When it Comes to Madam Michelle it isn't Either/Or, It is Both

I'm not sure I understand what Maureen Dowd is trying to say except that poor Barry has a really tough job (thanks to George W. Bush, of course) and that Michelle needs to do a little more "standing by her man".  The passage that confuses me:

Her critics used to paint her as a scary Marxist. Now they cast her as a spoiled princess.

During the campaign, she was caricatured on the cover of The New Yorker as a fist-bumping, gun-toting Black Panther. Now she’s mocked by a New York Daily News blogger as a jet-setting, free-spending Marie Antoinette. (On Spain’s Costa del Sol with Sasha on her husband’s 49th birthday, she did, in effect, say let him eat cake — alone.)

For my part, I would describe Michelle as a spoiled princess who happens to be one very scary Marxist.  It isn't either/or-it is both.  If you think that the terms "Marxist" and "spoiled princess" are mutually exclusive, consider this:

Fidel Castro's personal wealth is estimated to be in excess of $900 million dollars.  The average monthly income for the Cuban people is $18 dollars per month.  Nothing unusual about that.  The average per capita income in Palestine is $1,268 while at the time of his death, Yasser Arafat's personal wealth was estimated at $1.3 billion dollars.  Too often, those who champion "the people" do so while amassing great wealth at the expense of "the people".

Among those who share the Obama worldview, it is not about spreading the wealth.  They spread the misery while retaining wealth and power for themselves and their cronies.  There has been a lot of talk about the Obama's "bad optics" but in reality, they are simply being who they are.  In their view, they are entitled.

Any woman who would show up to a soup kitchen in $540 tennis shoes or claim that the only thing that the $600 Stimulus check was good for was buying a single pair of earrings isn't worried about optics.  The Obama's credo is "Let 'em eat arugula."

Cross posted at Potluck

.