There is a great article posted at American Thinker about the vast crevasse that divides Michelle Obama's "pronouncements, advise, injunctions and edicts" from her actions.
It starts with her quick dismissal of Harry's Reid's racial gaff and then deals heavily with the contradiction of partaking in the couture life while espousing socialist ideals.
"...The First Lady is well aware that the President stresses that Americans should surrender personal aspirations for the sake of the collective. "All Americans will have to sacrifice to put the economy back on track," Obama said. "Everybody's going to have to give...Everybody's going to have to have some skin in the game." To date, Michelle's contribution to "skin in the game" is the acquisition of an off-the-shelf, $1,900.00 snakeskin clutch.
Excusing herself, Michelle is of the opinion that "in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system ... someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more." (Read the whole article)
This is something that interests me greatly --given that both of the Obamas are constantly being heralded as role models. I want to see some substance behind the claims...and I haven't. I have already exhausted my posting about their lack of charitable giving, but it's something I think about often. How can they believe that wealth should be redistributed for the common good, then promptly exempt themselves (AND THE UNIONS) from that redistribution...and manage to do it without a negative sound from the so-called fourth branch of government? When will the press's obligation to the people and commitment to the truth overpower their love affair with the Obamas?