[contemplator]

If that’s the quote in question then it’s ambigous and could be taken two ways. The first “Whitey” could have been “Why’d he” as in “What’s up with “Why’d he”; Why’d he does this, why’d he do that, why’d he do the other.

[saganite]

Since she was onstage with Farrakhan it will be easy to infer from the context what she said.

[Red Badger]

Clutching at straws in a hurricane will not save them............

[bcsco]

“Why’d he” appears in the quote three times already. “Whitey” only once. And the one time it appears it’s in context. I think you’re stretching.

[crymeariver]

Even if it is successfully argued that Michelle is saying “why’d he” instead of “whitey” it will still turn off many whites based on the tone and possibility that it could be “whitey”. Not worth the risk especially with a liberal republican to choose from.

[Eroteme]

If that’s the quote in question then it’s ambigous and could be taken two ways. The first “Whitey” could have been “Why’d he” as in “What’s up with “Why’d he”; Why’d he does this, why’d he do that, why’d he do the other.

Good observation. No doubt that will be the spin if the tape exists. However, the written transcript's repetitive use of "why'd he" may itself be pre-emptive spin of a much more damning audio.

Additionally, I wouldn't discount the possibility that the "whitey/why'd he" homophone was a deliberate double entrdre of sorts, specifically employed to afford plausible deniability; delivered with a knowing look, trusting the audience to appreciate the inside joke.