Saturday, October 25, 2008

The real problem with Palin's $150,000 wardrobe

By Nancy Jane Moore

Joan Walsh on Salon summed up the real problem with the McCain campaign spending $150,000 to outfit "the already beautiful Palin":
Sarah Palin didn't need the best clothing and stylists money could buy; she needed tutoring and coaching on the issues. ... The fact that the highest paid staffer on the troubled McCain team this month is Palin's makeup person is also ludicrous; you can't make this stuff up. But it proves that the campaign values Palin primarily for her star power.
It also destroys any remaining claim that the McCain/Palin ticket is "feminist." Obviously the campaign honchos think it's more important for Palin to look good than to know what she's talking about. You can't come up with a more traditional way of marginalizing women than that.

Of course, Palin was picked as the VP candidate to shore up McCain with the extreme religious right, not just to be attractive. And given the apparent depth of Palin's ignorance of the important issues of the day -- which appears to rival or perhaps even exceed Bush's -- perhaps the campaign figured coaching her on the issues was impossible. If so, that just emphasizes what a bad choice she was, given the mess the country's in.

It was a big enough insult to women in this country for the Republicans to assume that women would flock to a female VP candidate whose policies as governor and stated political and religious beliefs undermine the rights we've worked so hard to attain. But to now treat that candidate as if she were running for first lady instead of vice president is even worse.

Sarah Palin is nothing but a token. How embarrassing for the Republicans; how personally humiliating for Palin. I just hope this campaign destroys her political future so thoroughly that her current political office is her last one.

This country has just suffered through eight years under a person who holds extreme right wing religious beliefs, doesn't understand the important issues of the day, and prides himself on his lack of intellectual curiosity. It can't afford another president like that.

In fact, it can't afford any more senators and governors like that, either.


Anonymous said...

Oh, yah. Socialist dictatorship is definitely better. Definitely.

Nancy Jane Moore said...

Your responses rarely seem to have anything to do with what I said. Nothing I said could possible be construed as advocating a socialist dictatorship. In fact, I didn't say anything that suggested I supported programs that some right winger might label socialist. I merely came out against government by the ignorant, which we've already had far too much of.