Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Wag the Blog: Palin's Shopping Spree



Republican vice presidential candidate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, walks past media as she boards the campaign bus after deplaning in North Canton, Ohio, Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2008. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

The report by Politico's Jeanne Cummings that the Republican National Committee dropped $150,000 on clothes and makeup for Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has set off a media feeding frenzy.

The Post's Pulitzer Prize winning fashion writer Robin Givhan has weighed in and the Los Angeles Times set up a photo gallery that let people vote on Palin's various outfits. A search for "Palin" and "$150,000" on Google News turns up more than 900 articles on the subject.

While huzzahs are clearly in order for Cummings, the story has created an interesting bifurcation among the political world.

To some, the story is a perfect case of a hypocritical politician who casts herself as an average American but is anything but in her private life. For a campaign that is casting Barack Obama as an elitist, the story hoists Palin -- and John McCain -- on their proverbial petard.

To others, the story is fluff -- an amusing distraction that has absolutely nothing to do with how people will make up their minds in 12 days time, and, therefore, is being wildly overblown.

For today's Wag the Blog question, we want to hear where you come down on this issue. Is the Palin shopping spree deserving of all the attention it's gotten from the media or is it simply a distraction from the broader issues at play in this election?

Sound off in the comments section below. The most thoughtful cases made for each point of view (or a third, as yet unexplained, point of view) will be featured in a post of their own later this week.

Go to it!

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 23, 2008; 12:05 PM ET
Categories:  Wag The Blog  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Parsing the (Tracking) Poll: McCain=Bush?
Next: Fix Pick: McCain Campaign Post-Mortem

Comments

Sarah Palin is a pauper compared to all the rich Washingtonians who hold office. Even our city officials in Los Angeles make more money than she does and in addition many of the Democrats who run for office get my Plumbers union dollars from the PAC ( and other unions PAC's) and have expensive lunches.

We have to be silence in our support for MCCAIN/PALIN because the unions will make it difficult for us to work whereas the Democrats continue to bully and abuse the race, clothing, history in the making card.

I have been a generational Democrat and just recently changed to a Republican, for me it was a monumental change, it took me years and it hurt but I now can say that I am proud to be a Republican.

I worked hard for my money, I am currently unemployed, but I be damned if I vote for an individual who supports redistribution of wealth, I will continue to plug away and do the best I can without expecting my government to bail my butt out.

The hell with the clothes!, I know Palin needs them, it is just what needs to be done.

Reporting on such a trite issue is ridiculous, we are experiencing a major financial disaster and the media and papers have yet to address the fact that all elected officials who currently hold office or have been appointed have not curbed their spending habits.
Americans are cutting back on all things but across the board they continue to have all the Per diems, travel expenses, credit cards and nobody has reported this, it is business as usual for them all the while they are telling the voters we have been irresponsible, this is the information which must be hammered on not Palin's clothes!


Posted by: navytruthsayer | October 27, 2008 3:28 AM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton was righteously criticized while in office for a $200 haircut. John Edwards was ridiculed for a $400 hair cut. But S.P. gets $$$$$$ for clothes and more $$$$$ for make up while claiming to be a "Joe Six Pack" type. If you manipulate symbols, expect to get skewered by symbols if you are arrogant and stupid enough to set your self up to be judged by your own standards. Perhaps it's a toss up between arrogant and stupid which is the real crime. But there is a more serious point. In less than two years in office there has emerged a pattern of grasping and pocket lining in her Governorship (government "expense" claims boarding on the fraudulent) and as a candidate (including more dubious lining of the pocket for her hubby and family). This person sets a new low for rapidity with which personal corruption just starts out immediately and fits in perfectly. Imagine giving her more time and power...what wouldn't she grab for herself? So the final crime is abuse of power and self gain. That's a legitimate concern about someone who peddles themselves a wonder woman "executive", maverick, reformer, blah, blah, yadda, yadda.

Posted by: pinetree2 | October 26, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Although I strongly oppose the McCain/Palin ticket on issues-based grounds (now THERE'S a concept!), I say we should give Palin and RNC _MOST_ of a pass on this issue. She does need to dress up. Women get this. As a fashion-challenged grumpy old man, I don't get it. But MOSTLY I just don't give a who-rang-diddly-damn.

Now, if she get MOST of a pass on this, at what point is some criticism valid? NOT on moral grounds (you may be surprised to hear me say)! People can shop at these places if they want, and Obama can buy his $1500 suits if he wants. The valid criticism comes, I think, on practical and symbolic grounds. I think the fact that the "WHERE" and "HOW MUCH" parts of this case reveal the basic contradiction in the Republicans' message. How is either Niemann-Marcus or Saks Fifth Avenue "Joe Six-Pack" or "Joe the Plumber" or any other kind of middle-class territory?? If Palin could have had a "similar look" at a much lower cost ($150K IS a lot of money for clothes!), her RNC handlers missed an opportunity to shop middle class and make some political hay. These Repubs really DON'T get it. Can they spend their money the way the want??? Of course! Do we have to be favorably impressed?? Hell, no. I think this episode has confirmed my overall impression of the Repubicans and the McCain campaign: the party is controlled by plutocratic elites who cynically exploit social and religious conservatives in order to stay in power.

So let Sarah keep the clothes. Like her, they will eventually (probably sooner rather than later) go out of style.

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | October 26, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

If Sara Palin is the no-nonsense frugal hockey mom that she purports to be, why didn’t say “Thanks but no thanks,” to the RNC when they offered her a $150 K wardrobe and $11.4 K a week makeup artist, as she supposedly had told Congress when they approved an earmark to Alaska for the infamous Bridge to Nowhere?

Posted by: Carlossss | October 26, 2008 7:30 AM | Report abuse

I think the issue of spending donated money to elect a person you believe in to be president of the US for an outlandish wardrobe and make up is very very real. This was not her money and was not donated for this purpose. that to me makes it a moral issue.

Senator Clinton campaigned for more than a year with expertise help in syle and makeup and did not spend these huge amounts.

so it is the staggering sum, the choice of stores, and the source of the funds that is the issue. I for one am appalled that donated money would be used this way.

Posted by: demhu | October 26, 2008 4:57 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is the best performing government executive today. Fact #1: She negotiated the largest construction project in history with multi-layer protections for the American tax payer. It doesn't allow a single company leverage over any other (checks and balances) and she skillfully aced out Russia - if you want to hear the analysis of this surf over to IBD.com and listen to the audio cast of a business editorial writer who actually examined the agreement. Also, please note the transparency - everything including meeting notes posted on-line.

Fact #2: She negotiated a better deal for the tax-payers of Alaska that resulted in a $1200 check to each individual directly from the royalty on oil company profits. In other words, no deficit-financed stimulus where the American tax payer has to borrow from their kids to get a money today - it paid for itself.

Fact #3: She cut Alaska's state budget by 15 percent and put money in savings.

None of these facts are about her speeches, her charm, or her feelings. Just plain ordinary facts, that plain ordinary Americans should consider when they vote.

She has mine. These three things are tangible and reflect a philosophy I agree with.

So many of my friends are focused on style over substance. My wife and I are not.

Posted by: timrichmond | October 25, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Look people-everybody knows you have to look the part.....so they dressed her up. She's hot, she's smart, and I love her she's got my vote.

Posted by: karenabcde | October 25, 2008 1:22 AM | Report abuse

Hi-Sarah's the conservative......Mccain's the old F........he'll become ill and we'll get Sarah in charge....yippie...she understands business and she won't "sell out" the country........go Sarah...she's way sharp.....listen to her....don't listen to the media.....Barack wants "payback" he hates whites and whites WILL PAY for black suppression....

Posted by: karenabcde | October 25, 2008 1:08 AM | Report abuse

MCCAIN'S OWN WORDS IN 2000 - HE'S A SOFT SOCIALIST FLIP-FLOPPER

STUDENT: Why is it that someone like my father who goes to school for 13 years gets penalized in a huge tax bracket because he's a doctor. Why is that - why does he have to pay higher taxes than everybody else? Just because he makes more money. How is that fair?

MCCAIN: I think you're questioning, questioning the fundamentals of a progressive tax system where people who make more money pay more in taxes than a flat across the board percentage. I think it's to some degree because we feel obviously that wealthy people can afford more. We have over the years beginning with John F. Kennedy reduced some of those marginal tax rates to make them less onerous. I believe that when you really look at the tax code the very wealthy because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes really don't pay as much as you think they do, when you just look at the percentages. And I think middle income Americans, working Americans, who when you count in payroll taxes, sales taxes, mortgage -- all of the, all of the taxes that working Americans pay -- I think you would also think that they also deserve very significant relief.

At that point host Chris Matthews asked for members of the audience to applaud if they support wealthier people paying a higher percentage of their incomes; there was loud applause.

STUDENT: I still don't see how that's fair...aren't we getting closer and closer to Socialism and stuff...?

MCCAIN: Look, here's what I really believe: That when you are, when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more. But at the same time it shouldn't be totally out of proportion.

McCain added that the "first people who deserve a tax cut are working Americans...and they're the ones I would support tax cuts for first."

Posted by: seemstome | October 24, 2008 10:08 PM | Report abuse

What a waste! That could have bought "Joe six-pack" beer for life!
Say it aint so sarah...say it ain't so.

What I really find offensive is this 400,000 dollar weekend at AIG with our tax dollars! The aristrocracy says "let them eat cake" and try to save their heads by screaming "socialism! socialism......" as loud as they can.

Republicans. so confused. so sad.

Posted by: StoptheSpin | October 24, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

When they interviewed the sales lady at one of the expensive stores Palin shopped at(I don't recall which) and they asked her if she could have gotten a similar look for less and she said "yes, for a lot less". I don't think most people have a problem with a new wardrobe, but why spend so much for something that not many people could even tell was so expensive? How many people knew just by looking how much she spent? Didn't see many hands go up. What a way to waste those good old Conservative Republican's money.

Posted by: MsSnowWhite | October 24, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Keep this figure in mind when people claim that the $150,000 the RNC spent on Sarah Palin’s wardrobe represents some kind of frivolity. At least she’s going to wear the clothes more than once, and it may raise some decent funds for charity at the end of the campaign. The Democrats spent an additional $5.3 million on the Barackopolis at Invesco Field, after spending over $14 million to outfit the Pepsi Center.

Posted by: leapin | October 24, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s wife, Michelle, complained the government’s $600 economic stimulus check was only enough to buy “a pair of earrings” while stumping for her husband.

Posted by: leapin | October 24, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, $150,000 is a lot of money, but I suppose that's the going rate. I think of John Edwards getting a $400 haircut. If you're going to be on TV and in web videos and magazines and newspapers and brochures, you've got to look presentable. You have to pay the best experts to give you that top notch look. Talk about buying a nice suit for that job interview! I mean, the biggest job you'll ever go for!

People say they want our politicians to be "just like us," but looking like Eddie at the end of the bar, there, just doesn't inspire confidence in the citizenry. If John McCain were to dress a little more sharp, I reckon he'd pick up a few more admirers. But like Barney Frank, McCain doesn't look comfortable in a suit.

My only issue with Sarah Palin's pricey wardrobe is that she comes across as ingenuine when she's likening herself to smalltown, workboot folk.

Posted by: dognabbit | October 24, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

As a Democrat who has been extremely critical of the way the McCain camp runs its campaign, I believe this story is a non-issue.

Of course they are going to spend money on her wardrobe. This is Hollywood, don't ever forget it.

The criticism we hear about Sarah Palin is for the most part disguised criticism of the McCain campaign.

I don't blame Gov. Palin for being inexperienced, uneducated and uninformed, I blame the McCain camp for selecting such a person.

Likewise, I wouldn't blame Gov. Palin for wearing what her advisors insist she wear...even if I did think this story was an issue.

Posted by: john_mcg | October 24, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

.


.

You are risking your job if you vote for Obama.


Obama has no economic or business experience except for buying cocaine.


How do you expect him to know how to lead the economy ? Do not risk making the economy worse with Obama's high taxes.


.

.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 24, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Final bill on the Barackopolis: $5.3 million.

Under those circumstances, the extra $5.3 million for the vanity platform at Invesco seems like a strange and very frivolous spending choice. Obama could have given the same (uninspiring) speech at the Pepsi Center and saved millions of dollars.

This isn’t the same as buying a wardrobe for a candidate who lacked one; Democrats had already spent almost $15 million on the Pepsi Center. Obama had a perfectly good stage on which to accept his nomination and demanded another for his own ego.

Joe

Posted by: JoeSmith3 | October 24, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

.


.

You are risking your job if you vote for Obama.


Obama has no economic or business experience except for buying cocaine.


How do you expect him to know how to lead the economy ? Do not risk making the economy worse with Obama's high taxes.


.

.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 24, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

But remember... she's 'just like us'... except with a $150,000 clothing allowance.

Myself I find I'm running into my neighbors all the time in the most expensive clothing shop in town. Now that the Recession has hit and we're headed for a Depression, I figure I've got to look the part standing in the Unemployment line.

Is it just me or are the Republicans turning themselves into one big joke? What kind of 'advisor' would recommend you spend $150K on clothes for the Hockey Mom? You absolutely destroy Palin's credibility with a move like that. I personally don't understand the logic behind THAT one.

Posted by: MT_Guy | October 24, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Dear Retrojournalist--the story of Palin and the $175,000 shopping is relevant. It's relevant because (1) it wasn't her money to spend; (2) Obama is buying his own clothes (as well as Michelle's--RNC bought Todd's new duds because sweatsuits are really republican are they); Biden's buying his own clothes, and (4) the beer baby is buying McCains. It's relevant because they are changing who she is. Well, actually not changing "who" she is. Unfortunately she's still the same manipulative, abusive user around. But I'm sure her family is very "frugal"=when they are spending their own money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: dklloyd | October 24, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure the Palins are a very "frugal" family. I, too, shop at consignment stores and discount shoes. I just don't have the RNC spending $150,000 on me and my family to improve our image. If she's so wonderful why does she need her image improved? She represents herself as the great hockey mom; well hockey moms don't take $23,000 to have their hair and makeup done. I would be really "pissed" right now if I had donated money to McCain or the RNC so that Sarah can have a new lipstick color. The only difference between and pit bull and a hockey mom--$180,000. Boy McCain you are losing it! What were you thinking!

Posted by: dklloyd | October 24, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Who was the highest paid individual in Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign during the first half of October as it headed down the homestretch?

Not Randy Scheunemann, Mr. McCain’s chief foreign policy adviser; not Nicolle Wallace, his senior communications staff member. It was Amy Strozzi, who was identified by the Washington Post this week as Gov. Sarah Palin’s traveling makeup artist, according to a new filing with the Federal Election Commission on Thursday night.

Posted by: JJames081 | October 24, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

I would like to explain to funnyfarm13, and others that do not know, that the overhead projector that Obama wanted replaced was a 40-year old Zeiss Mark VI star projectorin at Chicago's Admar Planetarium that would be used by perhaps millions of people for education. I think getting 40 years of use out of something is deserving of getting a second look to be replaced. It was not an overhead projector that shows things on a screen, it is nothing like that. Look it up on Google. By the way, the earmark was not approved. Adler Planetarium did not receive that money. That is what elected officials do, however, is get money for someting that is good for the country and especially the area of the country he or she represents. That is why we have representatives and senators from different areas in the country to look out for people in their voting area. Maybe McCain should have done a little homework before making that remark. Seems he has a habit of just acting on impulse just like picking Palin as a running mate before he knew anything about her. That just scares the h--- out of me. How dumb does he think the American People are??? Now I can understand how some uninformed people might think that Sarah's wardrobe would be more important than that "overhead projector," right?? McCain just twists everything Obama says. That's all he's got. And what is that commercial with all those women saying they are Joe the Plumber. I wonder if one of them could come over and fix my leaky faucet. That commercial is just stupid. I pity the fool that believes everything (or anything for that matter) McCain says now. He is not the smartest pickle in the barrel either, McCain graduated from the Naval Academy in June 1958; he was fifth from the bottom in class rank, 894th out of 899. By the way, Obama entered Harvard Law School in late 1988. At the end of his first year, he was selected, based on his grades and a writing competition, as an editor of the Harvard Law Review. In February 1990, in his second year, he was elected president of the Law Review, a full-time volunteer position functioning as editor-in-chief and supervising the Law Review's staff of eighty editors. Check Wikipedia Encyclopedia for that information. The longer the campaign goes on, the sillier and more desperate poor old John McCain looks. I am actually embarrased for him.

Posted by: MsSnowWhite | October 24, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Who was the highest paid individual in Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign during the first half of October as it headed down the homestretch?

Not Randy Scheunemann, Mr. McCain’s chief foreign policy adviser; not Nicolle Wallace, his senior communications staff member. It was Amy Strozzi, who was identified by the Washington Post this week as Gov. Sarah Palin’s traveling makeup artist, according to a new filing with the Federal Election Commission on Thursday night.

Posted by: JJames081 | October 24, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

I just read a NY Mag article stating that the bag Piper has been carrying around is a fake Louis Vuitton. To people in the know, it is obviously fake. She must have made a stop on Canal Street after her Saks splurge. Someone needs to ask her if she realizes that she is the one supporting child labor, tax evasion, and INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS!

Posted by: jjwc | October 24, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

You can put Gucci on a pig but you've still got a pig. Sarah Palin is beyond running for VP, she's already begun her 2012 run for the Presidency. But in all seriousness I think, aside from the actual dollar amount, the biggest problem is where the money was spent. Are Palin & McCain to good to shop at Wal-Mart or Target where most of their supporters shop? The economy is in the dumper and people who have previously donated to thrift stores are now shopping there. Couldn't they have found a way to better represent the values of a middle-class working mom than to have dressed her like a TV news anchor. Believe me, had the DNC remodeled Michelle Obama you would have heard plenty about it from the Republicans. Just last evening one of the RNC spokespersons was complaining about Sen Obama taking a jet to visit his grandmother. Had he not gone they would have been questioning his family values.

Posted by: mcordray | October 24, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

It's a free country and both individuals and organizations are free to spend their money however they choose and the law allows. If the RNC chooses to spend almost $80,000 of their campaign contributions at Neiman Marcus and the law does not forbid it, it is their right to make that choice. If they choose to spend $150,000 dressing, accessorizing and making-up Gov. Palin and her family rather than spending the campaign's donations supporting Congressional candidates who are battling for survival, they have apparently broken no laws and their decision should be accepted by the public at large. Gov. Palin is a very attractive woman and she looks very nice up on the bridge of the Titanic. I think it's a shame she can't keep the clothes once the race is over, even in Alaska a governor has to dress up.

Posted by: saf012000 | October 24, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

When a business has a critical problem they make an investigation as to its root cause and devise a solution to prevent the critical problem form happening again. How can you tell the dems are the root cause of the Freddie-Fannie mess? They currently control congress and there is NO investigation into the root cause of the problem.

Posted by: leapin | October 24, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

I find it so interesting that people assume that because Sarah Palin draws crowds at rallies that people like her. Yes, some people have been "taken in" by her, but I think lots of people are just curious about her. She really has no substance. I might go to see her at a rally because I am curious, the same way that I might be interested in seeing an actor or singer or an emperor with new expensive clothes. I am sure I have never personally seen such expensive clothing on someone. I could never, never vote for a ticket with her on it, however. I believe many people in Alaska really didn't know much about her when she was elected governor and some feel that after all that has happened, she might not even get elected governor again. That is rather telling, I feel.

Posted by: MsSnowWhite | October 24, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

The GOP spent $150,000 to dress up the dummy. That's all.

Posted by: Leathnm | October 24, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Final bill on the Barackopolis: $5.3 million.

Under those circumstances, the extra $5.3 million for the vanity platform at Invesco seems like a strange and very frivolous spending choice. Obama could have given the same (uninspiring) speech at the Pepsi Center and saved millions of dollars. This isn’t the same as buying a wardrobe for a candidate who lacked one; Democrats had already spent almost $15 million on the Pepsi Center. Obama had a perfectly good stage on which to accept his nomination and demanded another for his own ego.

Joe

Posted by: JoeSmith3 | October 24, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse

The reason Palin's shopping is relevant to election issues is that her spree is part of a PATTERN in her behavior that is disturbing, namely that it is part of the process in her search for power -- personal ambition is the fuel, not ambition FOR the nation. Her search is not driven by principles or a "platform" (witness her clumsy replies to James Dodson on the Republican platform). Careful reading of her term as mayor and of her 1 1/2 years as governor reveal a person who keeps her cronies close and her dissenters ("haters") at bay -- or fired. While smiling and trading on her looks, Palin has in fact created a record of self before the greater good. Ethics be damned.

If a new wardrobe can get her to the presidency (yes, an expressed vow back when she was mayor!), then a new wardrobe it is. Giving her clothes to charity? Right. The RNC came back with that AFTER the criticism came raining down, when what they were really doing was "making her over" into a more acceptable image from the RNC perspective (by the same guy whose firms sends robocalls!).

That she would go along with the makeover instead of remaining true to her self-proclaimed "real American values" shows up Palin for the hypocrite that she is. It's her hypocrisy that has evoked the fuss, deservedly so. We don't need leaders whose personal ambition will sanctions ANY messages, ANY behavior that will get them into the White House. The Republican campaign is 'bankrupt' -- no ideas, no ideals, no vision, no ethics, no worthy candidates.

Posted by: bweyand1 | October 24, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

I'm a retired journalist and registered independent. If the "story" included how, at least, Joe Biden shopped and styled, or, even better, how the presidential candidates (between whom, after all, we are choosing, not Veep candidates), shopped and styled, and placed some perspective on it then the "story" would hold relevance.

As it stands, the "story" is immaterial (nice pun) to the presidential campaign, and another cheap shot at Palin.

Posted by: retrojournalist | October 24, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Why do the Republicans believe that if they say something in complete contradiction of the actual FACTS of a situation then magically the FACTS disappear and their statement replaces it?spending 150K on Caribou Barbie IS relevant to the current election and our countries current economic situation.... the question should be who is thinking these things through? I am amazed by the lack of FORESIGHT, that seems to surround EVERYTHING that has to do with Sarah the Governor, How about that donkey scarf? nice touch Sarah! also what about what she really stands for , not that she could articulate it in any way that is clearly understandable, but "While campaigning in Colorado this week, Sarah Palin spoke against a proposed amendment for a teeny, tiny sales tax increase that would provide funds for disabled people with downs syndrome, autism, etc. Colorado has no spare money to provide housing, and there is a 15 year waiting list. Rather than let these people become homeless when their parents die, they are seeking a funding increase.
Sarah Palin, mother of a downs syndrome baby, the person who claims if elected she will help special needs children, spoke AGAINST this sales tax increase. It would cost most Colorado citizens less than $5 per year, and give many parents peace of mind. She DOESN"T represent the views of most women, who are the caretakers of children. I don't know who she represents. I find it embarrassing that she is the female candidate. "

Posted by: mertisrules | October 24, 2008 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Palins expenditure of around 150K on clothes and makeup for what amounts to a 75 day campaign translates into around 2K a day. A bit over the top? Of course it is. The woman who portrays herself as an average working class woman should have known better. I don't know of any other average working class women who go out and spend 150K for a 75 day stretch of work.

That being said there is a double standard when it comes to politicans wardrobes; whether male or female. Men can obviously spend a lot less and look good. However, this expenditure implies that a sitting governor had no clothes to start with and I find that a little hard to believe. Also, in an election where appearance has two distinct meanings; the first being what you look like and the second being how people look at you, this action of the part of Palid flunks the second part of the definition of campaign appearance.

There were so many ways available to the McCain campaign to outfit Palin with the clothes they wanted her to wear without going out and spending 150K they come off appearing as "elitist" which is the same thing they accuse Obama of being. No matter how you look at this issue (or non-issue) it was in bad taste for the image they are trying to project and thus failed the "appearance test." What a waste of 150K of nice clothes.

Posted by: blund | October 24, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Fiscally, the Republicans are running their campaign as Hillary did hers--stupidly. So let them spend all they want to on the Palins and then whine they have nothing for advertising, as Hillary mismanaged her enormous funds on pre-primary advertising since she knew her coronation would be assured by the time Iowa had voted.

All campaigns obscenely waste money, all the campaigns. So that is a moot point. But who has been smartest in managing the money, spending it most effectively, achieving the desired results?

Posted by: radicalpatriot | October 24, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

The problem with the $150,000 shopping spree is that it points to the hypocrisy of her image - "I'm just like you." She took reporters on her trip to Wal-Mart but not to Neiman's or Saks. How could she bear to shop in such elitist stores?

Now she tells the Chicago Tribune that they weren't worth $150,000 and most of them have never left the belly of her plane. Oh, and they were bought for the convention.

How many outfits did she need for the convention?

If the clothes aren't worth $150,000 did the campaign lie on their FEC filing?

Did she buy things she didn't even "need" since she says most have never left the plane?

To me those revelations are even worse than the original shopping spree.


Posted by: FauxReal | October 24, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Supposedly BO has such a big lead in polls but continues to spend, spend, spend on commercials. How many schools could he have built for the better part of a billion dollars he’s spending?

Posted by: leapin | October 24, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

The shopping could indicate that she did not own the clothes appropriate for running for the office of Vice-President. How many of us would?

Posted by: pr22 | October 24, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

wow...there sure are alot of whackos here! No wonder the Republicans always get in office,(no matter how idiotic they are.)

Posted by: ebbie | October 24, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

While Sarah Palin's wardrobe is not a critical issue in this campaign, she has invited the criticism by casting herself as a regular joe, trying to appeal to middle class voters and moms. From media reports, she has quite a following with her new do (Palin as top selling wig design)and probably her clothing as well. That doesn't hurt anyone and maybe drives up the economy a bit. However, it does speak to her willingness to be staged and manipulated by the campaign and a total insensitivity to the plight of many real working class families. And since it is paired with an ever-changing campaign that seems to have no strategy, no real message and no focus, the $150,000 wardrobe adds a little light entertainment, as we watch the ship go down. I don't blame her for trying to get something worthwhile out of this campaign, but what was she thinking? I just hope she is not right in her assumptions that the voting public is as ignorant as her actions and messages indicate. And giving the clothes to charity, come on. Maybe they will auction the clothes off on ebay...and then give the proceeds to say, paying off the national debt.

Posted by: MidwestGrandma | October 24, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Voters in these key states are going to WAKE UP this week and decide to vote for McCain and Sarah Palin - McCain's key demographics are saying they are undecided however they lean toward McCain.

In sharp contrast Obama is going to see nothing but erosion in his numbers as people realize they were completely out of their minds to even consider voting for him.

President McCain is the correct leader to bring the economy roaring back even better than before.

.


.

Posted by: 37thandOSt | October 24, 2008 7:42 AM | Report abuse

djmiller1 posts:
"Sarah Palin has done nothing wrong...she has the same rights as every other candidate - have we questioned the Obama's on how much they have spent on clothing being paid for by their campaign?? How about them 400 bucks haircuts the Dems paid for Kerry??
So lets get on with politics - WHO IS THE BEST CANDIDATE??
MCCAIN/PALIN 2008!!!
ps- NO matter what Palin does, she is criticized by the lame media..they cannot find any dirt on her so they attack petty things to try and get everyone off of what really matters - WHO IS THE BEST CANDIDATE - oh course - MCCAIN/PALIN

Posted by: djmiller1 |

dj: I will grant you this about Ms.Palin's qualifications. She is a very talented politician whose skills seem more naturally imbued than developed. Her problem remains one of not having a firm grasp of the national issues. Given time and development she would be a tough adversary.

Now, October 24, 2008 may be a day Ms. Palin wishes never arrived. Palin and her husband will be put under oath to tell the truth whole truth and nothing but the truth.

She is to be deposed by a prosecutor from the State of Alaska regarding the "Troopergate" matter. Having worked in and around the legal environment for 30 years, and having been deposed several times, I can say it is not any fun. You sit across from the prosecutor and your answers are taken down verbatim. When a seasoned attorney detects areas where the deponent holds back, the investigation into that aspect is unrelenting. Question upon question to elicit the facts.

Forget what you see on television or at the movies. While she will be accompanied by her attorney, her attorney cannot interrupt or stop questions.

I expect the nation will find she did things as Governor of Alaska that don't pass the ethics test. Should a fact pattern develop that supports an ethical breach, Palin is finished, nationally and more importantly, locally.

p.s. Messrs Kerry and Edwards could well afford their own clothing and haircuts.

Posted by: Thatsnuts | October 24, 2008 7:41 AM | Report abuse


$150,000 in two months. On clothes.


Are you kidding?


And the GOP was grousing about John Edward measly $400 haircut once upon time?


Are you kidding?


Hockey mom my a$$.

Posted by: Christian_in_NYC | October 24, 2008 3:59 AM | Report abuse

Modern day Marie Antoinette, she is. More than one million homes in the United States are in foreclosure, but she sports outfits from Barney's and Saks and calls herself Joe Sixpack. I bring mortgages up because that $150,000 would pay off my mortgage taken out in 2005. Lucky for her she doesn't live in France in 1789. Her head would be rolling down the Champs Elysees. Oh I'm sorry. That was a bit too erudite and elitist of me to say. Let me rephrase: someone ought to kick her in the Alaska.

Posted by: StevenB1 | October 24, 2008 3:39 AM | Report abuse

vernoncormier - YOU COULD PUT A BASKETBALL IN YOUR SKULL BECAUSE IT IS TOTALLY EMPTY.. CAN'T STAND A WOMAN WHO CAN THINK AND TALK FOR HERSELF HUH?? and look good doing it!!!
Grow up...this is about politics - bet you think Obama is the messiah also...

Posted by: djmiller1 | October 24, 2008 3:35 AM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin has done nothing wrong...she has the same rights as every other candidate - have we questioned the Obama's on how much they have spent on clothing being paid for by their campaign?? How about them 400 bucks haircuts the Dems paid for Kerry??
So lets get on with politics - WHO IS THE BEST CANDIDATE??
MCCAIN/PALIN 2008!!!
ps- NO matter what Palin does, she is criticized by the lame media..they cannot find any dirt on her so they attack petty things to try and get everyone off of what really matters - WHO IS THE BEST CANDIDATE - oh course - MCCAIN/PALIN

Posted by: djmiller1 | October 24, 2008 3:30 AM | Report abuse

GOV. PALIN SHOULD IGNORE MEDIA!!!

I NOTICE WHENEVER GOV. PALIN OR SEN. MCCAIN DOES SOMETHING GREAT, THE BIASED LIBERAL MEDIA CRITICIZES THEM GREATLY AND MAKES FUN OF THEM.( Eg: Gov. Palin debate with Sen. Biden. She creamed his butt, but the Lib. media criticized her and made fun of her.)

Posted by: lazerboy | October 24, 2008 12:47 AM | Report abuse

"Fear not! All the outfit will be donated to the charity at the end of the campaign."

She could auction off her panties on eBay.

The white male Reagan Democrats would bid it up!

Joe the Plumber among them....

Posted by: thrh | October 24, 2008 12:44 AM | Report abuse

GOV. PALIN SHOULD IGNORE MEDIA!!!

I NOTICE WHENEVER GOV. PALIN OR SEN. MCCAIN DOES SOMETHING GREAT, THE BIASED LIBERAL MEDIA CRITICIZES THEM GREATLY AND MAKES FUN OF THEM.( Eg. Gov. Palin debate with Sen. Biden. She creamed his butt, but the Lib. media critized her and made fun of her.)

Posted by: lazerboy | October 24, 2008 12:44 AM | Report abuse

Seriously, why are people worried about 150,000 spent on Palin's wardrobe/image when Obama spent more than that on a projector.
Also don't forget Obama won't recite the Pledge of Allegiance (Big Wake UP Call there) nor will he swear on the Bible. I honestly don't even know how he was allowed to run for President of our county and rest assured if he wins and he probably will, our country will cease to exist as we have known it.
Why would we elect a president who despises everything this country stands for????

Posted by: thefunnyfarm13 | October 24, 2008 12:42 AM | Report abuse

Can someone ask Sarah, I mean she's not that bright so she may not know the mascots of the two parties, if the RNC money was used to purchase this scarf she wears at the rally in Reno, Nevada on October 21st. Are her handlers equally clueless or just too busy to notice? Still they must be seething not only over the fact but that someone took this picture.
The picture is available at:
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/10/21/in-which-sarah-palin-displays-the-latest-in-donkey-fashion.aspx

Posted by: BadBuoy | October 24, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

To blevins20061: I read all the websites, you moron. It helps in decision-making if you consider all input, even input you don't like.

Get a life, or better yet a brain. The Republican party, in the day of Lincoln, stood for more than the petty, narrow-minded attitude you espouse.

If you read between the lines, I also quoted Peggy Noonan from her WSJ article.

Posted by: jwallace1 | October 23, 2008 11:22 PM | Report abuse

the NYT website


Ok...right there your post lost it's total credibility. THE NEW YORK TIMES???
Again, let's be fair.

Posted by: blevins20061 | October 23, 2008 10:59 PM | Report abuse

Someguy wrote
the campaign decided that Mrs. Palin's appearance was more important than her knowing about the basic responsibilities of the Vice President
_________________________________________

And if they hadn't given her the new wardrobe she would of been accused of not looking the part enough.
It was a lose-lose for her at the get go.
Let's be fair.

Posted by: blevins20061 | October 23, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

A possible third theme would be fraudulent reimbursements, as reported on the NYT website, and illustrating that no fraud is too small to commit by the current GOP.

What I would really like to address are the concepts of leadership and personal responsibility. First, however, I would like to frame my perspective for your readers.

I started a new technology business at the end of calendar year 2001 after an 18 year career in government research and development and academia with a marvelous lady who is an expert in leadership and organizational development. At one time she attended the same church as James Maxwell, the famous business and leadership writer, and she counts herself as a Reagan Republican. Ms. B turned 50 this year, and is both gorgeous and intelligent – Governor Palin pales in comparison. Senator McCain missed out on a Republican lady who could have helped him win in a walk, but I digress.

The importance of leadership cannot be overstated. An organization is a living thing, and the leaders shape and define its personality, in much the same way our behavior as individuals reflects our personality.

Wardrobe-gate (it has to have a name, right?) reflects the lack of understanding of message, the importance of staying on message, and how to stay on message by the McCain-Palin campaign. In that regard, this incident is similar to other McCain-Palin campaign slipups.

Ms. B looks fabulous on a tight budget. She could spend more, but she doesn’t want people to get the wrong idea about her because she is beautiful. We are talking about our employees, customers, and partners. Being a spendthrift just looks bad anytime, really. If you are impressed by prices and designer names, that merely illustrates shallowness, not chic. Chic is the actual look and artistic impression your outfit leaves. When most people see a well-dressed beautiful lady they are not thinking about designer labels.

This is not about hypocrisy, but about the message that we must be responsible with our resources for the overall benefit of the organization, and everything matters. That is conservation.

The temptation is to say that some employee went and did the buying, but Ms. B does not accept that argument. As the leader of an organization, you are responsible for all aspects of its function. A failure by one of the organizational components is still a failure of the organization, and thus its leaders.

This incident lost Ms. B’s vote. I am a Lincoln Republican (from Springfield, Illinois), and my vote was lost with the separatist and racist rhetoric, I was already gone (paraphrasing the Eagles).

Come and get us too coppers:)

Posted by: jwallace1 | October 23, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse

I do think this a legitimate issue and is not "fluff". The way I see it, $150,000 is a lot of money for clothing, makeup and whatnot (I haven't spent that much for my wardrobe in my entire lifetime, and I'm an over-50 professional who wears a tie). Here's the deal: the campaign decided that Mrs. Palin's appearance was more important than her knowing about the basic responsibilities of the Vice President (Re: Her claim that "The V.P. is in charge of the Senate"). The fact that they made this decision tells me they place her appearance over her competence, and that's VERY troubling, especially when we have so many weighty issues to deal with these days. Their priorities are completely out of whack. How could I trust them to make the right decisions in the future? Whoever approved these expenditures needs to find another line of work.

Posted by: SomeGuy6 | October 23, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

This is just one of the most ridiculous points of the whole election to be raised from the tanked liberal media.
Ok- you don't like Palin, don't like that she's against abortion, don't like that she supports the right to bear arms, don't like that she goes to church and believes in god.....but that's just the beginning.
I believe you don't know what to make of her, she's not polished but sincere. She's not a washington insider, but she relates to alot of americans. She continues to be slandered day in and day out but her crowds at her rallies grow larger.

Why is that do you think? She's got the dems running scared.

McCain/Palin 08

Posted by: blevins20061 | October 23, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

What a truckload of hate you bloggers sling. They are all politicians, not saints. It's only going to get uglier over the next several days. Thanksgiving will be extra special this year, because the election will be history by then. Football will be king of the fall season once again!
I'm okay with either outcome, as you all will be! Have a little faith.

Posted by: Balance2 | October 23, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

It would not have been an issue, except the Republicans tried to make Obama and his wife look like elitists.

I guess I picked the wrong sport for my son. Tae Kwon Do moms like myself shop at JCPenney in good months and Goodwill in bad ones.

Posted by: corridorg4 | October 23, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

I cannot understand why they had to spend so much money. Most of us out here couldn't tell if her clothes came from Nieman Marcus or J C Penney. Aren't we the ones she is trying to reach? I could understand if she were already elected and meeting foreign heads of state that she may need the fancy clothes, but not just for spewing out Republican lies. I am now retired and have worked all of my adult life and I did not take home $150,000 in the last 10 years combined. McCain says he is going to help the American people, what a laugh. If there was one word in the dictionary to describe John McCain, it would be "clueless". Maybe he has been rich so long that $150,000 seems like nothing to him. If he had any sense at all, he (or should I say Cindy with all her millions,) would have bought those clothes for her. They had to know this would come out. If they didn't know it, he sure is too nieve to be president. I really want to see what charity they choose to give these clothes to.

Posted by: MsSnowWhite | October 23, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Either Palin (1) was aware that the clothes were so expensive and should have known that such an expenditure was inappropriate, or (2) had no clue how expensive they were and is not qualified to deal with purchasing. Even if they had been the legal gift of a generous donor who intended to give her clothing, she should have realized that political flak would follow.

Besides, what kind of woman accepts gifts of expensive clothing from a man who is not her husband?

Posted by: hesthe | October 23, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

Bcamp55 sounds like illegal drug use is still prevalent.
As for the story, it show hypocrisy.
1000 to 1, if McCain/Palin come out on top, they'll be stopping by some Georgetown parties.

Posted by: edlharris | October 23, 2008 8:28 PM | Report abuse

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
TEST

Posted by: fu_buki | October 23, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Posted by: fu_buki | October 23, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

GOP REPUBLICAN MCCAIN
willful ignorance
wishful thinking
outdated ideology

NETHERLANDS ANTILLES

Posted by: fu_buki | October 23, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

The RNC missed the bus on this one, The extreme make over was cute but Caribou Barbi needed a make over from ordinary corrupt republican with a mouth full of deceptions to an honest hard working democrat not afraid to take a few bucks out of his or her pocket to pay down the national debt rung up by the Bushies and company. Bridges and roads to dead ends and 150K to put lipstick on another piggy. If they "win" this election you Will see blood in the streets as real Americans get serious about not being screwed again.Sarah Palin, God almighty what a colossal embarrassment for the working class backbone of this once great nation. It might behoove the rest of the republican party to follow the Bush lead and invest in a retirement plot in Saudi Arabia next door to old buddy Bin Laden. time to turn on faux snews, I need my daily fix of BS and nonsense. Everyone needs a good laugh and anything repulican is always good for just that. (And absolutly nothing else)

Posted by: anOPINIONATEDsob | October 23, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

hum hum!

Posted by: fu_buki | October 23, 2008 8:04 PM | Report abuse

Palin's clothing = $150,000

Obamorons stage cost for his theatrical debut during the coronation = $1,350,000

Obamoro's trip to see grandma = $926,000

Socialist imbeciles who support Obamoron = convicts, union workers, welfare leeches, Hollywood "elite".

Posted by: Bcamp55 | October 23, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

wow, so somewhere between 53-58% of likely voters are convict, union workers, welfare leeches and hollywood "elite". that's impressive.

that would leave lonely, sad people who can only recite their candidates talking points like bcamp as mccain supporters.

i got a riddle for ya. whats the difference between palins wardrobe costs and obama's spending? obama's was legal.

Posted by: dcsportsfan1 | October 23, 2008 7:54 PM | Report abuse

;;;;;;;;;.;;;;,,;;,;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Posted by: fu_buki | October 23, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

Sorry dcsportsfan1 - you might want to actually do a bit of reading before you open you mouth an prove you are without a doubt ignorant -

useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/tp/Subprime_Mortgages_FNMA.htm - 22k -

Learn a little imbecile.

Why do you think all panic regarding Freddie/Fannie? Are you really so stupid as to believe those are class "A" credit customers are going belly up by the 10's of thousands?

And since I sure you have never actually had a job, much less one with a large corporation, you wouldn't know that there is certainly tacit pressure to "support those who support us" during election season.

During the next colorectal exam, make sure their careful of those ears my friend.

Posted by: Bcamp55 | October 23, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

bcamp, why such anger. perhaps due to your cluelessness about this issue and fear that your candidate is going down? i dare say i know a little bit more about this issue than you. do a little research (not just look at some paragraph on a web page) about this important issue. do fannie and freddie buy subprime loans from lenders? no. are they "secondary subprime lenders"? no. are they even "lenders"? not even close. did they invest in AAA rated subprime bonds? yes. there really is an important distinction. take a peek at some public disclosure information about the delinquency rates of loans backed by these two companies. you might be surprised to learn how low they are. but why listen to someone who knows or research facts when you can read one paragraph on a web page and learn everything. i know it feels good to bash someone on web blog. but after the excitement of seeing your post on line, i'm sure you soon feel lonely and small again. so sad.

Posted by: dcsportsfan1 | October 23, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse

I have read both McCain and Biden statements that they buy their suits with their own money. I have not read Obama's statement, but I assume it would be the same. Most likely these gentlemen purchased their clothes, as they will be wearing them for a long time on and off work. I am sure Bush does not charge the country for his and Laura's clothes. Most Americans are ethical in this sense.

Posted by: nagamas1 | October 23, 2008 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Fear not! All the outfit will be donated to the charity at the end of the campaign.
To the RNC spokesperson:
Please let me know the intended charity shop
I look forward to purchase Palin's, Todd's and especially baby trigg's earmuff for my family.
Also, is the prescription glasses she is wearing now available? It looks so much better than the thick framed one she wore earlier.
Also, what about the travelling expenses for Palin's family. I wonder how you are going to donate these to charities.
By the way, I think its very smart for Palin to accept these. The candyshop will be closed after Nov 4.

Posted by: nagamas1 | October 23, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

The shopping spree has Palin-negative traction for three reasons, one of which has a mitigating counterweight:

1) As had been endlessly pointed out, it contradicts Palin's working-class, "Joe Sixpack" image spin. Giving off an aura of elitism may be rippable, but doing so after pretending to be populist is an even greater sin.

2) Some (CNN's Campbell Brown comes most immediately to mind) have said that Palin's excessive wardrobe budget deserves no more attention than does McCain's $500 Ferragamo shoes or Obama's $1500 suit. But the scale of Palin's $150,000 spree dictates otherwise; Obama would've had to buy a hundred of those suits to be in the same league as Palin, excess-wise.

3) At a time when McCain's campaign is floundering, he's being given low odds of being able to close the gap in the last half-month largely because Obama has whupped him in the fundraising department, leaving the McCain-Palin campaign stretching its dollars. The $150,000 spent on Palin's closet translates directly to $150,000 NOT spent on television ad time; in the context of her campaign's every-dollar-counts predicament, that loss is irreplaceable.

The mitigating factor on that: Public-funding spending limits aside, Palin DOES energize the base, which should translate directly to tapping GOP donors for donations. In other words, she probably more than pays the party and campaign back for that $150,000 as a superior fundraising draw among the hardcore Republican base.

Posted by: QualityPie | October 23, 2008 7:24 PM | Report abuse

I have two points;

1 If I were I had given money to the RNC I would be pretty upset. $150,000 could make a big difference in a House race

2 I only consider this a valid story because the GOP have been calling Obama an elitist for months to now be found spending vast sums on posh clothes for Palin at a time when the economy is in crisis and Americans are really up against it shows a cynicism that takes ones breath away.

Posted by: the_skilled99 | October 23, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Bcamp55-

Please tell me what I need to do to keep you pounding your stubby, fat little fingers into the keyboard. With every word you write, I feel hundreds, if not thousands of voters flocking toward Obama.

Could I possibly rent you some billboards?

Posted by: pmb72 | October 23, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

.,,,,,,,,,

Posted by: fu_buki | October 23, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA BIDEN 08...!!!

NETHERLANDS ANTILLES

Posted by: fu_buki | October 23, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!!!!

Posted by: fu_buki | October 23, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

My wife said $150,000 for clothes and no jewelry?

It's too bad that the VP gig was only for 8 weeks, she probably could have got a boob job and tummy tuck out the deal as well.

After this hard chore is over I suspect a period of recuperation at the Canyon Ranch is in order.

You go girl, its how Republican Royalty should be treated.

LET THEM EAT CAKE, should be your campaign motto.

Lose the Joe the Plumber stuff, its so old and tied.

Posted by: oldgeek143 | October 23, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

From moose hunts to HAUTE COUTURE,SARAH PALIN $150.000 MAKE_OVER.
She's exactly like MARIE-ANTOINETTE,and IMELDA MACOS(CROOK)

NETHERLANDS ANTILLES

Posted by: fu_buki | October 23, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

TO LEAPIN
HAHAAAAAA!
SOMETHING YOU DON'T KNOW,AMERICAN GOVERNMENT ARE WORKING TOGETHER WITH THE DUTCH GOVERNMENT.THEY ARE ALLY


NETHERLANDS ANTILLES

Posted by: fu_buki | October 23, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Hey Bcamp55,
That's a whole lot of wealth your spreading around. Please read this and weep:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081020/ap_on_bi_ge/the_influence_game_housing

Apparently, the republicans had 6 years of the house and the congress to do something about this mess, but they were too busy stuffing their pockets with cash.

Have you had too much of your own poison martini?

Posted by: StoptheSpin | October 23, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Please make your opinion count: VOTE.
No opinion counts unless you VOTE.

Increase your voting power by getting others to VOTE.
Please use the next 2 weeks encouraging others to VOTE!

Focus on making the DREAM COME TRUE: Obama '08

Posted by: ford9504 | October 23, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Sarah deserves something besides a one way ticket back to Alaska on the 5th. All Cindy McCain's clothes are in this price range and I'm sure she helped her select them along with a Neiman's consultant. It's too bad there are piles of stories on the net about how to live in a box or safely in your car now that your money and your job are gone. It gives it a different tweak than it would in other years.

Posted by: txajohnson | October 23, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

In your opinion did the RNC violate the Federal Election Campaign Act by improperly spending $150,000 on clothing for Palin?


http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=3884

.

Posted by: usadblake | October 23, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Imagine if Michelle O. had spent that kind of money on her outfits?

Or had an unwed preggy daughter?

Or was a member of a secessionist party?

Or had dated BHO while he was still married to someone else?

My o my...tsk tsk....

How do these people keep the bile our of their throats>

:-)

12 more days......

Posted by: toritto | October 23, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

With all due respect this is not just another issue to gain the public's interest of to just make news - I find that this is one of the most important issues to me - because i am the public eye, i am the student that can barely support himself, My Mom makes $11.000 dollars a year, My college is $30.000 dollars a year. For a Vice- Presidential candidate to come out and to say that he or she is a "Hockey Mom" and that this person understands what the normal citizen has to go through, I am outraged that at the lack of discipline that the McCain Campaign has shown. When there are close Congressional races in many places like Kentucky and Minnesota at stake, that the RNC and the McCain Campaign went out and spent an unpresidented $150,000 dollars on Make -Up and Clothing in the most expensive of places to buy clothes.

This is not how you reach out to the Undecided voters- Sarah Palin this is not how you maintain your "Hockey Mom status" This is not how you Maintain your "Joe the Plummer status" This is not the right way to show the public that the Economy is in great danger, In which jobs are being shipped out of the country. Places like Michigan are loosing jobs every couple of seconds.

This is distrust and lack of leadership. How can you tell the public eye that you are for deregulation, that you are for Lower takes, and that you are for the Economy or that you even have good judgement when all you are try to show us is that sarah Palin is Beautiful and that is what we should vote for - I have never voted before, I continuously read the news and blog about it, I cannot believe the type of judgement that is comming out of the McCain Campaign. I am a commuter student at Marymount University and I cannnot even afford lunch on most days and I go to the library and study while i am hungry, I sometimes bike or walk and drive if i have extra cash - John McCain if you want to win my vote give me substance but don't think that a pretty face could ever win my vote.

Thank you -

Posted by: NHarrisonstreetblog | October 23, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

Why can't any of the news media get it right?

The RNC spent HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars on the Palin family wardrobe.

$150k is JUST FOR SEPTEMBER.

Get a clue WAPO. Is it really so hard to know what you're talking about?

Go out there and find the total cost to GOP donors. That's your job as the "news media." The GOP hasn't fessed up to the grand total yet.

Posted by: j_mcdouglas | October 23, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Palin's clothing = $150,000

Obamorons stage cost for his theatrical debut during the coronation = $1,350,000

Obamoro's trip to see grandma = $926,000

Socialist imbeciles who support Obamoron = convicts, union workers, welfare leeches, Hollywood "elite".

Posted by: Bcamp55 | October 23, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

"Has she even read the constitution? If she loves America so much, she ought to know how it operates. Please Sarah, READ THE MANUAL!"

After she reads it she should pass it on to the socialist judges who legislate from the bench.

Posted by: leapin | October 23, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

She meets the current standard of VP - perfect liar, self-righteous, oblivious and uncaring of others' reality, hypocritical and self-absorbed. Wouldn't a CHANGE be good ?!?!

Posted by: kjnorth13 | October 23, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Sorry dcsportsfan1 - you might want to actually do a bit of reading before you open you mouth an prove you are without a doubt ignorant -

useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/tp/Subprime_Mortgages_FNMA.htm - 22k -

Learn a little imbecile.

Why do you think all panic regarding Freddie/Fannie? Are you really so stupid as to believe those are class "A" credit customers are going belly up by the 10's of thousands?

And since I sure you have never actually had a job, much less one with a large corporation, you wouldn't know that there is certainly tacit pressure to "support those who support us" during election season.

During the next colorectal exam, make sure their careful of those ears my friend.

Posted by: Bcamp55 | October 23, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

This is a huge issue, judging by the extreme efforts the Republicans are making to attack the story.

$150,000 for clothes in 30 days means a $5,000 wardrobe for every day of the month. You'd think seven $5,000 wardrobes,one for each day of the week, would be enough. Can't they send the clothes to the cleaners? Are they just throwing them away after Palin wears them once?

Actually, I suspect this was part of Palin's price for agreeing to run for VP. She'll end up as the Imelda Marcos of Alaska.

Posted by: nazcalito | October 23, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Care to keep playing Godhimself1 or has your tripe bucket run dry?

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL):
Durbin: "One Of The Most Compelling Threats We In This Country Face Today Is The Proliferation Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction. Threat Assessments Regularly Warn Us Of The Possibility That North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Or Some Other Nation May Acquire Or Develop Nuclear Weapons." (Sen. Dick Durbin, Congressional Record, 9/30/99, p. S11673)
Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI):
Feingold: "With Regard To Iraq, I Agree, Iraq Presents A Genuine Threat, Especially In The Form Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Chemical, Biological, And Potentially Nuclear Weapons. I Agree That Saddam Hussein Is Exceptionally Dangerous And Brutal, If Not Uniquely So, As The President Argues." (Sen. Russell Feingold [D-WI], Congressional Record, 10/9/05, p. S10147)
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL):
Nelson: "And My Own Personal View Is, I Think Saddam Has Chemical And Biological Weapons, And I Expect That He Is Trying To Develop A Nuclear Weapon. So At Some Point, We Might Have To Act Precipitously." (CNN's "Late Edition," 8/25/02)
Nelson: "Well, I Believe He Has Chemical And Biological Weapons. I Think He's Trying To Develop Nuclear Weapons. And The Fact That He Might Use Those Is A Considerable Threat To Us." (CNBC, "Tim Russert," 9/14/02)
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV):
Sen. Byrd: "The Last U.N. Weapons Inspectors Left Iraq In October Of 1998. We Are Confident That Saddam Hussein Retains Some Stockpiles Of Chemical And Biological Weapons, And That He Has Since Embarked On A Crash Course To Build Up His Chemical And Biological Warfare Capabilities. Intelligence Reports Indicate That He Is Seeking Nuclear Weapons ..." ("Threats And Responses," The New York Times, 10/4/02)
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA):
Pelosi: "Others Have Talked About This Threat That Is Posed By Saddam Hussein. Yes, He Has Chemical Weapons, He Has Biological Weapons, He Is Trying To Get Nuclear Weapons." (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. H7777)


Posted by: Bcamp55 | October 23, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Funny how Palin is slammed by this driveway liner masquerading as a mullet wrapper rag on how the RNC spent THEIR but I don't recall reading anything regarding "THE ONE" accepting $126,000 from Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae at the same time he was scamming his own mortgage deal while voting against S.190 to bring oversight to secondary subprime lenders (Freddie/Fannie for you imbeciles on the left).

Posted by: Bcamp55 | October 23, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

bcamp, check your facts before you call anyone an imbecile. fan/freddie are NOT secondary subprime lenders. they deal in PRIME mortgages. and the $126K in donations for obama are from EMPLOYEES of those companies, not the companies themselves because, as you know cause you are so smart, companies can't make such large donations. should fan/fred employees be baned from donating their private money to the campaign of their choice?

but of course it's fine for sarah or the campaing to spend $150K on clothes for two months. since she's so down to earth and just like you and me. a real joe six pack. yeah right.

Posted by: dcsportsfan1 | October 23, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Hey Godhimself1
More FACTS for you to try to feed to your other trolls - good luck, you'll need it.

Sen. Kerry: "The Crisis Is Even More Threatening By Virtue Of The Fact That Iraq Has Developed A Chemical Weapons Capability, And Is Pursuing A Nuclear Weapons Development Program." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/2/90, p. S14332)

Sen. Kerry: "If You Don't Believe ... Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn't Vote For Me." (Ronald Brownstein, "On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd," Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)
Former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC):
Sen. Edwards: "Serving On The Intelligence Committee And Seeing Day After Day, Week After Week, Briefings On Saddam's Weapons Of Mass Destruction And His Plans On Using Those Weapons, He Cannot Be Allowed To Have Nuclear Weapons, It's Just That Simple. The Whole World Changes If Saddam Ever Has Nuclear Weapons." (MSNBC's "Buchanan And Press," 1/7/03)

Sen. Edwards: "The Question Is Whether We're Going To Let This Man [Saddam] Who's Been Developing Weapons Of Mass Destruction Continue To Develop Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Get Nuclear Capability, And Get To The Place Where If We're Going To Stop Him, If He Invades A Country Around Him, It'll Cost Millions Of Lives As Opposed To Thousands Of Lives." (MSNBC's "Hardball," 2/6/03)

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV):
Reid: "The Problem Is Not Nuclear Testing; It Is Nuclear Weapons ... The Number Of Third World Countries With Nuclear Capabilities Seems To Grow Daily. Saddam Hussein's Near Success With Developing A Nuclear Weapon Should Be An Eye-Opener For Us All." (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 8/3/92, p. S11188)

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE):
Biden: "First Of All, We Don't Know Exactly What He Has. ... We Know He Continues To Attempt To Gain Access To Additional Capability, Including Nuclear Capability. There Is A Real Debate How Far Off That Is, Whether It's A Matter Of Years Or Whether It's A Matter Of Less Than That, And So There's Much We Don't Know." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 8/4/02)
Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM):
Richardson: "The Threat Of Nuclear Proliferation Is One Of The Big Challenges That We Have Now, Especially By States That Have Nuclear Weapons, Outlaw States Like Iraq." (ABC's "Good Morning America," 5/29/98)
Former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL):
Sen. Graham: "I Don't Know If I've Seen All The Evidence, But I've Seen Enough To Be Satisfied That There Has Been A Continuing Effort By Saddam Hussein Since The End Of The Gulf War, Particularly Since 1998, To Re-Establish And Enhance Iraq's Capacity Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Chemical, Biological And Nuclear." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 12/8/02)

Posted by: Bcamp55 | October 23, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Well well well, another hatchet job on Palin. Just so we understand that these attacks, like the smearing of Joe the Plumber, are a good lesson for anyone who dares to disagree with the neo-nazis of the Obama movement. I cannot wait until you brownshirts get into power. Let's see, Obama has promised to sign into law the new legislation abolishing the secret ballot in union elections. Golly, I wonder what the nazis plan to do with our voting records? Don't you? (Even McGovern is screaming against this one!) After Obama, Reid and Pelosi consolidate power they also intend to shut down opposition media under the cynically named "fairness doctrine". Welcome to the brave new world of Obama-National -Socialism. So the Obamanistas will regulate the news, monitor our votes and destroy all opposition. Golly, 235 years of fighting for freedom has been sold out...and for what?

Posted by: MARKM2 | October 23, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

The outrageous cost of Palin's wardrobe for these last 7 1/2 weeks on the campaign trail certainly brings joy to the sagging retail industry dreaming about outfitting her as a VP. McCain and the GOP will have another deficit at hands dressing up their VP for not only the "different climate of the 50 states", but to other climate outside the US. They will have to provide Ms. Palin with a wardrobe budget because her VP salary won't be enough cover this kind of shopping for a 12 months period.

Posted by: gummibear_95 | October 23, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Poor poor little Godhimself1 (a name used to overcome some obvious short comings I'm certain) Maybe this will here imbecile;

BTW- There are thousands more quotes just like these only you will have to have more light than available while while your sphincter muscle is so tightly wrapped around your neck.

have a nice day Bot.

I DON’T HINK I COULD RESPOND ANY BETTER THAN THESE FINE AMERICANS-

President Clinton: "We Have To Defend Our Future From These Predators Of The 21st Century. They Feed On The Free Flow Of Information And Technology. They Actually Take Advantage Of The Freer Movement Of People, Information And Ideas. And They Will Be All The More Lethal If We Allow Them To Build Arsenals Of Nuclear, Chemical And Biological Weapons And The Missiles To Deliver Them. We Simply Cannot Allow That To Happen. There Is No More Clear Example Of This Threat Than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His Regime Threatens The Safety Of His People, The Stability Of His Region And The Security Of All The Rest Of Us." (President Clinton, Remarks To Joint Chiefs Of Staff And Pentagon Staff, 2 /17/98)

President Clinton: "Earlier Today I Ordered America's Armed Forces To Strike Military And Security Targets In Iraq... Their Mission Is To Attack Iraq's Nuclear, Chemical And Biological Weapons Programs And Its Military Capacity To Threaten Its Neighbors ..." ("Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq Attack," Agence France Presse, 12/17/98)

Former Vice President Al Gore:
Gore: "You Know, In 1991, I Was One Of Those Who Put Partisanship Completely Aside And Supported President Bush At That Time In Launching The Gulf War. And In That War, We Saw How Saddam Had Threatened His Neighbors And Was Trying To Get Nuclear Weapons, Chemical Weapons, And Biological Weapons. And We're Not Going To Allow Him To Succeed." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/16/98)

Gore: "[I]f You Allow Someone Like Saddam Hussein To Get Nuclear Weapons, Ballistic Missiles, Chemical Weapons, Biological Weapons, How Many People Is He Going To Kill With Such Weapons? He's Already Demonstrated A Willingness To Use These Weapons ..." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/16/98)

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY):
Sen. Clinton: "I Voted For The Iraqi Resolution. I Consider The Prospect Of A Nuclear-Armed Saddam Hussein Who Can Threaten Not Only His Neighbors, But The Stability Of The Region And The World, A Very Serious Threat To The United States." (Senator Hillary Clinton [D-NY], Press Conference, January 22, 2003)

Sen. Clinton: "In The Four Years Since The Inspectors, Intelligence Reports Show That Saddam Hussein Has Worked To Rebuild His Chemical And Biological Weapons Stock, His Missile Delivery Capability, And His Nuclear Program. ... It Is Clear, However, That If Left Unchecked, Saddam Hussein Will Continue To Increase His Capability To Wage Biological And Chemical Warfare And Will Keep Trying To Develop Nuclear Weapons." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10288)

Posted by: Bcamp55 | October 23, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

While the shopping spree was unseemly, it doesn't come close to Palin's unforgivable ignorance of the constitution, and her mistake about the role of VP. It is unconscionable that, in her CNN interview, she misinformed a child about how our government works.
Has she even read the constitution? If she loves America so much, she ought to know how it operates. Please Sarah, READ THE MANUAL!


Posted by: czelig | October 23, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Ohhhhh so she does have "executive experience"...all she needs now is a $400,000 weekend and a golden parachute.

shes awesome.

Posted by: StoptheSpin | October 23, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Wow...I had heard from other parents that hockey was an expensive sport....I didn't realize that was because of the wardrobe the typical "hockey Mom" wears....

Give me a break...a populist politician should know better than to spend this amount of money on clothes. Then again, I am not surprised someone else paid for it. This is no different than charging the state of Alaska for expenses when sleeping at her home or asking the state to pick up the tab so her kids could fly around the country with her.

Would someone please tell me again why Obama is the elitist and Sarah Palin is "blue collar"?

I sure hope she becomes the face of the Republican Party going forward. It will make it easier to be a Democrat in Kansas.

Posted by: KansasDem | October 23, 2008 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Funny how Palin is slammed by this driveway liner masquerading as a mullet wrapper rag on how the RNC spent THEIR but I don't recall reading anything regarding "THE ONE" accepting $126,000 from Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae at the same time he was scamming his own mortgage deal while voting against S.190 to bring oversight to secondary subprime lenders (Freddie/Fannie for you imbeciles on the left).

Yeah; I suppose it's much more important to talk about $150,000 in clothing than what was Obama’s role in what really caused the American tax payers to cough up $700,000,000,000 over the next 20 generations.

BTW- Obamoron's stage at the convention that was used just one night - $1,350,000. Please find something a little less meaningless to piss and moan about - like how your brother Billy gets more ice cream for dessert.

Let's hear some more talk from the imbeciles on the left about McCain does not address the “real” issues after this banal, mind numbing drivel.

Posted by: Bcamp55 | October 23, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Assuming that by the fall of 2010 the tuiton of my dream college doesn't go up any more, I could pay for all 4 years and STILL have 50 grand left over for grad school and an apartment. Why is the RNC spending money that I assume their DONORS give to them - donors that have OTHER priorities - that could be put to good use for their party. I'm not complaining though. The more money the RNC throws away on useless junk like this is works to Obama's advantage.
Kudos to Ms. Cummings- I think it's great that this came out because we know now that Sarah Palin must have been some sort of embarassing mismatched slob that would be an embarassment to the Republican Party-Strike 4. Without a doubt it should be taken seriously, but I think that it's one of the stupidest things that I've heard out of the campaign. The fact that there is no new news about the McCain camp except the fact that supporters are shouting (ignored) threats to Obama at their rallies and that Sarah Palin has accumulated a new $150,000 wardrobe in a month and a half really shows how the campaign is slowing down. I hate to use another sports metaphor, but they're 4th and long on the 50 yard line and Obama is 4th and goal on the one yard line.
By the way, the number of hits on Google News is now at 1,786. The number of hits for plain old regular Google: 465,000.

Posted by: HannahBanana | October 23, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

---------------------------------------
MORONICALLY WRITTEN BY Bcamp55:
pmb72 Sorry, wrong again.

Have and extra big glass of Kool aid (you're going to need it) and the google "The Iraq Liberation Act."

Please note the specific intent-
1) Top remove Saddam from power
2) Install a democratic form of government.

Pay special attention to the date it was signed - October 1998. Hmmm, who was president in 1998; oh that's right, HillBilly Clinton.

After you pick your lazy, unemployed, welfare draining, drug infested body off the ground; please be so kind as to email, fax, print, etc, etc, etc, etc about 25 million copies to the other imbeciles on the left who think the war was Bushes idea and that it was about oil.

Posted by: Bcamp55
-------------------------------------------
Words really can't describe what an idiot you are.

The Iraq Liberation Act was enacted by congress and signed by Clinton. HOWEVER, what Clinton did was bomb strategic targets for 4 days.

Bush only referred to this document while trying to drum up support for his invasion for the purpose of OIL and to GAIN A STONGHOLD IN THE MIDDLE EAST!!!

bcamp, why don't you try reading a full story rather that just the headlines and looking at the pictures. I'll say it again, you are the epitome of an idiot!

Posted by: Godhimself1 | October 23, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Hey Woadan -- That's a great rationale, but the DNC didn't spend any money on Joe Biden's clothes.

Posted by: nrudy | October 23, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

BO has assembled a crisis management team of millionaire democrats to ascertain the how to best exploit the class warfare issues that his constituents have with Sarah Palin. Kennedy, Kerry, Kohl, and Feinstein will chair committees on shoes, dresses, jewelry, and accessories, respectively. Former senator John Edwards will be subpoenaed to offer testimony on hair. The goal of the committees is to provide diversion during this calm period in the nation’s history and redistribute Gucci’s to the neediest of society.

Posted by: leapin | October 23, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

This is a story about sexism and hypocrisy.

The Republicans were pleased as punch to go after Al Gore wearing brown suits and John Edwards' $400 haircut, but now that one of their own is being analyzed they cry foul. Hypocrites.

Second is the idea that a candidate making $125,000 to do her day job has to use campaign funds to buy clothes to look good. That's just stupid.

Third is that she is supposed to be a down-home small town girl, yet she spends three times the national family income for two months of clothing that she'll be giving away after the election. Hypocrites.

Fourth is that the RNC didn't spend that kind of money on John McCain, and the DNC didn't spend that kind of money on Barack Obama or Joe Biden. Nope, they spend the money on the woman, showering her with gifts of clothes, jewelry and makeup. Sexist.

Finally, this is a story because of the hypocrisy and sexism it demonstrates, but it is a disaster for McCain/Palin because -- like the Powell endorsement -- it creates noise they can't break through with a new narrative. There's only 12 days left, and every day spent defending clothing allowances is a day they can't make their point that Obama is an unAmerican black Muslim who is going to tax you and give that money to his terrorist buddies from Chicago.

Posted by: nrudy | October 23, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

This is a real life example of the McCain economic plan:
The rich will continue to get richer and be able to shop at Neiman's while everyone else loses their jobs and their homes. I'm sure everybody would love to have that red leather jacket to keep them stylin' at the shelter.
Somebody should tell McCain that you never, NEVER pay retail.

Posted by: LLS-America | October 23, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Is the Palin shopping spree deserving of all the attention it's gotten from the media or is it simply a distraction from the broader issues at play in this election?

There isn't a simple answer to this question. Undoubtedly, Palin needed a wardrobe, as she was whisked out of Alaska and into the spotlight, and the Republicans couldn't really let her go wearing down vests and mukluks, could they? So, we have to agree, at least, that they needed to dress her for the new job she's applying for.

That said, somebody was fabulously tone-deaf in the campaign in dressing an alleged populist in very expensive designer clothes when they should have known it would come out publicly.

So, what all this speaks to is an amazing level of incompetence - evidenced in this case by a lack of thinking beyond the moment - on the part of the McCain campaign. This is by no means the first example of such a thing from that campaign. It was equally obvious when he "suspended" his campaign to insert himself into the economic meltdown that all Obama had to do was to suggest what eveyone already knew - that a president needs to be able to multitask. I could go on with more examples, and so could anyone else.

I could care less what they spend on her clothes. What it represents is yet another example, if any more were needed, that McCain and his campaign really don't know what they are doing. I shudder to think how this would play out if he were elected president.

Posted by: WRE1 | October 23, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Never mind Michelle O's cheap clothes, the girls can rock a plain dress and it still looks great. The woman has a great figure. Sarah P still looks frumpy and her hair looks like it smells.

Michelle O rocks 08-12

Posted by: missnickywilliams | October 23, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Marie Antoinette: 'Let them eat cake'.

Sarah Palin: ‘Charge it’.

Sarah Palin's actions are not only as callous as Marie's famous words, it also exposes deception. Marie Antoinette never portrayed herself in opposition to the 'elites', or as a modest people struggling to provide for their family.

We see before us the biggest mismanagement of money in a century and now we find it echoed in a campaign for the presidency. It provides objective evidence of those who claim that those running the campaign can't manage money in a responsible way.
Prior to this, when she was spending her own money, she was much more modest. But given the opportunity to spend someone else’s money – she showed little restraint in doing so. In calls into question her behavior should be given access to public funds.

By and large - the public doesn't think of their campaign contributions - either as direct donations or the check box on the tax form - as going for clothes. On other venues this creative accounting is called 'misappropriation of funds' and can lead to prison-time.

Being caught with her hand in the cookie jar provides objective evidence for those who question her integrity and judgment.

What bothers me the most is the 'flexible' fiscal moderation, dependent as it is on the source of the budget. A governor of Alaska must be skilled as spending money – the state’s revue far exceeding the expenses as it does – but that’s not necessarily a trait we in the lower 48 value so much.

Posted by: DonJasper | October 23, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Her shopping spree is both an indication of the hypocrisy of Palin's six-pack joe the plumber's persona and also a distraction from the broader issues. It is just one more example of how McCain and Palin do one thing, but talk another.

Posted by: caroll1 | October 23, 2008 3:52 PM | Report abuse

Palin managed to obtain an entire wardrobe for less than half the cost of Cindy McCain's convention outfit. It's a great deal by Republican standards.

Posted by: caribis | October 23, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Has anybody seen the New Emperor's New Clothes?

Posted by: leapin | October 23, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

This from the campaign that gave us the "Celebrity" ad? How could they imagine it would NOT be news? They are the one who lowered the tenor of the discussion!

Posted by: thrh | October 23, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Au contraire Bcamp55-

Although it's nice to see you sidling up and giving Bill Clinton a wet one on his lips; Bill Clinton did not press the "GO" button in March of 2003. Bill Clinton is not responsible for sending 4,000+ American troops and 100,000+ innocent Iraqi civilians to their deaths. Wanting regime change and Sadam to be gone is not the same as lying to the American public about, among other things, those fictitious “2003” WMDs. That prize goes to your fellow village idiot: “W”. All to fulfill some maniacal urge to show daddy how big a boy he is.

Wait. Are you actually suggesting that because Bill Clinton signed the bill you referred to into law in 1998, “W” had no choice in 2003. Oh, I forgot. Village idiots don’t really have the same choices as others, do they? Now I get it. I’m so sorry. You’re correct. Please accept my apologies.

BTW, my reference to Rumsfeld had nothing to do with suggesting we went to war in Iraq for oil. I can see how a simple mind might read it that way though.

Posted by: pmb72 | October 23, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

What they should have done: They should have announced they were assembling an expensive wardrobe form Palin. They should have planned a gala auction as a big event, and given the proceeds which would obviously been in the millions, to breast cancer research, (this is breast cancer awareness month). But to say they would give these clothes to "charity" gives the impression o f a goodwill bin.

This was a red flag, and an indication of what McCain's team does, and how they think in an emergency, and this was an emergency, because the American people eat this stuff up as if it was the most important thing in the world.

Posted by: rychard | October 23, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Some apologist for Palin said if it were a male candidate buying suits for the campaign, no one would think anything of it. Let's see;$150,000, at say, $500 per suit, that would be 300 suits! Oh, I think someone might say something about that.

Posted by: rj2z | October 23, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Chris...did Matt Drudge tell you whether Palin's $150,000 clothing bill was a big deal or not? We know you can't think for yourself.

Posted by: August30 | October 23, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

October Surprise -

US set to invade NETHERLANDS ANTILLES!

With the help of congressional dems Freddie-Fannie will be flooding the islands with offers of sub-prime loans in an attempt to lure the terrorist fu_buki out of hiding. Joe Biden will be sent by BO to negotiate surrender of the 58th state.

Posted by: leapin | October 23, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

armpeg: For you to make such ludicrous statements about the way that Michelle Obama dresses shows that you are devoid of intellectual reasoning. Each of the candidate's wives and Governor Palin are attractive women, and they all dress very nicely. You are obviously incapable of reasonable, sensible thought.

Posted by: sdecker | October 23, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

++++++++++++++++++++++++
ONLY IN AMERICA IS THIS POSSIBLE:

McCain "explains" and "justifies" the buying of Sarah's clothes with the twisted words "It works because they will be RETURNED to charity".

Just as if she had borrowed them from the Salvation Army.

Do us a favor, "Patriot".

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Posted by: ElMugroso | October 23, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Is the story a perfect case of a hypocritical politician? Or is the story an amusing distraction?

How are these two things in conflict? Clearly it is both.

It was absurd enough for the super-rich McCain to prance around pointing fingers at a self-made man like Obama for being an supposed "elitist". It is doubly so for the hockey-mom who grabs hold of the goodies with both hands at every opportunity.

But this is a distraction in two ways. First the hypocrisy and fakery of the McCain ticket is so abundant that this story hardly constitutes a revelation. Second, given the severe challenges that face the nation, focusing on this characteristic blunder is a waste of time, other than for its entertainment value.

Perhaps the next time Sarah Palin talks to the press (if that day ever comes) she will be able to field questions about the cost of that day's outfit, and which designer she prefers.

Posted by: careysub | October 23, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Of course this story is fluff. But Gov. Palin has given us so little to work with that it becomes by default a substantive issue. Consider, she still has not appeared on a Sunday morning political show, but has made an appearance on SNL.

Though it shouldn't, fluff matters. Ask yourself -- is this any less salient than Kerry's windsurfing? It stands to leave the same sort of lasting impression on the voters, too.

Posted by: billducks | October 23, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

" . . . deserving of all the attention it's gotten from the media or is it simply a distraction from the broader issues"? Both of the above.

As far as McCain's plan to have the $150K wardrobe given to charity, I think he has a fiduciary responsibility to prevent it from ending up in a thrift shop where just any (more) valley trash might end up wearing it. Why not a charity auction? An auction would likely raise more than $150K, given the now-collectible nature of these rags.

Posted by: iopulykg90092004 | October 23, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

To all those dummies who keep bringing up "whatif Michelle Obama". That point is irrelevant. She is not running for office. Similarly, Cindy McCain, who spent $300,000 dollars one ONE dress for the RNC convention, was similarly no big deal. She's a rich woman, its her own money and she is not running of office.
Sarah Palin has defined herself as a small town values woman. If she was smart she would have to told the RNC people not to buy such expensive clothes, to save the money for other important things. Like donating to the congressional elections. But she didn't, and lo and behold, Sarah Palin is just like everybody else in Washington. She likes to receive gifts.

Posted by: AB68 | October 23, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

getting a job - that could help improve the economy.

Posted by: wbernzen


I tried that. the employers all said that with the coming of the triple threat Lib government, that there would be no hiring for the next four years, at least. he told me to go home and wait for my welfare check from Obama.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 23, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

I think if Tim Russert was with us on election night this year, he'd once again take his small slate board and write one word on it to describe what befell the McCain campaign. It would distill all these billions of words into one: FUBAR

Posted by: optimyst | October 23, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Anyway, I thought she was coming to "shake up Washington". Why do you need 150K worth of clothing and lipstick (LOL!) to do that? Guess she was the one being reformed!

And why do the kids and first dud get makeovers? Oh that's right she consults with at least the hubby to make political decisions so I guess that makes them a significant part of the process!

Posted by: 1freethinker1 | October 23, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

"If it was discovered that Michelle Obama had spent $150,000 ""


How would anyone know, the press will not report anything negative on their candidate.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 23, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

The RNC could have just PUT her on an episode of "WHAT NOT TO WEAR" and let Clinton and Stacy fix up her frumpy, no style look for just $5000.

Posted by: 1freethinker1 | October 23, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

I could buy a lifetime of clothing for $150,000.

I understand that Sarah Palin needs appropriate clothing to campaign as VP. It makes sense that the RNC would ensure that she has the right wardrobe for the campaign. However, spending $150,000 is excessive by any standard.

I have a number of nice suits, even a few Armani, but mostly Ann Taylor. If they were at all cost-conscious, they could buy both pants and skirts with matching suit jackets and mix & match. You just don't need 20 or 30 entirely different suits to have a different look each day. Clearly, money was no object for the folks dressing Sarah Palin - regular gal hockey mom.


Posted by: wertia | October 23, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

It's not especially meaningful, in that particular way in which nothing that happens during a presidential campaign is meaningful - except that it is, in that particular way that anything that happens during a presidential campaign can be meaningful if it dovetails with the pre-existing narrative.

To wit: paired with the McCain campaign's relentless attempts at painting Obama as a pointy-headed elitist and the earlier revelation about McCain's seven? eight? houses and wildly expensive shoes, Palin's clothing expenditures dovetail with the pre-existing narrative that there's a fundamental element of double-talking from McCain's campaign: champion middle-class values while eschewing them privately; talk up defense of the little guy while opposing any attempt to "spread the wealth around"; insist experience is the litmus test of a candidate, and choose as a running-mate an untested first-term governor; campaign on change and reform under the banner of the incumbent party.

Secondly, because the expenditure specifically went toward such a superficial, image-oriented area (Palin's appearance), the breaking news of it dovetails nicely with the pre-existing narrative of McCain's campaign desperately, histrionically, and cynically working and manipulating the refs, while Obama's campaign focuses on the meat-and-potatoes.

I'm not saying that these are the actual, objective dynamics of the campaign. But few could deny that these are the narratives that have developed. At this point, because the narratives have led to an apparently-widening Obama lead both nationally and in the swing states whose electoral votes actually matter, anything that underlines or reinforces those narratives is inherently bad for McCain's campaign. The clothing cost issue is probably too superficial - and McCain's probably too far behind already - for it to count as the "October surprise." But it's hardly good news for Republicans.

Posted by: manalive | October 23, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

++++++++++++++++++++++++
ONLY IN AMERICA IS THIS POSSIBLE:

We all still recall how Sarah Palin, when introduced initially, mislead us with "I put the plane on e-Bay", and "I fired the State Cook" to "cut expenses", and people roared and applauded.

If all that's happening is not about mis-LEADING FOOLS, and benefiting PARTICULAR INTERESTS that ARE NOT those of the tax-payers, then I too "can see Alaska and know all that Putin has in mind" right here from where I am.

People, please don't get fooled by those imaginary claims and REAL nasty deeds that do not agree with anyone but with the Snake Oil Sellers and helpers.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Posted by: ElMugroso | October 23, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

As some have noted, the media jumped ad nauseum on John Edwards' $400 haircut. That seemed to me to be rather petty and stupid at the time. So, if the media did not go after Palin on her wardrobe, it would be utterly hypocritical and underline what I still contend is the overall conservative bias of the mainstream media. Additionally, with the vast quantitative difference ($150,000 vs. $400 between Palin and Edward's excess), more importantly, the hypocrisy of the reality vs. the cult of Main Street mom-ness the McCain/Palin campaign has spun about her, and finally that the fact that this $150,000 expendititure may have violated campaign finance laws (another hypocrisy), there are legitimate reasons besides on the press is perceived, to report this story.

Though since a female friend pointed out to me weeks ago how expensive her clothes her clothes looked, I was not surprised by this story, though the actual amount did cause me to take a double-take.

Posted by: JGalacki | October 23, 2008 3:20 PM | Report abuse

In and of itself, the $150,000 shopping spree isn't that big of a deal. But it's relevant because it clashes with central messages of the McCain campaign and because of the context of the central policy issues of this election.

Edwards $400 haircut is a useful comparison because it cut down the blue-collar image, boosted the rich lawyer image, and it was there every time he did an interview: an impeccable haircut you couldn't help but notice.

Likewise, this undercuts her small-town regular-mom reformer image and boosts the image of her has nothing but a pretty face who's exploiting class anxieties for personal gain. And it's going to be there every single time she's on TV: instead of noticing how well she's put together, you wonder how much she paid for her shoes.

I think of this as a "lens changer" because you see her through different eyes than before, and everything looks differently.

Add to this the $20K family travel scandal, the per diem for working from home scandal, and it adds up, like it or not. At the same time, the McCain campaign is running around talking about Joe the Plumber every day, calling parts of North Carolina "pro-America" and parts of Virginia more "real." The Nieman Marcus receipts are jarring in the face of this.

The economic realities are also relevant. The economy is the central thing on people's minds, so frivolous spending by the person who's talking about cutting spending is hard to swallow.

Sarah Palin is spending $2500 per day (assuming no additional shopping in October) between her unveiling and election day. The average American woman spends between $800 and $1300 on their wedding gown. Palin is spending as much on her campaign makeup and wardrobe as if she were getting married in a different dress two or three times per day, every day, for two months. In this economy, you're telling me that's fluff?

Posted by: mbbatz | October 23, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

I just read that Elisabeth Hasselbeck from "The View" will be joining Sarah Palin on the stump. I figure that you could put the brains of both of them in one cranium and still have room left over for a grapefruit. This should be fun!

Posted by: vernoncormier | October 23, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Are most of you putting bandaids on your knuckles from dragging them. I can't believe the level of discussion here. It is like a bathroom wall at Hooters.
------------------------

And your comment elevated it how?

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 23, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

To those folks who call this a fluff piece. If it was discovered that Michelle Obama had spent $150,000 you could almost hear the Palinistas raging against the elitist Obamas. Juxtaposed to the theme of Joe Sixpack, Joe the Plumber, Sarah the moose hunter, this is just an embarrassing and distracting side show for a ticket that is already woefully off message.

Posted by: hayden1 | October 23, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

The GOP can spend all the (donated and taxpayer election fund) money it wants -- it still won't fix what is wrong with Palin -- her extremist ideology, her inexperience, her inability, and her ethics violations in Alaska.

Palin is a only pale reflection of who SHE thinks she is....

Posted by: abby0802 | October 23, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Spending $150,000 on a makeover completely undercuts the GOP's populist message.

Posted by: spotfoul | October 23, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Posted by: fu_buki | October 23, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Palin isn't using public money, she's using RNC money. Only contributors to the RNC have a right to complain.

I've contributed to the RNC, and I consider it money well spent. $150k is peanuts compared to the amount of money television ads cost. McCain is working with an advertising budget about half the size of Obama's. If the outfits make Palin look even slightly better on television, whether on ads or other appearances, it helps stretch McCain's advertising dollars and is money well spent.

Posted by: WarrenDew | October 23, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Are most of you putting bandaids on your knuckles from dragging them. I can't believe the level of discussion here. It is like a bathroom wall at Hooters.

Posted by: jolu32339 | October 23, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse


I find it another sign of the hypocrisy of the McCain campaign. Sure its fluff and nonsense, but it all adds up to a bigger story. Each time the campaign, and in a bigger sense, all Republicans, feels it’s about to be accused of something, they throw it back in the face of the Obama camp or Democrats. The know that McCain has 7 homes, pays over $500 for a pair of loafers, and that Sarah Palin charges the state for her children's airfare & hotel stays...so they come back at Obama for being an elitist. They know they perpetrate some of the biggest voter intimidation and fraud, they come back with ACORN. Palin is seeing with witch doctors and Jews for Jesus leaders, they come back with Wright. McCain's good friend is G Gordon Liddy, they come back with Bil Ayers. It’s a hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Posted by: myersdonihoo | October 23, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

HUM HUM HUM !!!

Posted by: fu_buki | October 23, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

No reasonable person would question Ms Palin's needing some new duds for campaign season, and had $15K been spent it would not have raised a fuss. And I would wager that you could get a lot of very nice clothes at Macy's or Dillards for $15K and they would have looked just as good. Furthermore, had this been her own money, I'm sure she wouldn't have spent even that much. Its the magnitude of the figure that is the issue - nearly 3 times Joe the plumber's annual income. You can't help asking "what were they thinking?", and you can't help but question their - including John McCain's - judgement.
By choosing Sarah Palin, the McCain campaign managed to kill the argument that it was the most qualified. By spending $150K to dress her, they have managed to kill the argument that they are the party of the working people.
With this on top of Powell, expect the fat lady to start singing any time now. It is truly remarkable how badly this campaign has been run. I think it will be a long time before Steve Schmidt runs another major campaign.

Posted by: wmw4 | October 23, 2008 3:03 PM | Report abuse

This shopping spree is important as it highlights the underlying hypocrisy infecting the Republican campaign. They have tried to pass off Sarah Palin as an average backwoods hockey mom with a fightin' spirit and a refreshin' lack of insider knowledge.

Now Palin is revealed as a packaged, polished, produced, utterly phony similcrum of a real woman. Her clothes are not really hers, her make-up and hair is designed by professionals, her ideas are borrowed from John McCain's campaign briefing books. The stage managing and selling of the Palin brand has been rendered transparent and flimsy by this ridiculous shopping spree.

"Sarah Palin" is a lie foisted upon the American people by a John McCain desperate to win at any cost. His judgment, his sincerety, his concern for the future of our country are shown to be utterly lacking.

These are the reasons why the $150,000 shopping spree are a disasterous for the McCain campaign. If Palin had been a solid choice, with a proven intellectual grasp of the serious issues facing our nation today, voters would blow off the fancy clothing as an affectation.

But since Palin has nothing of substance to offer beyond the superficials of her rube demagoguery and her fashion statements, this wardrobe malfunction will be the defining moment of the Palin Effect in this campaign.

Posted by: dee5 | October 23, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

StoptheSpin

Yeah, I guess the 400,000 military who support McCain just were not good enough to attend the coronation of "THE ONE".

Posted by: Bcamp55 | October 23, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Do I think the hypocrisy of the McCain/Palin "populist" campaign if pertinent, Chris?

Well... as someone who was retired - until last Monday when I started my new $8/hr job to make ends meet - and who was until just recently living a simple, no-frills life style from the interest of our modest investments (which no longer exist, in essence)... H E L L Y E S!

Posted by: miraclestudies | October 23, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Chris of the Fix...

It is appalling and hypocritical of the McCain/Palin ticket to argue Obama is an elitist. CNN's Campbell Brown's commentary on the subject entirely missed the point.

Palin's initial burst onto the scene would have suited her well if she only wore the clothes she owned prior to being selected VP.

The American public typically has short-sightedness and short-memory. It was not that long ago when ACCESS HOLLYWOOD, PEOPLE MAGAZINE and some others were doing stories on Obama and his family. I still recall the ACCESS HOLLYWOOD interview with the Obama family in which his wife and kids were teasing him for wearing old and worn shoes and belts, not just generally but at the interview.

Now we have Sarah Palin being bought expensive clothes with RNC Donations?! If Palin was using her own money there would be no problem here! If I were a RNC donater, I would demand some of my money back from the RNC!

Posted by: AJ2008 | October 23, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Interesting decision by the RNC to spend $150,000 on Palin's wardrobe. I have been reading stories and listening to broadcasts talking about how the McCain campaign can't compete with Obama's spending of money. The only thing that keeps them somewhat close is the money the RNC spends on ads, etc. To spend $150,000 on clothes purchased from high end stores seems to be a strange way to clothe a hockey mom who brags about shopping at Wal Mart and it seems to be a very strange way to spend funds that might better be used to bolster the McCain campaign. But, I'm glad to have the RNC waste their money on clothes and show their VP candidate to by a hypocrite.

Posted by: msweeney2 | October 23, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

SARAH PALIN SHE'S EXACTLY like IMELDA MACOS
and MARIE-ANTOINETTE.


NETHERLANDS ANTILLES

Posted by: fu_buki | October 23, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Forgotten in the Sarah Palin wardrobe news item is the fact that she looks great in them, whereas Michelle Obama's usual wardrobe looks more like what you see on the ladies of the night standing on the street corners in the cheaper sections of Washington DC.

Posted by: armpeg | October 23, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

I'll have that khool-aid and raise you a skim low fat latte.

You mean the same stage that presented the platform of the Democratic Party, the true plight of the true working class American and served as the back drop for the endorsement of for Senator Obama by 20 generals .. and attended by 85,000 people?

Posted by: StoptheSpin | October 23, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

pmb72 Sorry, wrong again.

Have and extra big glass of Kool aid (you're going to need it) and the google "The Iraq Liberation Act."

Please note the specific intent-
1) Top remove Saddam from power
2) Install a democratic form of government.

Pay special attention to the date it was signed - October 1998. Hmmm, who was president in 1998; oh that's right, HillBilly Clinton.

After you pick your lazy, unemployed, welfare draining, drug infested body off the ground; please be so kind as to email, fax, print, etc, etc, etc, etc about 25 million copies to the other imbeciles on the left who think the war was Bushes idea and that it was about oil.

Posted by: Bcamp55 | October 23, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

I see a pattern here...Palin's husband pushing his weight around attending cabinet meetings and holding private meetings in the governor's office alone. Charging off questionable expenses a governor relating to her family and now finally spending a ridiculous amount of money on clothing as she isn't paying for it.
It shows abuse of power in the worst way...and some people want her as President...give me a break!

Posted by: Gegi | October 23, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Sure, it looks horrible, Palin spending $150,000 on clothes while many in this country are struggling to keep their houses. That's a secondary issue, for me.

It's about using RNC money -- donated by willing donors to help fund campaigns -- for something for Palin's personal use. They took $150,000 that could have been used to buy a lot of ads for congressional candidates, for example, and bought clothes to make Palin look good. If I were a Republican donor, I'd be demanding my money back.

The RNC buying clothes for Palin also violates the spirit of McCain-Feingold. (It also constitutes a taxable gift to Palin. This could be one expensive campaign for her personally.)

Posted by: deannaizme | October 23, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

It's part of GOD PLAN that SARAH GETS 150.000 IN FREE CLOTHINGS, that call CROOK!
GOD is not exist...

GIVE ME A BREAK!


NETHERLANDS ANTILLES

Posted by: fu_buki | October 23, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand how any "hockey mom" could spend $150,000 of campaign money on clothes in a couple months. Yes, I understand candidates have to look good. I'm all for the professional wardrobes, and grooming, and all that. But... jeez. A hundred and fifty grand -- holy bejeebers. And from campaign donations of people like "Joe the Plumber", no less. And after you've just spent two months painting yourself as a salt of the earth small-town hero, a "real" American who doesn't go in for all that stuff?


You know, Palin really is beginning to come off as a con artist -- a confidence (wo)man. Pure Harold Hill stuff. She says some pretty words, bluffs her way through all the situations that require active knowledge, the crowd cheers, and all the while fleeces everyone around her for travel, and fame, and clothes, etc., etc.


Palin's ridiculous levels of professed self-confidence, during all of this, just adds to the overall vibe that she's playing everyone for rubes, and is enjoying every minute of it. It's not a job or even an election to her, it's a game show, and she won the Big Prize.


What an exceptionally dislikable person Palin seems to be. From the first moment she stepped onto the national stage, there hasn't been a single retold aspect of her personal history that would inspire confidence, or respect, or anything but revulsion. She seems the perfect example of a shallow, petty, self-centered person rising in power simply because being shallow, petty and self-centered are the only tools necessary to do so. I half expect her to make off with McCain's wallet at some point, and be found two weeks later in Atlantic City.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E
.

Posted by: DrainYou | October 23, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Obama's REAL children-friendly! He SUPPORTS Partial-Birth Abortion, the most bestial, sadistic "medical procedure" allowed in this country, against the most innocent and helpless victims, voted AGAINST the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, which protects babies who survive abortion attempts and are born alive from being killed or left alone to die (he was the only Illinois Senator to speak against it) and even NARAL wasn't for that, but he ALSO has stated that women should have some period of time after a baby is born to decide if they want it KILLED! What part of THIS GUY IS A MONSTER do you not understand??

Posted by: lightnin001 | October 23, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

What's the big deal? You can't expect to accessorize a princess for less than 100 large these days. John McCain can't have Palin looking like some Hockey Mom he just pulled out of the rink. That will not do. As for the people..."Let them eat cake!"

Posted by: SmartAlec | October 23, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Last few days I've exchanged several emails with an old army bud in Ohio.

6 months ago he was very annoyed I was for Obama. He came out strongly for McSame after the GOP nomination was clinched.

Lately he has bordered on hysterical (that's the only way I can describe it) as poll numbers shift Obama's way. There is no rational discussion with him.

I suggested we not discuss the campaign since we were not going to change eachother's minds. I wished him good luck working for his candidate and reminded him that (a) whether he believed it or not both sides loved this country and (b) we would all be Americans after this election - just as we are now.

The hysteria was a bit frightening.....like his entire world view was on the verge of collapse.

Sad.

Posted by: toritto | October 23, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

SHOPPING DAZE (SCUSE ME I GOT CLOTHES TO BUY)
(Purple Haze, Jimi Hendrix)
WilliamBanzai7

Shopping daze all in my brain
Lately Filene's just dont seem the same
Actin funny, but I dont know why
Scuse me I got designer clothes to buy!

Shopping malls all around
Dont know if our campaigns goin up or down
Am I happy or in misery?
What ever it is, that $5000 French dress put a spell on me!

Help me
Help me
Oh, no, no

Shopping daze all in my eyes, uhh
Dont know if its election day or night
Its got me blowin cash, its a campaign crime
Until tomorrow, or just the end of time?

Ooo

Help me
Ahh, yea-yeah, shopping daze, yeah
Oh, no, oh
Oh, help me
Shopping daze, tell me, baby, tell me
I cant go on like this
Shopping daze
Youre makin me blow my campaign
Shopping daze, no, its painful, baby

Posted by: williambanzai7 | October 23, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

I can understand that Gov. Sarah Palin needs to “dress appropriately" for her part. But “to dress appropriately” does not mean to buy very expensive, high end clothing from stores that the average Americans (she claims to represent) can never afford. LOL, I am in the high tax bracket and don’t even own a Luis V. (whatever name I don’t remember) handbag (because of mortgage and bills, etc.), unlike her little daughter! To me, it is just inappropriate use of public or donated money. So if it is not your own money, you can just waste it any way you want! What a good public servant!

As an educated woman, I used to think that Sarah Palin was so terrible (arrogant, ignorant, narrow-minded, and hypocrite) and selecting her to be a VP candidate was a big mistake that John McCain made. But now with all information about her that surfaced, I am SOOOOOOOOO HAPPY! Finally, I can jump up with joy and not worry about the election any more! I want to say that I LOVE SARAH PALIN, I LOVE HER, I LOVE HER, I LOVE HER, AND I WANT TO THANK HER FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART. Thank you, Sarah, for being arrogant, ignorant, narrow-minded, and hypocrite. Because of you, my intelligent, well-educated Republican friends are now voting for Obama and I did not have to do anything to convince them. You must be so proud for helping Obama get into the White House.

Posted by: Sonia_M | October 23, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

The clothes cost a lot more than John Edwards' haircut--therefore, pretty hypocritical. I can understand the need for candidates to look good, but she could have looked good with clothes from Macy's instead of Saks. It's not of great importance and I'm all for the RNCC squandering its money, when it comes down to it.

Posted by: sbuent | October 23, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

THE REAL AMERICAN IS THE NATIVES(INDIAN)
GO BACK TO EUROPE....HAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!!!

NETHERLANDS ANTILLES

Posted by: fu_buki | October 23, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

The difference now between a hockey mom and a pig is $200 worth of lipstick, a $400 hairdo and a $1,200 outfit. We don't need that kind of hockey mom. The upkeep is too expensive.

Posted by: demaydennis | October 23, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

These liberal media elites are eating way too much brie and hatefully missing the obvious fact that Sarah is blessed.

It's part of God's plan that Sarah gets $150,000 in free clothing.

It's part of God's plan that Sarah gets 64 free rides on commercial airlines for her kiddies at state expense

It's part of God's plan that Sarah gets to use an Alaska King Air plane while taking credit for selling the Alaska jet (at a loss).

It's part of God's plan that Sarah gets to claim state per diem while at home.

It's part of God's plan that Sarah can be informed without reading anything.

It's part of God's plan that Sarah gets to put her husband in the governor's office to make badgering calls to pesky state employees who won't fire a relative.

It's part of God's plan that Sarah gets to call herself Christian while spreading distortions and lies about her opponents.

It's part of God's plan that Sarah gets to deduct her husband's snow machine sport from her taxes and fly her family to the events at state expense.

It's part of God's plan that Sarah gets witches cast out, gays healed and speaks in tongues in Wassilla's Pentacostal Church.

It's part of God's plan that Sarah lives so close to Russia and has become such an expert.

It's part of God's plan that Sarah must be shielded from probing by media except for God's channel...Fox News, bless its heart.

It's part of God's plan that Sarah gets to "run" the Senate as VP.

No doubt Liberal media atheists don't get it. Well go ahead and imagine that dinosaurs existed before the Bible. Soon you'll realize that the Iraq war and Sarah's imminent presidency are all part of God's certain plan!

Amen

Posted by: gwolff2 | October 23, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Why is it important:

1 - it's a short factoid that can be readily disseminated - and as we can see it is being told over and over again at the proverbial water cooler accross the country.

2 - it likely annoys the small dollar donors to the RNC who did not donate with Palin's wardrobe in mind (esp. since there have been news stories that Palin is worth more than 1M)

3 - it likely annoys republican candidates scrapped for cash who have been told by the RNC that none is available

4 - it highlights the secretive nature of the RNC (sometimes thought of as Rove's cabal) who seemingly could not approach a well-off donor to spend the money rather than the RNC doing it

5 - following on #4 is the question of the wisdom of whoever authorized the spending as that person should have known that the costs would have to be reported

Posted by: burkemic99 | October 23, 2008 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Palin's costs of clothing that will last for years = $150,000

Obamoron's set at convention that was used for one night= $1,350,000.

Now that's "change" we can believe in.

Pass the Kool aid Jethro.

Posted by: Bcamp55 | October 23, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA BDEN 08...!!!


NETHERLANDS ATILLES

Posted by: fu_buki | October 23, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

In a world of foreclosures, bank failures, foreclosures, job losses and massive debt, the clothes shopping spree matters. The Republican house of cards is collapsing as the nation collapses. People will have little tolerance for this shopping spree as they face foreclosure.

Posted by: lbsaltzman | October 23, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

I've heard of getting dressed for a party -- but by the party? Doesn't smell right.

Going from being able to dress a moose and fill the family larder to getting dressed by the party for the incomes of almost 3 median middle class families is not the trajectory the GOP ticket needs to be on.

Posted by: optimyst | October 23, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

The primary problem for the McCain campaign is that they have once again usurped the real Sarah Palin. At the outset of Sarah Palin's introduction to America, we were all asked to set aside her lack of experience on the national stage, and instead believe in her value as a "real American" -- the working hockey mom married to Joe Six-Pack with the five beautiful kids living in proverbial middle America. We were asked to embrace the once small-town Mayor of tiny Wasilla as exactly what this country needs at this moment: an uncorrupted, baggage-free maverick who will change politics as we have known them for the last many decades. Sarah Palin was supposed to be the right woman to bring real change to America. Instead, under the tutelage of the McCain campaign, it is Sarah Palin who has been changed. Her (albeit, frumpy) fleeces and windbreakers were deemed unfit for the campaign trail, and perhaps rightly so. But the McCain campaign decided that, instead of purchasing for Gov. Palin reasonably-priced perfectly nice clothes at a moderately-priced department store (the way the average working American mom might try to spruce up her look), Gov. Palin should be treated to extravagant, high-end designer clothes that 95% of Americans cannot afford on their working class salaries. What the McCain campaign has done is to make a mockery of Sarah Palin and her image: they wanted a true maverick; they created an overly-guarded, overly-pampered, frightened individual who no longer has any genuine appeal to the American public.

For what it's worth, the day that Sarah Palin was announced as John McCain's running mate, I recall seeing her with Senator McCain on stage. She was wearing a white blouse and a black skirt, and she really was perfectly lovely. She appeared unguarded and ready to meet the world. That day, Gov. Palin made me curious about what she had to say about America and how she might compare to other women in politics -- yet another non-white-male group that we see far too little of in American politics. I knew nothing about Sarah Palin that day, and all the media hype generated by her selection was intriguing to me. But as this election has evolved, the McCain campaign's handling of Sarah Palin -- their obsessive protectiveness of her (e.g., her recent interview with Brian Williams and John McCain's insistance that he be present); their use of her as a convenient victim when they need to lash out at their critics ("lipstick on a pig"); their insistence on running interference for Gov. Palin on matters that are not the business of the McCain campaign (Troopergate) -- has created a poor image of Sarah Palin. It is the McCain campaign, perhaps even more than Sarah Palin herself, that has caused many Americans to view Sarah Palin with disdain.

Posted by: sdecker | October 23, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

To the village idiot-

You wrote, among other things, the following:

I'm voting Democrat because --I'd rather pay $4 for a gallon of gas than allow drilling for oil off the coasts of America.

This reminds me of Rumsfeld's rationalization for bombing Iraq, as opposed to bombing where Bin Laden was believed to be. "Because there are better targets in Iraq." Along the same line as the man who is discovered crawling around under a street light. When asked, "what are you doing?" His reply: "Looking for my keys." He is asked "Oh, did you lose them under the street light?" His response: "No, I lost them in the bushes, but the light's better over here."

It's the same story with this bogus line about drilling for oil offshore. The relatively miniscule amount of oil that exixts there, when compared with the overall world market, would have virtually no impact on the price of gas at the pump. The U.S. just does not have enough oil to make a serious difference in supply. Why can't you moronic right wing D.S.s get this straight? I guess it's just more fun jumping up and down, ranting "drill, baby, drill!" Reminds me of the football fans screaming and ranting for a field goal at the two minute mark in the game. With their team down by 28 points.

Now that is Village Idiot activity.

Posted by: pmb72 | October 23, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

100% fluff. This isn't taxpayer money. The Republican party can choose what to do with their own donations. This is just a waste of time. Anyone who took issue with the harping on Edwards $400 haircut should take offense at this.

Posted by: DDAWD | October 23, 2008 2:33 PM | Report abuse

I can understand that Gov. Sarah Palin needs to “dress appropriately" for her part. But “to dress appropriately” does not mean to buy very expensive, high end clothing from stores that the average Americans (she claims to represent) can never afford. LOL, I am in the high tax bracket and don’t even own a Luis V. (whatever name I don’t remember) handbag (because of mortgage and bills, etc.), unlike her little daughter! To me, it is just inappropriate use of public or donated money. So if it is not your own money, you can just waste it any way you want! What a good public servant!

As an educated woman, I used to think that Sarah Palin was so terrible (arrogant, ignorant, narrow-minded, and hypocrite) and selecting her to be a VP candidate was a big mistake that John McCain made. But now with all information about her that surfaced, I am SOOOOOOOOO HAPPY! Finally, I can jump up with joy and not worry about the election any more! I want to say that I LOVE SARAH PALIN, I LOVE HER, I LOVE HER, I LOVE HER, AND I WANT TO THANK HER FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART. Thank you, Sarah, for being arrogant, ignorant, narrow-minded, and hypocrite. Because of you, my intelligent, well-educated Republican friends are now voting for Obama and I did not have to do anything to convince them. You must be so proud for helping Obama get into the White House.

Posted by: Sonia_M | October 23, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

king_of_zouk:

Cutting and pasting again, I see? Can't come up w/ your own arguments anymore?

Posted by: Godhimself1 | October 23, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Time to do some work for a while to support my Buy American habit...

Posted by: Tannim123 | October 23, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

I don't think this matters much... but it certainly doesn't help Palin either. Her reputation of a reformed is suffering from 'death from a 1000 paper cuts.' There's no doubt she's done some good things up in Alaska, but between stories about 'Trooper-Gate,' billing per-diems to stay at her house in Wasilla, using the same contractor(s) to build her new house in Wasilla while they were also building that sports complex (and at the same time, lifting the law on the need for building permits-- which I'm sorry is just weird), billing her kids' plane tickets to the state... etc... this is just one more story that reinforces what alot of people suspect... that Gov. Palin is actually a normal politician. And that of course means she is no maverick-- just another windbag like the rest of them-- perhaps even a touch nastier than most.

Posted by: DaninPDX | October 23, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Disregard anything "king of zouk" says. He must be getting paid by the McCain campaign to blog their side. There's no way anyone has that much free time to comment repeatedly on this article as well as others. If they do, then they should find something more constructive to do with their time like getting a job - that could help improve the economy.

Posted by: wbernzen | October 23, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Funny how Palin is slammed by this driveway liner masquerading as a mullet wrapper rag but I don't recall reading anything regarding "THE ONE" accepting $126,000 from Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae at the same time he was scamming his own mortgage deal while voting against S.190 to bring oversight to secondary subprime lenders (Freddie/Fannie for you imbeciles on the left).

Yeah; I suppose it's much more important to talk about $150,000 in clothing than what Obama’s role in what really caused the American tax payers to cough up $700,000,000,000 for the next 20 generations.

After all; because someone's great, great, great, great grandfather might have been a slave 200 years ago, those of us who never owned slaves and never had relatives who owned slaves need to cover all those mortgages that went belly up in the lefts efforts to buy votes with their "give a bro a loan" program.

I dare you to talk about McCain not addressing the “real” issues after this banal, mind numbing, tripe.

Posted by: Bcamp55 | October 23, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Funny, my "cheap Chinese" stuff has lasted for quite a long time, considering most of it is made in Georgia (the state, not the country).

It's amazing what you can find when you shop the web and mail order instead of big box stores...

Posted by: Tannim123 | October 23, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Latest National Journal poll.

PA: Obama up by 10.

Zouk has another Hershey squirt.

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 23, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

MCCAIN IS A SOCIALIST!!!


Down in the polls, McCain's Divide & Flail™ strategy is to call Barack Obama's tax cut for 95% of Americans "socialism."


Well, McCain must have once been a socialist, because it turns out that for years he supported higher taxes on the wealthy to pay for lower taxes on the middle-class.


The YouTube don't lie....my friends:
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8EyGpOU3qM
.

Posted by: DrainYou | October 23, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

The clothes matter because Sarah Palin told us they did. She said, my candidacy is about personality, style and character. She offers no substance, no policy details, no insights. So in fairness to her, we must judge her as she asks. How does this reflect your honesty, your image as a reformer who will change Washington and Wall St.'s self serving ways of doing things?

Posted by: mhwood | October 23, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

VMR1,

LMAO!!

Posted by: 1freethinker1 | October 23, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

"would it be too much to ask to consider the lies about tax fairness that have been foisted and have no chance of ever making sense?"

Would it be too much for Zing of Kook to consider cutting back on the red Kool-Aid?

BTW, I'm a libertarian. All statists, be they liberal or conservative, suck.

Posted by: Tannim123 | October 23, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Tannim123 said:

"VMR1, you must not get out much."

- Yep, what's the point?

"European clothes are for European people."
- yep, and cheap Chinese "shmatas" are for American people

Posted by: VMR1 | October 23, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

How painful was it for the Obambots at CNN to have to post this about their beloveds ACORN tactics.
__________________________________________
Not painful at all.

How about Fox News with this one. This hurts even more.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/foreclosure-filings-jump-nearly--q/

Welcome to the Real America

Posted by: elbuzz07 | October 23, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

But there's one thing I'm not clear on...
Posted by: Lalalu

there is a lot more than one thing that you are not clear on. how about everything???

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 23, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

somebody said"
"H&M clothing is affordable to everyone"
--

Hmm, I went there once, picked something up from a hanger, it fell apart in my hands. I never went back.

I personally like Duffy's. Italian, French & German designs, European quality, affordable prices. Also, Century 21 in NYC is good (if you can beat the crowds) and relatively affordable.

Posted by: VMR1 | October 23, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

VMR1, you must not get out much. Eurpoean clothes are for European people.

I prefer my business casual and sweat suits becuase they are comfortable and inexpensive.

Style comes and goes like market cycles based on fiat currencies. Big deal. Some people prefer to nto worry about such superficial nonsense.

Posted by: Tannim123 | October 23, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

the vacuity of the average liberal voter is on grand display on this blog today.

no wonder Obama is tied for the lead, even with no appreciable accomplishments in his sordid life. the intelligence and preperation of the Lib voter is below moron level. since they can't understand that Obama and his minions have wrecked the economy, tried to end the military and hope to finish the job, they instead, concentrate on silly notions of the VP's wardrobe.

the idiots in the press trod along with their personal agenda and ignorance of their actual responsibilities.

would it be too much to ask to consider the lies about tax fairness that have been foisted and have no chance of ever making sense?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 23, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Oh, yeah, I forgot the wallet, pens, pocketknife, pocket tissues, and the 8 GB flash stick. They go in the pockets.

Posted by: Tannim123 | October 23, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

jadamsdie wrote:

"the voters will use their heads and vote McCain/Palin"

*****************************************

Clever use of an oxymoron. I like the way you say "use their heads" and "vote for McCain/Palin" like they aren't two opposing ideas. Very funny!

Posted by: 1freethinker1 | October 23, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

It's a story because it's emblematic of Republican hypocrisy.

They say, here's the ordinary, just-like-you joe sixpack hockey mom while dressing her in a $150k wardrobe.

They say "support our troops" while sending them into battle without proper armor and voting to cut veteran's benefits.

They say they love freedom while increasingly decreasing our freedom by spying on citizens and eviscerating the Constitution.

They say they're the party of moral values while they have affairs and hire prostitutes.

I hate the idea of Palin as VP as much as anyone, but I honestly doubt that she knew how much her clothes cost. The campaign/RNC hired a stylist and gave that stylist a budget. The stylist went shopping and each day tells Palin what to wear. With all the education and memorizing of talking points, Palin didn't have time to spend a few days at the mall, saying yes to this and no to that.

But there's one thing I'm not clear on...stores like Saks and Neimans are in cities, not in the "real" America. In Virginia, they're in Tyson's Corner, not in the "real" Virginia. Why aren't they shopping in the "real" America?

Posted by: Lalalu | October 23, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Not that I support Sarah Palin, but I think
everybody should wear European clothes. I don't understand why Americans don't get tired living with no sense of style. Instead of having closetfuls of shapeless stuff made of artificial fabrics, in China, why don't you guys buy much fewer but much better articles of clothing?

I mean, on average, you're not the most beautiful people on Earth, to put it mildly. Or best educated. Neither are you the thinnest people on earth.
And when you put on your dungarees that're too short, exposing your white socks, and pink sweatpants, and checkered polyester sportscoats and travel abroad, and talk loudly and confidently, incessantly discussing food while chewing on another food, you make the moniker "The Ugly American" a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Posted by: VMR1 | October 23, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

The panic and desperation oozing from the lunatic righties is hysterical! I believe they are starting to see the same writing on the walls that normal people see. We'll have to wait and see if there is spike in suicides and domestic violence a week after the election.

BTW, knaven & Limey51: Great posts!

Posted by: Godhimself1 | October 23, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Someone in the comments said it is easier for guys. It certainly is:

5 pairs dress or casual pants
2 pairs jeans
5 dress shirts
2-3 polo or T-shirts, or casual shirts.
3-4 ties
Tie clip
6 pack of dress socks
6 pack of sport socks
1-2 pairs dress shoes
1-2 pairs loafers/trainers/etc.
dozen pairs of underwear
2 suits
razor
deodorant
soap
toothbrush
toothpaste
mouthwash
cotton swabs

Pullman suitcase and garment bag to carry it all in. Laundry every week, thousands of combinations, hit the trail. briefcase for laptop or mobile device and portable office optional.

Women need to learn how mix-n-match fashion works...

Posted by: Tannim123 | October 23, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA BIDEN 08...!!!

NETHERLANDS ANTILLES

Posted by: fu_buki | October 23, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Palin is a Socialist Freeloader!!


$150,000 shopping sprees (at all the best "elitist" shops, no less), on the Republican National Committee tab.
.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14805.html


$21,012 worth of free flights for her daughters, charged to the state.
.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/10/22/alaska_paid_for_palin_daughters_to_travel/


All this, when she already makes $125,000 a year as governor and pockets an extra $22,883 in energy extraction royalties.


Sarah Palin is a chisler supreme.


All of which makes the fact that she charged $16,951 in expenses charged to the state, including 312 per diem allowances for staying in her own home just that much more amazing.
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090803088.html


A dual income family, with Sarah earning $125K. Free travel (even for the family), and now free clothes, hair and makeup. They can actually go out in her backyard and shoot a moose, keeping her family in free mooseburger for a year. And still she feels the need to cheat. Shoot that moose for free and still charge the state $60 per burger. And she claims she deserves every bit of it.


Now that's what I call a perverse sense of entitlement.


"Sounds like socialism to me," to borrow a phrase.


Just another fake "bootstrapper" Republican. What a shocker.


Meanwhile, we all have to endure the indignity of Palin turning the campaign for the Vice Presidency into some kind of FOX reality TV makeover show, where they take some ridiculously not-ready-for-prime-time pol and dress her up, push her out on the stage, and see if they can turn her into a VP in 10 weeks.


What the heck, right? It's just being second in line to the nuclear launch codes. No big thing. We could even do a whole copromotional deal with moose sandwiches at Subway.


Thanks, Republicans. You sure do love your country n' stuff.
.

Posted by: DrainYou | October 23, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

Of course it's a distraction from the issues, but that doesn't mean it isn't relevant. In a world where Joe (six-pack, the plumber, American) wants a President he can relate to, spending $150,000 on clothes puts a major hole in the everyday, hockey mom persona that Sarah Palin has tried to cultivate. It will almost certainly have repercussions for McCain on Election Day.

Posted by: ManUnitdFan | October 23, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

How painful was it for the Obambots at CNN to have to post this about their beloveds ACORN tactics.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/22/voter.fraud/index.html?eref=rss_politics

Ah yes, the good and righteous left - hey, maybe you guys can come up with another scheme if this ACORN things blows up.

After all with such creative minds that have suppressed black votes in addition to those of other undesirables -

SHALL WE REVIEW THE PREVIOUS SUCCESSES OF THE DEMOCRATS TO SEE IF IT SPAWNS ANY OTHER GREAT IDEAS-

the Ku Klux Klan,
White Primaries,
Poll Taxes,
Voter literacy tests,
Gerrymandering,
Union thugs intimidating voters,
the Daley machine,
the Prendergast machine,
Tammany Hall
and , more recently, has registered tens of thousands of illegal aliens to vote.

Oh yeah, let's makes sure you whine real loud about needing ID's to vote too. That will make your scamming a lot easier.

I bet the revitalization of a few of these well thought out plans would generate some “change” we could believe in.

You democrats have so much to be proud of.

Posted by: Bcamp55 | October 23, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

H&M clothing is affordable to everyone Michelle Obama's H&M dress cost $34.95 dollars is a perfect example. H&M is a name brand where even Alicia Keys shops with them.

Alicia Keys - No One
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktUSIJEiOug

Fashion Fans for Obama/Biden '08

Posted by: YeilRaven | October 23, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I'm not very concerned with Sarah Palin's clothes. I buy the best quality clothes I can afford. Most of the time they come from second hand stores but I have been known to buy from an upscale store on special occasions like job hunting. I am more concerned about America's credit card debt - credit card debt is predicted to be the next financial meltdown. There are all these people who charge things they can't afford because it strikes their fancy at the moment - like contributing to the Democrats every time Obama sends them an email. How much of the Democrats campaign is being financed by credit card debit that will be disputed and/or unpaid because the holder of the card is broke?

Posted by: sandspirit | October 23, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

The AP reports that

"A Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday showed Obama up 5 percentage points overall in Florida, which went Republican in the last two presidential elections.

They spent more, that's the element," McCain said. "If it's true — organization. But we've energized volunteers, we'll get our vote out." "

Of course, that's not quite true. Florida is one of the states where the McCain campaign is using paid canvassers in their get-out-the-vote effort - not volunteers.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 23, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse


Sarah Palin and The GOP Resembles the Joker-Harley Quinn Relationship. They probably have more chances to become the VP if she wears a Harlequin Jester custom and McCain some make up.

Posted by: R3N364D3 | October 23, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

As ironic as this sounds, politics is about authenticity. The main thing politicians have to sell is themselves, and the key to making that sale is coming off as authentic. The public doesn't really much care who you are (within reason), what we want to know is that you are who you say you are. "Hockey mom" was a great persona to sell the American people. The excessive shopping spree makes the (political) sale impossible. This story matters at the deepest core of what politics is about and how we, as voters, make decisions.

Posted by: knaven | October 23, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Consider that this was derived from voluntary donations. It's won't be long before THE ONE is buying clothes for everyone with money he collects at the point of a gun.

Watch how many of the moaning Libs kick the Macy's habit and head over to Neimanns when Obama is paying fer it.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 23, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

To "The Village Idiot"

By the sounds of it, marrying a horse would be a step up for you - but be careful, if she knows how stupid you are, she might turn you down!

Posted by: Limey51 | October 23, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

"I am not surprised you are voting for your son, the messiah.

Maybe your other kid Napoleaon can be in the cabinet."

Posted by: king_of_zouk
========================

My son, you are making my point!

Posted by: Godhimself1 | October 23, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

I believe Michelle Obama also went through a makover and she is not even on the ticket.....do we know how much her makeover cost????? and how much of the campaign funds were spent on Michelle and Barak and kids????? And did the money come from the thousands of unnamed donors that Obama claims donated less than $200.???? Un-named donors could be Iranians for all we know.....or are these donations from second graders???? Think people, Obama claims to have raised $150 million in September but no one is legally allowed to give more than $2300 and less than 18 million voted for him in the primary.....most of those voters did not give Obama a dime.

Hopefully when the votes are counted we will find that despite the media games to elect Obama, the voters will use their heads and vote McCain/Palin. The media will then learn to report the news rather than fluff. When we sit in the middle of a financial crisis caused by the failure of the democrat majority in the Senate to approve regulations for Feddy Mac and Fannie May as well as an Iraq war....and realize that in both cases Obama was on the wrong side of the vote while McCain voted for regulations (dems voted no) and for the surge which worked in Iraq. This should be a no brainer but then again Gore should have been a no brainer in 2000 .... Bush won anyway....and that's what worries me.

McCain/Palin 2008 and HILLARY 2012

Posted by: jadamsdie | October 23, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

lunatic fringe like you any longer.

Posted by: Godhimself1


I am not surprised you are voting for your son, the messiah.

Maybe your other kid Napoleaon can be in the cabinet.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 23, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

if you put neiman marcus on a pig, its still a pig

Posted by: yujioda | October 23, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

No issue with getting clother to look the part. The problem is that if she's supposedly a middle-class hockey mom, what the hell is she doing spending $92 for a baby jumper and all that expensive overpriced stuff at Neiman Marcus and Macy's instead being smart and economical at Target, Wal-Mart, Sears/KMart, and JCPenneys? I hear some great deals are avaiable now that Mervyns is shutting down, too.

It's the hypocrisy, stupid!

Posted by: Tannim123 | October 23, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Sadly I lost respect for Sen. McCain when he brought Sarah Palin onboard as his running mate because it was all for the wrong reasons. You can't tell me there was not a more qualified male or female he could have chosen. This was a "Shock Factor" pick that has now backfired in every way. She is so far from the "Every Woman/ Hockey Mom" that she would like everyone to think she is & McCain wouldn't know a hockey mom if he fell over one. I am a wife, mother & grandmother. I have worked my entire adult life & didn't spend $150,000. on my house.

Posted by: northridge1085 | October 23, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Clearly this is mostly just fluff, but listening to the McCain/Palin campaign and all the Repubs that defend this, after their spending so much time on "issues" like haircuts and such for the past 20 years, well I actually feel a little sorry for them when I hear them trying to defend it, they don't know what to say. Over time maybe they will actually once again return to real issues, maybe 10 to 20 years from now?

Posted by: melchior1 | October 23, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

To me this is slightly newsworthy because it underscores the hypocrisy repeatedly demonstrated by Palin and McCain. McCain ceased to be a credible candidate they day he announced Palin as his running mate. Their campaign has no meat so all we can discuss is the fluff. I suppose we owe them a debt of gratitude for providing the needed comic relief from the serious issues Obama has been discussing from day one.

Who knew it costs so much to put lipstick on a pitbull?

Posted by: 1freethinker1 | October 23, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Bcamp55:

I'm voting democrat so that this nation will no longer be beholden to the lunatic fringe like you any longer.

Posted by: Godhimself1 | October 23, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Seriously. It goes to her credibility as a "cost-cutting" reformer.

Edward's haircut looks like a Great Clips bargain compared to this. $150,000 on hair, makeup and clothes in two months: are you kidding me? This was done with GOP money so that it didn't have to be treated as campaign financing.

--Palin spent $50,000 refurbishing the mayor's office with taxpayer money.

--Palin used public funds for her children's travel expenses.

She isn't fixing Washington, she's "fixing it up."

Posted by: obama_08 | October 23, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Does this topic - clothing - tell us something about her judgment? I think so.

Here is a documented pageant queen with nothing in her closet to wear, who can't afford to buy her clothing herself, and has to rely on others to decide what she is going to wear.

Now consider the same traits in the political candidate. She has little to offer, displays a willingness to be purchased and allows herself to be manipulated by those around her. The queen has no clothes. Enough said.

Posted by: lindaj4 | October 23, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

The issue here isn't about the clothes, but how stupid it was in this environment. Joe the Plumber's wife doesn't do this.

This campaign season will be fodder for political science classes for years to come. Three of the worst ever, McCain, Clinton and Giuliani...and one of the best ever...Obama.

Often successful campaigns come down to single-minded strategic thinking and discipline...with a bit of luck thrown in. Obama made three choices that has put him where he is: 1) creating the ground game that won Iowa, 2) electing to reject public funds and 3) single-mindedly focusing on change (It's change, stupid!)

The "luck" is that the economy collapsed and nobody can think of anything else except getting those bums that did this to us out.

They also got lucky by having the 1962 Mets as their opponent.

Posted by: BPINZ | October 23, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Emerging on the national scene for the first time (and doing so quickly), it isn't unrealistic to assume that campaign staff purchased new clothes for the Governor without her knowledge of the cost. Find the staffer who just had to have the $14,000 Manolo heels and begin the scolding there. Governor Palin's outfit or why Senator Obama has so many blue ties is of no concern to me. We have too many daunting tasks ahead of us to focus on such trivial matters.

Posted by: dculver | October 23, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

The fact that Biden is not getting any attention is proof in and of itself how outlandish and comedic Gov. Palin is.

Apparently "small town values" include $150,000 dollar wardrobes and secession from the union! Wee haw we got some new duds!

Here's to setting women back a few years. Cheers to Joe six-pack and objectification.

RNC's big pimpin actually makes me miss the dignity of the pantsuit and their hypocritical mockery of it.

Republicans. so confused. so sad.

Posted by: StoptheSpin | October 23, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

regarding what The Village Idiot just wrote:

Why are you so afraid to admit that you are voting Republican because you are the personification of a Republican talking point.

How much does Karl Rove pay you? Are you on retainer, or do you get paid per post?

Nice name...it fits.

Posted by: scootmandubious | October 23, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Why is everyone so upset about Palin's $150,000 in clothes when they say nothing about the $1.25 million the Dems spent trying to make Michelle Obama look like James Brown in an effort to get the Senior Black vote?

Posted by: Bcamp55 | October 23, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Palin is such a complainer. The press is out to get me. All I get are gotcha questions. Why don't you pick on Biden instead of me.

Can you imagine a crybaby like Palin in the White House? I thought Bush was a baby. Till I started listening to Palin kvetch. Yuck.

Posted by: buzziea | October 23, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Who else, besides me, has read about Jeff Larson paying over $130,000 toward Sarah Palin's wardrobe....then, being reimbursed by the McCain/Palin campaign? Would he have been reimbursed if the public had never found out about all of those expensive new clothes?

You may ask, "Who is Jeff Larson?" He was hired by George W. Bush in the 2000 Presidential Campaign to conduct robo-calls to voting citizens regarding John McCain's "black love child" & Cindy McCain's addiction to prescription drugs. It was partly due to these venomous lies that George Bush, rather than John McCain, became the Presidential Nominee of his party.

So.....the McCain/Palin camp has now hired the very same Jeff Larson to do the same thing to Barack Obama. Are you getting this??? How did Jeff Larson end up attempting to pay for most of Sarah Palin's new wardrobe??

John McCain wants to distance himself from President Bush....while in reality, John McCain IS George Bush. It takes one to know one.

Posted by: terri7 | October 23, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

I think all candidates should be required to wear the Homer simpson moo-moo that Michelle sports. I love the way the zipper down the back sticks out after being safety-pinned shut. and that figure, who could have thought that a linebacker could be the next 1st lady?

If she pulled that out of a bin in a parking lot, she got overcharged.

It seems the all style and no substance line for Michelle Hussain has been overplayed. no style and no substance just doesn't have the ring to it. Best to stick with angry and mean. at least it's accurate.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 23, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

C'mon Chris, a regulator of gas and oil needs to be properly attired!

Imagine what she would be wearing for the days as VP when she got to "run the Senate?"

If you missed her inane comments about what the Vice President's job is (the 2nd grader who asked the question was smarter), or her allegation, in the same session, that she has more experience than Senator Obama, get the popcorn ready.

View and share:

"See Sarah Run....The Senate"
http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com/2008/10/see-sarah-runthe-senate.html

Posted by: scootmandubious | October 23, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

All those image consultants that both parties hire to coach their candidates and the GOP couldn't find one who could shop a decent professional wardrobe for Palin from stores that "real Americans" can afford to shop in, or even realize that they should?

Posted by: genek1953 | October 23, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

I thought of the Checkers speech:

-----
Middle paragraph, Nixon says:
Well, that's about it. That's what we have. And that's what we owe. It isn't very much. But Pat and I have the satisfaction that every dime that we've got is honestly ours. I should say this, that Pat doesn't have a mink coat. But she does have a respectable Republican cloth coat, and I always tell her she'd look good in anything.
-------------------
Don't you think that is, like, super ironic?

Posted by: mightcan | October 23, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

ghrwtz said "Actions speak louder than words."

Past actions, in Obama's case.

.

Posted by: Billw3 | October 23, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

It seems the Bill Clinton pitch for votes - "I feel your pain from foreclosure, bankruptcy and unemployment" - is too big of a stretch for John McCain after this Palin fashion buying binge revelation.

It was all "pretend hockey mom" afterall, wasn't it?

Posted by: marks1940 | October 23, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

I'm voting Democrat because --English has no place being the official language in America.

I'm voting Democrat because --I'd rather pay $4 for a gallon of gas than allow drilling for oil off the coasts of America.

I'm voting Democrat because-- I think the government will do a better job of spending my money than I could.

I'm voting Democrat --because when we pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq, I know the Islamic terrorists will stop trying to kill us because they'll think we're a good and decent country.

I'm voting Democrat because-- I believe people who can't tell us if it will rain in two or three days, can now tell us the polar ice caps will disappear in ten years if I don't start riding a bicycle, build a windmill or inflate my tires to proper levels.

I'm voting Democrat because --it's all right to kill millions of babies as long as we keep violent, convicted murderers on death row alive.

I'm voting Democrat because --I believe businesses in America should not be allowed to make profits. Businesses should just break even and give the rest to the government so politicians and bureaucrats can redistribute the money the way they think it should be redistributed.

I’m voting democrat because—I think organizations like ACORN should be allowed to turn in as many fake voter registration cards as they can carry to offset the fact that many Democrats are either too lazy or too stupid to vote.

I'm voting Democrat because --I believe guns, and not the people misusing them, are the cause of crimes and killings.

I'm voting Democrat because –Democrats believe in redistribution of wealth and don’t expect me to share in the redistribution of risk, liability, investment, and 90 hour weeks.

I'm voting Democrat because-- when someone with a weapon threatens my family or me, I know the government can respond faster through a call to 911 than I can with a gun in my hand.

I'm voting Democrat because-- oil companies' 5% profit on a gallon of gas is obscene, but government taxes of 18% on the same gallon of gas are just fine.

I'm voting Democrat because --I believe three or four elitist liberals should rewrite the Constitution every few months to suit some fringe element that could never get their agenda past voters.

I'm voting Democrat because--- illegal aliens are not criminals, are not sucking up resources through government aid, hospital services, education, or social services, but are just people trying to make a better life by coming to America illegally. We can't blame them for that, can we?

I'm voting Democrat because--- now I can marry whatever I want, so I've decided to marry my horse.


Signed
The Village Idiot

Posted by: Bcamp55 | October 23, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

There's something quaint about the MSM saying Palin is less of a genuine hockey mom because she got a bunch of nice clothes. The fact that she accepted an offer of $150K worth of nice clothes doesn't make her less of a hockey mom. It makes her a *typical* hockey mom. If someone offered me $150k in new clothes, I'd take it!

The question should be whether we want a true hockey mom as president. I'd want a hockey mom as a mother to my kids, a spouse, or a next-door neighbor. But as president, I want a brilliant, strong, moral leader who is above-average in every way. Taking the clothes just makes her seem average. It doesn't make her seem less "everyday mom"-ish. It makes her seem exactly "everyday mom-ish". But why would you want that as president?

Posted by: stellablue | October 23, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

.
A non-mitigating factor here is Obama's charisma. He could make a speech about a t*rd sound inspirational. He missed his calling as a preacher man like Wright.

.

Posted by: Billw3 | October 23, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

the Liberal business model in action:

NEW YORY - The New York Times Co. posted a quarterly loss from continuing operations on Thursday, hurt by charges for job cuts and said it is looking for ways to reduce its debt. The company, which reported a 16 percent drop in advertising revenue at its news media group, also said it might write down as much as $150 million at its New England operations, underscoring the dismal state of newspaper advertising


and liberal activism.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 23, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Chris this must be a play by Schmidt/Rove/Davis to win the fashion vote?

Now Michelle's H&M dress cost $34.95 dollars according to the following article.

My Favorite Budget Fashion Story: Michelle Obama in H&M Dress
http://www.thebudgetfashionista.com/archive/budget-fashion-michelle-obama-in-hm-dress/

Ok I love fashion and the following video has nothing to do with politics but a lot to do with Art. I thought I would share it with everyone after all there is more to life then just Wardrobe for Opportunity Politics -

Diesel 'Liquid Space' Holographic Fashion Show
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCcTRjxP-Fc

Fashion Fans for Obama/Biden '08

Posted by: cooday | October 23, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

It is clear to me that the angry left, including the media, is so forlorn that they will not have bush to hate any longer, they have been forced to find a substitute.

why do you feel such strong desire to hate. It is a Lib family value?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 23, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

"Yet the DNC could spend millions on Michelle Hussein's clothes..."-----posted by Nobama-----

Dude, her last name is Obama. Her husband's middle name is Hussein, but I thought we stopped making fun of names in 2nd grade. Except, perhaps, in the case of that poor guy named Dick Head. Oh? that's your name? My apologies.

Posted by: Bipp | October 23, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin is trying to get a deal with her own exclusive designer like Michelle Obama. She hasn't lined up anything yet. Also she tried to make a $500 haircut appointment today but John Edwards had the time slot she wanted. It's hell putting together a million dollar wardrobe when the Obama tax cuts haven't gone into effect and you are not a rich socialist.

Posted by: leapin | October 23, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

actions speak louder than words.

Posted by: ghrwtz | October 23, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

It got me thinking about other ways to use that much cash.
I came up with '$150,000 to Spend, Start with 'Seven Sins' in the Caribbeans' on 'Serge the Concierge'
Here's the link
http://www.sergetheconcierge.com/2008/10/150000-to-spend-start-with-seven-sins-in-the-caribbeans.html

Serge

Posted by: info49 | October 23, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Look, people are frustrated with excess and waste. This guy gets $40 million to run his company into the ground. These guys won't vote for a $700 billion bail-out -- but add a $100 billion in pork, and now it's acceptable. There is a deep-rooted sense that the people in charge are putting naked self-interest ahead of the needs of their company or country. And this story plays right into those fears.

It also plays right into the beauty queen, style-over-substance narrative that makes Tina Fey's impression so devastating.

So yes, this is devastating across that narrow swath of undecided, which is the only territory that counts right now.

Posted by: starthom | October 23, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Who is Sara Palin? I thought Joe the Plummer was McCain's running mate. Talking about needing new cloths.
Her hipocracy maks me sick.

Posted by: scottstearn | October 23, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

I think a more important issue will be whether McCain will need his make-up artist to make him over every morning before he makes an appearance in public? Will he have to be 'prepped' before he responds to any 'crisis'? Will his make-up crack if he is distressed? Isn't McCain too old to be concerned with "pretty", and what it's going to COST?

Posted by: dlsoops | October 23, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

"The Borgen Project has some good info on the cost of addressing global poverty.
$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
$540 billion: Annual U.S. Defense Budget."

Posted by: diana9 | October 23, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

This is making it impossible for McCain to change the trajectory of this race and that matters a lot.

McCain has to win a day at a time going into the election. He lost Sunday and Monday because of Powell and now he's lost Wednesday and Thursday and probably Friday because of this.

And in many ways the election isn't in 12 days - it's right now because of absentee and early voting.

Finally, the people who remain undecided at this point are the only voters that the campaigns are fighting for now. And they don't care about the "important issues" - tax cuts, the war, health care, if they did they would have already made up their minds. No they care about things like this - and the DUI for GWB in 2000, or the gay marriage amendment in OH in 04, or that Bob Dole fell off the stage in 96, or that Bush senior looked at his watch in the debate in 92, or that Dukakis looked silly in the tank.

McCain was always likely to lose this election and his campaign has been sloppy from the beginning, but this is disastrous at a critical time. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go vote absentee for "That one" and Al Franken, too!

Posted by: stpaulsage | October 23, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Spending $150,000 on clothes for 2 months is ridculous. But I wouldn't care so much except that we know the people running these campaigns will be the same people working in the White House. You have to ask yourself, will they be just as reckless with our tax money as they were with this spending?

Posted by: JM123456 | October 23, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

swimmer_deb asks
"how much campaign money has been spent on Obama and Company or Hilary Clinton's wardrobe... Without some sort of baseline wrt to this type of expense, there is not a mechanism to determine whether or not the amount spent on Palin and Co's wardrobe is in fact unreasonable."

Actually, deb, politico, the group that broke the Palin wardrobe story, also searched DNC records for any evidence of wardrobe expenses for other candidates. It appears that other candidates buy their own clothes. If Gov Palin had spent her own money on the clothes we wouldn't know how much she spent, therefore this would not be an issue. More to the point: what was wrong with whatever she wears on the job as Governor of Alaska? Surely she has some approriate attire for that job that could serve equally well on the campaign trail.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 23, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

1) Sarah will need all these things -- and more -- to look good as our VP. Probably about $900,000 per year (at $150,000 every two months) will be needed for wardrobes and accessories, and I doubt if the VP salary is sufficient to take it out of that.
2) As for travel, the whole Palin family will be able to travel for no more cost than just the VP on Air Force 2. That plane, I hope she agrees, is a little too valuable and full of secret military technology to be offered for sale on ebay.
3) For hotel rooms for the family, I am still conflicted over who should pay, or should have paid, for those.
4) Did Bill Clinton have to give back everything he got for free? Did the public or any political party pay for any of Monica's clothes -- or for the dry cleaning?
5) Feel free to edit out any numbered items. My sense of humor may be senseless.

Posted by: RJW_NY | October 23, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

So, the clothes were going to go to "charity" after the campaign? Two questions - what lucky charity, and if she and McCain are to win, what will she wear to work if she gives all the new threads away? Perhaps there are plans for a second shopping spree then?

Posted by: rlschlittler | October 23, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

If the campaign feels entitled to spend donated funds on clothes and makeup, how will they feel entitled to spend our tax dollars if elected? I agree that it is ridiculous that we are even talking about this rather than the economy, but it's also ridiculous that they expect their supporters to fund her make over rather than using some of either of their not-insignificant wealth.

Posted by: Meg111982 | October 23, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

DON'T FORGET SNL TONIGHT. IT SHOULD BE A GOOD ONE.

Posted by: popasmoke


that's right, you Libs need to get your hard news for the week.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 23, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

The RNC spent $150,000...and Sarah Palin looks like a million bucks!

Yet the DNC could spend millions on Michelle Hussein's clothes and she still wouldn't look as good as Sarah in a t-shirt and jeans...

not to mention the millions the DNC has spent trying to get ONE empty suit candidate elected.

This is a non issue.

Posted by: NObama | October 23, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Palin's wardrobe spending will not change many people's votes. And at this point, stasis is good for Obama. He is in the lead and any amusing distraction from McCain's push on Joe the Plumber and socialism is good for him. It is hard to be afraid of class warfare when you are laughing at the late night jokes and voting for the best Palin outfits.

Posted by: newyearwithababy | October 23, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

15 minutes of fame (or famous for 15 minutes) is an expression coined by the American artist Andy Warhol. It refers to the fleeting condition of celebrity that grabs onto an object of media attention, then passes to some new object as soon as people's attention spans are exhausted. It is often used in reference to figures in the entertainment industry and other areas of popular culture.
Palin is nothing more than a fleeting condition of American pathos. Absent anything of substance, play to the emotions...

Posted by: 10zheng | October 23, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

TIME FOR McCAIN TO UNDRESS THE PALIN CANDIDACY?

Bush Hockey Mom in a dress shops at Needless Markup? At Saks in the City? Caribou Barbie plays dress-up? The irony is just too delicious... what not to wear if you're just a regular gal from the Klondike.

Well before this latest undressing, Palin was pulling down McCain's poll numbers. And we're about to hear more from the Alaska investigations into her expense accounting and her Troopergate problem.

The fact that a couple of polls show McCain a close second seems to bolster the argument that he could have overcome the Bush albatross had he not chosen Palin.

With only 12 days out, it seems highly unlikely -- but if Palin suddenly felt a need to recuse herself from the race "for family reasons," McCain might be able to regain some lost support -- especially if he chose a mainstream Republican as her replacement, someone like Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty.

The Alaska investigations supply McCain the pretext to make a dramatic last-minute pivot. A VP shocker also could serve as cover for more covert efforts to swing the vote; some analysts would attribute a last-minute McCain surge to the Palin dumping, and not to any alleged irregularities in the voting process.

ARE THE McCAIN-PALIN CROWD AGITATORS THE SAME STORMTROOPERS WHO DO THIS:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/american-gestapo-state-supported-terrorism-targets-u-s-citizens

TARGETING OF AMERICANS BY GOV'T AGENCIES
A ROOT CAUSE OF WALL STREET MELTDOWN?

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/targeting-u-s-citizens-govt-agencies-root-cause-wall-street-financial-crisis

OR http://members.nowpublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | October 23, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

I didn't donate to John McCaine's campaign so that Sarah could go out and adorn herself in the latest haute fashion. Her actions contradict her words and the image she said she was trying to project. I've decided not to vote at all. I refuse to select the lesser of two elitists. Shame on you, Ms. High fashion Palin.

Posted by: sarmstrong71 | October 23, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Funny how the Republicans see this as a non-issue when the one thing that continually comes out of Palin's empty head is that "I'm just like you." Hell, I could pay off my mortgage with $150,000! Grampa McCain and his darling Gidget have taken hypocrisy to a whole new level.

Posted by: bigskyguy | October 23, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Directly from Central Casting! She is perfect for the role. Republicans tried to package the Sarah Palin brand but they are failing in matching the brand to the messaging. She is not believable and she is the single biggest drag to the McCain campaign.

Posted by: artemisia1 | October 23, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

As a Republican, this is just another sign to me of how when the GOP tries to be the arbiter of culture they get slammed for things that would be a non issue for Democrats. Tell us family values matter, we get Larry Craig and Mark Foley. Tell us abstinence is the only thing to teach and we get Sarah Palin's daughter. Tell us Democrats are Socialists and we get Sarah Palin taxing oil companies to spread the wealth to people in Alaska. Claim to be an ordinary person and we get $150k wardrobes and government paying for her children to travel.

Claim to be just a small town girl at heart and then viciously attack anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% and call them un-American. If those are small town values, it's no wonder people are fleeing small towns. Sarah Palin is the epitome of how the GOP has become about winning at all costs. They wish to preside over these Dis-United States of America by pursuing a liberal agenda of using the government to tell us how to run our lives. Everytime a candidate doesn't practice what they preach they deserve to be held up for ridicule until we get leaders who are more humble and realize that government should stop at the front door of our homes, businesses and lives. Once we step out that door with something that can physically hurt someone else then the government needs to be there to police it. But not until then. Sarah Palin believe in limited government -- she thinks government should be limited to imposing -through laws - personal values she can't enforce at home and for vendettas against her personal enemies. She thinks she has the eloquence of Ronald Reagan, but she has the ethics of Richard Nixon. And look where that got us then... and see where our Party is headed in this election.

Posted by: RaginModerate | October 23, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

This is infinitely worse than the $400 hair cut, but people (Fox News) still have the gall to try and defend it. $150,000 is more than my family makes in TWO years, and Palin goes and spends it in a few months. Who's supposed to be the out of touch elitist here?

Posted by: thecorinthian | October 23, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

SARAH FEEL'S PRETTY

(I Feel Pretty, West Side Story)

WilliamBanzai7


SARAH
I feel pretty,
Oh, so pretty,
I feel pretty and witty and even bright!
And I pity
Any trailer girl who isn't me tonight.

I feel charming,
Oh, so charming
It's alarming how charming I feel!
And so pretty
That I hardly can believe I'm real.

See the pretty hockey mom in that mirror there:
Who can that attractive mom be?
Such a pretty Vice Presidential face,
Such a pretty $5000 dress,
Such a pretty red lipsticked smile,
Such a pretty me!

I feel stunning
And entrancing,
Feel like running and dancing for joy,
For I'm loved
By a bunch of GOP red necked cowboys!

GIRLS
Have you met our good friend Sarah,
The craziest girl on Joe sixpacks block?
You'll know her the minute you see her,
She's the one who got a broken clock.

She thinks she's smart.
She thinks she's got a great campaign.
She isn't smart,
She's merely shopping McCain insane.

It must be the campaign heat
Or some rare hypocritical disease,
Or too much foies gras to eat
Or maybe it's media fleas.

Keep away from her,
Send for Gap Chinos!
This is not the
Sara we thought we knew!

SARAH
I feel pretty,
Oh, so pretty
That the District should give me its key.
A Senate committee
Should be organized to honor me.

GIRLS
La la la la . . .

SARAH
I feel dizzy,
I feel sunny,
I feel fizzy and funny and fine,
And so pretty,
That the Miss GOP title can be mine!

"The use of campaign funds for items which most Americans would consider to be strictly personal reasons, in my view, erodes public confidence and erodes it significantly."
John McCain

Posted by: williambanzai7 | October 23, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Ir makes it too easy to prove what the people have been saying for a long time. The Republican parties leadership just doesn't get it. I am sure there are Republicans out there that do but thier leadership not even close. Makes me want to eat cake.

Posted by: elbuzz07 | October 23, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

What of the more than 110 MILLION Obama will spend during the final month of his campaign... Second, without context, the bigger *story* is how the media tries to create rather report on the news; Ergo, how much campaign money has been spent on Obama and Company or Hilary Clinton's wardrobe... Without some sort of baseline wrt to this type of expense, there is not a mechanism to determine whether or not the amount spent on Palin and Co's wardrobe is in fact unreasonable.

Posted by: swimmer_deb | October 23, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse
-----------------

They wear their own clothes

Posted by: popasmoke | October 23, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

We all love a good wardrobe malfunction and this is a doozy.

The money spend on her new look for her new found stardom positions her as a patrician not as a pleb. This rockets her right inside Washington's pork barrel and thus it becomes a story of substance.

There was no "thanks but no thanks" from Ms. Palin about the excessively expensive wardrobe. The cost of the wardrobe is inconceivable as a clothing budget to anyone but "the super elite". I don't know that I would turn down such a wardrobe myself but then, I'm not that mavericky too. Also.

Spinning her as the political outsider mom who rejects unnecessary spending was believable to most "real Americans" up until this story broke. When combined with new reports of flying her children and putting them up in hotels while they were out of school while she was glad handing is certainly a fresh take on the Governor. This and of course the valuable time Senator McCain cannot afford to lose to talking about these points while Mr. Obama is visiting his ailing grandmother are the story.


A quick set of purchases for her makeover makes sense, heck even a $50,000 expenditure would have made sense doggone it. Macy's, Banana Republic, Ann Taylor, even some Brooks Brothers for women would have felt more like "the America most of us live in". Those of us who have a higher clothing budget than the average Jane understand how easily such a price tag can be avoided.

Posted by: eViolet | October 23, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Well let's see, do we know what the Demog's ...er I mean Democrats have spent in their campaign....like $1.5 million just on their polling????? It pales in comparison to the Republican's expenditures. And, BTW, has his highness, Mr. O release his clothing expenditures?? Oh, that's right, he made $4.5 mil last year, so I'm sure he can wear some of his old stuff!

I find this so interesting and frankly hypocritical for the idiotic negative responses on this subject. Can't you find something with more meat on the bone? Don't you peeps have something constructive to do? Come on, get a life for Christ sakes!

Posted by: Simplemind | October 23, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

the next Deptartment of Education:

Left-wing radicals swarm to free foundation money, where they can give gigantic grants to one another and they will never have to do a day's work. That's exactly what Obama and Ayers did with Annenberg's money.

None of the Annenberg money went to schoolchildren. It went to Ayers' left-wing crank friends to write moronic papers that we hope no one ever reads.

Instead of teaching students reading and writing, Ayers thinks they should be taught to rebel against America's "imperialist" social structure. In 2006, Ayers was in Venezuela praising communist dictator Hugo Chavez, saying, "We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution."

He has backed a line of schoolbooks such as one titled "Teaching Science for Social Justice."

Forget about Ayers' domestic terrorism when Obama "was 8 years old." Does he agree with Ayers' idiot ideas right now?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 23, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Zouk wrote:
"Change the subject to Sarah Palin -- you betcha!"

Zouk, cmon you must be joking. Your candidate picked her as his running mate after vetting her for 1 day to appease the party base. You are trying to blame the Dems solely for this mess? There is plenty of blame to go around Please read this AP story below:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081020/ap_on_bi_ge/the_influence_game_housing

Read how the republicans accepted money from Fannie and Freddie for 6 years!

Its hilarious that the Reps would blame "the media" for influencing the outcome of this election but when the media is blamed for "influencing" the poor to crime, they just call it an excuse and build more jails. So which is it...is media influence "all powerful" over the public? or are its influences used as an excuse?

Posted by: StoptheSpin | October 23, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

It's amazing how quick each and everyone of us are to point the finger at others and fail to look at ourselves, and how we actually live. America as a whole is careless with it's money. We are a "Want it Now" society. We complain that government is taking our money and spending it friverlously as if that's unusual. We do it all the time, in our own lives. We have bills, tuition, car payments, etc... "But we have to have that 50" Samsung". All I'm saying is we point the finger at others, and claim "we're better than that", when we do the same things.

Posted by: tonybarriere | October 23, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

DON'T FORGET SNL TONIGHT. IT SHOULD BE A GOOD ONE.

Posted by: popasmoke | October 23, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

What of the more than 110 MILLION Obama will spend during the final month of his campaign... Second, without context, the bigger *story* is how the media tries to create rather report on the news; Ergo, how much campaign money has been spent on Obama and Company or Hilary Clinton's wardrobe... Without some sort of baseline wrt to this type of expense, there is not a mechanism to determine whether or not the amount spent on Palin and Co's wardrobe is in fact unreasonable.

Posted by: swimmer_deb | October 23, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

I think this is just another nail in the coffin of the McCain campaign. I do not doubt that it is necessary to have your candidates dressed nicely and professionally. However, I question the practical and political intelligence of first, using RNC funds, and second, such a hefty amount of money. The mind-boggling sums and the defensiveness of it is yet another example of the tone-deafness of this campaign. To preach about middle-class values and and position yourself as the representative of "real americans" and yet spend sums that people look at and think "That's my mortgage!" or "I can dress myself and my family for a lot less" does not help you. I think Palin is an embarassment, a punchline, and a drag on McCain.

Posted by: LABC | October 23, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Lying Hypocrit's-Who are the bloody elitest,
McCain and his fleet of houses and cars of which he can not count.The Republican's have run a lot of sleazy campaigns but this one is the worst.Anyone who votes for these two clowns and are not extremely rich are extremely stupid.

Posted by: fotoartiste | October 23, 2008 1:24 PM | Report abuse

All I really care about are the issues. How are we going to get over this economic crisis? When will our elected officials consider what is best for all Americans? How are we going to become energy independent? How are we going to reduce our national debt that has grown by $2.4 billion dollars a day over the past 8 years? YES that's $2,400,000,000 more debt every day for 8 years. Sure $150,000 on clothes is something to talk about BUT let's put this into perspective ... our Government representatives are going to make it impossible for our children or our grand children to enjoy the standard of living all Americans (current and future) deserve. We cannot put our head in the sand forever, or deflect our attention away from the real issues at hand. Current Federal financial obligations total $110 trillion dollars - this is a much more serious topic of interest that we all need to be aware of.

Posted by: independentsandissues | October 23, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

THIS WOMAN AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE IS A FAKE, PSYCHO! AND AN INSULT TO AMERICAN WOMEN. YOU CAN CERTAINLY LOOK EVEN BETTER THAN SHE HAS FOR LESS THAN $150K....THIS IS 4 TIMES THE $$ JOE THE FAKE PLUMBER MAKES. I CAN NOT BELIEVE PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY TAKING HER SERIOUSLY. WHOEVER TAKES MCCAIN & PALIN SERIOUSLY.....SHOULD NOT...SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. THEIR ENTIRE CAMPAIGN IS NOT PROFESSIONAL, DECENT & AMERICAN. WHO'S HUSBAND BELONGS TO A GROUP THAT WANTS TO BE SEPERATED FROM THE USA??? WHO ??? WHO?? NONE OTHER THAN "HER GUY" FROM ALASKA IS "NOT AMERICAN"
OBAMA / BIDEN 08!!!!!!!

Posted by: madison7 | October 23, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Palin spent more on clothes in two months than Joe the Plumber makes in three years.

Posted by: lynnlm | October 23, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

In order to put this into perspective, you have to look at the underlying attitudes. The simple fact is that Palin from the beginning could have taken control of the situation by saying that she wants to make sure that her clothes were purchased from stores that reflect the values of the middle American "hockey moms" that she was supposedly representing. If they had come from mid-priced stores, then nobody would have even said a word, and we'd be focused on Biden's Obama-will-be-tested gaffe.

To me, we can infer two insights from this incident. First, it shows Palin's inexperience as a candidate. She was being treated like a princess and probably suspended her political instincts as she just went with the entire experience. Who wouldn't be in a kind-of honeymoon state as she was whisked from Alaska into the whirlwind of a Presidential campaign. She was in the big leagues and let the big leaguers control the situation. While warning bells should have been ringing in her head as she was dressed up in inappropriately-expensive clothing, the best I can figure is that she didn't even question the judgement of her new handlers.

Second, whoever was handling her and making these choices was extremely insensitive, and exercised very poor judgement, which is what they're supposed to show so we can choose them as our leaders. What will be the impact of her gaffe. It's one more brick in the wall of a case that builds that Palin isn't experienced enough to be the Vice President. More than that, however, because of its symbolic value, it may end up being one of the things that is most remembered about her run for Vice president, especially if the McCain-Palin ticket ends up losing.

Posted by: scaswell1 | October 23, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Moderate Republicans continue to flip...

Arne Carlson, Republican former Governor of Minnesota has endorsed Barack Obama for President.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/10/23/former_rep_gov_arne_carlson_endorses_obama/

"Carlson said Obama is better equipped than John McCain to handle the struggling economy, foreign policy and to make the nation more energy independent.

Carlson said he was a strong supporter of John McCain during the primary season, but he became unhappy with the direction the campaign has taken since McCain accepted his party's nomination at the Republican Convention."

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 23, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

The 150 grand is not a big deal. The woman looked damn good before her make over and she needed a wardrobe, so what. The thing they should have spend a few bucks on is her voice. That voice got to be the shrillest most annoying sound I have ever heard. It makes Joan Rivers sound like an angel in heat. Anyways...good luck to her, she'll need it.
Pierre.

Posted by: pierremorton | October 23, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

I would love to see a qualified woman run for office of President of the US or as the VP candidate. But the adjective to note is "qualified". This should not be a question of hair styles, clothing, panty hose or shoes. It should be a question of intelligence, experience, and integrity. Do we have any of that in Sarah Palin? I have nothing against this woman other than I truly feel she is not "qualified" for the office that she is seeking. The real question that may be answered after the election is, what was McCain thinking or not?

Posted by: ganddad | October 23, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

The story is, as you suggest, " fluff -- an amusing distraction that has absolutely nothing to do with how people will make up their minds in 12 days time."

That makes it a perfect summary of the entire Palin storyline.

Posted by: FlownOver | October 23, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

She's going to come to the ground zero of the "not pro" America and "shake things up "and "do things different"? But she got swept in and does things the same old way. It looks like typical Republican cluelessness. Expense accounts, someone else pays. Where's the sense of propriety? Remember, for my friend, John McCain, the middle class makes $5 million a year.

It's relevant because it exposes the "we're for the common man, Joe the Plumber" show as a complete farce.

Posted by: thebobbob | October 23, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

My first impulse (as a liberal and as an Obama supporter) is to say that even if it's not considered a nonissue, it should be. What is the point in lowering ourselves to the sort of gloating idiocy best left to those who thrive on it -- Fox News and their ilk?

But Palin herself, as the trial lawyers say, opened the door to this line of questioning. Had she and McCain chosen to campaign on issues of substance and policy instead of relying on ad hominem attacks leveled at Obama on the basis of elitism (all the while painting themselves as Joe Sixpack and his running mate Hockey "I didn't need a passport 'cause I wasn't privileged" Mom), no one would have raised an eyebrow at the money spent on image.

But McCain and Palin insisted that they were nothin' but country folk and shamelessly pandered to the lowest common denominator of the Republican base. I don't mean farmers or hicks or Christians or Hank Williams Jr. fans -- I mean people who are convinced that remaining ignorant and paranoid is a moral virtue. I'm sure that these people will somehow be able to rationalize the expenditures. It's not going to change how they vote. But such hypocrisy is nonetheless deserving of media coverage. It always has been and it always will be. The clothes aren't the issue -- the issue is how acceptable the constant, unchecked cynical posturing of the Republican Party has become. It's important for all of us to see just how low a sizable portion of this country's population is willing to sink into that ideological morass just to keep "them" (blacks, Jews, feminists, immigrants, liberals, socialists, gays, atheists, Muslims, pick your phobia) from joining the ranks of the fully enfranchised. Be afraid.

Posted by: lauri_8 | October 23, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Does this topic - clothing - tell us something about her judgment? I think so.

Here is a documented pageant queen with nothing appropriate in her closet, who can't afford to buy clothing herself, and has to rely on others to decide what she is going to wear.

Now consider the same traits in the political candidate. She has little to offer, displays a willingness to be purchased and allows herself to be manipulated. Enough said.

Posted by: lindaj4 | October 23, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Cut Sarah some slack! You can't expect a pro-American politician to dress like a socialist, can you? She is strongly opposed to "spreading the wealth" so her clothes ought to show it.

Posted by: hamishdad | October 23, 2008 1:21 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to propose Palin's First Rule of Political Wardrobes: 'Never dress your common folk's candidate in integer multiples of a teacher's or fireman's salary.'

Posted by: peak1 | October 23, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Well, let's see:

She said "thanks, but no thanks" to the bridge to nowhere, but she actually said "yes, please"

She said she was found absolutely innocent in the Troopergate affair, but actually she was guilty of ethics violations

She praises the "pro-America" parts of the country and accuses Barack Obama of "palling around" with terrorists, but her husband was a member of a party that hates America so much they want Alaska to secede from the Union

She doesn't seem to want anyone in the middle-class to pay more taxes, but refuses to compensate for this by taxing the wealthiest Americans (thereby increasing our addiction to credit), and calls taxing the wealthy "spreading the wealth" as if it's a socialist idea to tax people to fund government programs

And now she claims fame by being a "hockey mom" and constantly invoking Joe six-pack, while taking campaign dollars to dress to the nines.

I would say we've got a credibility gap here. But then again, she can see Russia from her home state, so maybe she's qualified.

Posted by: Jessmezzo | October 23, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse


The narrow issue is the clothes. The larger issue is the hypocrisy of conservatives. If Michelle Obama had spent an exorbitant amount on clothing, she would have been crucified. If Michelle Obama had an unmarried teenage pregnant daughter, she would have been crucified. The double standard is just unbelievable!

Posted by: SusanfromBristol | October 23, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse
--------------

If you remember when Michelle was on the View the republicans made fun of her because the dress she was wearing came from JC Penney and cost $90.00. It came up again yesterday as some person from the Mccain group acted like Michelle is just trash with her cheap clothes.

Posted by: popasmoke | October 23, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

That the gaffable Sen. Biden has not become the laughingstock of this campaign is astonishing. Equally astonishing is the fact that Sen. Obama's inexperience -- though there have been a few beautiful gaffes from him, too -- has not become an issue. Instead, the members of the media and their fellow Democrats have made a vexed issue out of the perfectly normal -- albeit abnormally charming -- Gov. Palin. The claim is that she lacks the experience to be president. So, too, does the Prophet Obama.

The media's coverage of this election has been the shoddiest I ever have seen. The country has been walloped by a financial crisis almost wholly created by the Democrats' relaxation of mortgage lending to low- and moderate-income borrowers. It is a matter of record that the Republican nominee attempted to tighten those regulations. The Democrats' intrusion into the markets began in 1977, with their vaunted Community Reinvestment Act, which encouraged bank loans to low- and moderate-income families. In 1995, the law was expanded, leading to an 80 percent increase in such loans.

Along with this, beginning in 1992, Congress imposed on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase what we now know as subprime mortgages -- that is to say, risky mortgages. In 1996, the Clinton administration's Department of Housing and Urban Development, enthralled as ever to the Democrats' urge for social engineering, ordered Fannie and Freddie to assist home purchases by low-income earners seeking homes in higher-income neighborhoods -- more subprime mortgages! HUD expanded this project in 2000. Also in 1996, HUD began targeting the number of such mortgages, requiring that 12 percent of Fannie's and Freddie's mortgages assist low-income home purchasers in higher-income neighborhoods. In 2000, the number was increased to 20 percent.

The consequence of all the Democrats' meddling with real estate markets and with established regulations was that these subprime mortgages were secreted into bundles of mortgage packages and sold all over the world. Now we see a crisis, and magically it is blamed on Sen. McCain's party. The answer is to elect Sen. Obama and his lovable sidekick to the White House. Yet, as readers of this column read last week, the chairwoman of Sen. Obama's finance committee, Penny Pritzker, gutted her own bank with subprime loans and has had to pay $460 million in penalties. Moreover, Wall Street abounds with Obama supporters who prospered on these subprime dealings.

What? What is this? Change the subject to Sarah Palin -- you betcha!

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 23, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Oh silly Zouk.....

playing up the "non-citizen" angle and rootin for the recount! I guess he was an elitist, then a rock star, then a pedaphile, then inexperienced, then a racist muslim with a reverend, then a socialist and now.....

keep digging that grave buddy..your doing real good. :)

Posted by: StoptheSpin | October 23, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Not to worry.

Moossolini will be returning to the snows in 12 days where whe will only be a problem for Republicans.

:-)

------------------------------

That would be Moosolina. ;0

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 23, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

In a desperate bid to raise cash, the McCain campaign has just announced that for a contribution of $150,000.00 or more, you will receive a pair of panties that Sarah Palin purchased on her GOP sponsored shopping spree and that she actually wore on the campaign trail.

According to the website, the panties are suitable for sniffing and other GOP approved deviant sexual practices. The panties will arrive in a hermetically sealed plastic wraper along with a certificate of authenticity signed by Nancy Pfotenhauer, and shipped in a a discreet, plain brown wrapper. Supplies are said to be limited so hurry while supplies last!!

www.johnmccain2008.com/sniff_veeps_panties.html

Posted by: VeloStrummer | October 23, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Palin wants to redefine the VP seat the way Cheney did. Made a public statement that she had been "cleared" after being found guilty of ethics code violations for firing the top cop as a personal vendetta in the Troopergate investigation. Pretends to be pro-American when her husband is a secessionist and she has been to secessionist meetings. Pretends to be down-to-earth to appeal to small town folks, but buys clothes from Saks, Nieman Marcus, and Barneys. Fired the town librarian after the librarian refused to ban books. Will not have a press conference and when she speak she sticks to her talking points, evades questions, or simply shows herself to be ignorant or mean. Some of her speaking engagements feel like she's trying to incite a riot and stoke up a lynch mob. The list goes on and on...

Why do people like her? Because she's "spunky"? And McCain IS NOT the independent thinker with integrity that he appeared to be last time he ran in 2000! Just read the recent Rolling Stone McCain bio...

Back in 2000, intelligent people knew Bush would make a major mess. Now even ignorant people know electing him was a mistake. I guess its a testament to the pervasiveness of people's ignorance if the are willing to vote for Bush/Cheney again, just by disguising them as Betty Crocker in a high class dominatrix costume...?!?!?!

No, all Republicans aren't bad. Remember Lincoln Chaffee? But everyone should view this awesome documentary covering the last eight years of elections: http://freeforall.tv/

Or, you could just keep wallowing in ignorance at the expense of THE WORLD, which includes your children!!!

Posted by: gloriamundi | October 23, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Interesting report today the McCain and Obama are neck in neck for rural votes in many states. I may be wrong but these are probably not people who shop at Saks, Nieman Marcus etc, or who spend lots of money on makeup and clothing, so it could be that a story like this on "fluff", "a side issue" could impact some voters, especially when there are stories on the net about Michelle Obma buying many of her clothes at the Gap.
And for the story to come out in the midst of many people feeling financial pain, others pinching pennies, and more very anxious about the dire straits the future may hold is not a plus for Republicans.

Posted by: ashtonn | October 23, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

I guess we're pretty far away from Pat Nixon's good republican cloth coat. ; )

Posted by: mathue | October 23, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

The narrow issue is the clothes. The larger issue is the hypocrisy of conservatives. If Michelle Obama had spent an exorbitant amount on clothing, she would have been crucified. If Michelle Obama had an unmarried teenage pregnant daughter, she would have been crucified. The double standard is just unbelievable!

Posted by: SusanfromBristol | October 23, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

This is what happens when you go shopping with Cindy McCain.

More evidence that Sarah is simply out of her (shallow) depths.

A week or so and she's a footnote in American history with a fabulous red leather jacket from Saks.

Buh-bye!

Posted by: wpost4112 | October 23, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Ah Republicans!

Like father, like son. Meet Merritt Paulson, the offspring of Henry Paulson. I suppose naming his child "Legacy" would have been too blunt.

The 35-year-old Merritt owns the Portland Beavers, a minor-league baseball team, and the Portland Timbers, a USL First Division soccer squad. While his father is demanding $700 billion of our money to bail out the banks, Merritt wants his own little piece of our hide. He is insisting upon $85 million in public funds from the city of Portland to build a new sports complex for the Beavers and an upgrade on the Timbers' stadium.

Merritt is not the sole owner of the Beavers and Timbers; he has only an 80 percent stake. The man with the 20 percent stake is his father, Hammerin' Hank. If you can keep the bile out of your throat for a moment, you have got to give the Paulson family credit for cheek. You can almost imagine the scene: the Paulsons sitting around the dinner table, munching on bald eagle pate, ruminating on their $700 billion credit line and saying, "What's $85 million more?"

We haven't seen a family of rustlers like this since Frank and Jesse James. Keep in mind that Hank Paulson is worth $700 million on his own (he just loves that 700 number). So forget the obscenity of any sports owner having the temerity to ask for public funds for a sports stadium at a time when we are collectively bailing out the nation's banks. Forget the lunacy of making the case for $85 million from a city that, despite its lush rose gardens and micro-breweries, has 16 percent of kids living below the poverty line. Forget all humanitarian and economic considerations. The fact is that the cash between the cushions at the Paulson family compound could pay for the new stadium in Portland and yet Merritt wants more. These aren't masters of industry. They're grifters.

:-)

Posted by: toritto | October 23, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Of course, it’s ridiculous but why stop now? We live in a world of 2-second sound bites such as, “most liberal member of the senate” and “wants to raise taxes for people making $42,000” and “supported Bush 90% of the time.” There is no attempt to even delve into intelligent debate and nuances.

If it is not about nuances and issues, but about personality instead, then this is fair game. You can’t accuse someone of being elitist when you are wearing a $2,500 jacket, just as you can’t accuse someone as being naïve and inexperienced (on foreign policy) because you can see Russia from your house, or accuse someone of palling around with terrorists when you pal around with secessionists. You reap what you sow.

Posted by: sahildmehta | October 23, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

The whole wardrobe malfunction (probably more malfeasence) points more to the erratic, off message nature of the entire McCain-Palin campaign. There is a photograph on netscape of the Govenor's seven year old daughter toting her 750 dollar Louis Vitton bag... really?

Its anybodys right to do what they want with their money legally, but where's the discipline of the campaign to let pictures and stories like this circulate.

Give to charity? Again really? Buy a normal Macy's wardrobe and kick the other 125K to a veteran's fund...

Personally I thought she looked great in her more humble gubenatorial threads... she does need 150k to look professional... although she a 150k in US Civics tutoring could hvae gone a long way...

Posted by: fearirony2060 | October 23, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Wait, I spoke too soon, he has been caught:

Media Silence Obama Broke Illinois Ethics Laws As A State Legislator On Obama’s released tax records, he discloses income from speaking fees. The problem? Accepting payment for speaking fees when you’re a legislator is against Illinois state law Newsbusters

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 23, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

For sake of disclosure… I am a white straight male who is strongly in the Obama camp and I despise Sarah Palin’s politics so it pains me to write this.

I think that the missing “3rd angle” is an analysis of the structural/societal sexism revealed by this story (as opposed to any individual act/statement of sexism). Women are routinely expected to spend more on fashion (especially in the executive sphere) and are judged more harshly on that display. People quickly forget how much emphasis there was in the 90’s on Hillary Clinton’s hair & dress. More recently, when Nancy Pelosi took the Speaker’s gavel there was “analysis” on respected news outlets of what she was wearing.

This all ties into Palin’s image and appeal. She is a former beauty queen and is playing to a societal system that rewards her for that status. I am NOT saying or implying that she is there just because of her looks – on the contrary, it has probably been a hard for Sarah Palin to negotiate a system that simultaneously rewards and punishes her for her femininity. Here’s a hypothetical – does former Attorney General Janet Reno lose in a 2002 Democratic Florida Gubernatorial primary to Bill McBride (who?) if she presented more like Sarah Palin? (or alternately, if parodied on SNL Reno is played by Tina Fey instead of Will Ferrell)

Is $150k excessive? Sure. Can I blame the campaign for spending a large chunk of change? Not really – that’s the way the game is set up. Do I wish that they would have made a different choice? I really, really do because meshing Gov. Palin’s presentation as the “Hockey Mom that fired the cook” with the immaculate $150k wardrobe just reinforces all of the same extreme expectations for women (i.e. – the 1950’s/60’s ads with women housecleaning in heels and a dress or the modern equivalent).

Posted by: DesMoinesBadger | October 23, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

I believe this example of Palin spending campaign money on her personal wardrobe is EXACTLY the issue in this campaign.

She has demonstrated an abuse of power while in the Governor's office. Now she has demonstrated an abuse of funds, not even having made it to the White House.

This exemplifies what the Republican party stands for - what they intend to do with MY money. They will use it for personal gain, even in something so seamingly trivial as clothing - $150,000 is more than many of us will spend in a lifetime on clothing.

Somehow, the republican lead government had $$$$700 Billion on hand for a Wall Street Bail, and anounced they have another $$$$548 Billion to drop in further bail-outs. To me, that means the BUSH administration has $$$$1.25 Trillion of my money in pocket, AND I DON'T HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE.

The Republican reponse to my dillema - 'they'll tax any benefits I might get my hands on anyway, so why have it.

And what they'll do with that tax - pocket the money for personal gain. What does the Bible say??? If I can't trust you with a nickel, why trust you with a TRILLION???

Posted by: wbilly3814 | October 23, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Not to worry.

Moossolini will be returning to the snows in 12 days where whe will only be a problem for Republicans.

:-)

Posted by: toritto | October 23, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Edward's is a very wealthy man, if he wants to spend $400.00 for a hair cut that is his prerogative.

Posted by: popasmoke


Except he paid out of campaign funds, until he was caught. Just like he had no mistress until he was caught. Just like bill had no girlfrinends until he was caught.

Just like Obama is honest, until he gets caught.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 23, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

The revelation that the Republican party spent $150,000 dressing Sarah Palin over the last six weeks is just the cherry on top of Barack Obama's chocolate sundae of good fortune. How could Obama have scripted his opponent to better undercut his reputation for being an experienced, tested leader than for John McCain to demonstrate such horrible judgment as to select a know-nothing like Palin as his running mate?

Now it is clearly demonstrated that her one claim to the allegiance of average Americans, that she's just your average "hockey mom," is just as big a lie as her saying "thanks, but no thanks" to the fabled "Bridge to Nowhere" and all the rest of her clever fibs.

This bit of chewy news candy will keep the media busy for days at a time that McCain desperately needs a game-changer to go his direction. As long as people are busy with "Neiman-Marcus-gate" they won't have time to focus on why Barack Obama is a socialistic, terrorist-loving, no-good, dirty rotten, America-hater. I love it! The Republican hypocrites are getting just exactly what they deserve.

Posted by: johnsonc2 | October 23, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

It reminds me of watching "Queen for a Day." At the end of the show, the queen had to give back the ratty sable stole.

Posted by: Keesvan | October 23, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

If the Democratic/Socialist Party--controlled Main Stream Media would investigate and report on their god Barack Obama and his pet poodle Joe Biden, just half of what they do about our next VP Sarah Palin, one could also start to believe that the MSM's reporters are really journalists and not just Democrat/Socialist Party hacks. It's become clear that, with the exeption of Fox News the only news source one can trust to report all the news and not censor it, the rest of the MSM is in the tank with the Democrat/Socialist Party whose propaganda arm they've become.

Posted by: armpeg | October 23, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

What makes this a big deal is what is eroding away at the principals of the republican party. republicans have, for may years, claimed the high ground of fiscal responsibility. Yet in the last 8 years the fiscal management of our country has been horrendous. The spending of $150K on high end clothes is just another symptom of the failure of the GOP to maintain the high ground on fiscal responsibility.

Posted by: mmtopny | October 23, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Even if he wins, we are going to end up with President Biden it seems. will he know which country he is running?


Nonetheless an attorney in Philadelphia, Philip Berg, filed a lawsuit claiming Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian man. Berg says Obama failed to take an oath of allegiance when he turned 18.

Obama has attempted to silence any critics by producing a birth certificate from Hawaii, proving he was born there in 1961. Berg however is demanding an original, and not a copy from the Obama camp.

Obama's team filed a motion to dismiss Berg's lawsuit, but they also made a motion to block discovery.

Brian Smith is a West Palm Beach attorney registered as an Independent, that has wrote about this issue from a legal standpoint on his blog.

"The Obama camp and Democratic National Committee responded to the lawsuit by filing a motion to dismiss, but they never responded to the request for admissions."

Berg is now arguing because Obama's camp is refusing to produce an original birth certificate copy in discovery, his allegations are essentially true.

"Wednesday he filed a motion for summary judgment, or a judgment in his favor, as a matter of law, because they essentially admitted those allegations. That from a legal perspective is huge," says Smith.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 23, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Honestly, as a Dem, I don't really think it's such a big deal. It's coming out of the RNC pool. Nobody would think of running for office without nice clothes. It's part of projecting an image of confidence and professionalism. I wouldn't hold that against anyone. Do I think it's a lot? Sure. Consider, though, that they had not much time to hone her image after she was selected.

I saw her 2008 address to the AIP, which was filmed in the governor's office. She's wearing an outdoorsy (also colorful) windbreaker. Yeah, a little updating was in order. You have to admit that she looks great and clothes look really good on her -- she reminded me a little of Jackie-O, only without the poise, class and refinement.

I wouldn't vote for McCain anyway, and I've heard from a few of my republican friends that they won't be voting for McCain because of her, but it's not over what she wears or how she looks, it's over the substance (or lack thereof) of her positions, the caliber of her opinions and the nature of her personality.

The clothes are great, and she looks nice, but they don't change who she is or what she stands for. It's a non-issue, but certainly not the kind of attention-diverter that the McCain campaign needs right now.

Posted by: ninjagin | October 23, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

When I heard about the shopping spree, in my head I keep seeing the scene from the movie Pretty Woman. The scene where Julia Roberts goes for the high dollar make over. And then I see John McCain giving the thumbs up or down on each outfit and I try to blank out the image.

Posted by: voter_lucky7 | October 23, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Is the media frenzy over Palin's $150,000 clothing tab 375 greater than the media frenzy over John Edwards' $400 haircut? Because that's how many $400 haircuts that money would have bought. Until then, I say Edwards is still getting the short end of the stick.

Posted by: bclark3 | October 23, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse
--------------

Edward's is a very wealthy man, if he wants to spend $400.00 for a hair cut that is his prerogative.

Posted by: popasmoke | October 23, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

What a waste! That could have bought "Joe six-pack" beer for life!
Say it aint so sarah...say it ain't so.

What I really find offensive is this 400,000 dollar weekend at AIG with our tax dollars! The aristrocracy says "let them eat cake" and try to save their heads by screaming "socialism! socialism......" as loud as they can.

Republicans. so confused. so sad.

Posted by: StoptheSpin | October 23, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Wow, you guys are still talking about this? You all must like Sarah a lot.

Now, in your own words, how about we talk about something that matters, like abortion or the economy?

Posted by: mryerse | October 23, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

The meme is simple: if this is how the Repubs handle their donor money, imagine how they'll handle YOUR tax money. Oh wait, you don't have to imagine. Just look at the economy, smothered in its cradle by BushCo and the Greed Machine. http://www.soonerthought.blogspot.com/

Posted by: soonerthought | October 23, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

They say that the cover-up is worse than the crime (ask Bill).

Well, the hypocricy is worse than the lie.

Posted by: Jaxxon | October 23, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Setting aside the whole Eva Peron-style fashion thing that Palin has going, let's just talk about a missed opportunity for a minute, also...

This democratic professoinal woman would have found it compelling if Palin *insisted* that her clothes come from a nice (but not upscale department store -- think Penny's); if she had *insisted* on a budget that was in keeping with her middle-class image.

Then, when a fashionista made fun of her clothes, she could *proudly* explain that she's not one of the insiders, and that her wardrobe reflects her politics. Thus, she could use even her clothes as a means of showing that she really 'gets it.' Lots of credibility there!

If she had been a little smarter (but there's the rub...) she could have played the media to her advantage.

Oh, but she isn't in charge, is she? Not even of her own campaign....

Posted by: jlbesq | October 23, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

It's the sheer audacity of the act where nobody in the campaign least of all Palin stepped back for a second and said "Hey, we can probably do this thing for much less." That every member in the campaign staff thought it was business as usual or was too afraid to stand up to the rest for fear of short-changing their "Sarah" shows a mentality that is long past it's time among Americans in this difficult economic period.

Posted by: Tansen | October 23, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse
-------------

The best part will be when this is over in two weeks how many of Mccains people will get stiffed as happens in almost every political campaign. Don't bother turning in those expense accounts, there is no money left. Small contractors who do sound work and staging, many will not get paid. Then they will look back on the $150,00 with a different attitude.

Posted by: popasmoke | October 23, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Spreading The Wealth Obama's $845 Billion U.N. Plan Forwarded To Senate The U.S. Senate soon could debate whether you, your spouse and each of your children – as well as your in-laws, parents, grandparents, neighbors and everyone else in America – each will spend $2,500 or more to reduce poverty around the world.

Let's see 150K for clothes or billions for world graft???

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 23, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

It's the sheer audacity of the act where nobody in the campaign least of all Palin stepped back for a second and said "Hey, we can probably do this thing for much less." That every member in the campaign staff thought it was business as usual or was too afraid to stand up to the rest for fear of short-changing their "Sarah" shows a mentality that is long past it's time among Americans in this difficult economic period.

Posted by: Tansen | October 23, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

As governor of a fairly large state she must have had a decent wardrobe to begin with. We have a female governor in our state and she always dresses neatly and appropriately. However I doubt she spent $150,000 to do so. I will concede that it is easier for a male candidate. You just put on the same dark suit every second day while the other dark suit is at the cleaners. Still this seems over the top. Macy's and Dillard would have been good enough. No need to go this fancy.

Posted by: Opa2 | October 23, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

This clothing issue speaks more to Sarah Palin's general cluelessness, due, generously, to her inexperience. She was too clueless to question this stream of clothing and makeovers. If she were more savvy she would have put 2 and 2 together and realized that this was not a very smart idea. So it is not about the clothing itself, it is more about finding an increasing number of metaphors to convey to those who had been willing to suspend disbelief what was obvious to many from the start, that Sarah Palin has no business anywhere near the Vice President's office and that her selection is a dealbreaker.

Posted by: pkstein | October 23, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

So whats the plan on the $150K cloths that the republicans said they will donate after the campaign. If they were smart they would start ebaying off her wardrobe this weekend to boost their advertising dollars.

So soccer moms spend 150K on clothing, most soccer moms can barely pay the mortgage on a 150K home. Maybe palin needs to shop at kohls or walmart to show her true maverick lifestyle. Crown plaza hotels being paid by the poor eskimos isn't very soccer mom. More like down right nasty. more like soccer Beotch!

Posted by: ccrowley | October 23, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Is the media frenzy over Palin's $150,000 clothing tab 375 greater than the media frenzy over John Edwards' $400 haircut? Because that's how many $400 haircuts that money would have bought. Until then, I say Edwards is still getting the short end of the stick.

Posted by: bclark3 | October 23, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

This is not a serious country. We now have a disgraceful press that is not scrutinizing the people who are responsible for this financial mess that affects us all but finds the time to talk about the clothing allowance of Sarah palin. Shame on you all. Even I'm finally disgusted and I was an executive at Newsweek.

Posted by: tlunde | October 23, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

This is a non story imo. I am as "Anti-American" as Michele Bachmann's fetid imagination wants to paint me as, but really it is a story about hypocrisy and these campaign season is awash in them. I think that this is just another sign of republican ineptitude more than fiscal irresponsibility. Let us put this in perspective. Sure, Palin's recent shopping spree dwarfs her yearly salary but at least she got more than one piece of cloth for her money; as oppose to Cindy McCain with her wearing one outfit ensemble costing over 300k.

Posted by: Penseur | October 23, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

The GOP's attempt to make a "silk purse from a sow's ear" seems to be failing...

Posted by: stee1962 | October 23, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

"I think the President has lead with great clarity and I think he's done a great job leading the country don't you all?" -- John McCain on George W. Bush

"The President and I agree on most issues, there was a recent study showing I voted with the President over 90% of the time, more than my Republican colleagues" -- John McCain on George W. Bush

Posted by: Hillary08 | October 23, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

And change? Obama himself has changed positions on FISA, NAFTA, public campaign financing, town-hall meetings with McCain, offshore drilling, nuclear and coal power, capital punishment and gun control, his characterization of Iran, the surge in Iraq, and the future of Jerusalem. So change from what to what?

Under Sen. Obama’s tax plan, nearly half of all income earners wouldn’t pay federal income taxes. He also offers billions in cash payments to millions of those people. And he promises to pay for that loss in revenue by upping taxes on those in the highest income brackets, who already pay the majority of existing income taxes — and who could also be subject to proposed higher payroll, estate, and capital-gains taxes.

Is that a tax-cut policy or more a redistribution of wealth in search of forced equality — what Obama himself apparently calls to “spread the wealth around” or what Biden once suggested was “patriotic”?

A Martian who reviewed Obama’s past elections in Illinois, the various associations he once cultivated, his brief voting record in the Senate, and the positions he originally outlined when he announced his presidential campaign might objectively conclude that America could elect either the most far left or the most unknown presidential candidate in its history.

I just hope that it is still not racist or McCarthy-like — or blasphemous — simply to suggest that.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal and the 2008 Bradley Prize.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 23, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

If the Repubs use tax-payer dollars - if elected - like they use contributor funds, I want no part of it.

What happened to Sears or the outlet mall?

What happened to UPS or FedEx to get Ms. Palin's clothes to her? Can she not plan better?

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior:

McCain: pseudo-suspends campaign, against then in favor of -
bailout
Bush tax cuts
how the war is being fought
our use of torture

Palin: in favor of then against -
bridge to nowhere
ear-marks
narrowly focused cirriculum.

They are an Iran-Contra like scandal waiting to happen. We don't need another elitist, insensitive, and out-of-touch Republican President.

At the least, Ms. Palin could buy a copy of the Constitution and see that the VP does not lead the Senate or influence policy there.

Posted by: crazy4glf | October 23, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Voters apparently still don’t know who Obama is, or what he wants to do — and so are still not altogether sure that Obama is the proper antidote to George W. Bush. After more than a year of campaigning, he still remains an enigma.

Obama promised to be the post-racial candidate who would bring us together. But when asked in March 2004 whether he attended regularly Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama boasted, “Yep. Every week. 11 o’clock service.”

The healer Obama further characterized the racist Wright as “certainly someone who I have an enormous amount of respect for.” And Obama described the even more venomous father Michael Pfleger as “a dear friend, and somebody I interact with closely.”

Obama can dismiss his past associations with Bill Ayers as perfunctory and now irrelevant. But why then did an Obama campaign spokesman say Obama hadn’t e-mailed with or spoken by phone to Ayers since January 2005, suggesting more than three years of communications — in a post-9/11 climate — after Ayers said publicly he had not done enough bombing?

Obama’s campaign shrugged when legal doubts were raised about the sloppy voter registration practices of ACORN — an organization that Obama himself has both helped and praised.

Yet Obama once was a stickler for proper voter documents. In 1996, he had all of his Democratic rivals removed from the ballot in an Illinois state primary election on the basis of sloppy voter petitions.

Many of Obama’s surrogates — from congressional leaders like Rep. John Lewis to his running mate, Sen. Joe Biden — have suggested that the McCain and Palin candidacies have heightened racial tensions. Do such preemptory warnings mean that one cannot worry about Obama’s 20-year relationship with Rev. Wright or long association with Father Pfleger?

It’s also unclear exactly what Obama’s message of “hope” and “change” means. The hope part turned a little weird when Obama, in prophetic fashion, proclaimed, “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for,” and later put up Greek-temple backdrops for his speech at the Democratic convention.

If we didn’t get that supernatural message, Obama also promised of his election that it would be the “moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 23, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

The Post story mentions that McCain aides downplayed the clothes story because it was not relevant in a time of financial and foreign crisis! 150 grand for clothes in a time of financial crisis is not germane? No wonder McCain is losing with jokers like that involved with the campaign

Posted by: blpeyton | October 23, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

It's the sheer audacity of the act where nobody in the campaign least of all Palin stepped back for a second and said "Hey, we can probably do this thing for much less." That every member in the campaign staff thought it was business as usual or was too afraid to stand up to the rest for fear of short-changing their "Sarah" shows a mentality that is long past it's time among Americans in this difficult economic period.

Posted by: Tansen | October 23, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

""She's always been the candidate of style, not substance.""

Uh, no, that would be the messiah. I am still waiting for a single item of substance to emerge which indicates he has any idea what he is doing. He has been caught chanting the same nonsense all year. the war is lost, the surge is a failure. Tax cuts for the poor, soak the rich, spend like crazy, ignore the reality. big government health care for all.

yeah the usual Lib dumbfoundery. Maybe the cancelled "West wing" writers can come back to work for a rewrite.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 23, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

It's hard to hear about all the $ billions the Fed and Treasury are throwing around and then think that $150,000 is a lot of money for anything, until you step back and realize it was for clothes, two months worth of clothes. I think it's ridiculous, but I'm not voting for McCain and Palin for all the other riduculous things they've said and done. I have no idea who is still undecided out there, but if there are any undecideds this would be as good a reason as any to make a decision in Obama's favor.

Posted by: gemerson | October 23, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse


Field Dressed: Inside Sarah Palin's Excellent Shopping Adventure:
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/10/field-dressed.html

Posted by: janawalter87 | October 23, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

More than anything, I think it helps underscore the multiple personalities (DID, my therapist wife would say) we demand of our politicians today.

On the one hand, we seem to want someone we can hang out with, have a beer with, someone who can relate to us and share our pain.

On the other hand, we demand that the same person be able to master complex issues such as international relations, foreign policy, tax policy, health care, well, you get the idea. And to make things worse, we insist that they do these things dressed to the nines with not a hair out of place.

In short, we want our national leaders to be human and transcend their humanity at the same time, which seems to me to be asking a little too much. Personally, I could not care less if the NRCC wants to buy these clothes for Governor Palin. I can certainly understand why they might think she needs a top flight wardrobe (although I think they could have done just as well at stores that are less pricey than Neiman-Marcus).

What I really get out of this whole kerfuffle is that we as an electorate need to take a step back and think about what we really want and develop some realistic expectations of our politicians.

Posted by: tunamcdermot | October 23, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

It's probably not huge in the general scheme of things--the clothes were bought by the RNC, not the Palins, and they are intended to go to charity after the campaign--but it does begin to shift the ground a bit beneath the character Sarah Palin has created. That she is a "regular person" used to be true, I'm sure, but since entering politics she appears to have figured out that the g-droppin', pit-bull-with-lipstick-hockey-mom is her ticket to greater things. At the outset of her debate with Joe Biden, we saw a serious and fairly articulate woman--someone to be taken seriously--who then quickly resorted to the character she's created, winking, giggling, pretending she's above and beyond having to answer actual questions. And now this shopping spree (not to mention comments about "pro-America Americans"). Doubts about her begin to accrue. And that is long, long overdue.

Posted by: marico10 | October 23, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse
--------------

Mccain campaigns in slacks a sport shirt and sport jacket. Even with the $400.00 shoes he wears his whole outfit can't be over $800. to a $1000.

What do you thing about the $299.00 baby blanket that is on the list as well as clothes for Todd? You can buy a very nice baby blanket for under $50.00. In fact closer to $20.00 from most any store. Lets call it what it is. Palin had input to the purchases and pissed away money like a drunk. They got caught, thats all and now are making up stories. Right, they are giving $150,000 worth of clothes to charity? They don't even care anymore if their lies are even remotely believable.
All they had to say was, "We spent too much, we should have been more careful" The story would be over, but no, they just have to keep lying and lying and more lying. Lies are the hallmark of the Mccain campaign.

Posted by: popasmoke | October 23, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

I'm a liberal democrat and an Obama supporter. But I'm also a college professor. I know that my students who find jobs after college incur significant first-time wardrobe costs. This is pretty much the same thing.

Was it tone-deaf, stupid and, perhaps, slightly hypocritical to spend most of the money at Needless Markup and Saks? Of course. But, there wasn't a lot of time to buy a lot of stuff, and the high-end service is certainly better at high-end stores. You get what you pay for.

So I do think this is all much ado about very little. However, it does illustrate, yet again, the peculiar ways the media bias has manifested itself during this election. We're not questioning the judgment of a VP who pulls her kids out of school and celebrates the pregnancy of her 17-year old daughter. But we question the purchase of expensive clothes for her? She's always been the candidate of style, not substance. The big ticket purchase seems perfectly normal when viewed in this light.

Posted by: concernedprof75 | October 23, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

CC,

You miss the point completely. What matters most is, with 13 days left in this election, this is the last thing that John McCain needs sucking up valuable media attention. If its not positive coverage, its time wasted for McCain...and he has precious little left.

Posted by: youba | October 23, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

"One vote is a winning majority."

What's most amusing is that zouk has to boost himself with the most McCain-friendly poll he can find, which still shows McCain behind. Good luck with that strategy.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 23, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

king_of_zouk - Tens of thousands of people just like me are sending the Obama campaign $100 to $200 a month. I'd give more if I had it. I get out every weekend and pound pavement, knocking on doors, handing out literature, registering voters. If all of that work, if it took ten times the money advantage you write of, just to gain half a point, it WILL BE WORTH IT. This campaign isn't an election any more. It's a crusade to take back our country, to root out and punish the rotten filth that landed us in this mess, and to be able to regain some dignity. The pseudo-patriotism of the Neocon's and the pseudo-morality of the Fundimentalist anti-abortion one issue idiots is OVER. We will do whatever it takes to rebuild this country, WHATEVER IT TAKES. If it takes 100 milllion extra dollars to win a 60 vote majority in the Senate, $200 milllion to win a veto proof majority in the House, and extra half a trillion dollars to win the White House, it will be well worth it.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | October 23, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

"Let's compare the 25 million spent by Obama on endless radio and TV ads in VA that have netted him a TWO point advantage."

Let's.

The people who donated that 25 million did so believing that the money would be spent on campaign expenses - like advertising. Duh.

The marks who handed over their cash to the McCain campaign might have been more reluctant to do so (though given their dimness, maybe not) if they knew it was going to be used to beautify the Palins.

Of course, the Palins know a thing or two about living it up on the public dime. Splurge, baby, splurge!

Posted by: bondjedi | October 23, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

woadan writes
"One has to wonder what the wagging tongues would be saying if she didn't wear the stylish clothes she is now wearing, even if she didn't spend quite so much on them."

I've seen that talking point raised before. It seems a bit ridiculous. What did she wear to the governor's office, her hunting gear? What did she wear on her trips to Wash DC, a hockey jersey? Its not like she was plucked out of the kitchen to join the campaign trail - she still holds elected office in Alaska, remember?

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 23, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

It simply goes to hypocrisy. For a "Joe six pack" hockey mom, it is ridiculous that the campaign would do something that would detract from that image. I am sure they are sorry now, but it is a bit late, and there are people who will add this to their cache of "why I can't vote for McCain because of Palin." I determined that I would not vote for McCain after I realized that we could end up with her as POTUS. No Thanks!!

Posted by: indyvoter | October 23, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

This is a non-issue. If this is the best point that we can discuss then we are in some pretty deep trouble after all. These are serious times and we need serious discussion about who is qualified to lead us through this mess. I doubt that Palin made these decisions about what to wear or where to buy it. These decisions were made by campaign advisors.

The issue is not one of style, but substance. Does she have the experience and intellectual capacity to lead our nation?

Remember, although McCain's mother is in her 90's, his father died much earlier. (You will not find that on McCain's Wikipedia page however.) Also, McCain's mother doesn't have the stresses that prematurely age the inhabitants of the oval office.

The question of Palin's competency to be President is the only topic we need consider when discussing her background. Her clothing is completely immaterial and not worthy of serious consideration by those of us interested in bringing the country together to solve our most urgent problems. It is below us as a nation, and panders to our worst instincts as a people.

Posted by: bilco5 | October 23, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Most amazing that the angry left media has no interest in anything Obama or biden say or do but are entranced by anything having to do with Palin. they have transferred theior bush derangement syndrome effectively over to Pailin derangment syndrome. to see the poofdahs on MSDNC "analyze" the plumber and the clothing proves they have slunk lower than a used car salesman - almost down to congressman level.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 23, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Let's compare the 25 million spent by Obama on endless radio and TV ads in VA that have netted him a TWO point advantage.

why isn't the messiah stomping all over Bush III?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 23, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse
-------------

One vote is a winning majority.

Posted by: popasmoke | October 23, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

It's probably not huge in the general scheme of things--the clothes were bought by the RNC, not the Palins, and they are intended to go to charity after the campaign--but it does begin to shift the ground a bit beneath the character Sarah Palin has created. That she is a "regular person" used to be true, I'm sure, but since entering politics she appears to have figured out that the g-droppin', pit-bull-with-lipstick-hockey-mom is her ticket to greater things. At the outset of her debate with Joe Biden, we saw a serious and fairly articulate woman--someone to be taken seriously--who then quickly resorted to the character she's created, winking, giggling, pretending she's above and beyond having to answer actual questions. And now this shopping spree (not to mention comments about "pro-America Americans"). Doubts about her begin to accrue. And that is long, long overdue.

Posted by: marico10 | October 23, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

At first I thought that Wardrobegate was fluff that would ultimately get little attention -- and I'm a Democratic critic of hers. But then, I also thought that John Edwards' $400 haircut was insignificant. I was wrong in both cases. Such issues do resonate with the public.

In Edwards' case, he had the money and could afford to spend lavishly on haircuts -- doing so only made him seem remote from the masses, not a crook.

In Palin's case, she appears to be personally profiting from her celebrity. Wardrobegate dovetails conveniently with Kiddietravelgate, Per diem-gate, and rumblings that her half-million dollar home may have been constructed at least partially in the time-honored Alaskan tradition of Ted Stevens' chalet.

All of these "distractions" add up not so much to a political indictment of Palin, but rather amplyfy the fundamental issue with voters: McCain made a poor decision in his running mate, therefore he might make poor decisions as president.

Posted by: Stonecreek | October 23, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

zouk,

Once again, you're cherry-picking.

Mason-Dixon has VA at Obama +2.

CNN-Time, conducted at the same time, has Obama +10.

Even if it's somewhere in the middle, Obama is up by about 6 in VA. Not bad for a state that Bush won by 8 in 2004.

Posted by: cam8 | October 23, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

One of the salilent points is that RNC funds were used. They are raised from donors and I'd be mad as a wet hen if that is what happened to my contribution.

If anyone wants to spend their own money at Saks, Neimans, Macys or Target, it is their business. However, the use of donated funds for this purposed is questionable at best and deplorable at worst.

"Country Club First" indeed.

Posted by: NotBubba | October 23, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

The expense account story in the WaPo today might be more than a distraction.
A sample:
-----------------------
Bill Tandeske, who served as public safety commissioner from 2003 to 2006 during Gov. Frank Murkowski's administration, said the state plane should be used for official business only, not like a family station wagon.

"Is the use of a state asset for the governor's husband and kids appropriate? I suggest not," Tandeske said.
--------------------------

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 23, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

I'm of two minds on this - on the one hand, the way the republicans jumped all over Edwards for the haircuts leaves them wide open for this. And although most republicans don't make an issue of the common touch, she does, so it is sort of relevant.

On the other hand, it is inevitable that dressing a woman for politics would cost more than a man. How much more, I don't know. But a woman needs a number of outfits and accessories to go with them to be out in the public eye. People are going to scrutinize her wardrobe choices all the time. Still I do think she could have gotten decent outfits cheaper if she wanted. I think the decision to go to the top end shops was just reflex for the (really) elitist republicans. What else would they do?

But in any case I would never have voted for her whatever she wore, it's her policies and lack of knowledge that are the deciding factors. So I guess altogether it is a non-issue for me.

Posted by: catherine3 | October 23, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Let's compare the 25 million spent by Obama on endless radio and TV ads in VA that have netted him a TWO point advantage.

why isn't the messiah stomping all over Bush III?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 23, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

One has to wonder what the wagging tongues would be saying if she didn't wear the stylish clothes she is now wearing, even if she didn't spend quite so much on them.

"She's VP candidate for the republicans and she dresses like _that_?"

"Who does she think she is, a hocker mom?"

For better or for worse, we expect our politicians to look business professional. It's apparent that the McCain campaign felt she needed some polishing.

Did it take $150,000 to shine her up? The jury may be out on that one for a while...

You can say what you want, but I think the campaign wouldn't win either way, because either she didn't dress like a VP should, or she spent too much money to look like a VP candidate.

Comme-ci, comme-ca!

Posted by: Woadan | October 23, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

I think Hall and Oates would summarize this GOP Presidential Campaign this way...

"They're out of touch, they're out of time"

Posted by: sollazo | October 23, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

It matters. But it's not the clothes. It's the hypocrisy. That's what raises the clothing purchase to a level on par with other major campaign issues.

Posted by: MagicWords | October 23, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

For a look inside the McCain campaign, there's this fascinating article (a bit long, but worth reading) from the upcoming NYT Sunday Magazine:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/magazine/26mccain-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

From my perspective, the fundamental flaw of McCain's campaign (and exacerbated by Palin) is that the "narrative" of his life that he and his campaign have always peddled simply doesn't square with reality.

Yes, he showed bravery while a POW and has bucked his party from time to time, all of which is admirable.

But he has stated--and his campaign keeps pushing--this notion that his whole life has been devoted to duty, honor, and country.

It's really hard to take that seriously when you learn that he walked out on his devoted wife to marry a much younger, much prettier, and much wealthier woman--a woman's whose family wealth and connections got McCain his start in elective office.

There's a similar disconnect between Palin's "narrative" and the reality of her behavior as mayor, governor, and now VP candidate. And the "shopping spree" story only adds to this problem for the campaign.

In some respects, it reminds me of John Kerry's problems in 2004. He tried to sell himself as a war hero, which he was, but he forgot to mention that when he returned from Vietnam, he became one of the country's most visible and prominent anti-war activists.

It's also similar to Mitt Romney's embarrassing campaign this season: His rhetoric never matched up to the reality of his previous campaigns and statements.

How sad for John McCain. He has become the antithesis of everything he has ever believed about himself.

Posted by: Bondosan | October 23, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

This will have no effect. Her supporters recognized her on her first appearance as a member of their club, and it was love at first sight. Listen to her supporters parrot back her talking points in media interviews at campaign events: Nothing will get them off of her bus. She could begin campaigning in a nun's habit -- or even throw McCain under the bus -- and it would make no difference to them. She will be the face of the GOP in 2012.

Posted by: thewolf1 | October 23, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Chris - we've seen this movie before. Confused older man who can have his choice of any mate in the country goes completely against the grain, plucking from obscurity a beautiful but raw younger woman. She has difficulty adjusting to her new and exciting world, and her place in it is undermined by those threatened by her freshness. She is helped along by her plucky best friend and a kindly service industry employee, and lives happily ever after.

The John McCain role was played by Richard Gere; Palin was Julia Roberts; the media and party elites trying to tear her down are played by Jason Alexander; and Laura San Giacomo and Hector Elizondo play Rush, Hannity, etc.

The movie was "Pretty Woman," and the highlight of it and this campaign is the shopping spree.

Posted by: bondjedi | October 23, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

This is a distraction. It means nothing in the world of reality, and it means one 24/7 news cycle in the world of perceptions. Certainly it creates a negative impression.
But it is ultimately unimportant.

JD - eml me at

mark_in_austin@operamail.com

please.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | October 23, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

I wonder which cost more - the Greek columns or the clothes???

Posted by: king_of_zouk | October 23, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

It matters because it contradicts the Republican hockey mom narrative and "branding," in the current jargon, and voters like candidates of the people. Objectively, it is a non-issue. High profile politics is a lot show biz, and no doubt lots of time and money are spent on packaging and decorating all the candidates. Men do get off easy because their clothing is unnoticed, so it is unfair to women. But this is the way the world works, things that shouldn't matter often do. If the RNCC misused campaign funds, then there's a real issue that fits the Demo narrative about the Republicans.

Posted by: utec | October 23, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

What it shows is that whenever the Palins are on someone else's tab, they will spend all they can.

Don't offer to take them to dinner. They will order the most expensive thing on the menu, even if they don't like it, just to get the most from the opportunity.

Don't give them an expense account. They will charge to live in their own home.

The term for this is "Trailer Trash".

Posted by: cyberfool | October 23, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Its pretty clear this won't move the bases much. On the GOP side, it confirms that the liberal media has it out for Sarah Palin. On the Dem side, it confirms that Gov Palin is little more than a prop in the campaign. What is not clear is how swing voters will react. My guess is that we'll see further drops in Gov Palin's approval among independents, with a slightly detrimental effect on the ticket.

Posted by: bsimon1 | October 23, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

I can't imagine that her clothing budget will make a significant difference, but it may convince some marginal voters to stay home rather than to come out and vote Republican. It will be interesting to see what voting rates are like in the traditional republican base--financial conservatives who have little interest in moral issues, are aghast at the bail-outs, and may be turned off by McCain's recent criticisms of Bush--they are most likely to be upset at the sheer waste of resources represented by the shopping sprees. There may end up being a signficant number who decide to sit out the election, take their time in the wilderness and re-build the party for the future.

Posted by: rlowe1 | October 23, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

The McCain-Palin ticket calls Obama elitist, while McCain owns 7 homes and Palin spends $150,000 on European clothes. You can't point the finger and call someone elitist when that finger has diamond rings on it.

Posted by: haniffe | October 23, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

It is a distraction to some extent as both campaigns have focused on peripheral issues at times. But it does belie the image Palin has tried to create as the Wal-Mart mom. And it's certainly a distraction that the McCain campaign doesn't need at this time as Palin's negatives now outweigh her positives. (Plus there's been some discussion on the legality of the spend under campaign finance rules...) I guess it costs this much to put lipstick on a pit bull....

Posted by: RickJ | October 23, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

This should be taken seriously. The "hockey mom" has been exposed as an elitist republican....how hypocritical....McLame just can't seem to get a break these days, however all of his problems seem to be self-inflicted.

doug in nashville

Posted by: douglechleiter | October 23, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Here's how I see it: The republicans threw a fit when it came out that John Edwards was spending $500 on haircuts. Sarah Palin has been the nominee for roughly 2 months (60 days), and has accumulated $150,000 in shopping charges. In order for John Edwards to spend that much money in two months, he would need to get 5 haircuts a day, 7 days a week.

Posted by: FlyersSuck | October 23, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company