Dear Sharon,

Re: Mrs O: The truth about Michelle Obama's 'working class' credentials

The purpose of this letter is to respond to your article published in the Femail section of
the Daily Mail on the 23rd of February 2008 titled: Mrs O: The truth about Michelle
Obama's 'working class' credentials-

It appears that your article is a follow up on a similarly styled article written by you a
year ago titled: A drunk and a bigot - what the US Presidential hopeful HASN'T said
about his father. - published on the 27th of January 2007, in which you argue that
Barrack Obama gave an false account about his father Barrack Obama Snr in his book
Dreams From My Father. You appeared to imply that by falsifying his father’s character,
Obama used it to his advantage in his bid to gain political attention. Even though I do not
agree with some of the things you wrote in that article, I will not be responding to that
article as doing so will be a year too late.

I am a bit bewildered that after almost a year after the article on Obama’s father, you
have written a similar article, this time about Obama’s wife in which you suggest that
Michelle has falsified her background by claiming that she came from a humble
beginning and traditional working class background in order to boost her husband’s
chances in the presidential campaign.

The reason why I am responding to this article is because I believe that public interest
requires me to respond to the article, that I and some section of the general public
consider to be a negative and distorted report on a hard working, intelligent and humble
woman of substance. Moreover, your article has been quoted and pasted on various blogs
and discussed on various forums around the world and I feel that another perspective
from that of yours needs to be brought to light. Before, I go any further, I would like to
state that I am not in any way connected to the Obama’s and I have not been paid by
them to defend their cause neither do I derive any financial benefits from them.

You begin your article by referring to Michelle’s picture on the cover the Newsweek
magazine, in which you state that the ‘ludicrously simple’ dress and the ‘fake’ pearls she
wore was an attempt by her to inform the general public that she is the little black girl
who overcame the obstacles put in her way to change the face of American politics. I and
some of my friends have seen the pictures and we did not see any evidence to suggest
that a) the pearls were fake and b) it was an attempt by her to deceive the public. I
suggest you elaborate on how you arrived at the conclusion about the originality and
simplicity of her apparel.
You also state that Michelle has used her humble beginnings and working class
upbringing to deliver to her husband crucial female and working class votes from voters
who were solidly routing for Hillary Clinton. What you seem to have overlooked is that
Obama has always been able to capture the grassroots’ votes, even during his election as
a US senator. This is partly due to Obama’s humility and his message, which resonates
with the working class. Obama has always stood for justice, equity and fairplay and he
introduces a change from the politics of the past in which backstabbing, false promises
and dishonesty have been the order of the day. When a man comes out with a new
message and attitude, it is only natural for people from all walks of life to follow such
messenger. To therefore suggest that Michelle’s falsification of her working class
credential is the contributor to the Obama support is a misrepresentation of facts.

You also argue that Barrack’s mixed parentage and Michelle’s African American
parentage in addition to her tall and slender body shape has given Obama an unmatched
breadth of appeal. This argument ignores the fact that in the past Michelle’s kind of
parentage would have been enough reason to have reduced an African American’s
chances of aspiring to become the President of the USA as people like Jesse Jackson, Al
Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun can testify to . I would like to point out that the
success of Obama’s campaign has not been on the basis of race as suggested by you
neither by Michelle’s looks, but rather on Obama’s ability to build bridges across the
political, socio-economic and race divide. This has resulted in him receiving support from
a cross section of Americans including the CEO’s of Wall Street firms, factory workers,
academia, students, blacks, whites etc.

In supporting your argument that Michelle did not have a humble beginning and any
working class credential you state that

a) She grew up in a decent neighbourhood of well kept houses

b) There were plenty of white professionals in the area where she grew up
c) Michell’s father earned 25% of High School teachers at the time
d) Her father was a volunteer organiser for the Democratic Party
e) Television was all but banned in favour of home work

Before I continue, I would like to point out that I personally do not subscribe to any form
of class structure as I believe that the GOD created all human beings equal. However, I
would like to state that that the concept of working class as defined in the American and
British context differs significantly. Unlike in the UK where the class structure
(especially working and middle class) is clearly defined, the USA has a vaguely defined
concept of working and middle class. This has resulted in an overlap in the definition of
the lower middle class and the working class. Academic studies suggest the USA’s
definition of working class is sometimes similar to the middle class structure definition in
other countries including the UK. There are also various factors used in the USA to
determine a person’s class status such as income, educational attainment, individual
occupations etc. Therefore your suggestion that Michelle has falsified her working class
credential, which is the main basis of your article, is unfair and unfounded as there
appears to be a difference in perspective in your and her own definition of working class.
To ascertain Michelle’s class credential (which I think is irrelevant) you need to reconcile
your definition of social class structure with that of Michelle.

You also question her ideological roots, which you suggest is shallow and financially
driven. To support your argument, you quote statements from her acquaintances (who are
not named) and her decision to take a position in a top rated law firm, where she opted to
specialise in copyright and trademark cases rather than family law or human rights cases.
You also state that Joe Novak whom you describe as a veteran political consultant and
pundit agrees with your assessment and you quote him as saying that Michelle is
motivated more by personal gain rather than social consciousness. It would be interesting
to know if this is the same Joe Novak referred to in a New York Times article published
in August 2007 titled “Blogger Known Well in Politics Turns His Attention to Attack on
Obama Campaign” in which it is alleged that a person by the same name as your source
is behind the ObamaTruth.org project, which is in the words of the New York Times is
one of the more sophisticated assaults on a candidate in the present presidential
campaign. I believe that in order to get a balanced view on the Obama’s it would be
worthwhile avoiding selective representation.

Though you question her decision to work for law firm Sidley Austin, I would like to
think that working at such a reputable firm would have been a stepping stone to her future
ideological ambitions and would have given her the springboard to launch a career in
public affairs. You failed to state that she subsequently left the firm to work for the
Chicago city government and the Chicago office of Public Allies, which is a non-profit
organisation that encourages young people to work on social issues in nonprofit groups
and government agencies. I think this just shows the strong character and values of
Michelle, as she left a high paying job in the private sector in order focus on her passion
in helping the underprivileged.

I know that Michelle like any other human is not perfect, but I believe that she has done a
lot for her race, gender, the youths and her husband. She is a role model not only for
African American’s, but also for women, men, the young and the underprivileged. She
has been a supportive wife and a caring mother and she is a living proof of the saying that
behind every successful man, there is a woman. I think the FEMAIL section of your
newspaper which is viewed by many female readers across the county needs to celebrate
and highlight the achievements and characters of ladies such as Michelle who are
intelligent, graceful, compassionate and have strong values, The world needs more ladies
like Michelle as some of the current crop of celebrities who unfortunately are role models
for our youths have failed them due to their involvement in drugs, sex, alcohol, etc.

In conclusion, what is of importance is that Michelle is in her own little way is trying to
change the world for the better, so let us dwell on this and not on her social status
classification.

Ahmed Sule
March 2008