Who in the media is going to call out

[scootr29]

Michelle Obama for wearing a $540 pair of tennis shoes? Katie Couric?

Anyone?...I expect the same amount of coverage you spent on VP candidate Sarah Palin.

www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/fashion/2009/05/01/2009-05-01_first_lady_michelle_obama_kicks_in_own_foot_fea t_for_fashionistas_lanvin.html

[Beccaria]

For $540 dollars, those shoes had better do more than just keep her feet comfortable.

[goeagles]

Michelle Obama for wearing a $540 pair of tennis shoes? Katie Couric?

Anyone?...I expect the same amount of coverage you spent on VP candidate Sarah Palin.

www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/fashion/2009/05/01/2009-05-01_first_lady_michelle_obama_kicks_in_own_foot_fea t_for_fashionistas_lanvin.html

Apples and oranges.
The Palin story was never about the clothes the Governor was wearing.
It was about the GOP politicalblunder in spending a fortune on upscale wardrobe and Hollywood makeup on a candidate they were promoting as the girl next door, with the simple tastes.

[StoneScratcher]

I guess wearing Dollar $tore flip flops to a food bank might offend the homeless and hungry.

[Mohawk5]

$540 for those?!

What a waste of money!

Those are the ugliest shoes I have ever seen!

[goeagles]

$540 for those?!

What a waste of money!

Those are the ugliest shoes I have ever seen!
Personally, I like my Nike Pegasus better.
And they're a lot cheaper.

[PSBandit]

$540 is pocket change when your married to an elite Eco Marxist who controls congress, banks, industry.... hope and pocket change

[kat]

Apples and oranges.
The Palin story was never about the clothes the Governor was wearing.
It was about the GOP politicalblunder in spending a fortune on upscale wardrobe and Hollywood makeup on a candidate they were promoting as the girl next door, with the simple tastes.


I suppose all the hoopla over Cindy McCain's wardrobe $ was apple and oranges too. Give me break.


Those are some uuuuuuugly ass shoes. :))

[goeagles]

I suppose all the hoopla over Cindy McCain's wardrobe $ was apple and oranges too. Give me break.


Those are some uuuuuuugly ass shoes. :))
What "hooplah" would that have been?
I don't recall any controversy over what Mrs. McCain wore.

[Czhorat]

Apples and oranges.
The Palin story was never about the clothes the Governor was wearing.
It was about the GOP politicalblunder in spending a fortune on upscale wardrobe and Hollywood makeup on a candidate they were promoting as the girl next door, with the simple tastes.

My thoughts exactly. For the record, I thought it was as silly a distraction as handwringing over Edwards' or Clinton's haircuts. I had no trouble with the critique that she often didn't know what she was talking about.

[jeepers]

Apples and oranges.
The Palin story was never about the clothes the Governor was wearing.
It was about the GOP politicalblunder in spending a fortune on upscale wardrobe and Hollywood makeup on a candidate they were promoting as the girl next door, with the simple tastes.


Yet, Obama was promoted as a great orator of the ages, compared to Lincoln, greek columns at speeches and MILLIONS were spent to create this picture...but NO PROBLEM.

I look at it this way: If the GOP didn't have a problem with spending their money their way, why would anyone else care?

If we weren't supposed to mock the cost of the Brittney Spears producer putting on that stage show, err speech becuase that money belonged to the DNC....why is it that the DNC could show outrage over the GOP spending money on Palin's clothing?

Inconsistant position.

Btw, those are ugly-assed shoes and I'm a woman. And only someone who's flip wears 500+ buck shoes to walk the dog. However, it's a free country and if you want to waste yer private cash on that sort of thing, then rock on, Michelle.

Those shoes illustrate something that I've always felt as a female. There is style and then there are fads. Fads can be hot or they can be stupid. Never wear something that is ugly even if it's current fashion. Classic is better in that regard.

True across the board, no matter who you are.

But to each their own. Tempest in a teapot.

Btw, if you wear cheap shoes to walk the dog, you won't cry if you step in poop. Words to live by. :lol:

[croupier101]

Michelle Obama for wearing a $540 pair of tennis shoes? Katie Couric?

Anyone?...I expect the same amount of coverage you spent on VP candidate Sarah Palin.

www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/fashion/2009/05/01/2009-05-01_first_lady_michelle_obama_kicks_in_own_foot_fea t_for_fashionistas_lanvin.html

Did Michelle buy them herself, or did she use campaign money that was given by the people to buy them?

[Beccaria]

Did Michelle buy them herself, or did she use campaign money that was given buy the people to buy them?

"buy the people"?

What people did she buy?

:D

[croupier101]

"buy the people"?

What people did she buy?

:D

That was a spelling mistake. It should be by. Sorry you misunderstood. I have corrected for you.

[kat]

What "hooplah" would that have been?
I don't recall any controversy over what Mrs. McCain wore.


I can understand why. Palin was the attack de jour of the day.

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/09/06/Cindy-McCain-has-pricy-wardrobe/UPI-12941220737090/

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/09/cindy-mccains-300000-outfit.html

There are more than 17,000 hits on cindymccain/wardrobe during the campiagn season.

[Beccaria]

That was a spelling mistake. It should be by. Sorry you misunderstood. I have corrected for you.

I knew what you meant, croup. Just busting your chops about it.

It's Friday man, we gotta be light-hearted sometimes...

[tinydancer]

I have no problem with the First Lady spending her money on these shoes.

It's just that we were sold a bill of goods on Michelle being so "thrifty" in her wardrobe choices.

Another day. Another lie.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

Who paid for them?

[StoneScratcher]

Did Michelle buy them herself, or did she use campaign money that was given by the people to buy them?

What a campaign message that sends if true. Change. Five hundred and forty dollars worth of change. Change that is walked on, stepped on, stunk up and soiled. Worn while handing out day-old bread at a Food Bank. Change you can believe in.

[goeagles]

Yet, Obama was promoted as a great orator of the ages, compared to Lincoln, greek columns at speeches and MILLIONS were spent to create this picture...but NO PROBLEM.

I look at it this way: If the GOP didn't have a problem with spending their money their way, why would anyone else care?

If we weren't supposed to mock the cost of the Brittney Spears producer putting on that stage show, err speech becuase that money belonged to the DNC....why is it that the DNC could show outrage over the GOP spending money on Palin's clothing?

Inconsistant position.
Not at all.
Your analogy would hold water only if the Obama campaign had made a big point of economizing at his campaign appearances.
Since they did not, and the GOP did promote Gov. Palin as a small-town girl with simple tastes, your attempt at analogy makes no sense.

[Charlemagne]

Michelle Obama for wearing a $540 pair of tennis shoes? Katie Couric?

Anyone?...I expect the same amount of coverage you spent on VP candidate Sarah Palin.

www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/fashion/2009/05/01/2009-05-01_first_lady_michelle_obama_kicks_in_own_foot_fea t_for_fashionistas_lanvin.html (http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/fashion/2009/05/01/2009-05-01_first_lady_michelle_obama_kicks_in_own_foot_fea t_for_fashionistas_lanvin.html)


She's showing the homeless what one can achieve from marinating one's self in the Chicago political machine.

[goeagles]

I can understand why. Palin was the attack de jour of the day.

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2008/09/06/Cindy-McCain-has-pricy-wardrobe/UPI-12941220737090/

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/09/cindy-mccains-300000-outfit.html

There are more than 17,000 hits on cindymccain/wardrobe during the campiagn season.
Of course.
Everybody is interested in what the candidates and their wives are wearing.
But there was no controversy about it, as you yourself concede here.

[Imperialparadox]

What "hooplah" would that have been?
I don't recall any controversy over what Mrs. McCain wore.

I agree that in this case Michelle's clothing purchases are irrelevant, because she is paying for them herself - as opposed to Palin's case whereby the clothes were purchases with campaign money.

However, I do remember the media making a big deal about McCain's wardrobe. Using the same reasoning that makes Michelle's purchases irrelevant, so should Mrs. McCain's purchases also be irrelevant. Of course, there is no law that says the news has to be relevant. *shrug*

[Beccaria]

Of course.
Everybody is interested in what the candidates and their wives are wearing.
But there was no controversy about it, as you yourself concede here.

Frankly, I've never seen the appeal to it.

I could care less what GQ style the Presidents sport, or who the en vogue fashion designer for the first ladies is.

[Ex_Spy_Guy]

$540 for those?!

What a waste of money!

Those are the ugliest shoes I have ever seen!

they are a deal....Shellys feet are UUUUUUUUGLY, and stanky.

[kwc57]

Good for her on spending her hard earned dollars to stimulate the economy like a good capitalist. At least she isn't spending donated campaign dollars like Palin.

[goeagles]

I agree that in this case Michelle's clothing purchases are irrelevant, because she is paying for them herself - as opposed to Palin's case whereby the clothes were purchases with campaign money.

However, I do remember the media making a big deal about McCain's wardrobe. Using the same reasoning that makes Michelle's purchases irrelevant, so should Mrs. McCain's purchases also be irrelevant. Of course, there is no law that says the news has to be relevant. *shrug*

Nobody made a big deal over Mrs. McCain's wardrobe, that I can recall.
Reporters often mentioned what she and Mrs. Obama were wearing, since people are interested in that.
If you can show any examples of a "big deal" over Mrs. McCain's clothing, I'd be interested in seeing it.

[Crystal]

I could not care less what michelle obama pays for her clothes. BUT the news media are constantly touting her as not spending much on clothes and just being an "ordinary" liberal. So I guess all you liberals are wearing $540 sneakers.

[tinydancer]

Doesn't this thrifty First Lady have a full time makeup artist as well?

I am thinking if BO the first dog is teething going into his permanent set of teeth the shoes could make very expensive chew toys.

[scootr29]

Good for her on spending her hard earned dollars to stimulate the economy like a good capitalist. At least she isn't spending donated campaign dollars like Palin.

Maybe she put them on a credit card......or maybe a staffer paid for them. Or maybe someone in Chicago donated them to her. Or maybe she is sponsored by them....Or maybe she has bad taste....

Why stop at $540 sneakers?

She is beloved......

[StoneScratcher]

I agree that in this case Michelle's clothing purchases are irrelevant, because she is paying for them herself - as opposed to Palin's case whereby the clothes were purchases with campaign money.

However, I do remember the media making a big deal about McCain's wardrobe. Using the same reasoning that makes Michelle's purchases irrelevant, so should Mrs. McCain's purchases also be irrelevant. Of course, there is no law that says the news has to be relevant. *shrug*

How cool would it have been if she wore Dollar $tore flip flops to the Food Bank?

What a headline that would have been. Who knows, maybe she wants to hide her feet and toes. She could have gotten $5.00 sneakers at the Dollar $tore too, I suppose.

But $540 for her (ugly) sneakers? Oh yeah...I get it...she sacrificed. She got a blister when her talon rubbed into her clawed pinky toe.

[kat]

Of course.
Everybody is interested in what the candidates and their wives are wearing.
But there was no controversy about it, as you yourself concede here.


Oh stop it. Disclosing the costs of her wardrobe were intended to promote the class warfare mentality. Simple as that.

[goeagles]

I could not care less what michelle obama pays for her clothes. BUT the news media are constantly touting her as not spending much on clothes ....
?????
Another story I guess I've missed.

[Imperialparadox]

Nobody made a big deal over Mrs. McCain's wardrobe, that I can recall.
Reporters often mentioned what she and Mrs. Obama were wearing, since people are interested in that.
If you can show any examples of a "big deal" over Mrs. McCain's clothing, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Well, by 'big deal' i just meant they kept talking about it, and as a personal opinion, I don't really care. I'll agree the media itself wasn't really making a controversy out of it however, though I see my statement could easily be read to think I was implying that.

As an aside, I predict this thread will go on much longer than it should, with a plethora of the usual lame and frankly unreasoned insults thrown around.

[goeagles]

Oh stop it. Disclosing the costs of her wardrobe were intended to promote the class warfare mentality. Simple as that.
:)):)):))
Right.
Why didn't I think of that?

[scootr29]

Nobody made a big deal over Mrs. McCain's wardrobe, that I can recall.
Reporters often mentioned what she and Mrs. Obama were wearing, since people are interested in that.
If you can show any examples of a "big deal" over Mrs. McCain's clothing, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Interesting comparison between the 2...

www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/toplists/cindy_mccain_vs_michelle_obama/cindy_mccain_vs_michelle_obama.html

www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/09/05/2008-09-05_cindy_mccains_party_clothes_candidates_w.html

[Imperialparadox]

How cool would it have been if she wore Dollar $tore flip flops to the Food Bank?

What a headline that would have been. Who knows, maybe she wants to hide her feet and toes. She could have gotten $5.00 sneakers at the Dollar $tore too, I suppose.

But $540 for her (ugly) sneakers? Oh yeah...I get it...she sacrificed. She got a blister when her talon rubbed into her clawed pinky toe.

I don't understand your point. Nowhere was I indicating that I thought Michelle made a sacrifice, all I commented on was that I thought this story about her, like the stories about Mrs. McCain's wardrobe, are rather irrelevant and (in my opinion) uninteresting.

[SFC(R)L]

Good for her on spending her hard earned dollars to stimulate the economy like a good capitalist. At least she isn't spending donated campaign dollars like Palin.

donated campaign dollars may be spent as desired by the recipient, so your attempt at a talking point falls flat; and any money spent by Governor Palin equally stimulated the retail industry.

Additionally, michelle obama is not a capitalist, she is an elitist. She seeks to hilite her superiority over her minions.

Either way, if she is stupid enough to spend $500 plus bucks on a pair of sneaks that could easily be purchased at Walmart for $20, that is her business. Where she got the money for the purchase is equally her business, unless TAX dollars, subject to the scrutiny of the public trust are involved.

As none of the above appear to be so, this is a nonstory thought up by vapid mouthbreathers who think paying $500 plus bucks for a pair of sneaks confers style, grace or intellect upon the shod.

It doesn't.

What it points out is that if I had a multi-year job where I was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to do nothing, except fleecing my employers out of their money, I would probably be able to go buy $500 sneakers, too, and it would be just as stupid as her doing it.

[Charlemagne]

"Nobody made a big deal over Mrs. McCain's wardrobe, that I can recall."



Yes, Cindy McCain was given a hard time about her wardrobe.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/09/cindy-mccains-300000-outfit.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/26/cindy-mccain-slideshow-fo_n_124350.html

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2008/9/4/cindy-mccains-300000-outfit.html?s_cid=related-links:TOP

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/chronstyle/detail?blogid=51&entry_id=29960

[StoneScratcher]

Charity:

"Shoes for Children in Kenya"

"As I walked in to give the shoes my heart fell to the floor when I saw so many children with no socks and shoes. That was about the change!"

Click link for picture:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/37380015@N03/3440648060/

[deportalllibs]

Just more liberal hypocrisy from the Obamas. Preach to others about this type of thing, demonize them, then go buy a $500 pair of tennis shoes.

[RTchoke]

Cripes! Those ARE ugly ass shoes! :))

[SFC(R)L]

Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Michelle Obama Leaves TreeHouse Board of Directors


TreeHouse Foods, Inc. announced minutes ago that Michelle Obama, wife of presidential hopeful Barack Obama, has resigned as a director of the company where she served on the board since 2005.


Mrs. Obama cited "increased demands on her time" as the reason for her departure.


Sure, she is busy hitting the campaign trail on behalf of her husband, including an appearance on Good Morning America today.

Sure, maybe she resigned from the position because last month she was re-elected to three more years on the board, a term that would overlap with her husband's time in the White House if he becomes president.

If that's the case, though, why resign now?


For the answer, look no further than your neighborhood Wal-Mart.

According to TreeHouse's financial filings, Wal-Mart accounted for 16.1 percent of its sales last year, a 37 percent increase from 2005, making the Bentonville, Arkansas retailer TreeHouse's biggest customer by a long shot.

Meanwhile, Senator Obama openly criticizes Wal-Mart for its anti-union labor practices, including at a recent event in Trenton, New Jersey where he answered an audience member's question about Wal-Mart by responding: "I won't shop there."

Understandably, this conflict of interest has drawn criticism. So let's be realistic about this: Mrs. Obama needs to sever ties with TreeHouse before this becomes a bigger issue.

Wal-Mart ties have already been a thorn in the side of Senator Hillary Clinton, under fire as she continues to distance herself from her years on the Wal-Mart board of directors, when she failed to push forth any meaningful reforms of Wal-Mart's labor practices. As Wal-Mart continues to become a contentious issue for Clinton, Mrs. Obama is wise to avoid any potentially harmful confrontations with the bright yellow smiley face.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:jixgf28i3QAJ:blogobama08.blogspot.c om/2007/05/michelle-obama-leaves-treehouse-board.html+Michelle+Obama+%2B+board+of+directors&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

maybe she got them from Walmart after all

[scootr29]

Charity:

"Shoes for Children in Kenya"

"As I walked in to give the shoes my heart fell to the floor when I saw so many children with no socks and shoes. That was about the change!"

Click link for picture:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/37380015@N03/3440648060/


This is a good thing...I always give my $70 running shoes to charity.

[goeagles]

Interesting comparison between the 2...

www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/toplists/cindy_mccain_vs_michelle_obama/cindy_mccain_vs_michelle_obama.html

www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/09/05/2008-09-05_cindy_mccains_party_clothes_candidates_w.html
Yes.
The two women exhibited very contrasting styles and wardrobe preferences.
Which one would expect, given their differing histories and backgrounds.

[kat]

:)):)):))
Right.
Why didn't I think of that?


Because you are a media hack? :whistle:

[kat]

Just more liberal hypocrisy from the Obamas. Preach to others about this type of thing, demonize them, then go buy a $500 pair of tennis shoes.


Exactly! Too bad that point just flies over some heads. :rolleyes:

[goeagles]

"Nobody made a big deal over Mrs. McCain's wardrobe, that I can recall."



Yes, Cindy McCain was given a hard time about her wardrobe.

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/09/cindy-mccains-300000-outfit.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/26/cindy-mccain-slideshow-fo_n_124350.html

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2008/9/4/cindy-mccains-300000-outfit.html?s_cid=related-links:TOP

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/chronstyle/detail?blogid=51&entry_id=29960

These are all political blogs you're quoting, not the "mainstream media," as was the contention.
And the target in all of them seems to be not Mrs. McCain, but the GOP's self-marketing as the home of the ordinary guy and gal.
It's no secret that Mrs. McCain is a very wealthy woman.

[goeagles]

Because you are a media hack? :whistle:
Yes, that must be it.:)

[oneguy]

Apples and oranges.
The Palin story was never about the clothes the Governor was wearing.
It was about the GOP politicalblunder in spending a fortune on upscale wardrobe and Hollywood makeup on a candidate they were promoting as the girl next door, with the simple tastes.



It wasn't apples and oranges when Palin's wardrobe made headlines and at the same time every Michelle Obama interview and story was how everything Michelle wears is off-the-rack J. Crew.

[goeagles]

It wasn't apples and oranges when Palin's wardrobe made headlines and at the same time every Michelle Obama interview and story was how everything Michelle wears is off-the-rack J. Crew.

The Gov. Palin story was not about clothes, but about a GOP political and public relations blunder.
I'm sorry, but I know of no simpler way to explain it.
Nor did anybody ever report that "everything Michelle wears is off-the-rack J. Crew."
A number of Chicago boutiques are doing very well because of popular and well-publicized outfits Mrs. Obama bought there.

[SFC(R)L]

The attack on Governor Palin was a blatant attempt at the politics of personal destruction in attempting to create the perception of malfeasance where none existed.

Like the libs successfully pulled on Scooter Libby.

[55SFSDefender]

What "hooplah" would that have been?
I don't recall any controversy over what Mrs. McCain wore.

You don't recall the $300K dress story? $280,000 of which were the diamonds she was wearing?

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/09/cindy-mccains-300000-outfit.html

[MADMAX]

Apples and oranges.
The Palin story was never about the clothes the Governor was wearing.
It was about the GOP politicalblunder in spending a fortune on upscale wardrobe and Hollywood makeup on a candidate they were promoting as the girl next door, with the simple tastes.

How about when the left went on and on about McCain's $500 loafers? What was the story there?

[goeagles]

You don't recall the $300K dress story? $280,000 of which were the diamonds she was wearing?

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/09/cindy-mccains-300000-outfit.html
When somebody wears an outfit like that in public, that is news.
But again, the point of that blog item wasn't the dress and the jewels..
It was pointing out that it didn't fit the image of a party that was aggressively claiming to be the true home of the ordinary working man and woman.
Mrs. McCain in fact got a lot of very good press for her extensive humanitarian and charity work.
She was never portrayed by any serious major news organization as being an uncaring, aloof, self-centered rich woman.

[goeagles]

How about when the left went on and on about McCain's $500 loafers? What was the story there?
Who in the mainstream press went on and on about it?

[SFC(R)L]

How about when the left went on and on about McCain's $500 loafers? What was the story there?

Really.

The dude's a retired field grade naval officer, POW survivor, significantly disabled veteran, and a frickin' US Senator. His wife is loaded and hot.

If he wants to wear a pair of $500 shoes, what's the problem?

[animalnut]

Not at all.
Your analogy would hold water only if the Obama campaign had made a big point of economizing at his campaign appearances.
Since they did not, and the GOP did promote Gov. Palin as a small-town girl with simple tastes, your attempt at analogy makes no sense.

Yeah - I was much more upset about the cost of the innauguration (sp?) than I was about any other spending. Candidates spend money. They have to look good. I'm sure we could find "shop 'til 'ya drop" politicians in each party. Of course they do have personal shoppers to save them the agony of the malls and boutiques.

[goeagles]

Yeah - I was much more upset about the cost of the innauguration (sp?) than I was about any other spending. Candidates spend money. They have to look good. I'm sure we could find "shop 'til 'ya drop" politicians in each party. Of course they do have personal shoppers to save them the agony of the malls and boutiques.

Sure they do.
And they're almost always wealthy people.
It's part of the game for both sides to pretend that they're regular guys and gals, who live in modest digs and spend their time working, bowling, and going out for the early bird special.
But we all know it's not so.

[kat]

Sure they do.
And they're almost always wealthy people.
It's part of the game for both sides to pretend that they're regular guys and gals, who live in modest digs and spend their time working, bowling, and going out for the early bird special.
But we all know it's not so.



I know many wealthy people from the City and the burbs. You are correct that some play the game. Howvever, the majority, at least of those I know personally, do actually live quite modestly. They are the ones who you will find to be the most philanthropic with both their money AND their time. I would also go so far as to suggest such is the case with the majority of wealthy people overall.



and none of them would be caught in public with those ugly ass shoes. :razz:

[beancounter]

A couple weeks ago, $100 million was a drop in the bucket. But then again I can remember when $400 was a big deal for a haircut..It goes both ways my friends...

[goeagles]

I know many wealthy people from the City and the burbs. You are correct that some play the game. Howvever, the majority, at least of those I know personally, do actually live quite modestly. They are the ones who you will find to be the most philanthropic with both their money AND their time. I would also go so far as to suggest such is the case with the majority of wealthy people overall.

I would think that you're exactly right.
It's certainly true of wealthy people I've known.
and none of them would be caught in public with those ugly ass shoes. :razz:
:)
Well, different strokes, I guess.