July 22, 2005

In the vicinity of the President, dress appropriately....

But not too appropriately. By all means, lose the flipflops, but if you go for perfection, we're going to have to slam you in the Washington Post.

16 comments:

Goesh said...

- in the throes of a fading ideology shall come fashion crtiques -

Goesh said...

critiques

Timothy K. Morris said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Timothy K. Morris said...

What pretentious ________.[Fill in the blank with your favorite expletive.]

vnjagvet said...

I wonder what she would have found "appropriate" for five minutes of prime time television covering the historic event of dad's nomination to one of the highest posts in our nation?

After all, mom probably didn't have time to go out and buy something. She had to check the closet, pick out the clothes, get them dressed and get them to the White House on time, probably with not much notice. With the boy child saying something like "I don't want to wear those shorts".

Does the WaPo have something in their style book to cover this?

EddieP said...

I own a great looking pair of saddle shoes myself. I'd wear them to the White House unless I chose to wear my polished cowboy boots!

Ann Althouse said...

I love saddle shoes. There was a saddle shoe fad when I was in high school (late 60s). Girls looked really cute in very short plaid skirts and saddle shoes with ankle socks!

Ruth Anne Adams said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ann Althouse said...

Ruth Anne: Thanks for the Necco wafers/Althouse blog nostalgia!

Vince Angermeier said...

test

Vince Angermeier said...

Ruth Anne Adams:

I can't really knock the writer for comparing the family to Neco Wafers. Most pop culture critics put a tremendous amount of effort comparing their subjects to random pop culture artifacts. If the writer had compared the family to easter eggs (a boring and obvious comparison), it would have immediately tagged themselves as bad pop culture analysts.

That being said, I don't get what this style writer's problem is. This is probably the same writer (or possibly the same page editor) who decided to write a long hack piece on John Bolton's pushbroom moustache. Just unbelievably inane pap. For some reason arts editors and writers seem more and more willing to venture into political analysis and the results have been consistently ridiculous. Yeah, there's Frank Rich from the Times, who actually writes pretty well, but what does it matter? He's their Arts Page editor. How can I or anyone else be expected to take his political analysis seriously?

k said...

Wasn't Givhan the same "reporter" who slammed Katherine Harris' makeup in 2000?

MrsWhatsit said...

Oh for pity's sake, now I've seen everything. For a television appearance with the President of the United States to honor their father's nomination to the Supreme Court, children are dressed traditionally and beautifully by their parents -- and get criticized for it?! Does anybody think this person would have slammed the Roberts family for their purported resemblance to candy if the judicial nominee had been a liberal, rather than a conservative?

Michael said...

to k: yes, Robin Givhan is the same person who gave us this journalistic gem:

"caterpillars seemed to rise and fall with every bat of her eyelid"

http://reason.com/hod/vp121100.shtml

Ann Althouse said...

Michael: What's wrong with that metaphor? I think it's a vivid image of overdone eyelashes.

Juliette said...

Who cares what this harridan says?

This is also the same woman who slammed Condi Rice for stylin' in black a few months back.

Snarling envy is tiresome.