I’ve been rather critical of First Lady Michelle Obama and rightfully so. For all her gardening and anti-obesity photo-ops, she’s frightfully out of touch with the average American family. I track her wardrobe, and she easily wears $1 million worth of clothing in a year. She wore $50,000 alone last January. When Nancy Reagan did that during the 80s recession, she was vilified.

Kudos to her for being graceful on the topic of Sarah Palin. First Ladies are usually tactful and stay above the mud-slinging. However, this administration hasn’t done a very good job of staying above the fray on anything. The Prez  and his staff like making their opinions known whether they are warranted or not.  Mrs. O easily could have said something catty and the media wouldn’t have called her on it. Good for her for displaying class in an amateur administration.

Last night on Larry King Live, she managed to support women while staying apolitical:

“I think it’s wonderful to have strong female voices out there, but I don’t know her,” said Obama.

“What’s your read on the former governor of Alaska?” King had asked, setting up an exchange with classic cable television cat-fight potential.

“You know, I don’t have a read. I try not to make, or set, opinions about people that I haven’t had any, you know, substantive interaction with. I mean, I know what you see on TV and when –” Obama replied.

“Does it irk you when she criticizes?” King pressed.

“You know, democracy is about critique. And the president is not immune to criticism,” said Obama.

Obama also declined to be drawn out on the subject of the Tea Party convention. “You know, I’m — I’m focused on what’s in front of me. And right now, that’s ending childhood obesity in a generation — getting this done,” she said.

On Good Morning America yesterday, she also could have attacked Palin:

“I think my husband has done a phenomenal job staying on course, looking his critics in the eye, coming up with clear solutions against staying the course,” Michelle Obama told Robin Roberts in an exclusive morning television interview on “Good Morning America.” “That’s what leadership is. But people have the right to criticize the president of the United States.”

Michelle Obama’s comments came in response to recent criticism from Sarah Palin, who told Tea Party conventioneers in Nashville, Tenn., this weekend that she wants to ask Obama supporters, “How is that hope-y, change-y stuff working out for you?”

And now more completely unsurprising news about Sarah Palin…

She’s the second-most admired woman in the country after Hillary Clinton. Per Politico:

When Gallup asked 1,025 adults nationwide to name the woman they admire most, 16 percent picked Clinton. Palin was the only other woman to be mentioned by at least 10 percent, being selected by 15 percent of those surveyed.

Clinton has been in the public eye for nearly 20 years now, whereas Palin a little over one. Given Palin’s grassroots following, no. 1 book, and unbelievably successful booktour, this is not a big surprise. Honestly, this poll is probably more of an indicator of who’s been in the news the most. Top of the Ticket notes that Clinton has been ranked since 1993, the year she moved into the White House:

When is the fashion industry going to tire of Michelle Obama? I’m sick, sick, sick of seeing articles about her amazing sense of style.

When I read the fashion piece in the New York Times by Cathy Horyn comparing Sarah Palin and Michelle Obama, I was happy to see someone try to print something questioning M. Obama’s choices, even if she gets some facts wrong about Palin. She writes:

It’s hard to see now why so many columnists got their tights in a twist over Ms. Palin’s spending $75,000 of perfectly good Republican money at Neiman Marcus during the 2008 Republican convention. Have you seen Neiman’s numbers lately? After 18 straight months of declines, it wouldn’t be surprising to find a little shrine erected in Ms. Palin’s honor.

In November, the NYT, the same publication where Ms. Horyn writes, interviewed Lisa A. Kline, the stylist behind Wardrobegate. The article set the record straight that Palin had nothing to do with all of the money spent at Neiman Marcus. Palin even spends a considerable amount of time writing her side of the story in Going Rogue. She remembers looking through the clothes and being shocked to find an $80 pair of pantyhose and wondering why they were better than $5 drugstore brands. She also writes at length about wearing her own clothes, borrowing a pair of black Theory pants from a staffer and supporting Alaska designer, Paige Adams-Geller by wearing Paige jeans on the campaign. When she traveled to meet Senator McCain about the possibility of becoming his running mate, she packs two Ann Taylor suits. The last time I checked, neither Theory nor Ann Taylor are expensive brands. They make up many professional wardrobes of average American women.

I do agree with Ms. Horyn in the lack of scandal in how Mrs. Obama favors expensive labels, and by expensive, I mean expensive.

Mrs. Obama, though, has successfully separated the personal from the political. Indeed, the only thing more surprising than the storm over Ms. Palin’s “Pretty Woman” makeover is that almost no one has raised an eyebrow over Mrs. Obama’s wearing of non-American labels, which include Nina Ricci and Junya Watanabe, and some of the most expensive at that.

In the 1960s, Jackie Kennedy Onassis, a true fashion icon, gave up French designers because the public wanted her to wear American.  In the 1980s, Nancy Reagan was vilified for wearing expensive labels despite close connections to designers and a personal fortune to buy them. Barbara and Laura Bush always wore high-end, respectable labels but they  weren’t fashion industry darlings like the current FLOTUS. They did pull out the designer frocks when it counted, and Oscar De la Renta famously dressed Laura Bush.

While we’re in a recession similar the early 80s, Michelle Obama is praised for wearing expensive designers that most Americans can’t dream of wearing or even walking in their stores.*  Even her “cheap” J. Crew outfits cost over $500 each. When was the last time the average American woman spent $500 on a singal outfit? Hardly a peep is made when Mrs. O wears $500 sneakers to serve soup, orders custom-made, thigh-high boots from an elite French shoemaker or carries a $900 clutch. Because Mrs. Obama is a progressive and mirrors the politics of the fashion elite, they gush over her. As Horyn notes:

Mrs. Obama’s choices are all insider, apart from her shorts and those strategically worn plebe numbers from Target and Talbots. If she got any more insider, she’d be backing down a runway. She wears Rodarte, Jason Wu, Sophie Theallet, Narciso Rodriguez, Thakoon, Isabel Toledo and Rick Owens, labels that in terms of creativity and price are at the highest level of fashion. Go much higher and you hit couture.

That’s nearly more elite than the labels Nancy Reagan wore and she was labeled a cold-hearted fashionista. The only problem is that the Reagans clearly had the money to spend on those clothes. What about the Obamas? Neither of them have the income to afford that level of dressing. That level of dressing requires at least a $150,000 investment each year. To pull that off, you need Cindy McCain levels of income. The President only makes $400,000 plus an expense account of $50,000. Their daughters’ elite school, Sidwell Friends starts at $30,000 per kid. (It’s nice. I frequently used to walk by it when I lived in Upper Georgetown.)

What’s more likely is Mrs. O shares the same elitist, progressive politics of the design world and isn’t afraid to drop names when they gift her items. And when she drops the names of international designers, they make those snobby Europeans feel even more warm and mushy on the inside since the Obamas are “restoring” the profile of America. It’s like having a permanent red carpet on CNN. I was always led to believe that it’s in bad taste to spend copious amounts of money in a recession, even when you can afford it. But then, the Obamas are always the exception to every rule.

Interestingly, the Huffington Post attacks Horyn for her remarks about Mrs. O:

We think Sarah Palin is incredibly attractive, and looks great in a tailored and crisp style that suits her look. Michelle Obama experiments with looks, a seeming reflection of the many moods, roles, and self-images of women today. More power to them both, as they reflect, via their sartorial choices, on the multi-tasking challenge of all modern women.

Odd, “experimenting” with your style is not what’s typically praised in the fashion world. Fashion icons–Jackie Kennedy, Audrey Hephburn, Grace Kelly and modern celebrities like Renee Zellweger, Sarah Jessica Parker and Sienna Miller are known for distinct fashion tastes. In order to be a fashion icon, you’re supposed to have a recognizable style, not experiment. If Michelle Obama is still experiementing with her “style” well into her forties, she’s not an icon. And if her “style” is the frumpy cardigan and belt look, I can see why the labels are falling over themselves to save their precious liberal FLOTUS from worst dressed lists.

If Mrs. O had the politics of say, Sarah Palin, would her fashion choices be lauded?

*During my senior trip to Los Angeles, we went shopping on Rodeo Drive and quickly discovered no one could afford to buy anything. In Gucci, a salesperson closely follow us before escorting us out. The only store that showed any kind of customer service was Ralph Lauren, a plebian American designer. When I splurge on expensive clothes find them on sale at Marshall’s, I usually end up buying one of Ralph Lauren’s lines or Michael Kors, another American designer.

H/T: Don Surber

After finishing Going Rogue, I immediately delved into You’ve Come A Long Way, Maybe by Leslie Sanchez. After reading a few critical reviews of her book on feminist blogs, I was intrigued.

Bottom line, this is a definite read. Sanchez takes a much more nauanced view of feminism and modern electoral politics. As a Republican Latina and DC insider, she has a unique take on the role of women in politics and examines the quest for getting a woman in the White House. Unlike many other conservative books, she doesn’t waste half of it continuing the “feminists are the cause of all that is evil in this world” mantra. Instead,  she analyzes Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the effect of Sarah Palin and compares Michelle Obama to other First Ladies. She also asks key questions that I’ve been wondering, such as why do feminists hate conservative women like Palin who represent views such as mine and what will it take to get a woman elected POTUS?

Throughout the book, I scribbled and highlighted notes. She provided some perspectives that I’ll be thinking about for a while. She wrote a grownup book that doesn’t take potshots at disagreeing sides. I rarely find books like that. While she does disagree with liberal policies that feminists take, she doesn’t demonize them.

I spend a lot of time attacking feminism on this blog, but this doesn’t mean that I don’t agree with some of their positions or value what they’ve done for women in society. I am thankful that I had an opportunity to play sports in high school, vote, pursue my education and a career, and I don’t fear being a victim of sexual harassment. I’m thankful that I earn the same as my male peers and didn’t find my job under the “female jobs wanted” section. I appreciate that I can sit in a meeting with other men working in politics and my opinions and talents will be respected. Those are the positions of feminism which I agree. What I don’t understand and what I spend so much time writing and Sanchez devotes a significant part of her book questioning, is “why do feminists hate conservative women?”

After examining a number of polls and surveys, interviewing advisers and pundits from all across the spectrum, Sanchez wrote a statement that deserves further study and gets at the essence of the women’s movement problem:

However deep into Clinton’s psyche these voters may have wanted to go, what I am taking away from all the polls and comments is that women want to vote for other women who reflect their own life experience — perhaps a bit chillingly — are suspicious of a woman who has opted to follow a path too far departed from the one they themselves have chosen. And they are particularly unforgiving of a candidate who would go so far as to disparage the lifestyle that they  themselves have chosen: it’s my contention that Clinton has never really been forgiven in some quarters for the “cookie” comment. It lost her the support of women who actually had stayed home and baked cookies –and enjoyed doing it.

(more…)

A few weeks ago, I critiqued Michelle Obama’s magazine cover on Glamour. It hit newsstands this week and has ignited a few debates.

Earlier this week, my friend Southern Jezebelle wrote this status update on Facebook: “Dear Michelle Obama, shouldn’t you be using your time a bit more wisely than a Glamour photoshoot. Seriously?”

She thought it was disgraceful for a First Lady to be on the cover of a trashy magazine and was questioning someone in her office posing for the cover. While I think Glamour tries to distance itself with a few more legitimate news stories than Cosmopolitan, it does print its share of sex tips. I think Jezebelle has a point when the magazine goes from having a scantily clad Scarlett Johansson to the First Lady. It is possible for the Office of the First Lady to turn down a magazine cover, particularly one that cheapens the position.

I wrote a comment agreeing with her and watched as several acquaintances attacked her and called her racist and somehow pulled in the politics of George W. Bush.

How does questioning the prudence of putting the First Lady on the cover of a trashy magazine equate racism? What does Michelle’s cover have to do with the politics of the Bush administration?

This is one of my main problems with the left. Dissenting opinions are not allowed. Even dissenting opinions that have nothing to do with politics or issues in the national news. Society does not improve unless you can have honest and real debates. When you squelch all views simply because you don’t like them, you hamper democracy and cause those with dissenting views to cling to them even more. In order to change minds, you have to discuss issues rather than hit the opposition repeatedly over head with your talking points and destroy your reputation through personal attacks.

(more…)