babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Dressing like a hockey mom no longer good enough for Sarah Palin
October 22, 2008 - 6:34am
$150,000 spent on Palin's wardrobe
I remember, working on the Chantal Daigle support campaign, one of our tactics was getting donations and raising funds for Daigle's court appearance wardrobe - both so she didn't "show" too much and so she looked "professional" - sadly, that certainly weighed in her favour.
I think there is far too much scrutiny of "girly" expenses, while more "male" spending on cars, planes, or whatever tends to get a pass.
I totally understand what your saying and I think that is a valid critizsm. However it's not so much the 'girly' expense thing that has people including Republicans a bit miffed.
Republicans Disgusted by Expenditures
It's also about the extent of it in relation to the 'image' that Palin and the campaign are trying to portray.
On one hand you have Palin, pretty much every day now promoting herself as speaking for the 'real' Americans in the "Pro-American' parts of the country eg 'small towns' and railing against the 'elites' and 'latte' drinking 'liberals who hate real Americans' of the the big cities and who lot of disparaging and divisive rhetoric along those lines.
In her speeches she proudly calls herself a 'walmart shopper, just like you' yet here you have huge sums of money being spent on upscale designer clothes in the very places that are being 'painted' right now as 'Anti-American'.
The story or issue is really about the hypocrisy in the image more then anything else.
The Republicans both past and present have had no problem attacking male candidates either on their 'elitist' expenditures, which the article does give a few of. The Edwards '400 dollar hair cut' scandal comes to mind. For some reason that one was huge.
Hillary Clinton was attacked as well for her 2000 dollar suits so I'm not sure if calls of this is happening just because she's a woman is going to cut it.
[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: ElizaQ ]
But candidates' wardrobes are a very small percentage of campaign expenses. And not all candidates can look good in clothing off the shelf, so frankly I'm not terribly upset about the fact that a hand-tailored suit for Hillary Clinton may have cost $2000. It is the same if you are working on any film or TV production.
Remember the hell Chancellor Merkel caught for being "frumpy" when she was elected. (Merkel has a science background and absolutely no interest in fashion). She has since been "relooked", of course.
Sйgolиne Royal also appeared in quite the array of outfits. None of this clothing necessarily belongs to to the candidates in question.
Sure, I wish politics hadn't become such a media beauty show, but Palin didn't start that. There are so many far more serious things to throw at her. Though if this shows up the Republican's hypocrisy, that is fine and fair game.
I'm not upset about Hillary's suits either and really could care less about whether Obama's suits are 1000 or 2000 dollars or whether they're custom or not.
I'm not even that upset at Palin either because frankly it's doubtful that she even chose the stuff anyways. The campaign 'image makers' did and as you rightly point out 'politics' is a lot about image. Sweater vests anyone? I do find it kinda amusing though in a kinda of 'coming back and biting one in the butt sorta way.'
Though if this story puts a bit of a damper on the , "I'm just like you Walmart, Joe the Plumber, 'real' American vs liberal 'elitist' hypocritical BS' then so be it. It will likely not be a big deal beyond a couple of days news cycles and just chocked up to another one of those 'things.'
It's also running on the tail of story about how she ammended expense reports in order for the State to pay for her families travel expenses which I think is a more important discussion in terms of her actions in actually governing. This story seems to be getting more play now then it likely would have if this clothing thing hadn't come up.
AP Story
[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: It's Me D ]
Yeah maybe. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] Except now the campaign has come out and said, "Well the family isn't actually going to keep any of it you silly people. It's all going to charity. " So it's really just a campaign tax write off I guess. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Remember the OJ trial? One of the big stresses for Marcia Clark, the lead prosecutor, was simply trying to get a wardrobe that would be suitable for being on television every day so that she wouldn't look dumpy or tired or unprofessional or wear the same thing all the time.
I think people should find something else to pick on Palin about. It's not like there isn't lots!
I remember a lot of German designers offered to relook Chancellor Merkel as her dowdy clothes reflected poorly on the national industry (France and Italy are better known for haute couture, but Germany has long produced high-quality clothing better suited to business and professional women). She seems to have taken them up on it, though I have no idea who has footed the bill.
The rationale for the attack is less Palin's spending and more the hypocrisy of this being done by the party that attacked Edward's $400 haircut.
Not THAT much more expensive. Of course they needed to give her a budget for clothing in excess of what a male candidate would need. Though by way of comparison, here's the sort of thing Obama bought:
There's a mini-scandal there, he's wearing a Marx-suit! [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img] Nobody's going to make anything of the price.
So, let's say she needs $3,000 suits instead and needs 15 of them. $45,000. Shoes to match, $500 per pair - $7,500. We're still well shy of $100,000 by this point. No, I think it is fair to say the McCain-Palin campaign was just a bit extravagant on her behalf.
I know it sounds dumb, but if she's seen wearing the same suit a bunch of times, she's going to get trashed for it.
Obama's 10 or 15 expensive suits, on the other hand, will get him through the next year.
I'm well aware that women's clothing costs a whole lot more then men's clothing and that 'image' is important. dollars per day more though on top designer wear in order to not look frumpy and stylish? I'm sorry but I've been in the public spotlight and one doesn't have to spend that kind of money to look professional, stylish and decent.
And yeah maybe she would get trashed for god forbid wearing the same thing, but if you think about it why? Is that not buying into the double standard? If the campaign really wanted to marry image with campaign ethos and rhetoric they could just as easily use that as a campaign point to reinforce the 'every average woman' image they're promoting and likely get a lot of political points for it. "Sure she could buy a new outfit everyday and meet the perceived requirement but hey this is Sarah, she's a Maverick and doesn't believe that spending huge amounts of money on packaged 'sizzle'. Think what she'll be like in Washington!"
Personally I think it's just as bogus to buy into this whole idea that women in the public eye have to always wear different clothes in order to not be trashed.
[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: ElizaQ ]
Doug, there would also be the associated costs of good foundation wear, and hosery. But wasn't part of the 150k spent on her husband/family as well?
I'm no expert or anything, but I don't think you're allowed to do that with haute couture. The designers would throw a fit! [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
The problem with this story is not how many, what she bought or anything like that. It is about saying one thing and doing another. Of course that is hardly new for conservatives of every stripe. (even pinstripe)
But I am sure she could get away with it, as she is a "Wal Mart shopper", so designer expectations would not be high. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
I would. But I've always been a contemptible weirdo.
I would seriously beg to differ.
Based on my experience the difference is either negligible or more often women's clothing is way less expensive. And I am speaking specifically in regard to professional clothing. I think part of this may be the greater selection of women's clothes, and thus the greater competition.
But I've gone shopping with my girlfriend for suits for her at work, and she's purchased outfits at fairly high-end stores (Mexx being one place I recall) for a fraction of what similar quality men's wear would cost, even at the same store. Even at Sears - where I had to do a lot of shopping over the summer for a wardrobe for my summer job - you're looking at at least $400 for a man's suit of mediocre quality (mine was $200 and polyester, and looks it).
Back to Palin, even assuming she needs all of the outfits in question she must only be wearing them once, since that's still about $3,000 for every day she's been on the ticket.
Looks like Obama's shoe budget is not quite as extravagant:
Too late. They spent everything on the Sarah Palin love doll.`Eeeewww.
Even with that, though, it's a lot of money.
Yeah. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 22 October 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]
Well I am and here is how it works.
If you wear different pieces from the same designer that is okay.
Wearing or even coordinating with items from different designers is not good, if you are being paid by, or given free clothes from the designer. (one has to wonder why Pallin wasn't approached for this)
If you own the clothes it is in fact very trendy to mix and match to be able to demonstrate that you are connected and on the in with a variety of designers. The hotter the designers the better.
Hope that helps Michelle. You just never know what a rural person might be connected to. [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img] Of course my own clothing tends to skew towards cover-alls. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
I just bought my very first pair of coveralls! Insulated ones to boot! They're stylin'. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
I also got one of those waterproof hats with fuzzy earflaps.
Well, it wasn't just he haircut, it was the video of Edward's primping. Not quite as creepy as the Moore clip of Wolfowitz using saliva to tame his hair, but wierd all the same.
How you dress, your grooming does count for stuff. And to a certain extent, it should. And while I'm sure 150,000 is a lot of money, I bet it's just a small percentage of the campaign budget.
I don't plan for a political career, but just in case, I make sure I am in good shape and have a good wardrobe-- for a radio campaign.
[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Well I will admit I did go for the more couture option. I can't completely dismiss the fashion sense derived from growing up in the big city. It's pink camo with little embroidered flowers on the flappy part. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]