Sister Toldjah took the words right out of my mouth. Discussing coverage in the New York Times and Washington Post (home base of the Democratic gusher Sally Quinn) of President Obama’s first state dinner last night, she writes, “Both pieces go in depth as to how ‘hip’ and ‘modern’ and ’stylish’ President Obama’s first state dinner was, and how marvelous the First Lady looked – implying a ‘departure’ of sorts for First Ladies in terms of style.”
Look, I didn’t find anything particularly extraordinary about the First Lady’s dress and the President looked a tad uncomfortable in his tux. James Bond he ain’t. But, then, neither did either look like the equivalent of Björk at the 2001 Oscars. Both looked fine and handled the public portions of the dinner quite well in a manner similar to that of their predecessors as host and hostess-in-chief. (They just had more cronies and “corruptocats” at their dinner.) The folks in the MSM, Ms. Quinn especially, seem to have created this narrative of the Obama’s style out of whole cloth, wanting so much for this era to be a new Camelot.
But, I don’t think many people outside the deep blue pockets in the deep blue islands on our nation’s coasts are paying much attention. Michelle Obama is not the fashion icon that Jackie O was (before she was O). And her husband may decorate the covers of various fashion magazines, but that’s an editorial choice and no longer a response to a popular demand.