Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About The Reliable Source  |  On Twitter: Reliable Source  |  E-mail: Amy and Roxanne  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Read this: Michaele Salahi actually and for real going to auction her sari


How long has it been since we ran this photo? Too long! (Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post)

They've been saying it for months, but darned if Tareq and Michaele Salahi aren't actually going to auction off that red sari. No one's going to get rich off of this, though -- the auction company estimates it will draw perhaps $2,000 to $3,000.... and the Salahis have directed the auctioneers to send 80 percent of that to charity.

Read more here: White House crasher Michaele Salahi to auction off dress she wore to state dinner

UPDATED: Salahi sari sells for $7,000

Also: The Washington Post's coverage of The Real Housewives of D.C.

By The Reliable Source  | September 3, 2010; 10:30 PM ET
Categories:  Read This, Real Housewives of D.C., White House State Dinner, White House crashers  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: "Real Housewives of D.C." recap of recaps: Catching up on rerun week
Next: While we were out...

Comments

Another hint the Apocalypse is near....

Posted by: semilost44 | September 4, 2010 7:32 AM | Report abuse

LMAO Semi! AGREED.

Posted by: Holly1971 | September 4, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

The Red Sari is beautiful and the girl in it.

Good for them to help others.

Posted by: lisag1 | September 4, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

I'd be rather surprised if two former presidents would allow themselves to be played for suckers as their fund probably wouldn't get the money anyway.

Posted by: ehsmith1 | September 4, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

lisag1:

Yeah Michaela, but beauty is only skin deep and apparently there are some serious issues with what's "inside"...

Posted by: semilost44 | September 4, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

I see Michelle, aka Missy, aka Micheale, Aka LISAG1 is at it again. We all know the "Girl" in it is a waste of human space.. Of course they're donating a "portion" God forbid they actually do something without gaining a CENT to line their own pockets with. Aferall Michelle, those law suits are lining up arent they? I hope Sheila Johnson mops the floor with the two of you. WOOHOO!

Posted by: Holly1971 | September 4, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Join our Facebook page and read all the racy comments about the self-proclaimed "It" couples ego inflation. I smell sex tape...male hooker....Mr. S working the camera.
http://www.facebook.com/WhiteHousePartyCrashers

Posted by: seraphina2 | September 4, 2010 12:35 PM | Report abuse

lisag1:
Just remember that beauty is only skin deep, but ugly cuts right to the bone.

Posted by: ehsmith1 | September 4, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

ehsmith1:

Well said.

Especially an ugliness that has corroded away any hint of an internal moral compass that might, just might, have once existed.

Posted by: LAWPOOL | September 4, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

lisag1 is likely Jennifer Wood, Micaela's assistant. Why not use fictional polo bigwigs Roger Stern or David Mortz? What happened to these guys, Jennifer?

Posted by: growler55 | September 4, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

I realize those of you who regularly follow the Salahi coverage (like I do!) aren't sure what to make of my posts. One day I slam them, the next day I appear to speak up for them.

It's the fraud vs. the personal attacks. I hate what they do -- in their business and personal life. I just don't care for the comments on MS's appearance or name change or whatever. Although at least the name change angle is a legitimate part of the story.

I mention this not because of any recent posts here, but because I just read several pages of over-the-top ugly comments at HuffPo following the story about Michaele supposedly agreeing to pose full frontal naked for Playboy.

The fame wh0re cracks are fair game, to be sure, but 95% of the sneers are about how scrawny/old/ breastless/ugly she is.

I just don't like it.

Posted by: MeriJ | September 5, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse


MeriJ:

I agree in large part. Not because I think comments re her appearance are out of line, but rather because it does tend to serve as a distraction from what I perceive as the far more important real story/problem with this couple, whom some might characterize as consummate grifters.

However, any negative comments that Michaele garners regarding her appearance really have been brought on by her actions alone. For years, she claimed to be a model for Chanel, etc., which apparently was not true. For years she claimed to be a former Washington Redskins Cheerleader [which requires not only looks, but coordination and dedication as well] which also was patently false. She claimed to be a former Miss USA [or was it Miss America?], which also was patently false. She just recently agreed to a photo session in bikini shots released to be public. And, for crying out loud, with regard to the latter instance, what was that supposed to be other than an effort to promote her physical appearance? It certainly had nothing to do with her knowledge of geopolitics or quantum physics, for example. It was, simply put, an effort to remain in the spotlight trading solely upon her physical appearance.

Now, the press reports are, which I do not know are true, that she will be appearing nude in Playboy Magazine. As near as I have been able to tell, she has done nothing to quash those repeated press reports to date. If it is true, I hardly think she will be engaging in a meaningful intellectual discussion while posing.

So, it appears to me that, for those that wish to discuss it, her physical appearance is more than fair game.

While I have my own opinions, I will not go there because I have far more important concerns about this couple.

But, when you really think about it, it is only she by her own volition that has brought any criticism of her physical appearance on herself. She put it out there.

I suppose this is another instance of be careful what you wish for because you just might get it, not just in the fashion you desired or anticipated.

This self-described Washington DC "IT COUPLE" is rapidly degenerating into the absolute "ICK COUPLE" by their own actions, without any help from their detractors or even commenters like you and me.


My thoughts.

Posted by: LAWPOOL | September 6, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

OK, you have a point, LAWPOOL, regarding the Playboy story in particular. I guess that does put her physical appearance into fair game. Assuming she really has agreed to do it.

But I still don't have to like it, do I? (smile)

I would hope I never mock even a hated enemy for being skinny, small-breasted -- how underrated that feature is on women these days! -- mid-forties or even revoltingly ugly, which Michaele certainly is not.

Anyone, no matter how outwardly beautiful, will become ugly in our eyes if his or her personality is unattractive.

But deriding a woman over her appearance derides every other woman with similar attributes. Call it "friendly fire."

'Nuff said. I will get off my high horse now!

Posted by: MeriJ | September 6, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Tareq & Michaele could start their own music festival and call it "Skank-a-palooza".

Posted by: ehsmith1 | September 7, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

My two cents: Having read about the public relations "quests" and ploys of this couple, I remembered wondering recently if the "Playboy thing" was out of the realm of possibilities. Apparently my pondering was accurate according to some of the comments here. Seems like Playboy is the last stop of trying to stay somewhat famous for quite a few females.....*just a thought*

Posted by: semilost44 | September 7, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

The Salahis' publicist announced that the Playboy story is false and claims that he is trying to discover who fed the rumor to TMZ.

Cynic that I am, I doubt he will need to look very far.

Posted by: MeriJ | September 7, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company