Michelle Obama said: "All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won't do--that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be."
I have a few quick questions: How does a US president change "the world?" Who decides "how it should be?" What does "just won't do" mean, in this context? It "won't do" what, for who?
Okay, if I take it as a figure of speech, meaning "is unacceptable," it still doesn't make sense, because "the world" has never "been acceptable" to everybody. Everyone has competing ideas on ethics, morality, and culture.
Does her "obligation to fight for the world as it should be" extend to Iraq? Not likely, given her husband's advocating abandoning Iraq before the surge, when things were rough.
Unfortunately, her husband is the one who "just won't do," and it's not because of his race. It's because of his equivocating statements, rather than stating a straightforward position. His "positions" often seem to be against the beliefs of a majority of American voters, which is why he's had to further "clarify" his positions, with more equivocation. That's really all there is to it.
Hat tip to James Taranto, from WSJ's Best of the Web Today.