Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

BS. Michelle Obama got negative press and attention from conservatives over a lobster and cavier dinner at a hotel. The problem? She never even stayed at that hotel! So don't even bring that weak crap in here about woe-is the scruitny against Palin spending money.

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

Exactly.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I've seen quite a lot of class warfare recently, but this doesn't seem to be the best example of it. Aren't there several more prominent examples of class warfare recently you might be missing? Or does the mouth it comes out of affect your outrage level?

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.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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

Exactly.

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.

[bignej]

Originally Posted by miked

I believe it's a non-story and they are donating everything to charity once the election is over (so they say), so really it's not a big deal.

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.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

7 actually.

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by bignej

Has Palin done anything to give even a remote impression that she knows what the hell she is doing?

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.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by bignej

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.

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?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Great, let's play that game. How do you think the wardrobe costs of Obama, Biden, and McCain compare to Palin's cost?

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.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Because they only wanted to report the portion of the story that fit their billing rather than doing proper reporting and noting that Obama, Biden, and McCain all have wardrobes that dwarf that $150K value. It's just more class warfare.

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.

[ISiddiqui]

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.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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?

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.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

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.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

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

[bignej]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Great, let's play that game. How do you think the wardrobe costs of Obama, Biden, and McCain compare to Palin's cost?

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

If they spent campaign contribution money on them we would know.

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

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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.

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

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

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.

[flere-imsaho]

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?

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

So it appears more sexist than politically-biased.

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.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

and he's saying it's not a big deal.

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

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

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

[Neon_Chaos]

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

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

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.

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.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

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

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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

From the link Bignej posted:

The elegant black ensemble Michelle Obama wore to her anniversary dinner with her husband at Spiaggia two Fridays ago presented reporters with a challenge:

It looked like a dress at the top but pants at the bottom. But it was hardly a pantsuit of the type Hillary Clinton wore through her campaign.

Whatever it was, it was paid for by the Obamas themselves, the Obama campaign said.

"Neither the campaign nor the DNC [Democratic National Committee] has paid for clothing," spokesman Ben LaBolt said Wednesday in response to news reports that the Republican National Committee spent $150,000 on a makeover for Sarah Palin.

Barack Obama, running mate Joe Biden and their wives get no campaign or DNC money for clothes, LaBolt said.

When Obama stops at the Hyde Park Hair Salon for a trim every week, he does not seek reimbursement, though the campaign has paid for hair and makeup costs for the Obamas for particular events, the campaign acknowledges.

The Sun-Times reported Tuesday that Obama ordered five new suits from Chicago-based menswear maker Hartmarx. Obama paid full-price, spokesmen for Hartmarx and the Obama campaign said Wednesday. The suits retail for $1,500 apiece.

A tailor from Hart Schaffner Marx went to Obama's Kenwood home in early August to fit him and pick out material for Obama's first suit.

[bignej]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

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?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

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

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.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

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

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.

[molson]

Originally Posted by bignej

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

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?

[Butter]

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.)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by bignej

Does you saying something critical about Obama make you a racist?

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

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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.

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?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

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, 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.

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.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

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.

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

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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.

???

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.

[molson]

Originally Posted by bignej

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?

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

[Big Fo]

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

politico.com

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by bignej

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.

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.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

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

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.

[miked]

Originally Posted by molson

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?

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.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

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.

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.......

According to financial disclosure forms submitted on May 15, 2008, Biden’s $165,200 salary as a senator in 2007 was supplemented with $20,500 he earned as an adjunct professor at Widener University Law School and a $112,500 advance he received from Random House for his book, Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics.

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/

[molson]

Originally Posted by miked

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.

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.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

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

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.

McCain, Obama, and Biden are millionares. Palin is not.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Jon, this isn't meant as an attack on you because I've always thought you to be sincere politically, but one of the more ironic things I've noticed about this election is the outpouring of support and understanding by conservatives for that poor Hillary Clinton woman.

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.

[cartman]

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.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Where's all that lobbyist money in that article?

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

[larrymcg421]

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?

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

That is a remarkable statistic, especially given the MSM's love affair with John McCain that lasted for years and years, basically ending after the GOP convention.

Of course, when your campaign admits publicly that it can't win on the issues, runs a 100% negative smear campaign, and picks the most unqualified running-mate in political history, it's tough to find something positive to say.

Pffft. Liberal.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

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).