Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

One simply fails if one is discursive on the stump, so some slack is due.  It appears that she is making the observation that women are expected both to have careers comparable to those of men and to raise children as the primary care giver, unlike most men.  The manner of your presentation suggests that you may not be comfortable with this observation, whoever makes it.

It appears that she is making the observation that women are expected both to have careers comparable to those of men and to raise children as the primary care giver, unlike most men.

But why is she making the observation?  How much did this little nugget bother her in 2003?  Does she always strike up conversation by pointing out that she believes society is sexist?  Or is she bringing it up as a political ploy, hoping that gripes about “common folks” problems will get votes?

Based on her income and living conditions I seriously doubt that Mrs. Obama cannot get help raising her children.  Additionally, her list of things that are hard to keep up with ("scheduling babysitters, planning play dates, keeping up with regular doctor’s appointments") aren’t hard for normal people to keep up with.  If a Princeton-educated former corporate lawyer can’t schedule babysitters, plan play dates or keep up with regular doctor’s appointments then I’ve lost all faith in Princeton’s law school.

It’s more likely, however, that Mrs. Obama doesn’t have a clue what “common folk” have trouble keeping up with because she’s not one of them.  It’s never crossed her mind that a woman tired of “scheduling babysitters, planning play dates, keeping up with regular doctor’s appointments” could demand a little bit more from her husband, and actually get the help.  Unless, of course, the woman is single; but then it’s not sexism that demands so much from her, but single parenthood.

"planning play dates”

Am I the only one who finds this phrase maddening?  I apologize for the partial treadjack, but whatever happened to the days of kids knocking on their buddies’ doors and riding bikes around the neighborhood?

If you are going to criticize a candidate’s wife, it would only be fair to note the following:  1) is she the candidate’s first, second, or third wife?  2) Is she a trophy wife (i.e., more than 15 years younger than the candidate, and met while candidate was already married to someone else)?  3) Has there at any time in her life been evidence that she had any ambition besides marrying well?

Again, just trying to be fair.  Michelle Obama may indeed be a “limousine liberal,” but that is far, far better than what Cindy Hensley McCain is, or (God forbid) Bill Clinton.

Isn’t being a politician about populism? Especially while running for president? W spends a tremendous amount of time trying to convince everyone that he is just a regular guy. Of course he’s not, of course the Obamas’ aren’t. So what? It’s harmless.

And, If Michelle used to be a corporate lawyer isn’t she in a position to say that the world doesn’t need more? Whether we do or not. Same goes for your earlier comment about Hillary, Chelsea and Hedge Funds. 

By the way, why don’t you mention anything about Mrs. Obamas’ most recent job in Community Affairs at University of Chicago Hospitals? Or does building relationships between hospitals and poor communities not fit into your headline as well?

Isn’t being a politician about populism?

It doesn’t have to be.  The people who signed the Constitution considered populism a pit stop on the way to “mobocracy.”

By the way, why don’t you mention anything about Mrs. Obamas’ most recent job in Community Affairs at University of Chicago Hospitals?

I wonder how she got a job like that.  It sounds a lot like a position where the hospital suggests programs that need taxpayer funding; and would therefore go to somebody with political connections.  Does Mrs. Obama have any such connections?

It isn’t like Michelle Obama is volunteering her time U of C Hospitals.  She is paid handsomely, and probably on par with peers at similarly situated university hospital systems.  Given her educational pedigree, she should be given the presumption of competence, particularly considering that her husband has come to national prominence only in the past 4 years (he wasn’t, after all, even expected to win the Democratic nomination for the Illinois senate seat until the candidate that was leading self-destructed).  But that said, its pretty rich to criticize corporate lawyers when you are paid close to $400,000 annually.  Not all of us can make that kind of money and not dirty our hands in commerce.

rh, So then being unemployed gives one more credence to criticize? Not saying she is right or wrong but her income nor her previous jobs has a thing to do with her argument.

Max, do you know how she got that job or how long she was doing it before Obama was in office?

I guess it also depends how you define populism but the founders set up this system of representative democracy, that in this day and age means you have to at least give lip service to the common man, even if you don’t do a thing for them.

As an aside, do we really think the founding fathers were smarter than we are now? Thats one point I never understood about people who argue for strict constitutional interpretation especially of laws written over 200 years ago. The founders knew the constitution would have to change and that it would change, in some part, due to the will of the people whether it agrees with your ideals or not. Thats just the system.

Max, do you know how she got that job or how long she was doing it before Obama was in office?

Assuming Wikipedia is right, we have:

In 1996, Obama served as the Associate Dean of Student Services at the University of Chicago, where she developed the University’s Community Service Center. In 2002, she began working for the University of Chicago Hospitals, first as executive director for community affairs and, beginning May, 2005, as Vice President for Community and External Affairs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Obama#Career ).

And:

He was a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004.  Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996 from the state’s 13th District spanning the south-side Chicago neighborhoods of Hyde Park, South Shore, and Englewood ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Early_life_and_career ).

So, (1) he was working there three years before she was, but (2) he was not in the Illinois State Senate until the same year she got a job at the University of Chicago.  I don’t have any proof that he greased the skids for her to get that job, and I don’t have any proof that his work in the as a state politician led to her job with the University of Chicago Hospitals.  However, “As a state legislator, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws. He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#State_legislature ).

So, no, I don’t have any proof either way.  I do think some things look a little curious.  If the New York Times weren’t busy chasing after McCain, they might be able to put together a similar article filled with nothing but innuendo regarding the Obamas’ work history.

However, I will stand by my previous statement that Mrs. Obama doesn’t know squat about how we common folk live; and her list of “scheduling babysitters, planning play dates, keeping up with regular doctor’s appointments; this was my week last week, supervising homework, handing out discipline” only backs me up.  I’m surprised that such a grueling week didn’t break any of her nails!

On the other hand, let me correct my statement about her education.  Mrs. Obama was educated at Princeton, but it was Harvard Law School that failed to teach her basic organization and time management.

"So, (1) he was working there three years before she was, but (2) he was not in the Illinois State Senate until the same year she got a job at the University of Chicago.” should be “So, (1) he was working there three years before she was, but (2) he was not in the Illinois State Senate until the same year she got a job at the University of Chicago Hospital.”

Oops.  My correction is wrong.  The original sentence was correct.

I realize that Mrs. Obama may well have had a grueling week; especially when you factor in travel and campaign appearances.  But most of us common folk wouldn’t have connected to that, apparently, so she had to fake some connection another way.

As an aside, do we really think the founding fathers were smarter than we are now?

My only point there was that the founding fathers were politicians but not populist.

Although, yes, I think the various founding fathers were less likely to pander and more likely to find real solutions to political problems.  The slow march to populism hasn’t made the US a better place.  instead, the natural roadblocks on that path have kept the US from falling apart.

And my point is populism is nothing but a function of the system and nothing we haven’t seen before. But there is no causal relationship between what you see at the rise of populism and the (almost) decline of the country. That’s just rhetoric. I also think you probably don’t have much of an idea what the founding fathers did in terms of campaigning unless ‘common folks’ are now presidential historians. Do you think Andrew Jackson invented populism?

The Obamas’ don’t think they will actually make some substantive ‘change’ in D.C. They think saying that will get votes, plain and simple. That has nothing to do with them, just the game. And guess what, it works. Again, thats why they are doing it.

D.C. has been what it is for a long time. No one president will change that and anyone who thinks they can is a nutcase. Obama might have some bad ideas but hes not dumb. He and his wife are playing the game very carefully and that is how you get things accomplished in politics.

I don’t see it as a knock against them.

Whether the founding fathers were populists or not, I have no idea. I’m not that boned up on American History. However, if they weren’t, I wonder if it was some mysterious virtue that prevented them from being so, or the lack of mass 24/7 TV and print media. With these things, as some astute 19th century philosophers noticed, the entity known as the “public” really came into existence.

Note: before someone makes a big deal about it—clearly these thinkers were concerned with print media, given that there was no TV. But they would have easily extended that concern to TV and now to the internet as it exists today.

I’ve been thinking that I was too hard on Mrs. Obama.  My big problem with her really comes from some of her advice ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120269904120358135.html ):

On a conference call to prepare for a recent debate, Barack Obama brainstormed with his top advisers on the fine points of his positions. Michelle Obama had dialed in to listen, but finally couldn’t stay silent any longer.

“Barack,” she interjected, “Feel—don’t think!” Telling her husband his “over-thinking” during past debates had tripped him up with rival Hillary Clinton, she said: “Don’t get caught in the weeds. Be visceral. Use your heart—and your head.”

To be honest, the people voting for Obama are more interested in feelings than thought-out solutions.

But, getting back to the comments:

[T]here is no causal relationship between what you see at the rise of populism and the (almost) decline of the country.

When i wrote that I was thinking about the Progressive movement from a century ago:  popular election of Senators, Free Silver, income taxes (and the increasingly populist programs that exist largely to spend the increased tax money), and federal work regulations.  That’s not the first time the country made some stupid moves, but it was the beginning of a transformation from a “father figure” government that enforced laws to a “mother figure” government that must tuck everybody in at night and offer universal health care.

On the point re: Michelle Obama’s advice to “feel, not think.” It depends on how this is framed. For some philosophers (and psychologists), there is a notion of “flow”. It’s like “being in the zone” in a way. Ice-skaters are in “flow” when they do routines. They aren’t “thinking” about what to do. They intuit what to do. This doesn’t mean their actions are arbitrary, or lack seriousness clearly. I read her comment in that vein. “Don’t overthink—you already _know_ what to say...just let it flow from you naturally.”

Of course, I’m not in her head anymore than Max is. So I’m not sure what she _really_ meant. But as usual, there are always two possible interpretations to any given behavior. That said, my interpretation seems more plausible I’d think. I hardly think she was telling him to say things that later on he would think weren’t sensible.

What a wonderful world is the hidden caverns of intentionality.

I’m just trying to be honest on why I don’t like her.

I’ll admit that she has a much more impressive resume than Hillary.  And I actually do believe she did that on her own merits.  However, when shooting from the hip, I really did believe that her job title right now looks a lot like “schmooz with politicians.”