Posted on 02/12/2014 5:24:28 AM PST by yldstrk
One guest thought the cost of the dress was close to $10,000.
"Well, first of all, I love the dress on her because I think it's so elegant and so simple. I mean, that shape is what we call the princess shape. It's got that sort of poof at the bottom that's very sort of billowy at the same time. It's strapless. I think we want to call that French blue, maybe," said a guest.
"Some people might call it periwinkle and it's got this sort of jet bodice and everything, and I think it's realy pretty. But a dress like that from Mrs. Herrera could potentially run up to almost $10,000."
Another guest on CNN last night thought the cost was about $12,000. "Well, by the way, I think that dress probably cost around $12,000. But that's just my guess," said Sally Quinn.
"FLOTUS was wearing a black and liberty blue Carolina Herrera gown," the pool reporter said.
They are even faux frauds.
She can shop at Macy’s and get altered like everybody else
I think that Michelle actually foots the bill for the dress. This same TV interview also suggests that she pays a deeply discounted price for the advertising afforded the designer. I like to buy nice things and have no problem with her purchasing this dress for herself.
The problem comes because her and her husband preach to others that they should not enjoy the same freedom when spending their own money and it should redistributed in as many creative ways as possible.
I know I will catch heat for this here but I don’t have as much of a problem with the cost of state dinners as I do say for their Hawaiian vacations and especially that jaunt they took to try to secure the Olympics for Chicago. State dinners serve diplomatic purposes and help us appear as a generous country. Reagan hosted 35 of them. Elaborate first family vacations all over the world on the taxpayer dime on the other hand are absurd and offensive.
I’m guessing the cost of the dress is a direct result of the amount of fabric required to cover that fat, lazy, disgusting libtard’s backside.
I don’t think it is appropriate timing, when so many are out of work, for this dress. Maybe Robinson didn’t pay a dime for it, and Herrera was thrilled to make it for her, but it is still profligate and confirms that she is in it for the spoils and the graft and thinks she is Beyonce and doesn’t care about the abysmal state of our country.
She is not just some dame who married a millionaire. No one cares what that dame blows her husband’s money on.
She is supposed to be First Lady, but she is more like Porky Pig.
...and another one on her right.
We will have to agree to disagree. The problem is when we criticize Michelle’s choice of dress ( assuming it was not purchased by tax payer funds) we are engaging in the same class warfare that the democrats do their best to incite.
No, she is not just some dame who married a millionaire, but she does have the right to purchase for herself to wear what she would like. You are wrong people do care what the dame who marries the millionaire spends their money on. We must be careful not to fall into the same trap of envy that is used as an argument to redistribute wealth.
Now, we can give our opinions all day about if the dress is flattering or not, but Beyonce probably would have worn something classless that would have made even the randy french prime minister blush.
“Lipstick on a pig” comes to mind.
She is not a queen. She is the wife of a political leader. Everything she says and does matters, but she thinks she can wear an overpriced dress and not get criticized for it. I do not for one little minute agree with you. And I bet you dollars to donuts the taxpayers bought that dress. It is a disgusting display when times are so bad. If times were good it would be disgusting and over the top. If she wants to wear thousand dollar bills pasted on herself to show how “riche” she is in private, that is one thing. This is entirely another. Who are you anyway “likes to buy nice things”. What church do you go to? How much have you donated to the poor this year?
Sarah is the salt of the Earth and would be as comfortable preparing her guest a meal of moose chili as she would be delivering our nation's (honest) State of the Union address.
Sarah Palin is also smart and attractive as well as caring and down to earth.
Huh? What is wrong with buying nice things? Occupy-style class warfare BS.
You are right about the redistribution and they have made sure they redistribute some of it to themselves. It is an American tradition and value to stretch a dollar until it squawks and blowing money on garbage is not good stewardship. It is disgusting.
I completely agree with buying quality.
Come on folks, the commie POTUS has already declared “I am president so I can do anything I want”. So there is no surprise that the taxpayer’s will foot the bill, for her majesty’s beauticians, wigs, dresses, etc.
I've been one to appreciate that Michelle often wearing dresses has had a positive impact on women and girls. It's nice to see girls want to look feminine. It's also nice for heavy set girls to see in Michelle that they can do better than just put on spandex blend pants.
If that dress becomes a fashion statement, it will be better for prom night and other dress-up choices than choosing to look like streetwalkers in training. It sends the message that fashion can be fun.
The one who I'll criticize for clothing choices is hillary. She doesn't even try to make a fashion statement or look attractive.
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.