Keith Koffler speculates about a Senate run for First Lady Michelle Obama:
Speculation about a possible political future for Michelle Obama has naturally centered on the White House. But that’s the wrong place — at least for now.
Illinois has a Republican senator, Mark Kirk, and he is up for reelection in 2016. He’ll be formidable, particularly given his brave recovery from a stroke. But Illinois is a heavily Democratic state, and the race could be close.
No Illinois Democratic candidate would bring the star power and nationwide fundraising capacity that Obama would.
She has proven herself a superb speaker on behalf of her pet projects and is now a veteran campaigner for her husband. She’s also remained highly popular — even as the president’s ratings have plummeted.
She could represent the Democrats’ best chance to pick up a desperately needed — and winnable — seat.
I think that Michelle Obama would win this Senate seat in a walk if she chose to run. The problem is, I sincerely doubt that she wants to be a candidate. I’ve never heard her say anything that would lead me to believe that wants to hit the campaign trail. Then there’s the question of whether she would like the job of U.S. senator or not. Here I am more ambivalent. It could be that she’d enjoy being a legislator. She certainly has a variety of interests she could pursue.
On the other hand, the place has been such a sad, dysfunctional joke over the last four years that Ms. Obama might want nothing to do with those clowns.
What do you think?
At least she wouldn’t be a carpetbagging Senate candidate. But I suspect she has better things to do with her life in the future than seeking to remain an official powerhouse in DC. Nor do I see Barack and Michelle seeking to control the Democratic Party after his term in office is up. But I’ve been wrong before.
I agree with you here. Barack and Michelle have already expressed that the thing they miss most about non-WH life is not always being in the eye of the public storm . I think Barack has talked about teaching and Michelle I think will be focused on getting lil Sasha out thru high school.
Malia I believe will be either a Senior in that final year or actually ready to graduate from. high school.
Even if she did decide to pursue public office, I see her waiting until after both the girls are finished their secondary schooling.
As for Obama I an certainly see him going back to professorship he is young enough yo be around a long time and honestly what university wouldn’t t least want him in residence, except the usually RWNJ schools
Agree about Michelle. Disagree about Obama — he’ll get on the paid speaker gravy train, write a few more books, do something in the so-called non-profit arena, collect donations for his library, and work to remain relevant on the international stage.
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court might appeal to him; Associate Justice not so much. However, his resume is woefully short of the work and employment that we expect of member of SCOTUS.
The last two Democratic Presidents have dedicated their post-Presidencies to charity work, although each in very different ways. I see Obama following in their footsteps, although I see him following a more Carter-esque path than the Clinton Global Initiative. I’ve never gotten the feeling that Obama enjoys raising money from rich people the way Bill Clinton does. Maybe I’m just hoping he’s like that; we’ll see.
Regarding the President’s resume for being on the Supreme Court, I actually think that the over-specialization of the Supreme Court has done our country a disservice. Normal justices are supposed to hear cases and figure out how they work within precedent. Supreme Court Justices are supposed to set precedent and ensure laws align with the Constitution, and that’s something that is inherently political. The total lack of any experience in the other two branches of government that we currently have on the Supreme Court is unprecedented in American history up until basically the 70’s or 80’s. The fetishized concept that the Supreme Court is apolitical is a rather recent phenomenon as well; it was never non-politicized, and it’s pretty clear that even though no current sitting member of the Supreme Court has participated directly in politics, there’s nothing apolitical about them, especially the conservative faction. I’m all for putting politicians with little lawyering experience (which doesn’t exactly describe the President) on the Supreme Court; they can’t be worse than Clarence Thomas or Antonin “I don’t understand my own precedent” Scalia.
Of course, if I were left with the Constitution with some white-out and a quill in the National Archives for an hour, I’d get rid of the life-time appointment of judges as well. It makes sense to insulate judges from elections to a point, but I think it’s totally inappropriate to allow them to choose who appoints their successor. The court system should be designed to change with the country, albeit slower than Congress.
Other than Clarence Thomas (and Obama is more qualified than Thomas was/is), the current members of the court have backgrounds in both the law and politics. That Scalia, Alioto, Roberts, and Kennedy often can’t see their personal religion and authoritarian prejudices and biases influencing their decisions, making them less than objective, is a personal failing for them and only partially a result of their educational and employment history. Ginsburg, Sotomayer, and Breyer are all first rate — and there’s time for Kagen to up her game.
What I meant by “background in politics” was more along the lines having run for office and served as a politician. I agree that the prejudices and biases of Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy are their personal failings (remembering that they were chosen because of these failings), but I also don’t think that the specialization of the Supreme Court is a positive development, even though we have some very good specialists on the Court right now (as you rightly point out).
I just think that the Supreme Court is too important to leave to the professional lawyers. Nothing against professional lawyers, but it’s best to have a mix. Right now, we basically have activist lawyers and professional judges/lawyers – all from the Ivy League, which is a problem in it’s own right. Only allowing people with a very specific kind of resume can dangerously narrow the perspective of an exceedingly powerful institution. I think that having experience writing and passing laws, for example, should take care of the background requirement of understanding Constitutional issues when considering a candidate for the Supreme Court.
Would Earl Warren meet the requirements that we expect today? If the answer is “no”, then it’s our loss.
Not progressive enough.
That, plus her very good chances at actually, you know, winning, means she could never get past the all-important internet primary.
Ask President Dean how important that step is.
If she ever runs for anything, it will be well after her children are fully grown. My sense is she realizes that being a politician’s child is a potentially warping experience, and a big part of her current job is protecting them.
Why would we want another political family to dominate?
We’re about to get another Clinton presidency… or maybe another Bush one. Perhaps we should just dispense with elections and create a royal family.
so if a member of a family already has another family member in politics that means no one else in that immediate family should pursue the same?
I dislike dynasties too but that seems really unfair. if RFK and JFK had both lived would we be upset if RFK also ran for Prez?
Yes.
The only allowable exception is for John Quincy Adams, and that’s only because of the movies.
Probably for the same reason that people in so many countries continue to be ruled by or maintain royal families. Somewhat heartening to hear many in Spain say, “enough already” with the abdication/retirement of their King Carlos.
heh — the existing European royal houses are dominated by Germans mostly through the descendents of Queen Victoria.
IOW – self government is hard and having elite families to look up to appeals to stupid people.
The question is heating up in Spain: Thousands Stage Anti-Monarchy Protests Across Spain
if Michelle was truly interested she’d def win. she is electrician the stump and I say even more heartfelt and endearing than Barack can be.
ICYMI: Michelle Obama Emotional Speech at Maya Angelou Memorial Service
http://youtu.be/xVwWp5uSPAA
Oprah Winfrey speaks at Maya Angelou Memorial Wait Chapel at Wake Forest University
http://youtu.be/dqEaPBS-fug
Maybe we should just give up on elections altogether and just hand out crowns.
But how would we decide on who should be anointed the first King or Queen? The family to lead the nation into the future. Personally not warming to the idea of Princess Chelsea or Princess Jenna followed by her first born.
Me. That is all.
The Democrats need to run Attorney General Lisa Madigan.
She would stomp Kirk.
Kirk’s votes in line with the Republicans are enough to sink him.
I can’t see the First Lady running for anything.
While I despise her step-father, Lisa Madigan is another matter. I remember when Citibank tried to get us to FedEx (for about $20) our original tax bills to Texas so Citibank could save a new $5 tax. Their mailing used scare tactics by claiming that if the tax bills were not paid on time the Homeowners would be liable for penalties and could even lose their home. Lisa Madigan (and Anita Alvarez) immediately held televised news conferences pointing out that if your taxes are paid by escrow and you have made your escrow payments on time , it is the escrow agent who is liable for the late payment penalties not the homeowner. In the news conference she called on Citibank to rescind the letter or Lisa would charge them with fraud. Citibank hastily blamed it all on a low level manger and rescinded the letter.
Two points:
A) I don’t see Michelle Obama wanting anything to do with running for the Senate (or any other political office). Not now, not ever.
B) The Madigans are the Illinois political dynasty in waiting for Mark Kirk’s seat – which he won by a fairly narrow margin against an uninspiring Democratic candidate who was in the midst of a serious family scandal (Alexi Giannoulias). Kirk didn’t even crack 50% of the vote, beating Giannoulias by 48%-46% in a horrible year for Democrats, so I think it’s a fair bet that he’ll be vulnerable in 2016. I’d be surprised if we don’t see Senator Lisa Madigan being sworn in to replace Kirk.
This.
Nothing about Michelle Obama suggests she is eager to follow her husband’s path in politics. I have absolutely no doubt she would crush Mark Kirk if she ran, but I really can’t imagine her running.
And, yes, Mark Kirk is vulnerable in Illinois to any strong Democrat, especially in a Presidential election year. If Lisa Madigan fits that bill, she’ll win. The danger there is the corrupt nature of Illinois politics and the fact that her family has been in the center of Illinois politics for a long time. One big scandal involving her dad (not to mention herself) could leave the seat in Republican hands.
I don’t like Michael Madigan, but I don’t see a scandal there.
And, I don’t even like his daughter, but I believe she’s clean.
IF she runs for the Senate Seat, she’ll stomp Kirk.
she’s managed not to follow in her father’s nasty footsteps and has done a fairly good job as Attorney General in IL
I doubt she would even want the job. Jim Webb described the place as 100 scorpions in a bottle. Having been a Senator’s wife, she would know better than most exactly what she was getting into. She strikes me as much to kind-hearted to willingly walk into such a place.
I should say something generous and honest about Michelle Obama as First Lady. She has embraced the role with more energy and vigor and oriented towards the public good than any First Lady in my lifetime. While much of her work was selected for her for PR value — as it has been for many recent First Ladies — and weren’t authentic or personally developed preexisting interests, she’s managed to own them and make them authentic to her or at least look as if they are.
By not making her work about herself or a minor personal pet project, she is more readily identified with those efforts. Not at Eleanor Roosevelt’s level, but her contribution equals that of Jackie Kennedy and Lady Bird (neither of whom served as long as Michelle has so far and Roosevelt did have twelve years). Plus she’s performed her duties while raising two minor children which is rare among First Ladies.
I think she and Obama know she can have greater influence on taking America where they think it should be outside the senate. Somehow I think they are sincere and not overly ego driven but pragmatic in their vision for the country.
At least in the near term.
And maybe she would like wait until the kids are older… Maybe until they can be valuable campaign staffers.
They know all too well what life in senate is like and unlike Hillary doesn’t need to do anything like purgatory in the senate to redeem herself or stay in the public eye.
The truly progressive way to do this would be to award the nomination by drawing names out of a hat. That way you don’t get a politician, but a true representative of the People.
After all, there is no special genius or talent needed to serve in such an office, just the native wit of the common man or woman. And the randomly-chosen citizen would be far more progressive than all but a handful of actual candidates, because it’s a given that the heretofore non-voting multitudes are natural social democrats.
However, having done the drawing, it’s important to make sure that you only actually put on the ballot the name of someone who was drawn out of a hat, and then refuses to serve if elected. That way you eliminate any taint of ambition, or interest in power.
Your comment is a sickening example of bourgeois deviationism. No true progressive owns anything so oligarchical as a hat.
I don’t agree with that at all. One of the main problems in California after they passed term limits is that no one has a seat for long enough to actually know what they’re doing, so the lobbyists who have the institutional mastery run the place even more than they used to. I realize that your suggestion isn’t serious, but the concept of Congress not being a special job is corrosive.
We should expect a lot from our politicians and stop expecting them to be average people. I’d prefer to be ruled by people wiser than me or the “common man or woman” (even if I often feel that most of them aren’t).
But in a democracy not only is each man or woman the equal of their neighbor, they’re actually a little bit better.
Do yourselves a favor and check out the link I posted of Michelle Obama speaking at Maya Angelou’s memorial today.
It was awesome.
I prefer her to her husband and have for years
until she actually has to govern
Unfortunately, Michelle has expressed as much interest in the Senate as Elizabeth has in the presidency, which is to say, none at all. Maybe we could guilt them into it, but maybe our time would be better spent training those who are likely to run.
Chicago Politics are too dirty, I doubt this would ever occur.
Realistically, she could use her celebrity status as a FLOTUS to get more accomplished on any of her causes than as a Senator.
If she wants to make a difference, then she can become an executive for a charitable organization. If she wants to run for higher office, than she should follow Hillary’s steps and become a Senator.
Either way, I have no reason to not support her.
Frankly, given the onslaught of hate she has received from small-minded white men like Rush Limbaugh, I would not blame her if she wanted to get out of the public eye and just take some time to herself…after hitting the stump for the Dems in 2016 of course.
OT: What Happened After Fla. Teen Was Charged With 2 Felonies for a Science Experiment
Kiera Wilmot, now 17, is trying to move on as she preps for college after graduating from high school, but one thing still hangs over her: an arrest record
excerpt:
With tensions still high on her return to Bartow High after a 10-day suspension, it was recommended at that point that she not finish the remainder of her junior year, even though there were only five weeks left. To be sure that she could keep up academically, she was sent to an alternative school with children who had discipline problems for the remainder of the school year. She would be allowed to return to Bartow High, and attend classes with her sister again, for her senior year.
Her sister, Kayla, told The Root how lonely it was at Bartow High without Kiera and how harsh people were after the incident. The girls were often mistaken for each other, so Kayla was called a terrorist (something Kiera also had to deal with). Sometimes, even knowing that Kayla was not Kiera, peers would still taunt the older twin, saying that they “deserved what they got” and “should be in jail.”
“They made me not want to go to school at that time. Everything was going on; it was just way too much stress,” Kiera said about her eventual return to Bartow High. “Some people are still a little mean about it. Some have forgotten about it. I’m hoping everybody forgets about it.”
That’s not the only impact the incident has had on her. During her suspension, the A and B student saw her grades drop to D’s and F’s. Although she managed to bring them back up to par at the alternative school, she was still denied the right to graduate with honors like her sister because of the circumstances: her troubles at the school, the drop in her grades one semester, and the fact that she broke her attendance at the school to attend the alternative school.
http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2014/06/what_happened_after_florida_teen_was_charged_with_tw
o_felonies_for_a_science.html?wpisrc=mostpopular
awful.