December 29, 2009

Imelda Obama

Filed under: Economy,MSM Biz/Other Bias,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 9:05 am

From May:


From last night (HT Gateway Pundit):


Besides the obvious point that press sniping about First Ladies of conservative presidents engaging in such extravagance in a difficult economy would be non-stop (as it was in the early 1980s, virtually from Day 1), there’s this Michelle “Imelda” Obama blast from the past from February 2008 in Zanesville, Ohio:

“We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we’re asking young people to do,” she tells the women. “Don’t go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we’re encouraging our young people to do that.”

Purchasing either of the pairs of shoes above would require at least a week’s net pay for many teachers, most nurses, and the vast majority of social workers. Those who choose the professions noted get to feel noble while struggling to make ends meet and hoping against hope that the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy doesn’t send us over the cliff, while Imelda the FLOTUS flaunts her wealth (and gets praised by the fashionistas for doing so).

Double Standard Couture,” indeed.


UPDATE, Dec. 30: Well, I guess if Barack Obama is greater than Jesus (yes, I know the article is more than likely tongue in cheek or seriously delusional), then it’s not out of bounds for the New York Times to push the slavering meter to 10 on behalf of Michelle (HT Colleen Raezler at NewsBusters) –

In Mrs. Obama, the fashion industry has found a woman it can admire but cannot completely possess. That’s because she doesn’t favor only one designer or a clique, as her predecessors did. Also, she avoids the appearance of being cozy with designers. That’s why she’s often described in terms reserved for a 1930s screen goddess: “regal” and “dazzling,” a woman not to be contended with so much as worshiped from afar.

No wonder Anchoress suspects that Michelle’s husband wanted “to be the King, not the President.”



  1. Oo,oo,oo, don’t forget the designer handbag flap. Those shoes are just downright ugly. Um, think you could be just a little more (ahem) conservative with my money?

    Comment by Becbeq — December 29, 2009 @ 8:33 pm

  2. #1, I missed the purse-uit of the truth behind that purse back in May. “Only” $875? Such a deal.

    Comment by TBlumer — December 29, 2009 @ 9:05 pm

  3. TRAINERS?! Sorry, but if there is one thing I know a heck of a lot about it’s freakin’ sneekers. Tommy, them ain’t no trainers!

    Comment by RightRunner — December 29, 2009 @ 10:05 pm

  4. #3, who is this “Tommy” you’re addressing?

    To address what you brought up, it seems they’re considered trainers, and I guess it depends on what you’re training for.

    Comment by TBlumer — December 29, 2009 @ 10:09 pm

  5. I get sick of Europe falling all over themselves over how glamorous she is. If she tried to be a Paris fashion model, they’d laugh her out of the room, with that caboose on her.

    Comment by Mynewscorner — December 30, 2009 @ 2:50 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.