No sneakers, though
I’m assuming, since she’s a grown woman fercryingoutloud, that the First Lady picks out her own threads, in which case we have the very definition of a mixed bag. When she looks good, she looks very, very good, but sometimes there’s this:
The Times was somewhat critical — “impossible to defend,” they said of that abdominal-stratification effect — but the Times is unfailingly polite.
Which is why I turn here to E. M. Zanotti:
The Times may be vomiting all over itself trying to justify this clear bout of temporary insanity, but real people know that, not only do horizontal stripes make you look like you have (a) no waist and (b) a giant ass, particularly when you partition off your hips and ass with a GIANT BELT. Also, she’s wearing two cardigans, a fact which normally would be a problem, but when compared to the shirt, does not even merit comment. At least the yellow one works with her skin tone. But no. That SHIRT. It looks like her bottom half was eaten by several different aprons consecutively. Or like she was attacked by a roving band of uncharacteristically unmerciful, glue-gun wielding scrapbook moms armed with ribbon from the Jo-Ann Fabrics clearance bin.
Then again, if this doesn’t get Mrs. O an entry over at Go Fug Yourself — getting her own category might be a trifle premature — surely nothing will.
jen »
11 June 2009 · 9:50 am
You amaze me with your ability to understand chick ways. And, you are quite possibly the only man – you’re a man, right – who has ever blogged about plus sizes.
How on earth do i get rid of this horse profile pic. It’s tied to some other site other than blogger. I guess Word Press. It’s ruining my personal branding. hahahahahahaha!
CGHill »
11 June 2009 · 10:28 am
Must be a Gravatar. (I suppress them at my end, but the WordPress toggle doesn’t seem to kill them off as it should.)
Last I looked, I was a guy. And yes, it takes more than a cursory glance downward to establish things like that — hardware and wetware are not always accurately matched, I am told — but this is your basic quick-and-dirty response.
Then again, in my capacity as a guy, and an older one at that, I am supposed to be immune to the blandishments of fashion. All the more reason, I think, to look into them on occasion.
McGehee »
11 June 2009 · 10:50 am
Chaz, you have to admit, she looks better in that outfit than Joe Biden would.
I hope.
McGehee »
11 June 2009 · 10:51 am
And the only place I ever see the Gravatar is in the live preview; on my browser it doesn’t display with the actual posted comment.
Jeffro »
11 June 2009 · 3:06 pm
I see my Gravatar on the preview, but it’s gone when the post is published.
McGehee – mental floss, stat!
Jeff Brokaw »
11 June 2009 · 4:21 pm
I’ve seen street people that dressed better than that.
McGehee »
11 June 2009 · 4:37 pm
I want to know when we’ll hear Letterman poke fun at Michelle O’s wardrobe choices.
Jeff Shaw »
11 June 2009 · 4:40 pm
The only thing she needs is some glasses on a string, and she’s Lisa from the old Saturday Night Live skit with Gilda Radner and Bill Murray.
When I was in high school, I thought that look was HOT!.
How about some noogies.
Mark Alger »
11 June 2009 · 7:37 pm
Chaz, you’re too kind. No. Really. WAY too kind. Michelle Ma Belle might clean up OK, but I have personally never seen a picture of her looking what I would call good.
It’s that ugly-going-clear-to-the-bone thing. Ugly soul, ugly countenance.
M
Mark Alger »
11 June 2009 · 7:38 pm
Watch THAT get me on some sort of a list.
M
CGHill »
11 June 2009 · 7:48 pm
She does seem to have a bit of a scowl, but then I have a bit of a scowl, so I tend to overlook that sort of thing.
Lisa Paul »
12 June 2009 · 2:52 am
McGehee,
Do we really want to encourage Letterman to be an equal opportunity offender? Wouldn’t a better plan be to shut Letterman up completely?
CGHill »
12 June 2009 · 7:04 am
In general, I don’t like the idea of shutting anyone up.
However, I am greatly fond of the idea of drowning someone in a sea of dissenting voices.
McGehee »
12 June 2009 · 8:07 am
You mean, stop him from going about his own business as he sees fit?
Lisa Paul »
12 June 2009 · 8:20 am
No, just saying no with the channel switcher. Am I the only one who has always found him spectacularly unfunny?
CGHill »
12 June 2009 · 8:35 am
You may have noticed that I’ve been doing my own Top Ten lists for some time now.
McGehee »
12 June 2009 · 9:09 am
There’s a difference between saying “stop listening,” which I’ve long since done to all those late-night gabbers (except occasionally maybe Ferguson), and saying “shut him up.” Small matter of words meaning things.
Of course, Letterman seems to believe that if he were to direct his “humor” at Barry and Michelle, he’d learn for real what “shut him up” means.
I’d just like to see the hypothesis tested.
Lisa Paul »
12 June 2009 · 10:40 am
Jeez McGehee, everything isn’t a vast conspiracy. Every off-handed comment is some evil plot to curtail everyone’s rights. Lighten up. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
There has always been only one truly effective way to “shut people up” on TV. Stop watching. Ratings go down. Sponsors pull out. Person off air. Well, they probably aren’t shut up. They can still rant on street corners. But you don’t have to stumble over them while flipping channels or with dozens of people sending you YouTube clips.
Lisa Paul »
12 June 2009 · 10:51 am
Better add for anyone else taking this all too literally. DO NOT GO OUT AND GUN DOWN LETTERMAN AS SOME WOULD AN ABORTION DOCTOR! Just change your channel. If you see Letterman walking down the street and he says something you don’t like DO NOT BECOME PHYSICALLY VIOLENT. Letterman has the right to say anything he wants that isn’t shouting “fire” in a crowded theater or inciting a riot. However, there’s an interesting twist to this free speech thing. We also have the right not to listen.
If you find a certain bent to Letterman’s humor offensive, mainly because he mocks the family of a politician you might like, it probably isn’t really moving the dialogue along to encourage him to be equally offensive to the family of a politician you don’t like.
Whew! Everyone clear? Guns down? Everyone playing nice?
CGHill »
12 June 2009 · 11:00 am
Having once yelled “THEATRE!” in a crowded firehouse, I should probably recuse myself hereafter.
Lisa Paul »
12 June 2009 · 11:15 am
Whew. Forgot to add that, by using the word abortion and Letterman in the same sentence, I am not implying that said comedian is either for or against abortion. Nor am I suggesting that only right wing abortion foes would be the most likely to gun down Letterman. Or that anyone, indeed, would care enough about him to do so. But just in case, you are thinking of executing him: DON’T!
McGehee »
12 June 2009 · 11:49 am
Um, Lisa?
What did I say that suggested I thought otherwise?
I just happen to think it’s too easy for people to mistake the differences intrinsic to an ambiguous figure of speech, especially on a matter as charged as, well, speech. Charles recently accused me of being a stickler for accuracy, and I was merely living down to the accusation.
Since much of my humor plays off those same ambiguities, I may be more sensitive to them than most. Canary in a coalmine.
As for all the rest of what you seem to have read into my commentary, I’m never that subtle.
McGehee »
12 June 2009 · 11:50 am
…except when I want to be.
Lisa Paul »
12 June 2009 · 12:21 pm
Could it have been this: You mean, stop him from going about his own business as he sees fit?
Okay, truce. But it looks like I still need to post disclaimers.
This next comment will probably start another firestorm:
I can sympathize with a mother lashing out at someone who makes a tasteless public joke at the expense of her daughter, but a savvier politician would have ignored the comment as unworthy of comment.
No public figure’s child endured more horrendous and vitriolic abuse than Chelsea Clinton. But the Clintons, while I’ve never accused them of being classy, had the smarts to completely ignore those comments. It dignified them and Chelsea while making the so called “comedians” look like bullies and worse. And it left the public to do the defending which absolved the Clintons of looking like they were using their child as publicity. Which is sometimes a byproduct, whether warranted or unwarranted, of these sorts of altercations.
After all with Letterman’s ratings (even with their recent uptick), it’s safe to say the vast majority of us never even heard of the joke until Palin elevated it to front page status.
I’d submit that the Obamas, should Letterman start snarking on Michelle’s wardrobe, would probably shrug, ignore it and change the channel to Charlie Rose.
Donna B. »
12 June 2009 · 6:04 pm
The Clintons didn’t ignore the comments about Chelsea. Standing together, they said out loud “She’s off-limits.”
And I was proud of them.
Snarking on Michelle’s wardrobe is not even in the same category.
Lisa Paul »
12 June 2009 · 9:01 pm
A short statement: “She’s off limits” isn’t really the same as drawing out a long engaged battle as Palin’s doing with Letterman. And I think they were talking to political opponents who were not debating policy but trashing a kid to get at the Clintons.
On the other hand, what parent wouldn’t want to do that if their kid was attacked? It’s entirely understandable. Just, sadly, not as politically astute. Especially against a comedian.
Comedians are, by their own nature and preference, at the margins. Most make their living walking up to the line, then crossing it. They go where polite society doesn’t. Sometimes they win with accolades for “edginess”. Sometimes they lose their audience.
But I think when you try to debate them, you always lose to some extent. Because they’ve done their bit expressly for that purpose: to get a rise and to get more airplay. You give them what they want.
CGHill »
12 June 2009 · 9:08 pm
Best “edgy” I ever heard of was this Lenny Bruce story, which I told back in ’03:
And then, of course, the dam burst.