Pirate's Cove

On of Surrendies favorite things, when it comes to surrender, is when newspapers surrender to massive idiocy in pushing a political agenda. They can wrap it up in nice prose and “facts,” but, idiocy is still idiocy. Case in point: Lauren Stiller, New York Times: First Lady: A Job Worth A Paycheck

First lady. First mom. Mom in chief. No — none of these titles works. And therein lies the problem.

When Michelle Obama moves into the White House, she will inherit a title with no job description as the world watches to see how she performs. So far, media coverage has focused on what she will not be doing — she is taking a sabbatical from her paid career. Obama has described her major role upon entering the White House as that of a mother wanting to help her daughters adjust to their changed lives as children of the president of the United States.

Media reports have focused on her Ivy League pedigree and her distinguished career as a lawyer and hospital administrator. By giving up her paid position, the argument goes, she has relinquished the opportunity to be the role model in chief for working mothers. But this thinking underestimates the intricate role of first lady, which will call on all of the skills she has developed as a working professional.

The very debate about whether Michelle Obama is sacrificing her career shows that we must develop a proper perspective about the position of first lady, including a job description for the spouse of the president. Surely the person in one of the most visible roles on the planet deserves a proper title and salary to go along with the intense demands of this most nebulous position, which is, in essence, a job.

Ye olde New York Times is missing the point: Michelle “for the first time in my life I am proud of my country” Obama is not being forced to give up her job: she voluntarily decided to do that when her hubby decided to run for president (hmm, I wonder how much work she did at the hospital, for which she was receiving a very large paycheck, while Barry ran for president over the last two years?).

The only people debating this “issue” are idiots in the media, what with their Barry adulation and all. Personally, I can’t remember them discussing this when Laura Bush was First Lady. And now they want to discuss working mothers being role models? Didn’t many of them destroy Sarah Palin, a mother of 5, for jumping in to the national circuit as McCain’s VP pick, complaining that she wouldn’t be able to give her kids the attention they need, particularly Trig?