Ex-First Lady Michelle Obama, absent from several political gatherings lately, took a moment to explain her recent low-profile appearances and brush aside the circulating rumors regarding her marriage. Claiming it’s been years since she’s had the reins of her own schedule, she mentioned that she now has the luxury to make decisions for herself.
According to Obama, she finally has the liberty she never allowed herself earlier. She admitted to utilizing her kids’ pursuits as an excuse, a reason easier for her to justify her incapability to take control of her life. Now that the situation has changed, she can freely manage her time according to her preferences.
This newfound freedom has germinated fresh rumors. Her vanishing from the public eye has arched eyebrows and sparked speculation about her marital relationship. But she continued to operate despite these whispers, keeping some of her previous commitments while discarding others, stirring gossip about an impending separation with her husband, former President Barack Obama.
Even as fresh grapevine abounded, Obama emphasized her enduring works, including her commitment to girls’ education. But she used this also to point an accusatory finger at women who struggle against the societal weight of disappointment.
In fact, she suggested the extent of the backlash she faced over her individual choices led to false allegations about her marriage. For her, it was perplexing that her choice to prioritize herself was read by observers as a sign of an imminent divorce, a narrative she found quite exhausting.
Despite facing the wrath of the public and the intense scrutiny of their relationship, the Obamas are well into their third decade of being together. Michelle didn’t leave a chance to reveal how the former President’s relentless political drive strained their marital bond, pushing her into a corner of seclusion and tiredness.
Indeed, her narrative brings up an interesting question about high-profile figures like the Obamas. Does the political ambition of one partner suffocate the other? As seen in Michelle’s account, the answer appears to be a resounding yes.
Following her post-White House life, Obama lashed out against various political figures. But, her campaigning tactics bore unremarkable comments, often making Biden and Harris’ opponents seem like the better choice.
In one instance, she belittled the electorate’s intelligence by saying, “Please, please do not hand our fates over to the likes of those who knows nothing about us, who have shown deep contempt for us.” Commenting further, “Because a vote for him is a vote against us, against our health, against our worth.”
This vain attempt to see herself as the champion of the people couldn’t be further from the truth, and many saw through this charade. As if someone from the political elite like Obama could understand the daily struggles of the common man.
Her attempts to vilify the opposition may have been more successful, had they not come across as attempts to preserve her own status quo. As such, her comments come across as repetitive rhetoric typical of the self-absorbed political elite.
A poignant lesson here is that making sweeping claims about knowing the needs and wants of the American people yet choosing to step back from political responsibilities result in an utterance that seem trite and heavy-handed.
Finally, as Michelle tries to mold her narrative into a tale of self-preservation, we must remember the damage caused by the very same political elite to which she belongs. A lesson that should not be forgotten as we continue to critique the current administration.
In conclusion, Michelle Obama’s carefully curated self-centric narrative, her sly critique of public figures, and the rumors about her marriage serve as a gentle reminder of the self-serving nature politicians often carry with them. Yet, it is the everyday people who bear the brunt of their political games.