Wednesday, October 22, 2008


Via Sullivan, I see that the McCain campaign in its desperation wants to launch one last salvo of character-assassinatory slime at Obama by playing the "Wright Card". Sadly, they are prevented from doing so because they lack the money.

And surely the finances of the McCain campaign will not be helped by the disclosure that previous donations were spent wrapping Sarah "Hockey-Mom-of-the-People" Palin in designer finery from Neiman Marcus. How likely is it that Wal-Mart denizens -- Sarah Palin's primary constituency -- will be willing to fork over their hard-earned paychecks to finance McCain's slow-motion train wreck of a campaign?

And by the way... I have nothing against nice clothes. If I were, say, a hedge fund manager or a professional athlete or had married a fabulously wealthy beer heiress, I would probably do quite a bit of shopping at Neiman's myself. But how incredibly stupid is it that the McCain campaign would spend an amount roughly equivalent to what most Americans spend on their homes to dress up Sarah Palin, knowing full well that her one and only positive political attribute is her ability to connect with "real Americans", knowing quite well also that such spending would certainly, as required by law, be reported to the public prior to the election? Aside from any abstract notion of the morality, fairness, or desirability of having such a fantastically expensive wardrobe, and considering only the monumental political stupidity and tone-deafness of such a thing: what does this incompetence say about the way a President McCain would govern the country? I mean, shit, even Bush in all of his incompetence would have immediately seen the error in doing such a thing.

Contrast: Michelle Obama got a decent amount of press for appearing on The View in a dress that cost less than $150 dollars. Notice that I'm not saying this means that Ms. Obama is to be revered as some kind of middle-class saint (surely the income level of the Obama household has been used to purchase far more expensive clothing than this -- and no problem there, either), but simply that it shows a remarkable difference in the competence of the competing campaigns and their respective candidates.


Gleemonex said...

Tone-deaf is right.

Also, with Michelle Obama, you get the sense (or at least, I do) that though she probably shopped plenty at the likes of Neiman's, this is also not the first time in her adult life she's worn Chico's or Gap, you know? That's why it doesn't come off as trying too hard -- she's not all, "lookit me, I found a dress at this HILARIOUS little store in .. the mall! Isn't that just the most cunning thing you ever saw? Honestly, I could've bought it with the children's lunch money!" It seems like just a part of her normal wardrobe. And if she wants to appear in public in American retail, some of which is what keeps the money flowing into the Gleemonex household, I'm all for it.

Overthinking this, am I? ;-)

HHL said...

nope, that's exactly it.

and by contrast, you have Palin, who though she makes more money than average, has a big family to support and so probably less disposable income than the Obamas, and therefore likely is usually frugal with her spending on clothes... BUT then at her earliest opportunity at spending big bucks on someone else's dime, goes absoluely NUTS at Neiman's and Saks.