Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

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

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.

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.

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.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

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.

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?

[Tigercat]

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

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[molson]

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

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

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.

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.

[bignej]

Originally Posted by molson

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

I agree that this shouldn't have been an issue

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?

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

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?

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.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

You think the common man has a chance to run for this kind of office?

Really?

Can you forsee some series of events where Truman Jr. even competes in the primary, let alone in the election? I sure can't. But then again, I'm pretty cynical.

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.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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.

Originally Posted by molson

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

lol

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

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?

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 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.

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).

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.

[Arles]

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.

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).

Originally Posted by Tigercat

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

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.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

lol

I'm not shocked that you missed the point.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Arles

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).

I definitely agree with that.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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.

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.

[Young Drachma]

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.

[cartman]

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

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

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.

[Arles]

Story on Politico about this:

Politico reported Tuesday that the Republican National Committee has popped for more than $150,000 worth of clothes and accessories for Palin and her family since John McCain tapped her as his VP pick in late August.

It’s a huge number — more than Palin's $108,000 annual salary as Alaska's governor — and news of it has brought a firestorm of criticism from Democrats who say it exposes Palin as a fraud, Republicans who wonder why their campaign contributions went for fashion, pundits who wring their hands about Neiman Marcus tastes in a Wal-Mart economy and legal experts who say the clothes might be treated as taxable income when the Palins file their next 1040.

The only ones not complaining: people who do this sort of thing for a living.

“She is dressing appropriately for the job she is going after,” said Lauren Rothman, a Washington stylist and the principal in the fashion consulting firm Styleauteur.

Palin — and those responsible for her image — faced a unique challenge in the early days of the McCain-Palin ticket: How do you introduce a virtual unknown — a self-proclaimed “hockey mom” — as both a down-to-earth girl next door and a “maverick” prepared to become the leader of the free world?

Betsy Fisher, the owner of the eponymous clothing store in Dupont Circle, says Palin and her people managed to straddle the line. “She does not look like she is wearing particularly expensive clothes,” Fisher said. “She looks like you could be her, too.”

Los Angeles-based image consultant Patsy Cisneros, a part owner of Political Icon, which works with candidates running for higher office, said Palin’s transformation was done well on a short timeline.

“She did come on the scene as governor for Alaska and looked appropriate as governor,” Cisneros said. Now, as the election nears and the possibility of the vice presidency looms, “She is being seen not just locally but globally, and she needs to represent our country. She has to look appropriate for that.”

And as for the Palin family makeover being charged to the campaign, Cisneros said it isn’t unusual. “We’ve worked with candidates before who have money to spend — some of it was their own, and some of it was from the party. It was put in under so many different ways. You would be surprised what money gets spent.”

Colleen Abrie, a “head-to-toe stylist” and image consultant in the San Francisco bay area, said that it is “important to note that you are talking about branding a person who you are launching into the public eye.”

“It is a good thing she has all that Armani, she needs all the points in her favor that she can get,” Abrie said. “If you are looking the part, you are halfway there.”

In a piece predating the current controversy, Washington Post fashion writer Robin Givhan called Palin’s VP style “exceptionally ordinary,” with “no detail” announcing that she’s in charge or wants to be.

“In the narrow confines of political style,” Givhan wrote last month, “the accepted rule is to dress in a manner that implies empathy for one's constituency — so don't wear anything too expensive — but also conveys authority. Palin has embraced the former and utterly ignored the latter.”

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.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Welcome back, Arles.

Is it a partisan liberal media elite conspiracy when Malkin herself agrees with a lot of the points made here?

Michelle Malkin » Heckuva job, RNC

I think that this is a stupid topic for discussion, but the fact is that those on the right seem to be avoiding the real question. Not whether its fair, or right, or anything like that. Not whether there's a double standard. The point made by (some) liberals here is that it's bad PR for them to be doing this sort of thing, based on how they were selling Palin to the media and public.

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.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Is it really a big story in the media? I will admit that I don't watch cable (or local anymore) news, but a quick perusal of cnn, msnbc, and foxnews doesn't show a story on any of their front pages. Of course, I saw something yesterday, but is it true that this story is being "pushed" or is it that it filled some writer's quota last afternoon?

As for this thread, what passes for important politically in this thread never ceases to amaze.

OFT!

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Arles

So, basically, the media ripped her for her plain fashion early on.

???

An example of this?

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

With all due respect, you're a naive fool. I have a friend that is a lobbyist for Northrop Grumman in DC and knows how the political machine works. The amount of money spent on clothes by some of these big players is outrageous (both male and female). I'm surprised that Pelosi or Clinton's wardrobe hasn't been similarly catalogued (by surprised, I mean not surprised at all).

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.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

But if it were a straight-up popular vote, everyone would still have a say in the final results, right? One vote is just that, one vote.

I'm assuming that given the electoral college system that you have, you've got horrible voter turnout all over the country.

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.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Welcome back, Arles.

Is it a partisan liberal media elite conspiracy when Malkin herself agrees with a lot of the points made here?

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.

I think that this is a stupid topic for discussion, but the fact is that those on the right seem to be avoiding the real question. Not whether its fair, or right, or anything like that. Not whether there's a double standard. The point made by (some) liberals here is that it's bad PR for them to be doing this sort of thing, based on how they were selling Palin to the media and public.

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.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Arles

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?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by cartman

???

An example of this?

Posted above

In a piece predating the current controversy, Washington Post fashion writer Robin Givhan called Palin’s VP style “exceptionally ordinary,” with “no detail” announcing that she’s in charge or wants to be.

“In the narrow confines of political style,” Givhan wrote last month, “the accepted rule is to dress in a manner that implies empathy for one's constituency — so don't wear anything too expensive — but also conveys authority. Palin has embraced the former and utterly ignored the latter.”

[cartman]

So one fashion write equals the media???

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Well said.

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

Since I don't really care about this issue, and my desire to argue about nothing has been quenched, I'm not sure there's much more to say.

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

If you can't see how propping up Palin as a hockey-mom, Joe Six-pack lovin', just like the gal next door with one hand and draping her in Saks Fifth Avenue and designer purses with the other is a risky move, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

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.

[cartman]

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

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

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.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

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.

[flere-imsaho]

What, no comments on the polls, people?

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

What, no comments on the polls, people?

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

[Arles]

Originally Posted by molson

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.

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

[Fidatelo]

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

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

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.

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.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Arles

Posted above

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.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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.

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.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by bignej

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.

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.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

They aren't giving poor people expensive clothing and saying "enjoy that in the alley."

That quote is all kinds of funny.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

That quote is all kinds of funny.

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

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by cartman

So one fashion write equals the media???

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."

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by cartman

So one fashion write equals the media???

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 ______

[JPhillips]

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.

[Flasch186]

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.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I havnt looked at clothes for even my own gender in a long long time.

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

[CamEdwards]

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

...we can turn to one of the few recent non-partisan surveys on the matter, the American National Election Study from the University of Michigan. It’s produced every election year, and the most recent data is from 2004.

This installment asked two pertinent questions:

1. How strong is your love for your country? . . . EXTREMELY strong, VERY strong, SOMEWHAT strong, or NOT VERY strong?

2. Is being an American EXTREMELY important, VERY important, SOMEWHAT important, NOT TOO important, or NOT AT ALL important to you personally?

If we scrutinize the responses from large cities, suburbs, and small towns, the small towns are far more patriotic. Nearly three in every four (73.4 percent) respondents from counties of fewer than 25,000 people expressed that their love for their country was extremely strong, compared to only half of those in counties with more than 300,000 inhabitants. In the nation’s largest population centers, those expressing “extremely strong” love for country stood at only 46 percent. And over two-thirds of respondents from small counties reported that it is ”extremely important” to be American, compared to about half of big-city folk.

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.