Michelle Obama has been everywhere lately trying to build her brand and her very sad little podcast that she does with her brother. She showed up at the “Essence Festival” earlier this month and wanted to talk about a number of things, including how aggrieved she is (yes, you know that) and how amazing she is.
She is aggrieved and amazing. Those two things always go hand in hand with Michelle. She is incredible, but people don’t understand her. She is amazing, but people are racist. She is spectacular, but she has pain in the ass daughters. She is a great wife, but she has an asshole husband. I mean, we could be here all day.
Latest Complaint
Here is the latest installment of ‘America, you’ve disappointed me again’ courtesy of the former first lady:
OBAMA: I remember the first big speech I gave in Iowa. It was packed. I mean, I was pulling more crowds than most of Barack’s opponents… But what’s interesting, the more popular I became, the more of a threat I became. It was interesting. That’s when the articles started coming out. I had been campaigning for more than a year, and then… this is when I understood, like, this is politics. Oh, they’re coming after me because I’m useful, and they’re trying to beat my husband, so they’re trying to slow me down, right? And some of those first articles, they would always start, ‘She was wearing a purple sheath and she had on this pair of shoes.’ It wouldn’t matter what I said… The article would start with what I had on. And I realized, oh, this is how they do women in politics. This is how we treat women in public life. We diminish them to just what they look like, and not what I’m saying. Now, I’m giving impassionate speeches. I think people know now that I can give a speech… That wasn’t just, that didn’t just start happening, you know. I was, I was always really good on the campaign trail. I was always a powerful orator.
She is dripping in narcissism. Would you at least feign some humility? I am embarrassed for you. You are a fine orator, but you seem very scripted and artificial to me. You don’t speak from the heart. You didn’t move me at all at the Democratic National Convention last summer. You felt a little recycled and tired, if I’m being honest.
And let me tell you something, Michelle. The reason they wrote about your fashion is because they do it to every female public figure or politician, and it is not to diminish them. It is because it’s interesting. It is part of your look. It is part of your messaging. They would do it to men too, if men dressed differently from one another. But they don’t. They all look the same in navy suits and red ties. It is not interesting. If it were, we would cover it.
When Barack Obama wore that tan suit to an August 2014 White House press briefing, people wrote about it and talked about it. That was not our racism. No. If a politician dresses in a different way or in a way that catches our attention, we, as the media, will cover it.
You are not aggrieved, and it doesn’t make anybody a misogynist. It is just something about you that caught the eye of people who need to fill magazines or newspapers. Stop making everything an attack on you, you thin-skinned person. It is just ridiculous.
And by the way, if she is so upset about our focus on her fashion, why did she pose for the cover of Vogue three times? Why did she just publish a whole book about her fashion? Why didn’t she release a book on my policy prescriptions for 2026 America? Where is that? It is because she wants to be known for her fashion, but it apparently has to be on her terms.
You see, she wants us to write what a style goddess she is and for us to admire her bold colors. But God forbid we just do that because our eyes brought us there. That is racist, or misogynist, or trying to diminish her. She finds grievance in everything.
The Fact-Check
Not for nothing, but we decided to go back to see what people were saying about her fashion at that time. I was on the air. I remember she was beloved by the press. Maybe some mild criticism over on Fox News, but even the folks over on Fox – and I was there – were afraid to criticize her. She was a black woman. She was the spouse of this rising black star of the Democrat Party. There was hesitance to go after her.
She did not get it hard, as evidenced by these examples of what was written about her in 2007 on the campaign trail leading up to the 2008 election.
Vogue published a piece in August 2007 titled “Michelle Obama: The Natural.” Now, Vogue is a fashion magazine. You would expect them to be leading with whatever her fashion was since we were all so obsessed with it, according to her. But here is the lead paragraph:
“Iowa in spring. A full nine months before the primaries, but Michelle Obama is already at work on her husband’s behalf. The setting: the Chit-n-Chat coffee shop in Waukee. Population 9,213. Percentage of population that is white: 97.7. The subject: values. Hers and his. ‘I married my husband,’ she tells the crowd, composed equally of reporters and supporters, ‘because we shared the same Midwestern values: Keep your word, work hard, treat others with respect.'”
Absolutely nothing about clothes. That is Vogue talking about your values, an implication that the Midwest is too white, and how hard you are working. That doesn’t really feel like a racist, misogynistic piece to me.
Glamour, a women’s magazine that is obsessed with fashion, headlined its September 2007 article, “Your Next First Lady?” The lead:
“I have to admit I was a little intimidated by Michelle Obama when I first saw her. She was standing on the far side of a hotel conference room, and I got the impression of a regal woman who has a model’s height (she’s 5’11”) and a classic, understated chic. But then she came forward, extended an endless arm and broke out her famous million-watt smile. She gave me a big hug—as if we were old girlfriends—and I felt as though I’d known her forever.”
Where is the in-depth wardrobe commentary? I failed to see it. Are you upset with Glamour for calling you chic and talking about your million-watt smile, and how you look like a model, and how radiant you were? Is that part of the Glamour’s misogyny and racism?
My team did manage to track down an instance that one could take issue with. It was in April 2008 when Mrs. Obama sat down with none other than Stephen Colbert. Let’s see what he had to say:
COLBERT: Everybody wants to know, they speculate on what kind of first lady a candidate’s wife might be. And if you would forgive me in saying so, I think you’d be Jackie O, okay, because– And I hope I’m not out of place in saying this, you’re a very good-looking lady.
We found your misogynist. Stephen Colbert said you were good-looking and like Jackie O. And by the way, you were there in a short skirt, showing off your legs with Jackie Kennedy-esque hair. But that was because of our racism, she would later tell us. We were too racist for her to wear her hair in braids. That is why she had to look like Jackie O. apparently.
The only people we could find making comments about her looks are Stephen Colbert, who is a leftist. So, maybe that is what is in your head, Michelle?
Here is one more for you just to drive it home. In April 2009, The Guardian published an article headlined “America’s new vogue for black fashion is all due to Michelle Obama.” This is a leftist publication that wants to talk about fashion. An excerpt from the piece:
“There is no exaggerating the fascination that the American media have with her. Her clothing choices fuel endless segments on cable news and countless column inches in print and online. An entire website, Mrs O, has been set up to catalogue every fashion move that Michelle makes. When she chose a dress from Jason Wu to be her inaugural gown, it catapulted the designer to overnight success…
Everyone is obsessed. ‘She has got an innate sense of how she wants to look. It goes beyond clothes. Jackie O had it. Princess Di had it. Michelle Obama has it,” said [said Edward Enninful, a top stylist and fashion director who works closely with the magazine]. It probably helps that Laura Bush – who had Michelle’s job for the past eight years – definitely did not have it. Though Laura Bush remained popular, even as her husband plumbed the depths of national disdain, she was never adopted by the fashion industry. She wore variations on the same homespun fashions for most of the decade.”
Who has the right to be aggrieved in response to articles like that, Michelle? Is it you, or might it be Laura Bush? Did you get the worst end of that, or do you think it was the Republican first lady?
Permanent Victimhood
This woman has never seen a situation in which she is not the victim, even though all the situations in which she most feels victimized are, in fact, complimentary of her. It is like how someone who is colorblind sees red but it is actually green. They would swear it is red, but everybody who is not colorblind can see that it is green.
There is something wrong with her vision. She sees every compliment as an insult; every honor as an attack. There is something wrong with this woman, and we need only open our ears and hear her speak in order to know it.
You can check out Megyn’s full analysis by tuning in to episode 1,363 on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you like to listen. And don’t forget that you can catch The Megyn Kelly Show live on SiriusXM’s The Megyn Kelly Channel (channel 111) weekdays from 12pm to 2pm ET.