How the hell do these oligarchs get away with calling us Democrats "elitists"? After all their ugly attacks on Barack & Michelle Obama, how can these out-of-touch, ultra-rich, anti-middle class Rethuglicans get away with this? I'm furious.
It caught our attention, then, when First Lady Laura Bush and would-be First Lady Cindy McCain took the stage Tuesday night wearing some rather fancy designer clothes. So we asked our fashion department to price out their outfits.
Laura Bush
Oscar de la Renta suit: $2,500
Stuart Weitzman heels: $325
Pearl stud earrings: $600$1,500
Total: Between $3,425 and $4,325
Cindy McCain
Oscar de la Renta dress: $3,000
Chanel J12 White Ceramic Watch: $4,500
Three-carat diamond earrings: $280,000
Four-strand pearl necklace: $11,000$25,000
Shoes, designer unknown: $600
Total: Between $299,100 and $313,100
Wow! No wonder McCain has so many houses: his wife has the price of a Scottsdale split-level hanging from her ears.
With so many working class people suffering, the GOP doesn't care. They'd rather saunter around their elite parties in their designer couture while all the rest of us are hurt by their "laissez-faire" economic policies. And yet, they still call the Obamas, a couple that only recently paid off their student loans and still only own ONE HOUSE, "elitists"??!!
The hypocrisy just kills me!
Showing posts with label cindy mccain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cindy mccain. Show all posts
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
The Other Hensley
Why won't Cindy talk about her half-sister?
Or her nephews? Wow. Now wonder why they're all voting for Barack Obama. Is this what Republican "family values" is really about? Disowning one's own family?
Well, I guess it explains why John McCain left his own wife to the wayside for Cindy and her family's many millions of $$$$. I wonder how the media would treat this story if it were Barack Obama's family being disowned. I bet they'd pay more attention.
Labels:
cindy mccain,
family values,
hypocrisy,
John McCain,
Republican mistakes
Monday, June 23, 2008
Soft, Cuddly Wives and Mothers.
Most progressives would agree that Hillary Clinton was on the receiving end of a great deal of sexism in the Democratic primary. This was mostly manifested in the media coverage of her as illustrated in the focus on Clinton's appearance, mannerisms etc. But almost as quick as anyone could say c-o-n-c-e-d-e, other troubling signs of sexism have surfaced in the campaign.
What has been disgusting is that we have reverted into the oldest stereotypes - namely that women should ONLY depicted as wives or mothers.
The responsibility doesn't just rest on the media, which I'll get to in a minute. The campaigns themselves deserve some of the blame as well. Do the Obama's and the McCain's want to play into the stereotypes of first ladies that are only sweet and cuddly? Is Michelle going to quit giving her husband the fist-bump because it comes across as too strong? Does Cindy have to submit any more of 'her' cookie recipes so people can relate to her?
Media stories breathlessly ask:
'Where do they buy their clothes?'
'What types of food do they cook?'
'Which one can be compared to Jackie O?'
We.get.it – they are wives and mothers. But guess what? Both are highly accomplished and intelligent women and are OTHER THINGS TOO.

In a New York Times article covering Michelle’s stint on The View, they further this meme:
The question is, how does mentioning her career or policy positions make her more palatable? Is the writer suggesting that America cannot handle a strong woman? Or that Michelle’s policy positions are unimportant?
This new focus on Michelle and Cindy’s hair and dresses comes right at the end of the gender-biased way the media covered Clinton's campaign. And instead of letting this go - AGAIN - we should be holding the media accountable for perpetuating stereotypes. If a white woman is strong, she's considered cold - as the coverage of Cindy has shown. If a black woman is strong, she's obviously angry - so go the accusations about Michelle.
While I am by no means trying to minimize both the beauty or personal accomplishments of these women, there is far more to them than those things. And seeing as how the 2008 election cycle thus far has turned conventional thinking on its head, this is an opportunity to change the way women - and first ladies - are represented. If we let the narrative about the potential first ladies converge on the role and status of the conventional "little lady" then we have lost the chance to reframe gender and marriage dynamics.
What has been disgusting is that we have reverted into the oldest stereotypes - namely that women should ONLY depicted as wives or mothers.
The responsibility doesn't just rest on the media, which I'll get to in a minute. The campaigns themselves deserve some of the blame as well. Do the Obama's and the McCain's want to play into the stereotypes of first ladies that are only sweet and cuddly? Is Michelle going to quit giving her husband the fist-bump because it comes across as too strong? Does Cindy have to submit any more of 'her' cookie recipes so people can relate to her?
Media stories breathlessly ask:
'Where do they buy their clothes?'
'What types of food do they cook?'
'Which one can be compared to Jackie O?'
We.get.it – they are wives and mothers. But guess what? Both are highly accomplished and intelligent women and are OTHER THINGS TOO.
In a New York Times article covering Michelle’s stint on The View, they further this meme:
Early on, Mrs. Obama was likened to Jackie Kennedy for her youth and fashion style, but lately, the strong and assertive African-American career woman is experiencing the kind of antifeminist hazing that Mrs. Clinton endured in the 1992 campaign when she made her “baking cookies” faux pas.
Mrs. Obama distanced herself from that model on “The View,” describing herself as a mother and not mentioning her law career or her views on policy.
The question is, how does mentioning her career or policy positions make her more palatable? Is the writer suggesting that America cannot handle a strong woman? Or that Michelle’s policy positions are unimportant?
This new focus on Michelle and Cindy’s hair and dresses comes right at the end of the gender-biased way the media covered Clinton's campaign. And instead of letting this go - AGAIN - we should be holding the media accountable for perpetuating stereotypes. If a white woman is strong, she's considered cold - as the coverage of Cindy has shown. If a black woman is strong, she's obviously angry - so go the accusations about Michelle.
While I am by no means trying to minimize both the beauty or personal accomplishments of these women, there is far more to them than those things. And seeing as how the 2008 election cycle thus far has turned conventional thinking on its head, this is an opportunity to change the way women - and first ladies - are represented. If we let the narrative about the potential first ladies converge on the role and status of the conventional "little lady" then we have lost the chance to reframe gender and marriage dynamics.
Labels:
cindy mccain,
Hillary Clinton,
media,
michelle obama,
Sexism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

