McCain: 'She needed clothes'

[Kathryn41 3,205]

She spent on her campaign wardrobe and accessories what we spent buying our house - and she didn't have to take out a 30 year mortgage to do so. The Republican Party footed the bill. She's got champagne taste when it's not her money. I wonder how much she would have spent if she had to foot the bill herself? So, what are charities going to do with the multi-thousand dollar suits? Put them up for auction to raise some money or sell them in their high end thrift stores?

Edited October 25, 2008 by Kathryn41

[rebeccajo 14]

She spent on her campaign wardrobe and accessories what we spent buying our house - and she didn't have to take out a 30 year mortgage to do so. The Republican Party footed the bill. She's got champagne taste when it's not her money.

That's what beauty queens do.

Which is why her cry of 'ordinary woman' has never rang true.

This current development is a non-issue. Her disingenuousness has been apparent from Day One.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

She spent on her campaign wardrobe and accessories what we spent buying our house - and she didn't have to take out a 30 year mortgage to do so. The Republican Party footed the bill. She's got champagne taste when it's not her money.

That's what beauty queens do.

Which is why her cry of 'ordinary woman' has never rang true.

This current development is a non-issue. Her disingenuousness has been apparent from Day One.

Good points. You're right.

[Peikko 1,575]

I'm willing to bet that neither man has spent close to half as much on clothes, hair cuts and 'pampering' expenses in the last 6 months. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that both mens' budgets would be likely less than a quarter of hers alone. However, that's not the point that people are objecting to. Is she a maverick who objects to unecessary spending, or is she not? This budget rather hints to the idea that surprise, surprise she's not.

She's running for VP, not student body president, so get real. If her wardrobe was from WalMart, she'd be criticized as trailer trash. This is not a big deal in the real world. Sophisticated pol watchers know that.

The bolded is particularly humerous.

As for your suggestion that there are only two options for women, WalMart or Zachs, well, I'll treat that with the contempt that it deserves.

She spent on her campaign wardrobe and accessories what we spent buying our house - and she didn't have to take out a 30 year mortgage to do so. The Republican Party footed the bill. She's got champagne taste when it's not her money.

That's what beauty queens do.

Which is why her cry of 'ordinary woman' has never rang true.

This current development is a non-issue. Her disingenuousness has been apparent from Day One.

Good points. You're right.

Exactly.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You folks are Obamacans anyway, so it's essential that negative and diversionary issues taken out of context preoccupy you. It's not essential for me.

[rebeccajo 14]

You folks are Obamacans anyway, so it's essential that negative and diversionary issues taken out of context preoccupy you. It's not essential for me.

Sort of like the way talking about a wannabe business owner/plumber and his friends from Mr. Rogers Neighborhood are a diversionary tactic of the GOP?

[Ling Ling 22]

I don't find it out of the ordinary considering the amount of money funneled into campaigning. Hillary Clinton spent around $160,000 on a private jet travel for her and her advisers in 2006. Her entertaining bill was at least $746,450, with tabs ranging from a $124,155 bill at the New York Hilton.

I don't think you can consider $160K for a year's worth of travel for a legislator and advisors,

to $150K for less than 6 months of clothing, as a fair comparison.

Even it were found to be frivolous per se, just because Hillary does it, doesn't make it right for either.

I don't find it surprising after hearing about how she charged Alaska to take her daughters with her on numerous

trips where they were not required or invited.

[Ling Ling 22]

You folks are Obamacans anyway, so it's essential that negative and diversionary issues taken out of context preoccupy you. It's not essential for me.

So you're saying that YOUR avatar and elements in your signature are not ESSENTIALLY negative and diversionary?

[Peikko 1,575]

I am not an 'Obamacan' whatever that is. I would probably vote for him, if I could, but I don't agree with everything that he says, nor do I believe he has all the answers not even most of them actually.

Quite honestly, this isn't a huge issue, it's just indicative of the deception that is being practiced on some GOP supporters - that McCain and Palin 'get them'. Clearly, with a clothes budget like that, Palin doesn't 'get' the vast majority of working women.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The real irrational spending will come if Obama is elected and implements any part of his destructive economic plan.

[Ling Ling 22]

The real irrational spending will come if Obama is elected and implements any part of his destructive economic plan.

Please share your source of information...or is the bottle empty now?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The real irrational spending will come if Obama is elected and implements any part of his destructive economic plan.

Bush's economic plan was destructive. McSame want's to double down on that same plan. Continue what everyone sees and knows isn't working. He wants to to do the same and expects a different result. You know what that is: Insanity. Now that's where your sure destruction would be. Fortunately, that isn't going to happen. Rather than buying all that wardrobe and make-up for Alaska Barbie, they should have invested in a brain for her. Maybe that would have saved McSame's sinking ship.

Edited October 25, 2008 by Mr. Big Dog

[Peikko 1,575]

The real irrational spending will come if Obama is elected and implements any part of his destructive economic plan.

Please share your source of information...or is the bottle empty now?

[rebeccajo 14]

The real irrational spending will come if Obama is elected and implements any part of his destructive economic plan.

Oh gotcha.

Would that be anything like that economic plan of the GOP? Those same folks who gave us the second largest Department of the government in 7 short years? Those same folks who let the oil companies run amuck? Those same folks who couldn't get the helicopters off the ground during Katrina? Those same folks who Trickled Down Wall Street?

Gimme a break.

The real irrational spending will come if Obama is elected and implements any part of his destructive economic plan.

Please share your source of information...or is the bottle empty now?

She gets her Haldol intraveneously. All the non-compliant patients do.

Edited October 25, 2008 by rebeccajo

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I am not an 'Obamacan' whatever that is. I would probably vote for him, if I could, but I don't agree with everything that he says, nor do I believe he has all the answers not even most of them actually.

Quite honestly, this isn't a huge issue, it's just indicative of the deception that is being practiced on some GOP supporters - that McCain and Palin 'get them'. Clearly, with a clothes budget like that, Palin doesn't 'get' the vast majority of working women.

Liberals expect and seek out victimization and deprivation. Conservatives expect and seek out prosperity and gain. You won't get that, but it is the reason why you don't get it.

No one running for the presidency or vice-presidency nor their families are like spending on anything like regular working folks. Image is a big part of that, and that is why this is no big deal. The men are wearing $3,000 suits and the women are shopping at high end stores, dressed, coiffed and tutored by professionals. Obama and Biden say they know your pain, but they have assets, educations, perks, and connections you can only dream of. They all claim to be like you and know your life, but that's just politics. Do you really believe they are like you? Are you truly that naive?