THE RIGHT TO BARE ARMS

Well, the latest great debate out of Washington, D.C. isn’t about the economy or the war in Iraq. It’s Michelle Obama’s choice of attire for her “official White House portrait.” Last night when I saw the America On Line link that read Is First Lady’s Dress Too Risque?, I clicked on it faster than you can say, “Leather hot pants and a bare midriff.”

Man, what a letdown. Now, for those of you who haven’t yet seen the picture, she’s wearing a basic black dress. No, it’s not short, and it’s not low-cut, and it doesn’t have any peek-a-boo cutouts. It’s (for shame) sleeveless!!!! How dare she show off her bare arms! Where is her dignity? --the fashion critics ask.

Since I haven’t worn anything resembling a dress in four months, I don’t profess to be an expert on style, but I can’t, for the life of me, understand what’s wrong with Mrs. O’s choice. I love my scrawny, 11” biceps, and I have drawers full of summer tank tops to prove it. If I had well-toned arms like she has, I’d be showing off those babies every chance possible. It's not as though we're living in a Puritan society.

I could maybe understand the big to-do if her arms were bearing garish tattoos that say something like, “Born to Raise Hell,” “Democracy Sucks,“ or “Republicans Rock,” but it all looks pretty harmless to me. I think the D.C. Fashion Police need to calm down and make their citizens’ arrests elsewhere--perhaps look in the mirror and nitpick on themselves.