Columnist who started the Michelle Obama/Hillary controversy tries to explain herself

[wndycty]

A swipe at the Clintons? Here's how I saw it
My view of Michelle Obama's speech set tongues wagging

August 23, 2007
I'm glad I took the day off Tuesday, when the firestorm hit. I didn't read my e-mails; I didn't watch television. I jogged and bought groceries and tended to my family, so I didn't know what happened until Wednesday morning.

Apparently, my column on Michelle Obama became a rant for the news media when it ran that morning -- I guess there is not enough to report in the dog days of August. The aim of the column was to note how much Michelle Obama had grown into her job as wife of presidential wannabe, Barack Obama, how animated and passionate she was about her husband's candidacy.

But in the fifth paragraph of the story, I suggested that during an introduction to a speech by her husband, something she said could be interpreted as a swipe against the Clintons, and that set the tongues wagging, hit Drudge's Web site, was discussed on CNN, ABC and MSNBC and prompted an e-mail from Michelle Obama's communications director, Katie McCormick Lelyveld, who said I had completely misunderstood what Michelle Obama had said.
-snip-

OK, but as I stood there in Atlantic, Iowa, listening to Michelle Obama talk and hearing the cadence of her speech, my immediate reaction was that she was obliquely referring to the Clintons.
-snip-

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/522597,CST-NWS-hunter23.article

[acmavm]

1. This makes for some damn good 'drama'. And of course she

was taking a swipe at Hils.

That's what politicians (and their significant others) do. The Barrie fans like pretending that their candidate and his wife are above all that.

They aren't. None of them are.

I love these Barrie/Hils wars.

[BeyondGeography]

2. It couldn't have been a smack at the Clintons because she emphasized raising kids and Chelsea

isn't exactly a train wreck, doncha know.

[THUNDER HANDS]

3. i didn't see it as a swipe at the clintons

i mean, really, what would be the benefit if it was?

[EST]

4. So, now, this writer has to pick her own poison.

She has to own up to being a piss poor writer, a piss poor listener, or to having a streak of prickishness that borders on dishonesty. What a choice!

[Justyce]

5. After reading the whole thing,

I tend to think it wasn't necessarily aimed at the Clintons. But then again, the Clintons have held their marriage together since college through hard times & managed to raise a wonderful daughter (look at bush's daughters compared to Chelsea...), so I see them as a strong family. I think people who are critical of the Clintons are the ones more likely to assume that's who she was talking about -- I personally was thinking of the weirdness that is the bush family, so I think it's all subjective rather than a direct hit.

[wndycty]

6. This was not a swipe at anyone. . .

. . .not Rudy, not Bush, not the Clintons.

[ccpup]

7. there is an interesting phrase

in this reporter's article where she refers to "the cadence of her speech". As most people know, words on paper can look rather generic and safe. Add a slight pause or an emphasis on a word or sentence ... the smallest thing can make the biggest difference. Perhaps, in reading the speech, it appears as if she was, in fact, referring to her family, but, in hearing it live, the sentence everyone is jumping on was somehow highlighted, or set apart in some way to indicate a (wink, wink) double-meaning?

I'm just thinking out-loud, of course. It would be great if we could see or hear the speech for ourselves or, if those aren't options, speak with someone who was there and doesn't have an agenda.

But someone on the campaign staff should have seen the danger in a sentence like that ESPECIALLY if it can be taken out of context. You're running for President! The smallest thing taken out of context can put you on the defensive and distract from your message for days and days and days. They better get on the ball over there.

[wndycty]

8. Watch the TODAY SHOW report

And tell me about her cadence:

http://video.msn.com/v/us/fv/msnbc/fv.htm??g=f6329169-cf5d-4212-b9f8-32cd375576cf&f=00&fg=

[ccpup]

9. thank you for the link n/t

[Felinity]

10. I must be dim-wittted

I thought Michelle O was talking about her family, and balancing her children's needs with the rigors of campaigning. When in the last 20 years did the Clintons have children?

[ccpup]

13. they have a daughter,

Chelsea, that the republicans once referred to as "the family dog".

[ccpup]

12. watched the report

(you could have warned me it was Andrea Mitchell, btw! :P ) and appreciate hearing the words come from her mouth instead of seeing them on paper. I would have loved to have heard the bit before she uttered that now infamous sentence and then the sentence and then what follows it, but I suspect the Reporter here was wanting to make a story out of what appears to be a stock sentence in her stump speech.

A sentence, I still think, a seasoned campaign staff would have caught and seen the inherent danger in. Especially in light of what the repug slime machine still puts out there about the Clintons and their marriage. It's a good humanizing, he's a father and family man-type point for Michelle to make, but she can make it in a way that directly refers to her and her family IN THE SENTENCE to prevent people from doing what they did this time and taking it out of context. Ridiculous and unfair, yes, but it's the reality of campaigning these days and "mistakes" like that do tend to bring unwanted attention and break one's focus.

[unc70]

19. It seemed more aimed at the Edwardses, to me.

When I saw the video of this, I immediately thought of Edwards. It seemed an attempt to counter Elizabeth Edwards. I had noticed MO's delivery also, the pauses and the strange "run your own house" phrase immediately after "share your values", and the example of good family values was that MO went each night to tuck her girls into bed.

Nothing she says in that part of her speech seems aimed at Clinton or at the Repubs (infidelity, divorces, ...).

I posted about this earlier with a few thoughts on psycholinguistic programming. That post is in my journal.

[zulchzulu]

11. Why talk about the issues when you can fabricate a catfight...

Shame (again) on the MSM.

[rurallib]

14. who is the writer. I do not see them identified anywhere

I know Drudgie-boy made a big deal of it. I still have never heard the name of the original writer.

[wndycty]

16. Jennifer Hunter

I noticed today they did not put in her normal byline online.

[rurallib]

17. Thank you. There are some nationally syndicated columnists

from the sun-times. She is not one I know.

[wndycty]

18. No she is local

:kick:

[Grandrose]

15. Sure....cadence, that's the ticket!

Bulls... this so-called reporter, did a hit job and it's the gift that keeps on giving! She wanted to denigrate the Clinton's and used Michelle (a twofer) for her own purpose to start a controversy.
Michelle Obama is perfectly capable of stating in no uncertain terms what her positions are, it probably will not be the last time she will be misquoted.
Personally, her words spoke to me about the Republics!:think:

[AtomicKitten]

20. Sloppy reporting yet again by the Media Heathers.