RNC Spends $150 Thousand on Palin’s Clothes
The Republican National Committee has spent more than $150,000 on clothes for Republican vice presidential candidate Governor Sarah Palin, since it was first announced she would be John McCain’s running mate.
Politico reported that the RNC’s financial records included ‘bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74.’
Furthermore, ‘the records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September’ and ‘the RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August.’
According to Politico, the spending could be illegal or at least not 100% legal, or at the very least questionable. And if not that, then perhaps simply immoral because of the economic crisis, which could be countered by the remark that the more these people spend, the more money others make.
The McCain campaign responded: ”With all of the important issues facing the country right now, it’s remarkable that we’re spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses. It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign,” said McCain-Palin spokesperson Tracey Schmitt.
Exactly my thoughts. So why are we talking about this $150,000?
Luckily, Politico itself explains:
The business of primping and dressing on the campaign trail has become fraught with political risk in recent years as voters increasingly see an elite Washington out of touch with their values and lifestyles.
It is always fascinating to see biased news organizations accidentally reveal why they ran a specific article: it’s yet another attack. They will now try to present Palin as someone who is out of touch with American voters, who spends big on clothes and make-up: in other words, one of those elite women who care deeply about looking good and nothing else.
That can be countered by the following pic.:
This is sort of silly- it just goes into the category of hypocrisy– a lady who claims to be one of “us- a hockey mom who shops at Walmart, pays $50,000 a month for clothing at Saks. How many of “us” can do that? Hockey moms shop at JC Penney’s. Its just like the John Edwards $400 Haircut story.
Its just like the John Edwards $400 Haircut story.
You mean the story that you and other partisan Democrats didn’t give a care about until it could be used against a Republican that you hate with the heat of a thousand suns?
Partisan scripts are so predictable.
So going overboard buying clothes is bad, but Obama going overboard on campaign speding is less bad even though the Obama said he would work for campaign spending limits.
http://weneedobama.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-will-work-for-campaign-spending.html
No hypocracy there, noooo.. none at all..
Right Jason, or the Clinton haircut issue. Might as well bring that Democrat up too..
Jason- For the record, I was never an Edwards supporter–and the reason this matters is that Palin has made it her mission to come to Washington to cut out all of that wasteful spending.
She could do some of that herself by giving herself a modest clothing budget (believe me it doesn’t cost the price of a small house to look good!) and not billing Alaskan taxpayers for her per diem costs to stay at home or travel costs for her children (to events they were not invited to. How about walking the walk and not just talking the talk? Frugality begins at home, Governor Palin.
You can save the ad hoc excuses for double standards, Kim, the partisan pattern in when and about what you choose to comment has long been quite clear. It is easy to make excuses as to why to criticize any one incident. It is much more difficult to concoct a non-partisan excuse for your larger pattern of always supporting anti-Republican criticism and always being indifferent or opposed to anti-Democratic criticism.
People who only support criticism towards one party and who have a pattern of ignoring critical stories towards their own party have zero credibility with me. I could program a robot to read those partisan scripts with exactly the same predictability — no critical thinking ability is required or, apparently, desired.
Right Jason here is a logic chain to start work on that program
This is the MSM / Democrat (one in the same really) response program…
Is story demonstrably false but bad for the Republicans?
If yes, report on the story / question / statement and implant subtle zingers into the story, and or take story out of context to sway the story / question / statement to be negative (for republicans) so non-truths have the façade of “truth”
Is story demonstrably true, but bad for the Democrats?
If yes, report on the raising of the story / question / statement as the focus, and make only vague references to the actual story, in a dismissive manner, and focus on the raising of the story / question / statement as the possible problem. Implant subtle zingers into the story to sway it positive (for democrats) so truths to appear non-truthful.
I posted this elsewhere earlier, but found it appropriate here..
Jason
Look, I never said I wasn’t partisan- most people that comment on political blogs are. I see nothing wrong with that- because it shows that someone cares enough to commit to a candidate or an issue. I make no apologies. I just don’t get why it bothers you so much.So what if its predictable? That’s what I really think.
Most people who work on campaigns are partisans -should we condemn them for that? I don’t like Palin, and I’m not pretending otherwise.
You have gone on record many times discounting my comments as partisan- yet many others who comment here are equally partisan. Are you just cyberstalking me?
How do you think this story will play in the heartland, you know among all of the God-fearing, hardworking, real Americans?
And ,BTW,as far as I know Clinton and Edwards are no longer running for anything. The choice is Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin.
Jay C- what story is demonstrably false?
Kritter, yes, there is somthing wrong with partisanship in my opinion. It squashes thought and pushes party line mantras. You should actually think right or wrong regardless of who is in the wrong or who is right. If someone screws up, they screw up. If somone does somthing good, then say good job. This isn’t a football game where you pick a team and ignore plays that should have been flagged, this is our future you are playing with.
Jay
Well I’m not partisan enough to agree with everything a Democrat says or does. There are some real differences between what I believe and what many Republicans espouse, and I’m honest enough to acknowledge it. Washington is a partisan place with little room for independents.
BTW, I do remember when conservatives did not dominate the GOP, and at that time I supported many Republicans. I would have been more inclined to vote for McCain-who I do like and respect, but was put off by his choice of Palin.
I don’t think there is anything intrinsically wrong with partisan commitment, but I do think that those who express it by the use of double standards and/or selective reporting are being intellectually dishonest in the service of their partisan commitments.
And yes, Kim, I think your record of comments clear reflects both double standards (i.e. criticizing Republicans for the same kinds of things you remain silent about when Democrats are guilty of them) and selective reporting (i.e. you only seem to comment AT ALL when you have an anti-Republican point available to you. I don’t think you agree with everything Democrats do, but I do think that you are less likely to discuss whatever disagreements you have with Democrats lest the partisan meme be undermined (except, of course, if you are criticizing Democrats for not being anti-Republican enough — I’ve noticed that little exception to the rabid partisanship rule).
The fact that a similar pattern of intellectually dishonest behavior is also found from many other commenters and authors in the blogosphere is not much of a defense.
Jay C- what story is demonstrably false?
MVGD said it himself —That Palin as someone who is out of touch with American voters.
Of course, some partisanship is acceptable (If you are liberal minded you are more than likely going to vote democrat, the same goes for conservatives and voting republican) that is partsianship, but like Jason said, not at the expense baised reporting or double standards.
Jason- BTW- I didn’t write my comment to impress you I don’t care if you find it credible-But why not just ignore my comments since they are so unimpressive and represent such uncritical thinking? Even if I do have the same mentality as a robo-call?
I just wanted to point out why this could be an issue that voters care about- especially with the economy in the toilet and CEO excess in the spotlight. Along with McCain’s 13 cars and 8 houses.
BTW, when it was about John Edwards, did you care then?
sorry, typo, MVDG
I was giving you the opportunity to take some constructive criticism of your pattern, Kim. But if you would prefer simply that we refuse to publish your robotic talking points, that too can be arranged.
OK , If you’re not partisan why was your first response to bring up Clinton and Edwards?
As I said before– the race is between Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin– neither Clinton or Edwards are running. I promise if you can document that either Obama or Biden spends 50,000 a month on their wardrobe- I will say it is a waste of money and it probably hurts their connection with the common man.
Jay- I would not support criminal or unethical behavior from either side– as far as my views on the issues- I am a liberal on most things- so yes its natural that I side with Democrats. But I don’t support Rep Mahoney or Rep Jefferson or others like them –no matter what party they belong to.
I would not support criminal or unethical behavior from either side
Sure, but you’ll only actively choose to speak out against it when it is the Republicans that stand accused. And THAT inconsistency is the basis of my charge of intellectual dishonesty.
Another example of biased double standard reporting. The issue being that John McCain is out of touch with the common man since he owns 7 homes valued at around 13 million. Although this was perfectly fine with MSM and the democrats when John Kerry ran for president. Joh Kerry had 6 homes worth around 37 million right before running for president.
Thank you for thinking of my welfare, Jason. I apologize for all of my present, past and future shortcomings. I should have known you only had my personal growth and improvement in mind.
Having said that- I still think $150,000 for clothes is too much to spend when you are espousing cutting all wasteful spending in Washington, especially when you remember that Palin charged Alaskan taxpayers per diem for her expenses while she was at home.
Doesn’t play too well with the real Americans- the God -fearing , hard-working ones in Paducah. Now, excuse me the DNC is faxing over the latest set of talking points.
I’m just happy, these $150,000 could have been used improve the chance to elect some republican, instead it was used to improve her wardrobe. Good for her, any chance she’ll buy some more dresses?
I still think $150,000 for clothes is too much to spend when you are espousing cutting all wasteful spending in Washington, especially when you remember that Palin charged Alaskan taxpayers per diem for her expenses while she was at home.
True, without a doubt, (notice the concession), It would be biased to disagree that there are programs in government that need to be cut, (billions upon billions NEED to be cut) McCain has at least said he out a freeze on spending except for a few things he listed off. Obama said nothing of the sort. so 150K is a drop in the bucket compared to what John McCain said he would cut. That being said, he really stuck his neck out and has a lot to live up to there, but where is the same sort of fiscal responsibility in the Obama camp. Saying you will use a scalpel versus a hatchet is just doublespeak for “we need to look into cuts” John McCain said, here is what we will cut.
Hello, Jason I just spoke out against Mahoney and Jefferson. But you keep talking about my double standard.
Jay- Kerry is not running either. Don’t you think you should concentrate on the candidates in this race? But since you mentioned it I do think that Kerry was not the most effective candidate, and that his wife’s wealth and his own pedantic style hurt his ability to connect with the average voter—probably contributing to his loss in 2004.
PJ- LOL
Jay- Kerry is not running either
It’s the hypocracy of MSM and the democrats that then it was OK now it is not. They need to take a princled stance overall. It is Bias, how cna you not see that??
sure, democrats may have said and thought, Kerry may not connect with the “common man” becuase of his houses, and there may have been some reports on this where MSM pundits just kind of blew it off as not a big deal and not a dealbreaker, and they were probably right. But such a media circus was created about McCain on the same issue.
Hello, Jason I just spoke out against Mahoney and Jefferson. But you keep talking about my double standard.
It’s great that you just now chose to break the pattern. That is precisely what offering criticism of a negative pattern of behavior is supposed to provoke — change. But that change, while laudable, does not constitute a refutation of the earlier pattern.
It will be interesting to see if your new commitment to even-handed standards of criticism is sustained over time. Given the likelihood of an Obama election victory combined with a legislature strongly controlled by Democrats (thus removing all available excuses for blaming Republicans for institutional or policy failures), I will be watching a lot of the blogosphere’s left-leaning critics with great interest to see if they suddenly become less interested in things like “transparency” and “accountability”. My guess is that they will become less interested in criticism because partisanship usually trumps intellectual honesty in the blogosphere and there is a HUGE emotional investment out there for blaming Republicans for everything bad up to and including bad weather, acne, and getting drawn out on on the river. One criticism of Mahoney and Jefferson might constitute a change in your own pattern , or it might not. We’ll see.
When I saw this story I had the “oh c’mon response”. Would I ever spend that much on clothes? No. Do I expect a national political candidate to spend a lot on clothes, hair, makeup, meals etc. Yes. Do we get to see how much Sen. Obama has spent on suits etc? I hope not because “I DON’T CARE!” It’s what happens in campaigns. The problem with the “hypocrisy” argument is that it invites tit-for-tat. So here we go, ”WHAT THE HELL IS A CANDIDATE OF THE PEOPLE DOING SPENDING OVER $400 MILLION DOLLARS. WILL REPEATED ADS IN ARIZONA THAT I KNOW COST TENS OF THOUSANDS DO ANYTHING TO CHANGE THE ELECTORAL MAP. NO DOES THAT HELP THE MIDDLE CLASS? NO. AND OF COURSE, DOES THAT FIT WITH A PREVIOUS PLEDGE TO TAKE ONLY PUBLIC FINANCING. NO!!!!!!!” There I’ve given the obligatory reponses.
I only hope, as a Republican but former independent, that my Democratic friends at some point in the future begin to ask themselves “How much money spent is too much?” and “Are we beginning to do the very thing we used to vigorously complain that the Republicans did? (i.e. “buy the election”)”
Jason- Are you trying to suggest that I am the only one on here who has this type of “pattern”? Because that seems dishonest to me. Sure there are faults in every candidate or political party- but when it comes down to it, you have to choose one over the other.
I would think even an Independent would think that $150,000 of campaign funds -which is after all, public money, is excessive for clothing for one person-especially given the image Palin is trying to portray, and especially since many of the Real Americans are doign their shopping at thrift stores.
Are you trying to suggest that I am the only one on here who has this type of “pattern”?
If you bothered to read what I said before responding, you might have noticed that I said your pattern was a common one in the blogosphere, on both left and right (though the left is by far the louder and more numerous right now — even a quick check at Memeorandum can find the anti-Republican VASTLY outnumbers everything else combined (and the pro-anything is non-existent in our political culture)).
And yeah, I think 150k is too much for clothes. But it is a tiny drop in a huge bucket of waste of public funds that no one — especially not your ideological allies — wants to talk about.
Why should it be impossible to criticize a candidate that you also support overall and vote for on election dar? Why do all narratives of support or opposition have to be pure, 100%, no exceptions allowed? Why are you buying into the dysfunctional, insane, inane memes that dominate the blogosphere?
Kim, I think $150,000 is a lot of money for wardrobe (particularly because I like clothing but generally think that designer clothing is a massive ripoff anyway) but I think it IS fair to compare this expenditure with, say, Hillary Clinton’s wardrobe and other costs to maintain physical appearance (haircuts, makeup, etc.) It’s a matter of where the bar is set for candidates to meet a standard of appearance, and there’s no doubt that that’s more expensive for a woman than for a man.
Besides the fact that I haven’t seen any details of what Obama’s camp is spending on wardrobe for him and his family, for Biden and his family, etc, so we don’t even have a reference point to compare that.
I think we have to acknowledge that ALL of these people lead lives that are extravagant by comparison to ordinary Americans lifestyles and budgets. Even Joe Biden who is probably one of the rare few who live a fairly normal lifestyle, has a very expensive home and has spent oodles of campaign money in the past on things like landscaping (supposedly this was to prepare the house for a fundraising event- yeah, I’m sure it never occurred to them that this was a way to reap some personal benefit as well, to have thousands of dollars of landscaping installed.)
I think Jason’s point is that it’s tiring when someone constantly calls attention to these types of things from one party and then pretends that it doesn’t happen in the other party. If you want to acknowledge that it’s a bipartisan issue of campaign spending being out of control, then fine…and then can we move on to substantive discussions? It’s so obvious that these newly minted attacks on Palin are coming at a time when Biden has firmly planted his foot in his mouth- so perhaps you really do ‘care’ about the amount spent on Palin’s wardrobe or believe that other voters do care, but which is a more valid concern- that too much campaign money is being spent on physical appearance or that Biden expressed a true concern that voters should have that the US will probably face an attack of some sort in the early days of an Obama presidency because he’ll be ‘tested’?
CS- Do you not see where you are doing the same thing I’ve been accused of? Defending Palin yet questioning Obama and Clinton on clothing expenditures, and Biden on owning an expensive home. I’ve already said that I think its concerning because she also billed taxpayers for her per diem expenses and for her children’s travel expenses. Has that not also happened with some Democrat somewhere? Possibly and probably- but I havent’ seen evidence of it recently.
And you switched the topic neatly to Biden’s gaffe du jour, which I admit was not the smartest thing to say. That’s just not what the post is about.
Jason- I think all candidates have flaws- because they are by nature human beings. I will be voting Obama/Biden- but yes Biden has a big mouth and Obama is untested in some areas.
I don’t like McCain’s choice of Palin (to me she is like Miers- not qualified)– and I don’t like the way he has run his campaign. Also, I was against the Iraq War from the beginning-which makes Obama a natural fit for me. Originally, however I was for Hillary.
It is a bit odd, but there are much more important issues to be talking about now. What is interesting is to see all of the partisans changing there tune about what is acceptable to spend on personal appearance and remain ‘in touch’ with ‘the common man’. When it was Edwards, Clinton, or Kerry Republicans threw fits and Democrats rationalized then when it was McCain and now Palin the roles are reversed.
One partisan note, Palin’s extravagance on clothing and make-up is orders of magnitude greater than all of the others combined.
Ok- we were trying to compare costs for women in politics–
check this out:
Michelle Obama’s recent TV appearance on ABC’s gabfest “The View” apparently struck a chord with many viewers, and not just because of her friendly fist-bumps and sparkling conversation. Women want that dress!
Michelle, wife of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, wore a flirty black-and-white dress that showed off her sophisticated White House style on the show. And men noticed it too. Fellow blogger and officemate Adam Abramson said Michelle was “looking radiant as ever!”
Michelle Obama photos
So, where can you snag that dress? The black-and-white leaf print dress is available at a store fittingly called White House/Black Market and costs $148. They operate 322 boutiques and 19 outlets nationwide, but don’t even dare try walking into a store to get one.
Kritter;
You keep bringing up the per diem issue. While I’m sure you’ve read it, here’s the original WaPo article that garnered the spot light. I won’t quote it but its apparent that the expenses are legitamite under state rules and when compared to her predecessor, lower. I should note that former governor Knowles claims he did none of this and it should be noted the author of the piece did not investigate that administration’s per diem expenses. So obviously anyone’s partisan mileage will vary.
Can I ask how hard you’ve tried to “see evidence” of such expenses on the part of Democrats recently? If you’re not actively seeking then I can only assume you’re happy with the univestigated assumption that its only an issue with the Republican ticket.
I can only return to a key Obama campaign theme “Change” For me, it became apparent some time ago that “Change” meant a change in party in power. Hey, that’s politics and I accept that. But please don’t try to sell me on the idea that its “new change” or “change we can believe in”. It IS politics as usual.
IMHO, this is probably the least important non-story I’ve seen in awhile — since the Edwards haircuts, in fact. (I missed the outrage, apparently, about McCain’s shoes and Hillary’s stylist.) I’m not at all surprised the Republicans wanted to dress Sarah nicely. I’m gagging at the price tag, but I would anyway.
More to the point is the political climate, in light of which, I don’t think this was fully thought-out.
Beyond the relatively unimportant waste of $, though, I think the only real issue here is whether or not it’s a legal expenditure of donated campaign funds. If it’s illegal, that’s a real problem.
C-3 I’m not talking about whether or not its legal- but someone who on the trail who wants to cut waste in Washington should start right at home-otherwise no one takes them seriously. She set herself up for this kind of criticism.
And I have not seen similar abuses on the Obama/Biden side at least not on this issue. As far as I know, neither have spent an exhorbitant amt of campaign funds on clothing or living expenses. I think if something like that surfaced, McCain/Palin would have no qualms about using it.
“but someone who on the trail who wants to cut waste in Washington should start right at home”
As the article points out she has “cut”. Apparently not enough for your liking. That’s fine. AS far as the Obama campaign I can only say “Over 600 million dollars spent on a Presidential campaign!” That’s 40% of ALL of the money spent since the begining of campaigns well over a year ago BY ALL OF THE CANDIDATES. That’s double the McCain campaign. THAT’S MORE THAN HAS EVER BEEN SPENT ON A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN and nearly the ENTIRE AMOUNT SPENT BY BOTH CAMPAIGNS INCLUDING CONVENTIONS FOR 2000.
Surely at some point, numbers like that get disturbing, even for you.
So, are you for campaign finance reform? Because whether we like it or not the amt of money candidates raise determines elections. I think the amount of money being spent on this election is obscene– but our laws allow it. I would really like to see a limit on the campaign SEASON itself– because that would automatically limit the amt of money spent- and people who run for higher office could actually do the job they are paid to do. Neither McCain or Obama has done much of anything in the Senate for at least six months.
But you can’t really blame Obama- he didn’t come up with our electoral system-he’s just beating McCain at his own game. McCain has had trouble raising money from the beginning-which tells me his support isn’t as strong as Obama’s
If Obama’s contributions represent thousands of people sending in their 20$ I have no problem with it.
I didn’t respond to your remark about Palin.Yes she is better than her predecessor was- Alaska has become a very corrupt state-that doesn’t mean I think she would be successful at cutting out waste in Washington, because that’s a lot different. I didn’t like the fact that she kept saying “thanks but no thanks” when she had sought the money for the bridge to nowhere-and ended up spending the money anyway on other projects.
Obama is only spending the money donated by supporters like me. I agree that there is alot of money spent on his behalfs but if millions and millions of folks give their money to his campaign then they obviously don’t care how much he spends…it is their money. Get it? The PEOPLE are the ones who put him in office.
Why does my submission have an angry face icon next to it…man that sucks I didn’t put that there.
By the way I meant the MAJORITY of the voting people are the ones who will put him in office,
Avatars have now been set up to allow users to go to Gravatar.com and choose an avatar for yourself. Just make sure that the email address you put in when submitting comments here matches the one you use on Gravatar to choose your avatar.
I am posting this comment to show how a user-selected Gravatar comment avatar displays. As managing editor, I am Catbert.
After you set up an avatar on Gravatar.com, you have to allow 5-10 minutes and make sure to clear your browser cache.
“But you can’t really blame Obama- he didn’t come up with our electoral system-he’s just beating McCain at his own game.”
Uh, I thought he earlier in the “game” Obama said he would accept public financing. That flip-flop has been well discussed. McCain’s “game” was to accept public financing. Thankfully, I’m glad he chose that since I supported his bill for finance reform. You remember that one, co-sponsored with a liberal Democrat, Russ Feingold. Imagine that, campaign finance reform AND reaching across the aisle. Wow this guy oughtta run for president!
And isn’t it curious that now Sen. Obama and campaign find themselves in sync with conservative who felt McCain/Feingold was an infringement on free speech.
Except, C3, McCain is not just using public financing, but is accepting money from the RNC as well. I’m no expert on any of this, but it seems like either no one or everyone has to use public financing in order for it to work. You are correct- tho Obama did go back on his word. Usually conservatives hate McCain for McCain -Feingold. So, yes the switch is odd.
But I still think limiting the time they can campaign to six weeks before the election would solve most of this.
care to show proof of McCain accepting money from RNC kim?
By the way, I believe the 2:1 Obama over McCain campaign spending includes outside groups like the parties (I’m not positive). As I posted above, Obama ads in AZ will do nothing for the election. He won’t take the state. In my estimation its wasted money. But hey when you have hundred’s of billions why not. Better than a nice outfit for sure.
that should read “hundreds of millions” we’ll leave “billions” for AIG and the 2012 campaign.
Interested- Its right in the post- they paid the 150,000 for Palin’s clothes.
“The Republican National Committee has spent more than $150,000 on clothes for Republican vice presidential candidate Governor Sarah Palin, since it was first announced she would be John McCain’s running mate.”
He has accepted money for ads from them as well- but there are some legal restrictions on what the ads can say.
you are not reading Kim.
And my question is – show proof that McCain is accepting money from RNC
so – show it.
And further – since you couldn’t earlier – lets add more.
Now show where it’s illegal. and if it’s not illegal show why it’s wrong.
Then carry it forward and see how much the DNC has done for the Obama campaign and what differs that from the RNC.
Interested-
Where did I say its illegal?. It is perfectly legal. He accepted public financing then realized it would put him at a disadvantage-so he asked for help from the RNC, BTW, I attempted to post a NYT’s article where he announced that this was his intention- but it never showed up???
Its easy enough to find if you Google McCain gets financial help from RNC.
And, Actually the DNC asked for money for its candidates from Obama– since he was doing better than they were. Harry Reid asked him, but Obama turned him down. I’ll try to post proof if you don’t believe it. I’m not writing about this to attack or defend either candidate- as far as I know both have stayed within the campaign finance laws- tho Palin’s wardrobe may be a gray area. My only beef is that it goes against the image of Palin as this outdoorsy one-of-us soccer mom.
ahh so your shifting your beef – usual tactic.
If you’re capable with google – Google Palin, find images of her hunting, fishing, every day stuff.
Try to find the same with Obama
Kim #31: No, I am not as you suggest, “defending Palin but questioning Obama/Biden”. I said that I think that’s a huge amount of money for wardrobe but I suspect it’s not much different than any other female candidate would amass in wardrobe/image. What I’m saying is that expensive campaigning is a bipartisan problem driven by what the voters want and respond to- but since it’s on both sides, it makes no sense to use this in a calculus of who to vote for.
You compare these expenditures to Michelle Obama’s one dress, which is completely an apples to oranges comparison. Michelle is the candidate’s wife, not candidate herself (so she’s not out there making three or four appearances a day for several months), the Palin number includes her whole family, etc, etc. As far as what the high dollar clothing budget says about Palin being an ordinary woman, you can look at it either as though she herself chose to spend all of this money (no evidence of that as far as I can see) or what appears to be more accurate, that the political operatives in the campaign decided that her physical appearance was very important and apparently she didn’t already have a $100,000 wardrobe in her closet (which is evident from the many photos that show her outdoor/Alaskan lifestyle, which hardly lends itself to wearing Neiman Marcus clothing.)
Even if you want to talk about Michelle Obama- how much does an entire outfit cost if you start with a $150 dress? Absolute minimum would be $500 when you add in shoes, accessories, and makeup/hair-so then the total Palin amount comes to 300 outfits (a lot, but then remember again that that amount was for her whole family- husband’s suits likely cost a lot more, and there are 5 kids, etc.) Again, I think the amount is a lot and I wouldn’t have chosen to do it that way (if it were up to me, people wouldn’t care about clothing and appearance so much- but since they do, I don’t fault the strategists for using campaign money as it is meant to be used, to present their candidates in the best way possible.)
And you continue to spin for your candidate, Kim, when you complain that campaign spending is exorbitant but you completely give Obama a pass for having upped the ante to the most expensive campaign in history- and you use the usual talking point about the ‘$20 donations (you know, the ones from jkl;iuasd and Mr. Good Will.) Anyone who doesn’t realize that a huge number of his small donations came through the efforts of bundlers or laundering schemes is being either deliberately naive or incredibly foolish.
Interested- I have no beef. I don’t know what you are talking about- but I’m not in the mood to argue. The topic of the post was the RNC spending $150,000 on Palin’s clothes. My point was and still is that this hurts her image that they are trying to project of her as the Walmart shopping soccer mom. She’s running a campaign on cutting wasteful spending- and running around wearing $8,000 suits!
And, I personally would never vote for anyone who shoots wolves out of a helicopter or kills moose, even if that is her real personna. If it is let her dress out of LLBean instead of Neiman Marcus for those who like that kind of woman. If Obama was a hunter or a fisherman, it wouldn’t help him with me– I’m a vegetarian.
CS- I thought You conservatives are the ones who hated McCain-Feingold. Something about interfering with free speech. Now you support public financing all of a sudden? Obama is doing what it takes to win- maybe he learned how fromt the GOP. If his donations came in through bundlers- that’s nothing new is it?
Just like McCain rails against the lobbyists in Washington then hires them to run his campaign!
And I don’t know about you, but I buy my shoes at discount stores and would never spend that much on accessories. You can make any excuse for Palin that you want but to me it comes down to wasteful spending. Its no shame to be thrifty and Michelle proved you can look great on a budget. Michelle may be the candidate’s wife but she is out there for Obama making speeches while he’s in Hawaii with his grandma. They are a team. She made a speech at the convention- just like Palin.
The average joe-six pack person is going to look at this and conclude that Palin is not of the same world as they are. The political operatives are selling a product- and the most important thing to remember when doing that is that most people want someone genuine, So, I and a lot of others think they made a mistake in taking her on a shopping spree when so many are struggling, and it goes against the personna they are trying to sell.
Just as she got good press for buying diapers in Walmart, she will get bad press now. In the end its not what you and I think that matters: its what people think who saw Michelle on the View and then read about Sarah and her $150,000 wardrobe. Because most people are not going to rationalize it the way you are.
You are doing quite a bit of spinning yourself, Christine.
If the shoe was on the other foot, do you think you would be talking about the exhorbitant costs of campaigning on both sides?
Actually I don’t support McCain-Feingold, Kim, but I know that McCain does and I wonder why Obama doesn’t- or more to the point, why he said he did support campaign finance reform but decided not to walk the walk as soon as it was apparent that he’d have a competitive advantage in fundraising?
And come on, please. Yes, I buy almost all of my shoes at Off Broadway, Famous Footwear, and the like- but would I do so for a major business occasion? Probably not- I’ll occasionally buy a few higher dollar items, and I think it perfectly appropriate for someone who’s being constantly photographed to do so. Again, I personally think the total amount and the brands are exhorbitant…but I truly don’t care just as I didn’t care about McCain’s shoes, Cindy McCain’s wardrobe, or Edwards’ haircuts (not to mention cosmetic work that Hillary and Joe Biden appear to have had done.) I do think the public has certain expectations- it’s unfortunate that people are so shallow, but I would not expect a candidate to buy budget clothing just to make a point, only to lose the election partly due to image. Palin was being attacked as a small town hick, so it doesn’t surprise me in the least that there were image consultants who wanted to deck her out in more sophisticated clothing.
I’d be happy to talk about campaign spending being exhorbitant on both sides, by the way- if we actually had information to compare side by side and criticize both parties wherever that criticism was due. Seems that the MSM is only interested in SOME spending though (I do remember, as I mentioned earlier, reading about Biden’s huge landscaping bill that was footed by his Senate campaign with the reason given that he was holding a fundraiser there- if I remember it was something like $30,000 worth of landscaping, so we’re not talking about paying the lawn company $100 to cut and edge and blow off the trimmings here). So how does that square with Joe’s regular guy, least wealthy member of the Senate image?
All I’m saying is you can harp on this all you want but it doesn’t really reflect on Sarah Palin’s own lifestyle. She obviously has led a comfortably upper middle class lifestyle in AK, but one which is pretty down to earth and focused on outdoor activities. If you think Joe Sixpack is going to object to the fact that the campaign has glamorized her image, I dunno, I think a lot of those guys are rather enjoying the show.
This is all pretty stupid, don’t you think? It’d be like saying the White House ought not to host lavish dinners because our economy is in bad shape. Maybe symbolically some Americans would like that, but in the scheme of things it’s extremely unimportant and certain traditions and protocols are pretty well accepted even though there are expenses involved in ‘keeping up appearances.’
Ahem. What was it you were saying about all of those $20 donors to the Obama campaign, Kim?
Honestly, it’s beyond me how anyone could still be falling for the ‘change’ rhetoric when Obama appears to be the most far left AND most dishonest candidate in recent history. Well, I should say that I can understand the fact that a bunch of wide eyed kids are falling for it, but the adults who still think he’s the real deal just blow my mind.
CS- LIke Colin Powell, Susan Eisenhower, Scott McClellan, Arnie Carlson, the Goldwaters? Yes, how dare these delusional adults endorse this lying socialist over the honest and decent Sen McCain?
McCain in his earlier years criticized the $200 dollar Clinton haircuts, and did not want campaign funds spent on luxuries like tuxedos. Well, he must have flip-flopped big time on that one- right Christine?
CS-Yes, I get that she might want an upgrade from Off Broadway Shoes- (who actually have some great deals-at least in my neck of the woods) but C’mon you could buy shoes plated in platinum for that kind of dough! You could buy Joe the plumber’s house and buy him a nice boat to take out on the lake! And you didn’t answer my comment that most voters aren’t going to Google Palin to see if she wears Prada in Alaska or if she’s got her wolf-skin jacket on! They are going to react just like Julie here.
And yes the coverage does seem a bit skewed- but the Dems have certainly been in THAT position in other election years. Remember how they obsessed over Gore’s sighing during his presidential debates and mocked him for wearing earth tones? And they certainly were ready to jump down Hillary’s throat at the slightest gaffe-even tho she outperformed her primary opponents consistently at the debates.
In 2000 they loved John McCain and dubbed him the “maverick”.
CS
Maybe it is superficial and stupid, but our political landscape is filled with symbolic outrages that stemmed from a larger frustration. Of course its not the most important issue out there- but it is one that voters can grab on to when they think about the W.S. bailout and their shrinking pensions. They may not even analyze it- but just react out of anger. It wasn’t a very smart move by the political operative who planned the shopping spree and then tried to market her as “one of us”.