In NYT Style: 'Clearly' Michelle Obama 'is seen as helping the American economy

Something you've never heard before and probably never will again outside of this New York Times Style section article on Michelle Obama.

The story, by NYT's fashion critic Cathy Horyn, specifically deals with the first lady's transition "from mom and busy professional to glamour figure" (emphasis mine):

Even more astonishing is that Mrs. Obama’s spending on clothes has attracted little scrutiny. Clearly that’s because she is seen as helping the American economy. Still, she has spent tens of thousands of dollars on clothes and accessories. She was criticized for wearing $500-plus Lanvin sneakers at a food bank, in 2009. But at a time when economic inequality is a serious issue, you wonder why the first lady’s fashion spending hasn’t caused more fuss.

Clearly.

Also, this is what we, in the biz, call "fuss":

"Michelle Obama’s Pricey Vacation Wardrobe" [ABC News]

"From $2,000 dress to $1,000 skirt, Michelle Obama's lavish Hawaii wardrobe revealed" [Daily Mail]

"Michelle Obama’s Expensive Fashion Rivals That Of Ann Romney" [ABC News]

"Michelle Obama helps the poor in $540 sneakers" [Los Angeles Times]