The Daily Campus

I think it absolutely makes a difference when the taxpayers are paying for the wardrobe vs. when the individual fits the bill. If this weren't a problem the people that have donated $1000s to McCains campaign wouldn't be pissed off about the fact that it went to not only Ms. Palin's wardrobe but that of her growing family. I could perhaps see justifying her costs but the simple solution to not paying for the other half dozen members of her family would: leave them at home. McCain also has a large family and yet the taxpayers have not paid to put on a fashion show for his children. As far as 'boosting the economy' by purchasing 13 cars and 8 hours, well that's just plain irresponsible. At a time when climate change and environmental issues are becoming increasingly pressing - this is not about tree hugging its about preventing epidemics by ensuring access to clean water - this is not something to be proud of, but rather ashamed of. Even a series of trim pantsuits cannot hide the gluttony behind these decisions. The irony, as I'm sure you're aware, is that Ms. Palin stands, ever so chic in her new attire, next to a man that spends his days crying out against 'pork barrel spending' and other unnecessary uses of taxpayer dollars...

Palin can look pretty all she wants, it doesn't make her a better VP candidate than Biden. Sorry, but I base my votes on things that matter, like y'know, political agendas. And really, you think we'd be getting a makeover with McCain/Palin? The same guy that voted with Bush over 90% of the time? And a governor that thinks foreign policy experience is supposedly being able to see Russia from her house? No thanks. Sarah Palin can go right back to sitting at her window and staring at "Russia" and McCain can drive that "Straight Talk Express" up his ass. I'm voting Obama because my man Nader once again, will not make it. Damn the lack of third party coverage!!!!!!!

This is either an absolutely brilliant tongue in cheek piece, or it may be the single dumbest article ever in the daily campus.

I originally thought this was sarcasm until I realized Ms. Kopp wrote it.

How do you justify Palin counting putting up her children in fancy hotels with her while she was on trips (which the children were not invited to) as a business expense? The taxpayers of Alaska essentially footed a bill for her daughters getting an unnecessary vacation. There's a reason she's facing ethics committees: she's got no scruples. Personally, she scares me more than McCain does because she's unpredictable and seems very unintelligent.

Go Nader!

The title of this article is completely vile when set beside what you have written. How dare you tell me, as part of America, that I need an attitude adjustment because I criticize Palin's $150,000 wardrobe. I need an attitude adjustment? No mam, I believe you do. America is spending millions of dollars in a useless war, killing thousands of people for the sake of 'democracy', and enduring an economic crisis at the moment....yet we are the ones who need an attitude change? I have every right to criticize frivolous spending like the GOP committed in this instance. Your argument that we need politicians who look pretty is the most sexist superficial argument I have read in this paper. And you should be ashamed of yourself for conspiring that people are just jealous that they can't look as good as Cindy McCain does in her fifties. I am sure that the millions of Americans struggling with bills, working for minimum wage, struggling to survive are not jealous that some millionaire politician's wife looks good. Thank you for protecting the elite and spitting on the lower class.

And the title of the article would be great, that is, if the attitude makeover pertained to real issues like the war on drugs, the war in Iraq, the crisis, etc....there are just so many things we are angry about....believe me no one is jealous of Cindy McCain, at least we dont 'plaster on the make-up like a trollup.' - the words of John McCain.

don't worry. i'm intelligent enough to agree with you. bottom line is, if she WASNT spending this money, she wouldn't look good, and people would be giving her crap for it. however, she doesnt have enough money to spend on her own, so the GOP is helping her out because w/o the help, she'd be screwed. with help, people still give her crap.

no one's saying to vote for mccain because he has pretty well dressed running mates. HOWEVER you can rest assured that no one would ever vote for a scruffy looking politician. everyone needs to look the part. that's what palin was trying to do.

it's the same idea as when biden said obama will be tested within his first few weeks of presidency. what if palin had said that? the media would be up in arms, but when a democrat says it, no one bats an eye.

i'm fully confident that obama will win today, and i am fully confident he will ruin the country. what we need so desperately is a moderate, someone who can bring parties together, someone who believes in bipartisanship. NOT the most liberal man in the country. so congratulations, america, and i can't wait to tell you i told you so.

The idea that Palin needs to spend $150,000 on clothes to look good is just absolutely ridiculous. You can shop at JCPenny or Macy's and still manage to look classy for a hell of a lot less money. Another thing -- so what if the clothes are being donated to charity? I bet any charity would rather have $149,000 (giving Palin $1,000 for a wardrobe) and not have some fancy clothes to give to the homeless. Also, the idea that Palin needs financial help to look good is absurd. The Palin family owns three houses. I don't know about you, but my family has always owned / lived in ONE house, and a small one at that. But, we are comfortable. Politicians who perpetuate the culture of excess put forth an incredibly vain and greedy image of Americans, and I'm disgusted by it.

wow, this is actually the worst article I've ever read.