Miss Kolka

producing her own life

<< The Magic Bunny | On the Campaign trail....watching from home | Palin on clothes >>

On the Campaign trail....watching from home | 23 octobre 2008

"Back to our top story"

Man, that reminds me of work. I must say I am surprised by the media coverage of the US Presidential race. I shouldn't be though. When there's isn't anything more interesting to say about the issues then its back to the mini-scandals. The latest ones, but in a list of many, are 1. how much money Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin spent on clothes for the campaign and 2. The "hidden socialist agenda" of Barack Obama who wants to redistribute wealth amongst Americans. "ouou scary" Plllllease.
But of course we have to keep the story going, there are still 12 days until election day and issues are what make politics boring anyway. People want sex, money and personal tragedies. Give us more lack of chemistry between presdential and VP candidate, terrorist connections and spending sprees. As long as we forget what real life is all about. So lets get to it:

1.The republican party is supposed to have spent 150 thousand dollars on clothes and make-up for M'am Palin and family. How can that be surprising (apart perhaps the amount)? It should be no surprise to us that we live in a media age where image is everything. And unfortunately, both women and men demand more of women in that area. I think its normal that the party spends money to dress Palin up to the task and that they try to make her LOOK more presidential to voters. That's how spin works and it is in practice everywhere in the modern world. Its what Segolene Royal has also been criticised for - but men are at it as well. People get whiter teeth, take moles of their faces and even have full plastic surgeries to look more appealing in politics. And it works - Its either that or you get ugly comments like Angela Merkel has had to face in her career, being, for some, not womanly enough. Somehow it seems though that these issues are only raised when a woman is playing the game. There is so much choice for women that it can easily cost more for women to look good but it should be worth it since it has shown itself that handsome people do better.

So I have to say that this is such a non-story that it doesnt deserve the attention its getting. There are two reasons for that though. Since the republicans are trying to get to the average American, its perhaps not a very sly move. How can people connect with someone who has the opportunity of spending so much money on something so un-important as clothes (while looks in reality are just basic worktools for the politician) as the rest struggles to pay off debts and morgages? Republicans have been trying to play on the "average joe" story and their connection to smalltown america but this leak might seem a bit too much for people not even earning that in a years of hard work. And second, there is also concern that Palin as governor might have been using taxpayers' money to pay for her family to travel with or without her. Her daughter even stayed in a 4 star luxurious hotel in NY - all payed by the state of Alaska - and that doesnt sound good for someone who says again and again that they will work against government overspending and corruption. The story here might be that this is more hypocriticial then anything else - and voters have the right to know. They might talk the talk, but are they walking the walk?

2. Regarding Obama, the "evil socialist" (since terrorist didn't stick no matter how much the Republicans tried), Lets talk a little about socialism. Its ridiculous that republicans, who have been calling Obama "a socialist" can trigger so much fear amongst voters that actually want what Obama is planning - without even knowing what its called. Or what do you call a plan for more intervention and regulation on the financial markets by the government? It sounds like socialism to me:

"Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Social Democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs;"

We have seen that the rules of capitalism didn't work - while there was profit, the money went to individuals but when there was trouble, who had to pay the price? People that have lost their houses, don't they want the state to have a safety net for them called social security? And why did they get in that mess in the first place? Because they didn't have healthcare - something Obama wants to change. So stop repeating slogans you don't even understand and think about your economic future people. Socialism isn't the end of the world - and read up on the difference between Socialism and Communism while you're at it...