She's Rich, Okay?
There's a brouhaha about some pricey Lanvin sneakers the first lady wore, reminding me of the time people went after her for a $100-plus bill for lobster and champagne in a hotel, and the way they went after McCain for having a whole bunch of houses.
I believe the lady made, like, $300,000 a year, and her husband isn't doing too shabbily, either. What I think about those shoes (assuming she paid for them, and paid full price), is how great that she earns enough to be able to be that extravagant.
The only real sin here in my book? The shoes are seriously ugly.
French first lady Carla Bruni wears flats all the time (a French friend told me she's four inches taller than Monsieur President, who, rumor has it, wears stacked heels), but I can't imagine her ever, ever wearing those ugly, unfeminine sneakers.







Looks like she has more money than taste.
I wish that was true of me ....
Jay R at May 2, 2009 8:41 AM
Slow news day....
Eric at May 2, 2009 9:16 AM
I'm a girl, what can I say?
Amy Alkon at May 2, 2009 9:27 AM
Here's a beer and the remote?
(Sorry- I had to.)
Eric at May 2, 2009 9:47 AM
Already in my vocabulary, thanks!
Amy Alkon at May 2, 2009 9:54 AM
Yeah, they are ugly. I only wear sneakers when I'm exercising, though.
Better those than the high-heel sneakers people were wearing a few years ago. Or those ugly-ass J-Lo construction-boot style heels with the pointy toes.
It irritates me when people bitch about how much other people spend on things. She's not on welfare, it's her money, and she can do what she damn well pleases with it.
And really, do we think that the First Lady's wardrobe should come from Ross and Old Navy?
ahw at May 2, 2009 10:52 AM
Wearing expensive ugly sneakers while helping the homeless is rather amusing in the end.
I could see spending that on nice comfy dress shoes or specialty boots etc. but sneakers?
As for the politics side of it, no surprise there. Now its "her money and she can do what she damn well pleases with it", which is true. That wasn't the tune many were singing though when it came to McCain's houses, his dress shoes or Palin's campaign wardrobe.
Sio at May 2, 2009 11:10 AM
this is why..
"We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we're asking young people to do," she told a group of women at a day-care center. "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. But if you make that choice, as we did, to move out of the money-making industry into the helping industry, then your salaries respond."
Of course, she didn't leave corporate America. She was a VP of Community Relations for the Univ. Chicago Medical Center w/ a salary of over $300K annually(!). And her husband became a millionaire by writing multiple autobiographies.
Mike at May 2, 2009 12:15 PM
Amy, I really think you're overlooking the hypocrisy. This administration is doing its damnedest to demonize the wealthy. Did you hear Obama's characterization of the bond holders of Chrysler? He called them "speculators" -- even New York magazine's blog noted that the tone of his address reeked of politics and emotion instead of rationality. (I won't even go into the fact that those bond holders include teachers, the retired, and yes, the unions who extracted major payback here -- so much so that as Obama has tried to pull the same stunt with GM, they are resisiting and demanding it be settled by the rule of law instead of politics). Meanwhile, Michelle Obama rarely appers publicly without wearing thousands and thousands of dollars in clothes and an occasional J. Crew sweater. You should see her favorite boutique in Chicago, Ikram -- you can't even just walk in the door there, it's locked and you have to be admitted. Everything there is extraordinarily expensive -- the tees run $500. I do believe that the rich should be able to spend their money as they like but not if they use their considerable public platform to chastise others for doing the same. I simply despise the hypocrisy here. At least Jimmy Carter really lived the way that he presented himself to the public and has continued to since he left office. So that's why people care about $540 sneakers. And yes they are ugly. Though I love the Lanvin ballet flats.
Christine at May 2, 2009 12:42 PM
Fugly sneakers, and even fuglier hypocrisy going on. But seriously, this is what these people do - pass judgement on others, and tell others what they should do. Ya know, the old "do as I say, not as I do" thing. Nothing new under the sun here.
o.O
Flynne at May 2, 2009 1:10 PM
Now, I think we all know why Carla wears flats.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 2, 2009 1:25 PM
We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we're asking young people to do," she told a group of women at a day-care center.
They "left" corporate America AFTER they'd made their fortunes.
Now, I think we all know why Carla wears flats.
This isn't good. Look what happened the last time France was run by an insecure short guy with a smokin' hot wife.
Conan the Grammarian at May 2, 2009 4:21 PM
> Look what happened the last time
2nd day of May, and our second contender for comment of the month.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 2, 2009 9:13 PM
Of all the pictures you can find of Carla Bruni on the internet –tits out, thighs flyin', whatever you need to see– this is my favorite.
There's something to be said for pathetic royalty! They help people to not get too interested in the fantasy aspects of monarchy.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 3, 2009 1:38 AM
For the record, Gould often offered beetles as our champion life form. He cited previous argument, and spent much of his life augmenting our understanding of them with field research.
For the record, Kinsey dug beetles, too. So to speak.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 3, 2009 4:09 PM
Aw shit. I *so* posted that to the wrong thread.
As you were saying...
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at May 3, 2009 4:14 PM
his dress shoes or Palin's campaign wardrobe.
The issue with Palin's wardrobe was that she didn't pay for it. She was given campaign funds to dress up her family and spent that money on clothes for everyone. That is illegal. If she spent her own money, who cares?
Julie at May 5, 2009 9:11 AM
She was given campaign funds to dress up her family and spent that money on clothes for everyone. That is illegal.
It's only illegal if the people keep the items after the campaign. Campaign funds are to be spend on campaign items only.
So, if you get a car for the campaign, it cannot be given to the candidate or a family member after the campaign. Same with clothing.
Conan the Grammarian at May 5, 2009 9:29 AM
"The issue with Palin" is that she's attractive and scares the bejeezus out of Lefties. Result: dogpile.
JorgXMcKie at May 6, 2009 9:38 AM
Leave a comment