By Jennifer J. Foster
Posted 06/11 at 11:37 PM
(0)
Comments
When I wrote that post about Skipper
Cindy McCain and her wardrobe the other day, I had no idea that I was touching on a subject that’s apparently all the rage these days.
Political junkies like me have Super Tuesday.
Fashion junkies have, apparently, the candidates’ wives.
Consider this article from the New York Times’ “Fashion Diary” –
SIDEBAR:
Fashion Diary? The New York Times has a Fashion Diary?
Does the ombudsman know about this?
END SIDEBAR
– in which Guy Trebay (I can’t hear that name in my head without a French accent: “gEYE tre-BAYYYYYY) discusses the fashion sense of Michelle Obama.
tre-BAYYYYYY analyzes Mrs. Obama’s outfit last Tuesday night, when her husband laid claim to the Democratic presidential nomination.
The “gumball pearls,” tre-BAYYYYYY said, are “a retro wink at traditional decorum.” Mikki Taylor, beauty director and cover editor of Essence magazine, offered that the pearls “are not little ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s’ pearls … Those are large pearls. Those are pearls you have to deal with.” This, in addition to pointing out that the wannabe First Lady apparently took to the stage – GASP!! – WITHOUT the “prerequisite suntan stockings.”
Obviously, Taylor said, Michelle Obama’s look says, “I’m here to do business.”
Oh, obviously.
As for the belt, tre-BAYYYYYY called it a “another signature accessory,” noting that Vanity Fair had taken notice of it when it named Mrs. Obama to its International Best-Dressed List. The belt she had worn 15-plus months ago “signified to me that this woman had an independent and strong and distinct fashion sense,” said Amy Fine Collins, a Vanity Fair contributor and “a guardian of the 68-year-old list,” tre-BAYYYYYY said.
OK ... accessories, whatever. To each his own. But then I read this:
But it was particularly the color Michelle Obama chose Tuesday night that seemed symbolically rich, even if its message may have been so subtle as to be subliminal.
“I don’t know if that’s something they consciously thought about,” said (First Ladies biographer Carl) Anthony, referring to the fact that purple is, as every schoolchild knows, created by mixing the primary colors red and blue.
When I first read that, I ended up having to take some Tylenol because my eyes hurt from rolling them so far back in my head.
Seriously? He’s saying Michelle Obama chose to wear purple because of the whole red-blue thing?
????????
It seems appropriate to paraphrase Chandler Bing here:
gEYE? I think you’ve gone over to the bad place.
By Jennifer J. Foster
Posted 06/11 at 09:07 AM
(0)
Comments
Members of Barack Obama’s vice presidential vetting team were on Capitol Hill yesterday, running a list of potential VPs by a certain U.S. senator.
Who’s in the Top 20, you ask?
No names, but the list reportedly included “top officials now,” “former lawmakers” and others who are “former top military leaders.” Some are “well-known options,“ while others are “outside the box,“ the senator said.
But at this point, the more interesting question is, with whom did Obama’s emissaries meet?
That would be Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota.
Both of the senators from the Flickertail State (yes, it’s really called the Flickertail State – see? On this blog, you can read about politics and brush up on your 6th grade civics lessons, too!) are Democrats, as is the state’s lone congressional representative. But the governor, John Hoeven, is a Republican, and President Bush beat John Kerry 63-35 there in 2004.
Obama won the North Dakota caucuses 61 percent to 37 percent over Hillary Clinton on Feb. 5.
So why Conrad?
Consider these points from his official Senate bio:
Has served in the Senate for 22 years.
Served as North Dakota’s Tax Commissioner before being elected to the Senate.
“His public service to North Dakota and the nation has won him acclaim for his effectiveness and budget acumen.”
Has been named one of “America’s Ten Best Senators,“ one of the “10 Most Economically Literate Members of Congress,“ and the Bismarck Tribune called Senator Conrad “the most influential senator North Dakota has ever produced.“ (OK, well, never mind that last one.)
Conrad is known for his work on the 2002 Farm Bill, health care policy, trade practices, “energy legislation that would make the United States more energy independent” and economic development policy.
Conrad “has bipartisan respect as an expert on federal budget matters and is considered a leading Congressional ‘deficit hawk.’”
Conrad chairs the Senate Budget Committee.
Now, consider this:
Conrad “was elected to the United States Senate on a platform of ‘Yes, We Can!’ optimism and a common sense approach to federal policy.
Hmm … that sounds familiar!
Obama needs help with rural white guys, and he needs a prophylactic defense against the “tax-and-spend” label John “I-will-veto-every-beer” McCain is already using to describe him.
Call me crazy, but could it be that one of the names Obama’s team was discussion with Kent Conrad was … Kent Conrad?
It’s true, North Dakota’s three electoral votes presumably won’t put Obama in the White House. But Obama has talked about a 50-state strategy. And Conrad isn’t a polarizing figure – unlike SOME people we know …
Hey, they said it was out of the box!
