First of all, most of what's there is just an ad hominem attack. It translates roughly to "against the man." That's when you attack the person rather the view the person holds, generally because it's usually easier to attack the person. The idea is that if you can prove the person unacceptable in some way, people will assume the person's position is unacceptable, too. Fuller here goes after David Brooks of the NY Times, calling him a "sore loser" and speculating that he has "girly-man arms" and is just jealous. Again, it's easy to attack a person. I could, for example point out that Michelle Obama at times looks a little like she might be a guy in drag. Or that at other times, she looks like a younger version of Aunt Esther (LaWanda Page) from "Sanford & Son." ("Barack, you fish-eyed fool!") But I wouldn't do that.
The other thing that irks me about Fuller is that she goes on to talk about Michelle Obama's place as a female hero:
Because if there's one thing this country needs right now besides a strong and principled president instituting change, it's a superhero, and the non-sexist American public will take a female one.
There's a long history of strong female warriors in Western culture, from the goddess Athena who was a wise warrior (how Michelle-like), to the the Brit chick Boadicea, to young French babe, Joan of Arc, to Queen Elizabeth 1 to tough bicepped protector-mom, Sarah Connor in Terminator to Xena, the Princess Warrior to ... WonderWoman.
So...let me get this straight. Fuller is championing the strong, female warrior.
I just have to ask: where was this sentiment when another strong female was running for vice-president? I mean, arguably, Sarah Palin fits the definition of strong female warrior much more than Michelle Obama does. Palin quite literally could bring home the bacon, fry it up in the pan, and never, never let you forget you're a man. (Admit it, you were singing along with that.) And yet, Fuller was one of Palin's most vehement critics (again, mostly ad hominem attacks). She even went so far as to criticize Palin's running for office because--good heavens!--her daughter Bristol might end up in the spotlight. This is supposed to be evidence that Palin running for office proves she is a bad mother. Can you imagine?! A president or vice-president's child in the spotlight?! It's a good thing that never happened to the Bush twins, or Chelsea Clinton, or Patti Davis, or Ron Reagan, Jr., or Amy Carter, or Susan Ford (who had her prom in the White House!), or Tricia Nixon, or Julie Nixon, or Luci Baines Johnson, or Caroline Kennedy, or John John Kennedy, or even Magret Truman. And that's just the presidential children...
I'm always irked by those who swear up and down that they are feminists, damn it, and yet are so willing to lay down those principles when a strong woman comes along with whom they disagree ideologically. Fuller is one of the worst kind of hypocrites--one who, at her core, truly believes she isn't one.