The brooch looks like it is going to fly out and attack someone.
The whold thing about MO has 2 motivations:
1) to counteract the (accurate) perception of her as an anti-
American elitist, and
2) more importantly, to counteract the hostility of a number of women (not only in plling data — I see it anecdotally in women I know and meet who are liberals) to BO. I noticed that BO’s defense of his wife several months ago when she was ‘under attack’ was at the same time that many women were very angry with BO for whatever the latest insult was to Hillary, I can’t even remember which insult it was that time.
This adulation of MO is meant as much as anything else to reach out to Hillary supporters, neutralize them & get their votes.

c f on August 26, 2008 at 5:51 pm

Don’t worry about Michelle Obama’s speech. It is irrelevant. Michelle Obama is irrelevant. Cindy McCain is irrelevant. John McCain and Barack Obama are relevant.
chsw (doesn’t watch Oprah)

chsw on August 26, 2008 at 6:17 pm

Wasn’t Bill Cosby attacked by the NAACP and the black establishment when he spoke out saying that blacks should take responsibility for their economic and social conditions rather than blaming law enforcement and other things? I’m suprised the The Oprah would want people to look up to Bill Cosby…

PrincessKaren on August 26, 2008 at 6:20 pm

The brooch looks a lot better on Michelle Malkin’s site:
http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/modnc.jpg

Norman Blitzer on August 26, 2008 at 6:26 pm

Debbie – last night was about one thing – to make white people comfortable with the idea of a black family in the Presidency. It reminded me of a June Cleaver show. And what’s with the “Stepford Wives” 60s homemaker re-do? Its set back feminism decades. These people cannot be who they really are. They can’t tell the American people the truth.

NormanF on August 26, 2008 at 6:42 pm

>> The brooch looks a lot better on Michelle Malkin’s site
No, the brooch looks more like a flying alien’s crap. And Michelle Obama looks like an alien herself.

anonymous twit on August 26, 2008 at 6:48 pm

Debbie, I watched the MO speech last nite. I noticed she looks better now than when they met. I sense she was a political choice, like Hillary, or possibly BO isn’t that into women. Either way, I think she would eventually revert to form and be a real pain-in-the-ass first lady (chas veshalom).

Anonymous1 on August 26, 2008 at 9:30 pm

“and several acres inside Oprah’s fridge to sell you.”
Another great one, Debbie!
I agree with PrincessKaren. From what I recall, the ones who criticized Cosby were black people. All the white people I know loved Cosby.

Jeff_W on August 26, 2008 at 10:24 pm

Michelle Obama’s speech was excellent and she was elegant and relaxed. All the snarky comments in the world can’t mask that fact. And yes, it’s a fact. Much as I have disliked George Bush and his incompetence, I don’t make hateful, silly comments about his family. Start practicing saying “President Obama”. Get used to it. Oh, and since when is Michelle Obama’s middle name “Hussein”? What’s the point of that nonsense? You need to grow up, Schlussel.

Ev on August 26, 2008 at 10:54 pm

The biggest thing that bugs me about Michelle is that she doesn’t like us honkys very much at all.

Ron Taylor on August 26, 2008 at 11:08 pm

Ev: No, Michelle was NOT relaxed. She looked like a hostile ogress. She can dress up with expensive clothing and Jimmy Choo shoes but she was still hit real hard with the ugly stick. Plus, I don’t think it’s fixable, plastic surgery-wise. She is a beast. Daughters are cute, though.

lexi on August 26, 2008 at 11:56 pm

Her speech was a poor attempt at damage control. Intelligent and informed honkys know better than to buy this hateful bill of goods.Bet if I went to her church on sunday I’d be welcomed with hostile glares and whispers. They’d probably want to shake me down for recording devices as well.

samurai on August 27, 2008 at 12:40 am

Last night, behind the masked smile, Michelle Obama quoted lines from radical Far Left book written by Saul Alinsky in her DNC Convention speech.
What to make of Michelle Obama’s use the terms, ìThe world as it isî and ìThe world as it should be?î From whence do they originate? Try Chapter 2 of Saul Alinskyís book, Rules for Radicals. In last night’s speech, Michelle Obama said something that peeked my curiosity. She said:
“Barack stood up that day,” talking about a visit to Chicago neighborhoods, “and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about ìThe world as it isî and ìThe world as it should be…”
And, “All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just wonít do ñ that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be.”
Hereís an excerpt from Chapter 2 of Saul Alinskyís book, Rules for Radicals:
“The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive ó but real ó allies of the Haves…the most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means… The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be.”

Jackson Pearson on August 27, 2008 at 1:34 am

Michele Obama, like Hillary Clinton, was probably not originally an ugly woman. What makes both of these women “ugly” at this date in time is all the bitterness and hatred that they have harbored for years. I don’t know what exactly Hillary has hated over the years that made her bitter, but I would guess that it is what comes with being a liberal, especially for someone who knows better. (She was with the Goldwater campaign years ago) I would guess that it also comes from having to deal with a husband like President William Jefferson Clinton, who cheated on her regularly, and from being part of that bitter women’s libber man hating generation.
But I am pretty sure I know exactly what Mrs Obama hates. She has big time issues with MIGHTY WHITEY!
Too much hate destroys a person from the inside and it shows up in the physical appearance, especially in women.

Ron Taylor on August 27, 2008 at 1:47 am

[Too much hate destroys a person from the inside and it shows up in the physical appearance, especially in women.]
Can this apply to Debbie and Islam/Muslims?

Norman Blitzer on August 27, 2008 at 1:57 am

Michelle Obama is trying so hard to hide her racist self from the Nation. We all need to send thank you letters to the major media outlets thanking them for helping her hide it as they ignore it as best they can. What I do find funny is all the people saying they are voting for him BECAUSE he is black, well if that is OK then I guess I can vote against him because he is black. So I am going to forget he is a Marxist, He Hates America, He wants to turn us into another failed Socialist State. from now on I am not voting for him BECAUSE he is black. If it is OK for the Democrats to be Racist then it is OK for everyone.

mfee01 on August 27, 2008 at 7:16 am

I don’t have any issues with michele obama except to say she will never be a reincarnation of Jackie Kennedy no matter how hard the media tries to spin it. also while listening to her speech she committed some typical dictation errors that is typical of many blacks when they speak. This is an area that many blacks would do well to improve. that said I see the Obama’s as the the proverbial trojan horse and ALL WE NEED TO DO IS OPEN THE DOOR for them. If he wins the presidency then I expect this pair in the White House will make the Bush presidency look like good times.

Chuck W on August 27, 2008 at 7:31 am

The Huxtables were not middle class despite what the TV people wish you to believe. They were like the Obamas. He was a physician and she was a lawyer…now if he had been a nurse and she a paralegal, maybe… They also lived in a large brownstone in one of the NYC boroughs (Brooklyn or the Bronx, I think).

hawxylady on August 27, 2008 at 8:45 am

You know, I have a much more sympathetic view of the Obamas than most readers on this site. I believe they are patriotic and do love their country. Just as those who didn’t like the direction Clinton took this country, they have a right to disagree with policies and say they want to change the country for the better. Republican figures from 1992 to 2000 weren’t considered unpatriotic for their disapproval of Democratic policies. I don’t realy care what Cindy McPain or Michelle Obama have to say. I’m interested in the policies of their husbands. And I just can’t accept Obama’s charachterization of ICE agents as terrorists, arbitrary timetables for withdrawal from Iraq and lack of experience. He is an unexperienced leader, more an orator than policy maker (which is fine for inspiration, but not as meaningful for being an executive). John McCain is MUCH more qualified for the office.
All that said, I think pepole really need to question themselves with their critiques of Michelle Obama, to see if those critiques are politically or racially motivated. I mean, clearly she is ugly, and that pin looks like vomit splattered on her blouse. But why does any of that matter? Even Hillary and her cankles got less criticism during Clinton’s first run for president.

Staypositive on August 27, 2008 at 10:10 am

Blitzer is a jerk. Debbies hate is for the bad guys. And she’s kept her looks.

samurai on August 27, 2008 at 10:14 am

Blitzer is a jerk. Debbies hate is for the bad guys. And she’s kept her looks.
http://www.sadlyno.com/wordpress/uploads/2008/08/debbieschlussel2sized.jpg

lolwut on August 27, 2008 at 11:58 am

lowut,
I saw the picture that you referenced. Looks altered. I won’t comment on the “assets.” At the very least, the lighting was poor. Also, if that was Sean Hannity in the picture, then it is not a current one, since Debbie has accused him of plagiarism.
She looks okay to me, but I’m too old to think ill of someone so young.

Loser on August 27, 2008 at 2:00 pm

loser:
http://www.sadlyno.com/wordpress/uploads/2008/06/schlussel63639.jpg

lolwut on August 27, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Possibly some of the criticism of Michelle Obama is racially motivated. However, at least, speaking for myself, it was she who introduced the racial aspect into the campaign, along with the media, adulating the couple, partially for their blackness. Obama has, indeed played the race card, and vocal supporters and long-time associates like Jerimiah Wright, who played the race card over and over again for 20+ years, can’t just be dismissed like a will ‘o the wisp. Most opponents of the Democratic Party are against their social welfare schemes (unfortunately supported by too many Republicans), and there is no doubt that these schemes, like the mortgage financing Debbie wrote about, benefit non-white people disproportionately. A number of social-welfare terms, like ‘investment in disadvantaged communities’ are code words for welfare for non-whites.
It is hard for me to understand, in a sense, how pundits can pick apart MO’s speech, analyzing the content as if she was really saying anything worthy of being analyzed. Like Hillary, and all the rest of them, these are poll-driven speeches designed to do nothing except maximize votes. They have no intellectual substance and anyone with critical judgment knows that actions speak louder than words. Getting engrossed in words is treacherous; Middle Eastern terrorists, for instance, in words, for example, say they respect women and are for peace.

c f on August 27, 2008 at 5:17 pm

I posted a variety of comments on Utube and other
democratic sites about Hussein Jug Ears’ association
with terrorists.
All where erased within seconds.
I notice that the demon-rats’ crap is still
to be read here…maybe the ‘rats cannot withstand
ANY contrary viewpoints, they just
deposit their scat and run away, like all ‘rats do!
I think Debbie look great, never mind the emaciated ball crushing fruit flies
and their sodomite friends, that’s what
popping peanuts(meth)and having fulminating
hepatitis does to a ‘rat.

Ming the Merciless on August 27, 2008 at 6:11 pm

“”I think people really need to question themselves with their critiques of Michelle Obama, to see if those critiques are politically or racially motivated.””
Oh holy one please enlighten us with your transcended views. Your spirit of oneness with all things human is to be admired. I am surprised that you even bother to address such lowly and ignorant commoners but it is appreciated. I am sure that even folks like Louis Farrakhan treasure your efforts and support as well. Him being of the same raceless camp of GD America and Liberation theology. Perhaps you can even offer up to them some human sacrifices or supine positioning to further prove just how perfect and non-racist you are?

AlturaCt on August 27, 2008 at 8:22 pm

Altura-
Your sarcasm might be entertaining if you in any way drew some thougtful ironies. However, you ARE in some need of enlightening, so I am gald you asked and happy to provide it. And associating my comments with support for Farrakhan and his ilk? Please, that’s just like the ultra-liberals that get on this site and state those of us pro-immigration enforcement are in league with David Duke, or are racists. Maybe you also missed the point of my post that I think McCain is the better candidate.
My question is a legitimate one. I compared the example of Hillary to MO. Obviously, many in this country, myself included, find Hillary’s approach revolting. Hence, all the comments about those rhinoceros-like cankles she’s got attached below her knees. When you can’t stand someone, it’s easy to jibe on their physical flaws. However, she was an actual candidate. MO is the wife of a candidate, and while on her best days she is barley average in the looks department, there seems to be an awful lot of criticism about her looks. I think it is a legitimate question. Frankly, it hurts the cause of those of us that do not want Obama in the White House if criticisms appear to be motivated by race. I really do wonder about all the focus on her looks, and not just on this site, but other places. I didn’t hear anyone commenting so much on that fat sow golddigger (complete with facelift) that John Kerry was married to in the last election, nor did I hear it of Tipper Gore (who used to be pretty attractive)in 2000 (BTW, you wouldn’t hear it of Laura Bush, who is much more attractive in person than in media). So I do think it is legitimate to question all the comments about MO’s looks.
I’d hope people would look at why they make comments on Obama’s and his wife’s physical appearances. Their espoused policies are more than worthy of our criticism without getting into how they look. Did people talk about Kerry’s 10 foot long face? No. I don’t see where the physical characteristics of someone’s hair, nose teeth or something else matter in a political process (although with Biden, it does disturb me that he was so interested in his appearance he got hair transplants. And Debbie’s right, a job that good isn’t cheap.)

Staypositive on August 28, 2008 at 10:29 am

“and several acres inside Oprah’s fridge to sell you.” LOL good one D.S.
And Staypositive, LOL @ Kerry’s 10 foot long face!
Apparently, the fugly brooch Michelle Obama wore was her own. Her handlers must be very afraid of her if they didn’t/couldn’t talk her out of it. What a bitter, stubborn, hateful person. Oh well, at least she’s finally proud of the country which was ‘g-damned’ by her pastor.

Xoce on August 30, 2008 at 1:27 am

Four years later, I gotta say that I love the Cosby Show despite controversial statements by Bill Cosby himself

Matthew on August 3, 2012 at 5:30 pm