It seems Michelle Obama's statements about what her role will be in the White House is sparking the same old arguments amongst media types.

Salon's Rebecca Traister was one of the first to object to reports focusing on Michelle Obama as a wife and mother rather than a former lawyer and hospital administrator:

"The Associated Press wondered what kind of first lady Michelle will be, and concludes, 'the kind of first lady this country has not seen in decades.' You mean, the kind with a high-powered job? No, 'the mother of young children.' True enough, and the AP story did include the fact that Michelle is known to be her husband's closest advisor. But it made sure to emphasize the campaign's assertions that 'she is not interested in shaping policy or reserving a seat for herself at her husband's decision-making table. She prefers, at least for now, to focus on easing the transition for Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7 -- getting them in new schools, settled and comfortable with a new way of life.' Indeed, Michelle herself has been flogging the term 'mom-in-chief' as the cheerily unthreatening title she'll assume when she gets to the White House.

It seems unlikely most women across America will take the offense Traister does.  More are likely to respond to her, as Slate writer Melinda Henneberger does:

But why is a focus on her role as a wife and mother assumed to be just for show? Is she required to regard being a hands-on mom and first spouse as small potatoes just because she's in every way an equal partner to the president-elect and attended schmantzy schools...Is there a woman (or man) alive who wouldn't gladly take a few years off to advise and support the president?

Can smart, strong women not choose traditional roles? Everything I know about Michelle Obama tells me that this really is her choice, not her consolation prize."