Dawood Khan

Archive for May 23rd, 2008|Daily archive page

, ,

Michelle Obama Interview

In Politics on May 23, 2008 at 5:52 am

I’ve hit Michelle hard on here a few times. For the sake of fairness: Michelle in her own words.

Your next First Lady?

With SpongeBob on her TV, Lauryn Hill on her iPod, two BlackBerrys in her purse and, she hopes, the White House in her future, Michelle Obama is moving fast. Writer Tonya Lewis Lee attempts to catch up.

Michelle Obama

Obama: campaigning for her guy

I have to admit I was a little intimidated by Michelle Obama when I first saw her. She was standing on the far side of a hotel conference room, and I got the impression of a regal woman who has a model’s height (she’s 5’11”) and a classic, understated chic. But then she came forward, extended an endless arm and broke out her famous million-watt smile. She gave me a big hug—as if we were old girlfriends—and I felt as though I’d known her forever. I guess part of my comfort came from the similarities in our lives. Michelle and I are both lawyers; we both have two children (I have a daughter, Satchel, 12, and a son, Jackson, 10; her girls are Malia, 9, and Sasha, 6); and we’re both married to very public men. My husband is director Spike Lee; hers is Barack Obama, the third black United States senator since Reconstruction and our would-be next president.

First I saw Michelle’s friendliness, then I saw her focus. This was business; she had a job to do and a message to get across. She answered each question with enthusiasm, leaning in to me and gesturing with her expressive hands.

Being First Lady was probably not on her mind in 1988, when she met Barack. A product of Chicago’s South Side (her father was a city pump operator, and her mother a secretary) and a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School, she was an attorney at the Sidley Austin firm in Chicago when she was assigned to mentor a new summer intern, Barack. Four years later they married. Now, while her husband runs for the presidency, Michelle, 43, does the lion’s share of raising their girls and works as vice president of community and external affairs for the University of Chicago Hospitals. She’s on the road several days a week for the Obama campaign, shaking hands, charming the media, making speeches…and history.

TONYA LEWIS LEE: People seem to think that you are the secret weapon of your husband’s campaign.

MICHELLE OBAMA: I feel so much passion for this candidacy. When we made the decision to get in this race, there was a side of me that said, “Oh, no. This is going to be so personally disruptive—why put yourself through that?” But then I let myself dream about what his presidency would mean [to the nation and the world] and I get goose bumps.

TLL: You once said, “Politics is a waste of time.”

MO: That statement reflects my cynicism about politics, not about Barack. My thought has always been that he has something special to offer the political process, which can be a mean-spirited game. Over the years I’ve become more confident in people’s ability to recognize a good thing.

continued here

Honestly, if it weren’t for her liberal (as opposed to progressive) views and her husbands Marxist taint, I’d not have a problem with Michelle Obama. At a certain level, I understand the race issue. I don’t completely agree with some black folks on the issue of racism. I do, however, see the problems and I undertand how certain views are formed. There is guilt enough for everyone.

As I’ve said before, though, America has a discrimination problem. Not a racism problem. People say that Michelle didn’t mean what she said with the “first time/proud” statement. If that is the case, she should speak more clearly to her ideals. General statements like that serve only to stoke the flames of unrest and division. If she [and Obama] wants unity. Truly. She should strive to speak and act towards unity.

, , ,

Michelle Obama and Abortion

In Politics on May 23, 2008 at 4:14 am

Michelle Obama, the attorney wife of pro-abortion Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, is coming under fire for a letter she wrote defending partial-birth abortions. The 2004 letter, written to help Obama in his campaign for his U.S. Senate seat, opposes the ban on the abortion procedure.

In February 2004, Michelle Obama penned a fundraising letter to help her husband Barack raise funds for his Illinois-based Senate seat.

The letter contends the federal ban on partial-birth abortions “is clearly unconstitutional” and “a flawed law.”

Though the three-day-long partial-birth abortion procedure involves the partial birth of a baby during the middle trimester of pregnancy and the jamming of scissors into the back of her head to kill her, Obama’s wife describes it as “legitimate” medicine.

“The fact remains, with no provision to protect the heath of the mother, this ban on a legitimate medical procedure is clearly unconstitutional and must be overturned,” Michelle Obama writes in the letter.

She also said the Bush administration should not encourage the abortion practitioners who sued to reverse the ban to drop their lawsuit to make it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court later sided with Bush and Congress in saying the ban is legitimate.

In closing, Obama told prospective donors that they could “count on” Barack to “keep the Bush team from appointing the Supreme Court justice that will vote against Roe v. Wade.”

Noted pro-life advocate Jill Stanek highlighted the letter on her blog and said Michelle was “leeching off the partial birth abortion ban” to raise funds for her husband.

“I’d like to ask Michelle to explain her legal opinion about this law the Supremes went on to declare constitutional,” Stanek said.

“I’d like to ask Michelle how in the world she could in good conscience raise money from fear-mongering about this barbaric abortion procedure,” she added.

Stanek pointed out that Barack Obama recently issued a warning to “lay off my wife” after she came under fire about an unrelated issue.

Stanek said the request amounted to “Free speech for me but not for thee” — something she called “a typical left-wing position.”

“So it’s fine to kill late-term babies, but we can’t risk hurting Michelle’s feelings about it,” she added.

Michelle Obama. Not content with merely hating on white folks [WHITEY!]. She thinks that jamming a pair of scissors into the back of the head of a baby inside the womb of the mother is a constitutional right. So babies are the enemy of Michelle Obama as well. I wonder what perceived slight the babies of the world committed. Michelle and her Liberal Marxist Cronies and Universal Victim-hood. Liberal Victim Theology. “Libvictomology.” A new leftest religion.

What is wrong with these people?

Michelle and Barack advocate murdering babies in order to raise money for an election. I find this disgusting.

, , , , ,

Obama–International Leader or Community Organizer?

In Politics on May 23, 2008 at 2:23 am

It’s an important and defining question. Can Obama Act Decisively? Words. Actions. Consequences. Does Obama understand?

But it seems as though you are the only idiot who doesn’t truly understand the power of words. Especially when they come from the mouth of the President of the United States of America.

Democrats are right to feel upset about President Bush’s appeasement accusation. It is their Achilles’ heel in this election and they know it. The foreign-policy mantra of the Obama campaign amounts to this: Talk is cheap.
Over the next five months we will see the many tentacles of such a strategy emerge and the comeback “that’s political” — as Obama has objected — will be treated with the disdain it deserves. Determining how to deal with the enemies of freedom and democracy is as political as it gets.

When a POTUS speaks to someone. When a POTUS sits at a table with someone. When a POTUS breaks bread with someone. It confers legitimacy upon the person or party. It tells the world that this is a serious person. This is someone who should be noted. Someone to whom we should pay attention.

The Soviet Union. China. We had no choice but to notice them. They were a reality and their decision and actions had the effect of creating realities.

Iran. North Korea. Lybia. These countries leaders. These are not serious people. Their decisions are usually petty. They are usually destructive. They are more often than not aimed toward a purpose to disrupt rather than to create or assist or build. These are nations with the sole intent of destroying with their actions.

These are Nations that support, create and carry out terror.

If the POTUS meets with these nations, that signals to the world that these are serious nations with whom the world should treat. With whom the world should break bread.

If Obama becomes POTUS, he needs to act as if he knows the gravity of his choices. If Iran truly is no threat, as Barack states, then there is no reason to meet with the mad, little Iranian aspirant to mass murder. Yes, I speak of Mahmood Ahmadinejad.

North Korea should be treated as a belligerent state. It should not be rewarded. I think we should back out of the North Korea sweepstakes completely. Let the South and Japan take the lead for the West.

The world wants the US to back off some from our World Police mentality. North Korea and Iran would be perfect places to do so in my opinion. Back off. Let the other Nations deal with them.

But if attacked by either. Our reaction should be swift and hard. Deadly. Destructive. Decisive. The Full Force of American Might and Resolve.

I know McCain can be those things. Will Obama waver? Is Obama but a Carter redux? A fearful and irresolute foreign policy President who will blink when faced with a crisis. We may face that question in the years to come. Will a President Obama pass the test?

In other words, talk isn’t cheap at all. And a President Obama’s stunningly specious foreign policy will be paid for in blood, sweat, and tears.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 43 other followers