Palin’s wardrobe: Window dressing? Or necessary expenditure?

23rd October 2008

Palin’s wardrobe: Window dressing? Or necessary expenditure?

Much has been made of the fact that the McCain-Palin campaign spent some $150,000 on clothes and even another nearly $5,000 on make-up and other beauty products for the Alaska governor and Republican running-mate. Yet thousands of dollars more were spent outfitting the First Dude and the Palin children, including $295 on clothes for six-month-old Trig Palin. According to Politico, the site that first broke the story, the Republicans’ main campaign and fundraising organ spent tens of thousands at high-end stores, such as Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York (49,425 dollars) and Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis (75,062 dollars).

The moose-hunting , aerial-wolf-shooting supermom has gone from packing heat to now taking heat. A sampling of responses…

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow says:

“There’s socialism and then there’s living large on someone’s else dime. Socialism? The McCain-Palin’ites say that’s Barack Obama’s bag. But Governor Palin’s bag? Lavish on other people’s dimes, including the hard-working taxpayers she likes to talk about so much.”

Also of MSNBC, Keith Olberman says:

“… is almost literally window-dressing. But even this saga of the would-be empress’ new clothes does emphasize a point about the campaign worthy of deep consideration. One hundred fifty thousand dollars in clothes, Sen. McCain? To make what might as well be an actress playing your running-mate look more like a vice-president, Sen. McCain? …While the economy — in your famous imagery to David Letterman — is cratering, Senator McCain? While your campaign has tried to paint Senator Obama as elitist, Senator McCain? A “Celebrity,” Senator McCain?”

The blog Reconstitution writes: “My goodness, Caribou Barbie sure does like to spend money, as long as somebody else is paying the bill.”

And from Gawker:

“What business does Sarah Palin have spending $75,000+ at Neiman Marcus and $50,000 at Saks if she’s not planning to be part of the “Washington elite” or “seek their good opinion,” as she told the Republican National Convention in September?”

CNN’s Campbell Brown — the same Campbell Brown who rallied for the McCain campaign to “Free Sarah Palin!” — has a slightly different perspective:

There is an incredible double-standard here, and we are ignoring a very simple reality. Women are judged based on their appearance far, far more than men. That is a statement of fact.

There was plenty of talk and plenty written about Sen. Hillary Clinton’s looks, hair and pantsuits. Compare that with the attention given to Sen. Barack Obama’s $1,500 suits or Sen. John McCain’s $520 Ferragamo shoes. There is no comparison.

Women get scrutinized based on appearance far more than men. And look, I speak from experience here. When I wear a bad outfit on the air, I get viewer e-mail complaining about it. A lot of e-mail. Seriously.

My point is for women, unfortunately, appearance is part of the job. This doesn’t just apply to TV. All women in the public eye deal with this issue. And it is for this reason that I think the RNC should help Palin pay for clothes, hair and makeup. It is part of the job.

I, myself, have raised plenty of questions about Sarah Palin, much to the annoyance of the McCain campaign. But those questions have been about her qualifications and experience, never her appearance. Let’s keep the focus on what really matters here.

Brown’s right; there is a double standard for women, for sure. Although it must be said that the same “liberal feminists” Palin is supposed to counter are most often the ones calling out her own supporters on their sexist treatment of her. But even John Edwards was endlessly excoriated by the conservative right for his $400 haircuts. And to be fair, I don’t think the issue here is so much on appearance as it is on the extravagant cost in procuring that appearance — as also pointed out by Salon’s King Kaufman.

What do you think? Is this an issue? A non-issue? Would it be an issue if the same money was spent styling John McCain or Barack Obama? If Palin wasn’t so well-dressed, would she face other criticism for not looking the part of a vice-president?

Click to Bookmark

This entry was posted on Thursday, October 23rd, 2008 at 1:11 pm and is filed under Feminist Topics, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

1 On October 23rd, 2008, JollyRoger said:

Brown seems to have forgotten about Edwards’s $400 haircut. I’d say his premise is a thin one, since I had to hear about the Edwards haircut right up till Politico broke this story. And there is another major difference here; Barack and Johnny pay for their own clothes. The RNC and DNC records reflect this.

This IS an issue, and it speaks to a pattern Caribou Barbie has been engaged in all along. We have another story up about how she stiffed the taxpayers of Alaska by fudging some forms and making them pay over $20,000.00 in travel and lodging expenses for her stage prop…. er, kids. There is also the matter of her billing the State of Alaska for staying in her own house. For someone who is continuously railing against “socialism,” Sarahpoleon suire doesn’t seem to have a problem with socializing her own expenses.

posted on October 23rd, 2008 at 1:56 pm

2 On October 23rd, 2008, The Other Emmy said:

If they’d spent $50K on dressing her, I probably wouldn’t blink. She *is* going to be under scrutiny, and her choices aren’t as simple as a male politician who just has to get some suits.

But the vast amounts involved in this particular new wardrobe challenge… I can’t even imagine HOW you spend that much. Who made the decisions that this was the right amount to spend? On what did they base that? Someone, somewhere, has to have been weighing options… or else their campaign is so badly organised that THAT reflects badly on them.

posted on October 23rd, 2008 at 2:00 pm

3 On October 23rd, 2008, Rachel said:

I’d say his premise is a thin one, since I had to hear about the Edwards haircut right up till Politico broke this story.

JR: Brown is a woman, btw.

posted on October 23rd, 2008 at 2:15 pm

4 On October 23rd, 2008, Christie said:

I don’t think the problem is what she’s wearing or how much money she spends on her clothes. The problem is that the money came from the campaign fund.

posted on October 23rd, 2008 at 2:50 pm

5 On October 23rd, 2008, vesta44 said:

If Palin wants to spend $150K on wardrobe, it should be her money, just like Obama spends his money on his wardrobe. Charging it to your political party (and thus the taxpayers who contributed to it) is inexcusable. I don’t care how much money is spent on wardrobe by any political candidate, as long as it’s their own money they’re spending. Expect to use my tax dollars or political contributions to do it, and I’m going to complain and quit contributing to your political party.

posted on October 23rd, 2008 at 3:05 pm

6 On October 23rd, 2008, Stephanie said:

Like everyone else, I feel that if Obama has to drop $1500 on each of his own suits (and that’s sort of a minimum, frankly), then Palin should have to drop her own $1500 on each of her suits, or whatever.

I understand that there’s a double standard, but Palin seems to have her own double standard regarding redistribution of wealth.

posted on October 23rd, 2008 at 3:09 pm

7 On October 23rd, 2008, Branwyn said:

Besides, I want to know when she’s going to wear everything. Is it impossible for a VP candidate to be seen wearing the same thing twice?

She’s been found to abuse her position recently. I see this ($150,000 shopping spree, the charging the people of Alaska to take her children on the campaign trail with her) as just more abuse of position and authority.

And no, it doesn’t make it alright to me that she’s going to donate the clothes after the campaign to be auctioned off and the money given to charity. It really doesn’t.

posted on October 23rd, 2008 at 3:37 pm

8 On October 23rd, 2008, Rachel said:

The problem is that the money came from the campaign fund.

Good point, Christie. Does anyone know if this violates any campaign financing rules?

posted on October 23rd, 2008 at 3:43 pm

9 On October 23rd, 2008, Rachel said:

And no, it doesn’t make it alright to me that she’s going to donate the clothes after the campaign to be auctioned off and the money given to charity. It really doesn’t.

I was kind of confused by this, actually. Does this mean they expect to lose? I mean, if elected, wouldn’t she still need that spiffy wardrobe?

posted on October 23rd, 2008 at 3:44 pm

10 On October 23rd, 2008, Zaftige said:

BESIDES using that party money (ugh!), um… how would we know how a female VP is “supposed” to dress since we’ve never had one before? A paltry point, but…you can’t conform to this standard when there isn’t necessarily one in place.
(AND! How dare they say, “yeah, beauty standards are different for women, suck it up.” GRRRRR.)

-Z

posted on October 23rd, 2008 at 4:01 pm

11 On October 23rd, 2008, Bree said:

What does bother me about “Wardrobegate” is that she publicly and loudly proclaims to be the champion for Joe Sixpack, hockey moms, and Midwestern white, Christian, “real Americans.” Spending $150,000 on designer duds to look sophisticated and appealing for the media to me isn’t representing any of the above groups. Hypocrisy much?

I did know about Edwards’ $400 haircuts, and that was ridiculous too. But despite his flaws, I didn’t hear him try to be the mouthpiece for the working class.

I have no doubts Sarah Palin is an intelligent woman. But she sure isn’t showing it with this case of chronic foot-in-mouth disease and two-faceness she’s come down with lately.

posted on October 23rd, 2008 at 4:12 pm

12 On October 23rd, 2008, Twistie said:

Late to the party again. Damn.

Still, as has been pointed out before, if Sarah Palin was spending her own money to get those clothes, I wouldn’t give a fig about how much she spent. What fries me is that she’s on the one hand telling us she speaks for the average hockey moms of the world who aren’t about dressing up to impress anyone, and then she’s using campaign funds to get designer clothes and top of the line makeup to impress everyone on the other hand.

You can’t have it both ways.

And I honestly thought if I heard one more word about Edwards’ haircut I was going to have to stuff salami in my ears not to have to hash it out one more freaking time.

BTW, while the press had plenty of negative things to say about Senator Clinton’s pantsuits, they didn’t stop her getting a seat in the Senate, nor did they stop her coming pretty darn close to winning the Democratic nomination for President.

Yes, women do get pilloried unfairly in the press compared to men for their wardrobe choices, but that alone has not stopped more and more women getting elected. What’s more, focusing on playing dress up doll with Governer Palin only reinforces negative stereotypes about how women’s clothing sense is more important than whether what they say makes any sense.

At best I would consider this makeover ill-advised and borderline unethical. I’m not even going to use the words I would have to use in order to describe the worst. So few of them take more than four letters to spell.

posted on October 23rd, 2008 at 5:06 pm

13 On October 23rd, 2008, JollyRoger said:

Sarahpoleon’s benefactors have probably gotten her into a bit of tax trouble. But, she’s been pretty creative at her tax dodging up till now, so it may not amount to anything.

posted on October 23rd, 2008 at 5:15 pm

14 On October 23rd, 2008, Godless Heathen said:

First, I don’t understand how the governor of a state didn’t already have a political wardrobe.

Second, she can’t pretend she’s just like regular folks while at the same time wearing designer clothes. Soccer moms don’t normally own a pair of Blahniks.

Third, I keep getting desperate campaign fund mail from the McCain/Palin campaign seeking a “modest” $50 donation because ZOMG, Obama has more money! Soooo, I’m expected to cough up the grocery money so they can deck out Eva Peron? I don’t think so.

I admit, they wouldn’t let her get away with wearing the same five suits for her entire campaign, but seriously…they spent on wardrobe ten times what my minimum wage family gets in one year (if we’re lucky and people tip very well). Maybe it’s time to admit that there’s a huge class divide between professional politicians and “regular folk”. Maybe it’s time to be ok with admitting that they might not have a firm grasp on what it’s like to live in the real world.

posted on October 23rd, 2008 at 5:17 pm

15 On October 23rd, 2008, Rachel2 said:

“”I admit, they wouldn’t let her get away with wearing the same five suits for her entire campaign, but seriously…they spent on wardrobe ten times what my minimum wage family gets in one year (if we’re lucky and people tip very well). Maybe it’s time to admit that there’s a huge class divide between professional politicians and “regular folk”. Maybe it’s time to be ok with admitting that they might not have a firm grasp on what it’s like to live in the real world.”"

Yeah, you don’t have to wear the same 5 suits every campaign, but you’ve got a very, very valid point. Spending 20 times what I earn in a year on a flipping wardrobe?!!!! Yeah, maybe it is indeed time to admit that they don’t have a firm grasp on reality. $150,000 is literally 20 times what I earn in a year. And then to do it on the taxpayer’s dime?! You can’t have it both ways, Ms. Palin. You’re either an “Average Joe”, or you’re a “Political Elitist”. At least Senator Obama doesn’t pretend to be something he’s not. AND, AND, AND, to boot, he spends HIS OWN money on his clothes. Also, Ms. Palin really could go to JCPenney and spend, perhaps, $500 on an entire wardrobe of suits and it would look just fine… Geebers…

posted on October 23rd, 2008 at 5:49 pm

16 On October 23rd, 2008, Alexandra Lynch said:

Yes, it’s going to cost more to put a female VP in front of the public due to our gender issues.

But as was said upthread, didn’t she have some clothes already?

And I am somewhat uncomfortable with the entire designer clothing thing, being plus-sized, and having a personal sense of style that means that I would rather spend that money on getting personally tailored suits done rather than going to Neiman Marcus, even if I could.

posted on October 23rd, 2008 at 8:13 pm

17 On October 23rd, 2008, liz said:

It’s an issue precisely because she’s been touting herself as a down-home workin’-class hockey mom of five. It’s an issue because she already makes more than most folks do in two years and she’s using contributions that (some of them) come from people poorer than she.
It’s an issue because John McCain fought against this precise use of campaign funds 10 years ago.

posted on October 23rd, 2008 at 11:48 pm

18 On October 24th, 2008, Rachel said:

Keith Olberman reminded us of a not-so-distant McCain, arguing for campaign finance reform in 1996. McCain said then, and I quote:

“Madam President, I want to emphasize I will be citing some examples of how campaign funds have been used which are extremely egregious, but I want to point out they are not illegal, and the purpose of this amendment is to restrict the use of those campaign funds because, if we are truly going to have campaign finance reform, I do not believe that campaign funds should be used for such things as country club dues, tuxedos, vacations, and other purposes for which they are now almost routinely used by certain Members of both bodies.

The use of campaign funds for items which most Americans would consider to be strictly personal reasons, in my view, erodes public confidence and erodes it significantly.

Under House and Senate ethics rules, Members of Congress must use campaign funds for political–not personal–purposes. Yet the commonly accepted definition of a political expenditure has grown so broad and enforcement of the rules has been so lax that congressional campaigns now routinely make purchases that on their face appear to be personal, such as resort vacations, luxury automobiles, expensive meals, apartments, country club memberships, tuxedos, home improvements, baby sitting, and car phones.

If we in Congress learned one thing from President Clinton’s $200 haircut last week, it should be that the public does not approve of its elected officials being treated as royalty. We should be no different.

The solution to this problem is simple; restrict the use of campaign funds solely to campaign purposes.

According to Ms. Fritz, campaign funds have been used to buy items such as globes and trips to exotic locales such as Thailand, Taiwan, and Italy, tuxedos and an unexplainable $299 for bow ties.

I cannot imagine being able to justify to the public what will soon be the use of tax dollars in this fashion. [...]

I point out these abuses, in my view what are abuses, because they are certainly not what the average contributor intends for their funds to go to.”

posted on October 24th, 2008 at 9:34 am

19 On October 24th, 2008, devil said:

Ethics aside for the moment, I question the intelligence of someone who needs to spend 150K on a campaign wardrobe. It makes Palin appear too dumb to be able to coordinate a half-dozen suits, a few pairs of shoes and some long-lasting makeup. The idea of throwing money rather than brainpower against a problem turns me off as much as the abuse of power factor. A potential Commander-in-Chief should be displaying herself as resourceful and smart, not fast and loose with any funds at her disposal.

Palin missed a chance to make a great statement. She should have pared down to a simple, yet versatile, wardrobe. Then she could deflect any criticism by saying that she’s a serious candidate who doesn’t believe in such frivolities as fancy-shmancy clothes.

Too late, anyway, if folks are calling her “Caribou Barbie” (hee!).

posted on October 24th, 2008 at 10:30 am

20 On October 24th, 2008, Rachel said:

Too late, anyway, if folks are calling her “Caribou Barbie” (hee!).

That site is authored by my best girlfriend’s husband. He has quite a creative way with words, especially when it comes to conservative monikers.

posted on October 24th, 2008 at 4:15 pm

21 On October 24th, 2008, PurpleGirl said:

This whole shopping spree could’ve been a PR move for Palin. Instead of having some GOP gopher unethically go spend campaign money, she could’ve gotten her ass to a Macy’s, Dillard’s, or Kohl’s and done her own shopping, with her own money, and bought a few frugal things. She could’ve really shown herself as a sort of ally of middle-class working women. Instead, this whole ridiculous thing just proves how very, very out of touch with reality she, and her party, is.

posted on October 24th, 2008 at 8:22 pm

22 On October 25th, 2008, MrsDrC said:

To me the trouble comes from:

The AMOUNT of money spent, in stores that are out of reach of most Americans.
Outfitting her family.
Her make-up artist was the HIGHEST paid person on the McCain payroll for the first two weeks of Sept!

If I’d donated money to the McCain campain, I think I’d be highly peeved.

Just goes to prove that Palin is simply “for show”.

posted on October 25th, 2008 at 3:31 pm

23 On October 25th, 2008, Fangirl said:

I should care about the double standard more than I do, but what really gets me is that the RNC just spent the cost of my college education on clothes for Caribou Barbie (great moniker, by the way) and her family.

I mean, really.

posted on October 25th, 2008 at 8:21 pm

24 On October 26th, 2008, keshmeshi said:

Supposedly she didn’t have much say about what to wear. The clothes were just given to her and she, allegedly, didn’t know where they came from. Whether or not that’s true, what gets me is that she tried to lie about it. When questioned about how much money was spent on the clothes, she didn’t say she didn’t know, she didn’t say “I’ll get back to ya on that”, she said that they did not spend that much. Palin lies so much it almost seems pathological and makes everything she says suspect.

posted on October 26th, 2008 at 1:50 am

25 On October 26th, 2008, Rachel said:

The clothes were just given to her and she, allegedly, didn’t know where they came from.

I hadn’t heard that, but I find it highly incredulous that you’d drop $150k on designer clothes based on measurements alone. If I had that kind of dough to spend on clothes, I’d try them on to ensure the best and most flattering fits possible.

posted on October 26th, 2008 at 3:33 pm

26 On October 30th, 2008, Pair of Cha-Cha Heels said:

It seems I too am late to this party, but from what I’ve been reading, she plans on donating all her things after the election to charity. My question is how she plans on doing this. Does she plan to put them up for auction and give the proceeds away? Will she drop them off at the local good will? Or will she just ebay them like the the former govenor’s jet? And then to which charity(s) will the proceeds go? I take it Planned Parenthood will not be high on the list.

My problem with her is much the same as others here seem to have. She comes across as being a down-to-earth person, just “your average hockey mom”. Growing up in a state where hockey is one of the most popular sports, I can tell you one thing; no average person play hockey. Most of the guys I went to school with here in Alaska who did play tended to live on Hillside, Bayshore, Southshore, basically any rich, predominantly white neighborhood. Hockey is an expensive sport not just in providing equipment, but also in doctor’s bills, dentist bills, sometimes even chiropractic bills. So this whole thing of saying “I’m an average person” while sporting designer brands is hypocritical. And even after getting called on it, having people defend her for it and blaming the media for calling her on it is evidence of a ridiculous double-standard.

posted on October 30th, 2008 at 5:36 am