First Lady, Michelle Obama’s Olympic $7000 Wardrobe versus Anne Romney’s $990 Choice – Much ado about nothing but Sexism As the Press Turns

Michelle Obama Olympic Fashion - from ABCNews.com

First, the fascination with our political group, and specifically the fashion worn well, or not, of those women who would dare to enter the arena, is in a word, ridiculous at times. The fact that any Contender for the highest office (Think Hillary Clinton) or First Lady or potential First Lady, should be subject to nit picking as to choice of wardrobe just goes to show how many American’s are obsessed with the “haves and have not’s” of “celebrities”. Cases in point are several articles on the Olympics and what the First Lady and GOP Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney’s, wife Ann, wore at the Olympics. In what should be seen as independent choices, these wardrobes become political fodder – as to the women themselves, who, just happen to be married to either the President or a Presidential Nominee (or running for office – See Hillary Clinton).

ABC News covers wardrobe, and what’s up with the First Lady, Michelle Obama at abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS - note the word politics in the web address – yet one is treated to what can only be seen as a fashion show – complete with pro’s and con’s – a what not to wear or what to wear, regarding women who, through whatever happenstance, are married to men who are in the spotlight.

The Brouhaha apparently started when the Fee Beacon did an article on the First Lady and Ann Romney’s wardrobe entitled “The First Lady Has Nice Cloths” perhaps in response to an article in Politico (yes, Politico) Ann Romney’s $990 shirt - worth it?”. One is an actual fashion article while Politico’s is a page out of “Occupy Wall-Street” – Actually, the article should not have been written with a price tag – or if, perhaps where one might find a similar item for less. – Since Politico is now on the same level as say –Harper’s Bazaar.

The same goes for the First Lady, Michelle Obama, who took heat for wearing a beautiful dress to the Olympic Opening Ceremony from the right – A link from the Drudge Report to the An Article at Gateway Pundit, titled She Feels Your Pain – Michelle Obama Sports $6,800 Jacket to London Soiree …Update: Jacket Cost More Than What Average US Family Makes in 1 Month” sums up the problem. A conservative site publishing an article on Michelle Obama, our First Lady, who represents our nation and who looks, in a word, beautiful, doing so, (even to those critics who for political reason, or fashion reasons, disagree), has published what amounts to a “get-even” piece, but ends up sounding more like the Occupy Wall Street – “Let them Eat Cake” mentality – they, above anyone else, should know better, and the commenter's as well, who offer up some lines that are not worth repeating – anywhere. It is difficult reading the aforementioned to figure out if the group is left or left – as the mantra of “Let them Eat Cake” is just a hairsbreadth from being visible.

It does no-one justice – and shows no respect for either woman. They both dress well, have different tastes, and, here is the kicker, both women’s husbands, make enough money to support whatever they choose to wear – look at the tax returns from the White House and the Romney’s for the past two years, and it is evident that these are the people who can afford the clothing coming from Saks, Bendal's, and private designers. Women not in the aforementioneds income bracket may prefer TJ Max or its sister Marshalls, or runway after-sales to pick up items that are current and won’t break the bank. Again, there are two big reasons why the First Lady and Anne Romney, by extension, can and should look their best, even if it means spending $990 on a shirt, or $6800 on a dress – a) they can afford it – get over it, and b) they both look lovely – and should as they represent our country.

That is especially true of First Lady Michelle Obama, who looked elegant in her white capped gown, with pleated skirt as she attended an Olympic Reception. She always portrays herself with the stature and dignity of the “office” of First Lady – an Office that may or may not be welcome to any woman, as it is just an extension of one’s Husbands’ achievements – rather than one’s own – Imagine that? Therefore, to all of the fashion critics, on the left, and stunningly on the right, stop stooping to each others levels and find something less “snarky” to write about. Perhaps the accomplishments of said women would be good for starters and if of a political bent, there would be a reason to agree or disagree. One might agree or disagree about a style of dress – true, but does making that sweater or that dress an icon of the "haves and have not’s" really matter in today’s economy? – These types of articles only serve to diminish the woman, not the man who is the office holder or potential office holder (in this particular case). Granted, your usual suit, tie, and jacket is boring, but why not take it from there?

The only purpose of the articles, both, appears to be “revolutionary” – as if “French revolutionary” in nature, and anyone who has any inkling of the true nature of the French Revolution, should know better.