$150,000 on clothes....just like the rest of us

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

Reported today that Michelle Obama was out sporting a $540 pair of sneakers.

But that's okay, because Michelle never made any airs about being anything other than an elitist. Palin, on the other hand, pretended to be "one of us," that phony...

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle...as_lanvin.html

If she pays for them herself, that's one thing, but if it's the GOP national committee putting lipstick on a pig, that's another thing.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If she pays for them herself, that's one thing, but if it's the GOP national committee putting lipstick on a pig, that's another thing.

Sounds like an arbitrary standard to me.

[Snowcat]

Originally Posted by Tex

Reported today that Michelle Obama was out sporting a $540 pair of sneakers.

For the first time im my life I am proud of my first lady.

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by Tex

Sounds like an arbitrary standard to me.

uh, she also wasn't the candidate.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

uh, she also wasn't the candidate.

Right. We reserve our toughest scrutiny for a candidate's pregnant teenager.

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by Tex

Right. We reserve our toughest scrutiny for a candidate's pregnant teenager.

I'm not saying you can't scrutinize the First Lady. Go right ahead. Presumably you think she shouldn't buy expensive shoes for some reason? I'm just saying you can't equate the wife with the candidate. That's not the same. Another First Lady would be a better comparison. I'd love for you to see how much Nancy Reagan spent on her wardrobe, for example.

Of course, I'm sure you'll reject this line of comparison for some reason. Just like you rejected Mike's other cogent argument about how it's also not a fair comparison between what you buy with your own money and what you buy with an organization's money.

[MikeWaters]

Could you imagine Tex commenting on the price of the shoes that, say, Elder Eyring's wife had bought?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

I'm not saying you can't scrutinize the First Lady. Go right ahead. Presumably you think she shouldn't buy expensive shoes for some reason? I'm just saying you can't equate the wife with the candidate. That's not the same. Another First Lady would be a better comparison. I'd love for you to see how much Nancy Reagan spent on her wardrobe, for example.

Of course, I'm sure you'll reject this line of comparison for some reason. Just like you rejected Mike's other cogent argument about how it's also not a fair comparison between what you buy with your own money and what you buy with an organization's money.

No, I'm not saying any of that. I'm commenting on the double-standard that was applied to Sarah Palin because she dared "sell" herself as a Regular Joe. The news media worked themselves into a tizzy over the wardrobe kerfuffle.

And I really don't see how who paid for it has any bearing on that.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

No, I'm not saying any of that. I'm commenting on the double-standard that was applied to Sarah Palin because she dared "sell" herself as a Regular Joe. The news media worked themselves into a tizzy over the wardrobe kerfuffle.

And I really don't see how who paid for it has any bearing on that.

you didn't see spending 6 figures on clothes a little bit odd?

I'm going to run for president wearing t-shirts.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

you didn't see spending 6 figures on clothes a little bit odd?

I'm going to run for president wearing t-shirts.

Of course I find it odd. I don't think any of these clothes are worth what's paid for them, R or D.

Thus I find Michelle Obama equally as criticism worthy as Sarah Palin. I don't think her status as "non-candidate" nor who paid for them has any relevance to that (so long as it's not the taxpayer).