Michelle Obama's Outfit 148 Dollars, Cindy McCain's 300,000 Dollars. Who's the Real Elitist?

Twice? Heaven forbid! Why the dress would be dirty!

That's like a step removed from buying and wearing stuff from Goodwill which, btw, one of my "boys" refuses to do despite working there, because to wear used stuff would be icky

she has 100 million dollars the obama's have less than 850,000 what do you expect

Why do you care how many dresses she owns? It's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

Most of the super rich do not own the clothing they are seen in during events. They borrow it for the event or appearance it gives them access to a ton of clothes and the designers get free advertising. Sometimes they get to keep it afterward sometimes they don't.

Why do you care how many dresses she owns? It's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

You're right Hana
Thats the same kind of thought process the Lenins, Stalins, Maos and Castros of the world used to fuel their revolts and failed governments

Yet these same naysayers go ga ga watching what the celebrities wear at the Grammys and the Oscars while there is no mention of the millions of poor people that buy the movies and the music and evidently have no problem with the lavish lifestyles of the rich and the famous,,,,talk about hypocrisy, they're so awashed in it, they can't even SEE the man in the mirror .....go figure

The fact that the huddled masses evidently watch television programs about the rich and famous makes a lie of the leftist claim. The fact is millions of Americans work hard to make a better life for themselves and many do, in fact, become wealthy at least by Obama's standards. This nation offers unlimited opportunities.

Diamond earrings were over 280,000 (93.33%) of the outfit's total cost. I'd go out on a limb, but she has probably had those for a long time, or will be keeping them. Even the mega rich don't throw out quarter million plus jewelry. Thus saying "she spent "x" amount on this outfit" is disingenuous since it presupposes the "outfit" was solely for this occassion.

A woman worth 100 million can afford a pair of $ 280,000 earrings. It's also probably safe to say that those are her most expensive pair, since you'd obviously want to wear your best for this event.

Another inconsistency: Cindy McCain's outfit is the one she wore to address the RNC. The outfit described in the certainly non-biased "NewsOne for Black America" is the one Michelle Obama wore when she was a guest on The View. A more apt comparison would be the total dollar value of all items of clothing/accoutrements Michelle Obama had in her possession whilst she gave HER address at the DNC. Show me those numbers. And then adjust them based as percentage of personal wealth and tell me who spends more.

I only do this analysis because apparently no one else cares/wants to, we'd rather string up the effigy immediatly.

The main idea is not the cost of a dress or an outfit, but how out of touch McCain is with the middle class. I refuse to believe he understands the anxieties the Bush policies have caused most Americans.

Then he runs a round in $500 shoes. And doesn't even know how many homes he has. And Cindy "needs" a private jet to get around Arizona. Well, I make it around Texas quite okay in my Honda Civic. McCain doesn't even know what kind of car he has.

More tax breaks for the rich.

Let them eat cake!

The McCains feature spread in Architectural Digest- just so folksy!

Untrained my ass

ROFL......everyone is supposed to be rich, right? I mean to be in the middle class you make +250K.

Putting on a televised, multi-million dollar, corporate shindig in Denver while the huddled masses leftists claim to love go hungry -- PRICELESS!

Putting on a televised, multi-million dollar, corporate shindig in Denver while the huddled masses leftists claim to love go hungry -- PRICELESS!

And yet McCain contradicted himself about being a reformer to bring change Washington needs and about canceling Monday night events to show solitude for the Gustav victims; and instead lavish multi-million dollar parties went on that were sponsored by big corps & lobbyists in St. Paul while the a hurricane was battering the coast -- HYPOCRISY!

ROFL......everyone is supposed to be rich, right? I mean to be in the middle class you make +250K.

I could have sworn it was $5,000,000 to be middle class.

Hey Level- the repubs don't control the "parties" thrown by the corporate sponsors and lobbyists. Corps that spent millions on parties aren't gonna cancel them because of a hurricane.

HYPOCRISY!

god there is so much fail in this thread in general, Killfile you need to moderate.

Hey Level- the repubs don't control the "parties" thrown by the corporate sponsors and lobbyists. Corps that spent millions on parties aren't gonna cancel them because of a hurricane.

granted, the second sentence is true. I wouldn't expect them to cancel any party events either. So my apologizes for the broad statement. But McCain does contradict himself when he's campaigning on the motto "change we can believe in" and he is campaigning as a Washington reformer and here is why from his speech last night:

I fight to restore the pride and principles of our party. We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us. We lost the trust of the American people when some Republicans gave in to the temptations of corruption. We lost their trust when rather than reform government, both parties made it bigger. We lost their trust when instead of freeing ourselves from a dangerous dependence on foreign oil, both parties and Senator Obama passed another corporate welfare bill for oil companies. We lost their trust, when we valued our power over our principles.

We're going to change that. We're going to recover the people's trust by standing up again for the values Americans admire. The party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan is going to get back to basics.

McCains speech wasn't about change is was about his biography and no substance about change we can believe in. So seriously, do you really believe McCain is going to reform Washington as he claims if he wins? If he was he would have started with his own party & the RNC convention. But instead he hired the same people to help him with his image and to run his campaign that got Bush elected - TWICE! And he allowed Big Corp to throw parties for republican delegates, senators and congressmen who appeared to be shameful when they were caught on camera. That's not change I believe in.

ROFL......everyone is supposed to be rich, right? I mean to be in the middle class you make +250K.

Remember, under Obama, anyone making more than 150k is "rich and should be taxed as such.

replytoj001

Ugliest dress I have ever saw

Judy Jetson when she was working as Dick Tracy's sidekick.

"Elitite" and "Elitist" have been deployed by Republicans as talking points against the Obama's.

As John Kerry and Al Gore learned, talking points need to be refuted.

"Elite" often seems to be code for "uppity" and at least one Republican has moved on to the word "uppity" itself. See:
Sen. Westmoreland Calls Obama 'Uppity'

But you realize the Republicans were calling Obama an elitist not because of wealth, but because of how he was speaking to the working class in PA. They accused him of talking down to the working class. Ever since then, people have been slamming the Republicans for wearing expensive clothes or owning too many homes. I'm sorry, but that is not elitist.

Watching the RNC made me realize that the Republicans are the only agents for change in this election. LOL so lets go out there and vote Republican; vote for change and take the country back...?from the republicans?...... Damn the liberal left and damn the media because they are destroying the country.

Remember its time for a change!! Vote republican, so we can replace the republican in the cheif excutive office.

Ha! Gotta love that. Republicans for change! Sure....there will be change, and none of it will be good.

Since the formation of the Republican Party they have been entrenched in reformation. So saying they will change things doesn't seem as unlikely as you lead it to believe. But then again why should I cite its history as proof.

Since the formation of the Republican Party they have been entrenched

Well you got this much right, at least.

Oh so you are bad at making arguments. Thanks for letting me know that, now go back to doing that. In fact maybe you should reply to me proving even more you are bad at making an argument. That would be cool and I bet that never happens on internet message boards.

Rennurtasf:

?? I'm not sure I follow your argument.

Driveby comments like that are a sign of insecurity and inability to from a coherent argument.

Unless you meant my argument that Republicans have been originally formated for the vehicle of change.

Or it's a sign that I don't feel like wasting time debating rightwing blowhards who have no sense of humor.

Maybe you are mostly scared that I am right.

Are all "newly created" parties not by definition founded with reformation as the goal ?

Maybe you are mostly scared that I am right.

ROTFLO! Such self importance...

If I might. The problem it poses it that their actions fly in the face of their rhetoric. Vote for me Im the common man, I connect with you. Nevermind I cant remember how many houses I own or that I wear earings which cost over 300K. I feel your pain. C'mon nice try.

Maybe you are mostly scared that I am right.

In a prior thread, yourself and others argued that Obama qualifies as elitist because he "believes or feels he has all the answers and better than others". We are more free on this board to lay broad charges without proof on people's 'feelings'.

894 out of 899 in his graduating class McCain is definitely not an intellectual elitist. When was the last time we picked from the bottom of our intellectual ore academic pool - oh yes - twice recently with D+ from Yale Bush. And we saw what happened to our economy and surplus turned deficit in 8 years, net job loss over 8 years, net huge loss in value of dollar, etc. And when was the last time we picked an 'elitist' by definition of the XXX-90210 posters? Oh yes, Rhodes Scholar Clinton and we know what happened to our economy, net surplus, net job creation, etc.

So lets leave issues and policy and focus AGAIN on personality and psychoanalyze and psychobable and decipher who thinks he is better than others etc. Disregard the fact the subject served as a $10,000 a year community organizer after leaving Havard when they could go for elitist three figure jobs. There is only one form of service in this country - the obvious one - military; which is not to be impugned. It is no excuse to let our awe of military service lead us to reward this kind of servie with our whole lives and economy when they have admitted and not proven proficient in economic stewardship. We have ways of rewarding those services and yes we should improve them. Sometimes, we exhibit the junta complex that drives military rule third world country, only we democratically get to the same point via the kinds of emotional appeal such as that of yesterday and that we are consistenly subjected to.

My outfit that I wore to the gym yesterday cost $110 Dollars (including shoes). That terrible Cindy McCain could have outfitted 2,545 poor unemployed college grads like me with suitable gymwear instead of looking all fancy for the most important speech of her life. How distasteful.

Yeh, If you love stupid remarks, you gotta appreciate that one.

I hope you're a woman.

"...I believe Michelle Obama's dress cost $150.00..."
Good lord, I spend more than that, on a regular basis, at Victoria's Secret. I have shoes that cost more than $150.00
Give the class warfare a rest, leftists!

Hana32...

While you're out there buying those $150.99 frillies at V.S... the rest of the real world is praying they'll have enough to feed their kids and heat the house until the next paycheck.

Compared to the poor in other countries, the poor in America are actually not doing that bad considering most poor people in America have a television, own a car and some even own a house.

The left is up to its old tricks of using the class warfare card.

Hana,
Yes, they have TV's but they're thousands in debt...

Hana32:

Compared to the poor in other countries, the poor in America are actually not doing that bad considering most poor people in America have a television, own a car and some even own a house.

Yeah, this is just what people struggling in our country want to hear. "Shut the f*ck up, you're better off than 99% of the world's poor people."

Good lord, I spend more than that, on a regular basis, at Victoria's Secret. I have shoes that cost more than $150.00 Give the class warfare a rest, leftists!

Ahhh, and you're bragging about it. Sounds like you are an elitist! While you are off spending $150+ on garments you hope to God will make you just a bit sexier, or trendier, I am pulling odd jobs to make an extra $150 to buy some groceries for my family for the week. While you're pretending that you are living in Sex in the City, people are risking their lives to barely make it financially. What you think is "life" is just a dream that you can afford to live in. I hope your dream lasts forever, because judging by your attitude, you wouldn't last 5 minutes in real life.

And you don't know a thing about class warfare, you don't get a glimpse of real life from your high tower or your dressing room at VS. You won't have any idea what class warfare really is until you are on the wrong end of it. Trust me, it has nothing to do with words on a website, Left or Right, or fake speeches on the TV. It usually involves guns, yelling, crying, and loss of property and life. When you catch a glimpse of class warfare, let's see how quick you "get over it".

How in the world can the left wage class warfare with guns when they do everything to ban them?

The left has continually used class warfare as a tactic to win election.

"Sex in the City" was a distasteful example of leftist television programming.

You're struggling, no doubt, and Obama wants to tax your employers at a higher rate which means your employer can't hire more workers. It's a shame when hardworking people buy into leftist propaganda. Leftists believe the government can do all things for you when, in fact, that's not American values.

As for my lifestyle, my husband and I are blessed and, unlike the wealthy on the left, we give 10% to charity. It's a fact that people like me are far more generous than leftists. Leftists talk a good story about how much they care but their low level of donations to charity prove otherwise.

Sex in the City was leftist with its rapacious consumerism? That's always been a Republican trait.

Hana #9.8

The left wants (and thinks they need) the Government to take care of them. It's part of their whole socialist thinking.

I'll respond to two posts at the same time:

"Sex in the City was leftist with its rapacious consumerism? That's always been a Republican trait."

No, it's an example of the leftist trash created in Hollywood.

"The left wants (and thinks they need) the Government to take care of them. It's part of their whole socialist thinking."

Agreed.

Angie and Hana,

Ever been disabled and couldn't support your family as a result? There are times when we do need the government to take care of us. Would you rather have those of us who cannot work due to illness or injury kill ourselves so that we wouldn't need help from anyone? I know that's an extreme question, but from what I read (Hana) extreme is all you understand.

Hana,

So, everything created in Hollywood is leftist trash? Interesting. I suppose that your only popular reading is Ann Coulter and that Fox is your news source. Rightist trash is OK?

Hana

Compared to the poor in other countries

Incredible that you began your post with this!

It seems many elitists don't realize that they are.

Hanna,

Wow, you spend $150 on shoes. I would slap myself if I spent that kind of money on shoes. If I see a pair of shoes I like (and they have to be the most comfortable shoes) and they cost $150, I most definitely wait until they go on clearance. I don't need them that bad.

Well, I guess it different strokes for different folks. I am a total bargain shopper when it comes to clothes and shoes.

Hanna- my dittos go to the others here - why do you feel that you need to brag about your inefficient savings habits- and who do you think really cares what you where under your Route 66 from Walmart jeans. Go back to your Facebook and get a real fake life- stop doing it here! >:^[ But, if your going to blog on here, get a real point and stick to the subject. Which is ...what the heck were we even talking about anyway?!?!? - oh yeah- the "300,000 outfit" that Cindy (16/61) McCain wore.
Earrings or not --- here's a cool (icy) thought and please pay attention to what i'm about to say- her OUTFIT --- repeat- her OUTFIT was the equivalent amount of what Governor Sarah "I'm a Special Needs Advocate" Palin left in State funding for Alaska's children with special needs after she cut her budget--- 3oo,ooo... let's talk about this for awhile instead of giving Hana what she was inadvertantly got - attention for her instead of the issues at hand (sounds like some of our candidates ;)

Maybe a denim jacket - she keeps it on the plane she uses to fly around the state of AZ as she feels it's the only way to get around.

looking at cindy you can see why mccain picked palin its probably the closest he has been to a woman in years

renard...

I dunno. Cindy is attractive. She'd better be. Best that money can buy...

I don't think that it's the actual cost of the clothes alone that is the point here. What people seem to be upset about is the fact that she was wearing this extravagant outfit while her husband's campaign called his opponent an "elitist". And while these aren't the candidates, they are vocal supporters of their husbands, and whether we like it or not, the immediate family members of a candidate are tied into the perception of the candidate, with some merit for it being that way.

"...the immediate family members of a candidate are tied into the perception of the candidate..."

In that case, Obama is a whiny anti-American who has, prior to being worshipped by the masses with their hands out, never been proud of his country.

Read his autobiography and you'll see the real Obama, a man who until he entered the presidential campaign disowned the multiracial blanket he now wraps around himself.

He, like his wife, is the typical leftist using class warfare to gain power. By the way, ask him how it came to be that after he became a state legislator his wife's employer received millions in state funds.

So she is rich and can afford it-just because we can't afford it means she shouldn't get to wear it?

Many rich folk have the good taste to dress down a bit when they are in public. They save the bling for the cotillion's, red carpet appearances, etc.

The dress Mrs. McCain was pictured in looks more appropriate for the Oscars than for a political convention.

As far as elitism goes, Obama just might be an elitist (it must be hard not to feel better than other people when you *are* better than them in many ways), but pretending to be like everyone else when one is clearly not like most people is called hypocrisy.

I am still undecided about the better candidate in this election. However, if we must discuss who would make a better first lady, then it's fair to compare.

A. Cindy McCain has admitted she does not like Washington. She felt people treated her differently there when she and John first got married, mostly because she was so much younger than most of the other politician's wives. (And the fact that he was still married when they met did nothing to quell the rumor mill.) Do we not want a First Lady who will put her personal interests aside for the sake of how much she can accomplish in that office? It is difficult to imagine Cindy putting her family business in the hands of others while she moves to Washington.

B. Yes, Cindy has worked for international charities. However, so has Angelina Jolie, and I sure as hell wouldn't want her in the White House. Family values, my foot.

C. Yes, Michelle Obama made a huge salary at her last job. And yes, they live in an expensive house in a high-end neighborhood. But I respect that they seem to be self-made successes.

D. When will we stop playing the race card? Perhaps it's a generational difference, but I truly could not care less what ethnicity our president is. I am far more concerned about McCain choosing a pro-life, life-long NRA member as his VP. Not to mention one who condones abstinence-only sex education, which has been PROVEN to be ineffective. Sure didn't work for her own daughter! What is that about?!

Sorry, I veered off the Cindy vs. Michelle discussion. Like I said, I still don't know which candidate is better, and I'm not even sure how much the potential First Lady should play into my decision.

Abstinence works 100% of the time and is 100% effective if one follows through. Bristol Palin's pregnancy is NOT a failure of abstinence; it's a failure of not being following through on what her mother taught her.

Abstinence works 100% of the time and is 100% effective if one follows through

and hence the problem with abstinence as substitute for sex education and birth control. The follow through rate with abstinence is lower, and lower by a lot, than the follow through rate of taking/using birth control.

I believe what Hana32 is saying is that the only way of preventing pregnancy 100% is to not have sex. Anyone who goes out on a boat takes the risk of getting sea-sick, no matter how much Dramamine they take.

To me she seems to be blaming the girl for not being able to follow through on an absurd idea that her mother epsposues that one should and will remain abstinent until the moment they are ready to have a child and that the only reason for having sex is to have children.

It is like telling an obese person just don't eat much and you won't be obese any more. Sure that is a true statement, but not ver likely to happen. Unfortunaltely for Obese people there isn't a solution as simple and effective as the pill and/or condoms.

Having sex and being obese are interesting comparisions. However, both involve a degree of choice and self-control. I agree that if teenagers are having sex, they should use not only birth control, but STD prevention, as wll. I just don't 't think we should use birth control as a substitute for teaching our kids good judgment.

Pills and condoms don't prevent sex, they prevent pregnancy.

Correct, and abstinence education and vows prevent neither.

Both involve some degree of self-control.

yep and that is why birth control is needed, it is much more reliable than self control. It is very sketchy to rely on self control when we are talking about primal instincts, young people, and hormonal urges.

Was there some kind of point you were trying to make?

Yes; it's okay to teach our kids that the only 100% effective method of birth control and STD prevention is abstinence. It doesn't make us all religious nuts or unreasonable.

Sorry, I never said that. You assumed that because I am discussing abstinence that I don't agree with teaching about contraception. If you are talking about complete abstinence, yes, it does prevent all STDs. Kids should be taught that skin-to-skin contact in the genital area can lead to STDs. Oral sex is sex, anal sex is sex. Complete abstinence means refraining from ALL forms of sexual contact. Genital herpes is an STD; all forms of herpes are not.

That said, it's the part where you want to keep my kids1 from learning about contraception and general sex ed in the schools that my taxes fund (too) that I object to.

In the age of the MAC, the PC, the World Wide Web, MTV, You Tube, Myspace and daggone School House Rock...any teen that doesn't know or have a clue about condoms and other forms of contraception can safely be categorized as a complete imbecile!

This is where Liberals show their elitist attitudes in living color and full parade dress.

They actually think that kids are that daggone stupid, that they need to spend millions of dollars to send teachers into classrooms with a condom and a banana to "educate" a teenager about sex.

In this Age of Information in which we live...please!

.... Get serious some of these teens can teach you a thing or two

The reality is you can be fully versed in every form of contraception and allow passion of the moment to take its course.

Whether boy or girl, by today's social standards under the influence peer pressurfe fueled by pop-culture,

by the age of 13 it is considered nerdy, unacceptable, weird, whack and totally uncool to be a virgin....

.... this is where the problem lies, in our teenagers anxiety to gain acceptance in exchange for being sexually active.

Not teaching them about something any kid as dumb as a door knob already knows

it's okay to teach our kids that the only 100% effective method of birth control

How did that work out with Sarah Palin's daughter?

It may be a 100% effective method to prevent pregnancy; however, it is much less likely to be adhered to than the pill/condoms; so as a birth control method it is less effective. Furthermore, it implies the only reason for having sex is to have kids.

If Sarah Palin's daughter was not pregnant and decided to get married, and didn't want a kid immediately, would you still recommend abstinence for her and her husband?

Be careful with that line of thought; kids having sex using birth control pills and condoms still need to exercise judgment and self-control. You have to remember to take the pill at about the same time every day for maximum effectiveness. Condoms must be used correctly, every time, in order to be most effective. You can teach any method of birth control you want; doesn't mean that kids will follow all of your instructions. Half of all pregnancies in this country are unplanned; you can't tell me that none of those people had sex education.

No, abstinence is best used in the context of protecting those who probably aren't ready for the responsibilites that go along with having sex.

Oh, and in answer to your first question, it didn't work, because she didn't practice it. It only works if practiced. I think we are confusing teaching abstinence being 100% effective with actual abstinence being 100% effective.

kids having sex using birth control pills and condoms still need to exercise judgment and self-control. You have to remember to take the pill at about the same time every day for maximum effectiveness. Condoms must be used correctly, every time, in order to be most effective. You can teach any method of birth control you want; doesn't mean that kids will follow all of your instructions.

I agree. That is why abstinence is no effective. Kids lack self control, the don't have the best judgment, and they don't follow all of their parents instructions. Fortunately the pill is simple use and requires much less self control to take than it takes to suppress natural urges.

See above; abstinence is 100% effective. Teenagers need to know that if they are having sex, they are at risk of becoming pregnant.
Teaching abstinence is not 100% effective; neither is teaching any method of birth control.

Teaching abstinence is not 100% effective; neither is teaching any method of birth control

its just that teaching your kids to use birth control is a lot more effective than teaching them abstinence.

Only if they use it.

Only if they use it.

yep. luckily there is a much higher probability of them using it than of them remaining abstinent.

I just think we do teenagers a disservice if we don't teach them about all of the methods available to them.

I just think we do teenagers a disservice if we don't teach them about all of the methods available to them

i agree that we should teach them about abstinence, but after about age 15 you are really fighting a losing battle.

And you know, that's where I think many parents really go wrong. They think that one talk at age 13 or 14 is enough to teach kids about the responsibility that goes along with having sex. So, at 15 or 16, when they are having sex, their parents don't know because they don't talk about it anymore. Most teenagers are abstinent (per the CDC's last estimate, 53%, so maybe just barely), but the older they get, obviously the likelihood increases.

Yes, OBVIOUSLY abstinence is 100% effective when practiced -- OBVIOUSLY not 100% effective when taught. That was the whole point of my argument. I am not a religious nut (and am, indeed, afraid of religious nuts), and I think parents should be responsible for teaching their kids the safest, soundest birth control. However, the majority of our parents seem to be ineffective at that as well. So while I understand the hesitation toward general sex ed in schools (and for the record, I'm a teacher), I also think it's almost always safest and wisest to offer a wide variety of theories, practices, and ideas to teens.

That being said, it has been proven that many teens are under such strong control by their hormones that even knowing the right decision does not mean they will make the right decision.

And I certainly don't think that Sarah Palin insisting that her daugher will marry the father is the best idea, either. The morals of anyone who pushes a 17-year-old into marriage to justify her political agenda are questionable. Isn't our divorce rate high enough? Is it possible to consider that were Palin's convictions (anti-Roe v. Wade) not so stubborn, her daughter might be able to abort an unwanted pregnancy and perhaps pursue her future free of the constraints of a mandatory marriage and (perhaps) unwanted child?

I just think we do teenagers a disservice if we don't teach them about all of the methods available to them.

But they're not stupid and its elitist to believe they are! They do not need people to make excuses for them. What they need to be taught is the truth that most people lose their mind and any sense of logic or reason once passion kicks in and thats how unwanted pregnancy occurs.

Most of what they are taught only serves to assuage the guilt of adults who have taken part in allowing and creating a pervasive atmosphere of sexual permissiveness bordering on porn and erotica.

Look at the media, the main thrust of Women's right activists have been undermined and taken 3 steps backwards rather than a giant step forward. Look around you, the average girl has already been eroticized by the age of 13 year through music and mass media. Some of you so called progressives are actually stuck in the 1960's, still talking about condoms and birth control pills while a lot of these kids can't wait to get their 1st thong and already experimenting alternative sexuality with their best friend!

Even with the most advanced knowledge of birth control adult women still get pregnant! With the condom, the pills or the gel on the night stand or in the drawer.

Why?

Because it has nothing to do with education and everything to do with the passion of the moment!

Proponents of abstinence are not the dowdy, uptight prudes liberals make us out ot be. To the contrary we actually understand, reverance and are more honest about the power of the heat of passion than the average liberal cares to admit!

Welcome to haute couture

Now, now, now, Andy, the sack, er, I mean dress, only cost 3,000. It was the entire outfit that cost 300,000. You know, the cost of accessories adds up.

Maybe for her spending only 300 large on a dress is spending a tad less.

Well, it does look like it just sort of fell on her.

OMG.............Cindy McCain............the United States version of Imelda Marcos.

If that makes Cindy Imelda then I guess it's fair to call Michelle the US version of Queen Isabella of Spain

No, Michelle is more akin to Angela Davis.

Oh Hana, get over yourself. You're being ridiculous.

It's not my fault the Obamas are socialists.

Hana32,

Please don't stop posting! You've been excellent entertainment so far...:o)

It's not my fault the Obamas are socialists.

We know how awfully socialism has worked out in European countries. :P

Wait, I don't get the Queen Isabella of Spain bit.

That was exactly the point of #9, when I stated that we should add in the cost of Michelle's accessories, including shoes, earrings, necklace..... Just to be fair.

I find it highly unlikely, however, that Michelle was wearing ear-rings that amounted to 30% of her net worth.

Neither was Cindy.

In fact, taking Cindy McCain's net worth as 100million, $280,000 earrings represent .28% of her net worth.

Taking the Obama's net worth at approx $500,000 (no I don't have a source, I'm tripling Obama's salary for this and assuming Michelle does something too), for her to be equal to Cindy in terms of earrings/total wealth, she would have to own a pair of earrings that cost....drumroll....

$1,400.

Hey killfile I'll be here all day till I get bored

And... what's on Cindy's plate? Mac and cheese?

And... what's on Cindy's plate? Mac and cheese?

Maybe some of Palin's moose-burgers. And caviar.

Arugula is inexpensive, fyi. What's elitist about that??? Too healthy for ya??

Redruby,

it doesn't have bacon in it. Everyone knows that the average Joe lives 100% off of bacon, bread, and cheese.

it doesn't have bacon in it. Everyone knows that the average Joe lives 100% off of bacon, bread, and cheese.

False.

I live off of bacon, bread, ramen, and Monster.

Sir Thinks,

I wonder how many Republicans you lost at

ramen

?

Hopefully a lot, but that spicy chicken ramen is heaven on earth

It appears the smearing is being done by the author of the article, not the Republicans.

Do you hate someone who nherits wealth? If so, you'll hate my twins.

Do you hate someone who nherits wealth? If so, you'll hate my twins.

It's a shame when fortunate people have no sense of noblesse oblige.

It's a shame when folks have an attitude of "I got mine, f**k you".

It's a shame when leftists play the class warfare card.

It's a shame we have classes.

I wonder why Obama didn't mention he's a closet Muslim.

Hana32...

"Closet" is the adjective used to describe folks like Sen. Larry Craig who is still trying to hide from the obvious.

Sen. Obama is a Christian. But you'd rather believe the phony emails than the truth.

The Koran gives Muslims the right to LIE about their faith if it advances the cause (world domination) of Islam. In other words, for 2000 years, brave Christians have refused to deny their faith and have been killed. Meanwhile, Muslims can LIE and state they're not Muslims if it advance the cause. Disgusting.

Obama can not say he is a Christian and expect Christians to buy it. Non-Christians might believe him when he makes that claim. Christianity is built on Love and Hope. Not race supremecy and power mongering. Many have claimed Christiainity as a guise to further a political goal but true Christians see through it every time. We only wish non-Chrisitians could also see it.
I do not believe he is a closet Muslim I believe he has faith in himself and not God.
No federal politician can claim Christianity in my opinion as the two necessary belief systems are incompatable. They can have Christian beliefs and try to do good deeds, but the power structure required to be at that level makes necessary the omission of key Christian principles.

Hana32... I must admit I'm not as well versed in Islamic doctrine as you obviously are.

Please give me a direct passage from the Koran so you can show me in the text itself. Thanks.

LIAMD...

George W Bush says he is a Christian.

Yet hasn't he also used that to "further a political goal"?

Who was it that denied Christ 3 x?

SnotRag Dave

Yes he does, see the second part of my comment. In terms of faith the difference between Obama and Bush is that Bush does not attend a church which preaches racial superiority. Nor does Bush in my opinion show an Elitist mind set. While Bush does show a HIGH level of self regard he does not claim to know better than the average American what is best for them like Obama does.

The core difference in this election unlike the previous several is a major one in my opinion. It is simply do you believe we should become a socialist country or should we maintain our roots as a free republic. All this side stuff is smoke and mirrors to hide the true fact Obama's core support group (not the Democrats) wants socialism to be the form of government in this country. It is just so many people in this country are locked into one of the two parties they will not deviate regardless of how far to one extreme a candidate is. Thank God for independent voters.

LIAMD...

Perhaps it would be helpful (to me, at least) if you would care to explain what makes an elitist? I don't need a dictionary definition, I need your interpretation.

I can't argue or agree unless I know your meaning...

SnotRag Dave (nice screen name by the way)

I believe anyone who thinks and acts as if they are better than others is an elitist.
I am sure you can find an example of Bush acting in this manner but it it not how he acts on a consistent basis unlike Obama.

In other words, for 2000 years, brave Christians have refused to deny their faith and have been killed.

Jewish people don't have a dispensation to lie. They *can*, however equivocate. In Spain, in order to save their lives from Christian oppressors, many Jews would go to Church on Sunday while privately celebrating the Jewish Sabbath on Friday with curtains drawn.

Nor does Bush in my opinion show an Elitist mind set. While Bush does show a HIGH level of self regard he does not claim to know better than the average American what is best for them like Obama does.

You mean to say he speaks like a bumpkin while forcing the country into military adventures a majority of its citizens do not support and trampling on their civil liberties?

If somebody doesn't feel like they have a clue as to what's best for their fellow citizens, they have no business running for the highest office in the land. At least Obama's sincere (well, more sincere than most of the others) about who he is and what he believes.

MightyMait

What??? Having a vision and "knowing what's best" are two totally different things. As a parent you know what's best for your kids but not your neighbors. AND if by sincere you mean telling people what he thinks they want to hear then I agree Obama is sincere.

Having the strength to follow through on a vision is what a leader does even if those around him/her disagree. Acting like a parent to a country is not a leader but an elitist.

What civil liberites have been trampled????

And pay attention, history will show going into Iraq was a good decision, could it have been handled better certaintly, but that would have required liberals to shut up and actually support the military and the president and not aide and abed the enemy for political gain.

LIAMD..

SnotRag Dave (nice screen name by the way)

Thank you. I was named after my father. ;-D

I believe anyone who thinks and acts as if they are better than others is an elitist.

That pretty much describes a solid 2/3rds of Americans. (And I might be underestimating that a bit.) Back in the day, we referred to folks like that by saying, "Their s**t don't stink."

By your definition... Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain are both... not elitists.

Whether they eat arugula or wear $520 loafers doesn't matter. It's about who they serve. I know where Obama stands when it comes to the middle class and poor. Still waiting for McCain to take a stand.

SnotRag Dave

I agree many people today are elitists. But we'll have to agree to disagree about Obama, to me he is the epitimy of elitisim. I don't believe Obama serves anyone but himself. In my opinion if he truely cared about the poor and downtrodden as he claims. He would live by example and only keep enough money to live a normal middle class life and give the rest to chairty. But he sits on a ton of cash and tells the middle class they should give more.

McCain on the other hand doesn't apoligize for his wifes cash but his record shows that he does serve and has paid a greater price for that service than almost anyone else in Congress.

As a parent you know what's best for your kids but not your neighbors.

In this case, the president's kids are the U.S. citizens and the neighbors are the Iraqis.

What civil liberites have been trampled????

Let's start with the right to privacy.

And pay attention, history will show going into Iraq was a good decision

I'm paying attention. It was certainly a good decision for Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater, etc.

MightyMAit

The US citizens are the presidents and congress' bosses not children you are wrong on that point. Public servants are entrusted to perform a job for the citzens not tell the citizens what to do.

Where is the right to privacy in the constitution??? I see Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness but not a right to absolute privacy.

Your response to Iraq shows your inabiltiy to see a bigger global picture and an inabiltiy to understand national security. If you don't want us in Iraq or Iran, etc. Than quit using electricity, driving a car, using mediciene, etc and we won't need the oil that is there. Further, get hollywood and their liberal friends to give up the limos, private jets mansions, etc and we can further reduce our need for foreign oil. And finally, if we don't control the global resources someone else will (China, Russia, etc) and we will become subserveant to them.
Please learn some history and realize how controling resources and being involved in difficult parts of the world allows you and I to have this conversation and live in the greatest country on the planet. If you don't believe we're the best maybe you should consider spending some extended time in any other country and then you'll see how good you have it here.

LIAMD...

I wondered how long before the POW experience would be brought into the conversation.

Yes, John McCain was a POW. For surviving that with any measure of sanity, he deserves my respect.

POW does not equal leader, however... so that has to be put aside to gauge Sen. McCain on his other merits.

I voted for John McCain in 2000, the year that his own party truly deserted him in favor of the Clown Prince. John McCain's name and his family were unfairly sullied by some of the same people that are now working for him.

John McCain sold his soul... and threw away his 'maverick' style... in order to kiss up to Bush/Cheney and win the right to become the nominee. John McCain is a shadow of his former self. He lost my respect (politically) when he became just another party flunky. This year's version doesn't care for others... he no longer works for his constituents... he only cares about becoming President. If he loses -- and likely he will -- he will know it's because he turned against everything he used to believe in just for ambition.

Today's John McCain isn't worthy of shining the shoes of the one from pre-2000.

You think Sen. Obama cares only for himself. I disagree.

By the way, Sen. McCain sits on a much larger pile of cash than Sen. Obama. According to HumanEvents (definitely NOT a liberal source), John McCain has at least $36,431,099. Who should live that normal middle class life? Actually, neither McCain nor Obama. You could say they've earned their money and should enjoy it.

But which one has an economic plan that will help the middle class and poor? Forget the trickle-down crap... that hasn't worked yet. Keep jobs here, don't reward companies that outsource overseas. That's a good place to start. And that's not part of the McCain/Gramm plan.

I wonder why Obama didn't mention he's a closet Muslim.

Well if he mentions it he's not in the closet any more. Duh. Why are Republicans so stupid they don't even understand the contradictions in their own posts?

The US citizens are the presidents and congress' bosses not children you are wrong on that point. Public servants are entrusted to perform a job for the citzens not tell the citizens what to do.

Not exactly. If we were their bosses, we could fire them at will. They are elected by us, but they are chosen by us to be leaders. Once elected, they are not required to do as we will them to do or even to listen to us. The PUSA is also the commander-in-chief of the military.

Where is the right to privacy in the constitution??? I see Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness but not a right to absolute privacy.

It's good to know a bit about the Constitution (I wish I knew more). There's something called the 4th Amendment. These days, it doesn't get as much attention as the 2nd.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Perhaps you've also heard about our current administrations warrant-less wire-tapping program that's trying to be justified in the name of homeland security?

Speaking of closets, that's where Cindy's dress would look best -- a nice dark, closet. (I'm trying to get things back on topic here.)

not only do real people grow arugula.......real people actually bend down and pick it, pack and ship it...so the people who can afford to wear the equivalent of a real American's mortgage payment on their backs can eat a leaf or two and throw out the rest all comfy and cozy in the knowledge that out there are more real people picking more for them.

"It is her money, she can spend it on whatever she wants to (ugly or not). It is not the public's or the governments job to police how we choose to spend our money as long as it is within legal bounds. One day I hope to be well off enough that I can freely spend my money on whatever I choose to (although that price tag would give me a heart attach)."

However, this is what drives leftists mad. They envision a world where we'd all earn minimum wage except, of course, leftist elites who would keep their $800M fortunes. The left hates anyone who is successful, unless he/she engages in class warfare and leftists do in fact want the government to tell you how to spend your money, at least the little you have left after they've taxed it to no end.

No what drives me mad is googling mccain-hensley-marley.................

Are you suffering a little class envy? Take two leftists, Michelle and Barack Hussein, and call Joe Biden later.

The left hates anyone who is successful, unless he/she engages in class warfare and leftists do in fact want the government to tell you how to spend your money, at least the little you have left after they've taxed it to no end.

Actually, leftists would like to see the government spending the people's money (in the form of tax revenue) to help the people rather than simply further enriching the fat plutocrats through no-bid war contracts, bank bail-outs and the like.

The current Republicans are more than happy to plunder the wealth of the commoners. They give us a token tax rebate and then rake in many times that in artificially inflated oil (food, water, etc.) prices. Nice scam.

"...leftists would like to see the government spending the people's money (in the form of tax revenue) to help the people..."

How? By making them dependent on welfare programs?

"...rather than simply further enriching the fat plutocrats through no-bid war contracts, bank bail-outs and the like."

I assume you mean Halliburton. Name another company that could do the work done by Halluburton in Iraq.

"...plunder the wealth of the commoners..."

Leftists claim commoners have no wealth; how can it be plundered?

The Bush tax cuts were positive for every American.

"...artificially inflated oil (food, water, etc.) prices..."

Do you understand market capitalism? My Dad worked for ExxonMobil. Do you know how costly it is to explore for oil, drill for it and bring it to market?

How? By making them dependent on welfare programs?

How about employing folks to work on infrastructure so we don't have bridges collapsing?

I assume you mean Halliburton. Name another company that could do the work done by Halluburton in Iraq.

Why would it have to be done by only one company? Besides a lot of the so-called work done by Halliburton was done simply so they could bill. There have been former Halliburton truck drivers who've testified to driving empty trucks back and forth.

Leftists claim commoners have no wealth; how can it be plundered?

Who has claimed that? The middle and lower classes tend to be living paycheck to paycheck, so they may not have fat savings, but they're still the backbone of the economy. Also, some middle class folks still have retirement funds which are commonly plundered by the plutocrats.

The Bush tax cuts were positive for every American.

Positive, but they were a token. As I said, they've more than been offset by other expenses.

Do you understand market capitalism?

Do you understand that what we have in the U.S. is not market capitalism? Do you understand the history (ongoing) of insider trading, price manipulations, and other financial abuses?

There's no proof, just another example of the left using the class warfare card.

huh....look who she's married to.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Yes, it's a pity she couldn't marry a little higher than a community organizer.

S. from Florida -- you're talking about Cindy McCain, the husband and the potato sack, er, I mean dress, right?

Or, perhaps her husband should have found a real job instead of leftist community organizing.

Wow rumor........did you forget to take your exlax this morning or something?

But you see, the difference between Cindy McCain and her money and Michelle Obama should she have been raised with money.......is that Michelle was raised with the concept "To which much is given.....to which much is expected.

One thing is having money given to you by virtue of birthright another is working hard to gain it.

I think we all know the Obama's have done pretty well for themselves in recent times....but they haven't forgotten where they came from.

The Obama's don't need GPS or staffers to remind them.

"...but they haven't forgotten where they came from..."

No, it appears they haven't forgotten those community organizing days especially when Obama used his power as a state legislator to line the coffers of his wife's employer. They haven't forgotten their old friend, the terrorist, Bill Ayers and no doubt he will hold a prominent position in the Obama administration. I'm sure they haven't forgotten the sleazy, corrupt Chicago political machine that put Obama into power.

hana

google hensley-marley-lansky and then talk about where the money came from.

Your point? So, she inherited weatlh. Big deal. So did I, so did my husband, and our children will do the same, unless of course Obama becomes president and confiscates all of it to pay for his leftist feel-good welfare programs.

My parents, as well as my husband's parents, believed in the American dream. They invested/saved for the future of their children. My husband's parents were not native-born Americans, athough he is, and they readily embraced the possibilities for success in America. They didn't whine, they entered the country legally and they worked hard to achieve success.

EVERY person in America can succeed if he/she abides by the rules, gets a good education and works hard. This country has endless opportunities; it's the greatest nation in the world. We're the envy of the world which explains why thousands flee Michael Moore's favorite paradise, Cuba, for the bountiful shores of America.

Hana,

I'm loaded with cash like you.

But, let's acknowledge that not everyone can be rich. There just aren't enough resources. Given that, let's take care of the working poor; give em' health care and education, instead of shipping them off to war.

They obviously did the best they could, they raised an African American woman in South Chicago and sent her to an Ivy league school. Now she is about to become the 1st black First Lady of the free world. Wow. How bout them odds.

We're shipping off the working poor to war?

But, let's acknowledge that not everyone can be rich.

Exactly. If everybody were rich, the rich wouldn't be special. It takes poor people for there to be rich people.

It's this myth that keeps the poor in America from rising up and demanding a fair compensation for their work (somehow it's the hardest working folks that tend to get paid the least):

EVERY person in America can succeed if he/she abides by the rules, gets a good education and works hard. This country has endless opportunities; it's the greatest nation in the world. We're the envy of the world which explains why thousands flee Michael Moore's favorite paradise, Cuba, for the bountiful shores of America.

From what I can see, it is precisely those who *break* the rules (think Enron and all the folks like them who never get caught) that are most handsomely rewarded.

I don't know if the U.S. is the envy of the world. I think we're considered by many to be unprincipled, uncultured boors.

As far as Cuba goes, for every person who leaves, there are hundreds who stay and are reasonably content (at least they're not worrying about how to pay their medical bills).

hana

Did you really read where that money came from?

#22.3 - class envy? Heck no. I have plenty - of class and enough money and property. Got it the old fashioned way - earned it - no hand-outs from anyone, government, the mob or family. My children will inherit well also and have been taught that 'sharing' is not sinful but greed is. They will be richest from the values we have taught them and by the example we have set. Everything isn't measured in dollars and cents.

Guess it's just a difference in ideologies and interpretation.

The dress didn't cost $300,000, but the 3-carat d iamond earrings at $280,))) pushed it up there and the $12,000-$20,000 string of pearls copped it off.

I saw this story on the net this morning compared to Michelle Obama's dress which cost $148.

If you must have proof, google somet things like $300,000 or Michelle Cindy. I'm sure you will find the evidence.

Cindy's dress cost only $3,000. I'd croak if my wife spent $3,000 on a dress. Besides, Michelle Obama showed how great someone can look without spending a fortune. I'm impressed with her shopping acumen.

I wish everyone would get over the price Mrs. McCain paid for her dress, it is all a bunch of HOOPLAH. By the way, Michelle Obama's dress was a designer fashion!!! Actually by her favorite designer. MARIA PINTO

We really don't know how much Mrs. McCain paid for hers. I think that was something planted on the Internet. But, does it matter? She has money and thank goodness you can make money in America. I don't care if she did inherit the money, it is her money she can buy whatever she wants and pay whatever she wants for it. Her privilege.

Isn't this the basic problem of politics in this country: our worship of the common man leads us to elect mediocrities; they, in turn, fumble things wretchedly, lead us into seething discontent, then we elect more mediocrities and wonder why they disappoint.

The vilification of "elitist" seems to have a long history; as far as I can tell, it's existed since we were a culture. De Tocqueville referenced it when he said freedom and equality will always be in conflict. There's just something unfair, un-American, undemocratic about some people being smarter than others. And since we can vote for whom we wish, we look for the comfortable; and since most of us are average (which is to say, mediocre), we elect the average guy or girl. But the problems they face are anything but average, and when they fail to solve them, we take it out on them, because that's easier than questioning our precepts.

I'm not talking identity politics, but image. Look at how candidates are groomed not too look overly bright. (In most cases, it doesn't take much grooming.) It clashes in particular with our avowed worship of "excellence," a concept that is far above mediocre, but which requires superiority, which we see as alien. Oh, their accomplishments will be touted, of course, but only those attainable by the masses. Would anyone care if a candidate proposed a functional universal theory of everything? Of course not, but if he bowled a perfect game, or like Klondike Barbie, bagged a caribou, that would garner all kinds of applause.

We've dumbed ourselves down to point that we've effectively doomed ourselves. Read the Vonnegut story Harrison Bergeron. It's our future.

Well-said snb1930 and Thomas!!

It's a curious phenomenon, isn't it, how traditional American values (rugged individualism, equality, etc.) have been twisted to the point where we demand mediocrity from our leaders?