The XX Factor: Slate women blog about politics, etc...

Off-the-Rack Campaigning

To answer Meghan’s question, according to Brooks Brothers online, you can get a very nice suit for less than $1,000. And you can get its top-of-the-line suit for around $1,600. A nice shirt and tie might bring this to $2,000. I seriously doubt Joe Biden bought 70 such suits after becoming Obama’s running mate. And whatever happened to the fine political tradition of wearing jeans and a flannel shirt when courting Joe Sixpack? I’m not sure Chanel is (or should be) the female equivalent.

I also find the argument that Palin had nothing else to wear, prior to the RNC’s shopping spree, a little unbelievable. Palin is the governor of a major state. She campaigned for this office, appeared on TV countless times in that election (including in multiple debates), has surely attended governors’ conferences and other formal events in an official capacity. Are we to believe that prior to being tapped for VP, she never owned anything besides a seal-skin coat and 'coon cap?

As a native of Dallas, I’ve spent my fair share of money at Neiman-Marcus’ flagship store, but as Slate’s piece points out today—it’s pretty hard to blow $150,000, even at a store like Neiman’s. Moreover, I know a lot of high-society women in Dallas who brag about the fine fashion they’ve also found at Target, especially in these tough economic times. (They call the store “Tar-chez.”) Is it really the opinion of the women on XX Factor that a woman can’t look good on TV or at a rally in anything less than a $4,000 designer suit? Seems to me we’re buying into Carrie Bradshaw’s world view a little too much. The dress Michelle Obama wore when she went on The View famously cost $148 off the rack.

McCain, Galileo, and the High Price of Getting Off a Good One

Ellen, that is how I felt after I read an interview with The Sopranos' creator David Chase way back when, explaining that every word out of every character's mouth was a lie. (Up until then, I'd spent the whole hour going, "Well, that's not true ... and that's not either.'' So with that off my shoulders, well, I was freed up for whole other levels of viewing enjoyment. Sad, really.) And yes, Rachael, you are our rightful Elisabeth—even if I'm guessing it would take more than a congratulatory note on the birth of your baby to get you to reconsider Hillary Clinton. So now that your guy John McCain has the nomination, he knows he needs to make nice with Republicans well to your right, as he did yesterday at CPAC. But I think I finally get their McCain hatred after hearing an interview with the American Conservative Union's David Keene on Diane Rehm the other day. (And no, it is not the same as Hillary hatred on the left, over policy disappointments, political hedging, and Iraq, Iraq, Iraq.)

Keene was explaining that sure, some of the conservative anger toward McCain is over the issues—campaign finance, for instance, and initially opposing the Bush tax cuts as a ridiculously good deal for rich people. But a lot of it, Keene said, is only personal, because McCain is the kind of guy who can't seem to resist poking his finger in your eye, especially if you're someone he really ought to be sucking up to. (Sort of how Galileo's real sin was not as much his maverick views on Copernicus as his glee in making an ass of his pal Pope Urban in print. There he was, so enjoying his own bon mots, right up until the Inquisition arrived.) Unlike Hillary Clinton, in other words, McCain is the opposite of ingratiating. Suddenly, listening to Keene, I realized why I like this guy with whom I agree on so little. And why folks who do agree with him but have often felt his elbow in their ribs—hey, what was that for?—can go to pieces at the sound of his name. Keene said he personally is working on getting past some of the old slights, and I'm sure the GOP knows it can't wait 300 years to forgive him.