I’m getting requests for a post on Palin’s wardrobe, so here goes…
The Times has had two articles on Sarah Palin’s $150,000 makeover this week. After she was chosen for VP, Republican consultants ran out to Barney’s and Neiman Marcus and bought her a new wardrobe. They outfitted her in stiletto heels and leather jacket.
Frankly, I like the clothes. Nice fitted jackets. Short skirts. Cute, toe peeking shoes. I would probably wear everything except the zip-up red, leather jacket. Redheads don’t wear red.
I have a lot of sympathy for all female politicians, when the talk goes to their clothes. Men have their generic suits that can be worn again and again without notice. How many sneering articles have I read about Pelosi’s Armani suits and Clinton’s black pant suits? Other than Edwards’ $400 haircuts, the press pays little attention to the clothes and grooming of men.
There are some campaign finance issues going on with Palin. If she keeps the clothes, it should count as income and it should be taxed. It deserves an article, but maybe not two articles, a slide show, and an audio clip at the Times.
I have serious problems with Palin’s experience and positions on key issues. I can’t stand all the "I hate smart people" stuff that comes out of her mouth. But I don’t really care how much her clothes cost. You can’t wear something from Dress Barn on TV.
I am fascinated, however, with what choices the Republican consultants made for her. Stiletto boots are the power shoe of choice for Washingtonians. Remember Condi’s boots? Military-style jackets. Solid colors. I can see a lot of working women going out to Barney’s and asking for similar items.
When one of my old roommates, Sandra, started working at Arthur Anderson right after college. The guy who interviewed her showed her the office and said, "Notice what the secretaries are wearing and notice what the accountants are wearing. Don’t mix that up." As nasty and sexist as that comment was, he was probably right. We are judged by our clothes. So, I don’t think less of Palin for putting on the power suit. She just better pay taxes on it.
Apt. 11d 
My personal guess is that someone went where they like to shop (i.e. Niemann) and just didn’t think it through. I think Palin is attractive, and that she wears clothes beautifully. So, someone had fun dressing her like a doll (I’d get a kick out of it, if someone gave me a blank check and a person on whom practically everything looks good).
But, they screwed up. She needs to find 150K somewhere and buy the clothes herself, from the campaign (there’s nothing that says that she can’t, but I’m guessing she wouldn’t have). She can count on getting a book contract to make the money whole again eventually.
Huffington had a slide show that showed one picture of Palin from June (before the wardrobe upgrade), in a supermarket, wearing a kind of frumpy outfit (pink, dropped waist, 3+ months post-partum, carrying Trig). I still don’t like her (I think she doesn’t think hard enough, and mistrusts people who do, and that she thinks I’m not really American). But, the picture strikes a chord. I wish there were more people who looked like that in our governments (though I’d like them to have a powerful brain, too).
LikeLike
I think the real reason Edwards’s $400 haircut got so much flak was because most men were united in thinking that this is just the kind of thing we need to nip in the bud. In the past two years, I’ve spent 3 hours shopping for clothes and shoes. Except for the shoes, I never step into a store. I don’t need to wear suits more than once or twice a month, so I haven’t needed to buy a new once this millennium. And I get my haircut for less than the cost of a case of beer. Anybody trying to raise the bar will get met with scorn.
LikeLike
I agree with you, Laura. I don’t care except to the extent that it once again reveals Republicans’ hypocrisy, so it’s fun to tweak them a little over it.
That said, my husband has way more clothes than I do and takes much longer to get ready for work than I do. I can roll out of bed at 6:15 and be teaching by 7:10. He wakes at 6:30 and doesn’t have to be at work till 8:30.
LikeLike
I’m with you, Laura: I will never side with media attacks on a female candidate’s appearance, no matter who the candidate is. Until I hear that same crap about the men, that is.
I do appreciate that Palin’s continues this year’s trend of older (i.e. over 30) women, who are dressed professionally and age-appropriately, being highlighted in the media in serious situations. It’s becoming more common to see the bright red or blue pant suit among the men’s charcoal gray at committee meetings. And as that becomes more acceptable, it removes for me one more layer of uncertainty about how to dress in those situations.
LikeLike
Although I can’t see this as a way to attack Palin (honestly, I think she had little to do with it), I do think it’s perfectly legitimate to attack the campaign over spending 150K on clothes. I also think it was actually illegal, which makes it another legitimate grounds for attack. That’s why she has to pay the money (or clothes) back.
LikeLike
That’s a whole lot of money.
That’s every penny of three years of income for the median American household. That’s an Edwards haircut every single week almost until the primary season for Bush’s successor’s successor is underway. That’s a pair of $350 shoes every month until the year 2044. (You could wear the last pair to the Normandy Centennial.) That’s three and a half years of full tuition and fees at Harvard. That’s about the average house price in the neighborhood where my mom lives. Spending as much on clothes as on a house. Wow.
Spending as much other people’s money on clothes as on a house.
LikeLike
On the upside? Any money the RNC spends outfitting Palin and her family, they don’t spend on more effective campaigning.
I think if anyone would have thought about it there would’ve been perfectly acceptable ways to make her look just as professional for 1/3rd the cost. They didn’t think about it, they thought about making her look good.
And I think it’s received far too much attention. It distracts us from real issues. I wouldn’t vote for her if all her clothes were home-sewn, organic cotton that she bought from a hippie mom supporting her family on a sustainable farm.
I don’t agree with Palin’s ideology on nearly any subject, but I could not care less about what she wears.
LikeLike
“On the upside? Any money the RNC spends outfitting Palin and her family, they don’t spend on more effective campaigning.”
Have you seen how they are spending the rest of the money?
LikeLike
If you auctioned off just the shoes and boots on Nov. 5, I believe that would more than cover the expense. (Just don’t ask the winners what they are planning on doing with them!)
There is some talk of donating the wardrobe to charity. On the other hand, if McCain-Palin wins, SP will need to wear something, and given the VP’s salary, she’ll be able to afford it.
Any of the male candidates could safely rotate between two suits and nobody would notice.
LikeLike
Lisa? Isn’t a full year of the median household income still an awful lot of money to spend on clothes?
I’m having some comprehension issues.
LikeLike
Right on. I argued about this a bit at the breakfast table this morning — OK, it’s too much money. And should the campaign be buying clothes for her whole family? (There are line items clearly for a man and a baby, so I am assuming that part of the Neiman Marcus haul was for the kids.)
But I did say to my husband, listen, she needs to look good and she needs at least two weeks worth of looking good. “Nobody needs two weeks worth! She can get them cleaned.” No. Men, as Amy P. said, can rotate between two suits, but a much-photographed woman needs at least two weeks of outfits, I think. That is the way it is.
He did say he’s seen reports that she changes clothes between events on the same day. If she’s sweaty and uncomfortable that’s fine, but if she’s just playing dress up, OK, I draw the line there.
And, as several people said, this is much less important than The Issues, except as another example of her mis-use of official funds for personal expenses. (Per diem to sleep in her own house? Hotel rooms for her daughters?)
LikeLike
Where are Obama’s suits made? What brand of shirt does he wear? How much do his ties cost? You gonna try to tell me he didn’t buy nice things for the campaign, to look his best? What about his shoes? What kind of hair product does he use?
The real message of the media focus on Palin’s (and her family’s, they didn’t just buy *her* clothes) wardrobe is that the most important thing about a woman is still how she looks. I’m sickened by it.
LikeLike
“Any of the male candidates could safely rotate between two suits and nobody would notice.”
Unless you were standing next to them after the 2nd week of the campaign.
LikeLike
What shall we bet that the Obama family did not spend $150,000 of other people’s money to look good for the campaign?
John McCain’s shoes (1 pair): $520
Palin family wardrobe: $150,000
Claim to be just regular folks: priceless
(Anyway, a couple of minutes with Google turns up an Access Hollywood interview (hard-hitting journalism to be sure) talking about a $140 dress for Michelle Obama and how Barack is wearing pants that are 10 years old during the interview. Really don’t think they’re going to get up to $150,000 that way, and certainly not donors’ money.)
LikeLike
MH- yes I see how they are spending the rest of the money, and don’t agree with it- I was being cynical. And frankly money spent on robo-calls and negative ads bothers me a lot more than her wardrobe.
Doug- I think $5000 a year on clothes is a ridiculous amount for clothes, but I’m not traveling in circles that require I wear things that come in like that. I think Palin’s wardrobe could have been well made, upscale clothing for a third of that reported cost (50K). Yeah, it’s a lot of money, it’s well out the grasp of 95% of Americans, but it’s not likely unrealistic given the circles that Palin is now moving in.
What she or someone on her behalf spent on clothes is a lot less important to me than her views on the economy, the war, choice, education and who is more American and who is not.
I just think it’s another inflated story in the 24 hour a day media cycle.
LikeLike
I’m a McCain/Palin donor, and if my $200 buys one really cute shoe for SP, I’m thrilled. Judging from the campaign so far, it’s probably one of the smarter uses of money by the McCain camp.
LikeLike
Amy — you know you really can’t afford a 150K wardrobe on the VP’s salary (208,000+10K allowance, in 2001. have they raised it since then?
(I’m amused that you don’t mind buying $200 shoes for Sarah).
Obama apparently buys his suits at Hart Schaffner Marx, where the suits are about 1K, and made in the USA. It’s not a particularly useful comparison, though, ’cause any male politico would have to be nutty to be dressing in 10K Armani, likely to be a guaranteed loss. Also, Obama, presumably, pays for his own clothes.
The campaign’s mistake here was to forget that she’s not a television personality being outfitted by the people she works for (i.e. running for VP, while governor, she cannot be outfitted by the RNC). They should have gotten a 20K budget from her, and gone shopping at Anne Taylor, Banana Republic, J Crew, Talbots, and the lower-priced floors of Macy’s and Norstroms.
bj
PS: Also, in her defense, what’s our guess on whether Palin knows what a Vuitton handbag costs. I, personally, am still shocked, proving up my hopelessly (hopefully) middle class roots.
LikeLike
(Anyway, a couple of minutes with Google turns up an Access Hollywood interview (hard-hitting journalism to be sure) talking about a $140 dress for Michelle Obama and how Barack is wearing pants that are 10 years old during the interview. Really don’t think they’re going to get up to $150,000 that way, and certainly not donors’ money.)
Yes, during interviews and appearances on “The View” they’re going to play up the oldest, frugalest frocks they have. But do you have any idea how much Maria Pinto costs?
LikeLike
“Yes, during interviews and appearances on “The View” they’re going to play up the oldest, frugalest frocks they have. But do you have any idea how much Maria Pinto costs?”
About the same as Valentino? Or am I wrong (re, hopfully middle class roots)
No legal concerns are crossed, though if they don’t buy the frocks with DNC money.
(Just like with Cindy McCain’s outfits).
LikeLike
“Amy — you know you really can’t afford a 150K wardrobe on the VP’s salary (208,000+10K allowance, in 2001. have they raised it since then?”
It’s $221k now according to Wikipedia, but if they sell their house in Alaska, they will miss out on a lot of normal bills (rent, utilities, phone, transportation, home maintenance). I’m not sure how the grocery bills are handled at the Naval Observatory, but there’s got to be a large taxpayer-funded staff. The only killer expense that I can see would be DC private schools for the younger kids, but who knows, they might even send the two school age kids to public school in DC (Sandra Tsing Loh would be thrilled). Probably Palin should just keep the clothes she especially likes. I agree with Laura about the red leather thingy and don’t think it should go on the list. (By the way, if you are ever in DC, there’s a fantastic night-time astronomy tour of the stuff at the Naval Observatory–I haven’t been, but my husband loved it.)
“(I’m amused that you don’t mind buying $200 shoes for Sarah).”
You should see all the conservative women (and men) squealing rapturously over those shoes–you’d be even more amused. I saw a guy complaining on the internet earlier today that his wife is determined to have a pair of boots like Palin has, even though they live in Hawaii. His interlocutors assured him that he was a lucky, lucky guy. Condi in boots had a similar effect, but that was just a single episode, rather than an ongoing phenomenon.
Speaking of shoes, I buy Merrells now from Amazon. Curiously, this purchase got me an automated recommendation for a k.d. lang album.
“The campaign’s mistake here was to forget that she’s not a television personality being outfitted by the people she works for (i.e. running for VP, while governor, she cannot be outfitted by the RNC). They should have gotten a 20K budget from her, and gone shopping at Anne Taylor, Banana Republic, J Crew, Talbots, and the lower-priced floors of Macy’s and Norstroms.”
I don’t think HRC and Pelosi would be very happy if you were put in charge of their wardrobes.
LikeLike
Pelosi & HRC are rich, and buy their own clothes. They’re also not quite so fit as Palin, and probably have a lot less fun finding stuff that looks good on them. They wouldn’t like it at all if I was in charge of their clothes. Palin, on the other hand, I’m sure, could look great in stuff from Anne Taylor & Talbots, and until she gets the book deal & television contract, she can’t afford anymore.
LikeLike
I’m with Laura and Lisa V. I disagree with almost everything Palin believes in and advocates (as far as I know) but I am neither offended nor shocked that they spent a ridiculous amount of money on her clothes. She needs to look good on tv, she needs to look good at rallies, she needs to look very good for meetings with big donors in Texas, and she can’t repeat the outfits often at all without getting comments.
Of course, this election is also affirming how cynical I am about the whole process, so maybe I’m just numb to the outrage.
Also, I agree that if there is a legal issue, someone should go after them. That’s what Karl Rove says*-if the opponent gives you an opening, take it. (I suppose that would apply to stoking outrage about the dollar amount as well.)
*I don’t hang out with Karl-that’s from an interview with him at the end of the documentary Last Man Standing.
LikeLike
Appropriate cartoon
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200810u/palin-shopping
LikeLike
Side question:
Notice what the secretaries are wearing and notice what the accountants are wearing. Don’t mix that up.
What’s sexist about that? Classist I see–but in an actuarial shop, the (female) actuaries certainly dress than the (female) secretaries.
LikeLike
Although I am not “shocked” and neither do I particularly blame Palin (I blame the campaign and her handlers), I am offended. Not so much that she spent 150K on clothes, but that needing to look good “on TV, at meetings, and for big donors” means that she needs to spend 150K. It really does send a message, and a wrong one, about living within one’s means. I think that attitude is exactly what’s lead us into the mess the country is in, that people *need* the Vuitton bag, or the $5000 jacket, or the Rolex watch.
I have nothing against any of those things. If you’re rich as dirt (like Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet, or even Bill Clinton) and want to buy those things with your money. Well, that’s your choice, how you spend your money. But, when we start telling people who can’t afford them that they *need* them, you get the credit crisis. I see the crisis as resulting in large part from people who can’t tell the difference between want and need, and are unable to switch between them when they don’t have the money.
LikeLike
Interesting conversation. I’m one of those people who happens to believe you should “dress the part.” I don’t think that means you need to wear a 1k suit if you’re up a little higher up the food chain, but I do think you can’t wear a dress barn outfit if you’re the CEO. Being in academia, I do appreciate the ability to dress down, but I get frustrated with how far down some people go. Whether we like it or not, we are often judged by what we’re wearing. While I think you can certainly dress the part for less than $150k, I appreciate the intention behind purchasing Sarah’s wardrobe.
It would indeed be nice if they could have come up with a good wardrobe for much less. Surely they could have shopped Filene’s Basement and DSW before going to Nieman’s. I do think that would have been a good statement to make. What if the headline had been “Palin shops for wardrobe at low end market, spends less than $5k”. $5k still seems like a lot, but it’s what they give you on “What Not to Wear.”
I agree with bj that there is something distasteful about the amount. I think the right person could have carried off the message with a low-cost wardrobe, could have emphasized the issue of “living within one’s means” and of being frugal in the coming economic crisis. Instead, regardless of whether we understand or not, the message seems to be, “We have no idea how the rest of you live and we refuse to live the way you do.”
LikeLike
P.S. I really need to add my blog name or initial to my comments. I forget that we have the same name. 🙂
LikeLike
I went to a Halloween party last night. There were like five Sarah Palins. The best female costume that didn’t take too much work was Angelina Jolie. Wax lips and a string of multi-ethnic baby dolls.
LikeLike
She has to be dressed for the job. If she doesn’t have the money, it has to be provided. What does Michelle wear? Does she already have the money, so no need to get funded otherwise? She looks terrific, and that isn’t a bad idea. As for her being President, heck at least she’s wrestled with Big Oil and picked their pockets for Alaskans. Compare that to what Congress has done.
LikeLike
“at least she’s wrestled with Big Oil and picked their pockets for Alaskans”
Wait, is it or is it not “socialism” to “pick the pockets” of corporations?
LikeLike