It was revealed this week that McCain’s campaign spent $150,000 to outfit Sarah Palin for the campaign. Given the fury of feminists over the attention paid to Hillary’s outfit, and that little hint of cleavage she once showed, should any attention be focused on how much Palin’s wardrobe has cost?
You could say that the price tag doesn’t matter–that campaigns are all about image, that Obama spends millions on TV commercials, so what’s the difference? I would say that the wardrobe expenditures are significant because they reveal the bankruptcy with which the campaign approached Palin from the get go: All image, no substance. TV commercials may be all gloss, but they purport to represent larger ideas in a campaign, which are then backed up in interviews, speeches, and debates. With one debate, very few interviews, and speeches meant to rally rather than inform, it’s hard to understand how Palin’s wardrobe might connect to a larger vision. Except it does tell us one thing: For all the cries (sometimes deserved) about sexism against Palin, her own campaign was treating her like a dress-up doll from the beginning.
Comments
Bob Lamm — October 23, 2008
It's very important NOT to judge any female candidate for any office by ridiculous sexist standards that will never be applied to a male candidate. So normally I'd say we should pay no attention to how Sarah Palin dresses or how much her clothing costs. But, even apart from your appropriate comparison to the treatment of Hillary Clinton, two other things come to mind that persuade me that this story is indeed relevant and worth considering:
1. The media and the GOP made a HUGE issue in the primary campaigns about John Edwards $400 haircut. Here's some math: $150,000 would buy Sarah Palin almost 400 haircuts at $400 each!
2. Sarah Palin has made the fact that she's a "hockey mom" a central selling point of her campaign. How many "hockey moms" have $150,000 to spend on their outfits? Many "hockey moms" (and "hockey dads") are spending every extra penny they have on the rather costly effort to support a kid's involvement in amateur hockey.
Norris Hall — October 23, 2008
Why do they have to spend so much money on clothes? Just buy them at a regular store.
I thought that the Republican's don't have enough money for campaigning.
$150,000 could have bought a lot of TV ads or helped pay for bigger staff.
Don't they want to win?
It isn't right to ask people to donate $50 and then spend $150,000 on fancy clothers and hairstyles.
anniegirl1138 — October 23, 2008
Politics on the national stage are just as much about appearance as any movie star's life is.
It's a lot of money compared with the average American, but in the end it is not an issue that should be under consideration because it distracts from the bigger question of what the Republican's stand for and their vision for the U.S. - which right now appears to be "lie often enough until more people believe you than not".
An example of this would be Palin's continued insistence that the VP has duties that the Constitution doesn't grant the position. Cheney has repeatedly over-stepped his authority wihtout censure and Palin is probably being told to keep repeating that the VP has powers in order to create the perception that the position does have the authority that Cheney usurped. Most people will not bother to read the Constitution of listen to the media refuting her. Cheney did it and she says it, so it must be fact. Lies to Fact is the Republican way. This is more troubling than her wardrobe expenses.
Girl with Pen » Blog Archive » Sarah Palin’s Wardrobe - Palin and Our Readers Respond — October 26, 2008
[...] prepped for interviews and speeches. Perhaps to bring in those “Dudes for Palin.” As Bob Lamm noted after my first post, a huge story was made out of John Edwards’ $400.00 haircut during [...]