 Good afternoon and welcome to the National Archives. I'm David Ferriero, the Archivist of the United States, and I'm pleased you could join us for today's program, whether you're here in the theater or joining us through Facebook or YouTube. Before we get started, I'd like to tell you about two other programs coming up in this theater. On Monday evening, December 16th, at 7 p.m., David Rubenstein, a great friend of the National Archives. I'd like to be here with historians Jay Winnick, Taylor Branch, and H.W. Branch to discuss his own book, The American Story, Conversations with Master Historians. And on Thursday, January 16th, at noon, author William Rosenau tells a shocking, never-before-told story from his book, Tonight We Bombed the U.S. Capitol, the explosive story of M19, America's first female terrorist group. Check our website at archives.gov or sign up at the table outside the theater to get updates, email updates. You'll also find information about other National Archives programs and activities. And another way to get more involved with the National Archives is to become a member of the National Archives Foundation. The Foundation supports our education and outreach activities. Check out their website, archivesfoundation.org to learn more about the Foundation and to join online. This afternoon's talk is part of a series of programs related to our special exhibit upstairs in the Lawrence F. O'Brien Gallery, rightfully hers, American Women and the Vote. Rightfully hers commemorates the centennial of the 19th Amendment and tells the story of women's struggle for voting rights as a critical step toward equal citizenship. The exhibit explores how American women across the spectrum of race, ethnicity and class advance the cause of suffrage and follows the struggle for voting rights beyond 1920. Before and after 1920, women were active in the public arena and many served in public office, both appointed and elected. But the most visible women in the world of politics have not been on the ballot. The first lady has long been a figure of public fascination, although she holds no official government office and has assumed the role not through election but through her connection to the president. Even though they have not actively sought their very public roles, they face high expectations from the public at large. Today, Tammy V. Hill will tell us about two, the two most recent First Ladies, Melania Trump and Michelle Obama, and how they have coped with those expectations and shaped the role of the First Lady to fit their own personalities and priorities. Tammy V. Hill is an associate professor of communication at Boston University. Her research interests include political campaigns, persuasion in women as political communicators. She's the author of Moms and Chief, the Rhetoric of Republican Motherhood, and the spouses of presidential nominees, connecting with constituents, identification, building and blocking in contemporary national convention addresses. And co-author of the third agenda in U.S. Presidential Debates, Debate Watch and Citizen Reactions 1996 to 2004. Dr. V. Hill has published journal articles and book chapters on the rhetoric of Michelle Obama, Franklin D. Roosevelt, George W. Bush, and on national nominating conventions. And she has served as an expert source for stories and several news outlets, including The Guardian, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Christian Science Monitor and NPR. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome back Tammy V. Hill. Thank you, National Archivist David Ferriero and the U.S. National Archives for inviting me to speak here today. In June, I came to talk about my book, The Moms and Chief, which the archivist has told you a little bit about. And it actually, Moms and Chief, The Rhetoric of Republican Motherhood, Spouses of Presidential Nominees 1992 to 2016, explored the depictions of the spouses of presidential nominees during campaigns. Now I'm back to talk about my latest book, which is Melania and Michelle, First Ladies in a New Era. And this book looks more specifically after what happens during the election, although it does include some of the elements of the election and the transition. In particular, Melania and Michelle enhances our understanding of the two most recent White House matrons, while also reconsidering the ways we evaluate the women we've all come to call the First Lady of the United States. At First Blush, it might seem as though our latest American First Ladies have little in common. In fact, most people view Melania, Trump, and Michelle Obama as almost complete opposites. This usually happens because the public and the press often rely upon partisan-inspired or cherry-picked assortments of attributes, or they fail to adequately consider the various characteristics and experiences these women share in order to argue that one woman is better or more effective as First Lady than the other. Rather than thinking about how Michelle Obama and Melania Trump were each raised in economically modest environments, how both women worked hard and made sacrifices to pursue competitive, albeit very different careers, or how each waited until after the age of 30 to have children to start their families and to refuse to hire a nanny to care for their children, most people who compare these women instead focus on their personalities and their public activity to underscore their differences rather than acknowledge their similarities. It's important to move beyond simple partisan and personal comparisons if we really want to expand our understanding of these women and of the challenges that any woman faces when she assumes the mantle of the First Lady of the United States. In Melania and Michelle, First Ladies in a New Era, I explore the two most recent First Ladies' time in the public eye by reviewing their actions and media depictions of them within similar contexts. The various chapters examine how both women navigated their time as candidate spouses, their transitions to the White House, their first two years in the East Wing, and I also look at how each managed the criticisms and controversies that came up during the first couple of years and longer in their time in the White House. In each case, I contextualize the First Ladies' ships of both Melania Trump and Michelle Obama by providing anecdotes about several of the women who preceded them as presidential helpments earlier in our nation's history. The book underscores the fact that there are a number of challenges that all First Ladies have had to confront and demonstrates how each woman has had to forge her own path as the White House matron. Today, I'm going to share with you some of the aspects of the First Ladies' ship I've found most intriguing while researching Trump, Obama, and their predecessors. I will provide some historical anecdotes and explain how Melania Trump and Michelle Obama handled different aspects of a job neither of them sought and neither of them could decline. But first, I'd like to begin with a few words about First Ladies generally. America's had an uncertain and often awkward relationship with First Ladies since Martha Washington arrived in New York City, then the seat of federal government, a few months after her husband George was inaugurated as the first president of the United States. Because it is not an official, constitutionally prescribed position, the functions of a presidential helpmate have always been ambiguous. Thus, the public, the press, and even the presidential spouses themselves have struggled to determine what the role and expectations of a First Lady should be. From the beginning, the position has had no clear title, sphere of authority, or definitive job description. Martha Washington was variously referred to as Mrs. President, as the Presidentress, and as Lady Washington as people tried to establish a proper honorific for the spouse of the nation's leader. It wasn't until about a half a century later that the term First Lady became the commonly used title for the president's mate. In addition, the presumed duties of the presidential spouse have never been precisely articulated. Instead, they have always been largely based on traditional interpretations of the social obligations and restrictions placed on women generally. Even though the job description for a First Lady has never been defined in any official or explicit capacity, people have been eager to assess the effectiveness of each woman who has filled the role. Evaluations of First Lady's prowess are frequently based on personal and partisan interpretations of their behavior. The assessments also tend to focus on particular attributes or actions deemed important by the critic. For example, some members of the press praised Martha Washington for being a patriotic role model because she wore American-made clothing, but others reprimanded her for owning a fancy carriage that they said was a little too reminiscent of that of British royalty. The second First Lady, Abigail Adams, was applauded by her husband's supporters for sharing her political opinions and castigated by his opponents for her outspoken nature. Michelle Obama was commended by liberal voters for her fit physique, particularly her arms, and denounced by conservative commentators as un-lady-like because she sometimes wore sleeveless dresses. Melania Trump was both complimented and pilloried for refusing to take her husband's hand during a trip to the Middle East. From the time of Washington and Adams to that of Obama and Trump, no presidential helpmate has been able to please all of her husband's constituents. And all First Ladies have had to grapple with the challenges related to the amorphous and fluctuating expectations placed on the spouse of the U.S. President. First Ladies are unelected and unappointed, and like the women who inhabited the position before them, Mrs. Trump and Mrs. Obama were each thrust into a role of unpaid public servant with unspecified responsibilities, not because of their own ambitions, but because of their respective husband's electoral successes. Now the public fascination with First Ladies starts well before any presidential family moves into the east wing of the White House. In fact, journalists begin covering potential First Ladies during presidential primaries and sometimes even well before then. For Michelle Obama, national attention began in 2004 when her husband delivered a compelling keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. As pundits debated Barack Obama's potential future presidential run, reporters began describing his wife as a smart, encouraging helpmate and potential White House matron. Commentators likened Michelle Obama to Jacqueline Kennedy for her sense of style and to then First Lady Laura Bush for her public supportiveness of her husband. For Melania Trump, questions about her possibly becoming the East Wing matron began in 1999 when her then-boyfriend Donald Trump first suggested he might seek the U.S. presidency. At that time, journalists questioned Melania Canouse about what kind of First Lady she might be if given the opportunity. Such discussions were short-lived because most people doubted Donald's sincerity about running. He didn't, after all, run for any elected office until 17 years later when he ran for president in 2016. However, the initial conversations about Melania and what kind of First Lady she might be did involve direct comparisons to past First Ladies. Melania identified Betty Ford and Jacqueline Kennedy as potential role models she ever reside in the White House. During the 2016 race, political commentators frequently compared Mrs. Trump and Mrs. Kennedy and wondered whether Trump's original reference to Betty Ford indicated her intention to be an outspoken and independent First Lady. After all, Betty Ford often contradicted and challenged her husband in meaningful ways, like when she declared herself pro-choice and when she supported the Equal Rights Amendment. Candidate spouses receive a lot of attention during a campaign. And my other book spends a whole lot of time on that. So I'm going to shift gears a little bit here and talk about what happens once the election night tallies are totaled and moving on from there. So once the election night results are announced, the spouse of the president-elect faces a renewed focus in the media spotlight. As pundits and members of the press anticipate the changes a new First Family might bring to the White House, reporters frequently question transition teams about who will reside in the East Wing and about the schooling choices for any minor children in the family. Both Michelle Obama and Melania Trump faced criticism during their transitions to the White House. Michelle Obama was disparaged when it was announced that her mother, Marion Robinson, would move into the White House to help care for the Obama's daughters. Critics complained about the possible costs Robinson might occur and undermined Michelle Obama's much-touted persona as a dedicated mom by arguing that she was delegating her maternal responsibilities to someone else. Eight years later, Melania Trump likewise faced disapproval when the transition team announced that she would not be moving into the White House full-time for several months because she wanted to let her son finish his school year without interruption. Much like the complaints about Mrs. Robinson's residence in the White House, some critics protested the added cost of securing Mrs. Trump's New York apartment. In addition, Melania was accused of not really being interested in serving as the First Lady. And a number of pundits speculated that Ivanka Trump might actually assume that role. In both 2008 and 2016, people complaining about Michelle Obama's and Melania Trump's familial decisions during the transition erroneously claimed that each woman was breaking with historical tradition. In truth, it has not been unusual for First Ladies to recruit additional aid to help manage their maternal and First Lady duties. Many First Ladies hired nannies who are enlisted relatives to assist with the raising of offspring while in the White House. In fact, Edith Roosevelt's difficulty balancing her duties as a mother and as an active First Lady led in 1902 to the hiring of a federally funded social secretary for the First Lady, a position that eventually blossomed into what we now see as the office of the First Lady. As far as delayed moves into the White House, there's a long history of First Ladies putting off a change in residence for months after their husband's inauguration, beginning as I stated earlier with Martha Washington and continuing into the 20th century. Some First Ladies, such as Bess Truman's, even spent more time in their home state than they did in Washington DC. In addition to anticipating familial decisions during the transition, members of the media also cover customary elements of the exchange of power such as the meeting between the incoming and outgoing presidents and First Ladies. While the presidents usually earn more media coverage than the First Ladies do on this day, the meeting of the mates is often interesting for a variety of reasons. Designed to help the new White House matron learn about the ins and outs of how the nation's most famous residence is run, meetings between incoming and outgoing First Ladies are primarily private affairs in which consorts of the president and the president-elect pose for photos then engage in a confidential tour of the building. Despite the intended secrecy of these exchanges, several of the tours have become the source of compelling tales revealing interesting insights about the relationships between former First Ladies when decades later, staff reveal details left out of the official accounts. For example, in 1960, Mamie Eisenhower was said to be so distraught about handing over the White House to a Democrat that she delayed scheduling the tours she eventually gave to Jacqueline Kennedy until the week after Mrs. Kennedy had given birth via cesarean section. What's more, Eisenhower allegedly hid the wheelchair requested by Mrs. Kennedy's physician and then gave Kennedy a 90-minute walking tour without providing opportunities for breaks to sit down. Although the press at the time described the event as genial, the fact that Mrs. Eisenhower's staff confirmed that Mamie had a tendency to refer to Mrs. Kennedy not by name, but as that college girl tends to support the more acrimonious accounts of the encounter. Other tense incoming and outgoing meetings include those between Betty Ford and Rosalind Carter, Rosalind Carter and Nancy Reagan, and even between Nancy Reagan and Barbara Bush, which is a little more surprising because that was an intra-party Republican switch, but it was said to be pretty intense and delayed until pretty late, about mid-January, early January. So far, the more recent meetings between Barbara Bush and Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush, and Laura Bush and Michelle Obama have been characterized as much more convivial. In 2016, the incoming outgoing first lady meeting took on special significance and garnered an unusually high amount of attention for several reasons. First, the sitting first lady, Michelle Obama, had campaigned rather intensely against the president-elect. She had made so many negative remarks about Donald Trump that some people thought Melania Trump might hold a personal grudge against Michelle. In addition, during the 2016 Republican National Convention, Melania Trump delivered a prepared address that contained a number of passages that sounded a great deal like some parts of Michelle Obama's 2008 DNC speech. Melania Trump was widely accused of plagiarism, of plagiarizing from Michelle Obama, and never publicly addressed the charges. Many people thought the incoming first lady owed her predecessor an apology, and political pundits wondered if it would come during their White House exchange. Official reports about the November 10th, 2016 meeting characterized the encounter as polite and described both women as affable. There were no reported demonstrations of discourtesy by either woman, and many members of the press seemed mildly disappointed by the apparent lack of hostility. However, some commentators expressed a hope that perhaps, as happened with Mamie Eisenhower and Jackie Kennedy, juicier anecdotes might emerge as time passes. Once the transition is over and the inauguration festivities end, the public and the press turn their attention to critiquing the day-to-day actions of the new American president and first family. Traditionally, first ladies have been considered symbols of American womanhood. Thus, the expectations placed upon the president's concert have generally aligned with socially conservative notions about proper sex roles during any given era. First ladies are generally presumed to serve customarily feminine functions like being the national hostess and acting as a public social advocate. The first lady has served as the national hostess ever since Martha Washington began planning teas, receptions and dinners in the presidential residence. She had been forbidden from attending informal dinners in private residences in order to prevent citizens from indirectly influencing the president through his wife. So Washington engaged socially with others by inviting groups to official events. By instituting this practice, she said a precedent for the women who followed her and all first ladies or their surrogates have since been expected to host a variety of gatherings in the presidential residence. In addition, given that the women were initially excluded from direct political participation, the official social events gave the first lady an outlet for engaging in political discussions and debates in a socially acceptable manner. Later, first ladies like Dolly Madison and Louisa Adams used their hostess role as a way to influence thought leaders of their times through what might be considered a form of dinner party diplomacy. This tradition has persisted throughout the history of the first ladieship. One national hostess activity that draws substantial attention to any first lady is when her and her husband throw an official state dinner for a foreign head of state. A tradition that started in 1874 when Ulysses and Julia Grant held a formal dinner for David Kalakaua, the king of Hawaii, state dinners for foreign leaders are opportunities for first ladies to embrace the hostess role on an international scale. Although some presidents have interjected their own ideas into the planning of a state dinner, for example, Ulysses S. Grant actually insisted on choosing the wine and establishing the seating charts, most of the planning, most of the time is left to the first lady. Every decision made by the East Wing matriarch for such events is susceptible to critique from the location to the cuisine, from her attire to the evening's entertainment. Those who break with the 20th century tradition of a black or white tie event in the White House state dining room often face added scrutiny. For example, Eleanor Roosevelt was widely disparaged when she served King George VI of England, hot dogs and hamburgers during an informal state dinner that was picnic style and held at the Roosevelt's New York residence in Hyde Park. However, after the king had expressed his joy at having actually had that experience, a lot of critics began calling the event a uniquely American gathering that promoted U.S. culture and traditions. So critics tend to change their mind sometimes. In November 2009, members of the American and international press began questioning Michelle Obama's ability to adequately function as the national hostess. When details about her plans for a state dinner for Manamohan Singh, the prime minister of India emerged. The event was scheduled to be held in a tent on the White House grounds, raising concerns that Obama, a self-prescribed girl from the South side of Chicago, lacked the sophistication necessary to adequately honor a foreign dignitary. Critics argued that conducting the event in a tent was culturally insensitive and potentially insulting to the Indian head of state. When the East Wing explained that the 150-person state dining room was insufficient for the number of guests expected, new objections emerged that Obama was turning the political gathering into an overpriced celebrity gala. Despite the initial concerns, Michelle Obama's first state dinner was considered by many to be a successful display of dinner party diplomacy. The more than 400 guests dressed in a mix of formal and Indian-inspired attire. The meal included vegetarian dishes that respected the prime minister's gustatory preferences and contained ingredients from the White House garden. The entertainment for the night comprised speeches by key dignitaries, as well as performances by Chicago-based jazz musicians and banger dancers from San Francisco. Many journalists commended Obama for effectively blending American and Indian features in a manner that demonstrated respect for the cultures of both nations. However, some critics also accused the First Lady of using the event to establish her own celebrity status and for spending extravagantly on an overdone party during a time when many Americans were struggling through the Great Recession. Melania Trump hosted her first state dinner in April, 2018, 15 months after her husband's inauguration. When the event for Emmanuel Macron, the president of France, was initially announced, no one questioned whether Mrs. Trump could plan an appropriate gathering. Trump's background led commentators to assume that she had the skills necessary to organize a sophisticated dinner. The only concern was how involved her husband would be since he had become known for taking charge of many White House decisions often left to First Ladies. The Office of the First Lady quickly clarified that Melania Trump would be fully in charge of every aspect of the dinner, pointing out that she was studying past dinners thrown by former First Ladies and that she refused to hire an event coordinator to assist her. Trump's state dinner was, by all accounts, a rousing success. A significantly smaller event than most of either Michelle Obama's or Laura Bush's state dinners, the meal was held in the official state dining room and included a variety of references both to the culture of the guest of honor and to several past First Ladies. The meal highlighted French influences on American cooking by including a blend of French and Cajun flavors. The First Lady's gown was a haute couture Chanel dress from renowned French designer Carl Lagerfeld who was also known as a political supporter of President Macron. For the evening, Mrs. Trump selected small round tables reminiscent of Jacqueline Kennedy's preferred seating style. Her floral arrangements included cherry blossoms that were a nod to Helen Taft who had arranged for the now famous Washington D.C. cherry trees a gift that had come from Japan to be planted as part of her D.C. beautification efforts. The place settings consisted of dinnerware from the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations plus several herbs used in the meal and the honey used in the dessert came from the White House garden and beehive developed during Michelle Obama's tenure in the White House. Melania Trump's first state dinner demonstrated her taste and skills and underscored an interest in the history of the First Lady's ship for which she is rarely given credit. Few critics of any political perspective found fault with Melania Trump regarding the state dinner she oversaw for the president of France. She was widely praised for her poise, elegance and the care she took in coordinating the event. Many politicos argued that Mrs. Trump's enactment of the hostess duties underscored her embrace of a conservative perspective on the First Lady's ship and quelled some concerns that she might not have a sincere interest in serving as the White House matriarch. In addition to serving as the national hostess, First Ladies have been filling the role of public social advocate from the early days of the Republic. Admittedly, what public social advocacy means has changed as women's place in society has evolved but almost all First Ladies have engaged in activities specifically designed to help some segment of society. Martha Washington used her own money to help veterans and widows of the Revolutionary War. Abigail Adams advocated for women's rights. Louisa Adams supported abolition. Helen Taft pushed for legislation regarding health and safety standards in the workplace. Jacqueline Kennedy forwarded an arts initiative. Lady Bird Johnson promoted highway beautification and Rosalind Carter was a strong advocate for improving mental health care. More recently, Barbara and Laura Bush supported literacy programs and Hillary Clinton worked on healthcare legislation. Michelle Obama and Melania Trump took up their own causes in their own ways but both selected topics that were child and family oriented. Michelle Obama's Let's Move initiative involved encouraging children to be physically active and eat healthy foods. The program began during the first few months of Obama's White House tenure and included a variety of components from planting White House vegetable garden and building an apiary to partnering with existing initiatives like the NFL's Play 60 program. Obama invited children to numerous Let's Move events and solicited celebrities of various sorts to promote her message. She even appeared on popular television programs and used the internet to spread her message that children should exercise and eat a healthy diet. Her advocacy activities extended beyond public messaging when her office became involved in making recommendations for improving the nutrition standards of school lunches. Although she was not actually involved in drafting legislation, she was credited with helping decrease the sodium content in school lunches and increasing the amount of fruits and vegetables offered in school cafeterias. Melania Trump's program, Be Best, took longer to develop than most First Lady's social advocacy campaigns. Announced during her second year in the White House, Be Best was an initiative designed to address students, address issues particularly concerning children and families, including social media safety, enhancing children's wellbeing, and understanding the impact of opioid addiction on families. The effort was noteworthy in that it did not include new programming, but it was instead intended to draw attention and promote the work others were doing in these areas. Although she initially had no direct measurable influence on specific legislative initiatives, Trump did hold meetings with experts in cyberbullying and opioid addiction throughout her first year as First Lady. She also visited various medical centers, schools, and children centers during the months leading up to and following the announcement of Be Best. Despite the fact that each selected social advocacy topics that at first appear very uncontroversial, I mean, really, who would think that getting children to exercise and eat healthy or being interested in trying to figure out the impacts of drug addiction on children would be at all objectionable. Michelle Obama and Melania Trump were both publicly criticized for their efforts. Trump was accused of doing too little, Obama of doing too much. Commentators complained that the Be Best program was not at all innovative and that it lacked substance. Following the launch, politicians argued that Trump had done very little work herself and instead was using the efforts of others to make herself appear caring and compassionate. The lackluster launch of Be Best reignited doubts about the sincerity of Melania Trump's interest in embracing the First Lady ship. Michelle Obama, on the other hand, was charged with overstepping the unstated boundaries of her position by directly influencing public policies regarding school lunches. Students took to social media to post pictures of bins full of uneaten fruit and to share their complaints about changes to the portion size and composition of their lunches. Reporters claimed that Obama was exploiting her position as the president's spouse to forward her own agenda in an inappropriate manner. Some pundits framed Michelle Obama's Let's Move program as an example of the Obama administration's efforts to create a nanny state in which the government dictated personal lifestyle choices. One thing most First Ladies have in common is the impossibility of pleasing all of their respective husband's constituents, as we could see from the complaints about their social advocacy. While some First Ladies are remembered more fondly than others, all president spouses encounter criticism of one sort or another. Some grievances are more serious than others. For example, Mary Todd Lincoln was accused of misappropriating governmental funds and extorting presidential appointees. Edith Wilson was said to have circumscribed the Constitution when she essentially assumed many of the duties of the president and tightly controlled access to the president after her husband Woodrow suffered a stroke in office. Florence Harding allegedly served alcohol to White House guests during prohibition. Rosalind Carter was pilloried for attending cabinet meetings and testifying before Congress, and Nancy Reagan was rumored to have planned her husband's schedule based on guidance from an astrologer. Michelle Obama and Melania Trump faced criticism in much the same way that their predecessors did. As I explained earlier, both women were critiqued for their decisions during the move in to the White House and both received mixed reviews for their selection and implementation of social advocacy programs. In addition, although both women were generally complimented for their fashion sense and each served as a fashion icon of sorts, both Michelle Obama and Melania Trump were variously faulted for their choice of attire, including objections about the cost, appearance, and appropriateness of their sartorial sensibility. Michelle Obama was widely applauded for wearing outfits the average American woman could wear and afford. She often donned off the rack items from mid-range priced retailers like J. Crew. However, she was occasionally reproved for her wardrobe chases, choices, and for the presumed expense associated with maintaining her appearance. During her first European tour as First Lady, Obama was pilloried for hiring a personal makeup specialist to travel with her. Although she paid the person out of private funds, pundits and politicos argued that the need for such help was indicative of Obama being spoiled and overindulgent. In 2014, Obama was accused of a fashion misstep when she wore a $12,000 evening gown to a state dinner at a time when her husband was making income equality a major issue. On the other side of the cost scale, Obama was also denounced for dressing too casually when she was photographed in shorts and a T-shirt, disembarking Air Force One for a family vacation at the Grand Canyon. Although the attire was appropriate for the occasion, it was deemed inadequate for her social position. Obama later identified that moment as one of her worst fashion faux pas and explained that she had made the mistake of thinking like a mom on vacation rather than as the First Lady of the United States. Mrs. Trump has also frequently received a great deal of complimentary news coverage for her fashion sense. Like Obama, Trump has been called one of the most fashion forward U.S. First Ladies and is often compared to Jacqueline Kennedy for her sense of style. However, Melania Trump has also endured criticism for the cost and appropriateness of her wardrobe choices. When she wore a $51,000 Dolce & Gabbana jacket to the G7 Summit in Milan a few months after her husband's inauguration, commentators condemned her for flaunting her wealth. A short time later, reporters scorned her for wearing high heels as she left the White House to help distribute aid to hurricane victims. When Trump was photographed returning from vacation, wearing fashionable but affordable button-down shirt and jeans, she was then accused of trying too hard to emulate her predecessor, Michelle Obama. In addition, Melania Trump also has routinely made wardrobe choices that seem to send some kind of a message, but the exact nature of that message has often been unclear. During the presidential campaign, as her husband was facing a sexual harassment scandal referred to as Pussygate, Melania opted to wear a pink blouse with what designers call a pussy beau on the front of her blouse. Commentators disputed whether the outfit was intended to taunt the press or her husband. During the nights of the election, the inauguration, and for her husband's first address to the Joint Session of Congress, Melania Trump wore white. The symbolic color of the suffragists and the signature hue of her husband's opponent, Hillary Clinton. After each of these appearances, politicos wondered whether the wardrobe choice was meant to mock her husband, his opponents, or if it carried no special significance at all. In the summer of 2018, Trump made one of her most perplexing sartorial selections. As you might recall that year, the Trump administration interpreted an immigration statute to justify separating minor children crossing the US-Mexico border from their families and holding them in detention centers. The move was very controversial and all living former First Ladies spoke out against the practice. A few days after the height of the protest, Melania Trump was credited with privately convincing the president to soften his position. Then she made an impromptu trip to visit one of the detention centers. The trip should have been a major coup for the First Lady, demonstrating her sincere be best concern for the welfare of children. But her clothing choice sabotaged her overall message. While boarding a plane in Washington, D.C., Trump was photographed wearing a green jacket with the words, I really don't care, do you, emblazoned in big white letters on the back. News stories and social media commentaries focused more on the meaning of the jacket than on any other aspect of that trip. Commentators speculated about the decision-making behind the jacket. Some journalists argued that it indicated Mrs. Trump was simply going through the motions and meeting only the most rudimentary expectations of being a First Lady. Other members of the media wondered if the jacket was a message to her husband, underscoring the bold action she was taking despite his potential objection. Members of the Office of the First Lady initially downplayed the meaning of the coat, arguing it's just a jacket and that it had no longer, no larger implications. The president, however, claimed the coat was his wife's way of criticizing the media for their coverage of her clothing, and members of both the East and West Wing subsequently repeated his assertions. Instead of earning support for the actions that, for her actions that called attention to the plight of children at the border, Melania Trump was decried for her seemingly callous choice of attire. In addition to earning criticism for their clothing, throughout their respective tenures as First Lady, Michelle Obama, Melania Trump were also regularly disparaged for some of their personal characteristics, including their physical, moral, and intellectual attributes. In the book, I actually dedicate all of chapter four to talking about the criticisms and expanding on them in some details. So now, for the sake of time and moving on to some other interesting ideas, I think I'll let you just kind of go back and read that part of the chapter or ask questions about it later in the Q&A session. Today, I've presented some of the content of Melania and Michelle, First Ladies in the New Era, that underscores a few of the frequently ignored commonalities our two most recent First Ladies share. I stated in the opening of my talk today, they were both previously in competitive professions. Both had children when they were in their 30s and neither higher nannies to help raise their kids. In addition, both were initially less than enthusiastic about their husband's desire to seek the Oval Office. As First Ladies, both women were considered fashion icons, promoted child-focused social advocacy programs, and adeptly demonstrated their skills as national hosts in presiding over-state dinner. Both also faced criticisms that were partisan and personal in nature. Despite the fact that people from either side of the political aisle tend to ignore the similarities between Michelle Obama and Melania Trump, the unique nature of the U.S. First Ladieship means that they will historically be bound as part of a distinctive political and social sisterhood. While it is impossible to recognize, it is important to recognize that these women do share a particular and noteworthy set of experiences. I'd like to take a few moments to acknowledge that Michelle Obama, Melania Trump, and every other person who served or will serve as the president's helpmate are also unique individuals with a distinct repertoire of perspectives and talents. When discussing and evaluating First Ladies, we often tend to treat persons who have served in this role as though they all somehow possessed the same political experience and the same interest in being a public servant, and as if they all share a similar set of skills. Yet the truth is that they have been a rather diverse group of individuals with unique, quite disparate aptitudes and interests. Despite their differences, we frequently try to understand and assess First Ladies by comparing them either to one another or to some imagined ideal. In Melania and Michelle, I describe some of the problems with comparing First Ladies and close the book with a discussion of some of the more important and often overlooked distinctions between Melania Trump and Michelle Obama and move beyond partisan and personality-based critiques. Although Michelle Obama and Melania Trump each pursued careers that were competitive, their professions differed in a manner that impacted their preparedness for being First Lady. Obama was an attorney by training and a public relations specialist in practice. In both roles, she had to develop a talent for appealing to and working with diverse groups of people. Her time as a lawyer helped her become adroit at building arguments and her work for the mayor of Chicago helped shape her ability to understand various constituencies. While employed at the University of Chicago hospitals, Obama had the opportunity to hone her presentation skills and to learn how to balance the needs of multiple publics. In addition, she was married to a man with political ambitions and was involved in a number of political campaigns throughout her adult life. Melania Trump's professional career meant she did spend time in the public eye, but her job as a model helped her develop a very different group of competencies than Obama. For Melania, being physically attractive and being able to follow directions given by photographers, designers, and fashion directors were prized attributes. She was never required to hone her public presentation skills and she rarely had to develop argumentative appeals or consider the needs and interests of multiple audiences. Additionally, Melania had no real experience as a politician's wife. Unlike all contemporary first ladies, Melania Trump's first campaign as a candidate's spouse was the 2016 presidential race. Her husband never ran a senatorial, gubernatorial, congressional, or even mayoral race. He never held public office. Mrs. Trump had no experience appealing to potential voters, had no reason to develop a public service agenda, had no way of fully anticipating the degree of scrutiny she would face during the presidential race or while in the White House. Melania Trump did not run for public office, but she found herself forced into a public service role that she could not decline. Clearly, Michelle Obama and Melania Trump entered the White House with different professional aptitudes and experiences to help inform their behaviors as first lady. In addition, the political and historical context during which each assumed the first lady mantle were quite different and altered the ways each was viewed. In 2008, many considered Barack Obama an exciting young candidate who represented a generational and social shift in governmental leadership. The first African-American elected to the Oval Office, Barack ran under the affirmative message of hope and change. His campaign was built on the idea of unity and progress. Within this context, the amiable and outgoing Michelle Obama built a public persona that accentuated her relatable role as a loving mother and supportive wife. Audience members could identify with her personal anecdotes and often embraced her every mom image. This positivity followed Michelle Obama into the White House and beyond. In 2016, the presidential election was very different from 2008. Donald Trump built a following based on divisive rhetoric and as the strength of his candidacy grew, so did the vitriolic nature of his messaging. Many pundits viewed his motto make America great again as a regressive throwback to more openly racist and sexist times. Because Melania Trump was largely silent but visually ever present during the campaign, her public persona became tied to her husband's negative perspective more so than her own curated image. With little of her own messaging to build on, commentators speculated about Melania's political perspectives. Many people assumed that Melania either shared her husband's divisive points of view or that she was too submissive to express her own ideas if she disagreed with him. These perspectives regarding Mrs. Trump have influenced interpretations of her as First Lady. Melania Trump began her time as the White House matron under a cloud of suspicion and concern. A position that was hard for a woman with little experience in the public realm to overcome. Another part of the context that exacerbated Melania Trump's difficulty establishing a positive rapport with the public is that she followed a popular and competent First Lady. The somewhat guarded and aloof Trump was such a dramatic change from the outgoing and candid Michelle Obama that complaints about Trump were inevitable. Without properly accounting for the variations in the women's skill sets and experience as well as their preparation for life as a public servant and the context surrounding their assumption of the First Lady ship, it might be reasonable to condemn Trump for being less accessible than Obama. However, recognizing the additional challenges Trump encountered as she became the matron of the White House encourages a much more sympathetic reading of her efforts. Although it is understandable to want to compare various First Ladies to those who proceeded them, it is necessary to keep in mind that the job is problematic in many respects and that directly contrasting these women is fraught with challenges. The people who have filled the role have been real women with different experiences and unique world views who were confronting a variety of ever-changing yet nebulous expectations. We should endeavor to understand Michelle Obama and Melania Trump as complex, multifaceted women rather than accepting the often oversimplified caricatures of them proffered by the press, online commentators, and those who would use them as political pawns. We demand much of our First Ladies, even though there is little consensus regarding exactly what it is they should do and no official constitutional enumeration of what the position entails. The women who serve as First Lady of the United States are neither elected nor appointed and yet they face the glare of the spotlight and the judgment of the public at every turn. For so many reasons, the First Lady is not an easy role to fill and we should do well to appraise the women who are thrust into this position with a bit more charity and latitude than has been our customary practice. Thank you. We'll now take some questions. If you guys have any questions, I would like for you to come to either of the microphones so that the folks on watching the live stream can actually hear. So it looks like we've got a question here. Thank you. The title of your book is First Ladies in a New Era. What is it that you see as new about the last decade or the era that we have the two most recent ladies filling? Sure. Thank you for that question. It's a good question. Because First Ladies, as I've said, have been very interesting to everybody for a very, very long time. But one of the things that has specifically changed, particularly during the 21st century, is that the women in that role, particularly due to the rise of the internet and social media specifically, those women have faced an additional level of scrutiny and a bigger concaveny of voices talking about them in different kinds of ways than the previous First Ladies. It hadn't been uncommon in the past for people to maybe have their opinions about First Ladies, how they're doing, what they were doing, but those opinions weren't very widely shared. You'd have those conversations with a friend over coffee or over the dinner table. You didn't then plaster the ideas across the internet for everybody to hear and then try to make them even more catchy so they'd go viral. And so I think that the scrutiny level has really increased in this new era. In addition, the women have, because of the increase in the quality of communication technologies, the women have been expected to be more responsive, more visible, and more quickly responsive than any of their predecessors. So the new era really is about what the communication technology is doing to and for us in terms of the ways in which we talk about and the expectations that we set and share for First Ladies. Thank you so much. It strikes me that you could actually expand your book and also include Laura Bush and Hilary Clinton as well because I think they too were also, if victim isn't the right word, were also strongly defined by their husband's presidencies. But when I look at the four of those, they were also mothers with children who were in the White House at the time. So I just wonder if, and I got here late, so I don't know if you talked about the role of a mother as well while they were in the White House. I didn't actually have the opportunity to talk a lot about that during the talk itself, but I do explore it in the book a bit and then also in my previous book, Moms in Chief. The role that the First Lady has always had to play has been sort of as a national mother and then also balancing that with her own motherhood. For example, every First Lady who has had children in the White House has had to balance being the national mother versus being the mother of their own children and has had to find ways to help balance the large number of amount of time that they have to dedicate towards both. And I think particularly with Michelle Obama and Melania Trump, you see a lot of emphasis on them as mothers. You saw some of that with Hillary Clinton, especially in the second term, Bill Clinton's second term when she really emphasized her motherhood a lot more than she had previously. And then with Laura Bush, of course, the conversation was very big about the Bush twins and how she was kind of managing that. But in that particular case with Laura Bush, she, her children were out of high school already at that point in time, which made it a little bit different than those with minor children in the house. And so it's a great idea to sort of expand the discussion. But I think also it's a little bit difficult because you have to sort of find points of comparison that are manageable as well. And so I do talk a little bit about it, but not extensively, so. But I'd appreciate the recommendation, so thanks. Do you have any other questions? Okay. Thank you for your presentation. You talked about Melania's Be Best program, which encompassed looking at online, online or social media influences and whatnot with respect to children. At the time she received a lot of criticism because she was married to an individual who kind of capitalized on social media and criticism and bullying. So can you speak to that a little bit and that there seemed to be a contradiction there? Yeah, there does seem to be a bit of a contradiction and you are absolutely right. She was very much criticized even just before the election when she gave only her second full speech of the entire 2016 campaign. She had expressed that cyber bullying was going to be one of her signature campaigns and people just sort of slammed her for that. And I think one of the problems is that she can only do so much as well. Like any first lady can only do so much. She can stand for whatever she says. But then to change your husband's mind is kind of like any woman with a husband or any husband with a wife, right? You're an independent person and so you're gonna do what you're gonna do. So even though people said it was disingenuous of her to say she was gonna work on cyber bullying as her signature cause, they didn't give her enough credit for being able to do things without actually influencing her husband. We sort of see the same thing that's been coming up lately with the idea of she's defending, she complained, Melania Trump complained about the insertion of Baron Trump, their minor child, into some of the impeachment proceedings and said minor children should be off limits. And then yesterday we get the tweets from her husband criticizing a minor who was called Person of the Year by Time magazine. And so you get a lot of her kind of having to take it on the chin for her husband which is a bit unfortunate because she can't really control her husband. Most people can't, most people can't control their spouse. So it's a little bit unfair, but at the same time completely understandable why people would get upset. Sort of like pointing to home. But that's actually kind of goes to a bigger, broader problem or problem, but issue that we have. We have this interesting expectation that women are going to be the ethical moderators of the home and that somehow women are the ones that are supposed to make sure their husbands behave well, that their children behave well. We saw a lot of that in the 2016 campaign actually when people would complain about Hillary Clinton not reining in bill, but they didn't really criticize Donald Trump when the nude photos of Melania Trump came out, right? So we have this interesting double standard that's very much sex and gender based. So thank you for that question, thanks. Any other questions? Well, thank you very much for coming to listen to the talk today and thank you for your interest in Melania and Michelle and the First Ladies because they're a very interesting group of individuals. And I think sometimes we don't really think of them as much as individuals as we should. So thank you for your interest and I think... Yes. Hand it over to Tom.