some advice for the new first lady. She ought to get on the phone and talk once again to Michelle Obama, Laura Bush and — oh, yeah! — Hillary Rodham Clinton. What do these women have in common? They all raised young children under the glare of the White House lights.

* The Obama girls haven’t quite left the nest, but they appeared to adjust well as Mom and Dad went about the business of being the First Couple; it helped, too, that Mrs. Obama’s mother also lives in the White House. Grandma no doubt was a steadying hand for Malia and Sasha.

* The Bush girls — twins Barbara and Jenna — also have grown into successful adults after spending most of two full terms in the White House.

* Chelsea Clinton was famously protected by her parents during her father’s two terms as president. She turned out just fine, too.

If she wants to go way back, Mrs. Trump could visit with Caroline Kennedy, who lived for a time in the White House as the daughter of a president before tragedy struck on Nov. 22, 1963.

I’ll have to think more about this news for it to sink in. My reaction to learning about Melania Trump’s decision to stay in New York City, though, is that it seems to be yet another curious turn in what’s becoming a most unusual presidential transition.

And don’t you know: The Secret Service is gnashing its teeth over the measures it will take to protect Melania and Barron Trump while they’re away from the White House.

Trump treads on dangerous ground

rs_1024x759-160725193248-1024-michelle-obama-mv-72516

Donald J. Trump is daring to go where no politician should go.

He is now taking aim at the first lady of the United States. Yes, that lady. Michelle Obama, the one who has been skewering the Republican presidential nominee — without ever mentioning his name.

I normally might issue a word of caution to Trump. I won’t do so here … although perhaps you might think I just did.

Since I do not want Trump to win this election, then I might be inclined to say, “You go, Donald!”

Trump criticizes the first lady at considerable peril to his already-seemingly doomed presidential campaign. He’s managed to self-immolate himself with hideous remarks about women, about Hispanics, handicapped individuals, a notable Vietnam War prisoner/hero … you name ’em, Trump has denigrated ’em.

The campaign — thank almighty God in heaven! — is winding down. My sense is that Trump is going out in a blaze of non-glory. Attacking the first lady of the United States, who has emerged as Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s most effective surrogate, is sounding for all the world like the last gasp of a miserable presidential campaign.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-goes-after-michelle-obama-all-she-wants-to-do-is-campaign/ar-AAjeQsC?li=BBnb7Kz

 

Hillary remains mum on Trump’s latest trouble

hillary

Hillary Rodham Clinton likely has a lot to say about Donald J. Trump’s sexual behavior.

Her problem? She cannot say it out loud. The Democratic nominee for president of the United States must rely on surrogates to express their outrage on her behalf.

She happens to have a couple of powerful surrogates: President Barack H. Obama and his wife, Michelle, who have done a masterful job of peeling the bark off the Republican presidential nominee.

Hillary Clinton’s own history — as well as the history of her husband — compel her to remain mum on the subject of those ghastly Trump comments we all heard the other day aboard that “Access Hollywood” bus in 2005.

As the New York Times has reported: “Though Hillary Clinton has stood at the center of feminist debates for more than two decades, she has also been an imperfect messenger for the feminist cause. That has never been more true than now, as her old missteps and her husband’s history have effectively paralyzed her during a moment of widespread outrage.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/missteps-in-hillary-clinton%e2%80%99s-past-leave-her-muted-in-furor-over-donald-trump/ar-AAj00Y1?li=BBnb7Kz

And the outrage hasn’t let up since the video and audio recordings were released to the public.

As for whether any of this damages Hillary Clinton’s political standing, I happen to believe it will not.

Her tactic so far has been to change the subject when the talk turns to Trump’s statements about attempting to seduce a married woman, or how his “star” status allows him to grab women in their private areas, or allows him to kiss them aggressively without their consent.

The two of them have one more joint appearance to endure before voters have their final say. It will occur, interestingly, in Las Vegas, Nev., where Trump has some significant business dealing and where — one might presume — he has engaged in some of his untoward behavior with women.

Will any of this come up when the event opens? Uhhh, let me think for a second … yes, it will.

Do not look for Clinton to go there. She’ll likely just let Trump rant like a madman over the former president’s misbehavior.

From where I will be sitting while this event occurs, that will look like a good call.

Then she’ll likely sic Barack and Michelle Obama on him.

FLOTUS lights up Trump

Here is Michelle Obama’s full speech delivered today in Manchester, N.H.

I’ve already offered a brief comment on it.

I just thought it would be worth showing it in this venue to give you an idea of just how powerful it is. She speaks about the conduct of Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee for president of the United States.

The first lady has made no public mention of continuing her public service career in elective office.

My very strong sense is that she ought to consider seeking such an office to continue to speaking out as she has done with this speech.

Take a few minutes and listen to what she said today. Michelle Obama’s husband, the president of the United States, said today at a rally later in Ohio that he married this woman to “improve the gene pool.” He got a lot of laughs when he said it.

This speech tells me the president spoke the absolute truth.

Michelle Obama emerges as potent political weapon

michelle-obama

The political world is buzzing this evening over a speech delivered earlier in the day by a woman who hasn’t been elected to a public office, nor is she seeking one.

The speech came from first lady Michelle Obama, who took up the cudgel for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

She stood before a crowd in Manchester, N. H., and blistered Republican nominee Donald J. Trump over his behavior toward women.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/300918-michelle-obama-becomes-clintons-most-powerful-weapon

“This is not normal. This is not politics as usual,” Obama said at one point. “This is disgraceful. It is intolerable.”

There was a whole lot more.

She peeled the bark off of Trump without naming him specifically. Everyone knew of whom she spoke.

I am reminded of something I said to members of my family … and perhaps to a few friends back in 2009 when Barack Obama took office as the 44th president of the United States.

My thought then was that the first lady would emerge as the president’s secret weapon. She would become his most potent political ally. Indeed, her public approval ratings have loomed far greater than the president’s have during his entire eight years in the White House.

Well, now she has emerged as Hillary Clinton’s most effective surrogate.

The first lady was taking aim at that infamous video recording of Trump talking with Billy Bush about what he does, or would like to do, to women.

“This was not just a lewd conversation, that wasn’t just locker room banter,” the first lady said. “This was a powerful individual speaking freely and openly about sexually predatory behavior and actually bragging about kissing and groping women — using language so obscene that many of us were worried about children hearing it when we turn on the TV.”

Michelle Obama has taken this stuff personally. As she should.

As for Trump and how he might respond to this blistering barrage, he needs to take great care.

“I can’t think of a bolder way for Donald Trump to lose even more standing than he already has,” said deputy White House press flack Eric Schultz,  “than by engaging the first lady of the United States.”

Civility, good will come back to life

bush-and-michelle

Take a good look at this picture.

It is fast becoming my favorite image from this year’s election campaign.

You know who they are: former President George W. Bush and first lady Michelle Obama. They were attending the dedication today of the African-American museum in Washington, D.C., an exhibit that tells the comprehensive story of the African-American experience in this nation.

Presidents Obama was the keynote speaker today and he took time to heap plenty of praise on the work that President Bush (whose wife, Laura, also attended the ceremony) did to make this important exhibit a reality.

There’s something quite gratifying in seeing this image, of Michelle Obama embracing her husband’s immediate predecessor as president.

It’s also interesting — to me, at least — that the image was snapped by David Hume Kennerly, who happened to be the official White House photographer during President Ford’s administration. You see, Gerald Ford served at a time when Republicans and Democrats fairly routinely worked together to solve national problems.

We’ll soon relegate this image to the back of our memories as we proceed toward the end of this contentious election campaign.

I thought I’d share it here just as a reminder that civility, good will and good manners occasionally present themselves.

O’Reilly: Slaves were ‘well-fed’ … seriously?

oreilly_0

Bill O’Reilly once taught history to students.

I wonder if he imparted this little tidbit to the young’ns  gathered in his classroom, which is that the slaves who helped build the White House were “well-fed” and well-cared for.

I also wonder if he told them the rest of it, which is that under federal law at the time, they still were considered to be “personal property” of their owners, that they were three-fifths human and that they were no better off than, say, farm animals.

O’Reilly made his feelings known about slavery the other day after first lady Michelle Obama told the Democratic National Convention about living in the house built by slaves. She spoke also of the pride she feels that her daughters have been able to play on the White House lawn, given the slave labor that went into building the structure.

O’Reilly just had to chime on in his “O’Reilly Factor” cable show by seeming to suggest that slave life was OK because the slaves’ masters fed them well and gave them “decent lodging.”

Well, I feed my dog well, too. My puppy lives in a nice home; he’s comfortable. But for crying out loud, he’s still a dog!

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/michelle-obama-bill-oreilly-fact-check-white-house-built-slaves-well-fed-decent-lodgings#.V5jR0-nbQk4.twitter

I likely shouldn’t give a damn what Bill O’Reilly thinks. The issue, though, is that many Americans do give a damn.

I have members of my family who glom onto his commentary. They worship the guy. Thus, if O’Reilly says it, why it just has to be true … or so these family members have actually told me.

It might be that the crux of O’Reilly’s critique of the first lady’s comments were that slaves were among the workers who helped build the White House, that others were part of the construction crew as well.

But geez, man, why suggest that their living conditions somehow justifies the ownership of human beings as pieces of property?

FLOTUS gives ’em some tough love at DNC

FILE -- In a Nov. 12, 2011 file photo first lady Michelle Obama listens during a visit to  MA’O Organic Farms in Waianae, Hawaii.    Michelle Obama cajoled Jay Leno into nibbling on apples, sweet potato fries and a pizza made with eggplant, green peppers and zucchini on the "Tonight Show," Tuesday Jan. 31, 2012.     (AP Photo/Susan Walsh/file)

Did you hear what I heard first lady Michelle Obama say to the Democratic National Convention delegates?

I’m pretty sure I heard her deliver a tough-love lecture to the Bernie Sanders supporters who earlier in the day were booing the sound of the name “Hillary Clinton.”

The first lady had the courage to inform them that Clinton did not walk away and sulk after losing the Democratic presidential primary in 2008 to Sen. Barack Obama. She informed them that Clinton joined the team that helped elect the young senator as president.

My hunch as I listened to her speech tonight was that the message was not lost on the Sanders legions who stood in front of her on the convention floor — let alone those at home who might be feeling a bit down and out.

Her message? Get over it.