logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Palin's makeover, Appropriate use of party funds/public money?
Julian
post Oct 24 2008, 01:00 PM
Post #1


Group Icon

*********
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 2,940
Member No.: 496
Joined: February-14-03

From: Swindon, UK
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



Republican's spend $150,000 on Sarah Palin's wardrobe since her nomination only 2 months ago

This story has been given quite a bit of attention in the British media, but hasn't been mentioned yet on ad.gif as far as I can tell.

Now, image is certainly important, especially in personality-driven Presidential elections, and (as the linked article indicates) this is not the first time that candidates' spending on wardrobe or grooming has been open to question. Mrs Clinton's trouser suit (pant suit?), John Edwards' haircut and John McCain's loafers have all been subject to scrutiny.

And there is still a degree of sexism for all women in the public eye (for whatever reason); where a man might get away with wearing the same suit at several different public appearances, a woman is more usually expected to change her outfit for each one, and sometimes women in the public sphere get criticised for wearing the same outfit on more than one occasion (even if they are days or weeks apart), particularly by other women (most men wouldn't even notice smile.gif).

But even taking that into account, Mrs Palin seem to have spent significantly more than other candidates on her image, some of which may have been paid for by the public purse since McCain's decision to take public money for his campaign in return for spending limits.

QUOTE
$75,062 spent at Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis
$41,850 spent in St Louis
$4,100 on make-up and hair consulting


Also, some of her spending in this category is tenuously linked to campaign requirements, at best.
QUOTE
$4,902 at Atelier, a men's clothing shop in New York
$92 on a romper suit and hat with ears


Presumably the men's clothing was for her husband, sons and soon-to-be son-in-law? I can sort of see that - maybe her teenage sons don't need to wear suits that often and so may not have one, or have grown out of the ones they do have. But isn't it more appropriate that she pays for these out of her own pocket, since I don't imagine the suits will be available to other Republican candidates after her family members have finished using them. And a romper suit and hat with ears? Does making her baby son look extra cute really need to be done at party/public expense??

Several commentators (quite possibly hostile ones) seem to think that Mrs Palin could have achieved much the same results for less than half these sums.

Questions for debate:
In the current economic climate, was it wise to spend this kind of money on Mrs Palin's clothes? Is she sensibly maximising her campaign's chances of success through image management, or gorging at the trough while she has the chance? Why, or why not?

Should any candidate spend campaign money anyway - as opposed than their own cash - on their clothes, personal grooming, etc? Why, or why not?

Should any candidate's family members be in receipt of campaign money at all, for clothes/grooming or anyhting else? Why, or why not?


This post has been edited by Julian: Oct 24 2008, 01:02 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Trouble
post Oct 24 2008, 08:02 PM
Post #21


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 740
Member No.: 1,142
Joined: September-6-03

From: Regina, Sk. Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Moif)
I think its pertinent to point out that as a politician of that calibre, its highly unlikely Palin is buying her own clothes. One has a stylist for that sort of thing, and the stylist has most probably been given a budget to spend by the people managing the McCain campaign, who in turn are almost certainly working to a formula of what works, and the sad fact is, for a woman in the public eye, you have to spend a lot of money to keep looking good. Looking good doesn't mean looking sexy/beautiful either, it means avoiding criticism. The bottom line is, Palin is a woman and she'll get hammered if she doesn't look 'absolutely fabulous'. All women in politics suffer from this, even frumpish older women like Merkel and Thatcher.


This is the point I was going to raise. However, does anyone know if her clothing was going to be auctioned off in a charity event, like OJ paraphernalia?

I'm guessing after hearing her in closed quarters, the coaching republican team decided to play to her strengths, which is looking cute and talking stern.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Oct 24 2008, 08:04 PM
Post #22


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Sleeper @ Oct 24 2008, 03:54 PM) *
Here we are talking about Palin's $150,000 budget on wardrobe. While not a mention of the $2 Million dollars that Obama is planning on spending for his election night party.

Link to story


Obama did not accept government funding for his campaign, so the donations were not restricted. But you don't see him wearing expensive designer clothes or attiring his family similarly.

So he's throwing a huge bash for his supporters. There are a lot of supporters. Would you deny that G.W. or McCain would have done the same thing if they could afford it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnfrmCleveland
post Oct 24 2008, 08:29 PM
Post #23


********
Master Debater

Sponsor
September 2009

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,459
Member No.: 8,090
Joined: November-1-07

From: Cleveland, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Oct 24 2008, 02:46 PM) *
Let's consider how much better received it would have been had Sarah Palin gone mainstream with her outfits, maybe getting them at JC Penney or Sears, and looking smashing anyway? For that kind of money she could have easily had 5 or 6 seamstresses take in the clothes, lengthen or shorten them, whatever. And she would have come across as sensible and attractive!


Remember the point Nixon made of saying Pat wore cloth coats? It was from the "Checkers" speech. The whole thing is pretty quaint now, considering the relatively tiny dollars involved, and it's a fun read.

QUOTE(Richard Nixon)
Well, that's about it. That's what we have. And that's what we owe. It isn't very much. But Pat and I have the satisfaction that every dime that we've got is honestly ours. I should say this, that Pat doesn't have a mink coat. But she does have a respectable Republican cloth coat, and I always tell her she'd look good in anything.


Oh, how the Republican party has changed....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aquilla
post Oct 24 2008, 08:30 PM
Post #24


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 3,148
Member No.: 421
Joined: February-3-03

From: Missouri
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Oct 24 2008, 03:04 PM) *
QUOTE(Sleeper @ Oct 24 2008, 03:54 PM) *
Here we are talking about Palin's $150,000 budget on wardrobe. While not a mention of the $2 Million dollars that Obama is planning on spending for his election night party.

Link to story


Obama did not accept government funding for his campaign, so the donations were not restricted. But you don't see him wearing expensive designer clothes or attiring his family similarly.

So he's throwing a huge bash for his supporters. There are a lot of supporters. Would you deny that G.W. or McCain would have done the same thing if they could afford it?



The money for Gov Palin's wardrobe did NOT come from the public funds that John McCain promised to limit himself to in his campaign. The money spent came from the Republican National Committee (RNC) which is not funded with taxpayer money. It is interesting, though not surprising that nobody here seems to care that Obama LIED about accepting government funds for his campaign and instead has accepted over one half BILLION dollars for his campaign. Where has that money come from and where has it gone? I know he's got his own channel on DISH network running campaign ads 24/7 and who paid for that jet that flew him from Indiana to Hawaii so he could see his "typical white racist grandmother"? How much did that cost? Who paid for that? How much jet fuel did that burn?

"Obama did not accept government funding"....... This is now a positive for the Obamanation? He said he would, he promised he would and HE LIED. This is okay with the sicko-pants? Apparently so. Meanwhile, the city of Chicago is spending 2 MILLION dollars to hold a party for their favorite corrupt politician while the state of Illinois is cutting school bus service for rural areas and asking for increased sales taxes to fund their school system. This is the kind of thing we have to look forward to if this guy is elected, but of course it won't matter. It'll all be Bush's fault. rolleyes.gif

Bunch of damn hypocrites.........

Aquilla
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Oct 24 2008, 08:51 PM
Post #25


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(Aquilla @ Oct 24 2008, 12:30 PM) *
QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Oct 24 2008, 03:04 PM) *
QUOTE(Sleeper @ Oct 24 2008, 03:54 PM) *
Here we are talking about Palin's $150,000 budget on wardrobe. While not a mention of the $2 Million dollars that Obama is planning on spending for his election night party.

Link to story


Obama did not accept government funding for his campaign, so the donations were not restricted. But you don't see him wearing expensive designer clothes or attiring his family similarly.

So he's throwing a huge bash for his supporters. There are a lot of supporters. Would you deny that G.W. or McCain would have done the same thing if they could afford it?



The money for Gov Palin's wardrobe did NOT come from the public funds that John McCain promised to limit himself to in his campaign. The money spent came from the Republican National Committee (RNC) which is not funded with taxpayer money. It is interesting, though not surprising that nobody here seems to care that Obama LIED about accepting government funds for his campaign and instead has accepted over one half BILLION dollars for his campaign. Where has that money come from and where has it gone? I know he's got his own channel on DISH network running campaign ads 24/7 and who paid for that jet that flew him from Indiana to Hawaii so he could see his "typical white racist grandmother"? How much did that cost? Who paid for that? How much jet fuel did that burn?

"Obama did not accept government funding"....... This is now a positive for the Obamanation? He said he would, he promised he would and HE LIED. This is okay with the sicko-pants? Apparently so. Meanwhile, the city of Chicago is spending 2 MILLION dollars to hold a party for their favorite corrupt politician while the state of Illinois is cutting school bus service for rural areas and asking for increased sales taxes to fund their school system. This is the kind of thing we have to look forward to if this guy is elected, but of course it won't matter. It'll all be Bush's fault. rolleyes.gif

Bunch of damn hypocrites.........

Aquilla



Uh, so it is okay that Palin dropped 150k on her wardrobe? Pot calling kettle black anyone? whistling.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DaffyGrl
post Oct 24 2008, 09:04 PM
Post #26


********
Millennium Mark

Sponsor
November 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,758
Member No.: 2,889
Joined: April-10-04

From: California
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



In the current economic climate, was it wise to spend this kind of money on Mrs Palin's clothes? Is she sensibly maximising her campaign's chances of success through image management, or gorging at the trough while she has the chance? Why, or why not?

Most certainly it was not wise, considering the whole McPalin platform is to appeal to the Joe Sixpacks of the country. I doubt they'd look kindly on that kind of carefree spending when their savings, investments, and home values are in the crapper and they're worried about their jobs. Now I can see spending some money on suits for campaign appearances – for the candidate. Not for her whole friggin family, though. And what possible reason could be given for needing a $2500 Valentino jacket? What – a mere $500 designer jacket wouldn’t do? And as for a $94 romper – puh-leeze. rolleyes.gif Wasn’t Baby Gap or Guess good enough (both are cheaper)?

This is most certainly gorging at the public trough – unashamedly so. mad.gif

While I’m sure both male candidates spend money on suits, most men get by with only a few suits. Saks advertises a Hugo Boss wool suit for $695 and a Dolce & Gabbana suit for $1595. With tailoring (say a couple hundred bucks), it still doesn’t add up to what Palin paid for one jacket.

Should any candidate spend campaign money anyway - as opposed than their own cash - on their clothes, personal grooming, etc? Why, or why not?

I’m torn on this. I mean, none of them are exactly poor. Part of me feels that they should spend their own money to dress themselves. Another part of me realizes that they have to look their best on the campaign trail. I don’t know what the rules are, but $150,000 shopping for clothes seems excessive, to say the least.

Should any candidate's family members be in receipt of campaign money at all, for clothes/grooming or anyhting else? Why, or why not?

No. I can see it for the candidates (within reason), and maybe spouses, but not for the entire family. This country and its taxpayers aren’t electing a whole family, we’re electing one person.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wertz
post Oct 24 2008, 09:10 PM
Post #27


Group Icon

*********
Advanced Senior

Sponsor
January 2003

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 3,235
Member No.: 181
Joined: October-23-02

From: Franklinville PA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Sleeper @ Oct 24 2008, 03:54 PM) *
Here we are talking about Palin's $150,000 budget on wardrobe. While not a mention of the $2 Million dollars that Obama is planning on spending for his election night party.

OFF-TOPIC. Start a new thread, if you must.

QUOTE(Aquilla @ Oct 24 2008, 04:30 PM) *
It is interesting, though not surprising that nobody here seems to care that Obama LIED about accepting government funds for his campaign and instead has accepted over one half BILLION dollars for his campaign.

OFF-TOPIC. Start a new thread, if you must.


And everyone else: PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLLS - you only help them derail threads by pursuing their red herrings. dry.gif



This post has been edited by Wertz: Oct 24 2008, 09:10 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Oct 24 2008, 09:47 PM
Post #28


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(Wertz @ Oct 24 2008, 05:10 PM) *
QUOTE(Sleeper @ Oct 24 2008, 03:54 PM) *
Here we are talking about Palin's $150,000 budget on wardrobe. While not a mention of the $2 Million dollars that Obama is planning on spending for his election night party.

OFF-TOPIC. Start a new thread, if you must.

QUOTE(Aquilla @ Oct 24 2008, 04:30 PM) *
It is interesting, though not surprising that nobody here seems to care that Obama LIED about accepting government funds for his campaign and instead has accepted over one half BILLION dollars for his campaign.

OFF-TOPIC. Start a new thread, if you must.


And everyone else: PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLLS - you only help them derail threads by pursuing their red herrings. dry.gif



You're right; mea culpa. I'll try to stop feeding the trolls, especially the name-calling ones.

The fact remains that if the McCain/Palin ticket is trying to look fiscally responsible to the American people, this is not the way to do it. If the McCain/Palin ticket is not trying to be associated with the "elite", they shouldn't engage in conspicuous consumption like wearing Valentino and shopping at Nieman Marcus.

The excuse that Sarah Palin doesn't have time to shop doesn't wash, either. Professional shoppers are hired every day by people of means to make appropriate purchases. Any number of mall clothing stores would have contained chic, less expensive garb for a savvy businesswoman.

Tsk, tsk. To have a body that is so stunning that only top-price garments will do... whistling.gif

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Oct 24 2008, 10:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Oct 24 2008, 10:17 PM
Post #29


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,685
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Paladin Elspeth @ Oct 24 2008, 11:47 PM) *
The fact remains that if the McCain/Palin ticket is trying to look fiscally responsible to the American people, this is not the way to do it. If the McCain/Palin ticket is not trying to be associated with the "elite", they shouldn't engage in conspicuous consumption like wearing Valentino and shopping at Nieman Marcus.

The excuse that Sarah Palin doesn't have time to shop doesn't wash, either. Professional shoppers are hired every day by people of means to make appropriate purchases. Any number of mall clothing stores would have contained chic, less expensive garb for a savvy businesswoman.

Tsk, tsk. To have a body that is so stunning that only top-price garments will do... whistling.gif
$150,000 is 885,607kr. For a major female politician running for the office of vice president of the USA, I really can't see what the big deal is. Political women spend comparable amounts all the time. The only difference here is the money has been spent over a short period of time because thats all the time they've got.

The McCain campaign has spent $262,892,297, according to this site. $150,000 is a drop in the ocean by comparison. Granted to an ordinary person, such an amount is an amazing figure, but ordinary people don't run for Vive President of the USA, and if Palin bought her clothes at mall clothing stores she'd get nothing but sarcasm from the media.

For a woman in major politics, the rules are unforgiving. She is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Oct 24 2008, 10:23 PM
Post #30


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(moif @ Oct 24 2008, 05:17 PM) *
$150,000 is 885,607kr. For a major female politician running for the office of vice president of the USA, I really can't see what the big deal is. Political women spend comparable amounts all the time. The only difference here is the money has been spent over a short period of time because thats all the time they've got.

That's a substantive difference, if the campaign is shorter it stands to reason that she should need proportionally less clothing.

It's not like ad space, she just needs something to wear everyday. Maybe two if she has an interview that day.

For those claiming this is a normal campaign expense I'd love to see some evidence.

Hillary ran this cycle, did she spend $150,000 on clothing?

Michell Obama's been on the stump, $150,000?

All reports indicate this is abnormal, does anyone have any evidence to the contrary?

This post has been edited by turnea: Oct 24 2008, 10:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Oct 24 2008, 10:29 PM
Post #31


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(turnea @ Oct 24 2008, 02:23 PM) *
QUOTE(moif @ Oct 24 2008, 05:17 PM) *
$150,000 is 885,607kr. For a major female politician running for the office of vice president of the USA, I really can't see what the big deal is. Political women spend comparable amounts all the time. The only difference here is the money has been spent over a short period of time because thats all the time they've got.

That's a substantive difference, it the campaign is shorter it stands to reason that she should need proportionally less clothing.

It's not like ad space, she just needs something to wear everyday. Maybe two if she has an interview that day.

For those claiming this is a normal campaign expense I'd love to see some evidence.

Hillary ran this cycle, did she spend $150,000 on clothing?

Michell Obama's been on the stump, $150,000?

All reports indicate this is abnormal, does anyone have any evidence to the contrary?


To add to what Turnea is saying here Moif- is another dimension in this debate.

If you are going to align yourself with people that will NEVER get to afford 150k on clothing, and claim to be 'one of them" and "joe-six pack" and "middle class"- then this is a major blunder.

As a local gal of some means said "why not Nordies (Nordstroms) here in Anchorage- she could have had nothing but high end custom fitted stuff for under 10k".

If you don't want to be call an elitist- then don't spend more on your hair dresser and make up artist than on your policy advisors.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Oct 24 2008, 10:55 PM
Post #32


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,685
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(turnea @ Oct 25 2008, 12:23 AM) *
That's a substantive difference, it the campaign is shorter it stands to reason that she should need proportionally less clothing.

It's not like ad space, she just needs something to wear everyday. Maybe two if she has an interview that day.
Wrong, its EXACTLY like ad space. In the short time she has, Palin is expected to make a major impact, in every way. She has to look fantastic, not because of someone discerning like you, but because of the millions of people who will only see her on a screen and not think deeply on the subject but who will still vote. Palin can't just step up in any old thing she picked off a shelf in a mall. It would show.


QUOTE(turnea)
For those claiming this is a normal campaign expense I'd love to see some evidence.
What is normal?

Being blasé about appearance a la Nixon?


QUOTE(turnea)
Hillary ran this cycle, did she spend $150,000 on clothing?
Probably more in the time she had, but she probably didn't have to try as hard as Palin does. Clinton had sixteen years in the lime light to establish her image. Clinton is no more relevant to Palin than Obama is.


QUOTE(turnea)
Michell Obama's been on the stump, $150,000?

All reports indicate this is abnormal, does anyone have any evidence to the contrary?
How is this abnormal? Where is the evidence to back up such a claim?

No, I think rather an awful lot of ordinary people don't have the first idea how much it costs to look good on camera, every single day for two months straight and they think it can be done with a few purchases down the local mall. laugh.gif It can't. Especially for a woman who has a reputation as a good looker to uphold.

Consider how actresses dress on Oscar night. They wear the best they can get their hands on because they know, when the camera is looking at them for just a few seconds, they have to make a lasting impression. Palin has to do that every single day until the election. Not even Madonna has to bear the brunt of so much scrutiny.

Seriously, for what she's had to live up to, $150,000 is peanuts.


If you were going to the most important job interview of your entire life, would you dress as well as you could, or not?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



QUOTE(CruisingRam)
If you are going to align yourself with people that will NEVER get to afford 150k on clothing, and claim to be 'one of them" and "joe-six pack" and "middle class"- then this is a major blunder.
Well, that depends on how stupid you think Joe-six-pack is. If you think that aligning yourself with some one means you have to dress like they do then your in for a defeat.

If you think people will look at a Palin dressed like a frump and think of her as a winner, then your in for a defeat. Joe-six-pack wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Palin and his wife is she dressed like his wife. Thats not snobbery, thats PR. Advirtising works because people are fickle. They will vote for success, but only if it looks like success.

You think Obama dresses cheap? If you think that you can look good on camera wearing the same sort of clothes Joe-six-pack wears, then your in for a defeat.


QUOTE(CruisingRam)
As a local gal of some means said "why not Nordies (Nordstroms) here in Anchorage- she could have had nothing but high end custom fitted stuff for under 10k".

If you don't want to be call an elitist- then don't spend more on your hair dresser and make up artist than on your policy advisors.
And if you want even a chance at winning an election, then you don't buy your own clothes. A stylist buys them for you.

Seriously, don't you people know what a stylist is? Do you really think Palin buys her own clothes??? I can assure you she doesn't. her clothes are bought and most certainly retailored to fit her perfectly by her stylist and her stylists crew. Her clothes, hair and make up are all subject to constant attention of a group of people who have been given a budget (and not a big one by my reckoning either) to make Sarah Palin look like the Epitome of Success.

You can't do that buying your wardrobe from some provincial store in Alaska. Your stylist buys your garments from designers in New York, or you lose the election.

Aligning yourself with commoners won't make any difference what so ever if the common folk think you look common. Thats stone cold reality.

This post has been edited by moif: Oct 24 2008, 10:58 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Oct 24 2008, 11:01 PM
Post #33


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 7,934
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

From: Hawaii
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



QUOTE(moif @ Oct 24 2008, 02:55 PM) *
QUOTE(turnea @ Oct 25 2008, 12:23 AM) *
That's a substantive difference, it the campaign is shorter it stands to reason that she should need proportionally less clothing.

It's not like ad space, she just needs something to wear everyday. Maybe two if she has an interview that day.
Wrong, its EXACTLY like ad space. In the short time she has, Palin is expected to make a major impact, in every way. She has to look fantastic, not because of someone discerning like you, but because of the millions of people who will only see her on a screen and not think deeply on the subject but who will still vote. Palin can't just step up in any old thing she picked off a shelf in a mall. It would show.


QUOTE(turnea)
For those claiming this is a normal campaign expense I'd love to see some evidence.
What is normal?

Being blasé about appearance a la Nixon?


QUOTE(turnea)
Hillary ran this cycle, did she spend $150,000 on clothing?
Probably more in the time she had, but she probably didn't have to try as hard as Palin does. Clinton had sixteen years in the lime light to establish her image. Clinton is no more relevant to Palin than Obama is.


QUOTE(turnea)
Michell Obama's been on the stump, $150,000?

All reports indicate this is abnormal, does anyone have any evidence to the contrary?
How is this abnormal? Where is the evidence to back up such a claim?

No, I think rather an awful lot of ordinary people don't have the first idea how much it costs to look good on camera, every single day for two months straight and they think it can be done with a few purchases down the local mall. laugh.gif It can't. Especially for a woman who has a reputation as a good looker to uphold.

Consider how actresses dress on Oscar night. They wear the best they can get their hands on because they know, when the camera is looking at them for just a few seconds, they have to make a lasting impression. Palin has to do that every single day until the election. Not even Madonna has to bear the brunt of so much scrutiny.

Seriously, for what she's had to live up to, $150,000 is peanuts.


If you were going to the most important job interview of your entire life, would you dress as well as you could, or not?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



QUOTE(CruisingRam)
If you are going to align yourself with people that will NEVER get to afford 150k on clothing, and claim to be 'one of them" and "joe-six pack" and "middle class"- then this is a major blunder.
Well, that depends on how stupid you think Joe-six-pack is. If you think that aligning yourself with some one means you have to dress like they do then your in for a defeat.

If you think people will look at a Palin dressed like a frump and think of her as a winner, then your in for a defeat. Joe-six-pack wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Palin and his wife is she dressed like his wife. Thats not snobbery, thats PR. Advirtising works because people are fickle. They will vote for success, but only if it looks like success.

You think Obama dresses cheap? If you think that you can look good on camera wearing the same sort of clothes Joe-six-pack wears, then your in for a defeat.


QUOTE(CruisingRam)
As a local gal of some means said "why not Nordies (Nordstroms) here in Anchorage- she could have had nothing but high end custom fitted stuff for under 10k".

If you don't want to be call an elitist- then don't spend more on your hair dresser and make up artist than on your policy advisors.
And if you want even a chance at winning an election, then you don't buy your own clothes. A sylist buys them for you.

Seriously, don't you people know what a stylist is? Do you really think Palin buys her own clothes??? I can assure you she doesn't. her clothes are bought and most certainly retailored to fit her perfectly by her stylist and her stylists crew. Her clothes, hair and make up are all subject to constant attention of a group of people who have been given a budget (and not a big one by my reckoning either) to make Sarah Palin look like the Epitome of Success.

You can't do that buying your wardrobe from some provincial store in Alaska. Your stylist buys your garments from designers in New York, or you lose the election.

Aligning yourself with commoners won't make any difference what so ever if the common folk think you look common. Thats stone cold reality.


Yep, we have them here in Alaska too. Apparently- for someone so "frugal"- she didn't shop for the best deal. Not exactly "conservative" leaning here.

dude- she has been in the spotlight for a long time. She has power suits, she has been governer for a while for pete's sake.

Wasn't like they drug her out of her home in Wassilla in the middle of the night.

She had two years in the executive office to buy a darn suit.

150grand was just wildly extravagent. by any stretch of the imagination, somebody that makes under a million a year- it is just crazy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Oct 24 2008, 11:08 PM
Post #34


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(moif)
Wrong, its EXACTLY like ad space. In the short time she has, Palin is expected to make a major impact, in every way

Yes but she's not changing into different suits while giving her stump speech.

You pay by the minute for ad space and you can order as much as you can afford.

Palin has a limited number of public appearances a day two, maybe three tops.

She'd have to wear a different outfit at every single appearance every single day at a cost of $1000 per outfit to reach this cost.

That's probably being generous.

If true, that's downright excessive.

QUOTE(moif)
How is this abnormal? Where is the evidence to back up such a claim?

QUOTE(Politico)
A review of similar records for the campaign of Democrat Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee turned up no similar spending.

Link
Nighttimer posted that a bit earlier.

This post has been edited by turnea: Oct 24 2008, 11:09 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Oct 24 2008, 11:21 PM
Post #35


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,685
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(turnea @ Oct 25 2008, 01:08 AM) *
QUOTE(moif)
Wrong, its EXACTLY like ad space. In the short time she has, Palin is expected to make a major impact, in every way

Yes but she's not changing into different suits while giving her stump speech.

You pay by the minute for ad space and you can order as much as you can afford.

Palin has a limited number of public appearances a day two, maybe three tops.

She'd have to wear a different outfit at every single appearance every single day at a cost of $1000 per outfit to reach this cost.

That's probably being generous.

If true, that's downright excessive.
Its neither excessive nor generous. I'm being utterly serious. I've seen bigger amounts blown on single photo shoots for childrens wear. One girl I knew spent more than this advirtising for socks!

$150,000 is such a pitifully small amount to work with, I'm wondering how they've managed at all. I don't think you people have any idea about what it costs to put a woman out there for two months and expect her to look like like a winner, even if she's only making one appearance a day.



QUOTE(turnea @ Oct 25 2008, 01:08 AM) *
QUOTE(moif)
How is this abnormal? Where is the evidence to back up such a claim?

QUOTE(Politico)
A review of similar records for the campaign of Democrat Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee turned up no similar spending.

Link
Nighttimer posted that a bit earlier.
That proves nothing except that Barack Obama is not a woman and does not have the limited time afforded to Palin to make an impact.

This post has been edited by moif: Oct 24 2008, 11:21 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Oct 24 2008, 11:26 PM
Post #36


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(moif @ Oct 24 2008, 06:21 PM) *
Its neither excessive nor generous. I'm being utterly serious. I've seen bigger amounts blown on single photo shoots for childrens wear. One girl I knew spent more than this advirtising for socks!

My guess is the big ticket item wasn't the socks laugh.gif

I agree, skilled work like photography can cost that much, not a dress for a politician.

QUOTE(moif)
QUOTE(turnea @ Oct 25 2008, 01:08 AM) *
QUOTE(moif)
How is this abnormal? Where is the evidence to back up such a claim?

QUOTE(Politico)
A review of similar records for the campaign of Democrat Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee turned up no similar spending.

Link
Nighttimer posted that a bit earlier.
That proves nothing except that Barack Obama is not a woman and does not have the limited time afforded to Palin to make an impact.

That amount would include anything spent on Michelle Obama... who I must add is killing Palin in the fashion stakes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Oct 24 2008, 11:44 PM
Post #37


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,685
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(turnea)
My guess is the big ticket item wasn't the socks laugh.gif

I agree, skilled work like photography can cost that much, not a dress for a politician.
Indeed it was the whole package, but the socks weren't cheap either (Italian designer socks). huh.gif


QUOTE(turnea)
That amount would include anything spent on Michelle Obama... who I must add is killing Palin in the fashion stakes.
Of course since Palin isn't selling fashion.

This isn't about fashion at all.

Michelle Obama's job is essentially eye candy, so she has to look good in a whole different way to Palin, the two cannot be compared (unless you think of Palin as eye candy too).

Personally I don't care for any of them. My Scandinavian aesthetic doesn't appreciate 'American style', but I do know the business, unfortunately. (Its probably why I'm so pessimistic).

Beat up on Palin as a crude and ineffectual politician all you want, but cut her some slack in this regard. £150,000 on clothes for two months constant media exposure, isn't very much at all. It might seem that way to some one not used to seeing what gets spent on advirtising campaigns, but its so frugal it almost amateurish.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DaytonRocker
post Oct 25 2008, 12:12 AM
Post #38


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,520
Member No.: 547
Joined: February-26-03

From: Dayton, Ohio
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: Republican



As long as what they are doing is legal, I don't see what the big deal is. Basically, Palin is a walking advertisement. So, if investing a couple hundred thousand into her gives them the results they need, they should be able to do what they want. They can't sell her to the public as an intellectual or proven leader, so they're selling her as a hot hockey mom. Why is anybody surprised?

McCain spends millions for an ad that projects the idea that Obama is a closet terrorist. It doesn't matter if it's true or not - that's the product he's selling. Palin is just one of the different products he's selling.

Obviously, it raises the hypocrisy flags, but that's an absurd objection. All of them are hypocrites no matter what side of the aisle they are on. The democrats are sounding outraged as if Obama isn't as big a hypocrite as any other politician that's went before him.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dontreadonme
post Oct 25 2008, 12:31 AM
Post #39


Group Icon

**********
I think, therefore I am an enemy of the State....and Fox News

Sponsor
October 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,452
Member No.: 359
Joined: December-25-02

From: Nestled in the Shenandoah
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



In the current economic climate, was it wise to spend this kind of money on Mrs Palin's clothes? Is she sensibly maximising her campaign's chances of success through image management, or gorging at the trough while she has the chance? Why, or why not?

I truly don't care in the least if the McCain campaign paid for an extreme makeover for Sarah. With so many other important issues that face whomever wins on November 4th, this really ranks right up there with the latest Paris Hilton news.

If I was running the McCain campaign, I would think that the money could be better spent either buying Sarah a new set of talking points or some Civics refresher classes, but if they want to spend that money on clothes and makeup, more power to them. Maybe they're offsetting that cost with the toned down Election Night celebrations in Arizona......as opposed to Obama's planned record setting shindig. Who's really wasting more money here?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paladin Elspeth
post Oct 25 2008, 01:20 AM
Post #40


*********
I want the 10th Doctor for President!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,987
Member No.: 721
Joined: May-10-03

From: Between 2 Great Lakes
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(moif)
$150,000 is such a pitifully small amount to work with, I'm wondering how they've managed at all. I don't think you people have any idea about what it costs to put a woman out there for two months and expect her to look like like a winner, even if she's only making one appearance a day.

All I can say is that if you feel that way, moif, the Danes must be making one hell of a lot more money than we "Joe Six Pack" Americans do.

Curmudgeon and I took out a mortgage for a little over $100,000 on the house we're living in. We have been years paying it off (10 years now), and we just had to get two signature loans to replace the ancient and broken boiler that heated our house. We don't have the money to just up and replace any major appliance. We are doing the best we can, and I think that our situation is very common among Americans.

Do you not think that we sit up and take notice when we hear that a candidate is allowed an amount of money that is one and a half times the cost of our house for clothing for two months?

Do we really believe that people who think Palin's makeup is a little on the orange-ish side or might be wearing a lesser known designer's clothing is going to vote for Obama/Biden just because of that?

We are experiencing a recession here. We have to count our pennies and spend them wisely. Just what are we supposed to think about a campaign that rails against excessive expenditures, all the while requiring that the VP candidate wear high-end designer outfits and has a hair/makeup specialist who makes more than policy advisors do?

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Oct 25 2008, 01:23 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: August 16th, 2018 - 03:29 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.