SDS

Did she order Gucci bags for her daughters or were they supplied to her? That is the point I'm making - clearly she was complicit, maybe even an enthusiastic supporter, but it is hard to separate her actions from the campaigns actions. And I stand by my point earlier, politics is so much about image these days. Obama spent far more on image than she did. It was just spent a different way. I also think he campaigned as a man of the people. This doesn't excuse or validate the campaign's decisions - it just is what it is.

Again, I don't think you made the case that this was Palin driven and not campaign driven. If you are trying to sell me on the fact that this campaign was mishandled and all over the map on message, well... duh. Surely it was. It was one contradiction after another. The fact that it was extended to Palin is not a surprise to me.

The controversy is stupid because today's politics are entirely formed by image and symbolism. Each campaign poured money into "image". What did it cost to construct that phoney greek temple in Colorado? Is it a suit? No. Could it have just been a lectern? Yes. Regardless, nothing you said above disputes my claim that this was just as much a responsibility of the campaign than a shopaholic diva going crazy. After the convention, she received a tremendous amount of press for her "look". I have no doubt that the campaign seized on that and tried to make political hay. Obviously, it didn't work. My only point in continuing this is that there is plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize anybody. There's no need to make stuff up or exaggerate.

The part in bold is what drives me nuts. What does that actually mean to someone who was plucked out of her home state a billion miles away and all of a sudden has to become VP material? I may have to turn in my man card for pointing this out, but a woman's wardrobe is not like a man's. 3 suits for the convention and 3 suits for the campaign? For a female? They were following her look in the Style sections in major newspapers. It's not like she can have 6 suits and 20 ties. Now, think about this - what was the crack used against her in these anonymous reports? Wasilla hillbillies invading NM, etc...? Well, the non-slanderous way to look at this was that they are from a remote, rural region of the country and they indeed needed to be "re-made" to counteract that criticism. I'm pretty certain her North Face fleece pull-overs weren't going to cut it. As far as I've read, she has no history of been a fashionista. I seriously doubt that she just let loose of all that pent up shopping demand once in the lower 48. IMO, the campaign wanted her to look a certain way and she didn't object to it. She may have even advocated it as part of the make over strategy. What I don't buy is that she, and she alone, went crazy and the rest of the staff went along with it kicking and screaming, disagreeing with her choices all the way.

I know - I read the stories too. What I'm asking for is a reasonable explanation of how this is a solely Sarah Palin driven event and not a campaign driven one that Palin didn't object to? If she didn't do the actual shopping - how exactly did she dictate the spending? Did she put money floors under all these requests?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...-aide-offe.html Do any of you stop to ask yourselves how she managed to do all this shopping? Seriously, don't you think she would have been noticed if SHE spent the entire day. Day after day - in the mall? If she didn't do the shopping herself - did she tell others to go out and buy x, y, and z and make sure you spend over $x? Just please provide a reasonable explanation for how she was the one spending this money, while the rest of the campaign staff had no part in it besides doing her bidding.

FWIW, it is a he said/she said situation: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...-aide-offe.html I can understand that someone who doesn't speak on national issues makes a verbal gaffe. The explanation given in this article is entirely plausible. Now, that isn't to say she was indeed knowledgeable on these matters, just that some internal people may had already turned on her and are now taking things out of context to paint her in the worst possible light.

He was my favorite in 90's. The dude has really changed. Supposedly, he is contemplating a run for Senate in PA.

If you could provide a more thorough discussion when you have time - that would be greatly appreciated.

Well, given my sugar momma of a wife - we don't make the cut for the Harvard deal, but Deborah has her sites on working at Johns Hopkins in about 7 years. That gets a 50% tuition break... I would still like to see your thoughts on the subject (I was thinking of you and TPS mainly when I started this). Apparently though, everyone thinks they are smarter than me.

Go crap in someone else's thread. I asked a serious question to those w/ a better understanding of economics than me.

If every student was offered a $5000 per year student loan, wouldn't the cost of tuition just raise that much faster, such that the pre-loan tuition cost and the post-loan tuition cost would just be the same?

I always pegged Obama as a fish person. You know... where he can look inside a tank and just look at wide-eyed, unblinking creatures staring back at him adoringly.

case closed.

Uhg. I guess you can blame the party for allowing others to define you, but here are the votes regarding the Patriot Act: http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact2...enatevote.shtml I know a lot of people think King W decreed this, over objections of the masses, but that wouldn't be true.

Then John McCain was your guy.

Actually, I unpinned all the threads. And it had nothing to do with looking idiotic. One thread didn't have a response in 3 years. Here's a tip - don't be an ass to the people who donate their time to try and at least keep the incivility to a dull roar.

Dude, where do you think the laws of our society originated from - age old secular humanism? Where do you think laws regarding theft, marriage, murder, etc come from? Religious values formed the foundation of our society and our law.

Let's assume that NYT piece is more or less accurate. Although they didn't spend months together - the staff and McCain himself spent a decent amount of time with her. It is really hard to imagine how the conversations went w/o them being alerted to any potential shortcomings.

your partisan jabs aside, Kristol is extremely thoughtful even if you don't agree with him.

I understand that. But you would have to accept the corollary - that she did nothing. I can't believe that while being surrounded by campaign staff - all she did was lick ice cream cones and read Cosmo. I'm not defending her interviews, but I am saying that there are bona fide cowards in the McCain campaign that want to blame her for their and their own candidate's failings.

Why would that be all anyone needed to know?

you don't know this. again, these are 2nd hand reports from staffers who ran an incredibly poor campaign. Maybe she didn't prepare, but this would go against all the reports of her previous campaigns in Alaska. It doesn't pass the smell test at all.

where is this obvious? EVERY report said it was his choice and that it surprised staffers.

BTW, anyone in the McCain campaign that blames Palin is !@#$ing coward. THEY picked her and they alone bear that responsibility. But MOST importantly, if she did mean that much to the election it only speaks to John McCain's weakness as a candidate. Seriously, who the hell blames their VP choice?