A Tale of Two Wardrobes
In the hopes they can rescue President Obama from having to defend his atrocious record, it appears the media would like to make what Ann Romney buys with her own money a campaign issue. Their latest attempt is ‘pointing out’ (attacking her) a $990 shirt she wore with a bird on it. Here are some of the headlines:
Those are just a few headlines. Notice they all make a reference to price? Of course they do. That’s the point. Making you think Ann Romney and her husband are greedy pigs is going to be something you see a lot of over the next 6 months. It’s all they have.
Now, let’s look at a few headlines surrounding Michelle Obama’s fashion choices:
Notice the difference? None of those headlines mention price, cost, price tags, or money in the headlines. But this will really blow your mind: They don’t mention cost in the articles either. Nope. Not one word.
Politico didn’t mention that the State of the Union dress cost $2400. The NY Times and MSNBC failed to mention the sneakers Michelle Obama wore to that food bank cost $540, and ABC didn’t mention anything about the cost of the “Naeem Khan” dress Michelle Obama wore that night. I can’t seem to find what that dress would go for. Shocker. Well, over at Nieman Marcus, the cheapest Naeem Khan dress I found was over $2300. But who knows? Maybe she had a coupon.
Now, do I care what Michelle Obama and Ann Romney spend their own money on? Of course not. It’s their money, and they can spend it how they like. But, that’s not what happens. One is an immediate headline-worthy issue and one is not. The double standard here is hilarious and it’s not going to end. It’s their only hope of saving their guy because they also know that if he has to run on his record he loses.
Oh, one last thing: Michelle Obama wore a $1000 skirt to meet troops in a mess hall last Christmas. I just thought you should know.