Thursday, October 23, 2008

Sarah Palin's Wardrobe and Michelle Obama's Room Service Bill

There has been much controversy surrounding the ever-important development of the RNC spending roughly $150,000 on Governor Sarah Palin's wardrobe. The RNC has been criticized for spending excessively on the prospective Vice President's attire. The media has also taken some heat for making an issue of this.

It is with that said that I offer the following defense of mainstream reporters and journalists across the United States:

We the people have a right to know these sorts of things, and the news media is simply doing its job by finding out juicy details such as the price of Sarah's wardrobe. After all, this woman could theoretically be only one person away from the very top of the American Government's chain of command.

Since mainstream American news organizations uphold themselves to the highest standards of objectivity and professionalism in reporting the news, allegations of mainstream publications engaging in yellow journalism for the sake of influencing an election are downright laughable.

As proof of this, I am totally confident that within a matter of days our 100% objective mainstream journalists will dutifully report on the total sum of Michelle Obama's room service bills accrued throughout the campaign season.

What we do know is that in one night, Mrs. Obama ordered two plates of lobster hors d'oeuvres, two lobster entrees, a bottle of fine Iranian champagne and Iranian caviar from room service at the Waldorf Astoria --- not the shabbiest of joints. We know that this was just one night on the campaign trail.

In light of this development, it is in the public's interest to know exactly how much money Mrs. Obama spent on dinner that night, as well as how much money she has spent on room service, not just that night but over the course of the entire campaign.

Since the media has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to fair and objective coverage throughout this election season, I have no doubt that it is merely a matter of time before our trusty reporters get back to us with this extremely important bit of information. As with the cost of Governor Palin's wardrobe, the American people have a need to know how much money Michelle Obama has spent on room service at all those five-star hotels. I'm sure the unbiased media will naturally agree and find out the answer so as to satisfy the curiosity of us mind-numb American media consumers.

While we're at it, out of personal curiosity I'd really like to know how much money Barack Obama paid for the domain name "". If anyone knows the answer to that one please fill me in in the comments area.


  1. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I can't believe you posted this yesterday when the story was retracted by the New York Post (the publishers) on the 21st. Tsk tsk. She wasn't even AT the Waldorf Astoria. Nasty.

  2. If you have a link to verify your claim, you're more than welcome to post it in the comments area.

  3. Here is the retraction. If it was a snake, it would have bit you.

  4. Interesting. I wonder if the retraction was made because of inaccurate information or the threat of lawsuits by the Obama campaign. My gut tells me it's probably the latter, as stories that detailed don't make it to print unless there is some degree of validity to them.

    The Obama campaign has acted ruthlessly toward news outlets viewed as providing unfavorable coverage, a tradition that dates back to Obama's days in the Illinois State Legislature.

  5. The NY Post has in fact retracted the story about Michelle's room service smorgasbord.

    However, the issue brought to light in the above post still very much applies. If indeed the original report was not accurate, one could just as easily substitute Joe Biden's hair plugs, botox, and plastic surgery bills in place of Michelle Obama's room service fees.

    The very fact that the GOP is scrutinized over $150,000 in campaign expenditures while the Obama campaign receives a pass -- even as it continues to set new records daily for fundraising and presidential campaign spending -- is indicative of the mainstream news media's aggressive attempts to influence the election through biased coverage.

    While the entire world knows exactly how much Sarah Palin's campaign wardrobe costs, questionable campaign expenditures by the Obama team remain a closely guarded secret that the mainstream media won't even bother to investigate, much less report upon.

    Finally, Anonymous raises a good point above in pointing out the Obama campaign's proclivity towards slapping those who dare question His Messiahship with frivolous lawsuits. Whether or not this was the reason for the NY Post's retraction of the room service story will likely remain known only by the NY Post and the Obama campaign's legal team.

  6. Jen, thank you for bringing the story's retraction to this writer's attention and for providing the link.

    I sincerely appreciate your readership and active participation in the discussion.

  7. Ditto Suzanne. Your readership and participation are greatly appreciated, and your opinions always welcome.

  8. I don't care how much any of them spend on anything legal, as long as IT'S THEIR OWN MONEY. Important distinction, don't you think?

    Fun discussion today.

  9. Kelly, I'm not sure I understand your point? Important distinction between one's own money and what exactly?

    As for Obama, there are lingering questions regarding the legality or lack thereof of up to half of his total record-setting campaign contributions. Is that "his" money? Sure. Was the process through which it became "his" money legal? It is too soon to say for sure, but all indications at this point suggest the answer is "no".

    The purpose of the post was to illustrate the lack of objectivity and journalistic ethical standards in the coverage of this presidential election. Many have called this the "death of journalism". I don't think journalism is dead, but it is definitely on life support when the Moscow Times provides more objective coverage of a U.S. presidential election than does the New York Times (or your newspaper of choice).