Last night Michelle Obama wore a plum, sleeveless Narciso Rodriguez dress to watch her husband try to get the American people and certain congressmen to stop freaking out already. You may notice something about Michelle's garb stands out from that of the crowd: Her arms are bare. Why, upon our — skin below the neck in the middle of the chambers? In February?! This surely is cause to freak out. Or at least, overanalyze.
The New York Times' Caucus blog notes Michelle always wears sleeveless dresses, and why shouldn't she, since she has great arms, toned after years of rigorous personal-training sessions. "Already, a debate is brewing about just what the First Arms signify," trumpets the Caucus, which then pontificates:
[T]hose bare arms seem like a reminder of everything about her we can’t see.
In two years, she has shown us a great deal of herself, more than most of us would share, and yet right now, we actually don’t know that much about her. What does she think of the White House, and what does she do all day? Does her husband consult her on any of the difficult decisions he faces? Is the “Mom-in-chief” really, totally confident that her children are going to come through this just fine? In a few years, will she still look as confident as she did last night, or will she reach for cover? And is she comfortable as she looks in those skimpy tops, or is she actually freezing?
We love obsessing over MObama just as much as the next blogger, but ... First Arms? Really? The lady likes sleeveless dresses. What is she supposed to wear? A burka? It's not like she's running around with cleavage that could balance a coffee cup like Aubrey O'Day, or glitter panties that can reflect satellite signals like Lady Gaga. Can we just accept that she goes sleeveless because this style is her most flattering? The Caucus wants to know what she does all day. We're pretty sure it's not analyze what message her bare arms will send to the world about her role in society. Lady Gaga, however, is a different story.
Michelle Obama Goes Sleeveless, Again [Caucus/NYT]