$150,000 for Sarah Palins wardrobe.

[CakeDaddy]

Another kick in the face for the McCain/Palin campaign.

Republicans spent $150000 of donations on Plain’s wardrobe!!!! McCain says, "We will donate the clothing after the campaign" Yeah Right! What woman will give up clothing from Saks 5th Ave, Neiman Marcus, etc.... , especially if it fits to a tee. Sarah isn't about to give this stuff up for auction win or loose. This stuff really doesn’t matter, but it sure is fun to laugh at. 150K for clothes and 4k for hair do’s. Remember, Sarah Palin says, "Im just like you"

[ishkabibble]

Dropping $150k on new clothes is a mavericky, "fiscal conservative" thing to do.

SEXIST!

[Cold_Zero]

$400 for a hair cut.$150,000 for new wardrobe

Do we really want to start a pissing match about how much the Obamas and Hillary spend on clothing, haircuts and make overs?

[ishkabibble]

We do when it skirts campaign finance law. (that McCain originated!)

[CakeDaddy]

$400 for a hair cut.$150,000 for new wardrobe

Do we really want to start a pissing match about how much the Obamas and Hillary spend on clothing, haircuts and make overs?

Yes! Let the games begin. I figured since she was out shooting rifles, eating moose meat and naming her kids after 21st century cartoon characters, she'd be more suited for TJ-MAX, Ross and K-Mart, but not Neiman Marcus and Saks and especially not $150,000 worth of personal fittings. Maybe if they spent that money on advertising in Ohio, Virginia & Florida... they'd be in better shape. Its all clear to me now!

[Cold_Zero]

Maybe if they spent that money on advertising in Ohio, Virginia & Florida... they'd be in better shape. Its all clear to me now!

And your complaining?

Personally I think the massive amounts of money that are given to politicians are a waste. I would be personally ashamed taking in $150 Million when there are homeless and hungry people in this country.

[AZhitman]

We do when it skirts campaign finance law. (that McCain originated!)

At least he's stuck to his principles.

Barack Obama rejected the public financing system in his bid for the presidency, representing a flip-flop from the pledge he made earlier.

In other news...

The Obama campaign has not identified donors for nearly half the amount he has raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).

Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark.

Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.

“Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed,” said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. “They don’t appear anywhere, so there’s no way of knowing who they are.”

The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.

It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system.

Yes, by all means, let's talk about $150K in clothing...

[x240xdrifter]

The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.

holy crap! thats alot unaccounted for moola!

[AZhitman]

holy crap! thats alot unaccounted for moola!

I'll let you keep researching. Maybe you can call campaign HQ and ask them where it all came from.

[ishkabibble]

It was Ayers!

[AZhitman]

My guess is that the OP has never gone shopping in an upscale district with a woman of good taste and style.

It's not pleasant.

[hannibal]

And your complaining?

Personally I think the massive amounts of money that are given to politicians are a waste. I would be personally ashamed taking in $150 Million when there are homeless and hungry people in this country.

BTW, that was just September. But I would be ashamed of suggesting a $21 tax cut to someone making under $19,000 a year. That'll pay for a week's worth of gas or half of a month's pass on Atlanta's public transportation system.

Federal law does not require the campaigns to identify donors who give less than $200 during the election cycle. However, it does require that campaigns calculate running totals for each donor and report them once they go beyond the $200 mark.

Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.

“Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed,” said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. “They don’t appear anywhere, so there’s no way of knowing who they are.”

The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.

It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system.

Yes, by all means, let's talk about $150K in clothing...

So a million people giving $200 is astounding??

[Jesda]

Republicans and Democrats are more than happy to spend money, whether its private (party funds) or public (tax money).

Why is anyone shocked? It seems perfectly consistent to me.

[Cold_Zero]

BTW, that was just September. But I would be ashamed of suggesting a $21 tax cut to someone making under $19,000 a year. That'll pay for a week's worth of gas or half of a month's pass on Atlanta's public transportation system.

I wasn't talking about a tax cut. If we totaled up how much money Politicians raked in, you could feed, cloth and house the majority of the poor in this country.

[AZhitman]

So a million people giving $200 is astounding??

No.

A million Democrats actually AWARE of the $200 threshold is astounding.

Actually, I think the proper descriptive term would be 'impossible'.

[telcoman]

I wasn't talking about a tax cut. If we totaled up how much money Politicians raked in, you could feed, cloth and house the majority of the poor in this country.

Since when have Republicans ever given a damm about the poor?

BTW, that $150k spent on Palins clothes was more than Joe the Plumbers house is worth.Michelle Obama wears $150 dresses that she purchases off the rack in stores. She doesn't need to shop at Neiman Marcus and Saks.

Telcoman

[HashiriyaS14]

Republicans and Democrats are more than happy to spend money, whether its private (party funds) or public (tax money).

Why is anyone shocked? It seems perfectly consistent to me.

Certainly doesn't shock me.

This idea of them paying to "dress her up" doesn't really bother me either. It's a fact of life that women are judged on appearance more than men are, even in politics, and especially Sarah Palin, who's appearance seems to be a big part of her appeal.

I don't have any problem with it, it's just marketing. No different from purchasing a TV ad, IMO.

Biden apparently buys all his own clothing (he said this yesterday), but he also doesn't have to wear something different every single time he's on camera like a woman does. It's a double standard. It'd be unrealistically expensive for her to be buying all this stuff out of pocket.

[hannibal]

Point taken. Now consider how our country could benefit from putting our expeditures in Iraq to use here. Poverty could be eliminated, our education system strengthened, and health care made available to every citizen.

Donating $150 million to a candidate one supports so the funds I mentioned could be spent on someting more beneficial seems like a reasonable measure.

[AZhitman]

Since when have Republicans ever given a damm about the poor?

Careful there, genius. Don't make me break out the charitability of the Right, because it'll just make you look dumb.

Michelle Obama wears $150 dresses that she purchases off the rack in stores. She doesn't need to shop at Neiman Marcus and Saks.

Telcoman

Well, shame on her for being a spendthrift. She needs to go to Goodwill for her clothes. $150 on a single dress? Does she think she's made of money? Better yet, maybe she doesn't need any dresses at all... in fact, since she needs to be home raising kids, all she needs is some $4 sweatpants from K-Mart. After all, she's not running for office, and someone has to do all the housework and take care of those poor little girls while Barack is off saving the world....

See how absurd this argument is?

The hypocrisy of the Left is almost overwhelming, and certainly comical.

[telcoman]

Careful there, genius. Don't make me break out the charitability of the Right, because it'll just make you look dumb.

Well, shame on her for being a spendthrift. She needs to go to Goodwill for her clothes. $150 on a single dress? Does she think she's made of money? Better yet, maybe she doesn't need any dresses at all... in fact, since she needs to be home raising kids, all she needs is some $4 sweatpants from K-Mart. After all, she's not running for office, and someone has to do all the housework and take care of those poor little girls while Barack is off saving the world....

See how absurd this argument is?

The hypocrisy of the Left is almost overwhelming, and certainly comical.

Yeah its comical all right.

Everything related to McCain is so comical that its hurting when we laugh

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is more comical material from the McCain campaign

New York Times

Updated | 12:20 p.m. Who was the highest paid individual in Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign during the first half of October as it headed down the homestretch?

Not Randy Scheunemann, Mr. McCain’s chief foreign policy adviser; not Nicolle Wallace, his senior communications staffer. It was Amy Strozzi, Gov. Sarah Palin’s traveling makeup artist, according to a new filing with the Federal Election Commission on Thursday night.

Ms. Strozzi, who was nominated for an Emmy award for her makeup work on the television show “So You Think You Can Dance?”, was paid $22,800 for the first two weeks of October alone, according to the records. The campaign categorized Ms. Strozzi’s payment as “Personnel Svc/Equipment.”

Telcoman

[AZhitman]

Yeah its comical all right.

Everything related to McCain is so comical that its hurting when we laugh

With jukes like that, you should be in the NFL.

CONTENT, CONTENT, CONTENT.

[WDRacing]

Anyone that thinks 150K on clothes/make-up/hair/etc, when placed under the biggest World microscope, is to much, is simply ignorant. Seriously...not very smart.

They have an entire staff that is charge of shopping, grooming etc...BOTH parties do. ANYONE in show bussiness does, incase you didn't realize it, when you run for office, you are IN SHOW BIZZ. This coming from a party that cries foul when McCain runs a negative ad.

Seriously, quit letting the media feed you your opinion.

[AZhitman]

Again, I state:

My guess is that the OP has never gone shopping in an upscale district with a woman of good taste and style.

....actually, I'm pretty certain you can cut that sentence down to:

"The OP doesn't spend much time with women."

[480sx]

The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.....

A million Democrats actually AWARE of the $200 threshold is astounding.

Actually, I think the proper descriptive term would be 'impossible'.

Not going to disagree, this should def raise some eyebrows and be questioned.

However, impossible?

You have to remember about the overwhelming majority of the poor that support Obama. 50 dollars here, 100 dollars there, ect ect. Middleish class too. I mean not many people have the ability to drop more than 200 dollars at the drop of a hat, especially in this econ.

You also have to take into perspective that most of the upper middle class and outright rich are pro republican as i have seen.

Still thats a staggering figure for sure.

[Jesda]

Actually, the very rich and the very poor tend to favor democrats. Why? I don't know. Folks making 30-100k tend to favor Republicans.

Those without or with only high school diplomas as well as those with post-graduate degrees tend to favor Democrats. People with 4-year degrees tend to vote Republican.

The shrinking middle class hurts the GOP's numbers. Look what its doing to McCain now, and look what it did for Reagan in 1984.

Warren Buffet and George Soros are solid examples of the wealthy left.

[Bubba1]

Actually, the very rich and the very poor tend to favor democrats. Why? I don't know. Folks making 30-100k tend to favor Republicans.

Those without or with only high school diplomas as well as those with post-graduate degrees tend to favor Democrats. People with 4-year degrees tend to vote Republican.

The shrinking middle class hurts the GOP's numbers. Look what its doing to McCain now, and look what it did for Reagan in 1984.

Warren Buffet and George Soros are solid examples of the wealthy left.

I'd love to see where you got your data to conclude those with 4 year dregrees tend to vote Republican.

As far as Palin's $150K budget for clothing, regardless of your political affilitation, for a person to portray themselves as a hockey mom, joe 6-pack kinda person, it smells of hypocrisy to get caught spending so much on clothing.

That said, I still find it such a non-issue in the overall scheme of things toconsider it when deciding who to vote for. Cal me crazy, but I'm more interested in who the candidtates would nominate for supreme court justice than how much they spent for clothing during the campaign

[smockers83]

Since when have Republicans ever given a damm about the poor?

Well, 4 and 2 hours ago as of right now (12:15 Eastern on Sunday) when the religious right, the right that you despise, went to church.

I wonder how much Obama's new suits for the campaign cost him? I'm sure he went to Armani or some such place. A guy like him, he is sure to want to look good and flashy.

[szh]

Since when have Republicans ever given a damm about the poor?

I don't usually flame personally, but that is close to the stupidest thing you have ever said. Unbelievable.

Most of the charitable contributions in this country come from the religious people in this, many of whom reside in the South - the bible-belt of the US. And many, if not most, of them are Republican.

And they give to the poor like you will not obviously comprehend. Without bragging or making a big deal about it or thumping their chest when doing so.

This is, obviously, incomprehensible for you to understand.

Z

[szh]

And, to the OP, for what it is worth, being in the public eye means that you have to look good. So, yes, she had to spruce her wardrobe to do so. Big deal.

Z

[Jesda]

I'd love to see where you got your data to conclude those with 4 year dregrees tend to vote Republican.

CNN exit poll 2004, and another survey that I can't recall but read less than a week ago. I'll post it when/if I find it.

High school or less - Democrat4 year college - RepublicanPost graduate - Democrat

Here's Wikipedia's info:Quote »Education. Self-identified Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats to have 4-year college degrees. The trends for the years 1955 through 2004 are shown by gender in the graphs below, reproduced with permission from Democrats and Republicans — Rhetoric and Reality, a book published in 2008 by Joseph Fried.[32] These graphs depict results obtained by Fried from the National Election Studies (NES) data base.[/quote]



Note that the above says "4 year degree, or more". But when you break out "or more" as a separate group, it leans Democratic.

Quote »Regarding graduate-level degrees (masters or doctorate), there is a rough parity between Democrats and Republicans. According to the Gallup Organization: "oth Democrats and Republicans have equal numbers of Americans at the upper end of the educational spectrum — that is, with post graduate degrees..."[33] Fried provides a slightly more detailed analysis, noting that Republican men are more likely than Democratic men to have advanced degrees, but Democratic women are now more likely than Republican women to have advanced degrees.[34]

Republicans remain a small minority in academia, with 15% of full-time faculty identifying as conservative.[35][/quote]