During my childhood, my siblings and I enjoyed creating imaginary adventures with G.I. Joe action figures. These toys went on missions in military vehicles, occasionally taking a ride in a pink Barbie Corvette. We molded their stories and shaped their paths, without their silent figures expressing any dissent.

Similarly, many attempt to treat politicians like puppets. Figures like Michelle and Barack Obama are sometimes viewed as objects to be maneuvered at will, controlled according to personal political desires. This attitude surfaces among liberals due to a lack of unique, progressive candidates. Historically, Democratic nominees often come from a white, heterosexual male demographic, many possessing wealth.

For over a decade, there have been widespread calls for Michelle Obama to enter the presidential race. Despite her consistent refusal and clear disinterest, the idea persists. In a conversation with actress Tracee Ellis Ross, she firmly stated, “Don’t even look at me about running ’cause you all are lying. You’re not ready for a woman.” Her statements are direct, yet the fantasy of another Obama presidency lingers, dismissing her explicit consent.

Though Michelle Obama has held no elected political office, the current president demonstrates that this does not disqualify one from office. However, standards are important. Previous instances of inexperience clashing with authority show the need for leaders who possess both the willingness and capability to lead. Michelle contributed immensely as first lady and surely could be a competent president. Nonetheless, leadership demands both expertise and ambition.

Similar appeals surround Barack Obama, with expectations for him to counteract the Trump administration or even vie for a third presidential term. Just as Trump proponents like Alan Dershowitz and Miriam Adelson toy with a repeated candidacy for Trump, the demand persists for Obama.