• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Shiny Happy People
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Shiny Happy People
    riverdaughter on Shiny Happy People
    riverdaughter on Shiny Happy People
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Shiny Happy People
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Shiny Happy People
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Shiny Happy People
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Shiny Happy People
    riverdaughter on Shiny Happy People
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Oh yes Republicans would like…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Shiny Happy People
    William on Jeopardy!
    jmac on Jeopardy!
    William on Jeopardy!
    riverdaughter on Oh yes Republicans would like…
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

  • Top Posts

Shoes and Ideology

$540 Lanvin trainers

$540 Lanvin trainers

First Lady Michelle Obama is being criticized for wearing pricey designer sneakers to hand out food to the needy.

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.

That’s right: These sneakers – suede, with grosgrain ribbon laces and metallic pink toe caps – are made by French design house Lanvin, one of fashion’s hottest labels. They come in denim and satin versions, and have been a brisk seller all spring.

Apparently she needed the ridiculously expensive but comfy shoes to walk her daughters’ new dog.

“I got up at 5:15 in the morning to walk my puppy,” she joked Thursday. “That’s how my day starts. Even though the kids are supposed to do a lot of the work, I’m still up at 5:15 a.m. taking my dog out.”

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Michelle probably got the shoes at the Ikram boutique in Chicago.

When Michelle joined some Washington DC school children to break ground for the White House Kitchen garden, she wore a pair of Jimmy Choo Biker boots that retail for $775. She really likes those boots. They appear in quite a few photos, so it’s not like she bought them just for the photo op.

Jimmy Choo Biker boots

Jimmy Choo Biker boots

Another pair of Michelle’s shoes that got a lot of media attention were the green Jimmy Choo “glacier” pumps that she wore for the Inauguration. The retail price for those is $695.00.

I wasn’t able to identify the turquoise blue fur-lined boots in the photo below, but I love them! Anybody recognize the brand?


So what is the point of this post? Clearly Michelle Obama loves shoes. I have to admit that I like shoes a lot too, and I have quite a few pairs–nothing in the $500-$800 price range, of course; but I don’t have as much money as the Obamas do. I didn’t like it when the prog blogs pounded on Sarah Palin for spending money on clothes and I don’t like it when it happens to Michelle either.

Furthermore, I think you’d have to agree that people who throw around this kind of money on shoes are not “socialists.” But I still see right-wingers and sometimes even commenters at TC calling Obama that. A very right wing Boston Talk show host, Jay Severin, constantly refers to Barack Obama as a “Marxist” and claims he pushes “communist” policies. The Boston Globe collected several quotes in this vein from righties:

Obama’s plans are “one big down payment on a new American socialist experiment,” asserts House minority leader John Boehner. He’s “the world’s best salesman of socialism,” says Republican Senator Jim DeMint.

“Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff,” declares Mike Huckabee. Sean Hannity derides his agenda as “socialism you can believe in.” Obama is “a radical communist,” warns kooky Alan Keyes.

So can we please kill this “Obama is a socialist” meme forever?

157 Responses

  1. Socialists can wear pricey clothing. Consider François Mitterand. And Nicolai Ceausescu was not known for his modest living. If the shoe fits…..

    • Whatever… I know you are permanently stuck on “Obama is a socialist.” Do you just drop by when that word shows up at TC?

    • Hang on. I don’t know you, because I don’t always read the comment threads. But are you seriously suggesting that Obama is a socialist? Because I’m pretty socialist myself, and I would like him a hell of a lot better if you provided some evidence that he was.

  2. Those Lanvin sneakers are really ugly, imo. But that’s besides the point…

    I find it extremely ironic that Palin was criticized for her wardrobe while she was campaigning (she doesn’t dress like that in her everyday life) but MO can wear $500-$800 shoes to walk her dog?

    I love shoes too. If my husband was a millionaire I admit that I’d probably splurge on a few Jimmy Choos and Monolo Blahniks myself. But the problem is that I’m not a millionaire and this economy has gotten my family – and most of middle America – worried about whether we can afford a place to live and food on the table if things don’t get better really soon…

    To have a total disregard of the millions of Americans being laid off or who have lost their homes simply shows the disconnect between the Washington beltway and their spouses compared to the rest of America. MO knows that she is one of the most photographed women in the world. Yes, it matters that she looks good for the cameras and when she’s at her fancy White House balls… but to wear Lanvin shoes to a homeless shelter is tactless.

    I guess she put up the front of being “one of us” long enough and now she’s back to wearing the designer clothes that her husband’s campaign criticized Palin for wearing while running for VP. Also, I never thought that wearing J.Crew was an indicator that she was down to earth. Most Americans can’t afford to have a closet full of J.Crew clothes. I love J.Crew but I can only afford to buy a few items whenever they are on sale. Their sweaters are usually around $150 and their skirts and dresses are in the $200-500+ range.

    • I made the point about Sarah Palin in the post. I don’t think people should come down on either one of them. Of course it was a little dumb of Michelle to wear those expensive shoes to the food bank. Some female reporter was bound to notice them. But who really believes either of the Obamas cares about poor people who are hungry? A true socialist would.

      • A little dumb, BB? How about completely thoughtless, insincere, and self absorbed to the point of deciding to make a fashion statement in front of people so needy they’re having to resort to a food bank, people whose shoes probably come from Goodwill and dumpsters. This goes way beyond tacky, and MO deserves a lot of criticism for being so flipping shallow. Life in the WH seems to be one big photo op for her and BO. MO knows she can’t put a foot wrong (no pun intended) because the MSM are there to praise her every move. I’m not here to do the same.

        • As I said, I don’t think either Michelle or Barack has a clue about what it means to be poor and hungry and it’s obvious they don’t care.

        • I guess I should have expected to be raked over the coals for this post, but really I was just trying to make the point that it is stupid to call Obama a socialist. I get tired of seeing people say it, and commenters even do it here at TC. It bugs me.

          • There are much better ways to illustrate the fact that Obama is far from a socialist. Ways such as pointing out his love affair with Wall Street, his abandonment of the traditional FDR wing of the Democratic party, and his involvement in pay-to-play politics including the hefty raise MO received for her job after BO became a senator – a job which was suddenly deemed superfluous after MO resigned from it upon BO’s election to the presidency. MO’s extremely pricey shoes have nothing to do with a lack of socialistic tendencies. Bringing them up in such a context merely confuses the issue. The Republicans are utter fools for portraying BO as a socialist, as this simply serves to bolster his image as some kind of good guy ‘liberal’, an image which is utterly false.

          • I have repeatedly pointed out all those things. I’m sorry you were offended by the post.

          • I’m just not in a very charitable mood tonight, as I’m being stiffed for a bunch of money due my business (around $3,000), and it’s money I really, really, really need. The money is owed, of course, by a couple of ardent Obamafans who are fond of portraying themselves as the sole of virtue. They’re the type who rebut any conversation about bad economic times with, “But at least we have Obama”. Aaaarrrrgggh! They can have Obama. I want my money.

          • Sorry for your trouble, Kat5.

          • The couple involved used money from sales of my antique maps and prints, for which they receive 30 percent of the proceeds, to float their business. They’ve been doing this for a number of months, with no qualms. Very late payments, bounced checks, excuse after excuse. Now they’re really in a deep hole financially and I’m afraid I’ll never get paid this time. They’ve known full well how little money my husband and I are living on, but that has never seemed to matter. But they’re “liberals”, so that makes it all okay, I suppose.

        • Comment deleted

    • Yeah, I find it rather strange that the Obamas, supposedly Democrats, would be as insensitive as they have been (the meals, vacays, clothes, and other amenities) given the economy. I mean, people blasted the crap out of Nancy Reagan for upgrading the WH china and GHWB for not knowing the price of a loaf of bread. I guess we only expect Republican leaders to be sensitive to oppressed, downtrodden, and so on. Democratic leaders can walk on their backs (and in damn fine shoes).

      • It’s because they are nouveau riche. They don’t know how to carry it off tastefully.

        • This isn’t a matter of new money, it’s a matter of old, bad character traits.

    • Just a tale of the Haves and the Have Nots in this country. I would have more respect for Michelle Obama if she had shown up in ordinary clothes from Target (where she claimed during the Palin flap to buy hers) but high end J Crew and Paris design houses?

      Once, pre-2000, I might have been able to shop the boutique sales at J Crew but not even then would I have been able to buy a pair of tennis shoes that cost almost $600 (think the tax wasn’t added on) and now even window shopping is a rare event.

      And have we already forgotten that both parties found Governor Palin’s clothes from the local thrift shop so unsuitable that Republicans had to go out and buy a wardrobe for her to borrow and Democrats sneered because Palin couldn’t afford to live like the Obamas on her $125,000 governor’s salary? In case no one has noticed (and they might not since “media” doesn’t cover her wardrobe any longer) she’s back to wearing the same old thing she wore before the clothing flap.

      Since most of our extravagant “presidential” candidates are multiple millionaires it does make one wonder who has been supplying the Obamas with all this cash to buy designer clothes since neither of them have earned enough or paid enough in taxes to have this much money because, if it was possible, at least half of the people commenting here should have more money than those Obamas do.

      • “it does make one wonder who has been supplying the Obamas with all this cash to buy designer clothes”

        Design houses and designs are known to give gifts to “important” people they know will be photographed a lot as a strange way of advertisement.

        Portion of comment removed.

  3. Hey bostonboomer 🙂

    Hideous choices- they don’t call her Tacky O for nuthin!


    • I’m probably tacky too, because I like a lot of Michelle’s clothes. I like that she wears bright colors a lot. I love the biker boots too.

      • for me, it’s not the pieces she chooses, per se, it’s that she does not *wear* them well. i’ve always thought she looks awkward in her clothing, much of which she wears too tight. (eg, the pants in the post pic – when you can see the outline of the pocket lining, the pants are TOO tight.)

        i, too, love bright colors, but imho, she does not mix them in well.

        anyway, on topic, i don’t understand the shoes – socialist connection. seems like quite a stretch.

        • Sexist comment deleted.

          • That is a common problem with tall women. I am about as tall as Michelle and I too spent much of my life trying to appear shorter than I am. Unlike you, I have some empathy for her. I’m sure she is trying to improve herself so she can meet your approval.

          • Michelle has decent posture-nowhere like a vulture.

          • Sexist comment deleted.

          • Wow, on moderation for elaborating on what others have said? SIGH….

      • you, tacky? never!

    • Hi Catarina!

    • “Tacky O”

      I LOVE IT, LOL!!!

  4. Nice shoes are expensive, and sometimes even not so nice.

    She’s the wife of the POTUS and they are millionaires, so can clearly afford it. All power to her. I have more problem with gazillionairres who wear cheap stuff in public to show us what great human beings they are.

    I would be angry if she asked us to sacrifice by wearing cheap shoes.

    • I figure this post will be unpopular, but I couldn’t resist writing about shoes! The fact that Michelle enjoys them humanizes her for me.

    • I disagree. She is not just “some millionaire’s wife.” She is the First Lady, visiting a homeless shelter/food pantry. Whether she likes it or not, she is a symbol, and obviously they are tone deaf to that. The double standard re: Palin vs. MO is blatant. Remember when GHWB didn’t know what a bar code is? MO is always talking about what “regular folks” they are. You can’t have it both ways. Either it’s no big deal for anyone, or they are all held to a higher standard.

      • ok, stepping in here as somone who comes from Old Money, but who is now like everyone else… Its irritating. Also My aristocratic gramma informed me… “Look you can wear nice things and they dont have to be expensive. BUT NEVER mix expensive clothes with cheap shoes or vice versa. This is why: If you are in a situation you think inexpensive clothes is best for–your shoes should reflect the job. Wear work shoes. Wear sensible shoes. If you are wearing nice clothes wear as nice a shoe as you can afford. Bad shoes and handbag cheapens a nice dress. Expensive shoes worn to do work, or do charity looks tacky.”

        She was big on charity, and her law for me growing up was “From those to whom much is given, much will be expected. Live with it. Live up to it.”

        She never wore big diamond jewelry. Considered it tacky.
        She worse fashionable costume jewelry and semi precious stones.
        Now as i have different circumstances than she ever imagined, I can appreciate that. I hate having my nose rubbed in what i do not have by people who should know better and purport to care about me.

        And i know some former soviets. And yes Socialists of the ruling class, and in the favored positions certainly did dress up. Just like M. O. And they had all the trappings of royalty. Drivers, luxurious food, show horses, nice homes, even cooks and housekeepers.

    • Well, she actually did that during the campaign, hid the jimmy chops and made a big deal of how she’s just like us, struggling with money and shopping at Target.

      I wouldn’t care one way or the other, except of course she had to weigh in on the Palin wardrobe thing, so if you’re going to be a hypocrite and legitimize this garbage, you deserve every bit of criticism snapping back at you.

  5. Michelle has always worn expensive designer clothes. She earned enough money at her University of Chicago hospital job (paid for with hubby’s taxpayer pork) to pay for them.

    (BTW -Two months after Obama became a US senator, she was appointed vice president for community and external affairs. Tax returns show the promotion nearly tripled her pay to $317,000 in 2005, from $122,000 in 2004.Once she left for the WH, that position was formally dropped from the staff roster)

    If you remember, her remark about the Bush $600 stimulus, was that it might be enough for a pair of earrings.

    That’s why the baloney about Palin’s wardrobe was so hypocritical.

    • Yes, and Michelle’s “working-class upbringing” is a myth too.

  6. I don’t have a problem with the rich and famous acting rich and shameless.

    But it’s politically tone-deaf for a Democratic POTUS and FLOTUS to engage in conspicuous consumption during a economic depression.

    • Yes, it is politically tone deaf. More evidence that they aren’t socialists.

      At least I think so.

      • please see my post above.
        I know some real live former soviet socialists from the upper class. They lived like rich people anywhere.

        • I suspect people here are trying to draw a distinction between those individuals who benefited from a corrupt socialist system, and those individuals who simply hold and espouse socialist values. You apparently know some of the former, some of us here identify as the latter. Obama doesn’t appear to be either. Just an empty suit stuffed full of Republican money kissing Wall Street ass.

  7. Yeah, they are no socialists. From what I’ve seen they’ve NEVER done anything for anyone else.

    I still don’t understand why so many believe this crock about him robbing the rich to give to the poor. All I see is him robbing the middle class to give to the filthy rich, but that’s not social justice…that’s payback!

    But. if you watch FOX, that is the common message being driven, because it serves they’re purpose. Middle class capitalists can’t bring themselves to hate the super rich, since that’s what we all want to be, but blaming the poor for societies ills, that IS something they can do.

    Truly class warfare is going on. keep the poor and middle classes fighting with each other and the wealthy elites get to bilk us all! And of course the Obama’s are all too happy to help it along.

  8. Hey, she’s first lady. She has to spend money on clothes. And if I thought Obama was a socialist, I might have voted for him. He’s not and I didn’t.
    I don’t care about her shoes but I do wonder why a professional woman who has two kids in school has decided to take the traditional, more Republican role model track and become a stay at home mom. She hasnt even got an issue she’s interested in It feels like a real slap in the face to those of us who love both our jobs and our families. Her shoes lake in significance compared to that. Obama and Michelle are antifeminists as far as I’m concerned.

    • I agree with you.

      • Apparently Tweety went out of his way recently to praise MO for following a “more traditional role as First Lady.” As usual, he had to feed his Hillary obsession by complimenting MO for not working, and “being ambitious,” yada yada…like Someone Else We All Know.

    • I don’t think any FLOTUS wants to take the beatings HRC took. It’s draining even to watch.

      In part we have to blame the society. Just watch MO and Laura Bush approval ratings.

      Knowing MO, I can imagine she wanted to take a more active role (hey, SHE made HIM) but certainly Axelrove & Co said “no, no, you’ll ruin it for him. You want the best for him don’t you?”

      People are still hating Hillary’s guts to this day for no other reason than she didn’t want “to stay home and bake cookies”.

      • That’s what I mean about antifeminists. They’ve given in instead of challenging the status quo. They aren’t leaders. And besides, Hillary did nothing wrong. What Michelke is doing is acting as though there was somthing wrong with Hillary instead of her critics. That tends to give those critics power. So, Michelle is taking political women back a generation. I hate that.

        • Why do you think my peeps at BAR called him Status QuObama?

          (Dammit why can’t I came up with stuff like that?)

        • Even Nancy Reagan had a cause, and she was flayed by the press. I even felt sorry for her at times.

        • OK i agree with you to a certain extent but consider myself a feminist who believes that all womens’ activities should be considered honourable. Even the act of being a stay at home mom baking cookies.

          I think women making choices for themselves and being honoured for their individuality, resourcefulness and their diverse contributions to society, whatever they may be, is what feminism can be about. My ideal world is where we all work together as sisters, and take care of each other, so that we dont have to be put to work by a lazy or too-ambitious husband, if we think the kids need us, or be kept at home by a controlling man…

          The issue being neither left not right but being one of self determination and dignity.

          Women are smart and have much to contribute to the workplace but i still think some women are happiest as moms, and we need those happy well balanced and nurturing women out there doing traditional stuff too. Then there are the special people who can do both and be great at it, and they are performing heroically. But im not sure that sometimes the message is coming across that whats important is womens freedom to decide for herself which lifestyle is going to be right for her.

          Often the message of freedom of self expression gets lost in a different message of “Motherhood is slavery” “only dummies wanna be stay at home moms” and that choosing to take care of a home and kids and husband if you can afford it, is something only fundies and mormons do.

          I am a single woman, who has had an abortion, works at a sweat like a man job, and who has a few believed friends who are traditional stay at home moms, who never had an abortion ever. I am sure i couldnt do what they do. I respect the hell outta them. They are very liberal, and i am somewhat conservative! LOL we are all self-described feminists.

          But when i was in trouble, I was helped most out of a horrible situation of being oppressed by a very bad man, by a mormon woman with many kids, and a marine who is somewhat to the right of Attilla, but who thinks women should be free and dignified.

          I think stay-at-home or not-stay-at-home arguments are just a way criticize someone you dont like, when you cant say anything real thats bad about them.

          All too often, if you like someone their choices are ok, no matter what they are. And if you dont like them, no matter what they do its grating.

          Thus discussions about money spent on clothes, and whether baking cookies is somehow disgraceful, come up.

          • It’s not that being a SAHM is bad, it’s that michelle isn’t one, but all of a sudden she’s claiming to be Suzy Cookiebaker to distinguish herself from professional, grasping you know who. I support women’s choices, I don’t support a masquerade of non-threatening Stepford Wife that affects other women. Not only is FLOTUS the highest “office” to which you can ever aspire, even there don’t speak up, don’t get involved, just smile and look pretty. Forget the law degree, you’ll get a better return from arm exercises.

          • oh i agree with you there. But OTOH, i do get antsy when it seems like we start focusing on professional women being more feminist than those who take care of children.

            I just feel like its a valid perspective to think that if you want to change the world the way to do it is by spending lots of time with your kids, and teaching them to be the kind of people you want in that new world.

            Tho i also believe that if you dont like the way a system is working, get in there and subvert from within!

      • And the beauty of Hillary is that she does not allow OTHERS to define who she is and what she can/can’t do. THAT is a feminist. Why should she shelve her intelligence, energy, and contributions because it might upset some people? Hillary had the courage to blaze her own trail, despite the outcry. Apparently, MO does not.

    • Yes, I remember Afrocity mentioning Laura Bush’s enormous and quiet efforts to sustain libraries and archives. (I hadn’t known about that before).

      • What I mean is First Ladies can do an amazing amount of good if they want to. Hillary’s work around the world on human rights is another example.

        Too often, what Michelle does, seems like Axelrod photo-ops.

        However, I do respect her for bringing her mother along to look after the kids.

        • If her mother is looking after the kids, then what the fuck does “mom in chief” mean? Was it just a mean spirited poke at the rest if us?

          • I took that “Mom in Chief” as an attempt to elevate herself. She couldn’t be happy with just First Lady. And POTUS was taken so….
            She may not have a God complex on the level of her dear hubby, but clearly they are cut from the same cloth. They want status and power and without having to actually do anything to achieve them….besides shmoozing of course.

    • don’t care about her shoes but I do wonder why a professional woman who has two kids in school has decided to take the traditional, more Republican role model track and become a stay at home mom.
      Yeah and if that’s what she’s about, why did she have to move her mother in to actually raise the girls?

      • Her mom has been raising the girls all along, because Michelle had a high paying, high status job until the campaign started.

    • No one expects MO to go barefoot. However, she should be expected be sensitive to the straitened circumstances so many Americans are facing now. Eleanor Roosevelt was hardly poor. She chose not to wear clothing which shouted “I can afford it!” in the middle of the Depression. Obviously, MO is no Eleanor.

      Let’s see, LittleIsis is faced with the prospect of having to sell her laptop so she and her mother can get by. But it’s okay for MO to simultaneously flaunt $750 boots as she digs in her fauxto op garden? Don’t think so.

  9. Meh, rich people buy expensive things. Who knew? Uh anybody paying attention.

    I liked Sarah Palin’s shoes much better(immortalized on TL) even if they did look less comfortable. I haven’t spent over $30 on shoes in 18 years. My husband buys a $200 pair of boots twice yearly though. Does that make him elite? His job requires him to be on his feet and the area he walks on is uneven. In the winter he is out in the snow and in the summer he deals with Virginia’s humidity. We pay more for his shoes but consider it an investment because if he didn’t have good support for his feet he’d end up in pain and with foot problems.

    • People usually spend more on the shoes they wear for “special occasions” than they do for the ones they wear every day.

  10. I’ve been lurking for several weeks now and have fallen in love with this site. Very nice.

    I don’t believe either one of us should be judged by the clothes we wear, just the job we do. The clothes sometimes reflect attitudes towards the job, though.

    As a matter of contrast, here’s an interesting link:


    • Those sneaks look like they’ve gotten some use!!!

      I love that children are something Sarah Palin is passionate about. I am not surprised at all to see her at a March of Dimes walk.

    • What if wearing the “proper” clothes IS your job? That doesn’t make you a “socialist,” just irrelevant.

      • It’s what the media has decided her role is. Sadly, she doesn’t appear to be upset about it. It’s a bit of a disappointment since she could be helping with health care(since that was the field she was in) or embraced a cause that she is personally interested in. Instead you get the impression she is a prop, no more relevant then the columns once used during his inaugaral address.

        I don’t particularly care for Michelle so I don’t consider my commentary impartial mind you. I dislike women who blame other women for male flaws. I thought her behavior during the primary towards Hillary was disgusting. For that I don’t see myself ever liking her.

        • She wasn’t actually in health care — she had an administrative job that just happened to be at a hospital.

          • Administrative jobs are an important part of health care. Whether it be updating records or counting pennies, it counts. Their viewpoint may not be the same as doctors or nurses since they are often removed from direct care but this doesn’t mean their perspective isn’t important.

          • She is not “in health care”. She got the job as a bonus O’s support when he was in the state legislature. MO has no training in health administration and her job was to re-route people with no health coverage to other health care providers.

    • Welcome BevBB!

  11. Another link on the Obama’s as socialists

    “Michelle’s Boot Camps For Radicals”

    Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife became executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies in 1993. Obama plans to use the nonprofit group, which he features on his campaign Web site, as the model for a national service corps. He calls his Orwellian program, “Universal Voluntary Public Service.”


    • Back in the 90’s Obama posed as a socialist.

      But when he got the taste of big money he showed his true colors.

      • That’ Right MY.IQ ! Poseur di rigeur ~ laughing last, all the way to the bank… on the backs of the Fauxgressives who will fall for anything.

    • From a link on that thread
      “GOP Party Identification Slips Nationwide and in Pennsylvania”

      Looking at the individual monthly surveys since December suggests that both political parties are facing declining membership in the wake of an engaging election cycle. In the Pew Research Center’s April 2009 survey, 33% identified as Democrats, down from 39% in December 2008. Over the same period, the share calling themselves Republicans has fallen from 26% to 22%. By contrast, the number of independents has risen from 30% in December to 39% now. While it is not unusual for Republican and Democratic identification to grow over the course of an election and subside afterward, the magnitude of these changes is noteworthy.


      • Has anyone noticed that the party drop for dems is bigger than for Repubs: Dems 6% drop; Repubs 4%. Surprise that never gets mentioned.

    • I notice BTD didn’t bother to quote Riverdaughter, who has written better stuff on sexism in the campaign than any of the bloggers BTD mentions.

      • We’re invisible

      • I did notice this comment at TL

        “Another casualty of misogyny in the primaries
        is what has happened to the former refuge that was The Confluence, and which is now a PUMA grab-bag of compulsive, quasi-racist Obama derangement and retrograde, resentment-based “feminism.” That site has become everything its founder(s) originally deplored.”

        To which BTD says “that was predictable imo.”

        • help, moderation

        • That was on BTD’s post about Eric Boehlert’s new book.

          BTD’s just being a WATB because we were mentioned in it and they weren’t.

        • Yup, saw that comment. Someone at TL should’ve taken exception to it, as it was waaaay off the mark. The upside of this sorry comment is that now we’re considered only quasi-r@cist.

          • I could quasi- care less. I think it is downright rude for people to make snap judgements about people and then parade their opinion as fact.

    • I remember…the rampant sexism against Hillary and then turned on Hillary supporters going on over at kos then at mydd–it was the beginning of the end.

      • It ain’t ended yet.

        Go check out Thers post on Carrie Prejean and Sarah Palin last night at FDL

        • I remember when I loved Thers and I’m surprised that his wife let him post sexist sh**t.


    President Barack Obama can’t top Hillary Clinton in job approval rating
    BY Richard Sisk

    Sunday, May 3rd 2009, 4:00 AM


    Hillary Clinton’s job approval rating as Secretary of State is higher than Barack Obama’s as President.

    WASHINGTON – At the 100-day mark last week, Hillary Clinton could finally say she beat Barack Obama.

    The most recent polls show Clinton with a whopping job approval rating of 71% as secretary of state, while the new President topped out at 65%.

    Even among Hillary admirers, that lofty rating is a bit of a stunner, given her past reputation as one of the most polarizing figures on the American scene.

    “She’s acting like a statesman and diplomat and representing her President instead of herself,” said a prominent Democrat. “She hasn’t gone off on her own as many predicted. It’s been very rehabilitating for her image.”

    Her husband has helped the rehab by stifling, somewhat, his yen for headlines. Concerns that his fund-raising and foundations might pose conflicts of interest, which caused the only friction at her confirmation hearings, have not been realized – yet.

    Hillary also has labored to smooth over the lingering rifts from the campaign with Obama and his inner circle, most notably First Lady Michelle Obama.

    Declaring a truce at Foggy Bottom in March, Obama joked about her refusal during the campaign to mention Clinton’s name, calling her “the other candidate.” With a grin, Obama said, “Let me thank Secretary Clinton – I love saying that!”

    Even the usual trashers of all things Clinton had a hard time being critical.

    “I’m not, but give me time,” said Elliott Abrams, who served on the National Security Council of former President George W. Bush and in Ronald Reagan’s State Department.

    Abrams noted that Obama has absorbed much of the foreign policy flak that would have gone Clinton’s way by getting himself stuck in no-win situations, such as the “happy, smiley” photo op with flaky Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

    He knocked Clinton for putting human rights on the back burner on her China trip, but gave her high marks for turning around a department that had been on the losing end of turf wars with the Pentagon under Bush.

    Clinton is “using her political talents in the building. She’s talking to people; she’s nice to people. Morale is good,” said Abrams.

    And she’s playing well with others. Unlike former Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, who was barely civil to Bush Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert Gates had Clinton’s back at a Senate hearing last week.

    “I couldn’t agree with you more,” Gates said repeatedly as Clinton rattled off talking points.

    Obama has piled the diplomatic plate high for Clinton, tasking her with risky openings to Iran and Cuba, while getting North Korea to disarm, putting down the Taliban threat in Pakistan and bringing the Israelis and Palestinians back to negotiations.

    But Clinton gave herself a pat on the back for her initial efforts in a 13-page “100 Day Report” put out by State, noting her visits to 18 countries and meetings with 150 foreign leaders while logging more than 71,000 air miles since taking office.

    In the report, Clinton pledged a high-profile focus on “tackling crises” around the world and a new emphasis on humility – not a trait normally associated with a former presidential candidate.

    Clinton said she would give priority to “acknowledging our own errors where we have made them, which will serve as an example to others to do the same.”

    The new and improved Hillary is being noted – even by Republicans. “It’s nice to see the relationship the two of you have built,” Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) told Clinton and Gates last week, “and I’m very pleased with what you’re doing.”


    Read more: “President Barack Obama can’t top Hillary Clinton in job approval rating” – http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/05/03/2009-05-03_state_of_hil_tops_in_polls_clintons_job_approval_rate_soars__shes_even_beating_o.html#ixzz0ETZEXIHj&A

  13. Speaking of shoes:

    The original “Shoes”:

    Bonus–Azumanga Daioh Shoes:

    WARNING: NSFW due to several F-bombs! :mrgreen:

  14. “Furthermore, I think you’d have to agree that people who throw around this kind of money on shoes are not “socialists.”

    Sorry, but I don’t agree. There is, I think, a false assumption in our political culture that “socialist” economies are usually poverty-stricken overall. But for example European socialist (mixed) economies are usually not so poor; luxury goods including pricey shoes are widely available and its up to the people to decide how they want to spend their incomes. Have you ever been shopping in Paris or Milan? Many folks like to spend on the fashionista end while saving money on rent, for example. Others choose differently. As they do in NYC or DC or Chicago. In fact, a case could be made that people who live in socialist/mixed economies have more such disposable income because they have a broader social safety net than we capitalist-worshipers do. When necessities like child-care, health care, post 2nd education, etc. are socialized, people can afford to express themselves.

    In short, there is nothing particularly “socialist” about wearing cheap shoes.

    • Generally, socialism refers to an economic system in which the means of production are owned by the state and wealth is more fairly distributed than in a capitalist system.

      No matter how you look at it, Barack Obama and his wife are simply not socialists.

      • yes but what was said above is if wealth is distributed “fairly” and everyone gets the same amount to spend, some will choose to spend it on a better apartment, while others will live in a tiny studio, but choose to dress to kill.
        No matter how you try to make things Fair they will not come out SAME. that is human nature. we all want to be special somehow. We all will express our preferences differently.

        • Nevertheless, my point is that Barack Obama is not a socialist. I’m right about that.

      • Yes of course, that is the classic 19th/20th century definition, notwithstanding the experience of two world wars and the various experiences of many of our euro allies. Mixed economies have become more prevalent since then. Maybe you should try to get up to speed instead of staying in the big boxes of the 19th century.

        In any case, I don’t care one way or another if the Obamas are socialists or not. Simply put, that term has been so distorted and so misunderstood that it has become pretty meaningless to me.

        Generally speaking.

      • Wow, my reply didn’t show up.

        I basically said, “Right, because Obama isn’t trying to act like the State owns any companies or anything.

        Oh wait.



        except that I linked and I guess links muck up a comment post. Whoops.

  15. I don’t care what anyone says I do not like her fashion sense. It’s like she’s trying too dang hard.

    However, you have to admit that it’s flippin’ hilarious that she wore $500 shoes. That’s the Obama’s- always sympathizing with the little people.

    I have a sinking feeling that these are the biggest, most successful social climbers in history. It has absolutely nothing to do with politics or policy.

    • What the heck is up with the grey, yellow green thing? It doesn’t make any sense!!!!

      A pair of Tims would have been more beneficial and better suited to the outfit. Neutral colors. Or maybe black boots.

      Also a dress, leotards and biker boots?? WTF!!!

      The dress would have sufficed with black stockings and regular black boots.

      Now this is sexy, and waaayyy better put together- but that’s just me.

    • PR Fluff time- The Woman behind “Brand Obama” = Desire Rogers


      With her direct access to the first couple and unparalleled connections to White House staff, as well as D.C. and Chicago power brokers, Rogers is considered by many to be the key to Brand Obama. She stands at the center of the careful marketing of the first family and an administration-wide effort to make the White House appear a hip and accessible abode. Mrs. Obama’s press team manages a media blitz that includes cover shots on People, Vogue and Oprah’s O magazine, among others, while Rogers controls the day-to-day development and execution of the brand. The former marketing executive must create a White House that helps Americans visualize Mr. Obama’s campaign promises of change and transparency.

      Rogers, who ran an online social-networking unit at Allstate Financial, served as president of Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas, a Chicago utility, and at age 31 headed the Illinois State Lottery, manages to speak with both the confidence of a top executive and the casualness of a woman who can’t be bothered with business.

      Above all, Rogers is a world-class networker—the ultimate social engineer, not just planning White House dinner parties as well as her own intimate soirees but also connecting powerful people in her orbit. Over the years, she has immersed herself in Chicago’s charity circuit and developed a wide-ranging circle of friends, including senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett and Linda Johnson Rice, head of the company that publishes Ebony and Jet magazines. She has also tapped her connections over the years to help advance friends’ political interests. Rogers held parties at her house and called former classmates from Harvard and long-standing friends in New Orleans during the 2008 campaign to help raise as much as $200,000 for Mr. Obama’s presidential bid, according to federal records. “She’s been a social engineer from the beginning,” says Shawnelle Richie, a friend and Chicago-based television executive for a division of CBS. “It’s beyond parties, it’s the way she connects with people.”

      • Ugh. “the way she connects with people.” (as long as they’re rich) Well, no wonder she gets along with the Os.

  16. It really doesn’t matter what she wears…nothing will make her look better anyway.

  17. Your hatred has unhinged you.

    You will destroy yourselves with your imagined controversies. The fact is Americans like expensive clothes. Americans love Michelle Obama. You will suffer for 7 more years. And you will amuse those of us who wonder how low you can stoop.

    And you have already descended very very very low.

    • What color is the sky on your planet?

    • You might try reading the post. It is quite favorable to Michelle Obama.

    • Thanks for stopping by, Sunday isn’t Sunday without a big helping of crazy.

    • This American doesn’t love Michelle. I could care less about expensive clothes. So far you’re 2 for 2.

      You are entitled to have a different opinion but you don’t get to speak on behalf of everyone, just yourself.

      • Now that things have calmed down a little I think we should let more comments like tjproudtroll’s through.

        Unless they are really vile (which quite a few are) we should leave at least one comment up after Comrade Spammy drags them off to the Spam Gulag.

        That way they can’t go back to their troll dens and whine “I got banned for nothing!”

      • The thing is, Obots don’t really get that they kinda sorts bemuse and scare eveyone else, including even most of Obama’s voters.

        I’ll give you guys a hint, people will start to get uncomfortable when you start with the whole “young skywalker, whole food nation is in ascendance! We will destroy you! We will make you suffer! And we will laugh!” because, um, you sound like overinvested raving apocalyptic nutjobs who are maybe 12 at best, and most people don’t want to put hyperactive role playing kids in charge of much of anything.
        Now you know the secret to avoid the backing away in bemused fear you generate.

    • ROFL! Yes, Americans are lovin’ the expensive clothes…That’s why if Walmart were a nation – it would be 23rd wealthiest on this planet. Equal to the wealth of Saudi Arabia.

  18. I can’t stand MO and I couldn’t care less about her shoes. She’s a crass, self-absorbed opportunist and I am not surprised that she spends outrageous amounts of money on ugly shoes.

    • I can’t stand MO and I couldn’t care less about her shoes

      We can agree on this one 🙂

      I don’t want to read about MOs fashion choices – whatever they cost. I just wish the media would stop hyping her up .It just makes me mad to hear people say “MO” and “Hillary” in the same sentence because as far as I am concerned there is ABSOLUTELY no comparison- MO has done nothing of any significance to merit being discussed in the same breath as Hillary. Besides I couldn’t care less about a woman who obviously does NOT stand up for other women ( see her behavior in the primaries!)

  19. someone get me out of moderation please (unless you don’t want to – I don’t really want to start anything)

  20. As far as Michelle’s shoes, I could care less if she owns $500 sneakers, but yes I think it’s inappropriate to wear them while feeding the hungry.

    • My sentiments exactly. Even if Michelle herself doesn’t have a clue how this looks, I can’t believe none of her handlers had the cojones to take her aside and gently suggest she shouldn’t wear $500 shoes to “volunteer” in a place where people can’t afford to buy FOOD fer chrissakes, never mind shoes and clothing.

      I don’t begrudge her right to buy this crap, but a little perspective on the national condition might go a long way. I also don’t believe she gets up and walks Bo herself. Let’s SEE that pic of her up at 5:15 to walk a pooch she obviously doesn’t care for.

      • Handlers, hmm?

        Would this be the same group that decided on a certain set of DVD and, what was it, an iPod, I believe, or another department entirely?

  21. Comment deleted

  22. New post up

  23. Old money, new money, socialist, capitalist, whatever, she’s thinkng waking up at 5:15 in the morning makes her some kind of special, I’m thinkng not.

    Especially when she can pick up the phone and say, “Jorge, could you walk the dog this morning, thanks”

    Let them eat cake, n’cest pas?

  24. When MO sold her soles to the fashion mags, she probably did not realize that the “red carpet” can be a hard master and the rewards are meager at best. Even if you are at the top of the fashion empire, what do you really have? I think about Jackie O—she did not pursue the fashion tiara but it was eagerly put on her head. Her efforts to make the WH a showplace for American artists, history, crafts—was kind of a bridge between the traditional wife/hostess role and a more modern woman of knowledge, wisdom, acheivement. I just do not get MO on any level. I just can not imagine any woman of dignity and quality getting off on being a fashion display on a major POTUS/FLOTUS trip abroad. It is just so trivial; it is sad.

    • The thing is, MO is the one woman who can do no wrong in the media’s eyes because she helped bring down the scary women with her cute little comments and her good little wifey schtick. As a result, if she had any inclinations that way, she could do a lot of good without facing any negative press. It seems like a damn shame to waste an opportunity like that, unless like hubby she’s just an empty suit who only cares about power and image. Why waste a complete free pass?

      • I vote for ‘they’re both empty suits”. If you read about MO’s history, she’s always had her eye on the main chance. Like her husband, what has she ever done for others with no thought for self? Anything?

  25. I think it’s shocking that the greatest praise the media can think to give MO is to be constantly compared with a white woman….and they think MO is great because in thier minds she can compare with Jackie.

    What they are saying is : MO is good enough to be white…and think that’s some huge accomplishment . Who’s the rac*sts in this saga? Because that’s hyper rac*st in my book And it’s shocking to me no obot has a problem with this .

    • paper doll, on the other hand, I think comparing people only with people in in certain categories like race and sex is too limiting. I heard over and over in reference to Sara Palin, “She’s no Hillary Clinton.” Well, Barack Obama is no Hillary Clinton either.

      I’m not sure who I would compare Michelle Obama to. It doesn’t have to be a black woman. Um, how could we if the criteria is First Ladies?

      Maybe the Jackie Kennedy comparison has more to do with the Camelot image that has been put forward.

      Michelle Obama may not be like any other first spouse to date. Making her own mark whatever that will be, and however significant.

      • “….. on the other hand, I think comparing people only with people in in certain categories like race and sex is too limiting…”

        Certainly I agree with that . The whole endless corporate media comparing thing is bizarre and limiting and is most likely meant to be so .

      • Offensive comment deleted.

  26. I used to lurk here several times a day, now I barely check in weekly. I love Hillary and the work that she does more than anyone. The writers on this site have turned ridiculous. Nothing pissed me off more than the media constantly pointing out what the “women” wore. I hated it when it was Clinton, Palin and now yes; Michelle. Too many of the writers here switch back and forth on an argument depending on if it shafts the Obamas. I had enough of that bullsh@t during the Clinton presidency.

  27. There are plenty of worse role models for dress sense in corporate America:


    The Closer

  28. The kind of socialism the Obamas practice is Share the Wealth if it comes from you, but if it comes from me, it’s all mine. They bought a mansion in Hyde Park, Illinois through a sweet deal with a crook, Tony Rezko, while allowing Mr. Rezko to provide sub-standard housing to people in Obama’s congressional district (the Obamas play dumb regarding all of this, but if one wants to do research on this, information is out there). The Obamas have had royal treatment since they have been in the White House. I heard they even took a private chef and entourage with them while on the G20 summit tour even though food was provided at every stop.

    Everyone wants to think of themselves as compassionate and gracious enough to help “redistribute the wealth”, as long as that wealth is not theirs. They are perfectly happy to redistribute your wealth, but not their own. The Obamas are no exception.

  29. BostonBoomer,

    As someone who disagrees with some of what you write, the premises of this post is simple to digest and something that most can agree with

    1) POTUS and his wife are not socialists. That Red Scare tactic is so 1950’s. That political trick worked for a hot minute and faded into oblivion. This, POTUS is not a citizen and other conspiracy thoughts were so tiring that they galvanized people against what you wanted.

    While the pure kool-aid drinkers (and they exist on both sides of the aisle) will never be able to work together, moderates on both sides need to coalesce on POLITICAL ISSUES that they share in common, NOT THE POLITICAL FIGURE. You can hold Obama’s feet to the fire, and you should, but vitriol of some haters will prevent solutions that will benefit you and I, the uncommon commoners.

    2) Shoes are not an issue and this post further proves that. While we would disagree on Palin’s (more to me Republican issue of spending campaign contributions on fashion, not that she wore any one thing) clothes and MO’s clothes, this shouldn’t be an issue and you are not making it one.

    The thing that gets to me is the comments about MO. (I think) Leave physical attributes out of it Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to voice them. But, when they are ad hom in nature and not substance, you get the hard-line mobilized. (Like she doesn’t wear something well… Okay, now how is that going to get someone health care?)

    As someone who voted for Jackson, Clinton X2 (although Jerry Brown in the primary), Kerry, Gore and Obama POLITICAL ISSUES have connections with groups that you disagree with. When we disagree (which is often), I move on. When we agree, I can state that…

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: