.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Sundries
...a sweatshop of moxie

Saturday, February 14, 2009

First Lady Recipe

Take one pose in a White House sitting room.



Add two shakes of shantung strawberry colour.



Subtract genuine charm and star quality.



And stir.



Related

Laura Bush's Disco Pants

Labels: , ,

46 Comments:

  • That's mean (but I like it) :)

    By Blogger chickenlittle, at Sat Feb 14, 10:57:00 am GMT-5  

  • Nice, incisive burn.

    I don't think I'll ever get the Kennedy phenomena. Jackie Beauvier Kennedy Simpson Jackson Smith Onasis (or whatever)--yes, she was pretty, yes she went to finishing school, yes she spoke French, but so what?

    By Anonymous Starless, at Sat Feb 14, 10:58:00 am GMT-5  

  • but so what?

    So what! So everything.

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Sat Feb 14, 11:07:00 am GMT-5  

  • That's mean (but I like it) :)

    Women are devilish to each other. It's fun, so long as one doesn't really mean it. :P

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Sat Feb 14, 11:08:00 am GMT-5  

  • So what! So everything.

    LOL. Well said.

    By Anonymous Starless, at Sat Feb 14, 11:41:00 am GMT-5  

  • Starless - I understand, but there was something handsome about Jackie, the star quality is right. She just seemed so well mannered and that's attractive to some of us. I remember seeing newsreel footage of her in a receiving line, and as she began to shake hands, she deftly handed off her purse to some guy in a dinner suit behind her - never taking her eyes off the guest she was greeting. I remember seeing that and thinking, wow, she was smooth. A natural performer. That was the finishing school for sure. Cool under the pressure of the public eye.

    Michelle tries to resemble Jackie (and the media DESPERATELY wants you to think she is JUST like her), but Jackie would NEVER have made the "artless" remarks in public Michelle has.

    If Vogue were honest, it would have Michelle in the same pose as Hillary's pics with them. Michelle is HillaryII. She is a ruthless business woman and part of her business is her husband. Make a bet she runs for office one day.

    And that line "the First Lady we have been waiting for?" Jeez, I could lose my breakfast. Stop with the BS.

    By Blogger CarmelaMotto, at Sat Feb 14, 11:48:00 am GMT-5  

  • I just realized I didn't have to write so much. The difference between Jackie and Michelle are as follows:

    Jackie - poised and elegant

    Michelle - Angry.

    At least that's the persona's I see.

    By Blogger CarmelaMotto, at Sat Feb 14, 11:52:00 am GMT-5  

  • CarmellaMotto:

    I can see that. In the line-up of First Ladies, Jackie-O deserves a lot of credit, its how people believe the myth that I don't get.

    Nancy Reagan was just as cosmopolitan, had at least much star power, and while she's admired, she's isn't lionized nearly as much as Jackie-O.

    For me, its part-and-parcel with the whole Kennedy clan mythology. If you look at it objectively, JFK was not that great of a president. He made some really, really big mistakes and his policies weren't that revolutionary.

    Too add to that, his father was a gangster and all of his relatives are either drink, drug, or sex addled. This doesn't strike me as very glamorous.

    By Anonymous Starless, at Sat Feb 14, 12:03:00 pm GMT-5  

  • Michelle Obama is the First Lady the world has been waiting for? Really? Based on what? Ridiculous.

    The thing that struck me about the first photo of Jackie is how similar her demeanor was to Princess Diana in Snowdon's portrait:

    http://www.time.com/time/daily/special/diana/photoessay/17.html

    Their situation had many parallels; horrid family dynamics, wastrel fathers, an isolated privileged upbringing, every advantage in social position and looks and an adoring world; but neither could hold their husband's attention or affection.

    Unfortunately Diana did not find her feet soon enough to avoid a fatal error in judgment. Dodi Al-Fayed may have been Diana's Ari Onassis, but we'll never know.

    Jackie carved out a satisfying life and legacy outside the mythical Camelot web she artfully spun and briefly found herself held captive.

    Claudia Alta "Lady Bird" Taylor Johnson is another remarkable First Lady with a similar background, and a powerful husband with a roving eye. Pity that her personal journey is mostly unknown nowadays.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Bird_Johnson


    We shall see if Michelle Obama has the goods soon enough as she is standing in some mighty big pumps.

    By Blogger BJM, at Sat Feb 14, 01:58:00 pm GMT-5  

  • What a difference your political party of choice makes. I see Michelle as gracious, friendly, and sincere. Some people, I suppose, are intimidated by her likability!

    By Blogger Zachary Paul Sire, at Sat Feb 14, 02:01:00 pm GMT-5  

  • Zach, your comment would make more sense if the (mostly) right-wing commenters here weren't lavishing praise on Jackie Kennedy.

    Face it, kiddo. This ain't about politics. It's about Michelle.

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Sat Feb 14, 02:12:00 pm GMT-5  

  • CarmelaMotto's comment is, for me, absolutely spot on. All of it.

    I'll go further to her thought about media pushing the Jackie-Michelle meme.

    Note how Vogue's photog has purposely posed her in exactly the same position as Jacqueline Kennedy's timeless photo inside the White House.

    The problem is, the second photograph shows you what a poseur Michelle Obama is, rather than someone rendering hommage (which would've been delightful to the eye).

    In Jackie Kennedy's version, there is genuine class which abounds (but mostly importantly) never overwhelms the viewer.

    The subtle chintz pattern of the sofa.

    The soft yet seductive billow of the curtain.

    That lamp, which is a tad too formal for the room (I think it's period to the 1870s, based on the corners).

    The table arrangement, graced by three demure but utterly sweet frames of her family.

    Add that painting at the back and the hint of a matching chintz high-back wingchair peeping just to her left.

    Now look at the Michelle version.

    Instead of the graceful, timelessly aristocratic Jacqueline Kennedy surroundings (something you just cannot buy is breeding), you get the modern upper-middle class version.

    When successful people like Michelle Obama furnish their homes, it looks like a 5-star hotel. That's their reference point of luxury.

    It's not sedate. It's self-conscious.

    This is why Michelle Obama isn't either the new Jackie Kennedy, or the relaxed mistress of the White House.

    She's trying too hard. She's also being given an impossible task by others. And some of us can tell.

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Sat Feb 14, 02:27:00 pm GMT-5  

  • It's not sedate. It's self-conscious.

    Agreed. Michelle looks physically uncomfortable, which is understandable from the unnatural position she's sitting in, yet Jackie Kennedy looks comfortable in the same position. The slight over-exposure of the Kennedy shot also gives it a softness that the sharp Obama shot doesn't have.

    She's trying too hard. She's also being given an impossible task by others. And some of us can tell.

    Maybe. She's also not rejecting the task. Just as I have yet to hear Barry say, "Stop comparing me to JFK". Where's Lloyd Bentsen when you need him?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sat Feb 14, 02:39:00 pm GMT-5  

  • One more comment, adding to BJM's wry observation on:

    "Michelle Obama is the First Lady the world has been waiting for? Really? Based on what? Ridiculous."

    Have you noticed that they try to push this idea of the Obamas as being "waited for"? Not just the Obamas but according to many, "we are the change we have been waiting for".

    This feverish sentence contains something of religious mummery about it.

    And also, talk about triumphalist.

    You'll notice that usually those who lean Left politically are uncomfortable with religious imagery, and are extremely discomfitted by triumphalism in history.

    If this is true, they have just proven that neither above is true.

    It was just that they wanted to determine what religious allegory should really be, and then wanted to pat themselves on the back without an ounce of humility when it was achieved.

    Human beings are so hypocritical. All of us. Why can't we just be honest and say we like things sometimes, but only when we're doing it?

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Sat Feb 14, 02:40:00 pm GMT-5  

  • Maybe. She's also not rejecting the task. Just as I have yet to hear Barry say, "Stop comparing me to JFK". Where's Lloyd Bentsen when you need him?

    Exactly, neither of the Obamas are rejecting the imposition of history.

    I'm not sure if you remember the photo shoot by Tyra Banks back in 2008, when she dressed up as...Michelle Obama...dressed up as Jackie Kennedy?

    At the time, I thought it was kinda funny in an Abercrombie & Fitch catalogue way.

    But when even The Blog Snob blogger considers a bit creepy and forced, you know you're on to something.

    It's not Michelle who is being slammed by the creep label, but Tyra. Nevertheless, you can see the meme being pushed by all concerned.

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Sat Feb 14, 02:46:00 pm GMT-5  

  • Oh, also, nice call on noticing the overexposed quality of the photograph, Anon.

    That's what really makes the Jackie O version so sexy, but in a playful way, not a man-eater way.

    And try as one might, with one's best will in the world, the word "playful" will never ever be associated with Michelle Obama.

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Sat Feb 14, 02:49:00 pm GMT-5  

  • Okay, last comment I promise!

    Apropos to the upper-middle class hotel comment:

    Do you guys remember this commercial by Kohler?

    An Eurosnob architect is recounting all his fabled designs in this and that capital, when he sits down, and pompously inquires of a yuppy couple, "So what can I do for you?".

    The woman, an officious, challenging sort with a mannish voice to be found in hundreds of offices around the world, plonks a faucet on the man's desk, and commands:

    "Design a house around this"

    That, to me, is Michelle Obama.

    I could never in a million years imagine Jacqueline Kennedy saying that to IM Pei about the JFK Centre, or about anything.

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Sat Feb 14, 03:00:00 pm GMT-5  

  • Victoria: When successful people like Michelle Obama furnish their homes, it looks like a 5-star hotel. That's their reference point of luxury.

    Yes, exactly. I find the same dynamic among my peers 40-something children, it's either Elle Decor or Pottery Barn depending on economic status.

    The current crop of celebrity interior designers share much of the blame. Look at Kelly Wurtzler, for example, the woman dresses like an explosion in a Goodwill donation box and her rooms are over edited period derivatives awash in pricey tchotchkies, yet the elite clamour for more.

    Don't get me started on Jonathan Adler's hideous pottery (the lamp behind Michelle?), "happy chic" and gosh awful colorways. Ugh.

    Sister Parrish must be spinning in her grave.

    By Blogger BJM, at Sat Feb 14, 03:08:00 pm GMT-5  

  • Yes, exactly. I find the same dynamic among my peers 40-something children, it's either Elle Decor or Pottery Barn depending on economic status.

    You know, I cannot say this is entirely a BAD thing. Maybe it's a little boring and obvious, but not bad as in "Oh God, what are they thinking?".

    It's like the Martha Stewart collection at K-mart (yes! I've seen it).

    Old Martha, who I do not like, has a really nice design pattern and colours going on, with affordable prices.

    The 1970s equivalent for women who wanted to keep a nice home on a budget would've been plasticky, bake-lite crap and the most hideous brown shag carpet you've ever seen.

    So it's not the impulse I decry. Michelle Obama isn't letting me down with that boring vanilla Thomasville look to her furniture.

    It's just that it's not the real McCoy that Jackie Kennedy had coming out of her pores.

    You know?

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Sat Feb 14, 03:16:00 pm GMT-5  

  • P.S.: Sister Parrish! I could hug you.

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Sat Feb 14, 03:18:00 pm GMT-5  

  • Zach, your comment would make more sense if the (mostly) right-wing commenters here weren't lavishing praise on Jackie Kennedy.

    Well, sure. Jackie's a safe (partly because she's dead, partly because she was never an ideological punching bag of the right), First Lady for conservatives to use, but this is all apples and oranges.

    Comparing Michelle to Jackie is like comparing Barack to Lincoln: tiresome and incongruous.

    By Blogger Zachary Paul Sire, at Sat Feb 14, 03:58:00 pm GMT-5  

  • Comparing Michelle to Jackie is like comparing Barack to Lincoln: tiresome and incongruous.

    Not to mention utterly unoriginal.

    By Blogger chickenlittle, at Sat Feb 14, 04:11:00 pm GMT-5  

  • It's (the Vogue cover) a sad commentary on the unspoken and appalling racism of the Left.

    The First Lady the World Has been Waiting For?

    The only way I can get that to make sense is that Michelle Obama is BLACK.

    Is it because she's a lawyer? (And actually, I think she hasn't been licensed for a couple years ...) Hillary is a lawyer.

    Is it because she made almost $300,000 a year (at a job her husband's connections created)? Hillary made a third of that on a cattle trade deal in 5 minutes.

    Is it because she's a mother in the White House? Rosylyn Carter anyone?

    Is it becasue Michelle Obama is tall? Eleanor Roosevelt was just as tall, if not a tad taller.

    What precisely makes Michelle Obama the First Lady the World has been Waiting for?

    Apparently it's because she's BLACK.

    What the hey!!??

    Who knew? Who cared?

    Obviously some people at Vogue. Who (wrongly) think they speak for me.

    By Blogger JAL, at Sat Feb 14, 04:11:00 pm GMT-5  

  • The other appalling thing about all this is the complete lack of humility on the part of President Obama (and Michelle too, I sense)with this worship thing going on. He plants and cultivates the Lincoln, FDR, JFK thing, not to mention "I won."

    In a heart beat he could put a lid on the adoration.

    To ask the question "why doesn't he?" means we have to think in troubled directions.

    It's going to be a long four years.

    By Blogger JAL, at Sat Feb 14, 04:16:00 pm GMT-5  

  • Both she and Barack should better manage their images to avoid such comparisons. In the end, it lessens their own value as original benchmarks

    BTW, Michelle looks like she could bench press Barack in that photo.

    By Blogger chickenlittle, at Sat Feb 14, 04:24:00 pm GMT-5  

  • Oh, also, nice call on noticing the overexposed quality of the photograph, Anon.

    That was me. I don't know how I ended up being Anon. I guess I still have to figger out this computer doohickey. (I could swear I hit the right radio button...)

    And try as one might, with one's best will in the world, the word "playful" will never ever be associated with Michelle Obama.

    Compare her to Laura Bush. You know when Laura Bush walks into a kindergarten class she's going to talk to the kids on their level and make some effort to show some interest in what they're doing. Michelle Obama, OTOH, looks as though she'd be busy telling them how to avoid making messes.

    You know, I cannot say this is entirely a BAD thing. Maybe it's a little boring and obvious, but not bad as in "Oh God, what are they thinking?".

    Partly due to it's obnoxiousness, I think neauvou riche is quintessentially American whereas old money is reminiscent of European-style aristocracy. American neauvou riche says, "I'm an entrepreneur, I worked for my money, and now I'm showing it off," whereas old money style says, "This was all handed down to me".

    Comparing Michelle to Jackie is like comparing Barack to Lincoln: tiresome and incongruous.

    I tell you what, Zach, you can call us tiresome and incongruous when the Obamas stop pushing this notion that they're the Kennedys reincarnate. Look at the comparison photos Victoria posted and tell me it's just a coincidence that the poses are almost exactly the same and that Michelle Obama had no idea what was going on.

    By Anonymous Starless, at Sat Feb 14, 04:45:00 pm GMT-5  

  • (partly because she's dead, partly because she was never an ideological punching bag of the right)

    Zach, did you read the newspapers of the 1950s and 60s about this AT ALL?

    Jacqueline Kennedy was absolutely reviled by the average American public for her snooty debutante ways.

    She received poison pen letters by the sackful about her big ole hair, her clothes (they thought her penchant for sleeveless dress indecent!), her whispery voice, etc. etc. Leticia Baldridge, who was at school with her, before becoming her press secretary, said the mail contained some of the vilest things she had ever heard people say.

    Of course, this was Democrats, as much as Republicans, so I'm not sure if you would count that.

    But let's just say that being Jackie Kennedy's champion, even today, is not exactly popular.

    Vide Starless' comments. ;)

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Sat Feb 14, 05:37:00 pm GMT-5  

  • JAL, I'll actually throw Anna Wintour and the Vogue crew a bone -- I don't think it's because she is black that they said that.

    Rather, I think they used that headline because of the perception that she isn't a frumpy First Lady, nor is she old.

    IOW, it's the style, stupid. ;)

    (Not you!)

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Sat Feb 14, 05:40:00 pm GMT-5  

  • Look at the comparison photos Victoria posted and tell me it's just a coincidence that the poses are almost exactly the same and that Michelle Obama had no idea what was going on.

    She had to know what was going on. She HAD TO.

    The tell-tale signs are the following.

    1- The sleeveless, plainly Jackie O type dress and colour which she made famous (that colour is reminiscent of the Dealy Plaza Chanel suit).

    2- The pose (almost exact).

    3- The background composition, including curtains.

    Coincidence, my foot.

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Sat Feb 14, 05:43:00 pm GMT-5  

  • But let's just say that being Jackie Kennedy's champion, even today, is not exactly popular.

    You sure? Whenever I hear talk about her, it's always in gushing terms.

    Vide Starless' comments. ;)

    Hey, now. I really have no animosity towards the woman--it's the phenomena I don't get. And, in particular, the persistence of the mythos. Maybe I just don't have that empathy gene they're talking about.

    One thing I really don't get is that I've always heard that you Brits are supposed to be all jaded when it comes to royalty, so what gives with you and the Kennedys?

    By Anonymous Starless, at Sat Feb 14, 07:25:00 pm GMT-5  

  • It must be extremely difficult as well as challenging to be in the least bit successful when so many people desire to see you fail and actually wait with baited breath until you do something of which they can find some fault. Do we hold ourselves up to the same yardstick that we use to judge those that we do not necessarily agree with because of political, religious or racial bias? As for the comparisons between the two first ladies, they do not have much in common considering their backgrounds. But I will say that Jackie O was the consumate lady, gracious and worldly without condescension. I imagine she would have treated Michelle with great respect and would never have lowered her own standards to make crass comparisons. I believe I will try to be as congenial.

    By Blogger Caroline, at Sat Feb 14, 07:36:00 pm GMT-5  

  • Starless and others about the Kennedy's - I am tired of them too. My family - -1st generation Irish Catholic Americans - always hated them. My grandmother would flip out and yell "turn the channel" when Maria Shriver came on between programs for a "news brief." They hated they played the saw of "poor Irish catholics made good," when they know Joe made his fortunes bootlegging.

    Victoria, she had her fans (she was an international sensation - the pill box hat craze - look at all of the covers of Life of her alone) and detractors in the White House, but was sainted for a while as a widow.

    Then she married Ari Onassis and boom. Then she became the most hated woman.

    Her redemption came with how well her children turned out, she got a job and that she always kept her dignity (never gave interviews - never played to the peanut gallery) and women began to sympathize the deals she made with the devil (Onassis) to get out from under the purse strings of her mother in law Rose Kennedy.

    This all took place in 20 years.

    Nothing to do with politics Zachary Paul Sire, all to do with how women feel about other women.

    By Blogger CarmelaMotto, at Sat Feb 14, 08:03:00 pm GMT-5  

  • Caroline, if only Michelle was as gracias as you are.

    Jackie would never complain about how much money she makes, tell crowds "my husband won't let you" do this or that, say that for the first time in her life, she is proud to be an American. Etc, etc.

    She is Hillary, not Jackie and that's personality, not politics.

    By Blogger CarmelaMotto, at Sat Feb 14, 08:07:00 pm GMT-5  

  • Another thing. Jackie is apolitical. She never got into politics.

    She is like Diana that way.

    Diana, according to Tina Brown and other biographers, use to hope to have the kind of aura Jackie did. Diana wouldn't have that aura, even if she had lived, because she couldn't keep her mouth shut and constantly tried to manipulate the media.

    God knows what Jackie thought of her husbands or gentlemen friends (Maurice) because she never spoke a word about them or anyone else. Such a rare thing.

    By Blogger CarmelaMotto, at Sat Feb 14, 08:13:00 pm GMT-5  

  • Nobody can compare to Laura Bush. She is the bomb. So to speak.

    By Blogger Trooper York, at Sat Feb 14, 08:22:00 pm GMT-5  

  • Jackie O had a superb sense of style in an elegant and classy manner much missed today. She just blew it when she married for money. The second time.

    Michelle Obama would do well to copy her as much as she can.

    By Blogger Trooper York, at Sat Feb 14, 08:25:00 pm GMT-5  

  • Starless and others about the Kennedy's - I am tired of them too.

    The only Kennedy who really grinds my gears is Teddy. What with the drinking and the manslaughtering and the corruption... It's the Kennedy clan worshippers and, frankly, the voters in Mass. who make me scratch my head.

    JFK was young, good-looking, talked pretty, and got assassinated. Otherwise, he was pretty middle-of-the-road politically and, by default, didn't accomplish a whole lot as president.

    I get it about all of the tragedy. But, you know, everybody's got tragedy in their lives. Death, destruction, betrayal. What makes theirs any worse than anyone else's?

    By Anonymous Starless, at Sat Feb 14, 10:33:00 pm GMT-5  

  • Trooper, I've always thought Jackie knew exactly what she was doing when she married Onassis. You do recall her remark after Bobby was killed,"If they're killing Kennedys, then my children are targets."

    We forget that Onassis was the wealthiest and most powerful individual in the Western world at the time. Onassis could provide a security bubble that not even the Secret Service could match. The marriage and departure from the US allowed her to break free of a cloying martyrdom.

    Jackie may have made a bargain but I suspect it was on her terms and to her liking. It is said that Onassis bragged to men friends "Five times in one night... She's superior to every woman that I've already met."

    One can only imagine Callas's fury when such gossip reached her ear and makes one wonder what the hell was wrong with Jack.

    However according to sexual conventional wisdom; no matter how hot a woman is, there's a guy who is tired of her.

    By Blogger BJM, at Sat Feb 14, 11:30:00 pm GMT-5  

  • Starless, I'm really surprised you would say this:

    I get it about all of the tragedy. But, you know, everybody's got tragedy in their lives. Death, destruction, betrayal. What makes theirs any worse than anyone else's?

    I am reminded of a (Lefty) cousin of mine, who said the same thing about the death of the Queen Mother in 2002. "People die every day. No one celebrates their lives, nor deaths. Why her and not them?".

    Now, this is not your sentiment exactly, but it strikes me that at its heart it is the same feeling.

    Because it's almost as if people are saying that because we don't commemorate ALL, that we should omit to commemorate this one.

    (Whichever one, not just the Queen Mum)

    I find it a really small-spirited reaction, especially when dealing with historical characters.

    I suppose at the end of the day people are attracted to certain others because something in their life's trajectory calls to them.

    Take me, for example.

    Princess Diana came to Oxford once for a ceremony, and I couldn't even be bothered to walk the few blocks from my college to the Sheldonian to watch her. An opportunity lost.

    To be totally honest, I didn't like her, I didn't find her lifestory fascinating, nor did I terribly respect her.

    (I didn't like what Carmela mentioned already -- her penchant to run to the press and cry foul about her situation. I found it very undignified and Oprahfied)

    Like Jacqueline Kennedy and the Kennedys in general, Diana's life in retrospect was rather Greek in tragedic scope.

    But whereas the Kennedys have this grandiose quality about them, which has to do with their Us-Against-The-World attitude (it's a very Irish thing, that -- the Irish have an almost preternatural inferiority complex and are consequently very alive to any opposition to them, making them punchy beyond belief), the poor Princess seemed vaguely inconsequential.

    The Kennedys made history happen to them, almost at every turn in their story. Princess Diana had history happen to her...

    It's a CRUCIAL difference for me, and one which explains just one aspect of why I have a CERTAIN regard for this quixotic people.

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Sat Feb 14, 11:44:00 pm GMT-5  

  • One can only imagine Callas's fury when such gossip reached her ear and makes one wonder what the hell was wrong with Jack.

    The received wisdom about that is that Rose Kennedy was a cold maternal fish, and he went in search of a woman's comfort ever after (the same is true of the Duke of Windsor and many other womanisers).

    However according to sexual conventional wisdom; no matter how hot a woman is, there's a guy who is tired of her.

    That is very true, alas.

    The ONLY thing that I ever heard come out of Bill Maher's mouth that was ever wise or true is this.

    He was describing the male penchant to cheat. He said to the women in the audience, it doesn't matter if you're drop dead gorgeous, for men it doesn't matter.

    "There are not two kinds of women for men -- ugly or beautiful. There is only OLD and NEW. Sorry."

    He's an awful misogynist, and a general idiot, but I'm afraid from everything I have seen in life, that conclusion is right.

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Sat Feb 14, 11:50:00 pm GMT-5  

  • P.S.: I know most people will scoff, but I really think that my dear old dad is an exception to that "rule".

    Which of us really and truly know what our parents got up to in their lives, but of my two parents, I would put my hand in the fire for my dad.

    That man is almost obsessively uxorious. He once told me if anything happened to my mother, that he would jump out of the balcony the next moment...

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Sat Feb 14, 11:52:00 pm GMT-5  

  • Trooper, I've always thought Jackie knew exactly what she was doing when she married Onassis. You do recall her remark after Bobby was killed,"If they're killing Kennedys, then my children are targets."

    THAT is the reason I never, in reading about her, had the real-time distaste about her decision that others had.

    What Trooper mentioned is very correct. Had JKO died any time from 1969-1975, her obsequies would've been riddled with abuse by the public.

    I mean, the American public's hatred for her was INTENSE after she married Onassis. Check out the newspapers and tabloids of the time -- wow. Women especially found her whorish.

    There is an account of some close friend complaining that if Jacqueline Kennedy had married a blond, blue-eyed All-American aristo like George Plimpton, that the animosity wouldn't have been as intense.

    Maybe. But I honestly believe that this poor woman was supposed to be America's Queen Victoria -- in perpetual, post-virginal celibacy until her death. When she broke out of that mold, they never forgave her.

    My point is that her decisions were not easy to understand. Less to forgive. But who are we to forgive? It's not our lives to live, it is theirs.

    It's almost as if we have some custodial demand on their existences, and we are disgusted and attracted in turns, due our national attachment. It's what propels gossip mags like Hello! or People, etc.

    Frankly, I find this attitude baffling.

    I am not anyone's cheerleader, nor their parent. They are people whose lives are observable, same as mine. But that's it.

    Cheers,
    Victoria

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Sun Feb 15, 12:03:00 am GMT-5  

  • imagine she would have treated Michelle with great respect and would never have lowered her own standards to make crass comparisons. I believe I will try to be as congenial.

    I respect that attitude, Caroline. You are quite correct in it.

    Furthermore, I believe you are right about the late Mrs. Kennedy's attitude. She certainly treated Hillary Clinton with a lot of affection, just before her death.

    But you know, Jackie Kennedy was no saint. What made her heroic to me was her absolute silence about her life, to the point seeming strange about it. She refused to speak about the assassination in public, she never gave interviews to ANYONE (I heard from a friend that BabaWawa had a million dollar offer on the table for an interview -- back when that was a buttload of money), unless it was about her pet projects like Grand Central station.

    All of this is admirable, but in private she could be a real beeotch. She was nasty to many people, on purpose.

    She also loved her "role" and allegedly practised facial expressions, movements like getting out of cars, and put on a phony whispery voice in public, because she had an image of herself she wanted others to believe was real.

    In other words, she could be a bit fake.

    What wasn't fake was her genuine (and very impressive) intellect, her excellent maternal instincts after her husband's death, as well as her ability to reinvent herself, several times before her death.

    I also appreciate that she held her "brand" in such esteem, that she didn't constantly debase it like her sister did, e.g., by being omnipresent in NY society.

    When Truman Capote threw that amazing Black-White Ball, she was one of the very very few people invited who didn't show up.

    EVERYONE who was anyone in the 1960s was there. It was really cafe society's last hurrah.

    But Jackie Kennedy? Nope. Like Elizabeth II who doesn't ride around in bicycles and buy her undies at Harrods in person, unlike other European Queens, she held herself a little aloof because of the historical role she occupied.

    By Blogger vbspurs, at Sun Feb 15, 12:22:00 am GMT-5  

  • Vicks write: Rather, I think they used that headline because of the perception that she isn't a frumpy First Lady, nor is she old.

    IOW, it's the style, stupid. ;)


    I didn't notice Nancy Reagan was a frump. She had style. (But she was Republican, so she got trashed for the dinnerware.)

    And if Vogue (sniff) thinks it's the style, (Jackie K wanter2bee picture including couch curtain and lamp....) why are there 30 plus comments (I'm subtracting some for the the non-style ones) about how *not* stylish this cover (and Micehelle) is? How not Jackie she is?

    Is Vogue missing something?

    And why is this who The World is waiting for.

    I'm dying of hyperbole.

    By Blogger JAL, at Sun Feb 15, 02:04:00 am GMT-5  

  • Because it's almost as if people are saying that because we don't commemorate ALL, that we should omit to commemorate this one.

    Its really the personal-ness with which people who aren't even remotely involved take these sorts of tragedies. I agree that the death of JFK and RFK were great losses to the country (regardless of my own partisanship, such as it is) and I agree that Jackie O's personal tragedies are terrible. At the same time, I think the loss of someone like Isaac Asimov was an even greater tragedy and loss. One of the greatest minds this nation has ever seen was taken down by a botched, fairly routine, operation that gave him AIDS. To my mind, all of those involved in botching that operation should have been held criminally liable not only because of the loss of the individual life, but because of the damage they did to the nation's intelligence.

    Then again, shit happens and it happens to all of us.

    I suppose the heart of my complaint is that feeding the Kennedy mythos feeds the notion of American Royalty. This IMO is antithetical to what America means.

    the Irish have an almost preternatural inferiority complex and are consequently very alive to any opposition to them, making them punchy beyond belie

    Hehe. Jonathon Swift (who was Irish) was always very critical of his people saying something to the effect of, "the problem with the Irish is the Irish".

    By Anonymous Starless, at Sun Feb 15, 09:06:00 am GMT-5  

  • "But whereas the Kennedys have this grandiose quality about them, which has to do with their Us-Against-The-World attitude (it's a very Irish thing, that -- the Irish have an almost preternatural inferiority complex and are consequently very alive to any opposition to them, making them punchy beyond belief)."

    I have to say this is true, speaking as an Irish American and the 2nd generation born here, it doesn't go AWAY.

    This is going to sound terrible, but I tend not to like Irish (people from the country, not the American version). I have yet to meet one (I am sure they exist!) that doesn't have some freakin' chip on his or her shoulder. So tiresome. Frankly, I have enough of that to deal with in my family with the "shanty Irish" (look at this old picture, does it look like shanty Irish to you? no Aunt Mary...) vs. the "lace curtain (look at them with their airs!)" and the 50 year old grudges.

    But I have to admit some sort of genetic pre-disposition to the same reactions to things. Bugs me so I rationalize the irrational away. : )

    And somehow with the Irish the conversation always turns to "we built this country!" BS. I want to say, no, you didn't, my grandparents and other immigrants did, so shut that 'ole in your face! But I just excuse myself and walk away.... Aaach...

    By Blogger CarmelaMotto, at Sun Feb 15, 01:08:00 pm GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Who linked Here:

Create a Link

<< Home


 




Advertise on blogs
British Expat Blog Directory.