HomeReviewsInterviewsStoreABlogsOn Writing


Yet respected news corporations think that Michelle Obama’s bare arms at her husband’s inaugural address to congress is headline material?



This article pretty much sums up my thoughts on Bare-arms-gate.


  • Nonny
    March 1
    10:32 am

    Like there’s something wrong with sleeveless shirts or dresses?

    Hello. We are not stuck in the 1960s. Sleeveless does not automatically equal inappropriate.

    *rolls eyes*


  • Jenns
    March 1
    6:52 pm

    And in the political section of the New York Times, no less. Yep, you’d definitely think there would be more pressing issues.
    I have to admit, I don’t see how going sleeveless is so improper. It is the 21st century, is it not?
    (Also, if I had the First Lady’s gorgeous, perfectly toned arms, I’d go sleeveless as often as possible.)


  • MichelleR
    March 1
    8:33 pm

    I wake up every day and thank God that The Obamas are our first family. You can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs and you can’t promise change and expect the agent of that change, or his nearest and dearest, to not radiate that things are not the same.

    Frankly, the thing I will remember most about Michelle Obama is the warm way she treated Ty’Sheoma Bethea:



  • Dave and I discussed this last night. We find it so bizarre that people think her bare arms are some slight to the institution of the first lady of the US. And that bit about skimpy tops! Omg! The “jogging” outfit Miley Cyrus wore (it’s plastered all over the ‘net) was skimpy. Michelle Obama chooses chic, affordable pieces that regular women wear all the time.

    She looks fabulous! And classy! I mean, seriously, I want to be Michelle Obama when I grow up.


  • They just want to pick on her. If she dressed like Barbara Bush, everyone would be whining she’s a schlump.

    Michelle Obama is hot. Ain’t nothing wrong with being hot. It’s not like she’s wearing a corset and fishnets to meet the head of the U.N., ffs.


  • Marianne McA
    March 1
    11:20 pm

    You didn’t see David Mitchell’s article in a similar vein in today’s Observer?

    He starts off talking about all the Oscar hype, but the article ends with this defense of a politician’s wife:

    “The harshest sartorial judgment last week was reserved not for a Hollywood star but the wife of a British politician. Frankie Burnham, who’s married to the culture secretary, turned up to the unveiling of a statue of the Queen Mother wearing what, from the reaction of some of the press, you’d think was a crotchless leotard covered in swastikas. It was described as “hideous and inappropriate”, with a dress she did “not have the legs for” and a hat “left over from some awful suburban wedding”.

    This poses some questions. First, what is that journalist’s problem with suburban weddings? Does she only attend sophisticated metropolitan ones as a matter of principle? There’s nothing wrong with suburbia – it’s where millions of us live and I hope her many suburban readers aren’t duped into the knee-jerk self-loathing about suburbia that everything from Revolutionary Road to the music of Pulp has made a staple of our culture.

    But the main question is whether she actually believes Mrs Burnham was trying to do anything other than wear something smart and appropriate. Because if not, she should shut up. Mrs Burnham’s clothes looked fine to me, although I suppose they were quite cheerful. But then it was the unveiling of a statue, long posthumously, to a woman who had an amazing life, lived in a palace and died at 101. What exactly is there to be miserable about?

    Whether or not Frankie Burnham judged the mood of an unusual occasion correctly, she was clearly trying to. If her aim had been to offend, surely she’d have gone further than a glimpse of knee and a floppy hat. Being unkind about someone’s appearance under those circumstances is the only thing that is remotely hideous or inappropriate or disrespectful to the Queen Mother about the whole event.”



  • Dawn
    March 2
    10:55 am

    Go Michelle Obama. Don’t see what the problem is myself – if it had been a flourescent yellow sleeveless dress, then I might have winced a little, but the woman looks great.

    Like others said, she wasn’t flashing cleavage or thigh.

    Re Frankie Burnham, I didn’t like the outfit at all and IMO she didn’t have the knees for a cream dress that short – but then neither do I.


  • Janice
    March 2
    4:15 pm

    All I can think is the reporter had a lot of time on their hands to devote so much thought into some arms. And then they thought – hey let’s write an article, people will be interested! Not really.


  • Lorraine
    March 5
    4:53 am

    The thing that bugs me the most about this is that Michelle Obama is an intelligent, well educated woman who’s earned success from her hard work. Why are the media talking about how she looks or what she’s wearing? It’s almost like they’re objectifying her, denigrating her real accomplishments and trying to bimbofy her.

    It’s the same as when Hilary Clinton was on the campaign trail and they’d talk about her clothes. When did they ever talk about what the male candidates were wearing? Just sayin’.


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment