The fallout from Michelle Obama’s heckling incident continued Thursday, as some defenders of the first lady charge that the heckler used coded racial language, and in general spoke from a perspective of “white privilege.”
These folks point to a comment protester Ellen Sturtz made after she interrupted the first lady during a fundraiser and challenged President Obama to fulfill a campaign promise and sign an order banning federal contractors from discriminating against gays and lesbians.
Rather than speak over Ms. Sturtz, Mrs. Obama left the podium and confronted the heckler in person, saying she’d leave if the heckling didn’t stop.
RECOMMENDED: Michelle Obama: How well do you know the first lady?
“She came right down in my face. I was taken aback,” said Sturtz after the incident.
What, did Sturtz think the first lady was just going to let the interruption go on, or hand her the mike?
Sturtz’s description of the encounter was a “breathtaking bit of projection and entitlement that also tiptoed dangerously close to the ‘angry black woman’ stereotype that Mrs. Obama has been dogged by for years,” writes Anna Holmes, founding editor of the feminist blog “Jezebel,” in a Time Magazine column.
Want your top political issues explained? Get customized DC Decoder updates.
Over at “Mediaite,” columnist Tommy Christopher writes that Sturtz and her supporters have taken lots of heat for “their perceived sense that interrupting Michelle Obama is not only something they’re entitled to do, but that Mrs. Obama somehow should have welcomed. The source of that sense of entitlement, the theory goes, is white privilege.”
And at “Black Enterprise,” columnist Janell Hazelwood writes that “In 2014, that tired prevalent notion that any time a black woman speaks up – and it’s not to coddle, coo or sweet talk – she’s ‘angry’ or ‘aggressive’ is getting old.”
Ouch. We’ll echo Mr. Christopher here and say that it’s also possible that Ellen Sturtz was simply an inept protester. She picked one of the most popular women in the world to interrupt. Also, a woman who’s been viciously attacked by extremist critics in racial terms in the past, and who supports gay rights generally.
Did GetEQUAL consider that might not end well?
“We value the first lady’s leadership and invite her to lead the charge within the Democratic Party to end employment discrimination,” said the group in a press release following the incident.
And might some of the charges of implicit racism be something of an overreaction?
Sturtz might have been taken aback by the first lady’s aggressive criticism because President Obama, like many experienced public speakers, takes a more relaxed approach with hecklers. He often plays along lest he be seen as overbearing, while waiting for security to arrive. That’s the technique the president used with Code Pink activist Medea Benjamin when she interrupted his speech at the National Defense University on May 23.
“Like it or not, Michelle Obama’s reaction to Sturtz was a Michelle moment, not a stereotypical black woman’s touchiness or a South Side time-out,” writes contributing editor Helena Andrews at “The Root,” a blog of African-American culture.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Public speaker (non-comedian) is interrupted by heckler; explains to heckler that if interruption continues, presentation will end.

There you go, Yahoo. I just said in one sentence what you took an entire article to do, and I left out all the inflammatory non-starters. But I guess reporting doesn't sell Google ads.

Sturtz’s description of the encounter was a “breathtaking bit of projection and entitlement that also tiptoed dangerously close to the ‘angry black woman’ stereotype that Mrs. Obama has been dogged by for years,” writes Anna Holmes, founding editor of the feminist blog “Jezebel,” in a Time Magazine column.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Public speaker (non-comedian) is interrupted by heckler; explains to heckler that if interruption continues, presentation will end.

There you go, Yahoo. I just said in one sentence what you took an entire article to do, and I left out all the inflammatory non-starters. But I guess reporting doesn't sell Google ads.



As a side note, would this story be reported like this had Michelle Obama instead addressed the heckler with the Kerry approach?

 LordofHats wrote:
When has Michelle Obama been 'dogged' by angry black woman stereotypes XD We're talking about the First Lady right?

 Ouze wrote:
Is this a joke, or are you truly ignorant of this? Because if you google it, you'll see this has been a meme since 2008.

 Ouze wrote:
While I'm not endorsing it, I think the racial angle is that she got heckled at all; whereby they wouldn't have felt it appropriate to heckle a white first lady?

I don't think that flies. .

Sturtz might have been taken aback by the first lady’s aggressive criticism because President Obama, like many experienced public speakers, takes a more relaxed approach with hecklers.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Sturtz might have been taken aback by the first lady’s aggressive criticism because President Obama, like many experienced public speakers, takes a more relaxed approach with hecklers.

According to this point, Michelle Obama is not a human being with her own personality, she is merely an extension of her husband.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Sturtz might have been taken aback by the first lady’s aggressive criticism because President Obama, like many experienced public speakers, takes a more relaxed approach with hecklers.

According to this point, Michelle Obama is not a human being with her own personality, she is merely an extension of her husband.

Comment is free

There's a right way to deal with hecklers. Then there's Michelle Obama's…

The first lady failed the standup test when a gay rights protester interrupted her speech. But her attitude was refreshing

Share 341
inShare2
Email

David Mitchell
David Mitchell
The Observer, Saturday 8 June 2013
Jump to comments (349)

Michelle Obama says: I'm not very good at this Illustration: David Foldvari

Michelle Obama had a tough gig last week. She was heckled at a fundraiser by a campaigner called Ellen Sturtz, who explained that: "As the first lady was talking about our children's future and ensuring that they have everything they need to live happy and productive lives, I simply couldn't stay silent any longer." I know what she means – that does sound dreary. It's a familiar feeling: you're listening to a long speech but, for some reason, can't drop off to sleep, so you get fidgety instead.

I listened to the minute or so of Michelle Obama's remarks before Sturtz's interjection and was quite spellbound by how boring it was. She was talking emphatically, and remarkably slowly, about how children matter. Not a controversial notion but, if I'd paid $500 to hear her gradually express it, I might have been irritated enough to take a contrary view. Apparently she'd seen some children in Chicago having a rough time and perhaps thought that, if she made a few minutes of some Democratic donors' lives comparably gak, it might somehow help.

She continued: "And there are so many kids in this country just like them – kids with so much promise, but so few opportunities; good kids who are doing everything they can to break the cycle and to beat the odds." I hate seeing children vandalise bicycles and play online roulette as much as anyone, but there was something in the first lady's leaden delivery that made me refuse to care. Perhaps sensing something forced in the nods and smiles of the crowd, she went on: "Sorry, I'm boring myself now. Why don't I sit down and we can get stuck into the catering?"

She didn't say that. Instead, she got more animated on the subject of children and their widely accepted non-irrelevance: "Those kids, they are the reason we're here. And today, we need to be better for them. Not for us – for them! We need to be better for all of our children do you under-, our kids" – and elicited some weary whoops from the crowd. Maybe I'm being unfair – maybe all fundraiser speeches are like this. Maybe Michelle Obama is the Cicero of the genre. But I can't imagine standing in that crowd, listening to the obvious being stated more slowly than rust develops, without musing that this must be how political assassins get their motivation.

That's when Ellen Sturtz intervened. But she wasn't calling on Mrs Obama to stop droning on – she wanted to join in the debate. She was incensed that President Obama has yet to honour his 2008 commitment to sign an executive order barring discrimination by federal contractors based on sexual orientation. Sturtz, who described herself as an "old, grey-haired lesbian", said afterwards: "I'm looking ahead at a generation of young people who could live full, honest, and open lives with the stroke of the president's pen." So she wasn't bored, she was engaged; she was angry, but she was gripped. Maybe you had to be there.

Unfortunately Mrs Obama didn't welcome this surprising sign of will-to-live retention by an audience member. "Wait, wait," she said. "One of the things that I don't do…" and then she paused, "well," she continued, "is this." The pause is interesting – a first for the speech. I reckon she'd considered responding with an "I don't do this." The first lady doesn't do hecklers, just like Mariah Carey doesn't do stairs. Or is that Daleks? Or does she insist on Daleks? Or is that kittens? Anyway, my hunch is that, at the last minute, Mrs O decided to commute an "I'm not standing for this" to a more passive-aggressive "I'm not very good at this." It certainly became clear that she meant the former. She left the podium and confronted Sturtz, saying: "Listen to me, or you can take the mic but I'm leaving."

Ellen's response is not recorded but the crowd was for Michelle pressing on, which she did. "So let me make the point that I was making before," she resumed unhurriedly. "We are here for our kids. So we must recapture that passion, the same urgency and energy…" Ellen Sturtz, meanwhile, was being escorted out, which puts her ahead of the game in my book.

How well did Mrs Obama deal with the encounter? White House press secretary Jay Carney was unequivocal: "It's my personal opinion that she handled it brilliantly." And that's his personal opinion. He's not just saying that because he thinks it would be politic. My personal opinion is that she coped with it badly.

Audiences are nervous creatures. They're apt to worry about the performers they're watching. If a performer wants them to listen, laugh, be moved, agree or clap, his priority must be minimising their fretting by radiating confidence and comfort. Betraying genuine anger, distress or alarm is the worst thing you can do. It won't necessarily make the audience dislike you – but it will make them fear for you, which is worse. So, when heckled, it's important to seem calm. If you can think of a zinger put-down, great – but you don't need one. Your greater visibility and audibility will easily carry the day as long as you don't let the crowd think you've been rattled.

But saying you're not good at dealing with heckles, vacating the performing space and then offering to cede the microphone to the heckler if the audience doesn't beg you to stay is a terrible response. It's like when someone starts telling a story and then stops crossly because they think no one's listening. Social convention forces the group to beg them to continue, but the anecdote can then only be received with feigned relish. Of course the Democrat donors, excited to meet the first lady, called on her to continue, but the atmosphere will have been awkward thereafter.

The fact that, as the president's wife, anything Michelle Obama says must be free from all but the most uncontroversial sentiments would be enough to make Nicholas Parsons fall out of love with the sound of his own voice. Still, she doesn't strike me as a natural performer. She's been thrust unwillingly into the limelight, given a platform she didn't want so that, when someone tries to hijack it, her reaction is: "Fine, take it – I'm not here for my health."

The flaws in her performance technique are glaring but, for a public figure, her attitude is more unusual and refreshing than anything she'll ever be allowed to say.