Dislike Sarah Palin for Many Reasons, but Not This One

Full disclosure: I am a fervent Obama supporter and feel with every fiber of my being that Sarah Palin is wrong for the job, twelve ways to Tuesday. Her belief in fossil fuels, but not fossils makes me close my eyes and search for breath. Don't even get me started on the right to choose...

But the clothes. The criticism that she spent $150,000 on clothes and other grooming in the last few months... I have to cut the woman slack on that. Yes, it seems like an exorbitant sum. Stupendously stupid, especially with job losses and the financial crisis. But let's consider something: before she burst out of metaphorical nowhere, she was -- by comparison -- rarely photographed and even less frequently scrutinized. And she was certainly not applying to be the understudy to the Job of All Jobs. It was probably no issue if she wore the same outfit twice or three times or more often in any given month. Who cared?

But her audience changed overnight, and the backlash potential was suddenly huge -- bigger than any one of us can possibly imagine. Let's put this in a different perspective. Let's say you are a modestly successful, relatively unknown author who gets the call that your new book is going to be an Oprah pick, and you are going to be on her show. What do you do? You immediately dump thousands of dollars into updating your website and instantly hit Saks/Neiman/insert-whichever-store-here. You buy the most expensive pair of shoes you have ever owned. You get not only a hair cut, but an expert coloring job, and definitely new make-up. Of course you do. You are about to be presented to millions of people trying to convince them to buy and read your book. And then, if you are lucky, to tell their friends about it. In anticipation of a global stage (it's Oprah, remember!), you need a major makeover for that one day.

Running for office isn't so different. Except it isn't just one day on camera -- it's day after day on a very high pedestal off of which many hope you will tumble. An ill-fitting suit will overshadow what you say. Bad shoes will make a bigger headline than your message (which truly may have been a good thing here - did we really need to hear that she thinks the Vice President is in charge of the Senate? Is no one helping her?). The RNC had no choice but to heavily invest in Sarah Palin's image. Tom Matzzie, Democratic strategist, told the Huffington Post, that spending that kind of money "shows that Palin ain't like the rest of us." Well, actually, it shows that in this respect she is. (Much that it pains me to admit.) Cindy McCain already had the clothes and jewels. Palin didn't. And this should have been the bigger headline.

Humans have dressed for occasion since we dressed at all. I recently was invited to a dinner at the home of a very influential woman whom I admire greatly. My desire to impress her with my professionalism and poise was paramount. Later, when recounting the evening to my girlfriends, one of the first things asked (after "What was she like?") was, "What did you wear?" My response to my friends: "Thank God I had bought a new clutch and tailored slacks." (Be honest female readers, didn't you just concur to yourself with a, "No doubt!")

I am willing to bet that no one is documenting how often Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or John McCain wear the same navy suit -- because no one cares. They probably have a few of each style, and two dozen light blue tailored shirts of the exact same style and cut, and they are always being reverently cleaned. But it's the same suit. There is a double standard here: if Sarah Palin tried to wear the same jacket more than once, maybe twice, it would be news. If she looked schlumpy it would be big news. Recently Great Britain's Princess Anne made BBC news for recycling a dress from over 20 years earlier. Sarah Palin had to be outfitted for 67 days of non-stop global spotlight. You betcha she accessed major resources for her and for her family. The RNC knows that our elections are largely popularity contests, and that image matters often more than substance to a significant percentage of voters. It's a sad statement, but incontrovertibly true.

I dislike Sarah Palin's veep bid for many, many reasons. But not for this. Too bad campaign finance rules prevent her from keeping the clothes. A $150,000 wardrobe would have been a nice consolation prize when she heads back to Alaska on November 5.

Comments

[SpoxLogic]

Isn't it interestign that if you criticize Gov palin, they call it sexism. Yet, they spend all that money to magnify her looks!?

Which is more sexist? BTW, Gov Palin is pretty enough to wear just about anything and pull it off. They overdid it and must now pay the political price.

[miamia]

They didn't need to spend all that campaign money on her clothes. Stop defending it.

[silencer]

Know what would have been better? If Mrs Joe 6 pack had wore bluejeans and a top, and spent $2500 a day feeding starving kids in the USA.
Oh, your way is good too, its the American way to suck every last drop of blood from the taxpayer and donators, cause hey, we wouldn't want to do anything POSITIVE or RESPECTFUL with the cash now would we?

[Emily Cotler - Huffpost Blogger]

Hmmm... This isn't *MY* way. This is the RNC's way. This is politics-as-usual way. And as such, this should not be surprising. This is a drop in the bucket of a campaign that has spent hundreds of millions not feeding starving kids.

There are far better reasons to dislike Palin than that she did what party experts advised mere days after being elevated from regional to global politics. This is a good reason to be disgusted with the Republican party and campaign politics. This is a good reason to want change. But don't get righteously Pollyanna and think that ANY campaign isn't going to use raised funds for the campaign. People know full well when they contribute $$ to any campaign that the funds will go towards winning. Charity would be nice, but let"s not be delusional.

I don't like Palin and I can't stand the Republican party. But my dislike is directed at better reasons than that she was outfitted for the global stage upon which she was (wrongly) thrust. They paid top dollar -- Hollywood dollar. It's a lot of money to you and me, but in the context in which it was used, maybe not as much as it sounds. More context: Palin"s entire campaign wardrobe, that she does not get to keep, amounts to less than half of what Cindy McCain wore on one night.

And even though you clearly didn't agree with anything I said, thanks for the comment.

[miamia]

She is a hypocritically claims that she is a reformer who refused a few conveniences in order to save the voter's money, all while she is wearing thousands campaign dollars on her back.

So she get's no slack. And, it's not sexist either.

It's sexist to suggest that a female candidate must waste public money on her looks because voters will not vote for her unless she looks like a million bucks!

[ev2256]

I'm going to be a little "controversial" here in pointing out that it reveals a double standard, just not the one you expect: that women are allowed and encouraged to wear interesting clothes, whereas men are restricted by 'formality' to wearing a single style.

[bowseat93]

This is nuts. I don't have an issue with Palin's requiring new clothes. And given she didn't have Hillary's bank acct, don't begrudge the campaign for buying her some.

But $150K works out to something like $2500 A DAY. That's what's obscene. Of course, when the RNC (not Palin to be fair) was on this spending spree, it was still weeks before the economy melted down. But it's still relevant. The GOP just isn't the party for the middle class.

So I don't have an issue with folks saying "hey, don't blame Sarah Palin on this one." That's fair. But please. Don't try and tell me that $150K is not an outrageous sum for a wardrobe for someone claiming to represent the Joe the Plumbers of this world. It just makes no sense at all.

[MonoApe]

You're defending spending $150,000 on hair, make up, clothes and shoes - while Joe and Jane Sixpack are losing their homes? I guess Emelda Marcos' shoe collection was 'reasonable' as well, then?

You may want to spend a little longer thinking in future before hitting the keyboard....

[queotic]

I don't dislike Palin because of the 150,000 (like you said, there are many other reasons). The reason this is a scandal is because it highlights the hypocrisy of the GOP trying to portray a woman who makes 6 figures and is worth over a million dollars as a Walmart-shopping hockey mom.

[seatea1967]

Wow. Yes, wanting to dress up for a TV appearance and spending a few hundred dollars on some new clothes is the same as spending $150,000 for a few outfits and $14,000 on hair and makeup. It's just the same.

"Remember that time you splurged and spent $200 on cute strappy shoes and $120 for a haircut and highlighting to go to your friend's wedding? This is just like that."

Except it's NOT the f-ing same at all. This isn't $320, it's $150,000. As in enough money to pay the average mortgage for more than 8 years.

And, honestly, none of that would matter to me one whit if she weren't trying to pass herself off as the "gosh-darnit" humble joe-six-pack, working-class mom from Wasilla. F-ing lies... smoke and mirrors.

[Stillanidiot]

C'mon folks. She didn't go shopping for herself. Her RNC handlers would never have trusted her to do that.
To her credit, I think if left to her own devices, she might have got a nice ready to wear wardrobe for a reasonable price.
But for myriad reasons, I'm thinking measurements were taken and minions were sent forth with instructions to get clothes with the "right look" and "forget the cost".
Quite a few folks in the campaign were caught by surprise with her pick and there was undoubtedly a mad scramble to make her look, talk and act right with not a lot of time to accomplish the deed.
The maddening thing is that nobody considered the repercussions of using money donated by hard working folks to purchase an image at a wildly extravagant price.
The telling thing is how much that reveals about the way a McCain administration might function.
So don't criticize Sarah Palin for the clothes somebody else undoubtedly put on her back or even for her inadequate qualifications to the job she's trying to get.
Criticize and reserve your contempt for those who put her there in the first place.

[Emily Cotler - Huffpost Blogger]

And this is one of the things I was getting at --

Sarah Palin was named and outfitted and put up on a global stage all within a week with a speech 100% written by someone else. She probably arrived in Minnesota with an outfit that made someone say, "Um, she can"t go on tv tomorrow in front of 35 million people in that." Not standing next to Cindy McCain dripping in over a quarter-million worth of jewels, she can"t. You don"t have to agree with the expense to understand the rush to shop.

I agree with Stillanidiot: the personal shopper who spent over $75K at one store was most likely not thinking, "Yippee! Carte blanche!" This person was probably given these orders: "Make sure she looks as if she could hold her own against Putin, Couric, or the Queen of England. Cost be damned, we need to be ready." The RNC didn"t have the time to bargain shop (totally their fault, but this was the reality).

Thanks for the comment!

[miamia]

She's the Executive. She shouldn't blame her "handlers" for her EXECUTIVE Failures!

As Vice President or (God forbid) President she needs to be able to make decisions while competing interests are trying to sway her one way or another. So, as far as I am concerned she is not ready or fit and the clothes fiasco proves it.
Imagine if we were relying on her to make a more serious executive decision.

Someone please get a hook and yank her off the stage...

[TParrish]

The outrage over this issue is, indeed, misplaced. It is a tempest in a teapot. Personally, I would be happy if the RNC went out right now and spent, oh, say $85,000,000 more on her wardrobe and maintenance. Too bad they aren't asking me.

[johnwinner]

"The RNC knows that our elections are largely popularity contests, and that image matters often more than substance to a significant percentage of voters."
The big reason we need to continue attacking Palin on her shopping is precisely to send the message tha this will not be true this election (and it should not be true at all). And we need to expose the fact that Palin was chosen for window dressing, a further insult not only to women voters, but to men who are supposed to think she's "hot" rather than vote what's best for the country.

[bandolier]

I agree somewhat - but did Piper really need the Louis Vuitton purse? Or was she holding that for mommy?

[Michale32086]

And why is that important??

I mean, look at this people..

You beech and moan at the GOP for their silly arsed attacks on the most minuscule of "problems" and issues and then ya'all just turn right around and do the same damn thing..

How is this NOT hypocrisy???

Michale.....

[LeftRight]

I agree with Michale.... WHO CARES that the RNC spent all this money?? It's unimportant. What's IMPORTANT is the fact that she spent over $70,000 of taxpayer money flying her children around on official state business!!!

[IsaacKuo]

I agree that this really shouldn't be a big issue, objectively. However, the timing has made this a big political issue simply because it's the only thing that breaks out of the background noise.

For most people, there isn't anything either camp is saying that's anything new. The polls aren't saying anything new. The news about the markets isn't anything new. Even Saturday Night Live is nothing new. It's all just more of the same stuff...turning it all into background noise.

But 150,000 bucks for designer clothes? That sticks out, even if it doesn't deserve to.

[jbatch]

I think you miss the point -- Sarah Palin's shopping binge is so roundly condemned, and rightfully so, because it reveals the depth of her hypocrisy and because it is emblematic of what the Republicans have been doing for 25 years, now.

Oligarchs and those who consort with them, 7 figure K street lobbyists, prep school -legacy appointees to Exeter and Yale, and assorted other children of privilege have been passing themselves off as "one of the people" -- as hockey moms, ranchers, and jus' plain folks, while plucking every last cent form the poor and middle class citizens and shuffling it up the ladder to their ultra-rich cronies and patrons.

Did Ms. Plain need a few more dresses? Probably. Could she have gotten what she needed for far less the $150,000? Undoubtedly. But that's what those yokels who contributed to the RNC are there for -- to keep the oligarchs and their fellow travelers fat and happy.

[onlyred]

Overall, I liked your post.. but... When dressing for Oprah or something else you find it crucial to look your best, you buy your OWN clothes. Oprah doesn't buy your clothes, that money comes out of your bank account or gets put on your credit card. Therefore, you are limited by the amount you can spend, or have. Even if you have a bottomless credit card, you are still solely responsible for that purchase.

I can understand she needed a makeover, and some fresh clothes. She certainly needed to do something about that hair. Of course she would have to look the part. That said, it doesn't take $150k to look the part. She has a different outfit every day, every trip, and hasn't worn the same thing twice that I can tell. Couldn't she have gotten a really nice wardrobe for $10k? Heck at this point, $50k would have looked astonishing to us lil folk. That is greed and excess. Ironically, those two words happen to neatly sum up everything Ms. Palin has done/said/accomplished/stood for in her time as a politician.

Other than that, I'm with ya, I personally can't wait til she's back in Alaska and hope to never see her face or hear her voice ever again. Can we be so lucky? LOL

[Emily Cotler - Huffpost Blogger]

$10K and $50K DOES look astonishing to us lil" folk. And the truth is she could have gotten a lovely wardrobe for that " but she would have started to recycle the clothing. And that would have become news. In the short-sightedness of making sure the media wouldn"t be able to pounce of the fashion faux pas, the RNC failed to realize how $150K spent on clothes (and to be fair, make-up and hair stylists) would sound to us lil" folk, because while the RNC"s voting base might be rural, joe-sixpack America, its leaders are much more like Orange County, California and Greenwich, Connecticut. These are people for whom $500 shoes are perfectly normal. And Sarah Palin apparently needed several pair.

I am not defending the amount of the expense, I am saying, "Why the outrage?" and "Why is everyone surprised?" But mostly, "This is beneath us. This is petty. Dislike her for more substantial reasons. Ones she can actually be blamed for."

Thanks for the comment!