Posted on 10/28/2009 12:56:59 PM PDT by pissant
NEW YORK — U.S. first lady Michelle Obama is fashion's star, but that's not why she's one of Glamour's December cover models.
Mrs. Obama's work in mentoring earned her the spot, which will be rotated with four other covers. She'll receive a special recognition in the annual Women of the Year issue that goes on newsstands Nov. 10.
In an interview with new Glamour columnist and CBS anchor Katie Couric, Mrs. Obama said being a role model is one of the most potentially powerful things she can do at the White House.
"I see how little bits of exposure and big bits of exposure really change my girls significantly, and I want that for more girls around the country and the world," she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
LOL!!
Are these people blind? The wench is a disaster with a belt to draw attention way from her monster ass.
Well she’s certainly dressed to impress.
Holiday Commie red
It would be more appropriate to feature her as the cover girl on the “Marxist Weekly,” or Pravda.
Remember, George Costanza used Glamour to relieve himself int ‘The Contest” lol
Remember, George Costanza used Glamour to relieve himself int ‘The Contest” lol
I puked in my mouth.
How to eat, drink and not gain weight???? I am buying this issue!!!!
There is certainly nothing glamorous about the Mrs. Marxist in charge!
What’s with the hands and arms?
Some kind of signal to the other Muzzies?
Dear God, please let me wake up from this nightmare!
ROTFLOL
Wow!.....Chewbacca would love this.
She has an “adam’s apple.”
I swear I see an adam’s apple.
She looks fine, you guys need to relax on this subject ...
Photo Shopped! They almost gave her a waistline.
Even all dressed up, with hair assistants, makeup artists, lighting and ‘post-production’ work, the woman is just singularly unattractive. Stand up straight, already! Glamour? Hardly...
She looks fine in this shot because the stylists worked on her and chose a classy dress that flatters her for a change. But she is not fine when left to her own devices.
They call it hydroquinone
African companies buy it from America by the container load
That's what I was wondering. What a weird hand position.
Other than that, she really doesn't look any worse than most of the skanks who usually grace the cover. Or am I thinking of Cosmopolitan?
On the cover I looked for something like...
Michelle Obama, 12 Reasons to Throw Up - Page 45
Didn’t find it.
That was good enough for a number one for me.
She is rich she goes to the doctor. She is Michelle OBAMA she not be rubbing cream all over her.
She’s bootyfull.
Positively bootyfull!
Looking at the picture again, I just figured it out: The dress she’s wearing accentuates the waist—something she doesn’t have. So she’s blocking the view with her arms, making it look like her torso is much more slender than it really is.
LOL! I needed a good laugh.
The hands and arms were put in that position, to make it appear that she had a tiny waist,they hid the flesh, much like she is finally learning to stand with one leg in front of the other, to hide her bow legs... that has been a fad for a long time with women with larger legs, it makes them appear smaller.
Is this Scrappleface?
Yeah what’s with that I saw pics of her beyond bow legged her legs were spread out standing???
Cabela's and Ducks Unlimited, I believe.
sure to astound and befuddle some future archaeologist when he finds a copy 8000 years from now....
Man that’s just wrong on so many levels.....
I too think she looks fine. In fact, she looks very lovely and feminine on the cover.
The sad part for Michele Obama is the fact she is being made into a fashion icon and for someone who is an Attorney and did all that Community work, etc...seems she has been relegated to being just someone who makes the papers because of what she wears.
I am not a fan of Barack or Michele. No way, no how. But...this cover looks very nice and I have to give credit where it is due or not say anything at all.
YUCK!
Be sure to see Glamour’s 3 page fold out featuring Michelles other side!!
For every Michele thread I would add "chewbacca" and "wookie" to the list of keywords.
The moderator told me to stop, or I would be banned.
But yeah, wookie wookie wookie!
It’s not a bad dress. At least someone wrestled the damn boob belt away from her for once.
Just another media op, (yawn).
I think the magazine did a good job on her. I also think it is a mistake for conservatives to make a lot of snide remarks about her looks. It sounds catty.
As human beings go, she is neither particularly ugly or pretty. She does look fairly healthy, but what do I know. There have been uglier and prettier “First Ladies.” If the Left wants to swoon over her attractiveness and stylishness, let them. It only makes them look sillier.
It’s not the physical beauty or lack of it that bothers me about the occupants of the White House.
Can someone kindly tell me what the heck she is talking about? She wants girls around the world to be exposed?
Wow they did a lot of work on that picture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.