What a ridiculously absurd article.

Shameful and embarrassing.

What is this - US Weekly or Big Booty monthly? As a woman of color, I am deeply offended and angry that you are wasting time and critical space on a crap "story" like this.

Wow. Just, wow. That's all I can say about Salon's terrible judgment in posting an article about the First Lady's butt. I've always liked Salon for being edgy, but this article was demeaning, trivial, and unfunny. We may have our first black president, but Salon's poor editorial decision proves that minorities and women in this country still have a long way to go.

much rather talk about what REALLY makes her hot.

Those things are her intelligence, self confidence, adventurism, ambition and all those things which are lacking in all too many female wannabes.

Before the feminazis launch their rpgs, yes, they are ALSO lacking in many males.

I have no doubt whatsoever that it would be terrific to have a conversqation with this high class woman.

Oh yeah, I'm a white guy.

...and this stupid article is the reason why.

Wherever an editor sends her, we already know her focus.

For example, ask her to review the Ford Focus and her entire review will focus on the car's backside, with gleeful comparisons, of course, to her backside.

Ask to write about the imperiling of the African cheetah and her entire exposition will be about the cheetah's butt and how un-Kalanlike it is.

Ask her to write about nicotine addiction amongst the poor and she'll render an analogy about cigarette butts being representative of the health plight of the poor, with asides about her butt, of course.

In your response to catamite_bastard and someone else, you wrote:

I have loved Erin Aubry Kaplan's writing since before I joined Salon, and I'm proud of this piece. If having a black president and first lady is going to narrow what we talk about, wow, that would be sad. But I promise it won't -- at least not on Salon.

-- Joan Walsh

Thanks for that 'explanation'. However, it does not adequately explain the state of mind and motives of the writer who wrote that bit of silly nonsense or the editors who commissioned/approved it for publication.

Do tell!

-- GSC

P.S.: I remember I once saw a man with a penis fully 15" long - in Washington DC, no less! In a relaxed condition, not fully extended!! No, I did not measure it, but I have a pretty good eye for sizes and so forth - and there were friends of mine with me who confirmed what I had seen! Within shouting distance of the White House!! I could write something very funny and 'touching' and sad and momentous about that encounter that might make you even more proud!! Commission me!!! Please!!!!

-- GSC

This article is on the opposite end of the spectrum from Glenn Greenwald.

Apparently the fetish continues. Just because you've decided it is now a symbol of something positive, doesn't mean you aren't still reducing Michelle to a piece of meat and a caricature of her race.

What is the difference between highlighting and reducing? Is it impermissible to acknowledge any part of a body for fear of subjugating the whole? Since when is sexual preference the same as sexual objectification? If I'm attracted to a certain shape of ass or thigh or breast, how does that suggest I've reduced a woman's worth to a single feature? Why can I not appreciate her multitude of fine qualities while reserving my own tastes?

The world will be a better place when people can get past focusing of physical appearance and instead look to the ideas and actions of the person. "Not by the shape of her ass, but by the content of her character" - to paraphrase a famous expert on the subject of equality

Why must the two be mutually exclusive? Why can't I admire the tensile strength of a woman's mind as well as the shapely parabola of her ass?

Why do those who argue against reductionism seem to me to be the ones doing the reducing?

I'm a white woman whose butt disappears (damn) when I turn sideways. I'm delighted that the new First Lady chooses to dress in a way that shows off her beautiful, classic body. She is not just a "new" Jackie O, she is--"Michelle".

have a little dignity.

See, now this has been the stuff of racism. Focus on crap and a reluctance to return

to racial transcendence.

Michelle Obama is not a baby mama with junk in the trunk. It's offensive, just as it has been for the past 30 years while Fox has been painting African Americans as ever-more ridiculous modernizations of Amos 'N Andy. I know why THEY do it. Shame on a black woman who finds stereotypical broad strokes something to be proud of.

But why here?

This is a well-educated, well-spoken intelligent, genteel woman who represents the best of ALL of us. Where is the need to drag her into ghetto caricature.

That's what all those Joe Six Packs in Arkansas are waiting for, people.

The heck with the Marilyn Monroe butt. We got a 1st WOMAN in the WH who will not be the typical laid back type but one with a purpose who feels she has a role with goals in certain areas. She is a tremendous compliment to MR. O and I wish her well.

Black or otherwise..We are all relieved that Bush and his reprehensible policies are within sight of ending. Perhaps now we can be a united country instead of divisive.

And for the last time GOP..Reaganomics is a dead horse. That policy plus Phil Gramm put us into this financial mess we're in.

This article is not just offensive to Michelle Obama, it's offensive to black people everywhere. You have to reduce her to a body part to be proud? How shallow are you? It's like Lindsay Lohan writing an article about the next president. Vapid and senseless, yet published because she's black?