how palin happened.
 

here's an interesting article in what appears to be today's new yorker about the process and networkiness that resulted in mc-cain choosing palin as a running mate

The Political Scene: The Insiders: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker

you can see that the story is not exactly like the mythology, and that palin is not exactly the "outsider" that she presents herself as being.

strangely, this process is not something i am bothered by in any way ---if anything, it makes sense of the choice and shows that palin is an ambitious person who figured out how to play the conservative network game to her advantage. but figuring out how to network effectively and being either a good choice tactically for vice president or being in any way qualified to actually be vice president are two very different things. but mostly, i oppose almost everything sarah palin stands for politically, and would oppose in the same way anyone who espoused these positions.

you'll notice maybe that the article dodges questions that still surround the vetting process--and that mc-cain had wanted to nominate leiberman, but was more or less told no by the party, which worried about a revolt from the far right/"social conservatives" because leiberman is pro-choice.

but one thing is sure--this choice did not come out of nowhere. the biggest single role seems to have been played by the national review...

but what do you make of this account?
does it have any effect on how you understand palin?

It seems a thoughtful explanation, but ultimately it does boil simply down to what you said:
I believe I've understood her for a while now. From my perspective she's always been a creature of hubris and ambition, lacking the intellectual complexity or experience necessary to fulfill the role she covets. Palin and W. Bush are cast from the same mold.

I read this while taking a break from a paper someone sent me about time & language & all sorts of things.

Palin seemed more like a normal pol after reading this. Now that may make her a phony, but it's also somewhat reassuring in that it demonstrates that she can act in a rational, purposeful way -- at least when it concerns her career.

The article confirmed my suspicions about McCain. The guy is not in charge of his campaign. He's a figurehead already.

Loved McCain 8 years ago.
He's sadly deteriorated into a Nixon-ish type buffoon.
As to Palin, this seems about right. Doesn't change my opinion.

Palin has become a drag on the ticket. I dont know how anyone in the McCain camp couldnt have seen that coming....and why in the hell didnt someone in the campaing do a better job of vetting.

She now has higher "negatives" than "positives" and by one poll, her selection as running mate is the number one reason why swing voters wont vote for McCain...not the economy or any other issue.

It was a "gimmick"" pick to placate the social conservative base and as far as it goes, it accomplished that.

What it also accomplished was to take away a key McCain argument against Obama...that Obama was too inexperienced and that McCain has demonstrated better judgement in his public life.
-----Added 22/10/2008 at 09 : 36 : 16-----
The latest non-story that will become a story (in the mode of John Edwards's $400 haircut that the Republicans salivated over) for the few days and distract the McCain campaign when they can least afford a distraction of any kind, is that since her selection as John McCain's running mate, the Republican National Committee has spent more than $150,000 on clothing and make-up for Palin, her husband, and even her infant son.

WTF, spending three times Joe the plumber's annual salary to dress her up? Do you think Joe and his wife (or small town "regular" Americans that she loves and relates to so much) shop at Saks Fifth Avenue or Neiman Marcus?

What is the McCain campaign staff thinking?

RNC shells out $150K for Palin fashion

"What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?" she asked. " Lipstick."

That's a lot of lipstick.:)

AP: Alaska funded Palin kids' travel | KOMO News - Seattle, Washington | News

i didn't want to put this in a new thread, but she was expense accounting her kids, something the alaskan law does not allow......

just aggravating, and please don't give me the "she wanted to spend more time with her children" bc i'm sure joe the plumber and jane winebox want to as well.....plus, hte former gov never charged his children's travel to the state.

A different perspective.

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Record vs. Rhetoric

nice ace--did you actually look at the new yorker piece? it doesn't seem so, because it really is not about this question of qualifications in the abstract, nor is it about this tedious game of who gets to claim for themselves the ability to speak to or for "americans" whomever they are as a single entity....instead, the article is about the process whereby palin came to be in the position to get nominated in the first place. it's about the extent to which she worked and was worked by aspects of the social networks that underpin conservative politics. it's about the extent to which sarah palin is a regular politician doing the regular politician thing and not at all some "outsider" as she and the right claim.

so the piece referenced in the op is not an attack piece, ace. it's just about the way this story happened. that the facts of how the story happen undercut some claims that folk like you want to believe about palin is not a big concern of mine, but feel free to address the points if you like.

you say you want more interesting discussions---how about actually engaging with information that you do not control yourself? it'd be a step. unless by "interesting discussion" you mean "take my ultra-conservative premises as given."

Except the article you quote, ace, is itself quite flawed. I probably shouldn't let you troll me like this, but I'm bored...

This is really beside the point. Running a campaign is executive experience, with Obama's campaign having a larger budget and more employees than the state of Alaska. It's not clear to me, either, that executive experience is necessary. And that argument cuts against McCain as well as Obama, since McCain has never been a governor or mayor either. Finally, I'm not sure what metric he's using to say that Obama has less experience than Palin. If we're only counting 'executive' experience, maybe I'll grant you that, but then McCain doesn't have any either. If we're using generally political experience, Obama has more experience than Palin, and at every step it's on a much larger stage.

I don't know why he says Palin's record is 'on the record' while Obama's is 'engulfed in fog'. I know more about Obama's education, his work as a community organizer, and his time as a legislator than I know about Palin's stints in Wasilla and Juneau, and Palin's the one stonewalling a bi-partisan investigation, not Obama. Sowell mentions 'vile people', but doesn't name any. Probably because for any association he could raise, Obama could see him and raise him one. Ayers? I'll see your Ayers and raise you a Keating. Rev. Wright? I'll see your Wright and raise you a Hagee.

First, being president is not like being governor of New York or California, much less like being governor of Alaska. And what kind of record does she have? Abuse of power? Cheating the state so her kids can travel? Feeling out the librarian on banning books? And, of course, McCain doesn't have executive experience either.

This is ridiculous. First, he didn't vote present innumerable times. He did so 129 times, 3 percent of his votes. Second, it's apparently a common practice in the Illinois legislature, and his record in this respect isn't unusual.

He talked with Raines once, on the phone. McCain's chief strategist was a lobbyist for Fannie Mae who was still taking money from them as late as this past summer.

The old canard about the liberal media? Palin as outsider? This is all just ridiculous. People are curious about Palin because, by and large, they've never heard of her before. So of course the media is going to try to give the public more information about her. Further down, he repeats the claim of 'gotcha' questions. Asking somebody what newspapers they read, or to name a SCOTUS decision they disagree with is not a 'gotcha' question. That's a softball, a question any political candidate ought to have a pat answer to.

You mean she can't discuss policy on an adult level because she's never thought about it before and doesn't even have the vocabulary? Certainly not being a Harvard grad doesn't mean you're not smart, or not qualified to be vice-president. But the right has been trying to spin it as a positive thing, and I just don't see why that's the case. And it's not simply that she doesn't talk the way those big-name college grads talk. It's that she obviously hasn't thought much, if at all, about any national issues. Even her attempt to try and build a pipeline across Alaska has so far been unsuccessful.

Finally, I don't understand why Palin is supposed to represent the real America. Real americans come in all colors and opinions, and singling out a single subculture as being somehow 'really American' at best smacks of McCarthyism, bigotry, and parochialism. It's not like there's something special about being from Alaska that makes you a good person. I, living inside the Beltway, and my friend Katie the Socialist, and Adam the Media Executive, are just as much Americans as Joe the Plumber and Jessica the Farmer and Mike the Cop. And saying otherwise is distinctly un-American.

I know Palin is a politician. I don't recall her ever saying she is not political or ambitious. I think the value of Palin is that she is an outsider and is being treated as an outsider. Your citation seems to suggest that perhaps she is not what she says she is. I also think she is a quick study and knows how to get what she wants. One major difference between her and Obama, in my view, is that see has a real track record that we all can look at. The behind the scenes information is go for late night reading, but the more important perspective in my view, is her record.
-----Added 22/10/2008 at 11 : 46 : 12-----
On one hand the New Yorker article suggest that she is a shrewd politician who quickly identified people who could help her become a VP candidate, she succeed at that among other things, and now are you suggesting her record of success is not really a record of success or does not matter?

I don't think success as a politician (by which I mean successful re-branding, that sort of thing) is any indication of potential success while in office. I don't think the sort of opportunism Palin showed (by switching from a far-right candidate running for mayor of Wasilla to a reform candidate running for Governor) is necessarily a bad thing; all long-term politicians have to do it to a great or lesser extent. But that's not really a record of success. And I'm wondering just what this record of success is supposed to be?

there is an entirely circular sense in which there is a "record of success"---she was nominated to run as vp. she set out to "enter the big leagues" and she did it. most everything else is either routine stuff (you have to do something as governor) or re-branding.

$150 grand of new clothes can help toward that rebranding end:

Sarah Palin's new image cost Republicans $150,000 | World news | guardian.co.uk

beyond getting the republicans to pay for the clothes, i'm not sure i see the achievement.
hell, i could rebrand myself with that kind of cash behind me for clothes alone.
anyone could.

The clothes issue is amusing for someone who portrays herself as a "regular person" or "hockey mom"....but its this kind of statement from Palin that many voters find troubling...her complete lack of understanding of the role of the VP:
The VP presides over the Senate (on very rare occasions in actuality) and votes in the case of a tie...thats it.

There is no role of "getting in there with the senators and making a lot of good policy changes."

WTF is she thinking? Has she ever read the Constitution?

Just one of many of her statements and policy positions that explains why a majority of swing voters say the Palin is the number one reason why the wouldnt vote for McCain

Politico

Where the story originated. She's a Saks hockey mom.

They could dress her up in a dingo suit and she'd have about as much credibility.

One of the things that really, really bothers me about the article linked in the OP is how men talk about Sarah Palin. It's like they all have these massive hard-ons for her that they're trying to disguise as harmless crushes. Frankly, it's disgusting, but I think it's something Palin has tried to actively cultivate--look at the VP debate, with all that awful winking.

From the article:

I remember this guy (oh, about 8 years ago) who was a Washington outsider. He said he was going to change Washington, reach across the aisle, be a Uniter, not a Divider. I wonder how that all turned out....

Hey, he also had executive experience! Things must be great.

I think there are a few ways to look at the article you cited in the OP. One being an ambitious politician who is an outsider, taps in to the network and gets the nomination inspite of all of the traits criticized by the media. If she really lacked the sophistication that many suggest, I suppose they think she was just lucky or something?

Not sure I get your point. Are you suggesting that the party is making an inappropriate or illegal use of campaign funds? Are you suggesting the amount spent on clothing is a legitimate campaign issue? Are we running out of ways to criticize Palin? What's next?
-----Added 22/10/2008 at 02 : 41 : 52-----
People immediately accused him of stealing the election. Many "hated" him from then on. That is what happened.

Oh, there is NO question that she's done everything she can to engender support based on the fact that she's a moderately attractive older woman. And you're right, it is disgusting. You can almost see the drool dripping off of those quotations.

She's horribly arrogant, dishonest, and she actively tries to win votes by trying desperately to appear attractive. That's an ugly person. This man finds her simply revolting. I wouldn't touch her with an 11 foot pole for all the earmarks in Wasilla.

Still, Tina Fey has never looked better.

I think it is difficult to pull off the middle class, waste-cutting everywoman persona when it costs $150,000 to dress you.

Pretty much.

Since "dress" is an issue in this thread, how much has Obama spent on clothing?

I think a person who is "normal" one day and in the national spotlight the next, with an expectation of appearing a certain way everyday - has a higher urgency to invest in clothing. A person who has been in the national spotlight for a number of years may have invested the same amount or more just spread over a wider period of time. Am I to gather from some of the comments here and on MSNBC that you folks don't understand why an investment in clothing needed to be made and needed to be made by the McCain campaign?

Has Obama claimed membership in the middle class? No? Well, then, it doesn't matter. Having money means you get to dress well. It also means you need to drop the "Dontcha know, I'm just like you" bullshit.

Maybe I just don't watch enough E!, but I think that clothing appropriate for serving as the governor of Alaska would also probably be appropriate for campaigning for a VP slot. Why would a fiscal conservative spend so much money on expensive nice clothes when normal nice clothes would probably suffice?

I know you're frequently swayed by interesting questions, ace, so here's one: If she become VP, are the taxpayers going to be on the hook for her extravagant tastes?

Nope. Most of the resentment against W. doesn't come from the spurious accusation that he stole the election. If the next four/eight years had gone differently, it'd just be an interesting footnote in history, studied mainly in con law classes on federalism. But when 9/11 happened, instead of using the opportunity to unite the country, he decided to engage in foolish adventurism in Iraq, using lies and propaganda to convince a slim majority that it was necessary. If instead of acting like a partisan hack, or a petulant boy, he had exhibited leadership, his reputation would be much different.

As far as what Obama is spending on fashion, I don't know. But here's a picture of his shoes, which he's already had resoled once.

http://wonkette.com/403705/meanwhile-barack-obama-walks-holes-in-his-shoes-then-re-soles-them

And the reason it's an issue is that when something similar came up with a Democrat (see, John Edwards' $400 haircut, George Stephanopolous), the Republicans howled. So it's a bit disingenuous of them to be defending this sort of thing now.

That's a dead link for me, btw, asaris.

Sorry. I'm not sure what the problem is -- I'll change the link to the wonkette article I saw the picture at. (Yes, I know wonkette is not an unbiased source. That's why I didn't link to it initially. But a picture is a picture, right?)

Edit above finished. Let me know if there's still problems.

the 150K is not an issue to me.
sure, it's hard to make the joe the plumber argument when you just blew 4x his yearly salary on clothes.
but that said, when my wife started complaining about the 5K on hair and makeup, I reminded her that if someone gave her 5K she would know exactly where to spend it and not get much for it, when all is said and done. I'd guess a hollywood hairstylist and a quick jaunt through saks would get you approx. a good haircoloring, style, and the basics in makeup.

I've never personally shopped at Sak's, but that's because I couldn't not because I wouldn't want to.
I imagine she got a week or two worth of clothing.
I can't think of anything more upwardly, white woman mobile than taking a blank check and buying some fancy clothes and makeup...so I can't imagine bashing her for doing what any middle class person would do in a similar situation if they didn't have the option to pay their bills with the same check.

Just because most of us have to dress like a million bucks for our best job interviews, but do it with a JC Penny wardrobe, doesn't mean that we wouldn't *want* to dress up in Sak's suits if someone else was footing the bill. I just think this particular criticism is going to fall on deaf ears, and it's borderline hypocritical for most people to even bring it up because I think you'd have to be extremely idealistic to pass that opportunity up...too idealistic.

filtherton and asaris already said more or less what i was thinking about this pseudo-question.

i don't consider it a big deal, ace---but i do think it's kinda funny. mostly because, if you sniff the air close to your monitor, maybe you smell a bit of char. that's palin's "outsider" claim after it burned up.

to be clear, if her politics were not so lunatic--as they are in my view--i wouldn't care about this stuff at all---if anything, i would probably find the account of her wending her way through the conservative patronage network a bit reassuring----but the fact is that her politics are nutty and the "outsider" nonsense is of a piece with those nutty politics. and it's conservative political discourse that ties identity to political positions so tightly. so in a sense, watching the outsider persona burn is watching the nutty positions that are wrapped up in it burn a little as well.

I'm an upwardly mobile white woman who has shopped at Saks (for cosmetics, that's right, I paid $20 once for a tube of Lancome mascara--once), and I can't say that if someone gave me $150,000 I would drop it all on clothing, haircuts, and whatnot at Saks and Neiman Marcus. I've been in both stores and find them horrendously overpriced. I can get knock-offs that look identical for less elsewhere. Quite frankly, I'm more likely to shop at REI, and I still don't see myself spending that much--ever. Don't get me wrong--I splurge from time to time, but that much $$$ is more than a LIFETIME of splurges. The average outfit Palin is buying would cost between $3000-5000 (excluding shoes and accessories). There's no way in hell I would ever spend that much money on a single outfit, even if I had the wherewithal to do so. There are more important things in life. If someone offered me that much $$$, I'd buy a house.

To me, the $150,000 for Palin's clothing illustrates a MASSIVE disconnect between the Republican party and regular people.

no=one actually believes that palin or anyone else who is of the political class in the united states is economically a "regular person" do they? such claims are all about making signifiers, generating a compelling illusion. but there are a host of ways to go about this, and centering your candidacy on claims to *be* a "regular person" as if it was that "fact" that legitimated the claims themselves, made them seem somehow not nuts but reasonable, as if being a "regular person" means that you can and even should hold nutty political positions--that's a particular choice, a particular tactical choice. and it is a bad tactical choice.

that said, if some dude wanted to give me 150 grand for a clothing spree so i could more like a "regular person" on camera, i would do my level best to spend every dime of that money. and i would go for chanel. nothing says "hockey mom" quite the way chanel does.

i don't hold the spree against palin as a human being--i think it's more problematic given how "sarah palin everyperson" operates as a brand.

I was pretty sure I made the distinction in my post between spending one's own money and spending money someone gave you with stipulations on where you can spend it...ah yes, right here:
so it sounds like you agree with the gist of what I said, that it's perfectly normal for women to spend shittons of money on luxuries, but that you would spend 150K on a house...which I'm pretty certain the RNC wasn't indicating was in the cards.

maybe you'd only buy $20 mascara if the RNC handed you a blank check for 150K and told you to get some new clothes at Sak's and then give them 147,000 back unspent, but that would be weird. I certainly would respect you for doing that, but I wouldn't knock you for spending it either.


yeah, roachboy, I agree with you on the theoretical points, I'm just saying that any argument she's over the top in this respect isn't going to gain any traction from people who aren't already there.

right now, it's the feature story on hardball, which I find even more ridiculous than the fact that it happened. I guess that's my point. If Chris Matthews had you on there, roachboy, and you guys were hammering out this interesting branding discussion...well then that'd be different than talking about it as a problem in and of itself :)

So, Palin is a hypocrite. Which do you think is the real Palin, the one to spend $150,000 on clothing or a rather unsophisticated "hockey mom"?

Oh, and is it possible that she was not responsible for the decision to spend $150,000 on clothing? Is it possible that as a VP candidate that she is following the directions given to her? do you think she has been spending a lot of time shopping since the convention - in addition to running for office, being governor, being a mother of a baby, sending her son to war, being a wife, dancing on SNL, impossing her will regarding troopergate, getting to become a Washington insider, etc, etc, etc. gee - I can see why she has not been reading Supreme Court cases.

What kind of maverick needs to be told how to dress?

I think the entire premise of this thread is that the real Sarah Palin is clearly the one to spend $150k on clothing. Assuming that everything in that story is true, she's a politician at heart with a solid side helping of celebrity, and all of her unsophisticated hockey mom stuff is just hockey mom stuff. That doesn't make her any better informed generally or politically, but I think it's pretty apparent that she's not anything remotely close to an everyman.

I don't even know what to do with your list of talking points that compromises the second half of your post. I think the point about her accepting the clothes (whether or not SHE actually bought them) has been made. The rest of that is completely irrelevant.

There can only be one lead dog in a pack. But they are all dogs. Feel free to substitute maverick for dog if you want. I like dogs, I understand them. If Palin was my VP, she would do what I ask. If I were hers, I would do what she asks. We would have order, as opposed to the relationship between Biden and Obama. do they even like each other?

Oh no, not the wolf-related illustrations again. :expressionless:

Somehow I suspect that, "John McCain and I are dogs," won't have the same resonance on the campaign trail.

ace--i'm not interested in the question of whether palin is or is not a "hypocrite"--i don't know her as a human being, and i don't particularly care about it. what interests me is the disconnect between the story in that article and the "outsider" business in her persona--the clothing business is secondary to me--i just find it to be funny, that's all.

like i said, if some guy gave me 150k to go shopping for clothes, i'd do my level best to spend every dime of it---but i can't imagine the idea behind that spree would be to set me up as "everyman."

the contradictions in all this are self-evident, ace.
hypocrisy is not an issue at the personal level--what's more at issue are self-defeating, stupid tactics undertaken by the mc-cain campaign shaped by, and feeding into, a totally retrograde kind of identity politics. you reap what you sow.

o yeah--and about 20 years of republican-dominated media making a Big Fucking Deal out of this kind of lint when it served their political advantage.
can't forget that shit.

at least it's funny
http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/7592/originalhw8.jpg

Yes, indeed, the Republicans are good at order. My girlfriend and I joke about this sort of thing; in law school, she was involved in National Lawyer's Guild, which is pretty far left (it used to be the communist lawyer's society); I was involved in the Federalist Society, and a few of our friends were involved in the ACLU. The Federalist Society was very well organized; the liberal organizations were not at all organized.

But I *like* having a President and Vice-President who don't always agree with each other. Better than the one just being a rubber stamp; helps prevent groupthink.

Just have to chime in. When Barack chose Biden, he specifically said he wanted someone willing to disagree with him and give him an alternative viewpoint.

Biden has never criticized Obama's tactics or strategy the way Palin has criticized McCain's. Palin has remarked that robocalls are inappropriate, her reasoning being that they should take the message straight to the people. Truth being that they're running robocalls because they can't afford commercials. Palin has also said that McCain should be bringing up Rev. Wright, meanwhile McCain has already promised not to make that an issue. Palin has not been a silent trooper and I suspect she wouldn't be in the White House either.

I don't care whether your a Republican, Democrat I can't see how anyone paying attention could possibly think that Governor Palin is qualified to be President, and this reasoning comes from the way she has conducted herself since she's been cast into the spotlight. Many conservative Republicans have admitted she is a horrible choice and some have gone as far as endorsing Obama because of it.

yup pretty much hit the nail on the head. The problem here is the lack of image cohesion. We are finding out plenty of things about Obama in the weeks and months leading up to the election, plenty of associations with people (some of whom are questionable) but at the end of the day they all fall in line with what he has (purported to) stand for. He is a christian with an outspoken reverend, a "hopemonger" (whatever that means) with associations with anti-war protesters in his distant past. He honestly admitted early on in the campaign that he smoked weed to get high. He was in the Senate, went to Harvard...we are getting a pretty strong image here. One man, many pieces but all of them at least match.

Hence the arguments regarding the GOP ticket as being the "joe sixpack" everyman ticket and then spending enormous amounts of money on her wardrobe. The money itself isn't really the issue, it's the fact that it contradicts the image. Just like when McCain says he's a maverick (isn't a maverick a card-playing cowboy from that western movie?) who just happens to have decades of washington insider experience, that is self contradicting. The same is true when Palin claims to be ready to shake up Washington and it turns out she's just as corrupt as any other politician. Pretty hard to reform something you have benefited from your entire career. Again it's not the fact that she is corrupt that bothers me but the obvious contradiction. Another example being of course McCain's campaign of "experience over youthfulness" vs Obama, then choosing an inexperienced young VP. How can you argue that inexperience is a terrible burden and then pick a VP with no more experience than Obama?


Conclusion: the reason that people (democrats, independents, etc) get so worked up about the GOP ticket/campaign is not just the politics, but also the glaring contradictions and muddled, confusing messages. It's not being hypocritical, it's being inconsistent.

ok, so
i didn't know or think NC was that much in favor of going blue...until i was driving home today..and on the radio, "Barack obama needs your votes...but he also needs the votes in congress...to outlaw your guns...barack obama wants to take away your handguns and make us all criminals if we use those guns in self defense...so vote for mccain..bc obama needs your votes...to take away your guns"

seriously...wtf..it's also almost word for word the ad the rnc took out for libby dole against hagan...basically "vote for the republican or your gun rights will be stripped...'

what's funnier is that it was followed by an obama ad saying "Healthcare is in trouble...obama's plan for healthcare would allow you to keep your doctor and your coverage and force companies to pay for preventative medicine and pre-existing conditions... i'm barack obama and i endorsed this message'


note the difference....

Hahaha...
RNC: A black guy is going to date your virgin daughter!!! AND HE'S ON YOUR PORCH! Don't vote for Saddam Hussein Obama! RUN!

DNC: We're going to go ahead and end the Iraq war. Have a fantastic day!

it was just striking since both attacks were aimed directly at gun owners. On tv, though, there is an NRA group out who is in favor of barack obama, so i'm hoping people see this for the nonissue it is.

You're right. Absolutely. Now John Edwards $400 haircut in the primaries was a TOTALLY different thing!

Because someone was asking about how much Obama's outfits have cost, from the right-wing blog townhall.com:

arack Obama spent at least $1,500 on his convention suit according to the Chicago Sun-Times. He ordered a custom made worsted worsted wool two-button suit from the high-end men's suit retailer Hartmax for the occassion. That same suit off the rack, meaning NOT custom made, is priced at $1,500.

The colorful Thakoon wrap dresses (here) Mrs. Obama has worn, and was applauded for wearing to her husband's convention speech, are priced around $1250 each. Mrs. Obama's favorite Chicago designer Maria Pinto, who crafted Michelle's convention speech dress (here), charges anywhere from $900-$5,000 for her dresses. Other Pinto pieces, like shirts and accessories, start at $300 each.

The black Azzedine Alaia belt Mrs. Obama wore over her purple Mario Pinto sheath dress (here) when she gave her husband the infamous "fist bump" retails for $635, according to various fashion spreads. Fashion designer Nina Garcia called the belt a "wardrobe essential" earlier this year for the NY Post.

and don't forget mrs mccain's $300K rnc dress that looked like a ...err, i hve no freaking clue bc i couldn't look at her...

I'm not even sure why this is being talked about. Who really cares what they are spending on clothing? It is all about image and dressing right is essential to winning. Period.

i dunno, if i were a normal RNC backer and i'd donated enough for a small house..and then i saw that it was being spent to buy her a new wardrobe instead of ads in swing states...i'd be a bit aggravated.

that's just me

McCain should be losing based on a number of factors most pundints agree are in the favor of Obama, factors that would be in the favor of any Democratic Party nominee, and McCain is losing based on the polls. You suggest McCain's tactics are "stupid". I would measure the intellect of his tactics based on his results relative to expectations. It is possible for his tactics to be brilliant and he could still lose or his tactics can be "stupid" and he can lose, however, In my view, the race is more competitive than I expected. And I think his tactics are less than brilliant but much better than "stupid".

McCain not only needs the Republican base but he needs independent voters. In order to reach both audiences he has to communicate separately to both. I think that is what people see, when they call him erratic. Obama has the benefit of having his base solidly in his control, so he has been playing more and more to the middle to get the independent vote. This is one reason why I ask so many questions about the "real" Obama and what his "real" plans are. It is ironic that his campaign information was more detailed 6 months ago than it is now. I find that troublesome.

If you concede the point that it is all about image, then it is worth talking about.

The image of Palin they are trying to present is of moose-hunting "Real American" woman Just Like You. You will vote for her because she's more like you than That One. The Very Expensive Wardrobe works against this identification, because we don't have 150K to blow on clothes. It even exceeds the costs of the wardrobes people dream about.

You can have disagreement, discussion, debate, etc. and still have one strong leader, one who takes accountability for a course of action and expects the others to support the final decision 100%.
-----Added 23/10/2008 at 11 : 30 : 06-----
Are you focused on "image"? I find it more important to look at, values, principles, actions and results. I could careless about "image". If a person is doing good, what difference does it make if they have on a $20 jacket from Goodwill or a $2,000 jacket from wherever people buy $2,000 jackets (I don't know).
-----Added 23/10/2008 at 11 : 33 : 25-----
This is why I am more inclined to donate my time to causes rather than money. Once you give the money you have to assume it may be spent in ways you don't support. Also, one reason why I support lower taxes, government tends to spend money on stuff that "aggravates" me all the time.

Only it is the McCain campaign who said they're going to talk about image & identification and not hard stuff like the economy. That's the campaign you've been defending.

I think the McCain campaign has been talking about the economy. Lately that is all they have been talking about. Obama's plan to raise taxes is the absolute wrong thing to do to stimulate the economy. Obama's plan to "spread the wealth around" is a socialist approach to helping people. They have been hitting those points for a couple of weeks now.

You mean the same plan McCain has proposed in the past?

And here's video!

thanks, that's the vid ive been looking for.

plus, it's not socialism, i think i'ts just going back to the taxes the wealthy paid under reagan.

ace---first off, the only way the mc-cain campaign can be seen as operating in an intelligent fashion is if the idea from the nomination of palin onward has not been to win the election, but to attempt triage on the republican coalition in a context shaped by the wholesale destruction of conservative economic ideology.

second,:
the right has nothing to say about this economic fiasco because it is their politics, their views, their prescriptions, which are at the source of it.

welcome back to jurrasic park, ace.
the herbert hoover rides are located to your far right.

I'd be more than aggrieved, I'd go ballistic!

I think it's OK for parties to spend money on the images of their candidates, but yeah, if they'd spent my mortgage on a few dresses I'd be pretty upset.

I think it's an example of the disconnect between the people at the top and the rest of humanity.

In my view McCain is a lesser of two evils choice. I did not vote for him in the primary and I have never liked him much and I don't like how he flips-flops on issues.

Here is what I find most amazing. First, if you don't know, I am a "capitalist". I am proud of being a "capitalist", on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being as "capitalist" as you can get, I am about a 9.9. If on the other extreme you place "socialism" on the scale, and I am not saying Obama or anyone else is a pure "socialist" or at 1, but why aren't the people who favor "socialism" or have "socialism" tendencies proud of what they believe in. Obama's approach to economic policy is clearly more "socialist" than "capitalist", why is he trying to hide what he really believes?

Oh, and...

Don't tell me that the "bailout plan" is this or that, I did support it.
Don't tell me our tax code has always had some "redistribution" qualities - I think our tax code needs to be scrapped and re-written.
Don't tell me "corporate welfare" is socialism - I don't support government subsidies of private business.
Don't tell me Republican support "socialism" too - I don't.

Like I said I am a "capitalist". And, being a "capitalist" doesn't mean I don't care about people, I just prefer to help people on my terms, not the governments. Just like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, who made billions and are now doing good things with their billions on their terms. the Gates Foundation is likely to do more good on causes like Aids and education than our federal government - simply because $1 spent can more directly go to the cause or those needing the $1.

O.k., thanks I am done blowing off steam.

good, glad you're done blowing off steam.
most of what you posted was bullshit.

regardless of your apparent desire to use whatever definitions of terms you think apply, there is an actual definition to capitalism and socialism and you are apparently aware of neither.

Crack a book and inform yourself before people just start ignoring your ignorant and tiresome posts.

Again, your charge is vague. I don't understand your point or what you think is bullshit.

I am open to being corrected if I am wrong.


Many here already ignore my posts. I am pretty offensive at times. However, I don't post for your benefit or anyone's. In the case of my last post here, I simply blew off a little steam. It made me feel better. I am engaging you now, because I am curious about what I specifically wrote that was offensive to you, it is not clear. I am a "black and white" thinker, don't do well with shades of gray and reading post from those who are in the "gray" is intriguing to me, I truly don't understand you folks - other than the fact that you get easily flustered.

Well, you claim Obama is a 'socialist' because he favors a progressive tax scale. But McCain also favors a progressive tax scale. Everyone who doesn't favor a flat tax favors either a progressive or a regressive tax scale. So which do you favor?

when conservatives use the word "socialism" all it means is "i dont like it."
so hawaiian pizza can be socialist (pineapple on pizza? obviously...) so izod lacoste sweaters can be. the ramones can be socialist in the same way as mahler symphonies are, and of course the collected works of wagner are socialist in the same way as can be peanut butter with bananas on toast in the same way as "happy days" was after the series jumped the shark.

I'm not flustered, I just have better things to do than argue over things with someone who regularly ignores factual evidence, decides to use definitions for things either incorrectly or out of context, and then formulates faulty conclusions based on shaky or outright wrong premises.

If I tell you that the various -isms you're talking about are defined by who owns the means of productions, you'll answer with some bullshit about how you're using what you think is the common meaning of the word. Like the other thread, I pointed out that punitive damages and back pay have a legal definition that you're wrong on. You replied that you're using them in the way you understand them to mean, not a legal one. Well, tough shit, we're talking about a bill, and a supreme court case, so if you don't want to look like an idiot, it behooves you to use them in the legal sense regardless of your personal beliefs. I guess I should add that even the common use version of punitive means punishment, and paying someone for wages owed is not "punishment" by any stretch of reasonable imagination.


I mean, if you start a thread about regulations on bumpers for Ford Escorts, and then after we've been discussing the length, size, hardness of car bumpers and then on the 2nd page you post, well, I am using bumpers in the pool table bumper sense of the word... then the conversation has just taken an idiotic turn by any standards. I don't see how employing definitions correctly within the context being used can get anymore black and white than that, by the way.

If you think it's funny to annoy people with those kinds of discussions, I could actually see how that would be achieving at least something. But just because I say hmm, I think I'll go spend some time discussion incest taboos with other members of tfp it's not because I became flustered or agitated or even offended by what you wrote, I just think your posts are dumb and not really worth working through. There's always going to be a few people who don't catch on, but for the most part, you're not even going to have your little fun of annoying liberals if you don't at least make points that aren't above the level of ridiculousness.

I mean, there's really really intelligent people who subscribe to capitalism, understand what it means, know how far along its scale this economic system is on it, how the law works, strict adherents to conservative ideology, and on and on. But you don't really seem to be aware of how they understand the issues or even how to discuss them. How can you be gung-ho about something you don't even seem to get? Justices on the Supreme Court or writers for the Wall Street Journal who think about and discuss concerns from the same spectrum you claim to represent would be less likely to engage with you than I do. I don't know why you are proud of that irony.

You don't support your claims with specifics, why?

Getting back to the OP, can anyone explain to me why a Democrat spending $400 on a haircut is a bad thing, but a Republican spending $150,000 on her appearance is a non-issue?

It seems that the Republican campaign has style at the forefront, but the Democratic campaign has substance.

From this side of the atlantic it looks as if all the McCain adverts and commentaries state "Don't Vote Obama Because [bad thing he'll do, or not prevent]", whilst the Obama ones state "Do Vote Obama Because of the [good thing he'll do, or injustice he'll right]".

From the coverage, I have a rough idea what Obama intends. I haven't got a fucking clue what McCain intends, beyond that he intends to be President.

daniel, that is exaaaactly how the ads are in my hometown: "vote for mccain..bc obama will rescind your gun rights' followed by an nra for obama ad saying "Obama supports your gun rights..and he wants to create jobs, put resources into alternative energy, givet he middle class a tax cut, and stop tax breaks for companies that outsource our jobs...."

followed by a mccain ad, "the country is in crisis, the economy is in the tank, and we want to elect a man with teh least executive experience ever..to face his first crisis...in this chair"..cue ominous music. I wish i were joking

back and forth..all..day..long
my favorite ads, though, are the ones where you have young people saying "talk to your parents, please...explain to them that even voting republican once could have disastrous effects" bc it's just sooo funny

I guess when I was told that I was a male chauvinist, the person who made the charge is correct. When a man spends $400 on a haircut, I assume it is a joke and lol. When a woman spends money or has money spent on her clothing, I don't think it is a big deal. I am clearly a sexist and have different standards for men and women. I enjoy looking at women dressed well and looking good, I expect it.

ace, i hope you are married or get married one day and find out your wife spent 125K in clothes and has an insanely priced, 11K/week makeup artist...she'll look better and you'll be expecting the charges :)

I am married. We don't spend lavishly on my wife's appearance, but I have no problem when she spends money on her appearance and I would have no problem with the amount spent going up in proportion to our wealth. To be clear, I am not talking "glamor" or "sexuality", I am simply talking about a woman putting effort into her appearance. It has nothing to do with party lines, I would assume Hilary Clinton would spend more money and time on her appearance than Bill Clinton. I would expect men to invest time in the "gym", rather than getting their hair styled, eyebrows waxed, and fingers manicured. Birkenstocks, T-shirts, khaki shorts with unshaven arms and legs don't work for women wanting to be credible in my book. I can honestly accept my bias and what I am, I don't think I could have admitted that a few months ago. I am making progress, slowly, but it is progress.

I dont think Palin will be asked about her clothes anymore.

She might have to explain her close association to Sen Ted Stevens, one of her political mentors in Alaska (she was on the board of his 527 org and he actively campaigned for her for governor), who was convicted today on seven counts of making false statements on his financial disclosure regarding $250,000 in home renovations and other gifts he received from an oil contractor.

They were praising each other as recently as July:


She had “great respect for the senator. He needs to be heard across America. His voice, his experience, his passion, needs to be heard across America.”

Will she now throw him under the bus (conservatives seem to like that notion with Obama associations)....will she publicly suggest he should resign his Senate seat immediately and not run for reelection?

I think she might rather talk about clothes.

If they lose, is there a possibility that she will be removed from being governor? She shouldn't be left in charge of a book club, let alone a state.

Not on the basis of her association with Stevens.

But she still faces several internal investigations herself....by the state personnel board (in addition to the recent finding by the legislative committee) on the abuse of power for firing the state public safety director and by another body for shenanigans on the natural gas pipeline deal that she brags about but that she potentially rigged so that it would go to a major political contributor.

Its not likely she will be removed from office...more likely slaps on the wrist....but the Stevens connection is a distraction that she and McCain dont need during this last week of campaigning...."sarah....you got some 'splaining to do!"

And all of the above, particularly her ethics (or lack of) in office, wont be forgotten if she thinks she has a future as the face of the party.

I was more thinking a combination of things. Troopergate alone concluded she was guilty of unethical behavior.

Where do you draw the line on the relevance of"associations"?

Many people had "great respect for the senator" before they knew of his illegal activity. I think it proper for the Senator make his intentions clear before others start calling for his resignation, etc.

...And the way she has paraded around her kids, especially her developmentally disabled baby...almost as a "prop". It's shameless! :no:

She is trouble and a car wreck ready to happen IMHO. ** See "Post Turtle" for a Texas land man's description of her "rise" to the position.

She needs to go back to Alaska and leave the rest of the USA untouched by her weirdness. Really, what DOES she bring to the table? And how about her hubby leading the Party that Proposed to Secede from the US? How come we never here more about that?

Those GOP guys are tricky devils, heh?/Said in my best "hoser accent", eh, dude?

ace....I dont believe guilt by association should be relevant in this campaign.

But McCain/Palin and their supporters should not expect a double standard.

By the incessant raising of the issue of Wright, Rezko, Ayers.....they made the Palin-Stevens association relevant.....not me or any Obama supporters.

The issue now is if hey believe a convicted felon, who was one of Palin's political mentors with whom she had a close association for most of her political career and on whose PAC board she served, should resign his seat in the Senate....or to put it more bluntly in terms many McCain/Palin supporters will understand....should they throw Stevens under the bus?

Indeed, what is Sarah Palin not telling us about her association with 00's era corrupt politician Ted Stevens?

are you kidding me, where do you draw the line? Sarah/mccain are harping on someone obama knew when he was 8 and every little association over the past 40 yrs and they are going to gripe about "oh, well, lots of people were associated with stevens.

this is what is costing mccain the election: complete..utter hypocrisy.

period

Win or lose she will be here to stay unless they find something damning enough to boot her out of the governor's office. Say what you will about her but the GOP "evangelicals" that supported Bush are behind her even more than they were Bush. She has ignited that part of the party and can do no wrong no matter how silly she sounds, and she is now campaigning for 2012, hell it wouldn't surprise me if she wants to lose this election. There was talk of McCain pledging to only serve one term but that never was stated by McCain. The infighting on the McCain ticket is the last thing they want a week before the election. Palin/Coulter 2012!!!!

I'm hoping for Palin/Hasselback, personally. But I don't think she'll win the nomination in 2012, for the same reasons that Huckabee didn't win this year. She's simply too conservative, and so can't appeal to the moderates that you have to be able to appeal to to win an election. On top of that, she has a lot of baggage from this election that she would have to overcome. If I had to guess, I'd guess that Palin will run in 2012, she'll generally come in 3rd or 4th, and someone who didn't run this year will win the nomination.

You betcha... You're right about too conservative to win.

Hopefully extremes will begin to calm after people come to their senses after electing (as a knee-jerk reaction to the Bush years) an empty-suit cult-of-personality opportunistic limousine-liberal socialist.

otto....does that include calming your extemism with comments like the above?

On a more amusing note...here is an intereting scenario regarding Palin/Stevens.

Stevens wont drop out before next Tues and continues to campaign for reelction...and given his still popular support in Alaska, could conceivably win another 6 year term.

However, after his appeals run out and his conviction stands, he will be forced to resign or will be expelled from the Senate.

The Governor of Alaska must appoint a replacement to complete the term -- and she appoints the Governor of Alaska!

McCain and Palin refuse to speak to each other on the floor of the Senate for the next six years.

More like too batshit loony.


I'd vote Palin/Hasslehoff.

According to Alaska law, the Governor doesn't select the replacement; a special election would have to be held.

There is no double standard. Palin's reputation has been harmed by the relationship, she has been harmed based on her relationship with her church, and a few other relationships publicized in the media. McCain's reputation has been harmed by his association in the Keating 5 matter, even his association with Bush. In this election there has been a major focus on "associations", I find it interesting how you address this question.

I know a convicted felon, I would not throw him under the bus, or minimize my past relationship with him. In my view the problem is not knowing people who did wrong, but how one handles and explains the relationship. I know people who have views similar to Rev. Wright, I would not throw that person under the bus either - if a select few can't accept that, I say srew 'em.
-----Added 28/10/2008 at 11 : 16 : 26-----
Again, in my view the problem is Obama not being open and honest about his past relationships. He is hiding something about his real political views, I am not comfortable with that.

I said earlier that Palin wouldn't be able to pick a replacement. I wasn't entirely correct. From the Volokh Conspiracy (citing an election law blog):

Who knows, she may be the one to split the Republican party. I think something like 25% of the GOP are considered the "evangelicals" and she might bring over others based on her presence and charisma. Of course, she really hasn't told us what HER views are, we get bits and pieces but mainly it's McCain talking points so everyone is guessing based on her prior actions and affilations where she stands.

It appears that the McCain campaign wants her to stop talking about her $150,000 clothes in the final week of the election as the damage has been done and bringing it up only detracts from their talking points. I wonder if Palin doesn't think her persona as typical "hockey mom" is more important than this election? This issue and the "bridge to nowhere" could dog her for years.

Even McCain has called for Ted Stevens to step down.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - McCain calls on convicted senator to step down - Blogs from CNN.com

I don't know if that means to step down from the election or to resign from the Senate. From what asaris quoted those could mean two very different things. It's kind of funny that Palin still refuses to comment on what she believes should happen.

To me this illustrates a problem with McCain. I think Steven's should have the opportunity to address the issue publicly before politicians start using the conviction for political fodder. Give the man a day or two to digest the conviction, decide what he is going to do, and announce it. If I were Steven's I would call a press conference and come clean, admit wrong doing, resign from the Senate, stop the campaign, and accept punishment with whatever honor he has left. McCain making political points on this is classless in my view. Hence another reason why I like Palin.

McCain has nothing to lose with his call for Stevens to step down.

Some may suggest Palin is waiting to see how its playing in Aaska, where Stevens is still popular....

Which is the more political or cynical response ...saying he should step down immediately because its the right thing to do.,......or waitng to say anything until you test the politcal winds at home?

she's not 'stupid' enough to piss off the people who put her in office, only the person who tapped her to be the vp nominee...

I am not sure you guys get the point. When a once respected and high powered individual falls, there is no added value in piling on other than for personal gain. The easiest thing to do is to say the Senator should step down, etc.

The right thing to do is to say that a convicted felon should step down.

The political thing to do, particularly if you are a protege, is to hedge your position to see how it will impact your future in the state.

He doesn't seem like he is going to take this opportunity and do the right thing though. He says he is still going to continue his campaign and says that he is going to try and overturn his conviction.

Now even Palin is calling for him to resign which I am sure was something she was forced to do to get in line with McCain