Liz Smith | 04/14/2008 12:04 pm

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Pot Shots at a Possible First Lady!

The conservative National Review takes dead aim at Michelle Obama in the April issue, calling the potential First Lady for the Democrats “Mrs. Grievance.” They take exception to what they call her “narcissism and self-absorption,” saying, “she always offers a bon mot consistent with that bleak assessment she offered when saying she was ‘really proud of my country for the first time in my adult lifetime.’”

Well, we don’t really expect this particular magazine, created by William F. Buckley, Jr., to endorse the Obamas. But there is an interesting thought in Mark Steyn’s negative article.

Photograph © Landov

He writes: “Come presidential season, the Democrats prefer blind dates, while the Republicans make do with the old coot who’s been pestering them for a night out since ‘Gold Diggers of 1935.’ So the Dems nominate total unknowns — Carter, Dukakis, Clinton — while the GOP nominates fellows they know only too well: Bush 41, Dole, McCain. In the case of Barack Obama, it’s not just that he’s unknown, but that he seems eerily unknowable.”

Steyn goes on to compare Michelle Obama’s “tin ear” when it comes to populism with the same fault in the very wealthy Teresa Heinz who, when campaigning for husband John Kerry, asked at Wendy’s, "What is chili?” Then he says Michelle “spoke to a group of struggling women in economically torpid central Ohio. Michelle Obama eschewed the usual I-feel-your-pain shtick and invited the audience to feel hers, lurching into a long riff on the expense of extracurricular activities for her daughters, piano and dance and summer camp, and somehow she and Barack are expected to figure out how to pay for it on a combined salary of 500 grand a year, not including his book royalties and her corporate directorship. Nor the house they bought for $1.6 million.”

Is writer Mark Steyn just a mean Republican SOB out for the kill in case the Obamas get the nomination? Or is he onto something here? I’d like to hear your views.

Don’t forget to read my nationally syndicated column!!

142 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Who is more of a purveyor of hate than Hillary Clinton? And when was it not so with the Clintons?

By Dan Hamrick on 04/14/2008 9:02 pm

e-mail alert

When you know absolutely nothing about a subject, that’s a real good time to keep your mouth shut.

By Mugsy Peabody on 04/14/2008 9:50 pm

e-mail alert

Dan you are pushing hatred. Your global remark about the Clinton’s being “purveyors” is all part of the hate orgy being pushed by the media reality shows. Your hate seems visceral. Cool out.

By Simmy Sussman on 04/15/2008 7:34 pm

e-mail alert

agree

By Frannie Em on 04/16/2008 1:10 pm

e-mail alert

1992—when the “vast right wing conspiracy” (hillary’s words and very well said) played upon the misogyny and anti-southern snobbery with lie after lie and smear after smear and investigations, too. hillary was harmed in her learning to fight off these unwarranted attacks. otherwise i don’t think she would dish them out so much. she has proven she can take them. and honestly, i wish both hillary and barack would focus on the REAL foe—the republicans.

By mary lou s on 04/15/2008 9:04 pm

e-mail alert

Simmy, I agree with you. I was vry disturbed by Obama’s tactic and alos once again did not think he was talking authentically. His caught off gaurd faux pas was the most genuine I have heard him. Anyone who wears a mask will eventually be caught with it slipping.

By Kay Sara on 04/15/2008 6:45 am

e-mail alert

and i also own guns, but i am not doing it to create an image of myself that is totally false. hillary [see 1999] is virulently anti gun… ask the nra.

By ariadne a on 04/15/2008 8:08 am

e-mail alert

Star, even if Hillary doesn’t get the nomination, we should all thank her for doing all the hard work to be where she is. She made it seem absolutely natural for a woman to be running for president. I will always be grateful to her for it.

By Frannie Em on 04/16/2008 1:29 pm

e-mail alert

adriane, your naivete when it comes to politics is showing — any politician who invariably tells the “truth” on the campaign trail, oblivious to the legions of Swiftboaters waitng in the wings to twist every word and lie about the context of the remark is doomed to go down in flames. Look at the way the “clinging to guns & faith” remark has been used against Obama. Its a travesty, and I would not be proud of my “elitist” remark if I were Hillary, yet, Barak’s camp has never hesitated to take advantage of any mistake Bill Clinton makes when he tells the “truth”. He was no more playing the race card in his remarks about the South Carolina Democratic Primary or the “fairy tale” that Obama is a pacifist when it comes to the Iraq War than Obama has been playing the in employing AGE CARD when he talks about Hillary being part the “OLD guard” that is incapable of understanding the concept of “change.”

By Michael Salling on 04/15/2008 3:01 pm

e-mail alert

Unlike Teresa Heinz Kerry, Michelle Obama is not at all out of touch with Americans. Michelle came from a working class family who struggled to get by in Chicago’s south side. Because Michelle is so smart and so hardworking, she was able to go to an ivy league school, where she met Obama, who also has no ties to money. I think what the National Review was really implying here is that Michelle speaks to the plight of black women, and that’s what they don’t like about her. As for not knowing Barack Obama, read his books—they are fantastic. Get to know him. You will like him. Look at what he’s down in such a short time, and tell me where you think he can take this country, if we let him.

By ami brown on 04/14/2008 10:22 am

e-mail alert

Um, “no ties to money,” you mean, other than Oprah’s?

By Mugsy Peabody on 04/14/2008 1:49 pm

e-mail alert

Mugsy, Obama had no ties to money to start with, but attracted them by his brains and ideas, as did the Clintons when they were younger. And now they generated $119 million between them in income the last 6 years. And together are also a money making political contributions machine,

By Buh-Bye Hillary Hillary Buh-Bye on 04/14/2008 3:36 pm

e-mail alert

He’s a politician just like she is. He has ties to money.

By Star Lawrence on 04/14/2008 4:37 pm

e-mail alert

Dear Ami….Just an FYI about Teresa Heinz Kerry. I think many of these women get tagged with something unfair, or way out of balance, and then it is repeated as a political tactic until it seems true. THK is one of the most philantrophic women in the world and a long time environmental activist. She’s been awarded numerous humanitarian awards and speaks 5-6 languages….English is her second or third language. She was born to Portugese parents but grew up in Africa and Swiss schools I think. A totally amazing woman. She would have made a fantastic first lady. Here’s some info. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_Heinz

By Buh-Bye Hillary Hillary Buh-Bye on 04/14/2008 9:54 pm

e-mail alert

Liz . . . What has never been actually addressed - and yet is the truth - has nothing to do with how Steyn thinks. For months I have said, and it has been proven, that Michelle Obama does not want to be First Lady - a president’s wife. She has told us that in many ways - and it is so evident why she feels as she does. She has had to resign her own really more prestigious position - and it is in the private sector that is not prone to public fist fights. This is a woman - for gosh sake - at 44 on her way up and almost at the top of the ladder. Something a lot of us women dream of, don’t we? She was going to crash the glass ceiling and I live where she does and I know it first hand. Can you imagine her annoyance that the Democratic party says she has to speak, make photo appearances to promote Obama and, once in a while, parade her small children across a stage. Her children go to the same private school as I did - one of the best in the country - and the are happy there and can walk to school. Would any woman in her right mind choose to have her children placed in a White House fish bowl for 8 years - with the effects that that does to the psyche forever? Michelle has a good head on her shoulders - family first and stability. The woman worked her way up to her professional position with her brains — and should be applauded, not paraded like a prize cow across the stage. She is smart — a woman like that does not make mistakes by “accidents” in speaking publicly. She wants the media to catch them and lessen Obama’s appeal in a manner that could switch a number of votes to others. As women ourselves, we must ask ourselves: if we were in the same position with life as it stood going great guns - and not moving to Washington with her kids when Obama became Senator - would smart women as we are want to sacrifice stability to the chaotic scene at the White House — if not for us, certainly to preserve the happiness and good road to a better life for our children. The more intelligent of us would say, if we were honest, NO WAY!! And I, for one, cheer her on. . and why I don’t have more women behind me cheering the rationale of Michelle is beyond me. And what do you say to that?

By joan larsen on 04/14/2008 10:25 am