Palin's Wardrobe: Stop Whining. Those Outfits Are Fabulous

Politico broke the story. "RNC shells out $150K for Palin fashion." And everyone piled on. Ambinder (Atlantic) said "Republicans Disgusted." Koppelman (Salon) snarked "How real Americans dress." Tayor Marsh reminds us that Cindy McCain spent twice that for a single outfit. dday called her a "Welfare Queen." Josh_Painter (Redstate) brushes it off as a bargain—the money didn't just buy outfits for the Gov, but for her whole family. Pandagon calculates that John Edwards could have had a $400 haircut every week for 7.2 years. L.A. Times calls it a "$150,000 Wardrobe Malfunction" and a "one-woman economic stimulus plan."

I say, knock it off. Back in the fifties, Nixon kept his place on the ticket by telling the TV audience that his wife, "doesn't have a mink coat. But she does have a respectable Republican cloth coat, and I always tell her she'd look good in anything."

But TV was black and white back then. And generally fuzzy. Today, we're in a world of color and HD. I say, let Palin dress for success.

Here's the most delicious irony of it all. The official McCain response to the flap:

With all of the important issues facing the country right now, it's remarkable that we're spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses. It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign."

—Tracey Schmitt, McCain spokesperson.

Aren't these the folks who said “If we keep talking about the economic crisis, we’re going to lose”? Now that they want to talk about the economy, they're stuck with the visual dissonance of a hockey mom in couturier fashion. Oops.

Mickeleh's Take: Back in burlesque, they used the phrase "talking woman" to mean a female who could actually deliver lines in a sketch. Talking women were rare in the genre. Most women in burlesque were hired strictly for their looks. Palin may have started out at the Republican Convention with great reviews as a talking woman, but lately the more she says, the less voters think of her. Yesterday's polls say she's an even bigger drag on McCain than Bush. So Palin's a washout as a talking woman. Still, the outfits are fabulous. She wears them well. Don't begrudge.

VP Debate: What did Palin Actually Say?

The lasting impressions of the debate come from the visuals, the demeanor, the smiles, the glares, the poses. We all know that. But before it all fades away, it's worth taking note of what Gov. Palin actually said last night.

Well, for one, Palin said nookyular. There's one culture war I'm happy to sign up for: the Nuclears against the Nookyulars. If you can't pronounce nuclear, you just don't get to be Vice President. Stop trying to rhyme Nookyular with arugula. We've had eight years of nookyular. That's enough.

And then she said this:

"I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are. "

WTF? Do we know which Constitution she's referring to? Do we know what her intentions are? And if I may be so bold as to ask, does she?

There was a brief relapse into her Couric-era syntax of loosely connected phrases (includin' some more o' that "head-rearin" she's so fond o' warnin' us about—only this time it wasn't Putin doin' it. It was pesky mortgage lenders)"

...there have been so many changes in the conditions of our economy in just even these past weeks that there has been more and more revelation made aware now to Americans about the corruption and the greed on Wall Street.
We need to look back, even two years ago, and we need to be appreciative of John McCain's call for reform with Fannie Mae, with Freddie Mac, with the mortgage-lenders, too, who were starting to really kind of rear that head of abuse.... It is a crisis. It's a toxic mess, really, on Main Street that's affecting Wall Street.

Throughout the debate she made a string of assertions that ranged from dubious to infuriatingly false:

• that John McCain is "one representing reform" in our financial markets
  
• that he's the one who brought the folks in Congress together
  
• that he suspended his campaign
• that he put politics aside
  
• that he really meant "the American workforce" when he called the fundamentals of our economy strong
  
• that Obama supported raising taxes for families making only $42,000
• that John McCain is "known for" pushing for even harder and tougher regulations
• that John McCain's health care proposal is a good deal for folks.
• that Barack Obama "even opposed funding our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan"
• that our current troop deployment (152,000) is down to pre-surge levels (132,000)
• that Obama's plan for for troop withdrawal is white flag of surrender in Iraq"
• that Obama refused to acknowledge the surge is working
• that "victory is within sight" in Iraq
  
• that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror
• that Obama would meet with enemies "without diplomatic efforts being undertaken first"
• that John McCain knows how to win a war
  

On that last point, I need to ask, what is the evidence that John McCain knows how to win a war? Did he ever win one? Given his academic record (finishing 894th out of 899 students in his class at Annapolis), it surely wasn't book-learning.

Palin declared that she wasn't about to answer any questions that didn't please her, and proceeded instead to deliver a rote recitation of the misleading and discredited talking points that the McCain camp has been peddling all summer. That's treating her audience with the same dirisive contempt that McCain showed to Obama last week.

It wasn't so much a debate as an interrupted monolog. Eugene Robinson put it this way: "the pattern, so far, has been one of Biden presenting facts and Palin countering with… saying stuff."

The New York Times summed up the debate this:

In the end, the debate did not change the essential truth of Ms. Palin’s candidacy: Mr. McCain made a wildly irresponsible choice that shattered the image he created for himself as the honest, seasoned, experienced man of principle and judgment. It was either an act of incredible cynicism or appallingly bad judgment.

Mickeleh's Take: I said yesterday that even a perfect storm of Palin success, Biden failure, and Ifill bias wouldn't change the dynamics of the race. In reality there wasn't a storm of any magnitude whatever. Palin had, at best, a mild recovery. Biden's performance carried the day with independent voters in both the CBS and CNN surveys, and Ifill lived up to her well-earned reputation as a solid pro. On balance, the Dems are now two for two in debates. So the race goes on.

Banners for President Palin

Help yourself. Take one. Collect 'em all. Please use liberally.








More banners...

New Obama Ads: Back on Track

One of the most pernicious fallacies perpetuated by media coverage and polling is that a presidential campaign is a form of job interview. Do the candidates care about people like me? What have they done? What do they know? Are they strong, resolute, compassionate?

All that's important, but it leaves out something more important: We're not hiring an individual. We're installing a team, a party, a governing philosophy. The outcome of an election is most important to people who want jobs or contracts with the government. It's all those department heads that actually do the governing and regulating. It's the corporations they contract with and write laws to favor that actually do the screwing us over.

Yes, the president makes the call on the big issues—but usually picking from a range of staff-prepared options.

That's why I love the approach of these two recent Obama ads that talk about McCain's staffing choices.

His Administration

It's Over

Mickeleh's Take: Talking about lobbyists too hip for the room? I hope not. Because this is the real issue. McCain-Palin would like us to believe that we can throw the bums out by electing them. Who are they kidding. They are the bums. And this year they have nothing to peddle but lies, distortions, attacks, and smears. I've had enough.

McCain goes for the PUMA bait.

All week the Dems have been telling us that McCain doesn't have good judgement. His first presidential decision—picking a running mate—confirms it. Meet Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska (44) who reaches us across that bridge from nowhere.

Ooh, look a woman. Oh, so mavericky. Guess that'll stick it to Obama for not picking Hillary. Hey, PUMAs (all seventeen of you)! You were right. McCain is the one, isn't he? (PUMAs here's your essay question: compare and contrast Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton. I think McCain just insulted you. Big time.)

The Constitution defines only two responsilities for the Vice President: To preside over the Senate and to succeed the President in the case of death or resignation.

Get that? A Vice President needs to be prepared to be President. Go work on the concept of President Palin for a while. I'll wait.

Back? The big case that McCain is making against Obama is that he's not qualified for the job. Get out your balance scale, boys and girls. Put Obama's qualifications on one pan, Palin's on the other. Can McCain say with a straight face (or even with his crypt-keeper's forced grin) that Palin is ready but Obama is not? Well, maybe he can. But that goes right to the issue of his judgement.

If (G-d forbid) McCain becomes president... and if (G-d forbid) Palin has to succeed, her only hope would be to appoint Cheney as Vice President and follow the GWB model. (Just kidding. A Vice Presidential appointment must be approved by a majority of both houses of Congress.)

Mickeleh's Take: First decisions: McCain goes for the PUMA bait. Obama goes for someone with deep knowledge of domestic and international affairs. Are you scoring this at home?

I've just made a movie of this post. You'll find it here.