Look, I love Michelle but I don't want an unelected person meddling in governance. And yes, I will feel exactly the same way about the First Gentleman when (hopefully in 2016!) we get our first woman President. The Brits already got that one right- Dennis Thatcher kept a very low profile indeed.

(And oh God, would I EVER have felt that way about Bill if Hillary were our new President. Ambassador to Outer Mongolia for you, Bill.)

The point about the treacly begining to the bio is very well taken, though. Barack should have more sense than to allow that. But it continues a lot better than it starts- don't get sidetracked by that first sentence, there's plenty about her career and accomplishments. And the stuff about her being Fraser and Marian's daughter is intended to emphasize, not that she's not a formidable person in her own right, but that she will never forget where she came from.

The history of this country is full of unelected persons meddling in governance. Every president has had such advisors and there's no reason why his or her spouse should be excluded.

Additionally, many presidents in our history have been unmarried for all or part of their term in office. During that time an adult daughter or another female relative served as First Lady, the term given to that individual designated by the President to handle the ceremonial role of hostess that is an inevitable result of having our Chief Executive also serve as Chief of State. Denis Thatcher and Cheri Blair did not handle ceremonial functions, that's what the king/queen is for.

It's only in our recent history (since Wilson's first wife died while he was in office) that we've never experienced a First Lady who wasn't the wife of the President.

If Hillary Clinton had been elected, instead of any First Gentleman nonsense, she could have had her adult daughter serve as First Lady to perform those ceremonial functions.

Is it possible that Michelle reviewed and approved that bio? Likely. And if so, does it somehow undermine her accomplishments outside the context of her family? Of course not.

I, for one, am not bothered in the least by this bio. If that's how she sees herself, more power to her. I don't think you or I have any reason to criticize another human being for what they value, even if it happens to be family more than a paid vocation. Please get over yourself and let well-educated black people decide for themselves what is important, instead of telling them what they ought to think and feel.

The idea of a national hostess goes way back. When Thomas Jefferson's wife died, Dolley Madison (wife of James Madison) stepped in to serve as hostess for White House functions. She then became First Lady when her husband became the fourth president.

Interesting that you consider the labor done by a stay-at-home spouse (don't know why you limit it to women) is "unpaid." The stay-at-home spouse has a legal claim to their half of the income brought in by the spouse who works out of home.

As for Michelle, first, she seemed quite supportive of getting Obama elected and I'm sure she knew fully well the implications of it for her. I think she's a pretty tough and smart person and could have made other choices. (And it's pretty damn patronizing to her to say otherwise.)

Second, I honestly think the idea that the country demands all of this unpaid labor from its first ladies is ridiculous. Michelle can do as much or as little as she wants to do. (Does anybody really pay attention to what Laura Bush does?)

Honestly, you're really stretching for something to pick at here.

Sad to say, but this demeaning role won't be fully transformed until we have a female president in the White House

Actually, that will probably make it worse, because the First Man will be excused from the decorating duties and the social calendar, while First Ladies will still be expected to take them on.

What will really solve it is when we get a Cherie Blair type first lady who simply keeps her job and doesn't do any of the traditional duties.

I have to say that the image being projected of Michelle Obama makes me uncomfortable too.

Presumably, she has vetted this bio and feels comfortable with it. It's her prerogative.

I certainly don't believe that an unelected person who has no formal appointed position should "meddle" in the affairs of government, but portraying Michelle as a 21st century Mrs. Cleaver does not sit well with me either.

Society still has very little patience with women who put their personal accomplishments, dreams and hopes on the same level as their caring roles of wife and mother.

All you have to do is look at the fact that most women still take their husband's name at marriage. OK, it's only symbolic, but boy does it stick in my craw. Let's not forget how much flack Hillary Rodham got when Bill won the election. That was the end of Hillary R.

Only two years ago, the wife of Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, also suddenly shed her own name and was reborn as Laureen Harper when her husband was elected. I can't even remember her maiden name now.

I believe we still have a long, long way to go...

What utter and total baloney to say that it is demeaning to Michelle that she puts her children first. Hurray that we now have a First Lady who puts her children ahead of position and power. No wonder people vote Republican. They can't stand nonsense such as yours.

The point of my post (which was linked to) was that the job doesn't carry a paycheck at all. I was rather surprised to realize that this was the case.

Where was her family during the election?? Were they there at the victory speech? Or are we going to be in the dark about her as much as we are about her husband..we still don't know much about him, as all of his relatives were silenced during the election so as not to tell anything he did not want us to know...

Sad to say, but this demeaning role won't be fully transformed until we have a female president in the White House.

And here lies the REAL problem you have. Hillary lost....move on.

I hear you NJ. And so did McCain...get a life!

Many large corporations and universities now pay the spouse of the president for some of the time and effort of hostessing. The person behind the person is becoming more evident and in the women's movement recognizing the anchor, the support, the shoulders on which others rise is key. Women of course can be forefront not background but that is not to say that background is easy or lesser. A 60s First lady may have had tea parties but Michelle Obama has gone way past that. She is fully career brilliant in her own right and that's a given. She now dares say that besides that she values her mom role. That is third wave liberation.
http://workisee.tripod.com

Echidne: The point of my post (which was linked to) was that the job doesn't carry a paycheck at all. I was rather surprised to realize that this was the case.

You were actually surprised by this? Wow.

I'm kind of curious what you feel is undignified. Her choices to stay at home and focus on her kids?

Her husband is going to have his hands full.

I suppose she could continue full time with her demanding career and being the stereotypical politician's wife, but their kids would suffer for lack of having a good amount of parental influence in their lives.

Kids need and DESERVE their parents attention.

There's nothing undignified about being a parent, or with a woman making the choice to be a full-time mom.

Shaping the lives of those who will shape the world is one of the most amazing responsibilities in the world.

The only indignity about it comes from those who can't respect a woman's right to choose-IN ALL THINGS.

This includes the choice on whether or not to be focus on being a mom instead of career woman/mom/whatever.

People who feel otherwise do more to set back the role of the woman in the world than they realize.

During that time an adult daughter or another female relative served as First Lady, the term given to that individual designated by the President to handle the ceremonial role of hostess that is an inevitable result of having our Chief Executive also serve as Chief of State.

The person behind the person is becoming more evident and in the women's movement recognizing the anchor, the support, the shoulders on which others rise is key. Women of course can be forefront not background but that is not to say that background is easy or lesser.