BlogHer - Sexism, Sarah, and the Future of Conservatism - Comments

Does anybody ever ask

dfrost — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 16:12:59 -0500

All this hub bub about Sarah Palin's clothes.

I am a McCain/Palin supporter. I just have to wonder why so many people seem to be upset about the amount of money spent on clothes.

Any candidate for the Vice Presidency needs to present well and she does look great.

Just wondering if anyone has thought to count the cost of all those suits the male candidates are wearing? Or asked if they purchased all of them?

If she was dressed like a soccer mom, her intelligence and good common sense would be overlooked in the bashing for being underdressed.

Don't American women have anything of more import to worry about?

It's not about the $150K per se ...

PunditMom — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 08:25:20 -0500

... but when you run a campaign claiming to be a regular old hockey mom, a mom of the people and are trying to say you're just like Joe the Plumber, it hits a lot of false notes to spend an amount of $$ on clothes that would buy someone their dream house (yes, someone did tell me that).

Oh, and her so-called consignment shop in Alaska? Turns out they carry pricey designer labels, too. I like nice clothes just as much as the next person, but if it walks like a hypocrite and dresses like a hypocrite, ....

And what would make us think the hypocrisy would stop with the Escada suit?

PunditMom

Check out Palin pics on my blog

DCSweetie — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:58:22 -0500

DCSweetie (http://dcsweetie.blogspot.com/)

I love that you're looking at this from a fashinonista's perspective. Great post! I went to one of her rallys the other day and she did look awesome. That makeup artist deserves big bucks, and believe me, I'm sure celeb makeup artists make lots more than hers...

Taking responsibility

Suzanne Reisman — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 15:30:25 -0500

American Princess may make me chuckle, but you, shelleyp, always make me nod and shout out huzzahs. Your point on responsibility is spot on, although I would argue that no one in the GOP ever takes responsibility for their actions. Whether attempting to blame the housing crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act (which has been around and working well for 30 years) or accusing people of being mean to "Joe the Plumber" (who they thrust into the spotlight without looking into his background first), it amazes me how everyone else in the universe is supposed to own up to their mistakes and failures except members of the Grand Old Party.

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants

Clothing not only Sarah

shelleyp — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:44:45 -0500

Clothing not only Sarah Palin, but also her family. Her family is not running for office. In fact, seems to me some of the kids should have been in school.

If the Palins did not sell themselves as just plain folks, that they are part of the six-pack crowd, and pushed the image so heavily--all the while talking about the elite Democrats, who are "not like us"--I would have given the whole thing a slide. But to clothe the whole family in designer duds comes off fake, and more than a little hypocritical. In addition, I'm getting tired of Palin's, "Not my fault, the RNC shoved it at me" shtick, which sounds suspiciously like what a certain Senator from Alaska is saying about some freebie gifts. Doesn't she ever take responsibility for anything that happens around her?

Either she is intelligent, in which case she had a pretty good idea the worth of what she was wearing; or she's innocent, but dumb as bricks. Frankly, I think the latter is the insult -- I think she knew exactly what she was doing. And no, pointing this out was not sexist.

Mine half cent

cooper — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:04:09 -0500

Maybe it's just time they stopped staging politicians in general. Or is the public so far gone we can't see the forest for the trees? Will hair transplants, fake breasts along with a nice set of veneers and a brazlian butt lift be prereqisates soon?

I think it's ridiculous they spent the money, but if somehow a closet full of Burrberry showed up in my closet I think I'd have to run with it.

cooper

My two cents...

MJ2007 — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:03:58 -0500

I don't believe it's a matter of sexism. I question the approach of "staging" her, and I think that this is a lot of money for wardrobe. She likes to say that she and Todd are normal people, but most "normal" people don't shop at Saks (and if they do, they don't spend this much on a fall wardrobe). I realize that it's not her money that is being spent, but I wouldn't have viewed her any differently if she had purchased her suits at Macy's. Does McCain wear Armani? I doubt it.

I don't know. I question the whole campaign process.

I don't know if it's sexism.

Lisse — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:02:54 -0500

I don't know if it's sexism. Remember the fuss over John Edwards $400 haircut, and all the time he was talking about poverty and the two Americas? It rang a discordant note and so does this.

The trouble is that this became part of the pattern of Cindy McCain's $300K outfit, and John McCain's 7 homes and 11 cars. The Palins' $2 million net worth, and her charging the State of Alaska for her children's travel expenses.

All while preying on the emotions of people who've barely got a pot to piss in, no matter how hard they work or how "real- America" they are.

If McCain were to win the election - Sarah Palin and her family would be living on our dime. Her party doesn't want to spend any money on SCHIP or education, but Manolo Blahniks are ok.

-Lisse

@ Home in the World

Rarely agree but

Suzanne Reisman — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 08:25:00 -0500

I rarely agree with you, but I always enjoy reading your posts because you are one funny, funny writer. Your sense of humor is fantastic, and I always appreciate your posts because of it. Actually, I'm a little jealous of your skill.

On a relevant note, in this case, I agree with you that if Palin looked like a schlub, she'd be destroyed. That said, I think $150k is an outrageous amount of money to spend on duds, and as Nordette and Erin pointed out, it is frightening that the highest paid member of the McCain campaign was a makeup artist. It says a lot about where their priorities lie.

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants

I have loved Gov Palin

Yvette Perry — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 07:33:56 -0500

...going "rogue" to talk about this whole mess. (Though I do not know why she had to mention that The View woman so many times in her comments.) I fully believe her when she said they brought a bunch of clothes into her room and she had no idea where they came from and how much they cost.

I see this as another example of the McCain campaign missing a golden opportunity to take advantage of what could have been an asset. I understand if her own wardrobe was not appropriate and that her new job requirements meant a new one. But they could have made a big deal out of her visiting consignment shops and bargain boutiques across the country--and while there talking to the regular women she met. At the same time this would have been highlighting the real economic issues many women are faced with.

A golden opportunity--not just playing on her image as a regular Jane, but to talk about actual issues.

Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast

I think it's naive to complain

Judith in Umbria — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 04:09:10 -0500

and I didn't complain. I've been a visible business women who traveled a lot and I know cheap stuff doesn't hold up.

There is nothing Gov. Palin could wear that would make me vote for her, but the RNC was maximizing her positives. I still noticed her negatives.

http://www.judithgreenwood.com/thinkonit/

More about the folksiness image and this financial crisis

Nordette — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 23:57:26 -0500

I've written a bit on her wardrobe, make-up, and stylist bills and acknowledged the bruhaha is tinged with sexism because we know that society is harder on women and their appearance than on men. But I also think that the clothing issue makes people feel moreso that what we've seen is not real, and most Americans can't relate to spending that kind of money on clothes, although many of us wish we could. Also, from a political party that's always talking about cutting budgets and during a period when people are losing jobs, homes, and their retirement funds, it seems a bit much.

I also think her pricey wardrobe, stylist, make-up artist, etc., says more about the RNC's idea of what women want than Sarah Palin herself.

I posted a picture of Palin before McCain in the supermarket with her baby. I think folks know she can't go around in her everyday duds on the trail and speak before cameras with millions of people watching. Plus, none of this has anything to do with whether she's qualified to lead the country and as unhappy as I am about her latest communism charge, I'm being very charitable here. The wardrobe squabble is a charming diversion.

Enjoyed your close:

And by the way, BlogHer is non-partisan, but I'm not! Pin it on me! And don't forget to tune in here for all the election coverage you'll ever need!

... :-) ...

Nordette is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link.

I have to say...

Erin Kotecki Vest — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:21:56 -0500

...maybe it wasn't the bill so much as the bill in relation to the other staffers. I mean...the makeup artist got paid more than anyone else in a two week span on the trail. That blows my mind. MORE than the guys in suits making big foreign policy plans? Really?

and then there is that whole 'what you can use campaign funds for' thing...

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain

Sexism, Sarah, and the Future of Conservatism

American Princess — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:09:01 -0500

I saw it mentioned earlier and thought...hmm...this is something that I'm uniquely qualified to comment on that I'm not commenting on. What is this? Who is better to address the supposed $150K Saks bill than the woman who only wishes she could spend enough time in Saks to rack up $150K? Believe you me, its not easy. To get to that amount of money, you'd have to spend a lot of time on the selling floor, or at least an hour in the Marc Jacobs purse boutique, or...and this is a pipe dream so I'll just be out with it...ten minutes with an Hermes Birkin bag.

Which is why when I read this story, I thought to myself, how did they get to $150K dressing one chick who would look good if you put her in a pair of Paper Denim Cloth jeans and a University of Alaska sweatshirt and whose photo-shopped bikini shot, were it real, would have won the Republicans the election.

The Republican National Committee has spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August.

According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74.

The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September.

The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August.

Now, call me a shopaholic or a total flake or what have you, but I'm not impressed by these numbers. Maybe its just me, but I've noticed, over the last few election cycles, Supreme Court nominations, Academy Awards red carpet shows, ten years worth of US Weekly, most of the life of E!: Entertainment Television and the whole of Joan Rivers career, that women enjoy nitpicking what other women wear, and most importantly, the media and entertainment media enjoy nitpicking about what other political women wear. If you want to hear horror stories about fashion journalism, just read through the archives we have around here that touch on the sensitive issue of the pantsuit. We're brutal. If Sarah Palin walked out of her motorcade dressed in an ill-fitting shantung pant-suit with a too-short jacket and a pair of Payless heels, we'd have eaten her alive. And I'm nice to her, and here I am admitting to you, my loyal audience of five, that I, personally, would have taken her, brutally, to task for her choice of campaign finery. And I'm not even close to Perez Hilton.

Using Perez as a case study, and basing my opinion of the entertainment media solely on the fifteen seconds of his site that I can stand, let me just say that between the commentary on Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, I've learned that sexism is not only alive and well in this country, but its cleverly disguised as political humor. Yes, I'm cynical, but there's no mistaking that calling someone "hot" in a condescending manner is a newly discovered way of putting someone down politically. Just think what would have happened if she'd been hot and poorly dressed?

That brings me, of course, to the choice of store. Neimans and Saks may be pricey, but there's nowhere better to get quality clothes with designer or pseudo-designer labels. If you want the best and you don't want to get picked apart mercilessly by a television anchor whom plastic surgery has kept in relative stasis for the last fifteen years, you're going to have to pick from the cream of the crop. My guess is that they went with Oscar de la Renta, possibly some higher end Michael Kors, maybe some Christian Dior and Chanel if they needed some really nice stuff, or some good travel clothes, like the St. Johns that Cindy McCain often sports. Beyond that, she probably needed some travel wear (Eileen Fisher, Ellen Tracy and Elie Tahari come to mind), as well as good solid hosiery, a few pairs of those Cole Haan shoes with the Nike soles as well as a few pair of designer shoes for when her feet get photographed as they seem to do often. Add to that expensive makeup (because the best stuff is expensive), hair products, coats, gloves, bags, cases, brushes, and jewelry. Then add to that several tailored suits for her husband, who doesn't seem like the type to own many, tailored suits for her son, lots of new clothes and accessories for her five children, and then some lower-end material for talk shows.

You're at a serious bill right there. Add to that the salaries of full time stylists, hair and make up people, and a colorist.

Now, I don't know if that quite makes it to $150K or whether the $150K is necessary, but you see, that's the RNC's problem.

Not Sarah's.

I've long said that the RNC is out of touch with the Republican base and if you've suddenly discovered that, oh American media and great legions of Sarah-watchers, well then you've just stumbled upon something we've known for years. If they think $150K is enough to dress a candidate, and they feel they want to shell that out in the interest of public relations, then I guess that's their decision, but its representative of a fault we've been conditioned to ignore for a long time, assuming that the only choices we had in candidates were people who were hand-plucked from the Washington cocktail circuit or the local political machine: the people who are used to dishing out $2500-$5000 for a tailored suit from an exclusive Chicago retailer like Hartmarx (Obama, if you hadn't guessed), and assuming that the only people who would ever be welcomed in government were people who flowed with the system, not against it. Sarah Palin represents, to so many, the idea that the Everyman Candidate who goes to Washington to deliver remarkable, Jimmy Stewart speeches at the end of 18-hour filibusters with the intent of changing the way that business is done in the city that represents everything we hate about government, is not lost in the archives of an out-of-business movie studio. If the RNC wants to screw that up by painting her with Guerlain and stuffing her into the $5K suits we all complain about, they're creating their own monster. Sarah is the woman who stops at Wal-Mart for diapers. Its the RNC that hires $10K makeup artists.

Plus, I could probably do it for half or less with a few days and a Nordstrom Rack. Maybe I should contract out for her inevitable run at the Presidency or, if she loses, the Senate.

Don't take my word for it. See the rest of these ladies and their thoughts:

Tammi at Moms for Sarah Palin tackles the legitimacy of the original claim that it was $150K.

Linda Hanses of the Huffington Post's Off the Bus Blog says, "you can dress her up, but you can't take her out." In this case, fancy clothes aren't adding anything to a less-than-spectacular candidate.

And Susan Wagner of ParentDish takes a look at some of the OTHER campaign expenditures that are related to Sarah Palin's looks.

And by the way, BlogHer is non-partisan, but I'm not! Pin it on me! And don't forget to tune in here for all the election coverage you'll ever need!