Much ado about Palin

[iNow]

A good piece in the New Yorker on Palin's rise to power, and how much help she actually got from Washington insiders (beyond just the huge number of earmarks she's secured, she actually played the gullible conservative pundits like a drum, which coupled with lots of ambition and an attractive physical appearance helped her to get where she is today).

 

Worth the read:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/10/27/081027fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all

 

 

Unfortunately, there's also her take on science, or more accurately, against it. Chris Hitchens lays into her a bit here as only he can do on that very subject:

http://www.slate.com/id/2203120/

[Pangloss]

I haven't seen an article on this yet but what I'm hearing is that Obama's columns at his acceptance speech cost about the same as Palin's wardrobe. And they were torn down afterwords, whereas much of her wardrobe has already been donated to charity.

 

Just like ParanoiA warned you guys earlier. But oh no, it demonstrates inability to deal with money or whatever. Sure, sure. You play partisan games, you get to deal with the aftermath.

 

Give it a day or so and I'll bet some idiot will have some smack on Obama purchasing a $20,000 necklace for his wife to wear at some white tie function.

[ParanoiA]

Columns? For a pair of columns? Can they protect a dying cancer patient?

 

Will those columns save our children from the financial crisis?

 

For that amount of money, Obama could have fed starving children. I guess columns were more important.

 

At least the republicans cared enough to spend it on something that could actually clothe a poor child. All those columns will do is squash a poor child.

 

Obviously this is an example of Obama's priorities. No prop is too expensive to spend campaign donations on to get him elected. I'll bet those folks that donated really appreciate knowing where it went. Is that any indication where our tax dollars will go?

 

 

 

 

Sorry, just thought it would be funny to play partisan hack for awhile. We should start a thread just for this sort of thing. Could be fun.

 

 

A good piece in the New Yorker on Palin's rise to power, and how much help she actually got from Washington insiders (beyond just the huge number of earmarks she's secured, she actually played the gullible conservative pundits like a drum, which coupled with lots of ambition and an attractive physical appearance helped her to get where she is today).

 

How sad. Someone works from the ground up, outside of washington, that didn't come from big money, or old wealth and no one can even take a breath from bashing them relentlessly.

 

I love these stories where some old friend buried in the past comes out to tell "The Real Story" - you can hear Dracula's laugh too - wahahaha...talk about gullible pundits.

Edited October 28, 2008 by ParanoiA

[iNow]

Uhhh... WTF? Who was bashing anything? I said it was a good piece. It actually made me respect her a bit more.

[bascule]

I haven't seen an article on this yet but what I'm hearing is that Obama's columns at his acceptance speech cost about the same as Palin's wardrobe.

 

Hearsay is fun. I heard McCain eats babies.

[Sisyphus]

I haven't seen an article on this yet but what I'm hearing is that Obama's columns at his acceptance speech cost about the same as Palin's wardrobe. And they were torn down afterwords, whereas much of her wardrobe has already been donated to charity.

 

Just like ParanoiA warned you guys earlier. But oh no, it demonstrates inability to deal with money or whatever. Sure, sure. You play partisan games, you get to deal with the aftermath.

 

Yeah, and TV ads cost thousands, too, and they only last thirty seconds!

 

The reason Palin's wardrobe was an issue (well, it wasn't an issue, but the reason it got attention) was that it played so perfectly into the liberal perception of Palin ("caribou Barbie" abusing her power) and was so contradictory to the image she tries to project, the sensible backwoods hockey mom. That's what made it funny. Obviously vast sums of money get spent on campaigns, but that's not really the point.

[Pangloss]

Still, that does speak about McCain's policies for cutting spending. He could have at least asked her if she needed some clothes before spending 150,000 on them just for them to sit unopened. If he can't cut unnecessary costs and spending in his own campaign, how can he do it with a whole country?

 

Just to follow up on this a bit more, here're a couple articles citing the rental of Invesco Field (for Obama's acceptance speech on the last night of the convention) as costing $5.3 million and putting the columned podium at 140k.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2008/10/13/daily43.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/10/140000_spent_on_for_dncc_podiu_1.asp

 

To paraphrase Mr Skeptic above, "Does this speak about Obama's policies for cutting spending? Could he not have made his speech in the convention center? If he can't cut unnecessary costs and spending in his own campaign, how can he do it with a whole country?"

 

Just to clarify so nobody will think I'm actually supporting this (George Will-style?), I'm saying that this is not relevant material. I just don't think it matters.

[waitforufo]

My favorite part of wardrobe-gate is when people talk about how only a loophole in the law allows republicans to purchase Palin clothes for campaign appearances. The "loophole" is that Palin must give the clothes to charity after the campaign. Well last I checked, loopholes such as these have a name. They are called following the law. Also, campaign collectables such as clothing always fetch high prices at auction. Why people buy crap like that, I have no idea, but they do. My guess is they will raise quite a bit of money for charity after the election. Particularly if the unlikely happens, and McCain is elected. (I don't recall, but how much did Bill Clinton claim his warn out boxer shorts were worth?)

 

Remind me again, why are people even talking about this?

[iNow]

Probably because it's stimulating to show how actions speak louder than words, especially when those actions stand in direct contrast to ones entire platform and stump speeches.

 

I already stated on page 1 that I really don't care about this issue, and that I have far greater reasons than wardrobe expenditures not to vote McCain/Palin in this years presidential election.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, for those who say Obama did something similar, I must ask "When?". When did Obama's campaign purchase something costing hundreds of thousands and then not use it? Obviously, with tens of millions to spend, both campaigns are going to be spending money. But as ParanoiA pointed out, Palin claims that most of her expensive clothes are unopened. Hence, wasted money.

[ParanoiA]

Uhhh... WTF? Who was bashing anything? I said it was a good piece. It actually made me respect her a bit more.

 

Sorry, your comment seemed derogatory since she's tried to distance herself from washington and you commented on how much help she received from washington insiders, and playing conservative pundits like a drum, as if she "fooled" them. But hey, if you respect her for it, then that's cool.

 

The piece has a weird kind of feel to it. Right out of the gate they go into the washington insider / outsider bit, but it does level off after that, with soft punches here and there, like with the earmark spending routine. It's probably just been so long since I've read an unbiased piece on a candidate that I'm adding all of this baggage that isn't there.

 

You're right, they don't really trash her, they seem to be biting their tongue. I guess I've read so much negativity from journalism on Palin that I expect it line by line.

[iNow]

My comment about conservative pundits was bashing them, but I wasn't bashing Palin (not on this, anyway). I respect the fact that she made something of herself, and with a combination of ambition, dedication, and playing the system she has come quite far. That's part of why so many people like her, and even I'm drawn in by that quality.

 

I just am disgusted by most of the things she stands for, and even moreso by things she stands against (like science and reality). I can respect how she got where she is without agreeing with anything she supports.

 

I know what you mean about the negativity about her, though. The most unfortunate thing is how much of it tends to be true.

[swansont]

I think bringing up how much was spent on Palin's clothes is only partisan and/or sexist if the media never did anything like focus attention on how much any male candidate ever spent on, say, a haircut.

 

Oh, snap!

[Mr Skeptic]

I know what you mean about the negativity about her, though. The most unfortunate thing is how much of it tends to be true.

 

 

True, but she also gets more than her share of unfair criticism. The amount of money spent on clothes for her is not much compared to the money spent on various other aspects of both campaigns. It does go a little counter to her attempted image as being a "just like you non-elitist", and that she claims most of it is unopened runs counter to their claim of cutting unnecessary spending. As others have pointed out, the amount of money itself is little compared to a bunch of other stuff the candidates do.

[iNow]

I think bringing up how much was spent on Palin's clothes is only partisan and/or sexist if the media never did anything like focus attention on how much any male candidate ever spent on, say, a haircut.

 

Oh, snap!

 

Ha! I'd nearly forgetton about that. Damn leftie media always holding republicans to a different standard.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18157456/

[bascule]

Palin said the clothes purchased were not in line with her family's personality and most of them were sitting unopened on her campaign plane.

 

"Oh noes' date=' my poor reputation as a frugal public servant!" she said. "Oh, if only the people knew that we really aren't like this. It's so painful to be criticized for something which goes against the public image we've paid our consultants to convey. There's 'facts' out there which have been disseminated by our people to the media, yet for some reason they go unreported."[/quote']

 

This is how it was presented to me when I heard the story yesterday morning. That this stuff was provided, but mostly rejected by her and her family. However, I don't listen to CNN or MSNBC to get the left spinned version.

 

This is just the latest in irrelevant childish, playground antics. The left loves this and will push and push this elementary school fodder but then crybaby over McCain calling them socialists and wealth redistributionists. It would be funny except that it's blatantly sexist and partisan - directly comes from the same place racism and prejudice comes from.

 

Yeah it's probably about time we put Palin behind us, but I just couldn't help but bring this up, sorry:

 

http://www.newsweek.com/id/167581

 

One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family — clothes and accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards.

 

:-( !!!!! POOR PALIN !!!!! :-(

[Pangloss]

Conan O'Brien said tonight that Palin was asked if she would run for President in 2012, and she responded that that was too far away to predict. After all, she might be a great-great-grandmother by then!