The only thing exciting about First Lady Michelle Obama these days is well…nothing! That’s right: nil, nada, diddly squat.
What had promised to be a provocative stewardship of the Office of the First Lady is turning into an empty vat. The dullest First Lady evah shines at photo ops more because of her glittery threads than for her golden words, because she says practically nothing, at least nothing memorable.
Give me back the Michelle Obama of yore. Remember her? The purveyor of those challenging words: “One day they’re going to wake up and get it,” uttered to the African-American community during the heated Democratic Party primaries, the Michelle Obama call to Buff-arms. She ticked off many with her stunning pronouncement, but at least she appeared to have an opinion, to stand for something, to be alive.
Now what we get is Michelle circa 1950, nothing but a boring throwback, a Stepford Wife. The hostess with the mostest…the lady of the victory garden…the wife who dresses up for her husband on date night…a scary Laura Bush vacuous clone holding up a book at the: You can’t be an American First Lady, if you don’t read a story to a gathering of inner-city school children.
Granted, being First Lady is an unfair position, and an unpaid for one as well. But First Ladies are elected, despite the Constitution, because Americans surely vote for the couple, not just the individual.
The role of First Lady hasn’t been properly redefined since Jackie Kennedy with her kitten voice and pillbox hats took us all on a televised tour of the White House back in 1962, captivating women with her style, men with her, well, kittenish voice.
After Jackie, there followed many First Ladies, all passionless, sexless, vacuous manikins hiding the truth of their characters because that’s the real role of American First Ladies: do nothing to get in the way of your husband’s agenda, evah!
Sure, occasionally there have been First Lady breakthrough moments, when they actually looked human. Betty Ford comes to mind when she admitted her dependence on drugs and alcohol, which were apparently needed to help her play her vacuous role.
We felt maybe there was more to Nancy Reagan than horoscopes and soothsayers when we learned she had breast cancer and intended to fight it.
Hillary Clinton dared to show intelligence, but as First Lady, besides that debacle called health care, she is best known for standing by her philandering man. And, also, lest we forget, Hillary was known for being the most polarizing First Lady evah, polarizing, of course, just a code word for ‘bitch.’
Rosalyn Carter? Who? Barbara “Fake Pearls” Bush. Hmm.
Apparently, Michelle O has taken lessons from Lady Bird Johnson who, in a fashion, also liked to garden as well she painted America’s highways and bi-ways with the lively colors of cosmos and petunias…nothing dull there.
But now it is 2009. More than half the American workforce is manned by women. Women are doctors, politicians, lawyers, and at the same time, mommies. In some homes, they are the sole breadwinners. In other words, in real life women manage to do mostly all.
Not so Mrs. O who sees herself as either the provocateur or the lady who lunches. Apparently, never, evah should the twain meet.
Which begs the question: Why is it that women as First Ladies are relegated to the inane? Michelle Obama had a high-powered job before her husband became The Leader of the Free World. Why can’t she have a high-powered job as First Lady, even if it’s only in the White House?
I know, I know, there’s nothing new here. Writers, particularly women writers, have been screaming about the silly role of the First Lady for evah. But nothing evah changes and here we are again, in 2009, with another First Lady looking as if she came out of central casting.
Doesn’t America deserve more? Isn’t it high time we changed the First Lady model, if for no other reason than for our little girls? Is the submissive image portrayed by America's First Ladies really the one we want portrayed for the daughters of America?
The role of First Lady is the last bastion of male supremacy over women, the one place where women remain relegated to that old adage a woman belongs barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
Lady O can change that. Michelle Obama, show us a little more than your buff arms. Or use your well-earned biceps and triceps to knock down all those idiots, including your husband’s handlers, who have smothered your voice more concerned about poll numbers than proper role models for their own daughters.
Take a lesson from one of the few First Ladies to stand for something, Eleanor Roosevelt. Shatter precedence. We don’t need a mistress in the White House, which is the role to which you’ve allowed yourself to be consigned.
Yes, it is past the time for a change. We need to redefine the role of first partner. And that makes me wonder how things could have been O, so much more altering if Bill Clinton had been holding the thankless position. There’s still time, folks. Election 2016 isn’t that far off. Imagine, The First Man -- the biggest change EVAH!
Halli Casser-Jayne is the author of A YEAR IN MY PAJAMAS WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA, The Politics of Strange Bedfellows. You can read more of her opinions @ http://www.thecjpoliticalreport.com
Copyright 2009 Halli Casser-Jayne all rights reserved.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 38
Thanks for your comment! We both agree that Michelle Obama is a strong woman. Let's hope she uses her strong voice to further women's causes and does not allow herself to be silenced by politics, as most first ladies have. The choice, as you say, is hers.
She is a strong intellegent woman but not Wonderwoman.
Don't worry that Laura Bush crashed and killed her boyfriend before she met W.
I NEVER have said anything about that accident that took the life of 17 year old Mike Douglas.
If the roles were reversed, the Ghouls would be on Michelle like a pack of hyenas on a wounded wildebeest.
Yep, a 17 year old boy dead but the BIGGER story is Michelle's arms.
How FREAKING PATHETIC!!!!!!!!
On the other hand, did I have fun with the piece? You betcha. I'm a writer, and I enjoy playing with words and ideas to get my readers interested in what I have to say.
What I despise, is emotion-filled, knee-jerk reaction that stopa people from thinking about content because they feel so compelled to utter immediate defense, when defense isn't even necessary. But such, I guess, is the nature of our politics today. So sad!
Michelle Obama is an educated, articulate, thoughtful American, like her husband. It takes courage AND character for Michelle to mother her children, try to provide "normality" in the most unique fishbowl home in America and provide discreet companionship and counsel to her husband. What she does is for the good of the nation and the objectives she shares with her husband. She is no wilting flower.
She's the First Lady, dammit--not an entertainer. And her position is unpaid and ill-defined.
Tell me something....in your opinion, does she do ANYTHING right?
I didn't think you'd be able to come up with anything.
Sure, she's doing some good. Just not enough imo.
During the campaign, I thought she was too gruff; now I think she's too weak. I'd like to see her find the happy medium and use it to further women's issues.
By the way, carping at her wardrobe, her arms, her weight...sexist. And is the very reason her voice is so important.
So very TRUE!!!
However the unwarranted attacks on her only backfire on the authors and make them look uneducated.
Seriously, her arms...??? Lord give me strength to endure the ridiculous.
Every First Lady selects her own areas of interests.
"As First Lady, Michelle Obama looks forward to continuing her work on the issues close to her heart — supporting military families, helping working women balance career and family, and encouraging national service."
Since she does not get 24/7 news coverage and her schedule is a matter of focus for security issues most of what she does is reported on AFTER the fact.
I find her specific choices to be vital to todays issues and are the same issues most woman would be supportive of.
It's not like she spends her time Christening yachts and knocking down highway billboards.
What are the issue(s) you would like to see her address?
By the way, speaking of climate change, the president has just announced he will not appear at the climate talks in Copenhagen this December, but instead will accept his Noble prize in Oslo...just a BIT self-serving, don't you think?
I don't attribute motivations to people's behavior/decisions. I don't like the fact that Obama will not go to Copenhagen in December - but I do like the fact that renewable energy, partly as a result of federal policies, continues to grow in the current economic environment.
I have written the WH to pass on your suggestion. Maybe, someone there will read my note (it could happen).
I like your commitment, Steve.
RE: Renewable energy: Did you read my piece on Senator Byrd? Politics, politics, politics...I just not sure President Obama is willing to go to the mat on this one.
UPDATE: Obama To Copenhagen For Climate Talks (BREAKING)
Why do you suppose polls are showing that? Btw, a solid majority still think human induced climate change is real. Btw2, scientists haven't changed their opinions, except if you consider many of them think it's an increasingly urgent situation.
A firm pledge on emissions cuts is a good thing, provided it's 25% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.
Happy Thanksgiving to you too, Halli.
My guess is that Obama left an opening for the opposition by not being an active voice on climate change as he tackled the more pressing concerns of the WH. Then when he said that he wasn't going to Copenhagen it was a field day for the naysayers. The polls are a reflection of when the WH is a silent voice on an issue. Hopefully, with his decision to travel to Copenhagen, he'll stop the negative numbers.
I imagine that the one thing to come out of Obama's trip to the East is some sort of deal on climate change. It may be a reason that he changed his mind on going. He has something to gain, or he wouldn't go. As to whether it's what you think is necessary, well have to wait and see.
Have you visited my website: http://www.thecjpoliticalreport.com?