Misdirection

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) was overheard unflatteringly remarking on Michelle Obama's derriere. According to the congressman, the First Lady is a hypocrite in her campaign for childhood nutrition and physical fitness given what Sensenbrenner considers her ample posterior. Sensenbrenner's apparent preoccupation with Obama's backside is a subject for another day but judging from Sensenbrenner's portliness, he would do well to heed her message.

Much Ado About Nothing

Michelle Obama recently has come under a barrage of criticism for, among other things, going on an extravagant vacation while so many Americans are experiencing economic hardship. Byron York, a conservative columnist, gloated over the First Lady's dip in popularity. This is brief unpublished reply to his piece.

Re: "For Michelle Obama, extravagance dents popularity" Aug. 13th.

Byron York must be hard-pressed to make deadline because opining on Mrs. Obama's decline in popularity is much ado about nothing. The fortunes of a White House or political party have never rested on what voters thought about the president's wife at any point in time.

Coming Up Short

It appears that the vaunted Obama Magic (with earth mother Oprah thrown in for good measure) met its match in the International Olympic Committee as that imperial body awarded the 2016 Olympic Games to Rio de Janeiro, despite the illustrious triumvirate's best efforts on behalf of Chicago, Illinois.

Michelle Obama's Task

Columnist Robert Fulford, National Post, has an interesting perspective on Michelle Obama's speech last week at the Democratic presidential convention. In his view, Ms. Obama had to demonstrate her ordinariness despite a lifetime of achievement and accomplishment that suggest otherwise. He writes in The Tyranny of Stereotype,

Ms. Obama's chore, when she gave her speech the other night, was not to reveal herself but to reassure voters about their own values. She was there to reassert what the public needs to believe, or thinks it should believe. TV commentators who analyze speeches such as hers judge public figures according to a formula that has already been tested and found acceptable. And they judge themselves in a similar way. Not one of them dares to show more than a flicker of originality. They want to sound shrewd, they want to avoid repeating what someone else has just said, they may hope to insert a slightly fresh thought into the debate. But they never stray far from what everyone else thinks. They are there to say the right thing, which usually means a version of the national consensus. They will not be welcome on television if they are overly original, if they sound odd or weird.

The New Yorker Gets It Wrong

This current New Yorker magazine cover has produced criticism in some quarters for perpetuating rumors and falsehoods about Barack and Michelle Obama. Both the Obama and McCain campaigns have condemned it. Editor David Remnick defends the decision: "It is clearly a joke, a parody of these crazy fears and rumors of scare tactics about Obama's past and ideology. And if you can't tell it's a joke by the flag burning in the Oval Office, I don't know what more to say." Employing satire to make a point is often a dicey proposition at best, and that is especially the case with a significant number of Americans already predisposed to believe all the lies about Obama bandied about primarily over the internet. For this group of literal-minded numbnuts, the cover only serves to reinforce their prejudices and preconceived ideas.

Michelle Obama and the Missing Feminists

Columnist Mary C. Curtis, in a Washington Post oped The Loud Silence of Feminists, muses on feminists remaining uncharacteristically silent as Michelle Obama has come under attack. Voices like Gloria Steinem and Geraldine Ferraro, who railed against what they perceived as the unfair and bias treatment of Hillary Clinton, haven't said a damn thing about what Michelle Obama has had to deal with. Perhaps there are limits to the depths of their moral outrage.