Mrs. O on the hook in IG-Gate?

The Washington Times raises interesting questions:

In the past 10 days, two major developments have occurred. First, Obama administration attorneys continued their efforts to deny Mr. Walpin his day in court. On Dec. 7, they filed reply briefs rearguing their demand that the case be dismissed without even a hearing. Second, Rep. Darrell Issa of California and Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, both Republicans, have openly questioned the honesty of CNCS Chairman Alan D. Solomont. Most explosively of all, dirty deeds may have been employed to hide extensive involvement in the affair by the office of first lady Michelle Obama, whom the White House months earlier had announced would play "a central role in the national service agenda." . . .
Mr. Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, wrote a scathing letter to Mr. Solomont on Dec. 11. Parts of it are worth quoting at length:
"After Mr. Walpin's removal, there was speculation in the press that former Chief of Staff to the First Lady Jackie Norris may have influenced the President's action because she left the White House to become a senior advisor at CNCS around the time of Mr. Walpin's removal. Accordingly, Committee investigators specifically asked if you discussed any Corporation business, including the issues relating to the Corporation's Office of Inspector General, with Ms. Norris. You indicated that you did not. ... The White House announced on June 4, 2009 that Ms. Norris had been appointed Senior Advisor to the Corporation. ... In light of all this, it seems highly implausible that you would meet with Ms. Norris on June 9, 2009 and not discuss the IG," who was fired the very next day. . . . .
Mr. Issa is right to smell a rat, especially since White House aides reportedly cut short congressional staff questioning of Mr. Solomont when the line of questioning began to lead to Mrs. Obama. . . .

Read the rest. The inference of a cover-up is obvious, the evidence of an actual crime is less so. However, remember that the FBI has also been asking questions in the Walpin case. If anybody questioned in this case lies to the FBI, that's a crime. If anybody destroys evidence relevant to a federal investigation, that's another crime. The question is whether Obama administrations will begin snitching on one another, rather than to risk prison sentences.

I've said all along that this story -- not just Walpin/AmeriCorp but the other inspector general stories, including AmTrak and SIGTARP -- is not going to go away. Whether it results in a takedown of any major administration figure, there's enough here to keep making news for months to come.

Michelle Obama's Victimhood Card . . . Or, Who's Afraid of South Carolina?

Michelle Malkin is so stunned, she can't even get snarktastic at the incredible absurdity of this one:

U.S. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn said Friday that a conversation with White House staff left him with the sense that a hostile environment in South Carolina is keeping the first lady from visiting.
The high-ranking South Carolina Democrat said he has received more than 100 invitations for Michelle Obama. But this summer when he brought one of those requests to her staff on behalf of his alma mater, South Carolina State University, Clyburn said her security was an issue.
The conversation came after former Richland County GOP activist Rusty DePass suggested on Facebook in June that an escaped zoo gorilla was not harmful because it was probably one of Mrs. Obama’s ancestors. . . .

Hmmm. Is Rusty DePass one of those hateful Darwinists? Never mind. The idea that the First Lady of the United States has any legitimate fear of violence in South Carolina -- but is safe in ultra-violent places like Chicago and D.C. -- is so transparently bogus that not even Robert Gibbs would dare defend it.

Exit question: If the White House wants to stigmatize South Carolina this way, what are the chances that Obama will carry North Carolina and Virginia again in 2012? IYKWIMAITYD.

Gag me with Hope!

Deuce linked this Wall Street Journal column by William McGurn:

By choosing Fort Bragg for her first official trip outside the capital last Thursday, Michelle Obama signaled that she will use her position as First Lady to promote one of America's most deserving causes: our military families. Plainly the families loved it. Just look at the smiles on those children as she read them "The Cat in the Hat."
So it was just a little disconcerting the next morning to hear the First Lady explain how she came to this issue during last year's campaign. "I think I was like most Americans," she told ABC News. "Pretty oblivious to the life of military families. Sort of taking it for granted."
Perhaps Mrs. Obama did take these families for granted. Surely, however, it's extraordinary to suggest that "most Americans" did the same.

Right. Because there are no GIs in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood, they might as well not exist, eh? Yet Mrs. Obama was merely expressing the horrible tendency of elitists to assume that their own experience and their own perspective is universal and normative, whereas the Bible-and-gun-clingers in Appalachia . . .

Well, because the lives of those Other People don't measure up to Hyde Park standards, the elitist needs an explanation for why they don't measure up, an explanation that generally takes the form of a condescending (and politically convenient) assumption:

"Oh, they lack adequate health care and they need better schools and, if only it weren't for the greed and selfishness of those right-wing Republicans, we could turn these shiftless inbred peckerwoods into good and decent people like us!"

This is the whole rationale of Mrs. Obama treating military families as if they were helpless victims, charity cases whose primary needs are (a) more federal money, and (b) lots and lots of pity.

What Mrs. Obama wants is for the wives and children of our troops to embrace victimhood status as their political identity, to think of themselves as unable to cope with adversity and therefore in need of humanitarian intervention by those kind, generous Democrats in Washington.

'As the Britons have just become aware . . .

". . . Michelle Obama is one of those people who argues that a racist incident can be said to have occurred whenever the putative victim feels that it has occurred."

Michelle Obama's dresses panned

Ooooh, this is rich! Michelle Obama, who's been compared to Jackie Onassis about 10 zillion times, is being criticized for her inaugural wardrobe. First, there was her Isabel Toledo dress, which Newsday describes as "jewel-collared, pale yellow-gold lace coat, sweater and sheath dress ensemble," but which Amanda Carpenter describes thus:

The utter lack of ooh-ing and ah-ing over Michelle Obama's inauguration wear should tell you something. It was bad. . . . That split-pea/yellow color she wore . . . is impossible for 95 percent of women to carry off. I'd say Michelle is included in that number. She sure does seem to like that chartreuse-y tone, though.
The famous JCrew outfit she wrote on Jay Leno has the same color scheme.
If that particular hue becomes a crayola crayon, I think it should be named "sour sunshine."

Ooooh! Now, you may want to attribute Amanda's criticism to ideological bias, but when it comes to Mrs. O's ball gown designed by Jason Wu, the criticism was not limited to Fox News regulars. Newsday:

The dress, with a strap across one shoulder, ruched bodice, fluffy appliqués and sparkling beading, will (as tradition dictates) be donated to the Smithsonian. . . .
Not everyone loved it.
"It's an inauguration, not a prom," fashion personality and stylist Robert Verdi said.

And, as might be imagined, Amanda also gave thumbs-down to the gown:

I have nothing against an off-the shoulder, white gown (Nancy Reagan looked great in hers) but Michelle's ballgown was simply not flattering. The cut didn't do her statuesque figure any favors, in my humble opinion. . . .
Barbara Walters . . . said on The View, the other day, "I think you can tell what the Administration is going to be like by what the First Lady wears."
I wouldn't go that far, but it is fun for political women to talk political fashion. For all you men out there, understand clothes and makeup are like football for women. We can talk about it with anybody, it's a good icebreaker, it's always fun. We'll be saying "What did you think of Michelle's dress?" at the water coolers while you all are crying about your NFL team not making it to the Superbowl.

Or Alabama getting beat by Utah. But don't bring up those painful memories again, Amanda.

Ace of Spades: "Hey, nice dress. Who shot the curtains?" As Dan Riehl says, "So much for the new Ace for the new age.' "

UPDATE: Theodora Blanchfield:

Michelle Obama’s Isabel Toledo dress-and-long-coat combo, while beautiful, and a bold statement, I think was overkill for daytime. Too much sparkle.

It's like a fashion Rashomon.