I think it was Rachel Maddow who said about Lieberman: What do you have to do to get the Democrats mad at you?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081111/pl_politico/15497_1

It's the FEC, not the FCC and as the Politico article above reiterates, an Obama audit is unlikely but hasn't been ruled out.

Thanks for clarifying, steph. I thought it was the FEC, but now I don't have to verify it myself!

Hey everyone! I think my fingers were typing too fast. All fixed now!

Thanks Liberty!

(By the way, sorry to go off-topic, but I know your looks are based on "real" clothes. Who makes your new outfit?)

Don't get mad, y'all, but I want to give this quote from John McCain in 1993.
"The amendment before the Senate is a very simple one. It restricts the use of campaign funds for inherently personal purposes. The amendment would restrict individuals from using campaign funds for such things as home mortgage payments, clothing purchases ... and vacations or other trips that are noncampaign in nature. [...}

"The use of campaign funds for items which most Americans would consider to be strictly personal reasons, in my view, erodes public and erodes it significantly."

So could the GOP get in trouble for spending funds on a family's apparel?
here's the link for the previous quote.

http://mythandhope.blogspot.com/2008/10/mccains-take-on-clothes-and-camp...

That is very interesting Janneth!

I am surprised they even tried the clothing thing, when it specifically states no clothing.

The law states that the funds can't be spent on clothing items (and other items) that would be needed irrespective of the campaign. The items purchased for Palin and her family would not have been needed irrespective of the campaign.

And I can't even think of one American who would consider clothing worn only while campaigning to be "strictly personal."

Buh-bye campaign finance reform!

I think the campaign finance laws are ridiculous anyway. But that's another rant for another day.

"The items purchased for Palin and her family would not have been needed irrespective of the campaign."

She wouldn't need clothes if she wasn't campaigning? She is a Governor...she has needed professional clothing for years now.

And, for the sake discussion, if what you say is true, how come the McCains, Bidens, and Obamas didn't use contributed money to provide their wardrobe?

Plus, she came out and said that it was always intended to go to charity, there by admitting that the clothing should NOT have been purchased with campaign money if it wasn't considered a charitable contribution.

lilkimbo- maybe the Americans who can't write off suiting expenses as "business purchases" on their taxes....

I don't really understand the poll from 23/6. I mean, isn't supporting the troops, the individual soldiers different from having a favorable view of the military? Couldn't you for example, view the military negatively because of the conditions at Walter Reed, yet still support the troops? I don't see the "holdouts" as anti-troop, perhaps you can be anti-military without being anti-troop.

So they aren't going to audit the 700 million in contributions that Obama received, many from internet donors? That's a good way to avoid a scandal in a new administration. I don't want to be the one to insinuate anything...but that makes sense. It would be hard to bring the country together if we found out that some of that 700 million was collected illegally. Surely all of the 700 million was from Americans:)

She wouldn't have needed THAT clothing irrespective of the campaign. Does anyone honestly believe she would have needed the same clothing to campaign in Alaska that she would have needed to campaign on the national level? And making a charitable contribution in no way equates to admitting wrongdoing.

The McCains, the Bidens, and the Obamas all had a lot more money to buy the type of clothing that is needed to campaign on the national level.

And, you can write off suiting expenses as business purchases on your taxes if you were the suits exclusively for work, similar to the way that you can write off work uniforms as a business expense.

As steph stated, they are still deciding whether to audit Obama. He just doesn't get the automatic audit because he didn't accept public financing.

Also, I was using the clothing going to charity logic in my argument. That only supports my assertion that the clothing was for campaign purposes only, that she has not planned on using it after the campaign.

"She wouldn't have needed THAT clothing irrespective of the campaign"

I don't see the distinction here. It is not a requirement that you HAVE to wear YSL on the campaign trail, and it isn't a requirement that you can not wear it while being a Governor. Governors ARE on a national level. It isn't like she is quarentined to Alaska. The McCain camp knew about her because she did do work in the lower 48. Being a candidate did not force her to buy that many items of that quality. They were not necessary for the campaign.

IMO, I think the "charity" argument is trying to skirt the rule about not buying clothing. They found a loophole, and they are going to try and use it! Maybe it will work.

I did find it interesting that her Dad said that she is "frantically" trying to sort out the clothing...you'd think if she knew win or lose that she was going to have to give it back that she would have kept them seperate.

Being a governor is not a national office. I have never heard anyone refer to it as so. I did however hear a lot of people criticizing Palin's suit, which clearly wasn't of very high quality, when she was announced as McCain's running mate. I think it's obvious that image is very important in politics so, no, there's no requirement that a candidate must wear YSL, just as there's no requirement that a candidate must pay staff members. There's really no requirement covering any campaign expenditure. Whether they were necessary for the campaign is not really for you or me to say. Since I'm guessing you have never been the finance director for a presidential campaign, I doubt that you really have the knowledge to say which expenses are necessary and which expenses are not necessary.

And, since you find it odd that she would have to sort through the clothing, I am guessing you have never traveled for an extensive period while campaigning at least 18 hours a day. When you do, things tend to get mixed up. The fact that she has to sort through things doesn't in any way indicate that she never planned on giving them away.

Also, I was making the distinction that, when campaigning for governor of Alaksa, you pretty much have to impress the people of Alaska. When campaigning for Vice President of the United States, you have to impress the people of the country and, to some extent, the world.

I loved her shoes.

Yes Sarah! And her legs!

Lil K, is that a person in your icon or one of those doll ones everyone has been using? I'm embarrassed I can't tell!

Re: the audit, the linked article says an audit is mandatory since McCain did public financing.

Re: the military, well...I'd be curious as to how the question was posed. Do I "support the troops"? Sure, I don't want them to die or be harmed. Do I approve of being at war in Iraq? No. Do I think they're doing a good job at executing the missions they've been assigned? I have no way of knowing. Do I approve of scary statistics about high rates of domestic violence and rape among service members? Obviously not. So, do I like the military? I mean, I can't even imagine a more vague question.

It's a person. It's still Gemma Ward. Strangely, she does look like the Blythe dolls, but I love her and the dolls creep me out.

I looked up the survey on Rasmussen after snowbunny brought it up. It asked, "Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the U.S. Military?" I think the question is open to a lot of interpretation. I'll post the link in the next comment.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/econ_survey_topl...

Blythe dolls! I was thinking, "I forget what they're called but it has something to do with Gwyneth Paltrow..."

That is a really open question. I think the military is so good in a lot of ways (like in how it resulted in my going to college for free) and so bad in a lot of ways (aforementioned statistics on violence). I admit when I lived near a military base I would roll my eyes when I saw "jarheads" because they tended to form rowdy, obnoxious groups, but I did and still do feel so guilty about it.

Bye bye campaign laws. Do we think any politician is going to accept public funding from here on out? Obama showed that you can get three times as much money if you don't have to follow the public funding regulations.

"Being a governor is not a national office. I have never heard anyone refer to it as so."

(You keep referencing people you know or people you hear, which is interesting...and limiting).

As Governor you DO represent your state in the national arena. Examples were shown in regards to her kids traveling. She was invited to the Women's Leadership Conference in New York because she was Governor. She also also met with Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Goldman Sachs representatives and visited the New York Stock Exchange. She was also speaking at a national convention pre-nomination when she said that Hillary shouldn't be complaining about sexism. She also went Philadelphia for a meeting of the National Governors Association.

Did she go naked? I think not. As Governor I am sure she had important business to handle on a regular basis that required her to wear a very nice suit.

You can not convince me that a woman NEEDS $150,000 worth of clothing for 2 months of campaigning. It is not a necessary for the position, it was an indulgence.

You can get three times as much money if people like you.

I meant heard in the all-encompassing sense, as in heard on tv, read in the newspaper, read online, not just heard from people I know. I thought that was fairly obvious. I guess I forgot that people like to nitpick on word choice with thinly veiled insults. What you you like me to reference? Should I post multiple articles that don't refer to a governorship as a national office? Should I reference multiple comments from people on this very site stating that Palin's gubernatorial experience doesn't count because it's not national? of course any one person's experience is limited, but if comments referring to what people have read, heard and experienced are discounted, the entire point of commenting is gone. Even in our limited experience with each other, you should be able to tell that I am a news and politics junkie, so the scope of what I have heard/read/seen is not all that limited. (Of course, everyone's experience is somewhat limited, but you should know that I go out of my way to read multiple news sources.)

I think it's interesting that you would personally attack me (of course, in a way that is backhanded enough that the comment won't be removed) rather that discussing the issue at hand.

I also think it's interesting that you would choose to ignore my later comment. What a limited way of commenting.

Yeah, I'm with steph. McCain wouldn't have been able to raise as much as Obama. But, I think he may have been able to raise more than he got from public funds. I guess we will never know.

Oh, and, Obama still had to follow extensive and confusing campaign finance laws.

I'm betting that McCain would've been able to get a lot more if he hadn't been hampered by the federal regualtions. Regulations that Barak didn't have to abid by.

Obama did have to follow practically all of the same laws McCain follo1wed, though. I really am not trying to be argumentative, I swear!

Eek! Sorry for the random 1. That's what I get for trying to post on my phone!

But McCain was free to raise money through the RNC, correct?

I always eff up when I post from my phone.

Let's go with the boot story to explain the clothing, yes? I liken buying those clothes to buying steel toe boots. You work in the lumber yard. Hooray for you. You walk around with your Timberlands, gathering lumber for people and enjoying life. Suddenly, you are called out to the big leagues: a construction site. You will be needing the Steel Toe Boot. Here's where it differs, but since you can write them off as a business expensive, I consider it mostly the same. Stories I've read place Palin at work in very casual attire. You can't expect her to go campaigning around this country in jeans and a turtleneck. I can see why the money was spent on her wardrobe, but then again, I don't have a seething hatred for the woman. Perhaps personal feelings are getting in the way of seeing the logic in this scenario?

I just said it was limiting, hardly a "personal attack". Wow, you're sensitive! I will be sure to use kid gloves in the future.

I didn't say that being a Governor is a "national office", but you do represent your state to the nation and participate in national events like those that I mentioned. You act as if the woman would have no need for suits just because she is from Alaska. She did conduct business in other areas of the nation, as I pointed out. Being Governor means attending large numbers of events that require professional attire. Come on...if you are honest you will admit that. I doubt she was wearing jeans when attending the events I mentioned previously.

I don't agree with the comparison that spending $150,000 for 2 months worth of clothing is like steel toed boots. Your feet will get crushed if you don't wear boots in a construction site. Your feet will not get crushed if you don't have your Christian Louboutins on! I really find it a bit disturbing that people seem to think it is a requirement for female politicians to also be wearing the absolute highest priced designer clothing that is available. I could see them spending a decent amount of money on high quality clothing, but $150,000?? That is soooooo much money!

And it isn't a matter of "writing it off". It is a matter of the contributions of citizens paying for 100% of those items. It is not a tax deduction.

TS - Yes he could raise money for the RNC, but that money didn't, and couldn't go to just him. Obama was free to raise as much as he wanted, from anyone he wanted, and McCain didn't have the same freedom. I predict that in 2012 no one will sign the public financing contract. The nice thing is that is a place we could save on tax money.

Yes, being governor means professional attire. I never denied that. As I have stated several times, campaigning for national office means much nicere attire than being governor of Alaska. If you are honest, you will admit that. If you are honest, you will also admit that you were attacking me and that you attacked me in your last comment. I won't hold my breath.

And you're right, this money came from contributions. I think that means that the rules should be less strict than the rules for "writing things off." When you write something off on your taxes, you are paying less to public funds, which people obviously have to give to. The contributions the RNC drew from were all optional.

Anyway, I am not trying to run from this conversation, but I just got called to do something much more important and there is no point of continuing to run in circles snce we are obviously never going to agree. I guess we can leave this whole matter up to the bipartisan FEC to decide. I'm guessing if nothing comes of the audit, we won't hear about it and if something does, we will. But, if you hear anything about the results of the audit, let me know.

Please, lil, you get sassy just as much as I do. I am not "attacking" you anymore than you are "attacking" me.

And yes, I already admitted that they would need to buy her some special clothes, but that hardly justifies $150,000! (In case you don't remember, I said, "I could see them spending a decent amount of money on high quality clothing, but $150,000??")

The people who donated did so with the knowledge that their money would be spent according to FEC rules. Obviously there is something here that needs to be looked into further, or the FEC wouldn't be auditing their campaign. Maybe they will find nothing was wrong, but it IS a possibility. I think my position is quite justified.

'campaigning for national office means much nicere attire than being governor of Alaska.'

Why? I seriously just don't get it.

I don't buy that she needed to wear YSL and Christian Louboutins in order to get elected. McCain and his people can choose to spend whatever money and I really don't care, I just think this sets a bad precedent for women - I can't be a powerful woman, a woman in one of the most powerful positions, without wearing ultra designer clothing and shoes. I think it also is contrary to the whole image she presents, that she is small town and no frills.

You explained it so much better than I did mydiadem!

OK, one last comment before I head out. I never denied that I was being sassy or rude. I give what I get.

And, if you read the article, you will see that all campaigns that accept public financing are audited, so the need for the audit is not in any way indicative that something needs to be looked into further.

And I don't think anyone is saying that your position is not justified. I didn't realize you were so sensitive as to think that any disagreement meant that the person was saying your opinion is not justified. I will be sure to use my kid gloves in the future!

I'm glad we can focus so much on Palin's wardrobe when there is a 9000lb elephant in the room here. That is, where did Obama get 700 million, and was it all legal? Will we ever know?

The law here is harsher on McCain because he took public funds. It was his choice, and those are the laws, and under those laws Obama will probably not face an audit. Fair? Debatable. Legal? Yep. So I see no elephant in here.

As of the first week of October, Obama raised 3.3 million in internet donations where the state of residence didn't match a US state. Those folks may have been American citizens traveling abroad. Or, it could have been illegal campaign contributions.

No-bid govt contracts are legal too, it doesn't mean it's right. Are we willing to look the other way and be okay with the shroud of mystery covering Mr. Transparency's campaign contributions?