Political Physics: The Michelle Obama Transmutation
.
A blogumn by Monique King-Viehland
Michelle Obama – Is she hurting Barack’s campaign?
In June, Time magazine posed this question on its front cover: “Will Michelle Obama hurt Barack’s chances in November?” I’ve read a lot of articles these past nine months about Michelle Obama…most of which have not been very flattering. It appears that the media’s love for Barack Obama (post Democratic National Convention that is) is only rivaled by their disdain for Michelle Obama.
The media claim was that she was unpatriotic because of her “For the first time in my adult life…” comment. And the contention was that was she was racist because of the senior thesis she wrote at Princeton, entitled “Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community” in 1985 or the outrage over her failure to attend 9/11 ceremonies because she did not want to miss her daughter’s first week of school. And who could forget the infamous New Yorker cover depicting Michelle as a gun-toting terrorist.
And this negative coverage has had an impact. According to a recent Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey, 78% of Americans have heard at least a little about Michelle Obama. By contrast, just 54% have heard at least a little about Cindy McCain, including only 9% who have heard a lot about her. And though their opinions of Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain are largely favorable, Michelle Obama (at 22%) got slightly higher negative ratings than does Cindy McCain (at 16%).
Today, Zimbio Online is running a survey on their site asking, “Does Michelle Obama help or hurt Barack Obama’s campaign?” Currently, 53% of respondents say Michelle Obama is helping the campaign and 47% of respondents say she is hurting the campaign.
Now that still means more people believe that Michelle is helping the campaign, despite all of the negative press. But in an election this close – the latest Quinnipiac Poll is 49% Obama, 45% McCain and 6% Unsure/Other – is that gap between the help and hurt wide enough?
When I was a White House intern (post-Monica but pre-scandal), I worked for the then Senior Policy Advisor for President Clinton, Rahm Emanuel. I came across a report by a political strategist firm. The report basically assessed Bill Clinton’s chance of reelection in light of the negative perception of Hilary Clinton. It seems that men and women alike found Hilary to be emasculating and overbearing. The report suggested that Hilary’s image be reworked prior to the start of the re-election campaign. And that is exactly what happened. Hilary Clinton’s image during the reelection campaign was quieter, more demure, hell they even changed her look. See the picture to the right.
And Michelle Obama has undergone a similar metamorphosis, although not as extreme. She remains a constant fixture on the campaign trail, but her image has become has become “softer.” As the NYT noted recently, she focuses more on soliciting concerns and empathizing with audience rather than throwing down challenges to them. She has given more interviews to shows like The View and publications like Ladies’ Home Journal. The change has even been reflected in her fashion choices, with Michelle shifting from suits to dresses.
Is this transformation huge? No it’s subtle. But clearly the Obama campaign was concerned about Michelle’s impact on Barack’s chances of becoming President. Will this “image makeover” help? I guess we’ll see in November.
As for me, I like Michelle Obama just the way she is! And she is a significant part of the reason that Barack Obama is getting my vote in November.
.
Monique, I find this really interesting, in that I don’t think I would ever change my look so drastically to advance my husband’s career.
Do you think that Michelle should have stood firm in her original presentation? If she had, Obama might still have won and she could have set an example for other strong women in power couples. It scares me that HRC had to do this exact same thing over 10 years ago. Are we not advancing at all on these issues? And are Michelle and HRC playing into that/setting women back with makeovers?
I actually love Michelle O’s “new look,” but not if it comes at the expense of her “losing self” in order to appease something ugly in society that sees being a smart, strong woman as emasculating. Would love to hear your thoughts on this issue.
I found your site on Google and read a few of your other entires. Nice Stuff. I’m looking forward to reading more from you.
I found your site on Google and read a few of your other entires. Nice Stuff. I’m looking forward to reading more from you.
To further clarify: I wonder if we should be asking is Obama’s campaign hurting Michelle?
I agree that these women should never have to change their look to prove to us their husbands can do the job…
However, elections are all about looks since the invention of television. An unattractive man (no matter how perfect for the job) will NEVER be president…so, are we insulted by these makeovers JUST because they are women?
I agree that these women should never have to change their look to prove to us their husbands can do the job…
However, elections are all about looks since the invention of television. An unattractive man (no matter how perfect for the job) will NEVER be president…so, are we insulted by these makeovers JUST because they are women?
No, I wouldn’t mind the makeover if she was unattractive beforehand. But I don’t see why a woman should have to wear a dress and pearls all the time, just to prove that she’s not emasculating. And it also brings into question, “What is feminine?” I think Michelle O was all sorts of attractive before the makeover.
Also, John McCain is not attractive. If he doesn’t win, we might revisit this convo.
Ernessa, I could see how any woman’s first instinct would be to say “hell ya, Michelle should stick to her guns and not change for any man, etc.” But frankly, having now worked in politics for a minute and having been married now for an even longer minute I am not sure how realistic that is. You cannot make the decision to run for President of the United States without your spouse being onboard 100%, so I am sure that both Michelle and Hilary knew exactly what they were getting into….the constant scrutiny, criticism, etc. It is why Colin Powell decided not to run for P/VP because his wife said that she could not take the stress.
But let’s be clear….the changes that Hilary made were much more drastic then the ones that Michelle made. And I think Hilary was okay with that because she was already thinking about her own future and what a second Clinton term would mean to her future Presidential run (which she was planning even way back then). For Michelle, I suspect that she would argue that appearing a little “softer” isn’t really a 180 from who she is and besides having been at corporate law firms during her career, I’m sure she as played the game before.
But to answer your orginal question, do I think that Michelle should have stood firm in her original presentation? I think that choice belongs to Michelle. How much we are willing to reinvent ourselves for our career or our husband’s political aspirations is our choice – one that we need to live with and be comfortable with.
The further along in my career I progress, particularly because of the color of my skin, my age and the types of positions I hold, I have made choices abotu how I present myself, for example wearing more conservative suits. But on the flip side, I continue to wear my hair natural, wear little to no make up and wear afrocentric jewelry, no matter what because that is important to me.
And maybe that is where the POWER comes in…it is the ability to make that choice and decide how much of “yourself” your willing to sacrifice…if your willing to do so at all.
Ernessa, I could see how any woman’s first instinct would be to say “hell ya, Michelle should stick to her guns and not change for any man, etc.” But frankly, having now worked in politics for a minute and having been married now for an even longer minute I am not sure how realistic that is. You cannot make the decision to run for President of the United States without your spouse being onboard 100%, so I am sure that both Michelle and Hilary knew exactly what they were getting into….the constant scrutiny, criticism, etc. It is why Colin Powell decided not to run for P/VP because his wife said that she could not take the stress.
But let’s be clear….the changes that Hilary made were much more drastic then the ones that Michelle made. And I think Hilary was okay with that because she was already thinking about her own future and what a second Clinton term would mean to her future Presidential run (which she was planning even way back then). For Michelle, I suspect that she would argue that appearing a little “softer” isn’t really a 180 from who she is and besides having been at corporate law firms during her career, I’m sure she as played the game before.
But to answer your orginal question, do I think that Michelle should have stood firm in her original presentation? I think that choice belongs to Michelle. How much we are willing to reinvent ourselves for our career or our husband’s political aspirations is our choice – one that we need to live with and be comfortable with.
The further along in my career I progress, particularly because of the color of my skin, my age and the types of positions I hold, I have made choices abotu how I present myself, for example wearing more conservative suits. But on the flip side, I continue to wear my hair natural, wear little to no make up and wear afrocentric jewelry, no matter what because that is important to me.
And maybe that is where the POWER comes in…it is the ability to make that choice and decide how much of “yourself” your willing to sacrifice…if your willing to do so at all.
Why are Americans so afraid of strong women? How can Sarah Palin be what we want in a female role model?
Why are Americans so afraid of strong women? How can Sarah Palin be what we want in a female role model?
As unfair as it all is, women in the public eye have long has to deal with the extra scrutiny.
When I ran for elected office for a hot minute earlier this year, I received more unsolicited advice on my physical image than I care to recall. I was told to straighten my natural locks or wear it back. Always wear makeup. Always wear a full suit, don’t wear denim anymore. Skirt suits are better than pant suits. No open toe shoes. Look good but not too good as not to make others jealous. I suspect my male opponents weren’t subject to that much advice on appearance.
Then I was told to adjust my biography so my many involvements didn’t “overwhelm” those who read it. Hell, I’m proud of how active I’ve been. If I were a man would people be concerned about my being too active?
The guy I’m living with (also known as my husband) is considering running for elected office. Anyone know where I can get a nice set of pearls to go with my softer look?
As unfair as it all is, women in the public eye have long has to deal with the extra scrutiny.
When I ran for elected office for a hot minute earlier this year, I received more unsolicited advice on my physical image than I care to recall. I was told to straighten my natural locks or wear it back. Always wear makeup. Always wear a full suit, don’t wear denim anymore. Skirt suits are better than pant suits. No open toe shoes. Look good but not too good as not to make others jealous. I suspect my male opponents weren’t subject to that much advice on appearance.
Then I was told to adjust my biography so my many involvements didn’t “overwhelm” those who read it. Hell, I’m proud of how active I’ve been. If I were a man would people be concerned about my being too active?
The guy I’m living with (also known as my husband) is considering running for elected office. Anyone know where I can get a nice set of pearls to go with my softer look?
I agree with much of what Monique wrote in her reply. Anyone engaged in politics at the level of the Obamas or Clintons have to know what they are getting themselves into and must be willing, to some extent, play the game. While I also agree that image is important for both men and women in politics, I think it is all raced and gendered in important ways. Male candidates should wear certain color suits so that they look presidential, yet it is unclear (at least to me) what makes a woman candidate look “more presidential.” Much of the political strategy for female candidates is to make them look less threatening rather than presidential. And that, I think, has to do with the fact that most Americans have no reference (before this year) as to what a female president would look like.
And we cannot forget the way in which race and gender are interacting to influence much of the discussion surrounding Michelle Obama. What she is managing is not simply being a strong woman, but being a strong black woman. The caricature of MO on the New Yorker is a great example. For women, generally, confidence and strength is labeled “aggressive”, but for black women this can also be labeled “angry and aggressive.” Despite much of the “post-racial politics” hype, race is central in this campaign. Just as much as Obama has to convince some white Americans that he is the “kind of” black guy that can be President, Mihcelle Obama has to convince some white Americans that she is the “kind of” black woman that can be a First Lady and that means, whether we like it or not, presenting a certain image.
Ernessa, to your question about whether she should have made the changes. I think if it helps Obama get elected then the subtle changes are worth the significant differences she could make as a First Lady. But I have to confess that I am less an idealist and more of a realist when it comes to politics.
CH, Palin is certainly not what I want in a female role model. But I think this election shows, what most women in any leadership position already knows, that when it comes to sexism and gender discrimination we have a long way to go in this country. Did you all know that women professors on average receive lower student evaluations?
I agree with much of what Monique wrote in her reply. Anyone engaged in politics at the level of the Obamas or Clintons have to know what they are getting themselves into and must be willing, to some extent, play the game. While I also agree that image is important for both men and women in politics, I think it is all raced and gendered in important ways. Male candidates should wear certain color suits so that they look presidential, yet it is unclear (at least to me) what makes a woman candidate look “more presidential.” Much of the political strategy for female candidates is to make them look less threatening rather than presidential. And that, I think, has to do with the fact that most Americans have no reference (before this year) as to what a female president would look like.
And we cannot forget the way in which race and gender are interacting to influence much of the discussion surrounding Michelle Obama. What she is managing is not simply being a strong woman, but being a strong black woman. The caricature of MO on the New Yorker is a great example. For women, generally, confidence and strength is labeled “aggressive”, but for black women this can also be labeled “angry and aggressive.” Despite much of the “post-racial politics” hype, race is central in this campaign. Just as much as Obama has to convince some white Americans that he is the “kind of” black guy that can be President, Mihcelle Obama has to convince some white Americans that she is the “kind of” black woman that can be a First Lady and that means, whether we like it or not, presenting a certain image.
Ernessa, to your question about whether she should have made the changes. I think if it helps Obama get elected then the subtle changes are worth the significant differences she could make as a First Lady. But I have to confess that I am less an idealist and more of a realist when it comes to politics.
CH, Palin is certainly not what I want in a female role model. But I think this election shows, what most women in any leadership position already knows, that when it comes to sexism and gender discrimination we have a long way to go in this country. Did you all know that women professors on average receive lower student evaluations?
I’ll spare you all what I think about political women’s fashion…I could go on for HOURS.
And-Ernessa- have you looked at pictures of McCain a little earlier in his career? SUPER HANDSOME.
But don’t worry, I’ll vote for Obama because he is STILL handsome. :-)
I’ll spare you all what I think about political women’s fashion…I could go on for HOURS.
And-Ernessa- have you looked at pictures of McCain a little earlier in his career? SUPER HANDSOME.
But don’t worry, I’ll vote for Obama because he is STILL handsome. :-)
Oh… and I really appreciate what Monique said about what she has chosen to give up and not to give up. I wish every powerful woman would make that decision and stick with it unapologetically.
Oh… and I really appreciate what Monique said about what she has chosen to give up and not to give up. I wish every powerful woman would make that decision and stick with it unapologetically.
CH, I think that is a good question. Americans are afraid of strong women. I think the issue is that a strong woman is often viewed in the context of a man. For example, Hilary Clinton being a strong woman meant that she was emasculating Bill Clinton. Why couldn’t she just be a strong woman?
Katrina, you are so right. This election is cluttered with racial and gender undertones, overtones, etc. For Michelle Obama, it is not just about being a strong woman, it is about being a strong black woman.
Alysia, you too are correct. Wow, you must have been very annoyed (I think you look great just the way you are too), but I could see several of our mutual friends giving you that type of advice. And knowing your husband, I think you should definitely get ready for life in the “even more public spotlight.”
To go back to CH’s question about Sarah Palin, I think these comments underscore why people find her so appealing. She is a “safe” woman…opinionated (read as strong) but not threatening….hence all the soccer mom references and talk about how much she likes to cook for her husband and family. Perhaps just the kind of strong woman America likes.
CH, I think that is a good question. Americans are afraid of strong women. I think the issue is that a strong woman is often viewed in the context of a man. For example, Hilary Clinton being a strong woman meant that she was emasculating Bill Clinton. Why couldn’t she just be a strong woman?
Katrina, you are so right. This election is cluttered with racial and gender undertones, overtones, etc. For Michelle Obama, it is not just about being a strong woman, it is about being a strong black woman.
Alysia, you too are correct. Wow, you must have been very annoyed (I think you look great just the way you are too), but I could see several of our mutual friends giving you that type of advice. And knowing your husband, I think you should definitely get ready for life in the “even more public spotlight.”
To go back to CH’s question about Sarah Palin, I think these comments underscore why people find her so appealing. She is a “safe” woman…opinionated (read as strong) but not threatening….hence all the soccer mom references and talk about how much she likes to cook for her husband and family. Perhaps just the kind of strong woman America likes.
I must admit that I find this all very frustrating. I don’t think of myself as an idealist, but you guys make very good points about the practicalities of running for office. I just wish things were different. I don’t want Alysia to have to get a perm and pearls, so that her husband can get elected.
And I wonder if we’ll ever see a natural First Lady. But then I think, “Wait a minute, weren’t you just despairing a year ago that we’d never see a black First Lady? One step at a time.” :)
Delia, you’re right. McCain was very hot as a young man. But since a white house term supposedly ages you to a crazy degree, I feel that Obama will probably go more handsomely into the old man night. Dapper Clooney style.
Katrina, that really upsets me that female professors get lower scores than their male counterparts. And I wonder what we can do as intelligent women to redefine how this country thinks of intelligent women. There’s got to be a solution to this problem, I just know there is.
Okay, maybe I am an idealist…
I am thinking Obama would go the way of Sean Connery – more handsome with age.
Katrina, you now why the thing with the female professors getting lower ratings than their male counterparts bothers me? Because I bet that more than half of the students rating them are women. So are we part of the solution or the problem?
I am thinking Obama would go the way of Sean Connery – more handsome with age.
Katrina, you now why the thing with the female professors getting lower ratings than their male counterparts bothers me? Because I bet that more than half of the students rating them are women. So are we part of the solution or the problem?
Monique,
It is true that half of them are women. And when you control for all other factors (age, style etc…) women still get evaluated lower. Some of us are part of the solution and some of us are part of the problem.
Ernessa, I totally understand your frustration, but yes one step at a time. If it makes you feel better there are black women in Congress who have worn their hair natural. I have also read interviews where they say they got a hard time about it, but they still won even when pushing back against that criticism. However, I think when it moves to a national level or even state-wide level pushing back becomes a lot more difficult.
As for my part of redefining the discussion, I’m with Monique. I wear my hair natural and dress how I choose. Granted I’m a professor at a liberal college so I have more leeway than most. In my class on race and gender politics, I also push my students to think about how we can expand the definition of politics that means thinking about how everyday decisions (like hair, style, language, etc…) can be political stances.
Monique,
It is true that half of them are women. And when you control for all other factors (age, style etc…) women still get evaluated lower. Some of us are part of the solution and some of us are part of the problem.
Ernessa, I totally understand your frustration, but yes one step at a time. If it makes you feel better there are black women in Congress who have worn their hair natural. I have also read interviews where they say they got a hard time about it, but they still won even when pushing back against that criticism. However, I think when it moves to a national level or even state-wide level pushing back becomes a lot more difficult.
As for my part of redefining the discussion, I’m with Monique. I wear my hair natural and dress how I choose. Granted I’m a professor at a liberal college so I have more leeway than most. In my class on race and gender politics, I also push my students to think about how we can expand the definition of politics that means thinking about how everyday decisions (like hair, style, language, etc…) can be political stances.
Jamie, thanks for reading my stuff! I hope you enjoy future blogumns!
Jamie, thanks for reading my stuff! I hope you enjoy future blogumns!