It really doesn’t matter anymore.
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/fashion/article4976308.ece
This needs to happen…
Who’s ripping her? I’m applauding it!
I’m not saying that they’re doing anything illegal or immoral, though if there’s anyone out there who made a big deal about Edwards’ $400 haircut, but doesn’t feel similarly about this, I’m kinda chortling at them. But my in-laws are very blue-collar, very Republican people in a swing state (FL), and this is exactly the sort of story that could get some of them to stay home on November 4. And I’m sure it will go over equally well in the blue-collar precincts of Pennsylvania and Ohio.
So I’m just grinning from ear to ear. If McCain wasn’t forked already, he is now.
Her glasses are really expensive because they allow her to see Russia from her front porch.
Well, far be it from me to attempt to reduce our great nation to the status of the former USSR, whose leaders were always showing up at international events in those trademark ill-fitting suits to evince their disdain for elitist capitalist couture.
But when a vice-presidential candidate “really needs” a wardrobe for a three-month political campaign that costs more than twelve times the annual income of a minimum-wage worker, I start to think there’s some point in what John Edwards used to say about the “two Americas”.
So what?
Between the two candidates their campaigns are expected to spend well over a billion dollars, yet this is supposed to trip my trigger as wasteful spending? How many mass mailings have you gotten? How many signs do you have up in your yard? Nothing involved with this election has value in three weeks, so it’s all wasted money.
Of course they’re going to doll her up. Obama isn’t exactly wearing cheap suits himself. Where did they come from? Chances are you guys paid for them with your donations.
I don’t know what it is about this campaign that has sent you people off the deep end, but I wish you would stop.
Yup. The McCain morons certainly have done a splendid job of showing how out of touch they are with truly average Americans.
I suspect Joe Six-Pack would reach for his shotgun if his wife ever spent 150 grand on clothes.
She’s worth $1.5 million. I know we’ve had this discussion on the SDMB before, but I’m never going to be convinced that a person worth over a million dollars doesn’t fit the definition of “personally wealthy.” Granted, I’m not fashionista, and if I were in her position and wore the clothes I owned, people would laugh at me and rightly so. But I am reasonably certain she could have spent her own money to make sure she and her kids don’t look like hicks from BFE, Alaska.
Anyway, all I can think about is that scene from Pretty Woman when Richard Gere takes his prostitute shopping at all the nice places so she’d look presentable.
From the article:
I’m not frothing, I think it’s funny. Democratic politicians have been jeered for expensive haircuts (out of their own money, last I heard?) and the like, and now it turns out that donation money is going to supply Gov. Palin and her family with higher-end campaign appearance wardrobes and hair/makeup work. If an observer is going to be all down-home ‘gosh, those elitist politicians are out of touch with us average folk’ then it needs to be applied equally.
I did at first think she might need it because of the costs of 5 kids, one with Down’s syndrome, but IIRC her several sets of expensive eyeglasses (frames around $500 a pop) are pre-candidacy. So she did have some discretionary income for that, at least.
It appears to be a traditional Inuit dress. I imagine she wore it to show how much of a ‘real’ Alaskan she is.
Even if I accept that she needed a new wardrobe (and I don’t), I sure as hell don’t believe that her family needed to be kitted out, too. Are there any other jobs where clothing is provided for the family as well as the actual employee?
Does this create a taxable event for the Palin’s?
Speaking as someone who is far, far from wealthy, I wouldn’t consider $500 frames to be that outrageous. If you want fashionable frames, they’re going to cost. She could probably get something similar for cheaper out of a mall, but I wouldn’t blame her for not doing so.
Frankly, I think you’re all fantasizing if you think blue collar voters are going to be turned off by this revelation. It’s not going to come off as the gross overspending of the elite, using party money to play dress up. It’s going to be seen as a Cinderella fantasy. Here she is, just an ordinary hockey mom, caught up in a whirlwind of fashion and travel as she brings her maverick politics to DC, to teach those old fogies a thing or two!
This fits into the narrative they’ve already established. The revelation won’t change anything.
This is it. Along with the “VP in charge of the Senate”, this issue is getting a lot of play on CNN at the moment. I’m also grinning ear to ear. Keep it up, Sarah!
Don’t forget: every time she buys a new wardrobe she has to buy a second matching one for Tina Fey.
Under the circumstances it doesn’t surprise me that this sort of money has been spent on her - the GOP needed her to impress and that means a new stunning outfit for every public appearance between VP selection and the election, plus hair and makeup costs. But it does indeed put the $400 haircut in perspective.
I can’t help but wonder how much it would’ve cost to dress Hillary Clinton if she had been selected as Obama’s VP.
I don’t care, but my god it is incredibly stupid of the RNC.
I really don’t see the issue here. A candidate’s personal appearance is of the utmost importance during a campaign; who would expect the Republicans (or the Democrats) to send their nominees out into the spotlight looking anything other than their best, regardless of that nominee’s personal wealth? Particularly a woman candidate, whose stylistic choices will be scrutinized to the high heavens.
I don’t find it hypocritical or incongruous with her “Hockey Mom” image. It isn’t as if she’s out hunting moose at the moment; she’s on stage in front of the world. I can’t get myself worked up over what ultimately amounts to a tiny percentage of what will be spent on this campaign.
Hillary has the wardrobe from being a Senator and candidate. I’d guess eight years of being First Lady has taught her how to leave the house presentable after having done her own hair and makeup - just because I get the feeling Hillary wouldn’t be patient enough or willing to give up control enough to have someone do that for her every day.
I’m not shocked, it takes a lot of money to dress a woman to campaign - and if she isn’t doing her own hair and makeup - its going to take a lot of money to keep that up as well. To me its both a valid campaign expense, and a reasonable one…
But it isn’t going to play well in Omaha…
1/10 iof her net worth? No way.
What we each might define as “personally wealthy” is irrelevant, anyway. We can both agree that 1.5 million is chump change compared to the net worths of most presidential and vice presidential candidates.
Come to think of it–is this the poorest group of major candidates that we’ve seen in a while or what? McCain’s the only one who’s unequivocally rich!
Much much much less. She’s been on the national stage for 16 years now. She has a wardrobe and a trademark style already. Maybe she’d need a few more black pantsuits and some new shoes and formal dresses or whatever, but she wouldn’t be starting from scratch. Or anything close to it. And she, much more than Palin, would have the money to pay for it herself if need be.
Look, I don’t know who usually pays for this kind of stuff, but in the case of Palin, IMHO, it’s justifiable that the campaign sprang for it.
Ah well…if Obama/Biden wins on Nov. 4, at least Mrs. Palin will have the nice consolation prize of a great new wardrobe. And I’m sure Obama would be willing to reach into his own pocket to pay for the requisite year’s supply of Turtle Wax. 