Michelle's $540 Sneakers

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1854671' date='May 1 2009, 07:24 PM'][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline_Kennedy_Onassis"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline_Kennedy_Onassis[/url]
[i][b]This idyllic childhood came to an end when her parents divorced in 1940.[/b]

Her father never remarried. In 1942 her mother married second husband Standard Oil heir Hugh D. Auchincloss, Jr., and they had two children, [b]Janet and James Auchincloss. Jacqueline and her sister Lee then lived with their mother's new family, dividing their time at their stepfather's two vast estates, "Merrywood", in McLean, Virginia, and "Hammersmith Farm", in Newport, Rhode Island.[/b] They remained close to their father, and visited him often in New York City, where he lived.[/i]

Yeah, I mean having a stepfather with only two vast estates and then going to the nations most prestigious prep schools.

Must have been tough fer her.[/quote]


Money isn't everything. Her father was so alcoholic, that he couldn't even attend her wedding let alone walk her down the aisle.

[Hassan]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1854686' date='May 1 2009, 07:51 PM']Money isn't everything.[/quote]

No it's not, however it sure does help. Whatever you want to say about, her Michelle didn't have anywhere near the leg up that Jackie did.

[quote]Her father was so alcoholic, that he couldn't even attend her wedding let alone walk her down the aisle.[/quote]


That's a shame for her. My Uncle was also an alchoholic. Unfortunatly my cousin didn't get a step father with two estates and prep schools. Many of the kids at my high school also didn't/wont have their fathers walk them down the aisle, of course that's because their fathers were either in prison or they just never knew him.

Everyone has problems. Simply because Jackie did also doesn't mean she didn't have a big, big leg up. There's a difference between going on to a sucessful career after graduating from Georgetown after the nations best prep schools and vast financial resources and going on to have a sucessful career after graduating from Princeton after you put yourself there.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1854697' date='May 1 2009, 08:05 PM']No it's not, however it sure does help. Whatever you want to say about, her Michelle didn't have anywhere near the leg up that Jackie did.[/quote]

Me neither, and I didn't have affirmative action helping me get into law school. On the other hand, my ancestors probably owned her ancestors, so it seems to balance the universe.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1854638' date='May 1 2009, 07:31 PM']No it won't. For the same reasons it wasn't an issue with Laura Bush. Neither built their whole image on being some regular working class joe fighting against those darn "elites" with their $8 salad's and bottled water blah blah blah.

Not to mention that Michelle isin't a cannidate.[/quote]
Laura Bush never ran for office either. Why would I expect her to say those things? Michelle did campaign for Hussein, and together they preached a change from the elite class that had been running DC. They have been living a life of champagne and caviar ever since they arrived at the White House.

In regards to general criticism to Laura Bush and her wardrobe, are you sure the left's minions never harassed her on it? Don't make me pull out Google. :-)

[quote]As they say here, "You wield the sword you also fall by it"

Don't pretend to be a "Real American" and a populist fighting the washington elites while wearing clothing worth more than what any of those "real americans" make in a year.[/quote]
Any of those Americans? Please.

Why do you think people who wear nice clothes are not real Americans or can't speak for Americans?

This guy is clearly too royally dressed. He must not represent America.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/Washington_(3).jpg[/img]

Hey George! Try a Walmart! ;-)

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1854667' date='May 1 2009, 08:17 PM']You were expected to meet a particular dress code, you had the financial means to meet and so you bought them. I don't see a big difference between that and Michelle's "shameful" actions.[/quote]
Michelle is shameful with or without her fancy duds. Would someone in the press please ask her if she has had her second pride in America moment yet?
[quote]I guess I'll take the outrage here a bit more seriously when either the Catholic Church tones it down a bit or the same outraged individuals here rage against the Church engaging in extravigant spending.[/quote]
The Church spends extravagantly? On what? Things that give glory to God. Your reading assignment is Mt 25:6-13.

[princessgianna]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1854627' date='May 1 2009, 06:19 PM']Is it just me, or does Michelle seem to have an affinity for ugly things?[/quote]
That is true to most rich people! And most high priced name brand items (e.g. Chanel)

[CatherineM]

[quote name='princessgianna' post='1854791' date='May 1 2009, 09:32 PM']That is true to most rich people! And most high priced name brand items (e.g. Chanel)[/quote]

Chanel is the only thing I still indulge in, perfume though, Coco.

[ardillacid]

Politicians have no touch with reality. This is not news...

[TotusTuusMaria]

I chanel... so not ugly.

I actually like some of the things Michelle has dressed herself in and I actually like the outfit she is wearing in that pic.

I don't have a problem with her spending money on her clothing. If she can afford the shoes and she wants to put her money toward it... that is fine. By her buying the shoes she is not harming me or the American people.

"It is not a sin to be rich. If certain people can treat themselves to living well, they must have a reason for it... But I tell you that riches lead to avarice, and that is where sin comes in. God gives riches, and it is our duty to share them with those who are less favored." - Mother Teresa

It is not a sin to be rich and if she can treat herself and she wants to ... eh. It only becomes evil when it leads to avarice and when sin comes in. When she refuses to share it with those that are less favored. She is at a charity function. She is hardly refusing to share. Her name and presence will mean money and aid to whatever organization she is at.

[TotusTuusMaria]

And, personally, I believe the First Lady of America should represent.

You don't see royalty and other figureheads of countries wearing JCPenny and Sears. They have a certain place. They represent us to the rest of the world. They should dress nice. Jackie Kennedy did not go to meet the Pope or go to meet a Queen or even walk outside to be photographed in Sears or JCPenny, not to demean the two but they don't compare to Chanel, Isabel Toledo, and Lanvin.

And, when it comes to shoes if you go expensive and quality the first time you don't have to replace them. My brother buys shoes from Walmart every couple of months. He is constantly needing new shoes. I buy two pairs of designer flats at Christmas and that is all I wear the rest of year. They are good quality and they are comfortable. You get what you pay for.

[BG45]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1854644' date='May 1 2009, 08:42 PM'][mod]edit Michelle [/mod]Obama is [i]no[/i] Jackie O.[/quote]

Excuse me? Please tell me you're referring to the First Lady in a monastic sense of some sort, or have made a hideous typo. I'd hate to think we were stereotyping African Americans as monkeys and trying to further that racist idea.

She may not have Jackie O's fashion senses, but she most definitely is not sub-human.

[ardillacid]

George Bush can be a monkey

Obama cannot be a monkey

[BG45]

[quote name='notardillacid' post='1854924' date='May 2 2009, 12:27 AM']George Bush can be a monkey

Obama cannot be a monkey[/quote]

When you say Obama, do you mean the President or the First Lady? Either way, the term monkey is used as a racial slur against African Americans, so it's a bit different than calling former President George W. Bush a monkey. Yes, politicians deserve equal name calling, but not in a sense that can be construed by racial terms.

[Hassan]

[quote name='BG45' post='1854894' date='May 1 2009, 10:18 PM']Excuse me? Please tell me you're referring to the First Lady in a monastic sense of some sort, or have made a hideous typo.[/quote]


That's what I was hoping as well.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='BG45' post='1854894' date='May 1 2009, 11:18 PM']Excuse me? Please tell me you're referring to the First Lady in a monastic sense of some sort, or have made a hideous typo. I'd hate to think we were stereotyping African Americans as monkeys and trying to further that racist idea.

She may not have Jackie O's fashion senses, but she most definitely is not sub-human.[/quote]
I'm nothing short of insulted that you think I was somehow insinuating that just because she's black, she is a monkey.
I happen to think she looks like a monkey. Nothing to do with the fact she's black - she's got a massive jaw and bizarre teeth. Was it less than charitable? Probably. But there's nothing stereotypical about that. Does Bill Cosby look like a monkey? Oprah? Dinah Washington? Not in my opinion, anyway. It may not have been nice, but please don't wildly extrapolate that it was racist.
And like Notardillacid said, how many times was George Bush called a monkey? It was alright for him, but not Michelle Obama, because it's all of a sudden racist? Please.