As political woes mount, not all have been won over by the first couple’s intimate revelations
With difficult state elections and a crucial military decision looming, President Barack Obama sat down with his wife Michelle last month to give an in-depth magazine interview about a subject that has hitherto not ranked highly on the White House political agenda — the state of the first couple’s marriage.
The president used the occasion to complain that when he recently hopped aboard Air Force One to fly his wife to New York for dinner and a Broadway show, “people made it into a political issue”.
Obama went on to insist that his marriage was “separate and apart from a lot of the silliness of Washington”. He then proceeded to discuss his romantic ups and downs in startling detail with a reporter from The New York Times Magazine.
Publication of that unusually candid interview highlighted an intriguing contradiction that has begun to haunt the Obama White House. The president’s family has become one of his most valuable political assets. Yet the attempts by the Obamas to shield their private lives from scrutiny are increasingly being subverted — by the Obamas themselves.
When the interview appeared on the paper’s website ahead of publication today, it prompted a flood of reader reactions from “They are a beautiful couple” and “exceptional role models” to “Why should I care about their marriage?” and “This stuff is none of my business”.
There were also several expressions of concern, echoed privately by Democratic strategists, that the openness of the Obamas about what Michelle described as the “bumps” in their relationship, may help turn a historic presidency into a soap opera. “All this scrutiny cannot be good for a marriage,” worried one of the readers of the Times.
The sense that the Obamas are flirting with disaster by parading their happy family life was magnified by Michelle’s Marie Antoinette-like appearance this week on the cover of Glamour magazine — at a time when many Americans continue to lose their homes or jobs every month.
In the interview with Glamour, Michelle discussed her fashion choices and appeared to tease her husband: “One thing I’ve learnt about male role models is that they don’t hesitate to invest in themselves.” The timing and content of the piece prompted Sally Quinn, a veteran Washington style-watcher, to suggest that the first lady had been badly advised.
“I’m not sure if I had been her adviser I would have said for her to do the Glamour cover because it might begin to trivialise her and what her role is,” she said.
The enthusiasm for the Obama family has until now obliged most Republicans to bite their tongues when discussing Michelle and the children, but there were mutterings last week that the president might be using his enviable private life as a diversion from awkward political realities — notably the prospect this week of Democratic defeats in elections for state governors in New Jersey and Virginia.
“Funny how every time there’s a crisis we end up reading about Michelle,” noted one Republican insider. “It’s great to see that the first couple have such a wonderful relationship,” added a Times website reader. “Now can the president please get down to solving the country’s problems?”
Yet even the hardest-nosed Washington operatives confessed last week that reading about the Obamas’ love life was a lot more fun than ploughing through 1,900 pages of the revised healthcare bill.
In their tell-nearly-all interview, the Obamas came across as a thoughtful, sensible and undeniably appealing couple who have nonetheless experienced the professional and personal strains that any working couple would recognise.
At one point Michelle expressed frustration at her secondary role after the years she spent as a high-earning hospital executive in Chicago: “Clearly Barack’s decisions are leading us. They are not mine, that’s obvious,” she said. “I’m married to the president of the United States, I don’t have another job.”
That the marriage experienced “bumps” came as no surprise: Richard Wolffe, a Newsweek journalist, has already described in his book on Obama’s rise how Michelle at one point became “angry at [Barack’s] selfishness and careerism; he thought she was cold and ungrateful”.
Asked if their marriage had come close to rupture, Obama told The New York Times: “That’s over-reaching it. But I wouldn’t gloss over the fact that that was a tough time for us. There were points in time where I was fearful … that she would be unhappy.”
Michelle said the strains had been “sort of the eye-opener to me, that marriage is hard. Going into it, no-one ever tells you that. They just tell you, ‘Do you love him … what’s the dress look like’?”
Valerie Jarrett, the couple’s close friend and White House adviser, said last year’s campaign had initially caused problems when Michelle was depicted as bitter and unpatriotic. Yet she eventually became a valuable surrogate, impressing huge crowds when her husband was absent.
“They both rallied to each other’s defence and support,” said Jarrett. “By having to work hard at it, it strengthened their marriage.”
In the White House, the couple seems to have settled into a comfortable routine of public affection and teasing — Barack sometimes addresses Michelle as Flotus (first lady of the United States) but both sought to dispel the notion that everything in the White House rose garden is pink.
“The strengths and challenges of our marriage don’t change because we move to a different address,” said the first lady. The image of a flawless marriage was “the last thing we want to project . . .this perfection that doesn’t exist”.
Currently condemned to a photogenic but stultifying life as chief fashion plate and do-gooder, Michelle is widely assumed in Washington to be desperate to sink her teeth into a meaty political issue.
Yet she protested, a little too fiercely some thought, that she was “so not interested in a lot of the hard decisions that he’s making … I have never in my life ever wanted to sit on the policy side of this thing”.
Those latter remarks were in striking contrast to the magazine article’s portrayal of the Obamas as the model of a modern presidential couple. Many Democrats who supported Hillary Clinton, now Obama’s secretary of state, have noted that Michelle seems closer to Laura Bush, wife of George W, in choosing a non-political role.
Hillary Clinton, who famously took an aggressive role in presidential policy-making, notably on healthcare, was the “truly modern and transformational first lady”, noted one of her Democratic supporters. “Michelle has proven to be utterly conventional.”
Yet the bottom line for Obama remains the state of the economy and the progress of the wars he is fighting abroad. While Michelle’s approval ratings remain buoyant, the president’s continue to slide. A poll last week showed only 31% of Americans believe he can control federal spending (down from 52% at his election) and only 28% believe he can heal political divisions (down from 54%).
For all Obama’s glamour and sophisticated intellect, he is in danger of being seen as a failing politician. And familiarity with the details of his private life may quickly turn to contempt.
London Times
__________
Full article:
Photo: http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2009/10/28/image5435965.jpg
