I bet Michelle & Obama Didn’t EXPECT us actually Find this Out| Megyn Kelly CATCHES her celebrates

.
.

📰 Analyzing the Crossroads of Identity, Power, and Political Endorsements

The intersection of race, political identity, and party affiliation is one of the most volatile areas in modern American politics. A recent commentary segment highlighted this tension by critiquing former President Barack Obama’s actions and statements, arguing that his engagement with identity issues is a strategic tool used solely to consolidate Democratic political power rather than to genuinely advance racial unity or support Black candidates.

The core of the argument rests on comparing Barack Obama’s endorsement rhetoric for Kamala Harris with his choices in a specific Virginia gubernatorial race, aiming to expose what the commentator views as a political double standard.

The Kamala Harris Argument: Race as a Tool

The commentary focused heavily on a past instance where Barack Obama appeared to rally Black male voters to support Kamala Harris during her presidential run. The commentator points out that Harris is of Indian and Jamaican heritage, not Black, but claims Obama intentionally used language suggesting shared Black American experience to secure votes.

The alleged rhetoric—using phrases like, “somebody who grew up like you, knows you, went to college with you”—is interpreted as a deliberate manipulation of racial sensitivity. The analysis concludes that Obama was attempting to leverage the idea of racial alignment to pressure Black voters into supporting the Democratic ticket, thereby subordinating racial identity to the party’s immediate goal of acquiring power.

The Virginia Endorsement: The Alleged Double Standard

The argument against Obama pivots dramatically to a specific election in Virginia (likely referencing a past election involving the Lieutenant Governor’s race, which featured a Black woman, Winsome Sears).

The Scenario: When a Black woman was running for office (likely Winsome Sears for Lieutenant Governor, a Republican, or another Black candidate) against a white Democrat (likely Abigail Spanberger or a similar figure), Obama publicly endorsed the white Democrat.
The Critique: The commentator contrasts this endorsement with Obama’s rhetoric for Kamala Harris. If race were truly the overriding factor, the commentary argues, Obama would have endorsed the Black candidate regardless of party affiliation. His decision to endorse the white Democrat proves that the only true allegiance for the Obamas is to the Democratic Party’s political power—not to shared racial identity. The conclusion drawn is stark: the choice is not about color, but about political ideology and power acquisition.

The Michelle Obama Critique: Perpetual Focus on Race

The commentary also takes aim at former First Lady Michelle Obama, criticizing her for continually discussing race, her experiences as a Black woman in the White House, and the cultural implications of Black hair.

The Anger: The commentator expresses being “tired” of Michelle Obama constantly “complaining” about her life in the White House, asserting that she should instead be focused on the millions she has made since leaving office.
The Hair Debate: Specifically, the commentary addresses Michelle Obama’s discussion about Black hairstyles being “racist” because Black women must spend “thousands of hours and lots of money” to achieve a straightened standard. The commentator suggests this sustained focus on racial issues is “insane” and excessive, especially from a figure of her wealth and prominence, viewing it as yet another attempt to bring race into every public conversation.

This critique reflects a broader sentiment among some conservatives who believe that discussions of systemic racism or cultural issues rooted in race are used by prominent Black figures as a tool for public relevance, financial gain, or political agitation, rather than for constructive change.

💻 Unverified Claims and the Pursuit of Power

Finally, the segment introduces highly critical and unverified claims against Barack Obama related to alleged efforts to control the internet. The commentary asserts that Obama was involved in a secret meeting with international officials to “plot global [censorship] of the US” after previously advocating for “sweeping sensor of the internet.”

While these claims lack factual verification, they serve to reinforce the commentator’s overarching theme: that the Obamas are “obsessed with power” and willing to engage in extreme measures, from manipulating voters with identity politics to allegedly conspiring to control information, to achieve their ends.

The political dynamics analyzed in the commentary highlight the tension between calls for racial solidarity and the practical demands of party loyalty, concluding that in the modern American political landscape, the pursuit of power often supersedes other forms of identity-based allegiance.

.