Wow Maya..you are a very articulate writer. That was exactly what I was thinking when I read the news just couldnt put it so well..
To add to that though.. I do believe that Palin as well as her 'stylists' should have given the idea a second thought. Building a presentable image is necessary for someone running for a prominent political position like she is, but spending that amount on it tends towards the frivolous. Especially in the current economic duress when the average tax payer is in a state of stress towards every penny spent.. Its surprising that the RNC did not think what kind of message they were sending out to these people and I cannot believe they did not know/anticipate that this will be headlined.

I cant vote either and I wont say I understand politics completely but the obsession of the media with the candidates, their personal lives and their outward image more than their work always amuses me. I never seem to understand the logical reason to spend the time, energy and money spent on broadcasting these topics .. It works for Hollywood, but not for the candidate for one of the most powerful political offices in the world.

Shiny,

I totally agree that Stewart and the Daily Show is a deliberate pointed view of liberal politics...no doubt about it. That is my point exactly. I expect them to exploit the Palin Wardrobe Debacle the same way Fox News will exploit any mistake in judgement the liberals make.

I read somewhere once that a large percentage of people under 30 got their news from the Daily Show. And that the news they got there made them more informed than groups who got their news from Fox. The Fox viewers had gross misconceptions of what is really happening in our world and the Daily Show viewers were the most knowledgable about worldly affairs.

My daughter watched a potion of Cobert Report with us last night. We used it as an opportunity to explain satire to an 11 year old budding writer.

Mira,

The fact that the RNC didn't forsee what this would mean to the American voters proves how out of touch they really are when it comes to real people earning real incomes.

Sad that Sarah Palin needs this huge expensive makeover to make up for not having what it takes to do the job she is running for. She does have the cheer leader 'will do' energy, but the new clothes aren't going to make her ready to be Vice President, or President, of the U.S.
As for the others ( including Hillary Clinton), they couldn't care less, they are dressed by others as they spend years fighting their way for the real issues.
I have not read all the other posts so may be out of cinque.

Sometimes after watching a WNTW episode I wonder what happens when the newly made-over person goes off into the world and meets new people. I mean, clothing choice is a big way we gather impressions about people, and if you don't actually have a lot of input into picking your clothes the impression you make might be misleading. Specifically, I was thinking of one woman on WNTW whose wardrobe looked like Dana Carvey playing the Church Lady. She came across as a very rigid and judgmental personality, which sort of went with the clothes. By the end of the show she looked sleek and sophisticated - but how weird would it be for someone who just met her when she started talking and the inside didn't mesh with the outside.

In the same way, I'm vaguely curious how Sarah Palin would have fared in her own original wardrobe. I don't like Sarah Palin (to put it mildly), but do think she is a good-looking woman, so even without the new clothes she would have had her admirers, but I don't think she would have come across as powerful if she were wearing the outfits I saw her pictured in pre-convention.

Thank you MIrah & Shiny. Politics is all I talk about in "real" life"

Shiny, Jon Stewart is oddly coy about his intentions in my experience. I am a crazy Daily Show groupie and have seen the show live several times, and there is always a Q&A at the beginning before the show tapes. In these situations, as well as in countless interviews, he really seems to downplay the amount of influence he has and wants to have. For example, when asked what he thought about people watching his show in lieu of the "real" news, he chalked that up to the generally sad state of mainstream news. However, as Nicole mentioned, there was a study done showing that those who only turn to the Daily Show as a source are actually even more well informed than those who watch Fox, CNN, and other major media outlets. He has also said that his only mission is to be a funny guy on a comedy channel, but I think it's very obvious that this isn't the case. He does poke fun at Democrats, but it's a lot more lighthearted...more like teasing than blasting.

That said, I think it's interesting that Nicole drew a comparison between Fox news and The Daily Show. The Daily Show airs on Comedy Central. Fox news is Fox NEWS. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have no obligations to the public. They do not have to follow a journalistic code. So in a sense I think JS sort of dodges those questions because he doesn't want to bring that kind of responsibility upon himself. There is no doubt, however, that he and Colbert have a lot more influence than I think most people want to admit.

Maya, you have missed your calling in life. You should have been a lawyer and I may have mentioned that before.

Nicole, the comparison between Fox News and the Daily Show is one I point out to others as often as possible. JS is brilliant and well deserving of his Oscar.

San, I love your description of Palin’s “cheer leader will-do energy”. It was SO SPOT ON. The use of the word “cheerleader” too (no offense to those of you who have been cheerleaders).

Antje, Mirah, Lena (and Brendan), we’ll be plenty tense on 4th Nov despite our waved voting rights. We’ll be comparing notes for sure!

We spoke SO MUCH politics is HK. The pre-election coverage and debate was on every channel. Very interesting. You know what they say: it’s not over till the fat lady sings. The race is not over yet.

Daily Show and Colbert Report are the ONLY news for me - news that I watch on t.v., that is. Unless i'm out of the U.S. in which case it's fascinating to watch news and get a more global perspective.

Otherwise, I rely on the internet. Yahoo and google news sites (I tend to deliberately click on news headlines from media outside the US); NYT, WSJ, etc. I've done so for years.

Not that I have much time to follow the news every day lately!

And to be perfectly honest, I do deliberately ignore certain types of news.... the blood/slash/gore sensationalist stuff, and the thoroughly depressing stuff I can't do anything about.

For example, lately, I've been deliberately tuning out about 98% of the economic news. It just gets me too anxious. My DH is reliable for letting me know when there is something major going on that I need to pay attention to. Otherwise, he keeps saying, "Just ignore those headlines - and whatever you do - don't open any investment statements!"

But it's true - if Daily Show is joking about something, I am much more likely to go search the next day to read up on the story, if I have the time.

I feel like I need to speak up for the conservative side. I think Sarah Palin is great and I can't believe the way she is being treated and disrespected by other women. Even if you don't agree with her politics, she deserves respect for her accomplishments. There is a terrible double standard in this election, and I personally can't wait for it to be over. I'm saddened by the hatred and vitriole.

Most of my friends outside of the US are saying that they will be shocked and dismayed - and downright terrified - if the US votes McCain/Palin into office.

McCain - they are okay with (lukewarm). Palin? They are puzzled and flumoxed and terrified all at once... the thought of someone so ... "insular" (their words).... being in executive power .... would not be good for global diplomacy....

That is what I'm hearing from my friends outside of the U.S. Whether I agree or disagree, I'll refrain from saying - so we can keep this discourse pleasant and civil!

(Although I will say - they are all helping me decide which country we will move to, should the Rep's win!!!)

My issue with Palin started when she compared herself to Harry S. Truman. Being born in MO, I can assure you she is NO Truman whatsover. Nope. Naddah.

In Truman's days, the midwest was completely different. In fact, it was very liberal and democratic, compared to the rest of the country. Read "What's the Matter with Kansas" (an excellent book) if you are interested in this topic.

I am going to leave the politics mostly aside (although I heart Obama), but I have to say that I really loved Palin's outfit at the hockey rink. It was a white trench with big buttons and black pants. I don't know why but it looked very modern and chic and I would love to copy it!

I was reading quite a bit about this today, and the numbers I saw consistently thrown around regarding male politicians were McCain's $550 Ferragamo shoes and Obama's $1500 suits. I also read an article that said there have never been clothing budgets of this magnitude in the public eye, and I have to imagine that is right--surely we would have known about it and heard about it before. The fact that Obama's suit and McCain's shoes and Edwards' $400 haircuts did make news makes me believe that if they were spending $150,000 on their wardrobes, we would have heard about it. I mean, there was a bit of a dustup regarding Obama's suit, but he would have to buy 100 of them to reach Palin's clothing budget. I also read that McCain does have a hair and make-up budget--it came in at about half that of Palin's. But hey, I guess she has more hair.

But I do think the more important points are that first, this was the RNC's money that was being used. Because McCain chose to take public financing, and individuals thus can no longer give directly to his campaign, the Republican Party is asking supporters to give to the party, and they can, in turn, give to McCain. (As a sidenote, even though Obama didn't take public financing, the Democratic party is still free to give him funds.) The party has been sending countless e-mails to its supporters and previous donors, asking them to give money to help them in this campaign, particularly because Obama has raised so much. Obama has been outspending McCain in most swing states--he has outspent on television ads in Virginia 3:1 and he has 1.5 times more paid staffers in North Carolina than McCain does. Money is an important aspect of winning elections, so if your opponent has the ability to outspend you, you are at a disadvantage. The RNC has been asking its supporters to donate to help them close the spending gap, and if I were a Republican who had donated, I would be pretty upset right now. I mean, sure, I would expect that the funds could be used for various sundries, but if I donated $1500 I would be pretty annoyed to think it was 1/100th of the Palin clothing budget. The McCain campaign is already behind in terms of funding, so finding out that they had spent that kind of money on clothes instead of television ads, paid staffers or other things that might actually reach voters would be pretty frustrating.

And then there is the fact that Palin has cast herself as one of the common folk. I know Maya already wrote eloquently about this, and I'm in agreement. Much of Palin's stump speeches have centered around the idea that she is an outsider, who isn't one of the "Washington elite" or a part of "Wall Street greed." Many Democrats have been complaining that she isn't the humble hockey mom she paints herself to be, and something like this adds gravitas to that complaint.

I thought this article encapsulated some of these thoughts: http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....02187.html

Oh, and Shiny, you're like a Lloyd Bentsen for the 21st century: "I knew Harry Truman, Harry Truman was a friend of mine, and you, Governor, are no Harry Truman...."

You (and others throughout the course of my life) have told me I should be a lawyer Angie. But my only friend who actually went to law school told me I would be good at it, but I wouldn't enjoy it because I am "too principled." He declined to elaborate further.

Woohoo! I voted today. I've really enjoyed everyone's eloquent discussion. This election season sure has been fun.

Personally, I think $150K on a wardrobe funded by the RNC is excessive. But I'm very curious as to what wins with the American people as a whole-- a beautiful looking candidate or a seemingly contradictory candidate (hockey mom image vs. spending that money for clothing). I think Nicole is right in saying this will not be the deciding factor.

I voted yesterday, Patience!

This is bad. I see a lynch mob. YLF, Remember? I'll find my fashion elsewhere.

It's too bad you feel that way, Clotheshorse. As long as the conversation stays civil, I don't see any issue with discussing something like this. In my "regular" life, I have friends who range from ultra-conservative, to ultra-liberal, and everything in between. We're able to talk about everything from fashion to politics, and yet still remain friends. The key is that, even though we have different opinions (and we know we do), we really care about each other and our friendship, so I would never rake them over the coals or try to convert them to my beliefs, and they pay me the same respect. Since I care about you all and consider you my "online" friends, I do the same here, and felt I have received the same. No lynch mob that I can see.

I just voted, too

I think RNC stylists did a pretty good job with her "makeover". The only thing is I think they went a bit too far because the sleeker look somewhat contrasts with the folksy manner of speaking, which is also being played up.

Maya, you're incredibly articulate. I wish I could have 10% of your skills

I'm sorry you feel that way, Clotheshorse. I am a very passionate, emotional person and sometimes I just have to stop and step back from something like this that could get icky for me. I have a tendency to take things like this very personally and I have to learn when to step back.
I love YLF and the members and although I disagree with the majority politically, what we do agree on and enjoy far outweighs that.
I really hope you re-consider.

I'm sorry you feel that way, Clotheshorse.

I don't see anything but a polite discussion on differences of opinion about a fashion related item, even if there are political undertones. If we all agreed, or kept our opinions to ourselves, there would be no value to YLF as it is the difference of opinions and perspectives that allows us to provide each other with new and different ways of looking at things. This forum is incredibly respectful and helpful and a very special place.

To be fair-minded, it bugs me that one cannot be both "folksy" and from a small town .... and still dress slick and look fab!

That is a double standard too, no?

How many times have I heard YLF members complain that they can't find nice clothes out in the 'burbs and rural areas? If I lived elsewhere, I'd also be complaining about stores making these marketing decisions for me automatically. Harrumph!!

And I also adored Palin's hockey rink trench coat. I adore a lot of her clothes. I have no issues with her as a person - she has a lot of admirable traits and I'd have fun hanging out with her if I ever got a chance. I would relate to her on a lot of levels, and undoubtedly find her quite likable.

I just don't want her in the white house, but that has zip to do with her image or what she wears or her likeability. Likeability shouldn't be a qualification for president.

Most important to me is her lack of knowledge about the world we live in from a global perspective. Not just lack of knowledge, but lack of curiousity. If I lived in Alaska, you can bet your bottom dollar I would be taking advantage of flights to asia pacific and russia! The person who is in the white house needs to have traveled and learned about other cultures.

Heck, I personally wouldn't even vote for *ME* if I was running! I know I'd be all wrong for the position - for other reasons.

Anyway - after thinking about it overnight, I do think Palin was in a tough spot. On one hand, she needs to appeal to a certain set of voters, who want to see her in clothes befitting her hockey-mom, small-town image. On the other hand, she needs to *also* appeal to an entirely different set of voters - people who would probably (and unfortunately) judge her for wearing hockey mom clothes. The money that was spent aside, there was really no win-win here for her.

She does get my sympathy on that.

Here is something I thought about last night:

I don't know how much Michelle Obama spends on her clothes. Not clue. My guess is that she probably spends a lot (though I once again emphasize that the money comes from her and her husband, not an outside organization).

But I know she had that one dress (I think from WHBM) that sold out completely after she appeared on the view. This was a dress that was well within everyone's reach. I'm sure for the DNC and other events she had something more spiffy on, but the fact is that out of all the dresses she wore, this simple dress generated so much praise and imitation.

So from this I can conclude that none of these women really need to spend $150K on a new wardrobe. SP has a great little bod for a 44 year old who just had a baby, doesn't she? She's pretty and in good shape. There is no doubt in my mind that $150K is excessive, and very insensitive considering the economic situation we are in. I would not object if they decided she needs a new look to spiff her up, but I genuinely believe she could look just as fantastic in a suit from ATL as she does in her Neiman Marcus/Saks garb. I think if the media reported that she got all her clothes from places like AT and BR, which are still expensive by many peoples' standards, she would have actually received a lot of respect for it. It would be a win-win situation. She would look great, and she would still appear to be "one of us."

Bottom line though, is that it did come from the RNC. Bad, bad, bad. I have a problem with how John McCain and the Republicans treat her in general, and the fact that she lets them treat her this way. Keeping her a prisoner until the VP debate, not letting her talk to the media, dolling her up like this, and using her basically as an image and not as a candidate all make me very upset. It also proves to me that not even John McCain thinks she is qualified. If he did, why was she under such tight security?

It also makes me upset that no one really stood up for Hillary Clinton during the primaries, r at any other time. People were happy to turn a blind eye to some of the ghastly things that were said about her. I am no HC fan, but I couldn't believe my ears when I heard some of the things people would say about her.

Clotheshorse, I am sorry you feel that way. I haven't seen anything here that is indicative of a lynch mob or even a small tussle. If I said something that seemed out of line, I apologize and hope that doesn't put you off from staying. I was simply responding to the question because this is a subject that interests me a lot, and I consider the people here to be my friends so I wouldn't even dream that they would be offended or uncomfortable with my thoughts on the subject.

Shiny, you stole the words out of my mouth! I do think Sarah Palin is put in a tough situation. The liberally-biased media is obsessed with slamming her for anything and everything, from her pregnant teenage daughter to her husband's 20-yr-old drunk driving citation. So, if she dresses too "hockey-mom", they'll say she's not polished or ready for the White House. But if she dresses too nicely, they'll say she's straying from her roots. It really is a lose-lose situation.

With that said, I don't think the McCain campaign handled it well. I have my own issues with the campaign, stemming from the fact that I genuinely dislike McCain and what he's done to the Republican party and am only voting for him because the damage Obama could do to this country is much scarier than the damage McCain could do to the party. Seeing as Obama is outspending McCain 5:1? (I've heard varying figure on this, but needless to say, it's a lot), I think McCain's campaign could find hundreds of better uses for $150,000 than Palin's wardrobe. But that's for another topic.

Finally, and I realize this is off-topic but it relates to a previous comment, I am a bit disheartened by the notion that some think Palin is not worldly enough to be in the White House. I understand that traveling to various countries is a true asset to any presidential nominee, but Palin's not running for president. And up until a couple months ago, she was still just the governor of Alaska. There isn't much of a requirement for foreign policy experience as a governor. As for her not having the curiosity to travel the world, I think that is a gross leap in logic. Maybe she couldn't afford it? Maybe she doesn't have the time? With five children, whose ages are rather spread out, I have a feeling that her time and budget have been pretty stretched over the last twenty years. So to say she just doesn't want to travel is a huge assumption.

So, sure, she probably should do some traveling once McCain is elected President. I have no problem with trying to gather as much information and worldly experience as you can. But keep in mind that she's not running for President. Her strong suit isn't going to be and doesn't have to be foreign policy at this point. But then again, it's not Obama's strong suit either. He has hardly any foreign travel experience. Only in the last year has he really done any major travel to places such as Iraq, Europe, etc. But he's campaigning. He needs these photo ops to make it seem as though he has foreign policy experience.

I know I can't change anyone's opinion of Sarah Palin, and I'm certainly not trying to, but I love politics and I just can't help myself once in awhile.

Sarah Palin is just not qualfied and that is why we are talking about her warderobe. We have nothing else to say about her.

Shell, as VP, Palin is one step away from the Presidency, as would be Biden. It really, really matters who is in that VP slot - *particularly* considering McCain's health issues and age. Look back over history - Presidents die or get assisinated and VPs take over. You are voting for a ticket and the VP better be just as qualified to run this country as the President you choose. It is not a "training ground." End of story.

As for her not having time to travel due to her family commitments, then she should not be in politics. Alaska governor - maybe. But the white house? Nope.

My sister dings me on this one all the time (she's voting republican and we have lively debates constantly). She thinks I am being unfair, particularly since I myself am a career woman.

However, I know exactly what it is like to have a child with disabilities and there is NO WAY I'd take a job as VP of the US - or even VP of a small company. Nope. I would be doing a disservice to my family and to the company/country.

And don't get me wrong - I feel EXACTLY the same way about this if Palin was a man.

Both myself, and my ex, have made career sacrifices over the years, so we could be there for our children. And we only have two. We alternate and juggle and curb work travel and have both been "parent-tracked" in our careers. By choice.

If your family responsibilities are such as Palin's (or even my own), no matter what gender you are, you have too much on your plate to be in a major position of power where people - our country -is depending on you.

Now, when my kids are grown and gone - that may be a different story. But at the moment, as teens including one who has her own particular issues, I must find work/family balance, as must their father.

If one of our girls became pregnant at this age, that would make it even more critical that BOTH me and my ex not have high-powered careers and have freedom in our schedules to take care of our family's needs first and foremost.

Dems also have family values, you know.

I find it interesting that you make no reference to Obama's lack of experience, in foreign policy or otherwise. He, unlike Palin, would not be one step away from the presidency, he would BE the president. The presidency is no more a training ground than the vice-presidency.

I am a Sara supporter and I, too, am disgusted with all of the attention paid to her wardrobe. Was anybody aware that Hillary's pantsuits averaged $6k? EACH! Sara said today that the clothes do not belong to her and they will be donated to charity. I completly disagree witht the statement that the GOP selected her because she is "hot". Come on, people! Instead of making the grand statement that she scares you or is disgusting, take some time to look at all the issues. And by that I mean, watch more than The Daily Show and read more than the NYT.

I wonder how many of YLF members consider themselves feminists, yet are intolerant of a woman who has done exactly what women once burned their bras for in the first place?

Shell, I am more concerned about judgment than experience, and Obama has shown good judgment. Cheney and Rove have experience, but it hasn't exactly been a good experience, has it?

That said, I think one of the ways in which he has shown good judgment is by picking Joe Biden as his VP. One of the most important skills a president can have is good management. If his VP pick is in any way indicative of how he will select his cabinet, then he'll be in good shape. All presidents have shortcomings, but few of them will acknowledge what they are. By choosing Biden, I think he has shown that he is willing to surround himself with people who might be able to strengthen his presidency and give him the insight and wisdom they have that he might not have. I don't think it's a sin to be inexperienced or weak in some ways. There is never going to be a president that knows everything about everything, and who will be able to handle every situation by himself (look where it got Cheney and Bush). That's why he is president and not King.

John McCain, however, clearly chose Sarah Palin for personal gain. I can't see how this can be denied. He knew he was fairing poorly with the Conservative base, so he chose her to energize the base and also to bring in jilted Hillary voters. When she said she was a pitbull with lipstick, she was not joking. He has been using her as his attack dog, and some of her rallies seriously terrify me. The fact that she does nothing to quell her supporters and everything to instigate them disturbs me deeply. Her interviews disturb me deeply. I feel like she is taking the American people as being a bunch of fools sometimes. How can she say that Russia being next door qualifies as foreign policy experience? Did she really believe we would all eat that up? That bothers me. More than anything, I seek honesty from politicians. If she doesn't have the experience, fine. As I pointed out above, Obama's is flimsy too. But I think he handles it a lot better than she did, and not just because he lives in a state that is landlocked by other American states!

I am a feminist Redhead, which is why the selection of SP is so scary to me.

P.S. I think this is the last post I will be making in this discussion because I see it has deviated from the original topic, and I don't want to get into a political debate here. But I will surely read all the responses, and my email door is always open (though please tell me if you email me because I am having trouble with my spam filter).