White House denies manufacturer's boast that First Lady carried their $5,950 bag

meme

New member
:readit:
tsk tsk tsk someone has a taste for the expensive.
-------------------------------------------
DAILY NEWS STAFF

Updated Thursday, July 9th 2009, 8:35 AM


Rodionov/Getty

Luxury goods company says Michelle Obama carried their $6,000 bag -- White House flatly denies it.

The $5,950 shiny black manila alligator clutch, a smaller version is shown above, is part of VBH's Spring 2009 collection.

Is First Lady Michelle Obama sporting a taste for ultra-expensive fashion pieces, or is she cementing her status as a savvy shopper?

Back in April she wore a pair of $540 Lanvin sneakers at a Washington food bank. Earlier this week (while strolling the wooded landscape outside of Moscow), she carried a sexy black clutch, which Italian luxury house VBH boasts is their shiny black alligator manila bag – with a retail sticker price of $5,950.

The White House flatly denies that Obama bought such a high-priced accessory, and says that she was carrying a patent clutch that retails for $875.

The First Lady, who has impressed with her chic, affordable style sense, embracing Everywoman brands like Gap and J.Crew, flashed the shiny handheld while walking with her husband, President Barack Obama, during their Monday meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and his wife Svetlana.

Told that Obama's office denied the bag was the high-end VBH clutch, Kelly Vitko, a rep for the company replied, "It’s definitely ours."



http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyl...ck_bag_alligator_russia_.html#ixzz0KgDAq7xc&D
 
Why didn't we ever hear how much Bush's boots cost?
Must be that darned liberal media.

Bush was "just folks." He was born with a spoon of the finest silver in his mouth, and has been a multi-millionaire his entire life, but he was "just folks."

He did speak with a drawl, after all, and didn't get caught up in any big words or fancy syntax when talking....
 
so...here is another thread about "the Obamas" being turned in one about Bush..:rolleyes:

I think this just proves that the liberals are less whiney and petty about such things than the Rebutlickens are.

How many times during the bush presidency did liberals compalin about how much the first lady spent on clothing?

at least 2 so for for the rebutlickens.
 
I think this just proves that the liberals are less whiney and petty about such things than the Rebutlickens are.

How many times during the bush presidency did liberals compalin about how much the first lady spent on clothing?

at least 2 so for for the rebutlickens.
LOL. The mention of Obama's name invokes Bush posts and it is the liberals who are "less whiney"... Articles after articles about clothes and Palin and it is the liberals who are "less whiney"...

Geez. What a hack.
 
LOL. The mention of Obama's name invokes Bush posts and it is the liberals who are "less whiney"... Articles after articles about clothes and Palin and it is the liberals who are "less whiney"...

Geez. What a hack.

That attempt to turn it around failz Damo.
And was pretty petty.

Comparison is necessary to determine intent and attitudes.
 
I think this just proves that the liberals are less whiney and petty about such things than the Rebutlickens are.

How many times during the bush presidency did liberals compalin about how much the first lady spent on clothing?

at least 2 so for for the rebutlickens.

oh boy, you do live in a la la land..and that wasn't my point..of course you knew that..
but hey, as long as we can talk about Palins clothes, things are ok..
 
That attempt to turn it around failz Damo.
And was pretty petty.

Comparison is necessary to determine intent and attitudes.
What I find interesting is the denial by the Administration. Why bother denying it? What difference does it really make? And your comparison fails as I noted that there were far more articles about clothes during the last election cycle benefiting the liberals. I'd submit that such articles would be nonexistent if it hadn't been for the articles about clothes in the last election cycle.
 
LOL. The mention of Obama's name invokes Bush posts and it is the liberals who are "less whiney"... Articles after articles about clothes and Palin and it is the liberals who are "less whiney"...

Geez. What a hack.

One $5,950.00 bag for the Obamas vs. $150,000.00 wardrobe for Ms Palin.

To be fair, I'd say you guys have to let the Obamas spend another $144,050.00 on clothes before you can start whining.
 
Bush was "just folks." He was born with a spoon of the finest silver in his mouth, and has been a multi-millionaire his entire life, but he was "just folks."

He did speak with a drawl, after all, and didn't get caught up in any big words or fancy syntax when talking....

john-kerry-hunting-4(1).jpg
 
So he paid nothing for them?
He may not have, actually. At least during his years in office. The President receives ties and other small sundries regularly, I remember an article about Bill wearing a tie then selling it for charity or giving them away like prizes because he got so many as gifts. I'm reasonably sure that Obama will never have to buy another tie again. It stands to reason that somebody may send some boots to a guy who wears boots.

I wouldn't know if it is true though, because these very important articles never seemed to appear during his years in office and only seemed to begin after the Palin clothes mess during the last campaign. I think a new door has opened, and that it sucks because it detracts from more important conversation.
 
One $5,950.00 bag for the Obamas vs. $150,000.00 wardrobe for Ms Palin.

To be fair, I'd say you guys have to let the Obamas spend another $144,050.00 on clothes before you can start whining.

no words to this one...one friggen bag cost, $6000...Palins whole wardrobe added up to $144,000...
 
Back
Top