"Michelle Obama is a prisoner of her thoughts!"

Although a lot of attention has been focused on the relationship between Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, including the presumed influence that Wright may have had (and may still have) on Obama's values and orientation, I must say that I'm more concerned about the influence that the "First Lady" in waiting, Michelle Obama, may have on her husband.

Let's face it: Mrs. Obama doesn't appear to be a happy camper!  She always seems angry and disillusioned, rarely smiles (and when she does, it comes across as being forced and contrived), and definitely doesn't project "hope" in a way that comes across as being authentic and inspirational.  More importantly, her message, more often than not, is divisive, arrogant, and downright repugnant.  Do these characteristics reflect the kind of person whom our country would like to see become "First Lady" and, more importantly, what do they suggest about the person who may become President of the United States of America?  I say, let the buyer beware.  And what the heck is going on here?  Have we become so blinded by the "audacity of infatuation" and "political correctness" that we are afraid to look behind the curtain and see the real Oz?

Although by no means am I a fan of the author, journalist, and pundit, Christopher Hitchens, I will admit that, as a seasoned provocateur, he isn't afraid to look behind curtains and point out what he "sees."  In this regard, I recently read a piece that he contributed to Slate, entitled "Are We Getting Two for One?  Is Michelle Obama Responsible for the Jeremiah Wright Fiasco?"  Whatever I may think about Mr. Hitchens' outlook on a host of subjects, especially politics and religion, I must say that his article on Michelle Obama is compelling.  His analysis of what might have kept Barack Obama in Reverend Wright's pews, and at Wright's mercy, for so long, even at the risk of jeopardizing his political aspirations (to say nothing about his vision for a post-racial and "new politics") points directly to Mrs. Obama.  Indeed, even if we give Mr. Obama the benefit of the doubt and assume that he does not share Wright's views, we still need to wonder how it is that the loathsome Wright married him, baptized his children, and received donations from him.  Again, even though there is "an inexcusable unwillingness" (to use Mr. Hitchens' words) among reporters to ask this question, Hitchens not only places it on the table for all to see but also asks whether the answer could possibly have anything to do with Mrs. Obama!

Of course, questions about spousal influence are not new to politics or campaigning, nor should they be ignored.  Just think for a moment about the potential influence that a "First Gentleman" like former President Bill Clinton would have on his spouse's Presidency, as well as the questions that could be (and already have been) posed when contemplating such a possibility.  To be sure, the old argument, "keep my wife out of it," doesn't really hold muster in the current era of new media politics.  And the idea of "two for one" suggests that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and, more importantly, that the parts are much more interdependent than what may appear to be the case.  So don't you think that it is legitimate to ask a nominee for the highest office in the land about his partner, especially if it might help to shed light on his character, judgment, and, yes, even questionable relationships and associations?  (You'll have to read the Hitchens piece--and I highly recommend that you do--to obtain the details of his analysis of Michelle Obama's value orientation, political views, and potential influence on her husband.)

Let's put the issue of spousal influence to the side now and return to my description of Michelle Obama on the stump, that is, to her public persona.  I admit that my words are not flattering nor do they describe the kind of "First Lady" that I, personally, would like to see in the White House.  I don't really know whether Mrs. Obama "walks her talk" but I do feel that her public "talk" doesn't seem to mesh with that of her husband.  Although the Obama campaign espouses a vision based on inspirational slogans like "Yes We Can" and "Change We Can Believe In," I don't believe that Michelle shares this vision, at least not in a way that unequivocally demonstrates her authentic commitment to it.  Ironically, from what I can discern, Mrs. Obama is caught up in the past and is a "prisoner of her own thoughts."  Frankly, this is a sad commentary since she doesn't seem to realize that she, and only she, holds the key to the mental prison cell in which she is being held captive. 

My book, Prisoners of Our Thoughts, is based on the wisdom of my mentor, the world-renown psychiatrist, Viktor Frankl, whose personal story of finding a reason to live in the most horrendous of circumstances--Nazi concentration camps--has inspired millions.  In Dr. Frankl's own words, "Everything can be taken from a man but...the last of the human freedom's--to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's way."  Although it may not always seem easy to do, and sometimes we may not want to exercise it, I think that most of us would agree that we always have the "freedom" to choose our attitude.  Mrs. Obama, are you listening?

There is a story in Prisoners of Our Thoughts involving Nelson Mandela that underscores the importance of exercising the freedom to choose your attitude and illuminates the intimate relationship between personal freedom and imprisonment.  The day that Mandela was being released from prison on Robben Island, Bill Clinton, then Governor of Arkansas, was watching the news.  He quickly called his wife and daughter and said, "You must see this, it is historical."  As Mandela stepped out, Clinton saw a flush of anger on his face as he looked at the people watching; then it disappeared. 

Later, when Clinton was President of the United States and Mandela was President of South Africa, the two leaders met and Clinton told about his observation during Mandela's release from prison.  And, because Mandela had always been a model of reconciliation with no spirit of revenge or negativism (Michelle, please listen), President Clinton candidly asked him for an explanation of what seemed to have occurred on that historic day.  President Mandela replied, "Yes, you are right.  When I was in prison, the son of a guard started a Bible Study and I attended; and that day when I stepped out of prison and looked at the people observing, a flush of anger hit me with the thought that they had robbed me of twenty-seven years.  Then the Spirit of Jesus said to me, Nelson, while you were in prison you were free, now that you are free, don"t become their prisoner." 

You see, Michelle, although we may not be totally free from the various conditions or situations that confront us in our lives, the important thing is that we can choose how we respond, at the very least through our choice of attitude.  According to Viktor Frankl, this is not only our right as full human beings, it is our full human beingness to be free.  All we have to do is resist the temptation of remaining a "prisoner of our thoughts" and choose this freedom, no matter what.  Between stimulus and response, there is a space.  In that space lies our freedom and our power to choose our response.  In our response lies our growth and our happiness.  So here's to the "new" Michelle Obama, no longer a prisoner of her thoughts and a happy camper after all!