Millions of eyes will feast on Michelle Obama's attire for Inauguration Day, and no detail will go undigested.
Jewel colours or winter white? Perfectly simple or a theatrical flourish that show-cases the ingenuity of American design? Designer, with impeccable ethnic-minority credentials (that would be someone with Mayflower ancestors, then), or all-American waspy gods such as Calvin Klein or Ralph Lauren (both of whom are, inevitably, Jewish - see how complicated this ethnic thing is)?
And the plot thickens. The inaugural gown, according to Carl Sferrazza Anthony, a historian who has written extensively about First Ladies, is a metaphor for the role. No wonder that speculation surrounding Michelle Obama's outfits threatens to rival the great Labradoodle versus Portuguese water dog debate and possibly even overtake theories about Madonna's new, new face. When Women's Wear Daily (WWD), the fashion industry gospel, recently ran 35 sketches of proposals from some of the world's leading, and lesser known, designers, its website received six million hits. Revenge of the fashion nerd or what? This is important, not just because in view of the Carla (Bruni) effect, America is crying out for a stylish First Lady after decades of what can most kindly be described as matronly chic in the White House, but because what Mrs O wears is likely to end up one day in the Smithsonian, one of America's most venerated museums.
And so the fever continues. Sheath or pouff? Satin or lace? Glittery or understated? Will she plump for a pillar of White House dressing, such as Oscar de la Renta, a slick designer of patrician South American extraction who understands every nuance of political protocol and who has successfully dressed Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush? Or will she remain loyal to Maria Pinto, an unknown name until about six minutes ago, but one who has so far served her very well? Or might she throw caution to the wind on the basis that you only live once and to hell with the patriots, and go for something French to show that she's backing her husband's new, Euro-friendly promises?
The blogosphere is phosphorescent with rumour and, for once, the blogosphere may have a point. For all the fireworks surrounding the clothes that women in the public eye wear today, a surprisingly small number of outfits become totemic. Diana's wildly romantic wedding meringue on an uncharacteristically hot July day in London, 1981; the demure, pink bouclée suit that Jackie Kennedy wore in Dallas the afternoon that JFK was assassinated in 1963; Dior's New Look suit, launched on an incredulous, glamour-starved public in 1947 - have become freighted with a social significance that elevates their aesthetics into eloquent parcels of visual history.
Because of the exceptional nature of her husband's election - landslide, replacing a spectacularly unpopular predecessor, time of crisis, first black family in the White House - whatever she chooses, Michelle Obama's inauguration dresses or suits will join those few, featuring alongside them in history books and countless front pages and blogs. So, while the good news is that every designer in the world would kill for this commission (yup, this is even bigger than dressing Angelina for the Oscars), the bad news is that, whatever she chooses, somewhere, someone will a) massacre it; b) ridicule her; c) discover that it cost an absurd amount, or d) reveal that it was economical, but only because the beads were hand-sewn by grossly underpaid illegal immigrants sweating night and day in New York's garment district. What should be a fun, once-in-a-lifetime, “child let loose in a sweet shop experience” will be a nightmare.
First Lady dresses are always important in their way - pored over for signs and hidden statements of intent, they inevitably become symbols of the incoming President's belief system. The one-shouldered, beaded James Galanos dress that Nancy Reagan chose in 1981 confirmed her husband's critics - it was too Hollywood, she was too thin (ergo, brittle). The power-shouldered $46,000 sheath that she wore four years later didn't do the trick, either. Too extravagant.The off-the-rack blue chiffon dress and gold sleeveless coat that Rosalynn Carter wore in 1977 bombed too. Too frugal. She'd worn it once already - to her husband's gubernatorial celebrations. It puts picking a wedding frock into perspective.
Not all First Lady inauguration outfits have been memorable, mind you - and during two world wars and the Great Depression the ball was abandoned, resurrected in 1949. After that, the gloves were off. Or on, depending on the cold and the etiquette of the day. The sparkling V-neck, fitted Oscar de la Renta gown chosen by Laura Bush for the 2005 ball was characteristically elegant and flattering (she's a surprisingly skilful First Lady dresser, as sure-footed as her husband is maladroit), but perhaps because it was so predictably suitable, it failed to generate much tailwind and, chances are, it won't resonate much in fashion historians' dreams. Her mother-in-law's royal blue, taffeta and velvet, drop-waisted Arnold Scaasi in 1989 was similarly age-appropriate, and, other than being a last hurrah for 1980s pouffy skirts and, ahem, shoulder-padded velvet bodices, is pretty unremarkable.
More noteworthy - but in terms only of some splenetic contemporaneous bitching - was the royal blue bumper-brimmed hat that Hillary Clinton wore to Bill's 1993 swearing-in ceremony, designed by the eye-catchingly named and only-in-America Darcy Creech. It became known forever as the Oh-God-What-is-That? Hat. The frumpy fuchsia checked tweed sub-Chanel suit that accompanied it was a bit of a blinder, too, but it has been largely forgotten, even though it was subjected to robust criticism at the time. Then again, which of Hillary's early First Lady outfits wasn't? Lady Bird Johnson's acid yellow, architectural A-line, silk gown didn't exactly go down a storm either (in 1965), although maybe because the colour is very fashionable this year, and those stiff Sixties shapes have become classics, it looks good from a distance of 40 years.
And so we stumble across yet another dilemma for First Ladies: whether to play to your global audience (six billion and counting, no pressure there then) or to take posterity and gazillions of self-appointed, future fashion gurus into account. Either way, it's impossible, even for someone with as much goodwill surrounding them as Michelle Obama, for an inauguration frock to escape scrutiny - she'd only been First Lady-elect for seven seconds before the arrows rained down on her red and black Narciso Rodriguez victory rally dress.
On her side, however, is her innate sense of style - there are no pictures of Obama in which she even begins to approach Hillary Clinton's state-of-the-art dishevelment prior to her eight years in the White House. In fact, there is no evidence of her looking less than well turned out at all times. She also has a good body - tall, statuesque, toned and slim enough to be a gift to designers, without any potentially troublesome hint of Nancy Reagan's scrawniness or Pat Nixon's neurotic boniness.
Bottom line, she's a good-looking woman who knows her way around upmarket labels (in the past year she has worn, among more predictable names, Thakoon and Rodarte, both up and coming darlings of New York Fashion Week). Fashionable, in a user-friendly way, she even made it onto Vanity Fair's 2008 Best Dressed list. She can wear just about any colour and she's the first First Lady since Jackie Kennedy who can anoint trends and sell out a dress (viz, the black and white sundress she wore to guest host ABC's The View). As Peter Som, another New York talent, says: “What she wears has a huge impact on fashion. From day one she has shown her own modern style that many women can identify with or aspire to.” For an industry reeling from the recession, what's not to like?
They'll find something. Because ultimately these outfits are sartorial landmines waiting to happen. They must transcend class, colour and financial barriers. Ideally they should impress, endear and unite. Really it's like asking a blanket to bring world peace, and be fascinating at the same time. On a slightly more attainable level, Letitia Baldridge, a former social secretary to Jackie Kennedy recently noted of Mrs Obama: “It would be wrong for today's First Lady to go around like a princess all the time. But I think it would be very wrong when she's on an official job to be dressed too casually. She's always got to be a bit above.” In short, if her husband is President, “she always has to watch everything ”. And you thought it was just a dress.
