Alumni,
OK, I've looked on YouTube at both videos. First allow me to say that I absolutely love the new ending he gave the song: it builds so powerfully and with almost unbearably gorgeous instrumentation. Hope he keeps the end music that way from now on.
He's definitely saying "mild issue" both times. I recognize that those two words sound almost exactly like the two words that you hear: "mildest shoe". The two phrases are therefore homophonous. So when two words sound exactly the same how do we make an informed guess as to which one the speaker intends us to understand? Two things: context and syntax.
I've proposed that the sentence is "And we use cushions to cover happy glands in the mild issue of our disgrace.". I will now diagram for you how and why the phrase 'mild issue' fits perfectly into all of the clauses surrounding it and how and why 'mildest shoe' does not reasonably fit any of them. Warning: heavy English grammar content follows
(albeit made mercifully lighter by hilarious examples).
1. a) The phrase in question must describe "our disgrace" because the preposition "of" demands that. 'Disgrace' is the feeling which is 'issuing' (or coming out). 'Mild' describes how strongly that feeling of disgrace emits. It also serves as an obvious double entendre because the 'mild issue of disgrace' which come from 'glands' (which the adjective 'happy' lets us know that what he's referring to is the post-orgasmic sex organs) following infidelity is the remains of the bodily fluids expelled.
b) A shoe, by contrast, does not inherently describe anyone's disgrace. Unless, perhaps, your song were actually entitled something like "The Shoe" and contained an explanation of the specific rare circumstances where a shoe could inspire such a feeling. If the lyrics were all about an old cobbler, for example, who's son made a less than quality product that could be a legitimate cause of disgrace. The "mildest" shoe, however, could not be the cause of such a disgrace since, by definition, such footwear must be the least extreme example. It would describe a shoe noticably similar to the old cobbler's own work and instead be taken for a source of pride. (Are we having fun yet, folks?)
2. a) The phrase in question must be related to the "happy glands" because the preposition "in" likewise demands it. The glands are being covered by cushions in a slight emergence of a feeling of disgrace.
2. b) A shoe, though, would not be inside of a gland (no matter what the gland's disposition but if you did have a sneaker lodged in a bodily duct I doubt it'd be happy about that). See 3b on whether the reverse relationship (the "glands" are instead inside the "shoe" itself) is logical.
3. a) "Our disgace" takes the form of the glands (and their issue) being covered by "cushions".
3. b) If "our disgrace" and, therefore, the "glands" are already being covered by the "cushions" then why would the "shoe" need to cover the "glands" also? Provided a man would even choose to stick his testicles inside of a shoe in order to re-cover (because they're already being hidden by cushions, remember?) them, how would one shoe also be a significant size to cover his lady friend's hoohah? While we're on the subject, wouldn't a shoe gigantic enough to cover all of those areas have to be anything but "mild" in description?
4. If the "shoe" doesn't modify either "disgrace", "glands" or the act of covering then the only thing left for it to describe is the "cushions" themselves and for the life of me I can't imagine why anyone would describe "cushions" as a "shoe" which is also "mild" AND filled with "disgrace". You wanna take a crack at justifying that one? If you're able to credibly defend it, then I'll fully admit that "I'm not worthy!" of your evident Godlike powers of logic.
Surely after all of this evidence, alumni, you're a reasonable enough fellow that you're willing to concede you were mistaken about "the mildest shoe"?
I gotta admit, though, my friends, that this response has easily been the most entertaining and enjoyable analysis I've done since arriving here.