Salon’s continued descent: The First Lady’s rear end

posted at 9:15 am on November 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

How does one even begin to explain the continued existence of Salon?  They spent the election season redefining puerile, with a nadir in September’s exploration of Sarah Palin’s “doability” by Gary Kamiya, accompanied by a photoshop of Palin as a dominatrix servicing a moose.  Now Salon celebrates Barack Obama’s election by front-paging a paean to Michelle Obama’s butt.  No, I am not kidding:

But what really thrills me, what really feels liberating in a very personal way, is the official new prominence of Michelle Obama. Barack’s better half not only has stature but is statuesque. She has corruscating intelligence, beauty, style and — drumroll, please — a butt. (Yes, you read that right: I’m going to talk about the first lady’s butt.)

What a bonus! From the ocean of nastiness and confusion that defined this campaign from the beginning, Michelle rose up like Venus on the waves, keeping her coif above water and cruising the coattails of history to present us with a brand-new beauty norm before we knew it was even happening.

Actually, it took me and a lot of other similarly configured black women by surprise. So anxious and indignant were we about Michelle getting attacked for saying anything about America that conservatives could turn into mud, we hardly looked south of her neck. I noted her business suits and the fact she hardly ever wore pants (unlike Hillary). As I gradually relaxed, as Michelle strode onto more stages and people started focusing on her clothes and presence instead of her patriotism, it dawned on me — good God, she has a butt! “Obama’s baby (mama) got back,” wrote one feminist blogger. “OMG, her butt is humongous!” went a typical comment on one African-American online forum, and while it isn’t humongous, per se, it is a solid, round, black, class-A boo-tay. Try as Michelle might to cover it with those Mamie Eisenhower skirts and sheath dresses meant to reassure mainstream voters, the butt would not be denied.

The Butt That Would Not Be Denied.  Sounds like a bad movie from Roger Corman.

Perhaps this might suffice as passable Twitterpation, but Salon takes itself seriously.  In its daily promotional e-mail, this piece gets top billing.  Apparently, the butt discussion is the most serious thing happening at Salon today, which says plenty about Salon and its odd fixation on the pelvic junction.

Memo to the 13-year-olds running Salon: No one is threatened by Mrs. Obama’s rear end.  I doubt that most people would have bothered to look at it, except for the cases of arrested development on Salon’s staff who can’t keep themselves from fetishing political candidates as sex objects.  I seriously doubt that the Obamas put a single thought into how to frame her gluteus, apart from the normal vanity everyone has about their body shape.

Does anyone read Salon any more?  If not, it’s not difficult to see why.

Update: Yes, I’m deleting comments referencing animals in comparison to Michelle Obama, and if they persist, I’ll start banning those commenters indulging in them.  Apparently, some people have no sense of irony when commenting on a post criticizing Salon for fetishizing appearance.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

This thread really proves my point, at least for me it does.

I love strong women! And I think too many women are squelched early in their lives or at any point because of tangential, irrelevant issues. How many women just don’t say anything, in the workplace, church or school because of this treacherous dynamic?

What if I ignored every point made by a women here at HA to discuss their looks’ or sexual viability?

Is this thing on?

The Race Card on November 18, 2008 at 11:53 AM

Sorry for the double-post. Lag caught me.

Y-not on November 18, 2008 at 11:53 AM

…who can’t keep themselves from fetishing political candidates as sex objects.

Ed, I’ve fetished me some Sarracuda a plenty this election cycle.

You gots a problem wit dat?

/sarc

Et tu Brute on November 18, 2008 at 11:55 AM

And I think too many women are squelched early in their lives or at any point because of tangential, irrelevant issues.

Yes, women’s looks are still too important in society, but the same can be said of men. Ever hear a man being described as having a Napoleon complex?

Y-not on November 18, 2008 at 11:57 AM

Michelle Obama is BUTT UGLY. She looks like Patrick Ewing’s head on a Giraffopotomus’ body.

marklmail on November 18, 2008 at 11:57 AM

Salon exists to make Slate look good.

exception on November 18, 2008 at 11:58 AM

The only people required to do so are fake ones compelled by their own weakness to gain acceptance. The opposite of this, however, does not entail assaulting her for being sizable, tall, having a furrowed brow or dark skin.

Capisce? Capezio? Copernicus?

The Race Card on November 18, 2008 at 11:37 AM

Yeah I get it. Not talking so much about me and my tiny personal sphere of influence – certainly I’m not afraid to say that physical beauty is not Michelle Obama’s strongest suit, I’m referring more to the cultural meme that’ll be developed around her re the “new definition” of beauty regardless of what I may think.

In a way it does an enormous disservice to Michelle. Attractiveness is one of those hard-wired things that isn’t easily dictated by the media, and will inevitably result in backlash.

My issue with her is not that she’s “sizable” – could happen to anyone – but that she chooses to dress very inappropriately. She could choose otherwise. Sheath dresses that look great on someone like Jackie or Audrey Hepburn aren’t for everyone. Like the spandex leggings phase, I’m not looking forward to seeing this fashion get widely adopted (pun, uhh, intended).

Gilda on November 18, 2008 at 11:58 AM

Are you upset by the flattering (if mostly untrue) description of Michelle by Salon or by the catty (if mostly true) comments by Hot Air posters?

Both.

For instance, the myriad VPILF comments directed at Governor Palin are among the worst. I’m sure they are meant as complimentary. Makes no difference to me, I think they are equally misplaced.

Incidentally, I do really appreciate beauty and the consideration thereof in the right context. For instance all those conservative gals getting glammed up for the CLBPI 2009 calendar.

Pretty in Mink. Go get one.

The Race Card on November 18, 2008 at 11:59 AM

The Democrats and their media machine soooooo want another Kennedy myth.

“We have made the Reich One by propaganda.”

- Josef Goebbels U.S. media

Let’s roll.

ex-Democrat on November 18, 2008 at 11:59 AM

The Race Card on November 18, 2008 at 11:09 AM

Please link to all your anti-objectification posts referencing Palin smears.

Thanks in advance.

Not.

ex-Democrat on November 18, 2008 at 12:02 PM

Gilda on November 18, 2008 at 11:58 AM

Word up.

The Race Card on November 18, 2008 at 12:03 PM

The Race Card on November 18, 2008 at 12:03 PM

Please, please, please, never quote Cameo again.

The Race Card on November 18, 2008 at 12:04 PM

Scientists believe that shoulder chips are stored in the gluteus maximus.

Just sayin’.

ex-Democrat on November 18, 2008 at 12:09 PM

The Race Card
baldilocks
other participants belonging to racial minorities

My collie says:

Please accept my apologies on behalf of the crass, juvenile, vulgar, and classless participants here at HotAir. They are, after all, foolish humans.

Keep in mind that these types mocked and spat upon Jesus. Do not succumb. Evil’s entire strategy is to make good people angry, bitter, anxious, resentful, hateful, and fearful. That’s how they win. They turn us into them. Don’t fall for it. The most precious possession that any of us has is an inner soul that is pure, clean and free from all that refuse/garbage. This is why Jesus taught us to return good for evil — to protect us, so that we are free to become something better than what we are, and what they are.

CyberCipher on November 18, 2008 at 12:10 PM

It’s interesting, however, that the some of the comments regarding the former often take on descriptions which conform to stereotypes about the appearance of black people in general, don’t you think?
baldilocks on November 18, 2008 at 11:50 AM

I don’t like the constant harping on a womans appearance and I objected to how juvenile some of the comments until a couple of posters told me to lighten up.
I think some of the butt comments can be seen in the same spirit of BO’s big ears or skinniness…I would bet that if MO could tap into her self-deprecating side, she wouldn’t object to the more benign derriere comments. However, the “ape” and “gorilla” comments are indefensible.
And Palin had more than her share of stereotypical comments-but that had more to do with her supposed hick lifestyle than her appearance, although I do remember many snide remarks about the updo, and the porno satire.

CarolynM on November 18, 2008 at 12:11 PM

The Race Card on November 18, 2008 at 11:59 AM

I make a big distinction between objectification of a woman who is an authority figure or political leader (or a candidate; Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton) and comments about someone ancillary to the process and whose role is primarily ceremonial (Cindy McCain, Michelle Obama) or not in a position of authority (Helen Thomas). The former affects how this country is governed. The latter is just personal.

I am not a Hillary fan, but it irritated me that a sitting Senator’s ankles and her pantsuits became a major focus. There were plenty of things to attack Hillary on — those were silly. Similarly, since I really liked Governor Palin as a candidate, I felt it was a mistake on her supporters’ part to feed into the media stereotype of her as a bimbo through overtly sexual comments about her, even if they were intended to be complimentary. Palin is gorgeous and I was happy to celebrate that fact, but talk about how “hawt” she is seemed counter-productive to getting her elected.

The fact of the matter is that this mythos being promulgated by Obamabots that Michelle Obama is gorgeous is very irritating. On top of that, I really dislike the woman. So if the media and her fan club are going to tell me how gorgeous she is (or how handsome Barack is), I am certainly within my rights to cry foul. They put her looks on the table. I’m going to have this person form whom no one voted represent me on the international stage for four years. She needs to learn how to stand up straight, fix her hair, and dress more appropriately.

Y-not on November 18, 2008 at 12:12 PM

Wow, this was on my word-for-the-day calendar:

steatopygia

Let’s roll.

ex-Democrat on November 18, 2008 at 12:12 PM

Word up.

The Race Card on November 18, 2008 at 12:03 PM

Oh thanks a lot, now I’ll have that song in my head all day. Hmm, wonder if it’s on iTunes? Time to add it to the collection…

Gilda on November 18, 2008 at 12:15 PM

The opposite of this, however, does not entail assaulting her for being sizable, tall, having a furrowed brow or dark skin.

Capisce? Capezio? Copernicus?

The Race Card on November 18, 2008 at 11:37 AM

I get it. For me she’s always going to be judged by that soul of hers, the one before they were done with hiding and re-marketing her to us.

Schadenfreude on November 18, 2008 at 12:16 PM

CyberCipher on November 18, 2008 at 12:10 PM

My Siamese says: Nothing Y-not posted was racist or sexist.

Y-not on November 18, 2008 at 12:16 PM

ex-Democrat on November 18, 2008 at 12:02 PM

There are a few several of instances of my doing just that.

I complained about the Dr. Helen “Hot as magnesum” PJTV ads. I thought those were annoying and I’m glad I haven’t seen one lately. I complained many times about off color Palin comments. I complain about the objectification of MM, MKH, Hillary Clinton and many commenters’ moms, sisters and wives.

I’m consistently annoying about these things. Sorry you missed the show. I stand up in my real life just like I do here for those whom I perceive to be slighted by people just like you.

I feel no compunction to sit here and search around a site wherein I have made hundreds of posts to prove myself to you. My positions are obvious to those who give a rip.

I doubt you really care and just need your ego stroked by some imaginary brownie points you might gain from attacking me.

At least I don’t go uttering “Let’s Roll” over political arguments, thereby using victims of an attack on our soil as political ammo.

You’re dissed and dismissed. Good day to you.

The Race Card on November 18, 2008 at 12:18 PM

I get it. For me she’s always going to be judged by that soul of hers, the one before they were done with hiding and re-marketing her to us.

Schadenfreude on November 18, 2008 at 12:16 PM

I’m more afraid of her politics than her soul. But I get your meaning.

The Race Card on November 18, 2008 at 12:19 PM

I don’t find MO attractive, but as long as the MSM doesn’t try to redefine beauty so they can call her beautiful, it matters not to me.

What I would like to know about MO is what her “cause” will be while hubby is in office. Hillary tackled health care, Laura worked on literacy. What’s Michelle’s pet project?

Dee2008 on November 18, 2008 at 12:21 PM

I’m more afraid of her politics than her soul. But I get your meaning.

The Race Card on November 18, 2008 at 12:19 PM

You do; they are the same, or have the same intent, and intensity.

Schadenfreude on November 18, 2008 at 12:22 PM

What’s Michelle’s pet project?

Education?

CarolynM on November 18, 2008 at 12:24 PM

What’s Michelle’s pet project?

Lots of sarcasm is brewing, but I shall ignore it.

I think it is something with Veteran’s health care?

Karen_VA on November 18, 2008 at 12:27 PM

Our coutry is in dire need of lots of proctology, from the left to the right. Sad.

Schadenfreude on November 18, 2008 at 12:32 PM

The fact of the matter is that this mythos being promulgated by Obamabots that Michelle Obama is gorgeous is very irritating.

Y-not on November 18, 2008 at 12:12 PM

That’s what gets me too. She’s not and, really, so what? Why the rush to pretend otherwise?

Most people aren’t gorgeous; few First Ladies have ever been. Jackie Kennedy was widely hailed as beautiful but, like Princess Diana, she wasn’t really even objectively pretty enough on the world scale to point at products on a show like The Price Is Right, if we’re honest about it.

I would much prefer that Michelle Obama be judged on the content of her character.

Gilda on November 18, 2008 at 12:38 PM

Here I am. Rock you like a hurricane.

The Race Card on November 18, 2008 at 11:45 AM

Love your picture! Love Superman! Awesome, thank you The Race Card.

sheebe on November 18, 2008 at 12:38 PM

Actually, Beauty is in the mind and the heart. I don’t respect her politics. That is all. George Bush Senior’s wife was no prize beauty either. Great Woman though. Then Carter’s, Clinton.

sheebe on November 18, 2008 at 12:45 PM

Here I am. Rock you like a hurricane.

The Race Card on November 18, 2008 at 11:45 AM

I’m not defending you anymore. LOL

baldilocks on November 18, 2008 at 12:50 PM

This is good stuff… I can’t wait to hear the whining when Mrs. Obama and those beautiful children take up residence in the White House.

Reading this blog is like watching the dinosaurs go extinct right before my eyes.

benny shakar on November 18, 2008 at 12:59 PM

Actually, Beauty is in the mind and the heart.

[sheebe on November 18, 2008 at 12:45 PM]

Actually it is in the eye of the beholder, though there are many generally accepted societal standards that allow measurement by the points you note.

Quite apart from those, I am surprised, though, by general tenor here that in terms of physical appearance, Michelle ranks so low. I find her quite striking. I wouldn’t say beautiful but it’s much closer to that than to, say, pretty if that would be a category just below beautiful.

I do see a difference between her, as in photos, and her, as in video, but that’s because I think she may not have a natural smile developed by, um, smiling a lot. She frowns way too much and it lowers the appearance index and that fixes in the mind of the onlooker. It does in mine.

Dusty on November 18, 2008 at 1:05 PM

Wow Race Card, I am glad I could help you vent your anger. You do have anger management issues, but I guess I have joke-telling, levity problems myself.

While I did not mean for my comparison of Michelle to a gorilla to be construed as a racist remark, I can see how it could have been. I apologize. I could have used any type of animal for that comparison and probably should have (let’s be safe and use BOs “Lipstick on a Pig” analogy). However, I could also use the lipstick and gorilla comparison with, let’s say, Nancy Pelosi or Madeline Albright.

No racial offense was meant, and I am truly sorry that offense was taken.

By the way, did Michelle spend her youth chewing tobacco or what? That bottom jaw of hers. Holy crap!

Okay, refer back to my self-confessed problem in the first line.

DuctTapeMyBrain on November 18, 2008 at 1:09 PM

I do see a difference between her, as in photos, and her, as in video, but that’s because I think she may not have a natural smile developed by, um, smiling a lot. She frowns way too much and it lowers the appearance index and that fixes in the mind of the onlooker. It does in mine.

Dusty on November 18, 2008 at 1:05 PM

Character and graciousness are important qualities of a First Lady. Goodness and kindness of the heart are revealed in words and deeds and in the expression of the face. That’s what beautifies a woman who is plain and the lack thereof will harden and mar the face of a woman with beautiful features.

We’ll see how MO fares in these categories. I am most concerned about her attitude towards our country, her petulant complaints and self-interest (from what I read about her law firm days) and her politics.

INC on November 18, 2008 at 1:15 PM

CarolynM, you’re a jackass. The level of discourse on this site is amazingly low. The trailer trash wing of the conservative movement is out in force in this thread. Where are all the smart conservatives?

dakine on November 18, 2008 at 1:16 PM

Where are all the smart conservatives?
dakine on November 18, 2008 at 1:16 PM

Sadly, Bill Buckley left no intellectual heirs.

benny shakar on November 18, 2008 at 1:17 PM

[INC on November 18, 2008 at 1:15 PM]

Very well said and I agree wholeheartedly.

Dusty on November 18, 2008 at 1:21 PM

CarolynM, you’re a jackass

Which comment pissed you off the most?
Do tell, dakine.

CarolynM on November 18, 2008 at 1:22 PM

Calling Michelle “pretty” is similar to calling retarded kids “special”.

marklmail on November 18, 2008 at 1:24 PM

Did I somehow end up in a time warp and travel back to a time where a shapely butt wasn’t considered attractive on a woman?

Ignoring the fact that they are discussing the backside of the future first lady, the fact that they are talking about this ringing in an age of a new beauty norm is ridiculous!

My sister was a skinny gymnast through high school and caught hell (of the torturous high school variety) for not being curvy in the 90′s.

I’ve got plenty of guy friends and with one exception, not a single one of them prefer the skinny stick figure model-type girl. They like girls with curves on top and on bottom. Of course, they still want this to be achieved without too much extra weight anywhere else, but they are definitely not looking for model-skinny girls.

Perhaps this author was from another generation and has still held on to that decade’s ideal of beauty (twiggy skinny girls in the 70′s, perhaps), but, as far as today goes, outside of hollywood and the catwalk (both areas that cater much more to what women think is beautiful that what men do) curvy women have been in for a long time.

JadeNYU on November 18, 2008 at 1:24 PM

Is this the official “butt” thread?

whitetop on November 18, 2008 at 1:31 PM

I am most concerned about her attitude towards our country, her petulant complaints and self-interest (from what I read about her law firm days) and her politics.

INC on November 18, 2008 at 1:15 PM

Indeed. Barbara Bush is no pinup but she is a lovely woman.

UNREPENTANT CONSERVATIVE CAPITOLIST (sic)

Thanks. Could you explain how it relates to the topic? Just asking.

baldilocks on November 18, 2008 at 1:36 PM

Dusty, thanks. We’ve probably all known someone who at first appearance may not be striking, but their warmth (and smiles!) are what we take away and remember.

baldilocks, I think both Barbara and Laura Bush have both exuded graciousness.

INC on November 18, 2008 at 1:39 PM

Can’t we get back to really important topics?

That Sarah Palin sure is a dumb bimbo. I bet her IQ is lower than that smart family man, Barack Obama.

/sarc

Y-not on November 18, 2008 at 1:46 PM

What an ass.

bloggless on November 18, 2008 at 1:47 PM

Dusty on November 18, 2008 at 1:05 PM

:) Great reply!

sheebe on November 18, 2008 at 1:54 PM

Quite apart from those, I am surprised, though, by general tenor here that in terms of physical appearance, Michelle ranks so low. I find her quite striking. I wouldn’t say beautiful but it’s much closer to that than to, say, pretty if that would be a category just below beautiful.

Dusty on November 18, 2008 at 1:05 PM

She has sloping shoulders, an odd mouth, helmet hair, and a large keister. Her negative features are accentuated by a tendency to frown a lot and wear clothes that accentuate her figure flaws. Really, she’s a C+ — the plus comes from her height. I’m sure they can bring her up to a solid B with work.

I’d rank Michelle below Condi Rice (who also has helmet hair and somewhat severe facial features but gives an appearance of elegance because she dresses really well for her figure) and above Elizabeth Dole. (I picked Republicans to try to compensate for my opinions about Michelle’s politics.)

Chacun a son gout.

Y-not on November 18, 2008 at 2:06 PM

This thread is ass stupid ass they come.

Tony Soprano on November 18, 2008 at 2:10 PM

Which comment pissed you off the most?
CarolynM on November 18, 2008 at 1:22 PM

You failed to pick up the nuance. The comments on this thread are beneath our unofficial-arbiter-of-thread-quality on an intellectual level.

Remember: conservatives are dumb (excuse me, dum); libs are smart. If you can keep that concept straight, you can understand 90% of troll posts.

Y-not on November 18, 2008 at 2:19 PM

Dee2008 on November 18, 2008 at 12:21 PM

So glad you asked, Dee. Mrs. Obama published this in the Times of London on November 7th. It’s basically more social programs for women and children (and veterans thrown in for good measure).

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5101829.ece

gippergal1984 on November 18, 2008 at 2:19 PM

benny shakar on November 18, 2008 at 12:59 PM

So you’re saying if Cindy McCain were the presumptive First Lady, you wouldn’t have anything mean to say, specifically about her appearance?

gippergal1984 on November 18, 2008 at 2:20 PM

I really tried to give MO the benefit of the doubt at first and tried to enjoy her new style, the way she did her hair, everything. But for some reason, when I think of her looks, I think of two things, one substantive and one superficial:

That ugly damn grimace she gives whenever she starts talking about how unfair America is. Excuse me, which one of us started out a working class girl in Chicago, sharing a bedroom with her brother, and ended up with two Ivy league degrees and over a quarter million dollars a year salary to basically do jackshit? (Trust me, look up her job description sometime…she gets paid to do jackshit). The woman is obviously bitter and full of anger towards this country and its institutions and it’s offensive when you think about how well she’s done for herself.

I thought her dress at Barack’s nomination acceptance speech was just tacky. And again, maybe this is my repressed conservative side speaking, but I thought it was just terrible and inappropriate not to wear pantyhose. She looked…not befitting of the moment. And I got this nagging feeling that she knew it and did it on purpose. That is just my feeling and I would never submit it as evidence of anything.

Purely superficially, though, I do like the effort they make to color coordinate all 4 of them when they appear in public.

gippergal1984 on November 18, 2008 at 2:29 PM

“What a bonus! From the ocean of nastiness and confusion that defined this campaign from the beginning, Michelle rose up like Venus on the waves, keeping her coif above water and cruising the….”

But(t) it’s HUGE!
- With all the water references…..
.
.
If she were in the navy, they would have to name that thing.
.
the USS ?????
You can fill that one in (no puns, please)

shooter on November 18, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Some peeps be likin dem kindza butts.

I’m more of a Sarah Palen kinda guy, you know feminine yet athletic.

TheSitRep on November 18, 2008 at 2:43 PM

Remember this saying: Its not the size of the dog in the fight, its the size of the fight in the dog.

Let me paraphrase that: Its not the size of the ass the woman has, its the size of the ass the woman is.

cjs1943 on November 18, 2008 at 2:48 PM

Nice to see democrats focusing on the important things, no wonder that clown got elected.

DieHippieDie on November 18, 2008 at 2:58 PM

[Y-not on November 18, 2008 at 2:06 PM]

LOL on the summary. Have you done a stint as a judge in beauty pageants or something?

As for “and wear clothes that accentuate her figure flaws”, women are judged if they do have flaws and judged if they don’t and they’ll always be susceptible to that additional scrutiny until they agree to all wear only loose fitting suits in one of two colors — gray or navy blue — and a white blouse buttoned at the collar.

Heck, Fred got nailed for deviating from the requisite shoes and, IIRC, so did Gravel.

Dusty on November 18, 2008 at 2:59 PM

In Santa Maria, Ca. There are a lot of corn fed, (white) women. Some of them do have real big booty’s! Booty’s come in all sizes, boobi*s, eyes, noses, ears and blah………. I was very mad at this fraud of an election. I don’t like BO or MO. They have adorable kids though. And I said a few remarks about MO. I don’t think she is pretty, beautiful, gorgeous. She is to me Plain. Average. Her back side cushion is big. But I have seen bigger! More things I am worried about. Not her big booty.

sheebe on November 18, 2008 at 3:12 PM

“I like the kind of butt you can hit with a car antenna.”
Garrett Morris SNL circa 1977

Bevan on November 18, 2008 at 3:16 PM

“I like the kind of butt you can hit with a car antenna.”
Garrett Morris SNL circa 1977

Bevan on November 18, 2008 at 3:16 PM

LMAO!!!!!

sheebe on November 18, 2008 at 3:17 PM

or ugly stick

marklmail on November 18, 2008 at 3:34 PM

People have taken the point of the post and totally disregarded it to engage in moronic & juvenile behavior typical of the antics of the left.

Those who were offended were totally in the right. And I applaud Ed & AllahPundit for not standing for it.

That said, Shame on Salon’s editors for even allowing this. Is this journalism? I guess she can get away with writing this tripe because she is a liberal black female, but it is still offensive and silly.

Exit question: If a conservative white male had written this piece, wouldn’t it have been equally offensive? And can you imagine the uproar?

Son of Sam Kinison on November 18, 2008 at 3:54 PM

Can I just say one thing?

Considering what I know about her, I hope her personal appearance is the most relevant news of her stint as First Lady.

Hey, I’m halfway to Hope and Chance already…

gekkobear on November 18, 2008 at 4:07 PM

This is what passes for News these days? Discussing Michelle Obama’s butt? And they wonder why everyone is saying Journalism is dead. How about Michelle’s job at Bernadette Dorhn’s lawfirm…that doesn’t interest you. They’ve done a better job of sheilding Mrs. Obama than they have The One. With her the rheotric was all about how exotic and beautiful she was. How “America had never seen anything like her”…What a bunch of B.S. Do they forget we survived Omarosa?

BiasedGirl on November 18, 2008 at 5:19 PM

LOL on the summary. Have you done a stint as a judge in beauty pageants or something?

Dusty on November 18, 2008 at 2:59 PM

Forgive me for being specific. It is in my nature as a scientist. I should have relied on a qualitative assessment like yours.

Permit me to modify my post:

She has sloping shoulders, an odd mouth, helmet hair, and a large keister. Her negative features are accentuated by a tendency to frown a lot and wear clothes that accentuate her figure flaws. Really, she’s a C+ — the plus comes from her height. I’m sure they can bring her up to a solid B with work. She’s butt ugly.

Y-not on November 18, 2008 at 5:26 PM

Son of Sam Kinison on November 18, 2008 at 3:54 PM

I really think the Salon piece is stupid, but harmless. I would not elevate it as some sort of attempt at “journalism.” The writer is clearly celebrating the fact that Michelle, who fits her vision of beauty, will be first lady. The fact that the writer is black gives her license, I suppose, to revel in comments about Michelle’s booty.

Along that same vein, those of us who loathe Michelle Obama because of her horrible personality are commenting on her appearance. Big fat hairy deal.

I wonder if you were similarly outraged by the NYT hit piece on Cindy McCain, or is it ok to attack the character of a rich, white lady?

Y-not on November 18, 2008 at 5:32 PM

Y-not on November 18, 2008 at 5:32 PM

Ditto.
Or with the size of MO’s backside…double ditto.
.
What the MSM has done to President Bush and the McCains AND Gov. Palin is despicable beyond my belief. Integrity and honor is not within their capabilities. History should reveal what they have done.
I will not follow those turds down that gutter, BUTT,..
if MO’s looks or figure comes up….it’s just such an easy (and large) target.
I see nothing attractive about michelle obama in any aspect whatsoever. NOTHING.

shooter on November 18, 2008 at 5:49 PM

I wonder if you were similarly outraged by the NYT hit piece on Cindy McCain, or is it ok to attack the character of a rich, white lady?

Y-not on November 18, 2008 at 5:32 PM

Certainly was!

And I don’t mind Bashing M.O. for her comments & attitude.
Quite Honestly, I tend to agree with most here in these area.

You want to talk about issues and policies, I’m about conservative as they come and agree with Ed’s posts a helluva lot more than AP

But when poster’s (even troll’s)& admin’s feel it’s crossed a line by referencing animals in comparison to her appearance & ask that it stop, I got to agree (rather than shout down or ridicule those who object)

Son of Sam Kinison on November 18, 2008 at 8:29 PM

Son of Sam Kinison on November 18, 2008 at 8:29 PM

OK. If there were racist comments on this thread, I must have missed them and I certainly don’t approve. But I think people are sometimes quick to pull the trigger on the racism charge when those attacks are made on people who happen to be black.

Forget race for a moment. If you’re insulting someone, you might compare them to a pig if they’re fat, a horse if they have a long face… and I think most people use a particular animal to describe someone with a prominent mouth and jawline.

It was ok for people to call Bush a chimp. Nothing taboo there. But now we’re going to have the word police for four years. It’s frustrating.

Insults are insults. What matters is if the person being insulted deserves it (in the loosest sense of the word; ie: are they a public figure able to defend themselves) or not. I think some of the things said about Trig Palin were far worse than anything I’ve seen dished out about this unpleasant woman.

Y-not on November 18, 2008 at 9:58 PM

Manners Y-not. Manners. There’s a thing called manners, and any conservative worth his or her salt has them. You’re a jackass.

dakine on November 19, 2008 at 12:23 AM

Comment pages: 1 2