dogma wrote:Gobbla wrote:
Really? An expensive pair of shoes, bought OFF THE RACK, and a one dress a piece for Momma and the two girls, bought OFF THE RACK. All presumably paid for by the Obamas. That elevates my post to blinding BS? Really?
Yeah, a clothing rack stocked by designer merchandise. You tried to use the phrase 'off the rack' to conjure up images of spending on a budget, the simple fact that Michelle bought a $500 pair of shoes completely eliminates any relevance your post might have had.
Also, Palin's clothes were paid for by the campaign. Not tax payers. I find it ridiculous that you would consider it any way damning with respect to her character.
Guess I'm glad you don't get to decide the relevance of my posts.
Secondly, "off the rack" means exactly that. Michelle Obama is famous for wearing non-designer, non-custom made clothes that can be purchased off the rack by any woman so inclined. Not a clotheshorse, not a big spender on clothes. Obviously, you nailed her with a pair of sneakers that you consider too expensive.
Finally, I didn't say anything about Palin's clothes; I thought that was all debunked. I was responding to this comment about Obama from you:
Frazzled wrote:dogma wrote:I'm going to agree with Fraz about the clothes. It was an unfair attack. When you jump into the national eye, you need the clothes to match.
Indeed, if they attacked every other Presidential candidate at the time for it, I would have been ok. You didn't think Obama's wardobe was something he threw together from the closet did you? It was sexist and caddy.
Every other Presidential candidate gets attacked, often unfairly. Getting attacked for clothes purchases pales in comparison to getting accused of palling around with terrorists. Palin can dish it out, but she really does not take it well. Her supporters find her behavior refreshing and original. To me, she comes off as petulant and erratic.