Palin: "nobody asked Obama who did your makeup?"

What an idiot. Last time I checked he is African American and does not require THAT MUCH makeup.

....could that be because: HE PAID FOR HIS OWN CLOTHES AND ANY MAKE UP HE MIGHT NEED???

:rofl:

plus the fact that she was muffled by the campaign...
and she wants the attention...

the GOP used her like a tool and now they're giving her the Katherine Harris treatment. If she doesn't shut up, and soon, expect a whole lot more nasty stuff to come out about her. If she had any sense, she'd go underground and reinvent herself, but she's too dumb to know when to STFU and go away.

in her spiked red high heels and her lipstick. Sarah Palin is obviously and incredibly vain woman so she can just STFU about people commenting on her looks.

I don't think there's any coming her way any time soon. Did you see her this morning on Today? It was cringe-worthy! :wow:

not your choice of words in describing any woman.

what isnt the argument.

they said i banned harry potter, i didnt.

maybe not.... but looking ot ban some books or books in library and tried to get librarian fired.

She lies and lies and lies, and just like George W. bUsh she thinks we're so stupid we won't know she's lying.

lol

the point is shie lies and lies and lies.... lol

i agree.

During the time Sarah "Lies Like a Sidewalk" Palin' was mayor (1996-2002).



For some strange reason, Sarah "Lies Like a Sidewalk" Palin' claims HP wasn't even written when she was the mayor.

I don't know if you heard the entire quote, but she said that the guys don't get asked who does their makeup or who made their clothes. She's right about that.

this point is BS. Males have been bashed THIS election season for "overpriced" vanity.

I didn't really care about those stories, but just sayin'.

He looked mah-velous, no?

:rofl:

Klieg lights require makeup, it's a simple fact regardless of skin color.

The point is how it was paid for - not the type of clothes. Why would anyone care how much of his own money Obama spends on his clothes?

Had she used her own money - no one would have cared.

And Hillary came under the same type of scrutiny. Even Michelle Obama gets the "who made that dress" treatment.

There was no sexism--in fact, she BENEFITTED from being female and pretty.

I also think she benefited from being a fire thrower. She was controversial enough to get attention.

as has been said so many times now, by so many, sexism is the last prejudice to be eroded or eradicated

sexism is still, alas, alive and well

other than after the RNC fiasco? I remember that she did a bunch of fluffy pieces with Entertainment tonight, was that when? Maybe I missed it.

Sexism my ass. :eyes:

If she had done the same nobody would have cared. Nobody asked where Hillary got her clothes either... or how much her makeup costs. Palins full of shit.

Men don't.

Obama took a thrashing for wearing that light brown jacket. Remember?

Now they're too casual! That's the wrong shade of brown! You can't wear that plaid jacket - it looks stupid! Take it down a notch - you're showing off your wealth!

use it as an excuse for failing or being picked on.

And lets not forget the scrutiny of the color of pantsuit.

Talking about how an outfit looks is not the same as taking campaign money and spending it extravagantly. I seem to remember Obama getting quite the amount of scrutiny when he made the mistake of wearing a light brown jacket.

Neither of those is in the same category as what Palin and the RNC did.

You're arguing one thing and I am arguing the other.

Lots of attention to attractiveness (Palin benefited from hers)...while Hilary was buried in loads of hate on her middle aged lack of attractiveness. The substance of the person can barely break through.

it's just a type of slagging applied to women that is entrenched...makes it hard to see, like a fish can't see the water.

If they had he would have been the subject of the press also.

Edwards wasn't asked what kind of mouse he uses or who cuts his hair. Spending $400 on a haircut is way too much for a guy. Guys haircuts cost around $10 plus tip. $400 is enough to pay for haircuts for like 7 years.

Other than that, it was a ridiculous issue that should never have come up.

Who deserved it and DIDNT get it. 100k on one outfit?

Agree with you on Edwards.

Though it's tough to go after a spouse. Of course, that didn't prevent people from going after Michelle.

Specifically the implication that he was womanlike for spending too much time or money on his hair (cue "I Feel Pretty"); I suppose "heterosexist" equally applies, but the comparison seems to assess women as naturally insecure/narcissistic, and men as worthy of comment for conforming to a feminine stereotype.

It's the ultimate insult for her.

I hate that men get to benefit from cheaper haircuts, cheaper dry-cleaning and cheaper clothes. Hair is hair, chemicals are chemicals and a cotton dress shirt is a cotton dress shirt.

Why are women paid less and charged more?

cost under a $1000.

They can wear the same suit all day.

They can wear the same suit a couple of days in a row.

They can wear the same shoes with several suits.

Etc.

No, she should not have spent so much on clothes.

the question was sexist and for once, she handled it rather well.

the gender bias that so many DUers says doesn't exist. Women do get asked different questions, and do get treated differently, and do have their appearances focused on. One DUer used to post a pic of Clinton without makeup, as though that were some commentary on her. Men don't get that treatment as often, and when they do, it is generally viewed as a side show, not as the main feature.

Look upthread for another example of what women face--someone has already called her a bitch. If someone called Obama a N*****, would that pass so casually? Sexism is more acceptable than racism, even around here, though it is just as deadly and dehumanizing.

...but "asshole" would.

Completely agree with your last statement, but this past election, I think the men's vanity expenses got hammered, too.

I think what's different in Palin's case is that not only is she a former beauty pageant contestant, but on the campaign trail, she was really working the "attractiveness thing". The winking, the dark lipstick, the high-skirts and high-heels...

I remember a few weeks ago actually laughing out loud and saving a picture from a news story where she was wearing a bright red suit (low-neck top and above-the-knee skirt) with black, suede, knee-high, lace-up-all-the-way-up-in-the-back, 3-inch spiked-heel boots. Hair pulled back, dark lipstick...she was workin' it--big time. And with all of her claims that she's "just a hockey mom"? That she and her family are just like the "average American"? No hockey/soccer mom *I* know sports a high-fashion look like that. There was also a pretty dramatic difference between how Palin looked *before* the campaign and *during*. Michelle Obama's look didn't change so drastically.

Looking as good as Palin did on the campaign trail (and she did look really good) costs money...all of us here know that. So how much does it cost you to look that good, Sarah? Inquiring minds wanna know! I think that's a reasonable question. Well, surprise surprise...it costs A LOT. And since McCain accepted public financing, that means TAXPAYER MONEY paid for her to look that good.

So all you bozos out there in Republican-land who had a shit-fit over how much money Obama's campaign had, how he spent so much on television ads and spots, and so on and so on? And calling him (and Hillary) "elitist"? Fuck you and shut the hell up--who's the REAL "elitist"?

And the bigger question isn't why people pick on Palin's clothing, but on what society expects female candidates to do. Men wear a suit. If Clinton or Palin or Hagen or Granholm came out every day wearing a mild color variation of the same basic outfit, they'd get trashed in all sorts of ways. Society forces female candidates to fit within a narrow set of gender-specific stereotypes, and then criticizes them if they do it too well. Palin went with the flirty floozie look, Clinton went as the business-fashionable mature woman example. Both got ridiculed, and praised, for their appearances and attitudes, but for both, clothing, makeup, and appearance was a defining characteristic of their campaigns.

Men don't face that. Gore got mocked for the whole "earth-toned clothing" bit, but that was to make him look phoney, not to mock his gender. Edwards got the hair cut mockery, but that was about elitism. I mean, it pops up, but it's not a defining trait in discussions about male candidates.

That's my point. There's a double standard, and the standard is arranged in this country so that a woman fails no matter which road she takes. List the countries that have had female elected leaders, and notice we aren't amongst them. India has. Pakistan has. The US has not. Some of that is just circumstances, but not all. We have a real problem with sexism in this country. Read the papers for the number of women who have been murdered by boyfriends or spouses, or the number of women raped, murdered, and disposed of like a Happy Meal box in empty fields. Men are taught, even trained, to view women as property, or objects to enjoy visually or physically. Physical appearance and desirability are paramount in a way they just are not with men. And that shows in everything from the way presidential or vice-presidential candidates are discussed to way a sick, squirming, lonely male mind views an attractive woman he has followed home from a party. And it shows in hiring practices, promotions, wage compensation, you name it.

That's all I'm saying. I'm certainly not praising or defending Palin. But she's making a point I've made many times over the last six or seven years here, and I'm not going to change my point just because she starts saying it, too.

Heard about McCain expensive shoes and such. Mr. Populist, running his campaign on his beer profits. Who was so insulated that he had no idea how bad the economy was, how you or I live. That is exactly when McCain's excess in clothing, houses, cars were noticed.

Of course, in Palin's case, it was also about where donation money might be inappropriately going - that is fair game. The cost of makeup and the frequency? When you are out there arguing you are the voice of the people, who is frugal and lives just like they do, who rails against the expenditures of others, who promises they will be fiscally conservative, who promises they are outsiders and not corrupt and are trying to get votes on this populist message, well, you better be living cleaning. 22k/week on makeup, $150k from donations for clothes which included silky boxers for your freaking husband and Louis V handbags for an young child speak volumes about the falseness of your message, and what kind of things you will do as a VP that are just inappropriate.

Gender had zero to do with why Palin got smacked down on this. I didn't however hear one word about the Hillary's makeup costs or clothing costs. She didn't use donations to buy such things, nor did she use donations to such things for Bill. Nor were we in so evident a financial downturn where such extravegence could be used to make a "let them eat cake" sort of argument.

Stupid Sarah is using her gender again to deflect from her poor judgment and plain bad character. Not working with me.

Obama campaign expenditures were similiarly investigated by the media and they found no such ridiculous expenses.

They also made fun of Edwards' $xxx haircuts.

That's the whole entire point. That they know better, but they talk one talk and walk another walk.

I saw an interview with the Obamas and they did ask Barack about his clothes. He said if he found a suit that fit he'd buy the same suit in black, blue and brown and be done with it. After an 'exciting' answer like that, of course nobody else wants to bring it up.

They did it to Clinton, too.

Everyday it was some new outrage. His haircuts! His underwear! Hilary's suits! And who bought them anyway! And the White House furniture! And on and on and on....

At first Monica was actually a relief.

So does everybody if they don't want to look like a bum coming off a 3 day drunk.

They also require skilled hands to apply it.

I begrudge Palin many things, but I don't begrudge her--or Obama--a makeup artist or MISA.

like Hillary and Laura have with the dark suit, you get trashed for that too.

Laura actually wears the Hillary signature wayfarers and black suit more than Hillary does.

Women are held to a completely different standard than men are. Bazillions is spent on the clothes of women on television.

I knew of McCain's private makeup lady because they paid her thousands of dollars.

We knew about John Edwards haircut because the cost was deemed "outrageous."

If Obama had spent $25,000 on a makeup stylist, beleive me, you'd know about it.

It is not sexism.

It is stupid gluttonous spending which raises eyebrows regardless of whether you have a vagina or not.

I'm pretty sure SOMEONE in the Obama campaign spent at least that much on a makeup artist for him. A damn good one, to be sure--and that would cost way, way more than 25K.

Perhaps at least some of the professional time was donated for the cause, but makeup for klieg lights, stages, and television are an absolute necessity for everyone.

the good news is--they got good value because he never looked tired which is what strong lighting will do in a NY minute.

...and if you opt out of the game, you get trashed for it. And can't get a date.

it came up on their books not ours because of Federal Campaign Disclosure.

A spokesman for the Obama campaign said the DNC had not bought the Obamas any clothing or hair or makeup services.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-palinshop23-2008oct23,0,5314359.story

:rofl:

I honestly would have been pissed if the DNC was paying for clothes for the Obamas and the Bidens.

the republicans spent thousands on their candidates

It's not about the money.

Someone needs to find her quote. Her quote was about sexism.

She is a hypocrite, a liar and unworthy of defending.

Next.

Yes, you needed a lot. The RNC paid a lot for a makeup artist. That's nothing compared to Clothesgate and the fact you are a fucking idiot, Sarah. Get it?

Bye Bye!

Dontcha know?

What a moran.

Why is that?

I'm sick of hearing you whine. :puke:

:eyes:

It's just not as obvious.

nice strawman from Palin though.

That's the point.

Talking the talk, running in the opposite direction of the walk. Usual Republican attitude.

Even when the talk of makeup, clothes, etc. are Positive, it's negative. The media will mention Nancy Pelosi or HRC's new haircut, or the color of their suit, but you never see,"Senator Biden, dressed in a charcoal grey suit and red and black striped rep tie....." Or: "SEnator Obama appeared before a crowd of supporters today, his hair freshly barbered."

She never spent that much money on makeup and dresses.

Although she could, as far as the way she dresses...

Dems about $400 haircuts. Same thing. It's not a valid point it's a hypocritical statement made by a woman who is trying to fool you into thinking she got the short end of the stick. She was given a pass at every turn and still managed to make an ass out of herself.

Surely you're not implying he wore no make up...or that AA's don't use make up? :rofl:

Maybe this administration will help to do away with many misconceptions.

That Blacks could neither tan nor burn.

I said he does not need as much.

They made a big deal about Edwards haircuts.

Palin's makeup were really true works of art, by the way.

But the issue is that they said he was an elitist, and she is not.

Also very very few of the AA ladies I know were any makeup.

"You people" are already pretty as you are :)

And yes, I dated, ok more than dated, a young woman of color -and not, not African American, she was French and from Martinique, so how would you call that).

Women politicians are ALWAYS having their clothes, hair, makeup, etc. commented on. John Edwards did have his haircut discussed, but it was more a "It cost HOW much?!" slam.

Yes, Plain does try to trade in on her "Barbie Doll" image, but even good looking, snappy dressing male politicians aren't given even 5% of the scrutiny women are. It's annoying and demeaning.

I hate agreeing with Palin!!!

on edit: Of course PE Obama wears makeup -- TONS of it. Race doesn't matter.

then I'll consider that she may have a point. Until then, no comparison.

Was she talking about sexism in general, or was this an offshoot to questions about the RNC spending spree?

And as Sarah "Lies Like a Sidewalk" Palin's own daddy said; "The only thing she's bought herself in the past 4 months was a pair of shoes".

Exactly.

The RNC used campaign donations to pay for the other $150,000.

THAT is the issue.

:hi:

We know President Obama wears Hartmax suits, they cost $1500 each and he uses his own money to buy them. (We know this because apparently Hart, Schaffner and Marx is selling a lot more of them now that people have seen how sharp they are.) He doesn't need a ton of makeup, and his hair's short enough to not need much grooming--run a set of clippers over his head every couple of days and he's good.

Palin, OTOH, dropped over $150,000 of someone else's money on clothing, the best makeup artist money can buy, and silk undies for her husband...and the person whose money it was is NOT pleased.

Sarah, there is a difference.

Sure, I think she paid too much.

But she was going to be compared to on-air women on television on whom millions are spent on wardrobe.

Men can wear the same suit at all events all day.
Men can wear the same suit a couple of days in a row and no one says anything.
Men can wear the same set of shoes with several outfits.

Men can wear the same suit all seasons, women's wardrobes are seasonal, despite the tyranny of stockings.

But come on...a hundred and fifty bills for clothes for a couple months' campaigning? Four suits, four dresses, four blouses, two overcoats, three pairs of shoes and a selection of scarves and jewelry SHOULD have been more than sufficient for all her clothing needs.

does she have her face sprayed painted every day?

this is just a silly comment from a very silly woman imho.

But that's besides the point.

She was the one that stuck lipstick into the mix.

Damn, she is so stupid.

But---- let's remember, she is the gift that keeps on giving.
I said that early in the race.

If McCain had picked Romney or Huck, it would have been much closer IMO.

:banghead:

from either.

Not fair.

:silly:

I don't know any guys that care about dresses, suits, or make up.

Who talks about the clothes? Women.
Who is fashion conscience? Women.
Who knows what comes from what stores and designers? Women.
Who even has any idea what any of this stuff costs? Women.
Who judges people by their shoes? Women.

Tell your sisters to stop being sexist.

The only time guys ever care about any of this stuff is in a does she look good and/or "you paid what?!?" kind of ways.
If you're impatiently awaiting gender neutrality, you probably have no less than 10,000 years and that's a huge reach. The concerns are primarily issues of evolution. There are to my knowledge zero cases of male and females being the same in nature. There is a distribution of attributes except for asexual lifeforms, the differences are always present.

There have been female leaders all through out the existence of humans and certainly will be in our society as well at the highest level. Obviously, women have held high offices-Governors and Senators. I don't even think there is as much of a barrier as people think. Hell, we had a female Governor in Kentucky almost thirty years ago and there are several around the nation.
However, to think we are ever going to be gender neutral is a dream and I'm not sure its a pleasant one. Most people are comfortable with gender, just not the prehistoric "roles" that have been indoctrinated through the past few thousand years.

I'm afraid "separate but equal" in a lot of respects is all that can be done. Men and women, in general terms ARE DIFFERENT and that's a GOOD thing. That gives us a greater range of thought processes, focus, emotional IQ, and ideas.

I wish someone would give her a good talking to-- she obviously hasn't matured even after 5 kids and so many fuck ups that any normal person would have already died from the shame and embarrassment.

She's young. Hell, they could run her the next three or four election cycles. Please.

Woof

She wanted to play with the big boys and she want's to play like a girl.

She doesn't even know what feminism means for pete's sake.......:banghead:

wholesale lies.

and she still makes me :puke:

What about all those years they talked about Hillary.