campaign accessories

i had to check out this story about the $150K of campaign money spent on styling sarah palin. is this sexism "rearing its head", as ms. palin might put it? after all, we haven't really heard anything about money spent on styling the men in this race... we don't even really hear about what they are wearing.

well, after reading up a little on this, i'm concluding that the story is not sexist. first of all, it was campaign money, not personal expenditures, and the money was apparently used to style the entire (extended) palin family. there are laws prohibiting expenditure of campaign funds for personal use, so there are potentially questions about legality and ethics here. second, when men have spent campaign money on personal styling, they've gotten just as much media attention (for example, al gore's image and color consultation from naomi wolf and john edward's $400 haircuts). and finally, i will repeat myself and say that sarah palin can't be mrs. middle class hockey mom and approve of this kind of spending on clothing and accessories. maybe if it was just for herself (after all, if one needs to look professional and polished and comfortable for 18 hours a day, it makes sense to spend more for good quality stuff), but baby stuff too?

UPDATE: this was not technically campaign money. according to this nytimes.com piece, because the money came from the republican national committee and not the mccain campaign, there is nothing illegal or unethical about the expenditures.

can't have your cake and eat it too

sarah palin can be "just one of the folks." but she can't be joe six-pack hockey mom and complain about not having her photos retouched. the background on this: the october 13th issue of newsweek magazine featured an extreme close-up of sarah palin (click on the photo to enlarge) on the cover. it is a good picture of her, but it is so close up that you can see all the gory, unflattering details (pores, wrinkles, make-up, facial hair). fox news was quite upset about this:

(thanks to my sis for a heads up on this and for the video) now, i don't even like to look at myself in a magnifying mirror, so i can empathize with not wanting an unflattering photo on a national magazine cover. but, the flaws that fox news thinks should have been retouched are features of EVERY woman, every person's face. so, if you're going to be one of the folks, you have to look like one of the folks, even if it is on a national magazine cover. to be fair, palin hasn't personally publicly complained about the photo, but i interpret fox news' report as evidence of her tacit recognition of this as an actual issue. (newsweek's statement on this: "As a news magazine, it is not our policy to cosmetically retouch the photography we publish.")

more importantly, you can't try to get your ex-brother-in-law fired and steer clear of ethics violations. an investigation by the alaska legislature has concluded that palin abused her powers as governor and violated the alaska executive branch ethics act.

also

and a shout out to the third grade class... you all get extra credit for watching this video. (wink)

i'm not the only one

i just can't stop myself from venting about palin. her candidacy has been the most frustrating thing for me in politics... ever. i feel conflicted (i want a woman to succeed, but not this woman) and disappointed (her inadequacy is not only making women look bad, it is making the discussion more sexist and more paternalistic) all the time. and some republicans actually agree with me (or i should probably say that i agree with them). kathleen parker says,

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted. (from the National Review Online)

i can hardly wait for the debate on thursday although, no matter the outcome, i doubt it will make me feel better.

oh, and for anyone who missed it, here is the second episode of tina fey as sarah palin. try to figure out which lines are lifted verbatim from the real interview with katie couric (i believe there are about 30 seconds, altogether).

amateur

that's my current assessment of sarah palin. she might be intelligent (although i'm not totally convinced), and she may be an awesome multi-tasker. but in no way do i find her to be at all ready to lead this country. and it's not the lack of experience per se, it's the ignorance. she seems to know about as much about foreign policy and current events as i do, which is not very much at all. 

i'm happiest with this assessment of her because, for now (although i'm not sure for how long), i can still believe that she is an exceptionally intelligent and capable person who was just put into a position that she wasn't quite ready for yet. i can put aside our ideological differences (not enough to vote for her) and want her to succeed for the (metaphysical, at least) benefit of girls everywhere. what i cannot stomach is the nomination of a woman who is under-qualified when there are plenty of qualified women around (e.g., Harriet Miers, the Bush nominee for the Supreme Court that preceded Alito). it's like setting up a straw (wo)man just so it can be torn down and proven inadequate yet again.

and, to chime in with others (for example, dowd and warner, usually not my favs, and i still don't agree wholeheartedly, but we're definitely on the same page), the sexism we're seeing these days is truly outstanding. republicans and conservatives now get to champion gender equality and accuse the "liberal media" of sexism. i would have been ok with strange bedfellows if it meant that we could really make some inroads for women, but these accusations of sexism are thrown about every time sarah palin gets examined critically. so the new gender equity "champions" are saying that palin shouldn't be, and making sure that she isn't, held to the same standards as men. which, of course, begs the question of what equality actually means. and, for their part, the "liberal media" is doing a terrible job too - for all the times that you ignored complaints from conservatives, now you're backing off palin for fear of appearing sexist? all the critiques you were happy to print about hillary clinton, and not even a tiny fraction of that is relevant for palin?

finally, here is a great clip from SNL, although i'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

props for hillary

i've been a hillary supporter from the beginning - i think she has real policy solutions whereas the other democratic candidates typically just "talk the talk." but i do find her to be a less than inspirational speaker, even quite dull in prepared speeches. i also find myself worrying that she will fall to mccain the way kerry fell to bush - unable to translate intellect into confidence. so maybe we do need an inspirational candidate, even if i am less certain of his efficacy as a policymaker.

but then i realized, i have never felt inspired by speech given by a woman, any woman. there are certainly inspirational women out there, and it's not possible that they all have or are inferior speech writers. so what's going on? i think this piece from the washington post sums it up pretty well. we are not used to seeing women as inspirational leaders... sure, women often do things that are inspirational, but they don't lead while doing it. generations of feminism have gotten us to where we have no trouble with women leading the way, but not to the point where we see women leading us. it's enough to send me right back to the feminism of my younger days, just like many other twenty- and thirty-something women.

disclaimer: these comments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the rest of the bunchen household.