G20 Clothes, Day Two

By Jeralyn, Section Off Topic
Posted on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:02:53 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

(larger version here)

The world seems obsessed with Michelle Obama's clothes. Today's outfit didn't go over as well as yesterday's. (See this picture in which one cardigan sleeve is also patterned.)

It is a strange and (in my view) ugly cardigan but why do people care? Maybe the Jackie O comparisons will stop now.

< Your Daily Fix Of Gloom And Despair | Phil Spector Jury Resumes Deliberations >

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news
Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy

Premium Ads

Blog Ads

Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
Contributors
- T. Christopher Kelly
- Armando Llorens
TL Alumni
- John Wesley Hall

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- Hosted by Scoophost
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Template Design based on WordPress Relaxation Theme
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2009. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com.
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
Stats
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

G20 Clothes, Day Two | 202 comments (202 topical)

Hard to explain (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by ruffian on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:14:57 AM EST

I don't think any more or less of M. Obama as a person because of her clothes, but I am still interested, just because I like to see nice clothes. (Though you'd never guess that by looking at my own normal wardrobe.)

That said, I don't like that outfit at all, except for that shade of blue, which is afaorite of mien!!
Substan
tively, I haven't been following this trip enough to know how what is on her agenda, but she seems to present herself well in general, and I'm sure she will do just fine over there.

Women (none / 0) (#17)
by SOS on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:36:41 AM EST

are hopeless shopping addicts. Their insecurities has turned them into the most rampant consumers roaming earth.

[ Parent ]

Heh (5.00 / 5) (#22)
by Steve M on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:41:32 AM EST

Thanks for the insight, Mr. Bunker.

[ Parent ]

Thanks (5.00 / 5) (#47)
by ruffian on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:59:38 AM EST

You just saved me a trip to the shrink. That will give me more time to shop.

[ Parent ]

: Ha! (none / 0) (#54)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:05:57 AM EST

[ Parent ]

She is trying to dress down a little (none / 0) (#58)
by lilybart on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:08:34 AM EST

down as in clothes regular people could have, like J. Crew or as in supporting American sportswear designers.

She doesn't always score, but I applaud her for trying.

[ Parent ]

I think she is being nice to Mrs. Brown (5.00 / 2) (#107)
by ruffian on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:59:45 AM EST

by not showing her up. Can we talk about the black nylons?

[ Parent ]

Brit women are not very stylish (5.00 / 1) (#110)
by lilybart on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:03:32 PM EST

and I know that is a generalization but none of them look anything but frumpy!

[ Parent ]

LOL (5.00 / 1) (#114)
by Dr Molly on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:09:00 PM EST

The black nylons definitely don't work with that suit. The suit is fine but too small.

Now how about the color of Michelle's shoes?

[ Parent ]

At least she's wearing hose - Michelle's (5.00 / 2) (#123)
by Anne on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:31:36 PM EST

legs look bare, which would seem like a bit of a faux pas.

I finally read the article all the way through - boy, those Brits can be acid-tongued! Interesting though, that buried in all the mud that was slung about Michelle's clothes, were quite nice accounts of her visit to the cancer hospital - hugging the terminally ill woman and her children, etc.

I've seen Michelle look stunning, so it's clear she has it in her - would just like to see more of that as - call me old-fashioned - I think it represents her public role and the country better.

[ Parent ]

I'm told that bare legs are OK now (none / 0) (#131)
by ruffian on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:48:47 PM EST

with nice dresses.

But I still can't make myself do it. Maybe I'll learn fashion boldness from Micelle. I'm only a couple of years older than she is!

[ Parent ]

: Once you get past tennis shoes (5.00 / 1) (#147)
by addy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:19:17 PM EST

and skirts, you can do anything. Like any typical mom who gardens, cleans mini-van sized dog poop out of the yard, digs old food out of the sink daily with her hands(yes it has to be done) and considers oreos a staple, I dress comfortably. Some would say too comfortably, I guess. But I do enjoy looking at others who dress well. I just don't feel envious about it.

[ Parent ]

And the too-short (5.00 / 1) (#116)
by oldpro on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:10:38 PM EST

jacket and the too-tight skirt? Needs a threeway mirror at 10 Downing St.

When Sarah Brown sees these photos, heads will roll. We'll never see her in that getup again...I hope.

[ Parent ]

: I'm still coming to grips with (5.00 / 5) (#119)
by nycstray on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:17:19 PM EST

the back view shot. Just what every woman wants published, OY.

[ Parent ]

I think she's a J. Crew devote (none / 0) (#65)
by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:14:00 AM EST

for practical reasons as much as anything. A good friend of mine who is about the same height and build as Mrs. Obama shops at J. Crew and Banana Republic because she can find things that fit her - especially with respect to the length in the pants and the sleeves. My friend's style is quite similar to Mrs. Obama's as well and generally-speaking it is a tailored, preppy with a twist style that works well for her.

[ Parent ]

Well (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:20:29 AM EST

when you want to be known for your clothes this is the kind of thing that you're going to have to deal with.

She does not WANT to be known (5.00 / 2) (#59)
by lilybart on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:09:44 AM EST

for her clothes, but she wants to be known for supporting American designers and lower cost items like the ones she gets from J.Crew.

the PRESS and people who are snarky thinks she WANTED this attention.

[ Parent ]

You are (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:16:39 AM EST

completely contradicting yourself. She wants to be known for supporting American designers who do nothing but make clothes but she doesn't want to be known for her clothes? You can't be for all those things then not be about what you're wearing. If she doesn't want to be known for her clothes then she should just shut down the press everytime they ask her about here clothes.

[ Parent ]

No. There is always attention paid (5.00 / 2) (#109)
by lilybart on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:02:17 PM EST

to the clothes of major female politicians, so why not highlight new American designers, since they are going to write about your clothes anyway.

Nancy Reagan also highlighted American designers, but she chose the expensive ones like Bill Blass.

Anyone who cares much about this must just not like Mrs. Obama and this is a way to get in a dig.

[ Parent ]

Ah yes, but then again (5.00 / 1) (#196)
by sleepingdogs on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:09:06 PM EST

according to the woman herself, America is a "downright mean" country....

[ Parent ]

Oh (none / 0) (#166)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:58:17 PM EST

geez. Well, if they are "going to write about your clothes anyway" as you say then maybe she should get some help with them. She's made tons of mistakes with her clothes and like I said you can't have it both ways.

[ Parent ]

: Ah, But You Can (5.00 / 3) (#187)
by daring grace on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:40:27 PM EST

have it both ways as in there are people with opinions on both sides--liking and disliking Mrs. Obama's style and choices.
It's such a subjective thing it's amusing to see the vehemence with which people state their opinions as inarguable.

[ Parent ]

Her favorite designers are: (none / 0) (#132)
by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:49:59 PM EST

Japanese designer Janya Watanabe who designed this blue outfit and Jason Wu born in Taiwan. I think one of the biggest problems in her designer outfits are they do not always photograph well and thus we do not get the full effect of the outfit. From the detailed descriptions you find that the photos do not show crystals gleaming or sequins sparkling. An example is the yellow gown. It was lovely and showed as a nice summer prom dress on television. People who saw her in person were going on how beautiful the dress was with all those crystals sparkling. The night she wore the black and red designer dress. People there were going on about how fresh of breath air it was. People watching on TV were saying, "What is she wearing?" It looked like a black dress with red rectangles in the middle. Personally, I think the problem is with all these form fitting sweaters. She looks fine without them. Although, from the back, it looks like her dress zipper broke and they safety pinned it and hid the cover up. She is even grabbing it herself in front of her.

My English friend came in today talking about how Britain loves Michele and are comparing her to Jacquie. I said, well, Jacqui had her own style and the thing of comparison is that they were both young and a breath of fresh air in the WH. He then said, "Well, maybe you are right. I think they are just so excited that there is someone other than Bush as the President. They hated Bush and it was a long long 8 years." So is it all about the clothes afterall?

[ Parent ]

Silly - being nekkid wouldn't (5.00 / 4) (#66)
by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:16:13 AM EST

be acceptable and being frumpy would get as much or more attention. She's a woman and women in the public eye are always under scrunity no matter what they wear or whether or not they want to be. That's just the way it is. To put the focus on her clothes on her is pretty unfair actually.

[ Parent ]

Has she (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:17:48 AM EST

ever shut down the conversation about her clothes? It seems to me she rather likes it until it gets critical.

[ Parent ]

Shut down women talking about clothes? (5.00 / 5) (#75)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:22:09 AM EST

Are you mad :)?

[ Parent ]

LOL! (5.00 / 2) (#81)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:26:20 AM EST

But it seems like she wants to have it both ways. If you want to be about fashion then fine. You are going to have be more careful about what you wear then and don't complain when you make mistakes.

[ Parent ]

: I haven't heard her wanting it (5.00 / 1) (#87)
by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:34:32 AM EST

both ways. I've only heard bloggers complain that people talk about her clothes. She seems perfectly fine with these discussiong and probably doesn't much care - except for that election night disaster which supposedly looked good in real life on her - but was a horror on film and video - but that's something all women and men learn when they start to be photographed every waking minute of their day - somethings look fine in real life - but look terrible in pictures.

[ Parent ]

Paging Tim Gunn!!! (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Anne on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:28:56 AM EST

He could solve this in a NY minute and she could still be herself - only much, much better.

This outfit is just awful, and I think it strikes us that way because it seems disconnected from the occasion.

That being said, I now feel shallow and petty for even caring.

: So I googled and found out, (none / 0) (#18)
by oculus on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:37:11 AM EST

per Wiki, Mr. Gunn was the subject of an opera.

[ Parent ]

It seems to me (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Steve M on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:39:57 AM EST

that the American eye generally dislikes asymmetry.

I was touched to read about Michelle's visit to the cancer hospital. She really makes an excellent ambassador.

However did you come up (none / 0) (#24)
by oculus on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:42:30 AM EST

with that first sentence!

[ Parent ]

: You didn't know (5.00 / 3) (#28)
by Steve M on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:45:07 AM EST

that our entire country has one big eye, sorta like CBS or Mordor?

[ Parent ]

Well (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by jbindc on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:43:05 AM EST

I have tried to keep out of the fashion debate, but this is a horrid outfit. The skirt looks like she slept in it, the sweater - what can I say?, And is she wearing green shoes?? And she's old enough and savvy enough to know how to stand in heels (especially for pictures).

When will they stop caring? When we have woman president. Oh, the media won't stop (and this is the British press, which loves stuff like this), but it will be much more muted when a woman is in charge. Until then, we will have drivel about FLOTUS' wardrobe.

And Ga6th had a good point - we have a FLOTUS who likes to flaunt her clothes, her style, and her bare arms. Until she shuts down the commentary and doesn't try to play into the comparison of Jackie O, it won't stop.

Heh (5.00 / 4) (#36)
by Steve M on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:52:46 AM EST

Having a female President won't really change anything. Yes, there will be plenty of discussion about the substantive things she does, but there will still be all the frivolous chatter about whatever she happens to be wearing.

Yesterday, I was paging through some newspaper's photo gallery of the wives of the various heads of state. You know, there's Michelle Obama, there's Sarah Brown, yadda yadda... and mixed in with all the wives, we find Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner from Argentina. The actual president of Argentina, mind you - but heck, she's a woman, so why don't we just throw her in there with all the wives! Pretty lame.

Then again, when women rule the world, perhaps we'll at least put an end to the stories about spousal fashion. I'm trying to imagine a photo gallery of First Gentlemen... gee, dark business suit, dark business suit, oh look, another dark business suit. Although check out this adventurous move by Bill Clinton.

[ Parent ]

Did you check the comments on the Bill pic? (none / 0) (#42)
by nycstray on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:56:07 AM EST

I love ya Bill
by moderatewinger on Wed, 04/01/2009 - 10:39am
But seriously, get rid of the tie. UGH!!!

lol!~

[ Parent ]

: Can we get serious here, please (none / 0) (#124)
by NYShooter on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:33:26 PM EST

Oh, my Gawd!!
Day-Glo orange tie?
Does it flash, on and off?
Billy, Billy, Billy, keep repeating, "I'm not in Arkansas any more, I flew in a Falcon 7X, not a Ford pick-up.".....LOL
Now, back to the news.........

[ Parent ]

I'm trying to be hopeful (none / 0) (#44)
by jbindc on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:56:41 AM EST

Especially after BTD's gloomy post.

And you're probably right. :(

[ Parent ]

She wears clothes well. (5.00 / 3) (#26)
by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:43:36 AM EST

Not that she always chooses them well - but she wears them well.

Anyhow, you'd probably hate watching political coverage with my Mother. She's got great political insight and experience, but she will also comment on absolutely everyone's clothes male or female. During the primary, she'd have a critique of her gal Hillary's outfit everyday. She liked one yellow, but wasn't as happy with another shade of yellow. She love one jacket, but thought she could have done better with another she'd seen in days prior. On inuaguration day I called her after the speeches and swearing in to see what she thought. She led with a gushing review of Ted Kennedy's ensemble and then offered up a very interesting and astute review of Obama's speech. She didn't like Michele's outfit that day as much as I did. lol

I sort of enjoy our political talks including the fashion reviews.

: I'd love watching with your mother (5.00 / 4) (#45)
by ruffian on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:57:09 AM EST

No reason an interest in substantive politics has to preclude an interst in fashion. Or in anything else for that matter, from cooking to Gator's football to Dancing with the Stars.

[ Parent ]

Here's my bet. (5.00 / 4) (#49)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:01:38 AM EST

The dress she's wearing is sleeveless. But, for whatever reason, she needed to wear it so...she grabbed whatever else she could to cover her guns.

iow, what the hell do I know...

Odd sweater choice (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:17:00 AM EST

I love the necklace and the shade of the dress. The dress style is very current but I can't wait for silhouette changes to take place in the current trends as soon as possible because the ones we have now are Bleh in my opinion. The shoe is to die for.

That sihouette (5.00 / 2) (#102)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:51:23 AM EST

is not flattering on her at all. She wore it yesterday and it makes her look heavy which she is not. It also looks frumpy on her. The irony is that if she did more of the classic clean lines like Jackie O did I think it would be more becoming on her. When I've seen her wear just a simple dress she looks so much better than when she tries to be fashionista. It you just have to be careful when you are as big boned as she is.

[ Parent ]

It makes us all look heavy and frumpy (none / 0) (#108)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:00:05 PM EST

I love clothing, though not as much as I used to. It just isn't as much fun dressing myself as it used to be. I have hated shopping for self for probably the past four years at least, the choices of silhouette for 40ish are pathetic right now. Vera taught me to sew well but I haven't sewn for myself clothingwise in a long time. If the designs don't do something here soon I have plans to begin again.

[ Parent ]

It looks frumpy because the buttons are (none / 0) (#118)
by Inspector Gadget on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:16:31 PM EST

buttoned into holes that are one off from proper alignment. And, it's too small. And, what is that bunching in the back? It almost looks like it zips up the back and buttons in the front?

She is bottom heavy, though not fat.

[ Parent ]

: Yes (none / 0) (#169)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:02:09 PM EST

but what she wore yesterday looked frumpy too. Another sweater over a skirt that created a pear silhouette.

[ Parent ]

you can see (none / 0) (#92)
by Jen M on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:36:25 AM EST

the shoes?

[ Parent ]

Of Course (none / 0) (#104)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:55:18 AM EST

J has two photos up front and back of the shoes as well the women in them :)

[ Parent ]

OH (none / 0) (#117)
by Jen M on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:14:41 PM EST

I see now :)

To die for alright, trip and fall and break my neck, especially if I'm foolish enough to wear them in the lab!

[ Parent ]

No sexy in the lab? (none / 0) (#122)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:28:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]

no high heels for me (5.00 / 1) (#141)
by Jen M on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:01:44 PM EST

but no, labcoats, masks, booties and sometimes tivex coveralls are not remotely sexy

:p

[ Parent ]

: A little embroidery? (none / 0) (#163)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:44:25 PM EST

Send your stuff to me.......we'll see what we can do :) I can't promise that it will increase your analytical accuracies though :)

[ Parent ]

To be fair (5.00 / 1) (#71)
by jbindc on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:18:23 AM EST

Because we don't obsess over the male politicians and their dress (but maybe we should)...

Obama

Jimmy Carter

Putin (on the left in the striped polo shirt)

GWB

Blagojevich

James Traficant

and finally,

Rudy Guiliani 1 and Rudy Guiliani 2

awesome list (none / 0) (#84)
by CST on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:28:58 AM EST

that Obama as a dorky biker pic is priceless.

you forgot my personal favorite though freshman senator Aaron Schock

[ Parent ]

Jeans and a polo shirt (5.00 / 1) (#136)
by MKS on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:55:53 PM EST

What's wrong with that?

[ Parent ]

Dorky biker? John Kerry won (none / 0) (#153)
by Cream City on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:30:02 PM EST

that distinction on the campaign trail, er, bike path. See http://www.theamericanmind.com/images/kerrybike.jpg

[ Parent ]

I dunno (none / 0) (#155)
by CST on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:33:23 PM EST

John Kerry looks like he's actually going for a ride.

Obama looks like he's could use some training wheels.

Granted John Kerry by nature is dorkier but on the outfits I gotta go with Obama there. Something about jeans on a bike - indicates you are not riding very fast.

[ Parent ]

: Heheh (none / 0) (#191)
by lilburro on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:51:32 PM EST

I've seen that picture before. It makes me laugh because he looks like Jerry Seinfeld.

[ Parent ]

Putin pic (none / 0) (#91)
by denise k on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:36:18 AM EST

says a lot more about the russians in the Cold War than about puti's taste in close.

[ Parent ]

: clothes not close (none / 0) (#112)
by denise k on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:06:51 PM EST

oops my bad

[ Parent ]

Should we talk about Ms. Brown's dress? (5.00 / 2) (#79)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:24:38 AM EST

From my pov it's a size or maybe two too small. No offense...

Less said the better (5.00 / 3) (#93)
by Coral on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:37:09 AM EST

I'm biting my tongue.

Actually, the fashion stuff is refreshing. All the serious news is so dismal.

And the colors, I love them. Even that weird Argyle & sequins cardigan. It's odd, but eye-catching.

[ Parent ]

Actually, much as I hate (5.00 / 2) (#97)
by brodie on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:43:48 AM EST

MO's outfit, in that photo it's Mrs Brown who comes out worse -- and for the reason you note.

She's a fairly attractive woman as we look at the top 1/3 of the situation, but it's a puzzle why someone would wear an outfit which sharply highlights some less than flattering areas of the middle third.

She can keep the dress -- great color btw -- and come back to it, but only after about 6 wks of 15/min daily floor work in toning the stomach and thighs. Drop the frumpy dark hose though ...

[ Parent ]

My thoughts exactly. (none / 0) (#100)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:48:05 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Glad to see I'm not the (none / 0) (#103)
by Slado on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:55:00 AM EST

only jerk who instantly thought..."why is anyone worried about Obama in this picture"

She is smiling and looks fine to me.

Mrs. Brown on the other hand.

[ Parent ]

Me too (none / 0) (#106)
by ruffian on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:57:28 AM EST

But I didn't want to be the first to say. My initial catty thought was 'Well, at least Michelle's outfit looks better than that other woman's".

[ Parent ]

: My initial catty thought was... (none / 0) (#130)
by GeorgiaE on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:48:45 PM EST

These ladies have been drinking more than "tea"..

[ Parent ]

It's just as ugly (none / 0) (#86)
by jbindc on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:31:37 AM EST

And like Michelle's sweater, about 2 sizes too small.

Don't they have mirrors over there?

[ Parent ]

: Maybe their mirrors only go down (none / 0) (#98)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:47:36 AM EST

as far as the sternum?

[ Parent ]

the article criticized both (none / 0) (#157)
by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:35:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: Thanks J. (none / 0) (#164)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:55:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Not a good representation (5.00 / 3) (#83)
by sleepingdogs on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:28:51 AM EST

..of my country. Her outfit once again is inappropriate to the occasion, the time of day and her age. It is ugly and unbecoming. She is trying too hard to be a fashionista first lady. If she does not want to be discussed for her clothing, she should stop with the butt-ugly clothes that try too hard. As soon as she stops that, people will stop critiquing each outfit.

However, a lot could be done to spruce up even ugly clothing by using the best possible posture. Shoulders back. Feet together with toes pointed slightly out, never the pigeon-toed pose she seems to prefer. And someone needs to show her what to do with her hands and arms. Never cup your hands in front of your crotch for a photograph. She has a great smile, wonderful coloring, a nice figure and all that glorious height. And she appears to squander it trying to be Carrie Bradshaw and Jackie O combined. She needs to find her own unique style and it isn't this trendy embarrassing stuff.

: I was going to say something about her (none / 0) (#90)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:35:23 AM EST

being pigeon-toed and her standing uncomfortably with her feet pointed in one direction and her upper body pointed in another, but I figured pigeon-toed is how she was born.
I guess she could learn to stand differently for pictures though...

[ Parent ]

Well...... (5.00 / 4) (#94)
by Dr Molly on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:38:00 AM EST

since you asked....

I'm sorry, but that outfit is as ugly as homemade sin.

Not that we care or anything:)

I keep wanting to re-button it for her, (5.00 / 1) (#96)
by addy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:41:13 AM EST

as I would with my son. And go back to the rack and get the next size up. But to be frank, the pattern is awful. Like the dress, though. I would love to be able to wear it but I'm way too short.

[ Parent ]

I want to see (5.00 / 1) (#143)
by Jen M on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:02:57 PM EST

what store bought sin is...

or industrial grade!

[ Parent ]

Oh No, Dr. Molly, (none / 0) (#120)
by GeorgiaE on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:21:53 PM EST

Not "homemade sin"! Now I'm crying...

Not that I care or anything, Hehhhh

[ Parent ]

: No clue on this one. (none / 0) (#204)
by Dr Molly on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:33:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]

People care because they are told to (none / 0) (#1)
by scribe on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:06:33 AM EST

care about frivolities such as the First Lady's clothes, in the first place, and because any real, honest discussion of the issues which have to be addressed and of the probable outcomes of the plans and agreements being "worked on" would be extremely disquieting to the majority of the audience.

So, we get to hear about and are told to debate the merits of a sweater, rather than of social welfare and economics and AIG-as-criminal-enterprise.

: Nah... (5.00 / 3) (#21)
by sj on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:40:43 AM EST

I don't care about it because I'm "told" to. It is totally based in my own pettiness and nosiness.
Sometimes trivial topics of discussion are just plain fun and interesting. Not everything that touches my mind has to be full of import. And if you want to participate in debate on social welfare and economics and AIG-as-criminal-enterprise then by all means, do so. Ample opportunities exist on this very website.
In the meantime, that argyle sweater with sequins is tragic. Especially paired with that full skirt.

[ Parent ]

To be honest, I wonder why (none / 0) (#5)
by dk on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:16:14 AM EST

Michelle Obama went with the president on this trip in the first place (I don't know if the spouses of the other heads of state also showed up; I haven't been following it close enough to know).

I mean, this is economic conference, right? Kind of like a business meeting. It's not really an official state visit (by that I mean trips which are really more about symbolism and have more to do with Obama wearing his "head of state" cap rather than his "chief executive" cap). For those symbolic trips, I can see the justification for the spouses to join, but for the more business-focussed trips, it really doesn't make all that much sense to me at all.

Yes, I recall (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:23:57 AM EST

that when he did the 9/11 memorial, she couldn't go because she had to be with "the children"....but she can go on this trip?

Yes, and BTW, that outfit is awful, tacky, sloppily worn. No, it's not about the clothes, but you'd want the #1 representatives of our country to have the clothes sense that Gawd gave a Zebra.

[ Parent ]

Preposterous comment (none / 0) (#31)
by KoolJeffrey on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:48:21 AM EST

"that when he did the 9/11 memorial, she couldn't go because she had to be with "the children"....but she can go on this trip?"

What a ludicrous statement.

Just when the president needs her most, with nothing but photo ops for days, you expect her to abandon her husband?

Don't you think the 911 memorial was a little more sobering? Did you ever happen to think that maybe that was a job for the commander-in-chief alone?

Man, people post in here

[ Parent ]

: And BTW (3.50 / 2) (#38)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:55:17 AM EST

He wasn't commander in chief at the time of the 9/11 event, he was candidate. And he went to the 9/11 memorial with John and CINDY McCain, which made things look ridiculously lopsided when Michelle had to stay home "with the children".
I know, all kinds of people post here. Some people who post here aren't even certain when elections are held. FYI: 9/11 is in September, election is two months later in November.

[ Parent ]
: You think this is something more (2.00 / 1) (#34)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:51:14 AM EST

than a series of photo ops? LOL! Why else would she go on his business meeting?
My point is she uses her own children as an excuse when she doesn't want to do something, then parties away when she does.

[ Parent ]
: Michelle Obama (none / 0) (#198)
by KoolJeffrey on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:16:20 PM EST

Is rated more favorably (78%) than her husband (72%). I guess the public can't stand her either.

[ Parent ]

Clothes sense... (none / 0) (#43)
by sj on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:56:21 AM EST

... God gave a Zebra.

Love that image.

[ Parent ]

The other spouses did show up. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by scribe on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:25:21 AM EST

Frankly, I'm more interested in Mrs. Sarkozy....

[ Parent ]

: I think she actually didn't show up (none / 0) (#16)
by CST on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:35:20 AM EST

and is meeting them when they go to France.
I think it was about 50/50 on the spouses. Some did, some didn't.

[ Parent ]

shoot (5.00 / 2) (#69)
by CST on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:17:21 AM EST

if my husband was head of state and meeting the queen for the first time - you better believe I'd jump at any excuse to go along for the ride.

[ Parent ]

Yes, the other spouses (none / 0) (#14)
by indy in sc on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:34:17 AM EST

are there. They have their own program led by Mrs. Brown, which includes some charity work.

[ Parent ]

Even the "First Mother" (none / 0) (#19)
by Cream City on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:37:33 AM EST

as she called it, gets to get away from the kids once in a while, and they have their grandmother at home . . . plus a staff of hundreds. Heck, if we're going to cut back on the staff of hundreds going with the president, I would have cut his basketball coach.

As for the fashions, I just really don't like the sweater-two-sizes-too-small look on anyone, not yesterday's or today's, but especially not for the busty. And in addition tot he ugly misuse of argyle . . . sequins? On a sweater? In daytime? This could be why I gave up on her fave J. Crew ages ago and left it to my kid to keep it in business.

[ Parent ]

Oh, I didn't mean any personal (none / 0) (#30)
by dk on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:48:02 AM EST

comment on Michelle Obama, nor did I mean that mothers shouldn't get away from their kids once in a while. I was just thinking in principle whether there is really any cause for spouses to attend this kind of business conference trip. I can't think of any, other than of course to distract the press from the economic mess that the the world's political and economic leaders are supposed to be discussing.

Again, I guess I distinguish this from a state visit where the head of state and family go for the purpose of making a symbolic statement of friendship/goodwill and all that.

And, has anyone noticed Angela Merkel's husband in any of these pictures? My bet is that he has other things to do. Would that we lived in a world where the same would be true for the wives and that there wasn't this pressure for them to do this kind of stuff.

[ Parent ]

On the professional level, then (5.00 / 4) (#39)
by Cream City on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:55:23 AM EST

I've read that a lot of First Ladies and their counterparts from other countries on these trips can get interesting behind-the-scenes levels of comfort established between spouses in power for later. Plus they act as our ambassadors in other ways -- as, for example, HRC did in many countries and was appreciated there for it, despite the dissing of it in the campaign by the very same people who applaud the Obamas' "tea party" yesterday, natch.

And if it helps a country's leader to have along the most trusted advisor, the spouse, that's fine. They can take care of a lot of detail in coordinating the comfort level of the spouses, too, freeing them for the power work to do.

[ Parent ]

It seems to me (5.00 / 4) (#41)
by Steve M on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:55:57 AM EST

that the traditional sorts of bonding between the wives are an important part of building the strong international relationships that we aspire to. It helps to humanize other countries as well as our own.

Something that always strikes me when studying history is the extent to which alliances often hinge on the personal relationships between the world leaders involved. It's not all just cold geopolitics and numbers on a page.

[ Parent ]

See W and Putin. (none / 0) (#48)
by oculus on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:00:39 AM EST

BTW, I wonder if Putin is in London now?

[ Parent ]

Well, I suppose, but I (none / 0) (#51)
by dk on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:02:43 AM EST

still think that, on balance, the presence of the spouses at the G-20 conference is more of a distraction than a benefit. I mean, I see the potential value in first spouses networking, but they could do that at other times and places.

And, I guess I see a problem in the image of all these women having nothing better to do than to follow their husbands to a business conference. First ladies have enormous potential for doing important things, and I think they should take advantage of that, but this forum doesn't send that message, IMO.

[ Parent ]

Really? (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:23:04 AM EST

Wow. You should really read up on the role of our most formidable First Ladies then. This is exactly the kind of event where they can be helpful to their country and very influential.

Jackie Kennedy's perfect French and apparent charm was a considerable component of that political couple's strength.

It is sad to me how few people seem to appreciate the team aspect of political couples - largely because many First Ladies have contributed great things to the development of this country. Abigail Adams was "a wife", but she was so much more than that really. So much more.

[ Parent ]

Do you think Michelle Obama (5.00 / 1) (#154)
by dk on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:30:07 PM EST

is advising her husband on the economic policies being discussed at the summit? Frankly, I think it would be fine if she is, though I would hope in that case they would be more up front about it than they have been so far. But if she (or any of the other first spouses in London) is not, then I think having them there distracts the press and makes it more difficult for the public to know what is going on.

[ Parent ]

: I think that she and most of the (5.00 / 3) (#165)
by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:56:05 PM EST

other spouses are part of their respective teams and that all contribute on some level to the exchange at the event. The G20 is set up this way - spouses are invited. Should Mrs. Obama refuse to go like Carla Bruni did? Bruni is reportly not interested in these political events and never had to work to get her husband to where he is anyway because she's the super model second wife who moved in after Sarkozy's election. Bruni's refusal to attend is much more controversial than any of the others showing up has been.
I guess you probably think that Eleanor Roosevelt's tour of the impoverished parts of the US were distracting too as she had no formal political role in that effort either. I swear it is so sad to see people insist that women married to powerful men be kept on a short leash just out of some misdirected sense of principle - these women are people in their own right and should not be kept at home to look after the children and decorating duties if they have the capacity to and desire to do more.

[ Parent ]

Not a fan of J. Crew either, (none / 0) (#113)
by GeorgiaE on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:07:59 PM EST

Definitely not a fan of that blue sweater she is wearing. It looks too small and too busy. She looks uncomfortable in it. Michelle is no Jackie Kennedy and does not have to be. Michelle should be Michelle..If she knows what's appropriate for the occasion, I think she can make the proper choices. She usually looks "comfortable" to me.
Comfort gives me a lot of confidence..Speaking for me only..

[ Parent ]

All of the spouses except for the (none / 0) (#29)
by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:46:01 AM EST

two male spouses showed up.

Merkel's husband and someone else is MIA.

[ Parent ]

Nope (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by CST on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:06:24 AM EST

Not all the wives showed up either. For example, Ms. Sarkosy is waiting for the Obama's in France. None of King Abdullah's four wives are there either. A lot of the spouses did show up though.

[ Parent ]

: I guess you are right. (none / 0) (#60)
by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:09:49 AM EST

Shows me for trusting a CNN report doesn't it.
I had completely forgotten about Carla Bruni not making an appearance by the time I watched that segment about the "girls night".

[ Parent ]
: Probably because they are not allowed out of the (none / 0) (#62)
by iceblinkjm on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:11:43 AM EST

house and the King probably did not want his barbarism on display for the world to see.

[ Parent ]

ALL the other spouses were there (none / 0) (#61)
by lilybart on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:11:25 AM EST

and the coverage and photos have been extensive so it might be good if you went to Huffpo once in awhile because they post tons of photos.

no more need to wonder
just do a little research before posting

[ Parent ]

Huffpo? (5.00 / 1) (#148)
by dk on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:19:18 PM EST

I don't read trash.

[ Parent ]

: I do (5.00 / 1) (#152)
by sj on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:29:05 PM EST

But I prefer it in glossy form with a big "People" on the cover.

[ Parent ]
: Or (none / 0) (#158)
by lilybart on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:35:20 PM EST

anything else it seems!!
Huffpo is tabloidy but they have great photos of the Obamas.

[ Parent ]

Who is the blonde and (none / 0) (#9)
by oculus on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:27:52 AM EST

who let her out of the fitting room w/a dress that ties in back!

: As our bodies "mature" (5.00 / 4) (#89)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:35:02 AM EST

Any husband should be beaten who trails us around the early morning house while we are adorned in a dress with a tie that resembles a horses tail in exactly the place a horses tail would be if we were a horse and doesn't notice or say anything.:)

[ Parent ]
: Gordon Brown's wife (none / 0) (#13)
by CST on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:34:12 AM EST

Sarah

[ Parent ]

Looks OK to me. (none / 0) (#11)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:29:05 AM EST

But that may be the kiss of death given what my kids and spouse have to say about my taste in clothing.

I like it. (none / 0) (#12)
by Joelarama on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:32:04 AM EST

It's not predictable.

Unlike that sorry excuse for an article. The three women authors lead with the fashion, and as an afterthought talk about the substantive things Michelle Obama and other spouses are doing.

It's like something out of Mad Men. Except it was written today.

Do we remember anyting that (none / 0) (#63)
by lilybart on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:12:11 AM EST

laura bush wore??

[ Parent ]

Winter White at the inaugural. (none / 0) (#74)
by Joelarama on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:21:50 AM EST

I like fashion and err on the side of appreciating what someone wears if it's at all different. Especially women in the public eye, who are beaten with a figurative stick a la Iran when they step outside of preconceived notions of what a woman in her place should wear.

It's one reason I hate red carpet commentary. It's all geared toward dumbing down any creative fashion choice, and keeping high-priced, boring professional stylists in business.

[ Parent ]

Well there's daring (5.00 / 2) (#77)
by jbindc on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:23:37 AM EST

And then just plain sloppy and ugly, which is what both of these outfits look like.

[ Parent ]

I disagree. (none / 0) (#82)
by Joelarama on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:28:29 AM EST

The unexpected mix of the blues shows a good eye for color.

And I think the lack of tailoring inherent in a cardigan, over that rather formal dress, is intentional. She has a point of view.

Tim Gunn impression over.

[ Parent ]

: Personal taste (none / 0) (#128)
by sj on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:44:01 PM EST

I don't care for the mix of blues. I wasn't going to comment on it, though. Mostly because it could very well be my monitor.

[ Parent ]

Oh yeah this is going (none / 0) (#15)
by SOS on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:35:06 AM EST

to save the world the G20 fashion oh my if only I could look and be like that everything would be okay.

I think it's pretty sad that the only times (none / 0) (#23)
by tigercourse on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:41:34 AM EST

Michelle Obama is in the news is when people are talking about what she's wearing or what her arms look like.

They again, it was basically the same with Clinton expect they were down on what she was wearing and it was her ankles, not her arms.

You've come nowhere, baby.

Interestingly, Ms. Obama (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by oculus on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:43:42 AM EST

doesn't seem to care what anyone thinks. She was in a sleeveless dress again last night. As was a CNN newscaster earlier in the week. A trend?

[ Parent ]

Um, it's springtime! (none / 0) (#32)
by Democratic Cat on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:48:56 AM EST

a time for sleeveless dresses to come out of the closet no matter what the first lady is wearing.

[ Parent ]

I was just on the east coast. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by oculus on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:51:36 AM EST

Definitely not springtime yet except for one afternoon.

[ Parent ]

After the cold winter we had on the east coast (5.00 / 3) (#40)
by Democratic Cat on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:55:24 AM EST

any temperature above 50 is reason enough to break out the tank tops! My daffodils look like they are shivering, but they are hanging in there. And I saw the first tulips on the Capitol grounds this morning. This will be a well-deserved spring.

[ Parent ]

That one afternoon above 50 degrees (5.00 / 3) (#50)
by oculus on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:02:02 AM EST

suckered me into abandoning my coat altogether the next day. Big mistake.

[ Parent ]

: It's starting to steady a bit (none / 0) (#55)
by nycstray on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:06:02 AM EST

we have at least a week of 50's and flirting with 60s. I need about 10-14days before I believe spring ia actually here. Aka, yeah, I've made that choice to leave the jacket at home a few times ;)

[ Parent ]

But that doesn't stop us from (none / 0) (#80)
by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:25:23 AM EST

pretending it is warm enough to wear sleveless garments. I've spent any number of Easter Sundays freezing my tush off here on the East Coast in an attempt to celebrate the season.

[ Parent ]

Nighttime is okay (none / 0) (#33)
by Cream City on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:50:32 AM EST

It was daytime in a D.C. church that started this.

As I noted yesterday, I don't think it's a great look in daytime, and not really a great look for her with her concern about her hips (bringing attention to broad shoulders and what balances them) . . . but it's her choice -- and (speaking from experience) I can presume that it well could be for comfort owing to early menopause, plus the heat of the teevee lights and the like. (Or actually, not early -- but that's another myth like the one that appearances don't matter.:-)

[ Parent ]

I really don't need that much info (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by oculus on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:52:54 AM EST

on Ms. Obama.

That being sd., I think she is a tad self-conscious about her height.

[ Parent ]

Not info, a guess (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by Cream City on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 10:59:18 AM EST

that apparently hadn't occured to the critics.

And yes, as the daughter of another tall woman, I can see her discomfort with her height in her posture. If she stood up straight, she really would be a towering presence, and I'd love it.

We see that posture in tall women less these days with the impact of Title IX, hallelujah. I look forward to the day we see a photo of Michelle Obama with a women's basketball team! I would bet she would look more comfortable and love it, too. I sure like looking up to those women and girls in many ways.:-)

[ Parent ]

I know what you mean. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by oculus on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:03:24 AM EST

My niece is a Title IX generation gal, six feet tall, and proud of it.

[ Parent ]

On a recent business trip (5.00 / 2) (#53)
by Steve M on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:04:47 AM EST

I found myself sharing the hotel with the women's basketball team from the University of Vermont. Since I'm a shade over six feet myself, it's not often I get into an elevator with a bunch of women and feel like the shortest person there!

[ Parent ]

: I got to be guest coach (none / 0) (#159)
by Cream City on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:36:05 PM EST

at a college women's hoops game -- and got the traditional team chest-bumping before the game began, for all in the crowd to see. I nearly landed on my butt, because those are big and strong women! But such fun to really be able to look up to them, up close and personal, as the sportscasters say.

[ Parent ]

All first ladies wore sleeveless (none / 0) (#64)
by lilybart on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:13:13 AM EST

there was a photo collection when this arm thing first came up.

People only notice now because her arms are ripped!

[ Parent ]

: No, it's a question of when and where (5.00 / 1) (#160)
by Cream City on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:37:38 PM EST

Yes, formal gowns tend to be sleeveless. Dresses at church in winter, or daytime tea, not "done," so the fashion arbiters (and deacons and elders and nuns and such) say.

[ Parent ]

If I were Michelle Obama, and I was (5.00 / 3) (#57)
by Anne on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:06:54 AM EST

wanting people to pay more attention to my work than my clothes, I would not be looking to set trends or make fashion statements, but dressing with simple elegance that would allow me to shine through. "Simple elegance," by the way, does not have to mean "frumpy" or "boring." See "Diana, Princess of Wales" and "Kennedy, Jacqueline," for examples.

On the one hand, her I-don't-care-what-people-think-and-will-dress-to-suit-myself attitude is admirable, but on the other hand, I think she has to outwit the media and make them focus on her substance.

Whether she likes it or not, she needs some advice and help pulling a public wardrobe together.

[ Parent ]

: Jackie Kennedy? (none / 0) (#85)
by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:30:49 AM EST

She was a fashion icon! She shared Givenchy with Audrey Hepburn as her designer.
Her style at that time was quite elite and radical in its time.
Michelle Obama's style is slightly more fashionable preppy most of the time. I wouldn't say that she is anywhere near as fashion oriented as either Kennedy or Diana were.

[ Parent ]

Let's not forget her sassy cleavage :) (none / 0) (#78)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:24:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]

MO's outfit would have been fine -- (none / 0) (#88)
by brodie on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:34:57 AM EST

had she, say, been nursing a broken arm in a cast and wanted to either hide the condition or playfully highlight it.

The human eye, in evaluating appearance, prefers symmetry. Occasionally this hard and fast rule can be broken successfully -- as with Jackie's sleek and elegant one-strap dress from her FL days -- but so far MO, even with her one-strapper from the inaugural balls, which was too thick and clunky imo, and this latest argyle atrocity, has fallen down a couple of times on the crucial fashion front.

Recommend she get a new fashion adviser -- and while they're at it, the WH also needs a new gift advisor.

Had to get this off my mind. If fashion is going to go jarringly against the grain, it had better be done right. Sorry to say about an otherwise attractive lady, but definitely MO needs further schooling in this one area ...

: See oculus! (5.00 / 1) (#95)
by Steve M on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:40:50 AM EST

I'm not the only one who writes sentences like that!

[ Parent ]
: The human "brain" is what prefers (none / 0) (#101)
by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:49:15 AM EST

symmetry when it wants to be calmed and remain sleepish. Any decent artist will tell you that if you want to make an impression of any kind or create a need for interest you must have assymetry of some sort whether in color, texture, pattern, or design and often all of the above. Also, people who have brains wired more visually will take into consideration silhouette as well. Auditory wired brains like plaids and clothing with function over "look" and this clothing looks more attractive so such people no matter what we may say. Folks with brains wired more Kinesthetically love bold vibrant and chaotic color. I'm wired predomoninantly visual as seemingly you are, but the whole world does not share our perspectives on what we see. Michelle Obama seems to be Visual/Kinesthetic....and Kenesthetics like to hug a lot too and are very good lovers :)

[ Parent ]

Not much to add here, (none / 0) (#99)
by NJDem on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:47:47 AM EST

except that it appears her cardigan is buttoned incorrectly--leading more to the asymmetry, which as Steve M pointed out we Americans shun :)

And yes, the dress on the other one is a good two sized too small.

I think the outfit is tacky looking. She could do (none / 0) (#105)
by Angel on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 11:55:45 AM EST

much better. And she could do much better without having to break the bank (haha)! I don't think she's a fashion icon. But I do think she's probably a nice person and has a way with people. She seems unpretentious and natural. I like that. I wish the media would get off this obsession with cloting. I like clothes as much as the next person but I'd rather be discussing the substance of a person rather than her clothing choices.

Looks Great (none / 0) (#111)
by squeaky on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:06:00 PM EST

And not surprisingly different from what a typical first lady would look like. Nice to see a super smart, extremely confident, young black woman as first lady.

She is an unassuming star, evidentially.

MO looks better than Mrs Brown, but (none / 0) (#115)
by Inspector Gadget on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:10:37 PM EST

it does look like the sweater is buttoned just one buttonhole off kilter.

Not the skirt choice most would make for someone who is heavy in the hips and thighs.

Oh good lord, I just saw the side and back pics. (none / 0) (#121)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:25:43 PM EST

All I can say is Sarah Brown's front pic was her most flattering.

Does Michele's vest fasten in the back?

Yes (3.50 / 2) (#125)
by jbindc on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:35:37 PM EST

Mrs. Brown is going to be very unhappy. I'm unhappy for her. It probably wouldn't have been so bad if she had a jacket on over the dress.

Mrs. Obama needs to learn to stand like a lady and not a jock.

[ Parent ]

Why's That? (2.00 / 1) (#126)
by squeaky on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:40:53 PM EST

So she can look weak, submissive and er, ladylike? Sorry that stereotype is over.

[ Parent ]

Uh, no.... (5.00 / 3) (#133)
by oldpro on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:50:33 PM EST

so she can look less awkward...more graceful. Most of us would prefer that in public situations. At home, who the Hell cares?

[ Parent ]

Guess She Breaks The Mold (2.00 / 1) (#137)
by squeaky on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:55:59 PM EST

And I hope is an example for many women who force themselves to look ladylike, aka poised and submissive, so that people like you get to feel comfortable with same old version of what a woman, or First Lady, should look like.

[ Parent ]

Knock it off, squeaky... (5.00 / 6) (#145)
by oldpro on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:10:55 PM EST

You can take me out of the "people like you" box.

FYI, poised has nothing to do with submissive. It has to do with comfort and experience on stage.

If you knew me at all, you'd know that the word 'submissive' isn't even in this feminist's vocabulary.

People judge one another in public situations by two things: how they look and how they act. It's universal, whether you're walking down the street, in a restaurant or school, at the ballgame or on a stage.

That is reality. People judge one another, sometimes on little or no evidence...as you were judging me.

[ Parent ]

: Well Then (none / 0) (#173)
by squeaky on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:20:05 PM EST

From all reports Michele has tons of poise, but certainly not ladylike if your model is from historic vocabulary. She is young big and african american, that new model of ladylike is more than welcome in my book.

[ Parent ]

so now poised = submissive? (5.00 / 2) (#150)
by sj on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:27:45 PM EST

I don't think so. I think the opposite. Poised is comfortable in one's own skin. How the heck is that submissive.

Poise. Not just for ladies anymore.

And anyway, that hunched over tall person stance is not an example to young, tall women who are uncomfortable with their height. It is an of a young, tall woman is uncomfortable with her height. I'm short. My best friend through grade school was nearly 6 feet tall by 6th grade. She has -- to this day -- that slight hunched-over-to-the-side, head-ducked thingy to "minimize" her wonderful height. It's really hard to lose those early insecurities. Me? I stretch my neck as long as it will go pretend I have height.

[ Parent ]

That stance is submissive (none / 0) (#161)
by Cream City on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:40:10 PM EST

actually -- standard little-girl model stance. So it's not the commenters; it's the stance. And it is an odd one for her, but it may be because of the heels, as she doesn't often wear them.

[ Parent ]

Nah (none / 0) (#184)
by squeaky on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:38:14 PM EST

Not too standard, although I see what you mean. It is just her right foot that is turned in. The reason for the turned in right foot is easily deducted from looking at the series of three pictures in the linked article.

The first photo shows Michele facing Sarah Brown in conversation. The headline image is obviously the second shot where the photographer asked Michele to turn to the camera. She did not move her right foot but moved her left foot and turned her body, and then turned back to resume conversing with Ms. Brown.

[ Parent ]

Yes, standard -- and called (none / 0) (#192)
by Cream City on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:54:07 PM EST

not pigeon-toed but "the bashful knee" in some studies of advertising and women. Twiggy was famous for it -- and, of course, for the little-girl look.

That it came back in the '60s backlash was telling. It's fascinating to see studies of it throughout the decades since at least the 1920s, to track in which decades it was more prevalent and in which decades it almost disappeared . . . such as the 1940s, when women were to stand firmly on their good two feet rather than look like they could be knocked over by a good breeze!

[ Parent ]

No (none / 0) (#197)
by squeaky on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:10:27 PM EST

The pose is not a pose but dictated by the photographer who said, now turn toward me. Michele's right foot is exactly in the same place in shot #1 and the headline shot #2. Who knows, perhaps the photographer even asked her to keep her right foot still and move her left side to face the camera. That would have been mean spirited, but considering the tone of the article, not surprising.

As you said it is unusual for Michele, perhaps unique.

[ Parent ]

Dunno, (5.00 / 1) (#202)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:23:54 PM EST

to me she looks similarly pigeon-toed or bashful-kneed here too.

[ Parent ]

: OK (none / 0) (#203)
by squeaky on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:30:43 PM EST

But the rest of her body and hand is far from the type of classic bashful, aw shucks pose Cream City described, imo.

[ Parent ]

No (5.00 / 3) (#139)
by jbindc on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:59:43 PM EST

So she can not look a 13 year-old girl whose mother hasn't told her not to stand pigeon-toed.

It's not submissive - it's called "having class".

[ Parent ]

: How Regressive of You (2.00 / 2) (#142)
by squeaky on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:02:50 PM EST

Having class?? lol

[ Parent ]

Yep, there are plenty of tall people who stand (none / 0) (#129)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:48:40 PM EST

comfortably. MO looks great and I think she's probably very warm and personable in person, but in static pictures of her when she's standing she looks somewhat uncomfortable.

[ Parent ]

You Mean (none / 0) (#134)
by squeaky on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:53:22 PM EST

She doesn't look like a model? That seems pretty refreshing to me.

[ Parent ]

No, I mean she looks somewhat uncomfortable. (5.00 / 6) (#138)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:58:00 PM EST

Just like I said the first time.

[ Parent ]

Well From All Reports (none / 0) (#144)
by squeaky on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:03:46 PM EST

She is not the least bit uncomfortable, she even hugged the queen.

[ Parent ]

Yes, as they discussed their shoes. (5.00 / 1) (#146)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:13:08 PM EST

So refreshingly unstereotypical.

[ Parent ]

You Have No Idea (none / 0) (#174)
by squeaky on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:21:36 PM EST

What they discussed.

[ Parent ]

Au contraire, mon ami. (none / 0) (#178)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:29:26 PM EST

I actually do have an idea of what they discussed:

'There was a bit of a bottleneck as all of the leaders filed out so the Queen started chatting to Michelle Obama. She appeared to look up at her and make a comment about how tall she was.
'As she did, she put her arm around Mrs Obama and rested her gloved hand on the small of her back.'
Almost simultaneously, Mrs Obama put her arm around the Queen's shoulders rather more firmly.
The pair then looked at their feet and appeared to be discussing their shoes.

[ Parent ]

lol (none / 0) (#180)
by squeaky on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:30:48 PM EST

Appeared? Not to mention all the unreported discussion that

appeared

to take place.

[ Parent ]

Precisely. Hence "an idea." (none / 0) (#182)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:34:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: What they Discussed (none / 0) (#189)
by squeaky on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:45:13 PM EST

As in its entirety. Having an idea of snippet is not knowing what they discussed, imo.

[ Parent ]

Two big, fat, ugly naked people... (none / 0) (#127)
by Dadler on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:41:57 PM EST

...need to be added to all G20 fashion photos. It would be hilarious and further highlight the inanity of the entire topic.

After reading this thread... (none / 0) (#135)
by kdog on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 12:55:20 PM EST

thank you mother nature for making me a dude...I couldn't deal with this fashion sh*t.

remind me (5.00 / 1) (#149)
by CST on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:21:35 PM EST

never to become famous...

although I would be more likely to rock the pantsuit anyway - no heals. Function over form.

[ Parent ]

: I think I'd (none / 0) (#156)
by kdog on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:34:03 PM EST

rock my swiss-cheese jeans, sneakers, a Bob Marley T-shirt, and in honor of George Carlin one of those F*ck You baseball caps.

[ Parent ]

Yeah Lucky You (none / 0) (#140)
by squeaky on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:01:24 PM EST

Dudes are supposed to do the looking. Lapping up attractiveness, poise, ladylike gentleness, sexy aggressiveness, all in all a dish to salivate over. Funny that so many progressive women also want women to look like they are supposed to.

I am really happy that Michele is not satisfying the conventional minded stereotype of ladylike.

[ Parent ]

Maybe I'm too old to feel like being (5.00 / 2) (#167)
by Anne on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:58:21 PM EST

called a lady would be the equivalent of an insult.

Manners, poise, grace, behavior appropriate to the occasion, ability to make others comfortable: traits to be admired regardless of gender. If George Bush had had these qualities in measurable amounts, we would not have thought of him as being less of a man, we would have admired him for rising to the occasion of his stature on the world stage, and representing us well.

By all accounts, and to all appearances, Michelle Obama has almost got it all; the more she is on the public stage, the better she will get at standing out not for her clothes or her body language, but for her ability to be present in a way that does not take away from the purpose of her public appearances, or from the role that she plays as First Lady.

I have every confidence we will not have to refer to her as the First Broad, and that she won't take unconventional to the point where we have to worry that she will drop f-bombs on heads of state, or inappropriately encroach on someone's personal space.

You may find it a shame, but I suspect this will be the last time Michelle Obama commits any serious fashion faux pas - and I would bet a dollar that her wardrobe for the remainder of her trip is being seriously tweaked even as I write this.

[ Parent ]

: Ha. Although I usually care not one bit about (none / 0) (#170)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:02:39 PM EST

this sort of stuff, it has become a fun diversion from debating the merits of various laws for me.
I kinda can't wait 'til tomorrow to see what she's wearing!

[ Parent ]

Yeah... (none / 0) (#151)
by kdog on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:29:03 PM EST

I have no patience for appearances and protocols...we elected them, we should let them be true to themselves.

Like all this stuff with the Queen...she stops eating, you can't eat...can't put out your hand till she puts out hers...f*ck all that, I thought we fought a war to ignore all that sh*t, we don't believe in or acknowledge royalty, we're all born equal.

I'd walk in the palace..."Hey Liz, What's going on Chuck?, Willie & Harry how's it hangin'? What's in the feedbag tonight?"

[ Parent ]

When in Rome -- or London (5.00 / 1) (#162)
by Cream City on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:42:56 PM EST

it's just respectful to follow traditions there.

Btw, reading the history of this, many of the protocols about the British crown are because the king or queen is the religious leader and respectful of that role -- just as we would expect our leaders to follow protocol with the Pope, the Dalai Lama, etc.

[ Parent ]

Exactly! (5.00 / 1) (#168)
by jbindc on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 01:59:04 PM EST

I and when the Obamas are invited to the Vatican, you can BET she will not only have her arms covered, but her head will be covered as well.

[ Parent ]

: And they'd be leaving (none / 0) (#176)
by jondee on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:24:01 PM EST

the adolescent boys at home -- if they had any.

[ Parent ]
: Maybe she'll wear a great hat (none / 0) (#177)
by Cream City on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:28:04 PM EST

like the parade we see in my town for an annual convention of churchwomen of color, so she would be well aware of the tradition. It's quite a competition! and such fun to see what hats used to be. Btw, I needed one for an event a while ago and knew were to look for a milliner -- in the neighborhood of my town's oldest (1869) AME church. It was such a great throwback sort of day, getting to try on all sorts of hats and pick forms and fabrics and attachments, etc. It became a group event, too, as I found out that milliner's shops can be female equivalents of the barbershops where men's business is done in the black community. So I acceded to the collective wisdom of the very knowledgeable milliner and audience, and I actually ended up quite comfortable in a hat well-suited to me, although I hadn't worn one since girlhood when we just had to wear hats AND gloves to go to church or "downtown."
Our grandmothers knew that going shopping for a hat can be such fun -- no need to go in and out of dressing rooms, in and out of layers of clothes, or all the rest that can make shopping such a bother. Just sit back, have all the work done for you, and have everyone ooh and aah about how beautiful you are.:-)

[ Parent ]

I guess... (5.00 / 1) (#171)
by kdog on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:05:18 PM EST

but respect for outdated, tired traditions which American patriots spilled blood to defy?

Just rubs me the wrong way...I don't believe in royalty.

[ Parent ]

Try this (5.00 / 1) (#172)
by jbindc on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:12:37 PM EST

Think of it as just having "good manners". Certain styles of dress are appropriate for certain occasions or venues.

Remember the hullaballoo over the women's championship team from the University of Minnesota that came to the WH a couple of years back and some of them had bare legs and flip-flops and looked tacky?

[ Parent ]

What about the Queen... (none / 0) (#190)
by kdog on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:51:28 PM EST

where are her manners? She's not hungry so nobody can eat? Talk about rude.

[ Parent ]

My guess, kdog, is that she eats really slowly (5.00 / 1) (#194)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:01:51 PM EST

makes lots of conversation with everyone she can and makes sure every gets their fill before she stops eating. It's called caring about others. Some people may feel the need to carry a chip on their shoulder when it comes to such things. I used to be that way too.

[ Parent ]

I don't know man.... (none / 0) (#201)
by kdog on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:22:26 PM EST

if she really cared about others she would have had that rule, and all the other dumb rules, scrapped long ago.

Maybe I do have a chip, or just a pet-peeve...I despise the whole concept of royalty.

I'd show the Queen the same respect I would any other human being...this protocol sh*t all stems from servitude and I'd draw the line there.

[ Parent ]

: You don't have a chip, you have a chunk! :-) (5.00 / 3) (#205)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:33:46 PM EST

At dinner at my house, for example, we all wait until everyone's sitting before we start eating. I don't think that makes me a servant of my 7 y/o. Nor he of me.
I hold doors for people, let them in lines ahead of me and don't pee in their pools.
I never feel like those things make me servile.

[ Parent ]

Actually, I think the Queen is quite (5.00 / 1) (#195)
by Anne on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:07:07 PM EST

respectful in that regard, and would go through the motions even if she were not particularly hungry.

It is possible to be a member of the royal family and still be respectful of others, you know; one would think the Queen regularly shrieks "Off with their heads!" so extreme is your antipathy toward her.

[ Parent ]

: Not off with their heads... (none / 0) (#199)
by kdog on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:16:51 PM EST

but off with the loot that the UK could use right about now as the economy supposedly crumbles.
But I guess it's none of our business...

[ Parent ]

Tom Paine (5.00 / 1) (#179)
by jondee on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:30:24 PM EST

couldnt have said it better, kdog.

Eff 'em if they cant take a joke.

[ Parent ]

The differnce being (none / 0) (#175)
by jondee on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:22:04 PM EST

the Dalai Lama dosnt take himself -- because he dosnt believe in an abiding one -- as seriously as aristos do in the land of poorly dressed, sexually repressed football hooligans.

[ Parent ]

The Dalai Lama (none / 0) (#181)
by Cream City on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:33:33 PM EST

HIs Holiness, Tenzin Gyatso, whom I actually have met and read a lot about (I highly recommend his autobiographies) is the 14th reincarnation of God -- as well as a very gracious man. So he does not make a big deal of formality . . . but before his events, he is preceded by a protocol team.

And I can tell you for a certainty that he is appreciative when the formalities are given -- because, again, it is a sign of respect to his great people, their religion, and their sorry plight in exile.

[ Parent ]

You said the magic words (5.00 / 1) (#186)
by jbindc on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:39:35 PM EST

"It is a sign of respect."

Sure, someone could show up to see the Queen (or POTUS or other head of state) in cutoffs and and a tank top, but that would not be appropriate and would definitely show a lack of respect (for the office).

[ Parent ]

: Lets hope that (none / 0) (#188)
by jondee on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:44:23 PM EST

it dosnt lead to those in the most sumputous atire having the MOST credibility.
Lets not forget that sometimes Elijah appears as a begger.

[ Parent ]

Which incarnation are you (none / 0) (#185)
by jondee on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:39:18 PM EST

and I ? Thats the question Im most interested in.

[ Parent ]

: Me, too. Reading about (none / 0) (#193)
by Cream City on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:56:51 PM EST

reincarnation and such religious traditions is intriguing, leading to reexamining our own as they must look to those of other cultures.

[ Parent ]

All that would be well and good if you were (none / 0) (#183)
by Inspector Gadget on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 02:35:11 PM EST

British.

You want to change things, you do that in your own country and leave others to their choices.

It seems the gilded centuries of Royalty are rapidly coming to a close. Enjoy the chance you've had to see some of it before it completely disappears.

[ Parent ]

I think Michelle Obama... (none / 0) (#200)
by GeorgiaE on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 03:19:11 PM EST

Goes out of her way to make others feel comfortable. Now that's class..A sign of a Lady, a First Lady..the First Lady of the United States of America...

The diff between kdog"s (none / 0) (#206)
by jondee on Thu Apr 02, 2009 at 04:10:34 PM EST

"chunk" and the queen's is that his dosnt cost the amoint it would take to support an African village for six months.

G20 Clothes, Day Two | 202 comments (202 topical)