Michelle Obama ‘glad' she didn't have a son: ‘He would've been a Barack Obama'
Former First Lady Michelle Obama says she's 'so glad' none of her children was a boy because that hypothetical child would've carried a heavy burden — his famous father's name.
Speaking on her 'IMO' podcast alongside radio host Angie Martinez and her brother, Craig Robinson, the ex-first lady was discussing the challenges of raising boys in today's society when she exclaimed: 'I'm so glad I didn't have a boy.'
When Martinez asked why she and her husband, former President Barack Obama, didn't try for a son to complement their two daughters, Sasha and Malia, Obama replied: 'Because he would've been a Barack Obama!'
Martinez said a 'baby Barack' would've been 'amazing,' at which point the former First Lady said she 'would've felt for him,' referring to the hypothetical son under discussion.
Robinson, the current executive director of the National Association of Basketball Coaches, jumped in by stating that his sister and her husband 'just borrowed our boys,' referring to the children he has had from his two marriages over the years.
The former first lady's relief at not having had a male child stems from the fact that her husband, whose full name is Barack Hussein Obama II, would have likely elected to name him Barack Obama III.
The 44th president, who was the first Black person to serve as America's chief executive, was named for his father, Barack Hussein Obama.
The elder Obama was a Kenyan economist and government official who met the future president's mother, anthropologist Stanley Ann Dunham, while they were both studying at the University of Hawaii at Manoa in the 1960s.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
Federal judge blocks Trump effort to keep Harvard from hosting foreign students
A federal judge on Friday granted a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administration's efforts to keep Harvard University from hosting international students. The order from U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs preserves the ability of Harvard to host foreign students while the case is decided. It marks another victory for the Ivy League school as it challenges multiple government sanctions amid a battle with the White House. ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
Telegraph
23 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Mahmoud Khalil to be released from ICE custody
A pro-Palestinian Columbia university graduate is to be released from immigration custody. Mahmoud Khalil, 30, was detained by Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) and faces deportation from the US over allegations that he 'led activities aligned with Hamas'. The green card holder, who is married to an American, is a prominent figure in the pro-Palestinian movement which has seen scores of protests across America against the Israel-Gaza conflict. Donald Trump has called the protests antisemitic and vowed to deport foreign students who took part. Mr Khalil was the first to be arrested under the policy. On Friday Michael Farbiarz, a New Jersey district judge, ordered the Department for Homeland Security (DHS) to release him from custody at a jail for immigrants in rural Louisiana. Judge Farbiarz said the government had made no attempt to rebut evidence provided by Khalil's lawyers that he was not a flight risk or a danger to public. 'There is at least something to the underlying claim that there is an effort to use the immigration charge here to punish the petitioner,' the judge said, adding that punishing someone over a civil immigration matter is unconstitutional. Earlier this month, the same judge ruled that the government was violating Mr Khalil's free speech rights by detaining him under a law granting the US secretary of state power to seek deportation of non-citizens whose presence in the country was deemed adverse to US foreigneleas policy interests, although he was not red at the time.
The Guardian
37 minutes ago
- The Guardian
California challenges troop deployment after appeals court rules for Trump
California's challenge of the Trump administration's military deployment on the streets of Los Angeles returned to a federal courtroom in San Francisco on Friday after an appeals court handed Donald Trump a key procedural win in the case. Friday's hearing comes a day after the ninth circuit appellate panel allowed the president to keep control of national guard troops he deployed in response to protests over immigration raids. The appellate decision halted a temporary restraining order from US district judge Charles Breyer, who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California's governor, Gavin Newsom. Despite the appellate setback, California's attorneys are expected to ask Breyer on Friday for a preliminary injunction returning control of the troops in Los Angeles to Newsom. Protests in LA kicked off two weeks ago, over aggressive immigration raids at workplaces in the region. While the protests have been intense at times, with occasional vandalism in violence, much of the turbulence remained restricted to a few blocks downtown. There've been few demonstrations this week, though the immigration raids have continued unabated. Trump has argued that the troops have been necessary to restore order. Newsom has said their presence on the streets of America's second largest city were not only unnecessary to keep calm, but inflamed tensions in the city, usurped local authority and wasted resources. California challenged Trump's move to call up more than 4,000 national guard troops and about 700 active-duty marines to Los Angeles shortly after Trump deployed the troops over Newsom's objections. While Breyer had ruled that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said allows presidents to control state national guard troops only during times of 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion.' 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion',' wrote Breyer, a Watergate prosecutor who was appointed by Bill Clinton and is the brother of retired supreme court justice Stephen Breyer. The appellate panel on Thursday ruled otherwise, saying presidents don't have unfettered power to seize control of a state's guard, but said that by citing violent acts by protesters in this case, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for federalizing the troops. The ruling means the California national guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit proceeds. It's the first deployment by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since troops were sent to protect civil rights marchers in 1965. Trump celebrated the appellate ruling in a social media post, calling it a 'BIG WIN' and hinting at more potential deployments. 'All over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done,' Trump wrote. Newsom has warned that California won't be the last state to see troops in the streets if Trump gets his way. 'The president is not a king and is not above the law. We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of US military soldiers against citizens,' the governor said.
