Michelle Obama Wears $540 Designer Sneakers to Feed the Poor

Surely ... I mean *SURELY* we have something better to talk about than what this woman decided to wear as shoes.

Try not to swallow the talking points so easily yall.

Seriously.

this is rediculase
so to feed the poor u must dress like the poor
come on get a grip she owns the shoes the poor people dont no how much they cost and there greatfull for her help pepole these days complany about anything

How come you people cannot just admit that this was all about a Photo Op, with the intention of making it LOOK like she is "helping people" ?

When it comes down to it, the cost of those shoes coulda paid for a poor family's rent. Or a couple families' grocery bills, for a month!
....But the greater issue here, is this woman considers herself God's gift to America's poor people. I wonder how lucky they felt to have been blessed by her very presence.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


If it had been Laura Bush showing up for a contrived photo-op to pretend to feed the poor, in very ugly french sneakers that cost $540, would you be so quick to want to blast the thread?

At least Laura Bush had better taste in clothing
Them's some ugly shoes!

Hey Michelle .. if you bought these with your own allowance ... you got taken for a ride.

edited to add .. it's her money .. I'm sure she 'earned' it with her pay-for-play position in Chicago. If she wants to blow it on VERY ugly french sneakers .... she can.


[edit on 5/2/2009 by FlyersFan]

Hella funny mental image just came to me....


I bet it woulda felt HELLA akward if the place ran out of food before everyone could be served. Then there are a bunch of hungry families feeling truly blessed as they surround the First Lady, and her damn ugly shoes.

reply to post by Vasilis Azoth


They are Louis Vuitton and they are ugly. They also are sold out in many boutiques up north, go figure. This reminds my of George Carlin's old joke that "coc aine is god's way of saying you make too much money."

OMG this really drives me nuts! What do you want her to wear? You want her to wear sneakers from a thrift store so it looks more politically correct while feeding the poor? I dont think it really matters what she wears! It's her money and she has a right to spend it how she wants. At least she is helping others out. There are MANY wealthy people out there who do nothing to help others.

Originally posted by secretagent woooman
reply to post by Vasilis Azoth

 

They are Louis Vuitton and they are ugly. They also are sold out in many boutiques up north, go figure. This reminds my of George Carlin's old joke that "coc aine is god's way of saying you make too much money."

They are not Louis Vuitton they are Lanvin. I know my LV and those are not LV.

Well in my neck of the woods I see people with link cards wearing some of the most expensive shoes and clothing, but then with section eight rent funding and food stamps I guess they have the extra money,

if I sound bitter, well yea sometimes I am bitter.

reply to post by jd140


Sorry, but if I were donating money to a campaign, I wouldn't expect it to go to the vp pantsuit.

And I could even understand a few thousand dollars going to it. No big deal.


But 150k is a little much.

reply to post by jerico65


Most likely they were made by the designers company. And most likely they were a gift by that company.

the people who can afford it tend to be the ones who get a free gift.

Obama raised 650 million, to bad none of the witch hunt reporters weren't watching every penny he spent and reporting on it.

I still think Palin got a raw deal.

[edit on 093131p://bSaturday2009 by Stormdancer777]

reply to post by LostNemesis


Even if it is a photo op, it is a photo op to pay attention to the poor. What a horrible thing!!

This is what first ladies have been doing for generations. yet since it is MO you are all over it reeking of partisan bitterness.

Get real. They are sneakers.

Fact is, she may be wearing them to do this chore just because she doesn't like them.


The first people get a lot of gifts. People want them to wear their stuff. I heard a story once the Bill Clinton never wore teh same tie twice. And often gave others away as presents cuz he received so many.

It is just part of being teh first family.


Like the other poster said, The Bushes and Cheneys had way more money then the Obamas, but no one was griping about what they were wearing.

I have no respect for those that disrespect America and even though she's Finaly proud of her copuntry that foney spoiled woman still has no class, clue Or taste.
and she ain't no lady; I don't care what her title is.

I don't care what she wears or how much she spends but those are some damn FUGLY shoes! If I had $540 to spent on shoes, I'm pretty sure I could find some better looking ones.

Originally posted by sickofitall2012
I don't really care, but I have to agree, democrats ripped Palin apart for spending money on clothes.

Palin didn't spend money on her clothes. The Republican National Convention spent it on her clothes and clothes for her family. Sarah has an adequate income and could have afforded her own clothes.

During the same time period, the Obamas did not use money from the Democratic party to buy their clothing.

Palin's budgets showed she pulled tricks like working at home and charging the state for expenses. The Alaskan senate (and Republicans) condemned her for some of her nasty tactics and she took every opportunity she could to savage Obama.

She deserved to get snarked at for accepting the RNC's money for clothing. It was but one of many bad judgements that she has made and continues to make.

reply to post by greeneyedleo


Absolutely GreenEyedLeo ! All Good for YOU !

How many of these sour grapes coalition members have ever done ANY form of volunteer work for others ? And now they're stooping so low as to criticize someone's shoes while doing so ?

The simple fact that she wore these "Ugly" shoes to work at a soup kitchen where she would more than likely soil them there does somewhat convey her apparent disdain for these shoes as well though.

And in conclusion. The best some of these nitwits can come up with are Palin's clothing episode ? ...where she not only clothed herself, rather extravagantly IMA at Neiman Marcus, but also her entire family including the now ex unofficial son in law ...all with Republican presidential campaign funds ?
From what I recall , Democrats and Republicans alike, were somewhat miffed by her extravagance.

More ignorance at ATS.

reply to post by secretagent woooman


OOOooo noo...they are Lanvin.

Funnily enough one of my best girlfriends has been on the list for them for quite some time....and now she is certain she has no hope of attaining them because of this debacle.

I don't care if it is Palin, or Laura Bush, Michelle Obama, or Cindy McCain. As long as you pay for it yourself (are you listening Palin?) I really don't care what a first lady wears or its cost. When you're hanging out with Carla Bruni or Princess Latizia you better not show up frumpy (and are you listening Sarah Brown?) because its really not appropriate nor a good representation.

Sorry for my ATS fashion rant. The only problem I ever actually had was with Cindy McCain's $300,000 outfit for the RNC. (yes, that is how much it cost).

Even with her own money, that might not be appropriate during a recession. But est. $600 worth of sneakers I can live with.

The part of this story that baffles me:

100 days into Obama's Presidency and we still have poor to feed? How is that possible, after what we've been told for the last year?

Yeah! Ha ha!
Stick around.
After 200 days there won't be any poor people.
They'll be turned into Soylent Green! LOL!
Get it?
The GREEN movement.
The elite love word games.
It is not "eat the rich".... it is "eat the poor"!