Sarah’s New Clothes

Just another example of the way the press has gone after Sarah Palin is found in the reaction or over-reaction to the cost of her clothing and shoes and makeup and hair, stuff women young and old just love.  I don’t think there’s a woman alive who would not die for a celebrity make-over, even if they didn’t like the look and went back to their old self in a few days.

And I have no problem at all with Sarah looking her best on the campaign trail.  Especially since she has said they are not her property and will be given as charity or auctioned with the money given to a good cause.  I hope she keeps them, but Sarah has said that she has mainly shopped at a consignment shop in Wasilla and a shoe store she called the name of but I can’t remember right off the bat.  But, hey, I have no problem whatsoever if she gets a few things from Neiman Marcus or Saks Fifth Avenue.  I’d shop there myself if I could get the chance.

But it is not so much the amount of money spent on the clothes but the tone with which it is reported.

Huffington Post:

“…..the revelation of the clothing expenditures offers what some Democrats see as a chance not just to win several news cycles during the campaign’s waning days but to severely damage Palin’s image as a small-town, ‘Joe Six-Pack’ American.

“It shows that Palin ain’t like the rest of us,” Tom Matzzie, a Democratic strategist told the Huffington Post, when asked how the party would or could use the issue. “It can help deflate her cultural populism with the Republican base. The plumber’s wife doesn’t go to Nieman’s or Saks.”

or the remarks from “Deal Divas”:

“On ‘What Not to Wear,’ Clinton and Stacy manage to build an entire wardrobe for their client for a mere $5,000.

Palinvalentino“But what is truly stunning is that Palin didn’t get more bang for her buck. Her style is smart, but uninspired. Remember the oatmeal jacket from the RNC convention?

“Turns out, it was a $2,500 Valentino.  We could have done just as well at Target for a fraction of the cost.

“Perhaps the true tragedy is that our hockey mom didn’t even get to enjoy her glam girl shopping spree. The clothes were picked out by consultants and have to be returned to the GOP, which will be donating them to charity.”

Compared to this from Luxaholics:

Michelle O – First Lady of Fashion

Referring to her “look” for the DNC speech:  “Lisa Pinto says of Michelle’s confident look, “Michelle’s style can best be described as timeless. Choosing items that are always modern and chic, Mrs. Obama possesses a natural and unpretentious sophistication, which is reflected in her clothing.”


“Michelle Obama’s style has been nothing short of stellar since her husband announced his candidancy. The dress worn last night by Thakoon, a VOGUE favorite, made it clear why she recently made Vanity Fair magazine’s 69th Annual Best Dressed List. In the article she was dubbed “Commander In Sheath” for sporting fashion forward dresses in classic lines that are not typical First Lady attire.”

And the cost of Michelle’s stellar style?  I don’t know.  I don’t think the Obama campaign released that little bit of information.

And who could forget the gush-fest Michelle Obama unleashed when she wore a $148 Donna Ricco dress on “The View” and told the audience, “You put a little pin on it and you’ve got something going on.” That little moment overshadowed all the thousand-dollar designer ensembles featuring Thakoon, Isabel Toledo and others that she has worn.

But as I said, it’s not so much the words but the tone.  The approval.  The disapproval.  But on second thought, it is about the words.  Michelle’s style is “timeless, modern, and chic.”  Sarah, her style is “smart but uninspired.”

And there is no bias? Nah.

Posted:  10.25.08


Filed under life, Media, politics, Sarah Palin, Uncategorized

10 responses to “Sarah’s New Clothes

  1. I think you are missing the point. You talked about Michelle Obama’s clothes but failed to mention Cindy McCain. No bias huh?

    Anyhow, the cost of Cindy or Michelles clothes are not in question since they were NOT purchased by the Republican nor Democratic party.

    Palin is running on a platform where she says that she is a hockey mom who shops at Walmart. If Obama can wear shoes and clothes that are years old then Palin could certainly clothe herself just as nicely for less.

    In fact LOTS of Americans, good hard working Americans who she says she talks for do everyday. McCain pushed the McCain/Feingold campaign contribution act which states that contributions should not be used for personal items. Such as clothes, rent etc.

    So that is where the rub is. And please I am tired of people saying that it is the people’s fault that women have to look that much better than men. She is a maverick so she should be paving the way for a new way of doing things. Shopping for budget clothes and showing that a woman doesn’t need to be judged by her looks.

    Yet, we see that this was not near her priority with all the winking and such. They brought this on themselves by naming people as celebrities when they are the ones running up bills in high end stores as if Paris Hilton is on the ticket.



  2. bellalu0

    But then Obama went back on his word and did not take public financing.

    But some good points.


  3. diogenes

    Michelle Obama and Cindy McCain are potential First Ladies. Sarah Palin is (God forbid) a potential Vice President. BIG difference.

    Unless you’re a First Lady named Hillary, in which case you sometime think you’re one of the candidates on the slate.

    And Obama didn’t “go back on his word”. In a position statement in a candidate survey, he said he’d talk with the Republican candidate. He/they did. End of story. End of smear.

    Unless you’re a PUMA.


  4. bellalu0

    And Obama didn’t “go back on his word”. In a position statement in a candidate survey, he said he’d talk with the Republican candidate. He/they did. End of story. End of smear.

    In writing Obama stated:

    “Question I-B:

    If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?

    OBAMA: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (DWI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election.

    My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election.

    The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”


  5. diogenes

    I know it takes a lot of effort to read an entire passge, but try:


    Regardless, this was a candidate survey completed months and months and months ago. Times change.

    I’m a lot more concerned about John McBush going back on his word, now supporting the Bush tax cuts for the ultra-rich, after he had initially opposed them THAT has and will continue to have an effect on average everyday Americans.

    I’m a lot more concerned about John McBush continuing a needless war in Iraq that costs us $10 billion a month to wage.

    I’m a lot more concerned about John McBush threatening to privatize Social Security, Medicare, etc. Yeah, with the success that Wall Street has been having recently, I’d feel a helluva lot more secure if all my retirement funds were privately invested in the stock market!

    This public financing nonsense is “inside baseball” stuff that only turns on PUMAs looking for a reason to oppose Obama.


  6. bellalu0

    Yeah, but did you notice that “yes” part? Right there at the very beginning? And in writing.

    What part of “yes” don’t you understand?


  7. bellalu0

    OBAMA: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests.


    I wonder how much “influence of moneyed special interests” $125 Million in one month can buy?


  8. diogenes

    Dunno. Ask your candidate (McBush OR St. Hillary) to raise that much and maybe we’ll find out.

    When a “Yes” has an “IF” after it, it’s called a “condition”. “Yes” means just “yes”. “Yes, if…” means that “IF” the condition is met, THEN “yes”.

    I know, learning what all the words mean gets a little tricky sometimes.


  9. bellalu0

    Yeah, it depends on what the meaning of is, is.


  10. diogenes

    No, that was Clintonian bulllshit. This is pretty simple English. Try it sometime, you may like it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s