Home > Politics > Political Punch

Political Punch

Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

Sacre Bleu! Le Monde Publishes Never-Before-Seen 1996 Interview With Obamas About Their Marriage

January 10, 2009 6:11 PM

"Ma priorité est de ramener les valeurs publiques ou collectives au centre du débat," said President-elect Barack Obama in an interview running in today's Le Monde newspaper.

Mr. Obama was not speaking in French; his words had been translated.

And in fact he hadn't uttered them in more than 12 years.

The French newspaper Le Monde on Saturday took the Obama team by surprise by publishing an interview with Barack and Michelle Obama from 1996 in which the two spoke at length about their marriage, only four years after they were wed, and two years before their oldest daughter Malia was born.

Many themes will not surprise those who know or follow the Obamas.

Sitting down to talk about their future the same year Obama eventually ended up running for state senate (and winning), his wife Michelle in the interview expresses reservations about whether a life in politics is what they want.

And while her husband is less uncertain of his calling, he wonders aloud about his ability to maintain a balance between private and public life. He also sounds out some notes about restoring civility in discourse to public life and the notion that we're all in this together, themes that have stayed with him throughout his career up through this week.

The interview, entitled "An Intimate Conversation with Michelle and Barack Obama," was conducted for a book about American marriages and was never published before today. The story was noticed in Le Monde by Tom McCarthy at the ABC News desk and translated from the French by Maeva Bambuck and Jean Fievet in ABC News' London bureau. (When assessing the precise accuracy of the quotes below, keep in mind they have now been translated from English to French to English.)

"If You Look Deep Into Her Eyes, There's a Certain Vulnerability"

President-elect Obama, who turned 35 that year, describes growing up with a single mother and absent father, and says, "I think that in a certain way, I’ve tried all my life to fabricate a family through stories, memories, friends or ideas. Michelle’s family life was different, very stable with two parents, a stay-at-home mom, a brother, a dog, that kind of thing. They’ve lived in the same house all their lives. And I think that in a certain way we complement each other, we represent two common models of family life in this country. One very stable and strong, another that frees itself from the constraint of a traditional family, travels, separates, is very mobile."

"A part of me was wondering what a strong, reassuring family life would look like," he says, "while Michelle in a way, wanted to break from that model. In a way only, because she’s very attached to family values, but I think she sometimes sees in me a more adventurous way of life, more exotic, and in that respect, we’re complementary."

Describing Michelle as "alluring" and with "a strong personality," the future President says, "if you look deep into her eyes, there’s a certain vulnerability. In any case, I see it even if most don’t realize it: she goes through life tall, beautiful, confident, very able…There’s a part of her that is fragile, young, sometimes scared, and I think these are contradictions that attracted me to her. And she makes me very happy. She is very familiar to me and so I can be myself around her, she knows me well, I completely trust her, but at the same time in certain respects she remains a mystery to me."

"Sometimes, when we’re lying together," he says, "I look at her and I feel dizzy with the realization that here is another distinct person from me, who has memories, origins, thoughts, feelings that are different from my own. That tension between familiarity and mystery meshes something strong between us. Even if one builds a life together based on trust, attentiveness and mutual support, I think that’s it’s important that a partner continues to surprise."

"I Was Thinking, 'He's Probably an Idiot, Whatever'"
 
"It was strange, that excitement over this first-year student," then-32-year-old Michelle Obama recalls when describing the buzz about a new summer associate at the law firm Sidley and Austin. "So smart, so good-looking, so intelligent, everyone was talking about Barack. I’m more of the skeptical kind, I was thinking, 'Yeah, he’s probably an idiot, whatever.'"

Why was she skeptical?  "Because I always thought that when lawyers rave about someone, they always neglect the relational qualities," Michelle says, "so I told myself, 'He might be brilliant, but he’s probably very ordinary.' And then on the first day, he showed up late. He was late because it’d been raining! And then he walked into the office and we got along right away because he was charming and very good-looking, at least I found him good-looking. I think we were attracted to one another because we didn’t take ourselves too seriously, like some others did. He liked my dry humor and my sarcastic comments. I thought he was a good man, interesting, and I was fascinated by his personal story, so different from mine."

The first lady-in-waiting clearly liked the fact that he was different and perhaps even a bit exotic.

"It’s not every day that a girl from the South Side of Chicago meets someone who speaks Indonesian, who has traveled and has seen many fascinating things," she says. "It gave him a rather rare dimension in my higher middle-class work environment. Usually, these people are all cast from the same mold, but he came from elsewhere. He had a high level of conversation, while still remaining an average guy. He had an impressive curriculum, but was very down to earth and liked playing basketball. That’s what I found attractive in him. Our relationship was first a friendship. It took off from there."

"There's a strong possibility Barack will pursue a career in politics"

Asked how she envisions her future with her husband, Michelle says, "there’s a strong possibility that Barack will pursue a career in politics, although it’s not very clear yet. It’s an interesting challenge, the Illinois senate, although we’ve had disagreements on that topic. Once you’re involved in politics, your life becomes public and the people who scrutinize it are not always well-intentioned. I’m rather secretive and I like to surround myself with people I care about and who’s loyalty I trust."

"When you start in politics, you have to confide in all sorts of people," she continues. "We may go in that direction, even though I also want to have children, travel, and spend time with my family and friends. It’s not certain that we will succeed. But we’re going to be very busy with a number of different things, and it’s going to be interesting to see what life has to offer to us. We’re ready to take on that adventure for various reasons, for instance, for the opportunities it can open to us."

Her husband was clearly leading her down the path.

"Barack helped my overcome my shyness, take on risks, and try a less traditional path, just to see how it would go, because that’s how he was raised," she says."I’m the more traditional in the couple and he’s the more audacious. I’m more cautious. I think it shows in photographs. He’s more extroverted, more expansive, me I’m more ‘let’s wait and see how things present themselves and how it can benefit us.’"

Mr. Obama seems more sure that he will, in fact, enter politics.

"What concerns me the most are children and the way they are treated," he says about why he will pursue a career in public office. "As an African-American, I am very concerned about children from poor neighborhoods, the problems they deal with, the total lack of a stable environment to enable them to grow and develop. It depends a lot on the economy, the opportunities they are given, their own selves and their parents. It also depends on values, for instance on the kind of family values that get talked about a lot, especially by politicians."

He continues, saying, "values don’t just belong to individuals, they are also collective. Children are exposed to the values around them, and if they come to believe that the lives of their parents and their community cannot be rewarded, if their schools and homes are crumbling, how can they come to believe in their own values when they don’t have any to begin with? My priority is to return social values to public debate, because we are all one big family, transcending racial or class differences. We have obligations and responsibilities towards one another."

He says, "perhaps that’s where the private and public spheres meet, when it comes to couples, relationships, families or tribes. What’s important is empathy, an understanding of shared responsibilities, the ability to put yourself in other people’s shoes. That’s why my marriage to Michelle is vibrant, because we are able to imagine the hopes, the pains, the personal battles of other people, and the challenge for everyone is to transfer that ability (for empathy) from the family sphere to the public sphere."

"The Issue Will Be Finding a Balance Between Public Life and Private Life"

Describing his father, Mr. Obama said "he studied economy in the United States, at the University of Hawaii and at Harvard. He wanted to contribute to development of Kenya but in the end, he was disappointed, he found himself implicated in political rivalries and the government blacklisted him because he’d protested against nepotism and tribalism. He had a bitter life and died young. Michelle’s father also had to overcome challenges and was stricken by multiple sclerosis. He too died young, but I think he had a steadier and more established life."

Speaking of his mother's death just months before, Mr. Obama says, "she was only 53 years old. And when you have a small family, where every relative is very close to you…it was a difficult time for me. I have a sister on my mother’s side, she is half Indonesian like my mother’s second husband, and I also have brothers and sisters on the Kenyan side. They are very scattered, some live in Germany, others in Kenya, some here in the U.S."

Mr. Obama says that for him and his wife, "kids are an important priority. We really look forward to having them. I think that the issue will be finding a balance between public life and private life, which will mean finding a balance between my temperament that leans towards risk-taking and ambition, and Michelle’s instinct for stability, family and strong values. The way we go about dealing with these issues will be crucial."

- jpt

January 10, 2009 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (355)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Ya know what Ratt?

Get your facts straight -- Obama only voted "present" in the Illinois Senate. That doesn't just mean "hey, I'm here" -- it means that he either had a conflict of interest, or thought that the bill was a good idea but had major reservations about voting "yes" for it because there was a flaw.

Posted by: Am | Jan 22, 2009 5:04:09 PM

"'Winning' his 1996 race is a euphemism for 'getting all his opponents knocked off the ballot so he could 'run' unopposed.'" Ditto. I agree with fsteele.

Locally, I've uncovered evidence of possible caucus fraud by Obama supporters in Iowa. If more people would talk, it would be easier to prove, but I know that caucus fraud by the Obama campaign in Texas has been documented.

No more caucuses!! Too easy to defraud the voters. Undemocratic, too. How many people can show up for three or four hours on a particular night to represent their candidate? It's harder for the poor and working classes.

Posted by: Maria Houser Conzemius | Jan 16, 2009 2:51:13 PM

I think this is a genuine article, but I have to wonder: Why would a FRENCH magazine do an article on AMERICAN marriages?

Posted by: kjj | Jan 14, 2009 1:30:11 PM

Obama was famous for being famous even before he was famous. We have been set up by Brazile, Dean, the DNC and the media. God help the world.

Posted by: Honora | Jan 14, 2009 8:46:24 AM

tsk tsk. what we could have know prior to voting for him IF he'd only been vetted to any extent.

Posted by: POTP | Jan 14, 2009 8:26:04 AM

'Winning' his 1996 race is a euphemism for 'getting all his opponents knocked off the ballot so he could 'run' unopposed.' He could not have won a vote against the incumbent "beloved elder stateswoman" Alice Palmer, so he made a vote impossible. Just as he could not win a vote against Hillary Clinton, so he maneuvered in the back rooms of Florida and Michigan and Denver to prevent her votes from being counted. (And Hillary still 'won' the exit polls; 9.5 million of McCain's voters preferred Hillary.)
Ref "Showing his bare knuckles" in a Chicago Tribune profile.

Posted by: fsteele | Jan 14, 2009 7:49:48 AM

If the Obamas need a babysitter/nanny I'm available.

Posted by: Dorothea Nauls | Jan 13, 2009 2:38:24 PM


Let's hope that life in the White House doesn't adversely affect what appears to be a beautiful relationship. Common sense tells us that their marriage has been and will be tested by the campaign and the victory.

Posted by: Dorothea Nauls | Jan 13, 2009 2:35:46 PM

And GDP is a poor measure of a nation's health. Especially as the sole measure.

As a metaphor, consider a very village with a yearly GDP of $110,000. One villager makes $100,000, and the ten other villagers make $1000 each.

Now let's say the one wealthy villager doubles his income one year, from $100,000 to $200,000. And in the same year, the 10 other villagers only make half their previous income, for $500 each.

The village's GDP went from $110,000 to $205,000! So what are the other ten villagers complaining about?

You see what I'm saying?

If you even want to look at using GDP as a useful sole measure of an economy's health for the whole nation, you have to at least use it as a mean. And not just as a lump sum.

Posted by: jim | Jan 13, 2009 2:28:21 PM

A respectful response to Archer:

"...it is not the President that controls the economy. Congress writes the budget, congress appropriates the funds, congress decides where to spend the money and what to spend it on. All the president does is sign the budget, just like any other law."

And when the Congress tried to send President Clinton a budget that included tax cuts for the wealthy, President Clinton vetoed that budget. And he refused to budge, until Congress accepted what Clinton wanted - those tax revenues to go towards paying down the budget deficit instead.

And so we ended up with a budget surplus - because Clinton defied and resisted Newt Gingrich and his Congress.

Also, from his bully pulpit and as head of the Executive Branch, Bill Clinton pushed for and instituted a range of programs and incentives to improve the lot of the poor and middle-class. Thus giving them more jobs, and more money to spend.

This is the exact opposite of trickle-down economics - and it works. It works by common sense. When the wealthy get more money, who's to say they'll spend it? They may save it - they may invest it overseas. But when the poor and middle class get money, they're more likely to spend it - because they *have to*.

"If you look at a graph showing the increase and decrease of the GDP by year, you will find that it coincides with changes of who controls congress."

I'd love to see that graph, please post a link to it.

"As for the problems you listed, these are either not the area the federal government has an effect or simply are not a problem."

Sure - if it's a party that doesn't believe in the power of Federal government.

"Since the GDP rose during this time, it shows that there were more winners than losers."

Sure - if you define winners as "wealthy", and losers as "everyone else".

But that has nothing to do with the health of the nation. Or, the economy - since the bulk of our economy depends on purchasing power, and since the poor and the middle class spend more of their money because they have to.

Therefore less money for the poor and middle class is not only hard for them individually, but hard for everyone - because it means less money is being spent in the economy, even though more money is technically available.

"So saying that poor and mid-class made less money ignores that fact that the numbers of poor and mid-class decreased during this time."

Love to see that graph or a link to it, too.

"As for the falling dollar, it's not a problem."

Really?

China owning us because they're propping up our dollar, that's not a problem to you? You don't think our lower dollar value negatively impacts our trade, investment, or long-term health at all?

I disagree very heartily. Their can be silver linings to it - but that doesn't change the fact that it's a very dark cloud.

Posted by: jim | Jan 13, 2009 2:14:07 PM

pmb said; seriously, republicans look really bad when you read blogs.

I guess you never go to HuffPo's site, or Daily Kos , eh ?

Welp, either way, good luck with your new President for we shall be watching and will give all the respect to Obama that was given to Bush, cause come next week everything that happens will be on B. Hussien Obama's shoulders and voting PRESENT won't be an option.

Posted by: Ratt | Jan 13, 2009 9:57:46 AM

A respectful response to Jim:

If you look at the Clinton economic timeline, it would appear that Clinton inherited a recession and turned it around into one of the best economic eras in American history. This would be completely accurate, except for the fact that it is not the President that controls the economy. Congress writes the budget, congress appropriates the funds, congress decides where to spend the money and what to spend it on. All the president does is sign the budget, just like any other law.

So to say that the economy during Clinton's presidency is a direct result of the Clinton presidency is unfortunately a common misunderstanding of how the US gov't works. The President's power lies in his control of the military, foreign affairs, political party and setting the broad agenda that congress can either follow or ignore.

If you look at a graph showing the increase and decrease of the GDP by year, you will find that it coincides with changes of who controls congress. As for the problems you listed, these are either not the area the federal government has an effect or simply are not a problem. Sure, incomes fell in areas like California and Michigan. But in Texas, Florida, Colorado and other states, the exact opposite happened under the same president. These are more a result of local governments' ability to spur local economies where people live. Since the GDP rose during this time, it shows that there were more winners than losers. More people were working (less than 4% unemployment) and more people were making money nationwide. So saying that poor and mid-class made less money ignores that fact that the numbers of poor and mid-class decreased during this time. As for the falling dollar, it's not a problem. It does not cause inflation. What it does do is make American products more competitive around the world since these products are "cheaper" in foreign currencies while making foreign products more expensive stateside.

Posted by: ArcherB | Jan 13, 2009 9:53:11 AM

And some nice corrections for Archer B, who said:

"Also, to those that blame everything on Bush... Please try to remember that the economy was great, literally the best in history from 2002 to 2006."

Huh?

Uh, no.

- going from a surplus to the 3rd largest national debt in US history;

- 5 straight years of decline in incomes for the poor and middle class, whereas before there was only ONE (1) year of this decline, during World War 2

- and the dollar: a shocking %37 decrease from 2000 to 2006 (and worse from there)

...I mean really.

"Just look at recent history to see that Clinton's economy took off when Newt became Speaker and tanked when he went out."

Nope. You see, Clinton pursued policies that were the ***direct opposite*** of the GOP's and Gingrich's. For example, Clinton wanted to keep paying off the debt whereas Gingrich wanted immediate tax cuts for the wealthy; and Clinton went so far as to shut down the government to get his way.

Clinton won in spite of Gingrich, and handed Bush a record surplus - the first President in many decades to achieve this. Bush then blew it.

That's factual history. Please look it up.

"Numbers don't lie."

No, they don't. But you can lie *with* numbers, if you pretend there's different causes.

Posted by: jim | Jan 12, 2009 6:14:47 PM

Mike,
I apologize for perhaps being overly harsh. I just have heard so many excuses made for George W. Bush's terrible management, in particular. I think he's a worse problem than either party; I think the GOP enabled him to do worse than another better President would have done in his stead.

And I also think that blaming the mortgage mess for our current issues is inaccurate, and tends to imply the poor are to blame - when it is the supposed stock-market wizards who took a potentially bad situation and made it go nuclear.

But if what you are saying is that both parties are to blame *besides* Bush, that I can definitely agree with.

Posted by: jim | Jan 12, 2009 5:27:23 PM

And to Dadoo - yes, PLEASE criticize Obama in terms of his policies, promises, actions and results.

If more people had engaged in logical and fact-based criticism of George W. Bush, especially in his first 6 years in office, this country and the world would be in a better place.

Posted by: jim | Jan 12, 2009 5:19:37 PM

I'm a "right-winger". I will give Obama the chance that Bush never received. Remember when Bush's Motorcade was on the way TO the inauguration? Remember that it was pelted with snowballs? Keep in mind that this was before Bush made a single decision as president BECAUSE HE WAS NOT EVEN SWORN IN YET! So don't give me any crap about how people hate Bush because of his policies. I hope Obama does well because I love America more than I dislike Obama.

Also, to those that blame everything on Bush... Please try to remember that the economy was great, literally the best in history from 2002 to 2006. What happened in 2006? That's when the Democrats took over Congress. Remember from your middle school government classes that the congress controls the purse strings, and therefor the economy. Just look at recent history to see that Clinton's economy took off when Newt became Speaker and tanked when he went out. The economy was great when Delay was Speaker but has now tanked thanks to Pelosi. Numbers don't lie.

Posted by: ArcherB | Jan 12, 2009 5:03:54 PM

To John G:

If I can help you pack to leave the United States of america, let me know

Posted by: Mike Monrow | Jan 12, 2009 5:03:52 PM

And, lastly for now, to Bruce Tomarello:

"...I think the article is a fake. If it wasn't how is it that the admiring media didn't find it during the campaign?"

Because it was never before published, you see. Which it says in the intro.

Basically, Le Monde interviewed them, and as Obama wasn't famous yet they just stuffed it in a back bin without using it. Then, looking for stuff to fill the current issue, they searched through their archives and found it.

If they had found it earlier, I'm sure Le Monde would have run it earlier too.

Posted by: jim | Jan 12, 2009 4:59:45 PM

And, "da verg" and "jack" - my God. Come on!!!

"OBama is a usuper, he refuses to show his birth certificate."

This is 100% NOT TRUE. This is a 100% LIE. Slander, libel, factually disproven, by independent non-partisan sources, and confirmed by the Hawaii Department of Health.

!!!!!

Do I need to be more clear?

To repeat: Obama IS a natural born US citizen. He WAS born in Hawaii. He HAS shown his birth certificate, which HAS been viewed and examined in person, and which HAS been confirmed as 100% legit, genuine, real article.

Furthermore, Obama has shown all the information he can show - his Hawaii state-issued birth certificate. AND The Hawaii Department of Health has confirmed that Obama DOES NOT HAVE and CAN NOT GET his hospital-issued ("long-form") birth certificate. Hawaii DOES NOT RELEASE originals OR copies of the hospital-issued birth certificate. They don't even have a process in place to do this. They will ONLY do this in cases involving land disputes - and even then, WILL NOT release copies of this long-form to the public.

Clear?

If only one bit of nonsense I correct day actually sticks, let it be this.

Please do not take my word for it. Read here:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Please criticize Obama. If more people criticized George W. Bush, our country would be in a better place. I only ask that you criticize him in terms of his POLICIES - and not this tin-foil black-helicopter crapola.

Your country needs better of you.

Posted by: jim | Jan 12, 2009 4:55:10 PM

Jim,
I have nothing against libs and dems personally, but you have attacked me for putting the blame where it belongs, the government as a whole. I do not understand where you come from on that as obviously you did not even read what I had put earlier. The government as a whole is at fault and I was merely telling other ppl to drop this mess and lets get on with the real issues, fixinf this mess.
I have nothing against Obama personally. I did not vote for GW, I agree he could have done something about this issue but he did not, I also believe that both parties could have done something about this in Congress, but did not, this is why I blame the government. Who do you blame?
I could go on a rant like you are but what will that solve?

Posted by: Mike | Jan 12, 2009 4:52:03 PM

Next Comments »

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS