The Dress…
28 November 2009 8:21 pm by whitepaw
http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/fashion/2009/11/25/2009-11-25_from_the_dc_to_bollywood_michelle_obamas_state_dinner_dress_designed_by_indianbo.html
I wanted to comment as a few replies in strings below have been focused on the dress.
I thought Michelle Obama was stunning in the dress. As usual, they were an amazingly attractive couple at the dinner.
If I were to be critical at all, I would comment on the difference in attire between Michelle and the Indian Prime Minister’s wife. I would think that she (Gursharan Kaur) might have been a bit uncomfortable standing next to the dazzle of Michelle. In that respect, I think Michelle could have opted for something different. Sometimes I feel Michelle chooses style above all else.
Don’t get me wrong.. I LOVE style, fashion, beauty.. just that there’s a time and a place. She is not Beyonce… Fire away at me Sec! 
This post was submitted by whitepaw.
No tags for this post.
Well she COULD have shopped at the Goodwill. She is the wife and companion of the arguably most powerfull man on the planet. She was at a state Dinner. She was formally attired. And looked GREAT doing it. What on EARTH is wrong with that?
Oh yeah, AND it was designed and made by INDIANS. HOW DARE HER support the garment workers of the country they are hosting!! What HUBRIS!!
Hi Sec — You misunderstand me. I thought she was fantastic in the dress. I just thought she so upstaged the wife of the Indian Prime Minister… and in that respect.. something more subdued “might” have been more suitable. Just depends on what your goal is… I guess.. And .. I’m just opening this up for discussion.. certainly not even sure my gut insticts are correct.
And I do agree with your assessment in ref: to supporting the Indian designer and garment industry. With that said, why do you think Gursharan Kaur did not solicit a design of the Indian designer herself?
Gursharan Kaur wore traditional Indian attire of her home. I can’t imagine that she would have ever chosen anything else. That is not what Naeem Khan designs. I doubt that Gursharan Kaur would be concerned what a woman 27 years her junior was wearing.
“I doubt that Gursharan Kaur would be concerned what a woman 27 years her junior was wearing.”
I wonder how often after state dinners the women go home and say”did you see what that BITCH was wearing?! Who did she think she was impressing?!” BWAHAHAHA!
What amazes me is with all that’s going on in the world we are actually discussing the dress M. Obaba wore.
JEEEEEEZ!
I think they both looked beautiful.
I think they can each wear what they want. Mrs. Obama looked so beautiful in that gorgeous gown. It was a head turner. That was the Obamas’ first state dinner so I thought the gown was appropriate as well as elegant. She’s the First Lady afterall and everyone always notices what the First Lady wears. The Prime Minister’s wife looked like she was pretty confident. I don’t think the difference bothered her.
teehee sec — I kinda posted this thread with you in mind. There’s a lot of threads on this site… and certainly not everyone is discussing only “the dress”. After all, this is just one thread.
Michelle Obama is gorgeous and was gorgeous in her dress. I just wonder sometimes… why the dress is so important… in our culture. Certainly was not important to Gursharan Kaur. And was it important to her 27 years ago? I really don’t know.
That’s where the discussion becomes circular. Sec thinks it is ridiculous to discuss the dress.. and I agree. I argue that Michelle Obama should not be encouraging discussions about the dress.. but that’s what she promotes…often. Why?
I’m not sure how Michelle Obama is encouraging discussions of the dress.
Surely you aren’t suggesting that by looking her best, Michelle is encouraging others to have catty conversations about how lovely she looked.
It seems her clothing is discussed when it’s a GAP off the rack and when it isn’t. If there is to be discussion of this dress, I’d say it should be along the lines of she looked wonderful and what a gracious complement to the Obama’s guests of honor by choosing a dress made in India by a native born Indian and 3rd generation Indian designer.
Michelle’s dress. Sarah Palin’s clothes. John Edwards’ haircuts. Barack Obama’s bowling. Hillary’s laugh.
Wow – are we in a new age or what? Dozens of TV stations, 24 hours a day – satellite radio – dozens of magazines – hundreds of ‘blogs’ – and now millions of ‘twits’ and ‘facebooks’ and my-spaces – all looking for something original to talk about.
No wonder things get weird at times. LOL
The term or phrase; “simpler times” doesn’t seem sufficient any more.
“I argue that Michelle Obama should not be encouraging discussions about the dress.. but that’s what she promotes…often. Why?”
Whitepaw that’s just plain old ridiculous. Simply by BEING she is encouraging the wackoos to rant about what she WEARS?!
“Michelle’s dress. Sarah Palin’s clothes. John Edwards’ haircuts. Barack Obama’s bowling. Hillary’s laugh.”
As opposed to discussing a President and VicPresident who lied to the Congress and the American People and launched a war of aggression against a country that had NOTHING to do with either the attack on America OR WMDs? Committed WarCrimes by flouting International Treaties and the Geneva Conventions and instituting TORTURE TO DEATH as official state policy? Was responsible for politicol HACKS to be awarded nobid contracts that lead to American soldiers being electrocuted by shoddy substandard workd and giving them recycled waste water to drink to save money? Shredded the Constitution and opperated as a Lawless entity with “signing staements”
Yeah, let’s talk about the IMPORTANT stuff, like what M. Obama wears.
whitepaw says:
28 November 2009 at 11:52 pm I just wonder sometimes… why the dress is so important… in our culture.
It’s an American pasttime. Because Michelle is also our first AA First Lady and she’s young, tall, and pretty, she is going to get a lot of attention and scrutiny. It does seem silly that all this attention goes to clothing but it probably just goes with the territory. Image and looks are important in our society. I agree with djjl says: 29 November 2009 at 12:45 am. I also agree with Sec in that there are more important things to think about; I think we all agree on that.
It’s funny how the men don’t get scrutinized to this degree over what they wear, isn’t it? I don’t see any articles or write ups on what the President wore.
Those 40 people who took three weeks to make Queen Michelle’s dress all lived next door to the “slumdog millionaire.” He’s gone, but they remain. (Think about it.) Now, who would like to tell me who Zoroaster is and where he was born? How about Rumi and Shams-e Tabrizi? Or the ethinic group to which Karzai belongs? Please try not to make up facts like ‘djjl’ did yesterday concerning US Grant and his lobbying while drunk at various Washington, DC hotels. Peace
I wasn’t going to join this conversation but I have a question for secular -
How long are we going to talk about the illegal war in Iraq, war crimes, no bid contracts (which first came to be under WJC), etc.? Maybe we can focus on the current administration and the escalation of the war in Afghanistan, which I believe may be illegal as well (someone correct me if I am wrong on that), Iran’s decision to build more facilitities today and the lack of focus on issues by this President.
Maybe we can discuss the increased use of drones by this administration which many believe to be immoral.
“Please try not to make up facts like ‘djjl’ did yesterday concerning US Grant and his lobbying while drunk at various Washington, DC hotels. Peace”
Blow it outcher ass bozo, ya got punked.
“How long are we going to talk about the illegal war in Iraq, war crimes,”
Well gosh, seems to me they still hunt down NAZIS. How long we gonna talk about war crimes from the SECOND WORLD WAR? I could be wrong, but I doubt it, but war crimes have no statute of limitations.
“Maybe we can focus on the current administration and the escalation of the war in Afghanistan, which I believe may be illegal as well (someone correct me if I am wrong on that),”
The war in Afgahistan is actually fighting the folks who DID attack us on 9/11. The UN has never said a WORD against US military actions in Afghanistan although they HAVE called the invasion of Iraq illegal.
Don’t get me wrong, I want US forces out of Iraq YESTERDAY, but that in no way mitigates the responsibility, criminal and otherwise of the past misadministration for the mess over there now.
Sure, let’s discuss the use of Drones. ” many believe to be immoral.”
Could you quantify that a little better then many? I can tell you for a fact, if I’m sitting there with a weapon and there’s a chance they can take out the bad guys with a Drone instead of me having to hump in there and take incoming fire…use the Drone every time. I think it’s kinda immoral to think our soldiers should risk getting blown away unnecessarily.
“Those 40 people who took three weeks to make Queen Michelle’s dress all lived next door to the “slumdog millionaire.”
WOW! musta been to crowded to pull a stictch donchathink?
Secular -
I think the drone argument is the number of civilians on the ground killed by them. If I remember correctly the Pakistanis have not been pleased with the number of causalties.
As for Afghanistan I believe the number of Al Qaeda there numbers around 100. The Taliban did not attack us and if I remember correctly most of the attackers were Saudi.
And one final thought. I don’t recall Congress declaring war against Afghanistan.
Amanpour’s show today is about the use of drones. You may want to watch it, if it hasn’t been on in your time zone already.
secular…you sure have a funny way of interpreting what you read. Is English your second language? Could you tell us, for example, who the “bad guys” are? “Not all Pashtun are Taliban. But, all the Taliban are Pashtun.”….Gen Jones. Karzai is Pashtun. Is Karzai the enemy? Is he one of the “bad guys?” Why has Obama decided to take sides in the civil war going on in Afghanistan? Now that the war in Afghanistan is owned lock, stock and barrel by Obama is he a war criminal? If not, why not? Peace
OK — All dress points taken. When I stated that Michelle Obama encourages the discussions/scrutiny re: fashion.. I just meant that she seems to take it to a higher level than I’ve ever seen before.. I love to look at her and her clothes, so I understand the public’s obsession with it.
With that said, I am struck by how this administration seems to value and craft/stage their images.. almost like they have a brand. It seems somewhat superficial to me at times.
I was only 2 months old when JFK was assasinated, so I don’t remember Jackie as first lady. So this is new to me.
“It’s funny how the men don’t get scrutinized to this degree over what they wear, isn’t it? I don’t see any articles or write ups on what the President wore.” lynnette
That’s also true of the Hollywood ‘photo walks’ (Academy Awards, etc.), Lynnette. It’s mostly because the guys dress ‘off the rack’. *Damned* expensive racks, I’ll grant you – but still ‘off-the-rack’. To see the *really* expensive men’s stuff – watch Letterman and Leno. But nobody cares.
Imhotep – when it comes to people’s ‘world view’ almost everyone simplifies – sometimes over-simplify, sure – but that just helps people like yourself who have nothing else to do but follow extensive details feel good when you tell us about it.
Thanks and You’re welcome.
whitepaw – Jackie was the closest thing to a ‘Queen’ (or Di type Princess) this country ever had. I can’t think of any other first lady to come close (maybe Eleanor? – Taylor would know).
and (oops) No – I’m not saying you’re that old, TM *L* – just that you’re more ‘historical’ than I when it comes to women in politics.
Imhotep
Making up “facts” is your purview not mine.
Part of the interest in Jacqueline Kennedy was that she was only 31. She was also attractive and well educated with a sense of self.
djjl, “Class” seems to be a word which everyone has their own definition – but for me, Jackie *defined* the word “class”. She – not John – brought the ‘Camelot’ to ‘Camelot’.
I recall seeing a photograph from a newspaper or magazine of Jackie Kennedy in a one piece bathing suit with Caroline while she was First Lady.
Imhotep
It is really quite simple to determine the facts – as long as the fairy tale version doesn’t fit your chosen position better:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5167187
Host Liane Hansen speaks with Jesse Sheidlower, editor-at-large for the Oxford English Dictionary, about the origin of the word “lobbyist” — and how that word has been used through the centuries.
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-lob2.htm
snip
Q] From Jennifer Painter: A recent piece on the NBC Nightly News included the origin of the word lobbyist. The host, Brian Williams, explained that the word originated with President Ulysses S Grant, who liked to get out of the White House and often went to Washington’s Willard Hotel for brandy and cigars.
Snip
[A] This old tale has become so embedded in the unconscious of the US nation that it sometimes appears in quite reputable reference works. But it isn’t true; even a perfunctory look at the history of the word shows it can’t be.
You only have to look at the entry in the Oxford English Dictionary. The first example given there appeared in the Cornhill Magazine in January 1863. Grant was president from 1869 to 1877, so the word was in use before he took office. A further nail in the coffin of the tale might be that the Cornhill Magazine was British, not American.
snip
The OED’s first example of the collective term lobby meaning “persons who frequent the lobby of the house of legislature for the purpose of influencing its members in their official action” is dated 1808.
The original lobby was the one attached to the chamber of the British House of Commons, in which members could meet and talk to outsiders. This sense (and function) is recorded from the middle of the seventeenth century and was adopted in Congress when it was established more than a century later.
OT and awful:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/29/multiple-police-officers-_n_373119.html
PARKLAND, Wash. — A gunman burst into a coffeehouse Sunday and opened fire on four police officers as they sat working on their laptops, killing the three men and one woman in what an official described as a targeted ambush.
Pierce County Sheriff’s spokesman Ed Troyer said officers were looking for one male suspect who fled on foot, but haven’t ruled out an accomplice. It wasn’t clear whether the officers even had time to draw their weapons to return fire, Troyer said.
“This was more of an execution. Walk in with the specific mindset to shoot police officers,” Troyer said.
Troyer said the officers – all from the Lakewood Police Department – were catching up on paperwork at the beginning of their shifts when they were attacked at 8:15 a.m. Sunday.”
snip
djjl, I suppose I was a little naive back then but remembering the photo of her and Caroline at the beach – I find it difficult to describe the difference in ‘attitude’ then. There was a near ‘reverence’ applied to Jackie – even if you were a Republican (my parents). I cannot even ‘imagine’ someone at that time saying something like; “Look at her cellulite” or “She’s got vericose veins” or “Her thighs are fat, ha ha” or ANY other such comment like you hear today.
It was a different world (and not all good)
djjl says:
29 November 2009 at 3:29 pm
OT and awful:
Oh good. Now O’Reilly, Beck, and Hannity can claim there was “another terrorist attack under Obama’s watch!“.
Am I being a smartass?
I hope so.
“I think the drone argument is the number of civilians on the ground killed by them. If I remember correctly the Pakistanis have not been pleased with the number of causalties.”
War is a messy buisness and unfortunately sometimes to kill the bad guys you have to kill some civilians too. Ask the French civilians around Normandy.I have some problems with cross or over the border raids and drone attacks but I am all in favor of killing Al Q. AND the Taliban where ever you find them. It was Al Q that attacked us in New York and the Taliban that gave them a base of opperations. KILL them.
“As for Afghanistan I believe the number of Al Qaeda there numbers around 100. The Taliban did not attack us and if I remember correctly most of the attackers were Saudi.”
Al Q directly attacked us and the Taliban protected and gave them succur. I have NO PROBLEM whatsoever with hunting them down and killing them.
As for declaring war on Afghanistan we are NOT at war with Afghanistan. Ever since the Korean War we have sent HUGE numbers of combat troops all over the world for all kinds of reasons. THIS time it actually is the RIGHT reason.
As for Imhopless…you are a liar a drama queen and a troll. Fuck off.
Hey Sec !
My corporate monthly billing always has a photo in the header – different every month. Thought you’d get a kick out of Wednesday’s __
http://www.lbfitness.com/60what.jpg
I watched his special, pretty funny. BUT I STILL AIN’T USING HIM AS MY AVATAR!!
That’s cool, Sec. After the 1st (and my 60th), I may adopt it. Fits me better than, “Silence! I KEEL You!”
Though – these days, Dr. Mouse probably *does* look more like Achmed:
http://www.lbfitness.com/drmouse.jpg *L*
You sure are an angry person, secularhuman. For a non-english speaker you sure do have the invective mastered. So when you bomb the crap out of a country and then invade and occupy the place that means, to you, that the two countries are not at war with each other? 1984’s Big Brother and his doublespeak sure have nothing on you my friend. Or as Alice said, “Night is day and up is down.” What other things can you tell us about this alternate universe of yours? Does everybody own a unicorn? Peace
djjl, let’s agree to disagree on the lobby thing. Anyone else who might be interested should Google President US Grant and see what it says about lobbyists, corruption, drunkards, Wall Street, Republicans and Jay Gould. Peace
Imhotep
Have you not learned the need to be careful about the information you choosee to use from google? I’d be happy to read your sources if you feel they are more credible. As I said before, you need to post links.
Our disagreement is not a disagreement over interpretation it’s a disagreement over which person presented “facts.”
First, I am in no way shape or form your “friend”. You are the type that makes me kringe whenever someone lumps your ilk in with the left, liberals, progressives, whatever you want to call it. Just another holeyer then thou head up your ass know it all who feels they have the last say on everything.
Plus you don’t mind pulling crap out of your kiester and trying to pass it off as historical fact when you wouldn’t know historical fact if it bit you in the ass.
Other then that, hey, yer a peach. Fuck off troll.
Whoa! What happened in this room while I was out? “Can’t we all just get along?” *L*
I agree Imhotep is a bit of a Google junkie who sometimes sounds like that commercial wherein parents can’t stop spewing search facts – but we *do* need a certain amount of disagreement in here. It’s certainly a lot more fun. We can do it without writing one another off.
I can’t stand Pastor Rick, for example – but he sure made some good points on Meet the Press this morning (“46 million missing voters”). I’m pretty sure some of my leftwing friends didn’t bother to watch – making that judgment ahead of time. Personally – I’d like to sit and talk with the man.
That’s just me though.
I don’t mind differences of opinion. One needs to be reasonably discriminating when basing one’s arguments on google searches.
Pastor Rick is not like the evangelicals who’ve been around for 30 years. Particularly as related to the stewardship of the environment. But pmichael, you are right – there needs to be recognition that people of good faith may have differing view. Now, if we could TRULY LISTEN.
and speaking of Google junkies – have you seen where Microsoft is now PAYING companies (like Rupert Murdoch) to take their content OFF of Google ?? (so people will have to go to ‘Bing’ search to find it).
Sounds almost like Bloomberg – buying votes. LOL
also note: Apple just paid for a software patent which will ‘freeze’ your device up (computer, handheld, whatever) so as to *force* you to sit through a commercial message. I had a feeling this new concept of ’skipping’ commercials (by using a recording) was going to create a storm. You can’t bite the hand that feeds you. Eventually, it will catch up with you.
Yep, I heard something about that late last week. We have to keep working at this. They can get by with this kind of thing because the people of this country have long allowed political interests (politicians, big business, lobbying organizations) to lie to us.
So long as someone actually has something to say and isn’t just a broken record ,hate all things Obama,hate all things Obama,hate all things Obama.
I mean really, the “Queen Michelle” crap and the repeating moronic smears from a hundred YEARS ago!! Not to mention the one about lobbyists!!
I repeat, fuck off troll.
And I might add, remember who’s saying this,I was FAR from President Obama in the Primaries and am somewhat less then impressed now. But reality has to enter the conversation at SOME point!
Whose reality, secularhuman? Do you have some mystical insight known only to you about what, exactly, reality is? Do you believe that reality can be changed? Before the Wright Brothers the reality was that man could not fly. Before Newton there was no law of gravity or Newtonian physics and the calculus needed to prove it. It is not I, sir, who is detached from reality. It is those who fail to see that there is no reality to begin with. Concerning “facts”: when asked by Pontius Pilate “What is truth?” the Christ stood silent. Do you suppose, secularhuman, that the Christ was too stupid to know the answer to that question? Or do you suppose that he answered it by remaining silent? Peace
Imhotep
Why are you so averse to posting links to support your “facts.?”
You are beginning to seem very “fringe” and truth averse.
Imhopless, mentally wack off much?
“Concerning “facts”: when asked by Pontius Pilate “What is truth?” the Christ stood silent. Do you suppose, secularhuman, that the Christ was too stupid to know the answer to that question? Or do you suppose that he answered it by remaining silent?”
Or maybe he didn’t even exist and is just a story.
Fuck off troll.
1.”Why are you so averse to posting links to support your “facts.?”
Because he has neither.
2″You are beginning to seem very “fringe” and truth averse.”
begining? BEGINING?? B-E-G-I-N-I-N-G ?!?!?!
BWAHAHAHAHA! djjl, you made me laugh out loud with THAT one!