RNC shells out $150K for Palin fashion

[Anonymous]

This really is not a huge issue. She is a woman, they want her to look nice. If it were Hillary or a democrat I would want them to look nice too. Not "nice" but well dressed I guess. It is much more expensive to dress a woman than a man who may have custom made suits but can re-wear them more readily than a woman.

[Anonymous]

If she's a hockey mom, then whose team does her kid play for, the Red Wings?

[Anonymous]

I don't agree with the spending, but, I have to admit - the clothes do look fabulous on her. At least the personal shopper types that helped her earned their keep with flattering selections!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This really is not a huge issue. She is a woman, they want her to look nice. If it were Hillary or a democrat I would want them to look nice too. Not "nice" but well dressed I guess. It is much more expensive to dress a woman than a man who may have custom made suits but can re-wear them more readily than a woman.

Well, Americans don't like hypocrisy. And this is hypocritical in two ways:

1. She claims to be a hockey mom, Ms. Joe the Plumber, and she buys a wardrobe completely out of their range. That's $2,200 A DAY for her 67 days in the limelight. I mean, damn, is she not wearing anything twice?

2. McCain's own campaign finance laws prohibit the campaigns from purchasing clothing. So apparently McCain thinks this is one of the abuses that needed to be fixed. It is a loophole that the national party was able to buy this. McCain's best defense is (I hope) that he didn't know anything about it. But by his own standard, this is wrong.


I will add on top of it that John Edwards was criticized for his $400 haircut, and Bill Clinton was really pummeled for his $200 haircut from Christophe. The Republicans wagged on and on about that. So by their own standard, this is more than fair game.

This is her "Let them eat cake" moment. Enjoy it, Josephine Six Pack - or should I say "Marie Antoinette?"

[Anonymous]

22:37, the clothes are for all seven of the Palins (or perhaps six, since Trig probably didn't need any designer duds). Divide the $2,200 a day by 6. Campaign finance experts agree that the law requires the Palins to return all the clothes at the end of the campaign. They are not permanently upgrading their wardrobes with RNC money. (Though as I've said before, I'm happy for RNC to spend its money this way.) As for the hypocrisy charge, it's certainly true. I'm of the belief, though, that while some Americans might want "someone like them" as VP, they also want to see a certain amount of style and glamour in first ladies and even in female candidates. In other words, they want Josephine Six Pack to have the style of Jackie Kennedy, not of the hockey mom next door. Even you must agree that navigating the national political stage at this level is much, much harder for women.

I was never going to vote for Palin anyway. But her family's clothes, purchased with money I didn't donate to the RNC, and going back to the RNC at the end of the campaign, are a non-issue for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:22:37, the clothes are for all seven of the Palins (or perhaps six, since Trig probably didn't need any designer duds). Divide the $2,200 a day by 6. Campaign finance experts agree that the law requires the Palins to return all the clothes at the end of the campaign. They are not permanently upgrading their wardrobes with RNC money. (Though as I've said before, I'm happy for RNC to spend its money this way.) As for the hypocrisy charge, it's certainly true. I'm of the belief, though, that while some Americans might want "someone like them" as VP, they also want to see a certain amount of style and glamour in first ladies and even in female candidates. In other words, they want Josephine Six Pack to have the style of Jackie Kennedy, not of the hockey mom next door. Even you must agree that navigating the national political stage at this level is much, much harder for women.

I was never going to vote for Palin anyway. But her family's clothes, purchased with money I didn't donate to the RNC, and going back to the RNC at the end of the campaign, are a non-issue for me.

Your math is inaccurate; the kids are not out on the trail daily, and there doesn't appear to be much clothing for them. The report is that Todd's clothes cost $4900. And to top it off, there's a photo out of Piper carrying a $1,000 Louis Vuitton bag. THat's more than the weekly salary of the average plumber.

[Anonymous]

I don't even see how this could be a close call. I can outfit myself for my own political work, including appearances on television and receptions with members of Congress, through a couple of nice catalogues, Ann Taylor/Loft, and Filene's for several hundred dollars per year. When I made big law firm bucks, I spent maybe twice what I do now. There is no universe in which a person needs anywhere near six figures to look professional and attractive in politics. No one needs a $2200 Valentino jacket to do that. Ivy League elitist Michelle Obama wore a $148 dress on "The View" and it became a fashion sensation.

When your top credential is being "just like you," it's not necessary to look just like Oprah.

And most of all, it shows a ridiculous lack of judgment. It was obviously going to come out, and now people are talking about it. An act doesn't have to be illegal to be stupid.

Picking her as a running mate is proof positive of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This really is not a huge issue. She is a woman, they want her to look nice. If it were Hillary or a democrat I would want them to look nice too. Not "nice" but well dressed I guess. It is much more expensive to dress a woman than a man who may have custom made suits but can re-wear them more readily than a woman.

The issue is that the McPalin campaign are continuing to reach out to the Joe Sixpacks on Main Street. LOL. Joe Sixpacks wouldn't be caught dead in designer threads. Now that they are struggling with unemployment, this lavish spending further highlights the Republicans' altitude separation from the workers on the ground scrounging for jobs to keep a roof over their heads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:22:37, the clothes are for all seven of the Palins (or perhaps six, since Trig probably didn't need any designer duds). Divide the $2,200 a day by 6.

If I clothed my 15 neighbors and their kids for 2 seasons from Macy's, it still would not reach half the $150,000 sum.

[Anonymous]

puss = cat "Puss in Boots"
pus = gunk from an infection

BIG difference!

[Anonymous]

I am reminded of the infamous story about Marie Antoinette. Supposedly she was told her people were starving in the streets, because they had no bread. She was widely reported to have responded, "if they have no bread, then let them eat cake".

You'll remember how Marie's political story ended.

At a time when so many Americans are losing their homes, their jobs, their healthcare, their retirement savings, the campaign does something so profligate?

This may indeed be the nail in the McCain Palin coffin.

[Anonymous]

"Also, Palin did not have to buy designer clothes. They could have spent a fraction of the $150k at a J Crew, Ann Taylor or Banana Republic and she would have looked just fine AND it would have been in keeping with the image that they are trying to sell. "

Listen she could have even gone to Neiman Marcus or Saks amd emerged with a great wardrobe for half what they spent. Does she really need to wear a different outfit every single day and does it have to be couture one of a kind? Very high end off the rack Escada, Gucci, ST John whatever your style would still not add up to $150,000K.

[Anonymous]

I recall somebody in the "Who are you voting for" thread commented they wouldn't vote for Obama because he has an impoverished half-brother in Africa. The assumption apparently being that Obama has an obligation to support this person.

In light of this irresponsible spending on clothes for Caribou Barbie, do you want to reassess your moral condemnation of anybody here????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This really is not a huge issue. She is a woman, they want her to look nice. If it were Hillary or a democrat I would want them to look nice too. Not "nice" but well dressed I guess. It is much more expensive to dress a woman than a man who may have custom made suits but can re-wear them more readily than a woman.

I find it offensive to even mention Hillary and Palin in the same sentence on this issue, the issue of appearance, which goes hand-in-hand with sexism.

What Hillary was "selling" was her BRAINS. This absurd spending on Palin's appearance underscores what they are trying to sell there. If Palin is hot enough, maybe people won't focus on what an ignoramus she is.

[Anonymous]

To be fair, according to the NYTimes, Palin is repeatedly wearing the same things, her outfit for the debate cost under $200, and much of Michelle Obama's wardrobe is designer too. Still, stupid of the McCain campaign though.