-
sponsorship
Emily, totally fair point about the Iseman and Hunter stories—they were examples of other kinds of basic journalistic malfeasance. And Politico didn't point out that a number of its top press screw-ups were sexism. But neither did it really "mount a broader critique" of the media's coverage of, in particular, Hillary. All the blunders Politico named that related to Hillary (there were three) had to do with Team Hillary or the candidate's supporters crying foul on sexism in the press.
Which is a little funny, because I always thought the media's coverage of Sarah Palin was more sex-based than its coverage of Hillary. (I don't mean "sexist," exactly, but perpetually tinged—positively or negatively—by its consciousness of her sex. What's the word for this? It's like the difference between racism and racialism, but is there a word?) The condescending pats on the head from conservatives when the li'l gal did good, the sniggers at her Miss South Carolina-esque ditziness when she did bad, the titanic obsession with her wardrobe (Sen. Norm Coleman didn't get so much heat when somebody bought him fancy suits from the same Minneapolis Neiman Marcus) ... Of course, the McCain campaign invited all this by cynically selecting Palin over other reformers for her anatomical features in the first place.
-
sponsorship
Wow, forget medicine and law; I'm gonna push my girl toward beauty school, where the big bucks are. Here's where Sarah Palin's traveling makeup artist made more money than anyone else in the whole McCain-Palin campaign during the first two weeks of this month. According to the New York Times, Amy Strozzi, "who was nominated for an Emmy award for her makeup work on the television show 'So You Think You Can Dance,' was paid $22,800 for the first two weeks of October alone.'' Now that she's moved on to Project Runway, "the campaign categorized Ms. Strozzi's payment as "PERSONNEL SVC/EQUIPMENT." Does that mean the lipstick is included?
Either way, Sarah Palin's makeup artist makes more in a month than a lot of people make in a year. We are really veering toward Marie Antoinette land here, aren't we? With perfumed sheep down on the old faux farm? And if she wants to talk small towns, I'll see her and raise her, because where I come from, this lame non-explanation of the $150,000 the RNC spent on her new wardrobe would be considered worse than no explanation at all: "That is not who we are,'' she told the Chicago Tribune. "It's kind of painful to be criticized for something when all the facts are not out there and are not reported.'' Only, she didn't elaborate, didn't add or subtract any facts from our Escada-gate knowledge base at all, so her "denial'' is .. .denying what, exactly? "That whole thing is just, bad!'' she said of the uproar over her clothes. "Oh, if people only knew how frugal we are." OK, I'll bite: How frugal?
-
sponsorship
Sara, I was intrigued by your post (Palin May Be Pretty, But Her Poll numbers Aren't) noting that Palin's "supposed sex appeal hasn't translated into more votes." I'm no Palin fan (though I can't get too worked up about the $150,000 wardrobe expenditure)—but I can't help wondering if Palin's sex appeal isn't actually hurting her, at this point.
I've blogged here before about the benefits—social and financial—our society hands out to those fortunate enough to be attractive. Reasearchers call it the "beauty premium." But ... it turns out that there's also a "beauty penalty." One 2006 study found that:
People are more likely to trust a pretty face, but when that trust is betrayed, the backlash can be ugly. ... Numerous studies have shown that attractive people generally make more money, get higher reviews from their supervisors and are viewed as being more intelligent and trustworthy. What surprised researchers in this study was that subjects deemed attractive also were penalized more harshly for failing to live up to expectations.
I wonder if that's what's happening to Sarah Palin now. Quoth the Sage:
For if that flower with base infection meet,
The basest weed outbraves his dignity:
For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds;
Lilies that fester, smell far worse than weeds.
Ahem.
-
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
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
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
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.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?