Must Read Mrs. O
Sunday, December 27, 2009 at 9:00 PM Several of you have commented on a New York Times article by Cathy Horyn, "Wrapped in Their Identities," published December 24, 2009. I've not featured it until now, but it's been on my mind. While I have great respect for Cathy Horyn as a fashion writer, and avidly follow her "On the Runway" blog, I found this article bothersome.
As part of the New York Times "The Year in Style" series, Ms. Horyn reviewed the impact of the first lady's style in 2009. Given how much has already been written about Mrs. O's impact on fashion, finding a fresh angle had to be a tall order. Enter Sarah Palin into the story. Ms. Horyn suggests that working women dress more like Sarah Palin than Mrs. O, which is probably true. But in a year's review of the first lady's style, is this really the grand revelation?
The reference to Sarah Palin feels a bit too obviously used for the sake of provocation. Perhaps more ink should have been devoted to the observation that Mrs. O is not, in fact, a mirror reflection of the way professional American women dress, instead setting her own style course. And on that course, her choices will surely impact our social history, and ultimately, the way we, as women, dress years from now.
(Please be sure to read the comments below. While I've gone headfirst into more granular points, Christina has wonderfully captured the central theme: "I feel as if Horyn's major point seems to be that Sarah Palin was criticized for her clothing when it turns out that Michelle Obama is the "real" poseur, trying to act like an "everywoman" when she is actually an super-insider.")
The other vexing bits of the piece are in the details. Phrases like, "Flotus Tactical Cardigan Collection at J.Crew" and "strategically worn plebe numbers from Target and Talbots" rubbed me the wrong way. I recall a piece Ms. Horyn wrote in April about the value of mixing carefully chosen pieces from Michael Kors and Topshop into one's wardrobe, and another piece that sang the praises of Norma Kamali's collection for Walmart. So why are the first lady's choice suddenly "strategically worn plebe numbers"? What happened to the high-low mix and why can't it apply to Mrs. O?
With zinging jabs woven throughout the article - I felt like I could almost hear loud typing as "Who's Barbie now?" was written to close the piece - I'm less forgiving of loose details. Ms. Horyn wrote:
"Editors and designers love Michelle Obama, of course. All those magazine covers; the Flotus Tactical Cardigan Collection at J. Crew; her glamorous face-off with Carla Sarkozy, the former model, in France, when both women dressed for the evening in French clothes (Mrs. Sarkozy in Dior, Mrs. Obama in Azzedine Alaïa). Jackie Kennedy, the other White House deity, had to give up her beloved Givenchy because her husband, seeking the support of labor unions, needed his wife to be seen in American-made clothes."
Yes, Jacqueline Kennedy was reportedly advised to wear American designers, thus forging her relationship with Oleg Cassini. However, the example Ms. Horyn gives above is jumbled. When Jacqueline Kennedy travelled to France with her husband in 1961, she famously wore a Givenchy gown to attend a dinner at Versailles. The sartorial gesture acknowledged the rich fashion history of her host nation France. And in 2009, Michelle Obama followed Jacqueline Kennedy's example, wearing Alaia for the Nato Summit in France and Moschino to meet the Pope in Italy. Shouldn't that be the observation?
Anyway, I will stop my nitpicking here. What do others think?
Reader Comments (87)
@TEXAShermes you sound like one of those people who think that someone like Michelle Obama has no right to be in the White House as First Lady. If it had been Cindy McCain, who is a millionaire in her own right, you would DEFINITELY not be grousing. Wait a minute TEXAShermes, aren't you anti liberals always screaming about the LIBERAL New York Times?? You are obviously misinformed.
Thanks for writing this. I read the article, and found it deeply disquieting--the superficiality wrapped in banalities, on the one hand, and inaccuracies, on the other, was particularly hard to take. It seems like an editor pitched this idea to the author and she ran with it, without reading it over before having it go to press. It was both dumb and too clever by half.
Plainly speaking I would say that often journalists seem to be under the misapprehension that conflict is the only way to make an article interesting. (If you're reading, guys, it isn't. That's sensationalism, it's boring.) And that seems to be what Ms Horyn has done here. Just another article that can't appreciate what Mrs Obama IS. There's so much to appreciate, so much to laud, it feels like lazy journalism when a writer can't maintain their integrity for long enough to celebrate a nice woman who does a lot of good with great style. Another mediocre, snippy article that misses the point. Perhaps in the words of teachers everywhere, we could say "Try harder next time"?
Hermster - The first lady does not have a government-funded clothing allowance. It's all hers.
(I'm not sure of allowance for hairstylist or makeup for official functions.)
Hello Posh...Long time! Where've you been...? Compliments of the season to you!
I remember an audio slide show narrated by Cathy Horyn on nytimes.com earlier this year. She seemed enchanted by Mrs. O's outside-the-box fashion and style choices. Now, she flips the script. If she wanted to strike a nerve, she met with great success.
I've thoroughly enjoyed the commentary on this thread. I am drawn to insight and wit.
Cathy Horyn's silly, petty and transparently questionable piece continues the ramped up push to chip away at and to de-legitimize this brilliant and dignified President and his fantastic wife...
The need to bring the President and First Lady down several pegs seems to be a favorite pastime these days for every inconsequential malcontent with a medium/audience;
These recent amusing and curious attempts by several in the media to elevate Sarah Palin - first by trying to match her up against President Obama and now Mrs Obama is so desperate, laughable, cheap and pathetic-
(Ms Palin can draw a crowd of a thousand or so to a mall book signing, but so can Miley Cyrus, Justin Beiber, Paris Hilton...)
Inciting, deliberately misinforming & exploiting a marginal segment of society so petrified that theirs is a fast disappearing breed, is contemptible to say the very least...And to pretend straight-faced that Sarah Palin has done anything other than this while of course actively driving dishonest wedges to divide, is hugely fallacious-
One suspects that the purveyors of these farcical 'compare Ms. Palin to the Obama's at every opportunity' commentaries subscribe to it mostly because they hope it degrades, insults, offends and somehow diminishes the Obama's-
A sadly comical and transparent ploy clearly by a smarting few with hurt feelings who for mostly indiscernible reasons feel slighted, overlooked and not quite as embraced by the Obama's as they might have liked and who now push full on with their various petty and inconsequential bones to pick...and by any means or avenue necessary-
By propping up this hatemongering and decidedly malevolent and unconscionable woman in a bid to spite or diminish the Obama's, they not only do the American citizenry a huge disservice but potentially put this great but extremely fragile nation at much risk -
But still they do many of us a huge favor...
With their short-sightedness & pettiness they put what's left of their long tattered 'reputations' and 'credibility' as 'serious journalists' in the shredder;
We see most of them now for what and who they really are...!
And it has all been quite a revelation, an education and uber eye-opening...and for that alone many of us are truly grateful...
{edited by Mrs. T}
Anyway,. I digress. The article was obvious in it's attempt to be provocative and Mrs. T's critique was spot on, as is Audrey's comment above. This year has been extremely eye-opening for me too. The media, politicians across the country, some people in my own life has shown themselves to be not quite as honorable as I once thought. The Obamas hit people on a personal level, and if one doesn't like them, it seems that drives them more than any rational thought could. It's fascinating.
@nonpasserat - your idea of what is appropriate in dressing is a 180 degree turn from mine. A case could be made that an aspiring *politician* such as Palin should have no business appearing in thigh high boots. What population is she appealing to? Males with under active libidos and over active imaginations? So it's all in the eye and mind of an individual as to which woman is more in tune with the mainstream female.
As to the argument that Mrs. O is still *searching* for her identity in the clothes she wears, my feeling is she will wear and try many looks and not necessarily stick to one "look". I like the way she explores fashion. It's obvious that many women have taken her lead and have either resurrected items from their jewelry boxes and closets (brooches, necklaces, sweaters, sheaths, and print dresses are timeless and well used by Mrs. O - a nod to traditional embellishments) or tried new color palettes and styles that they see on Mrs. O.
It's all in the eye of the beholder, but Palin appears to me as taking a middle road course with the occasional nod to a *cheap* look. In that vein, one could interpret Horyn's thesis as a back handed assessment of how women in this country dress.
The article is ridiculous. Sarah Palin is a quitter, frantically trying to be the leader of something; certainly not this Country. She definitely is not a perfectionist. No one is.
Her "fashion" sense should be compared to other female governors (which she once was) not the First Lady of the United States of America.
I need a question answered. If Palin dressed so well a governor BEFORE McCain chose her to be his VP candidate in 2008, why did the campaign managers feel she needed "better" clothing?
I know; I know!!! She DIDN'T have any.
"In light of the flotus' previous comments "...We're just like you..." and "... someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more...." it appears M0 talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk evidenced by her fashion statements.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009 at 8:08 PM | Claire"
@ Claire,
You and other "anti" Obama posters are on the wrong site; this isn't "drudge". As someone stated on a different site, take your "sludge" to "drudge".
How personal is Sarah Palin's style, when you come right down to it? She bragged about wearing clothes from her favorite second hand store and not being too concerned about fashion. Then the RNC "stylists" and $$$ got to her and created what everybody is discussing.
@nonpasserat ..."I like the way Michelle O dresses much of the time, but she seems to me to be someone who is still searching for her identity in the clothes she wears. Sarah Palin knows exactly what she wants to convey in her personal presentation. She's a perfectionist and works out all the details. Michelle is more spontaneous and creative"
Thanks for making me laugh this morning, I mean you sure are funny! I dont know where to start without bursting out with laughter. Palin perfectionist! Palin knows what she wants....O really! God bless you! If your powers of observation have led you to this conclusion then I feel sorry for you.
When it comes to Politics, Palin has proved herself incompetent. As for her non-existent style, I dont think of fashion when I think of Palin. She could use little self assuredness, instead of hoping a simple suit will convince you of her depth...LOL
Happy New Years
{edited by Mrs. T}
@nonpasserat
I think a woman truly has to know herself and be self- assurred to wear some of the things Mrs. O wears. You don't have to truly know yourself to wear the uniform that Sarah Palin wears. (I'm not saying that she doesn't know herself, just that it doesn't take a genius to put on a suit every morning). The bottom line is that people wear what they want to wear. Sarah Palin wants to wear a blazer and a skirt, Fine! Mrs. O wants to wear a cardigan and a pencil skirt, Fine! To each her own.
You know, another thing that I found kind of contradictory and strange about Cathy Horyn's piece was the part where she stated that somehow Nieman Marcus and the fashion industry should be thanking Ms.Palin for spending over $75,000 in their store because of the struggling economy right now. First of all, that was not Ms. Palin's money, it was the RNC's and if anyone should be thanked it should be the republicans that donated money to the party. However, I don't think those donors who voluntarily gave their money signed up for having almost $150,000 of it going toward a makeover for the Vice Presidential candidate. Now imagine if Mrs.O had spent that kind of money from the DNC. She had the good sense to know that that is wrong and you don't waste peoples money like that.
Check out this excerpt from Palin's book "Going Rogue" where she describes how the RNC decided to make her over:
I had a humbling experience while we were back in Wasilla for the Charlie Gibson interview in September. While the crews turned my kitchen into a television studio, I took Nicolle [Wallace, a senior adviser to the McCain-Palin campaign] into my bedroom and showed her what I thought I should pack for the trail. She flipped through my wardrobe with raised eyebrows.
“No ... no ... no ... ,” she said as she slid each garment aside on its hanger.
Also, while awkwardly hailing Ms.Palin as some kind of savior of the fashion industry for spending money that is not hers on clothing, she does not take into account what Mrs.O has done for the fashion industry. Doesn't giving unknown and deserving designers international recognition count for something? Also, Jenna Lyons, the creative director of J.Crew was given a nearly million dollar bonus because of the direction she has been taking J.Crew, but also because of the incredible increase in exposure and profits the Obama family has given them. Not to mention White House, Black Market and the dress that is still hard to find because it is sold out as well as Talbots who was able to increase their advertising revenue because of the new exposure Mrs.O gave them, making them look more modern as a brand.
I think Cathy Horyn is saying that Sarah Palin is aiming quite a bit higher than saving the fashion industry -- while looking incredibly good!
Someone messaged that it's possible to like fashion (designer's name) and also do good for others on Christmas day. If Cathy Horyn chooses to ignore Mrs. O's many contributions to our society up to this point, that's her right, but it is journalistically dishonest to tout Palin's aspirations to higher office (God help us in my opinion) as being the reason she dresses the way she does, and relegate Mrs. O's wardrobe as being put together for the sake of the fashion industry.
I go back to the idea that Horyn has an agenda, and it may have to do with the fact that some fashion houses are getting sick of the way she uses snark to define her critiques.
@nonpasserat
Huh?
Neither of these women, Ms.Palin nor Mrs.O, is aiming to save the fashion industry. It was Cathy Horyn that insinuated that Palin was helping the industry by spending so much RNC money in one store while making it seem as if Mrs.O is just trying to be a fashion icon. This is not true for either woman. They both obviously wear what they like using their own money, well except for Palin during some of the campaign by letting McCain aides influence her.
And as far as Palin "aiming higher", I don't see how quitting her job as governor of her beloved Alaska and taking to Facebook every now and then to dispute other politicians (republican or democrat) who are actually doing the jobs they were elected to do is aiming high. She saw quitting as an opportunity to aim higher for personal monetary gain not for the betterment of her constituents. She no longer has any real political platform. She gave that up to be a talking head with a best selling book. Aiming higher? Please.
Co-sign with Ari......enough said.
I can only assume that Cathy Horyn does not grasp the concept of the Everywoman.
No Everywoman is going to Nordstrom’s with a $75,000 budget and buy an entire wardrobe. The reason why MO purchases clothes from so many sources is because there is no one source that meets the needs of the Everywoman. When a woman hits
her early 40’s, she is just about fed up with wearing the same “work uniform” that she started wearing approx. 20 years when her career first began. She arrives at a point in life, where she wants her wardrobe to reflect her individuality, her personal style and there is no one store or designer that can provide that. MO is Everywoman because her shopping patterns reflect this need we all have to be ourselves and not what someone else (the fashion industry) decided they want us to be.
You can only have some many black, navy or gray suits in your closet before you begin to scream in frustration at the limited number of “acceptable work uniforms” for women.
Hopefully, at the end of her 4 or 8 year reign in the White House, MO will have done for women’s work wardrobe , what WWII did to make pants acceptable for woman’s wear. We are not Men, no one cares if a guy wears the same black suit three days in a row with a different shirt and tie combination.
MO showcases varying attire options that can be workplace appropriate and meet the need for a sophisticated creative outlet most women have. We may not all be able to afford the designer label, but that does not take away from the inspiration. For example- I love pearls and cardigans. I have several in my core wardrobe, but until MO starting wearing them, others may have thought my style was dated. Now, I can throw on a belt and blazer with the items I already have in my closet and I am good to go!
Another example- The inside/outside designer dress she wore to one of the Presidential debates. Personally, a floral print dress in not my taste, but I would have loved it if the designer or a knock off design house had mass marketed the print as a scarf at Walmart, or a belt at Target or a blouse at Macy’s. All of which would have been in my price range and would have offered me the option of updating that tired, boring black suit that we all have in our closet.
One of the first thoughts I had when MO’s style of dress first was highlighted was ,” I really need Issac M. to renew his collaboration with Target.
What fashion leaders need to understand is, if you want to market to the 40-50’s lady, you need to give her enough of a variety for her to create and obtain her own style.
MO shops where and as she does because she can’t find the pieces that reflect her personal style any other way. As does every other professional woman in her age group, and that’s what make her the Everywoman! And not the clone in the church lady suit!
If the fashion designers and retailers want to capitalize on the MO Everywoman phenomenon, then they need to recognize that they don’t dictate fashion to the EveryWoman, but that the relationship works just the opposite. Perhaps some free website based “personal shopper” service (sponsored by retailers and designers) needs to evolve that gives the Everywoman easy access to a large array of clothing options for a reasonable price, so that all of us like MO can design our own signature style with inspiration from MO!
I think we stop the conversation about Sarah Palin here. It's not going to be productive, and frankly, it's steering us off course of what was an interesting discussion.
@ nonpasserat, I would ask that you would please not insult others on the blog when leaving comments.
Mrs.T, you're absolutely right. Subject officially dropped. I've never been personally attacked on this site before and I can see that my opinions really struck a nerve. It is so not worth it.
Anyway, I recall Ms. Horyn doing an audio slide show on Mrs.O's style the day after the inauguration. She praised her practical use of high end clothing with j.crew accessories. Now it's so funny to see how, according to her, that practicality has become a negative attribute. I don't think the article was consistent with her initial views. Like you stated before Mrs.T, she is just trying to put another angle on the umpteenth Michelle Obama fashion article that has been written within the past two years.
nonpasserat said:
"I like the way Michelle O dresses much of the time, but she seems to me to be someone who is still searching for her identity in the clothes she wears. Sarah Palin knows exactly what she wants to convey in her personal presentation. She's a perfectionist and works out all the details. Michelle is more spontaneous and creative."
For what it's worth (and it's not like my approval means anything) but I don't think there's anything wrong with this opinion, and I don't personally think it's anything to attack nonpasserat over. We have GOT to figure out a way to disagree with each other without folks bringing out the torches and pitchforks, for heaven's sake. Please.
I actually agree with this to some extent...I think that Michelle *is* still working out her public image, because I saw the way she dressed on the campaign trail and how she dresses now, and I feel that it's different. I absolutely do believe that Michelle has a "working wardrobe," but I think that she has intentionally chosen not to present herself as a "working" woman because she was criticized on the trail for being too hard, too cold, too scary, too aggressive, too overbearing. I mean, she had to change her eyebrows, for heaven's sake.
So, sure, I do think that Michelle is a work in progress, but I don't think there's anything unusual about this. (Except that it annoys me greatly that a well-educated, well-spoken working woman has to worry aboout being "scary." But then, Hillary could have something to say about that, too. As well as Palin, for that matter.)
Palin and Michelle Obama inhabit different parts of the public consciousness. Their roles are different, as are the ways they present themselves.
It's a very 'broad generalization' to say that working women dress like Sarah Pallin. That's absolutely ludicrious! Personally, I haven't seen it where I live. Nor have I seen the outfits of every working woman with in the continental U.S. while they're on there way to work each day. The women I've observed love dressing up for work and dress similarly to Mrs. Obama when it comes to creativity. They are what I call freestylers/self-expressionist; not locked into the way 'society' wants them to appear whether on their way to work or a night out on the town. Really! This is so funny! C. Horyn just wants to get a 'rise' out of viewers. To me, there are some that utilize the 'power of the pen' to a fault and should have their pen revoked. Clothes are just what they are, clothes. I didn't even take notice of what Sarah Palin wore when there were glimpses of her on tv when she was campaigning. Yet, I did with Mrs. Obama. I like her non-cookie cutter approach to fashion.
Also, why according to C. Horyn, should Ms. Rogers reponse have been a simple 'yes' to R. Givhan's question about confirming the designer of her dress? So, now, C. Horyn wants to tell a mature, adult woman how to respond to someone's question?!! I don't see Ms. Rogers as being a ventriloquist dummy on anyone's lap. I rest my case.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why the majority of you love everything MO wears. You rave over every outfit, even when it is unflattering and unsuitable. Those belted sweaters come to mind. She wears some beautiful things, but GEEZE, some outfits are just AWFUL. There are so many WHAT WAS SHE THINKING outfits.You know it too and are afraid to be objective. Constructive criticism can be helpful, especially if her advisors read this site.
Dear All,
Please let's close the year on a good note. This is not the place to hash out respective political positions about Sarah Palin. No one will win. It will simply get ugly. Please not here. (Note, I've deleted a few comments that were simply political dissertations.)
To clear up one thing - my comment to nonpasserat about not attacking others was for not at all for her position, but for using phrases like "your moronic assertions" directed at Ari. It went beyond respectful disagreement, IMHO.
Thanks and hope those in NYC are enjoying the snow!
For the most part, we were indulging in respectful disagreement until the name calling started a few posts up. Personally, I think nonpasserat's comment should be deleted.
Sweeping generalizations such as those in Horyn's piece, and the comments of some of the posters (Jean, I have been reading this blog since its inception, and almost all of the regular posters have disliked some aspect of Mrs. O's wardrobe - but most were able to critique her choices respectfully)
are what start the frays. By making connections between fashion choices and the actions of the person who wears them, we are opening the door to comments that are going to cover both topics.
Its just more of the same with elitist, Cathy Horyn. Often I dont agree with her critiques of the couture collections anyway! Seems to me that she is more than a little miffed to not be an Obama "insider" herself. I am pleased that we have a First Lady with a fabulous sense of personal style- its refreshing and interesting. Who needs Nieman Marcus office wear to make a fashion statement?
If people take issue with my opinion, that's fine. This is a forum and we don't all agree. I think my original post was about fashion choices and that's all. It was not my intention to offend anyone, so if I did I am sorry.
@Rob I think you, Rob, are on the wrong blog.
Hey Mrs T,
If political dissertations must be deleted, how about deleting nonpasserat's shameless palin schilling and Martha Nakajima's rant against Obama's vacation in his birth place of Hawaii where he has spent every Christmas for years?
Why delete only comments that defend the Obama's?
HAPPY NEW YEAR'S EVERYONE!
Oh dear looks like my comment fell into the political dissertation category and was deleted. Pity because there was a really good message there and it is simply this:
We might as well discuss Joseph Stalin's Savile Row Bespoke suits and how great he looked in them and do it all with politically correct gymnastics for fear we might offend his admirers and those who deem him a hero. (He's as popular as ever in Russia today you know.)
A person's fashion sense or lack thereof is only as appealing or fascinating or subject to interest as the substantive good they do or bring to their larger community.
In my opinion there is nothing appealing, fascinating or interesting about a very divisive woman who has the same myopic mindset and view of the world and things and an eerily similar approach to perceived opponents as the so-called radical extremists we claim to abhor so much here in America.
A very happy, healthy and prosperous New Year to all people of GOODWILL!!!
Camille, I do completely share your belief that "a person's fashion sense or lack thereof is only as appealing or fascinating or subject to interest as the substantive good they do or bring to their larger community." I wouldn't delete a comment if I felt that it captured this balance.
Moderating comments on this blog is a challenge. My aim is to keep this a vibrant, interesting online community. This particular thread of dialogue reminded me of the blog in its early days of 2008/2009, when it was considerably smaller. The conversation was rich and varied, but usually constructive and respectful. I was excited to see that again, and then disappointed when conversation veered into the purely political, with little or no reference to the article at hand. My hand may have been a bit too heavy in moderating, but that was my thought process.
Happy New Year to all!
Mrs. T., 'THANK YOU' for this forum and Happy New Year! May 2010 be an even more outstanding year for you, this site, your team and everyone on this site!
I appreciate your objective review of the article. Mrs. O is most often elegant and other times makes some daring fashion choices that I think show her double-consciousness. I enjoy watching her evolve.
Thanks.
I don't think Cathy Horyn has much of a sense of what professional women around the country are wearing. Trashy Naughty Monkey pumps, tack pedicures…no, they are not embracing Palin's style. The Times' reporters just like to play the snarky contrarian on such matters. Another reporter, Cintra Wilson, was actually taken to the woodshed by the paper's ombudsman last summer when she derisively trashed JCPenney's coming to Mahattan, or rather as she put it, waddling into Manhattan in its “big ole shorts and flip-flops.” Maybe Horyn is trying to make up for that.