SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Wife Lessons

MARCH 26, 2008

Wife Lessons

BY MICHELLE COTTLE

It is impossible not to be at least a little awed by Michelle Obama. It's not just the height (5'11"), the style (among Vanity Fair's best-dressed on the planet), and the air of supreme confidence (the woman sports sleeveless tops at major photo ops). There is also her up-by-the-bootstraps backstory as a South Side of Chicago girl gone double Ivy (Princeton and Harvard Law, thank you very much), followed by her years spent juggling a successful legal career while raising two daughters. And, of course, there is her famously un-Stepford stump style—the sarcasm, the candor, the compulsion to ignore the cardinal rule of political wifedom by portraying her husband as something less than God-made-flesh—that thrills even as it unnerves, prompting eyebrow-arching and hand-wringing over how sassy is too sassy. Even Barack jokes—a bit self-consciously, at times—that Michelle is tougher, smarter, and "a little meaner" than he is.

A charmed (or intimidated) press has embraced this Tough Broad narrative, proclaiming Michelle "strong-willed," "gutsy," "regal," "steely," "direct," "forthright," "unscripted," "mordant," "outspoken," "cool in temperament," and "military" in bearing. It's "clear that nobody tells her what to say," notes USA Today. The Wall Street Journal recently recounted Michelle's dressing-down of a TV cameraman who dared "place [his] hand" on her press secretary, while the March 10 New Yorker tells how Michelle once confronted a mob questioning Barack's "loyalty to the community" at a Chicago campaign event during his Senate run: "She came out the back door, and there were a bunch of hoodlum thugs ready to do a full-blast demonstration," recalled former Black Panther associate Ron Carter. "She put on her street sense and asked all the guys, 'Y'all got a problem or something?' They all froze, guys who would slap the mayor, who would slap Jesse Jackson in the face, even." Barack Obama may be auditioning to be the most powerful man in the world, but Michelle is the one with the force-to-bereckoned-with reputation.

Such distinction carries clear risks. Throughout the campaign, tongues have now and again clucked over whether Michelle is perhaps too edgy. Last April, op-ed queen Maureen Dowd set the political class atwitter by scolding Michelle for infantilizing and "emasculating" Barack with her exasperated-wife shtick about how stinky and snore-y and sloppy he can be. Afterward, there was a noticeable decline in Michelle's Barack-directed zingers. No matter: As the spotlight intensifies, whenever Michelle stumbles (say, by remarking that her husband's candidacy has made her proud of America for the first time in her adult life), the political establishment resumes its whispered debate over whether she is becoming "a problem." Brickbats like "ball-breaker" and "henpecked" are bandied about, and, in the distance, you can hear the low grinding sound of conservatives sharpening their claws.

And yet: While much of Michelle's resume screams Successful Superwoman, she hardly strikes me as the stuff of which revolutions are made. She was raised with deeply traditional notions about family life that are reflected in her own home today. If anything, tensions within the Obamas' marriage seem to have centered around Barack's lack of investment in fashioning a domestic tableau reminiscent of a "Leave it to Beaver" retro fantasy, where everyone gathers around the table for dinner each night and Mom and Dad are always on the scene for bedtime. And, despite her overachieving Type-A urges and obvious talents, Michelle has typically been the one to adjust her personal ambitions to accommodate the needs of her clan. She has long served, to use Barack's word, as the family's "rock," providing the emotional, practical, and even financial stability to enable her high-flying husband to go out and conquer the world. Michelle Obama may be tougher, tarter, and more accomplished than most occupants of the East Wing, but she isn't a mold-shattering new breed of First Lady, or even the fierce symbol of feminism that was Hillary Rodham Clinton circa 1992. She is, rather, a hybrid model: a fresh, modern exterior wrapped around a fundamentally traditional core—which, for the purposes of her husband's campaign, seems to me the best of all possibilities.

SMART, COMPETITIVE, ORGANIZED and ambitious, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson had all the early markings of a classic striver. Raised on Chicago's South Side by parents of modest means but high expectations, she worked her butt off to get into first the local magnet school, then Princeton, then Harvard Law. At every step, Michelle tells us, she confronted folks who told her she wasn't smart enough or didn't have high enough test scores to reach her goal—especially when compared to her older brother, Craig, a top student and basketball star for whom everything in life came just a little bit easier. Michelle worked that much harder to prove the doubters wrong, and, after conquering academia, she landed at the blue-chip corporate firm of Sidley Austin. There she met Barack Obama, when, in 1989, she was assigned to mentor the dashing summer associate. It took a while for her to succumb to his charms. (She initially rejected his affections, insisting it would be "tacky" for the firm's only two black employees to hook up.) But, once she fell for him, the romance proceeded like any modern fairy tale: First came love, then came marriage, and by 2003 Michelle Obama found herself pushing two baby carriages, working as a community outreach coordinator for the University of Chicago, and sitting on a handful of corporate and non-profit boards. She was, in other words, completely overwhelmed. Factor in a loving but ambitious husband increasingly away from home, and it is little wonder that Michelle recalls her days as a working mom as a struggle to keep both career and family afloat, while perpetually convinced she was failing on all fronts.

In a 2004 interview with the Chicago Tribune, Michelle observed: "What I notice about men, all men, is that their order is me, my family, God is in there somewhere, but me is first. ... And, for women, me is fourth, and that's not healthy." This is not a radical observation: Get a half-dozen gals together with a few bottles of Beaujolais, and a similar theme will eventually emerge. (Trust me on this.) Looked at one way, Michelle was issuing a pointed call for female selfempowerment; but, looked at another, she was offering a poignant commentary on how things have long run chez Obama. For all the talk about this being a partnership of equals, the domestic roles Michelle and Barack have assumed are, in many ways, strikingly stereotypical. He is the dreamer, the visionary, the inspirational leader. She is the workhorse, the general manager, the hyperorganized multitasker who makes the trains run on time. Their friends talk about the compromises the couple has made, but the examples commonly cited hardly make the exchange seem equitable. Michelle didn't especially want Barack to run for state Senate, much less U.S. Senate, and certainly not president. At every step, he talked her into it. (No question, the man is quite the talker.) Michelle, in turn, found herself endlessly rearranging and reducing her own work schedule to ensure that their daughters weren't getting lost in the shuffle.

This disparity did not go unnoticed in the Obama household. There is an oft-cited passage near the end of The Audacity of Hope in which Barack admits that, after the arrival of their second daughter, Sasha, "my wife's anger toward me seemed barely contained. 'You only think about yourself,' she would tell me. 'I never thought I'd have to raise a family alone.'" This uncomfortable situation ground on under mounting layers of stress and resentment until, Michelle reveals, she came to terms with the reality that Barack had no intention of assuming a greater share of the domestic burden. As she told Vanity Fair last year, "One day I woke up and said, 'I can't live my life mad. This is not fun.' I thought the help I needed had to come from Barack. It wasn't that he didn't care, but he wasn't there. So I enlisted moms and baby sitters and got help with the housecleaning, and I built that community myself." Again, on one level, this is a tale of personal growth that would make Oprah proud: Michelle took stock of her needs and found a way to address them herself, without relying on a man. On the other hand, there is something more than a little traditional about Michelle's sense of what responsibilities rest squarely on the shoulders of the Mommy.

As for Barack's sacrifices, the only significant one we hear about is Michelle's refusal to uproot the girls and move with him to Washington after his Senate win. Beyond that, we are left to consider the adjustments Barack has been asked to make around the edges of everyday life. For instance, Michelle stresses that, when Barack is home, she expects him to contribute to running the house—washing clothes, taking out the trash, making the bed. It's important for their daughters to see him doing that, she told Vanity Fair: "I wasn't content with saying, 'You're doing important things in the world, so go off and be important and I'll handle everything else here'—because the truth is, if I did that, I'd probably still be angry." But, since even a garden- variety senator is only home a few days a week (and in hot demand even then), having Barack fluff and fold the occasional load of underwear is, in practice, largely symbolic. Running a household is a full-time job, and someone who only occasionally drops in on the effort can bring as much disruption as relief. So much for struggling together to achieve a work-life balance.

 

 

NOW, MICHELLE HAS LEFT her job for the duration of the campaign—and, with a little luck, for the next four or even eight years. One can only imagine her ambivalence about this decision. Months after she cut her work schedule last May, Michelle's boss at the University of Chicago Medical Center, Susan Scher, told Vanity Fair, "Her involvement in her work life has been so serious that it's not easy to just say, 'Never mind.'" But, when asked directly if it was hard setting aside her career, Michelle has repeatedly demurred. She has allowed that it feels a little weird to be unemployed after a lifetime of striving but declines to elaborate much beyond that. Rather, she points to the unique opportunity Barack has to Make a Difference. Besides, she insists she isn't defined by her work but by her role as a mother—and so putting her own ambition on hold won't spur an existential crisis.

As for her on-the-trail patter, Michelle is far from a feminist bomb-thrower, instead relying heavily on conventional, even old-fashioned, material. She gigs Barack for being too much of a guy: messy, thoughtless, and only marginally competent when it comes to life maintenance. More than once, Michelle has laughed about how she assigns Barack easy-to-manage projects, like procuring balloons for their daughter's birthday party, rather than anything more involved, like picking out goodie bags—"You'd walk in there and wander around the aisles for an hour, and then your head would explode." It's a folksy, humanizing shtick guaranteed to have women nodding en masse in amused agreement precisely because it is such well-trod territory. Women have long bonded over the knowledge that their men, though masters of the universe, are a disaster on the home front. It is a semi-comic routine as old as marriage itself: Sure, my husband can slaughter a mammoth with his bare hands, but can he put his club away? Can he pick his loin cloth up off the floor? And God forbid I ask him to supervise the kids' birthday down at the tar pits. No one would make it home alive. The fact that Michelle tells such tales on her hubby may be a departure for political wives. Yet, for wives in general, it is anything but new.

In this way, Michelle is comforting and likeable because she is deeply familiar. On the campaign trail, women are always gushing to reporters about how normal Michelle seems and how they feel they can relate to her. She may be black. She may be an overeducated lawyer. She may top six feet in her Jimmy Choos. But, when she talks smack about her husband's hygiene, she sounds like any old housewife gabbing to her girlfriends about what a hopeless mess her man is. It's a clever approach, winning Michelle props for being outspoken and un-Stepford, even as she avoids alienating more traditional voters by keeping her focus on the family.

Assuming she can maintain this balance, Michelle has a good shot at skirting the political sinkhole into which Hillary Clinton tumbled all those years ago, when the change Hillary stood for became a long-term liability for her husband. To be fair, that was a different time. But Hillary put herself out there as a dramatic rejection of all who had come before—campaigning as a potential co- president while her husband promised "two for the price of one." She had no intention of getting personal or providing a humanizing peek at the First Family (except maybe Socks) or talking about the everyday challenges she and Bill had tackled as working parents. She seemed to scorn such warm-and-fuzzy nonsense and, by extension, those for whom such triviality was of interest.

Michelle, by contrast, is happy to talk—laugh, even—about her domestic travails. This automatically makes her seem less alien and more sympathetic. It also allows her to stake out a middle ground—modern enough to talk about her marital stresses and maternal anxieties, traditional enough to suffer them in the first place—in a cultural battle that still too often divides women. For my part, I just want to buy the broad a drink and salute her for surviving the madness thus far. Let Barack handle bedtime duty for the night.

Michelle Cottle is a senior editor at The New Republic. This article appeared in the March 26, 2008 issues of the magazine.

 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 137 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

137 comments

Pretty fawning piece of drivel. Did Michelle Obama get into Princeton and Harvard, as some have suggested, by dint of affirmative action? Just asking. Is not her graduating paper a piece of academic sludge that Princeton ought to be ashamed to accord academic distinction to? More asserting this time than asking.

- basman

March 8, 2008 at 10:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What a dizzying read! I feel like I just lived a little of Michelle the author's ambivalence about Michelle the wife. In the first few pages, I heard a lot of resentment and judgment, the author indirectly (and even a little blatantly) calling the Obamas phony, but in a less-examined, much more personal register than you find in most of the coverage. And then she veers, and I don't get what she says about Hillary. Is that praise? An example of polyphony? Anyway, suddenly there's one more step, now rescuing Michelle the wife, however briefly, from this unfair mess. Can anyone tell me what exactly is the position, or even the point of this piece?

- Gordy

March 9, 2008 at 3:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"What I notice about men, all men, is that their order is me, my family, God is in there somewhere, but me is first. ... And, for women, me is fourth, and that's not healthy." This is blantant sexism. "All men" act this way?? I'm all for equality, but that reads more like the knee-jerk men=bad mentality that only alienates men and women further instead of promoting mutual respect and understanding, as well as making feminists look like raging hypocrites who demand respect for their gender that they refuse to give to the other gender. There's nothing progressive about being prejudicial twords someone because of their gender. How is that any healthier?

- widowson

March 10, 2008 at 1:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree that this article was strange. The author is obviously resentful that Obama's wife is not quite feminist enough, even to imply that her behavior is a strategy. This is entirely inconsistent with someone who exhibits behavior that suggest she comes unhinged and angry about her life circumstances. For that reason, Basman, I don't see this as fawning piece. The writer is actually pretty unfair. Also to that end, I think you're off in implying her path is an affirmative action statistic. What I gained from it is that just seems like a typical person I've seen of all races and both genders who worked entirely too hard for something that she really didn't want, a law career, when really she just wanted a safe stable boigiosie existence - job, family, stable existence. Attending Princeton and Harvard law are means to that end. Her public resentment of her husband's success and some of her less than admirable comments about pride in America seem to reflect a coflict she has with her life choices.

- kirkpepm

March 10, 2008 at 2:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My bet is basman couldn't have gotten into either Princeton or Harvard Law even with affirmative action. But it makes him feel so good about himself to smear someone else's accomplishments.

- Pug

March 10, 2008 at 5:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Michelle you are "a lazy mans " columnist. I now know what Mrs. O is like. Nice Job!

- fseidle

March 11, 2008 at 6:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...My bet is basman couldn't have gotten into either Princeton or Harvard Law even with affirmative action. But it makes him feel so good about himself to smear someone else's accomplishments... Why is me asking the question a smear? I just want to know the answer. Any offense taken is unintentionally given by me. On a discrete point, I was unimpressed by the parts I read of her graduating essay: not its argument, she can make any argument her evidence supports, but, rather, the writing.

- basman

March 11, 2008 at 1:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman Michelle Obama graduated with honors from Princeton. Who cares how she got in because she definitely flourished in her academic career.

- KQuark

March 11, 2008 at 2:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Michelle said she was "truly" proud for the first time - that truly is an important part of the statement - she could have been proud of her country in many ways but this election is making her (and me!!!) truly proud to be an American

- Frederick T. Bond

March 11, 2008 at 2:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Very uneven piece about Michelle Obama, just because she choses her family first is no reason to punish her life choices. I guess it would be better if she was a cold political hack like Hillary whose marriage to Bill was more political calculation than a love story.

- KQuark

March 11, 2008 at 2:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Has anyone ever asked Michelle Obama what Anton Rezko's role was in purchasing the Obamas' dream home? We know her husband's answer -- or answers, depending on which one he wants to give -- but we've yet to hear from the woman who's obviously in charge of that household. Surely Michelle knows all about how "Mrs." Rezko just happened to buy the lot next door on the same day that the Obamas bought their dream house ....

- ycl

March 11, 2008 at 3:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And, despite her overachieving Type-A urges and obvious talents, Michelle has typically been the one to adjust her personal ambitions to accommodate the needs of her clan. She has long served, to use Barack's word, as the family's "rock," providing the emotional, practical, and even financial stability to enable her high-flying husband to go out and conquer the world." Personally, I find it troubling that any educated, talented woman is still willing to put her personal ambitions in the back seat to her husband's. No wonder women continue to rank among America's poorest citizens! And who the hell cares how well dressed she is? What is wrong with you, Ms. Cottle? Why bring this up at all? There are plenty of substantive points to make about Ms. Obama without needing to comment on her fashion sense. Maybe it would help if you started reading the Economist or Atlantic Monthly instead of Vanity Fair.

- Nick in CA

March 11, 2008 at 3:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I thought it was an intelligent piece. I like prose that searches for the proper perspective more than columns that merely push (usually boring or unfair) points. Michelle Obama is an icon for the next generation, which wants the outspoken unscripted woman with her own thoughts AND the family rock. 1992 feminism was an aberration in the history of feminism. Neither the trail-blazers who preceded nor the current young professionals who succeeded want to be associated with 1992. Hillary is a fighter, but has no foresight. What is the point of fighting for things if you are so frequently taking flawed positions?

- Ronald Loui

March 11, 2008 at 3:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Impossible not to be a little awed by Michelle Obama? WOW! I have achieved the impossible.

- jopiper

March 11, 2008 at 3:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If anything, tensions within the Obamas' marriage seem to have centered around Barack's lack of investment in fashioning a domestic tableau reminiscent of a "Leave it to Beaver" retro fantasy, where everyone gathers around the table for dinner each night and Mom and Dad are always on the scene for bedtime." Actually, that's not a retro fantasy. That's a reality for moms and dads that want to raise a strong family. Studies have shown that when families eat together regularly, their kids have better communication and relationship skills, better nutrition and health, and better grades in school. While this may seem strange or outdated to you, most families actually eat together 4-5 nights a week. I'm happy to say that I'm a dad who not only eats with my family every night, I often cook dinner with them too.

- Daniel Z.

March 11, 2008 at 3:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is it okay to be prejudicial twords someone who doesn't know how to spell? Idiot.

- Chad

March 11, 2008 at 3:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Michelle Obama was a legacy at Princeton since her brother was in the class two years ahead of her. Princeton gets you into Harvard. As far as the article goes, its pretty close to being a waste of paper. I mean what's the point here and how does it have anything to do with Hillary?

- Cindy

March 11, 2008 at 3:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't know if Michelle is tougher AND smarter than Hillary, although the article seems to suggest that. She's definitely fearless, which can come off as either brave or naive. Hillary is seen as tough but only when she thinks (or can make it appear that) she holds all the cards. As for the motherhood thing, both have had to raise a daughter (2 in the case of Obama) with a husband in public life. I wouldn't marginalize her personal accomplishments (the affirmative action comment is out of line), but I do think her resume isn't what people think about when they think of her. It's this tough homemaker (feminist or not) who speaks her mind.

- Jonny Five

March 11, 2008 at 3:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman Are you assuming that Michelle did not have the academic ability to earn degrees from Ivy League schools because she was a person of color? Unless you have cold hard facts regarding her education and intellectual abilities,I would not dare suggest that she was granted a free ride due to Affirmative Action.

- Quietone

March 11, 2008 at 3:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What a lightweight piece of girlie fluff. Here we have a large, arrogant, imposing, and unbelievabley offensive woman, who has the hardest of times just being civil. Calling Americans, "Lazy, uninformed, complacent, downright mean, slothful, etc," ...it's just stunning how anyone could defend this utterly tasteless boor. Let's just imagine she's a white republican woman for one moment... woah... I can see the media uproar now... lazy, uninformed, slothful and downright mean, indeed. She would be destroyed in the media as a hateful bigot. Most of us sloth work day and night and don't make 1/10th of what she does in a year. Shudder.. she's surely one of the most offensive women in political history, and the thought of her representing this country to the world makes me wince with shame. Whatever one might say of Hillary -- and I don't like her -- she certainly loves her counrty and has a lot more charm and class.

- Lars Rosen

March 11, 2008 at 3:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

She's a real character on that apprentice show!

- Hmmm in LA

March 11, 2008 at 5:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The article is simply saying that Michelle O. conveys 'independence' while accepting a clearly subordinate role with no taint of overt feminism such as that once carried by HRC, and this is a Good Thing for Obama's campaign, which is quite true (although whether it's a Good Thing across the board is another question). Obama’s Amazonian size makes it difficult to think of her as the little woman, quite literally, and yet in an odd way that’s what she is – a traditional wife with the Ivy League trappings to make her of interest and use to a politically ambitious young man with contemporary tastes in a spouse. The perfect post-feminist President’s wife, in other words – ‘sassy’ but not threatening.

- Sophie

March 11, 2008 at 9:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh Basman, the thing we forget about "Affirmative Action," at least in terms of College Admissions, is it can also help make up for (especially in the Ivies) sample bias about the quality of ones high school. Many times these schools keep track of the high schools people apply to, and reward people for excelling at "better institutions." In this sense, they reward people at Phillips or Exeter (or Westminster, or insert suburban/private school here) because of long histories of students and applicants that they don't have for say, South Compton High. My father, before he recently passed, was an interviewer for Yale University, and so got to see the interview/acceptance lists for Georgia applicants. When you get the second list, you see many times that those accepted come from the Usual suspects: Four from the most prestigeous local private school, one or two from other local private or suburban schools, and few from inner city public ones, despite having qualified resumes. If Affirmative Action can correct the sampling bias of using a school's track record, then it's not making someone unworthy: It's providing a more accurate way to pick out the best and brightest.

- Crock1701

March 12, 2008 at 12:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not that this isn't interesting at all, but it's a whole ton of speculation.

- MSULiberal

March 12, 2008 at 1:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The article is interesting in the sense that there's some neat facts about going to Princeton -and- Harvard.... but the rest is a lot of speculation and not a lot of substance.

- Andy

March 12, 2008 at 1:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I, too, read Michelle's Princeton thesis. It was unequivocally, absolutely, horrifyingly bad. Princeton, and indeed the entire Ivy League, should be ashamed that such a "thesis" is what one produces AFTER four years of college.

- nturner

March 12, 2008 at 2:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

George Bush was also double Ivy and also was accepted as a legacy applicant. That doesn't make her smart, as her conduct in this campaign has shown. And she's probably so "strong" because of that huge chip on her shoulder that she's been carrying for so long. Get her senior thesis released so we can see what attitudes she'll bring with her to the White House, if her husband should ever get that far -- which is anyway unlikely, so fawn while you can... She certainly doesn't come across as someone who can appreciate that other people may have faced and overcome hardships greater than hers -- and there are plenty such people, about to be a lot more. First Lady material? Don't think so. Never happen.

- expatriot

March 12, 2008 at 6:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I made a mistake and read the comments before reading the article. Now, after reading the article, I am pleasantly surprised. I didn't find it "fawning," or "dizzying," or "strange" or "resentful." I think Michelle Cottle did a very good job summing up the many, competing aspects of Michelle Obama's life. Re: affirmative action--yeah, so? It's what you do after you graduate that counts anyway. Re: "all men"--what is it with our insistence on literal precision. Of course, Michelle Obama did not mean there weren't any exceptions, but the exceptions are so rare in her experience that her statement is very nearly universally true. Michelle Cottle does a good job taking that comment and showing how it has been said before, over and over again, and provides a connection between Michelle Obama and other women trying to navigate their relationships with their spouses. It is good for us to be honest and discuss how marriage is not easy and part of the difficulty is in, generally true, but not universally true, gender differences.

-

March 12, 2008 at 7:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Did Michelle Obama get into Princeton and Harvard, as some have suggested, by dint of affirmative action? Just asking. Is not her graduating paper a piece of academic sludge that Princeton ought to be ashamed to accord academic distinction to? More asserting this time than asking." Umm, is there a reason you feel the need to smear Michelle Obama this way? In fact, by asserting with no evidence put forth whatsoever that Princeton ought to be ashamed for having given MO a degree, I can't help but come to the conclusion that you are TOTALLY FULL OF SHIT.

- @basman

March 12, 2008 at 7:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nice fairy tale you give your readers. You obviously read the New Yorker profile of Michelle. You should have taken that as some kind of a model and given us some balance. Why did her salary almost triple after her husband became Senator? What is her relationship with Mrs. Rezko and the property adjoining the Obama home that the two women bought together? This is not journalism, this is pandering, which many on this journal enjoy doing. And since when do white, middle class women, not to mention professional journalists, use words like "butt" and "folks" without any seeming embarassment or even quotations. Give me a break, Ms. Colette, and start treating your readers with a little respect. If we want cheerleading, we can always turn on Oprah.

-

March 12, 2008 at 8:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I suppose that you're one of the people who wanted to have a beer with Bush, too. Be careful of what you wish for.

- Felicia

March 12, 2008 at 8:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman Whether anyone gets into college via affirmative action or because one is a so-called legacy, NO ONE gets OUT (even jocks these days) because of anything other than the fact that they have completed the objective standards required to graduate. DOn't you remember that most colleges have blind grading, or maybe you didn't go to college. More asserting than asking.

- LJ

March 12, 2008 at 8:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

She da man! No I mean it, really, she da man. If you want to know why black culture is collapsing, look no further. Pushy, nasty, foul-mouthed, castrating black women. And please, with the Harvard law school already. How many white boys with double her IQ and LSATs did this privileged silver-spooner pole vault over to get there? From her writing, she has the gifts of a high school hack. She is the single biggest impediment to Obama's White House chances - without question, she needs to learn to shut up.

- doctorfixit

March 12, 2008 at 8:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Also--No comments yet on the artwork?

-

March 12, 2008 at 9:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article is certainly over-stereotyped, but the story of the Obamas does illustrate why we have so few women at the higher levels of political office. Switch the talents, history, and career aspirations of Barack and Michelle, and ask what would have been the chances that Barack would have made the necessary sacrifices in his law career to support Michelle's political aspirations. It happens, but men do this far, far less frequently than women. For women, the low likelihood of having a supportive partner to carry a disproportionate load of the family management makes it much more difficult to devote as much energy to their careers as men do. Even without any overt gender discrimination, hurdles like this leave us in a position of still waiting for a female president in 2008, and likely to wait a lot longer. It's sad, and a giant waste of talent.

- redemption438

March 12, 2008 at 9:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Right off the bat we get a suggestion that a black woman's accomplishments are entirely due to affirmative action. You guys need a new script.

-

March 12, 2008 at 9:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In response to basman: I'm a white, Christian, male Harvard Law grad. And I bristle at the idea that affirmative action should taint the accomplishments of my black classmates. Imagine, for a moment, that your ancestors were slaves, and that your parents and grandparents were given subpar educations thanks to segregation. Do you think you would have as strong an academic record? (No.) On the other hand, do you think you would be less intrinsically intelligent? (Also no.) Affirmative action helps to identify intrinsically intelligent people who have weaker academic records on account of the lingering effects of past overt societal racism. Affirmative action is an imperfect mechanism. But don't blame those who benefit from it for having to transcend the effects of past racism. Believe me, they are as intrinsically intelligent as anyone else out there. Ferraro knows all of this as well as anyone. Here's hoping she gets some "poetic justice" of the Spitzer variety.

- Davidov

March 12, 2008 at 9:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lest we forget those who came before us. A first lady prospect like Michelle Obama is only possible BECAUSE of Hillary Clinton!

- R

March 12, 2008 at 10:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Michelle has a "Traditional Core?" What I see is a direct correlation between many of her statements and those made by the "liberal elite" in my small town that is dominated by a liberal university. These characters have plucked the finest fruit the US has to offer yet they seem to harbor a visceral hatred for the very country that makes it all possible. I think that Michelle has let the shroud slip a bit and we are getting a peak at Barack behind the mask.

- Randy 2

March 12, 2008 at 10:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

More glorified nonsense about Michelle Obama! Cottle - a "journalist" - is impressed by height, "style," and an "air of confidence"? What's the difference between that and a mannequin, Cottle? Apparently, your lobotomy recovery isn't going well, and neither is your ability to stop drooling misplaced sentimental schlock over some Jackie O wanna' be. Michelle Obama and her husband are spoiled, privileged, ungrateful, overpaid elitists who whine and complain about their rich life, graduating from elite universities, being given high-paying jobs, being able to purchase a mansion (a mansion!!!! - all these Democrat candidates who are rich beyond belief telling the "poor" they really care - what hypocrites!! Hey, Cottle, why don't you write about John Edwards' - Mr. Champion of the poor - squirrelly tax shelters?),sending their children to private schools - What churlish babies they are! Michelle Obama’s public comments are filled with hatred for our country and the freedoms and privileges it has GIVEN both the Obamas and will also GIVE their privileged and coddled daughters. The Obamas don't have a clue about the USA - the MOST GENEROUS nation in the world, whose Constitution protects Michelle even as she blabblers endlessly about such stupidity as women should give up corporate jobs and work in the community as teachers and nurses while she keeps her $350,000+ corporate job!Hypocrite!,whose military protects her and her family's mansion existence, whose military has helped people all over the world - a nation that has set millions of people free and that continues to free people from oppression,a country whose generosity to others is unparalleled, who rebuilt Europe after WWII, while the rest of the world - led by tall, stylish, air of confidence self-righteous Michelle Obama leads the way in doing NOTHING but criticizing and whinning. Why the hell do the Obamas stay in the United States? Move to Europe and bask in those socialist zero countries, Michelle, and take Cottle's insipid droppings with you. The Obamas are ungracious posers who have had it easy, big time. They have proven themselves to be nasty, sniveling, sullen, moaning, and rude. Millions of Americans would love to have all the Obamas have, would love to have been GIVEN the chance to the education they had and the jobs they have and the money they have. Interesting that the Obamas thought nothing about obtaining their mansion and the adjoining property through cooperation with corrupt politicians. The Obamas have NO PROBLEM playing unethical games if it benefits them. The Obamas are dissemblers – phony empty sham artists and the Clintons are just as bad. Michelle Obama's puerile, sanctimonious attitude is a disgrace to all American citizens and the media are fools, especially for driveling all over the bratty Obamas. Get a grip, Cottle, and a couple of cotton baby bibs to soak up all your unsettled pablum. THIS is the press????? Why aren't you demanding exacting answers to what is Obama's background on economics? His wife insists they can hardly make it on millions of dollars of income! Neither of them must know much about economics yet he wants to lecture us about the nation's economy? Perhaps he'll balance our budget through negotiations with Rezko. Why was Michelle Obama's salary more than doubled just after Obama was elected to the Senate? Why doesn’t Obama insist that oil companies dig for oil in the United States and get us independent with our own oil?? Is Obama beholding to environmental lobbyists? If so, how can we trust him to make us energy independent? We are dependent on outside oil because of the restrictions of our own Congress. CONGRESS, of which Obama is a very junior senator, is responsible for the price at the pump and Obama is part of that problem. Americans should march on D.C. and revolt against a government that holds us hostage with our own money!!! Obama should address how the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 - good ole' Jimmy Carter - pressured banks into giving loans to those who were not qualified by tying the banks’ rating to the number of those loans allowed, and how because good ole' Bill Clinton made the law even more restrictive, lenders were trapped and the housing bubble grew and NOW we are ALL paying for the STUPID ideas of DEMOCRATS!! That ridiculous sentimental law is EXACTLY the kind Obama wants Americans to fund with our hard-earned money - and not the millions the Obamas have!!! Obama should call a Senate hearing and put Carter and Clinton on notice. How does Obama guarantee that his socialist programs won't have the same effect of destroying us. What kind of audacity qualifies Obama to run for president after only three terms in the senate and no record of achievement besides pouting and cheerleading? What's Obama going to wear to state dinners ? Lip gloss, a pleated skirt, tight sweater, and pompoms while Michelle - the queen of style - will be dressed in black leather holding the city's street toughs at bay with a cat whip, Cottle glorifying in every lash she receives! The press needs to stop wasting our time with inane articles such as this piece of crap from Cottle and get to the heart of analysis. EXACTLY what are the programs of the candidates and WHAT WILL THOSE PROGRAMS DO TO US POOR TAXPAYING WORKERS? The New Republic should do a better job of checking the credentials of its staff. A "journalism" degree from Fisher Price is at best tainted with lead. Hopefully, Cottle hasn't been near the water cooler.

- ame

March 12, 2008 at 10:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This looks like a 20-min pieced phoned in from the plane. But since we're worshipping Mrs. Obama, I'll just point to the in-depth pieces in the New Yorker or Global & Mail. I particularly like the "poor working-class" subterfuge: Her father, a maintenance mechanic, was given a higher-level $43K job (that was 30 yrs ago, mind you) as payment for being a bag man for the Daley machine. Hers is a life of privilege, though you wouldn't know it from her racist thesis.

- Creole

March 12, 2008 at 10:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It seems too many people want to find an excuse to hate this woman, who is only a woman. She obviously has a sound perspective on what life means to her. Her life is not going to be fulfilled if she is the first lady. Her life has life itself as a value, which she demonstrates through her commitment to her children and her family. She has her priorities in place which she is entitled to even if they are not the same as others would have them be. Likewise she has politely stated she has no desire to become a political whore as Clinton has allowed herself to become or like Geraldine Farraro is. That is her choice, but it is also clear that she is not blind to the power and potential of the moment. The sacrifice she is making and the unstated fear she must live with because of the constant threats to her husband must be astronomical. There is absolutely no reason for Michelle Cottle to be rude or more critical of Mrs. Obama. Nor is there any reason Mrs. Obama should destroy or curtail her personality for political expediency. It was the intention of the framers of the U.S. Constitution for real people to hold the political offices of the United States. The intention was to avoid aristocracy and the abuses that brings. Bringing real people into the mix revitalizes the entire system. This is what we have in Mrs. Obama. She was not raised in a political family, nor should she have been. She is the embodiment of what the framers of the constitution would have had in mind, a real person, intellectually capable, with high moral values, willing and capable of holding elective office. Genius is not a criteria, but maybe if it were, we would not have had so many obviously dumb, tragically corrupt and perverted old white men hold public office.

- John

March 12, 2008 at 10:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman. Tsk, Tsk. You ended one of your questions with a preposition, silly!

- ethanol33

March 12, 2008 at 10:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Have you read Ms. Obama's "graduating paper" as you call it? If so, on what basis do you characterize it as "academic sludge" of which Princeton should be "ashamed"? If not, stfu.

- eyyeintheskyye

March 12, 2008 at 10:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Michelle Obama is very angry and alienated. She is much more angry than her husband. Until recently, I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, but the evidence is becoming irrefutable. I think it’s a major problem and will become one for his campaign. She’s a liability not least because, when she’s not insulting white people, she’s insulting her husband. Michelle Obama is angry because of a familiar psychological phenomenon: no one likes to be needy, and most people project their frustration and resent others–in this case, white America–who give them help. Michelle Obama’s hostility stems directly from the contradictions at the heart of affirmative action. The Michelle Obamas of the world want the leg up, and they want their “brothers” to have it too, but they want the rest of us to pretend that they are where they are solely on merit, and they lack the grit and raw ambition that characterizes white people in similar positions. (It's no secrete she couldn't hack the prestigious Chicago law firm, Sidley Austin; it's also probable she failed the bar exam the first time, as she was licensed one year after she graduated Harvard.) The gap of ability is impossible to ignore. It’s especially apparent in educational settings. Michelle’s Princeton classmates knew she wasn’t quite as sharp as they, and she knew it too. Instead of fostering social peace and gratitude, affirmative action fosters rage among the most capable and organized black Americans, folks who could succeed reasonably well without all the help. When coupled with his nutty, black nationalist church, Obama's wife’s future role as “most trusted advisor and friend” will turn off more than a few voters because she is an angry, spoile, self-absorbed person with no sympathy for white people, including the poor white people that she has failed to connect with in places like Ohio.

- Roach

March 12, 2008 at 10:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Michelle Obama is no Hillary Clinton, neither is she a Jackie Kennedy, so what's with the pink pill box hat in the sketch? One presumes this article was intended to be flattering, but it paints a rather disturbing picture of the Obamas, particularly of Michelle for whom an ivy league education seems to have been a waste of her time if all she worries about is whether her husband takes out the trash and helps with the laundry. I picture Barack being in a meeting with foreign leaders and getting a call from Michelle saying, "Don't forget that Sasha's ballet concert is tomorrow night." And she thinks men have their priorities backwards?

- Anna

March 12, 2008 at 10:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Truth, Justice and the American Way.........I am for the first time in my entire white past proud and pleased as punch of the direction our party is headed.

- Mightycline

March 12, 2008 at 10:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I remember when, in the 60's and 70's MOR medioocrities like ANN MURRAY and TORONTO made scads of money because Canadian radio stations WERE REQUIRED BY LAW to play 30% CANADIAN CONTENT. In the meantime the true geniuses of Canadian music, like THE BAND, were not played on radio because they recorded in the US. So much for affirmative action! So, yes! Michelle Obama got to the Ivy League because she was a sassy black woman with a few more street smarts, and a lot more luck, than her contemporaries. The fact that she can mouth off to street gangs and frighten them off IS NOT A RECOMMENDATION! Regrettably, she is America's future, along with all those (C)RAP Groups which call their filthy doggerel "POETRY", call their mortal enemies "BRO", and call Michelle and her sisters...well, we all know what they call Mrs. Obama!

- elixelx

March 12, 2008 at 10:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

of course she's no Hillary.....she's only proud of being an american the first time EVER in her adult life after her husband is leading in the delegate count. hey if we want to elect someone THAT unpatriotic she'll the first we call.

- tim

March 12, 2008 at 10:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mrs. Obama is obviously smart and while Affirmative Action may have made it easier to get into those schools she obviously did the work to graduate and climb the ladder to her current successful position. So why is she so angry and resentful ? Is it because her recent success is obviously due to her husbands position ? (Her salary tripled in the same job soon after he was elected) For all of her social and economic victories in life she comes across as a sore winner, whining about having to pay off student loans while paying for summer camp for her kids while living in a mansion. Not at all endearing ...

- Jeff

March 12, 2008 at 10:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Merits of the substance (or lack thereof) of the piece to the side, I found myself a bit unsettled by the posting of a depiction of Michelle Obama in an outfit more than a little reminiscent of the pink outfit worn by Jackie Kennedy on that fateful day in Dallas. I trust the resemblance was unintended and not meant for sublimnal suggestion.

- jbradley

March 12, 2008 at 10:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Okay, Cottle: so Michelle Obama is a particularly soulful spunky brilliant and conflicted human who reminds other people they are human too--if we ignore your outdated, sloppy feminist angle, where's the problem? I'd vote for HER in a heartbeat.

- Bonnie

March 12, 2008 at 10:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh puke! Cut to the chase, she's a bitch!

- Cogs

March 12, 2008 at 11:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It seems to me that Michelle Obama is not afraid to speak the truth, and echos spot on the thoughts and feelings of many women who raise families, and have jobs/careers. How inspiring it would be to have her as first lady. P.S. As a 50ish female American, of European American heritage (aka: white), I am grateful and proud to live in United States. However; watching all peoples of this country unite is by far the most proud I have been of this country as well.

- mkb

March 12, 2008 at 11:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

She studied sociology at Harvard, for goodness sake, one of the silliest non-subjects around. For this she wrote some thesis which involved little more than sending questionaires to black students asking them whether they felt feel at home or not at Havard - a pretty mindless exercise for a student at such a place of intellectual opportunity. And any vain, loud-mouthed fool can get a law qualification.

- Pridi

March 12, 2008 at 11:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think "fawning drivel" is more than a bit much. Cottle's assessment rings pretty true. (DISCLAIMER: I'm a WASPy Republican, so I must be a racist and misogynist!) Personally, I'm pretty unimpressed by Barack in general. He's a lefty liberal who's parading as a healer when he's never done any, ya know, healing. Plus, his disciples see him as begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father. This must cease. Still, I kinda like Michelle. Her "finally proud of America" thing was outrageous, but she's (to use Cottle's words) "a gal" who's out there, trying to hold her family in some kind of order, working her butt off, doing the deal. I admire women like that. She may wear thin on me after a while, but it's heartening to see a woman pick up the slack where a man (for whatever reason) creates it. Good for her. I know lots of women who could learn a lot from her---get up, wash your face, get your shit done. To say the least, we men have a lot to learn from Barack's ball-dropping at home. The anger from her is palpable, and it's not from his refusal to stop snoring. Very good piece.

- Cheves

March 12, 2008 at 11:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Michelle Obama is an angry, self-involved woman. Her oft-repeated lack of pride for America and her emphasis on skin color over all else is not the kind of woman I want represented me or my country. Your article is fawning tripe.

- Sara

March 12, 2008 at 11:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A nice tribute to a big-mouthed America-hating woman who, while in the upper income brackets and living in the lap of luxury, whines about her station in life and seems obsessed with her 'blackness.' Hillary was a disgrace as first lady and this one will be, too. And, by the way, get rid of the photo. This woman is no Jackie Kennedy.

- Patty

March 12, 2008 at 11:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't know what to make of the comments. Either they are disingenuous or willfully ignorant. Michelle Obama wrote that piece in 1985, 20 years after the passing of the Civil Rights Act. I am not surprised by what she wrote because I knew one Cuban who attended Princeton in the 1980s who made the same kind of complaint about Princeton. And he is a Republican. I get the impression that people want to say how ungrateful that Michelle Obama is for her success. Yes Michelle Obama benefited from affirmative action but she also had to work hard to get there. And just because she is successful doesn't mean she has to be a Pollyanna.

- Micheline

March 12, 2008 at 11:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One thing you can probably predict - if Barack wins the Presidency, Michelle will be a loose cannon, and more than once he's going to have some explaining to do about what his wife really meant to say. "All men put themselves first - ahead of family, God, country, everything (even the men that die in combat, Michelle?) and "For the first time in my adult lifetime I am proud of my country for fawning over me and my husband". She'll make Josh Bolten look like the model of diplomacy.

-

March 12, 2008 at 11:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What has been the liberal, and the Democratic Party’s, message to women for the last 30-40 years? "Stick with us (open your wallets and make sure you vote) because our presidential candidates have attractive, "liberated" wives, and, most important, we're the party that will make sure you can abort your babies." Beyond that, every Democratic appeal to women -- on the issues that could help make a different "choice" possible for many -- universal, affordable health care, access to child care and early childhood education, family leave, pay equity, more flexible approaches to work and retirement, etc. -- has been made with a wink, a nod and fingers crossed behind their backs. What we've learned in this campaign is that for affluent liberals, male and female, for whom abortion is a “personal choice” rather than an economic issue, it is the only "feminist" issue they're willing to fight for. And we've learned that the party's elite leadership and the "progressive" punditocracy that supports it, for the mostly have extreme contempt for all those “older women” who have expected more from the party, and from the many progressive institutions, organizations and media outlets they’ve supported with their time, energy, money and patronage. Worse, we've learned that the party's leadership and those elites have nothing but disdain for all those younger, poorer women, and their families, whose votes they need and seek -- voters who they refer to dismissively as "women with needs." It doesn't matter who ends up with the nomination. This campaign may be putting any distinctive rationale for the Democratic Party. It has exposed the Party's gender and class hypocrisy and fault lines, and made apparent the extreme diversion of interests between the male and elite female party leadership and the middle and working class women whose votes have kept the party viable over the last 30 years. I don't know how this will play out in the near future. But I know that in the long run "shut up and vote" will not prove to be a good enough approach to half the voting population.

- esmense

March 12, 2008 at 11:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

only the new republic would print a piece like this. does anyone care that michelle obama is not a hillary clinton. THANK GOD she's not.

- speakingwheat

March 12, 2008 at 11:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow, the racist commentary on here is really interesting. I've never heard such badmouthing of first ladies (besides HRC, of course). First the automatic assumption that she didn't deserve her degree, and then from elixelx

: "Regrettably, she is America's future, along with all those (C)RAP Groups which call their filthy doggerel "POETRY"..."

I get it! Michelle Obama is black, and so are rappers that you think are taking over America with their filthy doggerel lyrics. What great commentary here on TNR! What racist bullshit! You have a dirty mind elixelx, basman, and others. Unbelievable.

- @ elixelx #48

March 12, 2008 at 11:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is so, so true. I'm printing this article out for my wife; it reads like a story of OUR lives. We are a 2-career couple with 2 daughters, where I 'help-out' as much a I can. But had not my wife be a stabilizer bar, our family boat would have surely rocked. She is not 'sub-serviant' by any means, and is very independent, but there are things I can do and others that she can and/or has to to keep the family afloat. This is not about being sexist, but a recognition that partners who are otherwise equal have different things to contribute to the family, the community and the country; in other words, each partner brings a different set of abilities to the table.

- Barry

March 12, 2008 at 11:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman, affirmative action may get you in the door but no one in their right mind will suggest that it gets you out with a degree. As one of the other posters suggested, since you don't know what the h*ll you're talking about, just STFU!

- mikki

March 12, 2008 at 11:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I hope this is a joke. Is it seriously arguing that Michelle Obama fails to be the mold-shattering feminist model provided by Hillary Clinton? The same Hillary Clinton who made her way to political by fastening onto Bill like a barnacle? Please, don't try to pass Hillary's Evita Peron tactics as somehow fresh (or, worse, revolutionary). Hillary is the old model. Michelle Obama's rejection of Hillary's old-school, pull yourself up by your man's bootstraps, female careerism is the more radical gesture, because it clears the way for women to make it into political office on their own terms. Give me Carol Mosley Braun over Hillary Clinton any day of the week.

- jellyroll

March 12, 2008 at 11:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, I thought that article was a bit drawn out. At the end it was lik, "Whew! I am so glad THAT'S over!" Hmm... I can think of A LOT of other first ladies that said things about America and, seemed on the exterior, indicated they were much more proud to be American than Michelle Obama. That, in and of itself, says a lot about a person. Hmmm... I don't think I, for one, would be very proud to have Michelle Obama as our First Lady.

- West Opinion

March 12, 2008 at 11:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Make no mistake about it we are headed not for change but the same old rough and tumble ugly political landscape we currently endure. The only thing that is going to change is who is doing the complaining and who is getting savaged. One group hates Hillary, Bill, George W, or Michelle it really doesn't matter there will be ugliness. Those who are voting for "change" might want to take a deeper look at the issues and be sure your not being taken for a ride on the ephoria train. Realism seems to be in short supply these days.

- rbrown207

March 12, 2008 at 11:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is basman's penis so small that he feels threatened by a woman like Ms. Obama?

- norman birnbaum

March 12, 2008 at 11:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't think that Michelle Obama has let go of her anger. Her stump speech simmers with anger, and that chip on her shoulder is redwood sized. Interesting contrast to her husband's campaign rhetoric - opposites attracting, or a bait and switch? I am also amazed at her tone deafness - does she wear the $500 Jimmy Choos when she whines about student loans and spending $10,000 on music lessons and camp, to an audience whose average income is $37,000? Strange woman.

- C.S.

March 12, 2008 at 12:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roach, How is it no secret the Mrs. Obama could hack Sidley and Austin. Were you a partner there? Nor is it "probable" that she failed the bar exam; By the time one goes through the character background check, EVERYONE's bar admission date ends up being the year after they graduate. Please, if you don't know what you are talking about, don't speculate.

- LJ

March 12, 2008 at 12:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Can't believe TNR would publish this; it belongs in People magazine. Franklin - a bit of quality control won't hurt.

- lungfish

March 12, 2008 at 12:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jesus Christ. "Let's see how many ways we can slam Hillary, ignoring the fact that she was FL in a different political era -- and ignoring the fact that Chelsea is the most polite and well-rounded Presidential child in several generations."

- scottlooper

March 12, 2008 at 12:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The problem for democrats, is that if you look at schools, it's boys, not girl's who are primarily at risk. Boys, by the time they hit 4th grade, are significantly behind girls. Science doesn't support this as being valid, from a predisposition standpoint. The fact is, boys and girls are statistically equal when it comes to achievement potential. Boys are physically larger, both in body mass and brain mass, but they should perform about even. Instead they do far, far worse than girls. But all the feminists on the democratic front are unable to address that problem, being blind to it by their own dogma's. Even if we corrected the problem today, it a whole generation is already lost. By the 4th grade, a child's attitude towards school are already set. And it should be none to obvious why boys are so discouraged in schools. The same anti-male statements that Michelle freely makes, are made by school teachers, and put into practice there as well. Girls are constantly encouraged for being mature and good students, while boys are discouraged and labeled as trouble makers and goof offs. No..even if we solved it today, we wouldn't see the results for another decade. And we aren't going to solve it today. Why would Michelle like men? Her male counterparts, and yes that was a race reference, an astounding number of them are in jail or involved in antoher way in the legal justice system. The problem is, more of the same, anti-male, attack them while they are young...is only going to produce the same results. It doesn't produce the type of men, that Michelle likes so much...those men are going to be fewer and fewer.

- rdd

March 12, 2008 at 12:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Three cheers for Michelle Cottle! So, maybe it's fawning -- I love it that way. This woman, Michelle Robinson Obama, is a well-evolved and congruent woman-become-wife-and-still woman; as such she is totally admirable! And her hubby, Barack, is a well-evolved and congruent man. If we are VERY lucky, they will inhabit the White House for as long as they want.

- martha54

March 12, 2008 at 12:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There's no comparison to Hillary. She's smart, compassionate and most of all she's very articulate. The black community has turned their back on the Clintons after all they've done for them, just because one of their own is running. They are not very loyal. Hillary has paid her dues. Obama just starting and he should earn it just like Hillary has. Just because Oprah Winfrey has given him a blanck check and all these young republicans are caucusing for him that he is ahead of the game.

- Golden Chica

March 12, 2008 at 12:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Someone considers this to be a piece of serious journalism? I've read more probing informative articles in PEOPLE. Perhaps Ms. Cottle should apply for Mary Hart's job at ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT when it becomes available. In the meantime, editors at TNR should send their mash note via the USPS.

- Steven

March 12, 2008 at 12:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

-- she's only proud of being an american the first time EVER in her adult life after her husband is leading in the delegate count. -- Not true. She was proud because there've been such a high turnout of voters in a country where voter turnout has always been nauseatingly low. Still, I'm not surprised when these Limbaugh brethen speak untruths to blindly please their master. -- hey if we want to elect someone THAT unpatriotic she'll the first we call. -- Well, being a moderate who has a love for the Constitution, I would think George W. Bush the better one with an "unpatrotic" label attached to him in light of his waging a war when only Congess has the authority to declare war.

- kevincollins

March 12, 2008 at 12:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Michelle turns me off, though I cannot quite put my finger on the cause of my dislike. Perhaps it stems from the fact that, as others have pointed out, she does seem to carry a huge chip on her shoulders (though I do think that assertions she had cultivated resentment when faced with knowledge of her own inferiority at Princeton/Harvard are insulting and without cause. The possibility that her acceptance to prestigious universities came through affirmative action should not detract from her accomplishments since, as Crock1701 and Davidov aptly explain better than I could, affirmative action merely corrects for the social bias that would otherwise undeservedly keep excellent candidates from getting the education they deserve). Unjust attacks on her intellectual capabilities aside, I still do, as I have pointed out, dislike her. It seems pretty clear that the article meant to represent Michelle in an overall positive light - yet the picture that emerges is that of a frequently cranky, stressed out, nagging wife that resents having to rearrange life to suit the ambition of her husband even while continuing to do just that. What Cottle considers spunk and edginess I see as symptoms of weariness, impatience and anger - hardly endearing, even if understandable, patterns of behavior. I also must point out that I find it incomprehensible that Hillary should represent the epitome of 1992 feminism. For all the chit-chat about her steely resolve, the fact remains that we are talking about a woman that back in a day stayed a year longer at Yale just so she could graduate along with Bill (something I could not see myself doing-and I am by no means cold-blooded towards my husband), abandoned bright fledgling career in the midst of Washington D.C. to follow him back to the backwaters of Arkansas and pointed out in interviews that, for all her support for women that made careers their first priority, she considered her family her life. While one might perhaps be skeptical of truthfulness of her statement, it is nonetheless the case that such assertions hardly smack of Gloria Steinem/Germaine Greer-like philosophy. So, in that sense, Michelle might just be a Hillary since either poses a far cry from third wave feminism torch bearer. Perhaps it would be more correct to conclude that neither Michelle nor Hillary are a Bella Abzug.

-

March 12, 2008 at 12:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

After reading all of the comments, I was struck by what appears to be the lack of cultural familiarity with the Michelle Obama's of the world. As a Black man, Michelle, as profiled here and in the New Yorker, is familiar to me. Very familiar. To attempt to connect with her approach to motherhood, feminism, and marriage without acknowledging that many of her attitudes are rooted in African-American cultural traditions would be flawed. I have no farther to look than my mother, aunts, former girlfriends, my wife, and now my daughter to see similar examples of assertive, achieving, yet traditionally rooted women. Many of these women have struggled with trying to find balance between career success, and the call to remain relevant within the Black community. They have been at once desirous of the prestigious job and nice home, and ongoing acceptance at their grandmother's church, with all that entails. They want their men to achieve, but they don’t want them to sacrifice their identity. They want greatness, but not at any cost. It might appear to be an easy calculation to onlookers, but I assure you that Mrs. Obama would not be the first to struggle with it. Comparing Mrs. Obama's journey directly to Ms. Clinton's without wrestling with these cultural parameters risks credulity.

- Jimmy

March 12, 2008 at 1:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

She is NOT Jackie Kennedy! Everyone in the media should stop trying to portray her like she is!!!!!!! She's not even close to Kennedy by any means!

- Chris NJ

March 12, 2008 at 1:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Even when affirmative action is a factor in admissions at Princeton and Harvard Law, the beneficiaries are still very impressive. Harvard Law, for instance, might take a black candidate who would, without affirmative action, get into Michigan or a similar school. The affirmative action candidates might average 95th percentile on the LSAT, instead of 99th percentile. These are not huge differences (about 4-6 questions out of 100 questions on the test), and they have limited statisically meaningful difference in predicting law school performance. Someone who graduated with honors from Princeton, would still have to have a strong LSAT, even under affirmative action. So, this idea that there is some "dint" to getting in under affirmative action is inaccurate. She was still among the very, very top candidates attending law school in the year she applied, regardless of race.

- Deluxe

March 12, 2008 at 1:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why did a piece about Michelle Obama become a reason for people to vent about affirmative action? The same people who attack her as unfairly receiving affirmative action won't say a word about how Dubya got into Yale and Harvard because he was privileged. What evidence do people have that she "hates white people"? Just because she's not a Stepford wife with a pill popping problem like McCain's wife doesn't mean that she is angry. How could a black person who hates whites go to Princeton and Harvard and later work mostly with whites? It's just absurd to think this. Someone on this board even tried to blame the downfall of the black community on women like Michelle Obama--a dedicated wife and mother. I wonder sometimes who people who post things like this on the internet are. It's disappointing and horrifying to think that narrow minded people like this exist to no end in the world.

- Jay

March 12, 2008 at 1:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

you are so right gordy. At first, i thought i was losing it - but thanks to you. I couldn't see the point of this piece either.

- ynnepsocal

March 12, 2008 at 1:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The question is not whether Mrs. Obama's salary tripled because of her husband's senate seat. Her political connections obviously increased and this is to be expected. The question is whether it is dishonest. If she is not receiving money for work not performed then there is nothing wrong with her salary. It is interesting when the upward mobility in the U.S. is utilized by black people. When white people accomplish it, they are considered brilliant, when black people do it, they are called dishonest or subversive. We would not have black people living in the midst of white people today if white people were not hell bent on stealing other people's stuff. They could have just have easily remained in Europe and left other people and their things alone. Moralizing about whether Europeans are racists or not is a waste of time at this point. History speaks for itself, however for so many people in here posting this hate, you won't have to worry about Mrs. Obama being the first lady if you just vote for Bush or one of his stooges to be in the white house. oh, and Clinton is indeed one of the Bush stooges. Vote for them. Do it with a clear conscience. Intellectual, moral and spiritual evolution are gifts to those who earn them. To those incapable of earning these gifts, they decry evolution and become creationists. What else can they do? Their excuse for their ignorance and hate is that god made us this way. Hey that may be true, that may be true. But a jackass is still a jackass, a dog is still a dog and a dumb ignorant racist is still a dumb ignorant racist even if god made you that way. Sorry, don't get angry because I say it, get mad at your creationist theory god who denied you the ability to evolve and made you to JUST BE ONE DUMB JACKASS incapable of evolving! Of course you want to vote for someone like yourself - Hillary Clinton or Bush - we all want to vote for someone like ourselves. There are other people however who are capable of evolving and who desire something else. Their ability to evolve and envision something else is their gift from God, their evolving God. Finally for all of you who wonder why Mrs. Obama appears at times to be angry, she is tired of having to deal with you creationists who were created by your non-evolving god to be dumb ignorant jackasses that she all too frequently has to deal with.

- John

March 12, 2008 at 1:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

First of all, Michelle Obama IS NOT the First Lady! And she never will be!!! If Obama is the nominee, the First Lady will be Cindy Mc Cain!!! If I have my way, there will not be a First Lady in the next Presidential White House!! Because the president will be Hillary Clinton and the First Gentleman will be Bill Clinton!!! Michelle Obama is a funny-looking, gawky, big-mouth!! Saying "for the first time in her adult life she is proud of her country" is a DISGRACE!!! In other words, it took her husband running for president for her to be proud of her country!! TERRIBLE!!! Also, when asked if Hillary were the nominee if she would support her, she hesitated and said "she'd have to think about it." Well, I got news for her!! If her husband steals the election and is the nominee, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING HIM!!! If he is the nominee, I will be writing in Hillary's name!!

- AlwaysforHillary

March 12, 2008 at 1:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Was also going to comment on the pillbox hat and pink outfit, but Anna beat me to it. TNR has become nothing but an Obama campaign rag. I thought this was a magazine of objective analysis, not of fawning political advocacy. Anyway, the more apt comparison would be Michelle Obama and Therese Heinz Kerry. They're both bitches. In light of, "For my part, I just want to buy the broad a drink..." and "Let Barack handle bedtime duty for the night," we can certainly see how common Cottle is. Yep, these two Michelles are peas in a pod.

- jm_rice

March 12, 2008 at 1:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If half your readers think the piece was fawning and the other half thinks it's mean, you have probably done a pretty good job.

- liamvt

March 12, 2008 at 1:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The iron of Hillary and Michelle is amazing. The white women from the Chicago suburbs has been afflicted with and driven by a life-long sense of insecurity and the black woman from the Southside is completely comfortable in her own skin. It is about time we have a first lady like that.

- tndefender

March 12, 2008 at 1:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Michelle, I read this article in the paper magazine and liked it so much, I taped that picture to my desk (even though, come to think of it that pink suit is a little creepy in this case). It wasn't a very Michelle Cottle-ish article, it was sweet and even vulnerable - you knew you['d get some grief for it and let it all hang out anyway. I'm always impressed by your work, but I'm especially impressed by your courage in this piece (I just loved that line about the sleeveless blouse). Michelle Obama *is* someone my friends and I identify with, we *have* all talked about that. Excuse her for not being Miss Phony Perky and being herself, I love her for that. And when she is on in her speeches? She gives Obama a run for his money any day, she can rule a room in two minutes flat. Working women with kids (and bigshot husband's basically running a marathon that refuses to end while taking incoming fire daily in her case) are frigging tired and guilty about 70% of the time and that's the truth. If the truth hurts, ask yourself why. This does NOT mean we aren't deeply grateful to have such abundance in our lives and fully aware of how magnificent our country can be, it means we're frigging tired. And that's all.

- WandreyCer1

March 12, 2008 at 2:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What's the big geshrey? Was she an affirmative action baby, I still ask? I have no axe to grind; I imply nothing; I just am curious. This is as close as I have gotten to it: (It's from a Newsweek story on her) "At Harvard, she felt the same racial divide. Verna Williams and Michelle became friends in their first year of law school. She remembers many of their fellow black students worrying that white classmates viewed them as charity cases. But she suggests Michelle was not among them. "She recognized that she had been privileged by affirmative action and she was very comfortable with that," Williams recalls. Michelle recalls things differently. A campaign spokeswoman says she had an edge getting into Princeton not because of affirmative action, but because her older brother was there as a scholar athlete. She was a "legacy," just like any other applicant with family ties to Princeton. Her aides say Michelle earned her way into Harvard on merit by distinguishing herself at Princeton."

- basman

March 12, 2008 at 2:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I find the idea that someone's senior thesis should forever be the measure of their capability to be completely absurd. As if you know everything you need to know at age 22 with a 4-year Ivy league education! Who cares about her senior thesis? The woman went to law school after that -- if you want to judge her intellectual character and abilities, base it on her work as a lawyer and her community work. Furthermore, once someone has graduated from law school, whether they earned admission to their undergraduate program through grades, test scores, a great essay, a quirky essay, a great personal interview, athletic capability, affirmative action or a legacy admission makes no difference. Getting IN does not automatically mean you get OUT. And once you have moved on to a higher level of schooling, you have already proven your ability at the lower level. For example, in our last faculty search we did not ask or care where any of the candidates did their undergraduate work (even if it was a school in the Boston area). We did care about where they went to grad school, and where they did a postdoc, and what they have published.

- JEFF FREY

March 12, 2008 at 2:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Michelle got into Princeton as a legacy because her older brother was a star athlete there. She admits she got into Harvard Law School on affirmative action. Yet she was not proud of America being a place where such things could happen.

- Mike H in Cali

March 12, 2008 at 2:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Both Ms. Obama and Sen. Clinton are "strong" women. However, Ms. Obama appears to be rather traditional, whereas Sen. Clinton has had the audacity to hope (LOL) for equality and a legacy of her own. Thus, Ms. Obama is not regarded as threatening, whereas Sen. Clinton, a true trail-blazer for women, is regarded as a bitch. Sad. Clinton '08!

- StraightUp

March 12, 2008 at 3:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman asks (oh, "as some have suggested"), did M Obama Get into the Ivy Leagues due to affirmative action. Hmmm, I dunno. Did our current Prez (as almost nobody ever suggests) get EVERYTHING he has in life because of the affirmative action that comes with the Bush lineage. 43 white, male presidents in a row and NOW we have to wring our hands over the notion of identity politics? Hilarious.

- ChadM

March 12, 2008 at 3:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I bet it was harder for her to get into Harvard than it was for George Bush to get into Yale or John McCain to get into the Naval Academy. Let's face it: The last two presidential races have shown without a doubt that the clearest path to success and to running for president is to be related to a sucessful white man, whether he be a former president, president of AMC and a former Governor or a 4-Star General. Yet, we still have to read and hear such comments. Frankly, I hope she did get in through affirmative action. Maybe that means that there is some equity and meaning to the selection system after all.

- Chris

March 12, 2008 at 4:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Michelle C. lays it on ** really ** thick at the outset of this piece. Your eyes roll when you hear Michelle O'B. described in terms that make her a combination Nicola Horlick and Gisele Bundchen. Dial it back, Michelle [Cottle]. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As a friend of a former Yale-educated afr-amer female corporate lawyer cut from the same cloth as Michelle O'B, I find many things to like about MO'B. She's fresh, tough, genuine, clearly loves her kids and her man, probably a good neighbor and a great mom. It's hard not to have a soft spot for anyone who survives the kind of grief that an afr-amer woman suffers as an associate at a stuffy corporate law firm like Sidley and Austin, or at the stuffiest and most conservative of the Ivies, Princeton, is sure to suffer. You have to have a strong back and a thick skin to come through that as well as Michelle Obama has.--------------------------------------------------------------------- And yet.... Maybe it's because I consume print only and don't see lots of photos or TV images of her, but in print she comes off as a little crass, lacking in finesse and good judgment. There's never any self-deprecation or charm or real wit to her remarks, only a kind of battering ram, and too often more than a touch of vulgarity. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Again, a certain Melanie Griffith-as-"Tess" coarseness can be refreshing if everyone around you is a whitebread bow-tied papercrunching George Will lookalike, but she's not at Sidley anymore. She's going to be representing our great republic. She needs to develop a bit more gravitas and, yes, respect for all of us white boys and girls who think that America, for all its faults, has plenty to make us proud-- regardless of who's in the White House or how her husband fares in this election.-------------------------------------------------------------------------- One Maria Tereza was enough. If MO'B can't learn to speak a bit more gracefully, she should shun the microphone. And the TNR scribes REALLY need to inject more objectivity into their coverage of the charmed couple. Jack and Jackie they ain't.

- teplukhin2you

March 12, 2008 at 4:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ms. Kennedy was wearing that pink pillbox hat the day President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME on you for placing that same outfit on your illustration of Mrs. Obama!!! That is NOT FUNNY!!!!!

- WNC Observer

March 12, 2008 at 4:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Michelle C. lays it on ** really ** thick at the outset of this piece. Your eyes roll when you hear Michelle O'B. described in terms that make her a combination Nicola Horlick and Gisele Bundchen. Dial it back, Michelle [Cottle]. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As a friend of a former Yale-educated afr-amer female corporate lawyer cut from the same cloth as Michelle O'B, I find many things to like about MO'B. She's fresh, tough, genuine, clearly loves her kids and her man, probably a good neighbor and a great mom. It's hard not to have a soft spot for anyone who survives the kind of grief that an afr-amer woman suffers as an associate at a stuffy corporate law firm like Sidley and Austin, or at the stuffiest and most conservative of the Ivies, Princeton, is sure to suffer. You have to have a strong back and a thick skin to come through that as well as Michelle Obama has.--------------------------------------------------------------------- And yet.... Maybe it's because I consume print only and don't see lots of photos or TV images of her, but in print she comes off as a little crass, lacking in finesse and good judgment. There's never any self-deprecation or charm or real wit to her remarks, only a kind of battering ram, and too often more than a touch of vulgarity. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Again, a certain Melanie Griffith-as-"Tess" coarseness can be refreshing if everyone around you is a whitebread bow-tied papercrunching George Will lookalike, but she's not at Sidley anymore. She's going to be representing our great republic. She needs to develop a bit more gravitas and, yes, respect for all of us white boys and girls who think that America, for all its faults, has plenty to make us proud-- regardless of who's in the White House or how her husband fares in this election.-------------------------------------------------------------------------- One Maria Tereza was enough. If MO'B can't learn to speak a bit more gracefully, she should shun the microphone. And the TNR scribes REALLY need to inject more objectivity into their coverage of the charmed couple. Jack and Jackie they ain't.

- teplukhin2you

March 12, 2008 at 4:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

wow, basman - assuming she got into Princeton and Harvard due to affirmative action, in spite of her obvious intelligence and all she has achieved since then. Black people can't win for losing with you, huh? Can any black person get into Harvard Law on their own merit or are they all, in your opinion, too dumb?

- Andrew

March 12, 2008 at 4:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And one more thing: there is running through many of the posts on this thread a kind of intellectual schizophrenia. Affirmative action, on which I have here taken no position, is asserted by many as a benign and justified social instrument of massive ameliorative value; yet at the same time, by my innocously and innocently trying satisfy my curiosity about whether it benefitted Michelle Obama, I am told that I am smearing her. How could that be, and what gives?

- basman

March 12, 2008 at 5:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Okay. MO didn't say that she was "proud for the first time". She said she was "very proud for the first time". Why is this important and not nitpicking? Because it is NOT WHAT SHE SAID. If you are going to pillory the woman, for pity's sake, get the quote right. Sheesh. And to our friends on the right: all black people are not psychologically imbalanced by America's tawdry and shameful history on race. The right wing's pretense that American race history is _not_ tawdry and shameful, however, is evidence of a uneasy connection with reality. And reality bats last.

- radioradio

March 12, 2008 at 8:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What ms. Cottle failed to note was that the Obamas share a legitmate marriage, unlike the Clintons, who are engaged in a power-seeking partnership. Michelle Obama is not seeking to use her association with her husband as a stepping stone.

- Miande

March 12, 2008 at 8:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Michelle Cottle: After reading your piece and the lumpen commentary that followed, it is not hard to understand why you are the professional journalist and the rest are just a bunch of whiny, self-righteous, misanthropic wannabees. Though I am male and much older than you, I enjoy reading your work. You bring a fresh and interesting perspective to your writing, nowhere more evident than in this piece. Keep it up!

- Dave

March 12, 2008 at 9:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'll be more proud than ever of my country if we can keep Michelle Obama out of the white house..After hearing her hateful remarks,I can honestly say the sight of her makes me want to vomit all over the earth beneath me!

- clint

March 12, 2008 at 10:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The only new information from that recycled vague article without a point of view is that she's 5'11". I didn't know that. She's probably a complex person with working class parents who excelled. It's a tough climb, you don't do it unless you're tough. I cut a lot of slack for self-made people. Affirmative action, perhaps, but that's what it's for - to find gifted people that would not otherwise be allowed in the door. I prefer her feistiness to John McCain's stepford-expressioned trophy and Hillary's sticking with Bill through all the bimbo eruptions so she can say she's had foreign policy experience.

- Kit

March 12, 2008 at 10:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

She said for the first time in her adult life she was "really" proud of her country. I don't know why journalists consistently leave out that one word. It completely changes the meaning.

- Olivia

March 12, 2008 at 11:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have read elsewhere that Michelle did not have the grades or test scores to get into Princeton and was discouraged by her Whitney Young High School counselors. Not sure exactly how she did get in. And yes, I have read her thesis, available on the web. Lots of anger there, as well as a fair number of misspelled words. Put her up against the sleek Cindy Mc Cain, and I think she will be alienating. Bill for First Husband!!!

- missy chicago

March 13, 2008 at 12:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nick, why exactly does it trouble you ?

- eddie22

March 13, 2008 at 2:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Michelle Obama herself admitted she got into Princeton and Harvard Law with inferior test scores, a fact the knowledge of which undoubtedly fuels some of her bitterness and resentment.

- Nietzschean

March 13, 2008 at 2:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Does Michelle Obama possess the qualities of a First Lady? I do not think I would like a First Lady who has never felt proud of being American until now.

- Phoenix

March 13, 2008 at 3:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wandreycer1: I am just guessing mind you, but is it reasonable for me to draw the inference that you are bog on Michelles C. and B.? It wasn't clear to me from what you wrote.

- basman

March 13, 2008 at 12:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Where does Mrs. Obama "admit" she was admitted into HLS via Affirmative Action? I have served on the admissions committee at a top private law school, and unless your father is the dean of the school or you have a PERFECT LSAT score AND PERFECT grades, a candidate will not necessarily know why she got into one school vs. another. After all, schools don't exactly send a letter congratulating the applicant for being admitted via AA. No, admissions entail a combination of factors (faculty recommendations, for instance, are critical) including, but not exclusively grades and LSAT scores. Having graduated with honors from Princeton, Mrs. Obama most likely was admitted based on a variety of factors, just like 90% of all admitted students. The notion that EVERY black student at EVERY top school was admitted solely because of AA is ridiculous and not how the admissions process at colleges and universities work.

- LJ

March 13, 2008 at 12:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I haven't been an Obama supporter but this article makes me think the nation needs Michelle more than it needs Barack, for two reasons: 1.) Last year, teaching special needs at a suburban Boston HS, two African-American girls discussed when they should start their families and decided 18 is old enough. I told them that no one under 30 should ever have a baby. They told me I think that way because I'm white, to which I replied that Black friends of mine felt the same way. "But your friends are probably doctors and lawyers and live in the suburbs." After pointing out to them that they live in one of America's most expensive suburbs, I asked how did they think my friends came to be lawyers, professors and physicians? By concentrating on education first, then fashion and music, then relationships. Michelle would make a good role model for these girls. 2.) According to a news-feature released this week, 50% of African-American teenaged girls have STDs. A Black woman in the WH, again, could focus these girls on higher goals.

- swozniak

March 13, 2008 at 2:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I read the article first, responded, the read the responses, which have left me rather shaken. Talk about material for a doctoral thesis! The racism rife among many of the respondents is horrific. That these people get to hide behind fake names and post their hatred and ignorance is an illustration of why our elitist Founding Fathers feared democracy and the common man.

- Swozniak

March 13, 2008 at 3:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Come on she isn't any great thing she looks ugly she is raceist like her husband there going to want us to pay for all the blacks families that were slaves during the civil war. I think once her husband and herslfe are in the Whitehouse were all going to wish they weren't so If you think that Obama is some savyour your wrong . Leaders that Preach should stay in church not in Office.

- jake

March 13, 2008 at 4:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The attacks on Michelle Michelle Obama's senior thesis are idiotic. I haven't read Obama's thesis (apart from the excerpts in the media), but I was a preceptor (Princeton's term for TA) for four years at around the same time Obama was there, and I can tell you that bad writing and sloppy arguments were endemic among my own (mostly white) students. When you got a well-written and cogently argued paper, you wanted to weep with joy. How many other senior theses could stand up to intense media scrutiny 20 years after they were written? Precious few of the ones I read in those days, that's for damn sure. Could yours? Pull it out and see for yourself. Bet you'll be embarrassed. And no, I wouldn't especially enjoy seeing having my own academic writing from that era put under the media microscope either.

- TMJM

March 13, 2008 at 11:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman asks why people are reacting as if he is smearing Michelle Obama when he is only "innocously and innocently trying satisfy my curiosity" about whether she was admitted because of affirmative action. A simple answer: If you read basman's posts, you do not get the impression that the question is "innocent" or "innocuous". He might be pretending that it is, but combining it with " Is not her graduating paper a piece of academic sludge that Princeton ought to be ashamed to accord academic distinction to? " in post #1, and other comments, makes it pretty clear that he views her as unworthy. When you combine the message "you are unworthy" with "did you get in via affirmative action", then hell yes it is a smear.

- JEFF FREY

March 14, 2008 at 4:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...When you combine the message "you are unworthy" with "did you get in via affirmative action", then hell yes it is a smear..." ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Uh uh! 2 completely different points: 1. she got in however she did; 2. she does not write very well on the evidence of what I read. I am not saying she is not smart and I am not saying she is not accomplished. I am--in good faith--inquiring how she got into the ivies as I had read it was by affirmative action ( which interests me given her "really proud for the first time" comment). And I am observing that her thesis at the parts I read is exceedingly poorly written. And that seems a rather commonplace observation: to wit: "but I was a preceptor (Princeton's term for TA) for four years at around the same time Obama was there, and I can tell you that bad writing and sloppy arguments were endemic among my own (mostly white) students. When you got a well-written and cogently argued paper, you wanted to weep with joy. How many other senior theses could stand up to intense media scrutiny 20 years after they were written? Precious few of the ones I read in those days, that's for damn sure." There you go Jeff Frey.

-

March 14, 2008 at 12:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

sorry, I forgot to put my name to that last post!

- basman

March 14, 2008 at 12:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Join the modern world: go to youtube.com and watch some of her speeches. They are fantastic. She is going to be an inspirational First Lady.

- CvillePatrick

March 15, 2008 at 1:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree that this article was strange. The Author obviously offended that wife Obama's - not quite feminist it is enough, even to imply, which her behaviour is a strategy. This completely inconsistent with whomever who behaviours exhibit, which offers that she comes unhinged and angry about their own circumstance of the lifes. Nor trace-jackets, which preceded nor current young professionals, which got to want to be bound 1992. Hillary - a fighter, but has no providence. What is a point to fight with thing if You - so often taking flawed positions? ___ buy movies

- Fun

March 25, 2008 at 4:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am surprised to find this article under Michelle Cottle's byline. It reads like something from an alumni magazine written by an undergraduate. Shame on you, Michelle. It would seem that Cottle is awed or at the very least intensely admires M. Obama. I hoped to find some incisive reporting and an interesting read and instead find this poorly written, intensely subjective, and in the end uniluminating article. Whether or not the things are true that M. Cottle writes, the quality and inciseness of the writing is so much less than I have come to expect from The New Republic.

- JohnT

April 13, 2008 at 1:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Blind Assumptions about affirmative action vs. intelligence as the basis for a successful path for African Americans indicate that you're very "out of touch" with African American human beings. Yes, Basman, there are some intelligent African Americans who do not have to depend on affirmative action to succeed. Stop the smear campaign and speak about others the way you'd like others to speak about you.

- Makeda

April 16, 2008 at 6:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

LJ -- which 'top private law school' did you serve as an admissions board member ? One would have thought that such a person would write grammatically correct sentences. I read MO's senior thesis, and see why Princeton would want to block its publication. The piece was riddled with misspellings and subject-verb disagreements that would have drawn scorn in a resonably rigorous junior-high English class -- I kid you not. Given that the paper represented MO's senior dissertation, her admission to Harvard (Harvard !) Law School is preposterous. She must have rubbed elbows with far smater students and added to her collection of perceived racial slights. I'm not surprised that she left (of her own accord ?) the white-shoe law firm and entered a more appropriate line of work in the racial-grievance industry.

- HBomb

April 17, 2008 at 4:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

LJ -- which 'top private law school' did you serve as an admissions board member ? One would have thought that such a person would write grammatically correct sentences. I read MO's senior thesis, and see why Princeton would want to block its publication. The piece was riddled with misspellings and subject-verb disagreements that would have drawn scorn in a resonably rigorous junior-high English class -- I kid you not. Given that the paper represented MO's senior dissertation, her admission to Harvard (Harvard !) Law School is preposterous. She must have rubbed elbows with far smater students and added to her collection of perceived racial slights. I'm not surprised that she left (of her own accord ?) the white-shoe law firm and entered a more appropriate line of work in the racial-grievance industry.

- HBomb

April 17, 2008 at 4:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

LJ -- which 'top private law school' did you serve as an admissions board member ? One would have thought that such a person would write grammatically correct sentences. I read MO's senior thesis, and see why Princeton would want to block its publication. The piece was riddled with misspellings and subject-verb disagreements that would have drawn scorn in a resonably rigorous junior-high English class -- I kid you not. Given that the paper represented MO's senior dissertation, her admission to Harvard (Harvard !) Law School is preposterous. She must have rubbed elbows with far smater students and added to her collection of perceived racial slights. I'm not surprised that she left (of her own accord ?) the white-shoe law firm and entered a more appropriate line of work in the racial-grievance industry.

- HBomb

April 17, 2008 at 4:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

LJ -- which 'top private law school' did you serve as an admissions board member ? One would have thought that such a person would write grammatically correct sentences. I read MO's senior thesis, and see why Princeton would want to block its publication. The piece was riddled with misspellings and subject-verb disagreements that would have drawn scorn in a resonably rigorous junior-high English class -- I kid you not. Given that the paper represented MO's senior dissertation, her admission to Harvard (Harvard !) Law School is preposterous. She must have rubbed elbows with far smater students and added to her collection of perceived racial slights. I'm not surprised that she left (of her own accord ?) the white-shoe law firm and entered a more appropriate line of work in the racial-grievance industry.

- HBomb

April 17, 2008 at 4:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

LJ -- which 'top private law school' did you serve as an admissions board member ? One would have thought that such a person would write grammatically correct sentences. I read MO's senior thesis, and see why Princeton would want to block its publication. The piece was riddled with misspellings and subject-verb disagreements that would have drawn scorn in a resonably rigorous junior-high English class -- I kid you not. Given that the paper represented MO's senior dissertation, her admission to Harvard (Harvard !) Law School is preposterous. She must have rubbed elbows with far smater students and added to her collection of perceived racial slights. I'm not surprised that she left (of her own accord ?) the white-shoe law firm and entered a more appropriate line of work in the racial-grievance industry.

- HBomb

April 17, 2008 at 4:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

LJ -- which 'top private law school' did you serve as an admissions board member ? One would have thought that such a person would write grammatically correct sentences. I read MO's senior thesis, and see why Princeton would want to block its publication. The piece was riddled with misspellings and subject-verb disagreements that would have drawn scorn in a resonably rigorous junior-high English class -- I kid you not. Given that the paper represented MO's senior dissertation, her admission to Harvard (Harvard !) Law School is preposterous. She must have rubbed elbows with far smater students and added to her collection of perceived racial slights. I'm not surprised that she left (of her own accord ?) the white-shoe law firm and entered a more appropriate line of work in the racial-grievance industry.

- HBomb

April 17, 2008 at 4:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

LJ -- which 'top private law school' did you serve as an admissions board member ? One would have thought that such a person would write grammatically correct sentences. I read MO's senior thesis, and see why Princeton would want to block its publication. The piece was riddled with misspellings and subject-verb disagreements that would have drawn scorn in a resonably rigorous junior-high English class -- I kid you not. Given that the paper represented MO's senior dissertation, her admission to Harvard (Harvard !) Law School is preposterous. She must have rubbed elbows with far smater students and added to her collection of perceived racial slights. I'm not surprised that she left (of her own accord ?) the white-shoe law firm and entered a more appropriate line of work in the racial-grievance industry.

- HBomb

April 17, 2008 at 4:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

LJ -- which 'top private law school' did you serve as an admissions board member ? One would have thought that such a person would write grammatically correct sentences. I read MO's senior thesis, and see why Princeton would want to block its publication. The piece was riddled with misspellings and subject-verb disagreements that would have drawn scorn in a resonably rigorous junior-high English class -- I kid you not. Given that the paper represented MO's senior dissertation, her admission to Harvard (Harvard !) Law School is preposterous. She must have rubbed elbows with far smater students and added to her collection of perceived racial slights. I'm not surprised that she left (of her own accord ?) the white-shoe law firm and entered a more appropriate line of work in the racial-grievance industry.

- HBomb

April 17, 2008 at 4:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

this article is mind numbing bullshit.

- wbboei

May 22, 2008 at 8:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have thought about Michelle Obama carefully and why she seems to have a fearful insistence that she be seen as an ordinary person though she is rich and privileged. I think it is because of her job. As an over-paid shill for a big hospital, she has to go into the impoverished community surrounding the hospital and sell them. She does it by being a "real" black woman who is "from the South Side." She attends a race-hate church that is "dedicated to Africa," so her little "just like you" act sells. The people don't know she makes $300,000, so it sells. And Barak has remained a cipher on purpose. He gets "street" from her and she gets "class" from him. Now they're on the big stage and this all looks ridiculous. Michelle "I make $300,000 and I have trouble scheduling my day! I have $100,000 in each of two college funds for my princess daughters -- and you can't afford community college -- no diff! Let's fist bump!" Barak: "Leave my wife alone!" Well, tell her to shut up. These people are not ready for prime time. Disaster looms ahead no matter who gets elected.

- Amomymous

June 27, 2008 at 12:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow, what the heck is wrong with the jerks making comments here? It seems that those who fail in life enjoy attacking Michelle Obama's schooling. What a bunch of losers. Go back to listening to talk radio where you all can whack it good together.

- wmb

November 15, 2008 at 1:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What kind of losers reads the senior theses of others? Hell, the people who write them never want to read them again.

- wmb

November 15, 2008 at 1:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agreed with most of Michelle Cottle's comments and don't think Michelle Obama and Valerie Jarrett are going to do much with the Council on Women and Girls. Michelle Obama is a disappointment. So is her husband (although I voted for him and am so glad McCain did not win the election).

- Kathleen Trigiani

April 26, 2009 at 8:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close