Stop Whining About Sarah Palin's $172,000 Style!
I agree that these appear to be outrageous amounts for any woman to part with on her wardrobe and personal appearance, especially one purporting to be just a middle class "hockey mom" who happens to be running for the second highest office in the land.
The problem here is that there is a GIANT double standard that any woman running for political office is subjected to. That is -- she will be held to a "looks" litmus test.
From her choice of hairstyle to her daily decision about whether to wear pants versus a skirt, to her choice of heels, her looks will be dissected, analyzed and criticized.
This is something that male candidates simply NEVER have to deal with. Observers can ridicule John McCain's angry expressions during a Presidential debate or praise Obama's surprisingly well-defined pecs but do we ever hear boo about their outfits?
Admit it -- male presidential candidates can roll out of bed, throw on a dark suit, white shirt and red or blue tie and DONE! No one is staring at the cut or cloth of their suits or focusing a camera on their feet. It's a non-issue.
Not so for women! Hillary Clinton had to defend and promote her stances on every single issue 24/7, just as Barack Obama did, but she had to do it in heels and with every outfit AND so-called figure flaw subjected to scrutiny.
Piano legs, helmet hair, Crayola-color anchorwoman suits: these are all the fashion crimes that Hillary supposedly committed along her campaign route, according to the pundits who regularly criticized her. The poor woman should have been wearing a suit of armour -- not Oscar de la Renta.
No wonder Sarah Palin and the Republican stylists felt it was imperative to embark on a style image overhaul ASAP, once she was the Vice Presidential pick.
I've seen the photos and video of Sarah Palin pre-VP material and her sweats, sweaters, button-down shirts and shapeless suits would never have passed muster with the critical national political press, let alone the crowds on the campaign trail. Sarah's handlers already had the benefit of hindsight, seeing how Hillary, Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain's wardrobe choices made major news -- whether good or bad.
How hypocritical are Republicans to complain now that the Governor that they cast in the role as potential VP -- at least partially because she was camera-genic -- cost too much to play the part?
It's disingenuous to ignore the fact that today a candidate's image -- on TV and in photos -- counts in picking up or conversely losing votes.
If Sarah Palin truly looked like a frazzled, schlubby hockey mom, not only would she not inspire confidence but she couldn't have effectively pulled off calling herself "The Lipstick Pit Bull."
Lipstick implies "femininity" and attractiveness. Pit bull implies strength and ferocity. If Sarah Palin had dressed like Golda Meir in a house dress -- that image would have been a non-starter.
No, John McCain's team was well aware that they were picking a former beauty queen who if dressed up for her "VP" role in the right clothes and with the right hair and makeup, could take full advantage of her "Hotness."
And whoever her stylists were -- and I'm sure their names will come out -- they did a damn good job. Sarah has been sensational in her fitted, feminine red, white, blue and black suits, and jacket and shirt sets. Not to mention, in her variety of up and down hair does.
She has carried off an authoritative, confident but not scary/manly image. She has looked like what every working woman aspires to look like and what many men would love their wives to look like.
The stylists did their job well! And yes, it cost more than most Americans earn in a year. Nevertheless, since this is a "role" she had to dress for, the cost wasn't pork but the price of doing business just like any actress' wardrobe in a film or a TV show. By Hollywood standards--and hey America loves celebrities -- the cost of dressing and making up Sarah Palin was not a major expense.
So I say, Republicans should stand by their woman. The benefits of the Pit bull come with a price tag. Accept that.
As for the Democrats, the American people keep saying in polls that they care about real issues. Well, Sarah Palin's lack of foreign policy experience is an issue as are her divisive politics. But her wardrobe isn't worth wasting a days news cycle on!
Follow Bonnie Fuller on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bonniefuller
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Whining belonds to the republicans !
Maybe the realization should be that she needs to Look To Herself seems to me -she likes chaos! Most of what is happening she brought on herself maybe even through LEAKS to keep things stirred & be able to incite more turmoil for Our United States as a distraction.
Palin claimed that small towns are "real America" but the stores she ran up the 150k tab at are generally not found in these small towns. It's just another example of total hypocrisy from her and McCain. I don't think anybody disagrees that she has to look good in our media-obsessed world but the ridiculous price tag is just unacceptable for somebody claiming to relate to "joe six pack".
Yes, women are held to a double standard...not just in politics. Hilary fought it throughout her campaign. (She unbuttoned a button on her blouse & it made the front page.) In fact, she repressed her "gender" so much that the real "HER" didn't appear until her awesome DNC speech.
However, this issue is different for Ms 1/2 Baked Alaska.
"She who shall not be named" made gender a "plank" on the Republican "platform" since day one. The double standard comes from her own use of sexuality & then claiming sexism. Feminists have been fighting this for eternity (or should I say "infinity").
But "Bible Barbie" doesn't get it. (Come to think of it, she doesn't get a lot of things.) She doesn't get that having power is not being empowered, which is an internal process. Her gender is on the table because she put it there. And of course, Elizabeth Hasselbeck is the perfect partner in this "poor picked on woman" crusade.
YOU, MS Palin, claimed to be a regular gal...one of us...& then started wearing designer clothes. You were not duped. We women...YOU... know the cost of Manola Blaneks...and you, a former beauty queen know it more than the rest of us. YOU knew exactly what you were doing & CHOSE TO DO IT.
At least be woman enough to admit it so we can get to real issues....like how much you don't know about the Republican Platform...and all it's planks.
Ironic that Elizabeth Hasselbeck used to host a show called "The look for less" on Style network. They could have given her the makeover for much less.
The cost of the clothing is not the issue. The problem is that they were not legal expenditures by the RNC. It's ILLEGAL to purchase personal clothing regardless of plans to donate it to charity at some future point.
Under prohibited uses of Chapter 14 of the U.S. Code for use of contributions for certain uses we see:
(b) Prohibited use
(1) In general
A contribution or donation described in subsection (a) of this section shall not be converted by any person to personal use.
(2) Conversion
For the purposes of paragraph (1), a contribution or donation shall be considered to be converted to personal use if the contribution or amount is used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign or individual’s duties as a holder of Federal office, including-
(A) a home mortgage, rent, or utility payment;
(B) a clothing purchase;
(C) a noncampaign-related automobile expense;
(D) a country club membership;
(E) a vacation or other noncampaign-related trip;
(F) a household food item;
(G) a tuition payment;
(H) admission to a sporting event, concert, theater, or other form of entertainment not associated with an election campaign; and
(I) dues, fees, and other payments to a health club or recreational facility.
C'mon. She's gotta have something going for her!
What about Cindy McCains $200,000 dress at the convention?
Michelle Obama manages to look fabulous on a budget that is likely 1% to 2% of the GOP spend, since she only spends a couple of hundred dollars at most per outfit AND she buys her own clothes, thank you very much!
There are so many points I disagree with in this article - but I'll start with this one:
"She has carried off an authoritative, confident but not scary/manly image. She has looked like what every working woman aspires to look like and what many men would love their wives to look like."
No, not really. I do not aspire to wear knee revealing skirts at job interviews and stilettos at the workplace, which are really uncomfortable. In fact my whole life I've made a conserted effort to tear down "feminine" workplace attire discrimination - and this article isn't helping.
"So I say, Republicans should stand by their woman. The benefits of the Pit bull come with a price tag. Accept that."
Wow. Are you TRYING to give women in politics the boot? Asserting that - bottom line - IT WILL COST MORE to support a woman running for office than a man is a recipe for campaign ruin. Why should donors give $1000 dollars to you when you're just gonna blow it on shoes?
The better argument, and you did touch on it once or twice, is that CITIZENS and MEDIA and POLITICIANS should stop holding women in politics to a higher standard than men in politics. It's a double standard.
Unlike another article on the HuffPo by Judy Miller, this article does not help what I consider to by my cause. By extension, this article works against my politics.
I can't think of a SINGLE time I would consider wearing PEEP TOE shoes to a job interview. And campaigns are JOB INTERVIEWS for political positions.
What a bunch of twits.
Sorry - Judy Muller not Miller
Oh come on ... This is a woman who is pretending to be an average hockey mom who hates wasting money and isn't an "elitist". And you see no problem with her spending 150,000 on clothes? During a time when we should be cutting back? Gimme a break.
Let me think... GOP complains about Obama going to see his ailing grandmother... But we shouldn't say anything about Palin's excessive wardrobe, which cost a pretty penny.. Let's weigh the two, which one makes more sense...
To say that it makes sense and that we are whining, is kinda like reciting nursery rhymes that for some reason didn't make sense, but we enjoyed poking fun anyway.....and the dish ran away with the spoon..
Signed,
My name is not Joe the plumber, don't call me joe-sixpack, and my mother, neither my wife was/is a hockey mom...
the women is a hillbilly of course they had to shine her up....can you just imagine what the hell is in that womens closet ...being an ex-beauty queen an' all!!!
QUIT this Double Standard CRAP!!! Men running for office need to dress well too. A nice suit for Obama can cost $1,500. Must Palin's outfits cost 5 times that???? GET REAL Ladies!!!!
Here, here.
Wouldn't care one bit about Palin's wardrobe if McCain/Palin hadn't tried to devolve this campaign into "Joe Six-Pack" vs. the Ivy League Elitists class warfare, in part by cultivating the "just like you/hockey mom" image. Even with that said, I don't care MUCH compared to the state of the economy, energy independence, or our national security, but taking a few minutes to call a hypocrite a hypocrite is never time wasted.
Aside from the blogosphere, who in the media was criticizing Hillary Clinton on her wardrobe? I didn't hear any such critique.
Pretending that the blogosphere is separate from the media is a little unwise at this juncture I think.
Come on cindy, if sara wasn't trying to peddle herself as an "everyday american" and a 'hockey mom" then the issue would be moot, however when the average american must work 6 years to make the money spent on her wardrobe it becomes extremely hypocritical on her part.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
