-
sponsorship
How disappointing for Sarah Palin that she won’t get to keep any of those designer jackets, flattering pencil skirts, or peep-toe shoes. She would have known all along that the duds weren’t hers to keep—they are just part of the contrivance and makeup for her role in So You Think You Can Run for Vice President. The $150,000 was a production expense and when the season ends, she’ll have to return hers and the family’s costumes (Levi’s too?). She must be thinking, though, even if she and her dancing partner lose, she sorta earned the clothes. She’s responsible for raising so much money and all. Plus, they look really, really, good on her. Whoever gets that shantung silk Valentino jacket secondhand, will not do it justice the way Sarah did in her convention speech. Of course, sadly, keeping them would be against the law. (I doubt she could argue that they remain on permanent “loan” like Sen. Stevens’ massage chair.) Maybe she could suggest the campaign donate them to her favorite charity, the Salvation Army in Wasilla. She could buy them all back for pennies on the dollar.
-
sponsorship
Noreen, I'll back you up a bit. If I had $150,000 to spend, I think I'd run right out to Escada. Or Prada. Or any other -ada where you could get such gorgeous garments. But—and this goes for any Democrats espousing the same message (Nancy and her Armani, etc.)—I'm not the one shouting an "I'm just regular folk, not elite" message. And if I had that $150,000 to spend on clothes—whether through a national political committee or my own wealth—I don't think I could rightly claim status as just a regular Jane anymore. Once you start paying $5,000 for your makeup, you join the ranks of some elite, whether it's media or not, don't you? I'm not saying, as Ellen astutely pointed out, that she doesn't need clothes that look good for this job interview—she does (though I think there's probably some suits out there that could be beautifully tailored for some savings and still make her look like a million bucks). I'm just saying it doesn't fit well with the us-against-those-darn-elites message that's been the centerpiece of her campaign.
-
sponsorship
OK, I'm not saying that if the powers-that-be at Slate told me I had to purchase $150,000 worth of clothes for my job I wouldn't love every second of spending it. (And sure, maybe it's a more appropriate spree for someone who spends her day in front of television cameras rather than a computer screen.) And Ellen, you're totally right that she's only "complicit in the big machine that this is all a part of." But I guess if I were really big on cutting all the wasteful spending at Slate, and really shaking up the old way of doing things around here with all my maverick stances, I might think about saying thanks but no thanks to the check.
-
sponsorship
This is the very last thing I'm gonna say about Palin's down-parka-to-Escada makeover when I'm supposed to be doing real work, but can I get a show of hands from everybody who thinks looking good is a problem? Me neither; this jacket in particular I could really go for. Only weeks ago, fresh off the news that my 401(k) was histoire, I made quite a frivolous clothing purchase in euros, for heaven's sake; even the Parisian salesdude couldn't believe it. And as someone who in my first year out of grad school spent a cool third of her annual income on an Yves Saint Laurent cocktail dress I wore twice, I have no rocks to throw on this one and am with June in SP's corner.
-
sponsorship
Like June, I can't believe I'm saying this, but should we really be attacking Palin for spending $150,000 on clothes? Seems to me that we should reserve judgment until Hillary Clinton and other female politicians put a price tag on their wardrobes. (Nancy Pelosi, by the way, favors Armani.) It's fine to bemoan lavish spending in principle, but hardly fair to put a spotlight on Palin till we know for sure that her behavior is unusual.
-
sponsorship
Noreen,
I'm with June. I don't think it's fair either to pick on Palin because of her wardrobe. (C'mon, isn't there so much more to pick on?) You dress up to go to a job interview. Campaigning for the vice presidency is a very long job interview on a much bigger playing field. There's no reason I couldn't do my job in pajamas or sweatpants, but we have a code about what we wear to the office and in public. And if you were interviewing applicants for a job, you would not pick the one in sweatpants. It's an unfortunate side effect of our visual, 24-hour celebrity culture that you have to look gorgeous all the time now if you are in the public eye. And I don't blame Palin. This is not her doing. She is only complicit in the big machine that this is all a part of. But if you are going to play the game, you have to wear the uniform.
-
sponsorship
June, totally fair. Why does a vice president need a wardrobe that's extraordinary? Clothes don't affect on-the-job performance, and as long as she doesn't look like a slob, it doesn't affect public diplomacy. We don't expect, say, beauty contestants to give answers in the interview portion that are much more than serviceable. ...Wardrobe is to the presidency as interviewing is to pageants--sure, it affects what you think of the candidate, but it's not really what you're picking your pony on in either instance.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being a politician and a clotheshorse--in fact, I kinda dig it. (I'm looking at you, Nancy!) But it's not been a lifelong interest of Palin's, and unlike other things she hasn't shown an interest in, this one has virtually no bearing on the substance of the job she wants to do. Sprucing up your look--helpful in a campaign, of course--can be done on the cheap.
-
sponsorship
A few weeks ago, when it was pointed out that it wasn't all that surprising that someone like Palin (Alaska resident, married young, parent of five) wouldn't have a passport or extensive foreign travel experience, the response was: Yeah, but she's running for vice president. An extraordinary job with extraordinary demands. (I am persuaded by this argument.)
Now that the question is about her wardrobe, we're back to asking her to be normal.
No fair!
-
sponsorship
What I find interesting about the whole Palin sex-pot debate is that her supposed sex appeal hasn't translated into more votes--even in previously die-hard red states, such as Colorado, where dudes are plentiful, and ammo girls are to be admired. For all the hoopla surrounding her nomination, Palin's appeal is as inflated as Susannah's blow-up doll. In fact, she has turned out to be a significant drag on the McCain ticket. According to the recent NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll, her perceived lack of qualifications is the number one concern voters have about voting for McCain--even above their fears about the economy or that McCain will continue Bush's policies. Turns out flawless make-up, a $150,000 wardrobe and all those winks haven't actually resulted in a lasting boost for McCain. I don't think this is sexism; I think Palin is being judged on her merits. After all, Republicans as diverse as Kathleen Parker, Christopher Buckley and Colin Powell have argued that Palin is simply not ready to be President, which is the top job of Vice President.
By contrast, Gloria Steinem's looks complemented her substance. In her day, she likely needed the former to sell the latter. I certainly don't begrudge Steinem her beauty. A smart, sexy woman shouldn't be penalized for her looks. But in the case of Palin, we are supposed to accept her sex appeal in lieu of her qualifications. This pitch hasn't worked, which I think also helps explain everyone's sudden, belated appreciation of Hillary. Six months ago, Hillary was seen as a scold, even by many in her own party. Now, the pantsuits, the unbecoming hair, the lack of a beguiling voice and feminine wiles have never seemed more attractive. People are falling all over themselves to praise her--including Palin! (Who'd have thunk a Clinton would be embraced by the Republican party?) Hillary has set the bar very high for any woman who wants to follow in her footsteps. Indeed, Palin has been surrounded by middle-aged women at the top of their games--Katie Couric, Tina Fey and the newly arrived Rachel Maddow. The contrast has not been pretty.
-
sponsorship
OK, I have to say this, though I'm guessing it will not make me XXer of the day or anything. (Ergh, that sounds like something John McCain would say, bragging for the 9 millionth time about not being named Miss Congeniality.) Anyway, though I happen to think the whole ‘Bama pals with terrorists' line is toxic as well as so misshapen as to qualify as an outright lie, I would not characterize what Michelle Bachmann said on "Hardball' as a rant; in all fairness, Chris Matthews saw his opening and maneuvered her into it. He took what she did say - "Most Americans, Chris, are wild about America'' - I think she means you, Dana - "and they're very concerned to have a president who doesn't share those values.'' And then, he successfully pushed her to take that to its logical conclusion, that being critical of anything America does ever is the same as having anti-American views. That is an argument I disagree with, and one side of a conversation that's been going on at least since Vietnam. But it is still a mischaracterization to react as though she went on screaming that the FBI should forget Bin Laden and look into Nancy Pelosi. (What bothered me more was her assertion that, "It was Michelle Obama who said she's only recently proud of her country.'' No, she didn't.)
If negative campaigning really had finally found its floor, in any case, that would be the best thing since Caller ID. And whatever her motivations, I'm glad Sarah Palin has apologized for her comments dividing us into the "real America'' of small towns like the ones she and I grew up in and...not so real America, like New York and Washington, where lots of us small town natives wind up. As Jon Stewart said the other night, Bin Laden must feel like a real *&F@# after having realized he bombed the wrong America. Not to mention those from-the-wrong America firefighters who ran into the Twin Towers; gosh are they embarrassed.
-
sponsorship
The funny thing about Sarah Palin's expensive new wardrobe is that most of her recent purchases are faux down-market, simple pieces like the black pencil skirt she had on at the convention, or the white blouses she often wears -- clothes that look as if they could have come from Talbot's, but didn't. Which is just what they're shooting for, so to speak, because that way she looks great, yet not too high falootin'. But wait, her spokeswoman says they always intended to donate her clothes to charity after the campaign; does that imply they expect to lose? Do they want them dry-cleaned and left in a bag at the door before they ship her back where she came from? Or does it mean that, win or lose, they're taking the clothes off her back? That doesn't seem very sporting. But it is very Cinderella - there's another archetype for you, Hanna -- and I guess on Nov. 4th it turns midnight.
-
sponsorship
Susannah, you remind of the good old days. Meaning the early '90s, when the Independent Women's Forum was just getting started, and they would celebrate every minor anniversary at a local shooting range. Only they were city girls for the most part, or aspiring city girls. So Ann Coulter would gamely trek out to the range in her size 0 jodhpurs, and Laura Ingraham in her tight skirts, and they would aim but the birdies would all just go plopping down.
Although, to keep with our theme of yesterday, Sarah Palin owns this one, too.
As for the high clothing bill. Come on, girls. You are suddenly picked to be the VP candidate. You have to do about a million public appearances a week. You need to wear something, and so does your large family. It doesn't seem excessive to me. It's like the average clothing allowance of a Conde Nast editor, who mostly just goes to the office.
-
sponsorship
Thanks, Dahlia, for throwing down the welcome mat. Although, I'd add that part of what I was trying to point out in my post about the Palin sex doll is that it's not just the male population—your "dirty old men"—that are obsessed with Palin's sexuality—it's women, too. And Hanna, I loved this: "Maybe Sarah Palin is the first one to own the sex appeal and use it as her weapon." Speaking of weapons ...
Last week, a Fox news outlet in Colorado wondered if Palin's gun-lovin' 'tude would inspire other ladies to take up the hunt. The number of U.S. hunters is on the decline, but Palin could become a "role model" for those who like to kill their dinner. The billion-dollar hunting industry has taken up targeting women, including marketing pink firearms.
Intrigued, I found a few girlie guns online. Crickett makes three different models of single-shot, .22-caliber pink rifles. Remington makes a pink-barreled shotgun that reads: "Shoot like a girl ... if you can!" And Taurus manufactures a 9 mm semi-automatic pink pistol.
Let's hope the inflatable Palin love doll doesn't get taken out in the crossfire.
-
sponsorship
John Edwards' $400 haircut mattered because it added to the impression that he was a pretty boy. Sarah Palin's $150,000 wardrobe makeover, paid for by the Republican National Committee at the cash registers of Saks, Neiman Marcus, and Barneys, matters for a kind of opposite reason: It explodes the idea that she's a middle-class woman of the people. In a sense, this is unfair. If Palin was wealthy, she'd have had the leather boots and tailored suits already. And if her look is hugely important to the McCain campaign, or at least to the crowds she draws, why shouldn't the RNC pay for it? Isn't her image a legitimate campaign expense?
Two reasons why this doesn't fly, I think. The first is that the price tag is just too high, too many teacher and nurse and firefighter salaries. The second is that all this money spent on clothes, etc., points out exactly how much Palin is trading on her sexuality, her winks, her look. You're right, Hanna and Susannah, she's owning her sex appeal. All $150,000 of it.