Mrs O puts on the ritz

Michelle Obama, 11-4-08More precisely, she put on the Rodriguez: specifically, Narciso Rodriguez, from whose fall ’08 collection this natty little number is taken. (Picture swiped from USA Today.)

I’m not quite sure this was the ideal dress for her. I love the colors, and the length is just about perfect for her, but while the black crossover whittles her waist nicely, the red zone beneath makes her look a bit on the chunky side, which she isn’t. I suspect that this looked better on a rack, assuming it actually spent any time on a rack.

And maybe I’m reading too much into this photo here, but combine her stance and her facial expression, and to me it can mean only one thing: “These [expletive deleted] shoes are killing me.”

Addendum: Virginia Postrel also questions the shoes “or at least the way she stands in them.”


  1. Kay Dennison »

    6 November 2008 · 3:52 pm

    At that point in time, I don’t think she was thinking too much about how she was standing. I agree on the dress. I liked it but Michelle is tall, she is a bit short-waisted and it doesn’t compliment her figure. I can identify because I couldn’t wear that dress either as I’m built more or less the same way but old. LOL Most of the time she looks terrific. And she isn’t a fashion plate type either. She tends toward a sorta preppy look and wears a lot of off the rack stuff like J. Crew and Talbot’s — not cheap but not top of the line either. She actually showed up on Letterman in J. Crew! That’s confidence! Her daughters looked phenomenal! Someone criticized Malia’s dress because it cost $110. For an occasion like that, a mom doesn’t look at price tags. Michelle has admitted to liking to shop at Target and looks online for bargains.

    To be candid, as First Lady, Michelle and her daughters will be picked apart by the media. No matter what they do, someone somewhere won’t like it. I hope they don’t gang up the girls the way they did with Chelsea Clinton.

  2. Tatyana »

    6 November 2008 · 3:56 pm

    What an ugly cow.

  3. Tatyana »

    6 November 2008 · 4:43 pm

    Correction: a bowlegged ugly cow.

  4. Dick Stanley »

    6 November 2008 · 5:43 pm

    She IS bow-legged, as well as overweight. And her feet look too wide for the shoes. How inspirational. ;-) (Aren’t I catty.)

    But I doubt the media will ever pick her or their girls apart. They are Dems, after all! They spent the whole campaign fawning over Barry and trashing his opponents, including Mac’s wife and Sarah’s husband. Can’t see them turning snotty now.

  5. Kay Dennison »

    6 November 2008 · 7:20 pm

    Poor losers are sooooooooo unattractive.

  6. CGHill »

    6 November 2008 · 7:55 pm

    I am not convinced that she’s overweight; I’ve seen too many pictures of her in more flattering gear. The shoes, though, are highly arguable, though I like the height. (She’s five-eleven or so; she doesn’t need much of a boost.)

    And for me, hawtness trumps politics. Always has, always will.

  7. Tatyana »

    6 November 2008 · 8:27 pm

    Less than self-delusional ass-kissers.

  8. CGHill »

    6 November 2008 · 8:30 pm

    Maybe I missed something here, but I don’t see any buttock-smooching going on in this thread.

    There’s plenty of it elsewhere, of course, but I am disinclined to participate myself.

  9. Tatyana »

    6 November 2008 · 8:31 pm

    She’s about as hot (I prefer English) as a snake from the swamps – with a face and hair of Medusa Gorgona.

  10. CGHill »

    6 November 2008 · 8:32 pm

    I’ll let you know if anything here turns to stone.

  11. Tatyana »

    6 November 2008 · 8:33 pm

    Really, Chas? Comment #1 is a perfect lip-smacking swooning example.
    Sorry you’re too PC to notice.

  12. Tatyana »

    6 November 2008 · 8:34 pm

    Mrs O’Bummer is not looking at you, Chaz – yet.
    Wait until January.

  13. CGHill »

    6 November 2008 · 8:36 pm

    There’s a Mac joke in there somewhere, but I think I’ll just let it slide.

  14. Tatyana »

    6 November 2008 · 8:47 pm

    Mac? Who’s Mac? And what does he has to do with an example of a bow-legged ugly cow in flattened shoes – the topic of this post? Oh, excuse me, the stunning beauty, subject of newly-fashionable adoration of imbecilic half of the populace? Don’t tell me you’d even think of posting the picture of this inkstain if it was just some community-organizer-nobody’s wife.

    Unless the topic was something else.

  15. CGHill »

    6 November 2008 · 8:55 pm

    Mac, n. usu cap. 1. Apple Macintosh, as distinguished from Windows PCs in entirely too many ads. 2. John McCain, 2008 GOP Presidential candidate.

    Double your entendre, double your fun.

  16. Tatyana »

    6 November 2008 · 9:05 pm

    Don’t see any connection to the uglie on the picture with neither of the two meanings – unless you’re talking politics. And you took pains (oops, double entendre-double fan) to pretend you didn’t – just wanted to admire the dress! No bottoks-kissing here, no sir.

    Continue digging, Ch.

  17. Tatyana »

    6 November 2008 · 9:06 pm

    Fun, not fan. Pardon me, English is not my native language.
    On the other hand, it’s not Indonesian, either.

  18. Tatyana »

    6 November 2008 · 9:08 pm

    And buttocks, not bottoks. Although there is a joke here somewhere, about hitting the bottom.
    But I’ll let it slide.

  19. paulsmos »

    6 November 2008 · 11:40 pm

    I wonder how long it will take for the MSM to proclaim that she’s the new Jackie O!! Condi Rice was a babe, Michele is better than pumpin’ my own nads, but not by much.

  20. zigzag »

    7 November 2008 · 12:47 am

    My turn yet ? I think it is a unflattering photo because of that particular dress construction, AND the harsh lighting which gives a hard edge to her legs and feet, AND the angle of the shot, (from BELOW THE KNEES), AND the LENS of the camera which is distorting the scene. Not because the subject is unattractive or badly dressed. We are getting OVERHEATED here.
    Don’t forget, Washington is the POLAR opposite of Hollywood, we do ‘dumpy’ not glamour. So, she is cozying-up in the MOST APPROPRIATE manner possible to her new role — let’s take the high road and WELCOME her.

    If I were giving her advice, I say use a seamstress instead of famous and yet-haphazardly made “designer” garments. All women look better in fitted clothes with proper linings.

    And Charles knows best.

  21. Tatyana »

    7 November 2008 · 6:06 am

    Zigzag – YOU might want to welcome her, as your name suggest. Once again – if we are discussing – objectively – the woman on a podium, we have no obligation of welcoming anybody; the word is just inappropriate. Unless you want to let your politics influence your aesthetic sense. Or your sense of self-preservation.
    I disagree about the camera, lens, lighting etc – I think the photographer did a stellar job of revealing the essence of the subject.
    Red flames on a black background can highly be called “dumpy”. Tasteless – yes. Glaringly low-class – yes. Overall impression of a circus monkey – oh yes

    And Chaz show know better.

  22. Tatyana »

    7 November 2008 · 6:08 am

    *should, not *show. Damn.

  23. Mark Alger »

    7 November 2008 · 9:40 am

    I… dunno. My readers know I hold no brief for BHO or his termagent wife. But I suspect Lady O’s facing a problem of middle age that catches us all by surprise — no matter how well-prepared we think ourselves. Our bodies change. She may BE dumpy. I think it’s low-class to task her with it. Far more apposite to oppose her on the basis of what’s come out of her mind and her mouth.


  24. CGHill »

    7 November 2008 · 10:32 am

    Well, we know what General Zod thinks about the election.

  25. Tatyana »

    7 November 2008 · 11:28 am

    Mark, but this post was not about what comes out of her mind or mouth. Trust me, I can say a lot on that subject, too.

    Chaz had posts discussing Sarah Palin’s shoes or the way she dresses – without getting into what comes out of her mouth. Why, then, you consider it low-class to to treat our 1st Lady-Elect differently? She’s not even protected by an authority of an office – she’s just a private citizen who happens to be sleeping with an elected official.
    Why the double standard?

  26. Dick Stanley »

    8 November 2008 · 5:00 pm

    It is an awful dress, color wise, and I’ve decided she’s not overweight, she just has big hips, which the dress accentuates. But, frankly, I prefer the so-called first ladies to be a bit frumpy. The office of president is a bit of a joke, anyway, except for the red-button business. The founders could not have imagined the degree of pomp and ceremony that has come to be afforded to these characters, all the white ones and the black one. Hopefully Barry’s tendency to tell rude jokes and shoot the bird when he’s angry (despite all the media nonsense about his great cool) will help bring us back to reality.

  27. CGHill »

    8 November 2008 · 5:01 pm

    And he’s probably still smoking on the sly, too, which gives me some hope for the future.

RSS feed for comments on this post