Michelle Obama's dress

[Anonymous]

I heard that the dress was not form fitting because she was wearing a bullet proof vest underneath.
The lining should have matched the dress though.

[Anonymous]

I doubt she was wearing a bullet proof vest. It just looked like it because of the boxy lines of the dress. But she does have a kinda boxy shape, not curvy.

BTW, I am reading this thread, and I think it's fun, a little escape from the dreariness of world events. Geeze, don't you get dressed up for a big event? And don't you look around at what everyone else is wearing? I sure do, even though I think fashion is mostly a waste of time. It's fun. Michelle has unusual taste. She's very bold, and likes to make a statement. I like that about her, and I like her clothes, even though I'd never wear them myself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bidens are cheeseballs. They must own a tanning bed and get their teeth/vaneers whitened regularly. Of course she wore knee-high boots with a short skirt. That is the cheesy woman's uniform.

I agree with this post. The whole time we were watching, I thought it was funny that my husband said Joe Biden looked like a used car salesman. They are sort of cheesey - not classy. Her outfit was not appropriate for the events / nor her super high heeled boots for the parade walk.

The Bidens remind me of the Gores. Cheesey and just sort of there looking for a purpose.

I worked for Joe Biden, although it's been a few years. He is a decent guy, actually. Jill Biden was really very nice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I doubt she was wearing a bullet proof vest. It just looked like it because of the boxy lines of the dress. But she does have a kinda boxy shape, not curvy.

BTW, I am reading this thread, and I think it's fun, a little escape from the dreariness of world events. Geeze, don't you get dressed up for a big event? And don't you look around at what everyone else is wearing? I sure do, even though I think fashion is mostly a waste of time. It's fun. Michelle has unusual taste. She's very bold, and likes to make a statement. I like that about her, and I like her clothes, even though I'd never wear them myself.

although if were not for the fashion industry, we would all be walking around in potato sack dresses.

[Anonymous]

It's a sad comment on this board that this topic has gotten so many responses.

As for my two cents--and I was not an Obama/Michelle fan before the election--I think she looked awesome--such a lovely smile and so poised. She has more style than most DC women. Frankly, to me, the outfit looked warm, which is probably a big factor. And I really liked the fabric and texture. I like that she has her own individual style and doesn't look like a doughty first lady. Sometimes outfits flop (e.g. election night dress didn't really flatter her curves, IMHO), but I like that she is bringing some daring to Pennsylvania Ave. DC can use it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I heard that the dress was not form fitting because she was wearing a bullet proof vest underneath.
The lining should have matched the dress though.

They were not wearing bullet proof vests. Secret Service doesn't even wear them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: In fact, it's more than a bit ironic given that Dr. Lynne Cheney, who is a real scholar, is known simply as "Mrs. Cheney." I am not at all a fan of Jill Biden.

obviously not a fan - fine

but not a "true scholar?"

- BA from U. DE
- taught high school English
- Master of Ed, with a specialty in reading
- taught emotionally disturbed students and even worked in a psychiatric hospital
- Master of Arts in English, said that if she ever became First Lady she'd continue to teach emotionally disturbed children
- instructor at a community college (English composition and remedial writing)
- Doctorate in educational leadership

Now, she's being wooed by several colleges. What a magnificent role model she is for teachers everywhere!

Yep. Not a true scholar, despite what her press people like to say. No one considers her a scholar; in academic parlance, that term is reserved for those who produce significant research. And if you think she's really going to teach an English section at Montgomery College for $2,700 a semester, you've bought her publicity hook, line, and sinker.

Obviously your academic perspective is limited.

Or yours is, if you consider teaching at Delaware Technical and Community College to be evidence of "serious scholarship." Mrs. Biden completed her doctorate just in time for the campaign, too -- 2007. Attractive? Yes. In good shape? Yes. A scholar? No.

Are you an educator?

I have three friends - each with PhDs from prestigious colleges (Brown, Harvard, Yale), who are teaching high school students in the public system (special ed, history and English). The don't think they're "too good" for that job . . . which is the tone that permeates these responses.

[Anonymous]

I'm sure they are very smart and their students are probably fortunate to have them, but it is not the degree alone that makes the scholar; it also requires a continued commitment to scholarly activity (i.e., research).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure they are very smart and their students are probably fortunate to have them, but it is not the degree alone that makes the scholar; it also requires a continued commitment to scholarly activity (i.e., research).

be careful letting your nose get too high into the stratosphere. It's icy up there.

Only on this board could someone bash a working parent with a PhD for claiming to be a scholar without meeting an invisible DCUM standard for scholarship.

Anyone who raises children including husband's children with deceased former wife all while said husband is commuting by train to DC for their entire marriage, supports husband's political ambitions, teaches, and manages to get a PhD, then make campaign appearances looking drop-dead gorgeous even when her own mother is dying (she died in October), and decide to keep teaching while living at One Observatory Circle when she could just soak up the good life, all while she's got a son in Iraq, is a very special and accomplished woman. She probably doesn't give a rat's ass whether she lives up to this poster's snobbish standard, nor should she.

And I consider her a fine role model for my kids too.

[Anonymous]

I couldn't care less whether or not she is a scholar. It has absolutely no bearing on whether we should respect her as a person. But that doesn't mean people should inflate her credentials.

[Anonymous]

I like you, 17:27. Nice way to put it. People on this board are just jealous of her.

[Anonymous]

You're right, 17:32, there are many other reasons to respect her. Please see 17:27's post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure they are very smart and their students are probably fortunate to have them, but it is not the degree alone that makes the scholar; it also requires a continued commitment to scholarly activity (i.e., research).

be careful letting your nose get too high into the stratosphere. It's icy up there.

Only on this board could someone bash a working parent with a PhD for claiming to be a scholar without meeting an invisible DCUM standard for scholarship.

Anyone who raises children including husband's children with deceased former wife all while said husband is commuting by train to DC for their entire marriage, supports husband's political ambitions, teaches, and manages to get a PhD, then make campaign appearances looking drop-dead gorgeous even when her own mother is dying (she died in October), and decide to keep teaching while living at One Observatory Circle when she could just soak up the good life, all while she's got a son in Iraq, is a very special and accomplished woman. She probably doesn't give a rat's ass whether she lives up to this poster's snobbish standard, nor should she.

And I consider her a fine role model for my kids too.

You rock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I couldn't care less whether or not she is a scholar. It has absolutely no bearing on whether we should respect her as a person. But that doesn't mean people should inflate her credentials.

Who's inflating her credentials? Her accomplishments were listed.

It's all a matter of perspective, I guess.

Personally, I'd take 10 special educators over one published "scholar." Who's helping humanity more?

I'd like to call you an idiot, but that wouldn't be scholarly of me, now would it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure they are very smart and their students are probably fortunate to have them, but it is not the degree alone that makes the scholar; it also requires a continued commitment to scholarly activity (i.e., research).

be careful letting your nose get too high into the stratosphere. It's icy up there.

Only on this board could someone bash a working parent with a PhD for claiming to be a scholar without meeting an invisible DCUM standard for scholarship.

Anyone who raises children including husband's children with deceased former wife all while said husband is commuting by train to DC for their entire marriage, supports husband's political ambitions, teaches, and manages to get a PhD, then make campaign appearances looking drop-dead gorgeous even when her own mother is dying (she died in October), and decide to keep teaching while living at One Observatory Circle when she could just soak up the good life, all while she's got a son in Iraq, is a very special and accomplished woman. She probably doesn't give a rat's ass whether she lives up to this poster's snobbish standard, nor should she.

And I consider her a fine role model for my kids too.

An Ed.D., actually. Not a Ph.D.