McCain Loves the Middle Class

[Musicman408]

Originally Posted by Sorceress

Okay, so we went from 800 political threads to one. People, the election is less than two weeks away and we are silent!
So I'm here to do my part. Colbert articulates hilariously one serious reason I find the whole Joe the Plumber theme so annoying and ridiculous. It's condescending.

I'm just as into this race and politics as I've ever been!!! To tell you the truth though, I am just ready for this election to be over, so that way everyone knows that we will start to see some change, via Obama!!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Who wouldn't want to spend $175,000 at Neiman's and Saks? When I heard about the shopping trip I finally realized Sarah and I have something in comon besides the obvious.

Lord Child - you ain't sayin' no lies!

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Seriously though, this will not play well with middle America, especially in these economic times. Michelle Obama has managed to look stylish with pieces from H&M and White House Black Market. Sarah would be wise to follow suit.

I know -- what were they thinking. I am no political operative, but I know what has happened in the past a la Clinton's $200 haircuts and Edwards' $400 haircuts. And, I readily admit there is a double standard in that the First Lady is expected to be glam - at least as of Nancy R. Moreover, Cindy McCain wore a fab. red Valentino during the R convention. But, unlike CM, Palin's dressing up seems hypocritical when she talks about being one of the masses while wearing a $5,00o esemble - $5,000 is more than most make in a month PRIOR to taxes. So, she looks foolish to those she panders to.

Also - McCain has spoken out against campaign funds not being used for items such as clothing, though it is unclear if that included Committe money as opposed to personal campaign money, which are judged by different standards.

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by markolas

I already voted, so this is just a "hurry up and wait" kind of a thing for me.

I'm hesitant to call a landslide for Obama, but unless there's something majorly screwy with the polls, I don't see how McCain can pull off a win at this point.

Regardless, Bush has made such a mess of things, I'm doubtful that either Obama or McCain would be able to make much headway with it, and I think either of them would be a one-term president. I'd love to be wrong.

Well you have been wrong before..last year you described Obama as 'unelectable"

[markolas]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

Well you have been wrong before..last year you described Obama as 'unelectable"

Sure, and so did a lot of other people. An awful lot can (and does, obviously) change in a year. Honestly, I don't know if he'd be this far ahead in the polls if it weren't for the economic meltdown and the circus sideshow that is Sarah Palin - although he handled himself beautifully in the debates - that was like watching an angel debate Grandpa Simpson. No one wanted a Democrat in the White House more than I did (and I really didn't care whether it was Obama or HRC - though as things turned out, I'm glad I voted for Obama in the primary and not just because he's winning now - we really need something different from either the Bush or Clinton administrations, and Obama stands the best chance of providing that), and I'm thrilled that Obama is doing this well.

I'd love to be wrong about this, too, for Obama to turn out to be a wonderful president who whips everything back into shape - I'm just not that much of an optimist. But who knows?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by markolas

Sure, and so did a lot of other people. An awful lot can (and does, obviously) change in a year. Honestly, I don't know if he'd be this far ahead in the polls if it weren't for the economic meltdown and the circus sideshow that is Sarah Palin -

I agree. And, with all due respect to Mr. Obama, whose smoothness (which is a great attribute) is what is getting him elected, he is also greatly benefiting from a horrible economy and the end of the dspised Bush II era, which any D would have benefitted from.

As I have said before, Hillary was way more qualified and her reocrd has demonstrated she would have been better for the nation. However, she did not win the nomination (due mostly to the odd nature of the caususes) -- so that is that. And, although I am not a fan of Obama and see him as far less of an saving angel than most (based on facts) -- I'd piss on a spark plug to keep McCain and Palin out of the WH.

[Sorceress]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

strandinthewind: As for Palin's new wardrobe. I do not think there is anything wrong with her having those clothes. I do think, however, it will not play well with the wives of the Joe Six Packs that she patronizes with her "I'm one of you" speeches. In other words, Palin appears too good to wear a dress from Target, when that level is where she is from. It will smack of hypocrisy. Again, I do not have a problem with the image makeover. In fact, I think it did wonders for her look. It just makes her look like a fake.

Who wouldn't want to spend $175,000 at Neiman's and Saks? When I heard about the shopping trip I finally realized Sarah and I have something in comon besides the obvious.
Seriously though, this will not play well with middle America, especially in these economic times.
Michelle Obama has managed to look stylish with pieces from H&M and White House Black Market. Sarah would be wise to follow suit.

Yes, the makeover has been a gigantic improvement--Lord knows she needed one. But you're absolutely right that it could have been done for far less, if anyone was concerned about authenticity.
Certainly the shopping spree won't change anything for people who already supported McCain/Palin. But it should make the undecideds think twice about the genuineness of the campaign's appeals to the middle class.

[Sorceress]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I'd piss on a spark plug to keep McCain and Palin out of the WH.

Hopefully that won't be necessary.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Sorceress

Hopefully that won't be necessary.

I KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I mean I am rather found of my weenie - though in the right setting, the act could prove fun

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Sorceress

. . . But it should make the undecideds think twice about the genuineness of the campaign's appeals to the middle class.

I know. I mean they all wear expensive clothing and I have nothing against that. I think when you get to that level, the press will excoriate you, especially if you are a woman, and do not look great.

I also think the RNC was smart in that although they clearly knew they would take a hit when the makeover cost was released, they also knew that many a straight male is titillated by the prospect of how hot Palin is, which is only enhanced by a striking outfit. It sort of is a twisted Stepford Wife kind of thing with them. And, the R party knews this and is playing to it.

In any event, I think the only issue about the clothing is appearance of hypocrisy of playing to the lower classes while in a $5,000 or so ensemble. Palin likely would have had better luck by noting that she was not in a $5,000 ensemble and that her outfit was from Target.

[Sorceress]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

they also knew that many a straight male is titillated by the prospect of how hot Palin is, which is only enhanced by a striking outfit. It sort of is a twisted Stepford Wife kind of thing with them. And, the R party knews this and is playing to it.

It's interesting that you say this. I read the following opinion piece in the Washington Post this morning. As much as I dislike Palin and agree that her appearance most certainly plays a part in her popularity, I wonder how much of this type of discussion is fair? I mean, Barack is pretty hot too. His looks play a part in his charisma too, and that charisma is largely responsible for getting him where he is today.

Something About Sarah
By Kathleen Parker
Friday, October 24, 2008; Page A19

My husband called it first. Then, a brilliant 75-year-old scholar and raconteur confessed to me over wine: "I'm sexually attracted to her. I don't care that she knows nothing."

Finally, writer Robert Draper closed the file on the Sarah Palin mystery with a devastating article in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine: "The Making (and Remaking) of McCain."

McCain didn't know her. He didn't vet her. His campaign team had barely an impression. In a bar one night, Draper asked one of McCain's senior advisers: "Leaving aside her actual experience, do you know how informed Governor Palin is about the issues of the day?"

The adviser thought a moment and replied: "No, I don't know."

Blame the sycamore tree.
McCain had met Palin only once -- in February, at the governors' convention in Washington -- before the day he selected her as his running mate. The second time was at his Sedona, Ariz., ranch on Aug. 28, just four days before the GOP convention.

As Draper tells it, McCain took Palin to his favorite coffee-drinking spot down by a creek and a sycamore tree. They talked for more than an hour, and, as Napoleon whispered to Josephine, "Voilà."

One does not have to be a psychoanalyst to reckon that McCain was smitten. By no means am I suggesting anything untoward between McCain and his running mate. Palin is a governor, after all. She does have an executive résumé, if a thin one. And she's a natural politician who connects with people.

But there can be no denying that McCain's selection of her over others far more qualified -- and his mind-boggling lack of attention to details that matter -- suggests other factors at work. His judgment may have been clouded by . . . what?

Science provides clues. A study in Canada, published by a British journal in 2003, found that pretty women foil men's ability to assess the future. "Discounting the future," as the condition is called, means preferring immediate, lesser rewards to greater rewards in the future.

Drug dealers, car salesmen and politicians rely on this affliction and pray feverishly for its persistence.

The Canadian psychologists showed pictures of attractive and not-so-attractive men and women to students of the opposite sex. The students were offered a prize -- either a small check for the next day or a larger check at some later date.

The men made perfectly rational decisions, opting for the delayed, larger amount after viewing the average-looking women. You know where this is going. (Women, by the way, were rational no matter what.)

That men are at a disadvantage when attractive women are present is a fact upon which women have banked for centuries. Ignoring it now profits only fools. McCain spokesmen have said that he was attracted to Palin's maverickness, that she reminded him of himself.

Recognizing oneself in a member of the opposite sex (or the same sex, as the case may be) is a powerful invitation to bonding. Narcissus fell in love with his own image reflected in the river, imagining it to be his deceased and beloved sister's. In McCain's case, it doesn't hurt that his reflection is spiked with feminine approval.

As my husband observed early on, McCain the mortal couldn't mind having an attractive woman all but singing arias to his greatness. Cameras frequently capture McCain beaming like a gold-starred schoolboy while Palin tells crowds that he is "exactly the kind of man I want as commander in chief." This, notes Draper, "seemed to confer not only valor but virility on a 72-year-old politician who only weeks ago barely registered with the party faithful."

It is entirely possible that no one could have beaten the political force known as Barack Obama -- under any circumstances. And though it isn't over yet, it seems clear that McCain made a tragic, if familiar, error under that sycamore tree. Will he join the pantheon of men who, intoxicated by a woman's power, made the wrong call?

Had Antony not fallen for Cleopatra, Octavian might not have captured the Roman Empire. Had Bill resisted Monica, Al Gore may have become president, and Hillary might be today's Democratic nominee.

If McCain, rightful heir to the presidency, loses to Obama, history undoubtedly will note that he was defeated at least in part by his own besotted impulse to discount the future. If he wins, he must be credited with having correctly calculated nature's power to befuddle.

[strandinthewind]

^^^^

Regardless of the fairness of it - image, which is based mostly on looks, plays a significant if not the most significant part in politics. Look at Obama in the last debate. Both candiates said the usual schpeel, but McCain appeared old, angry, and desparate. Obama appeard calm, cool, and collected, which made him look better, regardless of the lies he said (they both lied during the debates).

I think for women, there is a doble standard. I do not adress the fairness of it. But, I do think the campaigns must play to it, as the R's have with Plain and Cindy McCain. To a certain degree, the D's do with Michelle Obama in that she never looks less than perfect.

As for the Stepford Wive thing, I was a t a party the other day and a bunch of guys were all talking about how they wanted to bang Palin, what a hottie she is, etc. Plain is a beautiful woman. She uses that to entice. It is not all she uses. But, it certainly helps her, at least initially Plain's problem was and is that she was totally unprepared for the interviews she gave to mostly softball, non Fox interviewers (again, the Hannity interview was an infomercial). So, despite her looks and charisma, which are significant, she showed no substance and it hurt her. In her current interviews, she is much better, but it likely is too late.

[Sorceress]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

^^^^

Regardless of the fairness of it - image, which is based mostly on looks, plays a significant if not the most significant part in politics. Look at Obama in the last debate. Both candiates said the usual schpeel, but McCain appeared old, angry, and desparate. Obama appeard calm, cool, and collected, which made him look better, regardless of the lies he said (they both lied during the debates).

I think for women, there is a doble standard. I do not adress the fairness of it. But, I do think the campaigns must play to it, as the R's have with Plain and Cindy McCain. To a certain degree, the D's do with Michelle Obama in that she never looks less than perfect.

As for the Stepford Wive thing, I was a t a party the other day and a bunch of guys were all talking about how they wanted to bang Palin, what a hottie she is, etc. Plain is a beautiful woman. She uses that to entice. It is not all she uses. But, it certainly helps her, at least initially Plain's problem was and is that she was totally unprepared for the interviews she gave to mostly softball, non Fox interviewers (again, the Hannity interview was an infomercial). So, despite her looks and charisma, which are significant, she showed no substance and it hurt her. In her current interviews, she is much better, but it likely is too late.

I remember the early female supporters of Obama being ridiculed for finding him attractive. So I suppose it's fair game to make fun of all the old geezers and young bucks who are entranced by Palin now. Lord, I hope the men of America will not be voting with their d***s in this election.

On Diane Rehm's show this morning, this topic came up briefly. Diane, and I think Susan Page, immediately shut down the male panelist when he said he thinks a lot of men have crushes on her. As if the notion was so preposterous or offensive that they couldn't believe he'd say such a thing.

I think many women really want to keep the discussion about her politics and unpreparedness and shallowness---but she brings up these gender issues that a lot of us thought, or wanted to belive, were not issues anymore. I guess the best thing to do is to be real and keep on talking.

[strandinthewind]

^^^

I think the gender issue is there and has always been there. The first SNL skit illustrated that quite cleverly in that Palin was depicted as a hottie and Hillary as a "boner kliller." Though they speak to different looks, they both speak to looks and the importance of them. In other words, that Hillary was not hot was a detriment.

[GoS]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I know. Hillary should sooooo be on the Court.

Obama should also nominate Dershowitz - though he is a little long . in the tooth.

Given the changes in political tides, I'd say appoint 30 year olds to the Court

Did I already say this somewhere else? I don't remember. I think that it would be hilarious if the elections suddenly comes down to Florida and Obama wins after a huge mess, but McCain gets the popular vote. Then, just to spite the R's, puts Bill & Hilary on the Supreme Court. But that'll never happen. I love the CNN map that you can mess with. Right now, after looking at recent polls and stuff, it looks to me like 378-160 for Obama.


I really don't care if the McCain campaign would rather spend 150,000 dollars on Sarah Palin's cloths than on something meaningful, I think that is their choice to make. Same with Edwards, if he wants $300 haircuts, that's on him.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by GoS

. . . I really don't care if the McCain campaign would rather spend 150,000 dollars on Sarah Palin's cloths than on something meaningful, I think that is their choice to make. Same with Edwards, if he wants $300 haircuts, that's on him.

I agree 100%. I just wonder if the working class people (for want of a better term) that Palin relates to will care? Moreover, that fact that Palin's traveling stylist was paid $22,800 for two weeks worth of work compared with $12,500 paid to McCain's foreign policy adviser will also likely not sit well though I think that is perfectly okay because image is everything in an election - just ask "WE'RE GOIN TO TEXAS" Howard Dean

In the end, the clothes essentially are a loaner in that she has to give them back or pay the income tax on them (or the RNC pays a gift tax)

So, the clothes are not her clothes, though she wears them.