Is Michelle O fair game?

  In the last week, the press has leaped to Michelle Obama's defense to counteract the negative impact of Jodi Kantor's book The Obamas. CNN's Soledad O'Brien's exemplifies this media frenzy of defense. Rather than trust the fact that Kantor entered the White House numerous times and interviewed numerous Obama players, O'Brien repeatedly pummels Kantor in an attempt to discredit her:
  
  This kind of media sycophantic defense of Obama, in contrast with the unending vitriolic attacks on Palin, is red meat for the opposition, who perceive the press as in the pocket of liberals anyway.
  The White House quickly fought back against Kantor's book by claiming she had made 9 factual errors, errors so egregious as getting the color of FLOTUS's dress wrong at an event. Those "errors" are listed here:

As Mike Allen reported recently, “a list of alleged errors” in Jodi Kantor's blockbuster “The Obamas” is “circulating.” We've got the “error” list — can't say from whom! — and it's shot through with errors of its own, and minor quibbles. And while this kind of nit-picking is the Washington playbook for discrediting a book, here's a fact check check that finds two-thirds of the complaints don't fly. The headline and text are from the anti-Kantor research document itself, with our evaluations in bold.

  The pushback against the "angry Black woman" meme goes international, as 5 Black women in England explain Michelle O's side of the meme from their perspective. 
  From The Guardian, this excerpt is representative of their anger regarding being labeled an "angry Black woman":

I'm not so much an angry black woman as a livid one. I live in a state of perpetual rage, only ever one news story away from flying off the handle. I start most mornings shouting "racists" at the radio, and end many of my days shouting "sexists" at the TV. When I'm not bawling at inanimate objects, I'm applying cocoa butter to my skin, which is incredibly dry, or trying to manage my "unruly" hair. If I'm not the wrong gender for a position of power, I'm the wrong colour: invariably my face doesn't fit for both reasons.
When racism and sexism collide, feminists call it the theory of intersectionality – where multiple identities combine to increase oppression – but for black women it's just known as reality.

  This vitriolic inner conflict is quite ugly and unintentionally revealing.
  To live in such misery truly must be difficult. 
  To see others and one's self only through the prism of race can only nurture resentment and anger toward others, as evidenced above.
  Kathleen Parker, resident Washington Post conservative, is horrified at all criticism of FLOTUS, defending her by suggesting the attacks on her are, of course, racist. The trope she's talking about is the "angry Black woman" one:

Indeed, it may be that this trope has evolved from the swamp of the blogosphere, where anonymous trolls say despicable things from the cowardly comfort of their subterranean wormholes. 

It isn’t hard to find evidence of racial undertones in these anonymous missives, one of which materialized in my inbox recently

Parker goes on to explain how "unhealthy" and unjustified these attacks are:

Despite the pain these critiques cause Mrs. Obama and other African American women who identify with her, I do believe that these feelings are not particularly widespread. Most see the first lady as she is: a beautiful, gracious, intelligent, elegant, devoted wife and mother of whom we can be proud. 

Those who insult her insult us all, and, yes, we should be angry. 

  Of course some very ugly things are said around the web about everybody and everything, but it is also true that those who criticize the anointed (in this case Michelle Obama) are painted as racist just shuts everybody up. 
  Though Sarah Palin was the first significant female conservative politician to be nominated vice president, Kathleen Parker felt no such restraint when it came to mocking and denigrating her. 
  Rather than respect that significant historical moment, Parker admits leading the charge to assassinate Palin politically. No boundaries were respected, including attacks on Palin's Down Syndrome child, but no feminist defended her.
  When Palin dropped out, in an article called "Palin sits out 2012: There is a God," Parker wrote contemptuously of this first successful Republican female candidate who who inspired conservatives across the country:

Put her on the stage or a truckbed with other members of the GOP menagerie, and Americans would forget their purpose. The nation would splinter even more into cultish groups untethered to reality, their focus either to destroy Palin or to worship her, two equally potent passions that can’t be harnessed in her presence. Those red shoes. That wink. That pointy finger. Women would have to fill their ears with wax and men to strap themselves to flagpoles. 

Utter madness.

  Was Parker being racist against whites when she mocked Palin but warmly embraced Obama? 
  Some would suggest that's not even a legitimate question, since a minority cannot be prejudiced against a majority by virtue of their minority status.
  Except that an American minority is currently in complete charge of the government. How is there an imbalance of power against that minority when it's in charge of it?
  As a blogger who has been highly critical of Michelle Obama, I take exception to the accusation that to be critical of Michelle Obama is racist, unfair and, as Parker says, "insults us all."
  Indeed, if we are to move toward a society that acknowledges race but treats people equally, then it's time to drop the illusion that to disagree with someone philosophically is to be racist. 
  The true racists are those who accuse and accuse and accuse and then justify those accusations by defining those they accuse by politically correct terms such as racist as sexist.
  The truth is I do not like Michelle Obama.
  I disagree philosophically with the Liberal view of governing. I consider it demeaning and destructive of the American spirit.
  Michelle Obama is not an elected politician. She is an overbearing presence in the White House who is attempting to redefine the role of FLOTUS, just as Hillary attempted. 
  In fact, Hillary is much more tolerable as Secretary of State than she was a FLOTUS.
  Why? 
  Because that is a legitimate role for her. Being a controlling force in the White House as the wife of an elected politician was not. Her power grabs were unacceptable.
  Admittedly one of the reasons Michelle Obama is so intolerable is the press's attempt to paint her as trend setter. She's asked for this, pushing boundaries wherever possible, wearing bizarre clothing and flaunting expensive accoutrements during a recession.
  Hey, you put yourself out there as a exercise guru, flaunting your "toned" arms every chance you get, please expect us fatties to howl in derision when your rear end appears to be the size of a small tank.
  It's the way of the ninja, dude.
  Then there's the other thing.
  Michelle Obama is an unpleasant person. 
  And we're still allowed the freedom to dislike people, aren't we?
  Kathleen Parker?