2 May

But they’re for the little people: Michelle mingles with the rabble while wearing a $2,700 sweater

“…it wasn’t until I stepped away from the corporate track and worked in city government and eventually helped to found the Chicago chapter of Public Allies, an AmeriCorps program, a national service program, that I realized how important public service and community service was to my own development… And now that the two of us have moved to Washington, our new home — (applause) — we both have continued to stress the value of national and community service…” –Michelle Obama, 17 March 2009
The phrase “public service” must mean something different to the Obamas than to you or I.

In March, the first lady visited her British counterpart Samantha Cameron wearing a L’Wren Scott sweater in a trendy bright yellow hue. The embellished cardigan costs $2,720.

Obama, widely regarded as a fashion icon, likes the brand so much that she wore a peach cardigan from the same line last week during the Take Your Child to Work Day festivities.

The next day, she wore another sweater from L’Wren Scott, this one white with red trim from the Spring 2011 ready to wear collection, for a visit to Fort Stewart with the president.

She has been a fan of the brand’s cardigans since at least 2010, when she wore this black and white number to a childhood obesity event.

The first lady’s favorite embellished cardigans from L’Wren Scott range from $2,095 to $3,320. Plain cashmere-blend cardigans from the brand start at $910.

For Michelle, her selfless commitment to public service means living large while sticking taxpayers with the tab.

It translates to spending $10 million of the taxpayers’ money on vacations in only a single year’s time and living like, well, a millionaire or billionaire.

Read more

       

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.

24 Responses to But they’re for the little people: Michelle mingles with the rabble while wearing a $2,700 sweater

  1. Petercat says: 1

    I didn’t want to make this comment, but it’s just too tempting to pass up:

    Talk about putting lipstick on a pig….

    Shutting up now.

    ReplyReply
  2. Nan G says: 2

    I don’t know how the Obamas will handle this issue, but I’ve been to a few presidential museums/libraries and almost all of the clothes a president’s wife wears during his term end up in them.
    There are so many clothes that the Libraries will rotate some on to public displays while most are stored away.
    All gifts as well as things bought with OUR money are usually put in the museums/libraries.
    All clothes the family buys with its own money, they take with them when they go.
    The Clintons were infamous for supposedly taking many things belonging to taxpayers when they moved out.
    Not just clothes, though.
    In their case it ncluded furniture, china, stem wear and sliver.

    ReplyReply
  3. Smorgasbord says: 3

    Curt,
    Before you jump to any conclusions, it is possible that the clothes were a gift. It wouldn’t surprise me if she was given the clothes and paid to wear them in public for the advertising. Keep in mind that both Obamas are up for sale. The highest bidder wins.

    ReplyReply
  4. Anne says: 4

    Petercat: “Talk about putting lipstick on a pig….”

    In this case, you’ve still got a pig.

    Apologies to all pigs.

    ReplyReply
  5. retire05 says: 5

    It seems that no matter how much of our money Michelle Antoinette spends on clothes, she still looks like she shops at GoodWill. Most of her dresses seem to come from the local upholsterer, not some tony design house.

    It drives me nuts when she is compared to Jackie Kennedy. Jackie Kennedy not only had taste, she had class that no amount of money could ever buy for Michelle Antoinette. Someone needs to tell Michelle Antoinette that lycra is NOT her friend.

    ReplyReply
  6. Anne says: 6

    It’s possible that the clothes were donated…

    However, if you recall Michelle’s first clothes designer went OUT OF BUSINESS the first year the trailer trash were in the White House, so I suspect the top end designers aren’t rushing to donate their clothes to her.

    Just sayin’.

    ReplyReply
  7. oil guy from Alberta says: 7

    There’s darkness and now there is light. Next January when you land at O’Hare Airport.

    ReplyReply
  8. Hard Right says: 9

    Meanwhile loony larry o’donnell whines about Romney’s wife wearing a $990 blouse.

    ReplyReply
  9. Richard Wheeler says: 10

    Hard Right Do we REALLY care what the First Lady or candidates wives wear?. Does it serve any purpose to call Michelle O. or Sarah P. a pig?

    BTW Is Romney real or a perfect mannequin?

    ReplyReply
  10. Nan G says: 11

    @Richard Wheeler:
    Obama is a mannequin or a robot or a cardboard cut out.
    Here is the proof:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsQ5wxZI1U4

    ReplyReply
  11. Richard Wheeler says: 12

    Nan But Mitt is so dang pretty— with his pressed blue jeans and that hair — perfect.
    A life of no coffee,no alcohol. A real regular fellow.

    ReplyReply
  12. Nan G says: 13

    @Richard Wheeler:
    Healthy.
    No shortage of coffee:

    Arabica coffee futures tumbled in thin
    dealings, as long liquidation hit the market, bringing it close
    to the 18-month low hit in mid-April.
    ARABICA COFFEE
    * July arabicas dropped 6.95 cents, or 3.8 percent,
    to close at $1.758 per lb.

    As to alcoholic beverages, Obama is doing a great job of putting liquor stores out of business.
    One law states that no alcohol may be sold in a store with less than 10,000 square feet.
    50% of all liquor stores are owned by Asians today.
    He is pressuring them mightily.
    Even his toady, mayor Marian Barry wants all the Asian stores gone.

    Romney has neither said nor done anything while in office to make matters worse than Obama is making them right now.

    ReplyReply
  13. Aye says: 14

    @Richard Wheeler:

    I live life with no alcohol too Rich.

    What was your point again?

    ReplyReply
  14. Richard Wheeler says: 15

    Aye I COMMEND YOU. How bout caffeine?

    Nan How bout that stock market at 4 year highs?

    ReplyReply
  15. another vet says: 16

    @Richard Wheeler: And unemployment at what, a 30 year high if you don’t count his first two years in office and that’s in part because of people who stopped looking for work or else it would be a 72 year high. I’ve yet to talk to a single person who claims they are better off now than what they were before he took office and that includes those who voted for him, most who of whom have said they have no intention of making the same mistake twice.

    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html

    ReplyReply
  16. Richard Wheeler says: 17

    Another Vet When Conservs. like Mata won’t vote for him, Santorum and Paul won’t endorse him, and Gingrich still calling him a liar, the road for Mitt won’t be easy. He trails among women by 15 points and among Latins by 30.

    The good news. He leads among old white males. That who you’re talking to?

    ReplyReply
  17. another vet says: 18

    @Richard Wheeler: I’m talking to males and females. I will pass it on to my 38 year old sister and her friends that you implied I must be talking to old white men. I’m sure they will get a kick out of it. However, most of them do fall in the category of being stay at home moms. You know, the ones your side bemoans as having it easy. As for O’s advantage with women and Hispanics, they usually do vote for Dems. Nothing new. He won the Hispanic vote by 36 points in 2008 which means he has lost ground with them.

    http://www.dickmorris.com/gender-gap-is-smaller/

    I see the economy only added 115,000 jobs last month and the unemployment rate dropped .1% due to an increase in those who stopped looking for work. More great news for the American worker!

    ReplyReply
  18. Richard Wheeler says: 19

    Another Vet 2oo8 Latins 67-31, women 56-43, males 48-49 . BHO wins by 8.5 million 53-47.

    Anyone who thinks this election won’t be close is halucinating. Ohio and Fla. wll decide. Romney must win both to be POTUS. Rubio( Fla.) and Portman(Oh.)most likely Veep picks to secure one. If unemployment rate around 8% not decisive. UNDER 7 Dems win—OVER 9 Repubs win. Next 6 months both sides will try to move those #’s to their favor.
    As mentioned I’m undecided and eagerly await debates.

    BTW I absolutely respect stay at home moms.

    Semper Fi Thanks for your service

    ReplyReply
  19. another vet says: 20

    @Richard Wheeler: I think it is way too early to be calling the election. However, at this point even though Obama should be toast, he is definitely the heavy favorite. He is the sitting President, has a huge monetary advantage, and enjoys a very pro Obama MSM which will give him free advertising. No doubt, just like 2008, he will be given overwhelmingly positive coverage and Romney will be given overwhelmingly negative coverage. About the only prediction I’ll make at this time is that the Republicans will control both houses. Agreed that for POTUS, barring unforeseen circumstances such as another terrorist attack on U.S. soil or Fast and Furious really blowing up, it will come down to the economy. Your unemployment numbers are probably a pretty good guess.

    ReplyReply
  20. Richard Wheeler says: 21

    Anothe Vet People like anticsrocks said it was way too early when I picked Romney for nom. I was dead on with House and Senate projections in 2010.
    Agree Repubs. hold House +1. Senate need to net +4 to gain control. Should pick up Neb.,Mont.,N.D. Possible wins in Wi. and Mizzou. Could lose incumbancy in Nev. and Mass. I see it 50/50.
    Virginia with Dem Marine Jim Webb stepping down, a dog fight between Allen and Kaine, may also decide as it did in 2006.

    Definately do not see Obama as “heavy favorite”

    ReplyReply
  21. another vet says: 22

    Well, maybe not a heavy favorite, but definitely the favorite. I predicted Romney would be the nominee as well. The Republican establishment seems to pick them before the primaries even start. He wasn’t my first choice or even second or third, but he will have my vote unless a viable third party candidate comes along which is highly unlikely at this point. As for conservative support, both Perry and Gingrich have come out today saying that they will support Romney because we can’t afford another 4 years of Obama. I am in the same boat and a lot of others probably are as well. I won’t vote for Obama no matter what he does, but had he not lurched so far to the left, been so divisive, or been marketed in 2008 like he was some sort of a god who was going to fix everything just by being there, he probably would have less to worry about. He has fired up a lot of people like those who made the mistake of not voting last time because they didn’t like McCain. When computing these polls, that is one group of people who are not taken into account and who will vote heavily against Obama. If they turn out in full force, it won’t be to Obama’s advantage. If it wasn’t for the aforementioned factors, they probably would have sat this election out as well.

    ReplyReply
  22. Disenchanted says: 23

    @Smorgasbord:
    Advertisment? Tell me how many of the ‘common’ people can afford a $4,000 cardigan? And they are in such weird colors they cannot be used as an every day staple.

    I will have to dig it up but a couple of name brands quit giving michelle clothes to be paid for later because the clothes were never paid for. The obamas have such a sense of entitlement it makes one want to puke. This will all change come November.

    ReplyReply
  23. Smorgasbord says: 24

    @Disenchanted: #23
    I’m trying to do my part so that someone’s Tea Party sign will be fulfilled: Change It Back.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>