Campbell Brown Calls Out Double Standard On Palin Clothes Controversy

Campbell Brown cried out against a double standard in politics and the media against women Wednesday night, using her "No Bias, No Bull" segment to deliver her perspective on the controversy surrounding Sarah Palin's $150,000 fashion makeover.

"My Issue?" Brown said. "There is an incredible double standard here, and we are ignoring a very simple reality: women are judged based on their appearance far far more than men. That is a statement of fact. There has been plenty written about Sarah Palin's jackets, her hair, her looks.

Sound Familar?" she asked. "There was plenty of talk and plenty written about Hillary Clinton's looks, hair, pantsuits. Compare that to the attention given to Barack Obama's $1,500 suits or John McCain's $520 Ferragamo shoes. There is no comparison."

Brown further said that the double standard applies to all women in the public eye, including the media: she gets viewer e-mail when she wears an outfit viewers don't like, but she doubts Wolf Blitzer or Anderson Cooper have to worry about viewer e-mail when they wear an ugly tie.

Watch (full comments below):

Transcript:

And now, as we do every night-- we're cutting through the bull:

A lot of sniping and a lot of stories today about Sarah Palin's clothes.

Story continues below

advertisement

Politico.com reports that the Republican National Committee spent more than $150,000 on clothes, hair and make-up for Palin on the campaign trail.

Now these are not your tax dollars. This is money given by Republican donors to the RNC. But the report questions whether it is legal to use campaign cash for "personal use."

My issue? There is an incredible double standard here, and we are ignoring a very simple reality. Women are judged based on their appearance far, far more than men. That is a statement of fact. There has been plenty of talk and plenty written about Sarah Palin's jackets, her hair, her looks.

Sound familiar? There was plenty of talk and plenty written about Hillary Clinton's looks, hair, pantsuits. Compare that to the attention given to Barack Obama's $1,500 suits or John McCain's $520 dollar Ferragamo shoes. There is no comparison.

Women get scrutinized based on appearance far more than men. And look, I speak from experience here. When I wear a bad outfit on the air, I get viewer email complaining about it. A lot of email. Seriously. When Wolf Blitzer wears a not-so-great tie, how much email do you think he gets?

My point is for women unfortunately appearance is part of the job. If Wolf or Anderson shows up on the air without make-up, you think you would even notice? I show up without make-up? Trust me, you'll notice. This doesn't just apply to TV. All women in the public eye deal with this issue. And it is for this reason that I think the RNC should help Palin pay for clothes, hair and make-up. It is part of the job.

Now, you may think, that's an awful lot of money to spend on clothes, hair and makeup. Or you may complain as some have that it's hypocritical to sell yourself as a small town hockey mom when you are wearing designer clothes. That's fine, just don't ignore the fact that there is a double standard here.

And personally I think in this campaign, with so much at stake, this is a peripheral issue. I myself have raised plenty of questions about Sarah Palin, much to the annoyance of the McCain campaign. But those questions have been about her qualifications and experience. Never her appearance. Let's keep the focus on what really matters here.

Comments

[godivademaus]

Campbell: Point taken... women have to care about it more. But, Palin was the Governor of Alaska for 2 years before this gig. One has to believe she at least had 2 appropriate suits, her husband may have had one and each child had a sunday go to meeting outfit. To these basics, I think everyone would understand if she needed to augment her basics with a couple of suits, some clothing for warm weather gigs, and that her family may have needed the same. Even shopping at "middle class chic" stores: Nordstrom, Dillards, Macy's... They could probably have gotten quite a serviceable wardrobe at a fraction of the cost. I would say they could have even splurged on the convention night speech with a designer label suit and still come about within 10-15% of what was spent. This is really more the issue. Not that she needed to look good, not that she needed to outfit a family and be prepared, or that donations were spent for this... but the "let them eat cake" sense of this thing. I agree the Hillbillies of Wasilla comment was out of bounds, but consider the source... they've had a lot of practice slinging this sort of mud.

[pjburns11]

Campbell, baby! I love your segments, really I do, doll. But I don't think you OR Gov. Palin read the fine print of your Pledge of Allegiance. Take a closer look: http://thetruthburns.wordpress.com/2008/10/24/i-pledge-allegiance%e2%80%a6-a-work-in-progress/

[Paulree]

Your statement is ridiculous Campbell Brown!!

We have to pay for her wardrobe and perhaps childcare because she is a woman!!

So Let Me See If I"ve Got This right, you mean if we vote for a woman VP in the future we should expect $150K-200K or more of our tax money every month for her clothing????

$7000 of our tax money for a Louis Vuitton purse, for her seven years old daughter?????

And also 30-100K each month to transport her kids???

This is outrageous!!! We can"t even pay for our rent!!

Why the heck should we pay for these stuff or vote for such a high maintenance person??!!!!

Should we treat men and women equally!!?? Not asking about her being a mom.
Then treat them equally. NO EXTRA EXPENSE for women!!

[grf67]

Does illegal use of campaign funds mean anything to you?

[AProudLiberal]

Double standard?

Right you are, Campbell.

Like when it was discovered that John Edwards pays $400.00 to get a haircut, NOBODY in the media ever DREAMED of making a big deal about it.

[WritusMaximus]

Did he use campaign money???? Please get back to us with the scoop!

[AProudLiberal]

I don't know whether or not Sen. Edwards used campaign money for his haircuts. That's really not the point.

The point is... that he took a HEAP of abuse in the media because of it.

So for Campbell Brown to say that the media is being unfair to Sarah Palin by covering this VERY legitimate story of her campaign's extravagent, (dare I say.... abusive?) use of campaign donors' contributions on her wardrobe & makeup expenses to the tune of over $150,000 simply because she is a WOMAN..... and that the media would never give such negative coverage to a MAN..... is not only dead WRONG.... it smacks of the sexism Campbell Brown seems to be accusing the MSM of.

Campbell Brown, whether deliberately or not, is totally obscuring the focus of this story away from where it should be... McCain/Palin's faulty decision making abilities and money management skills..... and trying to attack Sarah Palin's critics as sexist because they published a story which threatens to be damaging to her candidacy.

That was the point I was trying to make.

[mamacat]

Ms. Brown says that she has criticised Gov. Palin, but ".....Never her appearance......."

Exactly. This controversy isn't and never has been about Gov. Palin's appearance, but it is about the double standard of her using over $150k to dress to the 9s while pretending to be in touch with "the People."

Ms. Brown should read her own speech, and then try to figure out what she just said.

[WritusMaximus]

Campbell decided to spin and just went off the road. It's using campaign money to purchase clothes not only for Palin, but for her family. Same thing if it was a man who dressed thanks to campaign money. Also BIG STORY if Obama's $1,500 suits were paid by the DNC/campaign money.

Some folks just want to find sexism under any and every rock, under any and every legitimate story. But alas, sistahs must stick together or get stuck alone. Now THAT is sexist!

[kennedy]

I agree with Brown..............what about those $1,500 Obama fancy suits? Who does he have to look pretty for?

[BARRISTER]

Obama's clothes are paid for by Obama himself out of his own money! . Palin's and her family's, including the $800.00 Louis Vitton bag her little daughter drags around, paid for by the money collected by the RNC from the public!

Therein lies the rub, Sir!!

[kicksave7]

I like Campbell Brown but I think she has missed the point of this clothes controversy. In the current economic climate, with houses in foreclosure, people losing their retirement savings, losing their jobs, etc...its seems hypocritical for a VP candidate to go out to the high end stores and buy designer duds with campaign money. No one is saying she shouldn't have updated her wardrobe to look professional and stylish during the campaign, but she could have done it a lot cheaper at Macy's or even Talbot's. The McCain/Palin mantra of Joe Six Pack, Joe the Plumber and Hockey Mom seems phony and superficial when the VP is spending that kind of money on clothes and the highest paid staffer is her make-up artist.

[Franb]

And anyway, it's only an issue because Palin's appearance, rather than her substance, is her central asset.

[Audrey85]

Donors to this tragedy should be OUTRAGED!

[mrskorn]

Well, like I said, both campaigns are spending ridiculous amounts of money to create their image. Now there is news that he spent 5.3 million on his Greek stage for the democratic convention. Is that any more excessive than the 150,000 that was spent on clothing etc. for her family? I have to say it makes more sense for the Palin's to spend that on their clothing for 2 months than for one night of the convention! Also, for those of you saying she could have gone cheaper to Macy's, lol, I mean gee...couldn't he have gone to Michael's and gotten some styrofoam columns at a much cheaper price?! Maybe they could have gone to Home Depot to get the background paint at a better rate....and what about all those flags they bought and then were found in the trash? Maybe they could have gone to the dollar store for those.

[Tom P]

um, i appreciate your comedy....but Obama did not paint himself as Mr Walmart! your tit for tat story totally misses the point. either campaign can and should spend donors money as they see fit if its within the law. personal money for personal property is a...personal choice. campaign funds for personal property is another thing altogether, re mccain/feingold campaign finance reform law.

[mrskorn]

Well, like I said, both campaigns are spending ridiculous amounts of money to create their image. Now there is news that Obama spent 5.3 million on his Greek stage for the democratic convention. Is that any more excessive than the 150,000 that was spent on clothing etc. for her family? I have to say it makes more sense for the Palin's to spend that on their clothing for 2 months than for one night of the convention! Also, for those of you saying she could have gone cheaper to Macy's, lol, I mean gee...couldn't Obama have gone to Michael's and gotten some styrofoam columns at a much cheaper price?! Maybe they could have gone to Home Depot to get the background paint at a better rate....and what about all those flags they bought and then were found in the trash? Maybe they could have gone to the dollar store for those.

[GREATERSC]

She makes $125,00.00 a year. Let her spend her own money. People did not donate to the MCcainPalin team to buy her well off family clothes the do not need.

[ersf]

Nothing stops Palin from using per diem for personal time spent with her family away from the Anchorage and her staff. So, what should stop her from using RNC money the same way. It is funny to see Faux news take this issue up when they have attacked Hilary's fashion sense, Edwards haircuts. Let's dig back to Bill Clinton's haircut that shut down a runway at LA Airport. All of that was fodder for Faux. And at a much lower cost. Isn't this calling the kettle black, Faux?

As for Campbell Brown. I am sure as a newscaster, she can relate to the apparent sexism in the public camera. How long has Blitzer been around compared to any female anchor? But we are not talking about sexism in the newsroom. We are talking about a political campaign. If Campbell has a problem, as does Palin, then maybe they should support the long gone Equal Rights Amendment, which would alleviate some of the pressure to always outdress men professionally.

[maveri]

honestly campbell, she didnt need to spend that much money on clothes, shoes, etc...and this issue does matter to those people who donated money to the campaign to see a victory. polishing up a penny doesnt make it the value of a quarter--at the end of the day it is still a penny.

[ganmerlad]

Wait a minute, I remember seeing Wolfe Blitzer a few years after the first gulf war (where he still had some hair color and was the face of Iraq reporting) and not liking the white hair thing he had going on later (still not a fan). I definitely notice when men aren't wearing makeup in a tv studio shot, and am not gender biased when it comes to making fun of the looks of a person who's job it is to be a 'face on tv'. Just saying.

You don't need $150,000 in clothes and $40,000 a month make-up artistry (separate expenditures) to look good. It isn't a double standard to find that kind of spending obscene. I am so glad I am not a Republican who gave money directly to the Party. (or a republican at all, but that is another post)

I really want this particular $825 purse. According to Campbell's arguement, I can tell my husband he has to buy it for me because it is EXPECTED that I have such things and without it people won't find me attractive? Hummm....