Michelle's booty is not that big . . . but it is womanly. We have had depictions of women more "zaftig" in art. They were "Rubenesque." The thinning of the female form came with the Roaring 20s. Girls/women got so small and thin that they looked like young boys. The androgynous look has prevailed since then. Some young star model just a couple of years ago referred to Marilyn Monroe as "fat." I think MM was just a size 10.

Michelle Obama is 6 feet tall. She'll never be a size 4. Good! I think, as a just slightly overweight white middle-aged women, that she looks just great. Fabulous, even! Looks real. Looks pretty. And is very smart!

Let's make her Secretary of State!

but this is the caption under the photo of Michelle Obama in this article:

Michelle Obama waves to the crowed at the Democratic convention in Denver on Aug. 25, 2008.

Anybody see anything wrong there...or were the editors too busy looking at her butt?

This article bothered me on some level, I guess I am old fashioned enough to think that having an expose about the future First Lady's butt, regardless of size or color, is in poor taste, even if the author is trying to make some cultural observation. I hate to see Michelle depersonalized in this manner, that is, discussing a body part. Perhaps the "observation" about Michelle's buttocks not being discussed during the campaign is because to do so would have been properly criticized as sexism. Just because you are a black author does not give you the right to step over the line and serve Michelle up to make your point or because you personally have no problem discussing your butt in public. It is degrading to the person being so described regardless. And this type of talk is not acceptable in black or white polite society. Michelle is a lady - stop trying to ghetto her.

Can someone PLEASE fix the word-o in the photo caption to this story? Unless you really mean "crowed" and not "crowd."

Step 1: Ask yourself, "Am I an American black woman?" If the answer is yes, write and post. If the answer is no, proceed to step 2.

Step 2: Ask yourself, "Do I have any deep, close, personal friendships with American black women?" If the answer is yes, write and post. If the answer is no, proceed to step 3.

Step 3: Ask yourself, "Have I made a deep effort to understand, through a combination of long talks with members of that demographic, research, reading, and a lil' bit of good old fashioned imagination, the social and personal undercurrents that contribute to the collective psyche of the American black female experience?" If the answer is yes, write (carefully!) and post. If the answer is no, proceed to step 4.

Step 4: STFU.

Yes to steps 1-3. Therefore I will not be S-ing the FU, thank you. (Way to assume that any demographic is a lockstepping thought-monolith!!)

I still find this article rather stupid. (I had never even noticed Michelle's backside before reading this, and I was happier.)

"She could kick his ass" (stereotype of black women, much? Loud, tough, unfeminine?) "Ghetto ass" (because having a large butt is of course synonymous with ghetto?) EW. And also no, thank you. This is helping me out how? So far I'm not seeing much difference at all.

And it will never be enough, will it? Her butt is ample, so now let's have a natural do! Okay, now her hair is unprocessed, but why does she keep it tied back instead of letting it flow free? Okay, now she looks like the lovely Angela Davis, but why won't she wear traditional African garb of the type that ISN'T really her birthright because African Americans are a diverse, Western and Westernized people, as any actual Sub-Saharan African would be only so happy to inform you? And why does she talk like that, walk like that, live like that... IT NEVER ENDS.

This is taking the personal as political a little too damn far.

This article celebrates the very stereotypes it purports to transcend. Scr*w that. This doesn't make them any less stereotypical. You may keep your bloody "amazon," your "ass-kicking" and your "ghetto." This does not empower me -- some of us have been made to feel like a freak for years for being "demure," as if this were somehow inherently antithetical and unnatural to black womanhood. I've been fetishized rather enough. I'm beyond uncomfortable to read the same thing being done to our First Lady. The article is not entirely inaccurate, but "self-indulgent" does cover it; the intent is evident, but the execution falls flat, flat, flat. (How's that for a "metaphor"? =/)

Interestingly enough, I did very much like this writer's article on Jennifer Lopez and the double standard. Rather less fluffy. It was all in the tone.

(And for the record, Gah54, I thought the whole positioning of Sarah Palin as the "sex kitten candidate" was gross and disrespectful too. And her own party did that to her -- I guess I should be less surprised when Michelle Obama's own side does the same.)

Janis Grant, I very much appreciate your FDR reference. There are a myriad things that are better about living nowadays than in the 30s, but media salaciousness is not one of them.

"Many comparisons have already been made between Michelle and Jackie Kennedy. While I appreciate the spirit, I beg to differ. To put it bluntly, Jackie had no back."

But Jackie was an American. But Jackie was a style icon. But Jackie was educated, a breath of fresh air in the White House, strong and poised in the face of adversity...

Michelle can't be Jackie because she has back? There are so many reasons to compare them and just one for you to reject such comparisons. You are siting the same difference that has been used to separate Jackie's and Michelle's throughout history. I have patience for ideas like this, but its running thin.

Allow me to congratulate you, and myself, for finally having a first lady who looks like us and for living in a United States that has accepted her as beautiful. That, however, is all that I get out of your article; Michelle looks like you, and other people like it, so you are happy. That is painfully inadequate in describing what she is and what she will be to all Americans. Remember, after all, that that is who the Obama's are attempting to represent... all of us.

I am glad that Michelle thrills you as a black woman but she is a multiplicity and should thrill you on several more levels. For me, Michelle does not just share my skin color. If that were all we shared she would not strike me as that special, in fact, she wouldn't strike anyone as special and her booty wouldn't even be worth talking about. For me Michelle is a fellow Ivy Leaguer and public servant, a woman of power and intelligence, for others she shares the bond of motherhood. I look like her, but why can't she share things with others that do not? Why are you objectifying her again? Why can't you just let her be a woman, no, a person?

Perhaps it is because you recognize that our society is still checking out her booty and labeling it as "other". Perhaps it is because her hair is still "white" to some people. Lucky for us, however, we, and you especially as a columnist, have the power to change language and discourse and thus change ideas. In fact, we, and you especially, have the responsibility to do so. Changing the way we talk about race goes a long way in changing the way we think about it. I believe with my whole heart that it is time to start a new discussion about who we are; Not "we" black people but "we" Americans. With all due respect, I don't think you, Reverend Wright or Jesse Jackson are helping much.

You are still talking about booty like its something exotic to Americans when in reality it is as American as apple pie and certainly as American as Rock 'n' Roll. White kids can rap along to Lil' Wayne, but it is an affront to blackness to straiten your hair? It seems that we are happy with the "exotic" heading into the "normal" but not vice versa. If Barack Obama has taught us anything it should be that all that is American mixing together into one is what is normal in this nation. Embrace it! It is, after all, a new day so let us reflect that in our discussions about everything, even booty.