Caryl Rivers, Professor of journalism at Boston University and Huffington Post writer, once wrote this about the media obsession with Kathleen Harris and her appearance:
…journalists, talk show hosts and comedians have been having a field day with the powder and mascara used by Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris. She burst onto the national scene trying to certify Texas Gov. George W. Bush as the winner of the state’s electoral votes, undoubtedly not expecting her cosmetics to get almost as much ink as Florida’s dimpled and undimpled chads.
Harris–whether you see her as a heroine or a diehard partisan–has become the inheritor of a growing trend in American politics. The men can look like unmade beds and that fact goes unmentioned, while the bodies, hair and makeup of women receive intense scrutiny. The philosopher Susan Sontag refers to it as “the double standard of aging.”
The scrutiny of Harris has been unrelenting, and largely unflattering. A profile in The Washington Post noted that Harris’ lipstick was of “the creamy sort that smears all over a coffee cup and leaves smudges on shirt collars,” that she “applied her makeup with a trowel” and compared the texture of her skin to that of a plastered wall.
A Democratic operative labeled her Cruela deVil, the villainess of “102 Dalmatians,” and the term got repeated everywhere. The Boston Globe said maybe she was planning to unwind at a drag bar, because of all her makeup, and the Boston Herald called her a painted lady. Jay Leno called the election “tighter than Katherine Harris’ face.”
The reaction to Harris underlines an unspoken fact of media life: Men’s appearance is almost always unremarkable and unremarked upon, while women’s is nearly always to be remarked upon, often to the exclusion of other qualities.
Eight years later and its still a fact of media life. Men’s appearance is hardly ever remarked upon while a woman’s is put under a microscope…..like it or not…that’s the facts. The RNC understood this and spent 0.15% of their budget to outfit Sarah Palin to the tune of 150 grand and now it’s a big deal:
The Republican National Committee has spent more than $150,000 to clothe and accessorize vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her family since her surprise pick by John McCain in late August.
According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74.
The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September.
The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August.
The RNC has made it clear that after the election those clothes will go to charity, and they could probably take in a good amount of cash in auction. But for the left, and even some on the right, to ridicule this small percentage of cash being spent on ensuring that Palin looks and appears professional given the double standard by the MSM is ignorant. The double standard exists, and they did not want her clothing nor her looks to be a part of this election. The candidates and their positions should be what it is about and the way our society works if she had looked like a unprofessional hick the media would of spent an inordinate amount of time on that and that alone.
More “>here.

See author page
There is definitely a double standard out there. I remember a photo of Hillary making her look like she was 25 years older, that was published everywhere in the medias.
This is another reason why the USA needs a woman at the White House. This has got to stop. I don’t know what women see in Obama. He has tiny shoulders, his ears are sticking out and if you look carefully at his face, he looks like a monkey. And when he is mad, he looks like a devil. This is not a good looking man at all. I don’t understand women to go banana on him. I really don’t.
They have nothing to say against Sarah, she is a very beautiful woman and she has style. So what if the RNC paid for her clothes, it is not the taxpayer’s money? Why should they care? They are really out of arguments to trash Sarah. MSM makes me sick.
Yes, I agree. The double standard does exist. I was extremely pissed when I first heard about this coming from Barbara Walters – as a critique! And they’re now blaming Sarah Palin for looking like the professional and beautiful politician that she is. This is just ridiculous.
I say Sarah Palin continues to hold her head up high, keep shining like she does, and pay no regard to what these hateful, sexist people are saying. They’ve never brought a solid reason to hate her anyway. She’s beautiful and powerful – go crazy.
Heh…careful, Barbara; you’re starting to turn green again.
@Craig: Actually, I did read about a research that was done just recently by a friend of mine, in which they ranked the looks of politicians against others. He, after admitting that she is indeed an attractive woman and much better to look at than Biden or Obama, got her ranking as a .75 (which, on the scale they were using, is pretty high). I’ll try to find the study if I can. In the title, he ranked her as a 9.5.
This may be interesting:
Nothing is said about Obama’s going to Kenya on taxpayer’s money. How about what Mrs Obama, what does she spend on her wardrobe. To say nothing of what she spends on an afternoon’s snacks! The double standard here is outrageous!!!
I guess Katie’s a little behind on the Post retraction.
It is a non story (Cindy spends this much on a single outfit). This is one of the pointless distractions Obama’s always complaining about.
I would imagine raising 5 children on a combined income of a little over $100,000, with Alaska being a very expensive state, that her clothes would definitely come from Jaque Pennaye. It is absolutely true she would be brutally ridiculed for mediocre clothes. Hillary was ridiculed for her black and yellow outfit, which was very flattering IMHO.
UnFit, UnFit,
Cindy buys her clothes with her own money. I guess this must be irritating for a leftist jerk like yourself. Imagine, she has more money than you. Send her to jail and hang her, right, UnFitUnFit?
I don’t mind the RNC paying for Palin’s clothes. What I mind is the fact that she’s always acting so common folk and then goes and does something like this image makeover thing when what we all like about her is her real-ness. I would much rather see her (and hear more from her!) without the busy and overbearing handlers.
BTW, Michelle Obama got tons of press for wearing a $100 dress on The View. If Palin would have come out as herself (without RNC makeover she would never afford a Louis Vuitton bag!) I think voters would like that more. All of this ironic elitism stuff would not be coming out now so close to the election.
Overall, I don’t care what our politicians look like (though I do think Obama is more attractive than McCain, mostly because of age and fitness). I just want them to work for us, the voters.
Well Sarah, if it makes you feel any better, what Gov. Palin is wearing now is not much different than what she wore while Gov. in Alaska, go check out the Alaska Governor’s site, plenty of photos. She just no longer wears a ski jacket over her outfits out on the campaign trail.
Her personal wardrobe wasn’t enough for someone making 3-5 appearances a day, everyday. Instead of packing up everything she owned, the campaign provided for her and family out of convenience for the campaign.
Being from Illinois, I remember when Carol Mosely Braun ran for Pres. she not only refurbished her wardrobe, her jewelry, bought a new auto, she did the same for her boyfriend, then they took a trip to Africa. But, it was only reported locally, if memory serves, unlike Sarah Palin where the national media reports anything that can be spun into a negative.
BTW, I don’t think she “acts” like common folk, I think she “is” common folk.
If we only stick with the topics from this very web site the conversation is a study of hypocrisy. At least twice there have been entire threads dedicated to Sarah, not for her political savvy but for the way that she looks. I was excoriated for mentioning this before so I am sure that it will happen again.
You guys on this site that love the Governor need to learn to take the good with the bad. The first three replies to this very topic are about ridiculous things like Obama’s face looking like a monkey and Sarah Palin being .75 on the beauty scale! You can talk about these things and then when someone brings up the fact that she wears expensive clothing it is a double standard?!
Look, anyone that has called herself a red neck, a Hockey mom and a WalMart Mom can shop at Neiman Marcus all she wants, but if she spends thousands of dollars on clothes and then claims to be “one of us” then she is a hypocrite.
McCain got clobbered for his fancy shoes. John Edwards is ridiculed to this very day about his hairspray and $400 haircuts while being a proponent for the poor. So when a simple lady from Nowhere Alaska spends $7,000 on one outfit something does not work. Missy if you really think that she is “common folk” then the spin is working well on you.
Color me with David Frum, George Will, Kathleen Parker, Michael Smerconish, Chris Buckley and Peggy Noonan as a Conservative that is tired of the Palin game. I am not taken in by someone because she winks at me during a debate or casually does not pronounce her “g”s at the end of a word. But if you are taken in by these things you should at least be honest with yourself and when she steps out of that character you should recognize it.
This uproar is not about her clothes. It is about her dishonesty.
Fit Fit
Is that the best you got?????????
I’m agreeing with you guys that it’s a non issue and you want to argue about it?
Fine, let’s see, it is a big problem for McCain/Palin only in the fact that there’s now just ten days left of campaigning. Every minute that ticks by without a major game changing event puts us that much closer to the Obama presidency…
Tick… Tock… Tick… Tock…
Looks like Sarah might have to miss some campaigning Friday…
Tick… Tock… Tick… Tock…
CentFla, you read my mind. I won’t make $150,000 in three years, and that was spent that in one month on clothes? I actually don’t fault Sarah, I fault the elitist wealthy Republican operatives who bought the clothes and (most likely) encouraged her to drop her own look, which was much more real and just as darn good, for the look of a NYC socialite fashionista. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Now she looks like an opportunistic hypocrite, and hey, maybe she is. All I know is that these people don’t represent me any longer. The Obamas, Townhall revealed earlier today, spent about 2% of Palin’s budget on clothes, and most of what they got is from American designers, or at least sold from stores like the Gap and H&M that are affordable for all of us.
This is a stupid, silly distraction, I agree – but it speaks volumes to how disconnected the Republican party elites have become from real people, with real economic troubles, who couldn’t in the their dreams spend that kind of money on what – 7 outfits? I’m disgusted and saddened by this whole mess. Sarah should bolt the party and run on her own as an independent in 2012 – she’d get my vote – as long as she lives and acts like a Wal-Mart Hockey mom, and not some NYC socialite.
Using taxpayer’s money to go to Kenya?????????? You are one delusional nit wit.
@katie:
I’m confused Katie.
I read post #4 and then post #14.
Are you arguing with yourself or was comment #14 directed at someone else?
That the best you got, Katie??????? Seems to me you could use a little practice using rhetoric and facts to sway undecided voters instead of resorting to insults (which just makes me think you really have no strong argument to convince me that spending $150,000 on clothes is defensible). As they say, stick and stones…
CentFla and David S. I’m crossing posting my comment on this from another thread in response to the indignation of the Palin wardrobe budget to put this whole non-scandal into perspective, IMHO
So let’s talk about the latest Palin scandal – the wardrobe. A subject I find so banal that I can’t even bring myself to create a post on it myself… thanks, Curt, for doing the dirty deed… LOL.
I find this judgment of of the self-righteous tremendously disingenuous, and conveniently tolerant of the other ticket.
The Palin family is similar to middle America in their lives and budget. From a Feb 2008 Alaska Mag article:
Perhaps the Obama faithful would be happier if she and her family dressed in their normal duds. Then you must remember in Anchorage, Wasilla and Juneau, the haute couture of apparel shops is the Gap, North Face and Banana Republic. There are no Neimann Marcus’s, no Bergdorf’s, no Sak’s 5th Aves in Sarah’s ‘hood.
But she is a VP nominee today.
Considering that the earliest of DNC charges were that she and family were “trailer trash”, perhaps the Obama’ites would be happier that she also appeared that way on the national stage… in her “bunny boots and fleece”.
Now let’s take “that one’s” wife, Michelle. I’ll be you think she’s wandering around the campaign trail in Walmart duds, right? But no… and she hasn’t been a budget, ready-to-wear apparel woman for quite a while.
Michelle has catapulted her personal favorite local designer, Maria Pinto, to even more national fame. Ms. Pinto’s ready-to-wear line isn’t found in Target or Walmart. Try Saks, Barneys New York, and Takashimaya. You can find yourself a nice Pinto ready-to-wear dress perhaps under $300.
But of course, Ms. Obama is not a patron of the “ready-to-wear” line. She and Oprah are both part of the Chicago elite who have been mainstays of Pinto’s for quite a while. These are not the off-the-rack women shoppers, but patrons of the designer line.
Remember, the off-the-rack, ready-to-wear line is more like the tune of about $300 per dress… not gown.
In short, Michelle’s clothing budget is hardly frugal by your or my standards. But then both Obama and Michelle make more in a month than both Sarah *and* Todd Palin’s combined income annually.
But if Palin’s going to be campaigning on the national stage for VP of the US, it is only appropriate that she be attired befitting the job. The Palin’s can not afford that on their family budget. She is a Joe-six-pack family, not the elite wealthy of Chicago, like the Obamas.
Try reading this in the HillaryClintonForum,, for a more reasonable perspective. Then you might want to consider that Palin’s not taking these clothes home to Alaska… but that they will be auctioned off for charity donation.
Now, after picturing Sarah up on the dais in her bunny boots and fleece, vying for the Veep position of the leader of the free world, try and make this a scandalous case again. Right after you justify expensive Greek column backdrops…
MataHarley, thank you for the thoughful posting. I agree with you – Palin cannot have been expected to have the kind of wardrobe one would need in a VP campaign, not on her salary with five kids to raise. So, I agree that she needed to be prepared. I do not think, though, that $150,000 is EVER the right amount to spend on clothes. Who does that? Even Michelle Obama, having spent money on the designer Pinto clothes, did not spend that kind of money. And the money she did spend came from her pocket, not from her campaign. That is one of the few things I can say I admire about her.
What is scandalous about this is the amount spent – she could have worn perfectly acceptable presidential attire that does not cost $150,000. I’m disappointed, not in her, but in the GOP for letting this happen. Again, how many of your friends and family, Republicans, Conservatives, or Democrats, do you know that could spend that kind of money on clothes or even would spend that kind of money on clothes? There are other options, and as the GOP VP candidate she should have celebrated those things – local, inexpensive designers (truth be told, like Pinto), American Apparel, the Gap, anything but the stores and the haute couture of the rich and famous. This is scandalous precisely because it makes the GOP appear far removed from the economic struggles of the average Joe – part of the reason McCain is trailing in the polls, especially given the current economic climate.
Tangential comment: what does IMHO mean?
From CentFla.
“Missy if you really think that she is “common folk” then the spin is working well on you.”
Included in one of the links Mata provided was this little nugget that suggests that while she is wearing clothing on loan from the RNC out on the campaign. she evidently is still “common folk”:
“Palin frequently shops for used clothing for herself and her family. Just before she was offered the VP nomination, Palin went on a family expedition to a secondhand store called Out of the Closet. A saleswoman named Alison said Palin frequently visits the shop and the shop owner Ms. Arvold says Palin has been shopping at Out of the Closet for years and she noticed Palin on TV wearing used clothing from the shop (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1221…ys_us_page_one).”
Perhaps the RNC wasn’t quite comfortable with the idea of Sarah Palin, VP candidate for the United States, wearing second hand clothing while meeting world leaders at the UN. Might be why they chipped in for the wardrobe for the seven members of Palin’s family.
What I find hypocritical is Michelle Obama going on the View, announcing that her dress was only $100 to give the impression that she is a frugal shopper, just like the “common folk.” Quite deceptive.
Means In My Humble Opinon. (Isn’t Mata Great?)
Mata your post is terrific and I agree completely with David. I am still voting for John, but it is the dishonesty of the purchases that bother me. I am not suggesting that she shop at Wal-Mart even though she suggested that she did. But there are a lot of options between Wal-Mart and Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth. It is simply disingenuous to portray one’s self as an everyman and wear clothes that virtually no man can afford.
And finally, and then I will leave this thread for others to debate, for anyone to claim that she is receiving unfair treatment on this issue is unreasonable. For crying out loud if I see one more picture of her winking at the camera or playing the local yokel while prancing in a $7000 suit I am going to lose it.
Yes, the spin is indeed working quite well on you.
I really do not know how to respond to your comment about Michelle Obama, but this thread is not about her anyway. But I will try: How is Mrs. Obama wearing a $100 dress deceptive? Is it different than calling yourself a Wal-Mart Mom while wearing clothes that cost more than a Wal-Mart employee makes in one year?
I am not voting for a ticket which includes Michelle Obama by the way.
Indeed:
I doubt her outfits will be donated to charity either.
Lisa Schiffren at The Corner made some good points, among the best was this:
There is a “look” that is expected for people who are going to be on television and fullfill certain roles in national society. Sarah Palin’s borrowed wardrobe does not set her apart — it makes her blend in with the media and government crowd she runs in. Men, at least, do not look at her outfits and think, “I bet that costs a lot.” The amount of money spent on her and her family just makes them look like they belong on TV and on stages talking to voters.
If your complaint is that “average” people can’t run for office, then I’ll join your complaint — but that’s a fight with societal expectations. I think you have to pick your battles, and given that the RNC has to run with the economy, the incumbency, the press and The One against them, it seems prudent to just pay what it takes to have your candidate look like a candidate and leave the fight against Elite Clothesism for another election. I’d love to see her run for re-election in her fleece and bunny boots but this is not the election to do that.
@CentFla:
What Michelle Obama says, does and wears affects Barack Obama’s campaign. There was absolutely no reason for her to stand up, twirl around and announce the cost of her dress. She did it to grab a few votes from The View’s female, stay-at-home mom audience, she was conning them to benefit the campaign.
CentFla and David… I can see where that price tag is outrageous… especially to dudes… :0)
Then again two factors you’re not taking into consideration…
1: Palin did not do the shopping herself. Someone was sent out to get her a wardrobe… she wasn’t doing the picking, and frankly… that’s brave! I’d never allow someone else to dress me! Dang.
So it’s not like Palin was out there, delightedly choosing Donna Karan and Oscar de la Renta outfits to take advantage of the RNC “barbie dress up”. They were delivered to her on the road, courtesy of others. Blame the shoppers for being less than frugal… not Palin.
2: Also, that figure is total costs for clothing for a family of 7, not just Palin. This includes Todd and the kids.
Again, the last point: these clothes belong to the RNC, not Palin. They are auctioned off for charity donations. Or, if Palin – as Veep – wants to keep the wardrobe, it is claimed as income and taxable.
Personally I consider bringing Palin’s wardrobe up to national scrutiny snuff is a far better investment of the RNC member’s *personal* cash (was not campaign funds but a donation by one or two members) than… say… greek columns??
Personally I’d think it’d be a hoot to have a veep campaign in bunny boots and fleece. But in this elitist world, and surrounded by designer clad candidates on both tickets, it just wouldn’t do. That “trailer trash” bit would be thrown out daily, along with fashionista pan reviews.
David, forgot to mention INRE your:
Bypassing the $ amount, which I clarified that’s dressing a family of 7 in the above post, I daresay that if I opened up Michelle Obama’s closet in her million dollar mansion in Chicago, I’d find at least $150K in clothes, shoes and other accessories. She’s been acquiring them – on her own nickel… just as Cindy McCain does – over time.
I’d just love to open Sarah’s closet by comparison… LOL
So don’t be so sure Michelle “did not spend that kind of money”. She was already well wardrobe prepared before hitting the road, and *still* bought more for the campaign trail. I’d say you may want to reconsider your admiration, or at least put it into perspective.
Now, on jewelry? Yes, Michelle O is frugal. At least now…
@MataHarley:
I’m not so sure on that point.
Remember her comment about the $600 earrings?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/167581
Jan’s evidently starting early to discredit a Palin run in 2012. Scared, Jan? Try to keep your scandal mongering down to a single post, and appropriate thread, pls.
Mata
@Jan:
That’s two copy/paste posts in a row for you on this thread Jan in addition to several on other threads as well.
Are you not capable of an original thought of your own?
Fixed, Aye. And the answer to your last question is, of course, no. But Jan’s in OT for the 2012 potential run. If there is one person that scares Obamatrons, it’s Palin. Obama probably has his cyber hit squad in gear for the next run. That would be his style.
How is it repetitive?
Where else in the thread did it disclose “that a Republican Party lawyer would be dispatched to Alaska to inventory and retrieve the clothes still in her possession.” ?
Show me.
Jan, give it a rest. You can’t make a scandal out of a non-scandal. Palin doesn’t own the clothes, but has the right to keep them, and pay taxes on them if she chooses.
She didn’t buy them, an aide did. She didn’t ask them to buy them, the campaign chose to do so. She didn’t even wear the majority, and left them in the plane… who knows who did what with them. She was a little busy to keep an eye on the GOP’s wardrobe. Not her job.
If you want to whine about wasteful and scandalous campaign funds, go talk to your Obama camp who hires bands to play concerts for free as a “rally”, then doesn’t show up. Or.. in other words (since he was in Ohio that night), he threw a free concert with his name as the host. I’d call that bribery. But I happen to know that everyone… including my GOP friends, enjoyed the music on the nickel of fools like you.
That, compared to outfitting a candidate in temporary clothing, is far more a scandal and waste of funds. If you find GOP campaign funds for wardrobes so important, go get your own blog and hope for someone who gives a shit.
Other than that, don’t test my patience with your attempts to discredit Palin with BS news equivalent to David Axelrod stubbing his toe. You’ve already been deleted by Mike on another thread with this stuff.
So it wasn’t repetitive. You simply didn’t like what was reported.
Not to mention, I’m sure there’s a large call for Armani suits in the dead of Alaska’s winter…. uh huh. Might as well own a full length mink coat in Miami… get about as much use out of it.
What a geographical challenged fool you are, Jan.
… yet still: not repetitive.
Don’t flatter yourself, Jan. I do nothing more than scan your posts. Aye said it was two copy/pastes in a row, and Mike’sA had informed me a couple of days ago about deleting your post on the same subject on an unrelated thread.
If you choose to beat a dead horse, do it on your own blog.
UPDATE Mata note: To appease Jan’s persistence in beating the dead horse, and in my interest in keeping her so called “reporting” accurate from her borderline slanderous post #32… the attorneys are not being dispatched to Alaska to “retrieve the clothes still in her possession”.
Rather, because allegedly (and according to only one news source) there are some whining disgruntled “anonymous” campaign aides, the RNC is*likely* to send attorneys to “conduct an inventory and account for all that was spent* to eliminate any possible confusion, and allow the accounting for the campaign expense to be open and paid for thru appropriate channels. This from a non-Palin fan, the ADN. And their reports are merely regurgitated Newsweek BS.
This, unlike what Jan insinuates, is not going to Alaska and seizing clothes that she alludes to as theft by Palin. You want tabloid journalism, Jan? I suggest you pick up your local Star or Nat’l Enquirer. But not here at FA on my threads.
I will repeat the facts for you one more time, Jan… since you have a hard time absorbing them. *All* accounting for expense receipts for any such clothing are filed with the FEC. What Palin opts to keep, she is responsible for in tax and reporting liabilities…. which eliminates “theft” as a charge. And she has every option to keep them, or return them for auction sale and charitable donation. And if you had any clue about Alaska living, you would realize that Armani suits have little use in a world of LL Bean pullovers and parkas.
At this point, the max “reported” amount is $150K.
Personally, I’d love to know when Jan and her cronies think just when and where, in Palin’s hectic Veep campaign schedule, she had time to take limos and secret service details on a $150K family shopping spree in downtown Manhattan? But then reality often clouds the agenda for the blindly faithful…
Until there is “news” and not “anonymous” campaign aides accusing Palin of acquiring clothes without assuming her legal financial liability, this is a non-scandal. Period.