I've thought about the "heckler" and Mrs. Obama for a couple of days
and what I noticed is this:
1. Mrs. Obama wanted to talk about poor children and was interrupted by a heckler. She reacted strongly, and continued her remarks.
2. Ms. Stultz "heckled" or "protested" Mrs. Obama because she feels she can not get attention to her cause any other way.
3. According to a reporter that was at the scene, there was to be no question and answer session at the end.
What does all this mean? I see Ms. Stultz as a desperate person who felt she had no other recourse. At least we are talking about her and her cause now, and I guarantee we wouldn't have been if she hadn't done what she did, or maybe even if Ms. Obama hadn't reacted as she did.
I guess what bothers me about all of this is the tendency of all coverage of the event and most of the commentary on DU to pit one woman against the other, rarely mentioning either of the issues involved (child poverty or civil rights). I really think that one of the reason Ms. Stultz was so desperate is because of the horrible media in this country, which does not "do" real reporting, and will not cover the issue she is so passionate about without these "stunts." 
To listen to their coverage, the most (if not only) important thing about this issue is who was rude, did Mrs. Obama react appropriately, etc. They reduce everything to a catfight.
