How was it "inappropriate" that Michelle Obama was a surprise guest...?

[kentuck]

...That announced the winner of the Oscar for Best Picture?

I will admit that it appeared a little out of place. It did not seem to go with the flow of the show?

I don't know that it's any big deal? The right-wingers already know that Hollywood is in the pocket of Democrats anyway...

[MADem]

1. It wasn't inappropriate. Not at all. She made the point that movies unite us and

gave a tasteful visual nod to the Armed Forces.

Seth McFarlane has given hundreds of thousands to Dem candidates--he's one of the good guys. Why not add a little fun and joy to the program he's hosting?

I thought that was kind of cool, that she did the Best Pic reveal.

[Summer Hathaway]

2. I think part of the FLOTUS's charm

is that she never looks 'inappropriate' anywhere.

[Fire Walk With Me]

3. Separation of church and state, hopefully separation of state and media.

It's as wrong as Nixon awkwardly posing with Elvis.

There is also mention that Argo plus the White House is basically propaganda for an invasion of Iran, which goes all the way back to Bush's days. Someone on Twitter mentioned how weird it would be for the government of Iran giving out an award for a film about America.

I'd far rather give note to the presence of "Five Broken Cameras" and the Palestinian farmer who made it (and who was held up at US customs for being Palestinian, and Michael Moore having to intervene).

[Moonwalk]

6. She could not have known that Argo would win...

...and so we can't criticize her announcement of its win as a anti-Iranian propaganda or even as strange. "Lincoln" could have won. Would it have seemed so strange then?

Her aim, it seemed to me was to show support for an American industry that is still bringing money into the U.S. (one of the few U.S. industries that still does that) and also global regard as entertaining movies out of Hollywood are among the few things that still garner good will for the U.S. (though, perhaps, not Argo in Iran).

Seen in that light, it's not so odd for the FLOTUS (as compared to POTUS which would make for a more apt Nixon/Elvis comparison) to take part in the Oscars--an all-American tradition of an all-American industry that is enjoyed internationally.

[Fire Walk With Me]

7. And if W had done it during his time in office?

Still, it is a conflation of state and entertainment media. I'm uncomfortable with this direction no matter who would be doing it.

Edit: If a film were up regarding drone warfare, painting it in a bad light, I wonder if the WH would have agreed to participate, or asked to participate.

[jberryhill]

8. How many drone strikes do you suppose she has authorized?

[eShirl]

12. At least as many as Laura Bush.

[Moonwalk]

20. Ask, instead, if Laura Bush had done this, because you're comparing Apples & Oranges...

...which, by the way, is why that tweet you repeated is all wrong. The question is, how would we feel if the wife of the president of Iran had announced--just ANNOUNCED--the winner of best Iranian picture at an Iranian film industry awards ceremony? If it was an anti-American film, we might not have felt good about what the Iranian film industry thought was a good film, and we might rightly (or not) believe the government approved, but this is not the same as the Iranian President giving a special government award or medal of honor to that film maker.

Likewise here. If Laura Bush had announced the winner of the Oscars sometime during Bush's presidency, I wouldn't have cared because she's just announcing a winner that neither she nor the government nor her husband had any hand in picking. You seem to be looking at this as if Pres. Obama gave the producers of Argo a special medal of honor. That, indeed, would be a conflation of state and entertainment.

Which is not to say that it wasn't a disconnect to see FLOTUS do this. It was odd and maybe not proper. But we run into this weird problem in the U.S. The President is supposed to do not only government duties but ceremonial duties. From lighting a holiday tree to overseeing an easter egg hunt to opening up special new memorials, etc. In the U.K. they have the Royal family, politically neutral, to do all that stuff, and so there is no political message attached to them doing it. In the U.S. we don't have any such neutral "mascot" to do such things outside of the First Lady, who we have more or less delegated for such jobs. She is not, unfortunately, as neutral as an official U.S. mascot (like the royal family) would be, but she does have some distance. So, I don't really think this is so bad of a government/entertainment connection as you seem to think.

[Fire Walk With Me]

21. I'm with the Occupy movement. I don't speak for everyone but I've learned that the state

is its own entity and cares not one whit what the people of this country actually want. It is far too manipulated by the very rich and corporations and anyone who trusts it is in for some extremely upsetting discoveries. Good luck with that.

The NDAA Legalizes The Use Of Propaganda On The US Public

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12525089

[Moonwalk]

23. I'm not exactly sure what the problem is here....

...arguably, all movies of historical events are propaganda, especially if they're showing only one side of that event. In this instance, we can argue that there is no indication of why the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power (all thanks to the U.S. interfering in Iran).

HOWEVER, the Ayatollah Khomeini created a harsh and brutal theocracy for which he and his are responsible. It was horrible on women (would you really give his government a pass on all the rights they took away from women? The cruelty they imposed on them?), on other religions, it was restrictive, undemocratic, brutal (do we forget his death sentence on Salaman Rusdie that sent that author into hiding), etc. I'm sorry, but I don't see why casting such a theocracy as negative is a bad thing. Especially during its early days when it was allowing mob violence.

Are you really arguing that, in reversed Fox News style. that Argo isn't being fair and balanced because it casts Iran at that time as not right in putting into power a fanatical religious theocracy. WHY it came to being may not be fairly addressed, but I don't see us absolving Germany for putting Hitler into power just because the restrictions put on it post WWI pushed it that way. The populous of a country are not absolved of the responsibility for who they pick to led them and the consequence of that choice just because other countries made that choice more appealing.

[Fire Walk With Me]

33. "Are you really arguing that, in reversed Fox News style"

That was your quick path to a full Ignore. Be gone.

[Moonwalk]

24. You still haven't answered my question by the way. What if Lincoln had won? Would you...

...still have found Michelle Obama's presence wrong if she had opened that envelope and said, "And the winner is Lincoln!" or how about "And the winner is 'Beasts of the Southern Wild..." ?

You are having a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that Argo won--which is fine, but let's face it--it didn't win because it's anti-Iran. It won because Hollywood is portrayed as the heroes in that movie. Lights, camera and Hollywood directors get the hostages out of a bad situation. Of course the Academy--aka HOLLYWOOD--voted for it--as did a lot of other movie awards shows (are you really saying Obama pushed all these award shows to vote it as best picture?). I mean, come on, if POTUS was going to make sure a particular propaganda film win, he'd probably want "Lincoln"--a movie about a president bravely leading a contentious congress to pass difficult but important legislation (sound familiar?). Why would this president want an anti-Iran movie to win given that he's in favor of diplomacy with Iran rather than war?

And why aren't you blaming any of the other presenters for announcing Argo won for best screenplay and such?--you're not saying that they're anti-Iran because they read what was written on the inside of that envelope. Why not? I mean, all those others were actually members of the Academy, unlike Michelle Obama, meaning they might have actually VOTED for Argo to win in that category. Michelle Obama was the one presenter who didn't get a vote.

Michelle gave a Hollywood a little pat on the back and urged them (cheerleader that she is) to give jobs and opportunities to young Americans. Which, given that Hollywood is a big money industry, is only right--keep that money in American supporting Americans was her message. And likely, also, "thanks" for their contributions to her husband which helped him win the election.

But when it came to the envelope there, she was just like any other presenter. She just read what was there.

[Fire Walk With Me]

31. Creep. It's about creep. I'm not comfortable with the State getting all friendly in any way.

It's not a friendly state, it's about itself and the very rich, period. It does not represent the people of this country and must be driven to respond to the people of this country, as the word "Democracy" actually means the will and voice of the people.

You're not paying attention. The Bill of Rights is vanishing. Under the NDAA, twice-signed, Americans can be indefinitely detained without trial or representation. Drones are being used for extra-judicial execution. Corporate profits are up 171% and workers wages are not going up with them. There is an illegal foreclosure engine functioning in this country and the government isn't doing anything meaningful to stop it (and yes, Wall Street are among the bidders at quarterly bank auctions). I voted for Obama and it's gotten to the point where I can't even bear to look at him or her, this whole thing has gone so far south on me and my Hope for Change.

I want my country back. It doesn't matter one bit which film won. What matters is this is most exceptionally NOT the government for which I voted. And when I and others marched to contest severe problems, we were arrested and even beaten in what can only be defined as domestic terrorism. By our own government, when we marched to demand positive change. wtf. Zero banksters in jail, how nice is that.


• Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or its territories without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.


Billionaires for Austerity: With Cuts Looming, Wall Street Roots of "Fix the Debt" Campaign Exposed

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/26/billionaires_for_austerity_with_cuts_looming


FBI & DHS Under Obama Declared Occupy Wall Street Protesters TERRORIST To Protect Big Business

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12525555


Meet the Contractors Turning America's Police Into a Paramilitary Force

The national security state has an annual budget of around $1 trillion. Of that huge pile of money, large amounts go to private companies the federal government awards contracts to. Some, like Lockheed Martin or Boeing, are household names, but many of the contractors fly just under the public's radar. What follows are three companies you should know about (because some of them can learn a lot about you with their spy technologies).

http://www.alternet.org/meet-contractors-turning-americas-police-paramilitary-force?paging=off


Corporate Profits Have Grown By 171 Percent Under Obama -- Highest Rate Since 1900

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/corporate-profits-have-grown-171-percent-under-obama-highest-rate-1900


8 Huge Corporate Handouts in the Fiscal Cliff Bill

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/8-huge-corporate-handouts-fiscal-cliff-bill


The Untouchables: How the Obama administration protected Wall Street from prosecutions

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/23/untouchables-wall-street-prosecutions-obama



Yes, Virginia, the Rich Continue to Get Richer: the Top 1% Got 121% of Income Gains Since 2009

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/02/yes-virginia-the-rich-continue-to-get-richer-the-1-got-121-of-income-gains-since-2009.html


I'm not comfortable with any of this whatsoever. I want my country back. I don't want those responsible getting chummy with entertainment, because six corporations currently own the vast majority of US media channels, who either ignored or outright lied about Occupy:



Because the NDAA legalizes more than the indefinite detention of US citizens without trial or representation:

The NDAA Legalizes The Use Of Propaganda On The US Public:

http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-legalizes-propaganda-2012-5

I am NOT NOT NOT comfortable with propaganda, and with what is for all intensive purposes a corporate/Wall Street friendly government embracing our entertainment engine as well. Where is the outrage?

[Javaman]

14. Seperation of State and the Media would be nice, but that would be like

removing a major organ from the group politic.

the media is a side show of favored interests as is politics is a special interest group for the media.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. Five Broken Cameras and the other documentary films get their largest promotion from that show

If you like noting the presence of the film and it's makers Emad Burnat and Guy Davidi, who offered that presence in the first place? The Academy. They also maintain a webpage for all nominated films which will get much traffic this week. Trailer, information the works. I'll link below.
Someone on Twitter must not realize that Iran participates, Iranian film 'A Separation' won an Oscar in 2011. Two years ago. That film was also the very fist non English screenplay to be nominated for Best Original Screenplay. Someone on Twitter also must not understand that the Academy is not the government of America, but because it functions here not in Iran, they are free to have anyone they like present an award, and when three nominees are political films, including Lincoln, a First Lady who advocates strongly for the arts is a very fitting choice. The Iranian maker of 'A Separation' is a guy who has spent time in jail for advocating artistic freedom, jail in Iran. Oscar here and about 8 million in box office. There, a cell, then forced apology and release. good times.

Here's the page to read about 5 Broken Cameras, you can even see the nominee's hand written responses to the questions they send to nominees.
http://oscar.go.com/nominees/documentary-feature/5-broken-cameras

[Cleita]

4. Why was it inappropriate?

She kicked ass in the glamour department as much as any of the actresses. She just has that cool factor that Laura Bush and other first ladies haven't been able to accomplish since Jackie Kennedy.

[loyalsister]

5. Not inapproprate

But kind of overkill. We all get that the military oriented movies were fact based.

[HiPointDem]

9. I thought she looked beautiful and did a good job in a dignified manner. But...

I didn't like clinton playing the saxophone, i didn't like bush's stupid photo op in his flight commander suit --

I prefer presidents and first ladies to stay out of things that can be perceived as PR, entertainment, etc. and all higher-level politicians, actually.

I don't like the blurring of politics, entertainment and PR.

[Demo_Chris]

10. Not inappropriate, but...

Only because the word suggests condemnation I do not feel. It's not a big deal, but both the academy awards AND the First Lady are diminshed by this kind of thing. She is not in the movie industry, she's not an elected official, she's the wife of the President. The academy should be able to have this ceremony without politicians or their wives showing up.

It's not supposed to be about politics, it's artists recognizing other artists with their industry's highest honor. So why was she there? It makes no sense. And it's a safe bet the folks at the academy weren't enthused about it -- they've been trying for years now to get politics out of the event so they stop pissing off half their viewers.

[Bluenorthwest]

37. I'm adding that the Academy asks whom it wishes, Michelle did not 'show up' and she was not

there. Why was she there? She wasn't there. She was at home. I wonder if you have the same reaction when a President actually shows up at a Major League Baseball event to throw the 'first pitch' as every President since Taft has done? Are they in the Baseball business? No. It's not supposed to be about politics, it's baseball.
The producers of this show asked her to do this, not the other way around. And they don't try to keep politics out of the events. That's just something you think, not supported by the awards and nominations to highly charged political filmmakers. 2011 featured Ferguson speaking about the subject of Inside Job when that film won him an Oscar. If they wanted to keep that out of the show, they'd give documentary Oscars off air, as they do with most of the Oscars awarded.

[LeftInTX]

11. How would the public reacted if it had been Nancy Reagan 30 years ago?

The reason I mention Nancy is because she would be the most likely first lady to be a presenter.

I think it would have been OK.

[Fumesucker]

22. I would have just said no and turned off the TV n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

25. Ronald Reagan and FDR both did remote Oscar talks, and FDR's son James actually presented

the Best Picture Award in 38, to 'You Can't Take It With You'. By actually presented I mean he was present, and handed an Oscar to someone, while the rest were not present. Including the First Lady. Laura Bush also did a segment that was used in an Oscar show.
All very silly talk in a world where sitting President Richard Nixon did 'Laugh In' over 40 years ago. The idea of 'appropriate' went out the window then I'd say. Sock it to me.

[sendero]

13. Anything that might...

... be a public relations success is "inappropriate" in wingnut land. "Inappropriate" is what they say when they cannot think of a valid criticism to make.

[bemildred]

15. I must say that the Republicans sudden concern for the dignity of the office is welcome.

But not very consistent.

[Paladin]

16. Anything That Infuriates The Right Wing Like This, Suits Me Fine. (nt)

[Autumn]

17. I didn't see it as out of place, I thought she looked and did great.

The fact that right wingers are pissed is just an added bonus. I thought Seth was out of place.

[EastKYLiberal]

18. Thought it was great. Only right-wingers had a problem with it.

And apparently some of them are right here on DU.

It'd be nice to go 5 minutes in this country with someone interjecting their contrary opinion into things as minor as the presenting of an award.

Jesus Fucking Christ. Grow the fuck up already.

[southernyankeebelle]

26. It wasn't inappropriate. Only in the eyes of the racists haters of anything that an

Obama does. It is that simple.

[appleannie1]

27. It made the right jealous as hell. They have never produced a FL that was anything more

than a toy robot walking behind her man.

[lame54]

29. Just one of the many non-issues of the night...

She was great

[phleshdef]

30. When the President or spouse can't innocuously participate in American pop cultures events without..

...catching a bunch of unnecessary shit about it, you know this country has really given into some utter stupidity.

[Bluenorthwest]

35. Every President since Taft in 1910 has thrown a 'first pitch' for Pro Baseball, opening day or All

Star Game or World Series. Every sitting President since Taft. How the Oscars are so different from another entertainment industry such as Baseball I do not understand.

[City Lights]

32. Republicans are demented.

Ditto for any nooze outlets that agree with the gop.

There was nothing inappropriate about the FLOTUS presenting an Oscar.

[pansypoo53219]

34. where were the complaints when fucking GEORGEE W BLIVET BUSH invaded a SUPERBOWL???

[NCTraveler]

36. Right wingers will always make up a reason to attack Michelle Obama.

They are passionate about it.