We all remember the major scandal surrounding the spending on clothing by the RNC for Sarah Palin during the '08 campaign. It is one of those numbers one doesn't have to look up: $150,000 spent on upscale clothes for the beautiful Mrs. Palin. The number was mentioned so many times in press reports that it is branded into my brain. It was not just on the (now-regular) political coverage on Inside Edition--it was a page A-1 story in the New York Times.
Some interesting comments by Gary Jason in the April '09 Liberty magazine. He points out that Michelle Obama has emerged as a fashionista as she does her part for the this cavalcade of a presidency. She smiles at us from every women's mag in the grocery check-out, and as Jason points out, she sported an "ab fab yellow wool lace shift (with matching overcoat, natch) by designer Isabel Toledo. Plebe chicks can eventually buy an imitation version at Barney's for a mere $1500. The dress was accessorized by green movin'-on-up pumps, with diamond brooch and studs...Curiously, no mention was made of the starving babies who could be saved with the money that Ms. [Caroline] Kennedy and Ms. Obama spend on their clothes. No, such commentary is reserved for Ms. Palin."
Jason goes on to say that he personally does not care what they spend on clothes, as long as the bill is paid by private dollars, such as by the RNC, DNC, or Steven Spielberg's checkbook. But the double-standard bugs him.
The answer to the question in my title is clear. There is no gathering scandal, nor will there be. The press is slimier than a snake in the lake. But it works. They keep producing useful idiots of the sort seen in John Ziegler's video 'How Obama got Elected.' And they keep wheeling us to hell, in a designer hand-cart.
Posted by 6p01053690976c970c at March 09, 2009 04:25 PM | Email ThisThe difference is that Michelle Obama and Caroline Kennedy didn't claim to be a simple "hockey mom" from Alaska. Of course, useful idiots like yourself actually seem quite content with getting fed with Republican talking points instead of actually thinking for yourself.
Posted by: demo kid on March 9, 2009 11:44 PMThe liberals' game was to portray Palin in the worst possible light. You know this. If she had worn clothes from Wal-Mart liberals would have ripped her apart for being "rural trailer trash". It didn't matter what Palin did, the media and the left had a single focus, portray her in the worst possible light no matter what. That is exactly what happened. It's the way you leftists play. Dirty and nasty.
It's all part of your wonderful leftist culture that doesn't judge, and is so tolerant.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 10, 2009 07:51 AMOf course, useful idiots like them actually seem quite content with getting fed with liberal talking points instead of actually thinking for themselves.
Someone please, please, PLEASE explain why the players on the winning political team are still so unhappy, still so negative, still so argumentative, still so completely miserable... and hell bent on making everyone else miserable.
Of course, WE know why.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 10, 2009 01:13 PMIt's the way you leftists play. Dirty and nasty.
Man... don't make me do a spit take while at my computer!
I'm entirely amused that a conservative is telling me that, when Republicans seem to have taken lying, spinning, and deceit to insane heights.
Posted by: demo kid on March 10, 2009 09:28 PMYour own personal double standard brings new meaning to the word "hypocrite," dumbo... so, you're hardly in a position to cast that aspersion on anyone else.
See, in this instance, it doesn't matter what or how Palin, in your bizarro world, portrayed herself.
What matters is that Wife of Empty Suit is a bit of a clothes horse, and your ilk actually DO take lying, spinning, and deceit to insane heights when it comes to the now legendary double-standard that you so ably demonstrate with each and every ass-kissing post you spew.
Your particular shame is that you come across like the typical leftist... which means you come across like a moron. That is, there's nothing that the messiah can do that you would ever question (Because you're a GOOD little Party robot) and there's nothing that his drag-queen looking wife could do that you'd ever question... because, after all, you're only capable of critical thinking when it comes to the GOP.
Posted by: Hinton on March 11, 2009 09:22 AMNah, nothing at all.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on March 11, 2009 09:50 AMBut I don't doubt that Demo kid is convinced he is right. In his mind, Republicans have already been defined as evil. Therefore any disparate ill-treatment of Republicans by media is naturally just an honest, accurate portrayal of reality.
There is always some rationalization available, as in this case the claim that Sarah Palin was was being hypocritical because she was supposed to be 'down to earth' whereas Michelle Obama was not. The thinnest of rationalizations will work because the conclusion is so much desired.
Posted by: 6p01053690976c970c on March 11, 2009 02:32 PMOne, Palin did not go on a "shopping spree". The RNC did on her behalf. My guess is that her actual "down home" wardrobe, was not adequate in THEIR minds for all the engagements Palin would need to attend in a society where wearing the same outfit twice in a lifetime is a social faux pas. So, the expenditure was due to the handlers and not the candidate.
2nd, Palin did not wear designer outfits accessorized with diamond jewelry.
DK, if you have any shred of integrity you will admit publicly that you blew this one. The news celebrates Michelle's extravagance and pillories Palin's rather less extravagant clothing purchases that were not even made by her.
Posted by: eyago on March 12, 2009 06:11 PMWe know the liberal commentators decried Palin's clothing. We know that conservative commentators decry Obama's clothing.
Conservative folks think there is a double standard that liberal commentators decry Palin's clothing. Liberal folks have no angst about Obama's clothing.
This is all very worthy of considerable attention, comment, and calling into question one's personal integrity when they have an opinion on one side or the other.
I didn't realize this was the People Magazine blog.
Posted by: BA on March 13, 2009 08:37 AMNot quite.
Liberal reporters decried Palin's clothing. Page A1 of the NYT, for example. I have not seen any 'conservative commentators' decry Michelle Obama's clothing per se. What they decry is the double standard. The one I cite, Gary Jason, clearly states that he is not bothered by her clothing, as long as it is not purchased with tax dollars.
Nice try though.
Posted by: 6p01053690976c970c on March 13, 2009 06:47 PMWhere is the double standard again? A politician is treated one way, the spouse of a politician is treated another way?
Nice try back - next time compare apples to apples.
Posted by: BA on March 15, 2009 12:56 PMNow you seem to admit that there was a difference in handling, but it is due to the difference between politician and spouse of politician.
Accepting your latter point for the sake of discussion, how then do you explain and justify the level of reporting about Bristol Palin, who was not a candidate, and not even a candidate's spouse, but a daughter of a (former) candidate?
Posted by: 6p01053690976c970c on March 15, 2009 02:07 PMI guess an equally appropriate response could have been "whatever."
Posted by: 6p01053690976c970c on March 16, 2009 07:55 AMSo, when there is an unwed teenage pregnant daughter of a conservative vice-presidential candidate that supports abstinence as the primary method of birth-control, and brings the daughter's child's father to the convention, and the daughter grants interviews to perpetuate the attention, it stays in the public's eye. Leave the father at home, don't grant interviews...
I'll return to your original argument that the press is treating Palin differently than Michelle Obama (even though in terms of facts it would appear that both folk's clothing, seems to be reported).
One was running for office, and expressing a "person of the common people" persona - the other was not running for office.
That is different.
If Michelle Obama said she always bought clothing at a thrift store and then shows up in a designer dress - it would be reported.
Again, you first argue that MO is exempt from coverage because she is only the spouse of a politician, not a politician herself. But with Bristol Palin somehow the 'not a politician' principle disappears.
Didn't Michelle O. attend the convention? I think she did. Didn't she grant interviews? She did.
BA face it, you are making up all these distinctions & principles as you go along. By your logic, there could never be a bias in the press. No matter what example of disparate coverage, you can always come up with some post-hoc distinction between the two stories to explain the disparity.
Posted by: 6p01053690976c970c on March 16, 2009 04:32 PM