Did Michelle Obama Deliver the Most Effective Political Speech Since Ronald Reagan?

October 14, 2016

Writer

If you haven't heard Michelle Obama's most recent speech, you need to. Why? Because whether or not you believe a word of it, the impact was devastating.

"The audience was pin-drop quiet. It connected. Whether you like to believe it or not, whether I want to believe it or not, it connected. And it was powerful," Glenn said Friday on his radio program.

Not only has the Democratic Party co-opted conservative language this election season, they're now co-opting women voters of every ilk with Michelle Obama's speech.

"We've switched places," Glenn said. "We don't control the narrative, and we don't control the culture. They do. They control the language. You cannot fight them on things like this. They win . . . we have become them. And now, they've decided that this is all wrong."

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these questions:

• Who should have given Michelle Obama's speech?

• Why was the first five minutes of the speech so important?

• Who have conservatives lost with this election?

• Did the Trump campaign conduct opposition research?

• What's the greatest irony of Michelle Obama's speech?

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: I want to start with the most effective speech, the most effective political speech I have heard since Ronald Reagan.

It kills me to say that. I don't -- I don't think this is necessarily genuine. I think she does believe these things. But it was very well done, very well rehearsed. And in the video that I saw -- now, this was a regular campaign speech -- you would not see several angles. You would see one. They come, they put a camera down in the back. It's all -- lock it down. They lock it down on the podium. And that's it.

If you watch the speech that Michelle Obama gave yesterday, they knew. There were four different camera angles on this. They knew exactly -- the press knew what was coming. This was an important speech.

Normally, if you give this speech -- any campaign speech -- you hear, "I'm going to say something about the bad guy." And what does everybody do?

STU: Boo.

GLENN: Boo. Okay. "I'm going to say something about us." Yay!

STU: Yay!

GLENN: And that's a campaign speech.

I will tell you, if you want to look at what the conservatives have lost in this campaign -- we have lost the argument on economics.

Can anybody remember what the number $787 billion is about? Do you remember what it is? Anybody?

STU: Oh, yeah. Yeah. For sure.

GLENN: Yeah. Stimulus package, right? Why do you remember that number, Stu?

STU: Because we it said 9 million times --

GLENN: Why did we say it 9 million times?

STU: To criticize Barack Obama and his huge spending effort --

JEFFY: So big.

STU: Right. And our change from, you know, violating the free market system to save it. That extending into Obama's presidency where we were just throwing money at this problem.

GLENN: How much is Donald Trump's child care bill? How much is that?

STU: Up to $680 billion.

GLENN: So $100 billion short of the biggest number any of us had ever heard the government spend.

STU: Of course, that doesn't include his $550 billion-plus stimulus plan, which is on top of the 680 billion from child care.

GLENN: Right. So we're over $1 trillion for just two things: a stimulus and one child care package.

So we've lost the economic high ground. We are -- we have proven ourselves to be, what? Liars? We don't care if it's our side. We don't care what anybody does, as long as they don't do it economically.

Small government. Single-payer health care system. He has said it over and over again. He will do a -- he will repeal and replace, with a single-payer health care system. Universal health care. We've lost that argument. Compassion. "You know what, maybe we ought to go over there and kill the families. Kill the families of the terrorists." Or even the deportation force. Instead of saying, "We have ICE. We have to empower ICE to do their job."

He says, "We'll have a deportation force." Compassionate conservatism, if it even existed: Gone.

Corruption on business. We say we don't like corruption in business. Listen to the words of, "What? I use the laws. I -- of course, I use bankruptcy because I use laws that benefit me. You don't like the laws, change them." Now, while that is true, how do you defend that?

JEFFY: It's called business.

STU: That's right.

GLENN: It's cold-hearted, Mr. Potter versus the Bailey Building & Loan kind of business. Heartless. "I use what I can." Cronyism. "Yeah, you damn right I give to all of the guys because they'll answer my calls and I get what I need."

What else have we lost? How about the moral high ground? Anger. Vengeance. Vulgarity. I mean, we could spend days on that one.

We've lost Hispanics. They're not coming back. They're not coming back. Because our cheering crowds, they're not coming back.

We're now losing women. Women are dropping like flies. Why? Why?

Because the people who know how to deliver speeches, who have control of the media, who -- who have defended Bill Clinton for 25 years, who dragged all of the arguments that Donald Trump is making out of in front of people right now, the ones that we are using, they're only being -- we didn't develop those arguments. They did. They fought against them and said, "Oh, that's crazy." Now, they're the ones saying that this is a moral outrage.

STU: Right.

GLENN: We've switched places. But what you don't understand is, we don't control the media. We don't control the narrative. And we don't control the culture. They do. They control the language. You cannot fight them on things like this. They win. Especially when you have a guy who has shown that he is into cronyism, corruption, compassion is gone, small government, economics.

We have become them. And now, they've decided that this is all wrong.

Who do you think is going to win? Women are going to leave us in droves because they will be effective where we are not. And in the meantime, we've lost our religious institutions. Because our religious institutions don't stand for principles or morals anymore. We are losing ourselves.

JEFFY: You've highlighted some inconsistencies.

GLENN: Yes. And who didn't see this coming? We were so wrapped up into winning, we said last year, millions of Americans said last year, "You can't do this. When the media gets a hold of this guy, they're going to kill him. They're going to cream him." No, he's got control of the media. "No, he does now because they want him to win." As WikiLeaks has now shown us, that was exactly their plan. They wanted him to get the nomination. Because they knew she was so weak and he could be destroyed.

STU: They talked privately about how it was basically her only path to the presidency.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Only path to the presidency was Donald Trump.

GLENN: Thank you, Russia. Thank you, Russia, for verifying what we said during the primary.

STU: Probably stop trying to interfere in our elections to do so, but, yes.

GLENN: Yes. Yes.

Okay. So we know that's all true now. And we now also know that Donald Trump was so reckless with our nation, that he refused to have anyone do opposition research on him. That is basic. That's the first thing you do. When you want to run, you say, "I need some opposition research. Show me that the worst that they might be able to find." And you do research so you overturn every stone so no one surprises you.

We found out, in the three administrations that have been running the Trump campaign, all three of them have said, "We -- we need to do opposition research. And he has said no."

So now, the campaign has no idea what's coming next. And if you don't think that that was a setup -- Ben Shapiro hit it right -- the nail right on the head: During the debate, "So have you ever said -- have you ever done any of these things that are on this tape on the bus?"

"Look, nobody respects women --

"No, that's not the question. Have you ever done any of those things?"

"No one respects women more than I do."

"Again, sir, have you done any of those things?"

He was trapped. He had to say yes or no. He chose no. Setup. That's not Gary Hart. Who was the guy who said follow me?

STU: That was Gary Hart.

JEFFY: Yeah, that was Gary Hart.

GLENN: Was it Gary Hart? Yeah. Follow me.

"Everybody is saying that I've had affairs. Follow me."

That's what he did. He said no. People are saying, "Well, you can't trust these women." Oh, so now we don't believe the women? Now we take a very vulgar man with lots of power, celebrity, who we know lives this kind of lifestyle anyway, has bragged about it for 30 years, we have footage of things like this, and now we're taking the position of not believing the women?

Why did the women finally come up? Well, I would imagine if that had happened to you, you're not going to say anything. For all kinds of reasons, you don't say anything. Bill Cosby comes to mind. But there comes a point -- and this was the point -- that you're sitting at home and you're watching that and you snap and say, "That son of a bitch. He did it to me."

STU: There very easily could be a mixture of people actually doing that and --

GLENN: And completely false.

STU: -- realizing, hey, here's a presidency that I can take.

I mean, it's not to say that these women are all going to turn out to be true. It's all alleged.

GLENN: You have no idea.

STU: They all say -- you know, Trump says he's going to come out with evidence that's going to disprove all of them today. Let's see.

GLENN: But you don't have the moral high ground because you've already ceded it. You don't have a guy who you can say, "This is out of character." When Donald Trump said, "Ted Cruz has, you know, 12 mistresses," it was pretty easy to question Ted and say, "Ted, did that happen?"

"Please, Glenn."

There's nothing in his character that shows that. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

STU: Right.

GLENN: But there's nothing in his character that hints at that.

STU: Again, think about this again. Here's a guy who is dealing with this now, and having to fight off all these allegations, you know, here's a guy who tried to ruin Ted Cruz's run by pinning a fake cheating scandal on him.

GLENN: Yes. Correct.

STU: And --

GLENN: Beyond this, Stu, beyond this, here's a man -- here's a man who is still trying to make the issue about Bill Clinton and what Bill Clinton did. And the women -- think of this. What did he do on Sunday?

He put people who accused Bill Clinton of doing something 30 years ago in the audience, when his defense of himself is, "That's old news. That's ten years old."

It's the dumbest strategy I've ever seen.

I'm going to take a break. And I don't know if I'm going to have time or patience to play the Michelle Obama speech. But you need to hear it. Because the audience is pin-drop quiet. It connected. Whether you like to believe it or not, whether I want to believe it or not, it connected. And it was powerful.

You don't have to believe it, to see its devastating effects. And I don't even mean on Donald Trump. I mean on the conservative movement. A devastating attack.

We have been talking about, "There is no War on Women." You just handed them a War on Women. And they took it. And if you listen to her words carefully, oh, my gosh, oh, my gosh, they are co-opting women, and it will work. They are -- they are talking about how crippled women are, and it's time you have a protector. Oh, my gosh.

The conservatives, it's probably too late. It's probably too late for you to regain currently, because these crowds are still 15,000 strong. There is a big part of the conservative movement that just doesn't care. And it's going to destroy it. I think it already has.

Featured Image: Screenshot of Michelle Obama's speech at Southern New Hampshire University in Manchester, NH on Oct. 13, 2016.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep