The good news: At least they’ve got something in their online store now that might be considered vaguely witty or clever. Normally it’s just mirthless dreck like this.
The bad news: Not only was this predictable, it was predicted. And it remains the best reason to be annoyed at her for what was obviously just a cringeworthy oversight. The message she wore yesterday is destined to inspire endless self-congratulatory copycat rejoinders from Democrats, late-night TV, and other fellow travelers. We’ll be sifting through lame takes and related sanctimonious Internet detritus about her coat for the next month at least.
Learn from her mistake. Think carefully about your actions, lest they be memed.
There's “no hidden message” here. We like to keep it pretty straightforward. Donate $20.18 to get this shirt, and all proceeds will go toward defeating Trump-supporting Republicans this November. https://t.co/gMKvkwv5ti pic.twitter.com/DlxNIhAecU
— The Democrats (@TheDemocrats) June 22, 2018
Interesting take from tapped-in NYT reporter Maggie Haberman, who seems less sure that FLOTUS’s “oversight” was an oversight:
She is very different than her husband in a number of ways. Where she’s the same is that aides can’t dictate what she does. She will do what she wants. https://t.co/lcUgDNJdbd
— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) June 22, 2018
Is she suggesting that Mrs. T’s choice of coat was … deliberate? In that case, to whom was the message directed? The media, as POTUS claims? Someone else?
Lotta furrowed brows about it on CNN last night, in any case. Here’s the normally sensible Kirsten Powers calling this FLOTUS’s “Let them eat cake” moment. “I’m just going to take it at face value and say that Melania doesn’t care,” she sniffs of the inscription on the back of Mrs. Trump’s coat. But then why did she make the trip? They could have deputized anyone in the White House to do it, starting with Ivanka, who’s been getting shredded by her fellow liberals for keeping quiet during the child separation saga. There’s no reason to think Melania would have gone if she didn’t want to, per Haberman’s point. There *is* reason to think she wanted to go, per her surprising statement from a few days ago calling for an end to child separation. She lobbied Trump behind the scenes to end the policy too. There’s plenty of reason to think she cares. And if she does, it’s nonsensical that she’d intentionally broadcast a message of indifference on a trip she willingly undertook to convey the opposite.