Palin's vs. Obama and McCain's Clothes
Much has been made about the clothing purchases by the Republican National Committee for Sarah Palin yet you haven't heard much about John McCain's $520 shoes or Barack Obama's $1500 suits.
Why?
Because they are men. It's unfortuante that in 2008 such a barrage of sexism is hurled at Palin, shamefully only the second woman in history to be nominated for vice-president and amazingly it took a generation from Geraldine Ferraro for either party to do it again.
It's the same sexism that was directed at Hillary Clinton and amazingly, it's coming from Democrats.
However hopefully it won't be long before we have female candidates in a Presidential election who won't be treated as Palin and Clinton were.
Why?
Because they are men. It's unfortuante that in 2008 such a barrage of sexism is hurled at Palin, shamefully only the second woman in history to be nominated for vice-president and amazingly it took a generation from Geraldine Ferraro for either party to do it again.
It's the same sexism that was directed at Hillary Clinton and amazingly, it's coming from Democrats.
However hopefully it won't be long before we have female candidates in a Presidential election who won't be treated as Palin and Clinton were.
Labels: Barack Obama, hillary clinton, john mccain, sarah palin
Posted by Michael Higby @ 10/25/2008 08:16:00 PM
19 Comments:
Speaking of Sarah Palin, this rather long Associated Press investigative story found that Palin's signature accomplishment -- a contract to build a 1,715 mile pipeline to bring natural gas to the lower 48 although it stops in Alberta, Canada -- emerged from a flawed bidding process that narrowed the field to a company with ties to her adminsistration.
Instead of creating a process that would attract many bidders, Palin slanted the terms away from an important group.
Despite promises and legal guidance not to talk directly with potential bidders, Palin had meetings and phone calls with nearly every bidder, including the winner.
The leader of Palin's team had been a partner at the lobbying firm that representing the winner.
Four years earlier, the same firm offered to build the pipeline without a state subsidy. Under Palin, they could receive up to $500 million.
Even after Palin spoke twice with Dick Cheney, and after he recommended drawing in the energy companies, Palin skewed the deal in a different direction.
So much for transparency, ethics, and honesty.
It took Sarah Palin to make Dick Cheney look honorable. Who would have thunk it?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PALIN_PIPELINE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
The criticism of Sarah Palin has a lot more to do with how she went from hockey mom to Nordstom's addict than how much she spent.
It goes to her weakness of character when she can sell out so obviously, so quickly. If money is such a motivator for her, then she doesn't belong anywhere near the White House.
Haven't we learned a lesson after eight years of BushCo? No?
SMS
SMS-
Do you mean weakness of character as in associating with someone who bombed a judge's home?
Or do you mean like someone who bombed the U.S. Capitol bldg?
That type of weakness of character?
Don't be silly. The criticism of her is over her policies. Maybe her religious views and hunting.
Most people have an issue with Sarah because of her age, the fact that's a feminist woman who is a Republican.
Sarah -
I don't think the fact that Sarah wore clothes that were bought for her from high-end shops when she normall shops at Out of the Closet is an issue of character.
Like all candidates who are now celebrities who will be on TV 24/7 she had to upgrade her style.
If that's the case you'd have to say the same thing about Michelle Obama who is being dressed by Oprah's stylists.
'If that's the case you'd have to say the same thing about Michelle Obama who is being dressed by Oprah's stylists.'
... except that Michelle Obama isn't the candidate, nor is she a 'bubble-headed bleach-blonde.'
And yes, that line is from Don Henley's Dirty Laundry, which is also something Sarah now has plenty of, both literally and figuratively.
SMS
Michelle appeared on "The View" wearing a $150.00 dress, ditto for the DNC nd that is her norm. The issue here Michael is not "sexism," it is the hypocrisy narrative.
- MUCH was made about McCain's $500.00 shoes, 7 homes and 13 cars BECAUSE he is trying to put himself forward as "in touch with the working man." They brand Obama as an "elitist" even though he made his final school loan payment last year, has one house and a hefty mortgage. They did this because they believed the hype during the primary that Obama was having a problem with "white working class voters." Maybe that was true when his opponent was Hillary Clinton, but John McCain is no Hillary Clinton.
So when Palin professes herself to be a "Hockey Mom" (yet another made-up sub-demographic) SOMEONE at the campaign should be ensuring her image stays blue-collar.
This was a colossal RNC screw-up not the fault of Palin but it all but killed their message, taking up 4 - 6 news cycles when there aren't many left.
It is as if the McCain camp has a messaging person, but they don't talk to the follow-through people. They constantly step on their own message.
They started this folly by ceding way to much ground saying Obama was "playing president" which allowed people to envision Obama as a world leader (or at least on the world stage) uncontested.
But that was just the beginning of there master plan...
- Paint Obama as an out of touch elitist (falsely believing this would help them with the "blue-collar" vote) - forget how many homes and cars you own.
- Paint Obama as "unknown and inexperienced (forgetting that Hillary tried this to no avail and Obama has been on TV every day for 19 months) - Pick a VP that is arguably less experienced and definately less known (allowing your opponent to paint her anyway they choose)
- Say your not going to debate unless the financial crisis is solved - failed to find a solution and debated anyway. (This became McCain's "test" and the perception is he either was grand-standing, or failed, or both)
Have your Vice-Presidential nominee (the one that 57% of the public doesn't believe has the requisite experience to do the job she seeks) attack Obama on experience to do the job he seeks.
No Michael, it isn't sexism, it is some piss-poor campaigning.
Jim -
I just started a consulting firm. You should send me your resume. I like the way you think! ;)
http://in-crowd.thecentristoc.com
SMS
Alger, your analysis is pot on.
Show me any politics who isn't guilty of some grievance and
he/she will is probably already
dead. The political world is
digusting, everyone has their own personal agenda amd of they aren't already, they will wind up
dirty.
People in glass houses should throw stones!
Very good points Jim. Criticism of Palin is the money that was spent on her clothes $150,000 add to that the salary for just two weeks for a makeup artist in October $22,000 shows the hyprocrisy of being an average American woman. All that money is more then JOe the Plumber's mortgage. Being reported across the nation that Palin is hurting the McCain campaign and his aides are furious she's going all out rogue. Someone needs to pull back that rein on her sorry butt.
Oh I forgot a Republican strategist tried to criticize Hillary with all her pantsuits. Fact is the DNC didn't pay for those clothes she did.
Joe B, the dress Michelle Obama wore on the View was carefully calculated to make her SEEM more modest than she usually is -- all the other dresses she wore at the convention, and in her appearances are just as expensive as Palin's, in fact, that's why the RNC felt they had to match Michelle Obama's clothing so Palin wouldn't look too hickish by comparison.
Palin also didn't choose those outfits herself.
Barack Obama spent over %400,000 for food so far, not counting what he eats when he's at official events, and Michelle Obama AND her staff drop five hundred bucks on a lunch with lobster and top caviar. Your arguing earlier that Michelle didn't sign one check in dispute and maybe wasn't at that lunch, only proves that her staffers have equally expensive tastes. That's much worse even.
I think you can criticize Palin for her views, lack of reading up on the news, being unprepared and uncultivated and untraveled, but this issue is just stupid and very biased. The Obamas are far "worse" in taht regard. Look at the TOTAL makeover Michelle Obama's had in her clothing, very expensive hairstylings, etc.
She's frankly a large, unattractive woman with a strangly protruding mouth area who's needed a LOT of professional help to just not look so ugly she scares people off. If she were white, her ugliness would have been a BIG issue. Instead, people talk about how "athletic" her shoulders are. That is, masculine looking body.
This post is hilarious coming from the horny fat man who was telling us about hot Sarah Palin is, just a short while back.
I wonder if Higby's "hitting" and drolling on the women on this blog is sexist" You betcha !!
The only issue I have with Sarah Palin is that she is undereducated and unqualified to be vp. I don't care about her clothes. But you can't compare her clothing purchases with McCain and Obama. Those two men have distinguished themselves in their careers and can afford to pay for their own clothes. Palin is using money that's not hers. Big difference.
6:32 your argument would be much better if ANY of it were true. But it isn't.
Michelle Obama doesn't eat lobster (allergic to seafood) and the $400,000 includes pizza and donuts for volunteers.
Nice try though.
The DNC has spent a LOT more getting Michelle Obama to look presentable, than these clothes for Palin. And Palin's the candidate, Michelle isn't.
Michelle Obama's hair and dowdy clothes from the early part of the campaign have completely disappeared and not without much net commentary.
Making her look more sophisticated, less downright ugly and aggressive in her demeanor has been a TOP priority for the campaign. Meant hiring lots of highly paid people to do it.
Palin's hit the road running and had to catch up with Democrats who've had almost 2 years to hone their "brands" at huge cost.
The double standard that Democrats who talk a lot about "the poor" but live high on the tax dollar are just doing what comes naturally, while Republicans who don't wear simply clothes are just rich and out of touch (even if they pay for it themselves, like Cindy McCain), is behind this.
The Clintons, right down to stripping the white house of silverware and furniture to the end, are a class case in point. And yet I think Hillary evolved since that ignominious exit into a solid politician with 20 times more credentials than Obama.
Absolutely the fuss about money spent on clothes is sexist. Everyone knows that it's still more important how the woman looks and dresses than the man. That's reality now. That's why people are imitating her hair and glasses.
I wouldn't call Nordstrom's "high-end shopping"! And if going shopping means someone is selling out...someone better tell the retail stores this Christmas, so they don't get their hopes up.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home