Author
|
Topic: Dressing like a hockey mom no longer good enough for Sarah Palin
|
|
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534
|
posted 22 October 2008 07:25 AM
I hate Palin for a whole series of reasons, and her everywoman, hockey mum stuff is utter b.s., but I'm not sure I'm very keen on this criticism. I'm sure Hillary's campaign also spent a lot on her clothes (little as I like her yellow trouser suits - yecch). 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.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ElizaQ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9355
|
posted 22 October 2008 08:15 AM
Lagatta, 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 quote: There is already an attempt to blame the media -- as in, the liberal media would have looked askance at Palin if she wasn't clad in Neiman Marcus, but this won't wash. Republicans, RNC donors and at least one RNC staff member have e-mailed me tonight to share their utter (and not-for-attribution) disgust at the expenditures.This sort of spending is without precedent -- the closest approximation for any campaign I've ever covered is make-up expenses for television interviews and commercial shoots -- , and Schmitt's weakly defensive response tonight indicates that the campaign is deeply embarrassed by it and has nothing to say in their defense. Spokespeople have clammed up, a sure sign that they're trying to figure out who authorized the expenses and who knew about them. Did Palin wear all of the clothing? Where is it kept? The Democrats are going to have a lot more fun with this than is prudent, but the heat for this story will come from Republicans who cannot understand how their party would do something this stupid ... particularly (and, it must be said, viewed etroactively) during the collapse of the financial system and the probable beginning of a recession.
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 ]
From: Eastern Lakes | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534
|
posted 22 October 2008 08:31 AM
Well the hockey mom and WalMart shopper stuff is nonsense - people who shop as WalMart don't get elected to anything. Hockey parents are another matter - alas most working-class parents can no longer kit their kids out for the sport - and I've already bitched about the fact that the only arena in my neighbourhood is permanently closed due to a lack of funds for renovation (can our new princeling Justin fork over some $$$$)? 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. Ségolène 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.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ElizaQ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9355
|
posted 22 October 2008 09:24 AM
quote: Originally posted by lagatta: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. 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
From: Eastern Lakes | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44
|
posted 22 October 2008 01:11 PM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle: [QB]Yeah, I think this criticism is pretty bogus, really. Women's clothing is always way more expensive than men's clothing, first of all.
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: quote: The Hart Schaffner Marx suits are sold at retail as the Gold Trumpeter collection. In department stores, they go for $1,500 apiece.Now, Obama has bought two more of the suits in blue and three in gray -- all the same silhouette and material -- single-breasted, 97 percent worsted wool and 3 percent cashmere.
There's a mini-scandal there, he's wearing a Marx-suit! 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.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
ElizaQ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9355
|
posted 22 October 2008 01:53 PM
I think it's the perceived extravagance that's the issue, made worse by the 'average hockey Mom', Washington outsider, non elitist elect me I'm going to Washington to fight for your hard earned money, I'm a Maverick ethos which their whole campaign is based on. It breaks with the campaign narrative. 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 ]
From: Eastern Lakes | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A_J
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15412
|
posted 22 October 2008 03:21 PM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle: Women's clothing is always way more expensive than men's clothing, first of all.
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:
From: * | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538
|
posted 22 October 2008 06:14 PM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle:
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!
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. Of course my own clothing tends to skew towards cover-alls.
From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 22 October 2008 06:50 PM
quote: Originally posted by jrootham:
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.
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.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|