Based on the title of this entry, and considering the topic of my last post, you might expect the ensuing rant to be about how the Republican National Committee spent a huge amount of money on Sarah Palin’s wardrobe, hair, and makeup.
But it’s not. Not a rant, anyway.
The big hubbub is that the RNC spent $150k on Palin’s clothes, and in the first two weeks of October they paid her makeup artist and hair stylist $22,800 and $10,000, respectively. That’s a lot of money. In fact, it’s a completely absurd amount of money, so it’s not too surprising that people are stringing both her and the RNC up for it. The media, needless to say, is loving it as well.
But here’s the thing. While I disagree with Sarah Palin on pretty much every major issue, I have a feeling I’d probably like her as a person. She seems friendly, reasonably well-spoken (certain interviews aside), and able to laugh at herself. And I think it’s totally unfair to criticize the wardrobe, makeup and hair expenses. If the RNC chooses to spend their money in that manner, it’s fine by me.
Because here’s the part where all of the media and critics start to sound like hypocrites. Does everyone remember all the attention Hillary got for her outfits while she was running in the primaries? I read numerous articles that analyzed her dress (usually poking fun at her pantsuits), her hair, her makeup, and her overall appearance. Did I read any articles about Obama’s suits, or McCain’s shoes? Nope.
There is a huge, huge double standard in politics (and in most pursuits) that puts a lot of unfair weight on a woman’s appearance. Men simply don’t receive the same scrutiny that women do over their hair, their clothes, their glasses.
Sarah Palin is the only woman involved in the race. And the RNC spent a crapload of money to make her look good. If they hadn’t spent that money, I’m willing to bet that we’d be hearing about how Sarah Palin needs a better haircut, or how her glasses make her look 80 years old, or how that jacket she wore at such-and-such speech made her look lumpy.
She’d be criticized either way. So why not look good?
that’s partly true. but remember how bad it was for John Edwards when we found out he spent $400 on a hair cut? I’m pretty sure if Obama, McCain, or Biden spent $100k on any facet of their appearance they would be seen as out of touch.
I agree with most of what you said – I bet if you add up the cost of Obama’s clothes and wardrobe, it must be 150K, though he’s been campaigning longer.
The other thing is that 150K doesn’t seem like an absurd amount of money to spend. How much does a 30 second attack ad during prime time cost in the days before an election? It wouldn’t surprise me if the cost is comparable. Obama raised 150 MILLION last month. 150K is 1/1000 of that. In other words, Obama could spend 0.1% of what raised last month alone on clothes and he’d be at 150K.
No way Obama has spent $150K on clothes nor anywhere close to that. Agree that Sarah might be critisized for wearing consignment shop clothes, but $150K? Not well thought out. Another bad judgement call. Strongly disagree that Sarah Palin is reasonably well spoken. Sarah Graybeal, however, very well spoken and much more qualified to be vice president.
It’s not that she spent $150K or the RNC did for her that makes me roll my eyes. The thing that makes me ill is that she wears designer clothes that 95% of the population cannot afford while at the same time she slams the “elite” and claims to be Mrs. Joe Six Pack, the hockey mom of the people. I think it *is* relevant because it is such a ridiculous amount of money, all spent by the candidate who is supposed to be an average American. She spent more than DOUBLE what the median American FAMILY makes in an entire year on clothes. It shows how out of touch with “average” that she is – not that our other candidates are average, but they don’t try to pretend they are.
I agree. I feel sure that the RNC needed to tart her up for her world tour-I would not hold that against her.
The expectations for a woman in politics are totally unreasonable.