Link to the full page articles on that from NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, FOX, etc.?

Exactly.

I have no problem with this information coming out. I have a problem with the total lack of investigative journalism across the board when things like this come out. Palin's playing the same game as everyone else. If the media would have properly acknowledged that, then it's no big deal.

Oh I'm sorry, are you suggesting that the false report of Michelle Obama spending her own money on an expensive dinner should get the same national media attention as campaign money being unnecessarily spent on clothing?

You're right, I can't find evidence to support that suggestion.

I'd love to be on the receiving end of that kind of charity. Speaking of which anyone want to donate their DVD player or XBOX to the homeless? Just as useful.

Comparing a $500 haircut(though absurd) to a $150,000 shopping spree is pretty ridiculous. John Edwards isn't even in this election. What we have is a ticket "against" wasteful spending, but blows a huge wad on something completely unnecessary. You can argue that it was an investment, but did any of you or your wives notice any difference in her appearance since the RNC. Its a big deal because of the hypocrisy, not because its just clothes.

Has Palin done anything to give even a remote impression that she knows what the hell she is doing? We can attack or defend her all day but can anyone name one thing to suppress my curiosity.

My bad.

But 20 years, hundreds of lucrative speaking engagements, and a few more best selling books from now, Obama should be in the double-digits. (He'll be a regular Bill Clinton, champion of the people). Like Al Gore (champion of the environment), the cost of his energy bills could feed a city.

She isn't affiliated with the Dems, nor the least qualified excuse for a Presidential candidate in the history of the nation, specifically this Obama guy.

That's more than enough, believe me.

edit to add: Clarifying an edit I made for the people who may have seen the original. I first referred to Obama as the sorriest excuse for a candidate in history but corrected myself in light of the fact that if McCain fails to get a victory in this one he's actually a worse candidate.

Great, let's play that game. How do you think the wardrobe costs of Obama, Biden, and McCain compare to Palin's cost? Are they more/less hypocritical than Palin?

The media doesn't report on those.

So it appears more sexist than politically-biased. Clinton MIGHT have faced the same kind of crap if she won the nomination, we'll never know.

I'd be surprised if Obama & Biden (Biden especially) have wardrobes they've amassed for this campaign that "dwarf" $150,000 in value. Really surprised.

It's harder to tell with McCain, simply because his wife is so rich so he's operating on a different scale. Left to his own devices, though, I'd be surprised if McCain would have spent that much on his wardrobe for this campaign.

You're missing the point, though. This is a campaign that, every day, tells people what an elitist Obama is, and then gets its VP candidate outfitted (arguably a necessary expense) at Saks Fifth Avenue and Nieman Marcus.

Well there were reports, IIRC, of Hillary's haircuts (I believe they wer $1,500 each). And they were talking up and down about the pantsuits in the primary. I'm sure their costs would have come out at some point.

If they spent campaign contribution money on them we would know. Really, I don't think you understand whats going on here. In the grand scheme of things it isn't even close to a big deal, but if you don't think this is some degree of a misstep you are sadly mistaken.

Oh, you can be assured that Hillary would have faced the exact same crap and it would have been just as pathetic as this argument is.

Yet Obama's the "candidate for the middle class" and is worth WAY WAY WAY more than Palin. (And spends a shitload on suits).

Doesn't matter what Obama, Biden, and McCain pay if they use their own money.

Obama pays for his own coattails :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Barack Obama

They knew they were wrong when they pulled out the bull crap charity thing.

They likely do, they just refer to it as something else, like "campaign advertising" or something

But not as pathetic as your continued defense of the non-issue. Got it.

How can you have a "defense of a non-issue?". (Some) liberals are making a huge deal out of it and he's saying it's not a big deal.

So, if McCain/Palin win the election, does this mean the White House will spend roughly $7.2 million on her wardrobe during their first term? :D

You still have to report who the money goes to so you wouldn't be able to hide it.

The degree of sexism on display en route to the Obama coronation to the throne has been perhaps one of the most surprising developments of the entire process to me. Color me naive, but it has really shocked me at times.

over and over and over and over he's saying it.

He is saying it is status quo, which it isn't. I think almost everyone would agree it isn't a big deal.

Glad to see that the Republicans are paying for Palin's daughter's handbags.

Herein lies the hypocracy of this argument. That argument put forth is that she's spending donor/taxpayers dollars while the other candidates are spending their own money.

Palin pissed off both sides of the aisle in Alaska along with the oil industry. Want to guess how much lobby money she received to bolster her income with those kinds of stances? I'll give you a hint. It wasn't much.

On the other side, McCain, Obama, and Biden paid for their wardrobe with their own money, right? They got that money by accepting millions of dollars in corporate lobby money. That in turn often results in them passing bills that contain literally billions of dollars in earmarks and corporate loopholes to earn that lobby money in addition to future donations to their personal account and their campaign. The taxpayers pay much more in this scenario.

Who's the hypocrite here? Anyone who takes off their partisan glasses and looks at the big picture would realize that the concessions of Obama, McCain, and Biden which create that income to finance their wardrobe are costing the taxpayers far more money than a $150K tab to finance a campaign wardrobe for a VP candidate.

From the link Bignej posted:

Not so much sexist as I prefer potential presidents to be capable of a coherent thought. If someone says something critical of Palin, it does not make them sexist. Does you saying something critical about Obama make you a racist?

It is status quo. That's a fact and you're simply unaware of how much these people spend on this kind of stuff if you think otherwise.

It isn't a big deal as long as all sides are reported. That's not the situation in this case.

At least they'll have something tangible left after the election, unlike all the ad dollars being poured into Pennsylvania that won't help them one bit.

McCain (and his wife) paid for their own houses, which are such a big deal for whatever reason.

McCain, Obama, and Biden are millionares. Palin is not. When comparing Obama to McCain, (some) liberals consider it a selling point that Obama has less money. Yet Palin is clearly the closest to the middle class of all 4, and isn't in a position to dress like a VP candidate on her own dime.

So even if the expense of the wardrobes are comparable, only Palin should be subject to critisism because she's the poorest?

There's an email forward going around asking people to have an open mind about stuff like this. What if Obama brought his family on stage at the convention and still asked for privacy in their daily lives - would you criticize him? What if the Obama chose a younger, less rich VP that they dressed up in fancy suits - would you have a problem with that?

Well, the last 2 pages of this thread are completely worthless.

Those Big Ten polls that came out today... who did they poll, students? Those are crazy.

Palin has been used exactly as she should by the Republicans: to rally the base. It's up to McCain to woo the undecideds, and the fact that he hasn't at all so far just tells you how weak of a candidate he is. It's not like most of us didn't see this coming back when McCain was going to be the candidate.

(Here's where someone posts the link to the discussion about the Republican Nominating process, but not me, because I'm too lazy.)

LOL......you obviously haven't been paying attention to the campaign.

I don't fault Palin at all. And hell, a big infusion to her wardrobe is probably something she needed. I just think to go about it in that way and to that degree was stupid on behalf of the RNC. There were cheaper options. Again, look back to my donations example, you mean to tell me Palin couldn't find someone perfectly willing to donate wardrobes to her for free advertising? I find that hard to believe.

Its not a big issue at all. But what does it say when a campaign keeps making little missteps like these all over the place?

Wrong on Biden. He is nowhere near a millionaire. His net worth is listed as less than $400,000, mainly attributed to the value of his house. His income comes almost exclusively from his Senate paycheck. I would guess the the Palin family is worth much more than Biden, considering they also own a business.

I'm sure there would be plenty of takers. But a candidate accepting donated clothes may run afoul of ethics guidelines...

???

The vast majority of Obama's income comes from royalties from his books. Then there's his senate salary. Lobbying money does not (can not) go directly into his bank account.

Um, sure (I'm just going to play along because you're clearly not reading any of the posts anyway).

A new National Republican Senate Committee ad in North Carolina seems to assume Obama defeating McCain, but apparently doesn't.

politico.com

:lol:

At what point exactly did I say that "all comments critical of Palin" was sexist?
Oh, that's right, I didn't.

As a matter of fact, I think the sexism was more obvious with Clinton than with Palin. The haterade for her seems more about philosophy than gender.

It has happened before, I think you just have to report the monetary value. Or at the least, you can make a deal with a designer where you just pay at cost. If McCain/Palin can't take donations at this time, that would have probably been the best bet.

You keep bringing up this straw-man argument. Nobody here has said anything about Obama's money. The reason it's a story is because Palin keeps pushing herself as non-Elite, just one of the gals golly gee, hockey mom, etc, and then it comes out that the RNC is footing what appears to be quite a large bill for 6 weeks (and it seems as though her family is also benefiting). 95% of the people in the country probably wouldn't care, in fact, most of the people here don't REALLY care. It just makes for a story because of the image she's trying to project.

They are all rich by most standards, even Palin. Nobody expects them to buy their clothes at the Salvation Army.

Really? His income comes exclusively from his Senate paycheck? You might want to let Senator Biden know that. He claims that it only makes up roughly half of his yearly income in 2007.......


So in summary, he made nearly just over $300,000 in 2007, but his net worth is $400,000 (mostly because he retains loans under his name to depress his net value)? As a man who owns an advanced degree in accounting, I can tell you with great certainty that Joe Biden suffers from one of two things: a horrible spending habit or an excellent accountant. I'm going to guess it's the latter.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/659/

The Obama money thing was a big deal in this thread and in the news a few months back (he's closer to the middle class because he has 1 house, where McCain has lost track how many he has, the argument goes).

I'm not Palin fan, but it simply it's not inconsistent for her to be who she is, a non-elite, mayor turned-small state governor, who the GOP is spending tons of moeny on to make her look like a VP candidate. Is she supposed to bring a fishing rod and hunting rifle to her press conferences in order to "stay consistent" with her roots?

And if that is somehow inconsistent and/or hypocritical, it's no more so than Obama, (defender of the middle class), making millions off the middle class in book sales, and living in luxury, (the extent of which we don't know because much of it comes from his bottomless bank account).

The liberals (and some conservatives) quite fairly point out her lack of experience. And now they're upset that she doesn't dress the part.

Actually, most of the McCain's houses were bought (and are owned) by a corporation trust set up for this purpose. Funding of the trust most likely comes directly from Cindy's inherited money and/or her stake in the beer distributorship. I'm going to assume this was done for tax purposes.


Actually, the Bidens' joint income compares to the Palins' joint income favorably, especially given that Biden is much older. Similarly, the Obama's income, minus book royalties, is comparable when adjusted for cost-of-living expenses (i.e. Chicago is more expensive than Wasila).


When has anyone really cared about the economic class from which a candidate comes? We expect our candidates to be wealthy. It's part of the electoral system, frankly.

Again, you're missing the point. This is about image and hypocrisy. If you're going to campaign as the down-home common man/woman, you compromise this image by blowing $150,000 at Saks & Neiman.


Nope, it's just her turn, just like it was when McCain's ridiculously-expensive shoes were brought up, or Biden's lack of charitable contributions or Obama's 2005 house purchase.

I try to be honest, even when the truth isn't particularly convenient. Although she lost the nomination through her own missteps more than anything else, I was surprised how frequently she found herself being poleaxed by the same people who previously supported her fervently.

And I've been plain from the get go that, on the whole, I didn't ultimately find her to be particularly less palatable as President than I find McCain if running he's running in a vacuum that is. I wouldn't give you two bits for the pair to be sure, but I believe her most unpalatable rhetoric would have been tempered often enough by political and/or fiscal reality that I wouldn't have ended up significantly more unhappy with her in the White House than I would be with McCain in office.

And, if you look back at tax returns he released, he did get a big jump in 2007 from the book. Since that was a one time bump, yes, the bulk of his earning has come from his Senate paycheck. He is consistently ranked near the bottom of the net worth list in the Senate. And he is still not a millionaire.

It does not go directly to his account. You know that.

Let's leave MBBF alone about the "obvious sexism" of the clothes issue, and ask him if he still thinks Zogby's super duper partisan weighting makes it the most accurate poll?

Pffft. Liberal.

I just don't get this part - so you think the small town/governor thing is just an image? Isn't that why she's not qualified?

Or is she secretly a millionare veteran US senator and we just haven't figured it out yet?

She's a small town governor of questionable qualifications who's wearing nice clothes. GET THE FUCK OVER IT. A nicer wardrobe doesn't suddenly change her background (though some in the GOP probably wish it would).

It's a shame these are getting ignored. Let me post them again, with editorial comments:

Quinnipiac:
Florida: Obama 49, McCain 44
Ohio: Obama 52, McCain 38
Pennsylvania: Obama 53, McCain 40

Florida's within the realm of reality, and has to be very worrying for McCain. I could believe this as the race being effectively tied and the poll having a slight Democratic lean on top of the MoE being (in this instance) on the Obama side.

The Ohio result is insane. I don't believe it.

The PA result is higher than I'd expect, but PA's been trending Obama for a while now. The gap is probably closer to 10, though, I'd think.

Big Ten:
Illinois: Obama 61, McCain 32
Indiana: Obama 51, McCain 41
Iowa: Obama 52, McCain 39
Ohio: Obama 53, McCain 41
Michigan: Obama 58, McCain 36
Minnesota: Obama 57, McCain 38
Pennsylvania: Obama 52, McCain 41
Wisconsin: Obama 53, McCain 40

No surprise with Illinois.

No way Indiana is like that. I wonder if they only polled the NW corner. :D

Iowa sounds about right, as Obama's been dominating there since the start of the primaries.

I don't believe the Ohio numbers, but I do think the PA numbers are OK.

The MI, MN and WI numbers must coincide with the opening of hunting season and everyone with a gun being away from their phone. :D

CNN/TIME:
Nevada: Obama 51, McCain 46
North Carolina: Obama 51, McCain 47
Ohio: Obama 50, McCain 46
Virginia: Obama 54, McCain 44

Nevada I could see. NC should be tighter, but I could see it being a tossup at this point. Ohio is more where I'd expect the numbers to be (i.e. near the MoE). Virginia, again, is crazy. I can't imagine Virginia is more than +3/+4 Obama right now.

I'm pretty sure McCain and Palin are being "PS3'd"... that is similar to swiftboating, but it involves inflated poll/sales numbers of the opponents and other, more complicated measures that I can't discuss at this time.

First point is spot-on and is exactly what I'm talking about in regards to net worth. Anyone who actually believes the net figures reported by these campaigns is a fool at best. These numbers are heavily manipulated.

In regards to your second point, it would seem that the Obama method of fundraising would provide similar quandries in regards to both changing the campaign finance laws and whether the common person is being priced out of any opportunity to run for office. Should we be surprised that McCain, Obama, and Biden all spent thousands of dollars on wardrobes and that Palin had no other choice if she wanted to play with the big wigs when we realize the amount of money funneled through the campaign process?

With campaigns now running on half-billion dollar budgets, are the campaign finance laws useless in their attempt to allow the common man to have a chance to run for this kind of office?

You have to imagine Franken is loving MN polls like that. He will need Obama to pull that race out for him, IMO.

Why would I change my argument regarding polling methods? Much like Senator Biden, I believe that past results fortell future results. I haven't varied from that stance. I've certainly never called it 'super duper' either.

If Biden's net worth is under $400,000 he has a serious gambling and/or drug addiction.

It's always easier to use that kind of meaningless stance that has nothing to do with the discussion than actually debating the point with some form of logic. I understand that all this thinking can be overwhelming to some.

I agree that this shouldn't have been an issue

Like I asked earlier, has anyone or anyone they know been able to tell a difference at all since she spent all of this money? Its not like the woman didn't have clothes. Id be pretty sure most republicans wouldn't want their donations being spent of shopping sprees. Does being the poorest(while nowhere close to poor) mean you should be given $150,000 for clothes. I say she looked nice before and I believe that amount is what her family makes in a year. And by the way, Biden's income is his senate salary and hes not a millionaire


He did choose a less rich VP. The only reason its an issue is the hypocrisy of it. She is against wasteful spending but wastefully spends.

No, I agree with you. The finance laws were originally intended to be a way for people to compete in an election in that the government would give you $XXX to run your campaign if you demonstrated a certain level of support. Given the level of money going through campaigns at this point, I don't see any further reason for public financing. That need has passed. I'm guessing you'd agree.

lol

First of all I, personally, don't care.

Secondly, I'm commenting on the question of why this is a big media issue right now. It's a big media issue because Palin has presented herself as an average American, hockey mom, aw-shucks, etc.... Then she blows $150,000 on clothes. If you don't think that's going to get people in general and the media in particular to go ??? and :rant: then I don't know what to tell you.

Thirdly, I've defended her purchase of clothes in one of the initial posts on this topic. Sure, $150,000 seems a little excessive, and it could certainly have been handled better, but it is, to me, understandable given her very particular situation.

But the key thing is image, tied to the way this was handled. It's especially bad to throw around $150,000 on clothes during a very serious economic downturn. It's especially bad to throw around $150,000 on clothes when presenting yourself as an average American. It's even worse to have a good part of that $150,000 not even be on clothes, but on accessories.


Hey, don't tell me - I agree 100%. Tell it to part of her GOP base who are in the process of closing down their small businesses or just lost their jobs and are waking up to this news across the frontpages of every newspaper in the nation.

I'll tell you exactly what would have happened. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would have made fun of Clinton for spending all that money on clothes and the same people criticizing Palin would be in here telling us how Limbaugh is attacking Clinton on a non-issue and being sexist (and they would be right).

Not at all. He just has to report it as a "speaking engagement expense" and everything is fine legally. Of course, you would need the media to actually do some investigative journalism and see that the "speaking engagement expense" was actually a wardrobe for that event. But, it seems that level of scrutiny is only allowed for Palin.

I'm not shocked that you missed the point.

I definitely agree with that.

Actually, I'd argue that the Obama method of fundraising could make it more possible for the "common person" to run for office. Obama's raised the vast majority of his money by leveraging the internet to aggregate money from hundreds of thousands of small donors, all with very little overhead.

Contrast this to a typical fundraising apparatus, which requires the candidate to know (or be introduced to) wealthy "bundlers" who can convince their wealthy friends to pump their affinity circles for max-donation bundles to the candidate, his/her party, and various related PACs.

Don't get me wrong. Being independently wealthy still helps a ton. Knowing the right people helps a ton. Being sponsored by your party apparatus still helps a ton. But one of the big lessons from the Obama campaign will be about fundraising in this manner.

They're all millionaires.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008...eds-1-mil.html

Palin and Biden both have properties that would put them over the threshold, Biden worth more than Palin, but the Palin's have a net worth over a milly.

It's not a big deal, in the sense that, them buying her new clothes is akin to a clothing allowance like you'd get on a job. The number might seem exorbitant, but in an era where they're taking photos of you like crazy, where she probably had little time to pack and she's traveling to sometimes 3-5 places a day for appearances and multiple events in different climates and such alike, it was important for her to be well equipped.

She hasn't been on the national stage that long and it was the RNC paying for it, not taxpayers. I don't see what the big deal is and I think that it's the least they can do, because on balance, whether she's a dolt or not, the role of VP isn't completely an act of selfishness and it's the least they can do for disrupting her life.

Regardless of what we think of her decision to choose to do it, I doubt many of us would be able to resist the urge to do it, had someone chosen us..unless we're just not wired that way and of course, we're talking about a state governor who otherwise would have not been in this situation again (she's no Obama and you think she could hold up for 2 more years while waiting for an election cycle and run a national campaign on her own? Uh, no.)

This is her chance, she's taken it and they had to make her look like someone people would like and aspire to be. Not an everywoman in the true sense, but simply a character.

Well, at least her wardrobe budget will be eligible for a tax break under Obama's plan, since it was less than $250K!

:D

I'd be very happy with that result if it ended up that way. You could very well be right in that the small donation level allowed pushes an odd sort of equality amongst the campaigns.

I just find the public financing laws to be horribly useless at this point. There's no reason that it should even be an option. I'd prefer the 'free market' fundraising option that you present.

Story on Politico about this:

So, basically, the media ripped her for her plain fashion early on. Then, when she improved her wardrobe, she got ripped for spending too much money.

As to the question of whether a republican donor would want their money going towards her wardrobe, I (as a republican donor) have no problem with it. Given the ineffective advertising, poor speaking engagements and inept campaign McCain has been running, making Palin look better when she meets people may be the best expense he's taken on this election. At this point, McCain needs every vote he can muster including the "Damn, your VP is hot" vote.

1. I once agreed with one of Maureen Dowd's opinions. That doesn't mean that we were both right only in that instance.

2. When bad PR and passive sexism don't intersect, we'll have an even-handed discussion. If all things were equal, I'd agree that it's bad PR, but all things are not equal.

OFT!

???

An example of this?

Please take a look at the article which clearly states that Obama pays $1,500 for his suits. So, with all due respect, your are a gullible fool.

We have a horrible turn-out in this country because we are lazy, but the Presidential election (which is the only place this electoral college is used) is actually the highest turn-out election we have. I know on the surface it doesn't make very much sense, but if you read American history and the philosophy behind it, it was/is a very good system. Originally it was to protect the farm/rural states from not having a voice in who was elected. Now it insures that a canidate doesn't just serve New York/LA. It could probably use updating, but a straight popular vote election would not be the best system. It is still a lot more straight forward system than a Parliamentary system.

So, Michelle Malkin is now your standard for accuracy? I'll remember that in future discussions.

I was looking at the issue from my own perspective and my own perspective is that if Hillary Clinton spent a lot of money on clothes - she would be roasted by republican commentators like Limbaugh and defended by the same people in this thread criticizing Palin. If you disagree, that's your right. I just don't think it's intellectually honest to do so.

The right faced a very difficult situation. When she came on, she was viewed as unpolished, redneck and a governor from a hick state. So, they decided to dress her up and make her look more polished. Many in the fashion world think that was the right decision. IMO, the RNC/McCain campaigned did what they have done this entire election - buckle to the pressure of the media elites and lose their message in hopes of "getting along".

I just don't see how in the arena of hundreds of million dollar campaigns, spending some money to improve Palin's appearance is all hypocritical. By that logic, taking a more expensive chartered flight or speaking at a nice hotel or ordering an expensive food item is just as hypocritical. And, I doubt we will see stories lamenting all the money Obama has "wasted" staying at hotels and flying in his campaign jet everywhere.

$150k is such a drop in the bucket.

The whole campaign's a huge waste, really. Total combined campaign costs for both parties will pass the $1 Billion mark this month (the majority of that is Obama's). Is every penny of that spent efficiently with the exception of Palin's wardrobe?

How much $ has Obama spend total to get here today, and how does that not contradict his stated values?

Posted above

So one fashion write equals the media???

Your selected parsing above really added a lot to the discussion. Glad you are a part of it!

Yet you then say (earning you the "liar" tag from Flasch):

By that logic, one can't see how Obama is going to relate to the middle class and bring change to Washington while he's flying around in a custom Gulfstream jet, staying in expensive hotels, dining on expensive meals and spending money like a drunken sailor on the campaign trail.

But, this is who candidates are. They have to spend a lot of money on things many of us wouldn't understand (personal jets, 5-star hotels, top restaurants, wardrobes). What's interesting to me is that Obama's spending on jets/hotels/food isn't a big deal (even though it dwarfs 150K), yet Palin's 150K clothing is a huge issue. I guess Obama is a huge hypocrite for trying to relate with the "little guy" in his speeches, then going on board his personal gulfstream jet in route to a ritzy hotel.

There is a fundamental difference between saying you can "relate to" something than saying you "are" something.

So you don't think Palin is who she says she is? That doesn't seem debatable. Nobody's yet explained how fancy clothes changes her background, or how anyone would even think that. Liberals in this thread claim that this is "bad PR", yet no conservatives here have a problem with the spending. Classic spin - you're telling the other side what they're supposed to care about. If it was a PR issues I'd expect the backlash to be from the right, though all/most of the criticism is coming from the left.

Whether Obama really relates to the middle class (rather than just panders for their votes) is an open question, but he certainly doesn't support the former with his actions.

I didn't say that at all. I was pointing out that people were using the two terms interchangeably, and they have different basic meanings.

What, no comments on the polls, people?

I've given up on their reliability (or am fatigued from discussions of their reliability) Just waiting for election day now.

I'm locked into "Obama's a strong favorite, McCain winning would be a huge upset" for the duration.

I've had the sense from the beginning (with one or two blips), that Obama would pull away at the very end and make this a landslide.

Looks like the effects of a "Powell Bounce" from independents.

What he said. Obama's looking to have a strong showing on election day and I don't see much changing that.

I think there are over 100 posts devoted to the topic of Sarah Palin's clothing.

Ah, yes. One purchase was listed at one store, and that's the end of the story? Good try, but you'd be laughed out of this conversation if you tried to present this as fact during a political conversation in Washington D.C. The common man argument and Obama hold little water.

FWIW.....I don't begrudge him the opportunity to purchase fine clothing and other luxury items. But to argue that he somehow owns an entire wardrobe of 5 suits he purchased for $1,500/suit is intellectually dishonest and lacking in and real substance.

The Neiman bill from Minneapolis would have been around the convention time and would likely predate the "last month" of the Ghivan quote.

So perhaps, the better criticism of Ghivan is that he/she is a fashion hack who doesn't recognize quality linens and fine tailoring.

If only I knew what a political conversation in Washington, D.C. was like...

And, if you read what I wrote, that is not what I claimed.

Yes, I have noticed the difference. I have noticed the media not killing her for dressing poorly and wearing the same outfits repeatedly. There is no doubt in my mind that she was going to be in a catch-22 on this. She couldn't afford to cloth herself (or the kids for that matter) in a way that would not draw criticism ("Her JC Penney style" type of snide remarks), and for the campaign to cloth her was going to draw criticism of too much money spent. Absolutely no win.

To the point that she could have had her clothes donated, by whom exactly? That major conservative designer, oh what is his name, oh yeah Mr. Doesn't F-ing exist. Sears? JC Penney? Macy's? And alienate their shoppers by endorsing a canidate?

I can guarentee Michelle Obama has a wardrobe just as expensive, but her husband is rich and they can buy it themselves. Cindy McCain probably has pieces of jewlery worth more than that, and so does Hillary Clinton.

Oh, and for the "donate to charity" part. You do get they meant they will sell the clothing and donate the money, right? They aren't giving poor people expensive clothing and saying "enjoy that in the alley."

This stuff is just so stupid it is really getting under my skin, and I'm not even a Palin supporter.

That quote is all kinds of funny. :D

I think it would be funny if all the homeless people in Alaska were dressed like Sarah Palin after the election.

Arles is supposed to cataloge every fashion writer that might have written about this. Just take a look at this pic:



Does she look very presidential? Do you really think that look would keep her in common with the normal person, or have people go "wow, that is one ugly outfit."

That's a standard argument on here it seems.

One article = pervasive media bias

One Obama or McCain supporter or campaign surrogate = all their supporters

One FOFC poster planning to vote for _____ = all FOFC posters planning to vote for ______

I don't have a problem with a new wardrobe and with the exception of possible tax implications I don't really care that the RNC bought it. My issue lies more with the media who ran like hell with trivial stories on Edwards hair and Clinton's pantsuits. In a perfect world I'd prefer that none of this made news, but if "fashion scandals" are going to be an issue for Dems it should be covered with Republicans as well.

BTW, I just wanted to point out that Im much much much more critical of Edwards haircut since I have a point of reference on that and know he paid way too much. I have no earthly idea if Palin overpaid for her new warddrobe and as a matter of fact, unlike hair, if the warddrobe last for 5 years it's probably a good deal....maybe? I honestly dont know. How can I? I havnt looked at clothes for even my own gender in a long long time and when I did I was shocked at the outrageous prices. Perhaps, though, that wasnt outrageous prices for clothing. Maybe what she got, especially if she is our next VP is well within the range of what a woman would pay for that amount of clothing. I just hope it lasts a long time because each year it's used the amount paid on the front end is worth more and more in value.

Well, I believe from what they have said she is not keeping anything. This is more like the RNC owns the wardrobe that is dressing Palin, and at the end of the election they are taking it back to sell for charity (or "to charity" if you are Micheal Scott).

Without question, this deserves its own thread. Pix plz k thx. ;)

Regarding Palin's "patriotic" comments... NRO has an interesting article up today by James Gimpel, a professor of government at the University of Maryland.

Sarah Palin Is Correct (Again) by James G. Gimpel on National Review Online

I find this interesting, because that seems to be a pretty large disparity between small towns and big cities. Yet I'm sure that most people in this country (more than 50% in big cities for instance) would say that they're "patriotic".

I guess I'm wondering if there's another definition of "patriotic" out there that A) doesn't have to do with love of country and B) doesn't have to do with attaching importance on being an American? If so, I wonder how common that other definition of patriotism is in this country.

I realize this is only tangentially related to the election, but I still find it fascinating.