Inbox

21st Century First Lady

A spot-on insight into Michelle Obama, with one exception: you forgot to mention our First Lady's sorely needed attention to the families of our armed services [June 1]. Our returning soldiers, especially the wounded, need to know we care about them, and she is reminding us of that. David Jensen, STAMFORD, CONN.

To see Michelle Obama, the great-great-granddaughter of slaves, up close is to finally see America up close. Until her arrival, most Americans did not know the White House and Capitol were built by slaves. For those who contributed so much to our nation, the time has arrived for their progeny, the Michelles and Baracks, to receive their just due. Helen H. Gentry, DETROIT

Your article about Michelle Obama was delightful. There is no doubt that she is truly special in many ways. However, I can't escape my negative feelings regarding the angry person first presented to us many months ago. How on earth can the woman represented in your article be the same person who worshipped in a church under the auspices of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright? It still pains me that she could bring her children into such a negative, anti-American environment. Bette Hirsh Levy TARZANA, CALIF.

In your cover story, you name Michelle Obama "one of the most professionally accomplished First Ladies ever." Yet by failing to detail her vocational accomplishments (lawyer, associate dean at the University of Chicago, senior executive at the University of Chicago Medical Center), you neglect to define her as something other than "Mom in Chief." That is a sacrifice of identity indeed. Courtney Sender, MONTVALE, N.J.

I'm a card-carrying Democrat who voted for Barack Obama and would do it again. But you have got to stop treating the First Family as if they were Brad and Angelina and children. Michelle Obama is a beautiful, poised and educated woman, not a Hollywood-celebrity wannabe. Jeanni Green, DAYTON, OHIO

Michelle Obama. Two words: National treasure. Coventry Kessler, GREENSBORO, N.C.

Where Do You Stand?

Nancy Gibbs' analysis of the recent Gallup poll regarding abortion rights was intriguing [June 1]. But what has always confused me is the fact that most Republicans are more than willing to legislate and regulate the most intimate and private part of a woman's life. Yet they call for smaller, less intrusive government and are indignant over any limits on the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Where is Republicans' governmental restraint when it comes to women? Abby Loberg, GRANBY, COLO.

Gibbs' suggestion that "most people are neither pro-choice nor pro-life but both" is ill informed. Since January 1973, Americans have clearly understood this issue and been sharply divided on it. But just in case Gibbs isn't clear: pro-life means, Don't take the life of an unborn child. Pro-choice means, The wants or needs of the pregnant woman supersede the idea that human life is valuable. And the Gallup poll suggests more people are valuing human life. There's no confusion here. This isn't above my pay grade. Therese Stenzel TULSA, OKLA.

I Get the Picture