She implies that Romney, who had a privileged upbringing, can't relate when she tells middle-class voters that President Barack Obama understands their economic struggles because he has struggled too. And she suggests Romney would have other priorities when she says her husband's empathy will result in a second-term agenda focused squarely on middle-class economic security.
The first lady will make her case to millions of Americans on Tuesday when she headlines the first night of the Democratic Party's national convention, where two days later her husband will accept the party's presidential nomination for a second time. Her high-profile appearance underscores her key role in his re-election bid: chief defender of his character and leader in efforts to validate the direction he is taking the country.
"I am going to remind people about the values that drive my husband to do what he has done and what he is going to do for the next four years," Mrs. Obama said of her speech during an interview with SiriusXM radio host Joe Madison.
The president said he planned to watch his wife's speech from the White House with the couple's two daughters.
"I'm going to try to not let them see their daddy cry because when Michelle starts talking, I start getting all misty," Obama said at rally in Norfolk, Va.
Once the reluctant political spouse, Mrs. Obama has embraced that mission to sell her husband anew throughout the summer while raising money for the campaign and speaking at rallies in battleground states.
These days, Mrs. Obama's speeches are peppered with references to the president's upbringing in Hawaii, where he was raised by a single mother and his grandparents. She talks about the student loans he took out to pay for college and the years it took to pay them back.
When Romney accused Obama of running a "campaign of hate," the first lady delivered Obama's strongest counterpoint — without mentioning the Republican candidate.
"We all know who my husband is, don't we? And we all know what he stands for," she said, standing alongside the president at a campaign rally in Iowa.
Key to Mrs. Obama's campaign strategy is maintaining her own personal appeal.
Anita McBride, who served as first lady Laura Bush's chief of staff, said that means staying away from the vitriol that has permeated the White House campaign.
"There are plenty of attack dogs in this campaign," McBride said. "She doesn't need to be one of them."
In many ways, the first lady's challenge Tuesday night will be more difficult than it was when she spoke at the 2008 Democratic convention. Back then, her mission was to vouch for her husband's personal qualities. This time around, she also has to persuade voters to stick with him amid high unemployment and sluggish economic growth.
Many Americans didn't know Mrs. Obama and some viewed her suspiciously before the 2008 convention. Republicans had questioned her patriotism throughout the campaign because she told voters during the primary that "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country."
Her convention speech sought to put those issues to rest. She declared "I love this country" and used personal stories about her marriage to assure voters they had nothing to fear about her and her husband's values.
Since moving into the White House, Mrs. Obama has focused on tackling childhood obesity and assisting military families. She's largely steered clear of her husband's political battles, at least in public.
But behind the scenes, she's a sounding board for her husband on pressing policy matters. She also has increasingly promoted his health care overhaul after it was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Aides say she will sprinkle her remarks Tuesday with a defense of the president's policies, including the health care law and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which was the first legislation Obama signed into law. The act makes it easier for women to sue for equal pay if they earn less than their male counterparts. Obama has made the law a key part of his election-year appeal to women, who could give him an edge over Romney in a tight race.
The first lady arrived in Charlotte on Monday and informally rehearsed at the Time Warner Cable Arena. She also taped interviews for entertainment programs that will air before her speech.
Mrs. Obama is staying in Charlotte during the three-day convention and will focus on shoring up support for her husband among key constituencies. She plans to speak to the party's African-American, Hispanic and women's caucuses and address a gay and lesbian luncheon. Along with the vice president's wife, Jill Biden, the first lady will also participate in an armed services event Thursday and put together care packages for U.S. troops serving overseas.
Mrs. Obama will join a crowd of up to 74,000 people at an outdoor football stadium on Thursday night when the president formally accepts the Democratic nomination. The first lady is not expected to have a speaking role that night, but she, and possibly her young daughters, will join the president on stage, leaving voters with fresh images of the photogenic family.
___
Follow Julie Pace at http://twitter.com/jpaceDC






If you were giving unscripted interviews multiple times a day; being quizzed by media types that are often openly hostile and even some who are supposedly friendly; those who parse every syllable of every word looking for an opportunity to make a headline, I imagine you would say something that later you wished you’d have phrased differently.
On the other hand, I have pages of Obama verbal clunkers that were from prepared and supposedly thoroughly vetted speeches for your enjoyment if you would like to wallow in that trough.
The SIPRI is an international haven for progressive types who thoroughly believe (as Obama) America’s strength is what’s wrong with the world. They advocate for peace through disarmament. The progressive goal is to make America weaker, all the while ignoring the rise of China and their 5-fold increase in military spending over the last 10 years, and those are just the figures China chooses to publish.
Are there areas of the military budget that can be trimmed? Of course, but those should be done carefully, not with the Budget Control Act's sequestration championed by the Obama White House.
The options are: peace through strength or subservience to the will of others. The progressive worldview, and make no mistake, this president are advocating the latter.
“Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”
Thomas Jefferson
http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/those-who-hammer-their-guns-plowsquotation
You also forgot another option: peace through communication, cooperation and mutual respect. I guess you'd rather go the easy route and just run over people like Jeebus did. Oh wait....
"I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude." Thomas Jefferson
By example, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, whose military expenditure database suggests that the U.S. military budget is bigger than those of the next 19 countries combined.
Further, our allies absolutely dwarf any potential foe in military power.
The president said “we can keep our military strong and our nation secure” with what amounts to a ten percent cut in our spending.
Given that we’ve managed to do those things plus fight two fruitless and expensive nation-building wars halfway across the world, that’s almost taken for granted.
“Everywhere I go in America, there are monuments that list those who have given their lives for America. There is no mention of their race, their party affiliation, or what they did for a living. They lived and died under a single flag, fighting for a single purpose. They pledged allegiance to the UNITED States of America.”
Furthermore, and I quote:
“That America, that united America, will preserve a military that is so strong, no nation would ever dare to test it.”
On the other hand, Obama has proposed $487 Billion in cuts with the potential of an additional $500 Billion to the Pentagon budget. Romney has opposed those cuts. What’s your point?
Romney, on why he didn't mention the troops in his acceptance speech: "When you give a speech you don't go through a laundry list, you talk about the things you think are important"
The executive orders you mentioned could have passed Congress any day of the week had they not been lumped in with more entitlement spending and other gross overreaches by the Democrats.
It seems we can agree on less spending to correct the deficit and tax code reform to enhance income but I remain firm in my opinion that we have term limits in the form of elections.
But lets see if I can express myself without your perceived “muttering” on my part and quote the famous liberal puke Jon Bon Jovi, a little something I’m sure you’ll understand: “Have-A-Nice-Day!”
Broad strokes, steering clear of specifics and you want America to trust you?
"We own this country," Clint Eastwood
Specific steps to change the gridlock in congress: summarily written off by conservatives as not fixable.
Here are a few of the executive orders being railed about:
Executive Order -- Improving Access to Mental Health Services for Veterans, Service Members, and Military Families
Executive Order -- Preventing and Responding to Violence Against Women and Girls Globally
Executive Order -- Accelerating Investment in Industrial Energy Efficiency
Executive Order -- Accelerating Broadband Infrastructure Deployment
You, rt and I can fix it. Cut spending. Simplify the tax code. Term limits.
Executive directors in high line cars raining difficulty on struggling local business owners.
People we elect to represent our best interests have become more interested in their own careers and the desires of their donors than in our collective future. Sad.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/welfare-reforms-work-requirements-cannot-be-waived
If that isn’t good enough or because in your opinion the Heritage organization may be biased, here’s one from the Democrat controlled US Senate’s web site with report from the GAO (or as Morn is ought to say GAC)
http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/ranking/release/?id=9b2d0e3c-0ba4-4a30-ab0c-25500ab66d7d
“Cleaning out the stables???? Oh, I remember. Ms. Pelosi took the House gavel and proclaimed she would “drain the swamp” and as of today the likes of congress-critters Maxine Waters and Charles Rangel are still there. Weiner and Massa self-destructed so she and the “ethics” committee can’t claim the credit there. But even Ms. Pelosi violated federal law by soliciting campaign contributions on federal property. I know it’s difficult to drain the swamp when your own house is filled with gators, but let’s not pretend anything has changed in the hallowed halls of the Congress just because Nancy said so.
BTW: Let’s not forget the CEOs strutting in and out of this White House, doing the people’s business of course. I never took you for the OWS type, but if you listen and read, you can learn something everyday. I highly recommend it.
Now about you thoughts on Congress: sounds reasonable to everyone except those who are charged with governing i.e. Congress. Senate terms are set in The Constitution at 6 years by the Founders for good reason and cannot be changed without a Constitutional amendment. A repeal of the 17th Amendment would take care of most problems in the Senate. I have no issues with your proposal, other than it is has the proverbial snowball in the nether-regions chance of seeing the light of day.
No Tenure. No pension.
Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office.
Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.
Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
Congress will no longer vote them selves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 1/1/13. The American people did not make this contract with Congress
Effective 1/1/13 All Senate Seats will expire at the end of their four years served. No Senator may succeed himself. A member of the House of Representative may serve two terms consecutively but in no case after service for four years may a Congressman succeed herself or himself. In no manner may a legislator ever serve more than four years total consecutively.
Congress made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
The first two years were spent cleaning out the stables.
One example: Wall Street CEOs strutting in the halls of Congress after we bailed them out -- rigged the game for their own benefit.
However, rt certainly makes the case between "you are on your own" or "we are in this together."
Concerning public officials racing public vehicles: maybe we could get Obama to write another executive order to suit you; you know, like he did with gutting the work requirement for welfare, thereby subverting the will of the people with a stroke of the pen. Old Billy didn’t bring that one up in his speech now did he?
You do not want me in the jury box either.
The business of governing has been slowly replaced by the businesses that govern.
Even a newby can see it's a lot easier to make sure things don't happen in DC than to make them happen.
We just got another bad unemployment number and Clinton says Obama can’t do much about it. The recession technically ended in 2009 yet we’ve had greater than 8% unemployment for 43 months. Historically, we’ve had better than 5% job growth on the backside of a recession, yet the best under Obama has been 2% for one quarter. What is the problem??? Could Obama’s policies of over regulation with the EPA, NLRB, DOE etc and Obamacare’s stranglehold of uncertainty over business be the answer? Ummmm could be!!!!
BTW: Carter taught us that we could survive any president. Obama has taught us that Carter really wasn't so bad.