DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Xavier_Onassis on November 07, 2008, 01:43:55 PM
-
From Newsweek's Special Election Project comes the real Sarah Palin. She met staff members in a towel:
At the GOP convention in St. Paul, Palin was completely unfazed by the boys' club fraternity she had just joined. One night, Steve Schmidt and Mark Salter went to her hotel room to brief her. After a minute, Palin sailed into the room wearing nothing but a towel, with another on her wet hair. She told them to chat with her laconic husband, Todd. "I'll be just a minute," she said.
She raised William Ayers before the campaign signed off on it:
Palin launched her attack on Obama's association with William Ayers, the former Weather Underground bomber, before the campaign had finalized a plan to raise the issue. McCain's advisers were working on a strategy that they hoped to unveil the following week, but McCain had not signed off on it, and top adviser Mark Salter was resisting.
And she spent far more on clothes than was reported:
NEWSWEEK has also learned that Palin's shopping spree at high-end department stores was more extensive than previously reported. While publicly supporting Palin, McCain's top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. 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. The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent "tens of thousands" more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some articles of clothing have apparently been lost. An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast," and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.
Finally, Steve Schmidt (who reportedly picked Palin as VP) would not let her speak on election night.
McCain himself rarely spoke to Palin during the campaign, and aides kept him in the dark about the details of her spending on clothes because they were sure he would be offended. Palin asked to speak along with McCain at his Arizona concession speech Tuesday night, but campaign strategist Steve Schmidt vetoed the request.
-
The best defense is a good offense.
-
What was the good offense, in this case?
-
From Newsweek's Special Election Project comes the real Sarah Palin. She met staff members in a towel:
At the GOP convention in St. Paul, Palin was completely unfazed by the boys' club fraternity she had just joined. One night, Steve Schmidt and Mark Salter went to her hotel room to brief her. After a minute, Palin sailed into the room wearing nothing but a towel, with another on her wet hair. She told them to chat with her laconic husband, Todd. "I'll be just a minute," she said.
Sara Palinis not a prude?
But some tattletale is.
-
What was the good offense, in this case?
Shifting the spotlight. We've known this was coming.
-
damn!!
i knew about this earlier,but I didn`t hear about the staffers not getting paid back for it.
I thought wouldn`t it be funny if they were expected to bite the cost?
notice it still didn`t say they finally got reimbursed for it.
-
damn!!
i knew about this earlier,but I didn`t hear about the staffers not getting paid back for it.
I thought wouldn`t it be funny if they were expected to bite the cost?
notice it still didn`t say they finally got reimbursed for it.
The staffers didn't bite the cost.
-
One night, Steve Schmidt and Mark Salter went to her hotel room to brief her. After a minute, Palin sailed into the room wearing nothing but a towel, with another on her wet hair.
[...]
NEWSWEEK has also learned that Palin's shopping spree at high-end department stores was more extensive than previously reported.
This is news?
-
This is news?
Apparently unnamed staffers of the McCain Campaign, fearful of a lack of gainful employment during the next election cycle have chosen the scapegoat for their ill conceived and erratic performance.
-
This is news?
Apparently unnamed staffers of the McCain Campaign, fearful of a lack of gainful employment during the next election cycle have chosen the scapegoat for their ill conceived and erratic performance.
The lipsticked pit bull hockeymom being really a greedy prima donna would be news anywhere but in the Grand Old Perv Party.
-
How can Palin be greedy if she doesn't get to keep the clothes?
-
How can Palin be greedy if she doesn't get to keep the clothes?
===========================
The joy in fancy clothes is in wearing them, just as the joy in fancy food is in eating it.
We still have not heard that the clothes have been sold, and until they are, she still has them, doesn't she?
Why should we assume that this campaign promise will be kept?
-
It has always been my experience that i couldn't wait to get out of a rented tux.
And I'm not sure you can rent food.
The clothes were props.
They will be inventoried, returned or accounted for in a timely fashion.
Perhaps the anonymous staffers of the McCain Campaign would like to explain why they thought Palin needed to be gussied up.
Seems counter to who she really was.
-
>Seems counter to who she really was. <
Just the point . She was really nothing.
-
Just the point . She was really nothing.
Then you are not alone.
-
They will be inventoried, returned or accounted for in a timely fashion.
Perhaps the anonymous staffers of the McCain Campaign would like to explain why they thought Palin needed to be gussied up.
Seems counter to who she really was.
================================================
You seem to have a lot more faith in this happening than I do.
The election is over, this is a rather minor matter, and it seems somewhat likely that the "promise" someone, who may never have been given the authority to make such promises, will be honored.
As I said, auctioning off her garments as keepsakes would probably bring a profit for the GOP. Not that I would have any interest in buying them, but look what people were willing to pay for OJ's old threads. Look at what OJ was willing to do to get his old clothes back. Now it looks like he got a 5 years to life sentence for kidnapping some merchants that could most charitably described as opportunistic scumbags. Of course, OJ was a celebrity opportunistic scumbag himself.
Apparently old clothes of celebs is a big deal. Palin is certainly a celebrity, if nothing else.
I am happy to see her back at her job in Juneau, and wish her well at eliminating corruption from her icy domain. She really should refrain from plinking at wolves from aircraft, though, That is unfair and tacky.
-
The owner of the clothing is the RNC. Palin does not need to make promises for items which she doesn't own. Nor does she need to be held accountable for the ultimate disposal of said items.
-
The election is over, this is a rather minor matter
Apparently it was not so minor, otherwise why did you post the story?
-
The owner of the clothing is the RNC. Palin does not need to make promises for items which she doesn't own. Nor does she need to be held accountable for the ultimate disposal of said items.
==========================
Possession , as they say, is nine-tenths of the law. Palin and Co. are in possession of said finery.
=================================
The election is over, this is a rather minor matter
Apparently it was not so minor, otherwise why did you post the story?
==================================
Because I thought that is was of interest, since the entire story of Palin's wardrobe malfunction was unposted. I have never made any promises to post only "IMPORTANT" issues, and many issues can be interesting without being important.
Since you must think that it is in fact, unimportant, why did you deign to comment upon it?
Clothes of celebrities, as of Palin & family and OJ Simpson, seem to have become a rather big deal. If one can get a life sentence for trying to get one's old jockstraps back or whatever, someone thinks that this is a really big deal.
-
Just the point . She was really nothing.
Then you are not alone.
Nor you, but you are closer intellectually.
-
My understanding is that Michelle Obama will be bring fashion back to the Whitehouse in such a manner as not seen since Jackie O.
Who is buying these clothes for her? Were they gifts, paid for from campaign funds, product placements?
Is the message of costly threads conflicting with the message of hope , care and shared sacrifice during hard times.
-
Nor you, but you are closer intellectually.
Thank you.
-
Nor you, but you are closer intellectually.
Thank you.
You are very welcome.
<object width="540" height="437"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MWZHTJsR4Bc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0">
-
Unnamed staff.
Palins right, they are cowardly.
-
Unnamed staff.
Palins right, they are cowardly.
Wouldnt you be afeared of some lady looney that shoots & guts moose?
-
Wouldnt you be afeared of some lady looney that shoots & guts moose?
Nah. I like independent women.
-
Apparently unnamed staffers of the McCain Campaign, fearful of a lack of gainful employment during the next election cycle have chosen the scapegoat for their ill conceived and erratic performance.
I agree.
-
The lipsticked pit bull hockeymom being really a greedy prima donna would be news anywhere but in the Grand Old Perv Party.
She bought some clothes and walked into her hotel room from the bathroom wearing a towel. This is not news. It's petty bitching.
-
edit
-
Wouldnt you be afeared of some lady looney that shoots & guts moose?
Nah. I like independent women.
Hokay, but dont say I didnt warnya. She has the family crazy eyes.
(http://alaskanexposure.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/charlesmanson.jpg?w=222&h=224)
(http://alaskanexposure.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/palinface.jpg?w=200&h=235)
-
edit
You having a hard time walking & chewing gum like a real Repud today?
-
Wouldnt you be afeared of some lady looney that shoots & guts moose?
Nah. I like independent women.
Hokay, but dont say I didnt warnya. She has the family crazy eyes.
(http://alaskanexposure.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/charlesmanson.jpg?w=222&h=224)
(http://alaskanexposure.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/palinface.jpg?w=200&h=235)
Your postings are on the level of crayon graffiti... to coin an XO phrase.
-
>
Your postings are on the level of crayon graffiti... to coin an XO phrase.
<
Thank you very much! It is better than the raw bullshit you throw up.
-
Thank you very much! It is better than the raw bullshit you throw up.
You are too kind in your praise.
-
Thank you very much! It is better than the raw bullshit you throw up.
You are too kind in your praise.
I know ,but I am feeling magnanimous in victory.
(http://upsidedownstamps.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/obama.bmp)
-
My understanding is that Michelle Obama will be bring fashion back to the Whitehouse in such a manner as not seen since Jackie O.
Who is buying these clothes for her? Were they gifts, paid for from campaign funds, product placements?
Is the message of costly threads conflicting with the message of hope , care and shared sacrifice during hard times.
========================================
Michelle Obama is independently wealthy, and the cost of her clothes have not been made public. She is well-dressed, but not anything like Jackie Kennedy, or Nancy Reagan, for that matter. I observe that no one questioned where the Kennedys got so much loot to pay Oleg Cassini with. It is highly probable that any US first lady could easily get free clothes from any designer, since there is no better form of publicity.
-
It is highly probable that any US first lady could easily get free clothes from any designer, since there is no better form of publicity.
Would that be an ethical violation?
-
It is highly probable that any US first lady could easily get free clothes from any designer, since there is no better form of publicity.
Would that be an ethical violation?
===============================
Because it gave more free publicity to a name designer than to K-Mart or Sears or some mall chainstore?
What would the conflict of interest be?
I don't see where it would be a big one. It doesn't bother the French
-
It is highly probable that any US first lady could easily get free clothes from any designer, since there is no better form of publicity.
Would that be an ethical violation?
===============================
Because it gave more free publicity to a name designer than to K-Mart or Sears or some mall chainstore?
What would the conflict of interest be?
I don't see where it would be a big one. It doesn't bother the French
It could be a problem because political writers are eager to find picaune problems to pick on.
-
http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-look/celebrity-style/staticslideshowinstyle.aspx?cp-documentid=12385104>1=32002 (http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-look/celebrity-style/staticslideshowinstyle.aspx?cp-documentid=12385104>1=32002)
Clothes , do we really care ?
-
http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-look/celebrity-style/staticslideshowinstyle.aspx?cp-documentid=12385104>1=32002 (http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-look/celebrity-style/staticslideshowinstyle.aspx?cp-documentid=12385104>1=32002)
Clothes , do we really care ?
No. The whole thing was incredibly stupid.
-
http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-look/celebrity-style/staticslideshowinstyle.aspx?cp-documentid=12385104>1=32002 (http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-look/celebrity-style/staticslideshowinstyle.aspx?cp-documentid=12385104>1=32002)
Clothes , do we really care ?
No. The whole thing was incredibly stupid.
Yes she is.
"http://www.youtube.com/v/MWZHTJsR4Bc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true">
-
It's like Jon Cleese said: Palin is like a trained parrot. She can only sound like she knows anything when seriously prepped. She seems to be an even duller female version of C. Danforth Quayle. I'm all for her getting the 2012 nomination. The Republicans owe th country at least eight years of being ignored for the hideous damage they have done to the country by nominating Juniorbush and the vile Cheney twice.
-
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2008
Wardrobe Malfunction
One of the hot button issues of the day is Sarah Palin's $150,000 wardrobe, and whether she has to pay income taxes on it. To my ears, the real question is whether it is a just state of affairs where female politicians have to spend so much more on their personal appearance than their male counterparts. One tactful columnist had the following to say:
Today’s big So What: It cost $150,000 to dress Republican Sarah Palin. It is all about image in politics.
A killer presidential candidate needs killer clothes. Democrat Hillary Clinton wore cheesy polyester pantsuits. If she shelled out a few bucks on something you couldn’t get at Kmart, she might be president...
Women are supposed to look good and smell nice. The reason that Democrat John Edwards was mocked for his $400 haircuts was it was a girlish vanity. The “I Feel Pretty” video aims at his masculinity. The song is sung by a girl.
A double standard? You betcha.
To my mind, the burden being put on Gov. Palin is just an extreme version of the Jespersen dilemma. Jespersen was a female bartender working for Harrah's who was forced, under new grooming regulations, to wear makeup to her job. This imposed an additional hurdle to her entering the workforce: though men also had grooming requirements, they were generally less expensive to maintain than those given to women. In such a case, women are being penalized upon entering the workforce solely for being women: that second X chromosome means that they can be required to shell out more as a threshold requirement before they are allowed to compete for the same job men are going after. Likewise, Gov. Palin, because she's a woman, has to spend a lot more time and resources on her attire and appearance before she can compete as an equal in the political arena.
From a feminist perspective (which wants Gov. Palin to lose, but not because she is hobbled from competing as a woman), there are two angles of attack on this. On the one hand, you could indict the norms of appearance that require so much more out of women than men. Alternatively, one could (perhaps provisionally) accept those norms, and demand offsets so that the costs of their enforcement do not fall on women but on some other party. For example, if Harrah's Casino wants to demand women alter their appearance above and beyond their requirements for men, it could be forced to pay for the difference in value (I imagine if that requirement did exist, the gender-differential would be eliminated quite rapidly).
How it works in cases like this, where nobody is "forcing" Gov. Palin to spend so much on her clothes, but there is a generalized knowledge that if she didn't pay that extra attention, she'd be political toast, is more complicated. But the income tax question gives a hint. Regardless of whether Gov. Palin is correct in asserting that she does not have to pay taxes on her "borrowed" wardrobe is right as a matter of current law, one could argue that creating such an exception, by mitigating the cost of additional clothing (at least on the candidate) would help alleviate some of the burdens our gendered appearance norms currently place on female politicians. It wouldn't eliminate it entirely, as it still would cost more for Parties to run these candidates, but it would at least make a dent. A purist might also feel feminists advocating for such a rule would be capitulating to the legitimacy of the underlying gendered-appearance sentiment, which is what really has to be taken apart for gender equality to be obtained (that was the first approach I outlined). But advocates for this plan might respond that we can't wait for a revolution that might never arrive, and in the meantime provisionally accepting the realities of ingrained sexism, and working to mitigate their impact, is the best that can be hoped for (a Derrick Bell style argument).
All of which goes to show how deeply entrenched patriarchal norms continue to have an impact today, even against the most elite and accomplished female figures."
Women in a double face slap when it comes to their place (in politics).
Don't spend money to up your visual appearance for the dumb ass voters that are not going to vote for you because you spent too much money and are not gonna vote for Hilary because she looks like a frumpy housewife in her Polyester Pant Suits and should cough up some $$ so she would look good and maybe have won the Presidency.
One has to wonder how much the guys spent on their outfits...also, one has to wonder what the hell she is going to do with all those purty clothes up in Alaska.
-
http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-look/celebrity-style/staticslideshowinstyle.aspx?cp-documentid=12385104>1=32002 (http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-look/celebrity-style/staticslideshowinstyle.aspx?cp-documentid=12385104>1=32002)
Clothes , do we really care ?
No. The whole thing was incredibly stupid.
Yes she is.
"http://www.youtube.com/v/MWZHTJsR4Bc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true">
That link is to a story on Michelle Obama's wardrobe.
Which is little concern to me , you?
-
I don't think Hillary's pantsuits looked bad on her, and I doubt they cost her many votes.
I thought Palin looked really good in her new duds. Better than Cindy McCain or Michelle Obama, even. Not that this is in any way a qualification for public office.
The answer to what will Palin do with her new wardrobe is whatever she can get away with: they might take it all back, they might take some of it back, they might let her have it and 0say they took it back and gave it to some charity. I really don't care personally. As I said, if they were clever, they could auction her clothes off and get more back than they cost. Of course someone would make a nasty comparison to the Romans auctioning off Jesus garments, and that would be bad PR for some people for a day or so. I am pretty sure that Palin will wear her clothes if she gets to keep them. I would lay 4 to q odds that she won't.
Michelle Obama dresses nicely, but that red and black dress she wore made her look fatter than I think she really is, in my opinion.
This has t be a problem with celebrities: the main reason, I hae observed, why women like to bring clothes home from expensive mall shops is that they can bring them home, wear them to a party, and return then afterwards. This is harder to do if the entire planet has seen a celeb wearing the clothes, though.
-
I don't think Hillary's pantsuits looked bad on her, and I doubt they cost her many votes.
I thought Palin looked really good in her new duds. Better than Cindy McCain or Michelle Obama, even. Not that this is in any way a qualification for public office.
The answer to what will Palin do with her new wardrobe is whatever she can get away with: they might take it all back, they might take some of it back, they might let her have it and 0say they took it back and gave it to some charity. I really don't care personally. As I said, if they were clever, they could auction her clothes off and get more back than they cost. Of course someone would make a nasty comparison to the Romans auctioning off Jesus garments, and that would be bad PR for some people for a day or so. I am pretty sure that Palin will wear her clothes if she gets to keep them. I would lay 4 to q odds that she won't.
Michelle Obama dresses nicely, but that red and black dress she wore made her look fatter than I think she really is, in my opinion.
This has t be a problem with celebrities: the main reason, I hae observed, why women like to bring clothes home from expensive mall shops is that they can bring them home, wear them to a party, and return then afterwards. This is harder to do if the entire planet has seen a celeb wearing the clothes, though.
You say that ... women wear and return.... like it is a general practice. I can speak for myself, my mother, daughter, daughter in law and say we have never done that. I even bought an outfit for $450.00 and wore it once. I had picked up a kitten to cuddle at a party and after 5 minutes realized that the fabric was crap and it had little snags all over it. While I was not happy with the fact that I had only worn it once... I did figure that I was 50% to blame and that the store would hardly accept the other 50% and just marked it off as a loss.
-
You say that ... women wear and return.... like it is a general practice.
=================================================================
It seems to be a general practice here in Miami. I have never taken a poll. I'm sure many do this, but others do not. My mother and sister would not do it, but they rarely shopped at ritzy stores. I have returned mail order clothes once or twice due to them not fitting. I do not buy clothes in malls, ever. I measure or try on everything carefully, and make sure I like it before I decide to buy it.
I bet this practice varies a lot from one city to another. I would imagine that in LA, Miami, and Las Vegas, more women wear and return than in Kansas City, Minneapolis or Salt Lake, due to differences in cultural values. Of course, a real survey would have to be made, and that would be difficult, since people often do one thing and say another.
It is a good idea to wear cheap clothes when dealing with felines.
-
I've never done the 'buy and return' bit, either, although I know there are people who do that. When we went shopping for Anna's prom dress last spring, I was amazed at the number of (very expensive) dresses on the racks with stains, snags, loose and missing beadwork, pulled seams...you name it. Sure, the store discounted those dresses a bit. But I just could never understand the mentality behind the process. Even after spending more than I'd planned on for Anna's dress, I wouldn't dream of returning it. What kind of lesson does that teach?
-
Even after spending more than I'd planned on for Anna's dress, I wouldn't dream of returning it. What kind of lesson does that teach?
I would say, a bad one, if you want honest children.
Maybe a good one, if you want ones who consider fancy clothes to be more important than being strictly honest.