Michelle Obama's Speech

OK, we talked about Ann Romney's speech, so it is only fair to also discuss what the First Lady had to say.

Who wants to be the first one to weigh in?

I looked for articles about it in Google, and caught one link that indicated she had dominated Twitter. (Something about 28,003 tweets-per-minute at its peak, double what was achieved by Romney's acceptance speech.

I also caught this article on the Washington Post's opinion page.

and in the interest of fairness, here's a guy who says he didn't buy a line of it.

So how do we feel here at BWS?

(I'll begin by saying I loved her dress, but was amazed that they were discussing her nail polish color on the Today show this morning. Mentioned this to Steve, but he hadn't noticed dress or nails. Sorry to sound so shallow, but in my defense, I studied fashion design in college -- I naturally see the clothes, it's in my genes. And I don't want to start out by saying anything that would influence the discussion on her message.)

I thought she did a great job. So did Ann Romney. They're both terrific women as far as I can see. I think Michelle hit exactly the right notes for her husband's candidacy. But the conventions are pep rallies and it's to be expected that they will be well received.

In fairness to Ann Romney, I think Michelle Obama has a more commanding presence on stage and was able to benefit from better speechwriters.

But I'll say the same: These women aren't running for office.

Michelle Obama comes across as being sincere, warm and intelligent. She has charisma. And she appears to be the type of person that deserves respect. I enjoy hearing her talk and watching her facial expressions as she does so. Good speech.
The lady can't help but be an asset!!!

Here's what stumps me: [censored] Morris said on "The Factor" last night, that Bill Clinton really doesn't want Obama to win the election. If that's true, then what the heck was Clinton's
speech about? Can U tell me that???

I've heard that too. In fact, I just heard it on tonight's episode of HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher."

But I don't know whether I am politically savvy enough to explain it...

I'm sure it's hugely complicated. But politicians should not play with the public's head like this. It's cruel.

Here's the best I understand it, but it doesn't make sense. (Sometimes I think Mr. Morris is too in love with the sound of his own voice to be taken too seriously).

Anyway, here are the possible scenarios:

1. Obama loses in November and Romney is elected.

2. In 2016, Obama could present a problem to Hillary Clinton running for president if he decides to run again. Remember, you can serve two terms, but if you have only served one, you can run again. If Obama went against Hillary, it would be bad for her aspirations for president.

This makes no sense. First of all, no one knows if Hillary wants to run for president anyway. Second, I seriously doubt that Obama could lose the election in 2012 and manage to be renominated in 2016. It just doesn't work that way. Once you have lost you are out.

And the third and biggest reason, if Romney wins in 2012 and Hillary seeks to run against him in 2016, she'd have to try and unseat an incumbent, which is really, really difficult to do. Not impossible, but a very uphill strategy. If Hillary wants to run in 2016, she'd have an easier path with an outgoing Democratic president and a strong Democratic party.

So there. It doesn't make sense to me that Bill Clinton would want Obama to lose because none of the 2016 strategies are helped by him losing. Just silliness, and there's plenty of that around....

Don't think Hillary will run again but could be wrong. Perhaps there are reasons beneath the surface none of us can see! As far as [censored] Morris is concerned, he has a head full of statistics, background experienced and is very learned. SIL is of the opinion, O'Reilly likes to bloivate too much!

Oh, there's plenty of bloviating going around! But my husband is a statistician who has specialized in voting and voting behavior. I ran Mr. Morris' theory past him and he said it was just goofy, so there's a competing opinion. And my husband has written books on voting and elections and the like. (They're not books anyone normal would want to read! They're all statistical and heavy going.)

On all the channels, there's lots and lots of what-if? political talk. They need to fill the air time, I think.....

I like Michelle. But honest, we can't focus on the wives' speeches (including Romney). Neither of these ladies are running for office, no matter how intelligent. Unless they step up the campaign podium to run...

I don't follow U.S. politics much. So Hillary is non-existent in my world.

orchid,
You won't be voting 4 the President or Romney but some of the First Lady's have made huge contributions to their husband's terms. Millard Fillmore's wife Abigail started the White House Library. Say nothing of Eleanor Roosevelt, etc.

Certainly jabber, some of the First Ladies stand on their own, just as individuals.

Eleanor has my admiration because I doubt towards the latter years, her marriage with Frank R. was great. So she went out and did stuff on her own. Good for her!!

We have some (not many equivalencies) in Canada. We did have a female Prime Minister of Canada, Kim Campbell for a short time. She actually was a young lawyer long ago at a law firm that I worked.

Hi orchid,
There's a great deal of merit in what you say. I agree. We cannot vote for a candidate's mate only. IMHO their mates do add to the ticket, however. And many of the past 1st ladies' have done much to admire.