No. The point is such fodder from the media is set out to bait people into watching their programs. I have not seen this and likely would have channel surfed to something more tuned to the BWOT Ass picture posting thread.
My point is the election is over. So is the interest in Cindy McCain's wardrobe. So should the interest in Palin's. The interest stems from the lack of balls in the GOP to stand up and have the reelection committee or whatever they called themselves take ownership of this bullshit story. That would have been the end. But they, along with much of McCain's staff, distanced themselves from Palin at the end of the campaign and now have left this "Scarlett Letter" stamped on her forehead. Shame on them those queerbaiting eunuchs.
And, as I read the thread, you brought up the network's silliness about Michele Obama. No rationale offered, other than your tone, which suggests you would like to deflect some of the attention on the subject of women's clothing away from Palin to Michele Obama, for some reason. Any reason is bullshit, and Michele Obama has done nothing to earn the untoward attention. She was not a candidate. She was "equivalent" to McCain's wife, whose attire garnered attention for a week or two. It was a no story because there were no eunuchs revealed or tawdry tales of how she acquired the garb. And it died.
Sarah Palin's wardrobe is only getting any traction because it is still a glaring example of gutlessness by the Republican National Committee and the McCain reelection campaign. To be feeding more shit about this to the press in dribs and drabs is merely keeping it alive.
There is no story of value about Michele Obama's wardrobe. Even if it cost twice Sarah Palin's wardrobe, as Michele Obama and her husband paid for it. This is still America, and you can spend your mightly dollars on whatever you want. Well, mostly. No good drugs, and in most places, no ass. Ask Elliott Spitzer.
As Chevy Chase famously said on Weekend Update, "Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead!", the joke being that, a long running "news" event, Franco's long illness, finally resulted in his death and the press just couldn't leave it alone once it finally ended. My complaint, once again, was the splashy tease about whether or not Palin had failed to donate the clothing as she had promised (Gasp! STAY TUNED...more after these commercial messages!) and then the story showed her wearing a jacket during the election and then again after where the 'reporter' wryly announces the 'news' that amounts to, "Ha, ha! Sarah is actually wearing her own clothes! Fooled ya!"
See, Jim...the reporters, not me, made the Obama/Palin comparison when they ignored the price of Obama's demonstrated wardrobe and moments later, breathlessly announced that Palin didn't do anything wrong today involving costly clothing. The PLACEMENT of the stories and their PROXIMITY to each other linked them together in the viewers' minds.
Ahhh, but you rallied to Palin's "defense" by bringing this diversionary subject up, in true, died in the wool, GOP blind supporter fashion. If you want the story to die, get your party to stand up and take the hit for picking the woman who made Tina Fey's life the wonder it is for her today, and then using her, and finally, hanging her up wet. Only the GOP can make this go away by stepping up and admitting they unjustly let her fry over the issue. Or they can just continue to let out little details, like how much was spent at Victoria's Secret and on what? I think when they reveal her selection of lingerie it will be headlines again. I don't care to hear about it but Sarah Palin's selection of crotchless panties will be a hit in the tabloids at news stands and on the nightly tv shows.
The GOP can stop it. The "news media" won't.
I'm fairly certain that there's a regular poster here who discusses the tactics of the news media based on his occupational contact with the business several years back. Perhaps he can review my reply and comment on whether the media would purposely do something like this or not. Stupid coincidence? Are there really any coincidences?
I respectfully ask that in the event that Marsden reads this post that he review (reviews?) it for grammar, spelling and punctuation errors. I can't help my views but I don't wish to further anger him with my poor command of the rules of writing the English language.
Fuck the grammar. And, how is it that engaging in questionable or even unethical behavior to make a buck is somehow objectionable today? Are we burning the flag too? I must have missed the invitation to shit on America. Well, I don't need one. I find the pursuit of the dollar above all else, including common decency and honor and truth and, well, the list is nearly endless and includes sending your kids to war for oil but objecting to paying taxes today to cover the expenses because you can push it off on the kids of your kid's kids. The whole nation is full of disgusting character flaws and the "news media" is not at the forefront as I see it.