Jay Smooth, I love you...

This video brings up a really good point: these public officials are our "employees." However, to what degree is the public allotted the service/devotion/lives of these officials? Now that we understand that MO will have a seemingly more vocal role as First Lady (I'm expecting more of a Hilary than a Laura) I'm really trying to determine what are our expectations of these public political figures, and how much agency do we have in their hands?

Comment below, please.

Michelle on The View

She co-hosted! I didn't know that. I wasn't following much off the campaign at that point. And let me be real, I don't watch The View. I cannot relate to any of those biddies.

UPDATE
A similar dress is now up for auction, as post-View appearance, the retail store just couldn't keep 'em on the racks. Rendering Michelle O quite the accessible style icon.

Good Morning, America! Racism is alive and well!

"problems which face these black officials who must persuade the white community that they are above issues of race and that they are representing all people and not just black people," as opposed to creating "two separate social structures." Michelle Robinson, Princeton, 1985

The above is exactly what happened in the 2008 U.S. Elections.

While this may be very old news, I haven't yet read Michelle's entire senior thesis from her days at Princeton. Maybe this winter break, I'll plop down and dig in, but until then, you can check out a slightly subjective cover piece here. When the news broke out, the largest national online forum for WhiXte NatXionXalisXts attempted to deconstruct MO's thesis using a very dated and backward understanding of race, American hierarchy, white privilege, racialized notions of poverty, and affirmative action. Linked to the politico article above, and coupled with the photo below, the white nationalists make their case. It is captioned "The Black 'Madonna'."



Here are some select things said about MO in the forum:

"She goes to Princeton and still complains. It's enough to make an American sick. What is she after exactly, the total destruction of the WASP contribution to Western Civ and United States history? They barely let Poles and Italians into Princeton, they most certainly aren't given preferences like Michelle Obama received, but would they complain about WASP culture? No, they'd learn from it and respect it. She sucks. Pure and simple. What an ingrate."

"PS: We paid for her scholarship."

"Nappy Headed Ho."

I refuse to link the forum here, it makes me sick that I even have that website as part of my browser history. Needless to say, I feel that the comments are ridiculous, ignorant, and terribly racist. Nationalism, I don't mind, but it being a gateway for ignorance and hate shows a very uninformed and subjective opinion. This idea of inheriting the American Dream, who it is allowed to, and it apparently having a preferential structure has really been bugging me. The quotables above clearly show that the forum members feel that they are more entitled to the elements of America that provide social mobility, before POCs and recent immigrants on the sole basis of race.

I find the contradiction disheartening: that people keep these racist sentiments alive, don't see the imposed detriment on POCs/immigrants, and then claim that these marginalized populations have it extremely easy now that "racism is over" with a Black/African-American first family. The best example, the NYT on 11/5/2008:

"Obama Elected President as Racial Barrier Falls"


Awful..the discrepancy between the NYT headline, and the investment in tacit racism is astounding. Getting the Obamas into the White House doesn't mean change, but is the opportunity to make that change happen.

HOW DO YOU FEEL?
Will MO's achievements always be questioned because she is a Black/African-American woman? How do you feel about the privilege MO acquired as an Ivy graduate? Do you think affirmative action is still necessary in the United States today? Should hate speech (racist and sexist ideas) be protected under the First Amendment?
Please leave comments below! (no account required!)

Michelle on Leno

Gosh, MO is so articulate and accessible. The fact that the economic crisis is being discussed on Leno, without "Stupid Human Tricks" or a lampooned Jaywalking segment is fantastic. In part 2 of the segment, Leno actually asks about her wardrobe, and its cost. But what does "Whatever we buy for us, we buy" mean?

Who are you wearing? The Ins and Outs of First Lady Fashion

I would like to preface this post by saying that I have no recollection of whatever Tipper Gore wore at any point of the 2000 election.

Everyone's excitedly blogging about the potential of having a new "First Lady of Fashion" in the White House come inauguration day. But, do I really care that Michelle wore Narciso Rodriguez while Barack delivered his acceptance speech? (Pretty interesting content in that previous link, as it seems contrary to popular consensus around MO's red and black number...) Do MO's style choices really require the exhausting energy of a dedicated Mademoiselle column this spring? Erm, more importantly a mention of the upcoming column for fashionistas everywhere to pine for until the warm months? Oh, fashion blogs! Y'all be working in mysterious ways!

As of this writing, there have been close to 2,500 responses to the accompanying Newsday article about Michelle Obama's Election night dress. However, it's not as if following MO's wardrobe choice is a new thing, as evidence by the millions of returns you get upon searching for michelle+obama+style. Over the course of the 2008 U.S. Election, she was not the only person to be scrutinized by blog fashionistas (I also found a pretty short overview of a fashion roundup of the three most visible ladies involved in this year's Presidential Election.) I suggest you check out the link. It's a pretty interesting retrospect, and Hilary Clinton was overlooked. I really wonder why. And is there a link between focusing on wardrobe versus taking these women seriously? Or is there no link at all?

While I wasn't a personal fan of Princess Di's style, I know that at the time of her death, she was the most photographed fashion icon in history, having graced the pages of tabloids and high fashion publications around the world. However, recognizing her in print doesn't really tell me what she's about. All I remember is that Prince William was my boyfriend in the seventh grade, and that she did stuff addressing leftover war mines in...Africa? I think.

A more current comparison to the MO fashion frenzy would be French First Lady and established pop star, Carla Bruni, whose outfits were completely dissected in the last year after marrying President Sarkozy. Case in point, articles like this one from the Telegraph, really make me wonder if there will come a point that we are more interested in the stylized outer appearance of potentially influencial figures in government, rather than the manner they use their potical stances to further causes meaningful to them. I mean, imagine if that article covered the content of that lunch's conversation, rather than the detailed 5 minute play-by-play thread by thread? I mean, it's a meeting between two nations' elected officials. I don't a bout you, but I don't have access to the British Prime Minister and his family like that. Meh. Anyway, upon speaking to a friend, she said that this sudden onslaught of press attention towards Bruni's outfits baffled the French. While she remains a popular figure with the French public, it's been said that they've rejected this idea of Bruni as a combined First Lady and fashion icon.

I almost feel like I should be making a weird comparison to Miss America, where a woman is asked to take a platform as she vies for the crown. (What's MO's platform, you ask? Military families, women balancing careers and family life, and ensuring that he daughters adjust to White House life. But maybe that last one is more an objective, rather than a platform.)



(SOURCE)

HOW DO YOU FEEL?
Is physical presentation important to you, as in would you feel differently about Michelle Obama if she was looking all busted? How does appearance/style of political figures affect your feelings toward them? Does focusing on fashion detract from the larger responsibilities of a First Lady?
Please leave comments below! (no account required!)

The Racialized Sexualization of Michelle Obama in the Media

(photo source) and the below is in response to this Salon post
Beware of the super academic lingo...but still quite accurate!

The deployment of both "lady" and "back" can be viewed as problematic. First, discourses about mythologized "ladies" didn't initially include black women. A "lady" was a woman or wife who innately possessed such virtues as delicacy, piety, beauty, politeness and gentleness. Black women, who were not seen as "ladies," "women" or wives, were historically not privy to such designation. Historically speaking, this was a term reserved for white women. And let me just say upfront, this was not necessarily a compliment. As I understand it, "lady" was just as imprisoning as the more derogatory terms used for black female slaves -- just in a different way.

Secondly, there is a long history of discourses regarding harmfully reductive views of black women's "backs." Black women have been pathologized and objectified because of their "backs," which, by the way, come in all shapes and sizes just like those of other men and women. Sir Mix-a-Lot's hit song, "Baby Got Back," was only the tip of the iceberg. The cultural chorus regarding black women's bodies, particularly their fragmented backside, had been singing for centuries. Sir Mix-a-Lot simply joined in. Or did he? (source)

Reminds me of "Why Black Sexual Politics?" by Patricia Hill Collins (who, I think is my fave feminist writer right now!) Here's the link sample in case you don't have access to a reader...

In short, if we are not more careful in our utilization of language and not more forthright in our criticisms of the language of others, we run the risk of reinforcing historical ideals of black female sexual savagery at the highest level. This is very dangerous. So, if Michelle Obama's body makes us proud, why not shape our enthusiasm with a critique of the status quo, which continues to treat her as an object by fragmenting her to her parts? Obama is a subject -- more than a body, and, more than a butt. Inscribing her with words without carefully evaluating their operation first is beyond distressing. It is death dealing. Not just to her, but to all women. (source)

Agreed! Good night, moon...

MO in MORE Magazine

Snippets of the article here and below. It's only available in its entirety in print. (FYI: this issue has been MORE's best seller in its history so far.)

Michelle Obama: Camelot 2.0?
With her sheath dresses and his Berlin moment, the Obamas seem to be playing the Kennedy card. Is Michelle tempering her South Side Chicago strength with Jackie's softer sell to help Barack capture the White House? And what might that strategy cost her?
By Geraldine Brooks

Here, some choice quotes from Obama:

Asked if she believed in the James Baldwin quote, "Male in female, female in male, white in black and black in white":

"I didn't believe that as a child, no. Or as a teenager." She began to believe what Baldwin wrote only much later, she says, when her working life brought her in close to a wide range of people. "When you live in the world a bit more and you have more exposure to people and their values and their true souls, you make friends, you make enemies, you roll up your sleeves and work with people. You find out that our spirits are more connected. ... People who think they wouldn't like someone of a different race always find someone they like and come to trust. And then they treat that person as the exception, when in fact [she] is probably more the rule."

On trust:

"Trust has no color. I've come to realize that, and I think that we're beginning to realize that as a nation."

On "work-family balance":

"What I found myself -- and most of my friends -- doing is we just cope. We're taught that as women: Just handle it. Just adjust. We accommodate to things that aren't healthy instead of turning around and going, 'This has got to change.'"

On feeling guilty as a working mom:

"It's like, oh, so you take half a salary and you do the same amount of work. They don't take anything off your plate ... I was always guilty, 100 percent of the time. 'Am I doing my job to the fullest? Am I being the kind of mother I want to be to the fullest?'"

On the unusual way she secured her job at University of Chicago Medical Center while on maternity leave with her second child:

"I'll do this as a courtesy, demand a whole bunch of stuff he's not going to give me, [the president] will say no, and we'll be done." To make the point, she went to the interview with 2-month-old Sasha in her arms. "I had on a breastfeeding top. I strolled in: 'Hi! This is me! New baby! ... And I said, I can't be in your office all afternoon in meetings. Also, I can't be your diversity -- a nice person who could 'represent.'" To her astonishment, he said yes to everything.

On how being over 40 helps her weather the criticism:

"This might be a confusing journey if I were 30 or 20. But at 44, fortunately, I'm more comfortable with who I am and I'm more clear about who I am. Had I done this 10 years ago, I don't think I could have done it with as much enjoyment. It would have been more painful. Now all the hard stuff really just rolls off your back."

On what politics has taught her:

"You don't pay attention to the highs and lows. And you embrace the positive. If you talked to my mom, we were raised just like that."

Read the full article in the October 2008 issue of MORE magazine.

The Obamas on 60 minutes: a peek into their marriage.

notes:Steve asks about MO's role as an experienced, high powered executive in the White House. Focuses on community contributions, and ensuring that the family is adjusting in the first year. This puppy is getting a lot of play.


Watch CBS Videos Online

Watch CBS Videos Online

MO at the DNC

After watching that, how could you blame the Twitterers from a-fluttering? I think MO has a fantastic knack of relating to the average American, despite being terribly intelligent (Yes, you are watching a double Ivy alumna! Princeton and Harvard.)

There are so many gems in this speech, but this really testifies to the heart of the Obama campaign:

"That you treat people with dignity and respect, even if you don't know them, even if you don't agree with them."

"Barack stood up that day, and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about "The world as it is" and "The world as it should be." And he said that all too often, we accept the distance between the two, and settle for the world as it is – even when it doesn't reflect our values and aspirations. But he reminded us that we know what our world should look like. We know what fairness and justice and opportunity look like. And he urged us to believe in ourselves – to find the strength within ourselves to strive for the world as it should be. And isn't that the great American story?"

Amazing, amazing!

I remember watching the Obama reaction to her speech, and was just floored by the human element incorporated (whether intentional or not) in the campaign. Especially due to the historically racist images produced depicting love between people of color, I was really touched by the footage below. More from CSPAN here.



HOW DO YOU FEEL?
Do you think that a potential first lady's speech/political views has influence over a presidential election? Should the inclusion of her opinions and campaigns be an expected role in the presidency? Also, in what ways do you think affection between candidates and their partners is acceptable to show in the media, if at all?
Please leave comments below! (no account required!)

MO and the mudslinging

Leading to the election, a lot of groups took advantage of Youtube and other online means to get their propaganda on. While it was a fantastic show of everyday folks participating in civic engagement, many used it to further smear campaigns. During the election, I was relieved that the Obama campaign didn't play dirty (or at least made it seem like it wasn't an objective...I'm not really sure how it played out in every element of the camp.) and relied on the dignity of the4 Obamas, and the integrity of the American people. I think it even affected the way the McCain camp responded to Obama during the election; the best example I can think of is McCain's concession speech --- his supporters blindly "boo"ed at hearing Obama's name, and McCain responded by telling them to calm down. That was good of him. (Personally, I thought that McCain's audience was a little tacky for acting that way.)

In any case, here's the Tennessee GOP on Michelle Obama:

(via)

Obamas respond to the above video on GMA.

The Elegant Capture

MO in Vogue Magazine

Michelle on Ellen

A much more entertaining interview than Leno (a brief one, which will be posted later this week.) Please watch!



Oh, so this is where the whole "dog" promise comes in! It was alluded to Barack's acceptance speech from Bryant Park, and a slew of follow up articles about the puppy.

Of course, it begins with the traditional Ellen dance number. As fun as this is to watch, it really makes me think about the role of politicians as entertainers. I mena, let's be honest, no one goes on Ellen's show to debate. An appearance there is dancing during your intro, and getting some jabs in --- it takes into account the difference between shows meant to entertain and shows with a greater responsibility to the public (like Jon Stewart's point with Crossfire.) However, please don't consider the above a passive-aggressive punch at Ellen's show! I think Ellen is great to watch when I just want to get some funnies in. I would not watch Ellen to get a thorough vetting of my candidate.

With McCain and Palin all up on SNL that one week, I wonder how fair it is to expect our political leaders to entertain the public, as well as serve them. Of course, I understand that it's advantageous and strategic to make these appearances on entertainment venues...I'm sure it garners the young and "people who like to laugh" votes. I really question whether it is realistic to assume that our political leaders have the added responsibility of entertaining us while they're on the campaign trail? Should that be the basis of a candidate's likability/"relatable-ness" factor?

Upon further investigation, I found some FCC rules about candidates and airtime. It says:

Section 315 [47 U.S.C. §315] Facilities for candidates for public office.

If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provision of this section. No obligation is hereby imposed under this subsection upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate.

So, the above just basically says, equal air time is necessary for all candidates over the course of that channel's programming. But, I'm not sure if potential first ladies count in that equation--- do they mean the candidate her/himself, or is it anyone affiliated with her/him? If not, then I guess it was to the Obama campaign's advantage that Michelle is articulate, and has opinions along with a basic understanding of how the country works with a JD in her pocket. (Frankly, I can't remember Cindy McCain contributing much gainful insight throughout the GOP's campaign, but I also didn't follow much of McCain.) Another thing that the FCC regulation above made me think about was the under-representation of other candidates in this process: the Mike Gravel "not enough money" scandal during the Democratic debates, as well as not granting Nader, McKinney, and other presidential write-ins network presence during the 2008 Elections.

Anyway, I get it. As a candidate, more television time equals more press time. I mean, it only helped Obama to privately purchase a 30 minute block to air his special. But, I think it seems a bit unrealistic and selfish to want our politicians to dazzle us with charm, versus policy. We're in an economic crisis, y'all! I'd rather my president be working on the budget, creating jobs for the unemployed, and universalizing health care as opposed to cranking the funnies on SNL. But that's just me.

HOW DO YOU FEEL?
Do you think that a potential candidate's chances increase or decrease during these kinds of entertaining media appearances? Should they continue to use this method as a tactical method in a political campaign to garner votes?
Please leave comments below! (no account required!)

MO on the Daily Show

<a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=187586" target="_blank">The Daily Show: Michelle Obama Pt. 1</a>

The Daily Show: Michelle Obama Pt. 1

<a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=187587" target="_blank">The Daily Show: Michelle Obama Pt. 2</a>

The Daily Show: Michelle Obama Pt. 2

I am under the impression that this footage is hard to come by because it's been stripped from the HULU website, however, I know that the Daily Show's full episodes are archived on Comedy Central's website.

In the first part of the interview, I like how MO remains accessible to a broad audience. She also uses familiar community organizer lingo to frame the concrete realities experienced by Americans "on the ground." I also like how determined she is in staying focused, drowning out the negative talkies around her; even admits that there is an element of politics that is theater. I like that she really involves herself in the objective process of critiquing her husband.

Stewart talks about the position of the First lady becomes an elected position, as well. MO says that it's fair, because the American people need to be able to trust in her, too. As this interview progresses, I'm really impressed with how objective MO is, understanding that the McCain campaign are "opponents, but not enemies" as Stewart pointed out --- an important lesson!

The Significance of the Kennedys' Camelot

There have been several comparisons between Jackie Kennedy and Michelle Obama in the recent months. Being that I'm a millenial, I am not too familiar with the Kennedy administration, other than the reinforced images around JFK's assassination. I kept reading about "Camelot" and decided to Google for some answers. I've gathered what I've found below, so I hope you keep it all in mind as I will be retuning to this idea in the future.

Becoming a Kennedy: A photo of Jackie O on her wedding day.

Camelot is:

"The term "Camelot" was applied to the presidency of John F. Kennedy (1917–1963) by his wife, Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy (1929–1994). Camelot refers to the seat of the court of the legendary King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table; it has come to mean a place or time of idyllic happiness. (Arthur was a British king; the Round Table was the name for his knights.) Shortly after John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, the former first lady was talking with a journalist. She described the years of her husband's presidency (1960–63) as an American Camelot, a period of hope and optimism in U. S. history, and asked that his memory be preserved. She had shown fortitude (ability to deal with adversity or pain) and grace as she guided her family and the country through the president's funeral and was one of America's most beloved first ladies."

Due to the charismatic and stylish couple inhabiting 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Kennedy White House became known as Camelot. Alan Jay Lerner, Kennedy’s Harvard classmate, had penned the hit song "Camelot" for the Broadway musical, a personal favorite of President Kennedy. The tune quickly became the unofficial theme of the Kennedy administration. (Source)

Cached on wikipedia:

Camelot is a term used to describe the administration of United States President John F. Kennedy, based on the musical Camelot. The Burton/Andrews production opened in December 1960, a few weeks after Kennedy's election, and was a favorite of both the President and his wife, Jackie. Jackie gave an interview to Life journalist Theodore White shortly after the President's November 22, 1963, assassination in which she used some favorite lines from the musical, and that theme was often repeated in the press. "The lines he loved to hear were: Don't let it be forgot, that once there was a spot, for one brief shining moment that was known as Camelot." And to Jackie, it would never be that way again.

Small Movements for Broad Strokes: is society influenced by your support purchasing?

I was searching my email earlier for anything Michelle-related, and I came across a small, social network initiated mobilization that I would have otherwise missed! Here is an email from a group of friends back in June 2008:

Let's make history and let this be the BEST seller for Newsweek magazine. Pass it on.

This week make sure you purchase a copy of Newsweek Magazine with Mrs. Michelle Obama on the cover. I am VERY proud to see this beautiful, intelligent, African American woman on the cover of this internationally renowned magazine. GO TODAY, TOMORROW, or by THURSDAY and PURCHASE a copy of this publication. Make your voice and dollar count by making the newsstand sales of this issue surpass, not only their projected sales but make history. We have to continue to tell the media that WE DO PURCHASE and READ magazines featuring People of Color on their covers and this is a POSITIVE thing to do, not only for the 'political correctness' of it, but because we are AMERICANS of influence, power, and our presence 'Moves the proverbial needle' and sells product ( and not just CD's, Movies, Liquor, and Clothes).

Every day we are bombarded with images of African American women NAKED and DEGRADED. As Americans, we have sent images around the world that shows Black Women as objects and mindless subjects for men's pleasure. So it's a GREAT balance of TRUTH to have Ms. Obama standing Strong, powerful, and WITH A SMILE on the COVER of NEWSWEEK. Support this issue with your DOLLARS and let this media company know...GOOD JOB!!!!!

I'm not really sure what kind of organizing this is, but I think it can be considered the opposite of a boycott? For my purposes, I'll call it the support purchase. I understand that this is a traditionally important maneuver in the time when corporations controlled ideas of what America looks like. As a woman of color, I can understand the importance of this tactic, especially for marginalized communities to represent their interests. I've done it, too:

"Let's go to the new Filipino restaurant, because they're owned and run by Filipinos just like me!"

"Let's go see this band play, since they all do excellent community work!"

"Let's watch this film so that they know indie films matter!"
So, again, I am quite familiar with the sentiment.

While I think that building community is important, and how the above, as a mass viral email may have garnered support and pulled the recipients closer to one another for the sake of a united cause, I wonder what impact was actually made by the support purchase itself. There are a few objectives outlined in the email above:

To prove that Black/African-Americans "DO PURCHASE and READ magazines featuring People of Color"

Commend Newsweek for putting POCs "on their covers...is a POSITIVE thing to do" and to "let this media company know...GOOD JOB!!!!!"

To show that Black/African-Americans are "AMERICANS of influence, power, and our presence 'Moves the proverbial needle' and sells product" and that this community has economic influence beyond stereotypical associations with "CD's, Movies, Liquor, and Clothes"

To show that there is more dimension to Black/African-American women, despite being frequently depicted as "NAKED and DEGRADED" and "objects and mindless subjects for men's pleasure"

To show my best friend, "Ms. Obama standing Strong, powerful"

To make this particular issue a best seller.

Again, I am not questioning the good and supportive intentions of this email, but I find myself struggling with the lengths we need to undergo, as marginalized people of color, to qualify this idea that we simply belong in the United States. I'm just a little unsure of who support purchasing ultimately benefits: the community members who identify with MO, Michelle Obama herself, or the Newsweek media owners?

HOW DO YOU FEEL?
Do you think that support purchases really make a difference? If so, for whom? In this case, who do you think benefits from this? Again, in this case, should this issue have become a best seller, would that have been an accurate and genuine reflection of the "pulse" of American society?
Please leave comments below! (no account required!)

FOX NEWS = consistently awful

Why y'all gotta do that? Why this matters: there is a racially derogatory link between Black/African-Americans, poverty, and the idea of the lazy welfare queen. We can only suppose the intention behind the caption points to the following logic: Michelle Obama = Black. Michelle Obama = wife. Black people = don't have wives. Black people's wives = "baby mommas" like on Maury Povich. Therefore, it being racist boils down to how it's acceptable to dehumanize Blacks/African-Americans, and not consider them, as an entire population, capable of "achieving" a normative standard we use to distinguish "ourselves" from "them." While this may be cutesy and funny to some, humor often veils the subtleties of racism, and other disturbing things we've internalized as truth.

Also, having Malkin on the left doesn't make my weekend, either. But it does help that the woman is looking goofy, though. I really despise that woman, especially since she is a person of color defending racial profiling.

Pardon?

Anyway, I'll have a more extensive post about racism and sexism later on. Now, I leave you with a clip from the defunct MTV2 children's show parody, Wonder Showzen, for some truth:

Introducing my new best friend, MICHELLE OBAMA!

A BIFFLE IS:
one's BFFL, or Best Friend For Life. (via)
This is the role I want Michelle Obama to play in my life.

I'm really taken by the way the media has depicted MO as one smart and tough cookie (for lack of a better description.) Therefore, the purpose of this site is to challenge mainstream notions imposed on the First Family elect, and the impact of having the first woman of color as First Lady in the White House. It's such an exciting time for Americans post this 2008 election. Please watch the mini-bio I posted on MO below, produced and endorsed on the Obama-Biden Youtube page, and narrated by Michelle's mother. Incredibly touching!


You must admit, that there is a certain something about the First Family elect. While in no way do I want to appropriate what this may mean for Black/African-American women everywhere, I will say that I am particularly attached to Michelle Obama/Mrs. O (MO) by the sole factor that I am also woman of color living in the United States. The overall goodness that is emitted by the MO and her family is just ridiculous! I don't know if all the difference in the world was made by their stylists or their campaign marketing strategy, but I am sold on CHANGECHANGECHANGE. However, I am more than prepared to bite my tongue, should my hopes be dashed after January 20, 2009, and the problematic waterfall comes a tumbling.

It's really pushed me to think about how Americans perceive race, privilege, upward mobility, citizenship, and who is entitled to the "American Dream" in the United States. I'm really interested in seeing the quantitative and qualitative implications of this victory, symbolic or otherwise, in terms of bringing about a mobilizing, politically charged revival in the Black community, and other communities (POCs and women) for that matter.

But let's take some baby steps, and let's just see how this goes! :)

HOW DO YOU FEEL?
Do you have any reservations about the results of this historical election? How do you hope the first family of color will affect your life as a person living in the United States?
Please leave comments below! (no account required!)