In Defense of Michelle Obama


The Pink Flamingo has not hesitated in criticizing Michelle Obama in the past – for her wardrobe options.  You’ve not seen me criticize her recently.  There is a reason.  Her fashion choices, now up to her and not some moronic dunce trying to make her appear to be one of the little people, are excellent.  If she keeps this up, she will make a major POSITIVE impact on what women in this country wear.  She has found her fashion voice, and I think it is incredible.

“…Here’s the point:  Michelle Obama can wear diamond-encrusted undies if she wants, but not on America’s dime,…”

We are NOT paying for her wardrobe.

Unfortunately, conservative dunces are doing to her what liberal dunces did to Nancy Reagan.  Every little thing she wears is being damned.  The Pink Flamingo knows a cheap shot when she sees one, and this is a cheap shot.

“…The latest controversy surrounds a $2,000 designer sundress the first lady wore to church on her $4 million Hawaiian vacation.  That’s right – a $2,000 muumuu; the damned thing didn’t even have sleeves.  Michelle wore the unassuming frock to church to worship the humble birth of Jesus.

You remember Jesus? He was the one wrapped in swaddling clothes, placed on a bed of hay in a manger as many years ago as dollars made up the cost of that dress….”

UK Daily Mail

Nothing wrong with the dress.  It’s beautiful!  Then she is criticized for the skirt.  I love it.  It makes the skirts I always wear stylish – for once.

UK Daily Mail

The dress she wore at Christmas was magnificent!

“…The high, square-neck number from famed American designer Norman Norell had a fitted bodice and full skirt, all in black lace. The piece is believed to be from the 1950s and was purchased at New York Vintage, a shop that considers itself a source for some of the finest vintage couture and designer clothes and accessories worldwide. Shannon Hoey, owner of New York Vintage, told that the dress was chosen for the first lady by her unofficial style consultant: Ikram Goldman, owner of the tony Ikram boutique in Chicago. Sources in the apparel industry estimated that the gown cost no less than $2,000 and could have cost much more….”


“…What Nancy claimed was concern for Ron’s safety, many Californians perceived as snobbery. This perception also followed Nancy to Washington. Since Jacqueline Kennedy’s renovations of the early ’60s, the White House had fallen into disrepair. Nancy believed the nation needed a more suitable First Home, and immediately began redecorating. Although the White House, after years of neglect, needed the lift, Nancy was criticized for spending frivolously in the middle of a recession.

Nancy’s wardrobe engendered further criticism. Designers donated their fashions to Nancy in exchange for the exposure she afforded them, but the public balked. The Reagans were accused of not caring that America was having trouble making ends meet, while they lived and entertained lavishly, surrounded by well-heeled friends.

Nancy improved her reputation by personally championing drug abuse education. Some derided Nancy’s approach as simplistic — liberal Abbie Hoffmann likened her “Just Say No” campaign to “the equivalent of telling manic depressives to ‘just cheer up'” — but most gave her credit for raising drug awareness.

Although she largely left policy to the Reagan men, Nancy was deeply involved in selecting who those men were. Discreet as it may have been, her influence was undeniable. Those close to the Reagans were careful never to forget that the President and First Lady “attacked the world as a team.” Nancy was reportedly instrumental in the shift from hard-line conservatives to foreign policy moderates which began with the replacement of Judge William Clark as National Security Adviser and Alexander Haig as Secretary of State by Robert McFarlane and George Shultz, respectively, midway into Reagan’s first term….”


I remember defending Nancy Reagan from unwarranted attacks. I must defend Michelle Obama.  She is NOT charging her wardrobe to the tax-payer.  To say that she is is being dishonest.

“…Ah, and who can forget Michelle telling us: “The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system…someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”

I say: “The truth is, in order to save the hard-earned tax money provided by American blood, sweat and tears, Michelle is going to have to start giving up her ‘piece of their pie’ so that the rest of us can have more,” and that may have to start with Mrs. Obama offering to do something other than wearing a $2,000 dress twice….”

I say:  You keep this up and  you will start sounding like a blasted socialist. If Michelle Obama has the money to buy a $2000 dress, fine by me.  Shut up already yet about it.  It is her money, not yours.  It is not taxpayer money.  I guess that’s what really bothers me about ultra conservatives.  They’re so conservative they’re turning into socialists.