« Forget the Candidates, Meet the McCain voters (snark) | RM Rocks's Blog | Marcia Stirman: "Why I'm a Republican" »
McCain Palin, Collapsing at the Finish
Palin's haute couture............$150,000
Palin's make-up.....................$13,200
Endorsement by al-Qaeda....Priceless.
What a way to run a campaign.
-------------------
Voted? Yes
-------------------
Advertisement
“It is curious - curious that physical courage should be so common in the world, and moral courage so rare”
Mark Twain
October 22, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
They should get a refund of their $13,000. Her makeup is awful. She's got so much plastered on, it reminds me of Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard.
October 22, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm ready for my close-up, Mr. McCain..."
October 22, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that you, Al Q?
October 22, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't her makeup person come from Ringling Brothers?
October 22, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gloria Swanson could actually act.
October 23, 2008 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not only did it in all likelihood come out of Hillary's own pocket, but nobody was providing sartorial welfare to the rest of the Clinton family, akin to the contemptible fact, comes to be known, that the RNC was also outfitting Palin's whole goddam family. What a contemptible farce. Good thing all those designer duds are "going to charity" - not gonna do her much good in her upcoming perpetuity of Alaskan obscurity.
October 23, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
(meant as a reply to debbiedoesnothing, below)
October 23, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect to the posters here at TPM, would anyone have seen fit to talk about Hillary's outfits and makeup costs during the primaries. She touted herself as a "woman of the people" also.
The endorsement is another story... as the GOP made much of a similar endorsement on Kerry.
October 22, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems like Republicans are more upset about the money than we are. As much as I hate Palin, I think a style makeover is a reasonable campaign expense. $150,000 seems a little excessive though.
I have no idea how much Hillary spent, but even if the campaign paid for it, it ended up coming out of her own pocket. As a feminist, I'm a little miffed that they pay so much attention to women's clothes and bodies and hair and makeup. But then, I remember criticisms of John Edwards' expensive haircuts and McCain's designer shoes.
October 22, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note so excessive: I can still afford cake.
October 23, 2008 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary and Laura Bush apparently made a bipartisan agreement to look as frumpy as possible. Now, if you want to talk the cost of Pelosi's wardrobe...
October 22, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who is paying for Pelosi's wardrobe? I'll bet she is.
Who paid for Palin's makeover? Campaign contributors.
Read that a few times -- until you grasp that they are apples and oranges. That the Pelosi instance is irrelevant. That your attack on Pelosi is dishonest and gratuitous.
October 23, 2008 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Such endorsement "on Kerry" didn't actually happen. Rather, the Republicans ASSERTED tht Al Qaeda wanted Kerry elected.
In fact, of course, Al Qaeda wanted BUSH, because he was a known quantity as a fuck-up.
Interesting how your sense of "balance" is always negative -- and anti-Democrat.
October 23, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, and here I was, looking forward to eight years of an America in which respectfully-given dissent was respectfully received. Sarcasm aside, by refusing to tolerate mild critiques like the one CT gave here, aren't we letting the social conservative proto-authoritarians win? We can disagree on this, but I just wanted to put that out there.
October 23, 2008 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
As for the endorsement--sure, maybe it's bad-natured Schadenfreude to relish it so much, but gosh darnit, it feels good to watch Republican logic turn on itself.
October 23, 2008 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not the expenditures that makes it news. It's the hypocrisy. The Repukes are all pious and moral and the rest of that hilarity. When one of them gets caught in a wide stance, it's news. When Sarah Palin makes a big deal of being a hockey mom and a small town girl and we learn this, well then hey, it's news. Great sport tormenting them while they're going round and round and round on their way down the toilet. It's richly deserved.
October 22, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactamundo Nick!
This episode proves that the McCain campaign
would rather work hard at looking good,
instead of looking good by working hard..
And, then of course, there is the whole "reformer" image they have tried to sell. I believe the FEC rules specifically deny use of funds for personal items such as clothing. This could be a VERY BIG DEAL.
October 22, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, historically people have wanted their presidents (and candidates) to look the part.
Jimmy Carter tried a dress down approach and was mercilessly chided for it.
Since then, everyone has kept to decorum. And that includes all the Democrats as well -- who also claim to be "of the people." Or has everyone already forgotten John Edwards' haircut costs -- listed above?
We live in a media age and -- as desired by us -- we expect the candidates to look well put together.
October 22, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Other than the obvious contradiction vis-a-vis Hockey Mom and Haute Couture, I really don't have any problem with Palin having a 150K budget for clothes; but it should have been paid from personal, not campaign funds (just as the FEC requires.)
Surely John or Cindy could have easily afforded to spring for the goodies.
October 22, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but Americans are just not in the mood for political eye candy this go-round.
Sarah's Fabulous Shopping Spree kinda steps all over McCain's pitiful effort to sell the Joe the Plumber sitcom.
Pretty funny, actually.
October 22, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yo, arrogant punk: NO ONE elected you to speak for "We".
I happen to not give a damn what the fuck a public official looks like, or whether they "dress to fit the part". I expect them to do the job. If that means they not merely roll up their sleeves but instead wear clothes more appropriate to doing the actual job, so fucking what.
You're the jerk who lectures others about what lnaguage they should and shouldn't use. About "balance". And yet every instance of "balance" you assert is negative, and anti-Democrat. Or a defense of Republican speciosity.
The issue here is, in addition to arrarent rules violations, is the living on the public dole, at every opportuunity, including the most petty, while preaching personal responsibility and against "welfare" -- and 'socialism".
The bitch isn't elected and is already living off the labor of others. SOME REPUBLICANS get that, and are justificably pissed: if she'd going to boast about being individually responsible, and against "socialism" and welfare, then she shouldn't be hiding about dishonest assertion of that string of committments and epithets in order to do exactly that she condemns in Democrats.
Continue to operate as you have -- smugly lecturing others about language they should and shouldn't use -- concerning Republicans -- and "balancing" criticisms of a Democrat with an additional criticism of some other Democrat -- or "balancing" a criticism of a Republican with an attack on yet another Democrat -- and we'll realize you're a Republican falsely representing yourself as other than that; as being other than a liar.
October 23, 2008 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Huffington Post has a slide show of Sarah in her outfits, ending with a slide of Sarah in June 2008 in her Walmart circa 1980 duds.
Yes, she needed a makeover, but $150K? I'm sure a lot of Congresspeople would have been overjoyed with an infusion into their campaigns with much less.
Talk about lipstick on a pig. Sheeze.
October 22, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who cares about clothes and makeup? What happened to Troopergate? You remember, when they found Sarah Palin guilty of violating Alaskan ethics laws?
October 22, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
It isn't whether one is morally and or ethically and or legally good; it's whether one LOOKS good. Right, "clearthinker"?
October 23, 2008 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder the same thing. This individual is guilty of real crimes, and yet (human as we are) we're attracted to stories like this. Reminds me of the expensive Clinton haircuts. I had to hear about that during an entire meal once.
October 23, 2008 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
The point is they are selling Palin as the hockey mom who shops at Walmart and is "one of us" while spending as much on her clothes as Joe the unlicensed plumber makes in almost four years. It's the Republican party getting caught being the frauds they really are.
October 22, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's about party (in this case) and public (in other cases) funds and trusts being used for personal advancement.
See:
billing the state to stay in her own home
and
billing the state to give a talk to her church
as well as the whole hubby at a table to direct her staff in exacting revenge against her ex-brother-in-law.
October 22, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Repeat after me: campaign funds are not the same as taxpay funds. You give great examples of her taxpayer abuse, here is another.
Don't weaken your argument by bringing in the clothes budget.
October 23, 2008 3:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
It strengthens the argument to bring in the fact that Palin is an ELITIST.
How many in Wasilla can afford to shop at Neiman-Marcus or Sacks? Hell I'm not from Wasilla, an I can't afford to shop there.
Did she EARN those campagin funds? No, she did not -- except by proximity. You can bet the contributors expected those funds to fund the campaign, not clothe Palin's family at the expense of a donw-ticket candidate.
Don't get me wrong: I want every fucking Republican in office to lose. But I'm not about to ignore the stench of elitist hypocrisy flooding out of the McPalin campaign. This abuse is IN ADDITION TO, not INSTEAD OF, the taxpayer abuses.
October 23, 2008 4:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Sacks Fifth Off" used to be a discount clothing shop in Los Angeles. They were sued by Saks Fifth Avenue and had to change their name. I think they've fallen off the map now, but I could be wrong.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure Palin didn't shop there.
October 23, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
How do you do that thing where you have your link in regular words. I have no idea how you do that.
October 22, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
theone718: As shown here.
October 22, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama’s nomination has made our country a complete mess and an embarrassment for the world to view.
Obama and his team of supporters have reared the ugly head of sexism and racism, criticized our country to the world and have been a complete embarrassed with voter fraud and the entire voting process.
Many in my community have never seen such bias in reporting, if you want to call it that. It is an embarrassing time to be an American.
The media should be emphasizing the importance of a man with good character, not defend a man that has associations with far left, anti American radical leaders and the like.
Shame on the media, shame on the Democrats and all Americans that support Obama’s unfair tactics and inexperience.
October 23, 2008 7:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama’s nomination has made our country a complete mess and an embarrassment for the world to view.
Obama and his team of supporters have reared the ugly head of sexism and racism, criticized our country to the world and have been a complete embarrassed with voter fraud and the entire voting process.
Many in my community have never seen such bias in reporting, if you want to call it that. It is an embarrassing time to be an American.
The media should be emphasizing the importance of a man with good character, not defend a man that has associations with far left, anti American radical leaders and the like.
Shame on the media, shame on the Democrats and all Americans that support Obama’s unfair tactics and lack of experience.
October 23, 2008 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Voter fraud?
Sort of like the uncounted votes in Florida in 2000? Kinda like the tons of thrown-away provisional ballots in Ohio in 2004?
Or like when my grandma complains about all the black people who ride over to the polls together in a church bus, since that's not fair (she wishes more white people voted in her county), and calls it fraud?
Or when good old grassroots organizations like ACORN gets accused of registration fraud, even though it is required by law to submit every registration card--questionable or not? Even though it flags suspicious-looking forms so the authorities will find them? Even though it helps prosecute every single worker who commits fraud or breaks any law as a part of ACORN?
Sorry--"voter fraud" means so many things. Just wanted to clarify which one you meant.
October 23, 2008 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
While you're at it: up is down, dogs love cats, light beer is worth drinking, and smooth peanut butter is better than crunchy.
October 23, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
At this point in the campaign I simply cannot understand why there are still red states. It is frightning to realize our country has so many ignorant people. To vote for McCain at this point, you must go out your way to be uninformed.
October 23, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink