First Lady MichelleObama steps out in Lanvin sneakers and they're only $540!

[a kennedy]

so this is ALL they have??? :mad:

BY Amy Diluna

Michelle Obama has taken casual to a haute new level.

While volunteering Wednesday at a D.C. food bank, the First Lady sported her usual J.Crew cardigan, a pair of utilitarian capri pants and, on her feet, a sneaky splurge: trainers that go for $540.

That's right: These sneakers - suede, with grosgrain ribbon laces and metallic pink toe caps - are made by French design house Lanvin, one of fashion's hottest labels. They come in denim and satin versions, and have been a brisk seller all spring.

They're out of stock at posh Meatpacking District boutique Jeffrey, and Barneys New York boasts a limited selection of the sneaks, which are a cult favorite among fashionistas.

It's likely Michelle got hers through Ikram, the Chicago retailer that often outfits her.

"They're shoes," the First Lady's reps sniffed when curious reporters inquired about the fancy footwear.

Michelle has stepped out in Lanvin before while getting down to business. A week ago, she shoveled dirt at a tree planting while wearing the line's chiffon tank.

Dresses and strappy pumps cost upward of $1,500, while tops go for $400 to $1,000.

full article: <http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/fashion/2009/05/01/2009-05-01_first_lady_michelle_obama_kicks_in_own_foot_feat_for_fashionistas_lanvin.html>

[babylonsister]

1. Is this all you have?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5577470

[a kennedy]

10. hey sorry.

I'm not on DU during the hours this was first posted......

[Orrex]

2. $540 for a pair of low-top Chucks?

:wtf:

I don't really care about the fashion decisions of the First Family, but anyone who'd spend that kind of cash on a pair of walking-around sneakers has spent at least $475 too much.

[we the tweeple]

59. Bingo! Obviously, the woman can afford it, but WTF?! Why do a few

lousy pieces of canvas cost five hundred fucking dollars? How many bags of potatoes could the DC food bankees get for that?

[Warren DeMontague]

99. Ye olde frozen pizza is much cheaper, isn't it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=240168

[Political Heretic]

3. For the 50th fucking time: its not news when the first lady of the UNITED STATES has expensive shoes

It would only be news if and when she has CHEAP shoes.

[frustrated_lefty]

7. Agreed.

[Egalitariat]

8. I question her judgment on those, but agree it's not news****

nm

[Orsino]

104. I eagerly await the day...

...and would have hoped that Michelle would be the first.

I imagine that she does wear cheap shoes, too. US$540, however, is a message appropriate to another economy that is long gone.

[defendandprotect]

118. No . . . it's not "news" but very disappointing . . ..

whether you want to call it trivia or gossip -- it kinda conflicts with my

hopes that Michelle is prodding the president to speak out for the Reagan-homeless

and the Bush-homeless and the impoverished children in America -- for the long-term

unemployed and for the newly unemployed.

Also -- Obama is telling us America can't afford National Health Care for every

American while he's bailing out corrupt capitalism -- $12 TRILLION -- with our tax

dollars far, far into the future!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

4. She can spend her money any way she wants to but there is no way I would spend even $100 on these

[onehandle]

5. I think she can afford it. nt

[muffin1]

6. Cindy frigging McCain

wears an outfit worth $300,000 to the GOP convention, and no one says a word about it.
Michelle Obama, who quit a high paying job to work for free at food banks, soup kitchens, and outreach programs for families of soldiers wears a pair of shoes worth $540.00, and the country freaks the fuck out.
Excuse me, I have to go :banghead:

[Fumesucker]

13. There were a great many threads here on DU about Cindy's outfit..

I clicked on a couple and there was a great deal of outrage.

[muffin1]

15. My comment was meant for the media, not the OP.

I saw a blip on CNN one day and that was it.

[Critters2]

21. They may have cost $540.00. But I don't see how they're worth

that much.

[NeedleCast]

9. Is this supposed to spin up my poutrage meter?

Fail.

[BanzaiBonnie]

11. And I've seen her wear them more than once...

Outrageous I say!:sarcasm: :wtf:

[Crabby Appleton]

14. I doubt you see them again

[muffin1]

16. I hope I do!

I hope she wears them everyday. It is no one's business. Sheesh, she has done more for the down-trodden in this country in a hundred days than Pickles did in eight years.:)

[Baby Snooks]

57. What exactly has she done?

I am going to question what she has done. This latest photo-op that created the firestorm was conducted at a food bank. Does she or her husband realize the number of food banks and the food pantries who depend on the food banks are running low on food?

Where's the "stimulus" for them?

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shadowknows69]

12. Her husband makes 250-300k a year for running the country

With benefits of free room and board. If she wants 550 dollar shoes I think she can afford them out of her own accounts. I doubt our taxes are paying for it like they did Bush's (pointless) 2004 inaugural parties.

[notesdev]

17. People who can pay $500+ for ugly tennis shoes

are not people I'd expect to understand the kind of difficulties the average American is facing right now.

Put away the damn conspicuous consumption and act like you've got a clue what's going on in this country.

It's the mental disconnect which is the problem. If you've got $500 to throw in the trash can, at the very least offer it as charity to someone who is really in need. That money could feed a needy family for two months, or give someone behind on their home payments (whether renting or mortgaged) another month to make their finances stable. If you're not going to give it away to a stranger, then at least put it in your kids' college savings or give it to one of your poor relatives abroad.

Don't act like Marie Antoinette, enjoying the excesses available to rulers while the people starve. There are no friends to be won with that attitude.

If I were Obama and my wife dropped that kind of money on garbage, I'd have a fit.

What's more, it's well known that people spend their own money more conscientiously than they spend others'. If they are so reckless with their own cash, how reckless are they when they spend ours? How can people who think spending $500 on tennis shoes is OK be taken seriously when they insist our posterity be saddled with trillions of debt? Are those extra trillions that we don't have being spent on the government equivalent of $500 tennis shoes?

What the hell is it about Washington DC that people who go there end up acting as if they were aristocracy?

[shadowknows69]

26. I don't disagree with you at all and it disgusts me actually.

But I was just talking in the context of where you know the RW is going with this and pointing out the hipocrisy of it. Personally I think ANYONE who spends that much on shoes should have their head examined, but the woman is First Lady for fucks sake. It's not like she will destroy our economy or is totally out of touch becauuse she buy pricey shoes. Who cares if she does? I'm more interested in what her husband does and so should the nation be. Distraction is how we've gotten into this mess.

[notesdev]

30. It's the policy implications that follow

How can Obama ask normal Americans to sacrifice for economy recovery or health care or the environment or anything else when his own wife apparently aspires to be the second coming of Imelda Marcos?

[muffin1]

32. One pair of pricey shoes = Imelda Marcos?

:thumbsdown:

[shadowknows69]

33. Yeah, I don't think we have an Imelda epidemic quite yet

Shit, my mother probably owns more shoes than either of them but that's just because she's a compulsive sale shopper.

[notesdev]

37. It's more than that

It's the whole "Princess Di" rollout. It reeks of a claim to royalty, and it is particularly inappropriate at this point in time, when everyone else is suffering. It's a grossly improper display of indulgence, and a disturbing sign that the Obama family doesn't understand what the world looks like from ground level anymore. It really has gotten to the point of being legitimately bizarre.

For $540 you can put shoes on an entire family for a long time. $540 could get someone a car so they could go to work. It could be deposited in trust for her children, to be a symbolic example of what the country as a whole needs to do, which is save and invest in the future. Instead, it is thrown away on a toy, which is a pretty good overview in general of how the country spent the past 15 years.

That mindset has to go away. It is bankrupt. It will destroy those who try to hold onto it. It might destroy the rest of us in the process.

This country needs to get back to producing and earning its keep. It needs to learn humility and seriousness; its representatives need to become the adults in the room and not act as children in a candy store.

[muffin1]

39. Oh, for Pete's sake.

All in all, the Obamas dress quite modestly. Maybe since you have so much time on your hands you could write out a clothing budget for the whole family. Maybe if all of the Obamas shopped at the local thrift store we could save the world! OR, maybe Michelle's mother could raise silkworms and make the clothes for the family in her spare time.

I'm not a rich person by any means - $10.00 an hour - 30 hours a week. But I am not going to have a fit if the First Lady has a little splurge here and there.

Princess Di indeed. This is getting beyond ridiculous.

[juno jones]

41. I agree.

I'm in much the same boat.

I might dress fabulously on a diet of thrift stores but I don't expect the first lady to.

She seems thrifty and she's not wearing those stupid-ass designer pantsuits that cost much more than that damn pair of sneakers.

She is volunteering all the time. On her feet. I think $500 odd is a tad overpriced, but I stand for 8-10 hours a day on concrete covered rather sporadically with fatigue mats. Good footwear is a must. I need orthotics but can't afford them right now. Perhaps those shoes are practical as well as decorative. I wouldn't buy them myself but mebbe they are comfortable as all getout.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Critters2]

60. So, in an effort to be image conscious, she wore $540 sneakers,

and ugly ones at that, to a SOUP KITCHEN? Seriously? That strikes you as wise image-building? I don't know what you do for a living, but I wouldn't quit it to go into PR work, if I were you.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Number23]

80. Yes, you're right. There's no way a black woman who grew up on the South Side of Chicago

and worked her ass off for everything she's ever had could ever POSSIBLY know what the "difficulties of average Americans" are. Nor could her husband, a man whose mother often paid their way through life on food stamps.

Their wealth NOW has somehow magically infiltrated and poisoned the experiences they had the first 40 years of their lives. Is this what you want people to believe?

[Heidi]

97. I'm betting Obama doesn't buy his shoes at Payless, so I doubt he'd

throw the kind of fit you would.

[northzax]

88. Actually $400k these days

Plus he's made several million from his book sales over the past few years.

[JSK]

93. I thought the prez makes $400K n/t

[iamjoy]

18. More Distracting Foolishness

But hey, how many of us were all fah-tootzed when we found out what Sarah Palin spent on her wardrobe? We really are a nation of hypocrites. If a woman in leadership looks good, we criticize what she spent. If she doesn't, we criticize her fashion choices.

[KathieG]

19. For all we know they could be a "knock-off". Also, nobody knows what she paid for them...

if she paid anything at all, after all...they could have been a gift.

[notesdev]

20. A gift?

If they were a gift then she broke the law by accepting it.

[EmilyAnne]

43. She can't accept a gift for the next 8 years? What on earth? nt

[northzax]

89. Not true

The President and his family can accept any private gift offered. If that gift comes from outside their immediate family (spouse, grandparents, etc) they just have to declare them and, if they are worth more than $11,000, pay taxes on them.

[JANdad]

22. remind me how much J Edwards spent on a hair cut????

?????

[saracat]

40. Apparently not as much as the sneakers! LOL!

[Alexander]

86. But he used campaign contributions instead of his own money.

[alarimer]

23. People would be up in arms about this is Laura Bush did it.

We can't have it both ways.

It's either no big deal when ANYONE does it or a sign that she is a little out of touch.

Personally I think it might be a little mistake. Nothing huge, admittedly, just a little tone-deaf when people are really struggling to buy their kids' shoes.

[ErinBerin84]

28. speak for yourself, buddy.

I would give two shits if Laura Bush wore 500 dollar sneakers. And I didn't care about Cindy McCain's RNC outfit (even though it was kind of funny, given the media had such an elitist freak out on the Obamas. But still, didn't care).

[shadowknows69]

38. Around here yeah, but not nationally thanks to the liberal media

There wasn't even a blowback when Condi was busted shoe shopping while PEOPLE WERE DYING during Katrina.

[Aristus]

51. Laura Bush married into money and wore stuff that looked like sofa upholstery.

Michelle has earned her money. She can wear whatever she wants. And she ALWAYS looks good!... :wow:

[leftofthedial]

24. Aren't the wealthy elites beautiful?

I don't have three bucks for milk.

I'm getting a little tired of my face being shoved in the White House gone all Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous thing.

I want health care and a job, not a hot, rich fashion plate First Lady.

[Critters2]

29. Only wealthy plutocrats are allowed to hold high office in this country.

Welcome to America!

[SammyWinstonJack]

35. What you said!

:thumbsup:

[Fla Dem]

112. So what, the President and his family should wear hand -me-down and thrift store duds until you get

a job. I'm sorry, I mean no disrespect to you. I hope your situation improves. But from what I can see, the administration is working as hard as they can to turn the country around, get people working again and affordable health care for all. Like it or not, the Obamas are an attractive young couple, with 2 cute kids. I want my President and First Lady to be well dress and stylish. The only reason the sneakers even made news is because the RW had to find something to criticize. Instead of acknowleging her work at the food pantry, they instead tried to belittle her efforts. I don't think either of the Obamas go out of their way to flaunt whatever wealth they might have. If the press/media needs to make something of their lifestye choices, that's not the Obama's fault.

I am sure the President can execute his agenda just fine whether he or his wife are wearing designer duds or not. Oh the sneakers...not my choice, I get white keds at the shoe warehouse.

[girl gone mad]

113. That's a straw man.

No one is suggesting the First Lady shop thrift. There are hundreds of shoes to choose from to complete her outfit, 99% of which cost under $100:

http://www.zappos.com/womens-sneakers

Wearing $600 pair of canvas sneakers (which aren't even all that cute and look like they were designed for juniors, not grown women) to a soup kitchen shows odd judgment.

[Fla Dem]

114. No strawman

I responded to

Aren't the wealthy elites beautiful
Conceded the point that the Obamas and their children are attractive and cute.

I don't have three bucks for milk.
Expressed empathy for the writer's situation and hope for better tomorrows.

I'm getting a little tired of my face being shoved in the White House gone all Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous thing.
Again the Obamas are a young and attractive family. As such the press has been having a field day reporting on their every move. They are celebrities whether we want them to be or not. In this case the RW shrillots called out Michelle for wearing $500 sneakers. Bad judgement on her part...yes...probably.

I want health care and a job, not a hot, rich fashion plate First Lady.
For the writer to imply, rightly or not, that because Michelle is a "hot, rich, fashion plate First Lady", or the media is treating them as celebreties, nothing is getting done on the Obama agenda is wrong headed. And if that type of reporting is upsetting for the writer, maybe it should just be ignored.

It does not matter what the Obamas wear, or how they spend their money, or for that matter whether they are considered elite or not. The only thing that matters is turning the country around.

[leftofthedial]

116. The coverage of Michelle Obama is not an accident.

It is hard work by her press secretary.

I don't give a shit what they wear. Focus on fixing this fucking country and quit being glamour king and queen du jour. It goes for the media and for the Obama publicists.

[backwoodsbob]

25. the wife of a man who makes 400k

who also happens to be LOADED from his books...also the woman who was a LAWYER...spent 500 bucks on shoes...OH NOOOEEESSS!!!!

I've seen 30k a year blue collar hillbillies down here dump that much in an evening at the nudie bar

[muffin1]

34. Thank you for injecting a little sanity and humor into this thread!

Jeebus, I thought maybe I had stumbled onto FR by mistake. ;-)

[Brazenly Liberal]

27. I prefer high top double chucks bought at deep discount, but

hey, whatever makes her footsies feel fine.

Michelle Obama has WORKED for what she has and has given much back. Unless they're made of newborn baby eyelids, it's nobody's business what's on her feet.

[JitterbugPerfume]

31. good grief who cares

what she spends on shoes! She looks adorable in them.

[TreasonousBastard]

36. OH THE HORROR! People are homeless and dying,,,

and the First Lady has $500 shoes!

Well, the two of them could pledge to dress in sackcloths until everyone is healthy and happy, or the President and his wife could look like the leadership of the wealthiest and most powerful country on the planet is expected to look.

(Are we seeing outrage, or jealousy?)

Treasonous the Fashionisto

[Half King]

42. Another sign of the narcissim rampant within the Obama administration

First. I don't care if she wears five thousand dollar shoes--at the proper time and place, like at a formal Whitehouse Dinner. But, serving food to the homeless in five hundred dollar shoes that look like spray painted old style Converse is completely outlandish. And then, to add insult to injury--to actually act like these shoes,

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/INSIDE-WASHINGTON-Rude-apf-15091434.html?.v=1

were purchased due to "comfort", please. Nope, these shoes represent a "look at me" purchase, perfectly expected from an individual that collects "blood diamonds" as a hobby. Nah, made me wonder, made me wonder what Eleanor wore when she went out and served coffee to the bonus army.

[EmilyAnne]

46. Its a pair of shoes worn by the first lady. Give me a break. nt

[muffin1]

48. It also made me wonder

what W. wore while having a birthday celebration with McCain while people drowned in New Orleans.
Enjoy your short stay.

[rvablue]

53. Sneakers=narcissism? Nah... Now, this is narcissism:

But from the tone of your post, I'm sure the sight of Shrub in a costume gave you a thrill.

And just think. Mrs. Obama paid for her own shoes. On the other hand, Shrub charged the tax payers millions for this stunt.

[Half King]

64. Actually,

It appears they both are the same. They scream, "look at me". Would anyone at the shelter have noticied? Probably not, but the press did, and hence the reason behind wearing them. Kind of like Georgie Boy and his flightsuit.

[NoSheep]

107. Oh SNAP!

[azmouse]

54. Do you honestly think anyone at the food pantry noticed her shoes?!!

And would have known what those shoes cost? Really??

C'mon... get over your jealousy of people with more money than you. It doesn't make you look good.

[Half King]

66. Nah

I saw the Obama's tax return. Makes more money than me?--ayep. Got more money than me? You seen their investment accounts? That would be a big negative, and he is running the country, and now--well we all act surprised that he borrows and borrows and borrows some more.

If I am going to hire someone to manage a big chunk of money, the first thing I am going to do is examine how they manage thier own. Between Obama and Biden, well they have hardly managed to save two nickels to rub together between them. I dare so the most valuable asset the Obama's have, outside thier residence, lies in Michelle's jewlery box. Madness.

[azmouse]

69. YOU know how much money they have invested??? Really?

:eyes:

Are you ok with how boosh ran this country into the ground?
The death of the Republican party is best and only good thing boosh ever did...

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NoSheep]

108. Your screen name should be Half Wit.

:crazy:

[NashVegas]

71. Yeah

"look at me!"



Again - if it were anything BUT a sneaker, I really wouldn't care.

[azmouse]

72. Ya know... this was all hashed out on another thread...

Take a look... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5577470

[NashVegas]

75. Yeah, Well, I Missed That Thread

So instead am posting in this thread.

[NoSheep]

106. Who gets to pick the "proper" time and place? The word is narcissism and they aren't. But

here IS some narcissism for you, and some blood diamonds too, right here:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://www.newsweek.com/id/142651&h=353&w=600&sz=25&tbnid=as8yp2B531bmRM::&tbnh=79&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3DCindy%2BMcCain%2BNewsweek%2Bphoto&usg=__Xf5oswNSNyoRSL6uOKoxxK1q7ow=&ei=k-f9SZ-HIMWMtgfa0uiiDQ&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=2&ct=image

[dustbunnie]

44. Forget the shoes... have you seen the HOUSE these people moved into recently?

:wow:

I'll bet the homeless people she was serving had no clue about the cost of the shoes. But I'm sure all of these people without a home must be well aware of where the Obamas live these days. It must have been galling.

[MilesColtrane]

111. Yeah, not only that, that house was built by slaves!

Have they no shame?

[hedgehog]

45. I'm a fashion dummy, but I noticed her cute shoes the other day.

Look at it this way - she's performing a public service because Payless will be carrying the cheap knock-offs pretty soon and we can all have cute shoes!

[cliffordu]

47. You can get a nice set of Phil Wood hubs for your bicycle for that....

[Nikia]

49. Because it is much better to buy cheap shoes

Made by Asian sweatshop labor.
Personally, I feel guilty about buying inexpensive shoes, not expensive ones.

[Critters2]

61. This was an interesting post to read, as I sit here in my $80 American

made New Balance walking shoes. And vegan, to boot! I debated whether to wear these today, or the Keds I bought at the hospital auxiliary resale shop. They may have been made in China, but I didn't directly award the manufacturer for that choice, and my purchase benefitted a non-profit. Got 'em home, tossed in the washer, and they're like new.

As the weather warms up, I'll begin wearing my Okabashi sandals, made in the US of 15% recycled plastic, returnable to the manufacturer for recycling when they're too worn to wear 'em, and they cost all of $14.99.

So, yeah, I can see why the First Lade just HAD to wear $540 ugly tennis shoes, that probably weren't made in this country. She had no choice.

[Djinn]

84. you think because shoes are designer

they're NOT made in sweatshop? I've always been a tight arse when it comes to clothes but felt bad about the amount that were made in places with really bad labor exploitation - until I checked my mates insanely expensive designer wardrobe and found they were all made in the same places.

If you have to buy stuff manufactured by essentially slave labor, and it's virtually impossible to do otherwise (in Australia and the UK that is - no experience clothes shopping elsewhere) then you might as well go for the one giving some rich old white man the smallest profit margin, not hand over fist obscene unnecessary profit.

Can't say I care too much about MO's shoe choice (though they're ugly as hell) I probably would have gone with something else for a soup kitchen visit but then again her jewelry is likely worth more than my flat. The shoes don't really add anything to my annoyance at the rich.

[Beacool]

50. Oh geez, here we go again...........

with those sneakers. I still think the whole outfit was a mess, but let's move on.

:eyes:

[Fuzz]

52. Is that with tax?

[ProgressIn2008]

55. Heh, so elites buy expensive shoes. Gasp, who knew. At the same time

I can see how it irks some people to know that if this were a Republican rich woman wearing her designer sneakers to a food bank, the same people shrieking "is this all they gotz?!?!" would be stoning her. That's the kind of hypocrisy that makes you shrug and think it's all kabuki theater, without any genuinely held beliefs behind it -- only "if our sports team does it, it's okay."

Personally, I don't care which rich women wear their ugly designer gear where. It's funny that this rag of a paper thinks it's news. It's the oldest, most tired story in the book -- go out in your finery and pretend charity to the masses. Wowee, whatta story. C'mon, NY Daily News, you can do better than that. Or wait, maybe you can't.

[fujiyama]

56. Seems overpriced to me

Seems almost as expensive as something an athlete might wear.

I don't care about what they spend their money on, but I just don't understand the NEED to spend that much on a pair of shoes. I spent $80 on a pair of nice dress shoes and felt like that was too much. I'm disappointed that they would waste that much on something like that, especially considering Michelle Obama is generally known for a good fashion sense within a reasonable budget. Hell, maybe they were a gift from someone? The Obamas have a lot of rich friends, and plus I'm sure a designer would absolutely love for the Obamas to wear their stuff.

But to each their own. This really isn't a big deal. As long as Obama isn't going shoe shopping while a hurricane hits, I really don't care.

[NashVegas]

73. Serious Sneakers Cost $100 About Now

Some of them yell 'look at me' too, but at least they're functional. Hers don't look functional and that's what's disappointing about it.

I'm sure this will be a learning experience for MO. No biggie, really.

[solinvictus]

62. Let them eat cake!!

Said Marie Antionette Obama.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

65. That's exactly what happened!

:eyes:

[Scout]

63. they shouldn't make a big deal out of it...

but i do think that no matter how rich you are, if you pay that kind of money for shoes you are just being snooty and showing off. being a good conspicuous consumer, otherwise known as being trendy and/or fashionable.

that's just a ridiculous amount of money to pay for shoes, and ugly ones at that.

i generally do not have any problems with what Michelle wears.

[elleng]

67. Don't like that Ikram.

:(

[NashVegas]

68. I Will Call This One a Disappointment

Only because those sneakers don't appear to be made for anything resembling actual exercise.

Otherwise, *shrugs*

[BlooInBloo]

70. omg!

[LWolf]

74. Seems out of character,

but what do I know?

While I think a $540 pair of sneakers is a blatant waste, and is a disappointment, it's not as big a deal as the never-ending war, the bank bailout, the health care and education quagmires, the failure to hold the previous administration accountable, and the upcoming supreme court nomination.

[Critters2]

76. Doesn't seem out of character to me.

We live in a plutocracy, and the Obamas have always lived as plutocrats. Can't send their kids to public school, can't adopt a dog from a shelter, can't wear Keds. I voted for him, and think he's a great president, but we need to stop pretending that this nation is anything other than a plutocracy. The Obamas get it. Time for the rest of us to take the red pill and open our eyes.

[LWolf]

105. Those are good points.

Except that I don't think he's a great president. He's living up to my expectations, which were not good. I guess I had more hope for Michelle than I did for Obama himself.

[CRF450]

78. Rappers pay a crap load more for a pair of sneakers n/t.

[Djinn]

85. they don't tend to be on the public payroll

[Alexander]

87. Where's the evidence they used public money for the sneakers?

Answer: There isn't any.

The Obamas are wealthy even without the Presidential salary. They can probably afford things like this already.

[Djinn]

91. where's the evidence that I said they did

I couldn't give a stuff what she wears and have said so in this thread - just making the point that the rap thing is utterly irrelevant

[Alexander]

95. Your "public payroll" comment gave me the wrong idea.

I do apologize.

[CRF450]

101. Hey if I was making the money they're making, I'd buy some expensive stuff too

Only it wont be expensive shoes or clothes since I'm hardly a fashion guy.

[earth mom]

79. Michelle Obama should know better than to flaunt her wealth at a time like this.

Huge mistake.

[a kennedy]

81. OMG!!!

this is the longest thread I've ever started!!! :rofl:

[donheld]

117. I hope it's not the most important

thread you've ever started.

[BooScout]

82. Let's get real.....

1. There's a major recession going on......and her choice in shoes at that price shows poor judgement.
2. Anyone who pays $540 for a pair of ugly assed tennis shoes (no matter how much money they have) is foolish.
3. It's not nice to criticize aything the Obama family does....because they are special. :sarcasm:

[NoSheep]

90. If she hadn't worn those shoes, would you have noticed that they live a bit

higher off the hog than you and I do? And isn't that okay for the privacy they give up and the job they are doing on behalf of the country? This is the very LEAST of our problems. Get real. Poor people pay too much for shoes every day. At least the Obamas are living within their means.

[fishwax]

92. oh no! that's horrible!

:eyes:

[Zavulon]

96. The price of the shoes doesn't bother me. If anything should bother you, it should be

the appearance of the shoes, not the price. From strictly a fashion sense I don't think the First Lady of the United States should be wearing the sort of footwear I'd expect a pimp to be wearing, but I don't give a flying fuck what the shoes cost. I just hate the fact that they're so fucking ugly.

[devilgrrl]

98. Uh-oh! Here comes Sneaker Gate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:popcorn:

[calimary]

100. Yep, that's about it. That is all they have.

Besides, contradicta's Ferragamos cost more anyway, and she was Secretary of State - not - oh, sorry... I forgot - I was gonna say something about how she was Secretary of State and NOT the pResident's wife, but actually, I know better...

:evilgrin:

[geiger]

102. The shoes were ugly; the outfit terrible. eom.

[CBR]

103. I just cannot be upset about this...

my hubby and I do not have a lot of money but when we have some, sometimes we splurge. I have some Coach bags and he has a $300 pair of jeans that he loves (and a lot of Jordan basketball shoes -- $150 - $250 a pair).

The more troubling thing about this thread is all the "elite" comments. Last I checked, the Obamas worked their behinds off to get where they are. Neither was born in to wealth. Some of you would probably claim my hubby and I are elite about some things.

This was mentioned upthread but all Americans flaunt their wealth by virtue of being Americans. The fact that you are typing on the Internet is a clear sign of this.

[WriteDown]

115. 300$ pair of jeans?

Do they even make those?

[cherokeeprogressive]

109. $540 for some BUTT ugly shoes? Who the hell cares?

[GCP]

110. She can wear what she wants IMO

But honestly, they're ugly-ass shoes!

[defendandprotect]

119. Of course . . . Michelle can wear what she wants to wear . . . but there is a message ....

How many in this country right now could live a month or more on that money for

groceries?