Michelle Obama’s fashion is being dissected once again. I don’t even know how it began. Perhaps with her black-and-red Narciso Rodriguez “hell dress” on election night, as President-elect Obama spoke on a clear Chicago night? Then it was her beautiful pale yellow Isabel Toledo dress and coat for the inauguration, and the over-analyzed white Jason Wu dress for the inaugural parties. After her husband officially came into office, there was something of a backlash, with prominent fashion critics criticizing Michelle’s right to bare arms– in winter! Around the same time, Oscar de la Renta got snippy about Michelle’s fashion choices – namely, her lack of desire to promote older labels (like his) and instead give mountains of publicity to up-and-coming designers (like Jason Wu).

The latest scandal is about shorts. Namely, how short is too short? And, for that matter, should the first lady of the United States even be wearing shorts? I’m absolutely serious that this is now a “thing”. People are discussing it:

So here we are again. The biggest scandal to hit the White House: How much skin is really in?

Hours upon hours have been spent talking about what a first lady should or should not wear. First, it was whether or not she had the right to “bare arms,” and now, pictures of Michelle wearing “short” shorts while on holiday with her family during yesterday’s trip to the Grand Canyon are sparking a similar debate. While most women would agree that shorts (at any length) are often tough to pull off, I think we should line up with hands raised to offer her a high five. And since she is gifted with those long legs, I beg the question — wouldn’t all shorts be “short” on her?

So to be “short” and to the point (pun intended), what do you think about Michelle dressing relaxed like the rest of us? Is it OK for her to be casual and comfortable with her body? Or do you feel she should be more conservative, offering a polished reserved example at all times?

[From MSNBC]

The shorts Michelle wore just look like normal shorts that any woman aged 15 to 50 would wear without a second thought. She probably got them at J.Crew or The Gap. So what’s the controversy? That she’s a forty-something woman wearing shorts when it’s really friggin’ hot outside? That she was great gams? Seriously, she does have beautiful legs. I wish I had Michelle’s legs. As for the whole argument about whether it’s unbecoming for a first lady to wear shorts – meh. I could make a better argument that our Secretary of State should cut it out with the schoolgirl headbands. What do you think?