By this time, it is pretty clear what Obama's campaign strategy is, and how he won the nomination: lie through his teeth. Nafta is a handy example. Play it one way for the crazies that make up the core vote of the Democratic Party, and then switch for the general election. Here is another one. Michelle Obama wants to switch images. For the nomination fight, she was the tough, nasty Black Power type. Now that Obama needs the votes of more normal people than the Democratic Party core, she suddenly wants to be The Nice Lady. She shows up on The View. Try on this scam,

Elitist with a $300,000 (£153,000) salary? She talked about her working-class father and her roots in poor south Chicago. Black revolutionary? She revealed that one of her inspirations was the current first lady, Laura Bush. Out of touch with ordinary Americans? She explained why she gave up wearing pantyhose years ago ("it feels better") and how "it's fun to look pretty".

As for her controversial remark about her pride in America, made at a rally in Wisconsin, she insisted she had merely being trying to say that people are engaged in the 2008 election "in a way we haven't seen for a long time". Echoing her husband's mantra, she said her life story - born to working-class parents who worked hard and sacrificed to send her to Princeton - could only have been possible in America.

WRT the $300,000 salary. It was originally $100,000. The $200,000 raise came two weeks after the hospital received millions as a result of an earmark of Obama's.

WRT Obama and Iraq (Read CHUMCHUMAL Post):
Just why exactly did Barack Obama suddenly become concerned with providing security for Iraqi reconstruction in April, 2004?.

Not that I expected much different, but you're not being fair here. Michelle Obama's 'tough, nasty Black Power' image was a creation of her husband's political opponents as far as I can tell. In any case, I don't see how tough is incompatible with admiring Barbara Bush.

But I don't get the general criticism either. Is there something wrong with a candidate's wife trying to connect with a broader spectrum of people now that the general election has begun? How, exactly, is it a scam for her to mention, um, the truth about her background? Is it that you object to her south Chicago roots in principle? Or to her current $300k earning power? Or that the two facts could be true of the same person?

Also, how does her pride remark not square with the fact that her life story is quintessentially American? Do you think black people have some sort of responsibility, despite their lived reality, to feel as much pride in America as someone whose people were never systematically oppressed there? What on earth is suspect about a black woman being skeptical about the claims America makes about itself? Has your pride in your country never fluctuated?

It's a peculiar line of attack, to say the least.

It wasn't just the "pride in America" remark. It was a whole series of remarks, given over quite a period of time, that reflected a style of speaking more like Jeremiah Wright than Laura Bush.

It's disappointing to see anyone, much less someone working to educate others, offering such a petty, personal attack on the family of someone running for public office.
Even were Mrs. Obama's consistency in her statements a valid metric of her husband's presidential mettle, you offer no evidence that she has contradicted herself. Indeed, most of the distinctions you draw are primarily between her own comments and what others have said of her. I believe you would find that both candidates and their wives are often spoken of differently than they describe themselves, that being the nature of journalism.
Pantyhose choices? This kind of childish snark seems to speak primarily to a lack of meaningful insight and a surplus of spitefulness. Surely as an economist you must have something more substantive to say.