My Crush on Michelle Obama

[Calabrio]

By Jack Cafferty
Special to CNN

NEW YORK (CNN) -- I think I am developing a crush on America's first lady. Michelle Obama is more compelling than her husband. He's good, but she's utterly fascinating.

Mrs. Obama has blown away the stale air in a White House musty from eight years of the Bushes. It's like the sun came out and a fresh spring breeze began wafting through the open windows.

It's the people's house, and Michelle Obama totally gets it. So much so that she has taken to inviting people in from the streets to see her home. Nice touch -- one completely lacking in her recent predecessors.

Watch her when she visits a local school and you see the warmth and affection she instantly triggers in people. Kids are pretty much totally honest with very good BS-detectors. If they sense you're a phony, forget it. But around the first lady, they want to hug her and laugh with her and tell her stories.

You can see the same qualities these kids recognize in her daughters. She is the consummate mother as evidenced by the poised, polite smiling children she and her husband are raising. I have four daughters, and trust me -- they don't turn out like the Obama children without devoted parents.

New to the Washington neighborhood, Michelle Obama has taken it upon herself to go around and introduce herself to the people in the various agencies of government. When's the last time a first lady did that? I don't ever remember it before. And during her visits she listens rather than lectures. And people respond to her.

She was raised on the south side of Chicago by blue-collar parents. She went to Princeton University, and Harvard Law School. But in many ways she's still a kid from the south side of Chicago, and that's what makes her special. She knows exactly who she is.

The Obamas bring a humanity and humility to their tasks which sets them far apart from the run-of-the mill phonies who populate Washington. It's exactly what the doctor ordered for this wounded nation.

Michelle Obama's unassuming, but dead-on, sense of style has the fashion press gushing all over itself.

Her arms are becoming the stuff of legend. Who appears sleeveless on the cover of Vogue, let alone in front of a joint session of Congress while her husband delivers one of the most important speeches of his life? And the reviews were rave.

Cindi Leive, the editor of Glamour magazine gushed, "Oh my god! The first lady has bare arms in Congress in February at night!" If she keeps it up, Seventh Avenue will soon stop making women's clothes with sleeves.

Ok, I admit it. When it comes to the first lady, I'm smitten.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jack Cafferty.

Editor's note: Jack Cafferty is the author of a new book, "Now or Never: Getting Down to the Business of Saving Our American Dream," to be published in March. He provides commentary on CNN's "The Situation Room" daily from 4 to 7 p.m. ET.

 

[THEMOJOMAN]

By Jack Cafferty
Special to CNN

NEW YORK (CNN) -- I think I am developing a crush on America's first lady. Michelle Obama is more compelling than her husband. He's good, but she's utterly fascinating.

Mrs. Obama has blown away the stale air in a White House musty from eight years of the Bushes. It's like the sun came out and a fresh spring breeze began wafting through the open windows.

It's the people's house, and Michelle Obama totally gets it. So much so that she has taken to inviting people in from the streets to see her home. Nice touch -- one completely lacking in her recent predecessors.

Watch her when she visits a local school and you see the warmth and affection she instantly triggers in people. Kids are pretty much totally honest with very good BS-detectors. If they sense you're a phony, forget it. But around the first lady, they want to hug her and laugh with her and tell her stories.

You can see the same qualities these kids recognize in her daughters. She is the consummate mother as evidenced by the poised, polite smiling children she and her husband are raising. I have four daughters, and trust me -- they don't turn out like the Obama children without devoted parents.

New to the Washington neighborhood, Michelle Obama has taken it upon herself to go around and introduce herself to the people in the various agencies of government. When's the last time a first lady did that? I don't ever remember it before. And during her visits she listens rather than lectures. And people respond to her.

She was raised on the south side of Chicago by blue-collar parents. She went to Princeton University, and Harvard Law School. But in many ways she's still a kid from the south side of Chicago, and that's what makes her special. She knows exactly who she is.

The Obamas bring a humanity and humility to their tasks which sets them far apart from the run-of-the mill phonies who populate Washington. It's exactly what the doctor ordered for this wounded nation.

Michelle Obama's unassuming, but dead-on, sense of style has the fashion press gushing all over itself.

Her arms are becoming the stuff of legend. Who appears sleeveless on the cover of Vogue, let alone in front of a joint session of Congress while her husband delivers one of the most important speeches of his life? And the reviews were rave.

Cindi Leive, the editor of Glamour magazine gushed, "Oh my god! The first lady has bare arms in Congress in February at night!" If she keeps it up, Seventh Avenue will soon stop making women's clothes with sleeves.

Ok, I admit it. When it comes to the first lady, I'm smitten.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jack Cafferty.

Editor's note: Jack Cafferty is the author of a new book, "Now or Never: Getting Down to the Business of Saving Our American Dream," to be published in March. He provides commentary on CNN's "The Situation Room" daily from 4 to 7 p.m. ET.

OK CALABRIO,,WHAT'S THE CATCH ???

 

[Calabrio]

OK CALABRIO,,WHAT'S THE CATCH ???

No catch. It's an article written by the veteran "newsman" Jack Cafferty.
A face I grew up watching on the 5 o'clock news on WNBC.

He is now on CNN.

During his journalistic career, he's won such prestigious awards such as the Edward R. Murrow Award, an Emmy award, and the New York Associated Press State Broadcasters Award.

I think it's an interesting article that clearly demonstrates how infatuated and groupie like the main stream press is with Obama. Everyone might want to keep this article in mind as they filter the news.

 

[luxuryrules]

They're making the observation that Mrs. Obama actually has style and class... [unlike the last two decades of White House residents].

While I agree that an article like this is hardly what I would call newsworthy I am not quite sure why you think it exemplifies the media's infatuation? Do you expect them to be criticizing the Obamas for having a sense of class? I think a little more detail is in order here, please.

 

[shagdrum]

They're making the observation that Mrs. Obama actually has style and class... [unlike the last two decades of White House residents].

While I agree that an article like this is hardly what I would call newsworthy I am not quite sure why you think it exemplifies the media's infatuation? Do you expect them to be criticizing the Obamas for having a sense of class? I think a little more detail is in order here, please.

Maybe they should start focusing on the substance of Obama and his agenda instead of wasting so much time on the superfluous.

 

[fossten]

They're making the observation that Mrs. Obama actually has style and class... [unlike the last two decades of White House residents].

While I agree that an article like this is hardly what I would call newsworthy I am not quite sure why you think it exemplifies the media's infatuation? Do you expect them to be criticizing the Obamas for having a sense of class? I think a little more detail is in order here, please.

Do you think Laura Bush had a sense of class? I didn't see one single article written by any newsies on that.

 

[Calabrio]

They're making the observation that Mrs. Obama actually has style and class... [unlike the last two decades of White House residents].

While I agree that an article like this is hardly what I would call newsworthy I am not quite sure why you think it exemplifies the media's infatuation? Do you expect them to be criticizing the Obamas for having a sense of class? I think a little more detail is in order here, please.

To first clarify, this article isn't supposed to be "newsworthy" and it wasn't presented as such. This is in contrast to the heavy hard edged journalistic articles that have recently seen print during this period of change and economic collapse:

How does Michelle keep her arms so toned? (CNN-health)
Is Obama going grey? (NY Times)

This little article is exactly what it presents itself to be. An unapologetic, emotional, reflection from a so-called, at times respected, journalist.

Suggestion for lux, rather than just posing things in a faux "devli's advocate" position, perhaps you could make your statements a little more candidly. Because it reads like you're making a point but hiding behind the presentation.

 

[luxuryrules]

Do you think Laura Bush had a sense of class? I didn't see one single article written by any newsies on that.

In my opinion, she didn't, and that's probably why you didn't see any articles. She also failed to present herself as anybody with which the American people could identify. Mrs. Obama, on the other hand, is, and for better or for worse that has earned her a spot in the media.

Cal,
Article not presented as such... we are in agreement... I know this because I said "While I agree that this article is hardly what I would call newsworthy" and you now have indicated that you don't believe it is, so why do you feel the need to clarify? I obviously got you the first time around.

The heavy hard edged journalism to which you refer has been permeating the media as of late. Of course, the media is oft criticized for being an outfit of "doom and gloom" (and so has the Republican party as of late), because they pursue stories full of nothing but bad news. Naturally, the American sheeple watch the bad news, complain that the media shows only bad news, and continues to tune in. The irony is not lost on me, as I'm sure it is not on any of you either.
Now, the news is focusing on something a tad more upbeat, however temporarily, and the people complain about that too?

Of course, the media could focus more on the substance of the Administration's agenda, but that would only draw criticism for cheering him on.

Now, as Cal has so kindly pointed out that I should be more candid about my points, I will present mine as such. You people are complaining no matter what the media shows. What would you rather have them reporting on?

And Cal, more specifically to you, you and others have called me out repeatedly for making statements about subjects for which you perceive me to be ill-informed. Now I make a deferential observation and ask for details about something you posted about which I may not be as well informed as you, and you want me to candidly make a point? I am not sure what you're after. I could paint a bull's eye on my back for you, if that would help!

In the interest of expressing my own opinion about the subject at hand (and candidly making my point), I would say that I prefer not seeing articles like this one in the mainstream media and I definitely think the whole sleeveless debate is one which is a waste of everyone's time - the country has more important things to worry about. And yes, I would rather see more on the substance of Obama's agenda as well, but together with that I'd also rather not have to listen to the Right complaining about the media cheering him on while they are reporting on his agendas.

 

[Calabrio]

In my opinion, she didn't, and that's probably why you didn't see any articles.

Why didn't see? Because she wasn't embraced by the New York elite as a celebrity? Because she didn't send representatives, at the tax payers expense, to hob-nob with fashion designers? What about Obama exudes "class" because I don't see it. She's been embraced by the fashionistas and Hollywood.

In fact, every time she's on TV, she walks with the grace of a truck driver wearing high heals.

She also failed to present herself as anybody with which the American people could identify. Mrs. Obama, on the other hand, is, and for better or for worse that has earned her a spot in the media.

And this is because the average American can identify with having the "top designers" in the country fighting to dress them?

Now, the news is focusing on something a tad more upbeat, however temporarily, and the people complain about that too?

This isn't balance- there's NO critical reporting of Obama in the MSM, nor was there any prior to the election. Honest, positive or light articles are fine, but when they deal with a President who is engaged in a very big, hastily imposed, ambitious agenda, I tend to think that coverage should be proportional.

Of course, the media could focus more on the substance of the Administration's agenda, but that would only draw criticism for cheering him on.

No- it would be appropriate to focus their attention on the substance of the agenda WITHOUT cheering it on.

You people are complaining no matter what the media shows. What would you rather have them reporting on?

I've yet to see the media report anything objectively regarding Obama, let's try that.

In the interest of expressing my own opinion about the subject at hand (and candidly making my point), I would say that I prefer not seeing articles like this one in the mainstream media and I definitely think the whole sleeveless debate is one which is a waste of everyone's time - the country has more important things to worry about. And yes, I would rather see more on the substance of Obama's agenda as well, but together with that I'd also rather not have to listen to the Right complaining about the media cheering him on while they are reporting on his agendas.

And you think that the media will respond to your desires if no one says anything about it?

The little article I posted supports the claim that the media IS cheering him on, they are supporting and working to advance his agenda. This is the gushing opinion of someone that was, some would argue still is, a respected journalist.

And it's even more incredible that journalists are so comfortable right now that they WILL publish an article like. That the culture in the news and media is so far to left, an article like that doesn't even seem shocking.

So, short of complaining, or more accurately, pointing it out and demonstrating the bias in the news medai, what would you suggest people do? Hope it goes away? Ignore the propaganda and hope that people discover the bias and go somewhere else? And if so, where? Go from Chris Mathews on MSNBC to CNN where guys like Cafferty are? Go from NBC to CBS or ABC? They don't read the New York Times, but local papers are primarily reprinted articles from the NY Times and the AP.

So, you tell me, what's the solution-
I chose to identify the problem and support my claim, so that some one like you would will better understand had to filter your media.

You seem to think that the stuff going on right now is short term stuff. That this agenda going through can simply be "fixed" if it doesn't work out in a year or so. It doesn't work like that. And the journalists in this country, a job so important that it's constitutionally protected, are doing the heavy lifting for Obama and covering for him. In the meantime, the NY Times and evening news resemble an episode of Entertainment Tonight, while they build up the celebrity and cult of personality around this first family.

Do you think that the article I posted is a window in the mind of at least one journalist who used to host the evening news and now is a dominant voice on CNN?

Do you think it's an isolated example, that's he's enthusiasm is uncommon amongst his peers?

 

[luxuryrules]

This isn't balance- there's NO critical reporting of Obama in the MSM, nor was there any prior to the election. Honest, positive or light articles are fine, but when they deal with a President who is engaged in a very big, hastily imposed, ambitious agenda, I tend to think that coverage should be proportional.

I agree. And that's why there is Rush, Hannity, OReilly, etc. For all the left-slant media out there, there is plenty of right-slant as well. Heck, Rush has, what, 20 million listeners?

And you think that the media will respond to your desires if no one says anything about it?

Of course not. But the media will respond to our desires if we contact them with it. To my knowledge, none of our members are editors for any MSM agencies (aside from Fox's work in the automotive journalism field), so I question the value of me pushing for change here in the forums. Rather, I can (and do) regularly contact my local paper about stuff like this. Exactly as you would probably predict, they do respond! It's amazing how that works.

The little article I posted supports the claim that the media IS cheering him on, they are supporting and working to advance his agenda.

I don't think I disputed that claim, or if it appears that I did, then I probably didn't make myself clear. My mistake.

So, short of complaining, or more accurately, pointing it out and demonstrating the bias in the news medai, what would you suggest people do? Hope it goes away? Ignore the propaganda and hope that people discover the bias and go somewhere else? And if so, where? Go from Chris Mathews on MSNBC to CNN where guys like Cafferty are? Go from NBC to CBS or ABC? They don't read the New York Times, but local papers are primarily reprinted articles from the NY Times and the AP.

So, you tell me, what's the solution-
I chose to identify the problem and support my claim, so that some one like you would will better understand had to filter your media.

Why are you asking me for the solution? You have so eloquently identified the problem and have the agenda to carry out here, so what is your solution? I know, it probably revolves around filtering the media, and I agree - except that, having seen that article on CNN's website myself, I could have made that judgement without your help. And, remarkably, other people will too. Again we return to... you're educating the American people, but in fact here you are educating people who already know what your message is, many who agree with it and some who do not.

However, since pressed, I will provide. My solution is to tell my newspaper editor not to publish BS stories like that. And I have already done that. Several times. And it has yielded results.

 

[Calabrio]

I agree. And that's why there is Rush, Hannity, OReilly, etc. For all the left-slant media out there, there is plenty of right-slant as well. Heck, Rush has, what, 20 million listeners?

No there isn't. You're talking about one souce- AM talk radio.
That's not "plenty of," that's a single voice,and one you have to seek out.

But more importantly, Rush, Hannity, CONSERVATIVE talk radio states clearly what it's perspective is. There is no mistaking it, there is no attempt to confuse or obfuscate that fact.

The mainstream media doesn't do that. They advance an agenda while insisting that they are fair and objective.

Of course not. But the media will respond to our desires if we contact them with it. To my knowledge, none of our members are editors for any MSM agencies (aside from Fox's work in the automotive journalism field), so I question the value of me pushing for change here in the forums. Rather, I can (and do) regularly contact my local paper about stuff like this. Exactly as you would probably predict, they do respond! It's amazing how that works.

So you're going back to your fall back position of, "what's the point of even discussing this stuff in public?" That kind of sentiment is inconsistent with the system of government we were handed down.

Before I respond to your statement about writing the local newspaper, you'll have to explain to me what your point is. Are you saying that it shouldn't be discussed in public and we should just all engage in isolated letter writing campaigns to local newspapers?

Do you think if I write a letter to the President of GE, they'll balance the coverage on MSNBC?

You'll have to elaborate on this point because I don't understand what you're saying.

I know, it probably revolves around filtering the media, and I agree - except that, having seen that article on CNN's website myself, I could have made that judgement without your help. And, remarkably, other people will too. Again we return to... you're educating the American people, but in fact here you are educating people who already know what your message is, many who agree with it and some who do not.

It's called discussion. When things go right, it's called debate.
We don't have a tavern to meet at, so we'll use the internet.

Presenting ideas and arguments, presenting and defending them, makes me better. It makes me more thoughtful. Having my ideas challenged in a thoughtful way makes me constantly reexamine my position and refine them. And presenting thoughtful challenges to the ideas that I don't agree with also forces me to examine my own stance on issues and refine and strengthen it.

My solution is to tell my newspaper editor not to publish BS stories like that. And I have already done that. Several times. And it has yielded results.

There was this one time it was raining and I yelled at the sky to stop raining... and it did. It totally was listening to me.

But, I'll refrain any judgment.
Perhaps you could use your influence to correct the media this afternoon? This shouldn't take too long, don't worry about the local papers, just call the TV networks: NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC.