From an aesthetic standpoint, I must say that Sarah Palin's expenditures worked. She looks glamorous, soigne, natural. I had been noticing this before the story broke. I thought, For a hick, that girl sure knows how to put it together. Now we know. Everyone's saying that Joe Sixpack wouldn't spend that money on clothes, but then Joe Sixpack wouldn't welsh on a deal to take public funding then raise $150 million in September, corrupting the process. What's Obama spending his money on? How much of that is going into appearance? (And why does he drive round like a caudillo in a caravan of black SUVs?)
Also, for what it's worth, I know from the media business that some women magazine editors get clothing allowances. Lavish clothing allowances. Help me girls, what's that mean? How much do corporations spend in a similar endeavor? Andrea Mitchell was looking down her nose at Palin today on MSNBC. Andrea, hon, let's bitch and switch…
And no, I don't like it. But there is some hypocrisy and self-righteousness working in the Obama media. (Matt Drudge–link me please)
Related posts:
{ 7 comments }
Andrea Mitchell looks like she could be Alan Greenspan's younger brother. You can talk about "hicks" all you want, but a wardrobe allowance can't do a thing for ugly.
Todd, you're not suppose to notice–it's like an aesthetic AIPAC sort of thing…
Phil,
Obama spent $36 million/week in October on broadcast media nationally. That's $144 million for the month. That's where the $150 mill went.
Phil,
P.S. Average donation was $86.
"caudillo"
Great word, Phil!
Great word, Phil!
not bad, not bad.
But woman wonders if the juxtaposition of:
"the Palin Trousseau"
versus
"a caudillo in a caravan of black SUVs?"
is not a tiny bit sexist in spite of all the good intentions in "Taking a Stand"?
I was only semi-serious, but thanks. I hope this chance did nor harm your chances to draw Matt Drudge's compiling attention.
Comments on this entry are closed.