The XX Factor: What women really think.

Hug, Handshake, or ... Kiss?

Per our discussion about whether handshakes or hugs are more appropriate in workplace settings, I think it's safe to say that the Obamas' meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his wife, Carla Bruni, provides absolutely zero guidance.

As we can see from the photo, Sarkozy gave Michelle Obama the Euro-style cheek kiss, while his wife gave Barack Obama a more formal handshake. But, as these photos from the British Sun show, Ms. Bruni greeted Mrs. Obama with smooches on the cheek, and the two presidents hugged.

I'll try to keep all of this in mind the next time I'm meeting a world leader.

To Bow or Not To Bow

Dana! Speaking of Michelle's sartorial choices, what do you think about the brightly hued and be-bowed outfit she wore yesterday to meet the Sarkozys? According to the Guardian, she had bow-laden "fashion face-off" with the similarly statuesque Carla Bruni Sarkozy.

Today, the two fashion titans clashed in sartorial battle in Strasbourg, as the US and French presidents met ahead of the Nato summit. Michelle wore a black coat with a floral pattern of pink poppies. The collar was ruched and tied loosely around the neck. It was rather lovely. Teamed with low kitten heels in black patent leather, the look achieved exactly the right balance of cheeriness and glamour. Carla, on the other hand, has gone for a cropped-sleeve coat in a soft grey, which is one of her favourite colours: she wore it a lot last year. And that's part of the problem - it feels like we've seen it all before. Despite the matching pussybow, compared to Michelle, Carla actually looks a bit washed out and (we can't believe we're about to say this) prim and proper. A flash of colour or a fashionable statement accessory could have taken this outfit to another level - but that's just not Carla's style.

Below is a video of the two first ladies in action yesterday. Both women are tall enough to pull off those giant, floppy "pussybows," but I am hoping against hope they do not become a trend. Such a large bow would make any petite woman look like an overgrown Shirley Temple.

The Power of Plus One

I just finished paging through the latest issue of Vogue, which the editors have billed as the "Power Issue."  In addition to a profile of cover girl Michelle Obama, there are pieces on Carla Bruni, Silda Wall Spitzer, Melinda Gates, and Queen Rania of Jordan. Exceptional, intelligent, accomplished women, all. But I couldn't help noticing that all are famous chiefly in their role as helpmate to an even more famous husband. And, yes, all have turned that role on its traditional head, and yes, all were just as exceptional and accomplished before their marriages. But would they have been included in the issue without that new last name? The grouping seems to suggest they would not. (To be fair, there is also a story on Twilight author and self-made woman Stephanie Meyer, but she's not mentioned either in the cover lines or the editor's note, and relegated all the way to the back of the book. It seems almost tacked on; one never wants to be too matchy-matchy, and they'd already used so much first spouse in this issue!)

I don't pick up Vogue expecting it to be Ms., but still, this issue is clearly intended as a self-conscious departure from the usual breathless accounts of socialites who have just vacationed somewhere fab, or started fashion companies on a whim. It's meant to be Serious with a capital S, and to explore the ways women wield tremendous power in spheres outside of fashion. And it's precisely that intended scope that makes the implied definition of how power can be gained appear so incredibly narrow. In an odd way, it's collectively insulting to all the women included in the issue, who—as the profiles within prove—are anything but narrow-minded themselves.

I Am Interrupting This Serious Conversation ...

...in order to bring you this Barbara Walters interview with Carla Bruni, which is possibly the most sexist piece of television programming I've ever seen—and I'm not overly sensitive about these things. I have a weird soft spot for Barbara Walters—she really was one of those women who "made it in a man's world" back before anyone else did, was a pathbreaker, etc.—but watching her attack poor Carla, otherwise known as Mrs. Nicholas Sarkozy, is like watching a supercharged edition of Mean Girls Grow Up and Become Famous. The worst bit is when she tries to take Bruni's lyrics seriously, in that deadpan, over-literal, news-anchor way:  

Barbara (sounding fierce): "You are my junk, More deadly than Afghan heroin. More dangerous than Colombian white powder." Ok now, who are you writing about?

Carla: "I'm writing about ... it's not exactly me ... it's not about ... exactly someone."

And then there's this exchange:  

Barbara (sounding humorless): Another lyric: "I am a child, despite my 30 lovers." Is that autobiographical?

Carla: No, of course not. But "20 lovers" didn't sound good ...

It then gets even more ridiculous—Carla refuses to say exactly how many lovers she's had, despite Barbara's ruthless questioning; is forced to justify her decision to release a new album ("it's symbolic for me of my identity") despite being first lady of France; is asked whether she is an "adultress" (answer is no, since she's never been married).

I suppose all is fair and all that, and it's also true that celebrities do interviews like this one because they are presumed to sell albums. Still: Did anyone ever ask Mick Jagger if it's true that he really can't get any satisfaction? I bet they didn't.

Speaking of Nude Women ...

Christie's New York will be auctioning a naked portrait of the French first lady, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, on April 10. I'm no prude, I'm certainly not a Victorian, and I commend the French for turning a blind eye to their politicians' private lives, but I'm starting to come around to the idea that we're better off with straight-laced statesmen.

Case in point: A CNN article on the French couple's first official visit to the U.K., which tries to, ahem, cover Carla's bod and Sarkozy's foreign policy all at once. The result is absolutely ridiculous: a nude pix lede, followed by the portentous quote, "We cannot afford to lose Afghanistan," back to the nude pix, then mention of a rumor that Sarkozy might boycott the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics.

I think the world needs dull, egghead politicians. Or maybe sexless ones, at least until the press grows up (and God knows we never will). I'm pretty sure the Qing Dynasty had eunuch bureaucrats, so there's precedent.

Puff This ...

Were you just being provocative, Emily? Describing a best-case abortion as nothing more than "a few not ideal hours'' makes it sound like an afternoon at the DMV without a good book. And aren't you being just as categorical as you say Caitlin Flanagan is when you argue that giving a child up for adoption is definitely trickier than having an abortion? (Except when it's not?) Whether you think abortion is morally neutral, intrinsically evil, or the gray area that hijacked our whole political debate, though, here's what I wish we could agree on: There is no other-than-partisan purpose in lobbies on both sides of this issue raising huge sums that only stoke the argument, like some hideous perpetual flame. And despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, it's the fight itself that keeps us from focusing on the widely agreed-upon need for birth control, birth control, for heaven's sake birth control.

That Erica Jong post on girl-written puff pieces that Dahlia mentioned made me laugh, though; first, why shouldn't we have enough confidence to cop to an interest in not only Iraq and the Darfur and the dollar, but also shoes and Carla Bruni and poor, poor Katie Holmes? (Today's shiniest news bauble: The man Princess Diana considered the love of her life has, as the Daily Mail put it, "run to fat.'' In his first-ever, "world exclusive'' interview Pakistani doctor Hasnat Khan, reveals ... lots less than the photo of him does. "I found her a very normal person. ... I think she did great work for the country. ... I always wanted to follow in the footsteps of my maternal grandfather, who was a doctor.'')  If women really were the lead dogs on the newshound puff patrol, however, we'd completely dominate daily journalism at this point, because we are all style reporters now. There's no mystery about why that might be; as news outfits cut staff to boost stock—and are expected to magically do More with Less—it's way cheaper to provide commentary than reporting. And though women are still overrepresented on the boo-hoo brigades sent out to gather quotes from grieving families, I think I mostly differ with Jong on what the meaning of "puff'' is.

She complains that we delve into such "idiotic'' and trivial matters as a political candidate's marriage—but then also charges that we "never discuss psychological depth because hey, who cares if the president's a bomb-happy dry-drunk trying to play out an Oedipal war with his father?'' I write a lot about political marriages, so I guess her puff pastry is my meat and potatoes. But isn't looking at a candidate's closest relationships how we find out about bomb-happy dry drunks trying to play out Oedipal wars? Not a whole lot of that sort of thing comes of just-the-facts coverage of position papers. Doubtless we can do a better job of covering the issues, even in our current pared-down state. As can any readers who feel deprived of substance.

re: Vive La France

Emily,

So glad you brought up the love affair between Nicolas Sarkozy and Carla Bruni. It's pretty much a de rigeur topic of conversation in European capitals at the moment, but I daren't mention it too much on an American Web site, during the all-too-serious American primaries, lest I be thought lightweight. Here's what I like about it

1) As you say, the protocol issues. How do the Jordanian and Egyptian government treat the president of France and his mistress? I have just come home from a dinner at which Count Z. held forth on this subject, arguing that everybody ought to get out their 18th-century history books and work out how heads of state treated Madame de Pompadour and the various other royal mistresses, back in the day. There's plenty of precedent!

2. The way it makes everyone else look dowdy. Apparently the Blairs were holidaying in Luxor at the same time as Sarkozy and Bruni, and the latter made the former look terrible. Tony breezed down to dinner in some inappropriately casual outfit, and Cheri made him go upstairs and put a jacket on. Allegedly. Then when Cheri got cold - it's chilly during those desert nights - the waiter had to lend her a jacket. Allegedly. Meanwhile, over at the Sarkozy-Bruni table, everyone looked magnifique. Allegedly. Anyway, one would have loved to have been there to watch everyone's facial expressions.

3. The way it puts everyone else's sex scandals to shame. What, Bill Clinton talked dirty with an intern in the Oval Office? So what! The president of France can get on a plane with his notorious mistress, an ex-girlfriend of Mick Jagger, and go to Egypt! And the French tell pollsters it's his business, not theirs!

4. The possibilities it opens for everyone else. If Hillary would just find it in herself to ditch Bill, she could end up with ... (who is the male equivalent of Carla Bruni.? Warren Beatty?) ... Anyway it would be more amusing to gossip about them than Paris Hilton. Though she should wait until after she's won, as Sarkozy himself did.

Anyway, to be continued. Can't wait to find out if Carla's really pregnant.

Vive La France!