Archive for ‘Michelle Obama’

March 19, 2009

Gag me with Hope!

Deuce linked this Wall Street Journal column by William McGurn:

By choosing Fort Bragg for her first official trip outside the capital last Thursday, Michelle Obama signaled that she will use her position as First Lady to promote one of America’s most deserving causes: our military families. Plainly the families loved it. Just look at the smiles on those children as she read them “The Cat in the Hat.”
So it was just a little disconcerting the next morning to hear the First Lady explain how she came to this issue during last year’s campaign. “I think I was like most Americans,” she told ABC News. “Pretty oblivious to the life of military families. Sort of taking it for granted.”
Perhaps Mrs. Obama did take these families for granted. Surely, however, it’s extraordinary to suggest that “most Americans” did the same.

Right. Because there are no GIs in Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood, they might as well not exist, eh? Yet Mrs. Obama was merely expressing the horrible tendency of elitists to assume that their own experience and their own perspective is universal and normative, whereas the Bible-and-gun-clingers in Appalachia . . .

Well, because the lives of those Other People don’t measure up to Hyde Park standards, the elitist needs an explanation for why they don’t measure up, an explanation that generally takes the form of a condescending (and politically convenient) assumption:

“Oh, they lack adequate health care and they need better schools and, if only it weren’t for the greed and selfishness of those right-wing Republicans, we could turn these shiftless inbred peckerwoods into good and decent people like us!”

This is the whole rationale of Mrs. Obama treating military families as if they were helpless victims, charity cases whose primary needs are (a) more federal money, and (b) lots and lots of pity.

What Mrs. Obama wants is for the wives and children of our troops to embrace victimhood status as their political identity, to think of themselves as unable to cope with adversity and therefore in need of humanitarian intervention by those kind, generous Democrats in Washington.

Advertisements
March 8, 2009

‘As the Britons have just become aware . . .

“. . . Michelle Obama is one of those people who argues that a racist incident can be said to have occurred whenever the putative victim feels that it has occurred.”

January 21, 2009

Michelle Obama’s dresses panned

Ooooh, this is rich! Michelle Obama, who’s been compared to Jackie Onassis about 10 zillion times, is being criticized for her inaugural wardrobe. First, there was her Isabel Toledo dress, which Newsday describes as “jewel-collared, pale yellow-gold lace coat, sweater and sheath dress ensemble,” but which Amanda Carpenter describes thus:

The utter lack of ooh-ing and ah-ing over Michelle Obama’s inauguration wear should tell you something. It was bad. . . . That split-pea/yellow color she wore . . . is impossible for 95 percent of women to carry off. I’d say Michelle is included in that number. She sure does seem to like that chartreuse-y tone, though.
The famous JCrew outfit she wrote on Jay Leno has the same color scheme.
If that particular hue becomes a crayola crayon, I think it should be named “sour sunshine.”

Ooooh! Now, you may want to attribute Amanda’s criticism to ideological bias, but when it comes to Mrs. O’s ball gown designed by Jason Wu, the criticism was not limited to Fox News regulars. Newsday:

The dress, with a strap across one shoulder, ruched bodice, fluffy appliqués and sparkling beading, will (as tradition dictates) be donated to the Smithsonian. . . .
Not everyone loved it.
“It’s an inauguration, not a prom,” fashion personality and stylist Robert Verdi said.

And, as might be imagined, Amanda also gave thumbs-down to the gown:

I have nothing against an off-the shoulder, white gown (Nancy Reagan looked great in hers) but Michelle’s ballgown was simply not flattering. The cut didn’t do her statuesque figure any favors, in my humble opinion. . . .
Barbara Walters . . . said on The View, the other day, “I think you can tell what the Administration is going to be like by what the First Lady wears.”
I wouldn’t go that far, but it is fun for political women to talk political fashion. For all you men out there, understand clothes and makeup are like football for women. We can talk about it with anybody, it’s a good icebreaker, it’s always fun. We’ll be saying “What did you think of Michelle’s dress?” at the water coolers while you all are crying about your NFL team not making it to the Superbowl.

Or Alabama getting beat by Utah. But don’t bring up those painful memories again, Amanda.

Ace of Spades: “Hey, nice dress. Who shot the curtains?” As Dan Riehl says, “So much for the new Ace for the new age.’ “

Michelle Obama’s Isabel Toledo dress-and-long-coat combo, while beautiful, and a bold statement, I think was overkill for daytime. Too much sparkle.

It’s like a fashion Rashomon.