Michelle Obama is an extraordinarily able person — bright, sensitive, politically savvy, and accomplished. She also has populist sensibilities and progressive political views that have made her a political and social force around the world. For these reasons, it is not surprising that buzz already has started about a possible run for the White House in 2020. I think this is ridiculous. She should run in 2016. If there’s one thing I have learned as the husband of a children’s education advocate, it’s the importance of continuity and stability for children. Malia and Sasha need the stability that 16 consecutive years in the White House would afford them. And heaven knows, we do, too. So let’s end this ridiculous talk of Michelle Obama running in 2020. Obama in 2016!
You are currently browsing the monthly archive for April 2009.
Tags: 2016 Election, Michelle Obama
Talked on the phone with my Mom tonight. She is 80-something and pretty much blind. She has been complaining that she is shrinking and nothing in her multiple closets of clothes fits her. My sister took her shopping yesterday — an experience that can best be compared to leading an ill-tempered Mr. Magoo through a China shop (with the pieces of China being played by small children and elderly people). Mom told me that she couldn’t find a thing to buy. Nothing fit her because of her ever-receding stature.
In a vain and stupid attempt to make her feel better, I said, “Huh. But your posture is still excellent.”
Mom: “What?”
Me, a bit louder: “Your posture is still excellent.”
Mom: “What?”
Louder still : “But your posture is fine.” (My wife, who is in the next room, starts laughing.)
Mom: “What?”
Me: Your posture’s fine, but your hearing isn’t so hot.”
Mom: ”You were just speaking too softly.”
Here is a great toy for those parents who regret having had children too late to have to explain the Village People. As the packaging indicates, this is a toy for children ages 4 and up. (It can’t be marketed to children under four, because it has small parts — an issue I won’t address at this juncture.) Imagine the hours of fun explaining this toy to your four-year-old. Is it a policeman and a bloodied demonstrator, or something else entirely? Is this just your usual globalization action-figure toy set? Or is there something more going on? And if this is not just a toy depicting the travails of late capitalism, what are we tell our four-year-olds?
Tags: Late capitalism, Toys
The Department of Justice reportedly filed papers today asking the court to set aside Ted Stevens’ conviction on the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct — DOJ withheld potentially helpful evidence from the defense. DOJ now says that it will not seek to try Stevens again. Regardless of your views about Ted Stevens, there is no denying that this case was a travesty, and a pretty scary object lesson about over-zealous prosecutors. It’s good to see the Obama Justice Department has done the right thing here by moving to set aside the conviction and dismiss the charges. But let’s remember that this is a case where the Justice Department first ruined a man and then said, “Oh, never mind” after it got caught. And let’s not write this off as just an isolated case, or the product of a lawless Bush Administration department. There have been federal and state prosecutors and other government inquisitors before who have sought to make careers out of destroying people’s lives. Most of them couldn’t even claim the ideological sincerity of Robespierre. They were just megalomaniacs, with no moral center and no compass except their own narrow self-interest. They rose on currents of fear, apathy, and ignorance, and, in most cases, were brought down by their own ambition and hubris. Even in disgrace, seldom have they been called to account. Will this time be different?