Michelle Obama: Barack’s led us out of the darkness and into the light
posted at 7:46 pm on April 17, 2012 by Allahpundit
Alternate headline: “‘Light’ apparently now a synonym for 8.2 percent unemployment.”
Is Team Hopenchange seriously going to push a “messiah” message this time around? Even a little bit? Note to Axelrod and Plouffe: When your Senate candidates are suppressing clips of them praising The One and your own base is churning out videos like this, it might be time to update the 2008 “Obama as savior of mankind” chapter in the ol’ playbook.
First lady Michelle Obama spoke to an enthusiastic crowd of donors in Nashville today, framing her husband’s re-election campaign as a fight for “our sons and daughters, our grandsons and granddaughters.”…
Donors paid at least $500 each for their tickets…
Obama closed by asking the audience three times, “Are you in?”
“Because I am so in,” she said over the applause. “We have an amazing story to tell. This president has brought us out of the dark and into the light.”
If you want to know what “darkness into light” looks like in graph form, click right here.
That ridiculous quote is what’s getting headlines but this part of her speech is more noteworthy:
“We cannot forget the impact the Court’s decisions will have on our lives for decades to come — on our privacy and security, on whether we can speak freely, worship openly, and love whomever we choose,” she said in a ringing defense of the president’s record. Asked about similar statements in the past, the White House has denied that they reflect any newfound White House support for gay marriage. Kristina Schake, the First Lady’s communications director, said Tuesday that it “refers to the importance of the Supreme Court for deciding many issues.”
“The President and First Lady firmly believe that gay and lesbian Americans and their families deserve legal protections and the ability to thrive just like any other family,” she said.
Smart of her to push the Court as a key issue to liberals with ObamaCare in constitutional limbo, but I’m interested in that part about loving whomever we choose. Is that an early signal that gay marriage might play a bigger role on the trail — or in O’s second term — than people think? Is she suggesting she (and O) would approve if the Court declared a right to same-sex marriage under the Equal Protection Clause, as David Boies and Ted Olson are hoping to get it to do? More details, please.
Speaking of a second term, go read Jeffrey Toobin’s short piece in the New Yorker wondering what, exactly, Hopenchange v2.0 would mean for America. For a guy who likes to talk about finishing the work he’s begun, The One is awfully vague on what that work might look like going forward. Raising taxes on the rich is a given, but Democrats actually don’t need him to get reelected to do that. All they need is to hold onto their Senate majority and block any GOP attempts to extend the Bush tax cuts. He could maybe possibly conceivably get serious about entitlement reform — David Brooks thinks he’s “a pragmatic liberal who cares about fiscal sustainability,” don’tcha know — but I’m not sure that a lame-duck Democrat could get the support he needs from his caucus in the Senate to beat a liberal filibuster, especially if Republicans are dictating most of the terms of the reforms. His best bet to do something significant, I think, is immigration, especially if the Latino vote ends up being decisive in reelecting him in November. The GOP will be so demoralized by that that it’ll shake loose enough electorally-minded Republican moderates in the Senate to get something through. The big question mark is the House. If Republicans hold onto it, will they block a reform bill or acquiesce in the interest of becoming more competitive with Latinos?
Via Mediaite, here’s Lawrence O’Donnell with one more idea for an Obama second term. Hmmmmm.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air


Bobby Jindal: Paternalistic, big-government liberalism is the biggest loser here

Super Nannies: EU bans olive oils, Germany ponders Autobahn speed limit






Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
As I just posted HotairLib has their whole head up their six o clock.
hamradio on May 24, 2013 at 2:43 PM
Who wrote the speech? Or are you just praising the messenger?
mixplix on May 24, 2013 at 2:57 PM
Connect the dots: journolist meeting by invitation only at the White House on, what Tuesday?, “big”speech by Obama on Thursday, lame stream media fawning over speech on Friday. Who would have seen that coming, huh?
parke on May 24, 2013 at 2:58 PM
They need the “war on terror” in order to further erode our Constitutional freedoms and to deflect criticism from the administration’s and Federal government’s ongoing corruption.
They are just trying to massage it so that they don’t offend the Muslims, international Libtards and their own sensibilities anymore than necessary.
A few Muslim terrorists here and there are quite expendable to this Administration despite their sympathies for them. These drone attacks also do much deflect any potential criticism that the Administration is weak in dealing with such matters.
Dr. ZhivBlago on May 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM
MSNBC is nothing but a left wing propaganda machine serving their master, Obama.
rplat on May 24, 2013 at 3:07 PM
I believe that he was officially nominated 10 days after he was sworn in. Wow! The WON really worked long hours that week and a half to earn that POS medal. During those ten days he ordered NO DRONE STRIKES to keep his peaceful record clean.
fred5678 on May 24, 2013 at 3:22 PM
Obama: Don’t worry about that Ben Ghazi guy. I killed Bin Laden, and Bush didn’t!
And Obummer still wants to close Gitmo? Good luck with that–not even Upchuck Schumer was willing to hold trials in New York!
Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM
They just changed the definition of terrorist. They used to be jihadis from the Middle East–now they’re Minutemen in Arizona and Tea Partiers in Ohio.
Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:29 PM
Erika, sometimes your writing shows signs of rivaling even the Master of Snark himself, Allahpundit. Good work!
KS Rex on May 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM
I love how crazy Al invoked the Nobel Peace Prize in praise of a speech that spoke about dropping bombs on people’s head. Maybe it was the “fewer” bombs than before that raised this to historic levels.
Do they even know or care that they are morons.
marnes on May 24, 2013 at 3:46 PM
His speech made less sense than Bluto’s Animal House Speech and was far less entertaining. Nothing less than base rallying time. Never thought I would say this, but Code Pink was the best part.
DDay on May 24, 2013 at 4:01 PM
Sperling posted this at the Examiner on May 23 about this “historic speech of Obysmal’s:
You see, we are just not working hard enough to “work with the Muslim American community” who are a “fundamental part of the American family.” Watch out, too, because Obysmal is again trying to limit the impact of the Internet.
onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:22 PM
That Chris Hayes is a bit of a twink, isn’t he?
onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM
Obama apparently gave two speeches yesterday and I watched the other one.
myiq2xu on May 24, 2013 at 5:03 PM
Nah. I’d detest the little pissant s.o.b. if he was white…or Asian…or any one of the myriad of made-up racial divisions.
Solaratov on May 24, 2013 at 11:00 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2