Originally Posted By dlkozy >>>"handlers"...how rude is that?"<<< Merriam Webster: ": a manager of a political or public figure or campaign" Too bad that you don't like the correct definition of the word.
Originally Posted By Mr X Meh. She's not on a campaign. "Staff" or "advisors" would be more appropriate. And obviously you're going for tone here, the way you put "volunteer" in quotes and then make fun of the First Lady via her "handlers" and all the rest. I get it. We all do.
Originally Posted By dlkozy >>>"that stuff didn't fool anyone..."<<< EXACTLY, that "stuff didn't fool anyone"-her handlers/advisors should have known better. It is hokey.
Originally Posted By dlkozy LOL-X, always trying to make something up in you own mind for your own personal agenda and entertainment. The biggest laugh tonight is your indignation of a word in the dictionary that was used correctly! LOL!
Originally Posted By dlkozy >>>"Meh. She's not on a campaign..."<<< Didn't read the definition correctly, I see. Let me help-"a manager of a political OR public figure OR campaign."
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>EXACTLY, that "stuff didn't fool anyone"-her handlers/advisors should have known better.<< Huh? You seem to be quite upset about her footwear. I am saying that had she worn beat up Keds it would have been hokey. Of course, then you could have started a thread saying "Who does that Michele Obama think she's fooling by dressing down that way?" In other words, she can't win with you regardless what she does.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Meanwhile, fashion aside, here's what it was all about (as if it matters, right?): >>First lady Michelle Obama kept her promise to actively volunteer in the Washington area Wednesday, bagging lunches for hungry children at a local food bank on her husband's 100th day in office. Mrs. Obama and Jill Biden, wife of Vice President Joe Biden, joined more than 100 congressional spouses at the Capital Area Food Bank on Wednesday, passing out packages of wheat pasta and cans of pineapple as volunteers bagged meals for low-income kids in the area. The bags of food are expected to feed 1,000 children as part of a program that serves bagged to-go lunches to families on the weekends in lieu of free lunches at school. Each bag includes a variety of healthy foods and a recipe book and is designed to feed a child for five meals. This is the second time the first lady has volunteered for the hungry in the District of Columbia. In March, she served lunch to the homeless at a soup kitchen. "I think it's important for Americans to see you all here doing this," she told the bipartisan group of spouses, thanking them. "We can give something back to the D.C. community that often times don't get to see us." The event was sponsored by the food bank and Feeding America, a hunger relief group. According to the food bank, one in two children in the District of Columbia are at risk of going hungry.<< So a bipartisan group of political spouses volunteered at the food bank and 1,000 kids will get some nutritious food in an area where 1 in 2 kids will be hungry tonight. Food to get them through the weekend. I can see why we'd fixate on the first lady's footwear instead of the good example the event sets.
Originally Posted By dshyates ANY first lady is in a rather tough spotlight in regards to her clothes. I do believe a "regular" pair of sneaks would have been a better choice when visiting a charity for the disadvantaged. But she is "The First Lady". And I don't think ANYONE believes they are disadvantaged. So I don't care if she wore "Designer" clothes from head to toe. The purpose of the visit is to bring the "need" into the spotlight. Its a shame that everyone is talking about her shoes and not the increased need for support of local food banks.
Originally Posted By charming husband I think that anytime anyone (even for photo ops) spends time at a food bank that is a GREAT thing! Too bad more people do not do that. What is laughable is how a statement regarding whether she could use better advice from her handlers turned into a you are a Rep and you hate all Dems and you are picking on Dems, etc., etc., etc. Typical of life here in WE, I suppose. Nothing if not dramatic. LOL!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I think that anytime anyone (even for photo ops) spends time at a food bank that is a GREAT thing! Too bad more people do not do that.<< Yay! I knew we'd all reach agreement eventually.
Originally Posted By charming husband I don't think that I am the only one that has said that though. On that same subject-don't forget that the USPS food drive will be coming up in a few weeks. Don't forget to leave your bags of canned food near your mailbox and the USPS will pick them up when they deliver your mail.
Originally Posted By dlkozy I don't know when the USPS food drive is, charming husband, but I DO know that the Scout Food Drive nationwide will be Saturday May 9. I hope that it will be very successful.
Originally Posted By FaMulan On the original topic, as I said to a facebook friend last night: When your husband reports more than Two Million Dollars in income for the year 2008, one can afford such extravagances. BTW, that $2.6 million is about half of what was reported for 2007. As to where she was and what she was doing when she was wearing the shoes: that's completely and totally in line with the President's call for community serivce and I'm very glad the First Lady, Mrs. Biden and the *bi-partisan* group of Congressional wives put underadvantaged kids first for a while. I don't recall the former First Lady going to a soup kitchen or packing lunches for kids.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***BTW, that $2.6 million is about half of what was reported for 2007.*** 07 was when his book sales took off. IIRC prior to that year they were comfortable, but hardly wealthy. IN ANY case, I agree with FaMulan on this one...as I said before she made her money the old fashioned way (and NO, she didn't "marry into it", she was doing well before they ever even met!), and if she wants to buy some expensive stuff I say "God Bless Her"! Hopefully one day I'll be rich enough to afford $500 shoes (I've gone the $200 route once or twice, once for stupidly expensive sneakers as I mentioned previously, and I believe once or twice more over the years for dress shoes for my tuxedo...but $500 is a bit uncomfortable for me at my current income level)!
Originally Posted By Mr X ***they were comfortable, but hardly wealthy*** Bad choice of words here. Prior to that they were reasonably wealthy, but not millionaires.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder So, in a thread that's started to criticize Michelle Obama's choice of SHOES she wears to a food bank (SHOES? Really? Her SHOES?), we get the following bon mots from dlkozy and "charming husband": "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." "This is all entertainment folks and to put down someone because they post something that is interesting to them-grow up." "Posted exactly where I found it X-don't be so lazy, look it up." "Just like you X-always personal attacks in your posts." "What a short little memory you have X. My exact statement that I started with did not attack Michele, I questioned the advice she is given." "Sad that you can't see it for what it is-kinda humorous actually." "Too bad that you don't like the correct definition of the word." "The biggest laugh tonight is your indignation of a word in the dictionary that was used correctly! LOL!" "What is laughable is how a statement regarding whether she could use better advice from her handlers turned into a you are a Rep and you hate all Dems and you are picking on Dems, etc., etc., etc. Typical of life here in WE, I suppose. Nothing if not dramatic. LOL!" I have gone down to the depths of the WE basement to unearth the appropriate responses, taking into consideration the seriousness of the topic in relation to the world's problems and the style exhibited above. Rather than rising to the level of competition, unfortunately we've had to press the down elevator. I now offer sample some responses for people to use in case they want to relate to the mindset of the topic: "Really, dlkozy? You're going to use THAT brand of coloring on your hair this morning before you post? LOL. It's sad, really sad, that you don't know how it appears to others". "Support hose? And you're not going to work? You really need to wear support hose while sitting around the house all day thinking of these quick retorts?" "Charming? Did your handle get picked the Antonym Book?" "What's humorous is that you're able to, LOL, I crack myself up, LOL, able to, hold on wait a minute..... LOLOLOL, oh I'm so smug, LOL, I....." "Anyone seen my Marlboros? Damn kids."
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder So anyway, I just can't take this thread seriously. I just can't. The topic, the general overall tone of it, it's absolute inanity. If this is what the "opponent" is focused on, they're in really big trouble. Because <a href="http://www.johnspeedie.com/healy/crap.wav" target="_blank">http://www.johnspeedie.com/hea...crap.wav</a>
Originally Posted By DAR <<I don't recall the former First Lady going to a soup kitchen or packing lunches for kids.>> I'm sure she did similar charitable work. Trust me whenever Obama's presidency approaches its end we probably won't see as many of these stories about this.
