Why are people shocked — shocked! — at the Republicans’ spending $150,000 on clothes for Gov. Sarah Palin? After all, don’t little kids love dressing up their Barbie dolls?
David E. Crean, Ph.D.
Greenville
---------------------------------------------------------
I must not be thinking clearly. It makes no sense why Gov. Sarah Palin’s $150,000 makeover is newsworthy, but Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s $6,500 pantsuits and Sen. Nancy Pelosi’s $50,000 pearl necklace are not.
I would suggest that there are precious few in Congress who do any significant portion of their clothes shopping at Target and Marshall’s.
How about the real issues on the front page? This smacks of schoolyard name-calling, and continues to demonstrate that many in the media are less than balanced when it comes to Sarah Palin.
Joseph D. Campbell
Raleigh
---------------------------------------------------------
The N&O outsourced over 45 column inches to this story. If Palin had shown up in “sweat pants, turtlenecks, ankle boots and heavy coats” like one of her detractors, the catty reporters would have been sniffing at that.
I’m waiting for the 45 inches talking about how out of touch Joe Biden is regarding his favorite restaurant, which went out of business years ago and is now a wing shop, but I’m not holding my breath. I’ll also bet his wardrobe isn’t from Target.
Gerald Lester
Durham
---------------------------------------------------------
Your Oct. 23 article on the $150,000 that was spent on Sarah Palin’s “ritzy” makeover was just another indication of the media’s liberal bias. Barack Obama’s campaign funds have topped more than $600 million while John McCain’s have been less than 1/6th of that. Yet it becomes a national headline that the Republican campaign spent $150,000 on Sarah Palin’s image.
If she had not come out polished and professional, the media would have had a field day picking her apart. And despite the campaign’s spending on her appearance, the media still criticized her, calling her frumpy after the Republican convention.
The media have picked about her appearance, family and credentials more than Obama, McCain and Biden combined. I think it’s time you backed off and focused on the issues and presenting objective news. We the people can come to our own decisions!
Michelle Henderson
Cary
---------------------------------------------------------
In order to understand why Obama is where he is, one need look no farther than Page 12A in the Oct. 24 N&O — the headline “Biden pledges to work for prosperity/; at the top and “McCain trolls for working class votes” in the middle.
Selective reporting (a $150,000 wardrobe is obviously more important than a $2 million party) and unabashed favoritism helped tip the scale. We still hear about Dan Quayle and “potatoe,” but Joe Biden misstating the vice president’s job description during the debates must be irrelevant. Would anyone care to wager what the fallout would be if a GOP chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee gave a speech guaranteeing a global crisis in the next six months? Sen. Joe Biden holds that position, did you know?
I hope you guys are proud of your journalistic fervor. Is there a plan to return to a semblance of integrity after you win?
Luke Steele
Creedmoor
Comments
When to say: "Thank you, but no thanks".
Thu, 10/30/2008 - 14:04 — Bigsky007I am not impressed with Sarah Palin. She is letting herself be used and her special needs son be cannibalized of due parental care, time and attention by McCain, who surely knows how to use women, to advance his seventy-two years old personal political ambitions. That's sick on its face. Additionally, how presumptuous of both of them to deem it proper to have a very distracted Palin (if she is a proper parent then she is certainly distracted) put in a position to make life and death decisions about the lives of others.
Finally, how many of you could be picked to fill any job, let alone VP, in any firm if you were being investigated for any reason but especially an investigation that had ethical ramifications? Palin and McCain think nothing of it!! This is the attitude they would bring to the Oval Office, if elected!! The very idea that folks in high places should refrain from even the appearance of impropriety is apparently not within McCain’s and Palin’s scope of comprehension. Just think, they haven’t even been elected yet!! It astounds me that no one is even talking about this!!!
When she was offered the VP spot, when the road to nowhere was put in and when they offered to spend a quarter million dollars on her makeup/make over, those would have been the proper times for her to tell McCain and his other Keating Six mentality folks: “Thank you, but no thanks”.
With people like Huckabee and Romney waiting in the wings, unless we are naïve fools, we know exactly why McCain chose Palin. The brazen winking at, you know who, tells it all. That the religious folks in this country are not outraged and scandalized, is very puzzling. Their silence suggests that they are now in bed with Pimps, who must surely be ecstatic to have a U.S. Senator as a kindred spirit. As they say: “Politics make strange bedfellows”. Finally, if Obama had chosen a woman, who had a pregnant teen, God forbid a black woman, the race would have been over the day after the announcement, because he would have been crucified for exercising such poor judgment. We all know that, but we are not willing to face up to that fact. Why the difference in standards? The deafening silence continues.
Where were these people when
Fri, 10/24/2008 - 16:29 — Anonymous (not verified)Where were these people when you put John Edwards haircut and house on the front page?
What's good for the goose...