14 votes

Be proud, America! The First Lady of the United States of America

Classy.




Like this article? Get DP delivered to your inbox daily. Subscribe here:

E-mail address:  

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Seriously??

Doesn't Glenn Beck still have a forum on his site? This kind of childish dribble is at home there.

I agree.

Lets stick to the political issues.

The president's wife

appearing before a bunch of CHILDREN dressed like a hooker is a political issue in my opinion. Or, perhaps you mean keep morality out of politics? Because that is what got us into this mess. Separate church and state, not morality and politics.

Ron Paul supports a new 9-11 investigation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH9nOWnp5G0

Personally

I don't think she looks immodest. Exactly what is so disgusting about the outfit?

In my eyes, the only legitimate argument is that she is loose with the tax payer money.

OMG totally inappropriate.

This has to be a first?

I really think Michelle

I really think Michelle doesn't get it. She is so enamored with her glamorous lifestyle that she can't see or understand the true nature of being a first LADY.

Darn it.

I can't believe I am defending Obama on this thread...

Please point to the part of the Constitution where it defines the duties of a First Lady. Or any law for that matter.

And, here is the logical problem with your comment. Isn't the nature (in general) of being a First Lady to BE glamorous? Wasn't she wearing high fashion of the times? Are you saying a woman who wears $1200 worth of designer clothing isn't being a lady?

It's so confusing.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Just Like

the clothes do not make the man, it doesn't make the lady either.

scawarren's picture

The nature of the president's

The nature of the president's wife should not be to appear "glamorous". I remember in 2009 there was a big uproar about her wearing a dress from Target and I actually appreciated her for that, the dress cost like $39. This kind of crap earns nothing but disrespect from me though.

I'm sure you're not alone in

I'm sure you're not alone in your thinking. Image and expensive clothes (taxpayers' expense?) do NOT a LADY make. Her demeanor and public persona is always under scrutiny whether she likes it or not. She is obviously proud of her personal body attributes and wishes to display that pride. Being a LADY, I believe is something that comes from within. It is a sense of grace (an elusive virtue for most) and a political reflection of her husband. This may be so in the case of President Obama. But who is it she is so desperately trying to impress? her children? her husband? herself? I don't think the American voters are high on the list. She too, like her husband, gives the impression that she believes she is weariing a crown.

The First Lady is a role model for children.

This was a children's awards event, Hollywood teamed up with politics to push a "skanky" look ON CHILDREN. That is NOT stylish, it is trashy, I don't care what label is on it or who is wearing it.

Ron Paul supports a new 9-11 investigation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH9nOWnp5G0

I have to agree.

Promoting Hollywood values.

You should post some pics of

You should post some pics of former first ladies in skin tight, sparkley jeans.

Can't

be done.....there weren't any. Maybe Photoshopped?

I didn't

need to see that with breakfast! Been shopping at Hookers'R'Us with our kids futures...nice

The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it-Andrew Jackson

Sorry, that may be pushing it

"Hoochie Mamma" is a bit over the top (and may be considered racist). And, I'm not a fashion person, but if something costs $800 it does not make them a "hoochie momma", it makes them stylish. And, unless I am wrong (and I'm usually not), her clothes are purchased with personal money. It is a ratio, to reach the most people you have to offend the least.

Now, the message is great. Just needs some refining. (And, yeah, correct spelling helps)

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Just because clothes are

Just because clothes are expensive it doesn't mean they are stylish... Hoochie mama is pushing it but her clothes are certainly not classy.

See?

Now you are taking it into aesthetics and art. Sorry, if clothes are "designed" by a known "designer" specifically for a wealthy woman - that makes them stylish and fashionable.

It is only your image of past First Ladies that is telling you that. Then again, I am a bit too into freedom, I don't even agree with wearing suits to work.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

She's free to do what she

She's free to do what she wants, but I'm also free to say she looks trashy... and a "designer" doesn't mean anything if they design terrible clothing.

I posted a link

Do people think I was at the event?
And I call Gaga a "Hoochie Mama" too, how you come up with that being "racist" is a testament to the effectiveness of "politically correct" brainwashing. "Hoochie" transcends race...

Ron Paul supports a new 9-11 investigation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH9nOWnp5G0

nope

U hit it square on the head.

The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it-Andrew Jackson

Listen to yesterday's 3/6 broadcast...

of Crosstalk...

http://www.vcyamerica.org/crosstalk.htm

Floyd Brown is a political innovator, media commentator, writer and speaker. He is the chairman of the Western Center for Journalism. He was involved in launching the impeachment movement against former President Clinton and has organized many national campaigns including the effort to secure the confirmation of Judge Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. He is the author of the book: Obama’s Enemies List: How Barack Obama Intimidated America and Stole the Election.

Bob Woodward is a fixture of the Washington media scene who became well known for his Washington Post coverage of the Watergate scandal that brought down President Nixon. With the sequester happening he accused the Obama administration of “moving the goalposts” because at first the budget battle was about spending cuts. The Republicans gave President Obama one tax increase and now he wants another one while ignoring the spending questions.

In an e-mail, Woodward was told by a White House official named Gene Sperling that he would regret taking the position as he had been reporting it. Woodward felt that he was being intimidated.

This is an example of how the reporting landscape has changed over the past 30 years. As news corporations have come under financial pressure, they have gutted or retired the top level of its newsrooms. So now Floyd feels the reporters are junior people in their 20’s and 30’s and their lack of life experience and viewpoint can make them more susceptible to intimidation.

On March 21st, Congress will take their Easter recess. According to Floyd, if they don’t have a continuing resolution by that time, the sequester will be nothing because they won’t have budgetary authority for most of the major agencies.

In 2013 the federal government will have more money than it’s ever had in its entire history, an amount that increases each year. The problem is, they can’t seem to live within this ever growing amount. As Floyd noted, nothing’s really being cut. All politicians are doing is slowing the rate of growth yet in Washington they call this a budget cut. When a business commits to making budget cuts, they try to make cuts that won’t impact their customers. President Obama, on the other hand, seems bent on making Americans (his customers) miserable with threats of negative budget consequences so that we will vote out the current Republican Congress.

Would it be an exaggeration to say that the secular media has become a branch of the White House due to Obama’s Chicago style presidency? Get the answers as Floyd Brown gives you an inside look at Washington; the kind of view you can only get from Crosstalk.

It is not just intimidation, it is access.

If you want to get interviews, you have to play softball. It is part of why I have a serious problem with "famous" people even making public political comments. I understand "free speech" but I also understand that Hollywood gives their voice undue amplitude.
I'll check the link. I keep thinking Woodward must be mind blown, he made huge waves in Watergate and now he can't get an audience to hear him.

Ron Paul supports a new 9-11 investigation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH9nOWnp5G0

Hoochie Mamma

Lol !! Thanks Fishy !!

"Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Mark Twain

You spelled "accommodations"

You spelled "accommodations" wrong.

No I didn't.

I posted a link. The only thing I spelled was "classy."

Ron Paul supports a new 9-11 investigation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH9nOWnp5G0

I hate you

I hate you

The most atrocious animal hide she has donned yet.
I didn't need to see that.

Southern Agrarian