RNC Donors on Palin's Clothes: "Not the Change They Wanted"

Newsweek reports RNC donors were furious about the $150,000 clothing expense shelled out for Gov. Sarah Palin's clothes.

Lobbyist Andrea McWilliams, a GOP fundraiser in Texas, said the flap undercut the party's message. Palin's "transformation from low couture to haute couture isn't the kind of change that voters had in mind," she said.

Marty Eisenstadt takes a closer look at the expenditure form and notes that the second make-up artist, Tracy Thorpe, was flown in and paid $900 to give Sarah Palin a spray tan to get rid of her "Eskimo tan."

Newsweek reports the McCain campaign "directed" the RNC to foot the clothing bill. [More...]

The problem was figuring out how to pay for new dresswear: the 2002 McCain-Feingold law, co-authored by the GOP candidate, tightened the rules to ban using campaign funds for personal clothing. While Jeff Larson, a veteran GOP consultant who headed the party's "host" committee, provided his credit card for the Palin family shopping spree, he was directed to send the bills over to the Republican National Committee (which was not covered by the clothing ban in McCain-Feingold). RNC officials were not happy about it. "We were explicitly directed by the campaign to pay these costs," said one senior RNC official who also requested anonymity.

< Slouching Towards A New HOLC | Obama's Denver Event: Police Say More than 100,000 Attended >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'm confused (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by liberalLibertarian on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 12:29:00 PM EST
    In order to campaign she needs clothes, transportation, lodging and food. Why wouldn't the campaign fund the whole thing? It does not sound excessive to me considering she's running for the second highest office in the US. I wouldn't expect her to select suits from the JC Penny catalog.

    Barack and Michelle Obama and (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by robrecht on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 12:49:19 PM EST
    Joe and and Jill Biden each wear their own clothes just like the rest of us.  Why can't Sarah Palin wear her own clothes?  Doesn't she already own clothes?  Remember Pat Nixon and her Republican cloth coat?

    it's illegal for the campaign to pay (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 12:51:28 PM EST
    but not for the RNC

    McCain/Feingold legislation (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by white n az on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 03:08:20 PM EST
    made it clear that a campaign's funds were not to be used for personal expenses and specifically mentioned clothing. John McCain was fully aware of the legislation particulars.

    The legality of the RNC paying for the personal effects of a candidate is not specifically covered in law though by extension, would surely violate the spirit if not the letter of the law, especially considering that the campaign could direct payment from the national party funds.

    This story will have legs long beyond November 4th


    Those are the choices? (none / 0) (#45)
    by coigue on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 07:16:25 PM EST
    JC Penny vs $150K worth?

    It's the amount, not the idea, that astounds me (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Birmingham Blues on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 01:07:19 PM EST
    Palin hasn't yet been on the ticket 60 days.  $150,000, assuming all of that was for clothing and not some "overhead" to the Rove henchman who undertook the shopping, averages $2,500 a day.

    However, I dislike the implication that the Palins went on a spending spree, as if they all piled into the minivan and headed for the mall.  And gee thanks, Newsweek, for the sexist headline...

    it isn't that hard (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by white n az on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 05:35:41 PM EST
    to spend $150K at Nieman Marcus and Saks...in fact, it's a lot simpler than one would think.

    The issue is that once again, the McCain campaign undercuts its own message.

    Joe SixPack? - neither he nor his wife are shopping Saks/Nieman Marcus

    McCain/Palin cut wasteful spending? - puhlease

    Consider this to be a testament to the horrible campaign run by McCain. A campaign is nothing if it doesn't have a central, overriding theme and all steps must align with the theme.

    That they could represent the middle class and be more responsible watch dogs than Bush who was pushing us to give him a $700 Billion blank check, this little shopping spree completely summed up why no one should be voting for McCain/Palin in one easily understood process


    GOP Donors? (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 01:21:09 PM EST
    Isn't the McCain campaign taking public financing?  What that mean that the taxpayers are footing at least part of the bill?

    Talk about redistribution of wealth!  From all to Palin.  That's the real Wisilla Main Street value.

    The campaign didn't pay for this (none / 0) (#7)
    by Birmingham Blues on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 01:26:09 PM EST
    The RNC did.

    Oh, I'm sure... (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 01:32:41 PM EST
    ...the GOP is following the letter of the law and not finding ways to funnel money to the RNC.  'Cause they're such sticklers about doing things within the letter of the law.  Sigh.

    Is the RNC also paying for the make-up artists and the fake tanning?  


    That was the funny part of the article (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 01:47:35 PM EST
    One veteran GOP consultant (who also requested anonymity) said the real puzzle among his peers is why Larson didn't find a way to disguise the expenses, at least until after the election. Larson declined to comment.

    Truth be told... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by white n az on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 03:09:45 PM EST
    they are paying their make-up artists more each month than they are paying any policy experts...what does that say about a campaign?

    hm (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by connecticut yankee on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 03:11:23 PM EST
    I think it tells policy experts that they are in the  wrong line of work.   Who knew beauty school was the big time?

    It says more about the media than (none / 0) (#22)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 03:32:29 PM EST
    the campaign. The media knows how much stylists, make up etc make. Or they should!

    I used to make $1250 a day avg 20+ yrs ago as a stylist. You don't work everyday, you are responsible for all your own expenses like insurance, assistants etc. I make significantly more freelance than I do on staff still. I wonder what the Obama campaign is paying their marketing people compared to their policy experts?

    Freelancing is hard work!  ;)


    That's because (none / 0) (#42)
    by rdandrea on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 07:06:54 PM EST
    their policy "experts" are idiots

    Actually, Palin is prob the closest to being (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 01:46:12 PM EST
    "just like you and me" than any of the others. Something tells me they aren't dropping 10 grand a year on their kids activities, for starters. And gee, she didn't have the wardrobe on hand either.

    Don't most First Ladies get makeovers once they get in office? Next January I'm sure we'll all be looking at the gown Michelle wears. Hope no one forgets to announce the price . . . .

    Never saw a story on the cost (2.00 / 0) (#58)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 09:05:42 PM EST
    of the "Jackie K" makeover for Michelle Obama -- but I'm glad to not see the pink suit anymore.  That brought back bad memories.  (And it really didn't, well, "suit" her as well as dresses.)

    my guess is that (none / 0) (#46)
    by coigue on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 07:21:03 PM EST
    Laura Bush's inaugural gown was donated....kind of like at the Oscars.

    Irony of ironies, (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 02:02:48 PM EST
    Governor Palin getting called on her wardrobe malfunction, albeit stunning evidence of hypocrisy, but being let off the hook, comparatively, for her abuse of office, ethics violation, and blatant lying that the Alaskan legislative committee "vindicated" her.

    All the really important news (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 02:36:11 PM EST
    that is being ignored by media, including bloggers, for this story is such a sad commentary on our society.

    I'll make a perfectly safe prediction:  Once again, we will get the government that our media deserve.


    She'd look fine the first time (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 02:34:39 PM EST
    but any woman who travels a lot learns fast that real quality is requisite for clothing to hold up.

    Interestingly, I'm hearing this story go thud with people who point out that it is precisely because she was a "hockey mom" in Sears and L.L.Bean style that it was necessary to buy a wardrobe fast that would not be mocked by media and others.

    Of course, she's mocked either way.  And she certainly couldn't be seen in pantsuits. . . .

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 03:07:40 PM EST
    Nobody needs to buy clothing for the McCains, the Obamas or the Bidens because they're all multi-millionaires.

    The McCain campaign's mistake was in paying for it out of general RNC funds, rather than getting some super-wealthy supporters to quietly buy the clothing, loan it to Palin and then donate it to charity after the campaign.  Anybody want to bet there wasn't an active effort behind the scenes to buy good clothing for Hillary Clinton when Bill first ran for president and they had no money?


    Actually (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by robrecht on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 03:31:50 PM EST
    Some of the figures I've seen indicate that Sarah Palin may have a higher net worth than Joe Biden.

    Regarding the Clinton's, I still remember that they donated their used clothes and claimed it as a deduction on their income tax.  IIRC, a used pair of underwear was valued at $10.  No thanks.


    Undergarments are no different (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 03:36:32 PM EST
    than any other secondhand clothes. All are cleaned and people need them. When I donated all my nice work clothes, I also donated undergarments I would wear with them. I'm sure someone who lost everything in Katrina appreciated having everything they needed to look for a new job right down to the cami under the top.

    I donate my old clothes too (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by robrecht on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 03:39:33 PM EST
    but still think it's kind of funny to put a value on Bill Clinton's underwear.  Maybe Ken Starr would buy it.

    I wonder if the value is higher now? (none / 0) (#25)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 03:47:44 PM EST
    Kinda funny what people put values on  ;)

    When you consider... (none / 0) (#28)
    by vml68 on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 04:25:02 PM EST
    the kinds of things people bid for on Ebay and the prices that they pay, I am surprised they valued Bill Clinton's undies at only $10. What a steal, if you're into that kinda thing...... :-)!

    Higher net worth? (none / 0) (#37)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 06:21:51 PM EST
    How on earth do you figure that?

    Just what I read on the Intertubes (none / 0) (#54)
    by robrecht on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 08:05:39 PM EST
    Nobody loves the LL Bean (or rather the REI)... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 04:48:57 PM EST
    ...style more than I.  Fact is, I live in my jeans, fleece, Gore-Tex and down when I'm not at work.  But even though I hate it, I also have my nice work clothes for slaving away on behalf of my fellow citizens.

    Are you seriously telling us that with the various State functions that come with being Governor or going on all of those trade missions (the source of her "foreign policy experience" in addition to being able to see Russia) that poor, poor Sarah has no nice dress or business wear of her own?  Please.


    Sure, she has a couple black power suits (none / 0) (#31)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 05:18:24 PM EST
    and a couple of red. Apparently, that's her uniform when necessary. I would bet she's more stocked on casual clothes and could prob do a couple months campaigning in those. I doubt she's wearing a power suit when working on her home turf or to the grocery store for that matter.

    Hillary had it right when she said she was interviewing for a job. And we generally wear our best when going for big promotions. It's called "looking the part". How much time have we spent looking at Obama and commenting if he's managed to "look Presidential"? In fact, J mentions it in her post on his appearance today . . . . he's finally gotten his Presidential chops down . . . now experience is a whole 'nother issue, but at least he sounds good.


    So, four suits? (none / 0) (#34)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 06:04:51 PM EST
    Here's a woman who's been a beauty pageant participant, local TV "personality" and a Mayor--all very public vocations and she's only got 4 suits?  

    And then you add this to the mix...

    "She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone," said this McCain adviser. "She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else.

    "Also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: Divas trust only unto themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom."


    ...four suits doesn't add up.  Certainly when one considers the whole "looking the part" argument.

    But then I find this gallery of her through the years and I have to think you are not only right, but that you might even be a little high on your estimate...


    I must have missed the meaningful, non-lookist discussions of Obama's stature as a statesperson though.  I do remember some here going on about the kind of collar he was wearing and other quips about his build.


    She was a contestant 20yrs ago! She did that to (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 06:43:17 PM EST
    earn $$$ for college. GEEZE! TV personality? Uh, that was before the PTA even and she may have had some supplied wardrobe there. A TV person I knew did get suits etc from the show. They had better taste than he did!

    I had read that she pretty much dressed in red or black suits, so that's why I said a couple of each. As to what's in her closet, I don't know. I do know that I can get by with much less (quality/cost) for day to day work than if I were making public appearances and/or high profile mtgs. I don't know how much variety she would need attending x amount of functions a year vs x amount crammed into 8wks. Most women execs I know don't have as many options on the higher end of suits/outfits, but day-2-day suits/business wear, much more. One reason it's easier to wear mainly black etc. You can get by with just a couple skirts/pants and a jacket or 2 and the variation is in the tops. You do the same when you travel. Dog forbid you need too many pairs of shoes/different accessories etc. Being able to go day to evening with minimal effort is key for us gals. Doesn't mean we have deep closets though.  ;) Oh, and once you own a Dalmatian, the black wardrobe theory goes out the window!


    Well... (none / 0) (#83)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 08:47:00 AM EST
    ...I guess it doesn't pay to agree with you.  My mistake.

    You're an urbanite and a guy (none / 0) (#35)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 06:10:08 PM EST
    as I recall?  Maybe unmarried?  Share your closet with anyone?  Well, my spouse thought he was going to get to share "our"/my closet. :-)

    I am a woman (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by coigue on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 07:23:45 PM EST
    150K is excessive. If I donated to the DNC and it went to this effect I would be outraged.

    It is too much. Even for the VP candidate.


    Your donation... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by vml68 on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 08:48:06 PM EST
    I am assuming you did not mind the $5 million spent on those greek columns at the convention, that is if you donated to the DNC.

    Did Obama wear them? (none / 0) (#93)
    by coigue on Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 12:29:37 PM EST
    You're MileHighHawkeye? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 09:06:29 PM EST
    First off... (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 08:43:36 AM EST
    ...at least get my "name" right.  

    Second, my personal details are NOYB unless I choose to disclose them.  

    Third, what does any of that have to do with my comment?


    You seemed to imply that (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by coigue on Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 12:48:38 PM EST
    a woman would feel differently than MileHi felt.

    I was disagreeing.


    I'm not sharing mine with anyone (none / 0) (#39)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 06:44:55 PM EST
    Closet space is premium here! I'll move before I share, lol!~

    I can't begin to tell you... (none / 0) (#57)
    by vml68 on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 08:51:10 PM EST
    how many apartments the BF and I rejected just because of closet space!

    lol!~ (none / 0) (#71)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 10:33:30 PM EST
    The ONLY reason this apt has a closet is one was added around 1960. I still have the built-ins in the front parlor for linens from the late 1800's and the kitchen pantry (need a ladder for the upper cabinets!). I'm luckier than some of the other tenants, they didn't have someone build a closet  ;)

    I would have taken this apt without the closet. Windows, high ceilings, huge kitchen, original details, top floor and no carpet. It would have been a b!tch but I would have worked it out. But I'll be damned if I'll share the closet!!  ;)


    Huge Kitchen.... (none / 0) (#73)
    by vml68 on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 11:18:49 PM EST
    should have guessed that after reading all your posts on all the cooking, canning, etc.
    The two things I absolutely have to have... closet space, south facing windows (in all the rooms if possible)!
    Your apartment sounds wonderful. Mine is one of those built in the last couple of years cookie-cutter ones, with the added bonus of three columns at the entrance to the living room. The realtor was not too happy with me when I interrupted her sales pitch on how they made the place look grand, to tell her that I thought they were hideous.
    On the plus side (for me), I have told the BF that every time I win an argument, I am going to channel Obama and give a 'victory' speech next to the columns!!!

    Except that she travelled (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by coigue on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 08:03:07 PM EST
    to governor's conferences all over the country, and made many formal public appearances. Did she wear fleece to those?

    Also, she makes plenty of money to get a nice wardrobe for this occasion. The cost of living is cheaper in Alaska.


    Yikes, check some prices in Alaska! (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 09:07:53 PM EST
    Ye olde shipping and handling really adds to costs there.  Where did you get the idea it's cheap there?  Sure, for blubber.  But standard stuff from the States -- not so, say folks I know there.

    housing is much cheaper (none / 0) (#87)
    by coigue on Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 12:14:53 PM EST
    of course I live  in blue CA.

    I guess it's all relative


    I have family in Eagle River (none / 0) (#90)
    by coigue on Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 12:22:25 PM EST
    they moved their because of the lower cost of living.

    Yup, and that doesn't take anything special (none / 0) (#67)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 10:05:51 PM EST
    that a high ranking business woman wouldn't already have in her closet. If she had to do daily gov conferences for 8 weeks, methinks she might extend that wardrobe a tad.

    So, how many "governor's conferences all over the country" has she attended in the past 2 yrs?

    She makes plenty of money? Five kids with Dad doing more "at home" work and the newest with special needs? Obviously, you don't know the cost of fresh food in Alaska. There's prob a reason many hunt. It's also what people in the lower 48 don't understand about the views on hunting there.


    Dad (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 02:07:32 AM EST
    Pulls in more than 50k a year I don't think he's hurting-- oh and you forget that they get 20k from the state-- because of their family size.

    I didn't forget (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 02:34:15 AM EST
    I didn't know that states handed over 20 grand because you had a certain number of kids.

    50k isn't all that much when you factor in kids and living expenses. (minus the 20k for having a certain number of kids). Many 2 income families have the 2 incomes consisting of 2X 50k. That's middle class. In certain ares, that's just enough to get by. For a single person, 50k is just surviving in places like NY and CA.

    Remember, Obama's taxing the rich starts at 250 grand. Did the Palins make that combined? The Obama's did.


    First of all: (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by coigue on Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 12:20:54 PM EST
    the Obamas paid for their own clothes.

    Second, IIRC Sarah made 125K as a governor, plus Todd's $50K plus a $20K oil derivative.

    That's $195K. She has ALL their medical dental, etc covered.

    This is plenty for clothes for the campaign trail, especially for someone who decries waste. Oh yeah, please don't forget all the perdiem for her entire family while they "visited" their own home.

    It's fine that you admire her wardrobe, but sheesh...she can get her own damn clothes.


    Alaska: (none / 0) (#88)
    by coigue on Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 12:16:58 PM EST
    every man woman and child gets an oil dividend every year. Last year it was $3000 EACH!!!

    Talk about socialism.


    ya (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by connecticut yankee on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 03:08:06 PM EST
    They know its bad.

    I read at Politico that they returned a third of it now and Palin says shes not wearing any of it from now on.  McCain, Palin and Elizabeth Hassleback addressed it today.  As Politico noted, they just kept the story going for another day.

    It's shocking that the GOP would fall into such an obvious hole. They use this kind of attack all the time.

    I was thinking about that... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by white n az on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 05:28:35 PM EST
    and wondered what the point is of any type of response/reference by Palin at all.

    It's simply ego-maniacal to respond to the issue of who paid for the clothes or whether what she is currently wearing was paid for by the RNC or not. It simply continues to drive the story forward because if she gets on stage and says, I got this outfit from Alaska myself, then we simply ask the question the next day because it is still in play.

    The reason why the origin and cost of those clothes were brought to light was simply to embarrass her.

    The reason she is fighting back is to stem the personal embarrassment not for this election cycle, but for the future.

    So yeah, they kept the story going for another cycle but Palin gave up caring about winning in 2008 and is only concerned for her future viability.

    McCain is interested in putting on a good show for the rest of this cycle just to minimize the blame that he is going to take for his failures.

    That there are more than a few (Davis? Wallace?) who are willing to savage Palin at this point is interesting and will no doubt gather steam as Nov 4th comes and goes.


    All right, I admit it ... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 06:51:46 PM EST
    RNC officials were not happy about it. "We were explicitly directed by the campaign to pay these costs," said one senior RNC official who also requested anonymity.

    I am enjoying this festival of Republican @ss-covering, finger-pointing, blame-gaming, scurrying for cover, back-stabbing, and everyone for oneself-ing.  

    It shows how much in disarray (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by Fabian on Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 05:06:59 AM EST
    the GOP is.  The Mighty Wurlitzer has thrown a few cogs.

    Not the way it works (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by ruffian on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 09:34:36 PM EST
    When you are tall and athletically built cheap clothes look all the cheaper.  Trust me on that one.

    I can just hear the cattiness if she had been appearing looking dowdy or frumpy.

    These campaigns spend obscene amounts of money on everything.  I think they got more value out of making Palin look attractive than they got out of most of their advertising budget.

    And please don't tell me about the policy advisors making less.  These people all have jobs elsewhere. They are not starving academics.

    Are the donors happier (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by ruffian on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 09:48:51 PM EST
    with the return on investment on McCain's advertising budget and robocalls?  

    It's silly to keep bashing Palin for this. (none / 0) (#4)
    by rise hillary rise on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 01:05:15 PM EST
    Michelle Obama and Jill Biden are not running for office. Nor is Cindy McCain. It's pretty clear that someone in the campaign hired a stylist who gave Palin an "extreme makeover" and it may be that no one up the food chain even gave it a second thought.

    it was really a missed opportunity not to put her in all "Made in USA" clothes-if any such exist anymore-but she did need a certain image as the Repub VP, and I am quite sure that the image consultants didn't want her looking frumpy standing next to Cindy either.

    the thing that I found the most amusing is the comments that the clothing will all go to charity after the campaign-not a single Repub has said something like "she'll need a professional wardrobe as VP"-which suggests more about their polling than any spin out there.

    I disagree (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by rdandrea on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 01:37:38 PM EST
    Palin is running as a "populist."

    A "populist" in expensive designer clothes is a faux-populist; a hypocrite.

    It's never silly to bash hypocrisy.  Least of all during a political campaign.


    Ummm, Hillary was also throwing out (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 03:52:12 PM EST
    populist ideas. Should she just shut up now or give up all her clothes?

    did HRC not pay for them? (1.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 07:14:16 PM EST
    sounds to me like Palin is a kept woman...

    That's a real nice response . . . . (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 07:26:08 PM EST
    so enlightened.

    if the shoe fits (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 07:35:46 PM EST
    Has anyone other than your husband ever bought you 150k in clothes?

    NIce of you to point out HRC's clothes expense and silly to avoid the question.  She paid for her own clothes.  Sarah Palin did not.

    Sarah Palin is going to clean up warshington.  Sarah Palin and John McCain use an end around to the McCain-Feingold law.

    It has been rumored Palin was picked because of her looks.

    Sarah Palin is not remotely qualified for the position.

    So yes, in effect a cheating man who picks someone who is not qualified to be his wife, showers her with gifts and calls her his soulmate has all the right fixins for me to make the statement.  

    Unless of course you live in a world where there are not kept women or men?


    "A cheating man who picks someone.... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by vml68 on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 09:38:32 PM EST
     who is not qualified to be his wife"

    I did not realise there were qualifications to be a cheating man's wife or any other type of man for that matter.


    tongue in cheek (none / 0) (#80)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 07:22:13 AM EST
    meaning not the negative but the opposite of how you interpreted it. Not qualified inasmuch that his wife is much more the woman.

    You're so clueless. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 10:21:04 PM EST
    Why would I need a husband to buy clothes? Why would I turn down clothes needed for appearances from my "company", "employers" etc. Heh, free hair, make up and clothes was not uncommon in my past. Now free product isn't. I'm nowhere near a kept woman, somedays I wish though, lol!~~~

    Getting clothing in certain fields is not uncommon and it certainly does not make you a kept woman. Unless you're a wimpa$$. {hands out a mirror}

    BTW, when did Obama become qualified? When the DNC elite bought him, per chance? I would have preferred them giving him clothes . . .


    "need" (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 07:26:06 AM EST
    My wife loves when I buy her clothes, although 98% of her wardrobe is self purchased.  I love to buy her clothes because it makes her very happy that I try to get her color patterns and style.  Jpeterman is a great catalog, was shopping for her this weeken.

    Most would argue O became qualified after 18 months of vetting and debating and winning his primary.

    when Palin conducts real interviews, when she survives the repub nomination process, I will say she is qualified, until then she is a populist only in sanctimony and 150k clothes.


    You must know the meaning (none / 0) (#61)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 09:09:04 PM EST
    of the term you use.  If you don't, you could save yourself some embarrassment by looking it up.

    metaphorically speaking (none / 0) (#86)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 10:56:49 AM EST
    did you not consider metaphorics or is it simply a semantics argument?  I did not mean to imply a sex angle, and if that is how it was interpreted than shame on me.  I meant it metaphorically and thought I worded it as such but I surely can see how it could be misread.

    Yep, $20,000 minimum for custom-made (none / 0) (#27)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 04:16:18 PM EST
    pantsuits -- three of them, mininum, at about $6650 apiece.  Thanks for the link; I read that story when it came out and found the designer fascinating but couldn't find it recently when this came up again (on another board).  And those pantsuits were worth every penny, holding up great on the road.

    By comparison, Palin's clothes were bought off the rack for her.  So the RNC got more for its money?


    I'd wear the suit on the (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 04:48:04 PM EST
    designers home page in a heartbeat! Too bad I went anti-corp, lol!~  ;)

    Don't forget, the designer also made a mannequin to Hillary's specs. Now that's custom!


    I loved the orange one (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 06:11:06 PM EST
    and when she chose to wear it -- at the Dem convention.  It was a shout-out, and we knew it. :-)

    Who paid for them? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by coigue on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 07:15:34 PM EST
    That's really the question.

    Doesn't matter when you read what we (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 07:25:04 PM EST
    are responding to.

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by coigue on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 07:40:11 PM EST
    you don't have to be poor to be populist, and if you aren't poor you can pay whatever you want/can for clothes.

    Palin, OTOH, decries government waste while taking full advantage of other people's money. This is just the latest of a long list of examples.



    It wasn't government money. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 10:41:50 PM EST
    If someone said I needed a wardrobe for the next 8 weeks of job interviews and appearances, I'd take them up on the offer unless it was illegal. It's not easy to suddenly need the next level of wardrobe, especially on short notice.

    You render yourself false if you refuse to look at the big picture and what is common practice. She wasn't in the habit of misspending money on clothing for appearances, as far as we know. She was given a makeover, which isn't uncommon in politics. Doesn't erase her past life and how her and her family lived, shopped and paid bills.


    Really? (none / 0) (#92)
    by coigue on Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 12:28:41 PM EST
    You would take clothes from people who are donating money to a cause that you represent? I would not.

    And I have yet to see proof of campaign money spent on the wardrobes of other pols.


    What part of this did you not read? (none / 0) (#69)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 10:12:24 PM EST
    Palin is running as a "populist."

    A "populist" in expensive designer clothes is a faux-populist; a hypocrite.

    It's never silly to bash hypocrisy.  Least of all during a political campaign.

    Who paid for the clothes isn't in question. What a populist wears is. Really kinda simple . . .


    You do "snide" well. (none / 0) (#91)
    by coigue on Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 12:24:09 PM EST
    Aren't you proud.

    Except that you are mistaking disagreement with lack of reading comprehension.

    A sure sign of a closed mind.


    It's a nothing story (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 06:58:12 PM EST
    And if the McPalin's campaign weren't already going to pieces, I doubt it would stick.  Expensive clothes are just the uniform of politics and statesmanship (not that we'd be likely to see much of that from McCain/Palin).  They're tools of the trade.  

    That said, paying for expensive clothing with campaign contributions is distasteful and just plain looks bad.  Hell, didn't Palin have a decent pantsuit or two for meetings with oil industry lobbyists and those times when Putin's reared head appears over the horizion?  You'd think so.


    It is a story (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 07:47:53 PM EST
    because it is part of the entire narrative.  She can't speak to the press because they are afraid so McCain does interviews with her.  She claims to be a reformer but her record does not agree.  She claims outright that she did nothing wrong in the troopergate investigation yet the report cites ethics breach.  
    The campaign thinks they have to dress her too.

    For such a strong confident woman she has been on a tight leash being told what to say and wear...


    You must have missed the stories (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 09:11:31 PM EST
    of the Michelle Obama makeover -- a strong woman, certainly, but she was willing to do what it took to pass media muster . . . and, clearly, to be told what to say and what not to say, ever again.  It's standard handling.

    Michelle as a strong woman.... (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by vml68 on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 09:51:35 PM EST
    I read that when Barack quit his job at Sidley he also gave notice for Michelle. I found that rather odd, I know I would have few choice things to say to my boyfriend if he presumed to make my decisions for me.

    He also went and "inteviewed" a (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 10:09:05 PM EST
    perspective employer of hers. I think it was the one that connected him to the Chicago Machine.

    What is an "Eskimo tan"? (none / 0) (#55)
    by coigue on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 08:06:15 PM EST

    In The Crayola Box (none / 0) (#74)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 01:07:51 AM EST
    you would probably find it under Polar Bear White.

    I'm sure there are plenty of far fetched ethnic explanations as people try to dissect the term, but I'm betting it's lower 48 slang for the above.


    or it could be close to a ski tan (none / 0) (#75)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 01:33:04 AM EST
    backpackers tan etc. Aka, uneven tan and/or some obvious untanned areas.

    I can see spray tanning the whole upper half of the body so any style shirt/top can be worn etc. Much easier than applying makeup via sponge everyday. I suspect they would want to add a bit of color to my skin if I suddenly had to do 8 wks of appearances, Or, depending on time of year, even out my coloring. Anyone who is in the outdoors a lot usually has a specific tan. Think t-shirts and sun glasses and areas the sun don't hit  ;)


    Sounds like the equivalent (none / 0) (#78)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 04:30:22 AM EST
    in my region of what we call the "farmer tan."  Face and arms tan, up to the t-shirt sleeve line here.  Up there, maybe face and hands, that's all.

    just read (none / 0) (#84)
    by connecticut yankee on Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 10:22:45 AM EST
    According to CNN, this mention by Palin of the clothes issue was off-script.  I'd guess this is further evidence of her doing her own damage control.

    This is the real story, I think. (none / 0) (#85)
    by sallywally on Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 10:52:01 AM EST
    Throwing McCain under the bus.