So with everything else going on in the world… global economic downturn, deteriorating relations with the Russians, US airstrikes in Pakistan, more attacks in Iraq and the U.S. economy still in a slide, why does the BBC feel it important to cover Sarah Palin’s friggin’ wardrobe and makeover? Seriously? Who gives a shit?
The Democrats and Republicans just tossed a TRILLION dollars belonging to the taxpayers at irresponsible banks and failing companies, but Sarah Palin’s $150,000 makeover is somehow news?
The BBC claims that the voters actually care about how much the candidates spend on things like meals and clothing. I’d venture to say the only ones who give a shit are the members of the media.
Besides…
“It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign.” — McCain spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt
So shut the hell up already!
Why is this news?
October 23, 2008
Oct 23, 2008 @ 13:44:39
And why wasn’t Michelle Obama’s post campaign dinner of lobster & Iranian caviar big news to the ‘giveaway’ crowd too? It probably cost almost as much!Of course no bias in the media.
Oct 23, 2008 @ 13:56:50
Um… probably because the story wasn’t true? The New York Post that originally ran the story retracted it.
Oct 23, 2008 @ 14:44:46
The media keeps telling us how Obama is outspending McCain 4:1 in advertising, but that is heroic somehow.I’m pretty sure Barry isn’t wearing off the rack purchased at The Men’s Warehouse. A good suit can cost 5k-10k.The left is just mad because Sarah Palin pulled in 7,000 (!) at her rally here the other day in Henderson, NV. When the top of the democrat ticket spoke in Oakland, CA he only pulled in 10k. And, I just heard on the news that at the Henderson rally there were Obama supporters who thought it was their duty to shout at the the McCain supporters: “You’re just a bunch of assholes.” Nice. I don’t get it, they’re ahead in the poles but they still behave as though McCain/Palin are a huge threat. Hmmm.
Oct 23, 2008 @ 14:46:23
Edit: Polls, not poles…lol.
Oct 23, 2008 @ 15:14:01
Yeah…because what should she wear? A parka and snow boots? Jeez. It’s not like she had the right clothing to go out on the stump. People are so dumb.
Oct 23, 2008 @ 15:25:10
I’m sure they’d like to see her in an old sweater from Goodwill and some Payless shoes.
Oct 24, 2008 @ 01:04:10
Heads I win, tails you lose:– If she wears nice clothes, she’s derided for spending so much money on clothes (saw Campbell Brown mention this about twice per minute for nearly twenty minutes in DNCNN while at the gym this evening).– If she doesn’t wear nice clothes, she’s a bumpkin.Compare this to the hagiographic treatment of the “elegant” Michelle Obama, whose smiling face has graced many a magazine cover in the past few months.It’s hard enough to fight the election when you’ve got the other party to contend with, but we’ve also got to go up against the MSM. Or should I refer to them as Goebbel’s v2.0?