Michelle Obama Reinforces The "Fairytale" Fairytale

As I wrote in my previous post, I have been appalled and dismayed at how the media have glibly mis-characterized Bill Clinton's "fairytale" comments as being about anything other than Barack Obama's position on the Iraq war, which was clearly the context in which the comment was made. Despite that, the media, commentators, the Obama campaign and now Michelle Obama, explicitly in a televised speech, have mis-characterized that comment to imply (nay, flat-out say) that Clinton called Obama himself a "fairytale," as well as his message of hope and redemption for disenfranchised minorities.

This would be fine if he had said that. BUT HE DIDN'T. So leaving aside the merits of what he did say regarding the Iraq war (which Obama has disputed), the fact remains: The media, TV commentators, the Obama campaign and now Michelle Obama - a very smart woman who has to know exactly what she is doing - is perpetuating that misinterpretation in order to imply that the Clintons are trying to tamp down on the African-American dream.

This is not an exaggeration. Here are Michelle Obama's remarks, verbatim, from her speech tonight:

Sometimes we feel it's better not to try at all than to try and fail. These are complicated emotions, left in our heads and hearts from years of struggle, emotions we must face if we're going to overcome as a community if we want to lift ourselves up. We must do it in the face of those who will attempt to play on those emotions for our own purposes, to discourage us from believing what is possible...to dismiss this moment as an illusion, as a fairytale.

I like Michelle Obama a lot, and I consider her a woman of integrity, so this bothers me -- because it is NOT WHAT CLINTON SAID. And it is certainly not what the Clintons are seeking to do, to keep black people -- or any people! -- from having hopes or aspirations for the future. Come on. That is so patently unfair and plays to the basest of emotions: fear. Isn't that what Obama spoke so eloquently against in his speech after Iowa? Is that really how his campaign wants to whip up support in South Carolina, by whipping up a fervor against the Clintons - on false grounds?

Okay, it's here that I can hear you say, "but what about the Martin Luther King comment? What about 'shuck and jive?'" So fine, let's address this. Sometime late last week, the Obama campaign quietly released a memo detailing five examples in which "either Clinton, her husband Bill, or campaign surrogates, are said to have made comments that could be interpreted as racially insensitive." Okay then, let's look.

One of these is the fairytale thing - clearly about Iraq, not race. Next is Andrew Cuomo's "shuck and jive" comment — in the context of discussing all the candidates as a group, generally, having nothing to do with Obama (and see this list of generic colloquial uses of the phrase, and also how it's equated to "hem and haw" here on HuffPost from 10/06). Inadvertent slip or diabolical insinuation of racially-charged phrase into conversation designed to make the world call him a racist? Right. I'm for the benefit of the doubt where this is concerned. Next there is the assertion that "Bill Clinton implied that Hillary Clinton is stronger than Nelson Mandela." Well actually, here is the FULL context, left out of the Obama memo: Clinton said that he's met Mandela and Yitzhak Rabin, loved them both, but if it came down to it he'd STILL pick Hillary as the steely-eyed person to have in his corner. Guilty of hyperbole? Absolutely. Guilty of racism and anti-Semitism? Jake Tapper didn't seem to think so when he reported it last Tuesday, because he didn't mention it, just that Mandela and Rabin were pretty tough dudes. Okay, three down. New paragraph.

Next we have the drug use incident. First, Bill Shaheen wonders darkly if Obama's youthful drug-dabbling will be trumpeted by the Republicans. It's a matter of public record — made public by Obama himself — but still, it's seen as a dirty trick and the Clinton campaign distanced itself from the mention. Then Mark Penn and Joe Trippi are on Hardball, and in mentioning the incident Penn specifies the drug use to cocaine. Trippi leaps into frame and says accusingly "You said cocaine!" thereby drawing attention to it loudly, repeating and emphasizing it himself. It has always boggled my mind why everyone slammed Mark Penn and not Joe Trippi for this. Anything Clinton stood to gain by a so-called Obama smear would have accrued to Edwards' benefit. But I have also always been confused because Obama copped to the use himself, holding himself up as an example of someone who'd overcome trouble in youth to go on to great things. I have scratched my head over this before.

Finally we have the "Martin Luther King was all right, but he didn't pass legislation" comment. Boneheaded and tone deaf? For sure. Something that only someone really really wonky trying to make a very prosaic point might say and not realize they were being boneheaded and tone deaf? I dunno. I mean, it's really boneheaded and tone-deaf. Even more so the JFK comment that he was assassinated before he could effect legislation. Boneheaded! Like, cringeworthy. But not technically wrong. Movements effect change, force hands. That's what MLK did, in a movement that reached JFK, and then LBJ. But still....BONEHEADED. Of all the comments, this is the only one that I think has any real teeth. But even so, boneheaded does not equal racist. There's a big benefit of the doubt to be offered here. I'm sorry, before I am willing to impute hateful, racist motivations to anyone, I need more evidence than this.

Story continues below

advertisement

Look how much effort is expended trying to put a genie like this back in the bottle. It's probably too late — the media were too careless about pushing the "fairytale" misrepresentation early on, and are now too careless about clarifying it (it's different saying 'Bill Clinton says he was misconstrued' than 'We've examined the record and he was misconstrued').

As for the Obama campaign, the media should call them on the crucial context they fail to include. Why edit out the Rabin reference from Bill Clinton's remarks to focus on Mandela? Why continue to cite the fairytale ref when it was clearly not meant to implicate race? Do we really want "could be construed as racially insensitive" to be the new tripwire, especially with such flimsy evidence? It's just such a terrible charge to make, the bar for making it needs to be much, much higher. Absent real George Allen-like evidence, it seems to be unfairly made.

That is all I'm gunning for here, folks — fairness, accuracy, adherence to a common standard — that's it. I think it's incumbent on the media, when characterizing Bill Clinton's "fairytale" remark, to get it right and put it in context. I think it's incumbent on Michelle Obama, when refuting that comment in public, to refute the statement made, not the misrepresented version that has been unfairly propagated. I think it's incumbent on the Obama campaign to be very careful when asking the open-ended question (so favored by Fox!) in asking the uber-loaded question: "Is Clinton using a race-baiting strategy against Obama?" (and, btw, check out the provenance of that question, "passed on" to Politico's Ben Smith by Donna Brazile, who also happen to "pass on" five examples of why that might be so). I think it's incumbent on the media to keep an eye on how the facts are presented in the process, lest they somehow change. That's how it's supposed to work in the reality-based community.

This is how I see it, and I fear for a campaign where words are suddenly so potentially loaded that no one dares utter them unvetted. Can that be good for the discourse? Is that really how race is discussed? Is the threshold for crying foul really that low?

As for the media: You guys -- we guys -- have no excuse. It's pathetic to beat yourself up for reporting consistent, across-the-board poll numbers but not even bother to check what Bill Clinton may have said before you paraphrase him. Those are the standards that matter -- and holding both campaigns accountable to them, equally. I don't believe that should be a fairytale.

Comments

[Thirdrailradio]

Check out this article, it outlines a strategy on how the Edwards campaign could defeat Hillary Clinton. Check it out at http://thirdrailradio.blogspot.com/

[brianst74]

Is there anyone in here that is not angry? Lest we forget that this campaign has been going strong for a year now?

Don't get sucked up into the hubbub. By now, many of us have selected our respective candidate and feel very strong about our own convictions and sense for what is best for our country.

One final thought; don't hate the player, hate the game.

One more thought (sorry); you are not going to change people's minds on a blog. They are blogging because they have an opinion. If you want to influence someone to join your cause, then get out an caucus!!

[courgood]

I'm sorry - is double-speak - multi-layered poli-talk new to the American political game? What BilHil 'meant' to say versus the subliminal - Did you miss the Lee Atwater/Karl Rove class? People of this caliber make no mistakes in speech (much as they want to denigrate it as irrelevant). Paging x-files...

[Markson]

Rachel,

Here's the video of Hillary making the MLK/JFK/LBJ comments, in which it shows that she really wasn't *that* boneheaded; it was, at worst, a poorly worded INNOCUOUS statement that was WILLFULLY MISINTERPRETED in a sound-bite 24/7 media world. The same press that love to demonize her should not be trust to be objective when dealing with the explosive issue of race, especially considering the reporter was from FOX "NEWS!"

Make sure to listen to the reporter asking the set-up question in which he reads Obama's statement that suggest ALL one needs is hope to achieve social justice:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=v9LhWUsrJnM

[Markson]

Thank you! Finally, some semblance of sanity.

There are a dizzying array of issues to attack Hillary Clinton (and Bill) on. To inflame racial tension needlessly by distorting comments or projecting racial hate (MLK/JFK/LBJ comment, in which she said how important it is to make dreams REALITY) where there is none only hurts our party, and, thus, helps the GOP.

[Lazslo]

Wow, Rachel, you and Bill O'Rielly have the same talking points. Here's the quote: "It is wrong that Sen. Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year...This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen." Clearly he's talking about Obama's judgment, (which was Obama's argument against Clinton's "experience"), and using his stance on the war as an example of what Clinton hoped would debunk Obama's claim to "superior judgment". Note the phrase "THIS WHOLE THING". What does that mean Rachel? Bill said this when Obama was riding a wave of popularity after the Iowa caucus and seemingly on his way to a victory in NH. Bill Clinton was trying to put out the growing enthusiasm around Obama's campaign. The enthusiasm around Obama involved the fact that he was the first African American candidate who was achieving success. That's what Bill Clinton meant to squelch with his comment "this whole thing", and you know it. You and Bill O'Rielly can spin it anyway you want to, but Clinton clearly wanted to attack more than just Obama's stance on Iraq. And with Hillary's comments negating MLK's work on civil rights, and giving most of the credit to Lyndon Johnson, is flat out wrong, and a travesty of a thing to say to African Americans. LBJ balked at doing anything on civil right for years until MLK forced him to do something. To discredit all the abuse and the fight African Americans had to endure during the civil right movement is boldly insensitive. Hillary should be ashamed of that comment. But now her support of Robt. Johnson's comments about Obama's drug use is demented and divisive. It's all certainly not innocent as you want to convey. Johnson's comments were meant to divide the African American vote, and you know it. Michelle Obama was dead on correct to address the comments about Obama's candidacy being a fairy tale, and to try and inspire others not to give in at a time like this.

[dadumdee]

Rachel,
If Bill Clinton's use of 'fairytale' is different than Michelle Obama's, why doesn't your article consider the possibility that Michelle Obama is using the same word in a different context and not rebutting the Clintons of the world but the Limbaughs of the world. If she said "we shouldnt let people dismiss tolkiens works as 'fairytales'", would you have made the same assumptions about her refering to B.Clinton or would you think she was changing the subject? The benefit of the doubt, which you extend generously to the politically calculating and not-prone-­to-acciden­tally-doin­g-anything Clintons, should also be given to Michelle Obama.
And speaking of the benefit of the doubt, how many 'accidental' remarks does a mofo have to make before you call it for what it is? GW Bush's difficulty with English was laughed off as folksy when his lack of articulation is clearly an intentional vagueness to avoid accountability. Same with the Clintons. It seems clear that this is an attempt to put the focus on race, agitate some Black folks and make the Obama campaign of hope in to the campaign of angry Black folks, and here you are making excuses for their behavior.

[MyThought]

Don't you think it's time to move on - or won't Obama's camp let it move on. They are using it.

Obama - you represent age discrimination - how about that. You seem to think if anyone is over 50-55ish they no longer have ideas, vision, a brain.

Obama (who I once like) is really starting to tick me off. Now, Obama, stop hiding, let us know your plans, answers some "real" questions and stop copying Tony Robbins motivational "yes you can" stuff.

Try using your own material!

[HailtotheChimp]

Clearly you have not kept up with all of the comments and are only following what the media is saying. Folks were upset when Bill Clinton called Barack Obama a kid in the same speech where he used fairy tale. Another surrogate said that the only reason that white voters were choosing Barack is because they want an imaginary hip black friend, Bob Johnson calling Barack Sidney Portier which is code for “Uncle Tom.” Then you had several surrogates referring to Obama’s past drug use and Charlie Rangel making comments about Obama. Then you have Bill Clinton saying that it is Obama who is crying and he needs to stop whining – Bill seems to think that Barack is a kid and it is offensive. Then it was Bill that tried to misconstrue Barack’s Iraq voting and non-voting record. Barack did not want to put down Kerry and Edwards during the 2004 convention so he said I do not know how I would have voted, but the premise should have been looked into. Bill Clinton knows that. Bill Clinton and Hillary are the ones living a fairy tale as they try to change how they thought about the Iraq war. Then once the backlash began over the Clinton campaign comments Bill tried to say that it was Obama flaming the problem when Obama had chosen not to comment. It was not until Sunday that Obama spoke where he said that the comments from Bill were unfortunate. The following day he called for an end to the drama and was nice to the Clintons when he did not have to.

If you want the media to stop miscuing the MLK comments surely you can bring up the reason why so many individuals are up in arms with the Clintons.

[FadeIn]

Great blog Michelle.

I'd say, who could argue with you, but all I have to do is read too many of the posts here to answer that question. As depressing as realizing such people exist, with access to a computer, it is reassuring to know that there are others, such as yourself, with the prominence and intelligence to write your insightful blog in the first place.

Poorly listened to... but well said.

[grumbles]

Some Black Americans are using these comments to jump on the OBAMA bandwagon, but any excuse could have served. Years and years of Dlinton support just does not go down easily. I appreciate their enthusiasm, but would caution them to listen to Obamas take on a viable platform. He sounds like a republican and has been accused of being a progressive republican. I must, however,note that the reason you see less and less of Mrs Obama is no mistake. Having seen her speak, I can only say that they made a wise tactical decision.

[independentrepublicrat]

I feel sorry for the Clintons and their paid bloggers. This blantant race baiting by the Clintons themselves as well as their campaign, advisors, and supporters---such as the infamous media whore Bob Johnson---is beyond offensive and pathetic. I hope that the black community brings about a reckoning if she is successful in her electronic vote tampering and injection of racial division to steal the democratic nomination. I say it here and I will say it everywhere there is a black pair of ears to hear me. If she gets the nomination in such an unscrupulous and Bushian manner, blacks should vote with all the might and power of their constituency for either Huckabee or Bloomberg. If they can't hold their noses long enough to vote republican, then stay at home on election day in November and don't vote for Hillary at all. MLK and supporters eventually took a stand and stopped riding the bus when forced to sit in the back and black people should not stay on the racist, electronic vote tampering Hillary train in the general election. The Clintons are expecting that no matter what racist, divisive tactics they use against Obama, blacks will have no other choice but to vote democrat; however, there is another choice and it is to not vote for Hillary or at all in a general election. Now is the current generation's time to make a stand against this kind of racism and oppression that the Clintons are harkening us back to. Make a stand against supporting her ilk in November if she steals her way to the nomination with the most deplorable racial tactics.

[anywho]

Go Obama!

[kuulray]

Remember how Kerry's mangled Bush joke became a slur on the troops for being stupid? Or Al Gore's statement about helping legislate the beginning stages became "I created the Internet?" This is what happens in modern American politics. Why is anyone surprised? Good points though; I just don't think good points really change anything anymore.

[rucognizant]

You all are focusing on the wrong thing!
Both CLinton & Obama are funded by corporate $.
To focus on this tedious discussion is to miss the point entirely. The whole thing is petty beyond belief, and smacks of right wing framing! They have been shoving these 2 down our throats for almost a year; the statesmen have for the most part dropped out.
Edwards and Kucinich both have better policies, and are out of this fray! The're just being marginalized and disappeare­d.........­........
America you are being duped again! WHY ARE ALL THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES STILL IN THE RUNNING?
How would FDR, Harry Truman, Eleanor Roosevelt, JFK, RFK handle it? NOT LIKE THIS FOR SURE!