Comments on: Feminists campaign with Palin in Nevada; media covers clothes budget

By: Legolas

Legolas — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 01:48:04 +0000

I’m sure auctioning off the clothes to charity was the plan all along, just as the campaign said…a few hours after the story was posted and in contrast to their initial “no comment” statement.

By: Warren

Warren — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:13:12 +0000

I am anxious to see how many hundreds that outfit will fetch for a charity after the election.

By: Eddy

Eddy — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:09:25 +0000

LOL. Being photographed and scrutinized endlessly….yep, that explains the $90 outfit (oops, I mean ‘uniform’) baby Trig was wearing.

By: Warren

Warren — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 05:21:26 +0000

minty – excellent observation. She is being photographed and scrutinized endlessly. I suspect if she wore her actual wardrobe, she would be getting hit for looking hickish.
Also, the clothes are to be auctioned off for charity after the election; they do not belong to her, but are more like uniforms for the job.

By: minty

minty — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 04:29:04 +0000

However, Sarah Palin’s clothes budget garnered major network coverage, an Associated Press article, and all told over 90 articles that I found in a quick search.

Well after endless stories about Bill Clinton’s $200 hair-cut and John Edwards’ $500 hair-cuts, the shoe is on the other foot. And not just any shoe, but a Manolo Blahnik. There’s the hypocrisy angle – wasn’t this the same Republican party criticizing Obama for being an out-of-touch arugala-sniffer, and wasn’t Sarah Palin supposed a folksy, downhome mom?
However – the hypocrisy angle doesn’t really hold up. The fact that the Palins needed this expensive make-over is proof that they were just regular folks, not living on the high on the hog. The story almost makes me sympathize with them.
Still, it’s a juicy, scurrilous bit of gossip, and a perfect sound byte. And actually this story reveals quite a bit about our politics: the importance of appearances (especially for female politicians); the enormous expense of looking effortlessly chic; and as just mentioned – the fact that the Palins weren’t living the glamorous life.

By: Cindy

Cindy — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 03:27:36 +0000

Eddy:
Journalists want to dig? Are you kidding? Dig what? The real dirty stuff on Joe and his divorce?
Why don’t they dig up how a child in Obama’s district was killed by a gate falling on him in his ghetto home because his state senator was so in bed with REZKO he failed to hold any standards in his district for those who would supposedly help the masses of the clearly underserved single moms and their children? Rezko and the like clearly profit from the poor. Look that up Eddy.
Are you kidding? I will challenge you that this is the most telling and frightening conspiracy in the media since WWII. Liberal women supporting a Republican feminist with credentials who chose life.
EVERY supposedly legit – UNBIASED – outlet simply missed that 5 famous feminists on the stage because it was handed to them? Not likely. Women from all parties are fed up. Hillary Clinton ganered 18 million votes and Obama discredited her and threw her under the Chicago bus. Women are angry and they should be

By: Eddy

Eddy — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:41:09 +0000

Warren–
Although this situation is somewhat ludicrous, please be aware that reporters generally tend to want to dig something up not have it presented to them. The gathering of women was a staged event, an easy–and unfortunately–boring story for the masses so naturally they’re sinking their teeth into a story that they have dug up.
Another part of this is the relative newness of having a woman on the ticket. I seem to recall being incredulous that they were discussing Geraldine Ferraro’s clothes and hairstyle when she was running some years ago. And they discussed Hillary’s outfits early in the campaign while saying hardly a word about Barack’s.
And then, we have reached the all out mud-slinging part of the race. Even our local political advertising has stooped to mentioning that the candidate ‘who like you is struggling to put his kids through college’ is wearing a suit from Needless Markups. (That’s Neiman Marcus for the uninformed.)
And, get ready to cringe…I’ve heard blurbs from several local merchants who can ‘replicate the Sarah Palin hairdo’ and ‘who have the official Sarah Palin eyeglasses’. And they’re not talking Halloween. LOL. She’s the Dorothy Hamill of the new century!
It’s a shame this circus is winding down, isn’t it?

By: Legolas

Legolas — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:07:34 +0000

Palin is pretty thoroughly discredited as a viable vice president – polls are showing over and over that voters consider her McCain’s greatest liability.
As I’ve already noted in comments on an earlier post, Rothschild discredited herself by saying she couldn’t support Obama because he’s “elitist.”
Mandell says she supports the McCain/Palin ticket based on support for “women’s rights” including “equal pay.” Her evidence for this is unclear and she even says she has “disagreements,” which is probably code for abortion and perhaps also LGBT issues. As far as I know, when McCain was given the opportunity to support equal pay, he voted against it (he says he has his reasons, sure, but…), so it’s not clear what her basis of support is other than Palin’s gender.
Klinge, Lafferty, and Bartholomeusz – I can’t find any statements from them on why they support Palin.
Bored now.