Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Michelle Obama’s View

Lisa Schiffren reviews Michelle Obama’s performance today on The View. I actually made a mental note (and this proves the ineffectiveness of my mental notes) to watch the program today because of her appearance. But when 9:00 rolled around I was busy baking a birthday cake (yes, from scratch) and . . . well, good grief . . . it’s The View. There are few things that bore me more than The View. If I want to watch something like The View all I have to do is take my kids to the park and watch the mothers huddled around the picnic tables (and no, I don’t exempt myself from this caricature) discussing . . . well, whatever! At least we all get some fresh air to go along with the hot air this way.

Besides, I knew others would happily sacrifice themselves for me. Schiffren took up this cross and she tells me all I need to know about what transpired. Inane and banal. Well, I knew it would be that before it happened. I’ve never seen an episode the program that wasn’t.

But at the risk of sounding banal myself . . . may I suggest that Lisa and other commentators lay off Michelle, her sleeveless dresses, and her looks? That’s really barking up the wrong tree. The last thing I aspire to do each morning is praise Michelle Obama . . . but what’s right is right. Michelle Obama is a beautiful woman. She looks very good--and refreshingly feminine--in those dresses. Sleeveless? Well . . . it’s summer! It’s hot! And she can do it. Good for her. As my grandmother used to say, "If you’ve got it flaunt it!" Of course, there’s a limit to this (remember the flak Hillary took for showing "too much" cleavage) . . . but even then, if it were nicer cleavage she displayed, I doubt there would have been as much (negative) commentary on it. But MO hasn’t got a set of bat wings. She looks good and showing arms doesn’t reach the level of immodesty in my book. It’s not even informal. Most ball gowns are sleeveless, right? And what should she wear? A suit? I have always hated female suits--particularly pant suits. You might as well wear a habit or a berka as wear a suit. It is a uniform--and an ugly one at that. I suppose she could top it all off with a set of over-sized pearls . . . ugh. I’m sorry but if you can look pretty in a suit, you’re that special sort of woman who can look pretty in anything. That is the outfit that a younger woman can wear with impunity . . . not the dress!

I think it is wonderful and refreshing to see a woman in or around politics who strives to look pretty instead of "serious." It’s not the most important thing in the world, of course, and it can become a dangerous obsession for a women who is not, on some level, serious. But there’s no small amount of wisdom in a woman who knows that looking good is far from the least important thing in the world.

Discussions - 17 Comments

Oh, please. Michelle Obama is a seething, arrogant, hectoring leftist who jerks her husband's chain every chance she gets. There is absolutely nothing "refreshing" about her, unless a loud fart is refreshing (because unusual and unexpected). As for "wonderful," no need to comment.
As for "beautiful," not to me she isn't. She is an average-looking woman whose average looks are distorted by her anger and blatant sense of entitlement. Which makes Michelle Obama physically ugly, when she's in her most characteristic mood. And even if she looked great, she would still be an ugly human being. Which is what we should be discussing on NLT, I should think. Next time, let's skip the Style page talk.

Oh yes, Lisa Schiffren, the former Quayle speechwriter (!) who has admitted to a particularly sadomasochistic hatred of Hillary Clinton (as well as suggesting that digging be done into Obama's apparently-scandalous interracial parentage, and being the great mind behind the attacks on TV character Murphy Brown). Not a terribly serious person.

"As my grandmother used to say, 'If you’ve got it flaunt it!' Of course, there’s a limit to this (remember the flak Hillary took for showing "too much" cleavage) . . . but even then, if it were nicer cleavage she displayed, I doubt there would have been as much (negative) commentary on it. But MO hasn’t got a set of bat wings. She looks good and showing arms doesn’t reach the level of immodesty in my book."

I presume you responded to your grandmother's promotion of sluttiness by telling her that those who flaunt it should expect to get raped? "Doesn't reach the level of immodesty in my book"??? Be careful there, isn't conservatism supposed to be all about black and white definitions of right and wrong, drawn from an external authority (most decidedly not your book or my book) - for instance, the Bible. Don't slide into relativism!!

I also got a laugh from your pretty vs. serious false dichotomy, so thanks.

Don't forget that Mrs. Hussein is pro-terrorist.

All of us seething, arrogant, hectoring leftists liked what you said, Julie. But you are contradicting a page in the anti-Obama playbook.

You know, a lot of things that come as mixes aren't that hard to make from scratch. Granted, angel food cake may be the exception.

Dale . . . I promise . . . this cake is so far in the exception category that it not only melts in your mouth . . . it melts your tongue along with fork. There's nothing easy or indiscriminate about this cake . . . but that's why I only make it for the right occasions. Moderation in such pleasures and in such labors is required lest they become commonplace and expected and, therefore, less wonderful. Cakes (and some other things) are just like that.

Steve . . . it's fun to keep you guessing . . . not to mention my delight in watching Craig trip all over himself with his simple-minded and humorless desire to equate my views on feminine modesty with some Taliban-like form of tyranny. But speaking of humorless boneheads, I see (once again) that we have plenty of our own who are bent on force-feeding us with daily supplement from the anti-Obama playbook--I mean, David's a regular machine for that--so I figured I could take a morning off and give you all a spoonful of sugar instead.

Oh, please. David Frisk is a seething, arrogant, hectoring rightist who jerks his wife's chain every chance he gets. There is absolutely nothing "refreshing" about him, unless a loud fart is refreshing (because unusual and unexpected). As for "wonderful," no need to comment. As for "beautiful," not to me he isn't. He is an average-looking man whose average looks are distorted by his anger and blatant sense of entitlement. Which makes David Frisk physically ugly, when he's in his most characteristic mood. And even if he looked great, he would still be an ugly human being.

I love you, Michelle. You're such a gentle spirit. You remind everybody of Jackie Kennedy, maybe a little less cultural but also less likely to marry a foreign oil millionaire, unless it's a sheik.

3: Hal, we are supposed to be talking about STYLE. And don't suggest that Mrs. (surely she doesn't accept that term, so I'll use it) Obama lacks style. Such thoughts are not stylish on NLT. No, we look for the good, yea the good and the beautiful, in our enemies.

6: Julie, if I'm a "humorless bonehead," you're an airhead who vastly overrates her sense of humor, and indeed the interest level of her ramblings. My own sense of humor is too dry for you to understand. Spoonfuls of sugar that mislead us about the Obamas are part of a major loss of will among certain American conservatives that bids fair to lose us this election. You may not be all that interested in such things, but most people are, and more should be.
As it often is, your logic is weak:
How in God's name am I "force-feeding" anyone anything? I'm writing my comments for those who wish to read them. This is force? I'd expect that kind of reasoning from Maxine Waters or Al Franken. What it means to their ilk is: "anything I don't want to hear." Adults distinguish between what is unpleasant to their ears and what is tyrannical. As do properly brought-up children. Don't you agree?

7: I didn't attack you. Don't you be attacking me.

Uh oh, it's that time of month again when David The Serious gets the vapors.

David, you really need to get a grip and stop attacking people on this page. Just because she is a democrat, there is nothing wrong with commenting that she had a nice dress on and looked pretty. Heck, after seeing that dress, I want one too--it is a nice dress. Does that make me a liberal democrat...no. Please stop attacking people on this page as you are distracting people from the main points of the post to your own childish rants.

I don't understand the 'angry black woman' trope. Michelle Obama is a highly paid consultant, skilled at telling people what they want to hear, putting on a compassionate and politically correct face while she takes measures to discourage the South Side Chicago population from using the ER for primary care. She's the smooth executive type, from where I'm standing.

That said, allow me to digress a little. What the hell is wrong with being an angry black woman? God knows--and Mike Huckabee, too--that black women have a lot to be angry about. The African-American community has a lot of work to do, and there's much that conservatives can criticize about family structure, valuing education, etc. We may wish that black women weren't having so many babies out of wedlock, that the rate of incarceration for black men wasn't so sky high. But if you were an average black woman, with very limited prospects for marriage, what would you do? Isn't the desire to have progeny an eminently natural one? If you had, in your average life as an African-American woman, experienced various abuse at the hands of your mother's boyfriends, discrimination at the doctor's office, misogyny in your neighborhood--while facing the prospect of caring for a gaggle of dependents while working three minimum-wage jobs for the rest of your life--wouldn't you be angry, too?


So Michelle Obama plays by the rules, works her way through some ivy league schools and lives the white bourgeois dream--excuse me, the American Dream--while her husband echoes Bill Cosby. Frisk calls her ugly and tells her to get behind her husband. I don't get it. But I sure don't want to vote for whomever Frisk is supporting.

Okay, Frisk, I'll admit that you made me laugh with comment 11, but I somehow doubt that humor was your intention there. You DIDN'T attack her? I'm rubbing my eyes and reading your first comment and wondering what's going on in your head. That's not dry humor it's just bizarre. Denying the obvious just for chuckles?

Nancy Reagan wore sleeveless dresses and her shoulders were much older than Michelle Obama's. Republicans did not have problems with that. David Frisk, why don't you just admit that you don't like Michelle's look because she is not part of your Aryan race? I guess Cindy McCain will have to do for you.

13: Reread the relevant posts. My initial post didn't attack Julie, although I accurately stated that her post was "Style" page stuff. Sure, I strongly disagreed with her, but it didn't get personal. She then got extremely personal. I don't let that go by. And it's not only for myself, but for the sake of NLT. 15: See my comments to "Soccer Mom." 16: Your utterly false speculation is unworthy of a response. I will add, however, that I don't find Cindy McCain physically attractive either. But at least she's not a hectoring leftist.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/12515