Tuesday, January 20, 2009
|
|
Something Has to Be Said
|
|
Posted by:
Amanda Carpenter at
8:33 PM
|
The utter lack of ooh-ing and ah-ing over Michelle Obama's inauguration wear should tell you something. It was bad.
She's worn beautiful things in the past. I tend to think saturated, jewel tones (royal purple, forest green, dark teal, deep orange) look great on her. That split-pea/yellow color she wore earlier today, however, is impossible for 95 percent of women to carry off. I'd say Michelle is included in that number. She sure does seem to like that chartreuse-y tone, though.The famous JCrew outfit she wrote on Jay Leno has the same color scheme.
If that particular hue becomes a crayola crayon, I think it should be named "sour sunshine."
Now, to the formal wear. I have nothing against an off-the shoulder, white gown (Nancy Reagan looked great in hers) but Michelle's ballgown was simply not flattering. The cut didn't do her statuesque figure any favors, in my humble opinion.
Nothing, however, could take away from the First Couple's romantic dance---it's beautiful to see a couple so in love.
Of course, this doesn't matter at all in the big picture. The only one I've heard say it should even be discussed is Barbara Walters, who said on The View, the other day, "I think you can tell what the Administration is going to be like by what the First Lady wears."
I wouldn't go that far, but it is fun for political women to talk political fashion. For all you men out there, understand clothes and makeup are like football for women. We can talk about it with anybody, it's a good icebreaker, it's always fun. We'll be saying "What did you think of Michelle's dress?" at the water coolers while you all are crying about your NFL team not making it to the Superbowl.
Anyway, I'll going to the Fox DC Bureau for late night Inaugural Ball coverage where I am told Michelle's dresses will not be one of the main topics.
Darn.
|
|
|