The wowOwow Interview | 10/20/2008 5:00 am

Michelle Obama Tells Lesley Stahl: Some Won't Vote for Barack No Matter What

Michelle Obama, Election 2008, Campaigning, Lesley Stahl Interview, Politics

With only days before the election, wowOwow’s Lesley Stahl caught up with Michelle Obama …

Lesley: If you win, you’ll be inheriting an economy in as dire a condition as most of us have ever seen. Do you see a role for the First Lady in dealing with the psychology of tough times? What can a First Lady do?

Michelle: Leading us out of this economic crisis is the job of the next president. But the First Lady can help in crucial ways. She can be a bridge to communities across the country – talking with folks about their concerns, their struggles and their hopes for the future. Over the last year and a half, I’ve been hosting roundtable discussions with working women and military spouses, and I’ve heard countless stories from women and families who are having a really tough time in this economic downturn. They’re doing everything they can to make a good life for their families, but still, they’re slipping.

I’ve really treasured these discussions. It’s been incredibly valuable to hear these women’s voices and their stories. As First Lady, I would keep these conversations going, and bring their stories back to my husband and his staff, because our president really needs to understand the challenges that working women and military families face, so he can enact policies that will truly bring change people really need to their everyday lives. In an Obama White House, those conversations will happen. We’ll keep talking and we’ll keep listening. I want to help women and families have more of a voice in our government. They deserve it.

Lesley: As we come down to the last three weeks of the campaign, the polls are showing almost a "tipping point" slide toward your husband — with states usually thought of "rosy red" turning "berry blue." Do you trust the polls? Or do you think there’s some hidden racism?

Michelle: I think there are two conversations that have been going on throughout this whole election. There is the conversation that has been happening with the pundits about the polls and the campaign combat. And then there is the conversation that has been happening on the ground. The folks out there aren’t really interested in the horse race and the negative back and forth. They want to know about the positions that the candidates have on the issues. They want to hear how our next president is going to help this struggling economy.

And of course, there will always be people who won’t vote for Barack Obama no matter what. But there are also people who will not vote for John McCain no matter what. That’s always the case in politics. But we don’t focus on that. We focus on getting out the facts about Barack’s ideas and his positions on the issues, and the values that guide him.

Lesley: Raising children as part of the First Family is a unique challenge. I actually covered Amy Carter’s first day at public school. Chelsea Clinton went to a private school, and seems to have had as normal an upbringing as is possible. What do you think about raising your girls in the White House? What are the pros and cons? And what kind of school are you thinking about?

Michelle: Barack and I have been really proud of how the girls have handled themselves throughout the campaign. They have taken this campaign in stride, in their own individual ways. They’ve learned a lot, and they’ve managed to have some fun, too, which is wonderful. And if Barack has the honor of serving as our next president, we will work hard to make sure our girls have smooth adjustment to life in Washington. That will be my No. 1 job. I’ve already had some great conversations with Hillary Clinton, Tipper Gore and Caroline Kennedy, and they’ve all given me great advice on how to make sure that your kids stay grounded and whole — even in the White House. But you know, that comes later. For now, we are staying focused on getting out our message and getting out the vote for the Obama/Biden ticket. We are taking this experience one day at a time.

518 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Oh Star, Come now, one reason Biden can say this is because of all the MESS that is being left for the next President to clean up and what a mess he’s leaving…… total meltdown, and I will go as far as to say that is was all orchestrated, yes they are that DIRTY THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION, this country couldn’t take another 4yrs of losing more jobs and 45 million uninsured just to name a few………….

By Mrs. Cheryl Hampton on 10/20/2008 4:29 pm

e-mail alert

Oh, Mrs Hampton: I sincerely hope that whichever candidate is elected, we can stem the loss of jobs! I am about to lose my insurance, so I have zero hop of that figure being reduced under either man.

By Star Lawrence on 10/21/2008 10:07 am

e-mail alert

Given your personal situation, it seems you would be better supported by Obama’s health care plan than McCain’s. How’s an extra $5000 a year going to help you afford insurance when the premiums may be up to three times that much? Isn’t the average employer-insured premium $12,000/year for a family? And is there any guarantee of coverage with pre-existing conditions? The health care industry is riding on the backs on people like you and me, Star. And it’s costing businesses, big and small, too.

By Susan B on 10/21/2008 11:09 am

I am now paying $7K or was—can no longer afford. I don’t think either candidate’s plan is great or could even get through Congrress.

By Star Lawrence on 10/21/2008 11:29 am

e-mail alert

Getting it through Congress is the big wall, I agree. All those Big Health lobbies. Bah. No way.

By Susan B on 10/21/2008 12:09 pm

Susan B I don’t think either of the candidates plans will work very well, or as Star said, get through congress. There is one aspect to McCain’s plan that might have an affect of lowering the cost of insurance and that is competition across state lines. I am a small business owner and was almost put out of business by the cost of Workman’s Compensation Insurance. For every $100 we were payed an employee (our top paid shop employee makes $840 per week) we had to pay about $25. So for $840 we had to pay $200 per week for Work comp ins. We had 5 employees who ranged from $600 per week to $840. So do the math and you will realize how high our costs were. Schwarzenegger saw that businesses were leaving CA so they reformed work comp and opened it up to cross state competition. Many companies wanted to get in on the CA market and costs went way down. We now pay $8 to $9 per $100, so our costs lowered by about 75%. It took about 18 mos but it happened. It went down gradually, but it has stayed down. Not every business saves that much because of issues in their business, but many of my friends said theirs has gone down that much. So if there is competition across state lines it can bring costs down.

By Frannie Em on 10/22/2008 8:46 pm

e-mail alert

Makes sense, and I think a national plan/approach across all states would be a good place to start. But I’m a skeptic when it comes to health/medical insurance. it’s a huge, many-level, expense that must somehow be managed for every single person, not just the employed ones.

By Susan B on 10/23/2008 12:46 am

Susan I am not sold on a national plan, I don’t trust that our government knows what they are doing, most of the financial problem resulted from bad judgement and management of FNMA (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). Just opened up the LA Times and there is the 3rd part of an article on health/medical insurance. I get it from Thurs - Sun so I will have to get the rest of the article off of the internet to get all the info. I read an interesting article a long time ago that talked about how the existence of health insurance is one of the major causes of medical costs being so high. It is like a piggy bank for the medical world. It seems to me that a national plan would have to be so far reaching for it to work. It is so expensive for someone to become a doctor that if they weren’t making enough to pay back the loans, they won’t do it. We would have to have incentives for those, such as paid education for doctors and much more to make it really work. Can we afford that at this point in time with our country in this financial crisis? Medical Lobbyists and Insurance lobbyists are going to work hard against it. I think Star is right, it probably won’t make it through congress. If it does, with all the special interest needs attached to any bill, it will have a big price tag for citizens. I just don’t understand why such an innovative country cannot think outside the box on this? Everyone’s heads are inside the box - make the government pay for it and do it. Well, that is us paying for it. I for one, don’t want to give anyone in govt more money. They just pass it around among their friends and vice versa. I go back to my same question, how can a nation on the brink of financial collapse pay for nationalized health care? I just don’t see it happening.

By Frannie Em on 10/23/2008 10:13 am

e-mail alert

Have you lived or spent any amount of time in France or England, or even Canada? They have national plans that work far better across their entire population than our way of doing it. Everyone’s covered, drugs included, regardless of health or age. It’s an amazing thing to witness, and I did, firsthand. The doctors in these countries are very well compensated, too. So many Americans have a knee-jerk reaction about anything that has the word “socialized” attached to it. We’re so worried about becoming a socialist country. (Ignorance and fear is at the core of this concern, but that’s another conversation.) I do believe the health insurance industry is the root cause of our struggle with this challenge. Sadly, we have two choices: continue to rely exclusively on private insurance as we do now (where so many aren’t even able to be insured) or put together something new. Here’s something to consider. Even if taxpayers end up paying more for this, we’re also going to realize a significant cost savings in terms of personal salary deductions for medical, co-pay fees and drug expenses. And think of the amount of money our employers are going to save when not forced to contribute to this “extortion.” For those concerned about businesses of all sizes thriving, this is a real consideration. I’m convinced that it will weigh out in the long run. But, the insurance lobbies are powerful and will fight with every extra dollar they have to spend. And they have plenty. There are so many more areas where government needs to step back or out, but healthcare for its citizens is not one of those areas. Don’t most of us believe that every citizen is entitled to healthcare, rather than just the people who can afford it? I can’t be the only one who views our nation’s health care provisions as elitist.

By Susan B on 10/23/2008 12:02 pm

Susan B I don’t think you are an elitist. There are very few women on this blog that I would call elitist. There are many well grounded women with many different opinions. I don’t think of it as “socializied”, I can live with the “nationalized” medical moniker. Isn’t that medicare? The government is having terrible times keeping fraud and the cost of medicare down. My sister-in-law is a nurse and she says that if the fraud was cleaned up in medicare, it would save billions. (?) It isn’t that it is nationalized, but will I be able to go to my same doctors? Part of the plan is to make employers more responsible, especially small businesses. That would put us out of business. We are fortunate, all but one of our employees have health insurance on their wives policies, so we insure one. We have not been able to go to a different plan because I have a pre-condition, so, at this time, to find something new is not viable. I believe there will continue to be a copay, because they are basing it on the Massachusetts model. I read both plans a while ago, will have to review them again. I don’t think McCain’s plan is great, but it gives me more options of choice, I like choice. There is another great difference between the US, France, England and Canada. I don’t know much about France’s system, but have read pros and cons of both of England’s and Canada’s, people either love it or hate it. So it is hard to tell. The difference lies in the fact that since the US is the largest military force in the world, they are under our protection, and they don’t have to spend that much on their militaries. Their taxes are higher than ours, and they have confidence that they are under our protective umbrella, and have proven that we have a stabilizing effect in the world. If we withdrew from Europe (one of our largest bases is in Germany), they would have to begin to spend more on their militaries to protect themselves from Russian aggression. It would result in more taxation of the citizens or having to drop some kind of social program. Medical is one of the most expensive social programs, so it might have to change. They couldn’t have those programs if the US wasn’t so great at playing ‘bad cop’. Lived in England for a short time while working for an actress that was doing a film there. She needed some dental care, and it was amazingly easy to get her an appointment. That was in the early 80’s, I don’t know how it is now. Immigration and population growth may have changed that. I don’t know. When did you live in England? I don’t know about Americans having a “knee jerk” reaction for that reason. Americans are not stupid, they know how poorly our government handles it’s institutions. There are too many caucuses that block reform and change in order to hold on to power. Which is exactly what happened to Fannie and Freddie precipitating this whole collapse. I think Americans (especially the working middle class) know that they will be paying more taxes. They also do not want to encourage more illegal immigration. Many in California believe that nationalized medicine will just be a big sign at the border that says we will give you more free stuff. So it is a larger issue than it is made out to be. Nothing viable will happen to change our systems that are broken, until there is lobbyist reform and campaign reform. Nothing will change. How can Obama say he will clean up government when he is getting so much money from special interests? Yes, moms and pops are sending him money, but he is getting large amounts from overseas and many corporations. He will not be able to engender change if he has sold himself in that way. We haven’t heard him say anything about reforming government in a long time. When he began, that was one of his main points, now he is one of them. The democrat machine switches him on and off. He is the perfect candidate, but can he make decisions? That is my biggest worry. 135 times voting “Present”. That troubles me.

By Frannie Em on 10/23/2008 3:02 pm

e-mail alert

I’ve experienced France’s health care, and it is magnifique, appreciated by all. Perhaps our country is too large to do the same thing, perhaps I’m comparing apples to oranges here. All I know is that our current health care methodology isn’t working for millions of people, and that’s fundamentally wrong in my core values. I think we both agree that the lobbies own a huge piece of this problem. I too live in California, but in the SF Bay Area. More free stuff to immigrants? I have a friend whose elderly mother has immigrated to Canada to escape her medical care expenses. So far so good for her. I’m as opposed to giving immigrants “free stuff” as you, we need to get that staunched. The immigration situation is another topic for another conversation, but it’s most discouraging how all these critical issues overlay and mesh with others. You’re right, it is a much larger challenge than it seems. Americans are not stupid, but so many are uninformed and parrot party lines. That drives me absolutely crazy. Frannie, when it comes to campaign financing, both candidates are in the pockets of powerful interests and corporate interests, no question. McCain is certainly no innocent in that regard, nor is he any less at the bidding of the GOP “machine” than Obama is for the Dems. McCain’s always saying, “They know me.” But I don’t know him. He’s certainly not the same guy with the same policies I knew a year or so ago. On balance, neither of them have the right to point fingers at the other on this matter. I trust Obama to make careful decisions, and for McCain to react quickly. I don’t trust Obama to react quickly, or for McCain to be a careful decision-maker. I guess it comes down to whatever leadership style you’re most comfortable with … Last night, I was helping my 16 year old study for a history exam on the French Revolution. My, there were a lot of social parallels to draw with current America. Merde!

By Susan B on 10/23/2008 4:35 pm

Susan B Great and thoughtful answer. You might be right about size being a problem to change our healthcare system, but you are definitely right that something has to change. When did you live in France? News coming out of France for the past 18 mos has been about having to make social cuts because the population is not generating enough tax income to support the benefit plans of the boomer retirees. Since France’s birth rate is not enough to sustain that population, they have opened up immigration from Africa and the Middle East for workers who, unfortunately, have not has as much access to those benefits. That is one of the reasons they had all those weeks of riots and car burnings. Currently, I think, the taxes collected are not able to sustain the programs. I saw a program on PBS comparing different nationalized or socialized healthcare programs in Canada, Japan, and Germany (if memory serves). Anyway, the reporter was already for it when he started, but he did give the pros and cons of each system, I figured if ours was like any of those, at least it would be better than what we have, but as you point out, size of population could be a problem to initiate anything viable. I still like being able to have choice. Ability to choose is commensurate to freedom for me. Yes, the parroting drive me crazy as well, from both sides, and since Obama is on the news more, I hear that the most. Right, campaign financing result in candidates in the pockets of the powerful, but you must admit that Obama has got to be in a lot more pockets than McCain at this point. I don’t think McCain is a great campaigner. He has won in Arizona so much he believes the “They know me” should work. That is why I don’t believe his campaign machine is as big as Obama’s. The 300 people that he is surrounded with - not the other 2500, some of which are volunteers, all get a salary. Big salaries, I have worked on some local campaigns, they are all getting paid - big time. I think Obama would be careful but indecisive. After 135 votes of present - I don’t see how that is someone who can make decisions. McCain has been around Washington so long he knows how it works, who does what well, what arms of government are bloated, which special interests have too much access etc. therefore he has more experience to draw on. I believe Obama would do his best, and has enough street smarts to catch up, remember he has been on the trail for almost 2 years, I know I know, McCain has as well, but McCain has also been in Washington for 35 years so there is not a lot of catch up. I don’t know. People loved Carter, but he couldn’t get anything done. My Iranian friends, who escaped from Iran (they are Christians) during the revolution, say the people of Iran blame Carter for the revolution. You spoke of knee jerk reaction of some Americans, sometimes it seems that the Obama choice is just a knee jerk reaction to 8 years of Bush. I can’t base my decision on just being opposed to Pres Bush, I have to base it on more. I voted for Clinton twice, I voted for Gore because of the environment, sat out the last one, because CA goes dem anyway and I didn’t like Kerry. I don’t feel confident about Obama. We haven’t seen him in government for the last two years, we have only seen him on the campaign trail with a very scripted message. I have a 15 year old (almost 16). He was studying for a test on the French Revolution and he came out and he said “You know mom, I think the French Revolution was the only war the French ever won.” I thought that was funny. Peace and grace and peas and gravy It is great to talk to you. You are very smart and make me think.

By Frannie Em on 10/23/2008 6:37 pm

e-mail alert

I enjoy our conversations, Frannie. The French seem prone to rioting in the streets. Maybe they never got it out of their blood during the Reign of Terror! I have memories of walking the neighborhood around the Jardin des Plants and seeing thrown eggs splattered on the ground. The students were always getting incited over something. Your son is right about their war record, I think. Even with Napoleon, they never really ruled the world. They relied on Spain’s help at the battle of Trafalgar against the British — and they still lost! However, they were the center of culture and enlightenment in those days. God bless them, they have such wonderful food and personal style! McCain’s campaign isn’t as well run as his opponent, that seems to be the general consensus. I wish he’d move away from the “Joe” thing, it’s starting to sound manic. He needs to come up with some new, stickier material in the next 12 days. Oh, and I think you might have something there when you say that supporting Obama is a knee jerk reaction to 8 years of Bush. I think a lot of people feel that way. Have a wonderful evening!

By Susan B on 10/23/2008 7:35 pm

Susan, Hi it is late and I left a grumpy answer on a different thread, sorry. I am just tired and my posts are enormous, I go through stages of that. My mother had a masters degree in French, traveled there often, and went to live there for a couple of years with my younger sister who was studying with Nadia Boulanger (I probably spelled that wrong). I love “the French seem prone to rioting in the streets.” Hey, I say it sounds like fun. Yes, culture and enlightenment and everything they touch turns to art. I have to agree, Obama’s campaign is something to behold. They have got it going on. Someone will win and someone will lose. Some things disturb me and leave me with questions, but I would be fine with either of them as president. Our country is being shaken at the core. I don’t think there is that much either of them can do except make sure it gets going straight with better policy. The money is gone, and with the lower tax base, there won’t be as much tax revenue. Got to get people back to work. What a mess. Anyway, I apologize again about the way I started my comment when you asked me where I lived. I thought I was making it funny, but it sound grumpy. Living with mantribe has its days.

By Frannie Em on 10/24/2008 2:01 am

e-mail alert

Living in a mantribe, are you? My mother in law had 4 sons and no daughters, and she’s regaled me with her life as the “only female.” Now that she has 5 granddaughters, she’s discovering what she missed. It’s funny to watch her, experienced mom that she is, become baffled by the drama of raising young females. She keeps telling me, “I never had to deal with that with my boys.” Funny. Once again, you made a great point about the future of this country. With no money to go around, there’ll be less tax revenue to misappropriate. That should be a comfort to all of us! (And lord knows, we need all the comfort we can get these days!) Hope you’re away from fire danger. We live on the edge of open space, and although there’s no wind to speak of today, the grass is dry and the weather’s pretty warm (low 90s) for the end of October. This summer was a literal nightmare. I’d go to bed worrying that we’d have to bug out in the middle of the night because of a wild fire. Then, we were in Italy for two weeks in July, and kept seeing clips on CNN about how California was on fire. We’d just look at each other and silently hope that our house would still be there when we came home.

By Susan B on 10/24/2008 10:51 am