http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07 … um=twitter
Does this show that the FLOTUS is out of touch with struggling Americans?
Yup. Almost everyone in the political sphere is.
at last an agreeable statement - so why award even more power and more control to people in "the political sphere?" Isn't political power corrupting? Why would one choose to give to people, who are so out of touch, even more authority, power, control, wealth, etc...? If anything, since politics distorts ones ability to know what is happening in the world around one's self - being out of touch - wouldn't the prudent course be to strip all but the most necessary functions from government? Given that politicians are out of touch and government by definition is made up of politicians.
Government policy is guided by politicians elected by citizens. That policy is carried out by citizens not politicians.
Power is corrupting, from the 22-year-old just-promoted manager at Wal-Mart to the Senator being courted by lobbyists to the multi-million-dollar CEO of a major corporation. It is a fact of life that cannot be avoided.
That is why checks and balances are a good thing.
I will respond when the point becomes clear. Anybody need anything from the liquor store?
Yes, a drink. Michelle looks soo damn good to me that I think she deserves better...I've tried to tell her, but the Secret Service gets in the way!
By which I mean our current political sphere, if it were up to me that would change.
As I recall, the Mittster, bragged that his wife has two Cadillacs. At least Michelle Obama doesn't have two ego support cars in the White House garage.
Like I said, I don't care how people spend their money. It's good that rich people buy so many things, money circulation is extremely important to the economy.
Where I come from flaunting your money with Cadillacs, Rolexes, and multiple McMansions is considered poor taste, especially when the country is in a recession and children are suffering from malnutrition. There's an interesting documentary that came out recently called "Queen of Versailles."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-es … avo-345982
Anne Romney is more like the Queen of Versailles than Michele Obama by a long shot.
So is it bad for Michelle to flaunt a $7000 jacket?
That does strike me a little out of touch, but the Romneys out flaunt the Obamas at least ten to one. And I doubt that she paid the full sticker price. I think the designers may well give a break to the first lady. Jackie Kennedy was well known for wearing designer clothes which made her look good and helped the designers.
At least Ann Romney paid for her clothes and purchased from an American Company, unlike the first lady receiving free clothes that were not made by a US company, so much for those US job creations
Some nitwit posts a comment on a blog intending to ignite a useless exchange of insults between opposing political ideologues. The fuel is the price of women’s apparel. The opening statement set the idiotic tone: “The liberal media was all upset that “elitist” Ann Romney wore a $900 top during a May interview on “This Morning.” Yet this same media cheered the fashion and style of Queen Michelle Obama whose taste in sweaters cost her over $2,000 a pop.” Thank you Jaxson for spreading the petty stupidity to Hubpages. This blogger obviously believes one’s attire when meeting the Queen of England should be comparable to an interview on morning TV.
It is amazing how many of us enjoy slinging mud at the President’s wife and at each other. I am most surprised that not one lady in the room came forward to put all of us pompous stuffed shirts in our place. Not one woman reminded us of the importance of international protocol and etiquette.
Mrs. Obama is ipso facto the representative of the President and an icon of my country. In this role, she was invited to a Palace gala attended by the Queen of England and a nearly 100 other heads of state. Mrs. Obama’s appearance was not only appropriate for the occasion but, by all standards, it made me feel proud as an American.
Those who think Mrs. Obama fashion choice for this special function means she is not in touch with struggling Americans are blatantly ignorant about her activities while residing in the White House. I expect within the smallness of their own minds they think “being in touch” means she should have worn her best pair of Lee jeans and a sweatshirt.
My Ma used to say, “small things amuse small minds.” She was so right.
Power is nothing without image. An individual who presents him or herself in a dignified and respectable way outshines those who do not. Despite Michelle Obama's goals for the youth of this country, the methods in which she carries herself are important, as well. She is the first lady of the United States, thus, a reflection of civility, order, and deference. Can you imagine what the opposing candidates for the presidency would say if Michelle Obama did not take care of her public image? Unfortunately, it seems as though power and image are more important than actually doing the task at hand. How sad...
There were unrelenting attacks on Nancy Reagan for her wardrobe. Sarah Palin's wardrobe was a target for the bilious liberal media's attacks.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/200 … -150k.html
So maybe it has more to do with the holy state of being a Democrat saint.
Regardless of one's affiliation with either political party, your outward appearance is an apparent reflection of your beliefs, values, and morals. Nancy Reagan may be friendly and kind, but her lavish taste caused great controversy and harmed her public image. It was unlike a first lady to accept loans of priceless items of clothing and jewels. Michelle Obama wears expensive clothing, but she also promotes the growth of new and talented fashion designers. I would assume that it is about keeping her public image in tact and not making the same mistakes as those before her.
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/02/17/us/na … loans.html
I can't hold MOs dress against her either because if she didn't dress expensively people would still complain that she wasn't representing the country well.
Anyways, it doesn't matter what kind of money she throws around- we all voted for the person underneath, right? The money she has doesn't matter any more than the money she wouldn't have if she was poor, right? Holding the money she spends against her is just discrimination against wealth.
I think that this is a non issue. I am more concerned that she shows the ridiculous wannabe first ladies what it takes to be a real American woman, and she is doing that with great success.
From what I have observed, Michelle Obama takes her role as a first lady very seriously and is committed to performing it well. However, it is important to remember that in a world run by the media, public image is everything. If it were not, publicists would be out of business. Propaganda can completely change civilian opinion from one week to the next.
I get the impression if the question were about Laura Bush or Ann Romney, our next First Lady, you'd be singing a much different tune.
The FLOTUS appears to be a bit schizophrenic when it comes to fashion. Both ends of the spectrum.
I agree that since Ann Romney took flak for her $900 silk t-shirt it's only fair that MO be criticized for the $6,800 jacket she wore to meet the Queen of England.
However, I feel we are collectively edging into dangerous territory here.
Is the American (or world) public now to set the parameters of what is an appropriate amount for public figures to spend on attire?
If $6,800 is too much, is $680 reasonable? Or should she be scouring the sale racks at Marshall's or Ross, setting her jacket budget at a more economy-minded $68?
I don't really care how people spend their money. I was mostly curious to see if the same people who criticized Anne for her shirt would hold the same attitude toward someone on 'their side'.
As long as the First ladies wardrobe is purchased through her own funds I do not see the problem. If the people are required to foot the bill for the Flotus wardrobe, we should get to decide what she wears.
All Flotus, not just the present one!
No, a female weightlifter at the Olympics. I tried to post a bigger pic...
Exactly what both sides are counting on. Keep the distractions coming.
In the 1930s they had Busbee Berkeley musicals and screwball comedies to take people's minds off the harsh reality of the Depression.
Today we need constant diversion via the Internet. Same premise, however.
Keep everyone chasing the latest gossip to keep the focus off the issues!
Hollywood is still the great distract-er from the Obama Depression. Way to go BHO - having eclipse Jimmy Carter's inept foreign policy he has his sights on destroying the economy just like that other great Democrat FDR.
The difference between then and now is there is no information monopoly. Prepare for Obama's inevitable defeat.
Economy in the toilet?
Nothing a good war won't fix, eh?
I don't think there's a problem with it. If I were a billionaire, I might do the same thing. The only reason we combat it is because she is the First Lady. But I ask, why not? Why not wear it? She can afford it. There are plenty of other people out there with an abundance of money. We don't gripe about them wearing these things.
I seriously doubt that changing her clothing brand is going to affect people's assessment of her capabilities, intelligence, or an understanding of the middle class. Would wearing wal-mart or jcpenny clothing make people respect her more, in the long run? I doubt it. It's about how one presents oneself and how they speak and interact with people that has the most affect.
I seem to recall that most of the controversy on these forums about Mrs Romney`s top had something to do with how ugly it was...
Oh for cryin' out loud, Michelle Obama is doing the best she can do. Imagine her being Mary Todd Lincoln. No Internet, no media, just a life with a president in the White House, being reported on maybe every two or three weeks by newspapers that take days, weeks, to get their messages across...but wait...were gossip columnists even on a career path then? Food for thought?
I'd never want to put my feet in Michelle Obama's shoes.
Were you criticizing the same way Bush's wife's wardrobe during his presidency or is it Obama's prerogative?
Quill, The jacket is just one example. Her sweaters, shoes, purse, etc are other examples.
I posted this solely to see how people would react when the story is about a D, compared to an R. Some people are consistent, others aren't. I'm not criticizing anyone.
As far as the link, it was the first one that showed up in the news feed about it at the time, I just posted a source for good measure. I could easily post a different source, because the source isn't the topic.
Hi there, Jaxson.
I meant to focus on the topic and not to criticize you. I am sorry if I failed to make that clear.
Don’t we all already know how people in these forums react when a story is about a D. compared to a R.? I think we all knew what we would hear and, sure enough, we did.
Are we going to learn something new (or important) from this particular thread? Not likely. I see the same old label slapping, name-calling, and closed-minded mob in every thread. The extremism never changes only the avatars.
You do not have to be Ph.D. to know women’s wardrobes are the products of their fashion tastes and budgets. Both Mrs. Obama and Mrs. Romney have a great deal of both. So what?
Hubbers living around the world know we Americans are approaching a presidential election this fall. They are naturally interested because it is likely to have an impact on their lives too where ever they live. Everyday they watch the inane bickering here and they wonder if this forum represents how typical Americans approach their politics. I think we should try harder to make a better impression.
I did not mean to single you out, Jaxson. That would be grossly unfair. But, come on friends, we all need to grow up some.
I for one am amazed we haven't heard the usual tirades about FLOTUS wasting taxpayer money on vacations. I mean, come on. Going to the Olympics in London is just another MO junket. Meeting the Queen? Incidental to her real agenda!
I wouldn't be surprised if its costing us $200 million a day like that infamous trip over her husband's with the navy flotilla. Where was it, India?
Haven't seen Michelle Obama visit a refugee camp yet.Mrs Bush did so here in Thailand.
have we seen Michelle visiting the poorer parts of Africa? Just asking. I wonder what she will do in January when she has to leave her Air Force jet behind.
Michelle Obama may not have visited a refugee camp yet, but she has been dealing with an important issue here in the United States. Her focus on preventing obesity amongst the youth is significant. As I mentioned in an earlier post, an individual's image is important in front of the media, that is the only way others will come to know and understand them. However, it is not a reflection of who they are. Michelle Obama may wear expensive clothes, but she's not lounging around doing nothing. At the end of the day, her ideals have nothing to do with her fashion sense.
As far as I'm concerned Michelle Obama is a model first lady. I liked Laura Bush also and I've never said a word of criticism of her. Why are we arguing about Michelle Obama's dresses, any way?
Agreed. Arguing about luxurious vacations, maybe. Marie Antoinette like, "Let them eat arugula," maybe. But I remember how shabbily Nancy Reagan was treated by the Press and it is petty to play the "turn about's fair play" card.
by lady_love1586 years ago
Here is the menu to the White House Super Bowl party! Lol no vegtables here!http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 … bowl-menu/As usual with democrats its do as I say not as I do!
by lady_love1586 years ago
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/02/16/su … lle-obama/It never ends with these people...they use junk science to support their lies under the guise of doing something good for the people... then they hold press...
by theirishobserver.7 years ago
A Speical Message from Michelle ObamaSupporting Our Military Families Good morning,Independence Day is a wonderful opportunity to come together with family and friends to celebrate our country and the life we...
by Josak3 years ago
Some thoughts:No campaign contributions allowed all campaigns are funded by a tiny flat tax every party receives a given amount to publicize their views so long as they can get say 50 000 party members. Yearly full IRS...
by Shari5 years ago
One of the best part of Michelle Obama speech was that it had none of the nastiness that often contaminates politics. She didn't insult Mitt or engage in petty politics. She just spoke from the heart with grace...
by OLYHOOCH6 years ago
And the so-called “moderate Democrats” are merely socialists.It wasn’t so long ago that much loved Democrat President John F. Kennedy told the nation in his inaugural address, “Ask not what your country can do...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.