Two New York Times
stylists reporters try to give Michelle Obama a hasty makeover. It doesn’t look like it’s going to take:
Conservative columnists accuse her of being unpatriotic and say she simmers with undigested racial anger. A blogger who supported Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton circulates unfounded claims that Mrs. Obama gave an accusatory speech in her church about the sins of â€œwhitey.â€ Mrs. Obama shakes her head.
â€œYou are amazed sometimes at how deep the lies can be,â€ she says in an interview. Referring to a character in a 1970s sitcom, she adds: â€œI mean, â€˜whiteyâ€™? Thatâ€™s something that George Jefferson would say. Anyone who says that doesnâ€™t know me. They donâ€™t know the life Iâ€™ve lived. They donâ€™t know anything about me.â€
O.K., Michelle, so you didn’t go flying off the handle about “whitey” in the church, but what about the church? Are you telling us now, in an article that touts your hearty activist persona, that you remained passive in the presence of the frequent anti-white, racist rants based in “black theology” that came from that pulpit in that church?
The Times reporters never asked the ultra-tough Michelle hard questions like that, the type of hard questions that their story suggests Michelle herself would never hesitate to ask. Or if they did ask her questions like that, they didn’t think that the answers worked well with the makeover and left them in their notebooks.
And here’s my question to these two New York Times reporters: Have either of you bothered to read James Cone?
After I heard about the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the church that he ran and the Obamas attended, and heard Wright himself insist that to understand his church and its teachings that one needed to read “black theologian” James Cone, I took the Reverend up on that challenge. I went up to the Sojourner Truth Library at the local SUNY discount outlet and I got out a few of Cone’s books and started reading them.
Did you two do that? Because if you did, I can understand why you tip-toed through this makeover, as
stylists reporters. Has Michelle read Cone? If not, how did she avoid doing it for 20 years in a church directly based on his teachings? If she did read Cone, does she agree with him? If she doesn’t agree with Cone, then how could she stay in that church, which is based on his racist, black supremacist “theology”? If she does agree with Cone, then how could she deny being anti-white?
Of course Times reporters would never ask Barack Obama himself such questions, so it would strain the tight limits of the paper’s guidelines for reporting on this situation to ask them of Michelle. This is what the Times must think of as its own “fairness doctrine,” that you can’t ask the candidate’s wife questions you’re too terrified to ask the candidate.