Although they haven’t yet figured out how to “beat the bitch” yet, the misogynist troglodytes in the national media are busy roughing up Michelle Obama already. Historiann has said all along that in the event that Michelle Obama and her husband are the only Democrats left standing after the primaries, that they’ll enjoy the Clinton treatment (ca. 1991-present) all the same. (The Clintons aren’t uniquely divisive–they’re just uniquely successful in the Democratic party, which made them uniquely annoying to Republicans and right-wingers.) Exhibit A, we have ex-liberal Mr. Christopher Hitchens, who has all of the drunken charm of Irving Kristol on PCP. He’s been deeply, deeply troubled by Jeremiah Wright and his role in Barack Obama’s life. Yesterday, Hitch picked his head up off of his keyboard long enough to type the following (h/t to Chet Scoville at Shakesville for warning us about this steaming turd):
All right, then, how is it that the loathsome Wright married him, baptized his children, and received donations from him? Could it possibly have anything, I wonder, to do with Mrs. Obama?
This obvious question is now becoming inescapable, and there is an inexcusable unwillingness among reporters to be the one to ask it.
Inexcusable! So Hitch hitched up his plus-fours, picked up a phone, and contacted people at the Obama campaign himself, right? He, the only reporter tough enough for the job, demanded an interview with Mrs. Obama and asked her, right?
Um, well, no. He simply continued to type along happily in his ignorance. Why didn’t he ask this “inescapable” question?
(One can picture Obama looking pained and sensitive and saying, “Keep my wife out of it,” or words to that effect, as Clinton tried to do in 1992 when Jerry Brown and Ralph Nader quite correctly inquired about his spouse’s influence.) If there is a reason why the potential nominee has been keeping what he himself now admits to be very bad company—and if the rest of his character seems to make this improbable—then either he is hiding something and/or it is legitimate.
Right. And yet, apparently we’re supposed to believe that making up stuff in his head is credible journalism. He apparently didn’t ask any questions or do any, you know, reporting, because he “picture[d]” in his mind that Barack Obama wouldn’t like the question, and then says that this phantom Obama in his brain “either. . . is hiding something and/or it is legitimate to ask him about his partner.” (Friends, I think we can all agree right now that Hitch needs help! Remember, at this point, Hitch has done no actual reporting. He hasn’t talked to anyone named Obama except an imaginary one.)
Hitch did some reporting, didn’t he? Well, to get to the heart of the matter, he did what all good reporters do when they have a question they need to ask a prominent public figure: he looked up her Senior thesis in sociology from 1985, “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community.” He then pronounces that “[t]o describe it as hard to read would be a mistake; the thesis cannot be ‘read’ at all, in the strict sense of the verb. This is because it wasn’t written in any known language.” What could he mean by that comment? Ebonics? Blinglish? And isn’t it amazing that Princeton granted her a degree, and that she went to Harvard law school despite her poor communication skills outside of “any known language!”
Side note: isn’t it funny how Republican politicians like George W. Bush–drunk until age 40– and Henry Hyde (he of the “youthful indiscretions”) get a pass on anything immoral, untoward, or stupid they did up until their early 40s. And yet, somehow a senior thesis written at age 21 or 22 is supposed to be the dernier crie of Michelle Obama’s intellect, politics, and judgment? We’re supposed to think that the fact that she wrote a senior thesis and graduated from Princeton is somehow disreputable, rather than commendable. (Funny about that double standard, isn’t it?) Women of color succeeding in the dominant culture’s institutions, and on the dominant culture’s own terms? Very suspicious. White men wasting their lives into middle-age with booze and girls–just high-spirited fun, you know, the kind that makes you think you’d like sit down and have a beer with the guy.
So, Hitch gives us the amazing revelation that “at quite an early stage in the text, Michelle Obama announces that she’s much influenced by the definition of black ‘separationism’ offered by Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton in their 1967 screed Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America.” (Apparently, Hitch had to take a nap at that point–this is the only information he gleaned from consulting M. Obama’s thesis that he cites in the article. He doesn’t actually say what the definition is, nor does he explain why this makes M. Obama a disreputable scholar or bad person today, beyond the fact that white people are supposed to be scared by the mere invokation of the words “Stokely Carmichael” and “Black Power” in one sentence.) After that, we’re treated to a pointless anecdote about the last time Hitch saw Carmichael, in which he gets to scare white people again by saying “Louis Farrakhan.” (Also, you’d think that Hitch would be about the last person to want to be held to this standard, because he used to be wrong about everything until 6 years ago, but now he’s got it all worked out–finally!)
At the end, Hitch gets to the point of this ramble through his fevered brain and his vomit-stained copy of a 23-year old senior thesis: “I have the distinct feeling that the Obama campaign can’t go on much longer without an answer to the question: ‘Are we getting two for one?'” And, he helpfully reminds those of us who can’t remember 1992, “This time we should find out before it’s too late to ask.” Because Bill and Hillary Clinton have been such a freakin’ disaster for their party and this nation, apparently, and there’s not enough hate in the world for Hillary Clinton. And now it’s too late! Too late, I say!