Knowing that today is a Maureen Dowd Day in the New York Times, I was hoping to learn What David Brooks Thinks About Legs-Gate*. After all, it was in a Dowd column where we learned Brooks’s take on Arms-Gate*. While sharing a taxi with Dowd, according to a Dowd column back in March, Brooks said of Michelle Obama sometimes wearing clothing that does not cover her arms:
She’s made her point. Now she should put away Thunder and Lightning [her arms] [because] Washington is sensually avoidant.
Today’s Dowd column is headlined, “Lust, American Style,” but, alas, makes no mention of Michelle Obama’s latest uncovered limbs or David Brooks’s thoughts on —or pet names for— them.
MSNBC.com, for its part, has run two pieces on Legs-Gate* in the past 24 hours. Yesterday:
“Michelle Obama’s short shorts spark long talks”
An article which Megan fact-checked on Twitter noting that “‘Short shorts’ are worn by Daisy Duke and gals in NAIR commercials. Not, here, by Michelle Obama.”
And, today:
“First lady’s shorts draw some long, hard looks”
The subhed today is “Michelle Obama’s informal look in Arizona has some questioning her choice,” and the piece is actually a re-write of a (four-minute!) Today show segment which aired this morning (in which no named individual actually expressed true “disapproval” of the shorts, not even the Washington Post’s Robin Givhan who told Matt Lauer she’s “ambivalent” about them.)
But should you (David Brooks, or anyone) “disapprove” of Mrs. Obama’s shorts, more than one media outlet (MSNBC.com and the Palm Beach Post) is providing you an outlet to say so:
And, if you’re a reporter gearing up to write about the scandal that is Legs-Gate*, please, first have a look at those poll numbers (over 80 percent of people are fine with the shorts already). Also, pretending Mrs. Obama Wore Shorts; Some Disapprove is news (setting aside, even, that most of the folks taking “long looks” or having “long talks” about the shorts are in the media) is, as an appropriately embarrassed-looking Lauer confessed at the start of today’s Today segment, “a bit crazy.”
*Legs-Gate: Michelle Obama wore shorts while on vacation recently. Some in media are scandalized.
*Arms-Gate: Michelle Obama wore a sleeveless dress to the president’s address to Congress in March (not the first time she exposed her arms). Some in media are scandalized.
Please, this is the new millennium. Why are we still talking about what women leaders wear? Move beyond already. What about health care? The economy? Hungry kids? Starving children? New topics. Discuss amongst yourselves.
#1 Posted by Arkiegal, CJR on Wed 19 Aug 2009 at 04:03 PM
Quite preposterous for this to be a discussion anywhere,least of all in newspapers struggling for their lives. Still as they are thinning the ranks of real reporters, and pictures being cheaper than a person whose health care costs management must pay, well, maybe it is the journalistic equivalent of corn syrup in foods: filling space but robbing one of nutrients.
#2 Posted by Richard McDonough, CJR on Wed 19 Aug 2009 at 05:34 PM
Sexism lives. Irrelevant media die.
#3 Posted by Kevin McKenzie, CJR on Wed 19 Aug 2009 at 06:59 PM
She had to wear shorts because Barack had stolen her mom jeans
#4 Posted by mike kennedy, CJR on Wed 19 Aug 2009 at 09:28 PM
I'm not crazy about the look, but it's not worth getting your ... never mind. But here's a question: are there any shots in existence of former First Ladies in shorts? What would Jackie do?
#5 Posted by Elizabeth, CJR on Thu 20 Aug 2009 at 03:57 PM
We get it ... SHE'S A FATASS.
Now lets get into the real news.
#6 Posted by Celveland, CJR on Thu 20 Aug 2009 at 04:32 PM
Someone should tell MO she is now the First Lady, and she should conduct herself with some dignity. No other First Lady has appeared in public dressed like this. She is an embarrassment.
#7 Posted by Eppie Jones, CJR on Thu 20 Aug 2009 at 09:16 PM
Now that's what I call award-eligible journalism!
#8 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Thu 20 Aug 2009 at 09:47 PM
Eppie, in the spirit of free speech, you're an IDIOT.
#9 Posted by Tim Porter, CJR on Thu 20 Aug 2009 at 10:43 PM
Eppie - You are the embarrassment, not Michelle Obama. What in the name of god is wrong with anyone wearing shorts? Who are you to say what a woman should or should not wear. Methinks that you are probably one of those Obama haters who will go to any extreme to make the president and his family look bad.
And shame on the CJR for taking the time to write about this ridiculous non-issue.
#10 Posted by lassithi, CJR on Fri 21 Aug 2009 at 01:21 PM
When I was younger I remember seeing a pix of Jackie Kennedy in shorts. No one bothered to raise an eyebrow.
You people should get a life and focus on real issues of the day. I say "Go for it, Michelle, be comfortable." Those old horse and buggy days women would just sit in the kitchen and wait for the menfolk to come home to eat are gone, thank God.
Eppie, my dear this is not 1909, it is 2009. Next time you see her in something you don't like, just close your eyes --- you won't see it!
#11 Posted by Ann, CJR on Sat 22 Aug 2009 at 02:15 AM
Not only did Jackie wear shorts, but she whored herself to Onassis in order to secure her children's future. Oh, and don't forget that Joe Kennedy paid her to stay married to the whoremongering Jack.
Those who object to the First Lady's shorts are abysmally stupid moronic idiots.
#12 Posted by myob, CJR on Sat 22 Aug 2009 at 08:31 AM
jackie didnt wear shorts , she had class
#13 Posted by unhappy, CJR on Sat 22 Aug 2009 at 08:04 PM
Ann says :You people should get a life and focus on real issues of the day."
YOU PEOPLE? What's that supposed to mean??
Look Jackie had a great pair of legs ..Michelle to be perfectly honest doesn't.
Michelle Obama is NO Jackie Kennedy.
#14 Posted by Jack, CJR on Sat 22 Aug 2009 at 09:33 PM
Ann says :You people should get a life and focus on real issues of the day."
YOU PEOPLE? What's that supposed to mean??
Look Jackie had a great pair of legs .. to be perfectly honest Michelle doesn't.
Michelle Obama is NO Jackie Kennedy.
#15 Posted by Jack, CJR on Sat 22 Aug 2009 at 09:34 PM