Comments on: Lipstick on a PAC: Palin Criticized for Using Campaign Funds for Clothing and Alaskan Funds for Kids’ Travel

By: Robin

Robin — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:51:24 +0000

Let her spend their money. That’s less they have to spend on other things that influence the public.

By: Lipstick on a Pac: Palin Spent $32,800 on Hair and Make-Up « JONATHAN TURLEY

Sat, 25 Oct 2008 12:45:04 +0000

[...] This new report comes on the heels of the disclosure that she spent $150,000 on clothes. [...]

By: Buddha Is Laughing

Buddha Is Laughing — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 03:52:17 +0000

By all that’s holy, JT! I’m now officially glad I’m fighting off a cold. Maybe the NyQuil will blank out that Biden image from infecting my REM sleep tonight.

Spending the equivalent of a house or an exotic sports car on clothing is at the basest level nothing more than ego and wasteful. Strategically and tactically stupid too in this economy. It says volumes about judgment or lack thereof when most Americans are hurting to rub their noses in the proverbial pile this way. Now every time I see a house worth less than 150K with a McCain/Palin sign in the yard, I have to resist the urge to stop and ask them if they are recovering from a severe head trauma or if they just like being treated like suckers.

By: rafflaw

rafflaw — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 02:56:16 +0000

Gyges,
With all due respect, it is not an internal issue. It is an issue of spending lavishly with the money that the Republican donors gave to the RNC and not using it wisely. You are right that it is between the donors and the RNC and that is what I said in my earlier posting. Remember this is the campaign that calls Palin an everyday Hockey Mom and then they put designer clothes on her at donor expense. Not wise with their money and the concept is not a wise one either.

By: Gyges

Gyges — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 02:14:59 +0000

Raff,

Not to sound callous, but that’s between the donors and the RNC. I’m not saying that it was ethical or even all that smart (although clothing makes the man), but I am saying that it’s an internal matter.

By: rafflaw

rafflaw — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 01:18:30 +0000

Biden in a swim suit is a littel scary, but I would like to respond to Gyges who said that since it is RNC money that it is no big deal that they are using their money to dress up Gov. Palin in some serious threads. However, I would wager that a significant number of the donors to the RNC would have a significant problem with their money going for extravagant clothes. I agree with Jill that the throw away comment that the clothes would be donated to charity smacks of arrogance. What is someone at a charity organization going to do with a Neiman Marcus outifit worth big dollars? Can a charity sell these clothes on Ebay to get money for their public service? If there really is a market for used VP candidate’s clothes on ebay, maybe Palin can try to sell the state plane on Ebay again.

By: jonathanturley

jonathanturley — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:54:30 +0000

rcampbell:

Are you suggesting some type of pageant to select someone who shows the correct clothes and decorum? That might appeal to Palin, but I am not sure that I am ready for Biden in the bathing suit competition.

By: rcampbell

rcampbell — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:58:14 +0000

Gyges
1, October 22, 2008 at 12:17 pm

>I think that a person’s wardrobe has everything to do with how they >come across to other people…

I agree, and what this $150,000 wardrobe make-over demonstrates to me is that she wasn’t (isn’t) ready for the national stage. She isn’t equipped politically or mentally let alone sartorialy.

By: Mike Spindell

Mike Spindell — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 22:45:22 +0000

While for the most part I agree with your take Gyges, what I find fascinating is the stores involved, juxtaposed by Palin’s self characterization as one of the common folk. My wife and I have never set foot in Nieman Marcus and have only window shopped in Saks. WE know that these are quite pricey stores meant for those of wealthy means. This is a situation that drips with irony in that the McCain
Palin message of late has been to position themselves as populists and so their campaign couldn’t have picked more inappropriate stores for outfitting their candidate.

By: Jill

Jill — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:31:17 +0000

Gyges,

You made a good point and I agree with you!

By: Gyges

Gyges — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:17:44 +0000

I’m not sure that I care that much about the cloths issue. I think that a person’s wardrobe has everything to do with how they come across to other people, so if the RNC doesn’t have a problem with her wasting their money I don’t really either. I don’t know for sure, but I’m under the impression that most media personalities get their “on air” cloths paid for by the company. Or in a better analogy Talent agencies often buy their new clients duds in an effort to change their image to something more consumable.

Wasting taxpayer money is another issue entirely. For somebody who bills themselves as fiscal conservative to use the state’s money in this way is at best a severe blind spot in their values.

By: sopton

sopton — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:56:32 +0000

Under ordinary circumstance I would say that the VP of the United States should reflect an image of power and importance. However, during a time of one of the worst financial crises in history, and when you are claiming to be “middle class” and represent middle class America, (as she hammered in her debate) and when you are saying that you relate to hockey moms and Joe six packs (I don’t really get that one. They say they like her because she’s a babe?) then I don’t think it’s prudent of the image makers to shop at the most expensive department stores in the nation. Uh, maybe they are spending the tax breaks they got from president Bush? Oh sorry, I forgot, their generous donors paid for the shopping sprees. Or was it Federal campaing money? (Uh, isn’t that tax payer money?) Jonathon is absolutely right in that Cindy is rich and if she wants to spend her own money go right ahead. Although it also doesn’t look good to say you are working for the middle class when you have 7 homes, 11 cars, and 300K outfits. But hey, good judgement hasn’t been a McCain trait in the past few months.

By: Jill

Jill — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:48:55 +0000

I agree that the issue is these are campaign funds, not personal funds. The statement that the clothes will be donated to charity smacks of “noblesse oblige”.

Any relation to Sarah Palin and the vast majority of women who work for pay is tenuous at best. Working one or two jobs at minumum wage, a reality for many, many women is simply not the same as Sarah Palin’s job. There are relatively few women at Sarah Palin’s income level. It is disengenuous to pretend otherwise.

All of the people who are running for president/vice president are quite wealthy. It is unseemly to pretend otherwise. What would be admirable is to be upfront about one’s income and say just because I’m doing fine, it’s not O.K. to ignore that most of the rest of the population is in dire straights and needs such things as: 1. a social safety net and 2. good paying jobs with benefits.

By: barnyard

barnyard — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:14:15 +0000

I see that Charlie Black and the McCain campaign have already tested the story and that it comes out a winner among Hillary women voters who appreciate a working mom’s dilemma. Here was the post from McCain insider Martin Eisenstadt (same guy who leaked the Joe the Plumber story):
http://www.eisenstadtgroup.com/2008/10/22/at-least-palin-didnt-charge-alaska-for-bristols-unborn-baby/