<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>The Atlantic - Latest Comments in The Michelle Obama Effect</title><link>http://theatlantic.disqus.com/</link><description>The Atlantic Website</description><atom:link href="http://theatlantic.disqus.com/the_michelle_obama_effect/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 22:56:39 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: The Michelle Obama Effect</title><link>http://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2009/05/the-michelle-obama-effect/17797#comment-36673978</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Plus, if Jackie O can sell Chanel, then who's to say that Michelle can't move a few cardigans?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Tim</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 22:56:39 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Michelle Obama Effect</title><link>http://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2009/05/the-michelle-obama-effect/17797#comment-36673976</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fair enough. I appreciate it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Ta-Nehisi Coates</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 21:00:44 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Michelle Obama Effect</title><link>http://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2009/05/the-michelle-obama-effect/17797#comment-36673975</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I read your post, read the article, commented on your blog, read your reply, re-read the article ('cause I'm like that), and I still stand by my original observation. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fashion, like the stock market, is all about illusion. What's hot? That's what raises stock prices (or hemlines or waistbands). Those ex-wealthy women pricing down could easily have gone to Banana Republic or any other still expensive for the masses but cheap for them stores. The Michelle Effect led them to the Crew.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Julia</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 16:09:44 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Michelle Obama Effect</title><link>http://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2009/05/the-michelle-obama-effect/17797#comment-36673973</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you're going to make an argument, quote from the article and make it. I've got no problem with disagreement. But do the guy the justice of reading his piece. This argument, for instance...&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;So, it's just coincidence that every time the first lady or the two adorable mini Michelle's rock J Crew their web site crashes and the items they wear sell out in minutes?&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;...is directly addressed in the article, with actual evidence. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;It's a good idea--essential here, in fact--to read something before commenting. If that sounds high-handed and dictatorial, it's because it is. The internet is filled with free space where you can speak your mind without no boundaries imposed. This ain't that kind of party. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Ta-Nehisi Coates</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 12:37:56 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Michelle Obama Effect</title><link>http://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2009/05/the-michelle-obama-effect/17797#comment-36673971</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I don't know why you posted and ENDORSED this bull shit.  So, it's just coincidence that every time the first lady or the two adorable mini Michelle's rock J Crew their web site crashes and the items they wear sell out in minutes?  Can they identify the same response to any other items in their collections?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">NMP</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 10:55:54 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Michelle Obama Effect</title><link>http://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2009/05/the-michelle-obama-effect/17797#comment-36673969</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Perhaps, but how then do you explain the sudden uptick in sales of dumbells and Bowflex systems amongst 27-55 year old female demographic? Hmmm?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Tim</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 10:50:43 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Michelle Obama Effect</title><link>http://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2009/05/the-michelle-obama-effect/17797#comment-36673967</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;That's absolute BS. They're stock price has doubled since inauguration but they're claiming FLOTUS had nothing to do with it. Please! &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;They can say they've cutting back all they want, but the sales they do have are due to the First Lady. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Julia</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 10:40:28 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>
