Posted on 05/11/2009 7:12:34 PM PDT by STARWISE
POLITICO recently ran a story about the moments that shaped first lady Michelle Obama’s image. I like seeing so much attention paid to a first lady, and I think Americans enjoy knowing what she is working on and how she is spending her time in the White House. The coverage is helpful for all of us to develop an impression about the first lady. And surely there has been no shortage of coverage.
I know firsthand what it takes to manage the diverse portfolio of this unique position, which in fact has no official description. The job is what the occupant makes of it, and a first lady can be very effective when she chooses to focus on projects in which she has genuine interest and experience. She is freed from the demands and constant flow of incoming problems that hit the president’s desk, and she can choose how to spend her time and deploy her influence.
Nevertheless, her efforts, when coordinated wisely with the president’s staff, are helpful to the overall goals of the administration. As the most prominent nonelected official in our government, she has an instant platform and access to whatever she needs to do her “job.”
Each first lady makes her mark, and Obama follows a long line of activist first ladies who have come before her and advocated for things they care about.
My hat is off to Obama — and to her staff, too. I know how hard they have to work to make sure a project is well-developed and researched. There are many moving parts when executing a successful event that is worthy of the first lady’s attention and has a positive and lasting impact. With this work also comes the responsibility to follow up and consistently manage projects such that they amount to more than a photo-op. Although the first lady gives the direction and makes the final decisions on what she wants to do, it’s her hardworking and creative staff that has to pull it all together.
In the end, if the media don’t report it or write about it, then much of this hard work will have been lost for so many that could have benefited from the first lady’s efforts. It also means that people worldwide have missed the chance to better understand what makes the first lady tick.
Perhaps if the press gave half as much attention to Laura Bush’s work, the POLITICO article would not have used phrases like, “Americans see [Mrs.] Obama as strong, elegant and confident — different from [Mrs.] Bush, who was seen as conservative and quiet.”
In all fairness, I don’t think it was “quiet” when, in 2001, Bush became the first first lady to deliver a presidential radio address, speaking out forcefully about the Taliban’s brutal treatment and oppression of Afghan women. She had a worldwide audience, and to this day, Afghan women know that in Laura Bush they have a steady and committed champion.
I also don’t think it was “quiet” when in May 2008 she became the first first lady to stand at the podium in the White House press briefing room and deliver a strong statement against the repressive military regime in Myanmar. She told the regime it was time to get out of the way after the world saw it inexplicably deny aid to the Myanmar people in the aftermath of the devastation caused by Cyclone Nargis.
It also wasn’t “quiet” when Bush spoke out in defense of Obama when the then-presidential candidate’s wife said, “For the first time, I am proud of my country.” A feeding frenzy followed in our nation, and it was Bush who knocked it down. Her support came at a time in the campaign when people were first forming their impressions of the Obamas and were easily susceptible to inaccurate representations. Laura Bush took the responsible route and defended Obama and her unfortunate choice of words, and in so doing, she lowered the heat.
I would suggest then that in researching its story about the moments that defined Michelle Obama, POLITICO missed a big one. That moment was perhaps the greatest moment of vulnerability for the campaign. And that honorable and courageous move by Laura Bush had a significant role in shaping the image of the first lady to be.
Obama later wrote Bush a note of thanks. She also talked on “The View” about how much it meant to her to have Bush speak out in her defense. I think Obama understood the impact of that moment on her image better than the press does.
~~~
Anita McBride served in the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush and was chief of staff to first lady Laura Bush from 2005 to 2009.
“Laura Bush is an aristocrat.
She did not relate to ordinary people.”
Uh, no.
As so many others, I surely miss First Lady, Laura Bush. The current female spouse in the White House is simply the president’s wife. I will not call her First LADY. because a LADY she is not. I am surprised the liberals even allow the term “Lady” to be used. Like mailman, councilman, etc. they will soon be screaming that the gender should be removed. For me, it can’t be too soon. I would love to call Michelle the First (in)Significant Other.
Absolutely correct! I miss her and the President so much.
Laura is pure class and a quality human being. They have to make things up to diss her.
How is that an "aristocrat?"
Just curious.
I sure miss First Lady Laura Bush
Sad, but true!....Oh...what a train wreck now.
No.
Agree.
“Laura Bush is an aristocrat. She did not relate to ordinary people.”
Quite true, but still better than MO.
Yet, I am quite sick of all the Bushes and the damage they did to America. So, in my opinion it might be best to keep them out of sight until the viewpoint of them can be somewhat “rehabilitated.”
Let alone Laura ability to help educate all and her manner of relating to people.
Obama doesn’t even leave a fly speck on the paper compared to the impact of Laura Bush.
As for keeping Laura "out of sight".......or her husband........they have been greeted with grand ovations and warm embraces wherever they have gone. Their image only needs to be "rehabilitated" for those who weren't paying very close attention to who they really were, and what they really did.
Lunacy !
When confronted with a bogus criticism of the Bushes, it's always good to have an arsenal of photos to combat it with.
Laura may be classy and a bit shy, but saying she doesn't relate to "ordinary people" is just silly.
She IS "ordinary people."
One thing is for sure, if the Bush’s did damage to America, it certainly took a lot longer than 100 days to do it.
Look at what you got - see Obama run, see Obama screw up the military, watch Obama turn America into a classless pile of junk.
BTTT ;-)
Worth repeating!!
It's rewarding to know because of HIS policies, we're all still alive and reading your rant. The damage to America you speak of has yet to be defined. The present occupant is weaving a scenario unlike anything we could ever imagine and I'm convinced in the not too distant future most clear thinking Americans will long for the days of the Bush Admin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.