Getty image

Doesn’t Californian  House Republican Darrell Issa have anything better to do than keep tabs on the First Lady?

You’d think it would be enough for the press to follow her around like celebrity hounding paparazzi. We get to comment on everything about her (including this blog!) as  she makes her public rounds but is it really necessary to sit in on all of her meetings?

Issa claims the public has a right to know the activities of Michelle Obama as well as future presidential spouses.

Being in the public eye has to be hard enough without passing a law to get in their business. Aren’t Americans spied upon and tracked like dogs with their mobile devices enough as it is? If Google had it’s way, every spy cam satellite would be streaming info on the web 24/7 and documented in a database. You couldn’t even go to the bathroom without someone knowing about it and having it broadcast on utube. Last time I checked this was akin to slavery, not the so-called ‘freedom’ that we supposedly enjoy.

What more do we need to know about the First Lady? We already know way too much as it is and more than any First Lady in history. The press is consumed with the type of hair spray she uses, when she exercises, the clothes (well, that’s ok!) she wears, or what she’s doing as First Lady.Under Issa’s amendment, any government policy group that Mrs. Obama or another first spouse regularly participates in would be subject to a law requiring meetings to be announced in advance and, in most instances, public.

Her daughters aren’t exempt either as their wardrobes are also commented on and we know they got a new swing set to play on. When the dog arrives it will be news.

If the Issa’s amendment were to pass, it would overturn the 1993 federal appeals court decision which held that First Lady Hillary Clinton could be considered the equivalent of a federal employee. The court rendered that as First Lady, Hillary Clinton did not have to tell the world about every meeting she held or attended as a member of the presidential Health Care Task Force.

Maybe Mr. Issa could spend more time working on issues on his own state like unemployment, housing, or the fact they are just plain broke. By now he’s probably regained some of the $12 million of his own money trying to get elected to the Senate in 1998. Back then he got bumped out by Matt Fong who lost to Barbara Boxer and then thought he had a chance at becoming Governor until Arnold Schwarzenegger decided to run.

Issa too bad we have people like this in office.

Read the whole story: mediabistro.com

We’ve already established the tremendous impact that Michelle Obama has on the fashion industry but why compare her to Carrie Bradshaw? While the Brooke Shields character on Lipstick Jungle is lesser known (and short lived) at least she wasn’t an airhead. We only remember Carrie for her Jimmy Choo’s and Prada labels, not for her writing ability. Our First Lady is not some clothes hanger and to compare her to Carrie Bradshaw is really insulting. Isaac must be the President’s bowling partner.

We agree that Michelle is the new Jackie-O but the influence of fashion has been around for ages and we like Marie Antoinette because in addition to promoting fashion, she was a woman in her own right.

From lucidcafe:
The stories of Antoinette’s excesses are vastly overstated. In fact, rather than ignoring France’s growing financial crisis, she reduced the royal staff, eliminating many unnecessary positions that were based solely on privilege. In the process she offended the nobles, adding their condemnation to the scandalous stories spread by royal hopefuls. It was the nobility that balked at the financial reforms the government ministers tried to make, not the King and Queen, who were in favor of change. In truth, Antoinette and Louis were placed in harms’ way not only by elements of their personalities, but by the changing face of political and social ideology in the 18th and 19th centuries.