Michelle Obama: There Will Be No Second Run

The NY Times reports today that

Mrs. Obama says she dislikes politics -- she insists there will be no second run for the presidency if her husband falls short this time -- but relishes a good fight, the competition of it all.

In the beginning, she had significant questions about an Obama candidacy. She pressed advisers for a blueprint of how the campaign would raise money and compete with Mrs. Clinton and other candidates. She gave her approval after seeing a concrete plan presented in strategy meetings in late 2006, all of which she attended.

In December, an online profile of Michelle Obama in Vanity Fair included the following:

But Mrs. Obama has no interest in an ongoing quest for the White House. "To me, it's now or never," she tells me a few days later, in Chicago, where we've met up again at the campaign's Michigan Avenue headquarters. "We're not going to keep running and running and running, because at some point you do get the life beaten out of you. It hasn't been beaten out of us yet. We need to be in there now, while we're still fresh and open and fearless and bold. You lose some of that over time. Barack is not cautious yet; he's ready to change the world, and we need that. So if we're going to be cautious, I'd rather let somebody else do it, because that's a big investment of time, just to do it the same way. There's an inconvenience factor there, and if we're going to uproot our lives, then let's hopefully make a real big dent in what it means to be president of the United States."

Comments

[NikkiT]

09:13 PM on 02/24/2008

I VOTE FOR NEVER.

[flodlite]

12:35 AM on 02/23/2008

Fact Check: Obama's Platoon Story
AP
Posted: 2008-02-22 20:24:46
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama says the war in Iraq, which he opposes, has pulled troops away from Afghanistan and left soldiers
there without proper equipment.

He underscored his point in the Democratic debate Thursday by telling a story about a rifle platoon in Afghanistan that allegedly didn't have enough soldiers or weapons to do its job, leaving the platoon to scrounge for weapons from the Taliban.

His source was an anonymous Army captain, whom his campaign refused to identify Friday.

THE SPIN: OBAMMA'S DEBATE STATEMENT

"You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon - supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon," Obama
said. "Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq,"

"And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough Humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.

THE FACTS: THE TRUTH

Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to release the name of the captain, citing the soldier's privacy, and pointed to an ABC News
account as verification of the story. Obama learned about the captain's allegation from a staffer who had spoken with the captain,
according to Vietor.

ABC News said it talked to the unidentified captain, whose account of shortages in Afghanistan was for the most part accurately summarized by Obama, although not verified.

The captain said, however, that the unit did not go after the Taliban for the purpose of getting their weapons, but sometimes used those
weapons when some were captured.

The Pentagon has acknowledged forces are stretched, but spokesman Bryan Whitman said that without knowing more, he could not comment on the veracity of Obama's claim, except to say: "I find that account pretty hard to imagine."

Whitman contended "all of our units and service members that go into harm's way are properly trained, equipped and with the leadership to be successful for the mission that they've been given."


----------------------------------------------
GOD BLESS AMERICA GO TO HELL OBAMMA'S

[jaem]

11:04 PM on 02/17/2008

Michelle is a brilliant, classy woman and I really hope she gets a chance to be part of a presidential administration, because we need women like her so badly in this time of "American Crisis".

[keriheb]

10:42 AM on 02/17/2008

Hillary talks about her 35 years of experience, which is her justification for running for the presidency. Who knows what experience Michelle is having. Certainly the threats on her husband's life cannot be fun to experience and worry about. Why shouldn't she worry about it, she has two children? Why should she want to keep on risking so much if the country does not want her husband?

Who would want to experience every day the hate that is seen in these posts? Who would even want to live in the same country with people who hate like this???

Michelle is absolutely right. Her husband is willing and ready to make the sacrifice and take the chance he won't be killed or maimed for this presidency. Her honesty is not to be faulted. They don't need the job. They can have a good life without it. They are not going to make the millions in shady deals the Clintons have made. They don't want it. They are not going to make the zillions Bush has made because they are not the corporate hogs like Bush.

If you want them to do a job they are ready to do it. If you don't want this country cleaned up VOTE FOR HILLARY OR MCCAIN. No problema! No Problema! Michelle has two children to raise and one life to live. Michelle is smart enough to have accomplished what she has accomplished and smart enough to know her limitations and not be greedy.

If you are not smart enough to realize this, vote for who you vote for, and figure out a way to protect your children from 100 years of war, and your pensions from these pigs yourself!

Who

[PlayItAgain]

07:49 PM on 02/15/2008

"I'll take my ball and go home." Well so long.

[SharedHumanity]

12:55 PM on 02/17/2008

This seems to be an awfully logical position to have. Why in the world would a person want to be a perpetual candidate for the Presidency? Let the American people choose and then move on.

[agedefying]

09:36 AM on 02/15/2008

"Yes, mommy."

Obama's channeling Reagan is getting out of hand.

[AceInTheHole]

03:06 AM on 02/16/2008

As a person who voted for Ronald Reagan, I don't believe that Ronald Reagan could have beaten Obama in a presidential race.

Intelellectually, Obama seems to be light years ahead of where Ronald Reagan was, and charismatically, Reagan could not have held a candle to Obama. And in terms of appealing to the widest demographics, Obama would have beaten Ronald Reagan in every demographics, encluding the demographics that some of my redneck friends happen to be in. :)

[FirstShirt]

09:16 AM on 02/15/2008

Who cares? Who remembers Michael Dukakis' wife? Whe remembers Michael Dukakis?

[westseattle]

03:19 PM on 02/15/2008

I notice you are a republican. Are you supporting McCain? Or did you get smart?

[mykindoftown]

07:46 AM on 02/15/2008

Everyone is making way too much of this. Asking a candidate's wife in the middle of the meat-grinder of a presidential campaign if her husband will run again is like asking a woman in labor if she wants to have more children. Of course, her reaction is "never again...this is it."

[westseattle]

02:28 PM on 02/15/2008

Nice point. Can't imagine it's much fun. What do you think, Bill? I'm sure he'd agree.

[CAPTAINSKIPPY]

04:12 AM on 02/15/2008

Works for me, but I hope Gore or Kerry will reconsider.

[tkk]

11:20 PM on 02/14/2008

Please, threaten the electorate some more, will ya? I guess this is like Maria Shriver insisting Arnold WOULD NOT run for a second term!

[Kellmarr]

11:08 PM on 02/14/2008

Michelle Obama says "Now or Never? If there is any ambition in that family I'd have to say Ms. Obama is the one with the ambition. She said on Larry King last week that Barack may make some mistakes, but she would get him back in line quickly. Who really rules that roost???

[antaeus]

12:21 AM on 02/15/2008

Two for the price of one?

[westseattle]

02:31 PM on 02/15/2008

So we can't lose. We get two for one with Hillary or Barack! What a bargain!

[AceInTheHole]

03:40 AM on 02/16/2008

Are we sure she is not Jewish?

[LuckyBlessed]

09:17 PM on 02/14/2008

The problem is Michelle knows too much, " We need to be in there now, while we're still fresh and open and fearless and bold." Whether it's Edwards talking to the common man and woman, Naomi Klein to an intellectual liberal elite, or Ron Paul to conservatives---There is a common thread,Paul on Meet the Press" definition of fascism, is corporatism when the military industrial complex runs the show--corporations running the show, big government in bed with big business. So you have the military industrial complex, you have the medical industrial complex, you have the financial industry, you have the communications industry. They go to Washington and spend hundreds of millions of dollars. That's where the control is. I call that a soft form of fascism, something that is very dangerous." And, If you are listening Michelle, Barak, Hillary, John MCain, I don't think any of you can be "Fairer than Fair", the ideal Plato philosopher ruler who leads everyone out of the darkness of the cave and be elected president in this country.

[Tsunami]

09:49 PM on 02/14/2008

The problem is that the longer Obaama would have to "stand" as a Senator and actually VOTE as opposed to voting "present" or not being present for votes the more future voters would finally be exposed to the fact that he is all talk and no action. He likes to have it all ways--he talks in platitudes. That is why it is important for the Big Media Against Clinton folks to anoint him NOW before it is readily apparent that he is an empty suit. The media has given him a free pass.

[idabamaho]

10:06 PM on 02/14/2008

You mean rather than voting FOR war and FOR bombing Iran and FOR NAFTA and backing the Bush/Cheney cabal on every turn, right?

[ginnypoo]

12:32 AM on 02/15/2008

A flash in the pan doesn't last very long.

[Mollye]

11:37 PM on 02/14/2008

Freshman Philosophy?

[Silpat]

08:16 PM on 02/14/2008

Michelle knows that Obama will win the White House this year.

[antaeus]

08:29 PM on 02/14/2008

And the electorate now know both that Sen. Obama is a one-time phenomenon as well as that Mrs. Obama exerts considerable influence over the man who would be president. Echoes of "two for the price of one"?

[jadez]

09:40 PM on 02/14/2008

no.
the difference is Obama and his wife are easy to like.
so even if what you say is true, it works to their advantage.

[pinkerman2]

09:04 PM on 02/14/2008

Amen to that! Yes, we can!

[ndolomar]

06:05 PM on 02/14/2008

the level of discourse has dwindled on huffpo, thanks to the huge amount of thrice-named posters. they need to start charging by the post -- you'd either see fewer trolls, or at least the website would benefit from the extra money from wealthy trolls.

[antaeus]

06:02 PM on 02/14/2008

For all of you imploring praise for Mrs. Obama's candor, well, that's sweet, but everyone knows this was a misstep. Remember Hillary's authentic, candid remark about staying home and baking cookies? That seemed sincere, too, but the next day they wished she hadn't said it. Same here. Didn't help.

[pleeezzze]

06:19 PM on 02/14/2008

Your memory is wrong,Hillary said she would not stay home and bake cookies !
She meant what she she said just like missy Michelle means every thing she says !!!

[antaeus]

06:24 PM on 02/14/2008

Look again. I simply refer to the quote, I don't actually quote it. The point is that Hillary gave in to a moment os sincere speech, and it didn't help the campaign--a lesson which ought to be instructive to those who can see no downside in Mrs. Obama talking freely.