The Washington Post

Michelle Obama’s DNC speech a ‘devastating attack’ on Romney or ‘untrue and ludicrous’? [AM Briefing]

Politico’s Arena asks: First Lady Michelle Obama delivered an passionate speech calling for her husband’s reelection last night, vowing that he would fight for the “fundamental American promise” of giving ordinary people a chance to succeed.  Her speech was a positive moment during a night of solid attacks against Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Did Mrs. Obama make a solid case for her husband’s reelection? What went well, what didn’t? (Politico)

Michelle Obama’s DNC speech: “The most devastating attack on Mitt Romney at Tuesday’s Democratic Convention came from Michelle Obama, who did not mention Romney’s name and said not a single cross thing about him. . . She devastated him by implication. If Romney was the son of privilege, she and her husband were anything but. What she said directly is that Barack Obama understands people who are struggling. What she didn’t have to say is Mitt Romney doesn’t,” writes Brookings’ E.J. Dionne. (Washington Post)

AEI’s Jonah Goldberg on Michelle Obama’s speech: There were many points where I thought what she said was simply untrue or ludicrous, but rarely dishonest. Political wives are almost always immune to the charge of dishonesty because you have to assume their love for their husband is sincere. There are exceptions, but I don’t think the Obamas qualify as one. She clearly loves her husband and agrees with his politics. She thinks he’s reasonable and flexible and wise the same way he thinks he’s reasonable and flexible and wise. I think they’re both very wrong. (National Review)

Room for Debate asks: For the past 20 years, the spouse’s speech, like Michelle Obama’s on Tuesday night and Ann Romney’s last week, has been an anticipated feature of most conventions. Should that be so? What role should spouses of the nominees play at presidential conventions? Is it appropriate (or useful) for them to give speeches endorsing the candidate? (New York Times)

Cato’s Michael Tanner: Romney’s taxes and the liberal mindset. (National Review)

Manhattan Institute’s Diana Furchtgott-Roth: What the Democrats won’t say about education. (Washington Examiner)

Allen McDuffee writes about politics and policy and covered think tanks for The Washington Post from 2011 to 2013. He freelances and hosts a podcast at and is currently working on a book about the influence of think tanks in Washington.
Show Comments
Most Read


Success! Check your inbox for details.

See all newsletters

Close video player
Now Playing