Posted on 05/01/2009 2:42:12 PM PDT by Conservative145
Michelle Obama has taken casual to a haute new level.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Michelle is really busy trying to all things to all people after she admitted the truth that she hated America.
Who’s Michelle Obama?
Probably bought them with her “stimulus” check.
You can put any shoe on those knarly feet and they would be fugly.
Post the picture....they are BUTT UGLY....BUGLY!
Goodness, at the food bank, no less.
I think we should find out who paid for those shoes..the DNC..the taxpayer? So Michelle gets to keep the shoes, but Sarah had to give all the clothes back, and not only give them back, the damn RNC went through her underwear drawer to find anything that they might have bought. Where is the media outrage..HAHA gotta be kidding me right..the media, outraged with anything the Obama’s do..Ok when that happens I will have officially seen everything
An affirmative-action fashion expert.
Did she actually bend over to put them on, or did she just step down into them and flatten the back to make them look like a slipper? A lot of you have seen it before and will know what I mean.
To quote another Freeper - Michelle O is just vulgar.
People here were defending (and rightly so) Fred Thompson for wearing $400 Ferragamos at an Iowa fair, arguing that more expensive shoes are more durable and thus a good investment.
I think we should hold Michelle to the same standard here. Ok, with that said, those ugly things do not look durable and are too ugly to be worth that much money.
You couldn’t pay me enough to go out dressed like that. The shoes are gaudy awful, but they’re just a small part of how hideous she looks in that outfit.
ABCNBCCBSMSNBCCNN character assassinated Palin and McCain over their clothes.
Of course not a peep from these evil lying propagadists about this exceedingly ugly womans needlessly overpriced sneakers.
Nothing new here. They adored Jackie in her high dollar rags, but were incredibly vile to Nancy Regan.
Shudda known that sooner or later somthin would come along that would cause us to appreciate Hitlery's beauty!
Tacky is as...
Who paid for them? If she did ,it is no one’s business and we are wasting space talking about them.
Pimp my size 19 sneaks!
LOLROTF. I have a cop friend that worked in the ‘hood’ and when he was off work he used to step into his house slippers and stand on the backs of the shoes. I always told him that his Momma in heaven would not approve.
Oh my. She overpaid big time for those shoes. A few years back, middle school girls were decorating their sneakers like that and they managed it for $20 or less.
She wiped out all the organic garden savings on one ugly pair of shoes. Looks like our first lady isn’t much of a bargain hunter.
I don’t care WHO paid for them.
WE must cut down, WE must stop spending as we have!
What about her?
ROFLMAO! Thanks for the laughs!
She can spend all she wants on sneakers—she still looks like a freak from the ghetto.
“They’re movin on up..to the East Side...to a deluxe apartment in the sky.” She can now afford what she always wanted.... outrageously expensive sneakers! Such class...yuk
If a comedy routine had her stupidly wearing expensive sneakers and not classy shoes they would be accused of being racist!
Picture this:
Skin tight slacks. loose sweater, belt up around her boobs, bed head hair and a pair of $540.00 sneakers.
Oh wait, will most likely be in a soon to be released phony photo-op along with the empty suit shirtless picture with the ever present basket ball at his side.
Here’s a Lanvin bag she can get at “bargain basement” prices on Amazon.com
LANVIN Paris Polisson Bag in Gold Metallic
List Price: $2,565.00
Price: $1,539.00
You Save: $1,026.00 (40%)
List Price: $2,565.00
Price: $1,539.00
You Save: $1,026.00 (40%)
Volunteering? I thought she was there to get "her share". I guess I need to read the articles closer.
Now that there is a purdy pair of shoes!
LOL That is what I was thinking exactly - she does look just like Aunt Esther of Sanford and Sons.
Remember all the noise when Nancy Reagan purchased some new dishes for the White House. Not for her own use but for the White House use. Now, we have a first lady that is dressed from head to toe in top designer clothes and the media doesn’t utter a peep of protest. Who is paying for all of this finery? Is this being given to her? Is that legal?
Trying to figure out how this will be spinned.
“First Lady graces lower classes with view of footwear they can strive to own someday. What a brave woman giving those unfortunate souls a goal in life.”
I don’t need anyone to tell me how I can spend my money, thank you.
Got that right!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.