ONE of the dangers in creating a vicious caricature of a public person is that he or she often doesn’t live up to them.
That’s what happened last night when Michelle Obama wowed the crowd with her speech to the Democratic Convention.
Conservatives have been clinging to a single comment Mrs. Obama made about being “really proud” of America for the first time to suggest that she’s an America hater. The critics have twisted other isolated comments in the worse possible light to paint her as a snobby elitist or an angry grievance-monger.
On paper, her speech was a schmaltzy concoction sprinkled with patriotic bromides and cooing about family – but it was radically different when delivered in her voice, and with her warm demeanor. The words took on a new shape as she talked to America about where she comes from, who she knows her husband to be – and how much she loves her country.
Earlier in the evening, politicos – many not Michelle Obama fans – had e-mailed me to announce their disappointment in the remarks released by the campaign. But they followed up after the live performance with effusive praise.
So, where was “angry” Michelle?
Turns out she doesn’t actually exist. She’s a cartoon character, much like the caricature the right drew when it they lampooned another potential first lady, Hillary Clinton, in 1992.
Indeed, the narrative being weaved around Michelle was suspiciously similar to the one that ensnared Hillary – two or three comments used to represent the whole of the person. The goal is to turn smart, opinionated wives into political eunuchs who live in fear of “scaring” voters – who disturbingly seem to prefer first ladies who keep their opinions to themselves (unless of course they mirror their husbands’).
The right more than succeeded with Mrs. Clinton; by the time she left the White House, all traces of her personality had gone into hiding and she mostly resembled a glassy-eyed robot – an appearance at great odds with who she actually was and is.
The attacks on Mrs. Obama have been relentless, including two ads by Republican state parties that attacked her alleged lack of patriotism. Like Mrs. Clinton, she has been accused of emasculating her husband. (This accusation relies on the ridiculous premise that Sen. Obama is the only husband in America who’s been teased by his wife for his bad habits around the house.)
Michelle had begun to pull back – leaving some to worry that she was on the road to Stepford Wifedom. Her speech last night was a ray of hope that she’s holding onto at least her warmth – but the feistiness looks to be in hibernation.
In 1992, conservatives claimed they didn’t have a problem with alpha-women, it was just that Hillary was so awful. (Strange that she’s their darling now.) Republican consultant Roger Stone told The New York Times: “It’s not that she’s an accomplished modern woman. It’s just that she’s grating, abrasive and boastful.” He complained that Americans didn’t want co-equals in the White House.
Uh-huh.
Now Michelle – who’s never suggested she’ll play a policy role in the White House, and who is by all accounts a traditional wife and mother – is the victim of the same nonstop vitriol.
If Democrats gave Cindy McCain the same treatment that Republicans have handed Michelle Obama, they’d be trashing Mrs. McCain as a home wrecker (she dated John McCain for close to a year while he was married to his first wife), a junkie (she was addicted to prescription painkillers) and a callous thief (she stole the painkillers from a charity she was associated with). “Beer heiress” would follow every mention of her name and her comment that she believes the only way to get around the state of Arizona is in a “small private plane” would be looped on MSNBC.
Many Democrats would actually feel within their rights to attack Cindy constantly – since she personally attacked Michelle Obama, snarkily insinuating she doesn’t love her country.
But that’s not what is happening. Whatever her past failings, Cindy McCain, like Michelle Obama, is more than the sum of her worst moments.
As (hopefully) we all are.