If you picked up a copy of ``The Obamas’’ by New York Times political reporter Jodi Kantor expecting a catalogue of abuses in the West Wing of the White House, similar to the sensational tales being reported about the clandestine and lavish Halloween party; or explosive verbal exchanges between First Lady Michelle Obama and Rahm Emanuel and Robert Gibbs—you might come away greatly disappointed.
Those events, minor as they were, has peppered the headlines of most news outlets, both on the cable channels and web sites. But don’t fall for the off speed pitch. This is more a tale of Michelle Obama‘s voyage from entering the White House armed with top chic and glamorous designer labels before transforming herself into sporting more main street attire, such as a $34.95 dress from H & M, the fast fashion clothing company; while valiantly trying to restore her husband’s image of being shaped by a ``sense of purpose’’ and acting as a `transformative figure’; important characteristics that slipped away from the president soon after assuming the presidency.
The First Lady saw it as her mission to get no. 44 back on message.
Michelle Obama accompanied Barack to the White House in January, 2009, reluctantly as it turns out. The first lady, as Kantor notes, wanted to remain in Chicago with children Sasha and Malia so they could finish out their school terms and gradually make the leap to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue later in the year.
Such a scenario was determined unthinkable by the West Wing brain trust; so came they did to the nation’s capital. The White House was a jolt at first, it wasn’t exactly their $1.65 million historic brick mansion back in Chicago; there were too many security personnel buzzing around and invading their sense of privacy. Then again, any house which has 132 rooms, six levels, 35 bathrooms, 412 doors, and three elevators, like the White House has, takes some getting used to. But the Obama’s eventually adapted to their new digs, including the first lady.
It’s somewhat surprising that Michelle Obama has taken such a dim view of the book; she reportedly has complained ``The Obamas’’ has portrayed her as an ``angry black woman’’, rather than a supportive wife and accomplished first lady.
While slices of the book, unquestionably, document her assertiveness; ok, bitchiness if your prefer (questioning staff for inviting guests to a White House dinner without being asked first), avoiding meaningless ceremonial first lady duties and embracing more national issues in which she could bring about profound change-such as her obesity campaign.
And it was no secret that the first lady growled at Emanuel, the chief of staff, for booking her (without asking her first) to campaign with Allen Boyd, U.S. congressman from the 2nd congressional district in North Florida in exchange for his vote on a key energy bill that the White House wanted passed.
The first lady soon made it clear in no uncertain terms, that she would not be an ``easy sell.’’ If the West Wing wanted her out on the campaign trail (during the mid-terms when the president’s popularity was plummeting ) ; they would have to ask her properly and more importantly, she didn’t want to campaign for congressional members she knew little about. Congressman Boyd, as it turns out, voted against the health care bill. Besides, unbeknownst to the first lady and the White House, she was being used to ``head off a potential black challenger for Boyd’s seat.’’
Overall, Kantor delivers a fair and balanced treatment of the first lady, far from coming off as an angry black woman, ``The Obamas’’ shows Mrs. Obama to be an important element of the White House machinery, especially in reminding her husband of his sense of purpose and to change the culture in Washington, important themes that brought Obama to Washington with such high expectations. The highly publicized horse trading on display over the health care bill (e.g., the infamous ``Cornhusker Kickback’’ to secure passage of health care) was one subtle reminder how Mr. Obama fell victim to the ``business as usual’’ approach instead of changing the culture like he promised.
Mr. Obama's increased disengagement from the cries of the American people during the Great Recession, partly attributable, some argue, to being so hemmed in by a coterie of advisors (Gibbs, Emanuel, and David Axelrod, Obama’s top political advisor) alarmed the first lady that her husband was losing touch with the pulse of the American public. As Axelrod told Kantor, ``when she [Michelle Obama] thinks things have been mishandled or when things are off the track she'll raise it, because she's hugely invested in him and has a sense of how hard he’s working and wants to make sure everybody is doing their work properly.’’
Another fascinating slice of ``The Obamas’’ was the degree to which the First Family, Mrs. Obama in particular, drives Sasha and Malia hard not only with academic distinction, but with other extracurricular activities as well, including piano, and flute lessons, excelling in basketball and scheduling tennis lessons. At first glance, you might think Michelle Obama is in ``Tiger Mom’’ country, but once you appreciate Michelle, much like her husband, attended college in the age when affirmative action was in full swing; the high standards they expect of their children comes into sharper focus.
Kantor reports how Mrs. Obama while attending Princeton often endured suspicious glances from white students, wondering if she entered its prestigious Ivy League halls because of a quota system. Even as the Obama’s both made great strides in their professional careers, the presumption seemed to always follow them that they got there because of their race.
So it shouldn’t be much of a surprise that Sasha and Malia are being pushed and shaped and driven- even to the point of overachieving- to prevent wild accusations many years from now that they rose to their respective professional careers because they are the children of Michelle and Barack Obama and not because of their own hard work and academic success.
Unlike so many mismatches with First Family marriages, (consider Richard and Pat Nixon, FDR and Eleanor), Michelle and Barack are cut from the same cloth: both are highly educated, both share similar perspectives of the world, share the same friends, want to portray black Americans in a positive light, while longing for a meaningful change of culture in Washington.
In the end, if Mr. Obama loses in 2012, questions will be raised time and again why Michelle Obama wasn’t incorporated more effectively into getting the president’s message out to the American people by articulating a profound sense of purpose, a sense of hope, while helping her husband build the bridge of comprise and bipartisanship so sorely needed with the U.S. Congress.
Unless the economy improves dramatically, Mr. Obama is now in danger of having fallen victim to the same set of circumstances that undid Jimmy Carter; in that he came to Washington with a mountain of ideas he wanted put into action, but because he never understood the inner-working of the U.S. Congress, including keeping powerful congressional members at arm’s length, he gave voters the impression that he was nothing more than a highly educated policy wonk who didn’t understand Washington.
-Bill Lucey
[email protected]
January 17, 2012
Comments