Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Quinn as Democratic attack dog
Next Post: More floaters: Hynes won’t do it, Emanuel touted, Lisa Madigan pressed
Posted in:
* A bit much…
First Lady Michelle Obama delivered such a powerful and poignant testimonial on behalf of her husband, it just might be enough to launch her political career, an Illinois Congressman said Wednesday.
On the morning after the native Chicagoan’s speech, Illinois delegates were still buzzing about, what they hope might be a Hillary Clinton in the making–a First Lady who follows her husband, the President, into politics.
“Ann [Romney’s] was a good speech. But, Michelle Obama’s was a memorable–almost a Barack Obama 2004 speech,” said U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Il.)
“Honestly, I got the feeling. People in the hall were talking afterwards about Michelle Obama in 2016. That’s how moved I think people were by that speech. I have no idea if she would actually be interested. But, she showed the capacity to move people, inspire people in a way that certainly was reminiscent to that [2004] Barack Obama speech. “People were saying, `That’s as good as Barack Obama as an orator.’ It was amazingly moving and eloquent and poignant,”
* I was on the road last night, so I listened to the First Lady’s speech on the radio. I thought she did well, although her mimicking of her husband’s famous stutter did grate on me a bit.
During her speech, I also thought about Michelle 2016, but not for president. I was thinking maybe she might take a page out of Hillary Clinton’s playbook and run for US Senate against Mark Kirk. It’s not a prediction, by any means. She doesn’t seem to be all that interested in running for office herself and Kirk won’t be easy to defeat. But she would probably be courted heavily by at least some Democratic bigwigs.
Your thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 9:43 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Quinn as Democratic attack dog
Next Post: More floaters: Hynes won’t do it, Emanuel touted, Lisa Madigan pressed
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I was distracted by the stammer, too. I’m not sure it’s his or hers or theirs,ie they’ve lived together too long. It is a distraction, but you wouldn’t know it by the reviews of her speech. Content and delivery were tops.
Comment by Observing Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 9:49 am
Crazy talk from Jan and Fran.
Michelle Obama is not running for President in 2016. Neither, frankly, is Rahm.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 9:52 am
Considering the hesitancy she had for her husband running I don’t see her running for anything.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 9:52 am
the speech was great. she’s no Hillary.
Comment by amalia Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 9:53 am
It was ok. Just can’t get that excited anymore. Maybe if our system wasn’t so broken, I would care more. It mirrored Ann Romney’s speech in many ways. “we are just like you, we struggled and lived In a basement apt” (Romney) “we are just like you, we struggled and lived in a studio apt” (Obama)
Comment by B Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 9:55 am
It will never, never, never, ever happen. Truth be told, the Obamas will not be returning to Chicago anytime soon, win or lose. They will take up residency in DC until their kids are out of high school. Also, this talk is not good for the Democrats. President Obama got elected to the Presidency with paper-thin experience. Michelle Obama never ran for library board. And unlike Hillary, who loves politics as much as her husband, Michelle is no fan of the political gamemanship.
Comment by Knome Sane Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 9:57 am
She is no Hillary.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 9:58 am
I don’t even understand why we have conventions anymore.
Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 9:58 am
The speech was great in its content in regard to humble beginnings, family, and love. I have to fault her delivery with that stutter, stammer, and and and…what the heck was that? She’s given many speeches before where that little tick wasn’t nearly as evident. It may sound ridiculous, but I wouldn’t be surprised if those verbal hiccups were scrolling on the prompter right along with the words.
Also, am I the only one who noticed in the video montage leading up to her speech the mention of her father’s MS, AND that he also had a job? Seemed to fit with the whole Ann Romney, who also has MS, never worked a day in her life thing. I don’t know, just an observation.
Comment by heet101 Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 9:59 am
I’ve never thought she particularly liked the political life. Who would, especially when you’re raising kids in this poisonous era of “civil” discourse?
Who needs it? Let someone else worry about the next set of crazy eyes in the crowd.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 10:03 am
Sorry but I thought that intro video was offensive to her and educated successful women. She has 2 ivy league degrees, probably more intelligence than most of his cabinet and in her own right probably could have gotten just as far as him had she wanted to in politics or whatever she wanted to do. Pictures of her hula hooping and playing America’s nanny were ridiculous. I know she has a temper and some public messaging issues, but she has more skills than to spend 4 years planting gardens and making barackoli chia pet type sculptures. Michelle has a similar problem to toni preckwinkle in that she doesn’t have the demeanor to run for office statewide. She’s popular but you have to like people and at least be able to pretend that people who aren’t at your level or in agreement with you aren’t idiots and I don’t see that.
Rahm has a similar problem to people like Mark Kirk and Rob Portman who’ve spent their entire careers behind the scenes-getting in front of thousands of people and firing them up is just not their skill set and they look awful doing so.
Did blago have toilet cleaning duty last night or was he able to watch the speeches?
Comment by Shore Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 10:08 am
She did beautifully
IMO, the speech of both conventions so far, was Deval Patrick’s. Not only clear on policy, and emotionally moving, but also informative about Romney’s governorship, which is still considered a failure by people in Massachusetts, (except for Romneycare which they like).
Comment by walkinfool Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 10:10 am
Thank you for your comment, Shore. I think being First Lady must be an extremely difficult and lonely job, particularly for a woman who has been a professional in her own right but now can no longer practice her profession and has to try to conform to whatever crazy stuff we expect every First Lady to do. In terms of how the public regards a First Lady, there needs to be something between “mom-in-chief” and hostess of the White House (and nothing more), and lady-in-waiting to become senator or president once her term in limbo is up. Why do we have to float Ms. Obama’s name for higher office in order to appreciate that she is intelligent, eloquent, and talented?
Comment by Yossarian Lives Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 10:18 am
The speech was fine, but not profound. From the reaction, I had to check to make sure I saw the right speech.
Maybe coherent, intelligent people are a rare commodity? But I see no evidence she will run.
Comment by state worker Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 10:21 am
The Obamas will move to Hawaii when the President’s term or terms expire. Michelle won’t run. And, as others have noted, she’s no Hillary.
Comment by phocion Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 10:24 am
“she’s no Hillary” has been a recurring theme here. Maybe so, but what the heck is it about this country and family political dynasties. Why do so many of you yearn for them? This yearning is why so many want Hillary, jeb bush and now Michelle Obama. Enough with the family political dynasties already!
Comment by B Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 10:32 am
Good point Cheryl 44.
I like Mrs. Obama and I think she should do whatever she likes. Perhaps she could be particularly effective in an international role, such as UN Ambassador or head of an international aid organization? Presidents are limited to two terms, but chiefs of some international organizations can have much longer to accomplish their goals. And change, as she pointed out in her speech, takes time.
Comment by cassandra Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 10:36 am
=== Crazy talk from Jan and Fran.
Michelle Obama is not running for President in 2016. Neither, frankly, is Rahm. ===
Yep.
Comment by Just Observing Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 10:39 am
==Why do so many of you yearn for them? ==
No kidding. What is up with this stuff? In any case, I think it would be really nice if some state OTHER THAN ILLINOIS would elect an African-American candidate to the US Senate some time.
Comment by Excessively Rabid Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 10:39 am
i take it michelle obama gave a nice speech last night. pretty much what you would expect from a princeton/harvard law graduate i would think. with nearly 4 years experience as first lady.
Comment by langhorne Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 10:54 am
Michelle is famously not into politics. She does not like the money raising game, and let’s face it, that’s a huge part of politics. So I don’t see her pursuing it as a career.
Why do we like family dynasties? I don’t know, ask the former mayor of Chicago, or the former mayor of Cicero (now that she’s out of prison). Perhaps the former President? Or, internationally, check out India with the Gandhi/Nehru fascination. On the other hand, the UK doesn’t seem to have it, so maybe if you have a built-in hereditary thing it innoculates the body politic.
Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 11:06 am
Golly….I missed it.
Actually I missed the Republican convention as well and will not see this one either.
There will be plenty of replays and pundants telling us all what was said, what wasn’t said, what they meant or didn’t mean, and telling us their valued opinion of whats wrong with this great nation.
I guess it is all meant to cheer us up by pulling us down to their level.
Comment by Sunshine Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 11:08 am
Don’t think she’s interested in running for office. As for the speech, apparently many have forgotten her role as “the closer” on the trail in 2007 and 2008. Michelle Obama is a very effective public speaker.
Comment by Boone Logan Square Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 11:09 am
From Jodi Kantor’s book we know she’s no fan of Mike Madigan - that’s enough for me! Not seeing it though. But I also don’t see Kirk being all THAT tough to beat - if the GOP doesn’t take the senate he’s not going to have much of a record to run on, he doesn’t excite the base, and Illinois is such a blue state that he barely beat a pretty weak candidate, and that in the “Tea Party” 2010 election.
Comment by lake county democrat Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 11:11 am
–Why do we like family dynasties?–
There’s been a Freylinghusen in public office in New Jersey virtually uninterrupted since before the revolution. Rodney currently is in Congress.
Jerry Brown has doubled back on his own family dynasty. First elected to his dad’s old job in 1974, he was elected again 36 years later.
Never underestimate the power of a brand name.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 11:15 am
===Never underestimate the power of a brand name. ===
Exactly, which is why the IL GOP is so bent on destroying the Madigan brand.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 11:21 am
I thought Michelle did an excellent job last night, especially when she mentioned veterans. She and the president have been accused of being anti-American. Mrs. Obama’s work with veterans and the president’s policies (federal stimulus, healthcare, killing bin Laden, auto bailout) should easily dispel any notion that they hate America.
The first lady and the president have also been accused of hating economic success, but I read an article yesterday about Mitt Romney’s wealth increasing during the Obama presidency due to the stock market recovery.
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 11:30 am
We have way to many “great orators” in elected offices. What we need are some Public Servants and Statesmen that will abide by the Constitution and just do their damn job honestly.
Comment by Springfield Dan Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 11:50 am
As a hard bitten R - I would LOVE to see the Democrats put up Michelle as their nominee. She’s gotten somewhat of a pass on things as the first lady, but as a candidate, she would have to answer for a lot of things:
- Plethora of expensive vacations
- Regulatory emphasis on eating habits
- The fact that she’s never held political office
There are a lot of Democrats that would be formidible opponents. Michelle is not one of them. A few that come to mind are Christine Gregoire -WA (although she has had some issues in WA), Andrew Cuomo - NY (speaking of name ID), Deval Patrick - MA, Martin O’Malley - MD and Tim Kaine - VA
Comment by Ghost of John Brown Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 11:57 am
I actually like her better than Pres, but kill me now if this talk continues!
At least there should not be a questin where she was born, lol.
She is a smart lady, who can read! Credit should go to the speechwriters (not just her’s, but all of them).
Comment by Wumpus Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 12:07 pm
Id liker her for IL gov in 2014. She doesnt like the dynasties
Comment by western illinois Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 12:42 pm
===Never underestimate the power of a brand name. ===
Exactly, which is why the IL GOP is so bent on destroying the Madigan brand. –
That’s their theory, obviously, but I can’t recall an instance where one family member’s perceived negatives were effectively transferred to another.
Generally, you get the name recognition without the baggage.
Tom Dodd had been the king of Connecticut, a senator who was finally unceremoniously ousted in a primary after a long decline marked by public alcoholism, censure and corruption charges.
Three years later, his kid was elected to Congress and after three terms was elected to the old man’s senate seat.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 12:47 pm
Again, crazy, CRAZY talk.
Michelle would have to launch an exploratory committee while Barack is still President. Just, how, precisely, do you do that?!?
Rahm is up for Mayor in 2015. Same problem. How do you run for re-election as Mayor and a presidential bid at the same time?
Or do you think Rahm’s just gonna give up the second or third-best job in American politics to gamble on a Presidential bid?
LOL.
The timing of municipal elections in Illinois simply makes it impossible for any Chicago mayor to run for President.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 12:58 pm
I don’t see the Obamas leading a political dynasty. I think Michelle and her children will be happy to leave the spotlight after 2016.
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 1:25 pm
Delivery was very good, content lacking, dumpster diving interesting, but delivering a good speech does not qualify one to be president…or maybe it does!
Comment by WazUp Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 1:52 pm
Do those posting “She is no Hillary” think that’s a bug or a feature?
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 1:59 pm
Romney Ryan are going to win the election this Nov, and Obama will be seen as another Carter. Consequently, no one is going to ask Michelle to run for anything.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 2:04 pm
Obama is re-elected. When a Dem once again wins the Presidency, Obama joins the Supreme Court. Michele stays home, travels as a former First Lady, and enjoys life as Grandmother down the road. The easy life.
Comment by South of 64 Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 2:51 pm
I agree w/ S.of64…there’s a greater chance of Obama becoming the next Wm Howard Taft and joining the SC than there is of Michelle running for any office.
Comment by D.P. Gumby Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 3:08 pm
=== Obama will be seen as another Carter ===
Scholars and opinion polls rank Carter (27th) and Ford (26th) about even, and both better than Nixon (32) or George W. Bush (34).
George H.W. Bush, btw, is ranked 22nd, while Clinton is 20th.
Currently, Obama is tied with Monroe and LBJ for 14th, and if Obama were to lose, its most likely he’d be compared historically to LBJ: a great President who inherited a mess and made courageous although unpopular decisions.
Reagan, btw, ranks 17th, just behind Obama
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 3:12 pm
Take out the liberal scholars (probably 90% Dem) from your equation, and I am sure that Carter and ranks lower and all the Repub presidents higher. And Obama 17th? What a joke! The scholars must be friends of the people who gave Obama the Nobel peace prize in 2009 months after he took office.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 4:10 pm
YDD,
I normally don’t post Wiki, but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
I say the ranking system doesn’t exist.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 4:16 pm
I would not compare Obama to Carter. When Obama took office, the economy was crashing. Enacting a stimulus was a gutsy move that has helped the economy, according to the CBO. What should a president have done when the economy was losing around 700,000+ jobs a month, cut more taxes and end some regulations? I even believe that a Republican president would have enacted a stimulus during such dire economic times.
Also, Carter gambled and lost in trying to rescue the Iran hostages. Obama gambled and won when he chose to go to the compound and find and eliminate bin Laden.
Carter did not enact healthcare and did not have to make a tough decision about the American auto industry.
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 4:45 pm
I have never liked how people get so excited by politicians who give good speeches. I can think of another leader of a certain European country who gave great speeches and I would mention his name but don’t want people to misinterpret my comparison, which is to say just because you can give a great speech doesn’t mean you are a great leader who deserves to be followed.
Comment by Stoogent Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 5:48 pm
–I can think of another leader of a certain European country who gave great speeches and I would mention his name but don’t want people to misinterpret my comparison, which is to say just because you can give a great speech doesn’t mean you are a great leader who deserves to be followed.–
Silvio Berlusconi? He might not have been a great leader, but that old dude knows how to party.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 5:55 pm
Obama got elected, in large part, because he gave a good speech. Soaring rhetoric. Dreadful leadership. Or as Authur Godfrey used to sing “Heap Big Smoke But No Fire.”
Comment by JustaJoe Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 6:32 pm
Hillary Rodham was nationally famous…even I recall that photo of her in Time…. before she even met Bill Clinton. A star in her class in college, challenging a sitting U.S. Senator on the war in Vietnam, many thought she was wasting her time getting married to Bill. She may be married to him, but she has long been a star all on her own. and, yes, to describe someone as a Hillary is a good thing.
Comment by amalia Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 6:39 pm
@Anon -
Fine. According to Cincy’s post, a Rasmussen poll in ‘07 (they are republican-leaning), found that Carter had higher net favorables than either of the Bushes or even Clinton.
@Wordslinger -
I assume he was talking about Churchill.
@JustaJoe -
Ronald Reagan was a great speaker. Remind me again, please…other than Reaganomics, Iran-Contra, Salvadoran death squads, the failed War on Drugs, the AIDS cover-up, and arming Osama Bin Laden, what is Ronald Reagan’s legacy?
And please, don’t give us “Winning the Cold War.” The arms race may have bankrupted the Soviet Union, but it bankrupted us too. Hardly a victory…more of a “draw.”
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 7:29 pm
George H.W. Bush was a better President than Reagan, in my opinion. But he paid the price for Reagan’s deficit spending and voodoo economics.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Sep 5, 12 @ 7:31 pm
Might be time for me to consider to move out of state,
Comment by Avy Thursday, Sep 6, 12 @ 2:28 am