Moderator Note
GusNSpot, let’s refrain from political jabs in General Questions. No warning issued.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Moderator Note
jayjay, let’s refrain from personal remarks about other posters in this forum, as well as political commentary. No warning issued.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
IIRC, weren’t some very nasty things said about Malia Obama a few years back for daring to appear in public in shorts and a t-shirt?
Moderator Instructions
Let’s stick to the specific issue of the source of the funds used for the dress. Otherwise this thread is going to get increasingly derailed. I note that some of the other posts above weren’t appropriate for GQ either. If you want to comment about the politics of the issue, or other side issues, please open another thread in an appropriate forum.
This goes for everyone.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Well…there is this (Michelle wearing shorts on vacation)
Maybe you should be much more interested in realizing that a presidential vacation is much different than a vacation from, say, your job. When the President is “on vacation,” he’s still functioning in the office he holds.
Fun fact: apart from State dinners (which are “working dinners”, after all) the President pays for his and his family’s own food. So I’d be surprised if the First Lady is getting free designer dresses courtesy of the taxpayer.
Mrs. Obama dresses right out of the 1950s.
But only the “ugly section” of the dress catalog.
The clothes this woman wears are a huge embarrassment for herself and for the country. It is so unbelievable that any woman would wear such ugly clothes that it is to laugh.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, and in fact I don’t think this dress is particularly flattering (nor indeed the hairstyle), but Michelle Obama usually dresses quite well in my view.
Well, the fabric of the skirt portion seems a little too stiff, and I think there’s too much of it; but the bodice is just great, and she looks terrific in periwinkle. While I understand how much fun it is to occasionally sweep around in a fancy taffeta formal dress, I can’t help wondering if it mightn’t have been better without those extra folds of fabric on the sides, or perhaps just some other way of making the skirt portion full.
But again, that’s a wonderful color on her. I would even say it’s the ideal shade of blue for her to wear.
In the top picture (fourth picture down), taken from the side, it looks just beautiful. In the second picture, from the front, it seems a bit bulky. Great color though.
…And when did periwinkle become “liberty blue?”
Please tell us your opinion on how all the previous First Ladies dressed. I’m sure everyone can’t wait to hear.
Oh yeah, periwinkle suits her. But there’s way too much going on in the bottom half of the dress. It looks like they used about twice as much fabric as necessary, and it probably weighs a ton. Simpler would have been much better.
In exactly the same way that TAX dollars bought Mrs Reagan’s and Mrs Bush’s gowns.
There is existing protocol, in place, to cover the acquisition of expensive fancy dress for state functions. Because American’s long ago decided they wanted their First Ladies to look good on the world stage. Most nations have a similar protocol.
How is it anyone needs this explained to them?
When that Republican fellow got up and said, “We need to stop being the party of stupid!”, I’m pretty sure this is exactly the kind of nonsense he was referring to.
Are you sure about that? I really don’t know, I’m asking. I’d be surprised if giving a dress to the first lady is considered a donation. The White House probably isn’t a charitable origination. Also, as you said yourself, they do it for the publicity (advertising).
I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just saying that I don’t think just because you gave something to Mrs. Obama you get to write it off.
If you’re saying that it’s because it ends up in the Smithsonian, then one could make the argument that it’s no different then taking stuff to Goodwill and writing it off.
WTF?
Well, one out of four sentences is accurate. She does favor 1950’s shapes in her dresses, and it has definitely trickled down to Target-level fashion (those of us without fantastically toned upper arms have noticed, believe me!) I’m not sure what’s supposed to be wrong about that. I hear Jackie Kennedy was partial to much the same look, and she’s widely considered one classy broad.
Well, I do think she often makes shape mistakes with belts. But on the whole she looks a hell of a lot better than I do, so it’s a good thing it isn’t my job to be the nation’s hostess. A job at which she’s done as well as anybody does. (It’s a tough one - it’s completely undefined, so really it’s difficult to “succeed” at but very easy to catch a ton of criticism for.)
That IS a great color on her but the overall effect is awfully… first-ladyish. In the Nancy/Barbara mold.
To repeat what I said before, do not waste any time arguing with someone who claims that Obama spends too much on entertainment or acquires for free items like clothes that he’ll keep after he leaves office or takes too much vacation time, unless the person you’re arguing with gives you the comparable numbers for the previous four or so Presidents (and gives you a cite for those numbers). They are the one making the statement that Obama’s expenses are untypically large, so it’s their job to come up with those numbers. Forcing you to come up with the numbers is merely their way to waste your time, and they will in any case ignore you if you find out that their claims are false.
And never argue with anyone about whether any member of the First Family dresses in an ugly fashion or is ugly themselves or about whether they are too short or too fat or about anything else about their looks. It’s reasonable to argue about how much a President should spend in office, but a President’s job doesn’t depend on whether we think that he or his wife is particularly handsome or tall or thin or a snappy dresser. Even to start to reply to such arguments is to concede their validity in some cases, and they’re never valid.
Another fun fact: the White House (during the Clinton and GW Bush years, at least) employed professional calligraphers to hand-write the menus for state dinners. Cite:
Dining at the White House: From the President’s Table to Yours, by John Moeller, 2013.
Not that I think there’s anything wrong with that per se, but I suspect people who don’t know otherwise realize just how much effort (and therefore money) goes into White House entertaining as a political and diplomatic tool.