Originally Posted By dlkozy on what she chooses to wear to a "volunteer" at a photo op at a food bank. 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. <a href="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#ixzz0EI1xxWMJ&A" target="_blank">http://www.nydailynews.com/lif...1xxWMJ&A</a> Just because ya can=doesn't mean ya should.
Originally Posted By mele Anyone else hear that scraping noise? Sounds like the bottom of the barrel to me...LOL
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I am curious, should Michele Obama have worn a pair of beat up Keds to show more compassion? Would her appearance at the food bank have been somehow more genuine if she wore some sort of "homeless" get up? If there's a point to this Mr. Blackwell-esque dredging, I am missing it.
Originally Posted By dlkozy Oh, didn't you know K2M that there ARE shoes that don't cost $540 a pair? But, nothing like being over dramatic in post #5.
Originally Posted By DAR Maybe it's because I'm a heterosexual male, and that's not a slam to females or gay males, but what people are wearing is towards the top of things I could give a crap about.
Originally Posted By dlkozy >>>"Anyone else hear that scraping noise?"<<< Gee, thought that was the President hitting the ceiling again upon hearing Joe's latest Biden! LOL
Originally Posted By dlkozy It looks disingenuous, (which it is why it showed up in the news)-and a lack of thought on the part of her advisors.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt She' wealthy and the Fist Lady. Big whoop. How do we know that she paid full retail for them?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Really? We're talking about Michelle Obama's SHOES? Really? <Maybe it's because I'm a heterosexual male, and that's not a slam to females or gay males, but what people are wearing is towards the top of things I could give a crap about.> Count me one gay male who doesn't give a crap about that stuff either. I hardly care about it on myself, much less other people. <Anyone else hear that scraping noise? Sounds like the bottom of the barrel to me...LOL> Best line of the day, mele!
Originally Posted By Mr X I think this is wildly amusing actually. They weren't $5,000 shoes. They were $500. Hell, back when I was in HIGH SCHOOL I saved up and splurged on $200 kicks...cause I thought they were cool. She paid for them herself, assumedly. She's a pretty frugal person in general, it appears. One thing she does like to splurge on is footwear. So what? She earned her own money, she can buy whatever she wants. Where did YOU volunteer this week, Kozy?
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "She didn't she had a 10% off coupon." Or she was comped by the manufacturer.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Count me one gay male who doesn't give a crap about that stuff either. I hardly care about it on myself, much less other people.>> I didn't mean to generalize. But I've seen Project Runway a few times.
Originally Posted By DAR <<splurged on $200 kicks...cause I thought they were cool.>> Jordans? Or let me guess your a Boston guy so you wanted to be like Dee Brown with the Reebok pumps.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Oh, didn't you know K2M that there ARE shoes that don't cost $540 a pair?<< Gosh, no, I didn't. Thanks for the tip. So if she'd worn a $90 pair of Nikes, then she would appear that more sincere in wanting to help out a worthy cause? I think it's disingenuous to call this thread anything other than what it is: More desperate partisan crapola from the right. And it wasn't in "the news." It was in the gossip fashion pages of the NY Daily News. But don't let that stop ya.
Originally Posted By Mr X Honestly, DAR, I don't even remember. Probably Jordans or something like that.
