Modern, fashionable women mix and match expensive pieces with cheaper items.

Its not hypocrisy.
Its been going on for quite some time.
Mixing second hand clothes from a thrift store with a pair of expensive shoes.
Mixing a Target dress with a Marc Jacobs bag.
Mixing a vintage Chanel blazer with a pair of Chuck Taylors.
Decorating an inexpensive sweater with cheap, costume jewelry broaches as Michelle Obama does so often.

This is the way a lot of women dress today.
They are a little more conscientious about their purchases, so they don't just rush out and spend big bucks on every item.
They buy a few expensive accessories that are versatile and of high enough quality to last for years.

Michelle Obama dares to wear cheaper clothes than other wealthy women.
That doesn't mean she can NEVER wear a single luxury item.

Who knows if those sneakers were bought or given to her? Who should care?

Don't we have more important things to worry about and critique?

And imo, I like the mixing and matching. Makes a person much more interesting.

This is an extention of that, and the shallowness is not just limited to Republicans.

chastised for spending hundreds- or more! on a suit, for instance. But put on a $400 pair of shoes (with your less expensive outfit) and you're targeted.

Powerful men are expected to dress well. Why should the First Lady be castigated because she's actually got enough of a personal sense of style to mix and match, as you say?

I'm one of them. I have bad feet from years of running so I generally buy shoes with leather soles. I have a couple of Louis Vuitton bags that I've had for years. I shop in Target, consigment stores, Marshall's and TJ Maxx.

You do know that women have been doing that for - well - a couple of centuries, right? Victorian women were particularly adept at mixing and matching.

Michelle Obama from the petty bullshit I see posted against her?

Thank you, Victorian women.

Simply that you seem to feel that it's a relatively new phenomenon - and it's not.

I'm not sure why you're so very angry or why you believe you need to personally protect Michelle Obama from commentary you find offensive, but I am sure you're over-reacting to my post.

Bye.

on for quite some time.

I'm sorry if I seemed angry when I thought my response to you was pretty silly.

Still, I'm pretty sick of the way people will bash a woman over clothing, hair, shoes, hips, exposed arms, tone of voice, the kind of food she feeds her kids, etc.

things that are difficult to resolve - a form of projection, perhaps. First ladies have always come under intense scrutiny and probably always will; I suspect that the same will occur if we ever manage to elect a woman as President (since 'single' anything seems to be an automatic disqualifier). It is annoying but it's almost part of the job description. Think about what even the most recent first ladies have had to put up with during their husbands' terms in office. Even Jackie Kennedy, who managed to impress most people with her dress sense, was criticised for her attitude and hair style (among other things).

Substitute "trendy" for fashion in 95% of sentences it occurs in and "trendy" fits perfectly.

Being fashionable/trendy is mostly an adornment behavior to improve the appearance of mainstream "fitness" measures...do you have money, do you know how to spend it, do you know how to look better than your competition (why do you HAVE competition?).

If fashionable makes you feel good, why should I care? Actually I don't, be fashionable. The Purple Heart, Salvation Army, St. Vincent DePaul will all be perfectly glad to take your cast-offs when they become unfashionable.

The world is literally falling apart economically and there are people who want to discuss the First Lady's sneakers?

with real stones that you can buy cheaper than in a regular jewelry store, attend a gem show near you.

But the problem, which you refuse to see, is that Michelle Obama wasn't talking about how she liked to mix and match J Crew with Lanvin. Lanvin ain't J Crew. And I'm not talking about the shoes. Read the story again. Maybe she bought the Lanvin tops at a resale shop. Maybe the Lanvin sneakers were a gift. Maybe she just got caught with her sneakers showing? Maybe she needs a new press secretary?

That's who I really blame if I am going to blame anyone. Looking back all the first ladies seem to have a rough ride in the beginning. Usually with the Washington press corps. Usually the result of the press secretary not realizing the press corps is out for blood and headlines.

Nancy Reagan didn't realize the shooting of a doctor in Georgetown was such a big deal to the press corps when she started talking about her "itty bitty gun that shot itty bitty bullets."

Hillary Clinton as I recall got criticized over her "look" and then got criticized again when she changed it.

Laura Bush as I recall got criticized over her "look" and then got criticized again when she didn't change it.

I can tell you really care.