Well, they did tell all the local St. Paul businesses that the convention would bring in a lot of cash. Maybe she was just trying to do her part, and spent $50k at the Mall.
Really? Really?
Both parties want to look nice and buy clothes so there’s no difference?
False equivalence much?
The amount spent comes to over a $1000 a day since she was named vice-presidential candidate. I’d wager that the vast majority of women in similar positions could look presentable for no more than $50,000.
This used to be the party of Pat Nixon’s cloth coat. Now it’s the official “do as I say, not as I do” party.
You’re missing the showtune potential:
*CHORUS:Eyes, hair, mouth, figure
Dress, voice, style, movement
Hands, magic, rings, glamour
Face, diamonds, excitement, image
SARITA: I came from Wasilla
They need to adore me!
So Christian Dior me!
Like an Anchorage MILF!
I need to be dazzling
I want to be Caribou High!
The kids must look gorgeous
and so must I!
CHORUS: Eyes, hair, mouth, figure
Dress, voice, children, expense accounts
SARITA: You’re not decorating a girl
for a rinky dink prom-ah
Or some media elite toady
to fellate Obam-ah!
All my Six-Packs and Plumbers expect me to out-foxy Michelle O
I won’t disappoint them!
I’m their di-version! So Reese Witherspoon me!
Alaskan festoon me! I want to be Caribou Highhhhhhhhh…
and charge it to the GOP!*
Otherwise, to be honest I couldn’t care less how much they spend on her look. It’s perfectly reasonable for candidates to want to look their best, sad but true that it’s more important for women than men, and ain’t a penny of it my money, so have at girlfriend. I think it’d be great if she and Tina Fey went shopping or Carson Kressley came to help (especially if he sabotaged it on behalf of gays everywhere- “People see you as Mary Ann, not Ginger, so let’s do pigtails and a gingham shirt with bare midriff and moose leather pants!”)
I dunno; without knowing how much it costs to clothe Obama and Biden, how much of a false equivalence can you really say that it is? Especially since it costs more to dress and groom a woman than a man?
I may misunderstand what you’re saying is a false equivalence, though.
“I came from the people, they need to adore me
So Christian Dior me from my head to my toes
I need to be dazzling, I want to be Rainbow High
They must have excitement, and so must I”
Am I the only one that thought of this? http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/evitavol2/rainbowhigh.htm
But really … very much a Democrat here, but I don’t see a problem. She needed a new wardrobe and had to appear appropriate for the job of VP. 150K? Meh.
Uh… yeah… I guess so… (cough— post 63---- cough)
From the article: “A review of similar records for the campaign of Democrat Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee turned up no similar spending.”
Whatever it costs to clothe Obama and Biden, it’s not being paid for with campaign or Party money. Unlike with Palin.
False equivalencies don’t get much falser than this.
Math alert!
1/10 of 1% of $1 billion is actually $1 million.
So, $150,000 is 3/200 of 1% of their campaign funds.
I’m with Airman on this: it’s such a piddling amount in the big scheme of things that it’s not worth even thinking about.
But, as we all know, the American media and many Americans often attach a whole lot of significance to crap like this, so it might come back to bite her on the ass.
I also watched the episode of “The View” when Michelle Obama was on and she mentioned her dress (which was stunning, BTW) cost $149. Somehow, I don’t think the Repubs would win in a “but everybody’s doing it!” contest.
My mistake on that note, then, although I still don’t see anything wrong with the sum.
It’s not the amount so much as the obvious and blatant hypocrisy.
I suspect the same press that excoriated Edwards over his $400 haircut, which he paid for with his own money, not campaign donations, is going to mention it briefly and then give it a pass. I suspect that the Republican rank and file will do the same. I’m shocked at the hypocrisy. Shocked I tell you. A Republican wasting campaign money on dressing self and family. Reminds me of a certain Republican cloth coat.
Thanks for the math alert. It’s even more insignificant an amount than I said in my post.
It’s trivial, really. I was going to compare it to the cost of the bailout, too. :eek:
I see Long Time First Time beat me to the “cloth coat” reference.
Bah. I’m a Democrat, and hate her as much as anyone else, but this is a completely reasonable campaign expense. I could have already told you that dressing to the level of her position, as a major candidate, would cost that much.
I also think that you’re not giving the average voter much credit in thinking that they don’t understand that, and I think that the average voter is an idiot. I think most of the women will have an idea, at least.
Reactions to their $0.0075? Of course if they sent in less than $50 you’ll need to adjust that 3/4 cent down accordingly.
The reason this is relevant is because the campaign has taken extreme measures to make Palin all about her image, not her substance. She’s a hockey mom, she rides snow machines, she can field dress a moose; she rarely does interviews that might penetrate the superficial persona that has been conjured up for her.
It should come as no surprise when inconsistencies are found in that image, they are exploited. If the campaign had put her out there on the Sunday morning interview shows, or had her do regular press conferences with questions from the media on the issues of the day, perhaps this wouldn’t happen. But when they manufacture an image they hope they can sell to the public, they can hardly whine when the public pokes holes in that image when contradictions rear their heads.
If Palin had been a candidate of substance with a command of the issues, this would not be anything notable. When a candidate is nothing more than a character created for media consumption, the campaign must bear responsibility when the facade slips, and reality and image collide.
Sure it makes a difference. Most women can attest to the amazing difference that a good bra and body shapers make. A properly fitted bra can easily run over $100, same for decent body shapers. Without the properly fitting stuff, she’ll look lumpy and misshapen–even the skinniest celebrities wear body shapers to smooth themselves out, so it’s no surprise that a mother of 5 would need such things. Add to that stockings (which can probably only be worn once) and other such things and that adds of fast.
So how come the elitist tax-and-spend Democratic party has managed to avoid making similar “campaign expenses”, while the real-America hockey-mom maverick party has not?
Because the Democrats have spent just as much, it’s just that their side has been subsidized by Al Qaeda and Hamas, not campaign funds. Duh!