January 13, 2012 - 8:13 am
As the White House War Room and Michelle O’Bama are on full defense mode because of the new book, The Obamas, showing an angry and draconian First Lady, one liberal magazine urges the couple to embrace the image.
Nation writer Illyse Hogue lauds the book for showing the “tensions of a culture that expects our women to achieve as highly as our men but our first ladies to take a back seat to their presidents.”
While the public regards Michelle O’Bama as an autocratic spendthrift, Hogue views her dustups with the president’s staff as powered by a determination to hold them to Barack’s ideals.
Moochelle behaves like Joanna Stayton played by Goldie Hawn in Overboard. The big difference is that Stayton was spoiling herself with family money, not taxpayer money and of course it was just a movie.
Remember Angela Davis? The radical activist of the 60′s and 70′s later teaching at California State Colleges, lecturing young “mush heads” as to the evil’s of capitalism, wonders of socialism and its benefits to humanity?
Well, here is Angela Davis’ mush-head student incarnate. Secretly, fomenting her marxist/leninista spewing of everything socialist in America. After all she did say, she feels she can finally be an American.
Did you notice their hands over their lungs? YES, while the Pledge of Allegiance was being proffered, they stood rigidly at attention, dutifully raising their LEFT HANDS, placing it over their lungs…not their RIGHT HANDS over their hearts. It was photographed, too! Recorded and not PhotoShop. They’re both ‘ANTI-COLONIALIST’S.’
Vote massively for massive fraud is all around We The People. From without Little IMAM in Venezuela (missile bases) and within a culture of corruption in Washington DC. God Bless America. Our flag is flying upside down! Amen.
I don’t know if the FL is really angry, but she frequently looks angry. Maybe it’s just the way her face is constructed. I thought Nancy Reagan often looked like she was stoned, but that doesn’t mean she was.
…Hogue views her dustups with the president’s staff as powered by a determination to hold them to Barack’s ideals.
Why? Because President Pantywaist can’t do it himself?
“Nation writer Illyse Hogue lauds the book for showing the “tensions of a culture that expects our women to achieve as highly as our men but our first ladies to take a back seat to their presidents.”
Those who choose to exercise power should understand they will be treated as trying to exercise power. And those who would wish to have that exercise of power viewed of legitimate should understand that it can only be so by earning it, not marrying it.
In other words, until we have independent elections for First Lady, First Ladies, at the end of the day, should be somewhat circumspect, for if they choose to act otherwise there is still going to be a referendum held by the people on their suitability for the job— just that the plebiscite is going to be held informally, not formally. Mrs. Obama is final having her fitenss for the office she has apponted herself to decided upon. May she enjoy it.
“tensions of a culture that expects our women to achieve as highly as our men but our first ladies to take a back seat to their presidents.”
How is that a source of tension?
Women can indeed achieve as highly as men, but marriage does not confer achievement onto the spouse. In any profession, politics included, the spouse takes a back seat to the person who actually holds the job. Imagine being upset that Steve Jobs’ wife was expected to take a back seat at Apple. Imagine being upset at the idea that Bill Clinton isn’t considered co-Secretary of State because his wife holds that position.
When we finally have a female president, why do I suspect it would be considered demeaning to her if we though her husband was equally in charge?
– her Mom was living with them in the White House to help with the kids. Her ailing father had a daily struggle just to get to work. What does she have to be angry about?
There is nothing in the Constitution that requires the taxpayers to support Moochelle in the style to which she wishes to become accustomed in order to finally be “proud” of her country. She has no role to play except that of supportive spouse. In the back seat.
There is no upside in attacking the First Lady of the United States.
That statement is true regardless of who currently holds that position.
Even if the current individual, at any given point in time, genuinely deserves criticism, I repeat:
From a political point of view, if you want to see her be a one-term First Lady because her husband is a one-term POTUS, there is NO UPSIDE in attacking the First Lady of the United States.
This is exponentially true for any children of the First Couple.
Those who don’t know this instinctively ought have it pointed out to them, once. Thereafter, upon violating the principle, they prove themselves useful idiots for their political opponents, starting with the POTUS whose spouse they are criticizing.
Corollary:
Any discussion of the FLOTUS that is not fawningly flattering will be interpreted, regardless of actual intentions, as an attack.
Or look at it this way:
Every husband who’s been in a marriage that has succeeded as long as a couple of months knows that there are certain questions that cannot be answered truthfully. The cliche but apt example is, “Does this make my butt look big?”
Voters who already dislike the POTUS are likely to already dislike the FLOTUS, but some significant number who dislike the POTUS don’t care or may even like the FLOTUS. No votes get changed based on who the FLOTUS is. But could you trigger a backlash, by attacking (or being perceived as attacking) the FLOTUS, which backlash could change voter turnout or actually induce cross-overs? Yeah, that’s a non-trivial risk.
Even a trivial risk isn’t worth taking when it has no justifying upside.
No no no no no no no nononononononononon……………..
Title bring bad image to brain. where brainwash? ohhh, it hurts…
The new book, The Obamas, screams out loud for the “Doctrine of Separation of State and Marriage”