Hurmoth Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Recession Wear: Michelle's tennis shoes cost $540? 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. Other celebrity fans of Lanvin's costly kicks include Ellen DeGeneres and Kanye West, who has blogged about his faves. As the family's primary dog walker, Michelle clearly requires comfortable footwear. "I got up at 5:15 in the morning to walk my puppy," she joked Thursday. "That's how my day starts. Even though the kids are supposed to do a lot of the work, I'm still up at 5:15 a.m. taking my dog out." She'll be trodding on New York's sidewalks Tuesday for the first time as First Lady. Michelle will meet with staff at the U.S. mission to the United Nations. Later, she headlines Time magazine's "100 most influential people" gala. What a joke! Where's the outrage about this from the left who bashed Sarah Palin's wardrobe? So how many here are hypocrites or will you actually denounce this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fhertlein Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 She is the First Lady and needs to dress snappy. She is entitled to wear what she wants. However... They want to tell people how much money they should make; take from the rich and give to the poor; and we don't apologize for our way of life. This is the nature of the bigger problem: Money is bad when in private hands but good in the governments. And I do like your Palin statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharinglungs Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Recession Wear: Michelle's tennis shoes cost $540?What a joke! Where's the outrage about this from the left who bashed Sarah Palin's wardrobe? So how many here are hypocrites or will you actually denounce this? Palin was being a hypocrite at the time. Michelle Obama is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathray Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Who is paying for the clothing and shoes? Is there some sort of presidential fund, or this is all from the money Obama makes as President, or they have no limits and take government money directly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurmoth Posted May 1, 2009 Author Share Posted May 1, 2009 Palin was being a hypocrite at the time.Michelle Obama is not. Please, offer some proof and not just your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharinglungs Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Who is paying for the clothing and shoes?Is there some sort of presidential fund, or this is all from the money Obama makes as President, or they have no limits and take government money directly? The President makes money. He doesn't have free reign over government money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurmoth Posted May 1, 2009 Author Share Posted May 1, 2009 Who is paying for the clothing and shoes?Is there some sort of presidential fund, or this is all from the money Obama makes as President, or they have no limits and take government money directly? The Obama family is far from poor: "U.S. President Barack Obama made nearly $2.5 million (1.6 million pounds) in 2008 from the sales of his two best-selling memoirs, according to tax information released by the White House on Wednesday." --http://uk.reuters.com/article/UKNews1/idUKTRE53F05D20090416 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharinglungs Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Please, offer some proof and not just your opinion. "It seems that the RNC may have spent up to $150,000 on clothing ". All the while Palin said she wouldnt accept Handouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurmoth Posted May 1, 2009 Author Share Posted May 1, 2009 "It seems that the RNC may have spent up to $150,000 on clothing ". All the while Palin said she wouldnt accept Handouts. Again proof that she said she wouldn't accept handouts. I want to see it in context, not just your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fhertlein Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 The President makes money. He doesn't have free reign over government money. The RNC purchased Palin's wardrobe, not taxpayer funded. Sample on Palin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMarsten Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 It's different when Michelle uses her and Barracks money to purchase these items than when Palin used taxpayers money to buy hers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fhertlein Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 It's different when Michelle uses her and Barracks money to purchase these items than when Palin used taxpayers money to buy hers. Not taxpayer money but the RNC's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetsam Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 As long as the tax payer is not paying for it... its not any of our business. Be it Michelle Obama or Sarah Palin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d3nuo Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Palin was being a hypocrite at the time.Michelle Obama is not. i love how deceived some people are. statements like this are stupid and unjustified, not to mention unsubstantiated beyond your opinionated mind. the hypocrisy is hilarious when it comes to people not wanting their savior pres. to get trash-talked. and no, i didn't like palin that much (a lot better than biden) and i didn't vote for the republican party either. neither major party deserved the presidency because they're both grossly incompetent and horrible liars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharinglungs Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Again proof that she said she wouldn't accept handouts. I want to see it in context, not just your opinion. Can't find where I read it, but maybe I imagined it.. but I dont see the issue here. The Obama's were rich before getting in the whitehouse, They can afford whatever they please.. Palin was given $150,000 worth of clothing.. for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetsam Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Palin was given $150,000 worth of clothing.. for free. Question is did you pay for it ? If not why are you so upset ? If its a private party giving her free stuff I think they are free to do as they please as long as they are not playing with public funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fhertlein Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 The issue is not the shoes or the cost, but the double-standard, of do as I say not as I do. Politicians are always trying to tell people how to live, what morals, ethics or causes are correct. If a person disagrees with what is pushed, denunciations abound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharinglungs Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 I don't care, as I'm not American, it affects me not. I think getting $150,000 of free clothing is ridiculous. I think rich people should be able to wear whatever they feel like wearing.. it IS their money they're spending. thiis thread is just here for flame bait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VIVIsectVI Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Who's to say they weren't a gift. Or are there really people out there lifeless enough that they want to analyze every piece of clothing a person wears in order to push some pointless political agenda? That was a rhetorical question, btw. Since people around here seem a tad thick at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwjw1 Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Recession Wear: Michelle's tennis shoes cost $540? lol...what does this even have to do with Palin. Whats Next?...blaming Bush for buying the last $40.00 pair of shoes and forcing Michelle to pay $540.00. I hardly doubt she was wearing $540.00 shoes when both were making more than what the salary of being President is. Some Puppets just hate to have their strings pulled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharinglungs Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 also "The cash expenditures immediately raised questions among campaign finance experts about their legality under the Federal Election Commission's long-standing advisory opinions on using campaign cash to purchase items for personal use." Campaign Cash.. comes from.. you guessed it.. contributions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azz0r_wugg Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 I would guess she gets given alot of free clothes and shoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell-In-A-Handbasket Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 all the presidents have been given artwork, and tons of clothes what designer WOULD NOT want the First family sporting their wear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetsam Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 I agree. Anyone should be free to do as they please with their money as long as they earned it. Its very clear just from the tax statement that Michelle Obama can afford those shoes from just that year's salary. So this is a non issue. I seriously don't understand why some people have this attitude that I am broke so you don't get to have fun either. That being said the whole slicing and dicing of Sarah Palin's attire was a clear bias in reporting. How many times have we looked at the ward robes of other politicians, where it came from, and who paid for it ? People want to look good and if they have the money to do so then why not ? As long as we the public are not being screwed on that cause its a non issue. Its amazing how the left preaches equal opportunity to all sexes and races but then they don't have a problem putting on their magnifying glasses when it comes to Palin. Hypocrisy at its best should we say ? The issue is not the shoes or the cost, but the double-standard, of do as I say not as I do.Politicians are always trying to tell people how to live, what morals, ethics or causes are correct. If a person disagrees with what is pushed, denunciations abound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperAFK Posted May 1, 2009 Share Posted May 1, 2009 Recession Wear: Michelle's tennis shoes cost $540?What a joke! Where's the outrage about this from the left who bashed Sarah Palin's wardrobe? So how many here are hypocrites or will you actually denounce this? Oh god she put money into the economy buying expensive clothes, oh the horror. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts