Hey ladies, I'm out my league on this one. 150k sound like a lot, but hey, I'm a dude--and a scruffy-looking one at that. Before the Atlantic put me on, I wore a well-aged, oversized hoodie every day of my life. So let's hear it, did she overdo it? While ya'll marinate on that, I present my ode to Sarah. Fendi bag, and a bad attitude\That's all I need to put me in a good mood.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
For logical consistency with the other candidates and their spouses, her clothes should be covered by her. This excuse making about how if it's not Saks everyone would pick on her is pretty bizarre--Michelle famously promoted a few
The issue here (besides yet another dead center hit on "as Republicans we are clueless about the economy") is the sheer scale. My family doesn't make $150,000 a year. We certainly don't have that after taxes. After taxes and mortgage, food, etc? Does anyone here not think they could put together a reasonable wardrobe for less than $10,000?
If she'd been plucked from the oilfields and had only one nicish dress and a pair of heels, she'd need some new clothes. I'd still feel she should pay for them--the Palins are quite well off--but if it was $8000 on suits and shoes for someone who had only a wellworn hoody to her name, I don't think people would care as much. The problem here is the sheer scale, combined with the reasonable query of what she wore to govern Alaska--greasy overalls?
It depends on how you spend it.
150k can go VERY far if you are buying lower-mid tier designers (Banana Republic), but if you are looking at designer houses one outfit alone can be as much as 10k (just walked past a store selling a scarf for 2200 euro, which is roughly 3300 dollars).
After seeing her clothes I'd bet they were in the middle- probably about 3-5k per outfit, so she has a lot of variety. They don't have to purchase handbags, so that's about 500 - 600 dollars saved per outfit.
And I'd LOVE to know what charity they were planning on giving them to. They need more people on that one.
Hockey Mom my ass.
"My family doesn't make $150,000 a year. We certainly don't have that after taxes."
Know what's deep? Neither does Sarah Palin. Her governor's salary is a little over 100k. She spent her salary and a half--on clothes. Mind-blowing.
HAHAHAHAHAH -- LL is the perfect response to this whole issue. Thank you, I'm reposting. Here's the Obama family discussing their clothing budgets:
http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=1vkWRIcezc0
But if she ever needed a place to stay... could she come around your way?
Love that video.
I'm not that irritated over the expense. If you pick a VP fresh out of the wilds of Wasilla, she can't show up in mukluks and parka -- which is a stereotype, I know, but I hope my point is made. You gotta dress her up. To do it well? Yeah, I could spend $150K if all stops were out -- like my budget. And then I'd probably do like Sarah did when she brought it home -- spend a whole afternoon trying stuff on parading in the mirror. I probably wouldn't think "I could be president if Lowry and Kristol saw the La Perla -- booyah!" but a chick is a chick.
But I don't think the expense should be the point. I think that it's hypocritical to issue screeds touting the "real America" and claiming to be from the same Main Street as her idolizing base...with $5K on your back. Few real Americans or unreal Americans for that matter, can afford to dress so extravagantly.
If they were really all about the "We're you, you're us," they would have given her $5K and sent her to Loehmann's and been done with it.
Those black knee high boots were bad, though.
I love fashion. I actually don't begrudge her some new clothes; this is a job interview that she's on, and people dress up for job interviews. She probably has to change clothes a couple of times in the course of a day. Designer clothes and shoes can be expensive, and maybe this includes payments to a personal shopper and some alterations, who knows.
But the scale of it is definitely an issue. Even loving clothes and fashion, $150k seems like a lot to me (I'd love for Tim Gunn to weigh in on this one!) I think she could do fairly nicely for at least half that. Why would the campaign advisers not think this would look bad for a woman who has set herself out to be "just plain folks?" That was the story she was promoting about herself from the beginning, and $150,000 of clothing spending in a month is not what Jane Hockey Mom "should" do. We don't spend that much in the Fake America I live in, much less the Real America that she loves so much.
And of course, there's the question about where the money came from and can donor money be used for that purpose.
It's unfortunate, because it feeds into the story line that she's just a pretty package and not much else.
I like the boots, though.
The woman has been a governor for the 18 months before being selected and a candidate for governor before that. Now, due to climate differences and so on, I have no doubt that she needed some new stuff.
Does this matter in the grand scheme of things? Not to anyone who didn't donate money to the RNC. But the narrative their campaign was trying to write was about her folksy charm, and how "just like us" she is. Except she just spent more on her clothes than I bring home after taxes in three years.
But the bottom line is that her support was down to the rump of kool-aid drinkers anyway. So noone who is turned off by this was taking her seriously, and those who love her think she deserves the new clothes.
This whole incident shows the convergence of Rappers and Republicans. We need another "Daily Show" sketch.....
"It turns me on like buying C. A. R....." Ghostface
Meh. I don't care too much about this, kind of like I generally don't care if a candidate is rich, in and of itself. That stuff always feels like a game of "gotcha."
I'd only care if something was illegal about it. I didn't follow where she got the money from and such, and what the rules are. If it's her own money, well that's her business.
We want our politicians to be "just folks", when not one of them is. And it costs money to hire makeup people, to wear nice suits on national t.v., etc etc etc.
I love Michele Obama for being so creative and bold in her style, and actually buying more "affordable" designers like Anna Pinto or from retailers like White House Black Market, but even so, your average American still can't afford the wardrobe Michele has. But Michele HAS to spend for her wardrobe, because she's in the public eye. It's part of the "job" of candidate spouse. Even if a dress that costs $150 is in a very different realm than a dress that costs $2,000, I don't think it's all that relevant. I sure didn't care how much Teresa Heinz Kerry spends on her clothes, and if it was a lot, it wouldn't matter to me.
I'd say $150,000 is a lot, but for high-end clothing it's not unthinkable. Obviously Palin's image is a campaign investment, so to speak. Image is extremely important to pretty much everyone who runs for office.
She could have spent a 1/10th of that @ Ann Taylor or some other mall brand that the rest of Pro-America *saves* up to buy.
She doesn't need to be in Gucci, Prada, et cetera.
She some kinda celebrity?
I've had a growing sense -- not quite fully reflected in the narrative yet -- that she's just approaching this as a lottery-win opportunity. Something to be exploited -- for her own interests, not the ticket's -- as fully as possible while it lasts, in other words. The clothes play RIGHT into that -- beauty queen, stuck in AK, rather desperate to be upwardly mobile in a lot of different ways, gets a chance to go shopping on someone else's credit card and goes kinda nuts.
Hicks, what's wrong with the boots? Nearly all of the women I know have a pair or two like that. It's chilly out there right now, and she's not really the pantsuit type.
The lipstick-red leather jacket might have been a little much, though.
I don't actually have a problem with getting her some new clothes...who among us would have the wardrobe for two different rallies a day, being constantly photographed, etc?
But, the problem is in the scale. And this idea that it's elite to buy a latte (which anyone, even on a tight budget can do) and care about the environment, but not elite to wear a dress that cost more than most people pay on gas for a year.
And remember, that $150K was on September's expense report. I'm betting there was more money spent in October--it just they don't have to disclose it yet.
Me personally, I'm not surprised, nor do I really care.
But the politics of it are delicious, especially after what happened to Edwards.
I don't like it because it's hypocritical. Don't call Obama an 'elite' or whatever name they have for him these days, and then blow $150k on clothes. Don't pretend to be a working class mother, then insult all the real working class moms by spending the cost of a college education on shoes and skirts. And she's going to give it to charity? Really...so the real working class moms shopping at Wal-mart and thrift stores to make ends meet can buy her cast-offs? That's insulting...and if the women supporting her aren't insulted...I don't even know what to think of them.
She could have gotten an excellent wardrobe for a fraction of that, it's not about the label, it's about the fit. But I guess hanging out with Cindy McCain changes your shopping ethos.
And I hated those boots. It wasn't so much that I liked or disliked the outfit, it was that it actually made her APPEAR inexperienced and lacking in the seriousness necessary for the office she is seeking. When I saw her in those boots, the feeling it gave me was...she seems un-presidential, or un-high political office. She looks like the vice president's assistant or handler, not like a vice president.
John from Concord:
Hah! I can't tell if you're joshing me. Absolutely nothing wrong with the boots. They're bad. [Off to Urban Dictionary.] Baaaaad. Badass. Tuff. Off the hook. Tight. Dope. Wicked. Fresh. Ill.
$150,000 is a taxbracket, not a reasonable expense for 1 month of clothes for anyone. & I'm pretty sure the reports say the clothes were not just for her--the whole family got a makeover on the Party... new clothes, hair, the works. (Just like they often went on trips with Ms. P., uninvited, stayed at taxpayer expense at 4-star hotels).
I realize it's obvious, but if a black woman Democrat got this kind of money to be spent on fashion and jewels for her and her kids, she'd be framed as a welfare queen from the projects.
I'm having a difficult time mustering up outrage and disgust over "Fashiongate" because, well, outrage and disgust are in short supply these days. "But it's unprecedented!" Mmmhmm. "But it might be illegal!" Wake me up when a ruling is delivered.
Now I'm not an RNC donor, but even if I were, I'm not sure I could muster up anything more than a giant eye roll. She's treated like a barbie doll---treats herself like one---so it's like Hey Go For It, I guess, and good luck with all that...
Who's the celebrity now?!!
It's simple really, Palin found herself a new sugar daddy in McCain and the RNC. Her previous one (the Alaskan taxpayer) provided posh vacations and hotels for her and Bristol; while the new one provides everything else.
John the Concord-- What's wrong with the knee high black suede boots? Nothing-- if you want to wear them to look like a call girl, that's your business. The clothes themselves are certainly lovely for the most part, except that i would never encourage anyone to go with a lipstick red leather jacket in a dressy outfit--gotta keep that kind of thing for casual (see Cindy McCain's delicious hot hot hot pink leather jacket that she wore at NASCAR- just fantabulous. But then Cindy has class.).
Re the cost: nothing wrong in my opinion to spend a lot of money on clothes-- if you've got it. Otherwise, um, i think they coulda pulled together a nice wardobe for a 2 month stint for 5-10 thousand. I mean, please. I ask you.
It's the scale. And the message. And the outrage from their base over a haircut that I believe John Edwards at least used his own money to buy. That makes it funny in a "look at those hypocrates" kind of a way.
And as mentioned by other posters above, I'm sure she did need some wardrobe upgrading. And women's clothes are more expensive then men's in that a guy can own 5 basic suits and mix them up with shirts and ties and no one notices if they're worn frequently. She needed enough to not repeat more than once in a month, at least. That said, $150,000 -- are you kidding me??? Macy's and Ann Taylor will dress you quite nicely for a heck of a lot less. I can't tell Prada from Claiborne, so maybe I'm not a good judge, but a well-fitting suit, is a well-fitting suit whether it cost $200 or $2,000 or $20,000. It's not like she is dressing for the Oscars on a daily basis. From the back row of a rally, real cashmire and synthetic cashmire-like fabric look the same.
Basically, these people say that arugula and Honest Tea are elite, but Saks is "real America?" Give me a break!
about the clothes...she can keep 'em, i didn't believe she was as folksy as she was trying to portray herself to be, so she might as well get something out of making a fool out of herself (and Alaska) anyway.. My take on it is very simple, she's an absolute fraud. 100 percent, from policy to her accent, and everything in between. As someone else in the thread pointed out, her favorables-unfavorables were appaling to start with, so it's not like she has a wide enough penumbra that is going to disappear. Those that liked her, are gonna brush this off as an attack from the left, and those who didn't like her, are gonna think of it as just another piece of evidence of her hypocracy.
On the other hand she is very attractive. Even as a redblooded "librul", i can say that she is hot. In those boots, she is smoking. In the red pumps...ooooweee....but she is still, an all out till she falls out, fraud!
Now get on it you guys, go out and vote, and don't forget your A-B-C's!
$150 for a couple of months is stupid, but I don't really care and think this is yet another stoooooopid issue that the press loves to cover but that makes no real difference to anyone.
One observation: It's obvious that the RNC person who actually did the shopping has NO clue about how average (for lack of a better word) businesswomen dress - because cimilar clothes could have been bought for at least 1/4th the cash. For the record, the boots are meh and the red heels are freaking AWESOME.
But here's what keeps coming back to me, above all the rest: They spent like $13k on hair and makeup artists. THIRTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS, and yet she wasn't ready for her Newsweek close-up? Trust me (and I'm sure the ladies of all political stripes will back me up here) - for $13k, the beautician damn well better do a decent upper lip wax.
I mean REALLY. I can get an eyebrow threading in this city for $7. WTF is wrong that they can't manage it for $13,000?
Beth, you bring up an interesting point about the RNC person who did the shopping and picked these clothes; and further the brain-trust that picked Palin as the nominee. What it says, and what has always bothered me about the Palin pick, is that THIS is how they believe women should dress, behave, be. Fertile in red pumps with nothing of substance to say except all spit and fire defending your bailiwick.
That's $2,000 a day. Yes, it's too much.
Beth, were you talking about the red peep-toe heels? They *are* great. If nothing else, she's bringing together American women over our common love of great shoes, and really, isn't that all that matters now? Nothing else going on in the world to pay attention to...
If ya'll haven't seen it already, Robin Givhan, the fashion writer for the Washington Post, has a great take on all this. Google it up.
Also, I'd also really love to know what charity these outfits will end up at. I will get my ticket to Alaska now and hang out at the Wasilla Salvation Army if need be. Though sadly, I've got a bit too much "junk in the trunk" to handle those skirts, I think.
I understand having a wardrobe makeover in the sense that she's in the public eye and she'd probably get mocked for looking provincial or frumpy but to go so overboard like that?
I just can't conceive spending that amount of money on myself for any reason when things are so bad for everyone else. As far as the style thing goes, I have to admit I don't represent the white female population as a whole because I hate shopping, do not have a shoe collection and tend to hit the thrift store/clearance racks when I need to look decent for work.
I think what got me was the photo of her kid with the Louis Vuitton bag. WHY does an 11-year-old need one of those?
The peep-toes are great, Christina, but I was talking about these: (or a better close-up here, photo down to the left)
And Hicks - I think the general reaction to Palin shows the RNC thinkers missed their mark a bit, for the majority of the country. I look at her and think "She's so pretty. Look how pretty. Oh, pretty shoes, too..." Then she opens her mouth and, on a very base, almost child-like level, I feel betrayed by the prettypretty mommy spewing such un-pretty things. So they got the outside right - it's the bile-filled candy center they got wrong. IMO.
Thanks Christina for bringing up the Robin Givhan post. She had a very interesting point about high heel boots. They worked for Condelezza Rice (and yes Ta-Nehisi I read your Rice, Rice, Baby piece). However, Rice, no matter her political views, is not an anti-intellectual, she actually has a pretty impressive academic background. She can get away with the sexy boots because she built up her credibility. Palin has not. Sexy boots only underlines her vapidness. I know that it gives conservative (oh what the heck, most)men star-bursts, but it doesn't make anyone take her seriously.
It also undercuts their we'll-magically-find-all-the-inefficiencies-and-cut-the-budget narrative, which is a point I'd like to see either Obama or someone with a big stump make.
"We're supposed believe McCain will reverse Bush's reckless spending policies when he's spending $13,000 a week on his running mate's clothes..." or some such.
I had noticed, before knowing the cost, that SP's style is a better balance of femininity and kick-assity than most female politicians I've seen. (Nancy Pelosi, who buys designer, still seems caught in that 80s-shoulder-pads must-have-the-shoulders-of-men thing.) Finding this balance is something I think about a lot, since I'm a graduate student of philosophy in a program 90% men. I don't want to just dress like a man--it seems like pretending. Also, you can actually be far more intimidating when you do dress in womanly style (sans hoochy, of course)--men get this dazed look in their eye: "a chick just destroyed my argument?"
But I thought SP's style, while a step in the right direction, was still more a combination dominatrix and dowdy--alas, you can combine these two--than was really right.
I second the call for Tim Gunn to weigh in on this. He could weigh the practical costs of high-end fashion while still being able to judge the ups and downs of personal style.
Oh, and which commenter said that at least they didn't need to buy her purses? I wish they had-- check at this white canvas totebag with the moose cartoon on it. Again, I ask you.
http://sparklepony.blogspot.com/2008/10/ugh.html
A relatively cheap faux-leather tote would look better than that.
Also for the gentlemen who liked the knee high black suede boots-- let this picture show you why they are so wrong.
http://sparklepony.blogspot.com/2008/10/palin-attempting-to-channel-condi.html
She's just not up to those boots, boys. Just looks cheap in them. Now check out the picture of Condi next to Palin's picture. Can you say Death Star? That's how a _real_ woman looks in knee high black boots.
Hicks:
But I don't think the expense should be the point. I think that it's hypocritical to issue screeds touting the "real America" and claiming to be from the same Main Street as her idolizing base...with $5K on your back.
So...."real America" isn't under any circumstances allowed to wear nice clothes? That's a perogative of "unreal America", and Sarah Palin wearing them is proof that she's not really part of "real America" in the first place? Does this not seem a tad snobbish?
If they were really all about the "We're you, you're us," they would have given her $5K and sent her to Loehmann's and been done with it.
Well, the whole point is that she's one of them whether she's wearing the nice clothes or not, and who wants to look at ugly clothes on tv? I ask you, YOU know the new clothes don't change a thing, so why shouldn't THEY know that? Yeah, they can't afford to duplicate it. There's all kinds of things people see on tv that they can't afford.
Hicks again:
THIS is how they believe women should dress, behave, be. Fertile in red pumps with nothing of substance to say except all spit and fire defending your bailiwick.
Defending your baliwick at all costs is the default human behavior. I see no lack of it in these comments.
jaye:
Don't pretend to be a working class mother, then insult all the real working class moms by spending the cost of a college education on shoes and skirts. And she's going to give it to charity? Really...so the real working class moms shopping at Wal-mart and thrift stores to make ends meet can buy her cast-offs? That's insulting...and if the women supporting her aren't insulted...I don't even know what to think of them.
I disagree, you do know what to think of them, with the emphasis on "them".
I love the outpouring of concern for working class moms in this thread. If Sarah Palin actually did dress like one, y'all would be cracking on her for that. If the working class moms actually end up voting for McCain, you'll be calling them evil racists for years.
I see this as yet another example of her handlers' lack of control over the message. Women in the public eye are judged on their appearance more than men. As a result, savvy women in the public eye are very thoughtful and deliberate about what they're wearing and what kind of an impression it creates. I'm a lawyer and I damn well thought about everything I put on when I was trying a case or making a court appearance --- I wanted to make sure that my clothes were consistent with the message I wanted to deliver. Palin's people should have thought about the message it sends when she's wearing outfits that cost thousands of dollars but saying that she's a Real American Jo Sixpack.
I am a 29 year old with a master's degree. I make $16,000 a year. I clip coupons and watch for sales. I also manage to look pretty good doing it. This woman is just infuriating. It would be a challange to me to have to spend that kind of money.
To justify this kind of spending is to have contempt for women, to have contempt for our judgement and have a hugely overblown estimation of our need to shop.
What a gd disgrace she is.
What's an eyebrow threading? Sounds horrible.
Also, why is anyone comparing what the Obamas spend on their own clothing to what the RNC has spent on Palin's? The Obamas, like just about everyone else in the world, buy their own clothing, with their own money.
The RNC has spent donated money on Palin's clothing. Other people's dough. Republican donor dough. And enough money, according to Marc Ambinder, to buy a week of advertising in Colorado. I doubt those sound like the right priorities to a Republican Ranger or Paladin or Grand Wizard or whatever the Republican big money guys are called these days.
I've donated to Obama and I like when I come across articles that describe just how cheap his campaign is. Yes, the convention speech in the stadium with the fireworks was a bit over the top, but I trust that, on the whole, the Obama campaign is spending my donation wisely.
Now, if I discovered that the Obama campaign went out and spent $150K on designer outfits and make-up for Joe Biden, I'd probably not donate to the Obama campaign again. Who wants to see their hard-earned money spent on something like that?
I'm sure there are a few Republican knuckleheads still willing to throw money away this election cycle, but I can't imagine that they're thrilled to hear about Palin's $150K makeover.
Who cares!? There are so many more reasons to be angry with Sarah Palin then her very expensive clothing. Sure this doesn't fit with "the story," and perhaps I'm being narrow-minded, but who genuinely believed that Palin, or any of the candidates, don't wear designer clothing?
If she was wearing cheap clothing, it's be a problem. If she didn't dress up and play on her femininity, there'd be a problem. Sure she could have gone to Macy's or Target...but who cares?
Let's get over this and go back to being disgusted with Palin for reasons that matter, like all the ridiculous things she says, and the fact that she's completely incapable of being the nation's VP.
Those shoes are great too, Beth. God. Now I have to go shoe shopping.
"Now, if I discovered that the Obama campaign went out and spent $150K on designer outfits and make-up for Joe Biden, I'd probably not donate to the Obama campaign again. Who wants to see their hard-earned money spent on something like that?"
For REAL. Because Joe doesn't look that good.
Slate sent a reporter fake shopping to Saks and other high priced stores to see if she could spend $150K. She had to use a lot of the money on jewelry, which is sort of cheating as far as I'm concerned, since jewelry is the one area where you can easily spend 10s of thousands of dollars on one item (remember the estimates of Cindy's convention outfits? by far, most of the cost was from jewelry). Also, she wasn't buying wedding dresses or ball gowns.
Of course I don't think the $150K was just on Sarah's wardrobe. There were clothes for the rest of the family (and probably Levi), stuff for the baby, and I think this also included hair and make up. And as some have pointed out, Sarah's old clothes seemed to range from tacky to dowdy. Not exactly starburst evoking stuff, so she pretty much had to start from scratch to get that red state vixen look.
So, did Palin at least buy American? I don't know fashion at all, but I'm hoping there was some French stuff mixed in there...
I think the point about Palin's sexuality is a good one. I read in some other blogs wondering whether it was a good thing that Palin came across as a powerful, sexual woman, and didn't try to hide it. That Hillary portrayed herself in one manner that was powerful, but that didn't mean that was the only way to exert power. The problem I have with Palin's pretty or sexuality, is that there's nothing to back it up. She's clever but uninformed. She's aggressive but ignorant. She's powerful but she's also incompetent.
So contrasting her to Rice, who I do not like, but I would never say that she wasn't capable or competent. So the knee high boots worked on her...because she was already so incredibly smart and competent, that adding a symbol of female sexuality only added to her power. She's already obviously a serious woman, so the boots don't take away from that. Palin's obviously superficial understanding of world politics and economics is painful, and to watch her try to bluff her way through foreign policy questions is insulting to women. The boots add to her superficiality, they add to the growing image of her as being all style and no substance. Watching her strut away from reporters in those boots...it made her look young and inexperienced.
I know that the Repubs are also always calling Obama young and inexperienced...but nothing in his manner, in his answers to reporters, in his tone of voice...nothing ever SEEMS young and inexperienced about him.
Beth: I had to de-lurk just for that comment! That Newsweek cover was just AWFUL. What the heck are they paying for? And apparently she needed a speech coach, too?
Well, whatever. They could drop $1 million in Dior and Palin will still be frozen over riffraff.
Nobody hates Sarah Palin more than I do, but I'm with Campbell Brown on this one. Sarah Palin's appearance is part of her job. Most of the male commentators I saw had raging boners the week she got on the ticket, and that's not an accident. Part of her package as a politician is embodying a non-threatening ideal of femininity, and that includes dressing well and being attractive. Since it's part of her job, in my opinion it is only appropriate the campaign pay for her clothes and makeup. Did she spend too much money? She certainly spent more than I would have, but it's not for me to judge a question of degree like that. I think it's wasteful for both of these campaigns to hire private planes, but if that's what they think they need they are well within their rights to do it.
What's an eyebrow threading? Sounds horrible.
Scott, I can't stop laughing at this. It does sound horrible (LOL, can't stop) but it's actually not that bad. "Threading" is an alternative to waxing; it's sort of like tweezing, using two threads to pluck out the hairs.
Tessa we will have to disagree.
Threading is by far the most efficient way to remove hair, and gives you the best shape. BUT it is also two - three minutes of PURE agony, worse than any waxing or tweezing.
Horrible. Necessity.
And to co-sign with some above folks, Palin's shoe game has been so on point. And if I was an RNC donor I would be LIVID that this is where my money was going- whether she needed a makeover or not.
They really could have spent a fraction of the cost at Banana Republic and gotten a good tailor to take it in. Terrible fiscal management here [/end tongue in cheek].