Makeovers are popular. They're featured in magazine spreads and reality tv shows everywhere. Not a new trend either... even Hans Christian Andersen was writing about them in 1843. We like watching transformations.
That aside, when the Republican National Committee drops over $150,000 on clothes and accessories for a VP candidate and her family in two months, well, it raises some eyebrows. Including mine.
Sure it's fun to get dolled up before going on the road. Now and then I treat myself to a new top and fresh coat of nail polish before a talk. And yes, appearances matter given psychology tells us how much visual stimuli impact our opinions before a word is spoken. 'Dress for the job you want' they say. And I certainly agree much of the time. However, $150K? Really?
No doubt everyone looked lovely at the RNC... Levi and Piper sported new haircuts and the whole family appeared dressed for dinner in the nation's capitol. But still folks, candidacy isn't (or shouldn't be!) a beauty pageant. Perhaps that's lost somewhere in the increasingly blurred line between politics, reality television, and entertainment. But regardless, it's hard to swallow exorbitant shopping sprees from the conservative party at the same time Greenspan is talking about a credit tsunami and our nation faces economic crisis.
Anyone else out there reminded of Nero?
Furthermore, Halloween season aside, the role of VP isn't about merely looking the part. It's being prepared. And simply put, Sarah is not ready to lead no matter how she's made up.
- Log in to post comments
Meanwhile Obama blathers on about "change" and "healing", making almost no concrete promises. Partly because he doesn't need to - he looks set to win by default. Actually saying something definite might be damaging..
I agree and will add that she is a 'self-proclaimed hockey mom ' and ' JOE six-pack '. I don't believe that they can easily afford a $150,000 wardrobe!
Perhaps that's the McCain/Palin solution to the credit crisis - if she buys enough high-ticket clothes, the money will trickle down to the real economy!
I agree that this is against the image that the Republicans have cultivated for Palin. But, in the scheme of a campaign, in which candidates spend hundreds of millions of dollars, $150K doesn't seem at all like a big deal to me.
So what? What does it cost to travel to 3 states a day for 18 months? Not that anyone talks about the environmental cost of a campaign. How much are Obama's and McCain's wardrobes worth? How much do the campaigns spend on coffee and red bull? The numbers are all going to be mind-boggling for whatever question is asked.
OK, but do you charge it to your research grant?
Seriously, she must have a lot of chutzpah to stand up there in a $2500 outfit from Niemann-Marcus and Saks and call her opponents elitists, and make comments like this:
Lots of Joes drawn to Palin
This is going to bring up another recurring problem on the right: the double standard. If anyone in the (suddenly feminist) GOP wants to defend this, then I want to know what their view was on Edwards' $400 haircuts.
Blurred line between politics and entertainment? that started with Rosevelt's fireside chats, no? And Regan's good looks?
Sign me up for ugly Abe anyday. I've never seen a candidate that measured up to his bootstrapping chuztpa.
Campaigns are expensive - a problem we should fix but the hypocrisy is what should matter more than the amount spent.
Our election cycle should be 1 month start to finish. No ads, interviews, or signs before, 1 week to clean up. Done cheap and everyone has a better chance to pay attention.
If the economy looks bleak now, wait until the Christmas season.
You know your Classics with Nero. More scientists should try and connect using these references!
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/22/campbell.brown.looks/index.html
This article on CNN provides an interesting analysis of the 150K wardrobe issue.
I see a problem with that. Suppose a total unknown is brought into the race, say a governor of a lesser-populated state, about whom certain claims are made. It would take a while for the public, even for news organizations, to dig into that person's record and find out which claims are true and which are not. I know this sounds far-fetched and hypothetical... aw heck, why pretend?
One aspect of this story that I haven't heard discussed in the media was that she bought most of the outfits in Minnesota. Part of it is surely the convenience of being in town for the convention, but another part is that there is no sales tax on clothing in Minnesota. So not only did they drop an enormous amount of money, they did it tax free.
Why exactly is Palin big news at all?
McCain is spending all his energy on his core vote - trying to persuade people who'd normally automatically vote for him to vote for him. Surely this is a sign that the rupublicans are sunk.
Meanwhile Obama blathers on about "change" and "healing", making almost no concrete promises. Partly because he doesn't need to - he looks set to win by default. Actually saying something definite might be damaging.
I thought it was telling that the RNC has stated that the $150K wardrobe will be donated to charity after the campaign is over. That seems to imply that they know McCain will lose and that there'll be no need for a fancy vice-presidential wardrobe.
The GOP actually thinks Saks 5th Avenue and Nieman Marcus and so on are ordinary stores. I guess standing next to Cindy McCain she does look "average".
cg wrote:
I agree, but this is yet just another little straw that is breaking the camel's back. If it were the only thing wrong with Palin it wouldn't mean much.
It was those bad interviews with Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson followed by no other interviews that did her in. James Fallows even proposed this 28th Amendment to the Constitution that mandated that candidates had to talk to the press:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/10/sarah-palin-amendment.html
She is only now starting to talk to the press.
Palin's Stylist Paid More by McCain Campaign than Foreign Policy Advisor
I doubt anyone has looked into how much the DNC pay for outfitting the Obama and Biden families, because ... well, that wouldn't be as much fun.
Nevermind that Edwards used to drop $400 I believe for a single haircut and charge it to his campaign. Did anyone here cover that?
Hmmm. I agree that a $150K wardrobe is excessive (although I suspect Biden, Obama, McCain, Huckabee and Mrs. Clinton dropped some pretty pennies on their smart-looking threads) but where does science intersect here? The Intersection implies a centered vision from the axis of science, politics and culture...not a vision from the left or right...right?