Indeed, a look at some ad buy statistics provided by a Democratic source shows that the RNC put more money down on Palin's attire than they and the McCain campaign have spent on a weeks-worth of advertising in half a dozen, potentially, swing states.
From October 13th through October 19th, the McCain campaign and the RNC spent a combined $125,000 on advertisements in New Hampshire, roughly $90,000 in West Virginia, and $86,000 in Maine. In each of those states, the Republican ticket is fighting Obama for a small but potentially significant number of electoral votes.
In North Dakota and Georgia, the RNC and the McCain campaign did not spend a penny on advertising during that same week. These two states seem likely to break for McCain, but it is not inevitable: Obama could potentially pick off their votes.
In Indiana, the RNC spent $450,000 last week on ads while the McCain campaign did not spend anything. An additional $150,000 could have meant 33% more airtime over the course of a week.
Then there is Michigan. The GOP pulled out of the state a few weeks ago and so hasn't spent any cash on advertisements there. The $150,000 they put down on Palin's clothes would not have purchased much airtime in that large market, but it may have saved McCain from the public criticism that he was subjected to for abandoning the state.
McCain's response to all this? She needed clothes. I bullshit you not.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
I don't know. I'm sure Hillary's wardrobe is as or more expensive. Nice women's clothes cost a ton, and unlike a man, where you can rotate the same ten or so suits, a woman running for national office could never get away with wearing the same thing twice. So there's just a huge volume of stuff that needed to be bought.
Any practical woman knows how to dress up on a budget and stretch it. A couple of basic skirts, a wider array of jackets and tops, and she could have had been professionally dressed for a fraction of the cost.
Hillary Clinton's wardrobe is custom made and often made of silks. But then Hillary Clinton didn't market herself as a hockey mom from small town America.
The RNC picked up haute couture labels off the rack. $2500 for that Valentino jacket she wore for her speech at the RNC. That could have bought 5-10 well made suits, not on sale.
The Empress had no clothes!
Asher writes: "I don't know. I'm sure Hillary's wardrobe is as or more expensive. Nice women's clothes cost a ton, and unlike a man, where you can rotate the same ten or so suits, a woman running for national office could never get away with wearing the same thing twice. So there's just a huge volume of stuff that needed to be bought."
I'm guessing that as soon as you hit "Post" on that one you immediately lost the ability to walk, because that was fucking lame.
I mean, are you really bothered by this, ML&J? It's the RNC's money, not the people's. They can waste it however they like. Obama's spending his money on ads in video games. Go to Ben Smith's blog on Politico and search 'Xbox,' he's got ads in Guitar Hero, NBA 2K7, some tennis game... I mean, creative idea, but is anyone going to vote for Obama because there's a little picture of an Obama banner in a video game? Like, you forgot to cast your absentee ballot, but you saw that Obama banner when you were playing NBA 2K7 and it reminded you to go vote - is that the idea?
That *does* strike me as the Obama campaign running out of things to spend money on.
Still, even with the volume of things that she may have needed, the point is that there may have been wiser things to spend that money on than all designer stuff. Like more advertising for the campaign. I know how much women's clothes costs, and for simple black suits and some of the other things she had, there's a lot of options other than Barneys.
Also, Palin has worn the same outfits more than once. I don't think it needs to be spun like she had to get 90 different outfits. Women mix and match, too. You don't have to own 10 different black skirts if you want to wear a black skirt.
I'm beginning to wonder how much Sarah had to even do with this, though. Is she the one who did the shopping? She might not have even seen the price tags on these items. It's not like she has time to peruse boutiques.
Anyway, now I'm done worrying about this. Let RNC donors deal with it. If they're angry, I'm sure they'll tell the appropriate people.
I mean, creative idea, but is anyone going to vote for Obama because there's a little picture of an Obama banner in a video game?
Is that meant to be a serious question? The answer is I have no idea and I doubt that you do either.
Advertising does not work that way in any context. Its fairly rare that anybody gets up and does anything because they saw some particular ad. Any individual ad is part of a marketing campaign that aims at a long term strategy of branding and persuasion and I don't see any reason why we should assume that this particular type of ad placement cannot be part of such a campaign.
I personally have no idea on what the data says about the effectiveness of this type of advertising. If you do I would love to see it. But unless you do, your presumptions about how effective it might be (or might not be) seems to be pretty much without basis.
As for Palin's clothing allowance, I cannot speak for anyone else but I don't particularly care except insofar as it helps to expose the ridiculous absurdity of the right wing tactic of charging their opponents with elitism.
Thanks, Asher, you just reminded me to cast my absentee ballot.
For real. It's been sitting on my desk for a while, I had totally forgotten about it, and now I'm going to take it out to my mailbox. I've been playing a lot of videogames lately; if one of them had reminded me to go vote, I would have done it sooner.
Again, thanks.
It's ALL about a poorly executed campaign. The Palin Pick caused a series of bad decisions, clothes included.
I have to say the defense arguments are really pathetic, but what can they say? There really is no good response. Take, for instance, surrogate Brad Blakeman. When he was asked about the Palin clothes budget, he said "the real outrage is Barack Obama taking a 767 campaign plane to go visit Grandma."
They just can't help themselves, literally.
Asher writes: "I mean, are you really bothered by this, ML&J? It's the RNC's money, not the people's."
It doesn't bother me at all. Like most Obama supporters, it just makes me laugh at the overwhelming fucking idiocy of the McCain campaign. That they didn't realize how bad this would look in the current climate is amazing.
After 8 years of the most incompetent presidency ever these assclowns look even dumber than Dumbya.
By the way most of the people genuinely "bothered" by this seem to be Republicans. Maybe some of them have finally gotten tired of being Repiglicans. (Note the distinction.)
Of coures it doesn't bother us at all. Let them waste their money.
What the expenditure does, on the other hand, is point out with incredible clarity how poor a campaign they're running. She could have bought the *exact* same quality 60-outfit wardrobe for 30-40k, and that would have been a non-story.
Reminds me of Hillary's staff staying in lavish expensive hotels in Vegas while Obama's staff stayed in $60 a night ones. Both stories just illustrate a lack of institutional control. That, and it completely goes against the "average gal, hockey mom" meme they're so desparately trying to push. Hillary and Pelosi never pretended to be that, so nobody'd blame them for spending that much. Your average mom is very smart with her money. Therefore, Palin is clearly not the average mom she claims to be. *That's* the real impact. The same reason Edwards' haircut was a story; he ran as a populist crusader. You can't have the habits of an elite if you want to do that.
I'm reminded of what Al Giordano said after McCain's convention speech in front of the green lawn of the West Hollywood Middle School: They didn't check. No one got up there to do light levels and think about "On a tv screen view, that just looks green behind his head--brings up the bad CA speech, invites photoshopping, and makes no sense to the folks at home." No one said "What the hell is that building--his favorite house? Any backgrounds should be instantly recognizable and symbolic, better check that one." They just threw stuff together and didn't double check--amateur. (And then swore up and down that they did it on purpose.) It's incompetent and amateurish.
To other points: Am I bothered by it? No. Amused. As with John Edwards' mistress, if you donated money you have a right to be very pissed. There are congressional races that could use that money, they could have advertised in Nevada or New Hampshire, they could have....lots of lost opportunities. Similarly, I am not out anything except one or two symbolic gas pump pennies for Palin's children's travel all around Alaska, but I think it's a problem that is worth censuring her over for Alaskans. And Piper doesn't need a Louis Vuitton bag, and does need to be in school.
And as for appearing in the same outfit twice, I really don't think anyone but Fashion TV would blink. Yeah, she'd need more than 7 suits, but it wasn't like she governed Alaska in the nude. (Down, Rich Lowry!) She had a political woman's wardrobe; she could have augmented it at her own expense like everyone else does. (And if we were talking a few thousand to outfit the family for the speech at the convention, I don't think anyone would care outside Kos--it's the tradeoff with a week of tv or saving a house seat that drops the jaw.)
Finally, if they auction the clothes off who isn't a little creeped out over the whole fetish aspect?
Deleted. Come on man.
1.
Something (the red leather jacket perhaps) tells me that Palin took advantage of the situation. They said here's a credit card go get a new wardrobe. She has no experience on the national level. So she didnt think of the implications of shopping til you drop for a campaign of reforming mavericks. Wait til they see her new Harley. Joking. ;)
2.
I'm not sure its fair to second guess their budgeting decisions and ad strategy. I'm sure they are prioritizing based on their death list. West Virginia, Georgia, and North Carolina probably arent that high on the list. Putting more money into Michigan is throwing good money after bad.
3.
I would suspect that it was actually the McCain campaign that paid, but had the RNC cover so it does not look as bad.
4.
If it wasn't for Palin McCain would already be DOA. I still think Pawlenty would have solidified the base, kept the ticket credible, and made this a closer race.
RE: Asher
"I mean, are you really bothered by this, ML&J? It's the RNC's money, not the people's. They can waste it however they like. Obama's spending his money on ads in video games. Go to Ben Smith's blog on Politico and search 'Xbox,' he's got ads in Guitar Hero, NBA 2K7, some tennis game... I mean, creative idea, but is anyone going to vote for Obama because there's a little picture of an Obama banner in a video game? Like, you forgot to cast your absentee ballot, but you saw that Obama banner when you were playing NBA 2K7 and it reminded you to go vote - is that the idea?"
Who the fuck votes because of a yard sign? A video game ad is like a yard sign for people who don't leave the house.
Finally, if they auction the clothes off who isn't a little creeped out over the whole fetish aspect?
Ewwww. I didn't even think about that. Makes me think of Lowry's comment about sitting up straighter on the couch (maybe they should send the clothes to him...). LOL, so totally gross...
The wardrobe story is important because, once again, the Country Last Campaign is called out on their B.S.
I also appreciate that if you hear the wardrobe story, it's usually followed by the ' she had the STATE OF ALASKA PAY FOR HER KIDS' TRAVEL EXPENSES' story. Now, of course,they do say that she ' amended' the reports, but it's out there and it says something about her. I'm sure a lot of folks who work for companies would love to have their companies pay for their family to travel with them. But, they know if they did what Palin did, there would be no ' amending' the expense report - you would be fired.
Well, you know "starbursts" Lowry will certainly be first in line to be bidding on her wardrobe. I don't want to know what he will be doing with it...
"Deleted. Come on man."
But it's JONAH GOLDBERG. If I can't post nasty stuff about a guy who says all liberals are fascists, then the terrorists win.
folks
A few weeks and many threads ago, I mentioned that the Palin selection was the equivalent of McCain marrying a stripper--Two weeks of fun, followed by questioning his judgment and stability. so many red flags (being under investigation, etc) followed by not willing to have a press conference (the equivalent of not introducing your wife to your parents)
The fact that the VP candidate now needs an expensive wardrobe is too surreal. I can't wait to see what kind of jewelry the RNC bought her.
I'm still with Campbell Brown: Palin's appearance is part of her persona, and there is nothing wrong with the RNC paying for it. In fact, I'd expect no less. As to how much they paid? Not a problem for me, but it is pretty fucking stupid not to realize how bad that looks. As to Palin being a hypocrite for selling herself as a hockey mom with 150k in clothes? Come on. Did we really need a credit card bill to tell us that a right-wing demagogue is also a hypocrite?
"Who the fuck votes because of a yard sign? A video game ad is like a yard sign for people who don't leave the house."
Whitey, yard signs are a sort of validator. It's like an endorsement, but it's from your neighbor. If you see that your neighbors like a guy, it can influence you a little. Of course, they can backfire. If you see that the rich neighbors who you're jealous of have an Obama yard sign, or the adult video store up the street has a candidate's yard sign, it might influence you to vote the other way. The latter scenario happened with my mother four years ago. Video store had a Kerry yard sign; she decides the Democrats are the party of pornography.
You all seem to be assuming that Governor Palin picked these clothes out herself. The RNC hired a stylist and sent her shopping. Or the RNC called Neinman's and Sak's and talked to the head personal shopper who arrived at Governor Palin's hotel room with two assistants and a racks of clothing. And I'm sure at the very least there's a flunky keeping track of what she wears to make sure it all matches and that it hasn't been seen yet.
You all seem to be assuming that Governor Palin picked these clothes out herself. The RNC hired a stylist and sent her shopping.
I cannot think of who you mean as far as who here is assuming that. In fact, not to speak for anyone else, but it seems pretty clear that this whole situation points more to the incompetence of the campaign then toward any personal failing on Palin's part. As many others have pointed out, none of this is even mildly interesting except for the fact that Republican political strategy, for decades now, has been built on painting their opponents as fancypants elitists. In that context, it is mostly just humorous that the RNC would spend more than the Governor's entire annual salary on a month's worth of clothing. Whether or not Palin bears any responsibility herself seems mostly irrelevant.
I won’t go as far as saying that I’m offended by all this. I’m supporting Obama-Biden anyway, so if the GOP wants to blow money, they have my blessing. If it can help to illustrate Palin’s utterly phony populism B.S., even better.
What makes me think is the fact that the GOP elites or whoever the hell picked out the clothes, had to go to the absolute top of the top, in terms of chain clothing stores. Saks Fifth Avenue; for those who can’t be caught dead in a Filenes’ or a Yonkers’…or whatever upper class retailer is in your area. I mean, I don’t know women’s fashion all that well but I know that there are levels in terms of exclusiveness. From Wal-Mart, to Target, to Sears, to J.C. Penny’s, through your regional upper-class retailer, to Macy’s…all the way up to SFA.
It’s somewhat insulting or offensive for her supporters to defend it all by insisting that she has to look the part. It only makes Mrs. Obama more appealing. She dresses well, better than many Americans can afford, I’m sure. But not Cindy McCain, “Gilded-Age Conspicuous Consumption”, New Money, Imelda Marcos rich. There is a certain vulgarity to Mrs. Palin’s shopping spree. It’s not clearance rack vs. Gucci here.
And I can’t be the only heterosexual male who is utterly baffled by all these heterosexual men talking about how hot Sarah Palin is? I don’t get it; it’s not just conservatives, as other threads on this very blog have shown.
She’s 44 years old, so yes; she’s easier on the eyes than other female pols who attain this level of prominence. Generally any female pol this famous would have to be older, as female pols usually have to amass a long record of achievement to get any higher than…let’s say…one of 435 congresspeople.
But I just don’t see the attraction. We are not talking about Dennis Kuchenich’s wife, (if you’ve never seen Elizabeth, google her now!) Perhaps it is because Palin’s political views, (at least the ones she can manage to express coherently), are anathema to me. But then again, even I could admit that evil Katherine Harris had a smoking bod.
Personally, I think it’s embarrassing as hell to consider yourself a serious pundit and then go on and on about how Palin is so sexy that it will help her electoral contest. (I said “oral”, “elect” and “Palin” in the same sentence...)
Palin isn’t competing in Miss Alaska anymore. She’s the nominee for the office of the Vice-Presidency of the United States of America. Who gives a damn if she’s sexy or not?!? Do we not live in perilous times, with serious problems that need to be resolved yesterday?
Even being totally shallow for one brief second…..is Palin really all that better looking than Sen. Maria Cantwell out in Washington State? Or Congresswomen Gabrielle Giffords out there in Arizona or Stephanie Hersth-Salin in South Dakota. Rep. Debbie-Wasserman-Shultz may be getting on in years, (at least for me, as I’m only 29), but I wouldn’t kick her out of the bed if she wore her hair down.
If you sincerely believe that an extra 150k over 4 weeks would have any significant impact on the McCain campaign's ad buys ect. you have no idea what you're talking about. This is just a crappy attempt to bolt a substantial angle onto an insubstantial story.
If you want to puff these things fine, but don't pretend it is motivated by anything deeper than a partisan enjoyment of seeing the other side suffer negative coverage.
The video game ads are *brilliant*. Brilliant, I tell you.
They didn't cost much, there's tons of free media about them, and it proves that the Obama camp doesn't miss a trick.
And like the iPhone app, it backs ups the narrative that this is a 21st-century campaign, run by 21st-century people. The information age doesn't scare them.
"From Wal-Mart, to Target, to Sears, to J.C. Penny’s, through your regional upper-class retailer, to Macy’s…all the way up to SFA.
It’s somewhat insulting or offensive for her supporters to defend it all by insisting that she has to look the part. It only makes Mrs. Obama more appealing. She dresses well, better than many Americans can afford, I’m sure. But not Cindy McCain, “Gilded-Age Conspicuous Consumption”, New Money, Imelda Marcos rich."
Whoa whoa whoa. Any "upper-class retailer" >> Macy's, because Macy's is low-class. And Sears doesn't even sell clothes. They're in the rags business. Same for Penny's. Forget Macy's even exists. The hierarchy is something like
Saks/Barneys
Neiman Marcus
Bloomingdale's
Nordstrom (great shoes though)/Lord and Taylor
Crap
As for Cindy, she's very trashy. She has money, but dresses like this superannuated classless skank. Always with the extra makeup and attention-whore colors and weird hair and way too many pearls. Palin, on the other hand, has been outfitted very well. Not attractive, but dresses well. She's a lot better than Cantwell though.
iron pimp hand, this discussion is not about the money. It is a percent of a percent of the total Repub. budget, it is bubkes to any American presidential campaign.(Even though for some people it takes 5 years to make 150.000, but never mind that now.)
It is not even about the clothes themselves and the makeup and all the rest of it - it is about the painful discrepancy between trying to look like a 'folksy mom', and in fact being used as an expensive clothes horse.
Of course she looks great now, and in a sense that is reassuring for many women - throw enough money at someone and she will look stunning. A happy thought. If I had that kind of money to spend on clothes and professional makeup artists for one month I would look like Catherine Deneuve, for heavens sake.
Then again, if I had 150.000 dollar to spend on clothes, I would not spend them on clothes. I'd spend a fraction and do something more useful with the rest.
This is the point. There is something very wrong here if you want to sell yourself as the non-elitist alternative, the folksy real-American mom who can relate to other real Americans in a way that the scary Stranger in the house with the weird name can not. If you want to sell yourself as being down to earth, frugal and sensible, you don't blow that gargantuan amount on useless crap like Gucci bags.
Daphne, it's true that your average joe is not spending 150k on clothes but neither are they rushing around the US on private jets. This is the reality of a presidential campaign and the fact is that male candidates are not subject to the 'style' articles and other nonsense that female candidates are. From that point of view it makes sense for the McCain campaign to spend more on her 'look' than they would a male candidate.
I suppose that spending that much on clothes could damage the image of her they are trying to create, but I think that image is based more upon shared values than shared financial constraints.
I agree with Iron pimp hand's comment that a woman candidate is subjected to more stylistic scrutiny than her male counterparts, who just all wear the same boring suits. Point taken. A lot of very nasty commenting has been going on about Senator Clinton's pant suits. No man has to endure that during a campaign.
But Palin's transformation ís about shared values.
Buying and wearing a 12.000 dollar jacket instead of a 1200 dollar jacket or a 600 or 300 dollar jacket is saying something about your values. And esp. when the campaign is focusing so much on Palin being 'normal' and 'one of you, my fellow Americans', this is really odd.
I'm not saying we should all look dowdy, as if we all migrated back in time into the German Democratic Republic. Let us all look stunning all the time, by all means.
I dont begrudge Palin her clothes, but they completely destroy the argument that she will be a frugal and level headed reformer, who is not part of the Beltway crowd. Remember Palin campaigning as the anti-Washington outsider? She has morphed into a Washingtonian in no time. That's the message her purchases generate.
Asher, I can't believe I'm saying this, but in regular America there are many, many people who dress well and have never been in any of the 'non-crap' stores you just listed. Jesus.
As for the video game spending-- they got way more out of it in press mentions than they spent, and they were also using the billboards to highlight voter registration deadlines, which is IMO pretty smart.
Evita also dazzled lower class people while dressing and accessorizing like a princess. The parallel works here, since both cases assume some mental block that prevents people from seeing the obvious contradiction.
In Evita's case there was the recourse to Catholic myth. Here we may have the New-Age Prosperity Gospel Evangelical-Megachurch world-view in action.
Hi, Puzzled One.
Interesting point about Evita, but I think it does not work out with Palin. I understand what you are saying about the Catholic background feeding into this with Evita.
But here we have a different situation, I think. I'm interested to hear your thoughts.
Evangelical christians are not my area of expertise, on the contrary, so correct me if I am wrong, but is there not a strong current of Southerness, and a Southern aesthetic going on with these people? If I was a very rich and powerful woman in evangelical circles, in the Repub base as it were, wouldnt I dress in a different way than Saks Fifth Avenue?
I am thinking along the lines of beauty pageant, frills, lace and big hair, more conservative and Laura Bush-like.
My point is: can the Evangelical base relate to all this Valentino?
Sorry, Ta-Nehisi, but this subject is just so great: politics, a wee bit of sociology and some womens fashion.
I knew it! The wad Republicans blew on Palin's tight skirts could've been used to help Republicans down the ballot. That's why I'm not outraged in the least. To every Republican candidate who loses by 50 votes, I say the RNC should've sprung for a matching handbag.
No one ever accused the Republican Party of being populists, at least not since the days of Teddy Roosevelt.
Personally spending 150,000 on clothes isn't an issue in and of itself. When a person is running for office however it becomes an issue for two reasons. The first reason is that it is presumptous. Sarah Palin is spending $150,000 on a wardrobe as if she were already vice-president. The second reason is that in all honestly 10 grand spent at Pennies would in the long run get more votes than 100 grand spent somewhere else.
Clothes are an identity issue for most people. As a broke college student I can't relate to someone who spends 150 grand on a wardrobe when I'm eating ramen noodles. Hold on because the plot thickens. Apparently the highest paid people in the last two weeks in the McCain Campaign were Palin's Hair and Makeup Stylists. No offense intended but I didn't know that it was possible for white girls to spend this much on hair. (link below).
Again it isn't important as an issue the Palin-price is more important as an illustration. The McCain Campaign has been primarily concerned with style over substance and the amount of money spent on Palin's appearance is just another example of this. For a woman who sells herself as a Christian it seems Sarah Palin has forgotten Matthew 6:21 "for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." I refuse to touch "Blessed are the poor for theirs is the kingdom of heaven," but if someone want's to take me up on it be my guest.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/pains-makeup-stylist-fetches-highest-salary-in-2-week-period/
i really don't care too much. it just proves to me (again) how much the republican party is all about spin and image, not substance. they deal with tactics, not strategy. politics, not governing. this was their priority- to make an already attractive woman more attractive. between the clothes and the makeup costs that came out earlier today it's just sad. it's not suprising though. the republican party is bankrupt with ideas but sure as hell likes to put on a show. i'm reminded of some phrase.. you can put lipstick on a ... on a.. hmm.. lipstick on a ...
Heffalump? Lipstick on a heffalump?
"Whoa whoa whoa. Any "upper-class retailer" >> Macy's, because Macy's is low-class. And Sears doesn't even sell clothes. They're in the rags business. Same for Penny's. Forget Macy's even exists. The hierarchy is something like..."
This is all snark right? See, I may not dress fancy but I am very smart.
And I still don't think Palin is hot OR dresses well. She can't rock the vamp boots like Condy, no matter how much she spends.