“Everyone must sacrifice… Everyone must have some skin in the game.”
President-Elect Barack Obama
On “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos
January 11, 2009
Michelle Obama didn’t want to come off too glitzy at her hubby’s SOTU Address on Wednesday so she settled on an $1850 frock by Isaac Mizrahi.
Kristann reported:
First Lady Michelle Obama evinces no concern for the tens of millions of Americans suffering the consequences of her husband’s failing economic policies as she is once again seen flaunting her Imelda Marcos taste in ridiculously expensive designer clothers.
Women’s Wear Daily reported today that Michelle Obama wore a dress that retails for $1850 to the State of the Union address given by her husband, Barack Obama, on Wednesday night.
Last week, the White House featured as the ‘photo of the day’ a picture of Michelle Obama wearing a $2763 designer coat with matching dress of unknown cost and $850 custom made designer boots.
During the Obama’s $4000 per day Christmas vacation, Michelle Obama was photographed wearing a $635 pair of designer shoes. A recent study of five pairs of designer shoes worn last year by Michelle Obama showed an average price of $700 per pair.
The dress worn by Michelle Obama to the State of the Union was bought by Obama from American designer Isaac Mizrahi, according to a spokeswoman for Mizrahi.
Everybody must sacrifice.
Related… Taxpayers pay $101,000 for Pelosi’s in-flight food, booze.
January 29th, 2010 | 9:32 am | #1
How does this compare to what other first ladies have worn, price wise? I’m curious. It does send a bad signal, almost a “Let them eat cake” signal.
January 29th, 2010 | 9:32 am | #2
Don’t giva a frock what she wore. This is about leadership (lack of it). Distroying my country is more important than fashion.
January 29th, 2010 | 9:33 am | #3
When he campaigned on Hope and Change he meant that you should Hope that you can live on the Change you have left once he is finished redistributing the wealth.
January 29th, 2010 | 9:36 am | #4
Hey. Maybe it was paid for with Nobel Prize cash.
As he worked so very hard to win that prize, he should be able to spend the prize money as he sees fit.
January 29th, 2010 | 9:38 am | #5
It is a good point of wondering about what other first ladies wore and the cost, however, her wearing that dress in THESE economic times is indicative of how clueless the First Couple is of PRESENT reality.
Their reality is NOT the reality of the majority of the American people. But I am of the firm belief they hate Americans and cannot identify with the average person. Can you name ONE thing Obama and Michelle LIKE about America? I saw that qeuestion the other day and I couldn’t come up with an answer.
January 29th, 2010 | 9:41 am | #6
I am fairly certain that none of Laura’s suits that she wore were very cheap. But then again, President Bush never chastised the citizens about sacrificing. This is a good example of what happens with “words”.
FYI – M.O. is leading the charge against obesity. I hope she starts with herself first. She has more than a few pounds she could lose.
January 29th, 2010 | 9:46 am | #7
Frankly I didn’t notice what Mrs. Obama was wearing. I was distracted by her continual glowering at anyone who didn’t stand and clap for her husband throughout his speech.
It appears that no matter how high she rises in status she is never satisfied with her lot. You know, mean country and all that. I pity her.
Obama’s State of the Union found a confident Republican minority, and a discontented Democratic majority
John Boehner rolled his eyes repeatedly and laughed. Michelle Obama glowered at Republicans. A Supreme Court justice shook his head in disagreement with the president.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/28/obamas-state-of-the-union-found-a-confident-republican-minority-and-discontented-democratic-majority/
January 29th, 2010 | 9:48 am | #8
This really upsets me that these people do not care about this country and its people. My neighbor just took his life because he could not find work. He lost hope. Hope and change. Really?
January 29th, 2010 | 9:50 am | #9
They really go through money quickly, both theirs and ours.
January 29th, 2010 | 9:50 am | #10
Rudy,
I am sorry about your neighbor. The despair is deeper than the glib soundbites by Obama.
January 29th, 2010 | 9:51 am | #11
Liberals ripped Palin apart for her “expensive” clothes during the campaign and and they drool all over Michelle. You are right, it does send a bad signal to America. And did you notice that it was SEIU Purple…..Pelooser wore purple too.
January 29th, 2010 | 9:51 am | #12
One can buy clothing, one cannot buy good taste.
January 29th, 2010 | 9:59 am | #13
The woman needs to buy a few feminine business suits, non-satiny, for gosh sake.
January 29th, 2010 | 10:01 am | #14
What makes you think Michelle doesn’t think she is sacrificing – she is worth so much more…..don’t ya know. Michelle is just as much a narcissist as Barack, and her job is to turn the head of Barack’s any which way she wants. Behind every great man is a great woman, except in this case, it is the total opposite…..behind every little man is a little woman.
January 29th, 2010 | 10:02 am | #15
Designer clothes cannot hide the underlying ugliness.
January 29th, 2010 | 10:02 am | #16
C’mon…
I do not care if the dress was $1,800 or $18,000. She IS the First Lady and she should look good. As long as she paid for it and it was not some sort of illegal gift then by all means wear it. I do not have a problem with this. And this comes off a little petty. I may loathe her husband’s performance as president but that does not change the fact that she a symbol and representative of the United States of America. What would you have her do, pick up a dress at Marshalls?
January 29th, 2010 | 10:06 am | #17
add to this that they could only find $15000 to donate to Hati.
January 29th, 2010 | 10:08 am | #18
Rodney,
I wouldn’t have her get a dress at Marshall’s, however, I wouldn’t have her wear a dress that costs more than some people take home in a month in these current economic times. I do believe it shows a certain amount of arrogance and “in your face” attitude as the country’s unemployment rate is in the double digits.
I believe MO would do much better taking a lesson from Mamie Eisenhower. Understatement would play better in this economy.
January 29th, 2010 | 10:09 am | #19
Who pays for her clothes, I believe the Federal government pays for all her wardrobe needs so as the First Lady can look her job description.
Anyone know where this informatioon can be found?
January 29th, 2010 | 10:11 am | #20
“What would you have her do, pick up a dress at Marshalls?”
Would anyone notice the difference….I mean seriously? Michelle wears expensive clothes because it is how she perceives herself as deserving and warranting. Michelle and Barack have no idea of what it means to sacrifice for the American people, considering they are spending it like it isn’t theirs.
January 29th, 2010 | 10:15 am | #21
Look, she has to find something for her personal staff of 13 (on $2.2 million of payroll) to do with their time. Apparently, they spend their time picking out a new set of designer clothes for her every day. This is not easy!
Seriously, has she ever been spotted wearing the same thing twice?
January 29th, 2010 | 10:17 am | #22
[...] reading: Gateway Pundit: They Feel Your Pain… Michelle O Wears $1850 Frock to Watch Hubby at SOTU Address and Crony Capitalism: Donate to Democratic Candidate- Win $100 Million in Stimulus Cash & Box [...]
January 29th, 2010 | 10:17 am | #23
Remember, when Nancy Reagan was trashed for buying china for the White House with private donations?
January 29th, 2010 | 10:19 am | #24
[...] when liberals decide “Quotes of the Year” and The trouble with Meghan McCain Gateway Pundit: They Feel Your Pain… Michelle O Wears $1850 Frock to Watch Hubby at SOTU Address and You Betcha. Actress Wins Entertainer of the Year for Trashing Palin Greg Gutfield, Big [...]
January 29th, 2010 | 10:21 am | #25
[...] January 29, 2010: From Gateway Pundit… They Feel Your Pain… Michelle O Wears $1850 Frock to Watch Hubby at SOTU Address — some things never [...]
January 29th, 2010 | 10:21 am | #26
Seriously, has she ever been spotted wearing the same thing twice?
————————–
A sour, contemptuous expression on her face.
January 29th, 2010 | 10:24 am | #27
[...] We’re Talking About Shorts? Empty Suit: Michelle Obama’s Weight Problem Gateway Pundit: They Feel Your Pain… Michelle O Wears $1850 Frock to Watch Hubby at SOTU Address GayPatriot: Another Day, Another Democrat Insults Obamacare Opponents Tarheeltalker: I Want to [...]
January 29th, 2010 | 10:28 am | #28
To Living in The Twilight:
While I was pretty young when that hypocrisy was going on, I do remember the White House china attacks. The nasty attacks from the left on FLOTUS Nancy Reagan for daring to replace the previous (and badly chipped) china for WH formal dinners, even though not one penny of taxpayers’ money was used, was vicious and relentless. Figures… some things never change, right?
January 29th, 2010 | 10:29 am | #29
She looks “hot”
I noticed her walking in strutting SEIU purple.
Every detail is engineered to send a message. I bet her fried chicken in organic.
January 29th, 2010 | 10:34 am | #30
[...] Obama Ad Draws Attention BV Black Spin: Healthy School Lunch Ad Blasts Obama Girls Gateway Pundit: They Feel Your Pain… Michelle O Wears $1850 Frock to Watch Hubby at SOTU Address Michelle Malkin: Leave Obama’s kids alone…except when POTUS & FLOTUS need them for [...]
January 29th, 2010 | 10:37 am | #31
The dress had sleeves, which was an improvement.
January 29th, 2010 | 10:58 am | #32
Rudy
January 29th, 2010 | 9:48 am | #8
I am so sorry for the family of that man and for you. Suicide is horrifying. The pain is so deep.
January 29th, 2010 | 11:01 am | #33
Living in The Twilight Zone
January 29th, 2010 | 10:17 am | #23
Exactly what I was thinking.
January 29th, 2010 | 11:05 am | #34
Funny you should ask, Livinginthetwilightzone!
Day after SOTUS:
http://newsbird.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/michelle-wears-an-old-suit-to-fight-obesity/
You can see a full year of Meshelle’s wardrobe here: http://www.youtube.com/user/RobtKraft
(link to the right).
Rodney, it’s the whole package. And it is personal because people have lost their jobs and are watching their communities suffer. It is personal when they take money out of your pocket to redistribute it to political cronies. Forgive us if it hits a nerve.
January 29th, 2010 | 11:05 am | #35
Let’s look at what BO doesn’t want to spend money on: the heroes who’re now dealing with serious medical issues because they worked to save and/or recover the victims of 9/11 at ground zero.
Considering the billions unaccounted for, or frittered away on ridiculous pork, in his Stimulus Bill — the $350million or so per year is the least he could offer for the *health* of citizens who risked life and limb for their fellow man.
But no. He’s not interested in their health or quality of life. And one wonders, as always, if those traumas being associated with 9/11 are part of the reason.
http://www.ace.mu.nu
January 29th, 2010 | 11:08 am | #36
Another galling aspect of things is when Mr. Arugula acts as if he is suffering along with the rest of us.
January 29th, 2010 | 11:19 am | #37
Apparently no one has told The First Clydesdale that no matter how much her clothes cost they will not magically look good on her. Everything I have seen her wear only serves to accentuate the negatives of her figure.
January 29th, 2010 | 11:21 am | #38
OT: It is now 10 days since Scott Brown was elected. When does MA certify the election? In the meantime, Congress increased the debt to a ridiculous amount, and Kirk voted for it. It required 60 votes.
January 29th, 2010 | 11:29 am | #39
“Ridiculously expensive”…and ugly. This dress reminds me of something I wore when I was about 12. It’s too short, too high waisted, too tight on the top and the pleats do nothing for her except accentuate her big bootie.
You can’t buy good taste, no matter how much you spend. That goes for everything associated with this White House.
January 29th, 2010 | 11:29 am | #40
She is Imelda Marcos. The spending has been intolerable. I don’t find her particularly fashionable either, and if the purple is to support or send a secret message of support to SEIU it is even more reprehensible.
But we knew, or should have known what we were getting from day 1. I figured out these two were going to be costly when Obama gave the Mussolini speech with the pillars behind him. “Oh boy oh boy,” I said. Get your wallets out for this one.
January 29th, 2010 | 11:31 am | #41
Is it just my specs or is FLOTUS becoming obese?
Sorry about your neighbor, Rudy.
January 29th, 2010 | 11:32 am | #42
I was out getting batteries for my obama bulls**t decoder ring.
Did she, at least, look good in it?
January 29th, 2010 | 11:33 am | #43
I found this at Michelle’s Mirror.
The caption reads:
More salad; less lobster
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_DawJTCHuL3c/S1sm_dSSqHI/AAAAAAAACow/EmWGer9qbHc/s1600-h/that%27s%20the%20power%20of%20transimaging%20copy_thumb%5B1%5D%5B4%5D.jpg
January 29th, 2010 | 11:40 am | #44
Living in The Twilight Zone
January 29th, 2010 | 10:17 am | #23
Remember, when Nancy Reagan was trashed for buying china for the White House with private donations?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Was the china purchased for the White House and not for the Reagans? If so, then it was perfectly acceptable as it’s traditional that every First Lady/First Family add something to or somehow leave their mark at the White House. That the china was purchased with private donations is also acceptable providing the china remained in the White House after the Reagans moved out.
January 29th, 2010 | 11:40 am | #45
Cut the lady some slack.
She was criticized for wearing a pair of rumpled shorts on Air Force One, and now you guys want to beat her up for being fashionable.
The Obamas can afford the expensive clothes even though they’ve taken a pay cut by coming to Washington. I’ll bet they still have a few bucks in their stash. It’s probably been a long time since they’ve been able to relate to real “working folks.”
January 29th, 2010 | 11:40 am | #46
Still, NOTHING makes the beotch happy! She sat and glared the whole time during SOTU.
January 29th, 2010 | 11:45 am | #47
Richard,
Sorry but Michelle will get as much slack as Sarah Palin got.
January 29th, 2010 | 11:47 am | #48
And another thing. See the video on Whitehouse.gov of Meshelle et al’s obesity initiative. I don’t think any of the folks involved in this, from the inarticulate and fat Surgeon General Benjamin to the cadaverous Sebelius and least of all our hamburger-lovin’ Meshelle, should be up there preaching about fitness. Especially when everything they’re talking about is another program costing my tax $$ or damaging private industry by trying to protect people from their personal bad choices. It’s like trotting Oprah out there to lecture us on fitness and nutrition, but making us pick up the tab (for people who don’t care anyway!).
January 29th, 2010 | 11:51 am | #49
I am curious as to whether:
A. The clothing items were bought with personal or tax money?
B. If tax money then are they the property of Michelle now?
Hypocrisy on display!
January 29th, 2010 | 12:29 pm | #50
Look, She probably has a couple wardrobe Czars that must justify their existance. We can’t be putting gubmint peole out of work during this tough economy. How many wardrobe Czar positions are available in the private sector, anyway?
January 29th, 2010 | 12:44 pm | #51
“Wardrobe Czars…” LOL!
Wonder if there’s an opening for a Toilet Brush Czar. Or how about a Dish Washing Czar? LOL!
January 29th, 2010 | 12:49 pm | #52
$850 custom made designer boots? Ya gotta be kidding! I swear, when I saw the photo, I thought to myself: “How uncouth to greet people wearing a pair of Barry’s socks.”
January 29th, 2010 | 1:09 pm | #53
Was the china purchased for the White House and not for the Reagans? If so, then it was perfectly acceptable as it’s traditional that every First Lady/First Family add something to or somehow leave their mark at the White House. That the china was purchased with private donations is also acceptable providing the china remained in the White House after the Reagans moved out.
———————————-
It is my understanding that Nancy Reagan acquired the china through private donations.
January 29th, 2010 | 1:17 pm | #54
Living in The Twilight Zone
January 29th, 2010 | 1:09 pm | #53
It is my understanding that Nancy Reagan acquired the china through private donations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unless you’re telling me that private donors actually donated pieces of china, I get that.
January 29th, 2010 | 1:35 pm | #55
Pelosi and the O’barmy’s are champagne socialists of the worst kind!
January 29th, 2010 | 1:35 pm | #56
Richard
January 29th, 2010 | 11:40 am | #45
How much slack did the left cut Laura Bush?
Why should michelle-o get any more?
You will note, however, that no one on the right has tried to trash the obama daughters as the left did the Bush girls.
And, michelle-o seems to equate high cost with good taste. Perhaps she should add one more person to her personal staff of twenty-two. That person could be her very own “good taste czar”. (Of course, she’d have to hire a Conservative. lol)
January 29th, 2010 | 1:50 pm | #57
Yes! Thank-you, Mrs.P. I was wondering if I was the only one who noticed the purple parade.
Also, did I miss it or did he never acknowledge the Ft. Hood Soldiers that were seated with the First Lady?
January 29th, 2010 | 2:06 pm | #58
Jim Hoft LOVES deleting my posts! The truth must be scary!!!!
January 29th, 2010 | 3:22 pm | #59
Hey Finncrisp, We laugh but indeed just this week, as reporters were trying to identify actual jobs created by the stimulus, defense for lack of jobs was just that: well, we didn’t want to lay anyone off. In St. Louis County, the Special School District is using their stimulus $$ for 1) not laying anyone off; 2) infrustructure. And if anyone has ever dealt with this bloated bureacracy, they surely have a lot of fat to cut (good folks there notwithstanding).
January 29th, 2010 | 3:33 pm | #60
“What would you have her do, pick up a dress at Marshalls?”
Until I saw this post, I thought she picked it up in the prom section at the Rescue Mission’s Thrifty Shopper in Utica. She could spend a third that much on a decent grown-up outfit.
January 29th, 2010 | 4:04 pm | #61
To those who feel Michelle Obama has the right to spend whatever she feels like spending, be advised that as First Lady, she doesn’t have an income, however, read how she manages to spend over $1.5 million of TAXPAYER money…
canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12652
Written by Dr. Paul L. Williams
“In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much,” she said. “See, that’s why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service, “… Michelle Obama
No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as the First Lady and she doesn’t perform any official duties. But this hasn’t deterred her from hiring an unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to satisfy her every request in the midst of the Great Recession..
Just think, Mary Lincoln was taken to task for purchasing china for the White House during the Civil War. And Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary from her husband’s salary.
Total Personal Staff members for other first ladies paid by taxpayers:
Mamie Eisenhower : 1 paid for personally out of President’s salary
Jackie Kennedy: 1
Roseline Carter: 1
Barbara Bush: 1
Hilary Clinton: 3
Laura Bush: 1
Michele Obama: 22
How things have changed! If you’re one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and then come to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Ms Michelle are the same as members of the national security and defense departments and the bill for these assorted lackeys is paid by YOU, John Q. Public:
Michele Obama’s personal staff:
1.. $172,200 – Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2. $140,000 – Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
3. $113,000 – Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary for Mrs. Obama)
4. $102,000 – Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
5. $100,000 – Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $90,000 – Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
7. $84,000 – Lel yveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
8. $75,000 – Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
9. $70,000 – Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
10. $65,000 – Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
11. $64,000 – Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
12 $62,000 – Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 – Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
14. $57,500 – Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
15. $52,500 – Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
16. $50,000 – Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
17. $45,000 – Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
18. $43,000 – Tubman, Samanth a (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 – Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
20. $36,000 – Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
21. $35,000 – Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
22. $35,000 – Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
(total = $1,591,200 in annual salaries)
There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady’s social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense.
Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and “First Hairstylist” Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to Europe .
Copyright 2009
January 29th, 2010 | 4:49 pm | #62
“What would you have her do, pick up a dress at Marshalls?”
Well, actually…why the hell not? These people are so completely obtuse, they have no clue that a key part of leadership is to lead by example. Appearances are everything – and, apparently, their goal is to “appear” as wealthy as the “fatcats” they claim to despise so much.
And another thing – not only are her clothes too damned expensive, they are hideously ugly and tasteless.
January 29th, 2010 | 5:07 pm | #63
I don’t care how much of her own money Mizbummer spends — but, is it her own money?? I’ll bet not.
BTW, remember you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear…
.
January 29th, 2010 | 5:42 pm | #64
I did notice her dress at the State of the Union and thought she looked unusually elegant. Now, I know why!
January 29th, 2010 | 6:02 pm | #65
About Nancy Reagan’s china: It did stay at the White House after she and Pres. Reagan left.
January 29th, 2010 | 8:35 pm | #66
Michelle should have spent the money on a full length three way mirror because that dress was very unflattering, regardless of cost. No one expects her to dress in rags but flaunting over priced designer duds in this depression invites comparisons to Marie Antoinette. She certainly isn’t setting an example of using a little creativity and thrift to show how you can find look alike couture clothing for much lower prices. And what was up with all the (obviously) coordinated shades of purple clothing for both male and female democrats? That was just creepy and reminiscent of cult uniforms.
January 30th, 2010 | 1:58 am | #67
I normally lurk and I really hate that my first post here is in MO’s defense, but the story about her staff being unprecedented is exaggerated. Lord knows I hate to defend her, but below is a link to the 2008 White House Official Staff List, which shows at least 16 people working for Laura Bush-and if you believe factcheck or snopes-up to 22.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/graphics/2008stafflistsalary_title.html
Also, according to what I’ve read on various other sites, Hilary Clinton had anywhere from 13-19 staff members, depending on what year it was. I’m too lazy to look back any further.
January 30th, 2010 | 8:21 am | #68
Factcheck.org checked out the article referenced:
Michelle Obama currently has a staff of 24. That may indeed be the largest of any first lady, but Hillary Clinton, with 19 staffers, and Laura Bush with at least 18 and perhaps more, weren’t far behind.
A detailed comparison can be found here:
http://m.factcheck.org/2009/08/michelle-obamas-staff/
January 30th, 2010 | 1:51 pm | #69
[...] via Gateway Pundit. [...]
January 30th, 2010 | 7:27 pm | #70
[...] Pundit – They Feel Your Pain… Michelle O Wears $1850 Frock to Watch Hubby at SOTU Address (Hat Tip: Larwyn) Share and [...]
January 31st, 2010 | 8:37 am | #71
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Marty Smith, June Pfaff Sigler, Cris Angelini, Robert Faulhaber and others. Robert Faulhaber said: They Feel Your Pain… Michelle O Wears $1850 Frock to Watch Hubby at SOTU Address #tcot #p2 http://bit.ly/dinYPs [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact