CNN's Campbell Brown joins STFU Chorus on Palin's Clothes: "For women in public eye, looks matter"

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Commentary: For women in public eye, looks matter



http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/22/campbell.brown.looks/index.html?iref=newssearch

(CNN) -- There's been a lot of sniping and a lot of stories Wednesday about Gov. Sarah Palin's clothes.

Politico.com reports that the Republican National Committee spent more than $150,000 on clothes, hair and make-up for Palin on the campaign trail. Now, these are not your tax dollars.

This is money given by Republican donors to the RNC. But the report questions whether it is legal to use campaign cash for quote "personal use."

My issue? There is an incredible double-standard here, and we are ignoring a very simple reality.

Women are judged based on their appearance far, far more than men. That is a statement of fact.

There has been plenty of talk and plenty written about Sarah Palin's jackets, her hair and her looks. Sound familiar?

There was plenty of talk and plenty written about Sen. Hillary Clinton's looks, hair and pantsuits.

Compare that with the attention given to Sen. Barack Obama's $1,500 suits or Sen. John McCain's $520 Ferragamo shoes. There is no comparison.

Women get scrutinized based on appearance far more than men. And look, I speak from experience here. When I wear a bad outfit on the air, I get viewer e-mail complaining about it. A lot of e-mail. Seriously.

When Wolf Blitzer wears a not-so-great tie, how much e-mail do you think he gets? My point is for women, unfortunately, appearance is part of the job.

If Wolf or Anderson Cooper shows up on the air without makeup, you think you would even notice? I show up without makeup? Trust me, you'll notice.

This doesn't just apply to TV. All women in the public eye deal with this issue. And it is for this reason that I think the RNC should help Palin pay for clothes, hair and makeup. It is part of the job.

Now, you may think, that's an awful lot of money to spend on clothes, hair and makeup.

Or you may complain, as some have, that it's hypocritical to sell yourself as a "small-town hockey mom" when you are wearing designer clothes. That's fine, just don't ignore the fact that there is a double-standard here. iReport.com: Palin 'doesn't dress like any hockey moms I know'

And personally I think in this campaign, with so much at stake, this is a peripheral issue.
advertisement

I, myself, have raised plenty of questions about Sarah Palin, much to the annoyance of the McCain campaign. But those questions have been about her qualifications and experience, never her appearance.

Let's keep the focus on what really matters here.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Campbell Brown.

[ananda]

1. One answer: Michelle Obama.

Michelle has wonderful clothes, off the rack.

[OwnedByFerrets]

6. DING, DING, DING.....ty

[Amerigo Vespucci]

7. And yet, that concept is beyond the comprehension level of Campbell Brown.

No matter...November 4th will come and go and Princess Yep Yep can donate all of those wonderful clothes to charity, as McCain has promised, and then crawl back under Alaskan rock.

:patriot:

[sandnsea]

13. She wears designer too

Expensive designer. That's not the issue. The issue is that Michelle pays for her own clothes. She doesn't charge her expenses off to somebody else and then rant against socialism.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

16. You're right, and...

...as I posted below, GOP donors are less than thrilled that their money went to Saks Fifth Avenue.

The thing that I find most offensive about Palin is her meticulously-crafted "Marge Gunderson" persona, the "Joe Sixpack" pledge, and the six-figure wardrobe. Something in there smells like fish on a hot day.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Ah, yeah.

The "attacks on Sarah Palin are sexist" meme.

:rofl:

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. Script written by Dan Senor, no doubt

Is Ms. Brown still on about donating the campaign monies to charity, or has shechanged her tune on that in light of recent events?

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

4. Oh, yeah, Campbell! Women need to be in drag because in our natural state,

we might just freak people out!

What an @ss she is.

[Thrill]

5. Please don't try to justify buying 150,000 dollars worth of clothes

40 Obama suits would barely be half of that.

[ErinBerin84]

8. stupid...

it's about the party of fiscal conservatism, who are already in major trouble with down ticket races, doing something unprecedented without the GOP donors' knowledge.

[boobooday]

9. I would be outraged if political contributions to the party

were used to buy any candidate's clothes. The Party shouldn't be dressing them.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

14. There have been a few stories on the Web today about GOP donors asking for a refund

Seriously. One article quoted a letter sent to McCain which stated "I will still vote for you, but I want my money back."

I'll bet John Edwards is on the floor right now, curled up in fits of convulsive laughter. A $400 haircut or a $150,000 wardrobe? Hey, like Campbell said...girlfriend's gotta have it going ON.

:rofl:

[WinkyDink]

10. Well, then Katy, bar the door, and let's send MO and JB SHOPPING!!

Shut those *&^&$#$%^&* up fast.

[nichomachus]

11. Of course, they need to look good, but

$150,000 in the middle of an economic meltdown -- with people out of work and others losing their retirement money -- is just the height of insensitivity.

Seriously, Princess Diana didn't spend $150,000 a month on clothes.

And, Sarah, honey -- IT AIN'T A WORKIN'

[Terran]

12. There is no double standard here because

SARAH PALIN IS F*CKING RICH! She can afford to buy nice clothes, she doesn't need her party to pay for it. Perhaps the problem here is that SHE HAS NO TASTE, and needed some repuke MAN to shop for her. :banghead:

[karynnj]

15. Obama and McCain paid for their shoes and suits

The thing that is ridiculous is that Palin could have spent far less and looked every bit as good - and likely more professional- with far less expensive, well tailored suits. Like Michelle Obama, she would likely look great in clothes that regular people could afford. No one is criticizing the clothes, just that the way they were bought.

[Chloroplast]

17. Kick rocks, Campbell.

If Sarah Palin can't afford to buy the clothes with her own money, she has no business wearing them. She and her family received about $20,000 from the PFD around the same time that they went on those sprees; there is no reason for Joe the Plumber, Rosie the Teacher or Phil the Bricklayer to pay for Valentino or Cavalli. If Sharon Stone can wear a GAP t-shirt to the Oscars and look like a gem, Gov. Palin can make Banana Republic and J.CREW work for her. No excuses.

[BlooInBloo]

18. $150,000 you jackass.

[frazzled]

19. Let's say that's true (and do the math)

For two months of campaigning, let's say a (female) candidate needs 12 outfits to rotate (I'm being really generous here). She can wear different jewelry (good costume is fine by the way; no one can tell if it's real pearls or fake). She can wear different accessories (blouses, scarves, shoes, pins) with these basic suits to make them appear different and fresh.

So, let's get Sarah some really fine duds. Let's let her spend $5,000 on each of these 12 outfits ($5,000 is super high)--say, a $3,000 suit, $600 shoes, and $1,400 worth of accessories. These twelve outfits would run still only $60,000.

Besides--we wouldn't care what she wore if she paid for it herself: it was paid for out of party coffers. That's the issue--the other issue being she pretends to be Joe Six-Pack and we're in an economic crisis, and spending that kind of dough at Neiman Marcus is really really louche for the times.

[BrklynLiberal]

20. Then some wealthy repuke should have paid for them..not the campaign donors....

[Captiosus]

31. Exactly!

Last I checked, she had a job that paid a salary: Governor of Alaska.

According to her own financial documents, she has a salary as Governor of 125K. We know Tawd works. Combined just in pay and race winnings, they had over $230,000 last year.

If she needed new clothes, and from the pictures I've seen she probably really did, someone within the McCain campaign who is cognizant of public appearance should have taken Palin's financial information and helped Palin shop for professional clothes within Palin's personal budget.

Using donors' money to buy her and Todd clothes, along with anything for the kids, is ludicrous. If I had donated to the RNC and found out that my money went to buy Palin some shit at Saks Fifth Avenue, I would be HIGHLY pissed off.

Total fuckin' Grifters. She wouldn't be able to buy this shit any other way, so she abused the privilege and used the situation to spend other people's money for fancy-shmancy shit she wanted but would have never paid for out of her own pocket. If anyone needs any proof that she is an opportunist to abuses power and privilege, they don't need to look at the Branchflower report, they need go no further than look at her wardrobe.

[BrklynLiberal]

35. Grifters is the right word. I think Chris Matthews may have come up with that last night.

[barack the house]

21. Didn't McCain submit the expenditure from his own campaign that is tax dollars.

[JohnWxy]

22. don't you think a lot of women at about $25,000 would have said "enough!"

[traveller]

23. Good advice. Dems look petty forever talking of this issue.

[TheKentuckian]

33. How are we going to look petty?

in comparison to the party that has talked about a haircut for four years? Or how about the party that thinks its not worth the change in the couch to feed hungry school children? Or maybe the party who's candidate was so petty that she charged rape victims for their test kits? Maybe its the party of millionaires that so desperately wants to squeeze a nickle out of every dime that thinks its worthwhile to close down offices and factories in the country that gave them every opportunity for a kingly standard of living and to send our jobs across the seas to extend their profit margins?

No, the reason she requires a house worth of apparel over a month or six weeks is because she is a prop her self, a shiny object to distract.

No, we couldn't look petty in contrast to these tightwad, greedy, lying, thieves if we harped on every detail for a hundred years because they are the party of pettiness.

[Captiosus]

34. I'm sorry if you think it's petty.

She spent money that wasn't hers on clothes she wanted but would have never gotten had she not been in that situation. She abused her position to use RNC and Campaign Donors' money to buy personal effects. Kind of like how she abused her position to put pressure on Walt Monegan to fire Trooper Wooten.

This isn't petty. It goes directly to character and style of governance. She openly exploits her power and position, whether it be by pushing on public officials or spending campaign money on personal effects. Then, in interviews, she talks about being the leader of the Senate and says the VP should have more power.

This is another example of Palin using power and position for personal gain.

[Genevieve]

37. Go back under your rock

fuck you freeper.

[VolcanoJen]

24. She and Mika Mouse should have lunch.

They can talk about clothes and how awesome Sarah Palin is, and stuff.

[Feron]

25. However

I can go to Dillard's or similar department store and assemble a professional wardrobe for much less. Women with a lot less money do it everyday.

Money can't buy taste. If you look at these designer collections, a lot of the clothes are horrible like the thriller jacket that Palin wore. Or they are just overpriced staples you can easily find for less elsewhere.

More than simply gender bias, this incident reflects the credit card mentality of the right. They don't mind racking up the bills if they're not the ones paying them.

[fed_up_mother]

26. Ya'll are all missing the point

I'd bet Cindy advised her or at least had something to do with this (like hook her up with a personal shopper) , and when has she ever bought anything off the rack?

:)

I'm sure the only people in Cindy's sphere who wear off the rack clothes are her servants.

[nannycee]

27. Using her line of thinking, no woman would be respected without...

...spending an incredible amount of money on wardrobe. Damn, I'm SOL, then, if MoneySpentOnClothes = Respect.

[City Lights]

28. STFU, Campbell. No one needs 150 fucking thousand dollars worth of clothes

for a two month campaign. Period. End of story.

[EastTennesseeDem]

29. She's right

I've come close to loving my girlfriend, but she doesn't spend six figures on her clothes. Therefore, we can never be together.

And no one respects her either.

[Matariki]

30. Looks might matter, but they don't cost $150k

[mitchum]

32. Uh...thanks, Mrs Senor

[npincus]

36. Look matter, but 150K is entirely excessive...