Michelle Obama on “Ellen” And Elizabeth Hasselbeck On Michelle Obama

The political season and the stress that goes along with it for television viewers is in full swing. On Monday’s “Ellen,” Michelle Obama semi-campaigned for her husband, Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama. Ellen DeGeneres was able to bring out the funny from Michelle and it seemed as if she loosened up a bit. Which is a good thing. Michelle Obama is way too young to act like a iron-stiff librarian as some candidates and First Ladies have been in the past.

It was definitely refreshing to see the conversation remain light and tension-free between Michelle Obama and Ellen. However, I am sure that that was not the case on “The View” when Michelle was last on.

If you listen to Elizabeth Hasselbeck tell it. Over the weekend, the very opinionated and seldom wrong Hasselbeck decided to do some campaign stomping for McCain/Palin at a fundraiser. In her special sarcastic way, Elizabeth Hasslebeck disclosed that when “a certain candidate’s wife appeared on the view, there was a list of topics that could not be discussed,” and then insinuated that the Obamas “had something to hide.”

I watched “The View” that day, as I have previously reported on this site, and in my opinion, Michelle Obama was very forthcoming and personable about the topics that was discussed. She spoke of her family, her children, her 16 year marriage to Barack Obama, her acute love of fashion, Barack’s political aspirations and why she feels her husband should be President of The United States.

What else substantial did Michelle Obama not cover? She wa not there to run down Barack Obama’s energy or health care plan. Nor was she on “The View” to debate what others on the campaign circuit said about her ie. Cindy McCain and the “I Love My Country Why Don’t You?” tirade. Michelle Obama was on “The View” to give the audience and the viewing audience at large, a clear picture of who she is and what she herself stand for. The idea was to soften and broaden Michelle Obama’s appeal overall. She was not on “The View” to feed Elizabeth Hasselbeck’s id.

The sad thing about Elizabeth Hasselbeck’s ‘revelation,’ is that it cheapens the entire interviewing process. Michelle Obama is not the only person to be interviewed that has a list of topics that are not up for public discussion. It is nothing for a journalist to receive a request to forward questions in advance from a person to be interviewed. It is up to the journalist, however, to agree to such conditions or not. Obviously, Barbara Walters and “The Views” producers chose to go along with the Obama publicists suggestions in order to secure Michelle Obama’s appearance.

What is so bad about that, Elizabeth? Could it be that Michelle Obama was able to do what no other guest has on “The View,” which is to put an uncomfortable muzzle on your mouth? Has anyone noticed that when Elizabeth Hasselbeck doesn’t get her way, she throws a ‘terrible two’s’ tantrum? In this particular case, Hasselbeck decided to do so at the expense of Michelle Obama. If my memory serves me correct, Elizabeth Hasselbeck said in an exclusive interview with FOX News’ Hannity and Combs immediately after Michelle Obama’s appearance on “The View” that everything went well and that there were no hard feelings or animosity on the set. Hasselbeck stated the same thing when questioned at length by CNN’s Larry King.

So, which is it? Sounds a little suspect to me. Should the public at large believe the hype? Should the public buy into the obvious and desperate tactics of Elizabeth Hasselbeck to swing independents and Hillary Clinton supporters to McCain/Palin’s pocket? Hopefully Hasselbeck’s desperation was as apparent as the Pinocchio-sized nose that grew rapidly on her face and the huge invisible cleaver she wielded in her hand as she delivered her fundraiser address.

“The New Yorker” Put On Blast For Satirical Obama Cover! Editor Defends Decision

It would seem the saying “If it ain’t one thing, it’s another” fittingly applies to the merry-go-round circus called the media. Monday, “The New Yorker” magazine presented the cover of its’ July 21st issue to a wave of criticism. The cover is a cartoonish representation of Barack and Michelle Obama. Barack Obama is wearing traditional Muslim attire while his wife, Michelle, is wearing military fatigues, carries an AK 47 slung over her shoulder with ammo, and sports a hip afro. The Obamas are in the White House with a portrait of Osama bin Laden hanging above the fireplace and the American flag burning brightly in the corner. Oh, the Obamas are also engaging in the gesture they made infamous called fist-bumping.

“The New Yorker” editor in chief, David Remnick, stands by the cover, issuing a statement to Huffington Post that ”I ran the cover because I thought it had something to say.”

Remnick further explained that “we’ve run many, many satirical, political covers. Ask the Bush administration how many…the fact is it’s NOT a satire about Obama, it’s a satire about the distortions and misconceptions and prejudices ABOUT Obama.”

So, Mr. Remnick chose to help Barack Obama’s campaign by green-lighting a controversial cover that does nothing more than advance the ignorant perception that every African American with an African or Arabic name is naturally a follower of Islam, therefore a Muslim extremist that wants to wage a ‘holy war’ against America? If this was Mr. Remnick’s implemented proposal, it definitely gives cause to take a second look at his editorship.

With Obama constantly on the defense about his religious affiliation, his choice of place of worship, his supposed elitist stance and a name that was given him AT BIRTH, it is increasingly suspect on Mr. Remnick’s part to have even considered, at this stage in the election season, to have thought that a satirical cover of this sort would educate the public at large instead of fanning the flames of ignorance. You can not throw a satirical magazine cover to the wolves and expect them to behave and react with a semblance of intelligence.

If the cover has to be explained and re-explained, Mr. Remnick, then it doesn’t work. Perhaps the true intent of this suspect cover is to increase sales revenues. Using the insanity of the minority to sale magazines is the true villain here. Call it what it is. Throwing someone under the bus for profit. In that vain, Mr. Remnick did an excellent job.

Excerpts of David Remnick’s interview were taken from: www.huffingtonpost.com. Thank You Huffington Post!

Cindy McCain: Are You Living In A Glass House?

I have to say that the way the McCain campaign is coming at Barack Obama is almost admirable. Who would have thought to use their wife to stick it to the Obama camp? Such a pimp move, if you ask me.

Well, Cindy McCain is doing the political dirty work for her husband by coming at Michelle Obama. You know, going through the back door instead of the front? Cindy McClain is now attacking Michelle Obama regarding a statement she made a few months back. The comment went something like “this is the first time in my adult life that I am proud of my country.”

Cindy McCain responded Wednesday, in an effort to stick it to Michelle Obama, that SHE has ALWAYS been proud of America. I wouldn’t even doubt that remark coming from her. Being from a mega rich family, I am sure that Cindy McCain grew up with every advantage and privilege that is afforded those in this country who have a measure of wealth. Cindy McCain has benefited from tax breaks and shelters established so that the wealthy in this country can maintain and build upon their fortunes.

And…with a certain amount of money, you can definitely buy absolution. Cindy McCain knows this first hand. Remember her highly publizied confession of ripping off her very own charity so that she could supply her prescription drug habit? Did she do any time for that? I don’t think so. Money can by you high priced attorneys and spin publicists that can turn a dope fiend into a victim of circumstance.

So, I am sure that Cindy McCain can not fathom in that pretty blond head of hers what Michelle Obama was trying to convey. How could she? In her world, what is there not to be proud of?

Michelle Obama Represents The “Darker Sister” Well Says Whoopie

Yeah. The uproar has begun. Wednesday on “The View”, moderator Whoopie Goldberg passionately commented on the way Michelle Obama carries herself. Whoopie complimented Michelle Obama, wife of presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama, by suggesting that Michelle Obama persona is a breath of fresh air, for a sista of the chocolate hue. Whoopie then mentioned that most sistas of the chocolate hue are portrayed on television as ghetto…wearing grills on their teeth, not able to string along a sentence, without class, basically.

Now, I admit that Michelle Obama always steps out of the house on point and fabulous. Whenever she is on television, she is stunning and beautiful. And I do admit, to a certain extent, that it IS refreshing to see a chocolate sista representing sistas like me. I mean, I do occassionally get tired of seeing Beyonce’, Mariah, Rhianna, Vanessa and other latte’ sistas getting the lime light. I say occasionally. I’m not a hater. My flesh and blood sister is a latte’ sista and I love her dearly.

But the uproar over Whoopi’s comments makes zero sense. The media, the cable and radio sector, have taken her comments and blown them out of proportion. Whoopie, herself a chocolate brownie sista, was only making the point that nowadays, sistas of the chocolate hue are being unfairly pigeoned-holed by the broadcast media in a negative light. In fact, within our own culture, African Americans have a nasty habit of showing preferential treatment to those of us with a light complexion.

I wasn’t insulted or taken aback by what Whoopie said about Michelle Obama. Michelle Obama not only makes me, a chocolate brownie sista proud, but she makes ALL OF US SISTAS PROUD.

And soon…she will make all women in this country PROUD.