I see Michelle Obama is excited about the country. In fact on Monday she said:
“…for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change.”
Of course, hearing this, McCain smelled blood and sent his wife out to say
“I don’t know about you, if you heard those words earlier–I’m very proud of my country”
The GOP of course are all over it. Brit Hume is so concerned that he’s convened a Panel on Comments of Candidates Wives.
In my opinion, I doubt that Michelle Obama actually meant what she said. Its not that she’s never been proud of her country; it just seems like Bush has been president for a lifetime.
In other Obama news, the conservative framing of Obama is taking shape. It seems that Obama is such a dynamic speaker that they’ve decided that they can’t frame him as “wooden” (a la Gore and Kerry). No, his problem is that he’s all words and no substance. An “empty vessel” according to Rush Limbaugh, a blank slate. The Wall Street Journal is asking “where’s the beef’? In today’s Washington Post Ruth Marcus (is she conservative or liberal?) says
“The Obama campaign, after wallowing in New Age-y — dare I say Oprah-esque? — language, is taking the first unsteady steps toward bolstering rhetoric with specifics.”
I know there’s an inclination here to cite chapter and verse Obama’s proposals for this and that, and to “get specific”, but realistically do we have to go that far? Like Hillary, he’s proposing national health care and exit from Iraq. This isn’t beefy enough?