Michelle Obama Presented the Best Picture Oscar Because They Watch Movies at the White House All The Time

Argo beat out Zero Dark Thirty, Lincoln, other films


White House

If you watched the Oscars last night and made it to the end, you caught Michelle Obama presenting the Best Picture Oscar live from the White House, complete with members of the military behind her. The winner was Argo, a movie about a CIA rescue during the Iran hostage crisis. Apparently film mogul Harvey Weinstein, a big Obama donor, arranged the appearance. Via The Hollywood Reporter:

According to Academy president Hawk Koch, the plan came from Weinstein and his daughter, Lily. Koch and Oscar show producers Craig Zadan and Neil Meron loved the idea. And when it was pitched to the first lady, Zadan told The Hollywood Reporter that her response was, "Yes, I think it's a great idea. We watch movies all the time at the White House. Let's do it."

Deadline.com's Nikki Finke called the presentation Hollywood's "payoff for all the campaign donations it gave the President's re-election campaign" and a "very obvious attempt to infuriate right-leaning audiences."

But getting Michelle Obama to announce the Best Picture winner wasn't enough for Harvey Weinstein, who reportedly also turned to former Obama campaign advisor Stephanie Cutter to help make the case for Best Picture to go to Silver Linings Playbook. Obviously it didn't. And while TMZ reports the obvious, that the first lady wasn't the first person to open the Best Picture envelope, the Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin wished Obama had to announce another winner:

[I]t would have been grand if the lefty-maligned "Zero Dark Thirty" (which showed the nasty interrogation techniques her husband deplored) had won Best Picture. Unfortunately, that sort of perfect karma happens only in the movies.

Though presumably for the Administration that made "we killed bin Laden" a clarion call for re-election, the cognitive dissonance wouldn't be as disturbing.


NEXT: Nearly Three Out of 10 Hawaiians Work for Government

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. payoff for all the campaign donations it gave the President’s re-election campaign


  2. The attempts to glamorize the wookie are incredibly pathetic. You would have thought they would have given up at this point.

    1. It makes them feel good. Nothing makes guilty white liberals feel better than praising a black person. The nature of the black person or the praise doesn’t matter. What matters is they are saying nice things and it is to a black person.

    2. They ain’t giving up; it’s working. There are a large number of people who eat this crap up and gush about her fashionability, taste, or grace.

      1. I don’t know. Even a few liberal media types found this embarrassing.

        When Michelle Obama was introduced by Jack Nicholson most of the reporters in the media room groaned?.loudly
        ? stevengregory (@stevengregory) February 25, 2013

        WTF is Michelle doing in here? #Oscars
        ? Tina Brown (@TheTinaBeast) February 25, 2013

        MIchelle Obama jumps the shark.
        ? Allison Benedikt (@abenedikt) February 25, 2013

        For anyone who doubted the Hollywood-Washington nexus; always happy to see Michelle Obama, but somehow, here, it’s the wrong message.
        ? Richard Brody (@tnyfrontrow) February 25, 2013

        In the future, Michelle Obama will present every award. #obamasamerica
        ? Josh Greenman (@joshgreenman) February 25, 2013


        1. John,

          The elites are not their audience! They are going after the low information types who vacuously base their tastes on what they see presented to them!

          If Rand Paul were to be presented by the popular mass media as some sort of hip, awesome guy, many these same people would be gushing over him.

          It’s like putting a Ferrari logo on a set of sunglasses or a Porsche logo on an overnight bag.

          1. OMG! Are you wearing PorSHUHHHHH?

          2. In retrospect, the Republicans biggest mistake was trying to target low info voters through religion rather than media. There just hasn’t been a mass media pastor on the level of a Beyonce since… Father Coughlin? I know that this is just asking for Shrike, but it is interesting that both parties target lo-info voters- the Dems just do it better.

            1. There just hasn’t been a mass media pastor on the level of a Beyonce since… Father Coughlin?

              Billy Graham?

          3. I don’t really agree, tarran — that can only really work if the subject in question has some modicum of charm (see Kennedy, Ted).

            Working-class Americans generally see this kind of stuff as snobbish, not chic when pushed to the degree that Michelle Obama is being pushed on the rest of us.

            1. Ted had charm????? Who knew?

    3. The attempts to glamorize the wookie are incredibly pathetic

      They didn’t even let her win. Backstage must have been a bloodbath.

    4. The attempts to glamorize the wookie are incredibly pathetic…

      My God I’m still laughing, that is the perfect description. I always had Christina Romer down as Jabba, but when she left the administration so did my Lucasian anchor.

      And you’re right at the attempts for glamour by wider culture for the bitter she-thing. I’m waiting for the moment when to everyone’s surprise Michelle pulls off the wig and we find out it was RuPaul the whole time.

  3. I]t would have been grand if the lefty-maligned “Zero Dark Thirty” (which showed the nasty interrogation techniques her husband deplored)

    Considering his record regarding rendition, I don’t think he ever actually deplored such techniques.

    1. He deplored them before he employed them. It’s very complex and nuanced, John. Old white morons like us can’t understand.

      1. One word:


      2. Well, anyone who has studied history very well knows that civilization was progressing in every culture around the world, except in areas that only had white populations, and then one day some nice and highly civilized brown folks showed up and gave the evil white demons, gunz, and it was all downhill from there.

        1. Well, anyone who has studied history very well knows that civilization was progressing in every culture around the world, except in areas that only had white populations, and then one day some nice and highly civilized brown folks showed up and gave the evil white demons, gunz, and it was all downhill from there.

          Well, that would be kind of true if you replaced the word “gunz” with “the Phoneican alphabet“.

          Jus’ sayin’

          1. Civilization started in ancient Sumer. Aliens did it.

            1. Ok. Time to fire up Civ V.

    2. Mark my words, within the next twenty years, credible evidence is going to reach the public that the U.S. government continued to torture people and that Obama knew and condoned it.

      Stopped torture my ass.

      1. I would take that bet in a heartbeat. And I would go one further and say that one such place where that was going on was at the compound in Bengazi. After Obama is safely out of office it will all come out and there will be a few back page thumb sucking pieces about how even someone as noble as Obama was drug down the office.

        1. Hasn’t there already been a few claims that Bengazi was a way-station for Obama’s Torn-Out Fingernails Underground?

          1. Yup. Paula Broadwell, Petreus’ mistress, said as much in a speech to her college in September of last year. The administration denied it and the media left it alone. Why Broadwell would have said such a thing or why should would have thought that without someone who knew telling her was left unanswered.

        2. Well, we’ve already seen those kinds of articles lamenting that BO has been forced to abandon his idealism about the drone program and Gitmo because he now has to govern.

          1. Bush did those things because he was evil and hated all that was right and good. Obama is doing them because he has to. That makes all of the difference you know.

            1. Both are evil for the record. Just cause obama sucks real bad isn’t an excuse for Bush.

          2. Drones have the lowest civilian death rate of any military machine.

            Congress won’t close Gitmo. Obama can’t do it alone.

            1. The lesser evil is not a good choice when there’s an option of no evil at all.

              And BO has found workarounds around Congress for every bit of villainy he’s wanted to perpetrate in this administration. He could close Gitmo if he wanted to.

              1. There’s an option of no evil at all?

                Whatever he could do about Gitmo there’s nowhere for him to send the detainees because Congress has forbidden them from being housed on US soil. He’s not keeping Gitmo open because he’s too incompetent to close it.

                1. Oh yeah and he fucking wept when he re-authorized the patriot act

            2. You do know that Baghram Air Base is now the go to WOT facility right? Heard any news from there recently?

      2. “…the U.S. government continued to torture people and that Obama knew and condoned it.”


      3. Well that proves it!

      4. Disagree.

        The evidence that will come out is irrefutable evidence (rather than just innuendo) that the people we turn over for rendition in other countries are getting tortured for information and that State is aware of and encourages this.

    3. It’s easy to criticise when you have the luxury of not having to make those kinds of morally ambigous decisions. You try being president sometime and we’ll see how much your ivory tower idealism comes out unscated. We’re lucky to have someone with the grit and the willingness to do the job right until it’s finished.

      1. That is exactly what they are going to say. The fact that they never mentioned such things when Bush was President will go unmentioned.

        1. Yeah but mustard actually believes it. He would be happy to take a job as the Presidential Bidet.

    4. I saw Zero Dark Thirty this past weekend. I can understand why it didn’t win Best Picture- the plot is presented more in vignettes than a cohesive structure, and there is a severe lack of character (why, for example, is Maya so driven about Bin Laden? I mean, you get that she believes he is orchestrating everything and a cut off the head of the snake thing, but you never learn about her background or motivations, etc.). But I think the real reason may not even be its endorsement of torture, but its very explicit criticism of Obama’s war on terrorism policies.

      I mean, there is a scene, right before they go for Bin Laden, where a character basically says, “The reason we have no actionable intelligence is because you asshats ended the detainee program.”

      While no mention of drones is made, that is a pretty firm coming down on the side of intelligence in the “capture v. kill” terrorist debate.

      1. It’s a bit like United 93. It’s a thrilling story, but the artistic desires and the desire to remain true to history clash and don’t really resolve. It ends up feeling very hokey, and you end up wandering why you didn’t just save your money to watch Die Hard 4.

  4. You can put lipstick on a wookie, but it’s still a wookie.

  5. They are always watching movies, whenever they take time out from shootin some gunz.

    It’s all about, ‘hey look at me, I’m a celebrity!’. Barf.

  6. See, by not watching the Oscars, I did not witness this nor know about it.

    By coming to Reason, I now know this barftastic fact.

    This shit never happened when Lucy was here, cause you could barefylkewqy unertand from teh misskrphnelling and ty[ps.


  7. Also, from that picture, I have to say that’s the best I’ve ever seen Michelle Obama look. Fer srsly.

    no homo

    1. I have to give it to her; I love the bangs.

    2. That’s like saying that syphilis is the best of the STD’s.

      1. I’m TRYING to find nice things to say.


        1. But that boxcar ass!!

  8. Has anyone heard from Dr. Groovus lately? I’m afraid he may have become stranded attempting to vacation in Kyrzakhstan.

    1. He got a woman. I doubt he’ll be around hanging with the crowd for a while, if ever.

      1. Hasn’t stopped sloopy.

  9. Politicians are by definition attention whores, but the Obamas have taken things to new depths entirely.

  10. The girl fawning behind her gets an award… for me to poop on.


    and WY3068 is a helluva yeast.


    1. You do ten gallon batches?

      1. Yes. With two siphons for moving from kettle to the carboys in parallel, it’s barely longer than a 5 gallon process. Obviously it takes longer to heat/cool double volume but not much. And so much more beer!

        1. I like your temp control. 🙂

          Is the igloo cube your mash tun? I built mine in an igloo cube, but I couldnt do 10 gallon batches in one, well, depending on size of beer. I could do a 10 gallon batch of a 5% beer.

          1. Mash in a Blichmann. I DIY’ed the wort chiller but did not want to risk it w/ the mash tun.

            Yes, plastic better bottles. Again, no undue risks. Did you drop a glass carboy once?

            1. I have dropped a glass carboy. Fortunately, it was empty and I was cleaning it.

              1. The’ll cut a dude!

              2. I am sorry for your loss. Do you miss the skin on your shins and feet?

                1. No wounds at all. I got lucky.

                  I was leaning over the carboy, cleaning it in a basement shower with a concrete floor. I dropped it from about 10 inches off the floor. It broke kind of slowly, shattering from the bottom all the way to the top. It was like watching a slow motion action movie sequence from up very close.

              3. That sucks. It happened to me at the worat possible time–immediately after pitching yeast. I have learned since then. What a mess.

                1. I have a friend that was making a fortified wine (a port), and he had just added the distilled spirits and all the sugar to get the port to the desired sweetness. Then he broke the carboy. Every inch of the floor in his work room was covered in sticky liquid.

                  1. That’s so sad, it’s the most expensive wine he never drank.

            2. I like to learn my lesson from others.

              That said, I still secondary in glass, foolishly.

              I carry them in milk crates though.

              I have 2 glass carboys and 1 better bottle. And I dont secondary everything anyway, so lots of stuff goes from bucket to keg and never sees glass or BB.

        2. Also, are those better bottles? What, dont you like trips to the hospital with glass in your arm and gallons of beer all over your floor?

        3. My equipment couldn’t handle that much grain or wort.

          I tried to squeeze two batches out of a single brew day by mashing one, starting the next mash while the first sparged, sparging the next while the first boiled, etc, but it didn’t work out well. Turned a fun brew day into a long hectic race to clean things. Sucked, actually.

          If I ever upgrade it will be to a brew sculpture and stainless conical.


          1. That sounds like a taxing brew day. What do you mash in?

            My mash maxes out at 24lbs grist. It can handle 1.25 qts/lb with near constant stirring. The wheat was OG mid-1060s.

            1. What do you mash in?

              At the time a bucket in an insulated box. Didn’t work very well. Now I mash in my original 5gallon stainless pot all wrapped up in foam insulation. Might lose a couple degrees an hour.

              I don’t make big beers much anymore. I try to target 1.040 to 1.050 OG range. Sometimes even less.

              1. Yeah, I’ve got the same issue w/ the temp dropping in an uninsulated steal tun. I have to swap the sparge and the mash back and forth a couple times on the burner to keep them in the sweet spot. And mixing that much grist causes the temp gauge to fluctuate w/ the hot/cold spots.

                And my bad – it’s more like mid 1050s. Degrees plato was 14 per the refractometer.

                1. The stainless pot sits in an octagonal foam base with eight taped up vertical foam slats that form a barrel around the sides. A blanket goes on top to keep things warm. Slides in and out for cleaning. Works great.

          2. Buying a brew sculpture is nice, but I designed and built my own HERMS system and paid a bit less while customizing to my heart’s desire. Of course it took learning to weld and a lot of hours bending stainless steel tubing but if you’re into that kind of thing it’s worth it. I’m now working on automating the unit for temp control and tjming.

            1. I’m sure I’ll build something when the time comes.

            2. I had to look that up: Heat Exchange Recirculating Mash System

    2. Those weihenstephaner dudes know what they are doing.

      That is the yeast that taught me (9 years ago) not to use air locks on primary fermentation.

      Good to see you have blow off tubes going.

      1. Blowoff tube with a carboy cap and immersed thermocouple is the way to go for sure. I use a 1/2″ hose slipped over the large carboy cap nipple and have never had a problem with blow-over in a 6 gal carboy.

        1. I use bucker for primary, and use the poor mans blow off. Take a 3 piece airlock, throw away two pieces, cut the plastic X off the bottom of the airlock (I learned that lesson the hard way), then fit a tube over the center piece. Its not a huge hose, but in 9 years, Ive never clogged one up (other than that time before I cut off the X).

          1. cut the plastic X off the bottom of the airlock (I learned that lesson the hard way)

            You’re not the only one.

          2. I haven’t bothered doing a secondary for years now other than for fruited beers. I did some test with and witbout secondary and got basically exact results without doing it. I play with temperature at the end of the ferm process to get the yeast to consume off flavor constituents. Usually I’ll warm the beer up 2-4 degF from the temp setpoint for 2 days at the end. I also ramp the temp during the fermentation. I start out slightly high, go low and work up, changing the setpoint every day or so.

            1. Then I crash cool the beer to 35 degF for a day prior to kegging. I use a vacuum pump to draw the beer into a corny keg. Since the beer is already cold, most of the crap has settled out and I get excellent clarity. Then I can force carbonate in about 2 hours and drink the same day as kegging. Or age it, if the type requires.

              1. How do you force carbonate in 2 hrs?

                1. Shake and bake.

                  You crank the pressure high and shake the hell out of the keg.

                  1. I don’t really use high preasure, just the stone and it works best if the beer is pre-chilled to serving temp or below. That’s part of why I crash chill the beer prior to kegging.

                2. I have a fine stainless steel sto e that I sparge the CO2 into the keg witg. Morebeer.com sells a replacement corny keg lid witg an extra gas fitting to feed the stone. I highly recommend it.

                  1. So you are patient for a month or more, then screw this I want to drink it NOW!

                    1. I rarely ferment for longer than two weeks. If a beer will benefit from aging, I let it age in the keg with CO2 in it.

                    2. I rarely ferment for longer than two weeks.

                      I’ve got a pilsner that, after two weeks, still has krausen on top.

                    3. I ferment as long as is needed, generally. I let the yeast tell me “when,” as I think robc said above. Sometimes with a heavy IPA or lager it takes longer.

                    4. I let the yeast tell me “when,”

                      When they drop out I rack, then keg at my leisure.

                    5. The problem is that the yeast dont perform as well under pressure.

                      For lagers, for example, I use a carboy. I dont want them under heavy CO2 for that time frame.

                    6. Lagers and sours seem to be out under those conditions.

        2. Won’t be brewing again until my buddy returns from an extended assignment in Australia:( I look at your operation there with the longings in heart and loins.

      2. My friends are doing a Belgian w/ some Trappist yeast and are resolved to clean and refill the airlock as necessary. They know the blowoff assembly exists but are not commited to the $7 expense yet.


        1. I try to tell newbies this.

          But most still dont learn. I wish someone had beat it into me before I got my first beer fountain to the face (which actually prevented me from having to mop the ceiling).

        2. Just by Rochefort by volume. Damn reasonable prices listed for the 24 bottle sets:


          I paid retail for seven bottles a month ago, and it cost me my entire beer budget for a week.

          1. The reason I point this out is I have been studying some clone recipes for their brews


            and don’t see how I could possibly brew it myself cheaper than buying the product. Price of the date sugar for a pound is about 12 bucks at my local gourmand store.

            1. I don’t know exactly but I’d be surprised if they were using $12/lb date sugar.

              1. I’ve seen it as low as 5 dollars a pound online and cheaper by volume. Still searching for a solution here. The larger I make my batch the more prices per bottle unit lower. So much cheaper I’ll have to run it by my wife first. You see what you have done to me, beer? I’m starting to use girl math to justify our continued relationship!

    3. Looks like I will be doing my first (and possible only) batch of beer in the next month or so. It will be an all-grain batch. Any tips on what equipment to buy and what rooky mistakes to avoid?


        That is, unless you like mopping your ceiling.

        Other than that, sanitation and patience. Make sure stuff is clean, let the yeast do its job. Man makes wort, yeast make beer. Let them tell you when its done, dont try to schedule it.

        Also, read this: http://www.howtobrew.com

        1. Been making mead and wine for almost 10 years. I have primaries and carboys galore down in the basement. And I understand sanitation.

          I received a bag of milled grain as gift when I entered a general brewing competition last weekend (the competition included beer, wine, and mead). The grain came with a one-page set of instructions. So I am going to make a beer or a braggot this spring.

          I plan to buy a burner and a stock pot (I have other uses for them). But since I don’t actually drink beer, I am not likely to make much of it in the future.

          1. They you arent really a rookie, even if it is your first beer.

            So, lets see, what advise for a mead/wine maker doing a beer for the first time? Read about the mash process, temp control is important there, as the difference between a 145F mash and a 155F mash can be ginormous.

            1. Be ready to add heat or cool quickly. +- even 2 degF can make a difference for some enzymes.

            2. Thanks, will do.

          2. I made a traditional mead for my Daughter when she was born. We open 1 bottle a year and when she is older she gets a case. Had it recently, it was TASTY!!!!!

      2. I’d suggest picking up some iodophor to test for complete conversion. Google “iodine starch test”.

      3. How much grain? What kind did they give you?

        Trickle the hop pellets into the boil slowly. I don’t know why yet but if you drop a full ounce into the boil all at once, then the resultant foam may boil over the side.

        1. I put my hops in the boil pot and sparge onto them. Helps prevent boilover.

          1. Sounds like a good tip for bittering.

            1. I haven’t noticed a change in utilization.

        2. nucleation points.

        3. It’s in a bag at home. Enough for a 5 gallong batch. That’s all I remember at this point.

    4. Used Weihenstephan for a mead once. Sweet baby Thor, it was good.

      1. HAR!

        /tormund mead-drinker

    5. and WY3068 is a helluva yeast.

      I hope your infection clears up soon.

  11. a “very obvious attempt to infuriate right-leaning audiences.”

    That would have required having MO hand out the trophy at the Daytona race that said audiences were actually watching.

    her response was, “Yes, I think it’s a great idea. We watch movies all the time at the White House.

    Nothing beats a nice relaxing movie night after a day of skeet shooting at Camp David.

    1. And Golf and hundred million dollar vacations to Spain.

    2. More to the point, do right-leaning audiences even watch the Oscars anymore, now that the participants are openly pushing their neo-Marxism?

      1. I’ve never enjoyed award ceremonies. The best thing that ever happened at one was when Marlon Brando had an Indian activist accept an award on his behalf back in the 70’s. Which reminds me, I understand that they forgot to include Russel Means amongst the In Memorium, in spite of being in several memorable rolls. Is it possibly because in one of his last videos he called Obama a murderer?

  12. I see the Academy’s attempt to drum up media hype by trolling half of America has been widly successful.

    1. I doubt they need any media hype. They are the media. And it is not like the awards are not a pretty big deal every year. If it had been at the Golden Globes or some other back bench awards, it could be fairly called trolling. But not at the Oscars. The didn’t do this for media hype or to troll anyone. They are just part of a cult.

      1. True they don’t need any media hype. But by their nature they want more of it anyways.

        1. So, your point is that the Academy is a pathetic bunch of attention whores who are nonetheless “wildly successful”? Kind of incoherent, SD.

          1. I said they were wildly successful at trolling. Saying that attention whores are successful at attention whoring isn’t inconsistent.

      2. She’s your First Lady too John.

        I’m not much for nostalgia, and I think criticism of government leaders is good, but this blind irrational hatred of people just because they aren’t on your political team–and even their unelected, unpaid spouses–is no good.

        If there’s anything I’m nostalgic for I suppose it would be when conservatives were the ones calling for civility.

        1. She’s your First Lady too John.

          Yes she is. And I do respect the office. And that is what is most infuriating about her. You don’t take hundred million dollar trips to Spain when you are the first lady of a country in the middle of a depression. In her entire time in public life she has never showed even a single bit empathy or understanding for anyone in this country. It is about her and her life and how she doesn’t have to fly commercial anymore. She has no sense of decorum, taste, class, or reserve. All she knows is how wonderful it is to be Michelle. Basically, she takes a giant dump on the office of the first lady every single day.

          1. I realize you get all of your information about the world filtered through the flapping jowls of Mark Levin types, but as I said below, here in reality there is nothing to be offended by about Michelle Obama. Every first family gets government funded security protection, and they pay for their vacations out of their own pockets. Your outrage over these things is MANUFACTURED BY OTHER PEOPLE. You don’t actually give a shit about trips to Spain. You’re told to give a shit.

            Though to your credit I can’t think of a better demonstration of class, decorum, and taste than a scatological metaphor about the first lady of the US.

            1. Michelle Obama has as much class as school at five in the morning.

            2. Sure they get protection. And they can use it all they like. But you have some taste and some reserve in how you do it. The Bush’s spent their time at their ranch. They didn’t go party in Spain.

              1. Why don’t you look up which president spent more public money on vacations and get back to me.

                1. You’ve used this argument before. Here it is: Can’t be mad about this president because another guy did something else once! Presupposing that if it were a different president, no one here would be upset that he spent the money.

                  Do you use fallacies on purpose, or is that your brain is just incapable of holding on to one line of thought long enough to have a logical argument?

                  1. Do you use fallacies on purpose, or is that your brain is just incapable of holding on to one line of thought long enough to have a logical argument?

                    I think he uses them on purpose because, to the liberal “mind,” fallacies win arguments.

                    Remember that liberals do not think. They emote. So logic is of no use to them.

                  2. He’s not mad. He’s just been offering his ears as Matt Drudge’s toilet. According to John, the First Lady shalt not take vacations in Europe. Why? He might as well say because it’s uppity. It’s so ridiculous.

              2. Sure they get protection.

                Their health insurance includes condoms? Sandra Fluke is jealous.

    2. Yeah, trolling half of America by being a bunch of fucking weirdos. They could have all put on saffron colored robes and appeared less cult like.

    3. I don’t see how the “hype” benefits the Academy. It doesn’t help ratings since the show is already over, and it guarantees that the audience will shrink next year from the few anti-Obama viewers left being pissed off.

    4. 30 minutes before this comment:


      No, you’re not a leftist.

      1. Wait, calling the first lady and hollywood a bunch of trolls makes me a leftist?

  13. President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho First Ho wouldn’t present movie awards. She’s got class.

  14. Why can’t this be the White House’s First Wookiee?

    1. Okay, I’m gonna need her name…

      1. Miffy St. Germaine. North Platte Elementary school, 4th grade honor student.

        1. Funny, I don’t recall any girls looking like that in forth grade. Maybe Bailey is wrong about the genetically modified animal stock. Milk doing the body good.

  15. According to Academy president Hawk Koch, the plan came from Weinstein and his daughter, Lily. Koch and Oscar show producers Craig Zadan and Neil Meron loved the idea.

    The Kochtopus. I knew it…

  16. I haven’t seen so much bile directed toward a First Lady since… well, Hillary Clinton. FTR she is not a government agent, and compared to Hillary’s, Mrs. Obama’s “causes” are on the saccharine side of fluffy. She serves no function except to be an unpaid spokesperson for such causes and a promoter of Americanness for those who care to look to her. In other words there is absolutely nothing to be offended by about Michelle Obama. You guys, whose outrage I’m sure is totally sincere, are horrible, nasty human beings and you should be ashamed of yourselves. Go find someone to pick on who has actually done something to you. I’m sure there are plenty of people of color on the streets who you actually might interact with. Maybe one will look at you funny. Go tell him his wife’s a Wookie, why don’t you?

    1. Shorter Tony: LEAVE MICHELLE ALONE!!!!

    2. Actually, I kind of agree about the wookie thing, but it was couched in so much stupid pointless sanctimony that it lost any meaning.

      1. Yeah. She looks much more like a Star Trek salt sucker vampire.


        1. I actually think she is fairly attractive for a 50-year-old woman. And I think there is plenty of horrible crap that she has done to not have to talk about her looks. It bothers me that she actively campaigned for her husband, she has used her proximity to the Oval Office to get things passed and she uses the same empty sanctimony that Barack does whenever she is arguing for something, yet whenever she is criticized she instantly becomes “just the First Lady” and out of bounds for discussion. She is alternately a “strong, capable, intelligent woman” and “an innocent bystander just trying to protect her family” whenever convenient.

          1. It’s the scowl and forced smile. Makes her look angry and mean. Kinda like a wookie that rips arms out of sockets when it loses.

    3. If she’d shut the fuck up about her horrible diet, I wouldn’t give a crap about her.

    4. people of color

      Trigger words!

    5. She went on national TV and bullied an Olympic gold medallist about the medallist’s food choices. And you think this is a good thing?

  17. I love HuffPo, it’s so predictably Tony-like: simplistic and painfully easy to refute when it stumbles across a coherent point.


    The comment highlights:

    Try the truthBecome a fan
    POLITICAL PUNDIT?3,818 Fans?Reality has a? well known liberal bias
    Carry on whining and complaining righties. I actually have things to do! Your double standards and pettiness are once again on full display! Laura presented in 2003! But THAT was fine with you! For those of you attacking how the FLOTUS looks, we get it! It’s her skin tone! She’s a beautiful woman, but you wanted that bleached blond in the WH! Well she’s not! Deal with it! The MAJORITY of Americans REJECTED, her husband and your right wing ideology! There is something severely wrong with YOU PEOPLE! The constant whining and complaining is PROOF of that!
    Reply Fave Share 18 minutes ago Flag

    Already refuted:


    The others:

    Slavering, unthinking devotion

    MethnkngBecome a fan
    1,032 Fans
    She is gorgeous!

    457 Fans?One good deed deserves another
    Lighten up teabaggers, this is the twenty first century, we dont live in the dark ages anymore, whats wrong with an intelligent, gracious, classy, and real first lady presenting an oscar?? Jealous much?

  18. Oh, indeed Ronald Reagan and Laura Bush made Oscar appearances too.

    Now someone tell me about whatever minor difference makes Obama’s worse.

    1. And we all know what we thought of Reagan!

    2. Who said that the Reagan appearances were better? Oh yeah, your straw man.

      1. this is one of those wtf articles for me. i don’t see any controversy, problem, or any other reason why its noteworthy, let alone “article worthy” that the first lady presented an award at the oscars.

        ditto for when public figures (i’m not sure the first lady qualifies as a “politician”) involved with politics and or politicians go on SNL or whatever.

        im hardly a michelle obama fan, but i cant criticize her, or the academy awards for this

        1. Of course MO is a politician. She speaks on political matters all the fucking time and is involved in her hubbie’s political activity.

          I don’t remember Laura Bush ever doing anything political. Her big cause was getting kids to read. Nothing controversial like MO’s food policing.

          1. i just don’t get the controversy or the article worthiness.

            who cares? so the oscars used the first lady to present an award. great. i don’t see the problem

            granted, i don’t have any MO hate in me. maybe if i did (it’s amazing the way hate can influence viewpoints in many people), i’d FEEL differently.

            anything MO does to restrict consumer choice, i’m against, obviously. encouraging people to make good choices, i’m for.

            i think she’s been graceful and has done a good job as first lady.

            if the oscars had chosen president obama to present the award, i wouldn’t care either. it’s just a stupid awards show. who they pick to present an award has no meaning outside hollywood’s narrow “look at me” culture, imo

            1. i think she’s been graceful and has done a good job as first lady.

              Your definition of “graceful” must be different than mine.

              1. fair enuf. it’s easy to criticize, but i can empathize with her. having to always be “on” in front of the cameras, etc. i liked how she got down n dirty in the white house garden with the kids, and i think she usually looks great in her public appearances.

                whatever her “wookie” like face that people comment on, even if true, so what? she didn’t choose how her face looks. her ACTIONs imo have shown grace and poise on the national stage.

                1. In my opinion she has shown a total lack of class in her general demeanor. I can’t point out anything in specific. It’s just an observation about how she acts, speaks, and carries herself. No class.

                  1. John and sarcasmic, two of the most foul-mouthed middle school name calling twerps in the universe making judgments about taste and class.

                    1. Tony, Reason’s star fallacy fellator, trots out the trusty ad hominem.

                    2. Calling you a name is not an ad hominem fallacy you ridiculous dumbass. I’m not making an argument, and definitely not a formal one. I’m calling you a name and pointing out the monumental absurdity of you lecturing anyone on class and taste.

                2. Her school lunch proselytizing is what pisses me off. Government is still pushing this unhealthy low-fat, low-cholesterol bullshit.

                  1. But the government subsidizes carbohydrates, so carbohydrates must be good!

                  2. All her school lunch prostelytyzing only effect people getting their school lunches subsidized by the government. It’s basically another “keep the government out of my medicare!” type issue.

      2. That, plus the fact that Laura Bush didn’t present. She was interviewed along with other public figures as part of a taped segment.

          1. And her ass size was humanly normal. Can’t forget that.

    3. Reagan was a famous actor so his presence at the AA was legit. As was Al Gore’s since he was up for an award. But MO has no connection to the Academy or the awards ceremony.

      I would have no problem with Michelle appearing at a conference for whatever it is she does well, assuming such a thing exists.

    4. Taped appearances in some banal hagiography about the industry along with other 10-second clips from world “leaders” is stupid, but not on the same nauseating level as having a President’s wife as a prominent part of the proceedings and as award-giver.

      1. Just what I was looking for, thanks!

        1. But Tony. Her ass. Her ASSSSSS!!!!!

    5. There is also a difference between making an appearance, which was actually justifiable for Reagan because he was an actor, and actually presenting the most prestigious award of the evening, which has always, always heretofore been presented by a notable actor, actress or director. The fact that this tradition was changed to glorify someone connected with the federal government is disturbing. And I actually would’ve had more of a problem with it if it had been Laura Bush who had done the presenting, because she did not have the same pattern of attention-whoring as Michelle Obama, but it still bothers me. But of course it doesn’t bother you because you’re a racist.

  19. Why can’t we talk about what a boring pick for Best Picture Argo was?

    1. I was just happy it wasn’t Lincoln.

      1. Although I would’ve actually paid money to hear Daniel Day-Lewis give another acceptance speech. His “Best Actor” speech was wonderful.

  20. Simply bizarre. Why would Michelle Obama be a good choice to present an award for something which she has no experience or inherent knowledge about? The Obamas really are a cult for a large part of the country: specifically, the part that continually pats itself on the back for being reasonable secularists who empathize with other people (unless those other people are people that they have a chance of coming into contact with).

    1. You could see it as the country’s First Lady participating in one of the country’s largest cultural events. Were you upset by the Queen doing that video for the Olympics?

      Anyone who’s upset by this needs to get out of his cat-infested apartment more often.

      1. The Olympics is a nationalistic event, dumbass. Great Britain was the host country, and the Queen is the nominal leader of that country. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is a nominally private organization, and the country’s First Lady is not expected to personally oversee every cultural event that takes place in the country, BECAUSE SHE IS NOT FUCKING ROYALTY. Will you ever stop with this racist shit, you disgusting little toady?

        1. The Oscars is kind of a nationalistic event. And she didn’t “oversee” it nor does she participate in every cultural event. I don’t really think I should have to explain why it was OK until someone makes a sane argument for why it wasn’t. She opened an envelope and read a card. TYRANNY!!

          1. The Oscars is kind of a nationalistic event.


          2. Re: Tony,

            The Oscars is kind of a nationalistic event.

            You mean “national”, don’t y…. Ohh, I see what you did there.

  21. The Obamas apparently think that the country just can’t get enough of seeing their mugs on TV.

  22. Re: Dunphy,

    so the oscars used the first lady to present an award. great. i don’t see the problem

    Well, I do see the problem… a big-ass problem!

    1. It all comes down to that ass. THAT ASSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!

  23. Do people seriously find her attractive? Or is it a case of the horse lady Mathew Broderick is married to, where women think she’s so beautiful and men laugh constantly?

    1. Men may be laughing at that ass, women too.

      You have to consider all the alternatives.

  24. The best would be if 2016 won best documentary (it certainly made the more money than all the other nominated documentaries combined) and Michelle Antoinette was calling out the winner!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.